2016 Republican Thread

[shysocks]

I don't have to respond to any questions and anyone is free to watch the videos. People were fired and asked to resign because they were paying homeless people and others to instigate violence and incite Trump supporters. HRC supporters here splitting hairs on what I said doesn't change that. I am not going to watch a ~20 minute video I've already seen to appease someone on a forum. If that makes me lose credibility in the filibuster (LOL), I am not all that concerned.

I'll respond for you. I sacrificed my Chrome history for the video (YouTube will be recommending stuff from MAGA neckbeards to me for the rest of my life) and it never happened. The way you first characterized it and the way it is actually presented in the video amounts to a wider gap than just a split hair. I assumed they were accused of paying people to go out and start shoving Trump supporters.

 

This, by the way, is in contrast to the Republican candidate outright telling his hair-trigger fans to punch protesters and then acting appalled when they do it. But both sides.

 

Others have covered the other flaws with the video and the subsequent conclusions drawn from it, most importantly the tenuous assumption that Clinton is anywhere near operations like this. She doesn't have time for this s***.

 

In any case, you're developing a pattern of posting things that come from unreliable people and then getting mad when asked to defend them. You've got your "lol I don't care it's a message board" defense, but you sure do scrounge together a lot of information to share here.

 

How about when Trump asked Hillary to return the 25M from Saudi Arabia and HRC didn't deny and then avoided answering his question? That was one of the best moments of the debate. You'd think HRC would deny this if if weren't true like the people around here say it isn't.

She can't possibly answer every one of his kindergarten accusations, but here is my thought on that, independent of what "people around here" say. Why should she have to return money because of who donated it? What would that prove? Why not put it to use with her charity that grades as excellent?

[StrangeSox]

FWIW, people around here denied that the Saudis donated money to the Clinton Campaign, which they didn't and which would be 100% illegal. Trump's accusation is that they donated money to the Clinton Foundation (don't know but let's assume that's true), and that Clinton should return that money because Saudi Arabia is awful and does terrible things (100% true). I suppose there could be an interesting discussion there surrounding whether international charities should accept donations from "bad" countries like Saudi Arabia or its leaders and, if not, what constitutes a "bad" country, but I don't see how that would be considered the best moment of the debate.

[caulfield12]

Winning elections is about articulating a better vision for the future, especially if you're challenging incumbents essentially.

 

Trump's only consistent proposals have been building a wall that he can't pay for, will be totally ineffective and sends exactly the wrong message about what we stand for as a country...at a time when we actually need to be recruiting and competing for the best immigrants to fill the gap in STEM areas for high tech companies.

 

So that idiotic plan, tax cuts for the rich and corporations and finally constantly undermining our NATO allies while cozying up to the Russians. Brilliant ideas that surely will work out well.

 

 

Apparently nobody was alive around here when Lee Atwater was using his bag of tricks (Willie Horton/Dukakis) or the Bush campaign claiming McCain had an illegitimate African American child in South Carolina. What I find most amusing is that some of those who want to see more positivity about the White Sox have been consistently complaining about the unfairness of the Clinton campaign.

 

How about instead of only proving the negative, they try another tact? If you can spin that the glass is half full with the White Sox, why can't the same be said of this election?

 

And let's be honest. Bernie Sanders had about a 1/20 chance of overseeing significant banking reform as president, and a zero percent shot at universal free tuition. Zero interest in foreign policy, much like Trump. He never had a realistic chance of beating Clinton. The only reason he did is because he wasn't taken seriously as a threat, just like Trump on the GOP side and similar to how they let Obama get all the early traction in Iowa and South Carolina in 2008.

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

FWIW, people around here denied that the Saudis donated money to the Clinton Campaign, which they didn't and which would be 100% illegal. Trump's accusation is that they donated money to the Clinton Foundation (don't know but let's assume that's true), and that Clinton should return that money because Saudi Arabia is awful and does terrible things (100% true). I suppose there could be an interesting discussion there surrounding whether international charities should accept donations from "bad" countries like Saudi Arabia or its leaders and, if not, what constitutes a "bad" country, but I don't see how that would be considered the best moment of the debate.

 

Even if SA gave the money to the Clinton foundation, Hillary isnt on the board of directors at this time.

 

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors

 

Im not sure if you can legally give back a donation, but lets just assume it can be done, it would be up to the board of the Clinton Foundation to make that decision according to the by laws of the Clinton Foundation. It seems that Trump doesnt fundamentally understand how a 501c3 works. Because the board would have a fiduciary duty to the charity, and im not sure how you would argue that it is in the best interest of the charity to give back $25mil for the sake of helping Hilllary become President.

 

In fact the more I think about it, it would actually raise more red flags if a charity (with no connection to Hillary) gave back money, in an attempt to help Hillary. Because how would giving back the money help the 501c3's charitable purpose?

Edited October 20, 2016 by Soxbadger

[caulfield12]

Even if SA gave the money to the Clinton foundation, Hillary isnt on the board of directors at this time.

 

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors

 

Im not sure if you can legally give back a donation, but lets just assume it can be done, it would be up to the board of the Clinton Foundation to make that decision according to the by laws of the Clinton Foundation. It seems that Trump doesnt fundamentally understand how a 501c3 works. Because the board would have a fiduciary duty to the charity, and im not sure how you would argue that it is in the best interest of the charity to give back $25mil for the sake of helping Hilllary become President.

 

In fact the more I think about it, it would actually raise more red flags if a charity (with no connection to Hillary) gave back money, in an attempt to help Hillary. Because how would giving back the money help the 501c3's charitable purpose?

 

Worst case scenario, they should donate/reroute it to the Gates Foundation or the UN/Millenium Project with Dr. Jeffrey Sachs. Both of those charities overlap a lot in their African continent initiatives.

 

Nobody should complain about that outcome

[CrimsonWeltall]

In fact the more I think about it, it would actually raise more red flags if a charity (with no connection to Hillary) gave back money, in an attempt to help Hillary. Because how would giving back the money help the 501c3's charitable purpose?

 

And how would it help Hillary's optics anyway?

 

"Hillary's charity gives $25 million to Saudi Arabia! What's she paying for?!? What charitable purpose does that serve?!?"

[greg775]

If this porn star's allegation is true ... it again begs the question of how dumb Trump could be to run for president? In this day and age he had to know the media would look for all indescretions of Trump. Maybe they are not true. But it would take a very very dumb porn star (and her accomplished attorney) to make this public if Trump didn't do it.

Again, you just can't run for public office if you have a.) taken drugs. b) been unfaithful to your spouse. c.) had any incidents with women like this one alleged. You have to lead a clean life to run for office with the media at large.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/adult-film-actre...-222912021.html

[greg775]

11 women have now come out, and with less than 20 days left, Trump is still kinda sorta in this race. With all the s*** he has said, as dangerous of a person he truly is, this is sorta a blip on the radar. Donald Trump made an offer to a porn star to have sex? COLOR ME SHOCKED!!!

The Republicans should have figured out a way to "rig" the nomination process like the DNC did to burn Bernie. Anybody but Trump probably would have beaten Hillary. Maybe the FBI would have actually done the right thing and recommended charges if the Repubs had gotten behind Bush or Kasisch or Cruz. They let Donald whittle the field down single handedly. He made Bush seem like a bozo at the debates; he turned Cruz into a cartoon and nobody gave Kasisch a chance. Cruz would have beaten Clinton if Trump hadn't been around attacking Cruz and all the others at the Repub debates.

[caulfield12]

The Republicans should have figured out a way to "rig" the nomination process like the DNC did to burn Bernie. Anybody but Trump probably would have beaten Hillary. Maybe the FBI would have actually done the right thing and recommended charges if the Repubs had gotten behind Bush or Kasisch or Cruz. They let Donald whittle the field down single handedly. He made Bush seem like a bozo at the debates; he turned Cruz into a cartoon and nobody gave Kasisch a chance. Cruz would have beaten Clinton if Trump hadn't been around attacking Cruz and all the others at the Repub debates.

 

 

Don't think Cruz beats Clinton. He's not well liked by anyone and too much of a religious conservative to win a national election.

 

The FBI simply won't indict a candidate of the president's party unless it's a crystal clear case like Watergate where the entire process of governing has been subverted. Questionable judgment is a different standard.

[greg775]

Don't think Cruz beats Clinton. He's not well liked by anyone and too much of a religious conservative to win a national election.

 

The FBI simply won't indict a candidate of the president's party unless it's a crystal clear case like Watergate where the entire process of governing has been subverted. Questionable judgment is a different standard.

Thing is ... Trump just went on stage at the debates and blew them away with insults and saying how great he was and how he'd be the only one who could beat Hillary. He single handedly pared the field and turned Cruz into what was perceived as an idiot/clown. Had Trump not run, just think, one of the real politicians would have been the republican candidate, assuming Cruz or Bush beat out Carson or Fiorina. So with Trump out of the running maybe Cruz would have caught on or Fabio.

Edited October 23, 2016 by greg775

[Quin]

Thing is ... Trump just went on stage at the debates and blew them away with insults and saying how great he was and how he'd be the only one who could beat Hillary. He single handedly pared the field and turned Cruz into what was perceived as an idiot/clown. Had Trump not run, just think, one of the real politicians would have been the republican candidate, assuming Cruz or Bush beat out Carson or Fiorina. So with Trump out of the running maybe Cruz would have caught on or Fabio.

 

Except Cruz is insane.

[brett05]

Thing is ... Trump just went on stage at the debates and blew them away with insults and saying how great he was and how he'd be the only one who could beat Hillary. He single handedly pared the field and turned Cruz into what was perceived as an idiot/clown. Had Trump not run, just think, one of the real politicians would have been the republican candidate, assuming Cruz or Bush beat out Carson or Fiorina. So with Trump out of the running maybe Cruz would have caught on or Fabio.

You are correct. IIRC polls ahd Hillary losing to every single candidate but one....Donald Trump.

[pettie4sox]

You are correct. IIRC polls ahd Hillary losing to every single candidate but one....Donald Trump.

 

You think Hillary would be losing to Romney or McCain if they were running? I don't think they would be.

 

Donald Trump is not the answer, he's a blundering disaster. He is going to get obliterated and he keeps insuring that every time he opens his mouth.

[greg775]

You think Hillary would be losing to Romney or McCain if they were running? I don't think they would be.

 

Donald Trump is not the answer, he's a blundering disaster. He is going to get obliterated and he keeps insuring that every time he opens his mouth.

I think both Romney and McCain would have defeated Hillary.

[CanOfCorn]

I think both Romney and McCain would have defeated Hillary.

 

Romney maybe, McCain...no. He had that anchor attached to him.

[Chisoxfn]

Don't think Cruz beats Clinton. He's not well liked by anyone and too much of a religious conservative to win a national election.

 

The FBI simply won't indict a candidate of the president's party unless it's a crystal clear case like Watergate where the entire process of governing has been subverted. Questionable judgment is a different standard.

Honestly, I can't stand Cruz, but I might have, with time, gotten around to voting for him, but I agree with the premise, I think any of the candidates other then Cruz / Trump would have thumped Hillary.

[greg775]

Greg...oh greg......

 

https://twitter.com/Parker9_/status/7903239...0684930/video/1

Trump likes to talk. His ego is larger than life. I'm not voting for him. I don't like him. He and his fellow 1 percenters don't give a rats ass about you or me. The problem is Hillary is the same. She is just as evil or more evil. It's just true.

[greg775]

Likes to talk about how much he likes Hillary and Bill?

Tony. Hillary is just as bad as Trump. How can anybody vote for this person? Corruption. How have we gotten to this point? We are going to elect Hillary Clinton. Tony, why are you voting for Hillary?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/polit...mails.html?_r=0

[CanOfCorn]

Tony. Hillary is just as bad as Trump. How can anybody vote for this person? Corruption. How have we gotten to this point? We are going to elect Hillary Clinton. Tony, why are you voting for Hillary?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/polit...mails.html?_r=0

If I may interject...

 

No matter who you vote for, Hillary, Donald, Gary, Jill, someone else, there is always someone who will say to you, "How can anybody vote for this person?" That's not what the question should be. The question should be, "How can we, as voters, change the system for the better?"

 

 

[iamshack]

You are correct. IIRC polls ahd Hillary losing to every single candidate but one....Donald Trump.

I think Kasich was polling well against her also.

[Chisoxfn]

I think Kasich was polling well against her also.

Kasich would have run away with the election.

[CanOfCorn]

Kasich would have run away with the election.

 

Why do you say that?

 

[southsider2k5]

Why do you say that?

 

Because just about any other Republican would have beaten Hillary.

[bigruss]

Because just about any other Republican would have beaten Hillary.

Hillary's history is easier to hide when Trump is literally rewriting new lows every week. A solid candidate without so much distraction is able to legitimately expose Hillary way more.

 

(not really replying to your post just adding on).

[southsider2k5]

Hillary's history is easier to hide when Trump is literally rewriting new lows every week. A solid candidate without so much distraction is able to legitimately expose Hillary way more.

 

(not really replying to your post just adding on).

 

This is exactly my line of thought. She hasn't really had to campaign on her record. Largely she has campaigned on Trumps.