2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!

Apparently it got a little hot for Ivanka, Trump's daughter, this week. She was so flummoxed by the reporters questions she got up and walked out. For the first time Ivanka was asked some tough questions. Thus far Trump's has been able to bet by with softballs. Will it last? If there is any justice in this world, it won't. Trump and his surrogates really need to get some tough questions.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a3356886/ivanka-trump-child-care-maternity-leave-policy/

Trump Jr. gets honest about his father's tax returns. The Donald won't release his tax returns because he would have to explain and justify them i.e. his tax returns would not make Trump look so good. One has to wonder what The Donald is hiding.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eason-his-dad-isnt-releasing-his-tax-returns/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One reporter.

Still, though, notice that she basically tried to do the internet version:

• "Well, those are your words, not mine. Those are your words. The plan, right now, is focusing on mothers, whether they be in same-sex marriages or not."

• "So I think that you have a lot of negativity in these questions, and I think my father has put forth a very comprehensive and really revolutionary plan to deal with a lot of issues. So I don't know how useful it is to spend too much time with you on this if you're going to make a comment like that."

• "Well, you said he made those comments. I don't know that he said those comments."

• "I think what I was―there's plenty of time for you to editorialize around this, but I think he put forth a really incredible plan that has pushed the boundaries of what anyone else is talking about."

(Gupta↱)​

All of that just from trying to figure out how to account for fatherhood under Donald Trump's plan.

Seriously, I'm not going to knock Prachi Gupta, but it's also true we do not tend to think of Cosmopolitan as a tough interview.

Ivanka is not very good at this.
____________________

Notes:

Gupta, Prachi. "Ivanka Trump on Her Father's New Child Care and Maternity Leave Policy". Cosmopolitan. 14 September 2016. Cosmopolitan.com. 15 September 2016. http://bit.ly/2cJJoLz

Edit note: Correct typographical error. 15 September 2016, 23.44 PDT​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I couldn't help but notice, everything is spin with the Trump family, e.g. "very comprehensive and really revolutionary plan". It's a tax deduction for Christ's sake! There is nothing comprehensive or revolutionary about a tax deduction, especially one that favors the wealthiest residents.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trump Family Value

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

I like the part where she calls the plan "comprehensive"↱―

It's comprehensive, not only relating to family and maternity leave, but also relating to child care.​

―trolls her way through five questions about the fact that men are not included in this "comprehensive" plan, and then answers the sixth―

I think what I was―there's plenty of time for you to editorialize around this, but I think he put forth a really incredible plan that has pushed the boundaries of what anyone else is talking about. On child care specifically, there are no proposals on the table. He really took ownership of this issue, and I really applaud him for doing that. I hope that, regardless of what your political viewpoint is, this should be celebrated.​

―by describing "a really incredible plan that has pushed the boundaries of what anyone else is talking about". She also lied in the next sentence: "On child care specifically, there are no proposals on the table". It's a message they've been taken to task for:

Donald Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton “has no child care plan” and “never will.” In fact, Clinton’s proposals for child care and paid family leave have been posted on her campaign website for months.

Despite that fact, Trump’s daughter Ivanka also claimed in an interview on Fox News: “There’s no policy on Hillary Clinton’s website pertaining to any of these issues, child care, eldercare, or maternity leave or paternity leave for that matter.”

Both Trumps encouraged people to visit donaldjtrump.com to see the full details of the child care and maternity leave policies Trump was proposing. But that campaign website acknowledges that Clinton does, indeed, have a plan. It says: “Donald J. Trump’s Plan Is More Complete Than Hillary Clinton’s Plan.”

As fact-checkers, we pay close attention to the words that politicians use. Words matter. And voters watching Trump’s speech or Ivanka Trump’s interview would have been falsely led to believe, as they both said, that Clinton had no plan that pertained to these issues.

(Robertson↱)

† † †​

Hillary Clinton has three different pages on her website that describe her plans for paid family leave and childcare.

Clinton, in fact, rolled out her own plans months ago. She called for paid family leave in her first speech of the campaign and unveiled her proposal to guarantee 12 weeks in January. Her plan would ensure eligible workers, mothers and fathers alike, would get two-thirds of their regular pay up to a certain cap and pay for the cost of the benefits with higher taxes on the rich. When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, she also put forward a paid family leave plan.

And in May she unveiled her proposal to address the cost, quality, and availability of childcare. She has pledged to use government spending and tax breaks to make sure that no family pays more than 10 percent of its income on care. She also paired it with a proposal to increase pay for childcare providers and early childhood educators as a way to ensure quality and availability.

Ivanka wasn’t the only one to make this false claim on Tuesday night. During his speech, Donald Trump said that Clinton “has no childcare plan.”

(Covert↱)​

When I was a kid, the rule of thumb was to never believe a politician during election season. That evolved into the idea that all politicians lie. And we really do treat it all the same. Twenty trillion in new outlays is a hell of book of promises, but given the office a failure to fulfill those promises would not begin to compare to the casual lying that Republicans have come to rely on in recent decades, and certainly not to the extraordinary concentration of rhetorical incontinence that has become so representative of the Trump family.

And over the years, there really isn't any comparison: We expect politicians to lie about extramarital affairs; we do not expect them to lie about why we're going to war. Well, except Bush did, and she's a Clinton, and all politicians lie. The fact that the marketplace has a built-in tolerance threshold doesn't mean it should always be challenged. From welfare queens to queer conspiracies to Birtherism and Jade Helm, that someone says it doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality.

There is nothing to match the Trump phenomenon. They're not even trying. Something about the Trump family value goes here. Values. Family values. No, wait, value. I mean ... er ... either way, you know?
____________________

Notes:

Covert, Bryce. "Ivanka Trump went on national TV and lied about Hillary Clinton’s childcare policies". ThinkProgress. 13 September 2016. ThinkProgress.org. 15 September 2016. http://bit.ly/2cviRQy

Gupta, Prachi. "Ivanka Trump on Her Father's New Child Care and Maternity Leave Policy". Cosmopolitan. 14 September 2016. Cosmopolitan.com. 15 September 2016. http://bit.ly/2cJJoLz

Robertson, Lori. "Trump on Clinton’s Child Care Plan". FactCheck. 15 September 2016. FactCheck.org. 15 September 2016. http://bit.ly/2ciqVoi

 

The cost of ObamaCare has gone up way faster than it did before ObamaCare. The race card, used to silence the truth, is based on the PC template. If any other president did the exact same thing; Bushcare for example, that president would be open game to all criticism. The Democrats segregate the black man, with a different standard. It doesn't matter if the standard is easier, it is still segregation. The Republicans treat Obama as they would any president that mess things up.

The Democrats are the party of racism and segregation, by example of the dual standard, using PC to define themselves as the opposite, as though words matter more than actions. Only morons fall for this; democratic base. Hilary is the smartest woman accordant to PC definition. The liberals will ignore the fact; action, the smartest woman has no clue about private servers and handling Classified Information. Liberals cannot see any inconsistency between the PC labels and the actions.

When Trump is elected, and the Republican have the house and senate, the liberals will be in for a shock. Their fear of manmade global warming is really an intuition of the doom that will appear after the electron. The liberals will be drown in the deep water of common sense, which has atrophied.

 

Holy crap that is a funny line.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then how come the self described racist; KKK, neonazis and skin heads are republicans and not democrats?

I think we all would be in for a shock.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And where is your credible source for that assertion?

As is normally the case with you, the facts directly contradict your assertions. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/07/21/obamacare-premiums-are-lower-than-you-think/

Yeah, yeah, you are once again playing the Republican victim card. Poor Republicans are always the victim of evidence and reason. Yes, Republicans have become victims of truth and reason once again. I think that's a good thing.

Hmm....have you taken a look at yourself and those like you recently? You should take some advice from the Bible Republicans claim to honor. Before you go trying to remove the splinter from eyes of others, you really need to remove the logs from your eyes. Blacks and other minorities are not overwhelmingly Democrats because Democrats are racists as Republicans want people to believe. I realize this might be shocking to you, but minorities really don't like racism and segregation. If you believe your line, the Republican Party line, you also have to believe that minorities are not smart enough to make rational decisions for themselves, and that's inherently racist. So for you and those like you to call others racist is more than a little hypocritical.

Well, that's a huge assumption. The election isn't over yet. If Trump is elected, the world will be in for a shock. Common sense....what common sense? Republicans and Trump in particular aren't known for common sense or reason. If Trump were to become POTUS the world would be a much more uncertain world. It would be a much more unstable world. Trump has said a lot of crazy stuff as is his custom. How much of the crazy stuff would Trump do should he become POTUS remains to be seen. But judging by the people he has surrounded himself with, he will be plenty of crazy.

 

That RedState column is nearly hilarious:

This isn't us. This doesn't represent our party. Or at least, according to the millions of alleged TEA Partiers who voted for Trump in the primaries, it didn't until 2016. A sweeping regulation on employers mandating what benefits they have to provide their employees (and requiring them to pay for it in the process) is not a Republican concept. Or, again, it wasn't until people decided that whatever Trump said was ipso facto Republican. It used to be that one of the parties in this country stood for less government regulation and less Federal interference with the free market, and that party was the Republican party.

Have we forgotten how we felt about Obamacare, when the person proposing it had a "D" in front of his name? Who among Republicans "celebrated" President Obama "taking ownership" of the issue? He was the only one with a proposal on the table, after all.

We didn't celebrate his proposal because it stood for everything we were against. It stood for big government regulation, it stood for crippling entrepreneurs and small businesses, and it stood for minimizing personal responsibility, among other reasons.

How about forcing insurance companies to provide birth control pills at no cost to the woman? Outrageous, right? How could you call yourself a conservative and support that at the same time? If women want government to stay out of their bedroom, then that logic applies to all sides, therefore government shouldn't force anyone else to pay for what happens in the bedroom, either.

Well, now we have a child care proposal that does exactly that- it essentially forces businesses to pay for a woman to receive compensation for work she didn't do, it forces employers to reward a woman for getting pregnant (it doesn't, for the record, reward her husband with time off). Let's ignore the inherent discrimination within the idea for a moment and just focus idea itself. This is just a plain old liberal ideal, coming from the liberal himself, Donald Trump.​

Basic conservative disrespect is one of those aspects that gets overlooked: "If women want government to stay out of their bedroom, then that logic applies to all sides, therefore government shouldn't force anyone else to pay for what happens in the bedroom, either".

Question for Sara Gonzales↱: Since when is the question of a woman having a baby merely a bedroom matter?

To her credit, though, Ms. Gonzales↱ apparently does have limits:

Yes, you got us, Donny. We just stampede around town in herds talking about baby poop and birthing small humans. I often wish there was something else we could talk about, but unfortunately our tiny pea brains do not afford us that luxury.

And where Donald Trump is inappropriately fixated on how beautiful his daughter Ivanka is, Donny Jr. apparently inherited the same incestuous tendencies, only directed toward his mother. NY Mag reported that when his mother remarried in 2008, he toasted the happy couple and boasted about his mother's "great boobs."

But I mean, who here hasn't talked about their own mother's boobs, really? It's only natural. Or at least it is when you're a Trump.

The Huffington Post reported that Don Jr. spoke in depth about his support for gay marriage. That has nothing to do with his feelings toward women, right? Well, it does when you're Donald Trump Jr:

"I think there was a time in my life, probably in college, that I wished every guy was gay, because it just meant more women for me! I don't know why you guys have a problem with this thing! I think it'd be great! I wish everyone was gay!"​

I do feel a little bad for him, but hey, at least he has the self-awareness to know that the only way he's getting action is if he was literally the last straight man on earth. And even then, it's debatable.​

It is a good joke, the bit about more women for them; Mark Steel did a version years ago in one or another of his radio lectures―"Sexual Revolution", or "Solution: Homosexuality"―and, in truth, it always seemed, at least to me, an obvious question. And I think there was even a time in my life when that was the customary practice. No, really, there's the bit about Dolly Parton in '92, the socmed meme image about Mrs. Doubtfire in '93, and I did recently joke―there's a written version but I can't remember what I did with it―about how if it was up to men we'd probably leave the queer question at, "As long as you leave me and mine out of it"; after all, let the queers fly their color, and then we know who we're not competing with. And, yes, I've heard dumber things than that in my lifetime, but this part seems pretty common, as opposed to, say, the brutal one about allowing our wives to have gay male friends because then the ladies might learn how to ... you know ... never mind.

(Fourth Wall violation: Sometimes it's hard for me to believe when men my age and older say they never heard this or that foul talk. Seriously, the line I just cut short doesn't really need to be finished. But it's true that among other places, I picked this up at work. I remember being nineteen, sitting around at the end of the night with a manager who pulled beers for all the underage staff after closing, just havin' that guy talk, having cigarettes in the back where nobody walking by at one in the morning could see us misbehaving. And I can remember this shift manager, a football player at a nearby university, just droning on and on about girls who couldn't perform this or that sex act correctly, and how we would all pitch in our best lines and jokes. And it seems to me utterly silly to propose that ... well, okay, so the women tell us what's wrong, we refuse to listen. But here's the thing: What the women are telling me actually resembles what I witness or have witnessed. So ... here we have myriad women telling me what the problem is; I remember this sexism as mundane, everyday bullshit. And it just seems to me the odds are staggering that I, of all the men in the world, just happen to be tumbling through some extraordinary statistical deviation by which my experience happens to significantly concur with consistent descriptions of something that isn't actually happening. While it is theoretically possible to be utterly detached from this history according to youth and a dearth of historical information, that's about the only excuse, so it would seem inadvisable to pretend confusion about what Donald the Younger said in 2012. Bottom line: Donny Jr. made a reliable joke "we've all heard before"; in this context it was a patronizing attempt to connect with homosexuals who listen to a particular podcast; anyone pretending they don't recognize the joke should expect the scrutiny of having made an extraordinary claim; the joke, used in this manner, occurs within the range described as rape culture for invoking women primarily and exclusively as objects serving masculine sexual satisfaction.)​

Nonetheless, it seems worth noting that we've come 'round a feminist circle; now even the anti-feminists are promoting a woman's duty to cut her husband off. Not that Sara Gonzales represents any particularly symbolic closure of the circuit; we've been 'round this ouroboros many times before. Still, though, when cornered―

Leaving it up to a family to be responsible with their finances, to live within their means, and to make the decision to have a baby when their own personal finances can make the math work, that is what our party believes in. Or, at least it's what we used to believe in before some of us were blinded by orange.​

―it circles back to a woman's duty to repulse a man's sexual advances.

The Trump phenomenon, including its effects on conservatives, really does look like a case of cramming so much wrong into a small package that one can't ever seem to address it all. It's one thing to pull that stunt in a debate when your opponent only has two minutes to correct everything you got wrong as well as pitch their own argument, but what about an entire presidential campaign?

It has certainly worked insofar as we might observe how the election discourse goes. It's why some people say Trump is a strong campaigner. In a market devoted to shiny new things, why not try to be the shiny new thing every day? The only reason I can think of is the difference between Trump as foolish loser or lucky fool. The art of this deal orbits a single obvious gamble: For all our pomp and ritual about expectations―e.g., the standards most politicians answer and to which Hillary Clinton is extraordinarily obliged according to market demand―in our political culture, none of it is a genuine demand.

And to that end, once upon a time ... well, I can imagine a past in which it would not have occurred to me that certain differences required explanation. The difference, for instance, between dignity being a club to swing at an opponent, or something real that has substantial effect and value in the human endeavor.

Yet, here we are.

Trump family values.
____________________

Notes:

Gonzales, Sara. "Donald Trump Jr. is Apparently a Legit Sexist". RedState. 16 September 2016. RedState.com. 16 Septemver 2016. http://bit.ly/2cEnKV2

—————. "Ivanka Trump Doesn't Handle Criticism of Her Child Care Plan Very Well". RedState. 15 September 2016. RedState.com. 16 September 2016. http://bit.ly/2d0fhBg

 

Some wisdom from Samatha Bee, there are two parts to it:

 

Latinos for Trump:

 

Not Trump himself. Doesn't seem likely. Hitler had friends, backing, a band of brothers well connected in the German corporate elite and military command, a solid political base built up over decades by him and for him. He was a combat veteran who had served with distinction, the German corporate elite was facing disaster anyway, and the military had nothing to lose.

The US military and corporate elite has a lot to lose here, and much of it global - in Russia, in China, in Europe, in the Middle East. And Trump is a putz, a gadfly. They have no interest in following Trump to Armageddon.

Trump has no loyal band of brothers.

The global effects of the election of Trump are probably going to be bad, with or without Trump's direct involvement - but not likely on the grand scale of military action Hitler launched. Not WWIII, but small border conflicts and civil wars as the debris of the various economic debacles is fought over. Some Russian and Chinese expansion. If Iran has the sense to leave Saudi Arabia and Pakistan the hell alone, we might even get a kind of Pax Iranica in the Middle East. Speculating.

And then climate change will kick in and kick everything around. Was anyone else following the weather around the north side of the Persian Gulf this summer, especially the overnight "lows"? It was kind of scary. Globally, President Trump is going to be up to his ass in climate change alligators, and flailing at them without expertise - the global swamp is going to be safe from him.

The US, on the other hand - - sic transit gloria.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While I appreciate your thoughtful analysis and reassuring words I have to confess... I awoke in a cold sweat - not once, not twice - but multiple times to the feeling of impending doom on the premise that Trump wins. Literally...

If it weren't for the unrestrained access he has to nukes I would be much more sanguine - "How bad can it be?". It's only four, maybe eight years. But truly - Trump's election presents an existential threat to the US and the entire world. Perhaps (hopefully) I am being overly paranoid but I cannot remember another election that elicited this much dread. And there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

I'm reminded of "duck and cover" and wondering again - "Where is the nearest fallout shelter?" You know, the one with that little black and yellow triangle symbol thingy - that every single person knew so well only fifty years ago?

If I'm reading Trump right, he will tell his "uneducated" followers that it will be alright - no cause for alarm - just get under your desk and cover your ears - you'll be fine! And they will fucking believe it!

Please tell me again how I'm just being paranoid and over exaggerating the threat - maybe then I can get some sleep tonight... Rock-a-bye baby, in the tree tops...

That pic is a real thing by the way - no one here seems to have picked up on this...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKnIGE4JXPAhUi24MKHd0HCXkQqQIIIjAA&url=http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/ridiculous-super-trump-billboard-times-square-leaps-infamy-single-bound-173512&usg=AFQjCNGTF6Uw5Ctpk_FnVeJUwE4PaCkNGQ&sig2=u8-_uvS97RzHZ3qnnhU3gQ

 

Look, up at that billboard! Is it a plan? No it's just some weird dude who needs to lose some weight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The McDonald's

SuperWeirdo All-Day Happy Mealymouth! Weasel words included.

Optional large, or extra large lies with every serving!

For a limited time.
​

WTF. Now the campaign has entered the cartoon stage, I guess the gloves are off.
Ha Ha.

 

You need to stop listening to liberal propaganda and learn to think in an objective way.

Look at the demographics of Trump and Hillary supporters, logically. Most of the poor and uneducated people tend to vote democrat. Most of the criminals in prison, fi they could vote would vote democrat. Those who are most dependent on big government are told to fear the Republicans. They tend to vote democrat. The Democrats get most of the votes from the inner cities, where educational resources may be high; Baltimore, but results are weak. The original core of Trump supporters are middle class small business owners and blue color workers. Trump does not attract the uneducated people on welfare. The idea that only dumb people vote for Trump does not hold up to the demographics.

If you are objective, the Democrats have the base that is most likely to fall for propaganda. People who support themselves; blue color workers and small business owners are able to think more independently, since they are the king of their own home castle. If you are dependent on the government, you become more of a serf who has to vote as block, but not as individuals.

It is also true that most people from Academia and Hollywood tend to vote Democrat. But this is not the majority of the Democratic base. They are a minority of the base, who have the biggest mouths, so they seem like more. They are the ones who help the Democrat leadership lead the less educated and dependent base, with idealism and misinformation.

Academia is about simulated life; imaginary scenarios for educational exercises for students. Hollywood is about fantasy. The Democrats have the best skilled workers for propaganda. The blue color worker is about practical and applied life. They need to be more in touch with hard reality, to build a house or level the ground. University, on the other hand, is the one time you get to explore options and live the fantasy, before real life happens.

Trump appeals to the realists who have to live in the real world, but he does not appeal as much to idealists, like students, who get to live the fantasy. Hillary appeals more the to idealists, since she is skilled at rhetoric and can buy propaganda support, from Hollywood and Academia, with her higher resource totals. Trump appeals to the realists who have to work and sweat. Trump does not need as much money for commercials, if you are able to reason with realists who can relate to reality.

You reaction appears to by that of someone at the junction where reality intersects idealism. Trump is not the fantasy candidate, suited to the fantasy world of the uneducated base that normally vote democrat, to students living the fantasy, or to Hollywood who creates fantasy. Trump, however, would invite them all to his side with open arms, since he is a realists and he knows all people have potential.

Hillary and the Democrats are the party of snobs, who feel smarter than everyone, who insults honest citizens who are in less fortunate circumstances. Trump is a billionaire and he could look down at millionaires and all working people, but he is not a snob like Hillary. Snobs usually don't have any real ability, besides talk, and have to create the illusion of being above to compensate for few practical skills. This appeals to the fantasy crowd who may also lack practical skills living in fantasy world, where image is more important.PC appeals to image not people with hard skills.

 

The poor and uneducated white men tend to vote Republican, in recent decades.

White, male, and racially bigoted. The standard Republican core voter.

In recent decades, farmers everywhere - who are almost completely dependent on government - and government dependent white people in Confederate regions, have been voting Republican.

 

I have trouble comprehending the level of doublethink necessary for readers of breitbart, infowars et al to maintain such naivete.

Do you actually, really, truly believe this bullshit wellwisher? Or is your schtick some sort of persona you adopt for "deep trolling"? I go back and forth as to whether it's even possible for this level of stupidity to exist - I suppose I'm showing my own naivety...

Keep telling yourself that...

 

You sound like our Russian comrades.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just because the truth is reported, it doesn't mean the reporter is liberal or the published material is propaganda. Now you may not like the truth and if you are a Republican or alt right, you obviously don't like the truth or objectivity. Before you and your fellow Republicans go calling mainstream reporting liberal propaganda, you need to take a long, serious, objective look at yourselves.

Yes do look at the Demographics. Contrary to your assertion Trump's supporters are poorer and less educated whites. Unfortunately for you and your Republican fellows, facts do matter.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...vals-in-support-from-less-educated-americans/

The single most determinate indicator of a Trump voters is the lack of education.

All of that just isn't true. You have been listening to too many Republican entertainers. Unlike Republicans, the left doesn't have a media mouth piece. There is no Fox News or Republican talk radio on the left. Unlike Republicans, non-Republicans don't have an echo chamber. Therefore non-Republicans tend to be better informed, more logical. Repeated academic studies have shown Republicans to be less informed than people who watch no news at all. That's bad.

 

Ronald Reagan's protege and successor George H. W. Bush said he will be voting for Hillary Clinton. That's huge. You don't see that happening very often. It just doesn't happen, but it has. A number of senior Republicans have said they won't vote for The Donald, but to say they will vote for a Democrat...well that's radical. That just doesn't happen. But it has happened. That certainly says volumes about The Donald. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/politics/george-hw-bush-voting-hillary-clinton/