It just occurred to me that I’ve probably used the terms Weiner and Wang more times in the past week than in my entire adolescence.
I bought a ‘‘nasty woman’’ t-shirt with her riding a shark and she’s playing a guitar while a bald eagle flies overhead. It’s pretty epic.
All proceeds to Planned Parenthood, because fuck the haters, that’s why.
They could both be right. There are some 13,000 FBI Agents, and they probably tend toward people with a mindset of super-patriotism and punishing criminals, both of which have long been characterized by right-wing radio and Fox News as things Republicans are for and Dems are against.
There are some 113,000 DOJ employees, which includes the FBI, but also likely includes many people who want to ensure minority rights are preserved, which would make them more likely to be liberals.
Also, the worst FBI anti-Hillary sentiment could just be among the top brass, but that’s all you need to ensure the leaks we’ve seen.
Og bless you, and stay nasty!
As I predicted, it looks like we have an attempt at a manufactured email scandal:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-documents-idUSKBN12Y2WY
Okay so it’s not from Stone and Bannon, but it might as well be given how closely they seem to be working with Russia and Wikileaks.
In lighter news, Putin grants action star Steven Seagal Russian citizenship.
God, I love a good through-line.
What’s a through-line? I dunno, what’s a through-line with you? No, seriously: A through-line is a common theme you can use to build a narrative around. In music, it’s a motif; in a painting, it’s a more literal line, an arrangement of objects used to draw the eye in a specific direction. In a written medium, it’s something that just keeps happening, a theme with variations, so the audience can hold onto a common thread as the story moves along.
Here, the through-line is “A forced conflict between two generation-gapped sides where the older side is utterly offended beyond words at something the younger side takes as a matter of course.”
Example 1:
“That person is gay! They’re just gay right out in front of God and everyone, and now they can get married!”
“So?”
“But they’re gay! They’re gay and they’re married!”
“You either need more drugs or fewer.”
Example 2:
“I can’t tell if that person went into the right bathroom, so now I’m going to be very angry in public.”
“Unless that bathroom was a broom closet, they went into the right one. What the fuck do you care, anyway?”
“They might be a creep!”
“The only creep here is the one obsessing over which bathroom a total stranger went into.”
Example 3:
“That woman is being assertive. And aggressive. And all leader-ish. She’s being a leader, right out in public.”
“She’s a politician. She’s running for President.”
“But she talked down to a man! On television!”
“The man is a sexual predator with the policy knowledge of a gibbon. She called him out on a few of his lies in between his tantrums.”
“She isn’t being very feminine. She’s nasty.”
“Jesus Christ, Frank, get it together.”
With is it with faux tough guys and Putin?
The guy was a high ranking KGB officer. Now he’s President of a country we have very uneasy relations with, and who currently seems to be intent on fucking with our elections. Why would an American be so buddy-buddy with him?
Entertaining and well worded post, Derleth.
Someone gets it. And there is no solution.
Because Steven Segal is all about his own ego and receiving recognition and acclaim. He’s a narcissist who dabbles in the high end narcissist market.
Because Trump has demonstrated that fake tough guys get votes.
Unfortunately for Putin, he didn’t vet the rest of Trump’s history adequately through the eyes of 2016 Americans and his chosen candidate will lose this election for behavior that Trump and Putin both think are normal human behavior. Putin’s gotta be pissed.
So he needs to recruit a fresh fake tough guy to run on Putin’s behalf in 2020. Seagal is his choice du jour. We’ll see if Seagal rises to take the offer. I’d bet it’s the kind of offer (ref Don Corleone) that one doesn’t refuse.
That’s a lot of government workers.
I will have to say that I like this comment at the Reddit Clinton sub:
“This will always be remembered as the presidential election in which the KKK, the KGB and the FBI all supported the same candidate.” - Victor Laszlo on Twitter. 
Hey, at least Trump can claim to be a unifier.
Thank you.
I’m starting to prefer looking at predictions for electoral votes instead of percentages of winning.
Silver(538) currently has Clinton probably finishing at 294 but with a very wide possible range including her going under 270 and Trump winning.
Wang (Princeton Election Consortium) currently has Clinton probably finishing in a range roughly from 300-325 and no chance of Trump winning.
I think Silver’s model is saying there is so much uncertainty that anything can happen. Because of this, his prediction will be right no matter who wins. Wang’s model is bolder because it is making a clear call.
One could almost call it a vast right wing conspiracy.
I’ve volunteered for Hillary several times here in Ohio, both phonebanking and canvassing, and the campaign has been very encouraging, even pushy, about early voting by supporters.
Here’s Seth Meyers, hilariously comparing the relative scandals of Hillary and Trump. The last two minutes are the best: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/opinion/5-reasons-to-vote-trump.html
In her odd speech today, Melania plagiarized Marla Maples: “if you could dream it, you could become it” 