Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Donald Trump (HBO)

[Charmonium]

While it's always hilarious watching John "IT'S 2016!" Oliver throw another ineffective temper tantrum, considering that a huge portion of Trump's support comes from the fact that the hysterical idiots on the left despise him, this probably wasn't the best use of his time.

That's probably true. It's what's called preaching to the choir. Although there is a chance that some of the people watching the show support Drumpf. I don't think Oliver is quite as polarizing as someone like Maher.

I can understand a lot of Tea Party types feeling betrayed by the Republicans. That's why they never should have allowed themselves to be coopted by the party. They would have been better off on their own than trying to change an already bankrupt institution.

I think most people on the far right have already resigned themselves to the fact that the Republicans . . . "real" Republicans, don't have a chance in November. If they did, they would be supporting Cruz, Rubio or even Kasich (if he's still running). Donald has no where near the conservative street cred that any of those guys do.

 

[Fern]

How did you feel about Oliver showing that Trump was a pathological liar? Did that make you want to vote for him more too? How about the part where he showed that Trump is so thin-skinned about any perceived insult that he's still trying to convince a magazine editor that he has normal sized fingers decades after a story on the subject? Is that an attractive quality to you?

Sounds like a top notch presidential candidate to me, lol.

Pathological liar?

Thin skinned?

I think you misspelled 'Clinton'.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

This is the same for many supporters of many politicians, not just Trump. There are passionate supporters of Clinton who will vote for her no matter what. She could eat a baby on live TV and they'll still vote for her. Let's not pretend it's just a right wing thing. Lots of people are stupid and can't think for themselves. It's a flaw of democracy.

#bothsidesdoit.com

do you honestly think that Hillary's supporters are the type that would support her if she ate a baby on live TV?

It's absurd speculation, and only possible because it comes as something of an angry (I'm guessing some real embarrassment?) response to something absurd that Trump actually said, and his acolytes supported.

 

[zinfamous]

Pathological liar?

Thin skinned?

I think you misspelled 'Clinton'.

Fern

You think Hillary is thin-skinned? Does she strike you as the type of person to periodically mail a photo of herself to a journalist, circling her fingers to show that they "aren't small and stumpy" years and years after that person wrote that statement?

Really? Because that's the kind of shit Trump does. Religiously.

It baffles me that so-called adults continue to support this angtsy 13 year-old going through puberty in a very public fashion.

 

[Fern]

I will say this. And this is my opinion on the sad state of the American electorate. Of all the shitty things Donald Trump has said, done, or threatened to do. That Drumpf thing may be what would hurt him the most. People are so easily turned off by the most inane things.

Weird. His family's name was changed to Trump in the late 1600's. (Not sure how this link will work out, but see page 26 if you can.)

https://books.google.de/books?id=Pm...de&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

The "Trump" name has been around longer than the USA.

Every now and then I get the bug to do some genealogical research. Changing names are a real PITA and can stymie your research. Changing names are all too common. Heck, people back then changed the spelling of their names when moving from one town to another. There simply was no standardization back then.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You think Hillary is thin-skinned? Does she strike you as the type of person to periodically mail a photo of herself to a journalist, circling her fingers to show that they "aren't small and stumpy" years and years after that person wrote that statement?

Really? Because that's the kind of shit Trump does. Religiously.

It baffles me that so-called adults continue to support this angtsy 13 year-old going through puberty in a very public fashion.

Yeah. And if you cross her you will pay.

I'm not supporting Trump. I'm laughing at Dems who want to criticize the other party's candidate for lying. JFC, talk about living in a glass house and throwing stones.

Fern

 

[OutHouse]

It's the SAME video but not the SAME LINK. Don't you see that ?t=187??? Don't you love what a pedantic jackass Perknose is with nothing to actually contribute to any kind of real discussion???

thats what happens when you dont vet your own links. lol owned.

 

[SP33Demon]

You keep saying things like this, but never provide numbers. Weird, because that is always your "thing" ...that thing being tossing out number salads and making all sorts of nonsensical stories that don't really follow the numbers you tout...but it's still your thing to come around with numbers.

where are they?

I know that trump's speeches consist entirely of nonsensical ramblings about polls, how he likes polls, what polls say, yet he never provides his own numbers either. He has never talked about policy. Not once. He insults rivals and talks about Time magazine online polls.

We're up with the latinos! (like, 1% to 2%--but he's still up!), we're up with the educated! we're up with the poorly educated--We love the poorly educated!" ...dumb things that he has actually said.

In all this time, his ~30% support of republican primary voters hasn't really increased.

I think it is going to be a real shock to you when you realize that the independents of this country are far, far, far smarter than you and don't really see the world in your narcissistic bubble.

You can't really put a finger to a single policy that Trump supports--because he hasn't even made a single policy announcement. Not one! You probably know that there is an equal chance that he will strengthen Obamacare as he will trash it, because he hasn't really made a claim for either--just "something terrific!"

Deep down you probably know this, but the horse hormones you inject 3 times per week have silenced that ever-shrinking rational part of the nerve center twitching about some central region of your skull.

I think plenty of people get why Trump resonates with angry people, but not a single one of his supporters can point to what he will actually do. I think they are terrified--or just too illiterate to read or watch anything about him, prior to 2015--that he will be as liberal as he has been his entire life and completely shit on their poor white conservative victim mentality as soon as he's in office.

You asked for numbers, you got em. New CNN/ORC poll today.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/trump-clinton-dominant-as-super-tuesday-looms/index.html

Fresh off the presses, Trump now has 49% of the party vote with Rubio running a close 2nd at... 16%.

On the Republican side, the new survey finds Trump's lead is dominant, and his support tops that of his four remaining opponents combined. The businessman tops his nearest competitor by more than 30 points: 49% back Trump, 16% Marco Rubio, 15% Ted Cruz, 10% Ben Carson and 6% John Kasich.

Not exactly the "30%~" you were bloviating about in this post. :biggrin:

:thumbsup: to The Daily Show! Awesome ad for the Donald! Game over after tomorrow.

 

[Fern]

So, he's up to 49% support? If Trump manages to get the support of +50% of the repub voters will be interesting to see if the establishment drops their opposition and embraces him.

At this point I understand there are at least 2 campaigns with plans to force a brokered convention and dump the Donald.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

If they do it, he'll run as an independent spoiler, guaranteed. He is not a man to walk away from a fight or half a year of free publicity.

 

[Fern]

If they do it, he'll run as an independent spoiler, guaranteed. He is not a man to walk away from a fight or half a year of free publicity.

Good point.

Fern

 

[Perknose]

thats what happens when you dont vet your own links. lol owned.

I'm curious as to who exactly you think was owned, and why.

 

[OutHouse]

I'm curious as to who exactly you think was owned, and why.

sorry not my fight, im just in the cheap seats enjoying my popcorn.

 

[LPCTech]

Weird. His family's name was changed to Trump in the late 1600's. (Not sure how this link will work out, but see page 26 if you can.)

https://books.google.de/books?id=Pm...de&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

The "Trump" name has been around longer than the USA.

Every now and then I get the bug to do some genealogical research. Changing names are a real PITA and can stymie your research. Changing names are all too common. Heck, people back then changed the spelling of their names when moving from one town to another. There simply was no standardization back then.

Fern

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump
On wikipedia it says otherwise. It says "Frederich Drumpf" and says that he recorded his name as "Frederich Trumpf" when he got to America...but I guess his name isnt all that important.

John Oliver is a comedian and wanted to make fun of him and show him as a hypocrite for criticizing John Stewart's last name change to sound less jewish.

Trump's family wanted to sound less german.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump
Also, on Fred Trump's wiki page it says that he pretended to be swedish after WW2 cuz, well ya know.

"Although both of Trump's parents were born in Germany, Trump told friends and acquaintances for decades after World War II that the family was of Swedish origin. According to his nephew John Walter, "He had a lot of Jewish tenants and it wasn't a good thing to be German in those days." "

It also says that Fred Trump MAY have been arrested on the KKK side of a brawl with police vs the KKK.

"On June 1, 1927, a New York Times article reported that a "Fred Trump" was arrested and discharged after an incident with members of the Ku Klux Klan turned into a brawl with Queens police. The brawl reportedly consisted of over 1,000 Klansmen and 100 police officers, with Fred Trump being one of seven men arrested. An internet blog later rediscovered the article, and noted Trump would have been around the age of twenty-one. It stated "this is not proof that Trump senior—who would later go on to become a millionaire real estate developer—was a member of the Ku Klux Klan or even in attendance at the event. Despite sharing lawyers with the other men, it's conceivable that he may have been an innocent bystander, falsely named, or otherwise the victim of mistaken identity during or following a chaotic event."[8] And yet, the article states Fred Trump's address to have been 175-24 Devonshire Road, Jamaica, so verification of his identity is possible to someone with access to period records."

aaaand this.

"In 1973, the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division filed a civil rights suit against the Trump organization charging that it refused to rent to black people. The Urban League had sent black and white testers to apply for apartments in Trump-owned complexes; the whites got the apartments, the blacks didn't. According to court records, four superintendents or rental agents reported that applications sent to the central office for acceptance or rejection were coded by race. A 1979 Village Voice article quoted a rental agent who said Trump instructed him not to rent to black people and to encourage existing black tenants to leave. In 1975, a consent decree described by the head of DOJ’s housing division as "one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated," required Trump to advertise vacancies in minority papers and list vacancies with the Urban League. The Justice Department subsequently complained that continuing "racially discriminatory conduct by Trump agents has occurred with such frequency that it has created a substantial impediment to the full enjoyment of equal opportunity."

Wikipedia may not be completely accurate...
But whatever.

 

[Perknose]

sorry not my fight, im just in the cheap seats enjoying my popcorn.

You specifically commented, so you're already in the ring. It was unclear who you think was owned. I'm genuinely curious as to who you think was owned, and why.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
On wikipedia it says otherwise. It says "Frederich Drumpf" and says that he recorded his name as "Frederich Trumpf" when he got to America...but I guess his name isnt all that important.

I show you a well researched book and you bring up wiki?

I believe somebody just added that to wiki after the John Oliver thing.

Fern

 

[Perknose]

Weird. His family's name was changed to Trump in the late 1600's. (Not sure how this link will work out, but see page 26 if you can.)

https://books.google.de/books?id=Pm...de&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

When I go to your link, it skips from page 25 to page 27, and says in German that pages 26 and 27 aren't displayed.

Do you have the actual book? If so, would you mind taking a pic and uploading it?

 

[LPCTech]

I show you a well researched book and you bring up wiki?

I believe somebody just added that to wiki after the John Oliver thing.

Fern

I did disclaimer that Wikipedia may not be entirely accurate at the end.

Plus thats his grandfather and father, not him. So it kinda doesnt matter. Just sayin.

but the wikis for Trumps siblings also say drumpf. Could be recent changes but I dunno.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Trump_Barry

 

[Jhhnn]

That's probably true. It's what's called preaching to the choir. Although there is a chance that some of the people watching the show support Drumpf. I don't think Oliver is quite as polarizing as someone like Maher.

I can understand a lot of Tea Party types feeling betrayed by the Republicans. That's why they never should have allowed themselves to be coopted by the party. They would have been better off on their own than trying to change an already bankrupt institution.

I think most people on the far right have already resigned themselves to the fact that the Republicans . . . "real" Republicans, don't have a chance in November. If they did, they would be supporting Cruz, Rubio or even Kasich (if he's still running). Donald has no where near the conservative street cred that any of those guys do.

The only way that the Teatards have any power is by leveraging the rules to hold the Repub Party hostage & thus the whole country. The 50 members of the HOR Freedom Caucus are only 9% of the body yet nearly shut down the govt more than once.

 

[Fulle]

Yeah, Trump lies. He says stuff like "I don't know who John Oliver is", or he might exaggerate a bit on statements. He can change his mind on issues sometimes.... but he doesn't lie in the same manner Clinton does.

Trump has a tendency to give a highly exaggerated position on issues. I think it's purposeful, as a negotiation tactic. You give an extreme, and then you're more likely to end up where you want to be. He'll deflect by claiming he's ignorant of a situation, to delay needing to respond immediately.

Hillary just straight face lies, unflinching, in a manner that's actually pretty impressive among lying politicians. "I've always been against NAFTA!" "I've been for gay rights since the beginning" "I'm a progressive" wait no, now it's "I'm a moderate" oh oh, she's a "progressive again". Which crowd are we in front of? Is it more progressive or moderate? I'm whatever more of them are. Hillary will say ANYTHING, if she thinks it'll get her ahead, and when it comes to her actions, it whatever the money tells her to do.

I know what I'm going to get with that lady, and I don't want it. I don't think I can stomach a candidate that's going to promote big banking interests as hard as Hillary is going to. Who's power can be bought so easily, and has no integrity.

If Trump goes in, and he's just crazy.... Congress can keep him from causing any real damage and he'll be out in 4 years. Clinton? She'll surely get things done on pushing policy I don't want. So, I consider the crazy guy the lower risk.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, Trump lies. He says stuff like "I don't know who John Oliver is", or he might exaggerate a bit on statements. He can change his mind on issues sometimes.... but he doesn't lie in the same manner Clinton does.

Trump has a tendency to give a highly exaggerated position on issues. I think it's purposeful, as a negotiation tactic. You give an extreme, and then you're more likely to end up where you want to be. He'll deflect by claiming he's ignorant of a situation, to delay needing to respond immediately.

Hillary just straight face lies, unflinching, in a manner that's actually pretty impressive among lying politicians. "I've always been against NAFTA!" "I've been for gay rights since the beginning" "I'm a progressive" wait no, now it's "I'm a moderate" oh oh, she's a "progressive again". Which crowd are we in front of? Is it more progressive or moderate? I'm whatever more of them are. Hillary will say ANYTHING, if she thinks it'll get her ahead, and when it comes to her actions, it whatever the money tells her to do.

I know what I'm going to get with that lady, and I don't want it. I don't think I can stomach a candidate that's going to promote big banking interests as hard as Hillary is going to. Who's power can be bought so easily, and has no integrity.

If Trump goes in, and he's just crazy.... Congress can keep him from causing any real damage and he'll be out in 4 years. Clinton? She'll surely get things done on pushing policy I don't want. So, I consider the crazy guy the lower risk.

Lol! When you have to justify what lies are ok and what aren't then you've gone full retard.

 

[SP33Demon]

Lol! When you have to justify what lies are ok and what aren't then you've gone full retard.

Face the facts, there is a deep running river of hatred for hillary in the people. She's a loser and always has been, hell the people voted for a senator with almost zero political experience over her. She is a great matchup for Trump, I'd actually be more worried about Sanders because of his likability polling.

 

[Charmonium]

Face the facts, there is a deep running river of hatred for hillary in the people. She's a loser and always has been, hell the people voted for a senator with almost zero political experience over her. She is a great matchup for Trump, I'd actually be more worried about Sanders because of his likability polling.

Dynasties aren't what they used to be. That's a fact. She may piss off people on the right and even towards the middle, but not nearly as much as Sanders.

I think the Dems talked Bernie into running just so the Democratic race would get some press in the face of 15 or however many Rep candidates. He's really just shill for Hillary - although he doesn't realize that.

But for as unpopular as Hillary might be, she does have some very important voting blocks locked up tight. Blacks for sure and probably Hispanics, although I can't remember the stats. That counts for something if you can get those folks out to the polls. I'm not sure Donald really inspires that sort of commitment.

 

[LPCTech]

Face the facts, there is a deep running river of hatred for hillary in the people. She's a loser and always has been, hell the people voted for a senator with almost zero political experience over her. She is a great matchup for Trump, I'd actually be more worried about Sanders because of his likability polling.

I agree totally.

but

Democrats will fall in line and vote for her to beat Trump. IF it was Hillary v Rubio Id be worried.

 

[Paratus]

First of all, NO, I did not link "the same exact link" as the OP. I highlighted a brief, less than one minute excerpt (you do have to stop listening on your own, dear) from what was otherwise a 21 minutes long rant.

It is, quite literally, not "the same exact link." If you wish to further reserach this FACT, compare the two urls. Factual discourse requires factual precision. Try to keep up.

Secondly, NO, it is absolutely NOT "the same as liking your own post on Facebook." As with your factual fudging, please try harder to craft analogies that actually hold up and pertain, k?

It'd be a lot easier (and NORMAL) to just say, "I liked the part where he says 'xyz'" than relinking to the same video in the OP. I thought he was linking to a different Oliver video. Waste of fucking time.

thats what happens when you dont vet your own links. lol owned.

Let's just clear up a few things here. Especially to help you Outhouse since you just walked into the lions den.

Perk mentioned that he enjoyed a certain portion of the video in the link. Then showing the manners and technical skill of a forum admin, he linked directly to the point he was referring to.

Why is this considered manners? It's a twenty minute long video that readers can now jump right to the part Perk commented on.

Following this Sp33demon tried to jump up his ass for displaying bad manners. This was completely clueless of him. When that was pointed out he doubled down on herp a derp.

Hamburger boy correctly pointed out what Perk had done and then promptly stepped on his dick like a college athlete at NFL tryouts trying to run the forty by stating Perk added nothing to the conversation. This of course was idiotic since Hamburger pointed out Perks link was from the OP and hence his comment was directly on topic.

Finally Outhouse made a comment that implied someone was being an idiot. The comment seems to imply the idiot was Perk.

Perk now comes across as ready to drop the hammer on someone. From the fact you backed away from making another comment I think you realized it's going to be you Outhouse.

So maybe Outhouse, Sp33d and Hamburger, you could try putting on your reading glasses and not saying things that are demonstrably pants on head stupid.


Just trying to help boys.