On his show Last Week Tonight, host John Oliver said Donald Trump risks facing humiliating defeat in his campaign for a job that he would be bad at and that he should seek a face-saving way out. He says that his campaign made four good points and now the best thing he could do is drop out of the race, and he gives suggestions for how to do so in a memorable way.
Here is a longer version of that clip that is on a sever that seems to be a bit glitchy.
Do we actually want him to drop out?
Right now it looks like he’s going to tank the Republican side down ballot as well, which might finally break the goddamned deadlock in the legislature.
Another potential problem with teh trum-prat “dropping out” is the fragile anti–trum-prat opposition — people, currently, reluctantly, intending to mark their ballet for Secretary Clinton — will have lost the main reason for “supporting” that warmongering tool. It’s liable to implode, possibly quite quickly, making the race even stranger. Whilst I doubt the antivaxxer or the loonytunian would be elected, it’s not-too-clear the warmongering tool would be either, suggesting either some thug (no idea who?) or teh trum-prat (despite “dropping out”) could be elected.
Back in Realityland™, teh trum-prat lies and reverses himself so much I wouldn’t believe he really has “dropped out”.
@blf No. 2,
For disclosure, I am in Jill Stein’s camp, so I can’t allow your antivaxxer statement to go unchallenged.
Stein’s nuanced answer, informed by her education as an physician, does not in anyway, shape or form attempt to make the case that parents should not vaccinate their children.
I would encourage you to watch her CNN Townhall broadcast and listen closely to her response to the vaccination question.
Do all you can to make today a better day.
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
Hmmm…regarding @1, I wonder if Trump dropping out would actually improve the down ballot voting even more. This is really in the realm of full speculation here, but would some Republicans be so dumbfounded by not having a presidential candidate that they would not have the encouragement to vote at all? Though, as sort of pointed out at @2, might something similar happen for Democrats thinking they obviously have the presidency in the bag? (Since it would seem a lot of people aren’t all that interested in down ballot given midterm voter turnouts.) And perhaps the biggest concern would be those who come out to vote just to vote against Trump; they will have lost their reason to vote.
So…yeah, maybe it would be better for Trump to stay in…hard to say.
@3, hyphenman
Well, I really don’t have anymore time to give today to listening in to a video, especially not one an hour long. (A time frame to focus on would have been helpful.) But, going off of what you said, I am going to guess that she also did not make the case that parents should vaccinate their children. Would that be an accurate guess?
In which case, I think I’m going to still have to agree with what PZ Myers posted a few weeks ago where he (as did someone else) points out, as a similar example, that climate change deniers don’t necessarily straight out say it’s a hoax. What they do instead is say they doubt the current evidence as being complete or leading to the conclusions claimed. Same could be said of some 9/11 truthers that may say they just doubt the claims of the government. Which, in a way, is wise. That keeps the burden of proof off of them and they can just go about saying they don’t think that burden has been met. (The problem often is they give no indication as to what it would take to meet that burden and I believe there tends to be a lot of moving the goal posts involved with this.)
To keep this brief, my point is I would think that, if you are going to conclude Stein is not an antivaxxer (or give her the benefit of the doubt), then, to be consistent and not be engaging in special pleading, you would have to also conclude or give the benefit of the doubt to a lot of other people that get labeled as anti-science.
@Leo Buzalsky, No. 4
“she also did not make the case that parents should vaccinate their children. Would that be an accurate guess?”
No, that would be an inaccurate guess.
I don’t conclude that Stein is not an antivaxxer, I simply take the doctor at her word.
Jeff
This article describes the way that Stein’s views have been misunderstood and even distorted.
@ Mano, No. 7,
Cheers.
Jeff
It was tongue in cheek, but also expressing a real annoyance at her actual, full context comments about vaccines, GMOs, and wifi.
The article Mano linked to called the media attacks on Stein out of context, and then spent zero words giving the context or explaining or defending Stein’s comments. But it did spend a lot of words complaining about elites and the media. And the delusional assertion that momentum has shifted to Stein and the Greens.
It is textbook anti-vax to say you aren’t anti-vax, you are pro safe vax. Stein said vaccines work and have prevented disease, but in the very next sentence said the FDA is corrupt and can’t be trusted and Big Pharma is putting toxins in your vaccines. I don’t think Stein is anti-vax, but she sure is pandering to them.
If you want to supply context that will explain Stein and the Green Party’s bizarre comments on wifi, their pro alt-med and homeopathy stance, and their anti-GMO position, I’ll listen.