2016 Republican Thread

[caulfield12]

If you constantly use Breitbart sources/links to attack someone, let's say Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation...

 

"I never supported Bannon or anything" becomes I can consistently use a certain media source to zing/gotcha a political opponent but can still remain blissfully flying above the resulting trainwreck with no damage done to myself.

 

Well, that's not the way it works. If you consistently quote Breitbart, O'Keefe, etc., then the way politics works today is that you're eventually going to tar yourself with the same brush.

 

So either someone is deliberately being obtuse about all of racism/anti-immigrant rhetoric and fake headline news over there (which is bad enough) or one's going to be 100% aware of it but still justify using that to make attacks instead of looking for more centrist/moderate/closer to what we used to think of as more objective news sites.

 

Perhaps another point in all of this is that reasonableness and compromise and finding common ground simply don't exist anymore in terms of being a winning media platform strategy. Without having an edgy take or defending a certain position/viewpoint, we risk losing ratings/profitability. Controversy sells. It's the same reason there wasn't a single debate question about the environment during this 18 month campaign season.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-...4b0e39c1fa71e48

This is Bannon directly admitting (to Trump, over a year ago) to being a "vulgarian" and deliberately staking out a position way to the right of Trump himself on immigration.

Edited November 18, 2016 by caulfield12

[Buehrle>Wood]

Criticize people for using Breitbart. Use a Huffington Post article in the same post.

[caulfield12]

Criticize people for using Breitbart. Use a Huffington Post article in the same post.

 

The difference is that those were the exact words of Trump and especially Bannon...not a political opinion.

 

It wouldn't matter where they came from.

 

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-govern...e115414633.html

Koch Industries Names New CIA Director

 

That's what Breitbart would title an article as...if they were liberal.

 

You can go to Vanity Fair, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/ste...lley-inaccurate

 

http://sfist.com/2016/11/16/bannon_asian_ceos.php

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/798915723917721601?m=1

Washington Post/twitter

 

http://www.aol.com/article/finance/2016/11...-they/21608468/

AOL was owned by Steve Case, an ardent Republican

 

They are radio interviews with direct quotes, not opinion columns that were just conjured out of thin air.

Edited November 18, 2016 by caulfield12

[illinilaw08]

Rabbit,

 

Mike Pompeo, Trump's pick to head the CIA, in his own words on the NSA from December of last year. Thought you would find this interesting.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4288...tional-security

[Jenksismyhero]

And people think our country is bad concerning rape/rape victims:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/br...d-dubai-9284516

 

Woman gets gang-raped, reports it and then is charged with a crime of extra-marital sex!

[Jenksismyhero]

Lol, obligatory Hitler video about the election.

 

 

"Bills emails to you are safe."

[bigruss]

lol "Obama stopped playing golf to campaign"

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

It's refreshing to see someone from the intelligence community call the spying for what it is.

 

Who are you referring to?

[caulfield12]

It certainly gets tough to get to the bottom of things when the topic keeps broadening and I was undoubtedly a contributor to that. I just didn't like that you were using Bannon as a way to get me when I had no reason to talk about Bannon. You're a obviously well read and a worthy debater. I take nothing personal here and appreciate your ending sentiment. All the best SB.

 

 

If you give me one post where I sourced Breitbart I will move to China and help you grade papers. Not once have I ever used it to support an argument nor have I even read any of their work other than perhaps Shapiro and probably some stuff from Breitbart himself after he died. I know you feel a lot more comfortable coming at me in the filibuster because you have a group of people who align with you politically (even if they can't follow your train of thought) but please stop coming at me with stuff I never did. It's petty and there's no constructive converastion to have.

 

 

When I saw that I laughed out loud. Unbelievable.

 

 

That was a great share illinilaw. More than anything, I'm interested to see if Trump brings some of the isolationist rhetoric he's had into action. It's refreshing to see someone from the intelligence community call the spying for what it is. Frankly, that stuff getting supported by regular people is maddening. "I'm not doing anything wrong so they can spy on me, I have nothing to hide." Just give them all the power why don't you,

 

 

I'm working on it.

 

10-20 pages of Republican Thread, and we have The American Mirror, Wikileaks and The Washington Free Beacon.

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/19/ja...ws-nexus/213927

When you consistently cite O'Keefe, there's no way for you to then run away from his obvious ties to Steve Bannon. They are essentially one and the same. O'Keefe doesn't have the audience he does without the backing and support of Breitbart.

 

You attempted without even bothering to source it to tie Froman to Obama when they didn't even communicate with each other from 1991-2004...by connecting them in some sort of left wing banking conspiracy through Rubin. It's the kind of thing that people don't even bother to read, they just see the headline in the Facebook echo chamber...and assume the worst if they already have a tendency to dislike Obama.

 

You made fun of Huffington Post being cited but didn't even read what it said. You do understand that basically identical copies of the same article being at multiple sites throughout the web, Vanity Fair for an example, doesn't mean they can change the words that Trump and Bannon actually uttered in a recorded radio interview? What in that story about Trump and Bannon is factually untrue or take out of context? How would you write it to more accurately portray Bannon?

Edited November 19, 2016 by caulfield12

[CrimsonWeltall]

Illinilaw's link about 5-10 posts up

 

Right, it linked to something by Pompeo where he called for more spying and more government power. I was confused as to why you reacted the way you did.

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics/ste...view/index.html

 

New Republican Party will rule for 50 years according to Bannon...with 40% of black and Hispanic votes.

 

$1 trillion in infrastructure spending planned. Yay! That means we won't have to hear about blowing up the Federal debt, fiscal responsibility or wasteful big government spending (while simultaneously lowering revenues due to across the board tax cuts) again.

 

It might even work. Trump inherits a much stronger economy in terms of stock market, unemployment, inflation and GDP growth than when Obama entered the White House in January, 2009.

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11...h-pkg-lead.cnn#

$1 trillion infrastructure spending plan (over ten years)...of course no pork barrel projects allowed

 

But lots of tolls/road usage fees on the horizon, as well as tax credits....all predicated on keeping interest rates low/er

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-12/t...e-plan-feasible

 

Moreover, while certain types of infrastructure projects lend themselves to private financing, projects like toll roads, airports or water systems where funds can be segregated and investors can be paid a return on invested capital, other projects like pure maintenance work are more difficult to fund privately.

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-democrat-con...-190950574.html

Objections to Pompeo for CIA Director from Wyden

Edited November 19, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Thanks President-Elect Trump for $4,710 in capital gains on Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares!!!!

 

Surely that's going to help the Rust Belt voters at some point, without a doubt! Winning so much!

 

 

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump...-134854872.html

Donald Trump could trigger the great unwinding of historic amounts of bond money back into the equities market...

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/court-blocks...-233147717.html

Courts block overtime/holiday pay for 4 million hard-working Americans

 

 

Only the "crooked media" cares about Trump's potential conflicts of interest

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-nobody...-132700690.html

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Guess who isn't accepting the campaign results? I will give you a hint, they campaigned on accepting the election results... This is the exact reason I couldn't vote for these hypocrites.

 

http://wgntv.com/2016/11/26/clinton-campai...in-the-recount/

[caulfield12]

Guess who isn't accepting the campaign results? I will give you a hint, they campaigned on accepting the election results... This is the exact reason I couldn't vote for these hypocrites.

 

http://wgntv.com/2016/11/26/clinton-campai...in-the-recount/

 

Would the Green Party have done the same thing had Clinton won?

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016...-audit-the-vote

Why not audit the vote?

Edited November 26, 2016 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Would the Green Party have done the same thing had Clinton won?

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016...-audit-the-vote

Why not audit the vote?

 

I fully expect that it was the Clinton camp that pushed Stein to start the recount talk. It is funny how she got more publicity for this, than anything else the entire campaign...

[caulfield12]

This is more troubling.

Anti-Clinton stories/propaganda planted by Russia were viewed well over 213,000,000 times over social media.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-russi...-180751117.html

 

That has to be a significant part of the explanation for how the GOP was able to get away with spending significantly less than HRC on advertising the last 2-3 months.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/russian-propagan...-212747217.html

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by caulfield12

[CrimsonWeltall]

Guess who isn't accepting the campaign results? I will give you a hint, they campaigned on accepting the election results... This is the exact reason I couldn't vote for these hypocrites.

 

http://wgntv.com/2016/11/26/clinton-campai...in-the-recount/

 

This is one of the worst #BothSides we've had on here.

 

Trump says the election is rigged, that people are cheating, that we need people to keep an eye on people in particular areas (cough minorities cough) to prevent them from stealing the election, that he may not accept the results of the election, and that MILLIONS of illegal votes were placed.

 

Hillary's campaign accepts the loss, says there's no evidence of fraud, says they don't expect the recount in Wisconsin to change anything, but they're going to be a part of the process.

 

Totally the same!

[BigSqwert]

Just today Trump admitted widespread election fraud had occurred so why not a recount?

Edited November 28, 2016 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

This is one of the worst #BothSides we've had on here.

 

Trump says the election is rigged, that people are cheating, that we need people to keep an eye on people in particular areas (cough minorities cough) to prevent them from stealing the election, that he may not accept the results of the election, and that MILLIONS of illegal votes were placed.

 

Hillary's campaign accepts the loss, says there's no evidence of fraud, says they don't expect the recount in Wisconsin to change anything, but they're going to be a part of the process.

 

Totally the same!

 

Honestly, this the worst, ITS DIFFERENT! I have ever seen. A month ago, people who didn't accept election results were a danger to democracy, and Trump had to disavow even the very idea of challenging the election results without ever knowing what they would be. There was no chance at fraud, or a rigged election. Trump was crazy for even having suggested it. But now, it's Clinton, so it is cool. Now we actually care about the actual 'what if's'? Please.

 

Now it just happens that Stein has this idea to challenge the results, and raises more money than she has ever raised, by a multiple margin, and then TeamClinton just happens to jump on board. Its more of the same from the Clinton's. They will quite literally do or say anything to win. They just managed to get one upped by an even better con artist, so now they are looking for ways to get around it.

 

As much as I can't believe people keep falling for Donald Trump's BS, I can't believe people are still falling for the Clintons' either.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Honestly, this the worst, ITS DIFFERENT! I have ever seen. A month ago, people who didn't accept election results were a danger to democracy, and Trump had to disavow even the very idea of challenging the election results without ever knowing what they would be. There was no chance at fraud, or a rigged election. Trump was crazy for even having suggested it. But now, it's Clinton, so it is cool. Now we actually care about the actual 'what if's'? Please.

 

You've completely ignored all the differences and misrepresented what happened.

 

- Trump said (and currently is saying) there is massive, widespread fraud. Clinton says there is no evidence of fraud.

- Trump said there was no way he could lose without Hillary cheating, so he wouldn't say he would accept the results. Clinton conceded, and didn't even push for the WI recount.

- Trump's claims were accompanied by tinges of racism. Clinton isn't even making any claims.

 

Now it just happens that Stein has this idea to challenge the results, and raises more money than she has ever raised, by a multiple margin, and then TeamClinton just happens to jump on board. Its more of the same from the Clinton's. They will quite literally do or say anything to win. They just managed to get one upped by an even better con artist, so now they are looking for ways to get around it.

 

As much as I can't believe people keep falling for Donald Trump's BS, I can't believe people are still falling for the Clintons' either.

 

So after Jill Stein spent months bashing Hillary Clinton, she's now a secret Clinton crony doing her bidding? Okay.

[caulfield12]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/clinton-play...-222300204.html

 

Trump potentially threatening to go after Clintons now after the recount process started...surprise surprise.

Banana Republic here we come.

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-we...-121500552.html

Why Trump and the US are better off with a recount....not to mention debunking the fallacy that he would/could have won the popular vote.

Edited November 28, 2016 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

You've completely ignored all the differences and misrepresented what happened.

 

- Trump said (and currently is saying) there is massive, widespread fraud. Clinton says there is no evidence of fraud.

- Trump said there was no way he could lose without Hillary cheating, so he wouldn't say he would accept the results. Clinton conceded, and didn't even push for the WI recount.

- Trump's claims were accompanied by tinges of racism. Clinton isn't even making any claims.

 

 

 

So after Jill Stein spent months bashing Hillary Clinton, she's now a secret Clinton crony doing her bidding? Okay.

 

None of which really matter. Clinton left zero space for anything other than accepting the election results, or you are a danger to Democracy. Yet here she is being a part of a challenge to those results. Of course she is playing the game and attempting to paint in shades of grey in typical Clinton fashion, but being a part of the challenge for a recount even she didn't "push" for them, is still challenging the election results. If Clinton hadn't have made speech after speech condemning Trump for exactly what she is doing now, it would be different. There was no asterisks in her statements. There were no qualifiers that have a zone where this would be OK. If she had won, and Trump was the one challenging the results, you know she would still be up on the high horse about challenging electoral results. But because it is Clinton and not Trump doing it, those concerns are now legitimate in the eyes of the Clintons and their followers.

 

Hillary Clinton dug this hole. No one else.

[CrimsonWeltall]

None of which really matter. Clinton left zero space for anything other than accepting the election results, or you are a danger to Democracy. Yet here she is being a part of a challenge to those results. Of course she is playing the game and attempting to paint in shades of grey in typical Clinton fashion, but being a part of the challenge for a recount even she didn't "push" for them, is still challenging the election results. If Clinton hadn't have made speech after speech condemning Trump for exactly what she is doing now, it would be different. There was no asterisks in her statements. There were no qualifiers that have a zone where this would be OK. If she had won, and Trump was the one challenging the results, you know she would still be up on the high horse about challenging electoral results. But because it is Clinton and not Trump doing it, those concerns are now legitimate in the eyes of the Clintons and their followers.

 

Hillary Clinton dug this hole. No one else.

 

This is beyond spin; it's lying. She isn't doing anything near Trump did, much less "exactly". She isn't claiming the system is rigged. She isn't rejecting the results. She isn't saying he cheated. Her campaign is saying the OPPOSITE.

[southsider2k5]

\]

This is beyond spin; it's lying. She isn't doing anything near Trump did, much less "exactly". She isn't claiming the system is rigged. She isn't rejecting the results. She isn't saying he cheated. Her campaign is saying the OPPOSITE.

 

It doesn't matter what Trump said or did. Quit falling for party propaganda and equating the two things as some sort of false equivalency.

 

Clinton isn't saying anything, but it DOING the opposite. She is doing exactly what she said would be a danger to Democracy. She is challenging the results of the election. That is clearly rejecting the results.

[CrimsonWeltall]

It doesn't matter what Trump said or did.

 

It doesn't matter what Trump said or did in comparing his actions and words to Clinton?

 

Quit falling for party propaganda and equating the two things as some sort of false equivalency.

 

You are making a false equivalency between 2 things. I am differentiating between 2 things.

 

Clinton isn't saying anything, but it DOING the opposite. She is doing exactly what she said would be a danger to Democracy. She is challenging the results of the election. That is clearly rejecting the results.

 

The danger to Democracy is making people think elections are meaningless and can't be trusted because they're rigged/stolen/bogus. The campaign statement specifically says they have no reason to suspect fraud nor do they expect the results to change. So how does that create mistrust?

 

Wouldn't we expect any campaign to send representatives to Wisconsin for this? Does anyone believe Donald Trump doesn't have people in Wisconsin checking this out?