TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[82_28]

I always refrain from talk like this. So I will not go into it as I viscerally feel. But you know that feeling that you start turning TVs, lamps off, blow out the candles at night? Gah. He is so motherfucking disgusting. Let's see if there is a new sassy trump!

[seemslikeadream]

This thread has become a thread about a pedophile ...a serial groper.....a racist.....a rapist who is not going to be president but is still an important story


he has ruined so many lives...hurt so many people

I am not afraid of Trump ...I despise the man

I am afraid of his followers who are cheering him on ...they will always be ......after Trump is long gone


Woman says Trump reached under her skirt and groped her in early 1990s
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Latest Trump Accuser Alleges: Trump "Randomly, Nonchalantly" Groped My Genitals
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... antly.html

Clinton Camp: Roger Stone Knew About Wikileaks Email Hack

The Clinton campaign is demanding an investigation into Roger Stone, a longtime Trump confidante and conspiracy theorist who is now the subject of his own conspiracy theory.

Tim Mak
10.14.16 11:15 AM ET

Trump confidante Roger Stone has found himself in an uncomfortable position: the crosshairs of the Clinton campaign, which alleges he has ties to Wikileaks, the organization mounting its own assault against the Democratic nominee.
In short, they are turning the conspiracy theorist into the theory.
For the past week, Wikileaks has engaged in damaging daily releases of stolen emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, something that Trump has seized on in his speeches to show Hillary Clinton’s relationship with big banks and the so-called ‘establishment.’ The Wikileaks organization has been a thorn in the side of governments around the world, releasing secret documents usually shielded from public view.
The Clinton campaign has responded by questioning Stone’s connections to Wikileaks, which somehow came into possession of more than 50,000 emails from Podesta’s inbox. If it’s true that Stone had foreknowledge of Russian-hacked emails, it would create yet another troubling link between Trump and Vladimir Putin’s orbit.
Stone has made no secret of his relationship with Wikileaks, telling far-right radio host Alex Jones in August that he had “mutual friends” with Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, who he said was "one of the great freedom fighters in the world today.” Stone predicted weeks ago that Podesta would be enmeshed in scandal -- and hinted Wikileaks would be the ones to spark it.
But he issued a Trumpesque denial to The Daily Beast on Thursday: in an email, Stone said he “did not” know about the Wikileaks release in advance, despite publicly boasting that such information would be coming down the line.
Stone told The Daily Beast that he only predicted a coming Podesta scandal because he had done "extensive research" independently, regarding Podesta's "money laundering for Russian interests and the Clinton foundation as well as money laundering in connection with the legal sale of military technology," which he will soon publish a piece on.
“The original documents I found were in Russian and German and took some time to translate,” he added.
It could only happen in 2016: Stone, who has at varying times been a lobbyist, a political strategist, is now the subject of a conspiracy of his own. It’s a bizarre position for Stone to be in, given that he’s usually the one spinning theories, such as worrying openly about being assassinated by the Clintons and claiming they killed John F. Kennedy, Jr.
The Clinton campaign’s theory holds far more credibility than Stone’s ramblings: Podesta claims that Stone had prior knowledge of the hack, which the FBI believes was carried out by the Russian intelligence.
Sometime before the end of July 2016, the Clinton team began to suspect that Podesta’s emails had been breached, a campaign official told The Daily Beast. In late August, more than six weeks before Wikileaks started dumping Podesta’s emails, Stone began making dark insinuations that suggest he knew that a Podesta scandal would soon be revealed.
“Trust Me, It Will Soon The Podesta's Time In The Barrel. #CrookedHillary,” Stone tweeted.
“Stone pointed his finger at me, and said that I could expect some treatment that would expose me,” Podesta told reporters Tuesday.
In a conference call with reporters organized by the Clinton campaign Friday morning, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell named Stone as someone he felt should be investigated for ties with Russia.
Morrell believes that while Trump may be an "unwitting agent" of the Russian government, Stone and others "may be into this more deeply, may have relationships with Russia -- perhaps financials relationships… and they're actually working on behalf of the Russians in getting this material out and spreading it around."
GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!

By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
SUBSCRIBE
"I don't want to go overboard here and say I know that for sure, I certainly don't. But I am deeply concerned about it," Morrell added. "I think it requires a full investigation and it requires the American people to know the truth here before election day."
More than a month before Wikileaks began releasing Podesta's emails, Trump predicted “Podesta-gate” on his radio show, "Stone Cold Truth” -- “This guy makes [Paul] Manafort look like Saint Thomas Aquinas,” he quipped. Manafort, of course, is a former business partner of Stone’s who was booted from the Trump campaign after his work for pro-russian Ukrainian oligarchs came to light.
Stone told The Daily Beast that he had a “mutual friend” who has visited with Assange, but that he “never received any documents from [Wikileaks] and I know the claim they Assange works for the Russian [government] is Clinton campaign bullshit.”
He recently told a local CBS affiliate that dinner with his mutual friend on Oct. 10. That same night, Stone made another pronouncement.
“I have total confidence that @wikileaks and my hero Julian Assange will educate the American people soon #LockHerUp,” Stone wrote on Twitter.
Four days later, Wikileaks began releasing a daily deluge of stolen Podesta emails. The Clinton campaign went on the offensive.
“We now know the FBI believes the Russians are behind this hack and that a Trump campaign associate was back-channeling with Julian Assange,” said Clinton campaign spokesman Glen Caplin. “On Day 5 of the WikiLeaks propaganda campaign the question is what did the Trump campaign know and when did they know it?”
“The charge is meant to deflect from Podesta's illegal activities,” Stone shot back.
--Olivia Nuzzi contributed reporting.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -hack.html

TRUMP BLAMES SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS ON MEXICAN CONSPIRACY
The G.O.P. nominee reportedly sees Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim as the central figure in a shadowy alliance of globalist elites.
BY ABIGAIL TRACY OCTOBER 14, 2016 10:52 AM

By Chris Hondros/Getty.
As Donald Trump’s campaign implodes, the former reality-TV star’s White House fever dream is taking on the contours of a paranoia-soaked nightmare. With a growing number of women coming forward with sexual harassment allegations against the Republican presidential nominee, Trump has taken to arguing that he is the victim of a massive, insidious global conspiracy involving the Clinton Foundation, The New York Times, and now, another, much richer billionaire: Mexican businessman Carlos Slim.

At a frenetic campaign rally Thursday, Trump vehemently denied that he has groped or acted inappropriately toward women, as several have claimed, declaring that their accounts were “fabricated,” “outright lies,” and that “the Clintons know it and know it well.” But rather than simply characterizing the attacks as a run-of-the-mill smear campaign, Trump took his accusations one step further. Speaking in increasingly grandiose terms, Trump insisted that his candidacy “represents a true existential threat” to the international elite and the establishment, who “plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, [Clinton’s] special-interest friends and her donors.”

But Trump’s claims to be the target of a worldwide conspiracy are just the beginning. The Wall Street Journal, citing an adviser to Trump, reports that the Republican standard-bearer will allege that Slim, the sixth-richest man in the world, is colluding with the Clinton campaign to prevent a Trump presidency. The real-estate mogul will reportedly claim that Slim, who has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and is the largest stakeholder in the Times with control of 17 percent of the company, is behind the paper’s negative coverage of his campaign.

This line of attack could serve Trump on a number of levels. Not only would it paint “Crooked Hillary” as part of “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class,” as he claimed on Thursday, but it would also take a swing at two other things Trump has expressed dislike for: the Times and people who are richer than him (not to mention Mexico). The Republican nominee has repeatedly criticized the Times, characterizing the paper as “failing” and even personally attacked a number of its reporters, including Maggie Haberman. Just this week, he threatened to sue the paper after it published the accounts of two women Trump allegedly assaulted. (The Times denied Trump’s request for a retraction and dismissed his libel claims in a fiery letter published Thursday.) Trump has also previously tried to link the negative coverage of him to Slim’s ownership stake in the paper. As New York notes, he said, “I don’t know if you know. A rich guy in Mexico actually has power at The New York Times. I wonder why they don’t like us, you know? I just wonder.”

Slim dismissed this latest Trump conspiracy theory through a spokesperson. “This is totally false,” Arturo Elias told the Journal. “Of course we aren’t interfering in the U.S. election. We aren’t even active in Mexican politics.” The Times offered a similar denial. “Carlos Slim is an excellent shareholder who fully respects boundaries regarding the independence of our journalism,” Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family still controls the media company, told the Journal. “He has never sought to influence what we report.” But this wouldn’t be the first time that Trump and Slim come into conflict. Shortly after Trump announced his candidacy for president and declared Mexicans “criminals” and “rapists,” Slim’s television production company jettisoned a project it was working on with the presidential hopeful shortly after Univision scrapped its $13.5 million contract with the Trump-owned Miss USA project, a dissolution Trump also tried to pin on Slim, as New York reported at the time.

And while this latest theory comes as no surprise, what is truly ironic is that Steve Bannon, whom Bloomberg dubbed “the most dangerous political operative in America,” was the top executive at Breitbart News right up until he assumed the helm of the Republican nominee’s campaign and was actually in control of the outlet’s coverage of this election, unlike Slim

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/ ... york-times

.

[JackRiddler]

The worse choice, the greater danger, the one whose victory provides the worse conditions for social and political change movements afterwards, the greater evil, the more despicable person, the one who obviously incites and celebrates violence, the worst asshole in the world: all this, sure. But don't give me he caused more suffering than. That is just not true - yet. He'd have to win control of a branch of government and get cracking on the round-ups, incitements to violence from the White House, and war escalations before it were so.

In any case, here is what my friend John has to say:

"John take a deep breath. We need to come together, not further polarize."

That's easier for you to say when you're not in one of the groups that is explicitly targeted by this man to build his brand and power. I'm done. If someone is casually tolerant of racism/ misogyny/ homophobia, such as in accepting and even supporting a John Boehner-type or any of a number of other politicians while underestimating those discriminatory aspects of the politician, I can tolerate them.

But Trump is so blatantly advocating hate and violence that a line must be drawn.

I'm done with it and don't want to "come together" with anyone who supports that. He's urged punishment for black men who were exonerated of a crime (after urging they be executed), bragged about groping women, and has lit up violence against Muslims and Latinos. We've been "coming together" with people who tolerate racism for long enough - I'm sure not coming together with people who support a guy who straight-up advocates it. So yes, overt racism is polarizing. I'm not open-minded enough to get over that. My bad I guess.

I can understand why some people might be drawn to Trump, but I refuse to be friends with them or even interact with them socially – he’s too obviously horrible that I won’t excuse supporting him. Particularly friends of friends of mine, who generally are not quite as downtrodden as the poor disempowered white guy that's the Trump supporter stereotype.

But I'll make a more nuanced appeal to you: if you know anyone with a stable job and making OK money who supports Trump, or who went to a fancy college and supports him, cut them off. Please. Be done with it. They have no excuse.

[General Patton]

Jack, any thoughts on this?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39115&start=2685#p614292

[Iamwhomiam]

If he did, I'm sure he would have posted in that thread and not this one, General.

[General Patton]

If he did, I'm sure he would have posted in that thread and not this one, General.

We can discuss it there too if you want. I'm not the only one coming up with this result and this won't be over even if somehow someone does get elected (and no one will be elected).

[seemslikeadream]

that is in this thread

what is the reasoning behind

if somehow someone does get elected (and no one will be elected)

how does that play out

[General Patton]

There's stuff on the fringes, both parties will do work to intimidate voters, rig machines, dispute ballots and so on but that's going to happen in the election regardless of who was on the bill.

Bigger problems:

Both candidates have a shit load of blackmail material to drop on one another. Nothing is off the table because the stakes are so high. This has been framed as a struggle of all against all. Pedophile networks, anything you can imagine that they can craft into a release in time. There's more control over Clinton b/c she handles so little of her own campaign, but Trump has plenty to fire off with. The leaks will backfire in part because the most radical supporters of either candidate will be more likely to support them after material has leaked. This election is mutually assured destruction.

Foreign Intelligence have compromised both candidates... bigly . I have serious doubts the US Intelligence Community would take either of them. Other people disagree with me on this point and it should be noted that post-OPM hack US IC is fucked beyond recognition. Foreign players are in on both sides.

Both sides are priming their core members to expect that if the other loses, it was because the election was rigged. Neither will accept a result. Some riots are a given regardless of the result, even if they are tame police will still have to gear up. Even Jack's friend there is talking about cutting people out of your life over an election, which is tame compared to people who will be blackballed/attacked for supporting an opposition candidate.

Trust in the media and Congress is at an all-time low. People may trust their congresscritter, but institutional legitimacy isn't there. "They said x is President, but who cares what they say?" Gridlock is inevitable when it goes to congress.

I have to go do some stuff but I'll be back tomorrow or around that time.

[Iamwhomiam]

Just want to apologize to General Patton and all. I did not follow the link.

Edited to add,

Oh, I forgot to thank you slad for educating me. Thank you.

[JackRiddler]

Jack, any thoughts on this?
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 85#p614292

Not really. I had a look. The guy doesn't seem bad, from the skim and clicking a couple of links in. Mildly nuts, maybe. A visionary. It seems extremely unlikely as an outcome, at this point, with Trump seemingly done. Not to bet on, unless you know some insiders actually plotting it? Unlikely at any point, because you need a rare 2000-style super-close toss-up (whatever the faked/fraudulent elements in that case) and a military faction willing to stop the house/constitutional process. Why do you ask?

[JackRiddler]

This is too funny.

The Donald Trump In These Allegations Is Not The Complete Monster I Married

COMMENTARY
October 14, 2016
VOL 52 ISSUE 40

Melania Trump

Over the last few days, a number of women have come forward to accuse my husband, presidential nominee Donald Trump, of sexually assaulting them. As the candidate’s wife, I know him better than anyone, and I want to assure voters that the Donald Trump in these allegations is not the complete monster I married.

Believe me, the misogynistic, lying, pathologically self-centered Donald I know is nothing like the one these women describe.

I’ve been married to Donald Trump for more than 10 years now, and in all the times I’ve seen him treat other human beings as nothing more than objects for his own gratification, I’ve never seen him do the things he is currently being accused of.

I realize my husband has his faults. He can be impulsive, short-tempered, cruel, arrogant, bigoted, thin-skinned, manipulative, hateful, defensive, intolerant, deluded, vindictive, greedy, perverted, narcissistic, dishonest, threatening, megalomaniacal, and psychopathic. But show me an irredeemably horrible, self-obsessed person who isn’t. What I have never personally seen him do, though, in all the years I’ve listened to him say demeaning and graphically sexual things about women, is touch someone without their consent.

That is simply not the vicious, racist, dangerously unstable sociopath I wake up next to every morning.

Now, am I by Donald’s side 24 hours a day? Of course not. But based on what I’ve experienced of him as a disgusting, reprehensible egomaniac who sees only himself and denies the humanity of others, it’s hard for me to imagine him doing the things these women accuse him of. Scapegoat racial minorities? Yes. Make veiled suggestions that someone should assassinate his opponent? Sure. Degrade and humiliate women at every opportunity in his personal and professional life? Of course. But assault? I just can’t see the loathsome demon I married doing something like that.

In the coming days and weeks, the media is going to try to portray my husband as a lecherous, chauvinistic serial abuser. But what they don’t understand is that deep down inside, he’s just a prurient, sexist predator—one who doesn’t let anything get between him and the satisfaction of his immediate desires—and that’s it! Nothing more, nothing less.

I know people will say that I’m deluding myself. That I can’t read the writing on the wall. That the only way I can be psychologically comfortable continuing to live alongside such a heartless, dangerous, malignant individual is by blindly convincing myself that he could never have committed the crimes that he’s been accused of and, indeed, bragged about on tape. All I can say is that when I see him in the morning before he goes to work and at night when he returns home, Donald is simply a human horror show who has never once given a moment of thought to the hopes, dreams, struggles, or circumstances of anyone else in existence. That’s my Donald.

So before you rush to judgment, please, forget what the media is telling you for a moment, and try to see my husband the way I do: as a repugnant, repulsive cancer of a person who makes our world a crueler, more hateful place by his very existence.

[Iamwhomiam]

Really? Not the complete monster? How much monster is he, Melania?


edited to add,

Oh! I jumped the gun again!

[JackRiddler]

SORRY! I really did not mean to forget the link for the article, from The Onion, but your response is funny enough that I'll just leave it out now.

[redsock]

LA Times:

In a December 1992 wire brief in the Chicago Tribune, Trump is described as having spotted a youth choir singing Christmas carols at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan. He asked two girls how old they were. When they said they were 14, Trump, then 46, replied, “Wow! Just think — in a couple of years, I'll be dating you."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html

[Iamwhomiam]

It's not wise for one to comment after they've read only a sentence or two, regardless. I should have known better. Onion stories are more effective when their link remains undisclosed, imo.