Jump to content

william.scherk
Message added by william.scherk

"Finally, with Red Hat still firmly on, Trump lost because of loathing, not rational fear, not reason.  The supine media and the fractured, corrupt party, and the 'got' functionaries of Clinton Inc put a false mark upon him and triggered an hysterical emotional reaction. They stoked phobia, hatred and division, and blamed Trump.They stoked loathing of the man and excused their complicity in feeding the hate. "

Why did Donald Trump lose the 2016 election?

william.scherk

Entry posted by william.scherk

4,379 views

 Share

This is no longer a placeholder.  Some 'on the record' wild guesses are already out -- notably our Bob Kolker -- so  I too am going to publish a prediction/analysis, knowing full well I might be picking through bird bones on November 9.

 I think Donald Trump will lose the election on November 8th. I have some definite reasons why. I thought to post the reasons here, even if I am shown to be gawdawfully wrong later on. How 'off' will my analytic take be? Only time will tell. 

BQcDAAAAAwoDanBnAAAABC5vdXQKFmxwVjRTaUo3

Reason? Reasons?

Donald Trump lost because of the Republican Lady Vote, ultimately. He could have rallied a few more Latinos and African-Americans and other visible minorities to his base within his party's grasp, but that wouldn't have mattered as much as a seizing and a hold on Educated Lady votes.

That is the main reason he lost, looking back at me from the crystal ball. Ladies.

By state, he didn't capture the ladies of the Philadelphia suburbs, which cost him. He failed to capture the urban-suburban college-educated lady vote in Ohio and lost more crucial electoral votes.  He failed to capture the conservative educated ladies in Florida in enough numbers to beat Romney's showing in 2012  He failed with the ladies of Utah.  He failed with the ladies of North Carolina. He didn't get the crucial lady vote in states he needed.

There may be nuance, and other subsidiary reasons rooted in Mr Trump's behaviour and the challenges every Republican faces in terms of hostile and adversarial media.  There may be ground-game reasons, money reasons, biases galore, party mutiny and backstabbiness, ghost-voting, sinister plots and precinct rigginess beyond the pale, but when the totals were officially-certified in places Trump had to dominate to be the Winner, he fell short with the ladies ...

 

-- with my Red Hat on, my reasons all turn on treason, or behaviour just-shy-of treasonous, by a panoply of bought and paid for agents against democracy.  Not with a centre anywhere in particular, no grand plot, just a functional-structural bias on every dimension against Mr Trump. In the whole landscape of media small and large and fringe and newsworthy in themselves, it was ultimately Bannon and Trump against the world's sleaziest big-audience manipulators.  That built-in structural disadvantage was key. Allied structural impediments were important but secondary and amplified by his own party's elite class, whether in the party itself or in positions of prominence and power in Wall Street and Washington.  

That covers treasonous, bought, biased and elite party elders and candidates. Where were they when he needed them?

Those factors 'conspired' in a sense to depress turnout among previously likely voters.  The ticket-splitters and the stay-homers of the GOP great coalition of voters gave Hillary Clinton an extra advantage that was totally undeserved, a side-effect of elite 'treason' against the candidate.

Finally, with Red Hat still firmly on, Trump lost because of loathing, not rational fear, not reason.  The supine media and the fractured, corrupt party, and the 'got' functionaries of Clinton Inc put a false mark upon him and triggered an hysterical emotional reaction. They stoked phobia, hatred and division, and blamed Trump.They stoked loathing of the man and excused their complicity in feeding the hate.

 Share

109 Comments

Recommended Comments

Recommended

Posted by william.scherk,

Fun with recursion ... emphases added.  Narcissism, definitions, utility, questions, cautions ... Additionally: More discussion ... Less discussion, which MSK excised in a response**: Back in time ... "Well, aren't  you special ...?" plus a bit more of WSS opinions and takes ... And yet ... mild word-based spanking: He gets annoying ... To the post  that suggested to me I do a search on my mentions of narcissism and the limits of lay diagno

We discuss and yet don't discuss criteria ... for Narcissism/narcissism

Recommended by william.scherk

  • Thanks

1 reaction

Go to this comment


Michael Stuart Kelly
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

And what Trump might have had with a Brexit style unaccounted voter (both men and women) is neutralized by the women that won't vote for him now.

Korben,

I don't know how you arrived at that to be able to state it as a fact.

I, for one, don't have such faith in the establishment media, which I assume is your main source of information. If you are personally talking to some women, I assure you they do not represent all American women. If you are disgusted with Trump because of his pussy comment 11 years ago while macho posturing with a dude, that is not a reliable statistic about women. :) 

I'm looking at things like search engines and Trump is killing it. Here's one example. Granted, it comes from a pro-Trump site, but it's still about Google searches:

What Media Won’t Tell You: ‘How to Vote Trump’ Is Crushing “How to Vote Hillary’ on Google

Also, here's a Twitter search limited from Oct 1 to now and including all three of the following words: women for Trump. There are hashtags about women who are voting for Trump all over Twitter.

I can give you other sources of info, too.

This is one election the establishment will not steal at the last minute with sleaze. They didn't get Romney on women (the couldn't) but they got him on torturing his dog and shit like that. This time too many people are awake.

So whatever sources you are using, my sources are contradicting them.

I expect your sources to be contradicted even more after the Wednesday debate.

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly

Also, read this and see what you think (from American Lookout, but linked to from The Gateway Pundit):

Trump Internal Polling Analyst: “CLINTON’S PSYOP HAS FAILED” (CHARTS)

From the article:

Quote

The analysis is based on chart-reading techniques often used in stock analysis. The basis for these charts is the LA Times/USC Dornsife Daybreak Poll, which has polled the same 3000 people for the entire time. Therefore, this is one of the few polls that doesn’t change samples from poll to poll.

. . .

When you attempt to level a death blow, you must succeed. You must knock out your opponent utterly. Anything else will strengthen your enemy. That is what has occurred with Clinton. From the moment of the lewd video, through all the obviously false accusers, Clinton attempted to knock Trump out. No success there. She has failed. Her Psyop is over.

That means women voters.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
KorbenDallas
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

And what Trump might have had with a Brexit style unaccounted voter (both men and women) is neutralized by the women that won't vote for him now. 

Korben,

I don't know how you arrived at that to be able to state it as a fact.

I, for one, don't have such faith in the establishment media, which I assume is your main source of information. If you are personally talking to some women, I assure you they do not represent all American women. If you are disgusted with Trump because of his pussy comment 11 years ago while macho posturing with a dude, that is not a reliable statistic about women. :) 

I'm looking at things like search engines and Trump is killing it. Here's one example. Granted, it comes from a pro-Trump site, but it's still about Google searches:

What Media Won’t Tell You: ‘How to Vote Trump’ Is Crushing “How to Vote Hillary’ on Google

Also, here's a Twitter search limited from Oct 1 to now and including all three of the following words: women for Trump. There are hashtags about women who are voting for Trump all over Twitter.

I can give you other sources of info, too.

This is one election the establishment will not steal at the last minute with sleaze. They didn't get Romney on women (the couldn't) but they got him on torturing his dog and shit like that. This time too many people are awake.

You set up a frame here that abstracts away polls and Romney from the argument.  I think some polls can be used as estimates, and the 2012 pre-election polls showed Romney wasn't doing well with women and the post election statistics reflected this.  I weighed that (edit: Romney) into my prediction.
 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I expect your sources to be contradicted even more after the Wednesday debate.

I don't think the 3rd debate will change the election outcome, I think it's all up to Assange now to come up with a smoking gun.
 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Also, read this and see what you think (from American Lookout, but linked to from The Gateway Pundit):

I looked at all the graphs, overall they imply a recovery after the Access Hollywood tape, which I don't think will happen.  I don't think he can recover from this.

Link to comment
KorbenDallas
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

You didn't contradict me.

--Brant

No, I didn't, because I'm not a strawman for MSK's assumption #1 made earlier in this thread  :)

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
8 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I don't think he can recover from this.

Korben,

I like that better. It's stated in the form of an opinion, not a fact.

:)

And here's my opinion. I don't think there's much to recover from. A little, but more nuisance level than wound. I think the truth is being jiggered to the public to influence opinion by the very people who don't want to relinquish power, seeing that they all own or are in bed with--directly or indirectly--the corporate media and corporate polls.

Michael

Link to comment
KorbenDallas

A good ground game claims more early votes, and as an example Obama in 2012 won Ohio because of early voting, even though Romney won election day turnout.

"Early voting reveals warning signs for Trump" (Oct 16th):

Democrats appear to be outpacing their 2012 early vote performance in several critical swing states, giving Hillary Clinton a head start on Donald Trump in some of the most important presidential battlegrounds.

In two must-win states for Trump, North Carolina and Florida, Republicans are clinging to narrow leads in the total number of mail-in ballots requested. Yet in both states, Clinton is ahead of President Barack Obama’s pace four years earlier — and the GOP trails Mitt Romney’s clip.

Any diminishment of the GOP’s mail-in ballot lead is a matter of concern for Republicans because Democrats typically dominate early in-person voting in both states, which will begin over the next 10 days.

“Democrats have narrowed already the advantage that the Republicans had in 2012,” said Michael McDonald, whose United States Election Project offers detailed analysis of early and absentee voting patterns.

[...]

The problem for Trump is that Ohio (18) and Iowa (6) have just 24 electoral votes between them, while North Carolina (15) and Florida (29) together offer 44.

So far, women are requesting ballots at a far faster rate than men in both North Carolina and Florida. That works to Clinton’s advantage — according to the most recent Fox News poll, Clinton had a 19-point advantage over Trump with female voters.

And Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told reporters in a press call Thursday that 180,000 Hispanic Floridians who didn’t vote in 2014 had requested mail-in ballots. (Clinton leads Trump by 24 points among likely Hispanic voters in Florida, according to a recent poll conducted for the conservative-leaning Associated Industries of Florida business group.)

In North Carolina, 57 percent of early absentee voters have been women in a state where the electorate has traditionally been about 53 percent women, according to Michael Bitzer, a Catawba College political scientist who studies the state’s early voting patterns.

[...]

________

Hillary has a superior ground game, and this will prove to be another reason why Trump lost.

 

Link to comment
KorbenDallas

"Donald Trump Abandons the Ground Game" (Oct 14):

[...]

This is the unglamorous part of campaigning, the stuff that happens outside the big rallies and high-stakes live debates. There are the candidates and the personalities, and then there is the basic machinery of mounting a successful run for office. In a close race, veteran Democratic and Republican operatives agree, such efforts can make the difference between winning and losing the state. And in Florida, where winners of the state's 29 electoral votes have been awarded by razor-thin margins in recent elections, ground games can decide who occupies the Oval Office.

"Everything we know about politics indicates that in very close races, the ground game is absolutely critical. Being able to identify your voters and get them out to the polls is one of the fundamentals of running a professional campaign," says Whit Ayres, a veteran GOP consultant. "And that is particularly true in a year when we have two remarkably unpopular candidates as the nominees of their respective parties."

[...]

Trump lags way behind Clinton in field offices. According to a tally assembled by the election blog "538," Trump has 207 field offices, compared to Clinton's 489. In Florida – a state Trump must capture to win the election – the ratio is similar, with Clinton beating Trump 68 offices to his 29.

Businessman Trump has argued that campaigns need not overspend and overstaff to be successful. But even on one of the least-costly ways of mobilizing voters and volunteers – the internet – Trump is far outdone by Clinton. The former secretary of state's main website allows surfers to click onto state-specific sites for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Trump has personalized sites for just 15 battleground states. Unlike Clinton's site, Trump's does not include information in Spanish, despite the fact that Hispanic voters are important in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona and Virginia.

And the respective Florida campaign sites? Trump's includes information on registering to vote and voting early; alerts to upcoming candidate visits; a form to volunteer; a request for donations and a rundown on what Trump's policies mean for Florida. It has no phone number or address for Trump campaign offices, listing Republican Party offices only.

Clinton's Florida website is one-stop campaign shopping. Aside from details of Clinton's policy positions, there's a mini-quiz to help volunteers determine what kind of work – canvassing, phone work – would best fit a volunteer's schedule and skills. Plug in your zip code, and the site brings up the closest field offices, along with details of hundreds of events, ranging from phone-banking to voter registration drives, in a 10-mile radius. A resident can also click to volunteer a spare room or couch for visiting volunteers.

It's understandable that Trump would assume a pared-down ground game works, notes Steve Kerrigan, CEO of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, since he got the GOP nomination. But the general election contest is different, with a large part of the electorate entrenched in a political party but needing a tap on the shoulder (or kick in the behind) to actually vote.

"He didn't use the ground game in the primary, and now he's not going to use it, and is arrogant enough to think he doesn't need it," Kerrigan says.

[...]

Notably, Trump was indeed doing remarkably well without an aggressive ground game, before the release of an audio with Trump bragging about using his fame to grope women and make unwanted sexual advances. In a number of swing states, Trump was within or near the margin or error in polls or even (as in Ohio and Iowa) ahead of Clinton. In critical Florida, the two were neck-and-neck (Clinton has pulled ahead by 6 points in a Thursday Florida Atlantic University survey).

But a good ground game, consultants in both parties generally agree, makes a 3-5 point difference in a battleground state's election results – meaning an aggressive effort could easily, in a close election, determine who occupies the White House.

[...]

 

Link to comment
KorbenDallas

Another reason, unforced errors.  Last night's debate neatly encapsulates two, "bad hombres" and "such a nasty woman"---Trump needs the Latino vote and women's vote and does himself no favors here:

 

 

 

Link to comment
william.scherk

I followed some advice given above (given in case of  Trump supporter dejection, given the conventional wisdom that Trump is likely to lose the election).

On 10/15/2016 at 6:17 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

1. Go to YouTube and type the following in the search field (including quote marks): 

"Donald Trump"

2. Up to the left, there is a little rectangular button called "Filters." Click on it and a drop-down menu will open.

3. Under "Upload date," click on the word: "Today." The drop-down menu will close.

4. Click on "Filters" again to open it again, then under "Sort by," click on: "View count." The drop-down menu will close.

Most of the top returns were various full-event videos of last night's debate, which makes sense. There are a few outliers ... This was number two, a couple hundred thousand short of three million views.:

Whew! Nasty, nasty, nasty.  Has this election hit bottom yet?

That nasty Hispanic video out of the way, still mulling the effects of last night in Las Vegas, and will fess up to my confusion in the Debating the Debates thread..

I found this other video way down out of the top-ten returns today.  It kind of rings some of the bells of contention rung here, and also in the Nate Silver, Rigging, Trump humour --  and Debates threads.  It won'f fully cleanse the palette of insane spanish wargame bingo above, but hey.

For those of a Red Hat persuasion, this is the Ogre of Ogres, an important tentacle of the corporate shill media Inc foisting Hillary Clinton upon the land. Notable is his feeble defence of how wrong he was about the Republican primaries.  Smug, smug, smug. As Donald might say, "Look at that face. Who would buy anything from that?"

 

Link to comment
william.scherk
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Another reason, unforced errors.  Last night's debate neatly encapsulates two, "bad hombres" and "such a nasty woman"---Trump needs the Latino vote and women's vote and does himself no favors here:

Some social media wags pretended to have heard "Bad Ombrés" instead of Bad Hombres. I had no idea that bad ombrés were already such an entrenched comic theme. 

For the mountain people who don't know what an ombré is ...

Quote
About 1,030 results (0.41 seconds) 
Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Trump needs the Latino vote and women's vote and does himself no favors here...

Korben,

People can accuse Trump of many things. Pandering to stereotyped groups that our genius polling industry uses as a substitute for knowledge of intent is not one of them.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Another reason, unforced errors.  Last night's debate neatly encapsulates two, "bad hombres" and "such a nasty woman"--- Trump needs the Latino vote and women's vote and does himself no favors here...

People can accuse Trump of many things. Pandering to stereotyped groups that our genius polling industry uses as a substitute for knowledge of intent is not one of them.

People will indeed accuse Trump of many things, and sometimes the accusations are tripe or offal, cat meat, bilgewater, swamp gas and so on.

People can accuse Trump of whatever they judge to be his mistakes, unforced errors, his strategy, his campaign themes, his rapid-response, his self-opposition research, his thin-skinnedness, his remarks and claims. That is the nature of an election campaign. For example, just think of some of the larger set of 'accusations' here on OL since we first fell for the candidacy of Donald Trump. How many times did we write off somebody as embodying irrational hatred or belonging to a collective mindset?

So, what is Korben 'accusing' Trump of, in this instance?  He is suggesting another reason for a Trump loss to Clinton could be unforced errors. By way of example, two quick remarks that were destined to be remarked upon further in the Spin Room and in today's hoopla.

So, what is the procedure for calling an unforced error?  Well, I don't know, having the sports knowledge of your basic eight year old ballerina. Baseball people, please explain for posterity.

On to the further 'accusation' -- that the Bad Hombres remark was an error.  This is based upon a reasonable supposition that a Republican candidate 'needs' an identifiable 'latino' voting cohort, just as he would 'need' the GOP baseline 'lady vote.'  This is not wild speculation. Demographic cohorts are not like astrological signs, they do correspond to actual nose-counted numbers and attributes. There is a demographic 'challenge for Mr Trump on both the dimensions Korben notes.  This has long been a reality in those danged corporate polls. Ever since he entered the contest, there has been a mistrust of the GOP candidate among what is measured as the real American cohort so identified.

So, decent and reasonable assumption that a generic GOP campaign for president would target those areas in the larger electorate. If the other party polls stronger among green people who speak Chawn and have zillions of degrees, well, then your party faces up to its tasks, outreach, penetration and delivery of these newish supporters to the polls.

Michael, is it a secret to you that Trump generally falls way behind Clinton with the 'people of colour' in America?  Does it really strike you as bizarre and untenable that Trump could actually be behind with regard to the Lady Vote, the educated white suburban lady vote that is usually baggable by the GOP?

Anyhow, what?  "Pandering to stereotyped groups that our genius polling industry uses as a substitute for knowledge of intent." 

What connects a 'demographic challenge' to this pure-hearted campaigner who never panders?  Well, given that he never panders whatsoever, just say by nature, never panders, then what are these 'stereotyped groups'  hanging around in the middle of the sentence? Well, they are not real things, in the sense a stereotype is a crude and often wrong quick-sketch of a generic category. A female stereotype, a black stereotype, a Mormon stereotype, a Mexican stereotype.

Okay, Pureheart McNeverpander thus looks out upon the green and sees no stereotypes, does not speak in stereotypes, points out the stereotyped thinking of others.  McNeverpander to Types still thinks about Latinos, though. He does think about "bad hombres.' He does think about African Americans. 

And his campaign certainly is not blind to challenges.  If they are wise, they are clear-sighted, rational, measured and engaged with reality as it unfolds.

Does Trump pander to Mexicans and Latinos and Educated White Ladies more generally?  Nope.  Is there such a thing as anti-matter to pandering? If so, that is what Korben may have 'accused' ...

How many have light hearts about this election as it draws near?  How many have felt discouraged that the GOP cannot put away such a baggage-laden old scandal-pussy relic like Clinton ...

If you feel a tug of disappointment or maybe revulsion at four years of the Clinton pair at 1600 Pennsylvania, what hasn't America survived?  Why is America a beacon, a haven, a promised land, a preferred destination for the world?  Who is the world leader, beyond compare? Who holds the conscience of the world in its institutions of freedom and rule of law?

Understanding the full mechanics of a Trump loss is key to mastering the impact of the election. We have rational, reasonably objective tools to gather and measure facts and theories and claims and hypotheses against the November 9th reality.  

So, again, if Trump loses, which is the going-out-on-a-limb premise of discussion in this topic thread, can we point to failures to launch with the "Latino vote"? It seems to me that is eminently discussable. We know perhaps the nose the legs the tail and a lump of poop from the suspected elephant. We have compared notes. Are we knowledgeable enough, enough to call in a description?

-- perhaps not. Perhaps this is a giant globalist alliance doing a Grand Psy-Op. The Grandest of all. Trump is in no danger of losing in the real world, the real world apart from the Op.  

Is that too cynical?

psyopsOver.jpg

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
KorbenDallas

Trump has many unforced errors, the taco bowl tweet, his surrogate not liking taco trucks, "bad hombres".  "Look at my African American over there!"  "Blood coming out of her, wherever."  Standing on stage in the 1st debate and denigrating Rosie.  The 3rd debate at the end to what might have been a tie, he says Hillary is "such a nasty woman".  In sports, players get benched for too many unforced errors, sometimes just one.  Their head either isn't in the game or perhaps it's human fallibility.  Trump can't claim the latter.  The unforced error is when the opposing team isn't responsible for the error, but gives them advantage.  Hillary had a lot of barracuda smiles during the debate and had reason to.  Trump is his own problem, he didn't efficate.  "Non-PC" language or hyperbole was supposed to subside at some point once he got everyone's attention and provided his explanation---the problem is that it wasn't "non-PC" language or hyperbole, he was being himself the entire time, a probable narcissist.  This once-was Trump supporter expected more from him.  I didn't expect him to "pander" to people, rather he shouldn't piss off people he should have voting for him.  Trump can't help himself, though, it's a method of narcissistic control.

Teh polls!  Teh polls!  I heard it in 2012 from Rush and Hannity: don't trust the polls, it doesn't reflect election day turnout.  Polls are only snapshots in time.  Look at Romney's crowds.  The Tea Party folks are pissed and will vote against Obama---but it didn't happen.  And for 2016 there is no indication a Brexit style mass voting event will occur, or even exists.  This is a normal election, opinion polling can be done.  They weren't wrong about Romney and won't be this time.
 

Link to comment
KorbenDallas

Vox provides more perspective in the article: "'Nasty woman' becomes the feminist rallying cry Hillary Clinton was waiting for"

[...]

During the third debate, Trump fired off his most respectful attack when he leaned into his mic and blurted out that Clinton was “such a nasty woman.” Well, he did say no one respects women more than him.

And that’s when Donald gifted women everywhere the “binders full of women” of 2016, prompting many to take to social media to reclaim an insult Trump lobbed at Clinton and, unknowingly to him, at all of them too. The hashtag #ImANastyWoman spread like feminist wildfire, launching a conversation about the way successful women are often treated differently than their male counterparts.

In that moment, Trump did for Clinton what she hasn’t been able to do with female voters: He made her relatable. Nearly every woman sitting at home has experienced a version of the nasty woman moment, though probably not on national television. Whether it was being called nasty by an ex-boyfriend or bossy at work, women immediately picked up on the insult, and knew exactly what it was like to be in Clinton’s shoes. Although much of the sexism against Clinton has been slightly implicit, her opponent, for whom subtlety is an entirely foreign concept, has made his gendered condescension toward her crystal clear.

How can being the target of a sexist attack help Clinton? It effectively chips away at her likability issue. Many women say they felt lukewarm about her, but last night they had sympathy. It’s really hard not to like someone when you empathize with them.

And the beauty of Trump’s comment is that it was so blatant that it requires absolutely no response — Clinton didn’t even seem rattled by it. She continued to explain her plan for Social Security, demonstrating her strength as a leader.

[...]

 

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly

That will probably include some of the press if Trump's lawyers believe there is a case that they colluded in presenting slander with intent and malice. (I would bet money they do.)

I guess these women will now have to trust the political manipulators who promised them the moon to step up and help them with their court costs.

Once Trump wins, I have a feeling they are in for a hard, hard lesson about the honor and loyalty of the political manipulators they trusted.

(I actually speak from experience about stepping into the flame and being left out to dry by those who propped me up because the kill didn't happen.)

I also have a feeling not too many more women will be coming out with accusations unless they have rock solid proof.

Poor press people. They will have to make do with facts for awhile. At least on this issue.

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
13 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The President has no special power in civil suits.   The only power he has in criminal suits is issuing pardons.

Bob,

Trump will not sue his accusers in the role of president. He will sue them in the role of an American citizen exercising his rights. I can't say this with 100% certainty, but I would give it about 99.99999999999%.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk

Is this an unforced error, delivering an electoral hoopla advantage to the other guy?  Although Vox and George Takei might reflect politically-correct assumptions and be part of a leftist borg, a more neutral analyst might say the mention of lawsuits was not necessary. It was a gift to the Takeis and more general opposition, a gift to the Clinton Media Cabal. 

Yeah, or maybe not, but there it is. Mentioning the bitches to be sued obscured the speech's Lincolnesque message. 

Or maybe not.  Let a hundred flowers bloom.

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump will not sue his accusers in the role of president. He will sue them in the role of an American citizen exercising his rights. I can't say this with 100% certainty, but I would give it about 99.99999999999%.

I don't get it. It is certain that he will sue all the women, in your mind, in or out of office?  

I don't think there is any advantage to suing after the inauguration. Why give any time other than to governing? Since the ladies and their lies did not prevent him from taking office, nothing they can say would stop him from acting in service of his goals. There is a terrible downside to a civil action. You are just a civilian, you can be deposed, you can be deposed in discovery. He wants a dozen ongoing court cases to occupy him and his staff? I don't see it.  

Of course Trump has a right to sue. He sues a lot, and gets sued. He wins some, he loses some.  If he is gonna hit all those ladies with suits then he could start now, and not use them as standing targets to remind waverers about his taste for vengeance. He could sue now, and go in for discovery, and maybe be wrapped up by inauguration, having won a round or three.

-- setting that aside as opinion, there were other official actions charted that can be seen as Trump vengeance. The threats against Amazon and a trust-buster Trump saying he will disallow a particular media merger, what the heck is that? He is personally going to involve himself and his administration in punishment patrol for those he felt were unfair to him in the campaign? 

-- setting that aside, there is also a lingering impression from the primaries that he would work to change libel laws in the USA, to make it easier for folks to sue down the New York Times (as was his then example).

-- setting that aside, I think the Gettysburg speech was a fail. Botched by Gingrich's "Little Trump," through an impulse to lash back. I mean, it sounds like he is going to go on war footing against some claims of harassment, groping, tongue-action and such.

Michael, can you see the possible pitfalls, and the downside of time wasted?

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That will probably include some of the press if Trump's lawyers believe there is a case that they colluded in presenting slander with intent and malice. (I would bet money they do.)

I guess these women will now have to trust the political manipulators who promised them the moon to step up and help them with their court costs.

Once Trump wins, I have a feeling they are in for a hard, hard lesson about the honor and loyalty of the political manipulators they trusted.

(I actually speak from experience about stepping into the flame and being left out to dry by those who propped me up because the kill didn't happen.)

I also have a feeling not too many more women will be coming out with accusations unless they have rock solid proof.

Poor press people. They will have to make do with facts for awhile. At least on this issue.

I don't get this to hang together in my mind.   I think the first sentence suggests that Trump will be suing the NYT and perhaps the WaPo. While in office. If that is what you mean, Michael, what is the benefit?  I mean I still don't see how tying up the president in yet another civil action furthers Trump's goals as leader. Most presidents rise above the churn, do not initiate personal civil court actions against media organs while in office. 

Otherwise, yeah, great speech. Rallies the folks who haven't made their minds up about those lying bitches.  If you are itching for some kind of vengeance, and for the power to make your vengeance felt.

Did anybody come across Richard Branson's kiss-and-tell about a lunch date with Donald Trump?  It was mean.  It suggested that Trump was consumed with vengeance. Thus my mentions, it being on my mind.

So, no, yah, but, maybe. I don't see suing the lying ladies to be useful or positive, as I don't see a Nixonian enemies list, as I don't see a modern president try to use official powers against a scapegoat institution or two in the media. Hungry for vengeance is not a good look for Mr Trump right now, given  media bias, given the narrative of a self-destructive, self-thwarting candidate.

Michael, there is still a small possibility in your mind that Trump might be defeated, yes?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

It is certain that he will sue all the women, in your mind, in or out of office?

William,

Pretty certain. It's part of what power players do.

For instance, the elite ruling class in America tried to destroy Trump as a candidate, of course, but also as man (including his family) and as a businessman, not just because they wanted their guy (gal) to win the election. It's been to send a message to anyone in the future who would dare attempt to challenge their supremacy.

In Trump's world of high-stakes, you have to counterpunch hard. Otherwise the bastards will eat you alive. If these finger-pointing women have a legal case against Trump, they will do fine. They might even get some money out of it. If they were lying, like the airplane lady for instance, in the context Trump lives in, they have to be served up to the public as examples--as a message. What's worse, the wolves that recruited these ladies knew this in advance and already had an exit strategy prepared for themselves that does not include the ladies.

I have no doubt of this.

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Michael, there is still a small possibility in your mind that Trump might be defeated, yes?

William,

That's always a possibility.

It's like sports.

I don't think it's likely, though. Especially in light of the exposure of the excessive amount of cheating by the elites and Clinton's folks. And I'm cheerleading like hell.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
7 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Pretty certain. It's part of what power players do.

I want to give one caveat.

Once Trump wins, he might be persuaded by his intimates to allow the women proven to be liars to issue an apology and let the matter go. The upside for him would be using this gesture as a form of showing his benevolent nature to the world.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...