Conservative Misogyny and MCPsThis is not just WHO TRUMP IS, this is WHO HIS SUPPORTERS ARE: MCPs, Male Conservative Pigs, Male Chauvinist Pigs

There was a phrase which entered a broader national awareness back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Male Chauvinist Pig. It was a slang term for misogynists, men who - Sincerely! - viewed women as inferior and inherently unequal to men.  While it has never completely disappeared from use, it is time to revive it again more broadly to apply to the 2016 election cycle. (The right insists sincere beliefs have a priority over everything else, because they are "sincere", and therefore somehow special.)

It is a fair accusation that in the 2nd Presidential Debate, Donald Trump hoped to distract those who were fleeing his sinking rat-infested ship of a campaign with his claim that he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton for her emails.  I suggest the 'special prosecutor' be issued the badge pictured here, since he or she would not be operating on behalf of all Americans, but only on behalf of the MCPs.

This relies on the classic civics and other ignorance of his generally poorly educated base of support. The President CANNOT appoint a special prosecutor; that is the purview of the Attorney General and the Congress. While Trump may assume he will get whatever AG he wants, no matter how incompetent, AGs, like Supreme Court picks, are only in office by confirmation of the Senate. If Obama's SCOTUS pick isn't going through, you can bet that such an AG pick won't be confirmed either.

But HEY! It makes a great DISTRACTION for toddlers and ignorant adults from that embarrassing scandal.  And there is much more scandal to come, beginning with Trump discussing his daughter's breasts with Howard Stern, and then proceeding to give his blessing to Stern calling Ivanka Trump a "piece of ass".  Because apparently women, even one's own daughters, are just pieces of meat for male gratification, not real and equal human beings.

From CNN via Mediaite:



When you read the selected collection of Rush Limbaugh quotes below, it won't come as a surprise that Trump and so many of his surrogates are many-times married - Trump, Guiliani, Gingrich, etc. They believe women exist apparently for their sexual gratification and have little additional value other than as baby incubators.

These Pro-Trump conservatives are a slightly sanitized version of a segment of misogynists on the right known as MRA, Men's Rights Advocates or the MRM, Men's Rights Movement, opposed to feminism and female equality, and dedicated to maintaining male privilege. To grasp how vile the MRAs can be, I would direct you to a site listed on our blog roll, We Hunted the Mammoth.  Here "Mammoth" quotes a prominent writer in MRA circles, condemning Paul Ryan for dis-inviting Trump and Pence to campaign with him.  (By way of terminology explanation, they use the term 'alpha' a lot for a fantasy assumption about natural male superiority, and they use the word 'cuck' a lot as a short form of cuckold, part of their belief that women are all sluts who sleep with multiple men - just never them):

If you ever wanted to know why I’m not a conservative or a Republican, this craven pandering to women pretty much sums it up. I’m not sickened by Trump’s locker room talk. I’m sickened by the fact that weak little gamma males like Ryan … have any influence in Western society at all. The only correct response to this “scandal” should have been a single question: “so the f*ck what?”
Never trust a moderate, a Churchian, or a cuckservative. Never. They will stab you in the back in order to virtue-signal every single time.

I agree with the above author on only one point; it is true that the right has accepted and embraced the extremist alt right, including the MRA's, in their big tent that only excludes moderates. But when  as they inevitably do, these MRAs and other misogynists like Trump embarrass people like Ryan who need votes to get elected, then those pols feign surprise and distaste.  They know perfectly well that these are donors and voters for themselves and their party causes.  They know who they are; we ALL should know them for who they are. It's not a secret, it is not a surprise.

REPUBLICAN women and Independent women are fleeing Trump like the pig he is.

A Trump Most Foul

We have all said things, privately, which were crude.  We've probably all boasted a little, in ways which were exaggerations, maybe even false but..

There are no amount of words which can explain away or excuse the kind of conduct which Trump admits to in the recently released tape of him prepping for his appearance on "Days of Our Lives" in 2005.

He can say, "That was long ago.", but it was more recent than Bill Clinton's affairs about which he wants to focus.

He can say, "It was just locker room banter," but in the tape he brags about being able to casually grope women (Did they all ask for or even WANT those advances??  Perhaps Trump should clarify?), that's not just talk, it's not something I'd do or anyone I know would do just because we could "get away with it."  It speaks to the power-mad mind of this man, this cretin, Trump.  Trump's voice on the tape appears to say he can grab women in a way that some might describe as sexual assault simply because of his celebrity and "get away with it."   That's not banter, it's recounting your own conduct and bragging about how you can behave in ways which were potentially illegal but most certainly are disgusting, immoral, and define someone as an out-of-control, crude, sexist, pig.

He can (and did) say, "I'm sorry, it's not who I am."  But it so clearly is who this man, this foul acting man is.

He can say the words don't reflect him, but the words describe actions which so very clearly do reflect him.  They describe a man who has little regard for women outside of how he can "F" them, he has little regard for anyone to whom he isn't attracted and for anyone to whom he is, whether or not the attraction is mutual, he cares not at all.  He'll grab them and grope them just because he wants to.  He's not just a bully toward men (and women) he's a sexual bully, a vile man lurking around, testing the waters just to see what he can get away with.

You can say all those things, and he did, and yet none of them excuse the conduct, not his words, his conduct.

If I found out this man had groped my daughter when she didn't want or ask for hit, I'd likely want to "pound his face in" (rhetorically speaking of course).  What would you do?  Would you be upset? 

In this case, ask yourself, would you vote for him?   Really?  And if you did, what would you tell your daughter?  If some women come forward and prove he did what he said he can get away with in the tapes, won't that make him the predator?  What then do you say?

I say this man is foul.  He reflects all that is wrong with excess and celebrity.  He reflects all that is wrong with those who use money and power to bully people and most of all, he reflects a brand of misogyny which we have rightly condemned as putrid, archaic and immoral.  It's not just time for us not to vote for Trump, it's time for us to throw him into the dustbin of history.

(One note, I over qualified much of the above because Trump, this "man of strength", this insecure, narcissistic bully, loves to sue anyone who speaks the truth about him - but that's a post for another time - this is the time to call a spade a spade).

It's Friday Fun Day! Enjoy a cartoon!

Republican forgetfullness, or just crazy denial and delusion? Terrorism, let me count the ways

There is a pattern of denial and selective memory that is unique to conservatives as a broader pattern. I bring this up here both to correct the conservative false narrative, but also to raise awareness of this pattern as we continue through the 2016 election cycle.

What the list below exemplifies is the alternate reality of denial and delusion that characterizes both conservatives generally (like those who blame Pres. Obama for the poor emergency response to Hurricane Katrina  FIVE YEARS BEFORE HE ASSUMED OFFICE.) and prominent conservatives specifically that broadly mis-remember or misrepresent historic fact. 

An example would be Guiliani insisting the shoe-bomber attack occurred before 9/11 when it was after, and denying 9/11 occurred on George W. Bush's watch.  But he is far from the only example:



When it becomes a pattern, in the continuing factually false narrative of conservative talk radio, or the continuing false narrative of conservative political campaigns, I would posit this is deliberate misinformation, or more precisely disinformation aimed at creating a false belief system that supports the conservative ideology.  Sadly, it seems to work on at least the weaker-minded Fox-Not-News-watching conservatives.

We saw that when Rudely Guiliani claimed there were NO terrorist attacks under Dubya, apparently forgetting or willfully omitting - among others - 9/11. Being kind, let's say the idiot Rudely meant to say, "other than 9/11 and merely misspoke.



He'd still be wrong,  massively wrong. Wrong like when he says everyone commits adultery is wrong.

I'm confident that Hillary Clinton is aware, in detail, of every one of these attacks on Americans and American territory, both foreign-based and domestic.
     From Wikipedia, in chronological order, domestic terrorism attacks:

• May 21, 2001: The Center for Urban Horticulture at the University of Washington burned by the Earth Liberation Front. Replacement building cost $7 million ($9,355,000 today). Earth Liberation Front members pled guilty.
• September 11, 2001: The September 11 attacks were carried out against the United States by the Al Queda Network, killing 2,507 civilians, 343 firefighters, 72 law enforcement officers, 55 military personnel, and 19 perpetrators. Four domestic commercial airliners were hijacked simultaneously while flying within the Northeastern United States; two flew directly into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, the third into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, and the fourth (thanks to the revolt by the passengers and crew members) into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, during a failed attempt to destroy its intended target in Washington, D.C., either the White House or the United States Capitol. The Twin Towers were ultimately destroyed, and the Pentagon received extensive damage in the western side of the building. Building 7 of the World Trade Center was also destroyed in the attack, though there were no casualties.
• September 18 - November, 2001: 2001 anthrax attacks. Letters tainted with anthrax killed five across the U.S., with politicians and media officials as the apparent targets. On July 31, 2008, Bruce E. Ivins a top biodefense researcher committed suicide. On August 6, 2008, the FBI concluded that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks, and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro-choice views.  However, subsequent evaluations have found that the FBI's investigation failed to provide any direct evidence linking Ivins to the mailings.
• July 4, 2002: 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, killed two Israelis and wounds four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. The FBI concluded this was terrorism, though they did not find evidence linking Hadayet to a terrorist group. October 2002 Beltway sniper attacks: During three weeks in October 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people and critically injured 3 others in Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia. The pair were also suspected of earlier shootings in Maryland, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington state. No motivation was given at the trial, but evidence presented showed an affinity to the cause of the Islamic jihad.
• March 5, 2006: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar injured 6 when he drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world".
• March 25, 2006: Capitol Hill massacre: Kyle Aaron Huff entered a rave afterparty in the southeast part of Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood and opened fire, killing six and wounding two. He then killed himself as he was being confronted by police on the front porch of 2112 E. Republican Street.
• July 28, 2006: Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, Naveed Afzal Haq, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, killed one woman and shoots five others at the Jewish Federation building in Seattle. During the shooting, Haq told a 911 dispatcher that he was angry with American foreign policy in the Middle East.
• October 26, 2007: A pair of improvised explosive devices were thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. The fake grenades were filled with black powder, and detonated by fuses, causing very minor damage. Police were investigating the connection between this and a similar attack against the British Consulate in New York in 2005.
• March 3, 2008: Four luxury woodland houses near Woodinville, Washington were torched, leaving behind a message crediting the Earth Liberation Front.
• March 6, 2008: Times Square bombing. A homemade bomb damaged an Armed Forces Recruiting Office in Times Square.  In June 2013, The FBI and New York City police offered a $65,000 reward for information in the case and revealed that ammunition used for the bomb is the same as is used in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones. On April 15, 2015, the F.B.I increased the award to $115,000 and said they have persons of interest.
• May 4, 2008: Multiple pipe bombs exploded at 1:40 am at the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse in San Diego causing "considerable damage" to the entrance and lobby and sending shrapnel two blocks away, but causing no injuries. The FBI is investigating links between this attack and an April 25 explosion at the FedEx building also in San Diego.

U.S. Diplomatic missions, such as embassies and of course our military bases abroad, are all U.S. territory.  Attacks on them are attacks on all of us.
     From politifact.com:

Here is a chronology of the deadly terrorist attacks on United States embassies, consulates and traveling U.S. personnel during the presidency of George W. Bush. The list below does not include foiled attacks or those that did not result in fatalities (other than those of the attackers). The descriptions for each incident are excerpted from the University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database.

• Dec. 15, 2001: Unidentified assailants gunned down a Nepalese security guard of the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal.
• Jan. 22, 2002: Two assailants attacked the American Center in Calcutta, India. Five policemen died, and 15 others were injured in the attack.
• March 20, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru, killing nine people and injuring 32. The U.S. State Department reported no American casualties, injuries, or damage.
• June 14, 2002: A suicide bombing in front of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, left 12 dead and 51 injured.
• Nov. 9, 2002: The security supervisor for the U.S. embassy in Nepal was shot dead at his house in Kathmandu. Maoist rebels claimed responsibility for the incident.
• May 12, 2003: In a series of attacks, suicide bombers blew themselves up in a truck loaded with explosives in a complex that housed staff working for U.S. defense firm Vinnell in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (The contractors worked out of the U.S. embassy.) At least eight Americans were killed in the incident. Al-Qaida was suspected responsible for the incident. This was one of three attacks, involving at least nine suicide bombers and suspected to have involved 19 perpetrators overall.
• July 30, 2004: Two people, including a suicide bomber, were killed and one person was injured as a suicide bomber set off an explosion at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The Israeli Embassy and the Uzbekistan Prosecutor General’s Office in Tashkent were also attacked in related incidents.
• Oct. 24, 2004: Edward Seitz, the assistant regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, died in a mortar or possible rocket attack at Camp Victory near the Baghdad airport. An American soldier was also injured. He was believed to be the first U.S. diplomat killed following the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
• Nov 25, 2004: Jim Mollen, the U.S. Embassy’s senior consultant to the Iraqi Ministers of Education and Higher Education, was killed just outside the Green Zone in Baghdad.
• Dec. 7, 2004: Gunmen belonging to al-Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula stormed the U.S. Consulate in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, triggering a bloody four-hour siege that left nine dead. One American was slightly injured in the assault.
• Jan. 29, 2005: Unknown attackers fired either a rocket or a mortar round at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. The strike killed two U.S. citizens and left four others injured.
• Sept. 7, 2005: Four American contractors employed with a private security firm supporting the regional U.S. embassy office in Basra, Iraq, were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their convoy. Three of the contractors died instantly, and the fourth died in a military hospital after the bombing.
• March 2, 2006: An unidentified driver detonated a car bomb while driving past the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing a himself, a U.S. Consulate worker and at least three others.
• Sept. 12, 2006: Islamic militants attacked the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria, with hand grenades, rifles, and a vehicle rigged with explosives. One guard and the four attackers died.
• July 8, 2007: Two Iraqi U.S. Embassy workers were killed when the wife went to deliver a ransom for her husband who had been kidnapped in Baghdad. One of the couple's bodyguards was killed in the failed ransoming.
• Jan. 14, 2008: A bomb hidden on a north Beirut highway hit a U.S. Embassy vehicle, killing at least three Lebanese bystanders. The car's Lebanese driver and an American at a nearby school were wounded.
• March 18, 2008: Al-Qaida's wing in Yemen, Jund Al-Yemen Brigades, fired between three and five mortar rounds toward the U.S. embassy, but instead they hit a girls’ school nearby, killing a guard and a schoolgirl and injuring 19 others in Sanaa, Yemen.
• July 9, 2008: Four unknown gunmen killed three Turkish police at the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
• Sept. 17, 2008: Suspected al-Qaida militants disguised as security forces detonated vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, fired rocket propelled grenades, rockets and firearms on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen. A suicide bomber also blew himself up at the embassy. Six Yemeni police, four civilians (including an American civilian), and six attackers were killed while six others were wounded in the attack.
• Nov. 27, 2008: A Taliban suicide car bomber targeted the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing four civilians in addition to the suicide bomber and wounding 18 others. The embassy was hosting a Thanksgiving Day event as Americans and other foreigners were arriving at the venue at the time of the attack.

Thank you Al; you're smart enough, you're good enough, and doggone it, we like electing you.

The VeeP debate was a yawn, Kaine won. But only because liars are losers.

One set of pundits described it as more of a bickerfest than a debate.

I was disappointed that after the cool, calm and collected way that Hillary handled the first presidential debate, to the detriment of Trump, Tim Kaine was unable or unwilling to follow her example.  I found that to be a huge disappointment, to the point where I wanted to turn off the television and find a good book rather than lose those minutes to irritation.

In contrast to Kaine's interruptions, Pence exceeded the performance of the top half of his ticket, in style, but not in substance - or integrity.

When did right wing evangelicals stop believing that lying was a bad thing?  This is selective Bible reading at the very least, both old and new testament, and a complete omission of the 9th commandment.

“the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.”  Psalms 33:4

"Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Psalms 85:10“Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.” Proverbs 12:22

But neither had anything new or worthwhile to add, either about themselves or their fellow candidates, and Pence is emphatically the loser in the fact checking department.  Pence's sole value in the debate was to deny the crazy on the right, of which he is himself a blind adherent, and to deny both his own voting record and the accumulated gaffes and follies of his presidential candidate.

The fact checking was summed up by the Nation:

He [Pence] also showed that he can lie as well as Trump. Time and time again Kaine or Quijano presented Pence with stands that Trump had taken, only to see the loyal VP nominee deny Trump had ever said any such thing. Pence also lied about his own record, insisting the only reason he tried to zero-out Planned Parenthood’s federal funding was because that was a “fiscally responsible” way to address the deficit. No one believes Pence on that, including his own far-right supporters.
The anodyne, white-haired Pence, who looks like he’d been sent by central casting to play the disarming, grandfatherly right-wing zealot that he is, did his best to make Trump seem like a reasonable presidential candidate Tuesday night. Meanwhile Kaine, “America’s nice dad” (in the words of comedian/author Sara Benincasa), was strangely judged the rude guy by cable pundits. Yes, he did interrupt some, partly when the placid Quijano failed to challenge Pence on any of his dissembling. “Six times tonight I have said to Governor Pence I can’t imagine how you can defend your running mate’s position. And he has not,” Kaine said toward the end of the debate. But Quijano almost never followed up.

I was particularly disappointed that in the discussion of faith in politics, there was no mention of Pence being a creationist who has repeatedly expressed his desire to suppress the study and teaching of evolution, replacing it with faith based baloney not broadly shared by less-extremist Christianity.

What I did not see was any follow through on the Trump threat to attack Bill Clinton for infidelity, which I had expected from Pence has NOT conspicuously been involved in serial adultery, unlike other surrogates, notably Rudely Giuliani or the Nut Gingrich,.

It is never a winning position to simply lie and attempt to deceive.  Only the true cult-ish believers will be persuaded to find merit, and there will be little if any aggregate gain in the long run.

Whatever damage control was accomplished by Pence will be undone in any case when Trump next opens his mouth, or grabs his phone in the wee hours of the morning to begin yet another tweet storm, showing himself to have the obsessive character of a creepy, old, degenerate stalker.

Doggin' it

I don't have anything new written this Monday, because - referencing the 'dog' part of Dog Gone, my nom de plume - I was off playing at dog events all weekend, and just too tired out afterwards to try to be clever or analytical or insightful today.  First I have to see what new hypocrisy and folly Trump and his surrogates and proxies got into over the weekend on the assorted Sunday "talking heads" programming; h/t to little green footballs for finding this.

So, here is something fun instead, and I promise I'll get serious later.  I always enjoy Keith Olbermann.

Imagine...........no, not the John Lennon kind of Imagine, the 2016 presidential race kind of imagine

Minor correction; Trump interrupted Hillary 51 times; the additional interruptions totaling 70 were where he interrupted or talked over the moderator.

 

It's Friday Fun-Day!

Enjoy a little schadenfreude as conservatives go after Trump, via this graphic from FB

Trump the bitter misogynist, shooting himself in the foot in his own mouth

Trump lost to Hillary, badly, in the post debate campaigning.

His vaunted winning in unscientific polling is a lie; those polls where he did show ahead were hacked by 4chan and other alt-right white supremacist and neo-nazi thugs. Those are not 'real' numbers, and if he wants us to believe he is savvy enough to govern without prior experience, he better know this.

On the upside, at least this wasn't rigging by Russians this time.

From the Daily Dot:

4chan and Reddit bombarded debate polls to declare Trump the winner

Donald Trump supporters artificially manipulated the results of online polls to create a false narrative that the Republican nominee won the first presidential debate on Monday night.
The efforts originated from users of the pro-Trump Reddit community r/The_Donald and 4chan messaged boards, which bombarded around 70 polls, including those launched by Time, Fortune, and CNBC.

As Stephen Colbert noted, Trump also claimed he won a CBS poll.............except CBS didn't DO a post-debate poll.  Trump exaggerates himself, while he diminishes the very real accomplishments of others.  He is an egregious liar, as noted by USA Today which just declared him unsuitable and unqualified to be president, in an historic sort of anti-endorsement.

[USA Today] went on to list and expand on eight reasons for its stance, including: "He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief," "He traffics in prejudice," and "He’s a serial liar."

"Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent," the editorial said.

When Trump realizes he can't bully Hillary, because she deals with him so deftly, making him look the jerk he is, he goes after another woman instead on whom to vent his frustration. The surrogate this time for his bitterness and frustration is a woman he successfully bullied before, Ms. Alicia Machado. Trump complains bitterly that Machado gained weight, but Trump himself has been a bit of a porker for some time now, and if anyone has long term problems controlling what goes in or comes out of their mouth, including his own foot, it is clearly Trump, not Machado.

Trump has alternately defended and denied his interactions with Machado, which is itself a contradiction.  His conduct, whether he 'saved her job' or not, was wrong.  But this follows a similar pattern where Trump has excused the sexual harassment misconduct of his buddy, another ugly pig of a man in every sense of the word, Roger Ailes, giving him a pass because he paid women and helped their careers.  Apparently in Trump's dead-animal-covered mind, when a woman works for you he thinks you own her, and can abuse her, that she is not entitled and deserving of respect or consideration.  No COMPETENT executive treats employees this way, and it bodes ill for how Trump would conduct himself in the oval office.  His vulgarity is only exceeded by his misogyny and his ego.

Now, apparently not caring what kind of hole he is digging for himself with Latino/Latina voters, where this is widely being discussed and covered in Spanish language news in swing states like Florida, Trump is now claiming - as the New York Times noted, without evidence - that a sex tape exists featuring Ms Machado.  Machado DID pose nude for Playboy, but Trump appeared on the cover of Playboy himself, (clothed, thank God) so he can hardly FAIRLY complain about that. Further, Trump's own wife has posed in actual porn photos, so it is not perhaps wise for Trump to indulge in attempted slut shaming, although he may very well lack the presence of mind to recognize that.  Clearly Trump's hypocrisy rises far taller than his tallest building to date.

It appears that Trump is intending to attack Hillary on the basis of Bill's infidelity; given, AGAIN, Trump's own conduct and that of a number of his surrogates and advisors, like Rudy Guiliani and the Nut Gingrich, that cannot possibly end well.  Particularly since there is no evidence that Hillary has ever engaged in adultery.  Not Trump, not Guiliani and certainly not Nut G can fairly claim to be supporters of 'traditional monogamous marriage'.

He has gone on to claim Machado was involved in a murder plot, something claimed b a disgruntled ex-boyfriend, but she was never charged, much less prosecuted.  Rather this appears to be a he-said-she-said accusation without merit.  While the boyfriend was indicted he does not appear to have been convicted; THAT has been Trump's own 'out' before, notably in his settlement of two race discrimination cases and for accusations against him of sexual harassment and sexual assault.  Perhaps we should call him "Double-standard Drumpf", or maybe "Double-standard Donald"?

There is an irony here in so far as Machado did not gain nearly the amount of weight claimed by Trump, successfully took her body and her career in hand, successfully was the spokesperson for a diet aid in Latin American, and has been consistently successful internationally following her year as Miss Universe, including success as an actress, singer and dancer, AND reality tv star far beyond the accomplishments wold wide in reality tv of Donald Trump. It would be fair to say Trump is not good with numbers. By not good I mean in a Republican Math kind of way where numbers exist to exaggerate and lie, not as factual numeric values. Most recently, not only was Trump gone from NBC, who asserts they do not want him back post-campaign, but also that Trump has per NBC grossly exaggerated his compensation numbers as far back as 2011.

I think it is a reasonable expectation that Trump will be making that face below again and again in the next few weeks, as he gets beaten by Hillary, and probably by Alicia Machado as well.  He is continuing to lose ground with women, including Republican and other conservative women.  Women will beat him in the general election, perhaps more than any other demographic.

And Trump will have a long time to make the sour face below:

When is Trump moving HIS products back to the US? Part 2

Given the OTHER markets outside the US for Ford products, and the import of US made components to manufacture Ford cars, Trump's plan would make them less competitive in the US, but still very competitive elsewhere in other large markets in this hemisphere.  The Trump Tax would be counterproductive, ONLY hurting the US market.  It is NOT a strategy that would stop Ford expansion as a world brand -- world branding is something you would think Trump understands better than his debate and policy positions show.  Trump's policies would only harm the US economy and US consumers.

Other sources have cited Moody's Analytics as supporting Hillary's economic policies, but there are others, notably Oxford Economics, a Brit firm with offices in the US as well as the UK. That includes the Wharton School from which Trump graduated.

From CNN Money:

Oxford Economics found that if fully implemented, Trump's economic, tax and immigration policies would cost 4 million U.S. jobs, weigh down global growth and U.S. consumer spending, and could spark a trade war with other nations.
"Combining these policies together, the impact could be significantly negative for the U.S. economy," says Jamie Thompson, head of macro scenarios at Oxford Economics.
Oxford's figures are in line with other analysis. The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton Budget Model forecasts Trump's immigration policy costing 4 million jobs and Moody's economist Mark Zandi -- a Clinton supporter -- also forecasts a similar job loss under Trump.

Thompson argues that Trump could hurt the very workers he says he'll help in America's manufacturing sector. In Oxford's "adverse case scenario" Trump slaps a 35% tariff on goods coming from Mexico, like cars and air conditioners.
But the problem is that almost half of the parts in those cars and ACs originate from U.S. suppliers. In other words, U.S. manufacturers who ship to Mexico stand to lose customers if the U.S. imposes a tariff on the products they contribute to.
CNNMoney also found similar stories when we spoke to denim manufacturers in South Carolina. They send an overwhelming amount of denim to Mexico, where it is cut and sewn into jeans, which are sold in America. They say NAFTA, the trade deal with Mexico and Canada, is critical.
"Without NAFTA, we would be out of business," says Rich Turner, who employs 2,700 workers at his denim plant in Mauldin, S.C. Turner is still supporting Trump because he refuses to vote for Hillary Clinton.

How Trump is wrong on protectionism, anti-globalism, and in-sourcing jobs

Trump of the tiny hands and big mouth is apparently willfully ignorant about jobs, outsourcing, the national economy and the global economy.  He is specifically bone ignorant about the auto industry generally and Ford Motor Company specifically.

1. Ford is NOT firing anyone when it exports jobs to Mexico.  Rather it is retooling the existing Ford plant in the US, a process of investment in US manufacturing which itself creates jobs, and it is continuing to employ all of the existing workers on a different set of vehicles.
As noted by CNN Money:

The automaker quickly shot down Donald Trump’s latest hyperbolic claim, made on Fox News Thursday, that Ford plans to “fire all its employees in the United States” as part of a plan to build a plant in Mexico.
Ford said there will be zero job losses in the U.S. as a result of the new plant in Mexico. The Wayne, Michigan, plant that now builds the Focus and C-Max that will move to Mexico will instead start building other models — probably the new Ford Bronco SUV and Ranger small pickup.
“Ford has been in the United States for more than 100 years. Our home is here. We will be here forever,” said spokeswoman Christine Baker.
The company has 85,000 U.S. employees, up 28,000, or nearly 50%, in just the last five years. It has 8,800 employees at Mexican plants, and will add 2,800 jobs there when the new $1.6 billion plant opens there in 2018.
Ford committed to build new vehicles at the Michigan Assembly Plant to take the place of the Focus and C-Max when it reached a new contract late last year with the United Auto Workers union, which represents 3,900 hourly workers at the plant.

2. This shift in manufacturing models is because, as noted in multiple sources, the small cars being sent to Mexico are the least profitable in the United States.
Again from CNN Money:

The small cars Ford is shifting to Mexico are less popular and less profitable models. Trump has been using Ford for months as a prime example of what’s wrong with U.S. trade policy, but Ford has been strongly rebutting the GOP nominee.

3. Cars are assembled, but not manufactured in Mexico; the parts (at least 50%) from which the cars are assembled are made in the United States. That is ACTUAL US manufacturing and product export, unlike the assembly process.
Continuing from CNN Money, addressing multiple products including cars:

But the problem is that almost half of the parts in those cars and ACs originate from U.S. suppliers. In other words, U.S. manufacturers who ship to Mexico stand to lose customers if the U.S. imposes a tariff on the products they contribute to.

4. Cars assembled in Mexico and other foreign countries are not ONLY sold to the US market, they are also sold in many other nations. Central and South America are among the biggest new markets for US vehicles, both used and new, comprising considerable exports that benefit the US economy. This is part of the United States maintaining a competitive economic global presence, which is arguably most important in our own part of the globe.
From the LA Times:

Vehicle sales growth in China, now the world’s No. 1 car market, is grabbing headlines. But Latin American countries including Brazil, Peru, Argentina and Colombia also are seeing car sales skyrocket. A rapidly expanding middle class and easier credit are feeding the regionwide boom.

5. Trump policies panders to xenophobic anti-immigrant members that comprise the majority of his base; however what would really result from those policies is a loss of jobs, NOT the expansion of jobs in the United States.  It is worth noting that multiple sources (besides those listed below) find the same thing, INCLUDING the Wharton School from which Trump himself graduated.
From another piece at CNN money:

Oxford Economics found that if fully implemented, Trump’s economic, tax and immigration policies would cost 4 million U.S. jobs, weigh down global growth and U.S. consumer spending, and could spark a trade war with other nations.
“Combining these policies together, the impact could be significantly negative for the U.S. economy,” says Jamie Thompson, head of macro scenarios at Oxford Economics.
Oxford’s figures are in line with other analysis. The University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Budget Model forecasts Trump’s immigration policy costing 4 million jobs and Moody’s economist Mark Zandi — a Clinton supporter — also forecasts a similar job loss under Trump.

6. The buying power and a resultant decline in the standard of living from an overwhelming majority of US citizens and residents would be the actual effect, not the result that Donald Trump is selling to largely economics illiterate supporters.  This is the antithesis of what Trump claims he would do in making America great again.  Going this time to economists from a far right source, although this is a finding broadly found across the political spectrum of economics, we see from the National Review, in reference to actual tariffs imposed on China by the Obama administration, that relate directly to auto manufacturing and consumption:

By 2009, the United States was importing tires from China at a rate of about 50 million per year. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union complained to the Obama administration that there was a “large, rapid, and continuing” increase in the number of Chinese-made tires entering American markets. In September of that year, Obama approved relief for domestic producers by increasing tariffs on most new tire imports for three years.

But the tariff also forced consumers to spend $1.1 billion more on tires than they otherwise would have — or roughly $900,000 per U.S. tire industry job created. And retaliatory tariffs imposed by the Chinese further hurt our economy. In early 2010, China’s Ministry of Commerce imposed tariffs ranging from 50.3 to 105.4 percent on American poultry imports, which “reduced exports by $1 billion as U.S. poultry firms experienced a 90 percent collapse in their exports of chicken parts to China,” according to Hufbauer and Lowry.

When is Trump moving HIS products back to the US? Part 1

Trump big-mouth tiny-hands talks big about trade.

He brags about his many businesses and the items with his name on them.

So when is Trump going to promote American companies by putting his name on ONLY products here? Oh, wait ---- when he does that, those companies fail.  ONLY companies owned and run by someone else using his name seem to do well consistently. That includes the Trump golf courses overseas which are NOT doing well.  PBS Newshour did an excellent profile on the Trump businesses and outsourcing jobs HERE.

And the PBS News piece goes on to note:

It is obvious that consumers, already hard pressed by weak income growth, would see their buying power further constrained. But many would also discover their jobs are threatened. Our economy is currently deeply linked to the rest of the world, and millions of U.S. workers are employed in companies that sell imported goods and use imported components in the products they manufacture in the USA. Trump’s tariffs would wreak havoc with global supply chains and force many companies to reduce employment. In addition, foreigners would undoubtedly retaliate against our exports as they would be entitled to do under our trade agreements. Think about what a trade war would do to investment and employment.

As to Trump's claims about US companies, he does not prepare well for debates and other policy presentation;  he is not factual, he does NOT do his homework.  He was WRONG WRONG WRONG about Ford motor company sending jobs to Mexico costing US jobs.  They are shifting their LESS POPULAR models to Mexico, where they will no doubt be sold across Mexico, Central and South America as well as some brought back into the US.  Trump utterly fails to understand the US global market for US cars, unlike the analysis done by the LA Times on such sales.  But there is entirely new manufacturing in the same facility which is being retooled here.  NO jobs are being lost, and some new jobs are being created by the retooling process.

From CNN Money:

The automaker quickly shot down Donald Trump's latest hyperbolic claim, made on Fox News Thursday, that Ford plans to "fire all its employees in the United States" as part of a plan to build a plant in Mexico.
Ford said there will be zero job losses in the U.S. as a result of the new plant in Mexico. The Wayne, Michigan, plant that now builds the Focus and C-Max that will move to Mexico will instead start building other models -- probably the new Ford Bronco SUV and Ranger small pickup.
"Ford has been in the United States for more than 100 years. Our home is here. We will be here forever," said spokeswoman Christine Baker.
The company has 85,000 U.S. employees, up 28,000, or nearly 50%, in just the last five years. It has 8,800 employees at Mexican plants, and will add 2,800 jobs there when the new $1.6 billion plant opens there in 2018.
Ford committed to build new vehicles at the Michigan Assembly Plant to take the place of the Focus and C-Max when it reached a new contract late last year with the United Auto Workers union, which represents 3,900 hourly workers at the plant.
And while Ford is shifting production of all small cars to Mexico, it will continue to make many car models at U.S. plants, including the iconic Mustang.
The small cars Ford is shifting to Mexico are less popular and less profitable models. Trump has been using Ford for months as a prime example of what's wrong with U.S. trade policy, but Ford has been strongly rebutting the GOP nominee.
The issue surfaced again on Wednesday when a Ford executive, speaking at a conference for investors, reiterated the company's plans to move its small car production to Mexico. During a Fox News interview, Trump vowed to impose a 35% tax on cars built in Mexico if they're shipped back to the U.S.
"They think they're going to get away with this and they fire all their employees in the United States and...move to Mexico," said Trump. "When that car comes back across the border into our country that now comes in free, we're gonna charge them a 35% tax. And you know what's gonna happen, they're never going to leave."

This is called protectionism; it doesn't work. Trump's policy plan for reducing the outsourcing of jobs has been widely debunked as crap by economists who have looked at how this has worked when it was tried before.  It hurts, not helps, the economy and does not result in significant job saving.