Trump has lost. Can we move on now?

I didn’t watch the debate last night, keeping my record of avoiding political bombast intact while retaining my own equanimity. But by all accounts I’ve read, Trump not only didn’t evince any semblance of a Presidential (or even rational) demeanor, but rather refused to say he’d honor the results of the election, and claimed that millions (yes, millions) of people were registered to vote who weren’t qualified. He also continued to claim that he’d build The Wall at the Mexican border, and blamed the recent accusations of sexual assault against him on Hillary Clinton.

For several days Trump has, effectively, conceded defeat before the election, trying to find someone to blame for his impending loss. But his meltdown and striking decline in the polls is due solely to him.

So can we stop going after him all over social media and concentrate on a more important issue: the Senate, which has the power to ratify Supreme Court justices? Clinton will appoint at least one, and probably more since Ruth Bader Ginsburg will surely retire soon. This is the first chance in years we might have a liberal court. A Democratic Senate will also help break the legislative/executive logjam that occurred during the Obama Presidency, when nothing was done because Republicans have become the Party of Obstruction.

159 Comments

  1. Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Yes! The Senate is key. NV, IN, PA, NH, NC. Please be sure to get out the vote!

    • Craw
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:51 am | Permalink

      I agree. Vote for divided government. With a terrible president bent on extending executive power, to which we are fated, the choice being merely which is worse, divided government is what we need.

  2. Robin Branch
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    It isn’t over until it’s over.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      Thank you Yogi.

      • BobTerrace
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:38 am | Permalink

        I would get at least half the people here don’t know what you’re talking about with Yogi Berra.

        • rickflick
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:55 am | Permalink

          I think you mean Hanna Barbera. Yogi caught for the Flintstones.

          • Randall Schenck
            Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:10 am | Permalink

            I think my favorite from Yogi, the catcher, was, When you come to the fork in the road – take it.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:32 am | Permalink

              Sometimes you can observe a lot just by watching.

            • Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

              No one goes there anymore, its too crowded.

      • Roux Brownwell
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

        “Half the stuff I said, I never said.”

    • Posted October 20, 2016 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      Nor is it over until the plus-sized woman sings.

  3. gmcnett
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    My biggest worry: that given Clinton’s unpopularity and the lack of enthusiasm for her, that people will stay home because they think, “Oh, she’s going to win anyhow, so I don’t need to vote.” This may seem far-fetched given recent polls, but I don’t think it’s too unrealistic. Not quite like a Brexit phenomenon, but similar.

    So I am reluctant to share the sentiments here of, “he lost, let’s move on.” Any pro-Hillary people or anti-Trump people need to stay motivated and actually VOTE!

    • gmcnett
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      I should add, otherwise I totally agree, the Senate is key. I’m in Missouri and have been watching our local Blunt vs. Kander race closely.

      • Dave B
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

        Without knowing either of the candidates’ merits, and hence no nasturtiums are being cast, the names of these two do lend themselves to the excellent Spoonerism of Blunder & Kant.

        • gmcnett
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

          Excellent! Love it!

        • Saul Sorrell-Till
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink

          That’s very good…

          I’ve always loved that famous(and no doubt apocryphal) story about a university dinner gathering, where one of the more verbally clumsy guests attempted to honour Her Majesty with a toast:

          “Let us glaze our arses for the queer old dean”.

          • HaggisForBrains
            Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:25 am | Permalink

            Dr Spooner, I presume.

  4. Robert Bray
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    ‘Trump has lost.’ In another context I’d repeat the adage ‘from your lips to god’s ear. . . .’ But you’re so right about the senate. Here in Illinois we have an opportunity to go + 1 in deposing a Republican in favor of Tammy Duckworth, the courageous veteran who lost her legs fighting int he Middle East and has made a solid political career over the past decade. So even though Illinois is solidly ‘blue’ presidentially, it’s crucial to have a high Democratic turnout for the senatorial vote.

    • Bruce Kopetz
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      Was T. Duckworth actually involved in “fighting” or was she booby-trapped (IED’d)?

      There’s a difference, you know.

      • GBJames
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        She was a helicopter pilot.

        What difference does it make?

        • SA Gould
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

          I agree. What difference would it have made?

      • Dragon
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:53 am | Permalink

        Tammy Duckworth was flying, as copilot, a helicopter when it was hit by an RPG. So, flying in a combat zone. Your view as to whether that counts as ‘fighting’ but it clearly wasn’t an IED behind the lines.

      • Karen Bartelt
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:34 am | Permalink

        Her helicopter took a direct hit, and she almost lost her right arm, as well. I would call this “fighting”. When you look down and notice that both of your legs are missing, I can’t imagine it would matter much if it was an IED or a missile. They’re just gone. My son was also in Iraq flying a helicopter at the same time, and was also shot down. Had he been killed, it would have mattered very little to me if it had been an IED or a missile, or small arms fire.

      • Robert Bray
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:36 am | Permalink

        As the other commenters point out, she was in the co-pilot’s seat when a rocket-propelled grenade hit her helicopter.

        But what were you implying by your question?

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

        Spoken like the chicken-hawk Georgia Republicans who ran a tv ad questioning the patriotism of Sen. Max Cleland, the Silver Star winner who left three limbs at Khe Sahn.

        • Diane G.
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

          Brings to mind one of my favorite cartoons from the Dubya era:

          http://cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=12271

          • ploubere
            Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

            sub

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

            Good one!

            Reminds me that Colin Powell, the only member of the Bush II cabinet who had served in combat, was alone in pumping the brakes in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

            • Diane G.
              Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

              He was agin it until he was for it, right? He eventually bought the WMD voodoo? I thought that was nearly as sad as John Kerry voting for the war…

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

                Yeah, Colin squandered his reputation on that speech at the UN (which had even me convinced Saddam had WMD, although I remained opposed to the invasion).

                Still, he was the only one in the situation room cautioning … well, caution. Condi was useless, and Cheney & Rumsfield, they … they … [excuse my apoplexy].

              • Diane G.
                Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

                If I believed in Satan, he’d sound a lot like Cheney!

                Back to Powell–remember when we were naive enough to believe we really had learned our lesson in Viet Nam? (Ironically, given her experience as SOS, her hawkishness is my main area of concern when it comes to Hillary…)

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:23 am | Permalink

                When Antonin Scalia gave his infamous magazine interview in which he said that Satan walks among us, I wrote somewhere that it was Nino’s way of giving a shout-out to his duck-hunting buddy Dick Cheney.

                He just chose to do it on the QT, like the Stones: “Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name!”

              • Diane G.
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:11 am | Permalink

                Ha ha ha!

  5. RichardS
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    I hope you’re right but you’re more optimistic than I am. I keep remembering Brexit and other election surprises. He could still win. All his voters come put. A lot of Liberals sit on their hands. Election machine fraud. Blacks and Hispanics stopped at the voting booth.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      I remember, in the aftermath of last year’s UK election and the Tories getting in(much to the consternation of pollsters everywhere), that there was a great deal of discussion about ‘Shy Tories’, the people who presumably didn’t want to tell anyone they were going to vote for ‘the nasty party’ and thus kept it from the polling companies. We got a surprise then and an even bigger surprise earlier this year, and in both cases the reluctance on the part of ordinary voters to identify themselves as supporters of a frowned-upon party/movement had a big part to play in the fact that we didn’t see either result coming.

      Now Donald Trump is vastly more divisive and unpopular than either the Tories or Ukip: there’s never been a more politically incorrect, ‘unfashionable’ candidate in recent history. Yet he appeals to a perfectly blatant sense of self-interest in the voters, and he even has a kernel of appeal to a certain kind of left-winger and liberal. I cannot imagine anyone I know saying they’d vote for Trump…but I can imagine some of them voting for him nevertheless. As a Briton I’d urge against complacency.

      I’m nowhere near as confident as Jerry. My feeling four or five months ago was that he was going to win, and I hate to say it but I still think it’ll happen. Like with Brexit, this is a populist uprising, and it feels inevitable.

      Like a bowel movement, this hatred of ‘elites’ and the wildly polarised anger and irrational contempt for politics-as-usual has to pass through the system at some point, and I think it’ll be on November the 8th.

      The best thing I can hope for is that he’s annihilated in the vote, doesn’t come anywhere near Clinton. Then there’ll be a lot of conspiracy theorising and whining from him and his supporters but at least they won’t be empowered by the sense that a huge chunk of America agrees with them. OTOH, if it’s close but he loses, this hard-right, nationalistic populist uprising will keep rolling down the road, empowered and angry(and that’s assuming he accepts the loss).
      If he wins…I’m building a rocket and leaving earth. You’re welcome to join me.

      • WT
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:41 am | Permalink

        Trump led polls in the GOP primaries the whole way; conventional wisdom ignored the polls because “surely he can’t win.”

        Brexit polls basically showed a toss-up (https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/746250748284047360) leading up to the referendum; conventional wisdom ignored the polls because “surely Leave can’t win.”

        Polls now say that, barring something unprecedented, he’s going to lose the general election. By a lot.

        Maybe something unprecedented does happen and somehow he wins. But the lesson that should be taken from the GOP primaries or from Brexit isn’t “Anything can happen!!!” The lesson should be “Don’t ignore the polling data in favor of your gut feelings.”

        • Saul Sorrell-Till
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:15 am | Permalink

          I don’t remember saying “Anything can happen!” in my post. Nor did I refer to the GOP primaries.

          I did reference the 2015 general election and our own homegrown version of the Bradley effect, which ended up skewing the polls in support of Labour.

          Perhaps pollsters have factored in the reluctance on the part of Americans to self-identify as Trump supporters, but I can see that being very difficult to account for: there’s never been a candidate anywhere near as repellent or as politically unfashionable as Trump.

          • WT
            Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

            I apologize — I’ve been annoyed by people citing Brexit and the GOP primaries as examples which justify hand-wringing, so your comments on Brexit p. It would probably have been more appropriate if I’d written it as a separate comment, rather than as a direct reply to you.

            I’m not aware of any pollsters adjusting for a “Shy Trumper” factor. However, FiveThirtyEight did write an article explaining why they are skeptical that there’s a “Shy Trumper” effect at play here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-probably-arent-lying-to-pollsters/

            • Saul Sorrell-Till
              Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:01 am | Permalink

              No need to apologise. Thanks for the link; it was reassuring.

              To play devil’s advocate, the only problem I can think of is that Trump has said a great deal of lunatic things since the polls cited in the article, and his support has gone down, but we don’t know if the Shy Trumper effect has only become a necessary tactic on the part of his voters recently; since he really left the atmosphere of Planet Sanity.
              They may not have been that shy when he was talking about his wondrous wall, and banning Muslims, but when he starts being revealed for a borderline rapist and tax-dodger; someone who encourages Russian intervention in the American democratic process; that’s a different order of embarrassing. I suspect the social stigma attached to voting for him has grown since the primaries and the caucuses, as the kinds of things he’s been accused of are more unacceptable than simple GOP anti-immigrant rabble-rousing. It’s difficult to know if that’ll be an issue. I hope to the hopeless heavens that it won’t.

              Still, I’m glad people are taking the time to examine things in such detail. It’s a pleasingly rigorous article.

              • Saul Sorrell-Till
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink

                Of course over here ‘Shy Trumper’ means something quite different. Let’s just say you wouldn’t want to get stuck in a lift with either sort.

  6. eric
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    He held it together for the first 30 minutes, hitting all the standard GOP talking points: nominate conservative judges, fight Roe v Wade, tax reductions for the rich will be payed for by trickle down economics, and so on. Had the debate stopped then, I would’ve been worried that he just shored up support amongst the more mainstream Republicans and independents.

    But, the last hour or so he just lost it. She schooled him on foreign policy, he invoked several different conspiracy theories, and his comment about not necessarily honoring the election outcome drew gasps from the crowd and an incredulous repeat of the question from Wallace. And then there was this gem: “I’ve never apologized to my wife, because I have nothing to apologize for.” Buh-bye, 53% of the vote.

    I agree with @2,3,5, that we shouldn’t count our chickens before they’ve hatched. But this certainly looks like it will be the biggest blowout since 1980.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      I hope so. A blow-out would be the ideal result, as a close loss would pretty much amount to a win for Trump.

      The guy is the American equivalent of Mugabe, Gadaffi, Erdogan, etc. – the only thing he’s missing is political power. He talks like a dictator, he thinks like a dictator and, to the extent that he’s been able to get away with it in a western democracy with rule of law, he acts like a dictator. The thought of him getting in terrifies me like no other political event of my life.

  7. Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    While I agree that he’s probably lost (538 has Hillary at about 84% chance of winning as of an hour ago), and I agree that the Senate is important, some areas aren’t quite as locked up as IL. In fact, down here in rural NC, Trump is still very popular, and the battle for the state goes on.

    • darrelle
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:20 am | Permalink

      Going by 538’s analysis the Ds have a 74.3 chance of taking the Senate. Yesterday it was over 80%. I sure would like to see it go back up.

      It looks like NC is on the cusp and may, along with 1 or 2 other states, be the deciding factor on the make up of the Senate.

    • Jonathan Dore
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 2:28 am | Permalink

      “Chance of winning” polls worry me. The more heavily they favour Clinton, the more likely it is Sandersite purists won’t bother to vote for her because they think she’ll win anyway. It’s hard to overstate how much of a disaster that would be.

      (I recognize that Bernie Sanders has done excellent work in supporting Clinton’s campaign; I invoke his name only as a shorthand for the more diehard of his followers.)

      • GBJames
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 7:10 am | Permalink

        I don’t worry much about Sanders’ supporters. (I was one.) While there is a small number of them who are silly enough to vote for Jill Stein, nearly all of us are able to distinguish catastrophe from challenge.

  8. GBJames
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    No, we can’t move on. The Republican Party is in freefall and with a base of voters who desperately want to live in a dictatorship of some sort. This isn’t a simple contest for the presidency. It isn’t really about Trump except that he is the kind of “leader” that the Republican electorate is capable of following.

    IMO the only “good” outcome of this election will be if the Republicans are so badly defeated that they lose up and down the ballot, everywhere.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      Exactly. Anything else would further empower this movement – and it’s a huge movement that has its echoes in every western country on earth.

      It is also too big and politically unaffiliated to be put off by one single person losing an election. It’s a wave of pure emotion and anger, and I suspect that the best that the rest of America can do is try and dissipate its impact when it finally hits. A big loss for Trump would be a good start.

    • Carl
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

      I have a different take.

      I also want Trump to lose badly, but prefer Republican majorities to remain in control of congress. Though I will vote for her, I don’t like much of Clinton’s policy agenda, and want a solid counterbalance in congress.

      I want the Republican primary process redefined so the current “base” is not influential beyond it’s numbers. The party should get a clue from the fact that almost anyone, other than the chosen nominee, could have beaten Clinton.

      Believe me (get it?) there are many Republicans who detest Trump, so don’t be so hard on them in general.

      • GBJames
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

        I think your different take is naive. Trump didn’t create the Republican Party so irresponsible that it refuses to fulfill even the most basic responsibilities of governance. He didn’t make John McCain come out and promise to not allow a President Hillary Clinton to fill judicial vacancies.

        Divided government in the hands of people like Ted Cruz and Louis Gohmert is not something that our country needs. Complete disfunction is not “counterbalance”.

        • ploubere
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

          Precisely.

        • Carl
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:49 am | Permalink

          “My take” might be stupid or bad judgement by your lights, but it’s certainly not naive. You would have to know what I value and the extent of my knowledge to make that condescending claim.

          Some people like the government to do a lot, I like when the government does little, but not nothing – government does have a proper function. For the record, acting promptly on Supreme Court nominations is one example. Creating vast, Utopian programs is not.

          • GBJames
            Posted October 21, 2016 at 7:03 am | Permalink

            Vast utopian programs? We suffer from vast utopian programs? You mean like Social Security?

            I can see why you are so concerned.

            • Carl
              Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

              It saddens me that you seem unconcerned. There are many like you. That’s why I want the checks and balances of our system to thwart them.

              I was thinking more of ACA (Obama care). While I like the fact that some people have health care who formerly didn’t, I’m afraid it won’t be long until the flaws of this program are apparent to anyone who will look – ever rising costs and growing shortages of health care professionals.

              Since you mention Social Security, that’s another excellent example. Now that I’m at the top of this Ponzi pyramid, there is a transfer of money from college debt burdened young people, who cannot afford it, to me, someone who doesn’t need it and would have had a larger income stream had I been able to keep and invest the taxes I paid into the system.

              • GBJames
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

                It saddens me that you apparently think things were better before ACA. And that you don’t think it could be improved so that costs would be contained.

                But I see your point. What a horror that we allow government to improve the lives of old people who actually do need it. Things were sure good for folk before the program was created.

              • Carl
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

                I did not claim the ACA cannot be improved. It can, and I hope it will. The fact it is so large and unwieldy will make that very difficult. The fact those designing the hoped for improvements will be politicians and government bureaucrats playing to favored constituencies, even more so.

                Your irony concerning social security is just off base. You should substitute some knowledge for your emotional reasoning. Not liking the system set up by social security is not equivalent to wanting old people to starve or whatever lurid fantasy you might hold. Wouldn’t it be better if rich old people like Trump and me weren’t sucking money from struggling young people? And then the system collapses and the young people get nothing when they are old?

                You are the victim of what F. A. Hayek called “The Fatal Conceit” in a book by the same name.

              • GBJames
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

                Got it, Carl. People who don’t agree that Medicare, Social Security, and the ACA aren’t “vast Utopian programs” and that they are very much better than what existed before them are simply “emotional”.

                I’ll ignore your insult. But I won’t engage with you further here.

              • Carl
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

                You again mischaracterize what I wrote. Don’t you realize that’s intellectual dishonesty, and that it’s obvious to anyone who reads carefully?

                I’ll spell it out for you – I did not claim:

                People who don’t agree that Medicare, Social Security, and the ACA aren’t “vast Utopian programs” and that they are very much better than what existed before them are simply “emotional”

                I claimed the reasoning of G.B. James (you) – on this issue as demonstrated by what you wrote – was emotional and not based on any knowledge made apparent by that writing.

                People who favor the three mentioned programs would be hard pressed to argue they are not vast. That they are Utopian in their conception seems almost as obvious. Whether their reasons are emotional or well reasoned, I don’t know.

              • SA Gould
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

                “That they are Utopian in their conception seems almost as obvious.” Not to me they aren’t. Other countries manage to provide for their citizens. The system should be fixed, not abandoned.

              • Carl
                Posted October 21, 2016 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

                I agree Social Security and Medicare cannot be merely abandoned at this stage, at least not without immense harm. ACA may be approaching that point.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

      I concur!

  9. Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    Listen closely and you’ll recognize a redundant retort from Donald “Two Times” Trump: No loser. No loser. You’re the loser.

  10. Mike Cracraft
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    What’s even more astounding is that Texas which has been the playground of the crooked tea party GOP is now moving towards a Democratic victory. This would break at least 20 years of stagnation if it occurs.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

      That’s fantastic news!

      Oh, for the days of Ann Richards and Molly Ivins!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

      If Texas were to break blue (or even reliably purple) for good, the Republicans might never win another national election. It’s the only electoral heavyweight state they’ve had a lock on; they could never reach 270 without it.

      Then again, the GOP might not survive as a viable national party after this election.

  11. BobTerrace
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    I definitely do not think we can forget about Trump yet. The Senate is only one key; the house is another. Democrats had the senate for a couple years but not the house, and nothing got done.

  12. Marta
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    “So can we stop going after him all over social media and concentrate on a more important issue: the Senate, which has the power to ratify Supreme Court justices?”

    NO. No, we can’t.

    First, we must be certain that he is defeated. THEN we can stop going after him.

    Many a game has been won by an underdog in the last five minutes of the game.

    If this snot cannon rises from the dead because his opponents prematurely declare his defeat, it would NOT BE A GOOD THING.

    • Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      “NO. No, we can’t.”

      I agree, and not only for the reasons you stated, but because the two are directly related. The larger the margin between Clinton, and Trump the more likely it is that congressional candidates will be elected on her coattails.

      A couple of pundits last night even suggested, though it’s unlikely, that if the Clinton campaign continues to motivate her supporters, and part of that includes attacking Trump, along with his “the election is rigged” mantra which could make republicans think voting is pointless, the house might even be in play, or at the least the margin could be shrunk significantly.

      • Diane G.
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

        Oh, if only!

  13. jeremy pereira
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    The Five Thirty Eight web site gives him a 13% chance of winning on their polls only forecast. That’s like playing a game of Russian Roulette with a revolver with eight chambers. That’s not something I’d be comfortable with doing. It’s not over yet.

    However, I completely agree that effort needs to be put in to winning the Senate. If Hillary wins but the Senate remains Republican, nothing at all will happen for four years. Apparently, it is possible for a Republican Senate to block Supreme Court appointees for four years. These people are so full of bile, that they could hamstring their whole country out of spite against Hillary.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

      You mean, they could continue to hamstring the whole country…

      • jeremy pereira
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 7:44 am | Permalink

        yes

        • SA Gould
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:34 am | Permalink

          Democrats never really helped President Obama when he was elected. For the best (and maybe most accurate) take on the Democratic Party, Google “mr fish cartoon democrats spine”.

  14. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Yes, the continuing saga to unfold is the demise of the g*d only party (GOP). I’ll guess there will be two at first, one moderate brand that will go back to the days of rich, white power with little reference to those standard republican issues. Then there will be the religious, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, white power, you name it party. There will always be the conservative party because lots of these people do not like change at all.

    Anyway, Hilary had better fight like hell to fix the tax structure of this place or she will just be spinning programs that make no sense. Good luck with that.

  15. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Did someone mention the Supreme Court and the Party of Obstruction? John McCain sys they plan to continue earning that label.

    This week, McCain promised that “we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”

    GOP obstructionism gone haywire: No new Supreme Court justices until the next Republican president?

    McCain and other GOP spokespersons have been ‘clarifying’ his remark since.

  16. Geoff Toscano
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    It’d be great if Obama were appointed to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t it! The apoplectic rages and classroom antics of republican senators trying to block the appointment would be worth it on its own.

    Politically I doubt it would happen. It might just be too tender a wound when Clinton will already now be thinking about re-election.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

      It would indeed be great, though.

      He’s young, politically speaking, so it doesn’t have to happen right away, though if by any chance the Dems do regain control of Congress it sure would be sweet to do it soon.

  17. Diana MacPherson
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    I think one good thing is coming out of this whole Trump fiasco and that is people just may be starting to understand what everyday sexism looks like. It’s given people the opportunity to start discussions about it and I think that’s worth stating and reviewing.

  18. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    I’ve just had my final say on Trump here, in this morning’s Hili dialogue of all places.

    I had intended only a brief comment on your item about the Saturday Night Massacre. But I’ve been brooding on this, and the rest kinda spilled out. I put it up before seeing this post.

    I’ll do my damnedest to abstain from Trump bashing in this spot from here on out.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      Yes, and it’s too bad you cannot tell us what you really think. Orange flabby body is pretty good. It’s good that he is considering a network of his own, kind of like Oprah. Then we can turn from just bad to really obnoxious.

    • Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      Love your statement (on the Hili page).

      We love to vilify villains! That’s part of the fun!

  19. Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    One more thing. I’m especially fed up with the “rigged” gambit. This man is a billionaire without brains, gropes women with impunity, doesn’t pay Federal income tax, has been promoted as a legitimate political phenomenon, is considered by many to be a heroic leader of mythological proportions, and is taken seriously by some when he suggests that dead people will rise up to vote against him after being exhumed by liberal undertakers. Yes, something is definitely rigged.

    • Mark Joseph
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

      This is normal rethuglican paranoia. The technical term is “psychological projection.”

  20. Historian
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Yes, it is critically important that the Democrats retake the Senate and control approval of Supreme Court nominees. But, we must not forget that even if Trump goes away (which is uncertain at this point) and goes back to doing what he does best – being a professional con artist – it is virtually certain that the right wing movement he unleashed will not go away. The hard right, consisting primarily of disaffected non-college educated white men, will not go away. Due to their psychological insecurities, they will irrationally hate Hillary with a passion equal to their hatred of Obama. We can expect an increase in right wing militias, i.e., terrorist groups, and a concomitant rise in violence. The Republican establishment egged on extremist elements with the belief that they can be controlled. It created a monster, Trump being the current incarnation, which will not be subdued. On November 8th Hillary will hopefully have kept the barbarians from breaking down the gate, i.e., the democratic system, but they will still be banging on it.

    • ascanius
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

      But the splitting of the GOP into 2 camps will make it easier for Dems to make electoral advances.

      The GOP will be weakened for several cycles by the rise of the extremist Breitbart-Trump wing, even as Dems profit from favorable demographic changes.

      • Mark R.
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        I agree with Historian, but you make a good point.

  21. Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    How about focusing on taking back our freedom of speech from the Regressive Left and their army of SJWs infecting our universities with their censorship and safe spaces? Shouldn’t this be our #1 priority? Once freedom of speech goes, everything else follows shortly after.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      There is importance to that, and they at times do create problems. But they really pale in comparison to legislative gridlock, gun violence, global warming, and so forth and so on.

    • Historian
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      No, this shouldn’t be our number 1 priority. It should be stopping a proto-fascist and the far right wing from taking over our government.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      Regressive leftists (if, indeed, they even can be classified as being of the Left) may be able to stifle speech in their little campus fiefdoms, but they pose no threat whatever to the freedom of expression enshrined in the First Amendment to the US constitution.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

      They definitely need to be stifled, but that is probably best done by completely ignoring them. They only make waves now due to all the publicity they get.

  22. Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Even if we’re sure he’s lost, the loss needs to be as overwhelming and dramatic as possible in order to discourage him and his kind who might try the same tactics in the future, and to help rehabilitate our world image.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      Would anybody who is not “his kind” want to wade into the mud after this?

  23. WT
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    He’s been done since the first debate. It’s long past time to stop with nervous hand wringing over the outcome of the presidential race.

    (Also, AFAIK, there’s little evidence that people stay home if they think their candidate is in the lead — if anything, the evidence suggests a “bandwagon” effect exists.)

    However, given how many of those GOP Senate (and House!) candidates have endorsed, enabled, excused, or ignored the rise of Trump — and, I’d argue, laid the foundation with their base over the past 20+ years for a lot of his nonsense — I think there’s plenty of reason to continue going after him. He’s an anchor they tied to their own ankles. If you hope to see a Democratic Senate and gains in the House, I see no reason to cut them free from him now.

  24. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    And to think that the pundits are saying that Trump was at his best in this debate. I listened to about the last half of it.

    This morning I listened to NPR while on my way to work. They had a segment where people supporting both sides of the election discussed the debate and what they thought in general. It was amazing to hear the pro-Trump people express every trope about Hillary imaginable, including the view that the Clinton Foundation was a ‘pay to play’ foundation. That nonsense comes straight from the right wing disinformation campaign.

  25. Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    I like Sam Harris’s recent comments on the Orange One:

    [He] radiates contempt for nearly every other member of our species.

    [He] has made humiliating people—and women in particular—a central part of his brand.

    [He] lives a troubled adolescent’s fantasy of what a man should be, exposing a ruinous insecurity and moral emptiness every time he opens his mouth.

    The man lies about everything, and yet he can’t even pretend to be a good person for five minutes at a stretch.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      That’s pretty damn good. Sam has nailed Trump in a couple of his podcasts.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted October 21, 2016 at 8:38 am | Permalink

        Considering the number of so-called liberals and leftists who’ve either said they’ll never vote for Hillary or have actually come out in support of Trump with their cretinous ‘burn it all down’ mantra, the way Sam has responded to Trump’s rise has been really heartening.
        A significant minority of his supporters are not actually liberals and centrists; rather they are anti-PC, borderline alt-righters and fans of Trump into the bargain; so the fact that he came out and didn’t just criticise Trump but absolutely excoriated him renewed my respect for the man.

        In fact he’s the only person I know of who’s managed to accurately get across just how unprecedentedly bad a candidate Trump is.

        Because much of the media, right and left, is used to talking about ordinary politicians in quite extreme terms, eg. referring to Tony Blair as a ‘war criminal’, Dubya as the devil himself, Obama as a traitor who’s done more damage to America than anyone in history; when someone like Trump comes along we no longer have the requisite language to describe a candidate as extreme as him. The language we use to talk about politicians has become so overblown and hysterical, so devalued, that nothing we say has much impact any more and so it’s very difficult to convey quite how appalling Trump is. Only Sam has really managed to do an adequate job in describing the magnitude of Trump’s flaws.

        • Posted October 21, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

          One of those three descriptions is more accurate than others (the first – a war of aggression – Iraq – is what the prosecution at Nuremburg was about).

        • Carl
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

          I’ll second that. Trump’s most attractive quality is that he’s not Hillary Clinton. The cogent arguments made by Sam Harris convinced me that was not enough. I will don my Sam Harris nose plugs and vote for Clinton.

    • Carl
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

      Agree. However, Sam’s earliest comments were incisive and more than sufficient. Trump’s basic psychological make up, ignorance, lack of curiosity, and wholly unwarranted faith in his own intellect disqualify him in my eyes. Anything revealed about Trump from the first debate onward was not particularly surprising or needed as far as I’m concerned.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

      And on a lighter note, I loved Gail Collins’s remark, “I never thought I’d ever be nostalgic for Sarah Palin.”

  26. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    Trump tweets at 3 a.m. that he won debate

  27. bric
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    After the last debate, I began to wonder if Trump sees himself as a Caesar (not literally of course, he knows nothing of history) – the Great Leader who is able to push aside the mechanisms of governance through sheer force of his superior intellect, creating an autocracy to dazzle the ages; how long before he declares himself a god? Of course it didn’t end well for Caesar, but it did lead to the Empire and the Julio-Claudian Dynasty.

    • ladyatheist
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      pizza pizza!

  28. Carl
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    Both candidates had pretty bad responses concerning the Supreme Court.

    Clinton seems to think the court is another branch of the legislature. This is wrong and judges should not be partisans for any particular political ideology – except that expressed in the constitution. I do like her stance on Roe v. Wade. Her remarks on the Heller case were obtuse enough to have been made by Trump.

    Trump blathers about the “original intent” of the framers – as if we can hold a seance to determine what that is. We have what they wrote, which is what was ratified, and what they should interpret.

    We have inalienable rights. Governments are instituted to secure those rights. The court is the last line of defense in protecting the individual from the will of the majority.

    • Historian
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      “Clinton seems to think the court is another branch of the legislature. This is wrong and judges should not be partisans for any particular political ideology – except that expressed in the constitution.”

      Despite their protestations, all judges, including those of the Supreme Court, are partisan. All Supreme Court justices have either a liberal or conservative bent. This is why the liberals and conservatives have markedly different ways of interpreting the constitution. This is the way it always has been and always will be.

      • Carl
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

        Yes, human beings have biases. But many have a high degree of integrity and reasoning ability. They can read the text and the precedents and possess a sense of honor that overcomes their biases. Otherwise, one of the main pillars of American democracy is lost.

        There have been court decisions that were notoriously bad, and are now recognized as such and overturned, others that should be. A sloppy, human business no doubt. But the text of the Constitution somehow has held us together so far and one of many reasons America *is* great – contrary to a current political slogan.

        I would appreciate if you used the reply link rather than quoting me out of context. I am not saying you maliciously misrepresented my views, but you did cut them short.

        • Historian
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

          I would apologize if I thought I misrepresented your views, but I don’t see how I did that. Yes, fealty to the Constitution has kept this country together except, of course, in 1861. One reason that the presidential election is so important is that anyone with an understanding of how American government works knows that important Supreme Court decisions are often decided by a 5-4 vote, split between conservatives and liberals.

          To me, the key part of your comment is that “judges should not be partisans for any particular political ideology – except that expressed in the constitution.” Your use of the word “should” is aspirational, not reality. Supreme Court justices probably feel they are people of integrity, but it is remarkable how integrity seemingly always corresponds to a political ideology.

          • Carl
            Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

            Yes, “should” is definitely aspirational in my usage.

            That “integrity seemingly always corresponds to political ideology” is much too strong. For one example, it was the Republican nominated Chief Justice Roberts, who (wrongly in my opinion) saved the Affordable Care Act from being declared unconstitutional.

            It’s also true that many justices have clearly not followed the presumed biases of the appointing president and his (and I hope in the future, her) political cohort. Souter and Kennedy come to mind.

    • eric
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Her remarks on the Heller case were obtuse enough to have been made by Trump.

      Her stuff about toddlers was pure political theater, but she had a bit of nuance in her response that I think was legally reasonable. In Heller, SCOTUS held that both the limit on hand gun ownership and the trigger-lock requirement were unconstitutional. Clinton said she agreed the DC limit on hand gun ownership was unconstitutional, but disagreed about the trigger-lock part, saying that she thought that a requirement to store a gun with a trigger lock was a permissible qualification or condition on gun ownership.

      • Carl
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

        I missed the part where she agreed that banning handgun ownership is unconstitutional. Did she clearly say that? Good for her if she did.

        I can’t agree with a “trigger lock” law. It would turn me into a criminal if it was law here, and no toddler would be one bit safer. It’s an undue restriction on my right.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

          Even the most pro-gun-rights justices on SCOTUS have said that the Second Amendment permits “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership and usage.

          State legislatures are eminently qualified to make the determination whether restrictions such as trigger-lock requirements are “reasonable” — they can hold hearings on the matter, conduct legislative investigations, and hear testimony on the matter from experts and regular citizens alike.

          Assuming for argument’s sake that the Second Amendment fully embraces an individual right to gun ownership, such policy preferences as trigger locks are not — and need not be — enshrined in our federal constitution.

          • Carl
            Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

            “Assuming for argument’s sake that the Second Amendment fully embraces an individual right to gun ownership”

            We don’t have to assume. If the second amendment is not clear enough, the Courts Heller decision should end all doubt. To believe otherwise is a Trump-like denial of bedrock American principles.

            Yes, it’s possible a trigger lock law would could pass a constitutional test. I don’t think it should. My opinion.

            The rest is not necessarily addressed to Ken.

            For people who are “gun control” advocates, have you ever seen a trigger lock? What do you think they do? Why do you think people object to requiring them? What do you think will be accomplished by requiring trigger locks? If you think such is just a “common sense” restriction, something your refined intellect can determine while knowing nothing about guns, think again.

            Anyone who is serious about gun control should really take time to educate themselves. Your intuitions alone are not reliable. Listen to the podcasts where Sam Harris deals with the subject, that’s a good place to start.

            Are you aware every time serious noise is made to restrict gun rights, the sales of guns and ammunition skyrocket? Above all remember criminals do not particularly care what the law is, they won’t obey it if it doesn’t suit them. Please don’t annoy the law abiding people with your ignorance. An intelligently thought out public information campaign on gun safety would do more good than any legislative approach without hampering a citizen’s right and ability to defend himself or herself.

    • chris moffatt
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

      “Inalienable rights” are in the Declaration of Independence not the constitution and have no force in law. Rights are those privileges the Government will grant to you when it feels like it. Currently for instance, the Federal Government is not enforcing the “rights” enumerated in the fourth amendment.

      • Carl
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        The Declaration is founder’s announcement to the world of what they were undertaking.

        Rights are not “those privileges the government will grant…” This is a terrible misunderstanding of American liberty. Rights precede government. The constitution is a limit on government.

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Amendment 9)

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Amendment 10)

        No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Amendment 14, in part)

        Violation of rights (4th Amendment or unenumerated) does not mean they don’t exist. It means a mistake has been made and needs to be corrected. As an atheist, I concede this correction may be hard to come by.

        • chris moffatt
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

          Don’t disagree with your quoting the constitution but nevertheless nowhere in the constitution dos it say any rights are “inalienable”.
          And if the government itself not only refuses to protect rights granted under this constitution but actively violates them then those rights do not exist – they are mere privileges to be withheld at the whim of government.

          • Carl
            Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

            I agree the word “inalienable” does not appear in the Constitution. That doesn’t diminish the force of the enumerated and unenumerated rights it guarantees. I also agree the government or its agents sometimes acts illegally. Fortunately, there are remedies for that, even if they are not always immediate or effective. We don’t live in a perfect world. But one of my greatest pleasures is looking back on the world as it has been, and rejoicing at how good we actually have it now.

  29. Kevin
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    Trump n, where n is an integer.

    There are an awful lot of integers, last time I checked. It’s never over until…

    1. No religion
    2. Education for all

    Both of these feature will simultaneous give the masses their independent, critical thinking skills and fully unburden women from the misogyny justified by ancient barbarians.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

      “2. Education for all”

      I’d say the US is a prime example of the fact that universal education does nothing to enhance critical thinking skills.

  30. SA Gould
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Would be willing to bet that every reader her (and probably all of their friends)know about the house and Senate races and the importance of down ballot voting.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, but we have to worry more about the working poor and minorities and other less-privileged segments of the population who have to stand in line for hours after work in the cold November dark where the GOP has cut the number of polling places in half or even more.

  31. Billy Bl.
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    I admit following the schenanigans south of the border more than I usually do, but I got all Trumped out a while back. It’s no longer funny, just boring.

    • chris moffatt
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      I presume you are a fellow canadian. Let me tell you Canada and canadians will be drastically affected by this election if it goes badly. Remember, “when you lie down with an elephant you feel every twitch and hear every grunt”.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

        Why do you think Trudeau is desperately trying to woo Europe into trade deals with us?

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

      I can’t watch anymore. It’s just depressing.

  32. ladyatheist
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    It was hard to watch in the beginning, but then gems like the word “bigly” came out and “no, you’re the puppet” put a big smile on my face. I look forward to seeing Alec Baldwin’s take on it on SNL. The serious news shows just can’t talk about it because it is fit only for mockery.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      That’s another good thing that came out of this election – the hilarious SNL skits. Alec Baldwin’s Trump is very good. I loved the Jaws music with him looming behind Hilary.

      • Posted October 20, 2016 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

        “That’s another good thing that came out of this election – the hilarious SNL skits. Alec Baldwin’s Trump is very good.”

        Never seen it. Trump disgusts me so much I can’t even watch people impersonating him.

        • Merilee
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

          Had to watch Trevor Noah after the debate last night as a kind of palate cleanser. The show we watched mocked the first debate ( we’d been travelling for a month and though we caught the first two debates on the road, we had to catch up with taped Trevor.). Hillary was really very good last night, using some of Dumpf’s moves, as in judo, against him, but while maintaining her dignity. The NYT had a very good editorial this morning describing her “mansplaining” to Trump: “No, Donald, it’s…” I was yelling You, GO, Girl at the screen almost as often as yelling unprintables at the drumpfass…

          Apparently DT tweeted that he’d won the debate. Delusional much, Donald??

  33. chris moffatt
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    A democratic Senate is of course crucial. My nightmare is a republican senate; Ginsburg retires leaving two vacancies on the court, a four-three conservative majority and a senate with absolutely no motive to approve any nominees at all. But all the attention is on Trump and Clinton.

  34. Mark R.
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    I agree that Trump is toast. I think that any undecideds out there (and it’s incredible that there still is) won’t be able to look past the fact that Trump won’t concede defeat. That will fill up the news cycle for a week, and then the election is here.

    I believe Dems are motivated for Hillary and the down ballot. I only wish at least one of the debates could have delved deeply into climate change. If Trump’s denial was better exposed, I think it could have motivated millennials. That’s the one demographic that worries me.

    • SA Gould
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

      I don’t want Trump to just lose, I want him destroyed beyond the space time continuum. (I won’t get it, but that’s what I want.)

      • Kevin
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

        Day after the election I am going to close my eyes and prepare myself for the non-zero number of people who contributed to the numerical value behind Trump’s name. Sadly that number will be with me for a while.

        Would be nice to tear the space-time continuum at that point and put ‘the others’ into it.

  35. nicky
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    I agree that Trump has probably lost it. However, I disagree with our host that you (US-citizens) should give it a rest. There is still a 10/15% chance the unthinkable would happen. Until the fat lady sings, as you say in the USA? (She’s not really fat , immo🙂 )

    Talking about ladies, why could the GOP not field someone like Condoleeza Rice? (I used not to like her, but after reading a long interview with her, I changed my mind. I still disagree with her on many -if not most- questions, but she is honerable and likable). At least that would have been an interesting contest.

    • nicky
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

      And I think that a total disaster for Trump might help turning Senate and House.

    • Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

      And Rice is extremely intelligent, an artist of high stature, and cultured.

      I too disagree with her politically; but shes a fine person.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

      And wouldn’t they love (srsly!) to put forth a black woman?! Wow, if there were any brains at all left in the GOP you’d think they’d be on this like ducks on a June Bug.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

        “like ducks on a June Bug” — Wow, you had to go deep into your bag of rusticisms for that one, D.🙂

        • Diane G.
          Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

          😀

          Truth be told, I have a new p*ppy named June Bug, so it’s no surprise that sprang to mind.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted October 21, 2016 at 12:31 am | Permalink

            Congrats on the new pooch; hope zhe’s not as crazy as one!

            • Diane G.
              Posted October 21, 2016 at 1:16 am | Permalink

              The jury’s still out…
              😀

  36. W.Benson
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    If Trump had gotten his show together and outlined a solid center-right program of government starting in August (without going off on tangents, personal attacks and tantrums), he could have exploited Hillary’s weaknesses and made a good showing. But he blew it. Now Hillary has much support from the GOP center (her beloved Rockefeller Republicans) and will probably (IMHO) develop a program of government to keep them satisfied at the expense of progressives.
    This may be the most dangerous 4-years in American history.

    • WT
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

      “This may be the most dangerous 4-years in American history.”

      Hillary being temporarily supported by Rockefeller Republicans (while offering them literally no policy concessions) is going to lead to four years more dangerous than the Civil War, the Great Depression, World Wars I and II, the Cold War, or the W. administration’s 9/11-Iraq-Katrina-Great Recession combo platter?

  37. tubby
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    You can keep declaring the election over, but the fat lady doesn’t sing until November 8th. Congressional and local elections are still important and I’m sure The Don will put on the show he’s been setting up for in the event of his loss.

    Or are you trying to call in your bets now?😛

  38. SA Gould
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    BTW, the right wing blogs that I follow are *absolutely convinced* Trump is still going to win. Because he has “won” every debate, and even though all the moderators, the media and the Republican party are turncoats, he will prevail.

    Because his/their cause is just.

    Look for violence after he loses.

  39. Posted October 20, 2016 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Stop on the 9th. In Britain, we got complacent about Brexit and look what happened. However odious and conventionally unelectable the man is, never underestimate the desperation of the disillusioned.

  40. ploubere
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Historically, the winner of the debates more often than not lost the election. They change few people’s minds. And anyone still undecided is simply ignorant and incapable of an educated decision, which makes them easily influenced by a con artist like Trump. I’m still worried.

  41. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 3:15 am | Permalink

    Apparently we can’t move on now because Trump says he will accept the results of the election IF HE WINS! Next step is a civil war with the Christian Right monster created by the Fox News lie machine from which Fox now wants to distance itself. Win or lose, Trump knows how to stay on the front page of the few remaining newspapers these days as well as the lead story in every TV newscast.

  42. Mike
    Posted October 21, 2016 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    From what I,ve gleaned from the Web ,you also need Democratic Control of the House and Senate, otherwise you’ll get nothing done of any value,which is a ludicrous state of affairs. John McCain is reported as saying he”ll oppose any Democratic Nominee for SCOTUS. I suppose that what comes of living in an Oligarchy.

  43. Posted October 21, 2016 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a simple reason to keep exposing Trump and his supporters – a show of solidarity with all the people he and his supporters are attacking and hurting because they dared to criticize him:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441319/donald-trump-alt-right-internet-abuse-never-trump-movement
    https://www.cnet.com/news/richard-branson-says-donald-trump-is-stunningly-vindictive/
    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/the-smearing-of-donald-trumps-accusers/

  44. Posted October 22, 2016 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    “Can we move on now?”
    Almost. I want to see Texas, arguably the Reddest state there is, turn Blue, first. Just that, alone, would raise its collective IQ by a few points, just for allowing intelligent people to both speak and be listened to. For a state with all the power Texas has (think grade school text books, for starters), its choice of ignorance over anything, and bible-stamping that ignorance more and more, is just too dangerous.

  45. Posted October 29, 2016 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    Still counting your winnings PCC, the latest email revelation is exactly why many of us weren’t moving on.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 29, 2016 at 12:51 am | Permalink

      It ain’t over till it’s over…

  46. Bruce
    Posted November 9, 2016 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    Well… now we can move on!


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: