October 6, 2016

"According to museum co-founder Earl Jones, Trump's campaign was "bullying" in its attempt

to use the facilities."

That's dRumpfenfuhrer all over. Like when he decided to go hand out playdough in LA, though the state gov's emergency response team said photo op campaigning would only hinder the effort. Like when he decided to tour the Flint water plant for a photo op, though the local elected officials asked him not to because it would only hurt not help, and like when he tried to hijack an event to thank people for getting involved in a church's efforts to deal with repug gov Snyder's poisoning of the water supply.

The message is simple, "tRump will go anywhere he wantsta go, anytime, to show how much he cares about you people. So stick it in your a**."

Then his klan and nazi buddies will hammer that message home to "you people", with an exclamation point. He's the pits, abysmal in every single possible way, by any possible standard. He's been that way for over 6 decades.

A real nazi.

October 5, 2016

I got these Demographic data numbers from Maddow, Thurs 9/22 show,

(Joy Reid was a guest on the show). From the NBC WSJ poll:

t Rump is + 13 with white men. Romney was + 27, (and lost by 6 million votes).
t Rump is +18 with non-college educated whites. Romney was +26.
t Rump is + 55 with conservatives, Romney was + 65.
t Rump is + 77 with repuglicans. Romney was + 87.

The Latino Oversample from NBC/WSJ/Telemundo said:

Clinton has (as of 9/22) 65% of Hispanic voters, t Rump has 17%.

In past elections, when the voting population had smaller overall %s of Hispanics,
little bush got 44%, McCain got 31% and lost, Romney got 27% and lost. And now the overall pool of 2016 American voters has the highest % of Hispanics ever seen, and t Rump is at 17%. 10 to 14 points below losing R candidates, and the population is now quite a bit higher in Hispanic voters.

------

The point is that everybody knows that t Rump is more loathed by Women, Blacks, Hispanics, and every other non-white right demographic. There is nowhere for him to make up his failings among his base of right repug non college white men. Nowhere. The fact that they ratcheted up the national polls rather quickly and with no discernible reasons -- to a place where t Rump pulled even or even slightly ahead of Clinton -- shows that the people who own and run the polls and media outlets want to use the polls as a lying justification for outright theft in the only poll that counts -- the poll that the state governments take of actual voters on election day.

Of course, like usual, when you hear rightie repugs screaming and crying accusations about ANYthing, they're projecting their own evil actions and intentions. Those projective screams and cries are part of the cover up of their crimes, the justification for their crimes, the pre-emptive first strike against their opponents levelling those exact same charges against the repugs.

So when you hear them threatening civil war if they lose the only poll that actually counts, hear them pretending they could only possibly lose if the election gets stolen, the reality is that they're threatening civil war if their attempted election theft fails.

And it's also true that there's no reason for them to be winning in any of the down ballot races in the House and Senate, too. It's true that the polls are lying to favor the repugs, and the repugs are trying to steal the elections. It's true, in spades.

October 3, 2016

There will be some bundy style brigading, with the same fizzle,

then we'll get to hear a bunch of 'rahowahhhh!'s, when they run to cry online about their losses.

October 3, 2016

Vote drumpf, or ve wyiul nyuke you. Love, Vlad Putin.

October 3, 2016

I've finally gotten through minute 26 via an India site with a fiery lion logo.

I'm not quite done yet. Keep having to stop it to see if it's close to being over yet. He told an audience of rural white, non-hispanic, non-black, non-union members that the blacks, hispanics, union people were on his side, lock her up, get ready for civil war.

One time, Morton Downey screamed at one of his guests "I never yell at my guests!", while inside the guest's personal space. He rarely had anyone on who wasn't part of his pro-wrestling nazi-propaganda reality-tv-actor insiders. But having to watch this dRumpfenfuhrer speech, forget analyzing it for huge lies and projections of his crime and evil intents, is like watching Downey give that one stupid nazi propaganda line, over and over and over again.

Trying to find a long interrupted vid of this was tough, because of all the wading through altered ones I had to view.

It's minute 38, I'm done, it's not. Keep kracking up, kon. Go down down down, little don.

October 3, 2016

He won't pay, his party keeps fighting to protect the laws that let him not pay.

He's smart, he's just using the laws that the system set in place, he's running to change those laws and that system, as the top guy in the party that put those laws in place and defends them to the death.

It's like his Putin Ukraine statements: "I know Putin. We know and admire each other. Putin won't dare invade Ukraine, he fears my wrath. I know Putin invaded Ukraine. It's awful, it's Obama's fault, he's terrible. The people in Ukraine want Putin there. I'm going to keep it that way. I don't know Putin." p.s. No arms for Ukraine in my platform, scew NATO.

He can say stuff like that to dimwit followers, but can't expect normal people to listen to that kind of garbage from his dimwit followers when they try to back him, in any way that isn't based on physical or armed intimidation. Unless the argument is "shut up or I'll thrash you, I have a gun", the trumpher is bound to lose.

That $900+ million dollar loss represents a ton of crashed businesses and people put out of work, and a huge hammer blow to Atlantic City and New Jersey state.

October 2, 2016

I edited post 2, thanks for the o.p, recced.

I love how the orange menace thinks he can say that "our infrastructure is the worst. It's a disaster, it's crumbling.", and then brag to his pinhead followers and the world about how he doesn't pay any taxes. I know the o.p. is about the tax scams he's pulling and the meltdown the Times and Post revelations cause, but his tax moves are all lumped together. He keeps pulling every imaginable type of tax scam and doesn't get jailed. (Can't jail the opposition, this isn't a banana republic. Of course, one party is running with a 3 word slogan/chant expressing that idea, now.)

He pretends to his followers like he's just filing itemized deductions for schedule A. "Why wouldn't he write off his mortgage payment interest, and business miles? Everybody does that, it makes him 'smart'." But he doesn't just skate close to the line on tax issues, he keeps getting caught, over and over, with tax crimes that only result in fines and penalties. That's over a half century's worth of practices. His Foundation, Organization, Institute, University all have scams, tax crime scams, associated with them. But he gets away with projecting the fake image, to his followers and maybe some undecideds, that he just takes the business deductions that he's entitled to, he wrote off the new office stapler.

The reality is that he sucks so bad at business, often on purpose, and gets a ton of money doing things that way. He gets to brag about not paying for any infrastructure, us suckers get to pay for the infrastructure he uses, and get to listen to him bitch for hundreds of hours on the public airwaves that he's displeased with US infrastructure. The low quality infrastructure we pay for isn't up to the high standards he demands and deserves. He's a little bavarian prince, after all.

Like tRump taxes and infrastructure issues, he bitched about how much money the military is wasting, during the debates. He's running a campaign with promises of huge increases in military spending though.

And tRump and the rest of the taxed enough already crowd are campaigning for control of the country on a plan that'll add ten trillion in debt spending.

October 2, 2016

PA Voter Rights, Poll watcher/monitor restrictions:

I appreciate the o.p.

The orange prince is going to run afoul of PA state law and Federal Law if he organizes his pinhead followers to demand papers from voters. PA Title 25, Sec 3047 will prevent his Sheriff Waskos from "unduly influencing, overawing or preventing electors from voting". The '82 Consent Decree says, Federally, that NO RNC people or agents of them are allowed to challenge voter eligibility or engage in voter fraud prevention policing efforts, without prior court consent.

Elections are run by the counties here, but subject to PA state law. Nobody who is not from the county is allowed to come monitor inside polls in the county. I'm going to go ahead and say that's true statewide. Any poll monitor must stand outside, at least 10' away, any Poll Watcher must represent a party or candidate, have a Watcher's certificate issued by the county, must be a county resident, can't talk to the voter / elector, can be by the sign in table not by the machines, can't engage in political campaigning in the precinct, can't wear candidate or party pins or clothing, can ask to see sign in lists and registration binder/book occasionally.

Any monitor who tries to act like a watcher invites having the police or magistrate's constable called on them. Any watcher needs papers proving they're from the county, proving they're tied in to the republican party or candidate and it's certified by the county, proving they have a prior court consent with court documents. Those papers can and should be demanded, "papers, please, trumpher." Any watcher who keeps acting up and is causing problems with the electors' rights to cast ballots should have the constables and police called on them. Any of them causing problems will result in charges levied against the state and federal repug party and dRumpf campaign officials.

866 OUR VOTE and 866 MY VOTE1 should both be called, if there's any trouble at the polls, too.

The laws on our side, crooked donnie. You can't send your Mannheim followers into Philly counties, legally. The only thing left for you to do is try to have your flunky followers pull some crooked illegal move. Try.

October 1, 2016

No. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

Your first post brought up irrational phobias, like spiders and snakes. Your second post mocked my "actuarial stats" statement. So I looked up the stats to try to show you the difference in mortality rates, between irrational subconscious and conscious phobia driven fears, and rational subconsicous and conscious fears as described in Marge's archetypal phrase.

There's some things I agree with in your post 50, I'm not trying to alienate you, but do regard your statements vs the o.p. as alienating. But your "differ" ences from me, regarding my "expectations", puzzle me a bit. I don't pretend to tell women what they "should think" regarding the existence of a murderous threat from evil archetype oriented men. I observed their statements about what they do think, and assess the ideas myself. In this thread, you tell women what they should think, then say I'm doing so via my "expectations of what they should think". They say what they think, you say they think wrong, I say they think right but you think wrong, then you say I tell them what to think. At least, that's how I see things, and it confuses rather than wounds me.

One thing I notice, though, is you're sticking to your "4 or 3%" stat, and "11%" stat for men. It's helpful when you make claims like that to add a link to your source for that info. And you're brushing aside the fact that the killers of men and women are mostly always men (Over 90%, sez the Justice Dept.: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf "Males were convicted of the vast majority of homicides in the United States, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders." ).

I suppose everybody has a healthy fear of being killed, but this o.p. argument is about the inter-relationship between men and women, and as we already established, men do most of the killing. Once in a blue moon, you'll get your aileen wuornoses, or your squeeky frommes, but they don't factor in much overall to tip the "murderer gender" scales.

You have things a bit backwards, it's not that "women are most affected so should be most fearful of the problem", it's that "men affect the murder rates in the most negative way (by driving them up). So women (and men) should be more cognizant of the problem", and think strategically and act tactically to deal with it. The Atwood archetype statement is a tactic, a strategy. I remember one quote that defined "power" as "the ability to understand and define phenomena, and make a change". Something like that. I think Atwood (and people who agree with her) are intelligently summing up the situation with the knowledge easily available at hand, are strategically thinking, and using archetypal concepts in a tactical way.

I've already inoculated myself against your "Mike pushes mortality salience" accusation -- that I "believe women are mentally weaker and should cower in fear" -- with my Yellowbelly analysis. Enjoy:

There's a fair amount of highly negative action in the 1 min clip, but the satire was more confirmational commentary than celebration. Katherine O'Hare is comedy gold, but Andrea Martin was the Queen of broad physical comedy in that show.

The next line, after your already-defused false "sexist mortal salience promoter" charge, seems like an admonition to "toughen up, ladies", about this "whole woman man killer" thing. The admonition is part of a phrasing argument you make to further a charge vs me of "sexism vs. women", and the phrase has 4 mentions of "men" and one of "women". So to sum up, that's "toughen up ladies...men men men men ... Mike is sexist." Ironic. It's tough to wrap my head around this one, aki.

Your next sentence states that I'm more sexist against men. Some prejudiced people, when called out on it, will say "I'm not racist, I hate everybody equally." Maybe I could re-tool that phrase in response to your charges.

We're still stuck on the "women fear death men valid?" half of the debate, so it seems senseless to discuss Atwood's correct observation, which I agree with, about "men fear women laughter valid.". Long deliberative observational analysis leaves me thinking that it's the only ascertainable "threat" from the archetypal woman gender that can be seen. I know one guy's observation is antecdotal, not definitive evidence, but I'm a big-picture thinker. I say laugh it up ladies, my feelings don't get hurt that easy. If bad guys could accept womens' laughs and modify their ideas/behavior as a result, the world would be a better place. The "laugh-ee" should take it as a gentle reproof from their betters, not like it's a gang of gossipy mean little old ladies from the village sewing circle standing around dRump in stocks, pointing at his small junk and raining down jeers. But I'm sorry for being totally sexist and insulting in my previous post to you, anyway, if that's how you saw it.

(This is overlong, aki, but here's a small diversionary antecdotal story. It has the added benefit of being all true. A young lady that I knew hit 5 different businesses in an armed robbery spree in our neighborhood. (Drug problems) We were never close, she was ~ 6 years younger than me, but she grew up in the house I lived in from birth - 6 y.o., and I played football and stickball on the street with her older brother, so I always knew her as a little pee wee toddler with Polish white blond hair. She was big-boned as an adult, but had to have been armed to hit all those places spread out over a half mile, so fast. I heard about it, saw some media coverage, and was picking up some food at a pizza joint about 10 days later, and she came in the shop door. (She hadn't robbed that joint, bypassed it in her earlier spree.)

For a split second, fear crossed my mind. But it only entailed me looking at her face, her hands and orientation of her arms, and gauging the counter in "jumping over clearances" terms.

It wasn't a stick up. No trouble, I got the food and left, didn't stay to shoot the breeze with her, we've never really talked with each other. It didn't cause me a long term deeply rooted traumatic fear of the opposite gender. I did have occasion to mention it to several different community members later -- "Tammy blankblank is out", imaginary me diving over the pizza counter. She had a very good lawyer I guess, & her aunt is a repug committeewoman in district 1 of our ward. The DA is a Dem, it's a Dem stronghold city and county, but he seemed to be more interested in anti-ACORN activities than community security, a real political animal, I never vote for the wretch. Whatever, after the fact, I'm not huddled in fear like we live in a Deathwish style city, I don't go around armed, don't alter my travels or shopping in the community. That antecdote just says there was this one time, some woman who I think I could have taken in a brawl, caused me a couple of moments of uncertainty and fear, and there are no overarching conclusions to draw from that one incident. Some women can be dangerous, the cute little blond toddler could turn into a big boned druggie biker stick up woman, but there's no archetype there.)

The correct response to the question about the orange drumpfenfuhrer's assault is "He's going to kill me, he's killing me, now. I'm going to die." Everybody with even a tiny little bit on the ball knows exactly what Ivana was thinking.

Nobody laughs at the drumpfenfuhrer. I think that's what he had his mouthpiece Omarosa say on Frontline, anyhow. He's a clown, but he's more like one of those woods clowns that are so vogue these days. More of a slashing hobo than a singing one.