Trumped

Written By: - Date published: 10:55 am, October 8th, 2016 - 173 comments
Categories: class war, Hillary Clinton, International, Politics, polls, us politics - Tags: ,

It looks very much like Donald Trump’s run at the White House is over.

In the fortnight since he was demolished in the first Presidential debate Trump polling has dropped and his rhetoric has flopped. Women, non white and independent voters are flocking to Clinton and the swing states are looking locked toward the Democrats. That should also help the party win control of the senate, giving President Clinton a smoother ride in power.

Overnight Trump’s team has pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars of TV ads in crucial states, including must wins Florida and Ohio. Not for the first time in his life, it seems Trump is broke.

He’s already getting his excuses for losing in, claiming on twitter that Hurricane Matthew is to blame:

Hurricane is good luck for Obama again- he will buy the election by handing out billions of dollars.

The revelation that he pays no tax has tarnished his political image and made the man himself look cheap and chiselling. He can no longer be seen as the establishment outsider. He is, of course, establishment to the core and has been since birth. But the failure to pay tax puts him firmly in the dry right end of neo liberalism.

Bernie Sanders gained huge support emphasising ‘we the people’. Donald Trump is all about the baser instincts, a selfish life of me me me.

To make things worse for the candidate of the 1%ers, he has just switched his position on black America. A few weeks ago, Trump was asking for black votes, saying “What have you got to lose?”. Today it turns out Black Lives Don’t Matter and what they’ve got to lose under President Trump is their lives.

In an astonishing outburst Trump has rekindled an old debate about the guilt or innocence of 5 black and Latino men accused of a killing in Central Park, New York. At the time, Trump demanded they get the death penalty. Problem is, they were innocent. Not good enough for the Donald and he has this week raised the issue again, claiming they were guilty even though the real criminal has confessed and has been verified as the killer by DNA evidence.

To add to his misery, a recording has surfaced of an interview in which Trump shows himself to be a misogynist who thinks of women only in terms of his sexual needs. It’s ugly stuff.

“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women – I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab ’em by the pussy.”

This approach to women is echoed by the renewed claims that he sexually assaulted makeup artist Jill Harth. She’s not going away till he apologises for the attempted rape.

On Monday evening, our time, Trump faces the second debate against Hillary Clinton. It has the potential to be the knockout blow. It’s a town hall style public meeting, with questions from the audience. This should suit Hillary Clinton perfectly. She’s great with one on one encounters and appears to love talking with people. Trump prefers talking at people.

To help set the tone for the debate, the Clinton campaign has released a new ad. It’s a rerun of the Daisy ad used by Lyndon Johnson in the sixties. LBJ scared the bejeesus out of America by asking who they rather trust with nuclear button, a savvy, experienced and calm candidate like himself or a rambling republican rube. It’s doubly clever stuff from the Clinton team.

Not only does it play to fears about Trump’s mental stability, it echoes cold war fears from an era we thought the world had moved on from. It effectively taints Trump as being soft on Russia.

That impression is being helped by the Russians themselves, who have overreached themselves by interfering in the election, first hacking the Democrat’s computer systems, now bizarrely complaining that Trump isn’t getting a fair go.

Back off, Boris! You’re not helping your man one iota.

I’m beginning to wonder whether Trump will quit before the election. Better to bow out now and claim it wasn’t a defeat, than go to the polls and be proven a loser. There’s no precedent for that to happen in modern times, but, then, there’s no precedent for Donald Trump.

 

https://youtu.be/Dc25H2YgbDQ

 

 

EDIT: Trump apologises, sort of.

“I never said I was a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not,” he said.

“I’ve said and done things I regret and the words released today on this more than a decade old video are one of them.

“Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am.

“I said it, I was wrong and I apologise.”

“I pledge to be a better man tomorrow and will never, ever let you down.”

So that’s all right, then.

 

 

173 comments on “Trumped ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Andre 1
    8 October 2016 at 11:02 am

    It’s not just a case of “anyone but Trump”, there really are good reasons to think Hillary will be, on average, a progressive president.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/12-reasons-to-vote-for-hillary-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-trump/

    • RedLogix 1.1
      8 October 2016 at 11:20 am

      That is a welcome link Andre.

      I’ve made the point that Clinton and Trump are not equivalent. Clinton is indeed a sophisticated modern liberal. And in a sane world Trump would have gotten no further with his candidacy than some minor Republican Party official laughing his head off before metaphorically tearing up Trump’s paperwork before his eyes.

      Rationally Clinton should be polling 40 points ahead of Trump. That she isn’t should give us pause for thought.

      I know CV stirs the crap out of so many here, but he has a point. Trump has only gotten this far because he held a mirror up to many in the USA and then spoke to them in words that get a reaction. Words he knew the liberal establishment would hate.

      Whether Trump’s strategy succeeds or not is neither here nor there. Whether Sanders succeeded or not was neither here nor there. But the anti-establishment conversations they have started are not silenced, and it remains to be seen if Clinton … a person so very tightly identified as an establishment insider … can engage with them.

      • Andre 1.1.1
        8 October 2016 at 11:36 am

        Having lived most of the 90s in the US, I saw first-hand a decent chunk of the character assassination Republicans have smearing Hillary with for decades. This link (also posted it over on Open Mike) covers most of the main points, if way too briefly.

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/04/three-decades-of-crazy-myths-about-slick-willie-and-crooked-hillary.html

        I think it explains a lot of the gap between where Hillary is and where she “should be” in polling. Hell, even I know most of the negatives around Hillary are based on debunked lies and smears, and yet I’m not enthusiastic about her.

        • RedLogix 1.1.1.1
          8 October 2016 at 11:58 am

          And yet even accepting that article at face value, there remains the unfortunate truth that Clinton does not readily engage emotionally. The audiences at her relatively few rallies and meetings have been somewhere between meagre and embarrassing. There is no question that her mannerisms come across as either inauthentic, forced or sometimes even weird.

          So when Clinton talks about the all those fine ideals and ambitions listed in that Nation article, too many voters hear the words, but do not believe she means them.

          Let me be clear. The vast bulk of the blame for dysfunctional US political system can be laid squarely with a frankly crazy Republican Party. For all his deplorable personal flaws, Trump is still relatively sane compared to some of the candidates he saw off in the primaries.

          Yet equally the Democrat’s … like the Labour Party here in NZ … can take no pleasure in any of this. They too have forfeited the trust of the working classes and minorities they claim to be helping. And the betrayal of someone whom you trusted to help, hurts far worse than anticipated shit your avowed enemies dump over you.

          This is why if Trump was a smoother operator, like John Key, he would likely romp into the Presidency.

          • Andre 1.1.1.1.1
            8 October 2016 at 12:37 pm

            Yeah, her interactions with the public now are awkward to watch, much more so than they were in the 90s.

            As far as the broken American system, yeah the Republicans are happily smashing it even further. But the Dems don’t really have incentives to fix it, when it’s a lot easier for them to just scrabble for their own advantages within the system as it is. The Constitution makes it really hard to actually implement meaningful improvements. I’m really grateful MMP in New Zealand means I can meaningfully vote for representation that’s fairly close to my beliefs and priorities.

            I’m not convinced “betrayal” is much of an influence, except for a few political tragics. If it was, I doubt Democrats would enjoy continued support among African-Americans and other minorities. I think it’s more that a lot of people don’t think it makes a difference to them who the government actually is.

            Yeah, if Trump’s total unsuitability wasn’t so obvious, Hillary would be a long way behind. Fuck me that’s a scary thought. Almost as scary as the idea of President Cruz, Kasich or Pence with a fully Republican Congress.

            • dukeofurl 1.1.1.1.1.1
              8 October 2016 at 12:45 pm

              Remind you of another female leader ?
              Merkel.!
              or even further back Thatcher ( before she had a image makeover)

              Charismatic is just a catch all for male candidates who have no real idea of what they are doing.

            • RedLogix 1.1.1.1.1.2
              9 October 2016 at 12:35 am

              Any damn thing could happen. Right now it looks like the Repugs are growing a spine and might kick Trump off their ticket.

              Who knows what will happen next week.

              • miravox …
                9 October 2016 at 12:52 am

                … might kick Trump off their ticket?! Please no! Although anyone else calling themselves a Republican is more electable at this stage. Including the Koch Bros pick – Pence.

                I really want Trump to be defeated by the people. That will send a stronger message that his attitudes and behaviour are not ok.

              • joe90 …
                9 October 2016 at 12:56 am

                Suggestions about replacing Trump with Pence or even Romney ignore the fact that ballots have been printed and some states are already allowing early voting.

                edit: can’t be done, apparently

                Josh Putnam, a University of Georgia lecturer and expert on the machinations of the parties, told me at the time that the rule at issue was Rule 9. Rule 9 reads:

                The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.

                Death, declination or otherwise. No “because we want to” clause.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/07/theres-no-longer-any-way-for-republicans-to-boot-donald-trump-from-the-ballot/

                • RedLogix …
                  9 October 2016 at 1:22 am

                  Depends on how far you want to stretch “otherwise”.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    9 October 2016 at 9:10 am

                    Given the context, I think “otherwise” just means incapacity, e.g. they’re not dead, and they’re in a coma so they can’t decline.

                  • Andre …
                    9 October 2016 at 9:25 am

                    Legal minds appear to think the RNC authority is to fill a vacancy. Creating a vacancy would require a separate explicit authority, which doesn’t exist.

                    Then there’s all the separate state rules around the situation. As I understand it, in at least some states the ballots will still have to say Trump even if he’s no longer in the running. Maybe dukeofurl has more accurate info.

    • AmaKiwi 1.2
      8 October 2016 at 1:49 pm

      The polls showed Brexit didn’t stand a chance. I’ll wait until Nov. 9.

      • Lanthanide 1.2.1
        8 October 2016 at 3:30 pm

        No, the traditional telephone polls were showing a very tight race between remain and leave, with remain just ahead.

        Turns out leave edged ahead, within the margin of errors of the polls.

        Online polls were showing leave ahead.

    • Matthew Whitehead 1.3
      10 October 2016 at 2:47 am

      OK, incoming late rebuttal, but here you go.

      (1) I concede this one, if you’re a single-issue voter and that issue is birth control and abortion, Hillary is your candidate. She’s not perfect but she’s very, very good on this, to the point that she and Bernie only got asked once in Primary debates because they agree so much on this issue.

      (2) Hillary is a centrist on healthcare. Despite Trump’s claims, there is no indication she is even considering a public health insurance option or an outright single-payer system, so while she does technically support universal healthcare, she supports user-pays universal healthcare, which basically means terrible access to healthcare for the poor, and often being unable to afford the best surgeries or healthcare technology, and a lack of preventive care. There’s an inevitable amount of prioritisation to healthcare, but rationing should be on the basis that there are more urgent healthcare issues to fund, rather than on whether someone can afford a more fancy insurance package.

      (3) Hillary is pretty decent on protecting voting rights, but she could go a lot further, such as requiring independing districting based off mathematical formulas to end gerrymandering, for instance, or endorsing transitioning to a national popular vote for president, so that everyone’s votes count equally once they are counted.

      (4) Hillary is actually still pretty strong on deporting immigrants, just not as strong as Obama, as they have to be criminals in some other sense to be deported. The DREAM Act is also quite literally the least you can do on US immigration reform, it doesn’t really address the issue of adult workers who aren’t in the US legally. Ironically the best measure you could take to allow people to leave is to drop security at the land border, as it would encourage people to leave after working in the US for a while to earn money, as they would know they can come back if they need a higher-paying job in the US again, but here again Hillary’s instincts lead her in the wrong direction: she wants to strengthen border enforcement to pander to Republicans.

      (5) This is, again, some “least you could do” stuff, and it’s really depressing that this is considered “strong” policy in the US. Everyone deserves sick leave and parental leave.

      (6) Hillary picked this debt-free tuition policy up as a concession to gain Bernie Sanders’ endorsement, it is not an indication that she will be a progressive president at all. It might arguably be good enough for some to vote for her, but I wouldn’t expect her to support similarly progressive policies in this area.

      (7) Again, this is basically “Hillary Clinton is not an actively terrible human being”-level stuff, and is merely the absense of a negative. NOBODY should support racial profiling or mass incarceration.

      (8) As per (6), this federal minimum wage increase is a concession Bernie forced on her during the primaries. She wouldn’t commit to raises at all at first. I wouldn’t expect her to actively push the minimum wage any further than $12 if elected.

      (9) I don’t give her the least bit of credibility on cracking down on wall street. She will do a little to try and put the issue to bed, and then immediately stop. That said, her tax policies on income tax, the estate tax, and the various loophole-removals for the rich are good, but probably also necessitated by her education plan. Again, if you like this stuff enough to vote for her, great, but it’s not an indication of the kind of thing she would choose to do on her own initiative.

      (10) I’m sorry but nobody left of centre is voting for Hillary on foreign policy. This is more “at least she’s not Trump!” stuff, which the article explicitly promised it wasn’t going to do.

      (11) Right, but what sort of nominees to the Supreme Court would you get under Hillary? Another Merrick Garland-style appointee where you stymie Republican obstruction by giving them a candidate they arguably should want? That’s ridiculous. The Supreme Court is only a good reason to vote for Clinton if she actually supports outright liberals on the court, rather than moderate liberals like Obama appointed.

      (12) These are all good extra things and arguably minor reasons to vote for Clinton, but again, I wouldn’t trust her to take her policies far enough on these issues to actually solve them, she’s merely better-than-Trump, not actively exciting.

      Conclusion: I’m still convinced Hillary Clinton is too moderate and is a corrupt politician who’s involved in pay-for-play. Were I a voter in the US I would probably very reluctantly vote for her, but I would find it hard to persaude reluctant voters to do the same because I would have no enthusiasm for her candidacy.

      • Andre 1.3.1
        10 October 2016 at 6:35 am

        I don’t have a lot of argument with most of that. However, do keep in mind that in the context of US politics, not being actively terrible by your (and my) standards is a long way into the progressive side of what’s actually achievable. Just take a good hard look at what else was on offer from the Repugs this cycle, or look back at previous presidents.

        2: Yeah, it’s disappointing she doesn’t want to push harder on healthcare. But she really had a damn good go at it in the 90s, so I can understand she doesn’t want to stick her finger back in that light socket.

        9: I’m really not sure what to think here. Yes, her links with Wall St look awful, and her stated plans don’t have the immediate appeal of Bernie’s. But there’s also been a lot of analysis that looks credible to me that says her plans would actually be more effective.

        10: The pressures and motivations are very different as president than as Sec of State. She has also demonstrated an ability to learn from past mistakes. So I think it’s likely (admittedly with no evidence) that her future foreign policy choices will be a bit better than past ones.

  2. Jenny 2
    8 October 2016 at 11:13 am

    Only presidential candidate Trump could have made presidential candidate Clinton look good in comparison.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-hawk/

  4. marty mars 4
    8 October 2016 at 11:30 am

    trump won’t quit yet because the real goal of his whole clownshow is to monetize his supporters so don makes more money – that is why he preaches to the converted, that is why he sabotaged his own microphone imo, and that is why he leaks his own info (I suppose he isn’t pretending to be someone else like in the past so that’s something). The end goal is not the end goal his supporters think. This is also why Republicans have walked from him – not because of the ‘establishment’ meme it is because of his ‘self monetize’ meme.

  5. Siobhan 5
    8 October 2016 at 11:37 am

    So Trump is “the candidate of the 1%ers’…I suspect Hillarys financial backers will be quite surprised to realise they have just financed in a President for The People.
    You would think that had they been wanting change they would have supported Bernie more, rather than have the DNC and Wasserman-schultz totally undermine him. Or at least pressured Hillary to have someone other than Tim Kaine as her second.
    Even stranger is their support for the Clinton Foundation…what are they thinking supporting such a game changing Liberal organisation…especially the Saudis, just bizarre, right??

    • te reo putake 5.1
      8 October 2016 at 11:45 am

      I think a lot of people are going to be surprised at how good a Prez Hillary is going to be Siobhan. As for the 1%, well clearly their money is on HC for economic stability. They’ll be hoping she doesn’t achieve much in the next four years, but if the Democrats win big in the senate, the rich may be disappointed.

      Re: Trump, perhaps the better phrase might be ‘the candidate from the 1%ers’.

      • Infused 5.1.1
        8 October 2016 at 12:14 pm

        I love this site’s support for that corrupt women.

        • te reo putake 5.1.1.1
          8 October 2016 at 12:17 pm

          A rather telling and Freudian spelling mistake there, infused.

        • Macro 5.1.1.2
          8 October 2016 at 12:22 pm

          Are you saying it would be more appropriate to support even more corrupt men?

          • Infused 5.1.1.2.1
            8 October 2016 at 6:18 pm

            Trump isn’t as corrupt as he is stupid.

            • Macro 5.1.1.2.1.1
              8 October 2016 at 7:09 pm

              Ok! Yes I agree he is extremely stupid – and just terribly corrupt.

            • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.1.2.1.2
              10 October 2016 at 2:56 am

              Right, but that’s because he’s so stupid, not because he’s less corrupt than Clinton. He’s so corrupt he doesn’t even do a good job at hiding it, at least Hillary has the decency to hide behind technicalities. 😛

        • lprent 5.1.1.3
          8 October 2016 at 12:33 pm

          Having observed your comments for years, it is hard to see any woman that you don’t view as being corrupt.

          I can just see you as the author of the myth of the original sin.

          Perhaps you should expound on where your fear of woman has arisen from?

        • mosa 5.1.1.4
          8 October 2016 at 12:51 pm

          I got the impression in the 2008 primaries and watching her years before that if elected Hillary would be a divisive president and provoke a strong reaction with the American people.
          First woman president or not and the slick emotional campaign she is running she wears a mask and while listening to her adoring supporters she promises to help and change America while promising Wall st and the other big money supporters and the military that nothing will change apart from some token crumbs she will throw the masses but the status quo will remain.
          She will be at war within 18 months matbe sooner.

      • Siobhan 5.1.2
        8 October 2016 at 12:48 pm

        economic stability,,,hmmm, I’m just not convinced that the current neo lib, free market capitalists are delivering real economic stability of a positive type.
        Certainly ‘The People’ are not enjoying any sort of stability these days.
        Or, maybe more accurately, they are suffering under a stable erosion of wages and work and conditions.

        So yes, short term economic stability for the Corporations and 1%s, and the continued transferal of Wealth upwards…but unless we are all secret Millionaires…why would we want to celebrate Hillary??

      • Observer Tokoroa 5.1.3
        8 October 2016 at 1:24 pm

        .
        .Trolls is Trolls

        . I loved the way Trump got Putin to hack Hilary’s computer data. I loved even more the way the Trolls on here barracked for unhinged Trump. I loved the way Trump wants to set a gunman onto Clinton.

        . The Trolls, each of you, are extreme Right – hopeless – unbalanced – sick. Which is why you adore the incompetent Key – who has single handedly returned lots of New Zealanders to the poverty of Charles Dickens days. Living in sheds and slums and tin cars. Racked with disease. Without hope of a home or a future.

        Well done Trolls. You have achieved your heinous goals.

        I can tell you one thing, Hilary Clinton who is a social Democrat is far more decent and gifted than you will ever be.

        . Keep rubbishing her and Crawl back to your sick Trump man.
        .

    • Chooky 5.2
      8 October 2016 at 12:11 pm

      +100 Siobhan…well said …Clinton is for the bankers first and foremost and the Clinton Foundation…the fact that Sanders was rolled by the Democrats should give no one cause for celebration…an ominous sign as to how corrupt the Democrats are

      ‘Even Wall Street fears a President Trump’

      https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/361879-yahoo-secretly-us-government/

      “Thom discusses Wall Street’s wariness about a President Trump with the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Mark Weisbrot…

      • dukeofurl 5.2.1
        8 October 2016 at 1:00 pm

        For the bankers ?
        So she gives a few speeches for Goldman Sachs for large sums ( roughly the standard amount for many others at the top tier of the ‘speech circuit’)
        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-16/talk-isn-t-cheap-as-paid-speakers-make-millions-on-mouths
        “In March, Hillary Clinton garnered $300,000 for a single speech at the University of California at Los Angeles, one of at least 27 paid talks she’s given since leaving her post as U.S. secretary of state last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In all, Hillary has earned about $6 million on the circuit, some of which she has said goes to help fund the family’s New York-based Clinton Foundation. Former first daughter Chelsea, whose fees the Clintons say also benefit the foundation, gets up to $75,000 per lecture, the New York Times recently reported.”
        Is Clinton in the pocket of UCLA too ?

        But when you consider it $250k at GS is about the annual bonus for a mid rank IT manager or a bottom rank derivatives trader. Thats every year.

        This is the UK version
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-first-rule-of-goldman-sachs-bonuses-is-you-do-not-talk-about-them-9974043.html

        If Clinton was really corrupt she would be getting a lot more zeroes. Instead she and Bill have a well regarded Clinton foundation which works on charitable causes and yes gives them a platform to promote themselves. Compare with Trumps phony foundation.
        Or the big fat zero George W Bush is doing in his post presidency years.

        • Chooky 5.2.1.1
          8 October 2016 at 2:46 pm

          re : ” a well regarded Clinton foundation which works on charitable causes”

          ‘ “Clinton Foundation Is Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions”, Analyst Charges In Stunning Takedown’

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-07/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-epic-proportions-analyst-charges-stunning-takedown

          ‘Clinton Foundation Scandal’

          http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-foundation-scandal/

          • joe90 5.2.1.1.1
            8 October 2016 at 2:59 pm

            Yawn….. a month later, zilch, nada, nothing. Bit like the alleged rapist’s big reveal of nothing a few days ago.
            /

          • dukeofurl 5.2.1.1.2
            8 October 2016 at 3:30 pm

            You do realise zerohedge is itself a front for Wall St traders

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog

            ” Ivandjiiski has a multimillion-dollar mansion in Mahwah, N.J., and Backshall lives in a plush San Francisco suburb—not exactly reflections of Pitt’s anticapitalist icon. “What you are reading at Zero Hedge is nonsense.

            And you shouldn’t support it,” Lokey wrote in an e-mail. “Two guys who live a lifestyle you only dream of are pretending to speak for you.”

            Pushing an anti-establishment view for the masses while living like kings- who would think the sort of people who get sucked in by their clickbait pap

            or as one the writers said about his time at Zerohedge
            ““I can’t be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It’ s wrong. Period.

            • marty mars 5.2.1.1.2.1
              8 October 2016 at 4:49 pm

              + 1 too much sunlight fot some i suspect

              • Chooky …
                8 October 2016 at 5:18 pm

                let the sun shine in :

                ‘ ‘I’m kind of far removed’: Clinton admits estrangement from middle class in Wall Street paid speech” ‘

                https://www.rt.com/usa/362008-clinton-speeches-wall-street/

                “The struggles of the middle class are something Hillary Clinton once admitted in a paid speech she is “far removed” from, thanks to the “fortunes” she and her husband “enjoy,” a WikiLeaks-posted email shows. She also admitted she “did all she could” for Wall Street to prosper.

                These are just two excerpts from over two dozen paid speeches Clinton gave to Wall Street giants behind closed doors between 2013 and 2015.

                “I’m kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy,” Clinton told members of Goldman-Black Rock in February 2014. “I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged.”…

                The agency also arranged Hillary Clinton’s speeches, which earned $675,000 from three events at Goldman Sachs and reportedly $3 million for speaking at banks and financial firms.

                Carrk “flagged” some 25 excerpts that he titled, presumably highlighting the parts the campaign had to take care of: “CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH,” “CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY,” and “CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING” to name a few.

                Clinton’s links to Wall Street is something that she and her team have been trying to downplay since the start of her presidential campaign in April 2015….

                • Chooky …
                  8 October 2016 at 5:29 pm

                  Let the Sun Shine in

                • marty mars …
                  8 October 2016 at 7:59 pm

                  Trump is your man I get it. Good for you. I disagree.

                  https://youtu.be/0J1sOQdvudc

                • re-blooded …
                  9 October 2016 at 11:31 am

                  What’s your problem with this statement? Clinton IS “far removed” from economic struggles (that’s not the same as being ill-informed or uncaring; it just means she’s not experiencing these struggles). I’m pretty sure she does “enjoy” the benefits wealth; it would be dishonest to say otherwise. Go on and read the rest of the statement.

                • re-blooded …
                  9 October 2016 at 11:34 am

                  What’s your problem with this statement? Saying that she’s kind of far removed isn’t the same as saying that she doesn’t care or is ill-informed; it’s just acknowledging that she’s a wealthy person. Ditto the “enjoy” statement. Do you think she would prefer not to be wealthy? Go on and read the rest of the statement, which is about creating a fairer society.

      • Infused 5.2.2
        8 October 2016 at 6:21 pm

        Wall Street fears trump because they won’t get the back Handes Clinton will line up.

  6. rhinocrates 6
    8 October 2016 at 11:43 am

    The yuuugest, classiest mine shafts of course.

  7. Lanthanide 7
    8 October 2016 at 12:24 pm

    I’m beginning to wonder whether Trump will quit before the election. Better to bow out now and claim it wasn’t a defeat, than go to the polls and be proven a loser.

    Nah, pulling out and not seeing it through would be worse. Having the courage to face up to a defeat is more honourable than running.

    And there’s always the possibility for black swan events to change everything. Assange previously claimed he had stuff on Clinton that would see her indicted (seems less likely the case, now). War could unexpectedly break out. Clinton could be assassinated or have a serious health scare.

  8. Adrian Thornton 8
    8 October 2016 at 12:36 pm

    Of course Trump is a disaster but I cannot believe that Clinton is being pushed here as a progressive…

    There is a very good reason why Republican War Hawks are flocking to Clinton, and Clinton welcomes their endorsements with open arms, because they are two sides of the same coin, American exceptionalist of the most radical and extreme kind…
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/
    http://original.antiwar.com/daniel-mcadams/2016/03/02/panicked-neocon-armchair-warhawks-penning-harshly-worded-letter-on-trump-foreign-policy/

    Hillary employing Wasserman Schultz the same day she was forced to step down from the DNC after the Wikileaks documents exposed her corruption. The statement was clear…., indulge in anti democratic, corrupt behavior for the Clintons, and you can be sure you will be looked after.

    Clinton..Wall street, where do you want me to start, do you really believe that those wall st criminals would give all those millions of dollars to Clinton, and not want those millions to turn into a huge profit…unfettered neoliberal capitalism is what Clinton represents end of story, everything else the Clintons do good or bad are just there to support this core Clinton/DNC ideology.

    Support who you like, but don’t sell her as a progressive.

    • Chooky 8.1
      8 October 2016 at 12:43 pm

      +100

    • dukeofurl 8.2
      8 October 2016 at 1:05 pm

      of course she not a complete ‘progressive’ by our standards. This is the US
      You just have to be grateful for Corbyn and wait for him to change the world.

      • Siobhan 8.2.1
        8 October 2016 at 1:41 pm

        Hillarys position as a Progressive is as convincing as Obama’s Nobel for being a Peacemaker.
        Hence her celebrated endorsement from her hero, and yet another ironic Nobel Peace prize winner…Henry Kissinger.

        She is only winning the Election due to the total lack of competition from The Republicans….a significant number of Americans, the undecideds, and the ‘anyone but Trump’ and the “lesser of two evils” voters, clearly don’t buy into her ‘Progressive’ credentials.

  9. Keith 9
    8 October 2016 at 1:05 pm

    Could it be as simple as he’s not supposed to win because that is not in the script. I mean its exactly what it looks like to me.

    Were I the Koch Brothers or sundry other billionaires whose investments control democracy in the US, my biggest fear of not getting tailor made result would be some random candidate gaining underdog status and winning. To ensure that doesn’t happen, and the two party system almost guarantees that anyway, meet Hillary Clinton, a well known quantity and most importantly totally reliable as far as they are concerned.

    The Clinton’s and or their “foundation” are well known donor recipients, all legit it seems, that doesn’t make it right of course but legit nonetheless. There are many articles on the internet on this subject and here is one off the top https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career. They are for hire and Hillary is by far the best investment a wealthy man could make. Bernie Sanders was concerning but the Democrats election process knee capped him from the word go.

    Therefore the other guy from their awful two party system had to be a fill in until the damned silly vote the public think they are getting as part of democracy is over. He has to be a real enough threat but he has to lose and he too must be reliable.

    One of many examples of how to lose is that of his campaign spokeswomen, Katrina Pierson, who wears a bullet studded necklace that she is apparently proud of. Pierson is quoted as saying “what the point of having nuclear weapons is if the U.S. is afraid to use them?” WTF, that insane quip is electoral suicide is it not, yes it will appeal to the deeply paranoid and the cross burners but it will scare the bejesus out of your average sensible American: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/19/kristina-pierson-trump-spox-what-good-nuclear-tria/

    Every time Trump starts closing in on the polls, out comes one of the many crazy’s on his team accompanied by the stupid vote losing comments from them or the man himself and down he goes.

    To me the whole farce looks way too contrived to be taken seriously. I really really feel for US citizens and for democracy as a whole!

    • RedLogix 9.1
      8 October 2016 at 1:24 pm

      Or perhaps as a few observers have noted, the USA is, like the Romans before them, transitioning from it’s Republican era to an age of Emperors.

    • locus 9.2
      8 October 2016 at 8:46 pm

      the Koch brothers have stacked the Trump team – maybe as you suggest so they have a two-way bet. But my guess is they don’t want Hillary in, because in their world view she is a progressive (after all, she is a she) and they don’t own her

      They really want Trump across the line cause they know they can own him – and if the polls keep diverging watch for them to replace him with Pence somehow. This would ensure their complete control of the US

      • Keith 9.2.1
        9 October 2016 at 7:19 am

        As I said the Clintons are for hire if you pays the money. They are the Uber cabs of US politics.

        Hillary is about as progressive as your average millionaire MP and on the same page for personal gain. It should safely be business as usual for corporate America and they’re the only entities who matter here.

  10. Colonial Viper 10
    8 October 2016 at 1:45 pm

    An easy win for Trump come Nov 8 remains my prediction.

    Sadly, the political analysis in this post is going to be shown up in the next few weeks to be not just desperately lacking, but also thoroughly out of touch with the ordinary electors of the USA.

  11. Observer Tokoroa 11
    8 October 2016 at 1:53 pm

    .
    . Hi Siobhan

    . Clearly you cannot see one good thing within Hillary Clinton. You screech your displeasure to us all. Endlessly.

    . Why did you not get Dolly Parton to take her place? Or, Mrs Putin if Dolly is tied up with cosmeticians.

    .You miss so many wide open opportunities Siobhan. Don’t you?

    .

  12. AmaKiwi 12
    8 October 2016 at 2:04 pm

    @ Colonial Viper

    People vote emotions, not reason and logic.

    That’s why my comment above (1.2). The polling gaps between Trump/Clinton are smaller than they were for Brexit/Remain.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      8 October 2016 at 2:07 pm

      Yes indeed. However some people already believe that “Donald Trump’s run at the White House is over [because long list of irrelevancies].”

      • te reo putake 12.1.1
        8 October 2016 at 3:04 pm

        Non consensual sexual acts are irrelevancies? Sounds familiar. Where have I heard that line before?

        • rhinocrates 12.1.1.1
          8 October 2016 at 3:22 pm

          It appears that CV is trying to be Trump’s own Mike Hosking.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.2
          8 October 2016 at 3:50 pm

          Ask Bill Clinton, then and ask Hillary who enabled that behaviour.

          • Lanthanide 12.1.1.2.1
            8 October 2016 at 3:58 pm

            So you are saying that Hillary knowingly allowed Bill Clinton to carry out non-consensual sex acts.

            I think you need to get a grip on what you’re actually saying.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.2.1.1
              8 October 2016 at 4:31 pm

              And then personally or politically attacked the victims if they had the audacity to try and raise complaints or prosecutions against Bill Clinton.

              • Lanthanide …
                8 October 2016 at 4:32 pm

                🙄

                • rhinocrates …
                  8 October 2016 at 4:41 pm

                  Some sort of premeditated lesbian assault by proxy then. Sort of – some lizards are a bit ambiguous about gender. There’s a species that’s parthenogenic.

                  Sick jokes aside, there is a misogynistic streak here in the assumption that a woman is always to blame somehow in sexual assault cases, either being to blame as the victim for not taking precautions or as Trump says, not being able to “satisfy” her husband who commits the assaults or as the delirious CV says, by “enabling.”

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    8 October 2016 at 5:02 pm

                    “Enabler” was the term used by Gennifer Flowers to describe Hillary Clinton with regards to Bill Clinton’s long history of predatory sexual behaviour.

                    I didn’t pick the term out of nowhere.

                    Other prominent people have also used the term to describe how Hillary Clinton supported (enabled) Bill Clinton’s predatory sexual behavour.

                    From a piece published by a US newspaper of record:

                    The New York Post ran Huffington’s column under a provocative headline: “Sex-addict-in-chief and the first enabler.” The Chicago Sun-Times went with “Hillary the enabler stands by her man.”

                    • Chooky …
                      8 October 2016 at 5:04 pm

                      +100…well said CV

                    • Kiwiri …
                      8 October 2016 at 5:11 pm

                      Arianna Huffington wrote about it and used the term e……-in-chief almost two decades ago

                    • rhinocrates …
                      8 October 2016 at 5:13 pm

                      Of course you didn’t pick it out of nowhere. Somewhere someone will have said something and google can pluck it out for you. “Enabler” is a word that many paranoids cling to because it “confirms” invisible or imaginary connections.

                      Provenence is unimportant. It was bullshit then, it’s bullshit now. The New York Post – not the Times – is a sensationalist right wing tabloid and hardly a newspaper of record and Huffington was at the time a right wing activist before having a Damascene conversion.

                      The fact remains is that you’re twisting logic and drawing on conservative right wing propaganda sources to show that in cases of sexual assault, once again it’s a woman that’s really to blame.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 October 2016 at 5:15 pm

                      What should concern people is how far and how deep Hillary tries to hide her multi-decade long craving for power.

                      And the many things that she has done along the way to protect and enable Bill, in order so that he could help her move further along her own road to success.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 October 2016 at 5:17 pm

                      The fact remains is that you’re twisting logic to show that in cases of sexual assault, once again it’s a woman that’s really to blame.

                      In this case, it is, and more to the point, some of Bill Clinton’s victims have said so explicitly.

                    • rhinocrates …
                      8 October 2016 at 5:30 pm

                      The point is that “enablement” is bullshit here because it exists purely in someone’s mind or opinion. A person is reponsible for the acts that they themselves commit.

                      As Trump is responsible for his confessed (or bragged-about) sexual assaults and possible rape.

                      And having a long career and ambition in a woman is “craving for power”. Okaaaay. It must be enablement because she has an amoral lust for power and because she has an amoral lust for power she was willing to enable it. Circular or self-justifying reasoning there all without evidence.

                      I think I’ll invest in tinfoil.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 October 2016 at 5:36 pm

                      The point is that “enablement” is bullshit here because it exists purely in someone’s mind or opinion. A person is reponsible for the acts that they themselves commit.

                      Of course.

                      Hillary Clinton is responsible for the acts that she herself has committed. For instance, defending Bill Clinton’s predatory sexual conduct in public, in the media, and on the campaign trail; also for personally and politically attacking and denigrating Bill’s female victims when they tried to come forward with allegations against her husband.

                      Boston Globe: Barbara Ehrenreich, a feminist writer and social critic, says there is something “unseemly” in how Hillary Clinton repeatedly rescues her husband from reports of extramarital affairs and then leads the damage-control operation. “If it helps her in the polls, that’s all she cares about,” says Ehrenreich, who say she lost respect for Hillary Clinton “a long time ago.” “If we were talking about alcohol, we’d use the term ‘enabler’ for Hillary,” Ehrenreich says. “At the least, there is a strange mutual dependency between them, and she is almost complicit: He has adventures, and she will clean up after them.

                    • rhinocrates …
                      8 October 2016 at 5:40 pm

                      Pop psychobabble from the armchair.

                      Now about Trump’s confession to multiple sexual assaults?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 October 2016 at 8:21 pm

                      A person is reponsible for the acts that they themselves commit.

                      Nice words, but when it comes down to Hillary’s enabling of Bill’s predatory sexual behaviour, and her public and political attacks on Bill’s victims, it seems that you don’t believe that at all.

                      Pop psychobabble from the armchair.

                      In fact, instead of holding Hillary responsible for what she did as per your set standard, you’re quite willing to dismiss her actions.

                    • rhinocrates …
                      8 October 2016 at 8:28 pm

                      What actions? This “enabling” is psychobable. You may as well say “enchantment”.

                      “Seems” Projection. ie., lies.

                      Ehrenreich’s article is reflecting the fantasies of the day like “Satanic child abuse”. I know very well alcoholics don’t need “enablers” from my own experience when I was drinking. I didn’t need any “enablers”. Nor did other alcoholics I know.

                      Again, what is your view of Trump’s admitted sexual assaults and possible rapes, without any nonsense about how the New York bankers or whoever made him do it?

                      None of your diversions, because that’s what they are. I’m not playing that game for you.

                      It’s obvious that you’re a hypocrite, claiming that these things are bad… except when Trump does them. Even he admits to some of them and that they are awful. Where does that leave you?

                    • RedLogix …
                      8 October 2016 at 11:31 pm

                      What actions? This “enabling” is psychobable.

                      It’s a pretty well established concept. Often closely linked with co-dependency.

    • Lanthanide 12.2
      8 October 2016 at 3:40 pm

      “That’s why my comment above (1.2). The polling gaps between Trump/Clinton are smaller than they were for Brexit/Remain.”

      No, they weren’t / aren’t.

      The average over polls in this set had Remain at 48% and Leave at 46%, in other words a 2 point lead: https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/ Undecided was a pretty high 6%, or 3 times larger than the gap between the options. Clearly the polling was very close.

      538 are currently showing Clinton with a 5.6% national average lead over Trump, with Gary Johnson at 6.6%. Total undecideds/3rd party are 8% and dropping. This is for their polls-only forecast.

      Furthermore, saying “the polling in the UK got brexit wrong, so I won’t believe the polling in the US either” is frankly pretty infantile. The races are completely different, and the polling record in the US has been very good of late, whereas the polling in the UK 2015 general election was terrible.

      The races themselves are very different as well; in the US it is 50 individual state elections that decide the overall vote, whereas in the UK is was just a single vote. Therefore if you have a model that gets 48 out of 50 states correct in the US, you’re doing pretty well – a 96% success rate for your predictions. But with the Brexit vote in the UK, if you get the result wrong, eg 0 out of 1 predictions correct, then you have a 0% success rate.

  13. UncookedSelachimorpha 13
    8 October 2016 at 2:11 pm

    Trump the buffoon is of course much more dangerous than he seems:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html?_r=1

    Apologies for Godwinning, but there really is a surprising parallel. And if it isn’t Trump, others are capable of following this model.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      8 October 2016 at 2:51 pm

      And now Clinton has put out an ad saying that Donald Trump is going to start a nuclear war.

      So are we now saying that Trump is Hitler on Nukes?

      This is pretty pathetic and desperate stuff from the liberal left.

      • te reo putake 13.1.1
        8 October 2016 at 3:00 pm

        Er, did you not read the post? The ad is an update of a successful one from the sixties. It’s based around the actual words of your hero, who really does seem to be rather keen on nukes. And war.

        • Lanthanide 13.1.1.1
          8 October 2016 at 3:54 pm

          CV doesn’t actually believe anything Trump says, because he knows deep-down, Trump is a peace-nik and not a warmonger, and that you can’t trust anything a politician says (especially if you don’t want it to be true).

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 13.1.2
        8 October 2016 at 5:17 pm

        I wasn’t really thinking about the invasion of Poland…more that Hitler was dismissed as a fool and buffoon initially, and considered unelectable. He also had a highly cynical but very effective view on the best way to manipulate crowds and popular opinion (ignore facts, lie, assume your audience is fairly dim, appeal to emotions not logic, lie, shout down opponents, lie etc).

        Have a read of the link – it all sounds very Trumpish. As they say, nothing new under the sun.

        • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.1
          8 October 2016 at 5:26 pm

          OK I see the angle there.

          IMO there’s another half of that story, however.

          And that is how the German elites, the economic establishment, the political left, the self-styled intelligentsia of society, had in fact become largely disconnected from the concerns of the people that they were supposed to be representing, and in fact, claimed to represent.

          • rhinocrates 13.1.2.1.1
            8 October 2016 at 5:34 pm

            This compulsive need you have to make excuses – this is not the first time – for Hitler is disturbing.

            • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.1.1.1
              8 October 2016 at 5:39 pm

              If you want to believe that Hitler rose to power and operated that power within a vacuum, please feel free.

              • rhinocrates …
                8 October 2016 at 5:43 pm

                Why would I believe that Hitler rose and operated within a vacuum? He didn’t.

                It wasn’t liberals that permitted it or New York banks that “enabled” it. As I’ve explained before, there was a well established far right ideology and culture that produced Hitler and which he used.

                You are a disingenuous historical ignoramus with google.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  8 October 2016 at 5:47 pm

                  As I’ve explained before, there was a well established far right ideology and culture that produced Hitler and which he used.

                  Now you’re just making excuses for Hitler.

                  • rhinocrates …
                    8 October 2016 at 5:49 pm

                    Hurr hurr. Childish. “Which he used” is not an excuse. Was the sentence too long for you and you missed that? Should I use shorter sentences? How many syllables at most? Two?

                    Now, about Trump’s confessed sexual assaults and the rape accusation?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      8 October 2016 at 8:18 pm

                      Treat them the same way as you would treat Bill Clinton’s and also Hillary’s enabling of Bill’s behaviour.

                    • rhinocrates …
                      8 October 2016 at 8:24 pm

                      Oh, and I excused Bill Clinton where?

                      As for “enabling”, that’s tin foil hattery, pseudoscientific psychobabble for conspiracy theorists.

                      Now again, what do you think of the crimes of sexual assault and rape? The former directly admitted by your hero and the other is the basis of an accusation against him.

                      What woman “enabled” him?

                    • TheExtremist …
                      8 October 2016 at 8:29 pm

                      “tin foil hattery, pseudoscientific psychobabble for conspiracy theorists.”

                      Or what CV refers to as “news”

                    • rhinocrates …
                      8 October 2016 at 8:56 pm

                      And if it’s repeated, it’s doubly “true”. Some idiots think google is a news source when its very algorithms make it the digital incarnation of confirmation bias. It’s a solipsist’s wet dream.

  14. Stuart Munro 14
    8 October 2016 at 3:36 pm

    I must say I don’t really like Hillary – I think the brand is past its best before date. But it seems she’s copping a lot of flak that really should go to Obama. And of course Putin’s attempts to sabotage her suggest she may be better than recent news suggests.

    NZ has suffered 8 years of raging narcissism – I could not wish Trump on the US – however much they probably deserve him.

    • re-blooded 14.1
      9 October 2016 at 11:57 am

      I’m just going to respond to one aspect of this comment, Stuart; “I think the brand is past its best before date”. Clinton is not particularly old, for a US president. She’s 68; most have been in their 50’s or 60’s. Reagan, of course, was in his late 70’s (and Trump is 70). Maybe you were referring to her political beliefs, but “the brand” suggests image, and this is something female politicians (and women in general) are much more readily attacked on and judged by than men. Women are dismissed as “past their use-by date” while older men are seen as “statesmen”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age#List_of_Presidents_by_age

      • Stuart Munro 14.1.1
        9 October 2016 at 12:10 pm

        I understand that – but I don’t believe that is the substance of my disenchantment. The public also found that whatever virtue existed in the Bush brand was exhausted by the time Jeb made his run. I’d say that this brand fatigue is a feature of celebritised politics. It’s not that Hillary is old, but that she is a known quantity not associated with positive change.

        • Phil 14.1.1.1
          10 October 2016 at 9:54 am

          The public also found that whatever virtue existed in the Bush brand was exhausted by the time Jeb made his run.

          “Jeb!” was front-runner for the Republican nomination through the first half of 2015, but he was completely incapable of looking appealing to Republican primary voters when standing next to Trump. In a Trump-less contest, I think he would currently be sleep-walking toward the presidency.

  15. joe90 15
    8 October 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Bad to worse

    October 7th, 2016

    Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams has ordered a December status conference hearing after a woman, who calls herself “Jane Doe,” filed a lawsuit claiming that Trump raped her when she was 13 years old in the 1990s. This is the third attempt the plaintiff has made in filing this particular lawsuit. Last Friday, she filed an amended complaint, with a new “witness” named “Joan Doe.” The plaintiff and witnesses in the case are using pseudonyms, they say, to protect their identities.

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-case/

  16. Richard Rawshark 16
    8 October 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Never count goldilocks out. Polls, bah…

    The Trump he’s a ” cue James Brown, ” sex machine” ow

    but seriously, People thought Bush was gone too, remember.

  17. Andre 17
    8 October 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Oooh, that’s gotta hurt. When you’ve dedicated your career to trying to burn Hillary at the stake, then Hillary’s opponent is so vile you have to withdraw your endorsement.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rep-chaffetz-withdraws-his-endorsement-of-trump-229335

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      8 October 2016 at 5:30 pm

      You think this will take a point or so off Trump’s 13 point lead in Utah?

      • Andre 17.1.1
        8 October 2016 at 5:41 pm

        It actually might. But mostly there’s some pleasure in watching particularly obnoxious Republicans coming to grips with exactly what kind of vile sack of shit they’ve got for nominee.

      • Lanthanide 17.1.2
        8 October 2016 at 5:43 pm

        Since when has anyone cared about Utah?

        Also, this guy is a congressman. All the republican senators and congressmen are running for cover, trying to disassociate themselves from Trump (indeed, pretty much all of them that are facing tough battles have refrained from publicly endorsing Trump), lest the stink rub off on them and they lose their seats too.

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.2.1
          8 October 2016 at 5:51 pm

          I thought Republicans are currently predicted to hold the Senate and to hold the House?

          Also there were fears amongst Republicans that Trump would act as a general drag on their House races but this has not turned out to be so?

          • Lanthanide 17.1.2.1.1
            8 October 2016 at 6:31 pm

            538 is currently predicting 52% chance for Democrats to control the senate.

            Republicans will control the house.

            This, of course, is irrelevant to an *individual congressmen* who is most interested in whether he will keep his own seat, or not.

            Also there were fears amongst Republicans that Trump would act as a general drag on their House races but this has not turned out to be so?

            It’s hard to tell from the data that is available, because once polls for senate and house races started being taken regularly, Trump was already the nominee, so you can’t really see a clear signal in the data for what affect if any Trump has personally made.

            What is true, is what I already said – those Republicans who are facing tough races have almost entirely refrained from endorsing Trump, because they don’t want the stink to rub off on them.

            Trump’s recent implosion in the polls may yet show up in polling of the down-ballot races. Similarly, if Republicans don’t turn out on election day because they don’t want to vote for Trump, then they also won’t be voting for the rest of the ticket.

            • Macro 17.1.2.1.1.1
              8 October 2016 at 7:03 pm

              Exactly, endorsing a self declared misogynist would not endear them to a good proportion of the voting population I’ll bet they see votes going out the window with almost every thing he says over recent days.

      • Phil 17.1.3
        10 October 2016 at 10:01 am

        You think this will take a point or so off Trump’s 13 point lead in Utah?

        The Mormon population of Utah will, probably, hold their nose and vote Trump to protect a conservative majority in the Supreme Court… but that doesn’t mean they’ll like doing it.

        The House candidates in Utah are running for the hills because they don’t want to be candidate that receives the electoral punishment for being associated with a most un-Mormon brand.

    • joe90 17.2
      8 October 2016 at 5:42 pm

      Paul Ryan’s dumped him, too.

      The Speaker of the House just gave the boot to the Republican presidential nominee, because he is too toxic to be near.

      Make no mistake, Ryan’s actions had nothing to do with doing the right thing for women. Trump’s record of sexism was well documented before Speaker Ryan ever endorsed him.

      Republicans are fleeing Trump in an attempt to save their own skins. The big move by the GOP is substitute Pence for Trump, which is the equivalent of Republicans swapping the gay and woman hating half of their ticket for the woman assaulting half of the ticket. In other words, Pence for Trump isn’t a big improvement.

      http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/07/ryan-trump-wisconsin.html

      • Colonial Viper 17.2.1
        8 October 2016 at 5:59 pm

        Ryan is a safe Republican congressional district. If he’s dumped Trump, it is for other reasons, not for Trump being a drag on his polling in the House race.

        • TheExtremist 17.2.1.1
          8 October 2016 at 8:27 pm

          “If he’s dumped Trump, it is for other reasons, not for Trump being a drag on his polling in the House race.”

          Probably because being associated with Trump would be a drag on any future presidential run. What “other reasons” are there? Trump refused to say something nice at his wedding? He didn’t like the Trump golf course?

          Use the dormant organ you call a brain.

          • Colonial Viper 17.2.1.1.1
            8 October 2016 at 8:31 pm

            I do think the options you list are viable.

            One other possibility: at least some parts of the Republican power structure (which Ryan represents as Speaker) may not mind losing the White House in November just to get Trump out of their party once and for all.

  19. Peter Swift 19
    8 October 2016 at 6:49 pm

    Good one, TRP. The most honest Donald Trump topic on the standard today.

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      8 October 2016 at 7:37 pm

      Really? If you turn on your shit smeller for a second you might get a clearly different impression.

      • te reo putake 19.1.1
        8 October 2016 at 7:41 pm

        You do know Trump has apologised, right? Shouldn’t you?

      • Peter Swift 19.1.2
        8 October 2016 at 8:09 pm

        “Really?”

        Yeah, your one sucked deflected, apologist, putin’s hidden agenda donkey balls.

        Definitely number two material.

        • Colonial Viper 19.1.2.1
          8 October 2016 at 8:14 pm

          *Shrug*

          Why bother to activate your brain? Saps like you enjoy being gluttons for corporate MSM propaganda.

          • Peter Swift 19.1.2.1.1
            8 October 2016 at 8:19 pm

            Of course it’s my fault for believing the msm that love for Trump, your man Putin’s pick, makes you write and publish credibility killing third rate ball licking articles normally reserved for juvenile fandom sites.

            Dunedin labour dodged a bullet when you went postal.

          • TheExtremist 19.1.2.1.2
            8 October 2016 at 8:24 pm

            The MSM don’t need any spin to report on Trump – everything they write are the exact words straight from his mouth.

            No need to spin.

            But why bother to activate your brain? Saps like you enjoy being gluttons for oligarchic RT propaganda.

  20. Chromophore 20
    8 October 2016 at 7:16 pm

    Trump calling women fat, disgusting pigs makes him nothing more than a male chauvinist pi….

    Hmm, I guess feminism beat Trump to that sexist insult.

    • locus 20.1
      8 October 2016 at 11:22 pm

      Trump is a bully and a male chauvinist – his comment was intended to belittle and denigrate women

      using the word ‘pig’ back in the 60s was coined by activists to describe police who bullied

      male chauvinism generally means belief in the superiority of men over women

      you’re right – the phrase ‘male chauvinist pig’ is used in a derogatory way, but to infer that Trump’s sexist denigration (and sexual abuse) of women is acceptable because a denigrating phrase was/is used by others is plain wrong

      • Chromophore 20.1.1
        9 October 2016 at 6:20 am

        ‘you’re right – the phrase ‘male chauvinist pig’ is used in a derogatory way, but to infer that Trump’s sexist denigration (and sexual abuse) of women is acceptable because a denigrating phrase was/is used by others is plain wrong’

        I was not inferring the pervious use of the word by many women to describe men made Trump’s disgusting behaviour acceptable, I was simply point out the hypocrisy.

        • locus 20.1.1.1
          9 October 2016 at 7:39 am

          I was simply point out the hypocrisy.

          Pointing out the hypocrisy of women? If so, then I’d suggest you reconsider Trump’s power, control and damage inflicted when he abused Alicia Machado.

          Your pointing out this “hypocrisy” strikes me as male chauvinism.

          FYI I’m a guy and I’d be right (and not regarded by anyone as abusive) to use “male chauvinist pig” to describe Trump

          • Chromophore 20.1.1.1.1
            9 October 2016 at 1:18 pm

            It would be a hypocrite who thinks it’s offensive for someone to call another person a pig yet to believe it’s acceptable to use the word themselves.
            Pretty simple really.
            I think you might be one. Hypocrite I mean.

            • locus 20.1.1.1.1.1
              9 October 2016 at 7:54 pm

              well…. let me put it a bit more simply

              why do you think it’s okay to use this post to defend Trump (or to suggest it was okay for him to be abusive to Machado) because “Feminism” first coined the phrase “male chauvinist pi…” – which you regard as a “sexist insult”

              my last point was that if a guy uses the phrase “male chauvinist pig” about Trump nobody would regard that as abusive – except maybe a dyed in the wool Trump supporter

              • Chromophore …
                9 October 2016 at 9:43 pm

                No, I’m not defending or supporting Trump.
                I’m not suggesting that it was ok for him to be abusive to Machado or anyone else, woman or man.
                You, locus, seem to be making those assumptions based on the fact that I’ve pointed out what I believe to be the hypocrisy of some that oppose Trump.
                You are being childishly simplistic. Exactly the kind of shallow and naive “you’re-either-with-us-or-you’re- against- us” thinking that encourages those idiots like Trump, Palin and Bush.

                • locus …
                  10 October 2016 at 8:03 am

                  so you think it’s hypocrisy for people to criticise Trump’s obscene remarks about women anyone if they’ve used the phrase ‘male chauvinist pig’…

                  …was that feminists you were accusing of hypocrisy or just me?

                  “childish, simplistic, shallow naive” are unpleasant personal judgements that don’t convey depth, maturity or complexity

  21. Cinny 21
    8 October 2016 at 7:19 pm

    LMFAO too funny Trump getting snapped out. I wonder how long the person has been sitting on the recording… USA media will be lapping it up. Watch the ratings soar for the next debate.

    What can I say… tacky, tacky, tacky. Donald has no class, just like the outgoing PM of NZ.

  22. joe90 22
    8 October 2016 at 7:47 pm

    Not for the faint hearted…..

    “We All Knew About the Trafficking”-The Untold Story of Trump Model Management (Part 1)

    […]

    About a month ago I came across a Mother Jones article about Trump’s modeling agency and its treatment of a young, largely immigrant workforce. The story was, in a way the height of irony-here was a man who built an entire campaign on his hard-line stance against immigrants, and all the while his business was committing full-scale immigration fraud. But as I read on, I was struck by how much this all resembled the business model of sex trafficking-something I have researched and written about extensively.

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/6/1578544/-The-Untold-Story-of-Trump-Model-Management-A-Daily-Kos-Exclusive-Part-1

  23. rhinocrates 23
    8 October 2016 at 8:06 pm

    “Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am.

    That’s true. It’s the actions that those words are a confession of that reflect who he is.

  24. joe90 24
    8 October 2016 at 8:55 pm

    There’s probably more to come, too.

    We're posting my Sunday column early: It recounts how Trump forced himself on a young woman–in Ivanka's bedroom https://t.co/MthYPKFwtR pic.twitter.com/RvYbonLacw— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) October 8, 2016

    • joe90 24.1
      8 October 2016 at 9:12 pm

      NEW: Donald Trump allegedly tried to fire Nancy O’Dell after she rejected his sexual advances: https://t.co/8ayeOfvrRk pic.twitter.com/29qqcUsZmf— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) October 8, 2016

    • Lanthanide 24.2
      8 October 2016 at 9:46 pm

      Here’s another one:
      http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/donald-trump-woman-incident/index.html

      Another man — a colleague of Burnett’s friend — was in the boardroom at the time of the incident.

      The woman told Burnett: “Trump took Tic Tacs, suggested I take them also. He then leaned in, catching me off guard, and kissed me almost on lips. I was really freaked out. … After (the meeting), Trump asked me to come into his office alone. Was really unsure what to do. … Figured I could handle myself. Anyway, once in his office he kept telling me how special I am and gave me his cell, asked me to call him. I ran the hell out of there.”
      …
      The woman Burnett knows said Friday that hearing Trump’s line about Tic Tacs in the 2005 tape “just made me sick.”

    • joe90 24.3
      8 October 2016 at 11:32 pm

      Drip, drip….with 32 more days to go.

      In his years as a reality TV boss on “The Apprentice,” Donald Trump repeatedly demeaned women with sexist language, according to show insiders who said he rated female contestants by the size of their breasts and talked about which ones he’d like to have sex with him.

      […]

      Former producer Katherine Walker said Trump frequently talked about women’s bodies during the five seasons she worked with him and said he speculated about which female contestant would be “a tiger in bed.”

      A former crew member who signed a non-disclosure agreement and asked not to be identified, recalled that Trump asked male contestants whether they would sleep with a particular female contestant, then expressed his own interest.

      “We were in the boardroom one time figuring out who to blame for the task, and he just stopped in the middle and pointed to someone and said, ‘You’d f… her, wouldn’t you? I’d f… her. C’mon, wouldn’t you?'”

      The person continued: “Everyone is trying to make him stop talking, and the woman is shrinking in her seat.

      http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2778a6ab72ea49558445337865289508/ap-how-trumps-apprentice-moved-capitalism-sexism

  25. joe90 25
    8 October 2016 at 10:59 pm

    , De Niro puts the slipper in – Trump is blatantly stupid, a punk and a bullshit artist.

    • Chooky 25.1
      9 October 2016 at 1:15 pm

      he was great in ‘The Dear Hunter’…but he is an actor and he was playing a character

  26. Chooky 26
    8 October 2016 at 11:13 pm

    Jazzy postmodern Trump (et)

    ‘The Trumpet Shall Sound’

  27. Ross 27
    9 October 2016 at 8:30 am

    As Morrissey has said, admittedly in a British context:

    “I’ve been dreaming of a time when the English are sick to death of Labour and Tories…”

    I imagine a fair few people in the US are feeling the same way towards the two main parties.

  28. Matthew Whitehead 28
    10 October 2016 at 2:59 am

    BTW, this story is getting even better with time. There are now indications that the RNC is pulling all of its backing (ie. funding) of Trump in order to try and avoid him contaminating the down-ticket races. As Presidential Candidates, even mediocre or losing ones, normally energise down-ticket races, it’s basically a sign that the party thinks he’s so radiactive they can’t even be seen to be supporting him anymore. And this is after he secured even Ted Cruz’s endorsement, lol.