Yes, I think it's creepy.

 

Paul Ryan mulls getting out.

 

Trump had to be stopped from trying to make Clinton's mistresses 'confront him' during the debate.

A good writeup (and no mention of the horror of not shaking hands)

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in-the-abusers-house

Yes, I think it's creepy.

 

Paul Ryan mulls getting out.

 

Trump had to be stopped from trying to make Clinton's mistresses 'confront him' during the debate.

His son-in-law really does seem to be a disgusting creep. I wonder how long this will linger with the family after it's over. I doubt their lives will ever be the same again, especially those who had actual careers. 

 

I saw that the twit Conway was going around saying certain Congressmen sexually assaulted her when she was younger and trying to use this to push back against Trump criticism. I'd love it if someone asked her who because that's awfully convenient timing to suddenly bring this up. Remember when the GOP got upset about this type of thing and loved to paint it as out of control liberalism? 

From the Esquire profile I've posted too much:

 

Michael Ovitz says that Jared Kushner long ago made a deal with himself about how to publicly handle a familial bond with Donald Trump, a pact that meant no eye-rolling. "Donald was always controversial, always larger than life," Ovitz says. "Jared knew that when he decided to marry Ivanka. But to both of them, it was understood that marriage meant loyalty to their in-laws. And incidentally, Jared discovered that he really liked Donald."

 

Lately Jared's liking of the Donald has morphed into something more substantial. Over the last year, Jared seems to have settled into a sort of hero worship, as though he wanted to become his father-in-law. His peers in the real estate industry talk about the stash of red "Make America Great Again" baseball caps that Jared keeps in his office, on the fifteenth floor of 666 Fifth Avenue. As he hands out the hats, he says of Trump's slogan, "It came right out of his head!"

 

Kevin Ryan, who is close with both brothers, breakfasted with Jared in early July. "He is all in," he says. "He is in it to win." Earlier this year, as Jared's involvement in the campaign intensified, he named a president and a head of operations to run the family firm. The Observer has been enlisted as well: In advance of Trump's appearance at AIPAC, Ken Kurson, the paper's editor, reviewed the speech, causing an outcry in the newsroom. Despite these efforts, however, some have questioned whether Jared was fully prepared for the rigors and optics of a modern presidential campaign. In August, when several polls suggested that Trump's chances for victory were cratering, Jared and Ivanka took a vacation. A series of photographs posted to Ivanka's Instagram account showed the couple sightseeing in Croatia with Wendi Deng Murdoch, Rupert's ex-wife.

 

A source close to Jared says that while he does not agree with every sentence that his father-in-law has uttered, he nevertheless thinks that Trump has been an effective candidate and would make a good president. (For his part, Trump said in a statement that "Jared represents the next generation of best-in-class developers and owners. Most importantly, however, he is a wonderful son-in-law, husband to my daughter, and father to my grandchildren.") When his Jewish friends ask him—and they do—whether, given the history of the persecution of his own religion, Jared really endorses Trump's anti-Muslim sentiments, he does not miss a beat justifying his father-in-law. "You don't understand what America is," he says, "or what American people think."

 

Jared is especially proud of an article he wrote for the Observer in July, after his father-in-law's Star of David tweet. It was a response to an open letter by Dana Schwartz, an entertainment writer for the paper, that had criticized Jared for standing "silent and smiling in the background" while Trump made "repeated accidental winks" to white supremacists. "You went to Harvard, and hold two graduate degrees," Schwartz wrote. "Please do not condescend to me and pretend you don't understand the imagery of a six-sided star when juxtaposed with money and accusations of financial dishonesty."

 

In his response, Jared insisted that his father-in-law "is not anti-Semitic and he's not a racist." He defended Trump by detailing his grandparents' harrowing experiences during the Holocaust. "It's important to me that people understand where I'm coming from," he wrote. "I know the difference between actual, dangerous intolerance versus these labels that get tossed around in an effort to score political points."

 

(Given the contentiousness of the Kushner-family saga, it's perhaps unsurprising that not all of his relatives appreciated his efforts. Two of his cousins complained on Facebook about his willingness to invoke their grandparents' suffering to defend Donald Trump. "Thank you Jared for using something sacred and special to the descendants of Joe and Rae Kushner to validate the sloppy manner in which you've handled this campaign," wrote Jacob Schulder, whose father, William, was the target of Charles Kushner's retaliation in 2003. "Please don't invoke our grandparents in vain just so you can sleep better at night. It is self-serving and disgusting.")

 

[...]

 

But many people who have dealt with Jared in the past suspect that his embrace of Trump's political posturings carries a strong whiff of pure ambition. "How many people get that close to a presidential race?" asks Michael Fascitelli, Vornado's former CEO and president. "In the real estate industry? Nobody, right?" And even if Trump were to lose in November by a large margin, he will nevertheless walk away from the election having won the support of a third or more of the American electorate. Whether Trump wins or loses, his son-in-law will almost certainly have a seat at the table. Jared is not one to waste a chance, and it seems unlikely that he will squander the entree into national consciousness that Trump's campaign has given him.

 

[...]

 

[Jared's brother] Josh's concern for his brother is no doubt genuine, yet more than one person has noted that he has little incentive to thwart even a distant chance at his family's redemption. "He may not vote for Donald Trump," observed a fellow real estate heir who knows the family well. "But will he be objecting to a pardon for his father, which is surely what will happen if Trump gets elected? I think not."The total rehabilitation of the Kushner family name would not, of course, mark the first time that money has bent the ordinary path of American justice. In many ways, the painting over of a family stain has become a rite of dynastic passage in the United States.

I was looking through tweets and saw that "MAGA" over and over with Trump and Pence. I know what it stands for, but does it creep anyone else out? It's so Lovecraftian. 

I have no idea what MAGA stands for.

Is there a reason the Republican party in America is so against what Im assuming is basically a version of socialised medicine? It works literally everywhere else so why not there?

The main thrust of the conservative movement of the last 80 years has been this deep resentment to social security and thus all so-called socialized programs.  This goes back to FDR.  They have been trying to destroy these programs since the 30s and the way they have gone about it the last 30 years is to cut taxes.   Then  with taxes cut they don't have the money they used to so then they say "we can't afford food stamps and whatnot".   Well of course they can't, they just cut taxes.  By starving government they hope to one day do away with all the social programs.   

I was looking through tweets and saw that "MAGA" over and over with Trump and Pence. I know what it stands for, but does it creep anyone else out? It's so Lovecraftian. 

I have no idea what MAGA stands for.

Make America Great Again.

MAGA is 'make America great again.'

 

Important to remember: The Trump brand is also irrevocably damaged, especially after Pussygate. It will never recover globally, let alone nationally. Ivanka may be driven by her adoration of her distant, egocentric father, but she (if no one else) is smart enough to know this.

 

Oh, and: Pence just cancelled on another event tomorrow.

Edited October 10, 20169 yr by Vee

The moderators sucked.   Every time these two were about to go at it about who did what when, that brainless moderator would say "sorry, we have to move on".   But why do you have to move on?   If they want to get into a ten minute discussion on taxes or Syria, let them.   That's better than these 2 minute content free bullet point formats.  He wanted to really get into her emails, and she wanted to really get into a bunch of stuff.  So let them.   His taxes or lack thereof and her emails have been two of the major themes of the election.   Who really needs to hear Hillary says Trump has lovely children?   Save that crap for a hallmark card.

Is there a reason the Republican party in America is so against what Im assuming is basically a version of socialised medicine? It works literally everywhere else so why not there?

 

The main thrust of the conservative movement of the last 80 years has been this deep resentment to social security and thus all so-called socialized programs.  This goes back to FDR.  They have been trying to destroy these programs since the 30s and the way they have gone about it the last 30 years is to cut taxes.   Then  with taxes cut they don't have the money they used to so then they say "we can't afford food stamps and whatnot".   Well of course they can't, they just cut taxes.  By starving government they hope to one day do away with all the social programs.   

Right. Beyond that it's also fear of government overreach - paranoia that the government is out to get them (like the "death panels"). Of course they're fine with using the government the way they want to overreach, but don't do it to them or they'll crush it. Opposing and killing things and stifling are the only thing the GOP actually knows how to do. They even hate libraries. 

The moderators sucked.   Every time these two were about to go at it about who did what when, that brainless moderator would say "sorry, we have to move on".   But why do you have to move on?   If they want to get into a ten minute discussion on taxes or Syria, let them.   That's better than these 2 minute content free bullet point formats.  He wanted to really get into her emails, and she wanted to really get into a bunch of stuff.  So let them.   His taxes or lack thereof and her emails have been two of the major themes of the election.   Who really needs to hear Hillary says Trump has lovely children?   Save that crap for a hallmark card.

I saw some viewers saying they made Trump look better by making him look like a victim with their overbaked behavior. They're probably right. 

 

It's time for debates to stop having moderators. Anderson Cooper isn't even a journalist, he's a spoiled rich boy who looked good on TV and giggles a lot. 

I don't think they are right. I think everyone but his hardcore thought Trump looked terrible whining and bitching at Martha Raddatz, who rightly treated him like a child. He was being snippy with them from moment one.

 

I think Cooper and Raddatz did the best they could, but the fact is Trump requires extreme moderation that almost goes over the line to corral him. Raddatz in particular tried hard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/10/trumps-debate-plan-to-seat-bill-clintons-accusers-in-family-box-was-thwarted/?postshare=811476078962605&tid=ss_tw

what people in my hometown looked like when this sasquatch was talking.....

The #MuslimReportStuff memes are flowing on Twitter and so are comments on this video:

 

Tiffany Trump treats her dad the way most women treat drunk randos in nightclubs. pic.twitter.com/2t92nouBOF

— shauna (@goldengateblond)

October 10, 2016

I don't think they are right. I think everyone but his hardcore thought Trump looked terrible whining and bitching at Martha Raddatz, who rightly treated him like a child. He was being snippy with them from moment one.

 

I think Cooper and Raddatz did the best they could, but the fact is Trump requires extreme moderation that almost goes over the line to corral him. Raddatz in particular tried hard.

That's exactly it. I'm glad they, especially Raddatz, tried hard and, at several points, actually went back and demanded answers to the questions.

So from Robert Costa with WaPo - GOP political reporter

 

"In calls this morning, many Rs privately want to defect from Trump. But they say the debate gave them pause since he roused their base."

 

Lots of profiles in courage candidates in the GOP I see. They know the presidency is lost but are afraid to abandon Trump for fear of losing the House and Senate also.

@JaneAusten, I heard the same exact thing being discussed on a morning newsmagazine show earlier today. 

 

The concensus is that HRC also won last night's debate- some polls giving her a wide margin, others a narrower one.

 

Trump's 2005 comments on women have done some damage, also his apparent lack of contrition did not come across well to women, in particular, but many men also found the comments to be distasteful. A few athletes actually took to social media to criticize Trump's use of the phrase 'locker room' talk, as an excuse. They argued that this type of talk was outside the main of what is considered normal behavior and would only considered acceptable by sexual predators etc.

 

I sometimes livestream news broadcasts from different parts of the world and clicked on one from Japan and one of the first things discussed was Trump's "lewd" remarks about women. Yesterday, the BBC also used the word "lewd" referring to Trump's words. This is the image that the U.S. is now projecting around the world.