Yeah, nukes being the only thing he's afraid of, Hillary starting WW3, and a whole lot more.

EDIT: Future Trump did actually kinda strike about nukes already, when he tried to imply Russia is besting us with 7000 nukes while we only have 6980. And we need to regain the lead.

Though it's a little deceptive to say "only" remaining tweets. He's got a ****load of them quoting others saying how great a president he would be lol.

Wait I'm pretty sure she said this almost verbatim.

But carry on, there's a separate thread for that relitigation.

Let's throw Trump a bone and say how we could really use two big beautiful walls here.

It's super duper hard to go after a guy like Trump with any amount of pressure when you have as many skeletons as Hillary does. Not exactly a secret that he's willing to go deep in the gutter to destroy someone, without a shred of remorse.

EDIT: Someone like Bernie would have been priceless here.

2nd Presidential Debate transcript fwiw:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ec6c34c20020

I assume nothing about anyone but surprisingly RV Life's post there is not the only place I've heard this sentiment that Hillary Clinton never said things she said literally dozens of times, including at the Convention or at the debate with tens of millions of people watching. It's a strange post-election fiction. I'll leave it to the audience to decide where that impulse to create that narrative comes from.

No. But this reinforces my point about how Similar Ford and Trump are. Ford does a few things that really resonates with a group of people (mostly based on fiction and crazy amounts of hyperbole) and in turn these people are willing to turn a blind eye to a whole lot of scandal, incompetence, and corruption.

Anyway, I'll drop the Ford derail here.

This is what Donald Trump does. He ****s up with the top secrets, then blames the other person for getting upset. Then, uses that excuse to feed his pro Putin agenda.

Yes, and the REASON her arguments were garbage is that she went on and on about this stuff instead of focusing on how horrible a businessman and crook he is.

Not sure why people are revising this to saying she should have attacked him more personally when that was exactly what she did, incorrectly.

Yah, this one is making the rounds mainly because Trump looks so dazed and confused when he gets up. But, as far as the charge of alienating allies by ignoring them or w/e, the full clip shows he turns around right away and shakes Netanyahu's hand.

https://twitter.com/Ruptly/status/866727920252981248

Then they should stop promoting this one obviously. We have 1 or 2 other things implicating him in stuff.

She did reference these things, but her approach was wrong and her attacks were not effective. A big part of that is because everything she said was carefully calculated and scripted with very little genuine emotion behind what she said.

Compare the way Democrats are talking today to the way Republicans are talking today. You can easily tell which group is free-flowing and which is walking on eggshells. The phenomenon is (IMO) most evident in Fox vs MSM and Congressional hearings. Official WH statements are also more carefully crafted than previous administrations.

I'd love to hear from someone who was around during Nixon and can remember if it was similar then too.

I don't think I agree with the bolded in either case.

The principle problem was that she failed to effectively give people an affirmative reason to vote for her; she failed to make the case Trump was making a bunch of empty promises. And most importantly she failed to tie Trump to the boring, unexciting but highly unpopular and destructive GOP policies (replacing ObamaCare with nothing, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation) and failed to disabuse people of Trump's populist rhetoric (no one would lose health insurance, he intended to drain the swamp of lobbyists and career politicians) and allowed Trump to define himself as a drastic departure from Republican orthodoxy and as a genuine populist. Had she done that effectively, e.g., instead of a bunch of personal **** about Trump -- had she turned Trump into an oligarch who intends to be servile to the rich and business interests -- my guess is she would have won. The only 'personal' attack that she should have stuck with is that he's a serial liar, his populist rhetoric was completely not credible, and he was in the end a force for instituting the traditional Republican agenda and its standard interests of enriching the already wealthy and big businesses. Then lay out a case for what she intended to do in plain speech rather than technocratic ones; namely she was going to viciously defend entitlements. That campaign would have had the added benefit of benefiting Democratic everywhere and not allowing Republicans the political space to do the Very Troubled and Deeply Concerned act where they fenced-jumped to the Democrats side on rhetoric that Trump was personally loathsome but ultimately lined up behind him.

I do think her mistakes were ultimately understandable and the whole "Trump is personally poisonous and unfit" made a lot of sense. Only in hindsight do the weaknesses become apparent. So I'm even a little defensive of the strategy even though I recognize it failed. A lot of smart and experienced people would bet it would work; a lot of people did.

What I object to is the narrative she didn't engage in it at all. That's dangerous in a few ways. For one the whole "she didn't do it with strength and the correct emotion" strikes me as sort of the patent subtle misogyny that has dogged her entire career. But defending her honor is a little boring at this point. Second, and more important, if the point is expressed with sincerity, it's a mistake we don't want to repeat or continue.

I saw the Macron handshake, but didn't see this one posted in the thread yet.

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/statu...09785575591937

COME TO DADDY

Would you watch it?

Macron def this week's Troll of the Week winner.

the move trump made in the nato crowd, pushing the guy aside. i suspect it was a dig at the guy he pushed away, potentially he recognized him as one of the guys who "havent paid enough" to nato, and he wanted to show that he didnt approve that he was standing in the front or close to stoltenberg or something because of this. doesnt look random or accidental.

Re: Trump & Dictators

Ever notice that the only authoritarians whose asses Trump doesn't kiss just happen to be the ones where he doesn't have business interests? North Korea comes to mind first, and I'm having trouble thinking of any exceptions.

Then again, we already knew his principles always take a backseat to the money. Except for family maybe. We'll see about that soon enough though.

I don't think you need to over analyze the move. Trump wanted to be at the front.

Ya that dude just happened to be in front of him

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/868085567082377216

It's OK to trust their definition of "able-bodied", right? How about their definitions of "slavery" and "theft" and even "class warfare" too?