[QUOTE=Xyzzy;443052][url]http://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494700850/taste-the-outrage-donald-trump-jr-s-tweet-compares-refugees-to-skittles[/url][/QUOTE]

Sounds like a fine visual/statistical analogy to me ... but nice to know that blowing up an entire country (nay, multiple ones) and *causing* such a mass refugee crisis, as HRC did, is deemed less outrageous by our goodthinker-guides in the MSM than the above tweet! Over the past few decades NPR has become just as bad as WaPo/NYT ... they should title the security/foreign -policy segments of their evening newscast '[url=https://theintercept.com/2014/08/12/nprs-dina-temple-raston-passed-cia-funded-nsa-contractor-independent-fear-monger-snowden-reporting/]CIA talking points memo[/url]', it's that bad.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;443104]Sounds like a fine visual/statistical analogy to me ...[/QUOTE]

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

If You Vote For Trump, Then S**ew You
 

[url]http://www.gq.com/story/a-word-for-donald-trump-voters[/url]
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Red]Massive Warning![/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] This rant is rife with F-bombs. [SIZE=3][COLOR=Red][B]NOT Family friendly!
[/B][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]Satisfying for those who likes a guy who speaks his mind and lets it all hang out, who isn't Donald.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/COLOR][/SIZE][QUOTE]Drew Magary wants a word with anyone who's about to be on the wrong side of history.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post’s [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=2581474381978129&tid=ss_tw"]David Fahrenthold[/URL] uncovered yet another Donald Trump scam job, in which he used over $250,000 in charitable donations to help pay off his legal bills. And, because this is Trump, that sordid (and almost certainly illegal) bit of money laundering is just ONE despicable detail of the story. There are many more, including Trump’s club trying to welch on a $1 million hole-in-one payout (out of all of Trump’s bad qualities, his [URL="https://twitter.com/sopandeb/status/778356550746243072"]steadfast refusal to pay people what he owes them[/URL], while bragging about it, is the most enraging), along with the old bit about Trump blithely ignoring local ordinances so he could put a big, dipshit flagpole up at [URL="http://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-hotels-mar-a-lago"]the Mar-A-Lago club[/URL], with his lawyers stating—with a straight face—that a smaller flag “would fail to appropriately express the magnitude of Donald J. Trump’s . . . patriotism” (NOTE: Until recently, Trump didn’t know what the stripes on the flag [URL="http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/remember-when-donald-trump-didnt-know-why-there-were-13-1786393523"]symbolized[/URL]).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;443242][url]http://www.gq.com/story/a-word-for-donald-trump-voters[/url]
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Red]Massive Warning![/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] This rant is rife with F-bombs. [SIZE=3][COLOR=Red][B]NOT Family friendly!
[/B][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]Satisfying for those who likes a guy who speaks his mind and lets it all hang out, who isn't Donald.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I read 2 stories re. the golf-club deal - the [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html]earlier one[/url] from Pravda-on-the-Potomac:
[quote]In 2010, a man named Martin Greenberg hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole while playing in a charity golf tournament at Trump’s course in Westchester County, N.Y. … Greenberg won a $1 million prize. Briefly. Later, Greenberg was told that he had won nothing. The prize’s rules required that the shot had to go 150 yards. But Trump’s course had allegedly made the hole too short [WaPo].[/quote]

Later, an NC reader linked to this 2011 [url=http://www.businessinsider.com.au/hole-in-one-martin-greenberg-alonso-mourning-charity-donald-trump-golf-course-suing-2011-2]Business Insider piece[/url] on the story:
[quote]The former chairman of the Commodities Exchange, Marty Greenberg, is suing former NBA superstar Alonzo Mourning over a hole-in-one, the NY Post reports.

Greenberg scored the rare golfing feat at a tournament hosted by Mourning’s charity last August, and the prize for doing so was $1 million.

But after the event, the insurer backing the tournament refused to pay up, because they said “Greenberg’s required 150-yard shot had actually traveled only 139 yards.”

Greenberg scored his hole-in-one at the Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, during the anual Alonzo Mourning Charities Tournament. Before Greenberg, no-one had ever hit a hole-in-one on the Par 3 13th hole to get the $1 million.

But an hour later, Greenberg was “summoned to the course” to meet with one of the insurance reps, and had to point out the exact place from which he hit his tee shot. Then the insurer denied coverage because the ball didn’t travel 150 yards.

So Greenberg filed suit against Alonso Mourning Charities and against Trump’s club.

He told the NY Post,

This situation should have been a happy and exciting event. It is my intention to use the proceeds for charitable purposes, which makes my being forced into legal action all the more tragic. Sadly, I was left with no choice.

Meanwhile, the Trump organisation says: “We had nothing to do with the matter other than they chose to use our course.”

And apparently the Donald offered to play a round at the course with Greenberg with some pretty sweet terms attached. If Greenberg won, Trump would hand over $1 million in cash then and there. If Greenberg lost, he’d have to pony up $100,000. Greenberg didn’t take him up on the wager.[/quote]
So unless other independently verified facts are out there about the incident, we have WaPo running a hit piece - which as intended runs like wildfire through the grapevine of social-media parroters - ignoring the known 5-year-old history of the story ... typical.

There are however other more-credible allegations of charity fraud re. Trump, involving later-repaid loans-to-self ... the later repayment means no net monetary fraud, but the use-as-slush-fund is still in violation of applicable regulations. Maybe Trump and Team Clinton could compete on who runs the yuuuger charity fraud?

BTW, "Mar-a-Lago" golf course ... that sounds suspiciously Mexican. Someone should check whether it's in the country illegally.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;443326]BTW, "Mar-a-Lago" golf course ... that sounds suspiciously Mexican. Someone should check whether it's in the country illegally.[/QUOTE]

As an outsider, Monday's presidential debate should be high (or possibly, low) comedy. Higher projected viewership than any debate in history.

What is wrong with you people?

You claim to be better than this.

What went wrong?

[QUOTE=chalsall;443337].....

You claim to be better than this.

What went wrong?[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=5][B]kaCHING!! [/B][SIZE=1]Any questions?[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;443337]What is wrong with you people?

You claim to be better than this.

What went wrong?[/QUOTE]

Donald Trump already had a reality TV show. Now Hillary's getting one too, is all.

o [url=adage.com/article/campaign-trail/trump-clinton-johnson-tv-radio-ad-spending-totals/305883/]Where Trump, Clinton and Johnson Stand on TV, Radio Ad Spend[/url] | Advertising Age
[quote]In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump. ... To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs.[/quote]
And she's still barely holding her own, based on a wide sample of national polls. A thought: Maybe the yuuuge ad-spending disparity helps partially explain the MSM's blatant water-carrying for HRC?

Having suffered through quite a few of her TV ads - normally I avoid ads like the plague, but in this case consider it important to get a sense of the messaging - my take is that Hillary's campaign strategy has devolved into pure Trump-scaremongering. How about giving us one credible *positive* reason (and "I have foreign policy experience" ain't it, given [url=https://mishtalk.com/2016/09/23/hillary-claims-terrorists-use-trump/]your abysmal record there[/url]) to vote for you? As someone with a clue opined, "You can’t beat something with nothing." Or another: "Advertising generally is more effective when you aren’t trying to sell what everyone knows to be a shit sandwich." Or another, in longer form which echoes Chalsall's complaint above:
[i]
The longer this contest plays out the more likely it is that Clinton will lose. If a major stock market correction happens before voting day, she is almost guaranteed to lose.

As bad as Trump is, he is still the outsider candidate that people are running towards because both of the major political parties are extremely corrupt. He is the outsider who knows nothing about diplomacy or how our government is run.

Yes, he will cause us great harm as a country, but since Clinton is a war hawk, it is uncertain as to which candidate will cause more harm to us in our standing the world.

I’m getting disgusted with the whole thing and plan on writing in NONE OF THE ABOVE on my ballot for the presidency. I will vote for down ticket Democrats but I am going to refuse to vote for either/any of the piss poor candidates in the presidential race.[/i]


o And an interesting video exercise: [url=http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150772972746/how-to-know-an-election-is-over]How to Know an Election is Over[/url] | Scott Adams. NC's Lambert: "Comment on Clinton video [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/21/clinton-asks-why-she-isnt-beating-trump-by-50-points/]here[/url], which you should watch for the visual, with the sound turned down."

Reader "Savanarola" [sic] comments:
[i]
That video of Clinton was indeed interesting. I watched it with the sound off because you really do pick up a lot more that way — or at least something different. What astounded me was how she has completely adopted Bill’s speaking style and mannerisms, but with ZERO warmth or humanity. There was never a second in that video where I sympathized with her or wanted to turn on the sound to see what I was missing. Normally, I watch with the sound off and then go back and listen. Here, I didn’t feel the need to bother.

That is amazing. She has clearly been physically coached by the best, but she is genuinely just terrible at this. I mean, given a choice between two people who give the impression that they are lying to you, she is lecturing me and Trump is having a blast. It is the best example of the role of charisma in politics that you could devise. Why isn’t she up by 50 points? She has all the appeal of a corpse in that video, that is why.[/i]

Back in 2013 when it was still regularly funny, The Onion nailed it perfectly: [url=www.theonion.com/article/hillary-clinton-to-nation-do-not-fuck-this-up-for--38416]Hillary Clinton To Nation: ‘Do Not Fuck This Up For Me'[/url]

Funnily, based on a recently revealed private tongue-lashing HRC gave to NBC execs and her campaign manager Donna Brazile [url=http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/09/temper-temper-killary-goes-on-rampage-for-over-an-hour-throwing-glass-at-staffers-head/]after a recent Town Hall[/url], the language of the fake Onion quotes is not that far off the mark.

Well, I withdraw any earlier claims I may have made in this thread. We have
two candidates each of whom seems to be aiming in both directions at once.
Clinton's campaign is totally responsive with no real ideas.
Trump's past is in the process of being flouted to try to take him down.
The responses to his tax and sex issues are out of proportion.

In today's newspaper (yes, I still get a paper copy), I read two articles that shows just how terrible our choices are for this election. In one article an avid Democrat writes (and I paraphrase) "we know Hillary is a bad candidate, but look at how bad Trump is". In another an avid Republican writes (paraphrasing again), "Trump is a terrible human being, but Hillary is even worse".

I love how both sides claim that "not voting" or "voting third party" is like voting for the other person. What a ridiculous argument. When will the parties figure out that people vote third party because they hate both the Republican and Democratic candidates being thrown at them. As far as I am concerned, both parties brought this on themselves. Both parties had more electable candidates, but the party machines didn't care. We know how the Democrats "rigged" the primaries. The primaries also showed us how racist and prejudiced the Republican party can be.