Unofficial Apolyton Predicts

[Giancarlo]

Umh. Here is the relevant bit.

QUOTE

Senator Hanson, the One Nation Party leader, described the comments as “vulgar” but suggested they were on par with Bill Clinton’s public denials of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s.

“It was said not on camera, it was said behind the scenes, and it was a tape recording. Now let’s be honest about it, there’s a lot of men out there that say horrific things, probably up to the same standard,” Senator Hanson told the Seven Network, adding “there are women as well who say vulgar things”.

“What is happening in America is that people have had enough, they’ve had a gutful of the major political parties, their country is going down the tube, there’s no work, there’s problems in the country. It is up to the people now: will they overlook these comments that were said in private … or will they say, no, that he may be different man?”

ENDQUOTE

There are some people who may say that, but that doesn't make it right nor do most people think that way. I certainly don't.

And the issue here isn't even that. Trump lied in a debate where he said he never assaulted anyone (it's pretty clear that was a lie). Trump even paraded Bill Clinton's alleged accusers. He played with fire and got burned. That's what happened here.

Edit: By the way, that quote just seems like a **** excuse for nasty behavior. For anyone. "Oh but some people say worse". I say bull****.

[Egbert]

I don't know Giancarlo.

That quote may explain why Trump is a contender for the #1 job.

Even if it is just an excuse for nasty behaviour.

I think she is probably right to say that a lot of people have "had a gutful of the major political parties".

I have heard both men and women say some very vile things about the opposite gender (and I agree with you, that is no excuse for anyone to say vile things)

[Giancarlo]

I don't know Giancarlo.

That quote may explain why Trump is a contender for the #1 job.

Even if it is just an excuse for nasty behaviour.

I think she is probably right to say that a lot of people have "had a gutful of the major political parties".

I have heard both men and women say some very vile things about the opposite gender (and I agree with you, that is no excuse for anyone to say vile things)

Nope. I'm not going with that. It's just an excuse. And most people don't think that way. That's why Trump has a disapproval rating of around 60-65% (depending on the poll).

[Egbert]

Yet there must be some reason, or reasons, why he has an approval rating of 30 to 40%.

Pauline might be on to something ?

[Uncle Sparky]

Trump Unchained is more violent and racist than Django Unchained...

[-Jrabbit]

I'm gonna just put this here. I found it an interesting read.

http://www.scarymommy.com/hillary-clinton-myths-debunked/

[Sir Og]

I got that from the Wikipedia page for Spartanburg, SC. The page itself tries to put a chipper note on things, and I really do hope they're turning around, because when Shelok and I passed through there on our way down here the place looked downright miserable. See how things were booming for decades, stalled around 1970, and have been sputtering ever since? Spartanburg is not all that atypical. It will go for Clinton overall, but mostly because it's half-Black as of 2000 and Trump is a yutz. It's not like life for minorities around there is going to be much more exciting or filled with opportunities than it is for poor white crackers.

EDIT: Of the ten biggest employers in Spartanburg, the top three employers are the regional wing of the state healthcare system, the county government, and the school system. All receiving substantial outside funding. The next biggest is Walmart, which hires less than a thousand people, and at the bottom of the top ten (after the city government) is Denny's world headquarters (WOOOO!) which hires a whopping 285. The total employed by all of them is 12.5k, the substantial majority of whom are in the top three. And that's a bit more than a quarter of the city's population.

EDIT2: Spartanburg is actually one of the lucky ones, it turns out; there's a huge BMW plant not that far away that hires almost as many people again. So I guess it's not the best example of globalization's perils after all. Still, it looked pretty damn horrid passing through.

The data does not support the claim that globalization is to blame for lack of jobs. There was no globalization in the In the 70s and 80s.

Technological progress made the heavy industry jobs of the past obsolete and they are not coming back irrespective of globalization. The US produces as much steel today as in the 70s but with a tiny fraction of the people employed. It is the same for all manufacturing.

If you have strong sense of belonging to a tribe/race it is easier to blame China (a foreign/different entity) than to blame technological progress which is a lot more abstract.

[kentonio]

Some went for him because he's a snake oil salesman and talked the talk. They were conned. They wanted to blame someone and immigrants and brown people were easy targets for Trump. Trump has even talked **** about California.

Will you pull your head out of your ass for two minutes and try and grasp the idea of human empathy for long enough to let a challenging idea into your self-absorbed brain? You're doing exactly what the Democratic party has done for decades now, TELLING people why they think or vote how they do, and never actually bothering to go talk to them and actually find out.

To people who have lived their whole lives in a ****ty town, with mass unemployment, living in borderline poverty, with no realistic hope of getting out and no idea of how to improve their lives in any meaningful way, they really don't give a **** about most of the issues you care about. Maybe they would if they weren't spending their lives in an endless cycle of misery and despair, but when you're barely scraping by in the world and thats pretty much all you've ever known, no you're not likely to give much of a damn about other people's social equality issues.

The angry white male is increasingly irrelevant and I think that's another reason why there is so much anger with that group. Well... can't please everyone.

You sound like exactly the kind of disgusting, soulless, arrogant bastard the GOP run in elections. Well done showing exactly why millions of people wouldn't piss on either party if they were on fire.

[Egbert]

To people who have lived their whole lives in a ****ty town, with mass unemployment, living in borderline poverty, with no realistic hope of getting out and no idea of how to improve their lives in any meaningful way, they really don't give a **** about most of the issues you care about. Maybe they would if they weren't spending their lives in an endless cycle of misery and despair, but when you're barely scraping by in the world and thats pretty much all you've ever known, no you're not likely to give much of a damn about other people's social equality issues.

Ooooh yes. I wish I had poasted this!

There are a lot of people in the West who are barely getting by with no real hope of anything better. Hordes of them.

[C0ckney]

I'm gonna just put this here. I found it an interesting read.

http://www.scarymommy.com/hillary-cl...yths-debunked/

Not really. But again, this is a little more complicated.

Many people wrote to Secretary Clinton, asking to get personal appointments with her, after making large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Most of them didn’t get what they wanted, but a few did.

However, those few who did were already likely to get a meeting with the State Department anyway. Foreign heads of state, members of royal families, these are people who the State Department regularly deals with. They made large donations to the Clinton Foundation, and some of them did see Clinton afterwords. But as she received none of the money from these donations, the argument that it in some way curried favor with Secretary Clinton is dubious. In reality, they made large donations to a cause they knew she supported in hope of increasing her interest in meeting with them, and in some cases, that may have worked. But even in those cases, it was not illegal.

...

While it is true that Hillary Clinton was paid by Wall Street banks to deliver some speeches, it is untrue that they have exerted any influence over her, politically or otherwise.

as someone who lives in brazil, i hear this kind of thing a lot. still, i hope you enjoy your country and politics becoming more like latin america.

[C0ckney]

how did the clintons make their money?

Speaking Fees

The Clintons have raked in $153 million in speaking fees since President Clinton left office, according to CNN. In all, the news organization reports, they gave a combined 729 speeches from February 2001 until mid-2015, “receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address.”

After leaving the State Department in 2013, Hillary Clinton made as much as $200,000 a pop on the speaking circuit. She spoke to organizations associated with trade groups, the financial services industry, the tech industry and the health care industry, among others. She made roughly $22 million from the fees.

An Associated Press investigation found that at least 60 firms and organizations that had sponsored Clinton speeches had lobbied the U.S. government at some point during the Obama administration. At least 30 of the groups profited from government contracts during that period. There were 22 groups that lobbied the State Department while Clinton was at the helm.

nope folks, nothing to see here.

[Aeson]

Found this one interesting, since it's from someone who worked closely with Trump a long time.

[Aeson]

nope folks, nothing to see here.

I think there are some specific cases which appear they might have some conflict of interest (from what I've seen), but the numbers you quoted seem rather benign in and of themselves. Any group with enough money to pay such speaking fees is likely to be lobbying the government. Simply having overlap between groups that lobby the government and groups which the Clintons have spoken to doesn't necessarily mean anything.

22 groups that lobbied the State Department (successfully or not?) which account for X out of 729 speeches? If X is a very high number ... or if the speaking fees for those 22 (or the portion of them that lobbied successfully) are significantly higher than their normal speaking fees, then it would be more telling. So needs more specific details to matter.

[Proteus_MST]

The NYT isn't the only outlet who've had women come forward, we're up to 9 accusers from various sources. Also, the NYT verified that these women detailed their interactions with Trump at that time to other witness, who confirmed to the NYT.
...

Meanwhile Trumps lawyers have written to the NYT, demanding the removal of the Article and an apology towards Mr. Trump:

Spoiler:

https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/786422653988896768/photo/1

Followed by a quick answer by the legal team of the NYT:

Spoiler:

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/786620969985069056/photo/1

Excerpt from the answer:

The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one's reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. ....
Nothing in our article has had the slightes effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself

I guess if anyone does a documentary movie about the election campaign 2016, it will become a comedy

[Egbert]

It is a comedy.