This election gets even stupider somehow

You know how you can tell that you've said something stupid?
When this hot mess says you're "WISE."



Here's what word-salad Sarah had to say about Trump's performance in the most recent debate:

Sarah Palin added 5 new photos.

It was great to witness UNLV's Presidential debate tonight. Great running in to many friends!


Wow. Gotta stop you already. One sentence in! You ran INTO many friends. You did not run IN to many friends. That wouldn't even make sense. Well, I guess if you ran inside the building in order to meet your friends, then maybe? I don't know. Ir doesn't matter. Proceed, Governor.


Trump ran the table and clearly explained his vision for making America safe and strong again.

Ran the table? Do you even know what that means? It would mean that Hillary never even got a shot. It would mean. . . oh, forget it. The bigger problem here is that Trump has NEVER clearly explained anything in his life. He makes you sound coherent.

What a gamble it would be to vote for status quo failed government... more of the same of what dug us into the mess we're in today.


 Okay, so let's vote out the Teapublicans that have dominated the House and Senate the last several years and are gleefully preventing anything from being improved.


 Thank you to superb law enforcement personnel for keeping everyone safe tonight. Incredible job; incredibly tough task they accomplish - with a smile, no less!

 A smile? Oh, right, everyone there was white! Also, what threat was there to your safety? If you were a Hiullary supporter, you might have to fear some violence from Trumpers, but other than that. . . I mean the debate wasn't being held on a street corner in Southside Chicago or something.

Seems silly media sheep are all chomping down on one issue after this debate, at least according to all the reporters who hollered out this same question to me: "What about Trump not accepting the election results?”


 Right, because a major candidate being unwilling to "accept" the results of an election, a major candidate who commands an army of knuckle-draggers with assault weapons who are just itching for an excuse to 2nd-Amendment someone, that's such a minor issue! Silly sheep!

More power to Trump for explaining how vitally important the legitimacy of every election is to our democracy within our Republic. 

Um, he explained nothing? He said "I'll keep you in suspense?"
Also, if the losing candidate (and Trump is going to lose. Hard.) refuses to accept the results of the voting, that's not really adding to the legitimacy of the electoral process.

 

What reasonable person would preemptively accept any and all hypothetical questions and conditions of any hypothetical election? Trump's answer was RIGHT.


See, that's how you know you're wrong. When someone like Palin thinks you're "RIGHT!"
And I don't believe he was asked to accept "any and all hypothetical questions and conditions of any hypothetical election." I believe he was asked about this one particular election which is about a month away and isn't hypothetical at all. And no one expects that if a candidate is sane and says "yes, I will accept the results" that he would then be somehow bound to that word if, say, there was actual evidence of fraud, or if , say both candidates are revealed to be hideous space reptiles or whatever.

Every American's sacred vote MUST be respected and legitimized in today's elections - but they must be FAIR elections.


 Yeah, that's the same thing. Everyone's vote being respected and elections being fair, that's the same thing. (Not actually sure what everyone's vote being "legitimized" is.)


Also, if you're really concerned about every American's sacred vote being respected, I'd think you'd be a bit more bothered by these recent headlines:

BREAKING: State Level Republicans BUSTED Hiding Absentee Ballots To Steal Election (DETAILS)

By Georgia Bristow -

October 17, 2016

District Judge Assails Florida GOP’s “Election-Rigging” War on Voting

By Rmuse on Wed, Oct 19th, 2016 at 9:57 am

 hahaha, just kidding! I know you don't really care about that! I know you think that it is better that a thousand legitimate voters be disenfranchised than that one ineligible vote be cast. As long as it's dark-skinned people being turned away at the polls.
I know it's never about protecting the right to vote. It's always about keeping the mythical fraudulent voter from somehow tipping the balance with his one illegal vote.

We're in the midst of proof of voter fraud and questionable - even violent - participatory elements in campaigns.


No. No, there is no voter fraud.  there certainly isn't any "proof" of which we could be "in the midst." How would one be in the midst of proof, by the way?
Also, the only violent elements in the process are Trump supporters.

That's why state legislators are now cracking down on voter fraud via tighter laws ensuring the security of our elections. 

Yeah, no. Honestly, it's not even worth the time to debunk this complete b.s.

 When Trump is pressed on this, it harkens back to all the GOP primary candidates who screamed at Trump to support the Republican nominee - no matter what - and Trump initially responded that he could, depending on fair treatment. That is WISE and INSIGHTFUL!



And as we all know, when Sarah Palin says you're WISE! and INSIGHTFUL! you know you've said something extra stupid.

Also, why wouldn't he just use that same "wise" "insightful" answer at the debate? Why not just say "yes, of course I will accept the results, assuming there isn't compelling evidence of fraud?"

Trump got screwed in that deal when he eventually pledged to support the nominee and then some of his fellow candidates turned tail and refused to reciprocate when Trump won. 

Whaaat?? The man who knows how to make the best deals? The king of the deal-makers? He got screwed on this deal? No! I don't believe it.



Trump learned - why give opponents permission and incentive to act unfairly and cheat? It's shortsighted to commit to accepting the outcome of a race REGARDLESS of unscrupulous cheaters. How totally unfair that would be to the American voter!

Well, the good news is, you're not going to have to worry about it. Hillary and the Dems are not going to need to cheat. Your boy is circling the drain. He's in such a downward spiral, he might pop up in Chyyy-nah before it's over.


Trump gave potential cheaters fair warning that we'll not give them any quarter. We'll hold them accountable. They'd better be on their toes. Cheaters will not win.

Oh, uh. . .yeah! Right! heh heh!

Of course Trump will accept the legitimate outcome of a legitimate election! What the heck is so hard to understand about that?


Um, I guess the part where he refuses to actually just come out and say that? I guess that's kinda what's throwing people off? Especially when he comes out the next day and says

“I would to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,”

See? Nothing about "legitimate" outcomes. Nothing about legitimacy at all. Just "If I win." And, Sarah, believe me when I tell you that if he does win, that would be proof positive that the election was "rigged."

What the hell is Limbaugh talking about?

I'll make this quick since my computer is being very uncooperative today.


I saw this a few days ago, and I'm still not sure what the hell he was trying to say. I mean, I've been turning it over in my head trying to find a way that this makes any sense. Even factoring in that Limbaugh has zero human decency, I still can't figure what his point is supposed to be.

“You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.”

What????


Okay, I only see two possible ways he could have meant this. First, and most horrific, is that in his fevered brain, the idea of consent, that you shouldn't fuck anyone who doesn't want you to fuck them, is some sort of hippy-dippy lefty-loosey notion that is just really out there. Which doesn't really make sense because, yeah, that's exactly how it works and everyone knows that. Consent is what differentiates between a fun evening and a horrible crime. It's the same difference between a withdrawal and a bank robbery. It's the difference between a road trip and a kidnapping, between a boxing match and assault & battery. It's not a liberal/lefty/progressive thing, it's just the definition of the word.


The other possibility I can see is less horrifying, but still awful in its own way. He may be saying that sex, at least non-marital sex, is always wrong whether it is consensual or not and that the left seems to think it's okay as long as all parties are willing participants. If sao, that's pretty rich coming from this thrice-married pill-popper who may or may not frequent the fleshpots of the third world armed with a forged prescription for Viagara. ( http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party )



And I really don't know what to make of the line:  But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.

Ah, yes. The "rape police." Or, as they're more commonly referred to, the "POLICE."

Usually if you toss another word in front of the word "police," it's because you're making a joke about someone who is not actually a police. Like the "grammar police" or the "fashion police." But the rape police are the actual police. I mean, he must know that, right?

I don't know. And I don't know why I care. I just have this compulsion to try to make sense out of things. But this? This has me stumped.

Happy Birthday, Chuck Berry!

Ninety years ago today, one of the all-time greats in the history of American pop music was born.



Chuck Berry will always be remembered for the "duck walk" and the signature riff, but he never does get enough credit as one of the all-time great songwriters.

That's why EVERYONE covers Chuck Berry:






















“If you had to give rock’n’roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry” -John Lennon

“Why should I write songs when Chuck Berry wrote them all?” -George Thorogood

Bad Ads -- Chevrolet

Okay, Chevy has been running these "focus group" ads for a while now and first of all, Chevy, you're not fooling anyone. They all begin with the text "real people, not actors." They may not be professional actors, but come on. Those people are acting. No one in a focus group is this enthusiastic. Have you ever been in a focus group? I've been in a couple. Not to brag, but I helped choose the name "Zeltzer Seltzer."

Of the choices we were given, it was the least dumb. 

If it had been up to me, I'd have gone with "Helter Skeltzer."

Anyway, in a real marketing research focus group, people are just there to get their 25 bucks or whatever it pays nowadays and go home. No one is excited. Especially when they know that the company is Chevrolet. So they know the product is going to be a car. And not a very good one. It's not like it's Steve Jobs walking out on stage and people are waiting in breathless anticipation to see what the latest hi tech gadget is going to be. But the super-annoying little weaselly guy says "today, I'm going to show you the 2017 shitmobile" and these not-actors act like kids on Christmas morning, just dying to see what Santa brought them.

Also, if you have any doubt about whether these are "real people," one of these ads has the weaselly guy take everyone's phones and toss them in a woodchipper and they're all like "whuuut???" No one yells or swears or says "what the hell is wrong with you?" or punches the weaselly guy right in his annoying weaselly snout.


(Okay, in the long version, a couple of them do make half-hearted attempts to stop him, but most just chucle and gape at him like he had suddenly broken into La Habenera" or something)



Also, there's one where he tells the people to describe the vehicle using only "emojis," and no one says, you know what, I don't really need the money that bad, let's just forget this while I still have a shred of dignity. I'm going to go home and take a Silkwood shower and then try to drink this memory away." No, they all gleefully choose various stupid little drawings to form some stupid little description of this stupid car or truck or whatever and they all act so proud of themselves and I die a little inside.

 

I believe this translates to "go fuck yourselves, millennials."

But this one takes the cake. They bring these people into a room and say I'm only going to show you half the car. Then the wall slides open for the big reveal. . . . . . It's a Hatchback! And they are DELIGHTED! They're really acting like this is some new innovation in the field of auto design. Like they think people don't know that hatchbacks have been around since at least the Seventies. And no one thought they were cool then, either. Practical, sure. But not cool.

 

I mean, the Pintos were kinda cool when they exploded I guess, 

but that didn't happen nearly often enough.

One of the girls in the group even says, as though it were a compliment, "business in the front, party in the back," a phrase only ever used to describe the word's most embarrassing hairstyle.

Also, what "party" in the back? Has there ever been anyone who has seen a guy driving a hatchback and thought "now that guy knows how to Partayyyy!"

Damn, girl. This party's off tha CHAIN!

Anyway, here it is if you haven't seen it. I'm not responsible for any computers thrown out of windows.

Idiots say idiotic things

Idiot #1: Newt Gingrich

Speaking about Trump's performance in debate #2.

"The key point is when he said he would appoint an independent prosecutor… I think Trump crossed into being a historic figure by saying, you know, we have so much corruption in this administration,” Gingrich told radio host John Gibson
(via:https://www.buzzfeed.com/nathanielmeyersohn/newt-gingrich-trump-crossed-into-being-a-historic-figure-at?utm_term=.ldAGOM4rD#.dplyWv5Ll)

Yeah, threatening to have your opponent arrested is totally something an historic figure would do. An historic figure like Mussolini or Pinochet or Sadam Hussein -- historical figures each one. Also, I thought Newt was an historian. If so, how does he not know that standard grammar amongst historians calls for the article "an," not "a" before the word "historical? It should be "an historical figure," not "a historical figure."

Idiot # 2: Louis Gohmert

“Trump has said some things that are very vile back when he was supporting people like Bill Clinton. But if you’re Bill Clinton’s big buddy like he was at one time, you’re going to talk like Bill Clinton. And I think we need to forgive him for talking like big Democrats like Clinton and other foulmouthed people.”

Okay, first of all, it's not about his language. It's about his having committed sexual assault.
But secondly, I'm not sure this is really the selling point you think it is. You're saying that Trump is so succeptible to peer pressure -- AS A 59-YEAR-OLD MAN! -- that he completely lost his moral bearings by dint of having hung out with Bill Clinton? What's going to happen when he spends a week at Camp David with Putin? "Well, ol' Vladimir poured me a bunch of really primo vodka and long story short, we're gonna help him take back Lithuania!"

Now he’s a Republican. James Dobson tells me he’s become a Christian. And so, look, we forgive him for the past because he’s asked for it.”

You know, just like how Hillary Clinton can never be forgiven for the things her husband may have done 20-odd years ago!

(Also, no. He has famously never asked for forgiveness.)





Idiot # 3: Dr. Ben Carson


On Trump's "Locker Room Talk"

(Via: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/11/cnns_brianna_keilar_to_ben_carson_where_are_you_hanging_out_that_you_hear_locker-room_talk_like_trumps.html)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN: Why call it "locker room talk"?

DR. BEN CARSON: Call it whatever you need to call it to make it feel good to you. But the fact of the matter is, I've been in lots of place growing up and listening to people tell great tales of sexual conquest. It is an immature thing to do

HE WAS FIFTY-FUCKING-NINE YEARS OLD!!!!

Also, it's not about the words. It's about the crimes.
And walking up to strange women, force-kissing them and grabbing their genitalia is NOT a "sexual conquest." It is sexual assault.

CARSON: Don't mischaracterize, if you mind, what I'm saying. What I am saying is that that kind of banter goes around all the time. Is it the right kind of thing to do? Absolutely not. Is it the kind of thing that I've done? Absolutely not.

Jeezus! I've been in locker rooms. I played sports in high school. I've heard my share of locker-room ribaldry. I never once heard anyone bragging about having committed a sex crime.

KEILAR: So you've heard people talking about this?

CARSON: Of course. Are you kidding me?

KEILAR: Where are you hanging out --with whom are you hanging out that you hear people talking like that?

CARSON: I -- As I was growing up, people were always trying to talk about their sexual conquests, trying to make themselves appear like a cassanova. I'm surprised you haven't heard that, I really am.

Do you have any idea who Cassanova was? Okay, I don't really either, but I'm pretty sure he didn't go around crotch-grabbing strange women. Being a repeat sex offender is nothing at all like being the "world's greatest lover" or "seducer of women" or whatever you think pof when you picture Cassanova.

Really? This guy? This was the guy who slept with so many women? Okay.

KEILAR: I haven't heard it, and I know a lot of people who haven't heard it.

CARSON: Well maybe that's the problem. Maybe that's the problem.

That's the problem? How is that the problem? Do you have any idea what constitutes a problem?

 

Oh, right. Of course you don't. Sorry!