Donald Trump

[Pcdunn]

Yes. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." -- Proverbs, ch.23, verse 7.

But The Donald doesn't keep his lusts and inclinations to himself or his actions behind closed doors-- he boasts about what he does, using vulgar language for a particular part of the female anatomy.

Imagine if he trots up to the wife of a visiting head of state and plants a kiss and a grab on her, "without even waiting"-- can you say "international incident"?

[sdreid]

Democrats must think American women are stupid doing to Trump what they critisized Republicans for doing to Clintion; with one exception-what Clinton did was, by orders of magnitude, worse.

Whatever, it looks like the tape release might have been counterproductive anyway.

[ChrisGeorge]

Democrats must think American women are stupid doing to Trump what they critisized Republicans for doing to Clintion; with one exception-what Clinton did was, by orders of magnitude, worse.

Whatever, it looks like the tape release might have been counterproductive anyway.

Really? With Republicans openly abandoning Trump in droves and looking now to save their own Senate and House seats? And Trump's numbers tanking?

Bottom line is, Trump, gloating on that "hot mike" about his conquests of married women has revealed who he is and it's not a nice sight. I cannot condone Bill Clinton's past actions but Bill isn't on the ballot on November. Trump is.

It was more than "locker room talk" from the Donald as he's trying to say -- he is audibly proud of what he can do with women because he is a "Star." Just like he said he could get away with shooting someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and he'd still have supporters. ("I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." Donald J. Trump, January 23, 2016.)

It's fortunate for Hillary that the GOP has that strong puritanical strain in it that the video was a bridge too far for so many.

Best regards

Chris

[Hercule Poirot]

[Pcdunn]

Debate review, including video clips. Trump's prowling the dais like a tiger and "looming behind" his opponent must be some sort of aggressive body language attack his team thought up. Strange.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/presidential-debate-highlights/index.html

[ChrisGeorge]

Debate review, including video clips. Trump's prowling the dais like a tiger and "looming behind" his opponent must be some sort of aggressive body language attack his team thought up. Strange.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politi...hts/index.html

He prides himself on being a great Reality TV star but the optics of the second debate and his heavy sniffing throughout both debates didn't come across well.

[Mayerling]

Hi Chris,

His body language on "The Apprentice" was controlled by the experts putting together the show. Wisely they concentrated on the would-be Trump apprentices and their behavior (back stabbing and all), and only put "the Donald" on selectively to give the particular tests and to review the team results that whittled down the contestants.

That could not have happened at the debate - unless Trump was already President and used his powers to control how debates were given around the country when he participated. Then he'd make sure he'd call the shots. In a way his possible actions in such a situation as I just outlined were shown in the last year, when he attacked various moderators as being too critical in their questions to him (actually, what are news moderators supposed to be when asking any questions to people), and when after the first debate with Hillary Trump screamed that there was something wrong with his mike. Subsequently the people in charge of that debate said there was something wrong, but I have my doubts. I think they were cowardly in admitting anything was wrong, as were the media about those moderators.

Had Trump any real sense, he might have looked seriously back at a debate in Hillary's career. I think it was after her first term in the Senate was ending, and she was running for re-election. The Republican running against her tried to corner her regarding her obvious interest in jumping for the 2008 Presidential election when she should be concentrating on finishing her second term in the U.S. Senate, and he approached her on the stage they shared with a written statement committing her to remaining in the U.S. Senate until her term finished - and not seeking any second terms. Hillary just looked at the idiot like, "Are you for real?" She won the election, and the fool who confronted her was not heard from politically again.

Had he seen that Trump would have seen that such theatrics work against a candidate who uses them. The voters will see them as a shameless stunt, not as striking at some policy or character flaw. But Trump, with his career of cheating investors, cheating the Federal Government (and stealing from the American people), and being a vulgar loud-mouth and self-promoter, just cannot see it.

One is reminded of another self-made figure (fictional though) who is rich and also politically ambitious: Orson Welles' "Charles Foster Kane". When he is in a position that the Donald may never be in, with a huge lead in the polls for running for the Governorship of New York (and then the Presidency, supposedly), Kane is trapped by his political enemy "Boss Jim Gettys", who discovered Kane (a married man with a son) has had an affair for awhile. There is a disastrous confrontation scene with Kane, his wife Emily, his girlfriend Susan, and Gettys, and (it turns out) Gettys (corrupt Boss as he may be) has had difficulties explaining political cartoons of himself in prison garb to his mother and children, so one can see why he's so rancorous to Kane beyond normal political differences. Gettys does offer Kane a chance to bow out of the campaign for Gettys' silence, and it will save the marriage. Kane banks on the senses of the population that he imagines loves and understands him. Emily walks out on him. Gettys, looking amazed at the stupidity of Kane, asks why doesn't he just admit he's licked. Kane just says that Gettys should prepare to go to prison (and have the warden send Kane any messages). Gettys, realizing how Kane just made everything so pleasant for him says, "If it was anyone else I'd feel sort of sorry for you, but you need a real lesson...and you'll get more lessons!" Then he walks out with a defeated Kane shouting he'll send Gettys to "Sing-Sing". Gettys descends the staircase outside smiling.

I note (ironically) Kane's impotent threat at sending Gettys to "Sing-Sing" Prison in Ossining is very like a model for Trump's threat to have a prosecutor put Hillary into prison (made in the second debate).

The New York Times is noticing another thing that Mr. Trump ought to consider. So far that bunch of "populist" yahoos that cheer him on have fully backed him, but some of the women in that group are beginning to feel queasy about his sexual behavior and demeanor. If they start making waves his populist base will finally begin to fall apart.

Whatever happens with the state and Congressional elections, I suspect Donald Trump may go down in history as the all time worst vote getter in a modern American election, from a major party's perspective.

Jeff

[Steadmund Brand]

Who won the debate?
CNN/ORC poll

Clinton - 57%

Trump - 34%

And the Toronto Blue Jays swept the Texas Rangers..

I can't say who won...but I can say who lost... The American People...our Presidential election process has turned into a damn reality show...24 hour news coverage has made news "entertainment" and everything is about sound bytes....The American people no longer look to the "news" for information, they look for affirmation.. sad but true...

Steadmund Brand

[Abby Normal]

Hi Chris,

His body language on "The Apprentice" was controlled by the experts putting together the show. Wisely they concentrated on the would-be Trump apprentices and their behavior (back stabbing and all), and only put "the Donald" on selectively to give the particular tests and to review the team results that whittled down the contestants.

That could not have happened at the debate - unless Trump was already President and used his powers to control how debates were given around the country when he participated. Then he'd make sure he'd call the shots. In a way his possible actions in such a situation as I just outlined were shown in the last year, when he attacked various moderators as being too critical in their questions to him (actually, what are news moderators supposed to be when asking any questions to people), and when after the first debate with Hillary Trump screamed that there was something wrong with his mike. Subsequently the people in charge of that debate said there was something wrong, but I have my doubts. I think they were cowardly in admitting anything was wrong, as were the media about those moderators.

Had Trump any real sense, he might have looked seriously back at a debate in Hillary's career. I think it was after her first term in the Senate was ending, and she was running for re-election. The Republican running against her tried to corner her regarding her obvious interest in jumping for the 2008 Presidential election when she should be concentrating on finishing her second term in the U.S. Senate, and he approached her on the stage they shared with a written statement committing her to remaining in the U.S. Senate until her term finished - and not seeking any second terms. Hillary just looked at the idiot like, "Are you for real?" She won the election, and the fool who confronted her was not heard from politically again.

Had he seen that Trump would have seen that such theatrics work against a candidate who uses them. The voters will see them as a shameless stunt, not as striking at some policy or character flaw. But Trump, with his career of cheating investors, cheating the Federal Government (and stealing from the American people), and being a vulgar loud-mouth and self-promoter, just cannot see it.

One is reminded of another self-made figure (fictional though) who is rich and also politically ambitious: Orson Welles' "Charles Foster Kane". When he is in a position that the Donald may never be in, with a huge lead in the polls for running for the Governorship of New York (and then the Presidency, supposedly), Kane is trapped by his political enemy "Boss Jim Gettys", who discovered Kane (a married man with a son) has had an affair for awhile. There is a disastrous confrontation scene with Kane, his wife Emily, his girlfriend Susan, and Gettys, and (it turns out) Gettys (corrupt Boss as he may be) has had difficulties explaining political cartoons of himself in prison garb to his mother and children, so one can see why he's so rancorous to Kane beyond normal political differences. Gettys does offer Kane a chance to bow out of the campaign for Gettys' silence, and it will save the marriage. Kane banks on the senses of the population that he imagines loves and understands him. Emily walks out on him. Gettys, looking amazed at the stupidity of Kane, asks why doesn't he just admit he's licked. Kane just says that Gettys should prepare to go to prison (and have the warden send Kane any messages). Gettys, realizing how Kane just made everything so pleasant for him says, "If it was anyone else I'd feel sort of sorry for you, but you need a real lesson...and you'll get more lessons!" Then he walks out with a defeated Kane shouting he'll send Gettys to "Sing-Sing". Gettys descends the staircase outside smiling.

I note (ironically) Kane's impotent threat at sending Gettys to "Sing-Sing" Prison in Ossining is very like a model for Trump's threat to have a prosecutor put Hillary into prison (made in the second debate).

The New York Times is noticing another thing that Mr. Trump ought to consider. So far that bunch of "populist" yahoos that cheer him on have fully backed him, but some of the women in that group are beginning to feel queasy about his sexual behavior and demeanor. If they start making waves his populist base will finally begin to fall apart.

Whatever happens with the state and Congressional elections, I suspect Donald Trump may go down in history as the all time worst vote getter in a modern American election, from a major party's perspective.

Jeff

well if your talking about trumps affect on the state and congressional elections in terms of people not voting for republicans because they hate trump I'm not so sure. It might be since hes blowing the whole dam thing up and bucking the Republican party, I think maybe a lot of republican voters agree with him and are pissed at their own party and wont vote republican.

but then again hes stirring things up so much there has been a record amount of people voting for him-look at what happened in the primaries-and voting republican-maybe they will end up voting republican in congress and the states also? or maybe the net affect of all of it will be a wash?

Anyway I agree with a lot of what you say-hes an egomaniac and his big mouth is probably going to talk itself out of the white house.

Someone posted a picture on FB the other day of a hot air hand dryer, that someone had written in magic marker on-"press button for a Trump sound bite".

HAHAHA!!!

[Abby Normal]

Who won the debate?
CNN/ORC poll

Clinton - 57%

Trump - 34%

And the Toronto Blue Jays swept the Texas Rangers..

theres those darn BJs again!

[Abby Normal]

I can't say who won...but I can say who lost... The American People...our Presidential election process has turned into a damn reality show...24 hour news coverage has made news "entertainment" and everything is about sound bytes....The American people no longer look to the "news" for information, they look for affirmation.. sad but true...

Steadmund Brand

so true. when even the news channels are blinded by their party affiliations you know its bad.

[Mayerling]

theres those darn BJs again!

I have always insisted with my sports friends that due to the "Baseball Strike" or fhe 1990s, which pre-empted any games including the World's Series for the year it occurred, since the Blue Jays had won the previous year's World's Series (and the one before that) technically they remained World's Series champs for three years - due to none replacing them the third year. To be honest, I have convinced absolutely nobody of the logical correctness of my assumption. But then I never discussed it with any citizens of Toronto or Canada for that matter. I feel they might support my view.

Jeff

[ChrisGeorge]

. . . . The New York Times is noticing another thing that Mr. Trump ought to consider. So far that bunch of "populist" yahoos that cheer him on have fully backed him, but some of the women in that group are beginning to feel queasy about his sexual behavior and demeanor. If they start making waves his populist base will finally begin to fall apart.

Whatever happens with the state and Congressional elections, I suspect Donald Trump may go down in history as the all time worst vote getter in a modern American election, from a major party's perspective.

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. Your parallel with Orson Welles' Charles Foster Kane is well taken.

I am reminded of another demagogue -- Huey Long of Louisiana "The Kingfisher" and how that ended. Here's an article about Long published during Bill Clinton's presidency:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-08-30/news/1993242117_1_southerners-jimmy-carter-bill-clinton

An open letter to Donald Trump has been written by former NFL star Chris Kluwe about Trump's contention that the nominee's 2005 "hot mike" recording in which he lewd comments about being able to attack women because he's a "star" was just "locker room talk":

"Dear Donald Trump: I played in the NFL. Here’s what we really talk about in the locker room" by Chris Kluwe.

Best regards

Chris

[Pcdunn]

I enjoyed the Chris Kluwe article very much, thank you for posting it.

[John G]

Oh dear, it appears Trump might be investigated for significant accounting discrepancies, as it's alleged he might have broken the Ethics in Government Act, following big loses in his Scottish golf course business. See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490