Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[pbrower2a]

I need to draw the "Trumpenstein" monster. Put the head of Donald Trump onto the Frankenstein monster, and one has a very scary costume in a liberal neighborhood.

[Eric the Green]

Take a dump, Trump. And don't you come back you grump you grump you grump you grump
Take a dump Trump, and don't ya come back you grump.

[Odin]

(10-16-2016, 09:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Late breaking news!  SNL is part of the 'vast left wing conspiracy' that is rigging the election in Hillary's favor.

Never mind that The Donald has hosted the show twice.

When the Far Right bashes "The Media" they really mean it as a dog-whistle for "The Jews".

[Eric the Green]

(10-16-2016, 09:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-16-2016, 02:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: SNL 2nd debate!

Late breaking news!  SNL is part of the 'vast left wing conspiracy' that is rigging the election in Hillary's favor.

Never mind that The Donald has hosted the show twice.

[Eric the Green]

In her first interview since the second presidential debate, Secretary Clinton discussed sharing the stage with Donald Trump, and of course, her signature shimmy.

[Eric the Green]

Trump as the Messiah!

[Eric the Green]

Bill Maher gets serious. Well, sorta.





Bill discussed here what Trump and his followers might do after the election. Lots of dangerous possibilities; but considering the cosmic evidence, the best course for them is: groom Ivanka for office, run her in some down-ballot elections, and then have her run!

[playwrite]

Today, from the Rose Garden, some awesome Presidential trolling of the Orange Yam -

Quote:“There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” he continued. “And so, I‘d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”

Apparently, they're handing out umbrellas for tomorrow night's debate - expectation is for a major orange pumpkin explosion!



Just in time for Halloween!



BOO!

[playwrite]

Here's the video of Obama throwing shade at Trump for his idiotic rigged election whine -





This is deadly serious regarding our basic democracy tenents.

But it is also really fun to see a Presidential taking a bully down.

"That's what Americans do."

[Eric the Green]

Trump is just one of the xenophobic parties in the world that Putin supports.

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

Stephen Colbert gets a "trending" video going with this one:





#3 on Trending
One Diagram Explains Every Conspiracy Against Donald Trump

We know he has Mars rising. What else is rising? (and leaking?)

The second debate; home view:
https://youtu.be/WzeJuZvBfs0

[Eric the Green]

You know this man! You have always known this man!

[pbrower2a]

It's ironic... Barack Obama will probably be recognized as one of the better Presidents, and he is still 'something that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers' horse'. People at Trump rallies can't wait for the 'baboon' to leave office... never mind that his term is over in three months. Oh, yes, Hillary Clinton is a vagina (well, a not-so-nice word).

Oh, yes.... and 'gay marriage' must be outlawed, never mind that the Supreme Court has ruled upon that.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-19-2016, 05:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's ironic... Barack Obama will probably be recognized as one of the better Presidents, and he is still 'something that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers' horse'. People at Trump rallies can't wait for the 'baboon' to leave office... never mind that his term is over in three months. Oh, yes, Hillary Clinton is a vagina (well, a not-so-nice word).

Oh, yes.... and 'gay marriage' must be outlawed, never mind that the Supreme Court has ruled upon that.

Well, you have to remember that some people consider the Constitution to be a broad suggestion, that anything written there can be overwritten by a five of nine vote of the Supreme Court.  There isn't actually anything said in the Constitution about marriage rights or legislating against sodomy.  If you look at common law precedent set during the colonial era, which the court is supposed to do when inventing new rights, you can find a lot more law banning sodomy than rights to marry who you want to marry.

If you believe in a 'living constitution', that five old men can rewrite the Constitution at whim, marriage rights is being sustained only by the tradition that one doesn't revisit cases until some time has passed.

[pbrower2a]

(10-19-2016, 07:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-19-2016, 05:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's ironic... Barack Obama will probably be recognized as one of the better Presidents, and he is still 'something that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers' horse'. People at Trump rallies can't wait for the 'baboon' to leave office... never mind that his term is over in three months. Oh, yes, Hillary Clinton is a vagina (well, a not-so-nice word).

Oh, yes.... and 'gay marriage' must be outlawed, never mind that the Supreme Court has ruled upon that.

Well, you have to remember that some people consider the Constitution to be a broad suggestion, that anything written there can be overwritten by a five of nine vote of the Supreme Court.  There isn't actually anything said in the Constitution about marriage rights or legislating against sodomy.  If you look at common law precedent set during the colonial era, which the court is supposed to do when inventing new rights, you can find a lot more law banning sodomy than rights to marry who you want to marry.

If you believe in a 'living constitution', that five old men can rewrite the Constitution at whim, marriage rights is being sustained only by the tradition that one doesn't revisit cases until some time has passed.

But even same-sex marriage won the majority on the US Supreme Court as laws prohibiting it were proved in violation of basic human rights. Even that had some restrictions; like heterosexual marriages, same-sex marriages would have to involve consent and age of majority and preclude incest. Marriages would have to be between human beings and not with animals, plants, or inanimate objects. Nobody got the right to marry a dog, a tree, a car, or a gun -- let alone a child.

Flagrant inequality, and not denial of selfish or destructive indulgence, is the essence of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, and Obergfell vs. Hodges.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-20-2016, 07:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But even same-sex marriage won the majority on the US Supreme Court as laws prohibiting it were proved in violation of basic human rights. Even that had some restrictions; like heterosexual marriages, same-sex marriages would have to involve consent and age of majority and preclude incest. Marriages would have to be between human beings and not with animals, plants,  or inanimate objects. Nobody got the right to marry a dog, a tree, a car, or a gun -- let alone a child.

Flagrant inequality, and not denial of selfish or destructive indulgence, is the essence of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, and Obergfell vs. Hodges.

I don't know that incest is an issue in same sex marriages?

The Bill of Rights Wrote:IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This had traditionally meant that if a right existed in the colonial era as part of Common Law, the fact that it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights shouldn't mean the Common Law right should be disregarded.  Living Constitution advocates are advocating five old men being able to invent brand new rights, including rights for corporations, and including rights that definitively did not exist under colonial Common Law, rights that are in direct conflict with colonial Common Law.

I can say that in general progressive justices rewriting the Constitution from the bench generally have their hearts in the right place.  Alas, to the extent they have made the Constitution worthless, the conservative justices have been just as abusive, only it is corporate wallets they are concerned with.  I would as soon the Court honor their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

[pbrower2a]

(10-20-2016, 07:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-20-2016, 07:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But even same-sex marriage won the majority on the US Supreme Court as laws prohibiting it were proved in violation of basic human rights. Even that had some restrictions; like heterosexual marriages, same-sex marriages would have to involve consent and age of majority and preclude incest. Marriages would have to be between human beings and not with animals, plants,  or inanimate objects. Nobody got the right to marry a dog, a tree, a car, or a gun -- let alone a child.

Flagrant inequality, and not denial of selfish or destructive indulgence, is the essence of Supreme Court decisions such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving vs. Virginia, and Obergfell vs. Hodges.

I don't know that incest is an issue in same sex marriages?

It isn't, and it was not brought up in the arguments.

Quote:

The Bill of Rights Wrote:IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This had traditionally meant that if a right existed in the colonial era as part of Common Law, the fact that it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights shouldn't mean the Common Law right should be disregarded.  Living Constitution advocates are advocating five old men being able to invent brand new rights, including rights for corporations, and including rights that definitively did not exist under colonial Common Law, rights that are in direct conflict with colonial Common Law.

I can say that in general progressive justices rewriting the Constitution from the bench generally have their hearts in the right place.  Alas, to the extent they have made the Constitution worthless, the conservative justices have been just as abusive, only it is corporate wallets they are concerned with.  I would as soon the Court honor their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

But -- the States have no right to deny rights as the Constitution defines them and the Supreme Court determines them. As an example, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the right to travel; so far as I can tell, travel for criminal purposes or for violation of terms of a military enlistment might violate laws.

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

240 years of democracy v. Trump: How he lit his last chance on fire
Ben White | @morningmoneyben
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/20/240-years...-fire.html

Donald Trump had a final chance to stabilize his flagging campaign and make a play for the dwindling slice of undecided voters. He took that chance and set it on fire.

After a relatively strong start to the final debate of the 2016 campaign, Trump once again descended into unhinged conspiracy mongering, refusing to say if he would accept the outcome of the presidential election next month, an unprecedented rejection of American political norms.

"I will look at it at the time. I'm not looking at anything now, I'll look at it at the time. What I've seen, what I've seen, is so bad," Trump said Wednesday night before arguing that the media has "poisoned the minds" of the voters. He also cited a Pew study on voter roles that actually found no evidence of voter fraud, undermining his own case.

Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace, the GOP nominee once again demurred: "What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, OK?"

If you wanted to turn off undecided voters unhappy with Hillary Clinton but unsure of Trump's fitness to serve as president, you would be hard pressed to find a better way to do it than to suggest you won't accept the outcome if you lose.

Polls already show Trump lagging badly behind Clinton on the critical questions of having the judgment and temperament to be president. Trump's debate performance will only make these numbers worse. Voters mostly don't like Clinton but they see her as a safe choice for president. They see Trump as the opposite.

Trump surrogates spent the post-debate hours furiously spinning his election-rigging comments, not exactly a sign they thought the GOP nominee won the debate. Campaign manager Kellyanne Conway spent Thursday morning arguing that Trump meant he would not accept the results until they are certified.

"Why would he before he knows the results and they're verified and they're certified concede an election that didn't happen yet. That's insane," she said on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

She want on to cite Al Gore in 2000 as an example of refusing to pledge beforehand to accept an electoral outcome.

This is a specious comparison. Gore first conceded to George W. Bush on election night then retracted his concession as networks changed their call of Florida and instead said the race was too close to call. An automatic recount began in the state that would decide the election.

Gore and his legal team pursued the recount with vigor but when the Supreme Court stopped the recount and the Florida results became official, he immediately conceded despite protests from many in his party.
Trump would be well within his rights to refuse to concede on Nov. 8 if the outcome is in serious doubt and recounts are required. That is not what he said on Wednesday night. He suggested there was going to be massive voter fraud, that the press had rigged the election against him and that Clinton should not be "allowed" to run. Gore never did anything remotely resembling this.

Trump is irresponsibly and dangerously encouraging his supporters not to accept the outcome of an election it appears the GOP nominee will lose quite badly. As many editorial boards pointed out on Thursday morning, such comments are antithetical to a democracy that has rested for 240 years on the assumption of a peaceful transfer of power.

There were other shocking moments in the debate, including Trump's continued refusal to accept the fact that Russians are hacking the U.S. election in order to help him win. This is the unanimous consensus in the intelligence community. This is what Trump had to say: "She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else. ... Our country has no idea."

When Clinton accused Trump of being a "puppet" for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump's response was: "No puppet. You're the puppet." This is literally the "I know you are but what am I" defense more common among adolescents. Trump did not dispute that he used Chinese steel to build his Las Vegas hotel or that he has used undocumented immigrants on other projects and underpaid them.

And he suggested that it was Clinton's fault that he used the Chinese steel and that he has paid no federal income taxes for years. Scientific post-debate polls from CNN and YouGov showed Clinton won the debate by a comfortable margin. The GOP nominee had one final shot to convince Americans he would not be a dangerous embarrassment as president. He failed and is going to lose.


—Ben White is Politico's chief economic correspondent and a CNBC contributor. He also authors the daily tip sheet Politico Morning Money [politico.com/morningmoney]. Follow him on Twitter @morningmoneyben.