I'm really surprised that more Republicans are not doing more to distance themselves from Trump. They're like Disney Fan foamers, who like every new theme park attraction, every new movie, and anything that has 'Disney' slapped on it.
Yeah, what's that about? I find myself getting slammed if I dare say anything against, say, Starbucks on Mainstreet. Or the new band? And this is from some dear friends. If Disney okays it; it has to be good.
From the earliest days of LP, if you like something new from Disney you are an "apologist" and if you don't, you're not a "true" fan.
Or 'Pollyanna' as I recall. I remember being critical of the new 'Winnie the Pooh' ride - I was told I was 'thinking about it too much' and needed to 'just enjoy things more.' :-/ Even today, if I complain about the crowds, I'll get beat up for it. For me, being a Disney fan isn't always about liking everything they do.
And I have absolutely no problem with folks liking what I do not or disliking what I do. Leave me alone, okay? It's just an opinion!
You Pollyanna defender of mediocrity untrue fan apologist (PDOMUFA), you! #PDOMUFA. tm Dabob2 all rights reserved.
Watching both candidates' performance last night in the Commander In Chief forum, it is astounding how unready Donald Trump is. Every answer was either insulting to military professionals or highlighted how delusional he is. I know that most of his supporters don't care about such things, but for undecideds, there should be no question that he is completely out of his depth when it comes to international relations and defense. His answers were so one dimensional and paper thin. And then there is this bizarre brofest with Putin. His simplistic take on Iraq: >>people don't know this about Iraq. But they have among the largest oil reserves in the world-- in the entire world…<< Gosh, Donald. No one else knew that but you. Next he'll explain other things people don't know, such as the boiling point of water and how babies are made. If Trump is elected, I'm pretty sure Colin Kaepernick won't be the only one sitting during the national anthem. It would be constantly humiliating.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton said some dumb things, too. She promised we won't ever put ground forces on the ground in Iraq ever again. Really? There's no possible scenario, ever, that might require that? The middle east is that stable so as to be able to make such a forceful promise? Come on. If Trump does somehow win, it will be due to Hillary making stupid fumbles like that. Maybe say "Now, the last thing I would want to do is put ground forces into Iraq, or anywhere else, unless it is the absolute last alternative." Then explain how you, unlike your opponent, have seen first hand the effects of executive decisions, the dreadful cost of war, and how your energy will be used primarily to foster good relations around the globe, to work towards peace. Talk about how ultimately killing bin Laden was the result of a careful, painstaking strategy that you can't just wish for. I mean, COME ON!!! Stop making unforced errors.
I can't help but wonder what this campaign would be like if it were Trump vs. Obama. Obama would have looked like he was debating in ant. Hillary is smart, but she is an awful campaigner. I worry about the debates.
Boy, from your lips (fingers??) to God's ears. Despite the Hillary headscratcher on ground troops in Iraq (you're quite right about that one too), there was simply no comparison between her informed answers and his uninformed evasions. He would be so far over his head as President it wouldn't even be funny. What's even more worrying is that he would be completely over his head, but could never admit it. I've said this before, but that's a downright dangerous combination to have in a President - possibly disastrous. So I'm hoping most undecideds or swing voters saw it the way you did. I'm hopeful of that, because the biggest swing demographic this year (this year's "soccer moms") seems to be "college educated whites." This is a group that Romney won in 2012, yet Trump is losing. And they are a group that should be able to see through his evasions to the empty shell beneath better than the uneducated. So that makes me hopeful. Yet... Media Ticking Me Off Example #1: Everyone I saw this morning opining about it said Clinton clearly won on substance, and pointed out Trump's lack of substance. I mean, every one of them said "Yeah, that guy didn't know what the hell he was talking about." Yet about half said that he was probably better stylistically, and therefore it was a draw. AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHH!!!! One brought up the famous Kennedy/Nixon debates in which Kennedy famously "won" on TV while Nixon "won" on radio. I know what he meant, but still... it wasn't like Nixon had all the substance and Kennedy had none at all. Nixon, in his 8th year as Veep and previously being a Senator, probably had more. But Kennedy didn't have freaking zero, like Trump. In football terms, Nixon probably won that debate on substance 24-21, not 35-0. I'm hoping most of the undecideds who watched understand that on substance, last night was a blowout. Media Ticking Me Off Example #2: Matt Lauer let Trump get away with the long-debunked lie that "I opposed the Iraq war before we went in." Flat-out lie, and Lauer should have called him on it. He was much tougher on Clinton's email answers, and I'm fine with that. But be tough with both of them, then. Too many "journalists" are still grading Trump on a curve and not calling him on flat-out lies. And that's such an obvious one, that Lauer should have known it was coming and been prepared with a tough follow-up. But no.
What scares the heck out of me is that the moron Trump is keeping it as close as he is. And his base is absolutely rabid.... you know they will show up to vote. Democrats are so wary of Clinton I'm afraid many may sit at home. I think it is possible The Donald could win this thing.
It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I don't think this thing is nearly as close as most media outlets are eager to report, at least in electoral votes. But if it's a horserace, they get more attention, ratings, page views, than if it is a done deal. What's interesting is that when Trump gets going off teleprompter, he loses support in a big way. When he sticks to the teleprompter speech, or stays a bit out of the spotlight for a day or so, his numbers improve. This makes me think a lot of people are projecting onto him things they *wish* to see -- and it's only when he blunders and blusters that it gets in the way of that mythical thinking. He's run a terrible campaign, and he won mostly because he ran against a whole lot of terrible candidates. He's never had a commanding lead -- I think he peaked in the mid 40% range among GOP voters. For Trump to win, Hillary will need to make some major mistakes. Playing the game on his terms -- name calling, being put on the defensive -- is asking for trouble. He's going to make a lot of noise, launch a lot of ridiculous accusations, and she really has to pretty much ignore his presence in any debate. I think there are a lot of Republicans out there who will think country over party and vote against Trump.
Can you say Reagan?!? He was forbidden to speak on his own. I believe they called it *shooting from the hip*.
In the latest news, Stephen Hawking has signed an open letter along with 300 other eminent scientists (including 30 Nobel winners), decrying Trump's pledge to pull the US out of the Paris climate accords if he is elected, as he has promised to do. How long, do you suppose, before Trump calls Stephen Hawking a "dummy," a "loser," or mocks his disability? Not that it would hurt him with his supporters. I went down to the comments section, and the very first one was: "Hawking is nothing more than a washed up cripple who does the bidding of his elite progressive masters. " And this is why Trump is so uncomfortably close.
