The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you could dumb yourself down to his level :banana:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Who says there's lack of evidence for Russian hacking? We don't have access to what's classified, which is obviously limiting.
As for the claim that illegal votes stole his popular vote:
Academic behind voter fraud research said Trump misinterpreted his data
One of the academics who produced data suspected of being behind the White House's assertion that millions of illegal votes were cast in 2016 says the Trump administration and other academics are misinterpreting his research.
Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" Tuesday his study on voter fraud that is apparently being cited by the White House did not support the President's conclusions.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer did not say expressly on Tuesday which study Trump has read to support his claim of 3 to 5 million illegally cast votes, but a 2014 study by Jesse Richman and David Earnest found more than 14% of non-citizens in 2008 and 2010 "indicated that they were registered to vote."
The study was designed by Schaffner's Cooperative Congressional Election Study, but he told Blitzer that he and his colleagues spoke with voters who had self-identified themselves as "non-citizens" and discovered that they had all mistakenly clicked the wrong radio button during the survey -- and they were all actually citizens.
"It's very frustrating as I'm sure you can imagine. The data certainly do not show that," he said of the White House's claims. "Of the people who we were sure were non-citizens, we could not find any who actually cast a vote."
Schaffner labeled the administration's claims as "absurd" and "not even plausible."
"There's no evidence for that whatsoever," he said. "This is a very dangerous thing. You are calling into question the validity of American elections using data that is clearly false."
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
Again, I took the quote of me and your use of my device to a different end as an engagement. And of course I didn't think you thought I should be compelled. That was another rhetorical device used singularly to launch my point in opposition. It never occurred to me that you wouldn't see that.
Sorry you feel my post was "ridiculous". I don't agree, but that's life. No blood and no foul.
:cheers:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Now we can add another phrase to the Trump administration's Newspeak lexicon to go with "alternate facts." No wonder 1984 is at the top of Amazon's best seller list again...
"different ways of defining"
Regarding that wall that we the taxpayers are going to pay for since Mexico's not planning to do it, Paul Ryan said to Greta Van Susteren today:
"I know your follow-up question is, is Mexico going to pay for the wall?" Ryan said. "There are a lot of different ways of getting Mexico to contribute to doing this. And there are different ways of defining how exactly they pay for it."
"different ways of defining"
Regarding that wall that we the taxpayers are going to pay for since Mexico's not planning to do it, Paul Ryan said to Greta Van Susteren today:
"I know your follow-up question is, is Mexico going to pay for the wall?" Ryan said. "There are a lot of different ways of getting Mexico to contribute to doing this. And there are different ways of defining how exactly they pay for it."
She was on the stump for him and for his agenda.
She married him in 2005. He was playing at presidential politics in 2000. It's been on his radar and agenda. I think the only difference between then and now is he figured out what to sell and how to sell it. And I think the Republicans helped him tremendously over the years in shaping the context for that message.
I've given her more credit. They have a 24 year age gap and his history with women couldn't have been a surprise for her. So unless you're suggesting she'd have been wowed by the plumber Trump I'd say that she's traded on and profited greatly by the match. To my mind a gold digger is just looking for the ticket, not entree. And I'm not discounting attraction, again.
She stumped for him, she's been a part of his ascendancy and will be a part of his presidency. She's a public figure and fair game. She should be subject to the treatment that invites. It goes with the territory. Put out a public opinion from a position of power and you invite the game that follows.
I think you have more empathy for her. Why is what puzzles me.
Okay.
I believe the phrase is, "Just following orders." Well, no then and no now. If it's yours own it.
I just hope it's fair. She's not a kid. She's lived, traveled, seen and had time to consider the world (more than enough time to get an actual architecture and design degree) and become someone of substance in it.
It's hard to know if she's responding to him or if the smile was for him and once he wasn't witnessing it she turned it off. She doesn't look happy. I'd like to see a larger context, see how she is through the speech to see if that's a momentary thing or how she was responding to the moment itself when she wasn't thinking of being observed. And some people only look up when they mean to. She may be one of those. Maybe it ties into the modeling background.
Strike a pose
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
How much choice do you think she had, considering how obvious it is who holds the power dynamic? I haven't forgotten Ivana's rape allegation, which I found very credible.
It doesn't mean she thought she would ever have to take on the role of First Lady.
But you've set the table for the implication. There's no way of knowing what the attraction was, short her own words and I just don't know what she may have said about their relationship.
Again: she's not an elected official, so no - I don't see her as being "fair game" in the same way Trump is. She's followed orders, probably not even knowing the whys behind them. Not having a history in politics, and perhaps not enough experience in her later adult years in encountering a wide demographic representative of the constituency.
For her as opposed to whom? I came right out and said I had empathy for her, so I don't know why you're repeating it as if it's a new observation on your part, so you've left me puzzled in turn.
Since Trump never apologizes and he's already demonstrated what an out-of-control egomaniac he is, who's to say that he told her in no uncertain terms that she wasn't to admit to anything? And here's a link from CNN in which it seems Melania didn't write the speech.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html
Now what do you think Trump would have allowed her to say to "own it" apart from his team's official response?
You know what? I wouldn't want the job of First Lady, not for anything. I'm not going to judge her in the same way I judge Trump, and I hope she's not treated with the same viciousness that Michelle had to endure. And because she's enjoyed a life of privilege that few ever know, I hope she finds a way to connect with the people in a way that's genuine and authentic, particularly the less fortunate who will be affected by her husband's policies.
Modeling background?! No. In counseling terminology, she made a bid for his attention. He shut her down.
He clearly says something to her. Very short and very pointed, but directly at her, after which her face immediately changes. It seems to me an intersection of dominance and submission.
And you know what? I have a feeling that may have happened to her many times.
Here's what I know... When they met she was 28. She rejected his initial advances to gauge his seriousness and intent. That tells me she's shrewd enough. She purportedly speaks several languages. When asked to comment on her husband's stand on immigration and his comments about Mexican illegals she agreed with him. She told CNN that she gives him her opinion, agree or not. He's said the same thing. She didn't look pained, frightened or withdrawn in that interview. She was believable.
It means she had to consider the possibility. It was right there in front of her, however remote the likelihood might have seemed at the time. The interest was there. She'd seen what he'd done with his financial empire.
A bit more than that, again...but again, if your narrative is true love based on mutual respect and a deepening appreciation for one another, I can't see it. I can't look at him and see it, but anything is possible in the world. Now is possible likely? Not in my experience. I've spent a lot of my life among tiers of that set where old men take young wives. True love is rarely the foundation, though successful business deals of all sorts are struck with unsurprising regularity.
I don't think you give her enough credit. I have no reason to believe she's anything but a smart woman of sufficient years and seasoning among the powerful to understand the rules, and understand her part in it.
This would be a great place to use your, I'm sorry you don't see my point and I'm not inclined to explain it at the moment.
I emphasized the her. She shares his vision. To me it's a bit like feeling sympathy for a collaborator. If you think he's odious, his policies suspect where they aren't morally objectionable, etc., then his helper, supporter and by and large agreeing wife doesn't merit much of a different treatment.
The man she loves? The man she didn't marry for access to more power and wealth? What is it she's suppose to find attractive outside of that power again?
Again, a bright woman old enough to be credited with her own mind and speak it. She's criticized his Tweeting and differed on "acting presidential". That doesn't sound cowed to me.
Me either, though I have the legs for it.
lain: I'm already on record agreeing with you on the idea of vicious attacks. It's hard to imagine what could be used on a privileged white woman that could come close, but I'm against the effort.
That would be terrific. That would be huge. But you know what? They're her policies as well. They belong to everyone who agrees with what he does and who put him in the place to do it.
Last edited:
Unless someone is going to say he was going to a whole other state just to add his one extra vote, which is stupid, it is likely the states just didn't do their part.
If liberals ran the show, people would be pooling buses from state to state voting :rotfl:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
town casts trump as the enemy:
might as well bring this over here:
town is exhibiting symptoms of advanced stage TDS
unfortunately, there is no known cure
there is hope for anna, however, as she appears to be in the early stages of the disease
might as well bring this over here:
| Op-Ed Do you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome? The country is in the throes of a major epidemic, with no known cure and some pretty scary symptoms. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome, or TDS, and it’s rapidly spreading from the point of origin – the political class – to the population at large. In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect’s every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world. Trump set up a single phone call with Taiwan’s president, and suddenly TDS patients were insisting that our “One China” policy was no more. But the reality is that telephonic communication isn’t the same thing as official diplomatic recognition. Besides, in their eagerness to highlight Trump’s alleged recklessness, the president-elect’s critics misunderstand our policy. “One China” means that we don’t recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country or China’s sovereignty over Taiwan. We’ve never considered Taiwan a mere province, and the Taiwan Relations Act obligates us to defend the island against attack. In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact. The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim’s vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of hyperbole. Politico recently ran a piece that noted Trump’s supposedly unprecedented decision to continue using his private security force, which provoked former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin to tweet: “A predictable move for a kleptocratic authoritarian who wants to operate outside the bounds of law and basic ethical standards. Even more troubling, he may use the force's lack of government oversight & presidential veneer to carry-out extralegal acts of force.” It’s quite a stretch to suggest that a desire to keep trusted lieutenants is actually a sinister plot to create a version of the brownshirts, but such illogical leaps are the pathway to the next stage of TDS: a state of constant hysteria. Especially when discussing Trump’s views on immigration, hysterical TDS victims assume there’s no difference between the president-elect’s rhetoric (get out!) and his proposed policy (deporting known criminals who are in this country illegally). As Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, put it: “He’s not calling for mass deportation. He said, ‘No, only people who have committed crimes.’ And then only until all of that is taken care of will we look at what we are going to do next.” As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. Despite Trump’s expressed desire to “work something out” for the so-called Dreamers – those brought here as very young children – Trump’s critics continue to harp on this issue. Immigration advocate Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, who has a very bad case of TDS, inadvertently revealed this mind set when he said: “Before anyone falls into the trap of believing that Trump is ‘softening’ on immigration, they should remember that we’ve seen this movie before.” A movie, eh? In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact. Life resembles a dark fairy tale in which the villain – Trump – is an amalgam of all the worst tyrants in history, past and present, while the heroes –Trump’s critics – are akin to the resistance fighters of World War II. TDS victims routinely compare Trump to Hitler: Time magazine ran an opinion piece that asked “Just how similar is Donald Trump to Hitler?” The answer: “The comparison between Hitler and Trump is so poignant” because “both men represent their personal character as the antidote to all social and political problems.” Since Hitler has been dead for more than 70 years, though, victims may feel the need for a more potent bogeyman, a tyrant with more currency. And they’ve found one in Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom they insist ordered a hacking campaign to help Trump win the election. The other day, Tucker Carlson of Fox News interviewed TDS-riddled Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank). Carlson asked for evidence that Putin’s alleged machinations had any effect on the election. Unable to come up with a coherent answer, Schiff morphed into J. Edgar Hoover: “You're carrying water for the Kremlin,” he said, “you're going to have to move your show to ‘Russia Today.’” If you ask a TDS victim what might help them feel better, they’ll use the word “normalize.” As in, we mustn’t “normalize” Trump. What they’re really saying is that normal means of dealing with him aren’t enough. Which raises the question: If he’s another Hitler, if he’s in league with Putin, then why is assassination out of the question? Poke a TDS victim and you’ll find they don’t think that “solution” is out of the question at all. This is the final stage of the TDS epidemic: violence against a democratically elected leader. Unless a cure for TDS is found, this is where we are headed. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-derangement-syndrome-20161226-story.html |
town is exhibiting symptoms of advanced stage TDS
unfortunately, there is no known cure
there is hope for anna, however, as she appears to be in the early stages of the disease
Three million impressionable, retard hipsters voted for Hillary because they sunk to the narrative that Trump is the Devil.
I'm almost convinced adulthood doesn't actually exist- society is by nature childish. The Founding Fathers agreed, that's why our government is not like others.
The best interest of this country was made, as that's what a responsible democracy does. Who wants to strive to be the morally collapsing state of the UK- they are the same people we left in the first place, as they are all about throwing half their society under the bus
I'm almost convinced adulthood doesn't actually exist- society is by nature childish. The Founding Fathers agreed, that's why our government is not like others.
The best interest of this country was made, as that's what a responsible democracy does. Who wants to strive to be the morally collapsing state of the UK- they are the same people we left in the first place, as they are all about throwing half their society under the bus
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you're missing town's context - trump himself is objectionable
melania is supporting trump by being married to him
therefore, she deserves whatever "treatment" she gets
funny - i don't remember town making a similar argument about michelle obama and her support for her husband and his position supporting the murder of children
And now a word from our sponsors:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
or maybe not:
go to 1:21:00 and watch trump address a fidgeting 10 year old boy, who then complains "i wasn't doing nothing!" to his mom, standing next to him:
go to 2:51:48 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GPYzTAj8zQ
for the events immediately preceding the exchange - barron is fidgeting, melania is responding briefly to him, then trump turns at 2:52:06, melania smiles at him, and then as trump turns back around, melania's attention again returns to the misbehaving ten year old boy, who clearly does not want to be there
at 2:52:26 the camera angle changes and you can see the relative positions of trump, melania and barron, and the ongoing exchange between barron and melania
as it continues into 2:54, you see more of barron's fidgeting and melania's discrete responses to his behavior
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
unfortunately anna, you're seeing what you want to see
your willingness to accept the worst possible interpretation ("It seems to me an intersection of dominance and submission. And you know what? I have a feeling that may have happened to her many times") is just another manifestation of your obsession with trump
and it worries me that you're carrying this bias and inability to view circumstances objectively into your new career
your willingness to accept the worst possible interpretation ("It seems to me an intersection of dominance and submission. And you know what? I have a feeling that may have happened to her many times") is just another manifestation of your obsession with trump
and it worries me that you're carrying this bias and inability to view circumstances objectively into your new career
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
:rotfl:
I love Bad Lip Reading, and this is one of the best ones I've seen.
When Obama says "you suucckk...." and when Trump says "hellpp..." :chuckle:
OMG... I'm sitting at school trying not to laugh out loud...
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I'll clarify that I'm not being starry-eyed, I'm pointing out that denigrating her on her marriage choice shouldn't be an acceptable criticism of her as First Lady. I've already seen it both implicitly and explicitly expressed here and elsewhere, and she deserves a certain amount of protection in the fact that she's not the elected official. Not the same protection as her child, but somewhere between that and her public duties as First Lady. I'm going to keep coming back to that: she wasn't elected. He was.
I didn't say anything about her intelligence, nor do I question it. I spoke about inexperience and unfamiliarity with Washington and the political machine. And about whether she was completely on board with all of it.
Look, here's where I feel like I'm just going to end up repeating myself over and over, and I don't like doing that. Just repeat a loop of what I've already said and it'll fit in here just fine.
Me either, though I have the legs for it.
lain:Really. Wow. Well, maybe Ivana would be able to help you with that.
This is her chance to transcend him. I hope she takes it.
:idunno: And the Donald :greedy: is a Russian spy. :dizzy: They call us conspiracy theorists. :noway: Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10