Welcome to Thunderdome

this guy was a huge part of the Trump problem.

There's no way he's as big a part of it as Trump.

It's pretty clear that the biggest part of the Trump problem is Trump. When the Trump campaign fires Trump then there's a chance of moving forward, but until they do that I can't see any way past the problem.

Trump is a massive part of the issue, but read the article. This guy was just as polarizing.

Perhaps if Trump hires someone the rest of the party is willing to work with, and who can get Trump to scale back the ridiculous statements, they'll have a shot at beating Hillary.

It's amazing that nobody wants to vote for Hillary, yet she's a shoe-in because the other options are so bad.

I read the article.

I can't see how anyone could fix the Trump problem. I mean, even if you could in theory get him to behave during the election once it's done and he's in office then what? Does anyone think for one second that he'd keep being not Trump to please people? No, of course not. He'd be all Trump all the time. I fully expect "Trump White House" be spelled out across the entrance in gold letters within the week.

and who can get Trump to scale back the ridiculous statements

Dickless Donnie has nothing else besides ridiculous statements. Zero. Nothing. Nada. Goose egg. Zilch. I've heard nothing that even comes within twelve parsecs of a coherent policy or platform.

On the flip side, he's all for:

- banning an entire religion's members from entering the country, even those who were born here, leave, and want to come back
- building some magical wall between us and Mexico and getting someone else to pay for it
- limiting freedom of the press or speech
- executing some hitherto untold plan to wipe ISIS off the map "in months" ... I assume it involves getting their top leaders to do a season on The Apprentice
- pissing off every single minority in this country

Lastly, Trump won't listen to anyone but Trump. His absurdly inflated ego would never permit it.

Trump's dead.

Maybe Hillary will be the first president to get jail time when the email server stuff comes down on her. That'd be neat.

GORDON wrote:Maybe Hillary will be the first president to get jail time when the email server stuff comes down on her. That'd be neat.

I'll take Hillary in office from a jail cell over Trump. I'd vote for Kang or Kodos over Trump. I'd vote for Ming the Merciless or Auric Goldfinger over Trump. Shit, I might even vote for Joss Whedon over Trump.

Hillary will be in jail and she'll still poll at 47% popularity, and then someone will post the Romney secret video where he said there was 47% of the electorate they could ignore because they'll never win them and that was a huge scandal even though he was right.

Trump's the reason Hillary's even in the running at this point. When the alternative is so packed full of shit that he could rival the density of most black holes, you can't help but look better by comparison.

Trump is Trump, and can't deny his nature. The fact that the Republicans couldn't field anyone better than him makes it their fault. They want to be one of the two parties running the government but can't be bothered to really try. They know there's no point, the repubs and dems are as different as Pepsi and Coke.... meaning, not very different. Both parties are coasting now, they know they are entrenched. It doesn't matter who they run.

I fully expect "Trump White House" be spelled out across the entrance in gold letters within the week.

I'd vote for him just to see that.

They know there's no point, the repubs and dems are as different as Pepsi and Coke.... meaning, not very different. Both parties are coasting now, they know they are entrenched. It doesn't matter who they run.

That's why I don't understand Malcolm's hatred of Trump. What's really the difference between him and Hillary? I'm supposed to think she's the better option because he says offensive things and an ego? Seriously? She didn't give a fuck that four Americans were killed due to her inaction. ("What does it matter?) Thank goodness responding that way isn't considered "offensive". She purposely cut the government out of her email transactions, which is not only illegal, but also resulted in lots of classified materials getting out. No ego involved there, just incompetence, I guess, which is better...? Do you know how egotistical someone has to be to even run for president? "I'm the person these 220 million idiots need to lead them!" It's like how people are stunned when they meet a famous athlete and the guy (or gal) is a dick. Yeah, they fucking usually are because they truly believe they're better than you. That attitude is what fuels their success.

So Hillary is a unethical monster who doesn't give a fuck if Americans die on her watch, but that all makes her better than Trump because he's a douchebag.

That's not a defense of Trump, it's pointing out how stupid it is that he's getting massacred by people who seem to forget that the other person is, figuratively, the shit sandwich.

This is clearly the worst election in our history and not just because our final candidates from the "two big parties" are about the worst choices possible, but also because normally smart people are fighting over which bad choice is better.

THIS WAS, LITERALLY, A FUCKING EPISODE OF SOUTH PARK!!!!!!!

So Hillary is a unethical monster who doesn't give a fuck if Americans die on her watch, but that all makes her better than Trump because he's a douchebag.

That's not a defense of Trump, it's pointing out how stupid it is that he's getting massacred by people who seem to forget that the other person is, figuratively, the shit sandwich.

Trump gives exactly as much of a fuck about their deaths as she does. Why? Because they're not Trump and therefore they don't matter.

A list of differences. Some go to character, some go to pragmatics.

1) Hillary is relatively predictable. Trump isn't. There's absolutely no way of knowing what psychotic idea he'll put in motion, and maybe drop the next day when someone waves a new shiny object in front of him. Think Mr. Burns's attention span in the Frank Grimes episode of "The Simpsons" where he keeps hiring the Kent Brockman's "Feel Good Story of the Week" subject.

2) Trump hasn't demonstrated he can work with others or build coalitions. Trump has demonstrated zero ability to work with anyone that doesn't agree with everything he says all the time, even when it's a 180 from what he spewed before. Hillary occasionally got other politicians to work with her, and I'm pretty sure everyone hates each other in Congress.

3) Hillary's going to get full endorsement from her party. Trump isn't. When Rand Paul has to answer questions about Trump, he gets the same look Hugh Grant had after he got caught with a homely hooker. "Shit, it seemed like a good idea at the time but I'd like to have that decision back."

4) I haven't heard Hillary say a judge is disqualified to rule on a matter because of race or religion. I haven't heard her make other batshit insane statements either involving walls or bans on reentry based solely on religion.

5) Hillary has a platform and positions, all of which are bullshit, but at least she put effort into the presentation and sale. Trump's platform has all the forethought and cohesion of a Bluto Blutarsky term paper. It doesn't help that he'll say something's a cornerstone of his campaign one day, then pull the, "No, it was just a suggestion," card out of his ass the next. Hillary's not changing her position on abortion, education, health care, etc. next week or any time soon.

In short, Hillary will be shit but it won't be random, chaotic shit coming out of fucking left field every goddamned day.

"Trump hasn't demonstrated he can work with others or build coalitions." "Hillary's going to get full endorsement from her party."

Given the fact that both of these people are about the worst people in the world, these are not points against Trump. They are points in Trump's favor. At least I don't want either of them getting anything useful done, because their idea of useful is probably some awful shit I would rather they couldn't get done. So I'd prefer someone who can't work well with others.

"Hillary is relatively predictable. Trump isn't."

I can't see that this is a difference. I mean, I can give you a shit served in an ice cream cone or I can give you something random that may or may not be shit depending on what day it happens to be. Which would you pick? I for one wouldn't pick the guaranteed ice cream cone full of shit.

So I'd prefer someone who can't work well with others.

Trump's so fucking bad I think he'll kill enough Congressional campaigns to give both houses to the jack-asses for a bit. I'd predict a bumper crop of veto overrides if he somehow slithers into the White House.

I can give you a shit served in an ice cream cone or I can give you something random that may or may not be shit depending on what day it happens to be.

Eh, it's not "shit" so much as "something which is barely palatable but technically isn't poison because it's non-toxic and has nutritional content." If we want to talk the Trump Scoop Randomizer distribution, it's not uniform. I think it's about:

1) 99% chance of pure shit
2) 0.9999999999% chance of run-of-the-mill shit
3) 0.0000000001% chance of something positive

Case #3 assumes Trump is killed or dies prior to taking or while in office and picked a competent VP. Aside from dying, the best performance he could muster is "as shitty as Hillary" and the odds aren't good he'll achieve those lofty heights. It's not that Hillary's good. It's that Trump is coming off as so much worse, he's finding circles of PR hell no one knew existed. He can't genuinely be that clueless or he'd forget how to breathe. I have to assume he's doing this shit on purpose.

I still think #3 has a higher chance of happening than anything Clinton doing being "non-toxic". I don't have nearly as nice a view of her as you do. There is nothing even slightly lofty about her. She is scum of the most vile caliber.

TPRJones wrote:I still think #3 has a higher chance of happening than anything Clinton doing being "non-toxic". I don't have nearly as nice a view of her as you do. There is nothing even slightly lofty about her. She is scum of the most vile caliber.

Agreed. I think we're looking at subjugation by a totalitarian government or subjugation by a totalitarian tyrant. Either way we're pretty massively hosed.

It is striking me as amusing that of all the things for Malcolm to decide to care about, he picks presidential politics.... the subject that he is most incapable of changing out of anything else on the planet, short of buying a gun and going to a rally.

I can't remember a candidate so rife for parody and criticism as Dickless Don Drumpf.

I still think #3 has a higher chance of happening than anything Clinton doing being "non-toxic". I don't have nearly as nice a view of her as you do. There is nothing even slightly lofty about her. She is scum of the most vile caliber.

Yeah, but that's normal for any major party candidate, the last two-term twats and Trump the twonk included. He seems more clueless and his ability to reshape reality in his own mind is so complete he's almost autistic.

As I've said to Leish before, "care" is quite the strong word to use. The people who care are out at his rallies with signs or wondering how badly their Democratic congressional opponent is going to steamroll them next election unless they run as an Independent.

"He seems more clueless and his ability to reshape reality in his own mind is so complete he's almost autistic."

Exactly. That makes him much less of a threat in my mind. Short of misusing the nuclear codes I don't expect he'll get anything done as President, which is far better than could be said for Hillary.