BernieBros, you did this. But you weren't alone. You were aided by a formidable rogue's gallery.
New York Times liars. AP liars. CNN. Facebook liars. (Hit that link and read the comments.) Asshole conspiracy theorists. Reddit liars. Every journalist who lied about the completely exonerative FBI report. Every journalist who repeats that hammer story without mentioning that the SIM cars (the only part that matters) were all accounted for, and that FBI Director Comey said that Hillary did nothing to hide her emails. Everyone who falsely accused the Clintons of racism. All media manipulators who apply a ridiculously obvious double standard.
Let me show you what you've done, you sick motherfuckers.
By day's end tomorrow, Donald Trump will be ahead of Hillary Clinton in at least one of the major poll aggregation sites. People scoffed when I first made that prediction -- but then the spread narrowed to 1.4 points in the TPM poll aggregator, and those numbers reflect polls taken before the recent barrage of mainstream media lies about Hillary.
Before the end of this month, Trump will lead in all of the polls. Watch it happen. Since Hillary Clinton cannot possibly overcome the media forces arrayed against her, I maintain that Donald Trump is, in essence, already the next president. Sometimes you can see a future event so clearly it feels as though it has already happened: That's how I feel right now.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome has placed nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman.
20 comments:
Regrettably, I agree.
Hillary Clinton facebook group members are probably not doing enough responding in the comments section of Hillary Clinton internet articles to the suddenly and suspiciously more steadfast loony neocons.
You all can be difference makers by leaving remarks in the comments section of those various Clinton articles.
Like I said, you need to take a break from blogging, Joseph. Trump ain't winning shit. You apparently don't understand state polls are far more important than national ones.
The real campaign is just beginning. It always begins right after Labor Day. You are handwringing over nothing.
I understand state polls quite well, OTE A. You apparently did not read what Nate Silver had to say about that. Look it up.
And you REALLY don't want to live in a country where we see a repeat of 2000 with the parties reversed. It'll get ugly. Dems take such things lying down; the Trumers won't.
Pop on by about twenty two hours from now. If I have to apologize, I will do so happily. If I'm proven right...
Well, I am curious as to how you and others will react.
Polls reported within the next few hours will have to show a large Trump lead if crossover is to be achieved in the aggregates, with the possible exception of Nate Silver's most "aggressive" figure, his "now-cast".
What knocks Clinton out of the race is more likely to be an old one-two: a Wikileaks "revelation", followed by a ritual beating-up in the first TV debate on 26 September. Clinton will involuntarily get the part Vince McMahon plays here and here. The "revelation" will be timed for maximum impact, maybe about 7-10 days before the 26th. The precise date of release probably hasn't been decided. But I think Trump will be ahead in the polls by a few days before the 26th at the latest.
Here's my prediction: the fascist side in this contest will bestow a new epithet on Clinton that refers to the Wikileaks "revelation". This will be used in TV ads and then, in a very big way, in the first TV debate and probably also the next two debates, if they happen.
O, why did you tell us to look it up?
Sep 1, 2016
Election Update: As The Race Tightens, Don’t Assume The Electoral College Will Save Clinton http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/
1. Trump isn't a madman. He is an idiot. Totally different.
2. My guess is that its close but that HRC is still winning, particularly in battlegrounds. It will probably get closer. However we have October surprises to come. And the media will come back to her in the last month.
Relax, they have to promote this as a real race. There is money at stake. But you really think the establishment and the Bush family support different candidates? My understanding is that the Bush family supports Clinton in this race, which means the establishment supports her.
It's better for everyone if it looks like this race isn't too rigged. But trust me out is. The question is whether the PWT electorate can make it embarrassing to fix. I doubt it.
Donnie loses by a head in the end.
Harry
CNN poll shows Trump up by two -- after Clinton led him in the same poll by 8. You're right, Joseph. The email "scandal" has hurt her bad. And now they're moving onto her health. In the meantime, Trump has systematically done everything a candidate shouldn't do - insult a baby, insult a dead veteran's mother, so on - and it hasn't cost him a goddamn thing. He's officially antibiotic-resistant.
He still has to run the table with the swing states, but he has a definite path.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/index.html
I read a Krugman article over the weekend and I thought I was reading a Cannonfire article instead. I think its call Hillary Clinton got Gored and it talks about the innuendo by the media sites that is hurting Hillary Clinton.
This may all be about profitability for the news media and they know a close race makes them relevant.
Harry, he's not an idiot. He's mad. A small, small example to prove a large point: Did you see his latest? "Well, I just don’t think she has a presidential look and you need a presidential look. You have to get the job done. I think if she went to Mexico she would have had a total failure. We had a big success."
Forget the usual jokes about the hair and the Cheeto skin color: This guy can't see that he has a natural clown's face and a Macy's balloon build. I think that when he looks in the mirror he literally sees a Trump that looks nothing like the one everyone else sees.
His impulsiveness almost destroyed him at an earlier stage of the primary. The guy is just weird. Frankly, I think he's a secret drug user. I can't prove that -- it's just a suggestion. But that crazy doctor is obviously hiding SOMETHING. We know that Trump spent a lot of time at Studio 54.
I dunno, seems to be that if the DNC ran anybody but HRC we'd be beating Trump handily. You can blame Bernie Bros, but Bernie was the only opposition she had, and that's really the biggest travesty in all of this.
It's not him, it's her.
No one wants Hilary Clinton, and yet here we are.. So the only campaign tactic left is, "Hilary or else!"
Looks like alot of people are going to try out "or else." Thanks for nothing, DNC!
I don't disagree that we should be worried.
What bothers me is listening to JC blame the "sick, motherfucking" "BernieBros" for the current situation.
False and uncalled for.
I keep saying please God let Joe be the crazy one I can't handle if she loses. But the more I look it's not good. I took it so hard time. I know it's not about me but still
@Harry - Who do you mean by the "establishment"? I'm familiar with the usage of that term in England where it originated, but less familiar with the stratum it denotes in the US. In England the senior echelons of the civil service, the state church, the army and the judiciary are dominated by those who share a culture, send their children to the same few boarding schools, belong to the same gentlemen's clubs, etc., and at the top of this group socially sits the royal family. Nobody would say that Philip Green, Bernie Ecclestone or Alan Sugar belonged to this group.
Who are the "establishment" in the US? If they're the US "aristocracy", "brahmins", etc., then I've read a little in the context of Palm Beach of how much they dislike Donald Trump and how they would never consider him to be "one of us".
But first, how much power does that group have anyway? And second, what does it matter that they dislike Trump? The Prussian "establishment" - Junker landowners - had no time for Hitler "socially": they essentially considered him to be a lower-class arsehole. But that didn't stop them supporting him. He was useful because he was skilled in the vulgar art of mobilising the masses.
Joseph, I don't think the Trump "is mad" in a clinical sense but your point is well made. Rather, I assess him as having features of personality disorder, notably narcissism and sociopathy (the two often go hand in hand). One behavior which presents itself is an emotional tone deafness (a symptom I found in the literature when I was researching a despised in-law of mine). In Victorian times they regarded these as 'moral disorders," but there is modern evidence for genetic and neurological abnormalities in many instances. The only emotions of consequence that exist for such persons are their own, which are often pronounced, self-serving and disconnected from the real world. Trump lives in a self-absorbed bubble. People like this have trouble reading others people's emotions or the consequences of their actions. Words are blunt instruments for getting what they want. Trump's lack of empathy for others and his outrageous remarks about nuclear weapons demonstrates that -- at any practical level -- he is a dangerous nut job.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine/the-anti-american_b_11836982.html?
M
fred, you raise good points. I guess madness is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not a psychiatrist, of course. On the other hand, if you run into someone having an animated conversation with an invisible friend, do you REALLY need a doctorate to suggest that the guy is nutty?
Trump could not admit that his steak company was kaput. Instead, he staged a bogus demonstration on national teevee, pretending that his kaput company was still operational, using steaks provided by another company. THAT is just plain crazy, in this layman's opinion. (And it would have ended the career of any other politician.) When the button is pushed, it will be pushed by such a man.
adm.fookbar = Bernie Sanders concern troll. You let one in, Joseph.
Trump has no empathy, sure, but if you watch his speeches he constantly conveys that he has a lot of it. He speaks in a pained way. So did Hitler. I know no contemporary of ours other than Trump who does this so intensely.
I do not make that comparison frivolously. I have watched several of Hitler's speeches. What marked him out was how he spoke as if he was in pain, as if channelling the audience's pain. Lenin's shtick had the same feature, but to a much lesser extent. Stalin wasn't like that at all. Contrary to myth he was no slouch intellectually, but when it came to public speaking he sounded uncharismatic and matter-of-fact, rather like a BBC announcer from the same period. For public speaking, it is Hitler who stands out. And today it's Trump.
According to Donald Trump's ex-wife Ivana, he kept a volume of Hitler's speeches by his bedside.
I have no problem with calling someone insane. "Layperson" - as opposed to a cleric? Damned medical priesthood!
I use the term functionally. Or at least that's the conceit I use. There is influential old money in all the major cities. There are networks in a range of businesses, like real estate, or energy, or movie making. All with geographical proximity which contributes to engagement in politics. Not monolithic but these networks have come together in the past to elect their candidates. Media executives or owners as well.
People who are on the invite list for the Aspen Institute etc. The US definitely has an aparatachik class. And then there are the Brahmin families.
Forgive the boring list but it was what I meant by establishment. It's not as important as it was cos there is a very powerful new economy "establishment" forming. They have distinct interests. But it just so happens their interests are best served by HRC as well. So i suspect that such an elite is very influential.
Re: Hitler I agree entirely. But Hitler was good for their businesses. Trump is as threat to some of their businesses to the extent that he makes good on his populist promises. He isn't their guy right now, even if he might do a deal later. I'm sure, if need be, they will deal with Trump. But right now they clearly don't think they need to.
Post a Comment