2016 Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

Speaking of disgraced Trump campaign people, Trump and Ailes are no long speaking.

 

“Ailes’s camp said Ailes learned that Trump couldn’t focus—surprise, surprise—and that advising him was a waste of time,” Sherman said. “These debate prep sessions weren’t going anywhere.”

 

On the Trump side, Ellison said the story is different: “Even for the second debate, Ailes kept going off on tangents and talking about his war stories while he was supposed to be prepping Trump.”

[southsider2k5]

No it's not. Trump is an illegitimate candidate. The only way he could become president is if some republican congressman found someone to put HRC away for lying to congress. I don't really care to learn about right wing journalists in his campaign that political lives will last a couple more weeks. HRC's Campaign is full of establishment lifetime politicians and the precedent they set is important.

 

I heard the stat this morning that 75% of people said that there was nothing that could be said which would change their minds tonight. Honestly that sounded pretty low to me. I think even if Congress impeached Hillary Clinton tomorrow, she would never drop below 40 to 45% of the vote. Hell she may well still win. The truth is that the same thing is true of Donald Trump. The supporters will support no matter what. Those who won't, never will.

[Soxbadger]

No it's not. Trump is an illegitimate candidate. The only way he could become president is if some republican congressman found someone to put HRC away for lying to congress. I don't really care to learn about right wing journalists in his campaign that political lives will last a couple more weeks. HRC's Campaign is full of establishment lifetime politicians and the precedent they set is important.

 

Trump is 1 of 2 candidates who could possibly be the next President. It may be "unlikely", but I am not willing to say that the race is over until the electoral votes are counted.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Rabbit if you don't know anyone attached to the Trump campaign, what was the point of this response to NSS? Why would it be worth noting that someone who doesn't know anyone in the Trump campaign at all doesn't know any disgraced official from his campaign?

 

Anyone who thought scumbags only existed in Trump's campaign were kidding themselves.

 

 

I can't even name one disagraced official in Trump's Campaign.

 

[StrangeSox]

Every time a woman who no one has ever heard of says Trump looked at her funny we have round the clock news coverage calling him a sexist rapist fascist.

 

good lord

[bigruss]

I'll take the Blue Jays to win it all before I'd take Trump winning the general.

 

He's an idiot with a bad business record who has hours upon hours of tape saying dumb stuff over the last thirty years. He's alienated multiple ethnic/religious groups. The debates have shown us that he can't even speak on policy in a way that makes him a qualified candidate. Somehow (probably because the Democrat's candidate is so horrible) this buffoon hasn't hanged himself yet. So the establishment and the media have to stack the cards against him anyways. So we have two horrible candidates. One is a reality star getting the shafted by the establishment and the mainstream media and the other is establishment as can be and gets covered for by the powers that be.

 

Every legitimate leak (stolen emails, officials on tape) against Clinton with transgressions between her camp gets wiped away because "source is illegitimate" or "Russia did it."

 

Every time a woman who no one has ever heard of says Trump looked at her funny we have round the clock news coverage calling him a sexist rapist fascist.

Let's also not generalize this election to just establishment vs non-establishment. Trump isn't getting support from MSM or the GOP like other candidates would because of what he has said, done, and the "policies" he's proposed.

 

Sure, there is a scoop of establishment bias here, it'd be stupid to not count that, but he's not getting support for many many reasons, which are predominantly self inflicted.

[southsider2k5]

That's what I've never understood here either...if Marco Rubio somehow became the GOP nominee 6 months ago, would there have been this huge perceived media bias everyone seems to claim against Trump? Is Trump saying the media bias is against Republicans, or it's a bias against him? And what is the reason for this bias in the media? Why don't they want him in the White House?

 

I know the answers to these questions, but the whole idea doesnt make sense.

 

The perception has long been that there is a liberal bias in media. It has just been used a lot more often in the last six months.

[bigruss]

The difference is Trump getting called on his faults is the majority of the MSM coverage for this election where Clinton's faults and wrongdoings get swept under the rug.

A big piece of that is because of how hated Trump is. Like Tony just asked, if this was Rubio running vs Hillary it wouldn't be nearly as lopsided with msm bias. I bet Clinton would probably have more media on her side but Trump literally changed the game (and not in a good way for republicans).

[StrangeSox]

A big piece of that is because of how hated Trump is. Like Tony just asked, if this was Rubio running vs Hillary it wouldn't be nearly as lopsided with msm bias. I bet Clinton would probably have more media on her side but Trump literally changed the game (and not in a good way for republicans).

 

He also intentionally and unintentionally sucks all of the air out of the room. There'd be more room for coverage of other issues if he wasn't doing something ridiculous on a nearly daily basis. He's been doing it since the primaries, and back then it was a major factor in him keeping anyone else from really gaining any traction.

[caulfield12]

Rabbit if you don't know anyone attached to the Trump campaign, what was the point of this response to NSS? Why would it be worth noting that someone who doesn't know anyone in the Trump campaign at all doesn't know any disgraced official from his campaign?

 

If we went through all the wrongdoings and disgraced officials in the rightwing PACverse...it would stretch all the way around the world.

 

And the fact is that HRC or Huma Abedin would ne vilified for communicating or coordinating with them in any way. That's the way the system was set up to work, and also why the GOP has had so much troubled with coordinated messaging the last three election cycles, with those on the outside exercising different and often contradictory agendas.

 

You have Mark Foley, Ed Klein, Manafort, Ailes, Lewandowski, Christie might be indicted over Bridgegate in NJ, David Duke/KKK, Bannon, Roger Stone, Robert Mercer, Paul Nehlen...the hits just keep coming.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37108732

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

Proving points with WSJ or Forbes...good luck with that.

 

Might have something to do with the $5-7 trillion projected deficits Trump will instantly add by himself by providing all top wage earners (including capital gains) an average of a $316,000 tax cut. That's quite convenient for 1%ers and not so much for the lower middle class blue collar workers predominantly supporting him.

[southsider2k5]

WSJ on HRC's emails...where is she?

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/missing-from-h...662725?mod=e2fb

 

Which is exactly why they set things up this way. They learned from Bill's years in office that the less of a papertrail, the better.

[Chisoxfn]

Somewhere do we think Jed Bush is thinking, Billy, why the f*** didn't you tell me about those recordings back when I was running in the primary?

[chw42]

Somewhere do we think Jed Bush is thinking, Billy, why the f*** didn't you tell me about those recordings back when I was running in the primary?

 

The DNC clearly had a hand in leaking it. Why would they release it that early when they wanted Trump as the Republican candidate all along?

Edited October 20, 2016 by chw42

[southsider2k5]

The DNC clearly had a hand in leaking it. Why would they release it that early when they wanted Trump as the Republican candidate all along?

 

Bingo.

[Quin]

Bingo.

 

Or it was the Washington Post, because Trump pissed them off.

 

http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-hot-mic-tape-leaked/

 

Reporter does due diligence, gets tape. DNC gets credit.

[Soxbadger]

 

At 2:48, HRC is asked about her most recent scandal. She ducks, cites conspiracy theories and tells the reporters to get something to eat and drink before running away.

 

Do you understand that according to federal law Hillary is not allowed to direct these PACS?

 

She said she "knows nothing about this." Believe her or dont believe her, but the federal law does not make an exemption for candidates to be allowed to direct PACS "not to break the law."

 

These are the rules, I didnt make the rules, I have been one of the most vocal opponents of Citizens United on this board. There is a certain irony that now Hillary is allegedly using Citizens United to her advantage, seeing as the lawsuit was brought because Citizens United wanted to air anti-Hillary messages.

 

Unintended consequences for the win.

[CrimsonWeltall]

This whole argument that HRC doesn't direct PACs or these people aren't in the Clinton Campaign is such a cop out.

 

It's not a cop out just because you don't have a counter argument.

 

By your own admission, they're not in the campaign - they're at least 3 steps removed. And all this is assuming that the videos aren't largely bogus, which is a HUGE assumption.

[CrimsonWeltall]

What? I just gave my counter argument. You can b**** about sources all day but these people are on camera burying themselves. The Clinton Campaign had to get rid of two different officials. This isn't a matter of me having a counter argument this is a matter of you not being able to assess situations involving your candidate objectively.

 

It's a matter of you repeatedly misrepresenting the facts despite being corrected, aka lying. The Clinton Campaign didn't get rid of any officials because neither of the people was a part of the Clinton Campaign. There are countless Super PACs and PACs and non-profits and independent political groups supporting the candidates. You act like actions any of them take is evidence of malfeasance by the candidates themselves. Why would Hillary Clinton be involved in decisions about low-level actions like trolling Trump supporters?

 

And you can hand-wave the source problem away as much as you'd like, but without the unedited tapes, there's no context for their statements. We know O'Keefe has a history of manipulating videos to appear to be something they're not.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I also never said words you attributed to me.

 

From your post:

 

"The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the sh*t on the ground."

 

The Foval group is a contractor for a contractor for the committee that is backing Clinton's campaign. Scott Foval is practically Hillary's best friend!

[shysocks]

Speaking of ducking questions, raBBit, you still haven't been able to point to the section of O'Keefe's video where payment for violence is discussed. The thing you said like four days ago that you didn't have time to do.

[southsider2k5]

This whole argument that HRC doesn't direct PACs or these people aren't in the Clinton Campaign is such a cop out. I am not really concerned with the other information that is unrelated to the issue. As it's been laid out:

 

"The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the sh*t on the ground."

 

To act as if HRC is unaware of what was happening is silly.

 

Now that the sausage is out on how the DNC operates behind the scenes, there really isn't room to pretend they aren't willing to go to whatever lengths it takes. We saw their discussions about their own candidates, I don't doubt for a second that coordination is absolutely taking place, but just right at the line of what it takes to be "legal"-ish so as to maintain plausible denialability in case they get caught... just like they do for everything.

[Chisoxfn]

Now that the sausage is out on how the DNC operates behind the scenes, there really isn't room to pretend they aren't willing to go to whatever lengths it takes. We saw their discussions about their own candidates, I don't doubt for a second that coordination is absolutely taking place, but just right at the line of what it takes to be "legal"-ish so as to maintain plausible denialability in case they get caught... just like they do for everything.

Lets not be ignorant and not imagine that the same doesn't happen on the right side. That is an aspect of politics. They want enough distance for plausibile deniability, etc. Over the years, both sides do plenty of things. That said, the whole push violence thing was bush league.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I don't have to respond to any questions and anyone is free to watch the videos.

 

Ouch

[southsider2k5]

Lets not be ignorant and not imagine that the same doesn't happen on the right side. That is an aspect of politics. They want enough distance for plausibile deniability, etc. Over the years, both sides do plenty of things. That said, the whole push violence thing was bush league.

 

It absolutely does. Heck I believed it before this crap before it was all published and proven. I just can't believe people deny it is reality.