2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a pretty decent conversation on FOX NEWS! Yup, sensible debate and reflection on Fox. Oh my, I never thought I would say that. It throws some light on recent tactics by Trump, and as I mentioned before, he's starting to lose it. He's insulting everyone again and going after the wrong people. They also mention voting demographics and how it's unlikely Trump can win unless they change dramatically.



Fingers crossed, although I don't think it's quite as simple anymore, simply because Hillary is disliked and just not trusted by so many people.
 
langster said:
Here's a pretty decent conversation on FOX NEWS! Yup, sensible debate and reflection on Fox. Oh my, I never thought I would say that. It throws some light on recent tactics by Trump, and as I mentioned before, he's starting to lose it. He's insulting everyone again and going after the wrong people. They also mention voting demographics and how it's unlikely Trump can win unless they change dramatically.



Fingers crossed, although I don't think it's quite as simple anymore, simply because Hillary is disliked and just not trusted by so many people.
Click to expand...


Also interesting, a panel of exasperated MSNBC journos politely trashing Hillary over the email scandal.

 
Mika has been Berning for months, and Schmoe is adept at concern-trolling.

Both of them so far up Drumpf's ass they can see Chris Christie.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Mika has been Berning for months, and Schmoe is adept at concern-trolling.

Both of them so far up Drumpf's ass they can see Chris Christie.
Click to expand...

They're spot on in everything they say. Todd, Barnacle, et al are hardly Bernie fans and they are in agreement, as is the usually neutral Andrea Mitchell.
 
Oh and I guess we can eliminate MSNBC as shilling for Hillary, as the Bernie fans seemed to suggest earlier in the thread.
 
Chuck Todd's wife consulting firm received 1.5. Millions from the Sanders campaign :angel:

Mitchell has been very critical of Clinton all cycle as well. MSNBC is divided in two camps, Scarborough, Mika, Todd, Mitchell in the anti-Clinton camp, occasionally pro-Sanders. Matthews and Hayes Unapologetically Clinton shills, with Maddow and O' Donnell wedged somewhere in between.

I should know, my YouTube pastimes is their channel on auto play (feck, that sounds depressing).
 
Nobby style said:
Interesting conversation. Really fascinating for me cause I lived that change in the Republican party, and now look at it from an outside perspective and it really is shocking for me, especially the treatment of Obama after such a horrible presidency of Bush. And I will say to Trump´s credit, as the Republican candidate, he has given Bush a well deserved bollocking. I´m quite amazed at some of the stuff he has said.

Anyway, something I can´t believe I´ve failed to mention about the change in the GOP with Reagan, was the crystallisation of years of the "southern strategy" and the massive immigration of democrats, most notably the southern ones, to the Republican party, the ones who definitely were not into civil rights and anti war protesting and general liberal tendencies. This absolutely changed the soul of that party and much of the nasty southern white supremacy gained a big foothold n the GOP. Reagan galvanised it in a big way. No more guilt about Vietnam or Philadelphia, Mississippi and time for American adventurism and dick swinging in a big way. I think this has a lot to say about the reaction to Obama with all the maddening obstructionism and high levels of dog whistling.
Click to expand...

I have to tip my hat to the enduring power of old shibboleths like Reagan's "notorious" Philadelphia, Mississippi speech. This is what he actually said that somehow proved his racism:

I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in states' rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.​

The first sentence could just as easily have been spoken by Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan or either of the Clintons. Even Sanders.

The second sentence was alleged his wink to Jim Crow wherein he uttered the term states' rights. But of course the entire context of that sentence and what was in the political air in 1980 was the notion that government had become too top heavy with high taxation and over-regulation. So much so that even Jimmy Carter had begun the de-regulation revolution. To suggest this was a racist speak or that somehow Reagan was speaking in unspeakable racist code is sickening, but the mythology will live on.

Reagan gives his critics plenty to moan about, but being a racist or fostering racism isn't on that list. No doubt any Republican getting elected potus at any time is a horrifying prospect and I'm ok with that but the record clearly shows that the Republican turn for the worse -- far worse -- happened in the mid-1990s with the Gingrich "revolution" to today's horror show of Donald Trump. The Reagan of 1980 and 1985 (you know, the one who liberalized immigration laws, raised taxes and went to Moscow) would be tarred and feathered as a RINO, a unprincipled clown far to the left of Rubio and Kasich.
 
Lyin Ted Cruz? remember how that stuck? fecking hell, Clinton will be destroyed in a General against Trump. She just can't shake this email thing. I think the Dems need a new candidate...
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Lyin Ted Cruz? remember how that stuck? fecking hell, Clinton will be destroyed in a General against Trump. She just can't shake this email thing. I think the Dems need a new candidate...
Click to expand...

Crooked Hillary will definitely stick given the email scandal and the trouble for her is going negative on Trump doesn't work and only makes whoever is accusing him look petty and desperate (see Jindal, Graham, Jeb, and Rubio).
 
If Trump really is that smart, I hope he wins.. not even as a joke. He might be a better president than Hillary.
 
Raoul said:
Crooked Hillary will definitely stick given the email scandal and the trouble for her is going negative on Trump doesn't work and only makes whoever is accusing him look petty and desperate (see Jindal, Graham, Jeb, and Rubio).
Click to expand...
On top of that, still the Democratic Convention looms. This isn't looking good for Clinton at all.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Chuck Todd's wife consulting firm received 1.5. Millions from the Sanders campaign :angel:

Mitchell has been very critical of Clinton all cycle as well. MSNBC is divided in two camps, Scarborough, Mika, Todd, Mitchell in the anti-Clinton camp, occasionally pro-Sanders. Matthews and Hayes Unapologetically Clinton shills, with Maddow and O' Donnell wedged somewhere in between.
Click to expand...


I googled that 1st line. There are 2 links, one is from something called ncnc.newsvine and the other is r/hillaryclinton (which I didn't open) It says
OpenSecrets.org shows the list of vendors working for Bernie Sanders. It seems Chuck Todd's spouse, Kristian, is the co-founder of Maverick Strategies & Mail. Ironic? How many people know about the connection?
Click to expand...

SO I googled her, and found this:
She was an advisor to Jim Webb's 2016 presidential campaign in the exploratory phase.
Click to expand...

Her twitter is mostly about college sports and a few anti-Trump tweets. On LinkedIn she is definitely still involved with Maverick. Maverick doesn't have a website, this is the only info I could get on it: http://politiwho.com/organizations/maverick-strategies-and-mail
No mention of Sanders. But I finally found a connection on opensecrets, where they are no. 16 on the list of media companies used by the Sanders campaign ($1.3 million, ~1.4% of total media expenditure).
Still, Todd should mention it before interviews, I believe the BBC for example demands basic disclosure.

Incidentally, my initial google was chuck todd wife bernie sanders, which gave me a Christian science monitor article from last June complaining about a terrible interview of Sanders by Todd (constantly baiting him to attack), and he was the 1st to bring up Bernie's juvenile fantasies on TV too. The article ends with complaints about how nothing about policy was asked in the interview (and we both know how much Bernie pivots back to basic policies over anything else).
The other article is far more recent: "Chuck Todd slams Sanders for being ‘hypocritical’ over superdelegate votes now that he needs them"
If he is under Bernie's monetary influence, he's pretty shitty at it.


Maddow flipped suddenly this year. She called out Hillary on DOMA (Maddow said the threat of a constitutional amendment which DOMA averted was nonexistent). Right now she has painted each "50/50" incident in the most Hillary way possible and not changed her mind after new facts have come to light (Nevada and the emails, most recently) but her 1v1 interview with Bernie was good (not easy but not pointless)

Scarborough and Mika are pro-Sanders since it benefits Trump to have Dems fighting. Chris Matthews would probably be killed quicker than Hillary if you let both of them loose on r/sandersforpresident. I have no idea about the rest.

Anderson Cooper is probably as establishment as it gets but his first question at the first debate to Clinton was a killer and I will love him for that. "Will you say anything to get elected?" And he did an equally tough one for Bernie. "Do you believe at all in capitalism?"
 
Spock said:
I have to tip my hat to the enduring power of old shibboleths like Reagan's "notorious" Philadelphia, Mississippi speech. This is what he actually said that somehow proved his racism:

I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in states' rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.​

The first sentence could just as easily have been spoken by Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan or either of the Clintons. Even Sanders.

The second sentence was alleged his wink to Jim Crow wherein he uttered the term states' rights. But of course the entire context of that sentence and what was in the political air in 1980 was the notion that government had become too top heavy with high taxation and over-regulation. So much so that even Jimmy Carter had begun the de-regulation revolution. To suggest this was a racist speak or that somehow Reagan was speaking in unspeakable racist code is sickening, but the mythology will live on.

Reagan gives his critics plenty to moan about, but being a racist or fostering racism isn't on that list. No doubt any Republican getting elected potus at any time is a horrifying prospect and I'm ok with that but the record clearly shows that the Republican turn for the worse -- far worse -- happened in the mid-1990s with the Gingrich "revolution" to today's horror show of Donald Trump. The Reagan of 1980 and 1985 (you know, the one who liberalized immigration laws, raised taxes and went to Moscow) would be tarred and feathered as a RINO, a unprincipled clown far to the left of Rubio and Kasich.
Click to expand...

What´s truly sickening is the propaganda you Republicans keep insisting concerning, "States´rights."

First of all, one of your greatest strategists, Lee Atwater said exactly what it means for the ugly right wing of America - You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff . . .

It´s always been a particular southern thing, which fits in perfectly of how the Republican party and right wing shows the southernification of the GOP. We all know it began with the bloody civil war where the state´s rights of the south couldn´t permit slavery anymore. Then it was all about the federal government not permitting racist south to continue its apartheid, institutionalized racism, segregation, jim crow laws, lynching, flying the white supremacist symbol of the confederate flag, et al, perfectly summed up by Reagan in Philadelphia, Mississippi pandering to this ugliness where a short 16 years before they wanted to exercise state´s rights and lynch those uppity white civil rights workers from the north and that uppity black man for pursuing some sort of decency in this "great" country.

Now state´s rights is always mentioned as these southern states and right wing northern states want to impose their bigotry on minorities and their voting rights, the LGBT community, sexism, draconian drug laws that mostly affect minorities, guns laws to protect them from those savage minorities etc etc etc.

And of course the 1% donor class and corporate culture jump perfectly on this bandwagon so they can continue their movement of lower taxes on the wealthy, lowering corporate taxes, destroying worker´rights and the middle class, keeping the minimum wage low, cutting down of environmental rights to increase their profits, . . . the deregulation of everything that hinders their profit line (while regulating with abandon morality).

This state´s rights ideal is such a farce and the truly disgusting thing is the American right wing continuing this propaganda to fool the uneducated. This nice sounding ideal has for the most part been hijacked by the the ugliness and bigoted, greedy side of the American character that is a symbol of what´s wrong in this country.
 
Wonder who that 'impressive candidate' might be...

images
 
It's as if some people don't believe that these speeches are very carefully written with certain terms purposefully selected.
 
Heck, let's find 2-3 independents to run, make it real fun. And possibly find someone more likeable than Clinton and Trump. This is a GE that could see a third party win the vote.

Mark Cuban?
Michael Bloomberg?
One of those failed Republicans?
 
MrMarcello said:
Heck, let's find 2-3 independents to run, make it real fun. And possibly find someone more likeable than Clinton and Trump. This is a GE that could see a third party win the vote.

Mark Cuban?
Michael Bloomberg?
One of those failed Republicans?
Click to expand...

Maybe Obama could run as an independent?
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
This should be interesting. Wonder if a conservative 3rd party choice will give Bernie the opening to run as an independent too, as he won't be seen as handing the election to Trump.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting indeed, although I doubt Bernie would run as an independent since he wouldn't be able to get into the ballot in 50 states in time for the election.

Best case scenario for him would be for Hillary to have a horrible month from now through the rest of the primaries and into the convention with Trump branding her as crooked and the email scandal continuing to dog her and lower her poll numbers, at which point Bernie could make a legitimate case at the convention that she is unelectable and that the super delegates should support him. I'd give that a 20% chance of happening if he wins California.
 
sglowrider said:
It's quite insulting to Gary Johnson to refer this new possibility of a '3rd party' candidate.
Click to expand...

The libertarian ticket and this new independent one are going to siphon off votes from Trump, at least a hell of a lot more than they will from the Dems. The conservative movement has a modest libertarian strain within it, which may inflate Johnson and Weld's poll numbers to where they get to participate in the debates, which would be massively annoying for Trump. If Kristol's independent plot comes off, that would also obviously be doubly annoying for Trump.
 
berbatrick said:
Yes, this is big news, and more likely than the unicorn runs from 3rd party candidates.His remarks about judges should be disqualifying ffs, but then, so should 50% of every word from his mouth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sad thing is we are in a populist fervor environment where there is one standard for Trump and one for everyone else. Best to let the sentiment exhaust itself and allow the latter phases of the Presidential electoral cycle deal with Trump. I am fairly sure the pressure will rise on him as the public begin to get a grip that he may actually win.
 
Raoul said:
Would be hilarious watching a doomed Romney ticket troll Trump for a few months. Hillary would definitely win.
Click to expand...

There's quite simply no one else other than Jeb! and Mitten on the GOP side who has the donors network, operatives contacts and resources to mount an independent bid.

If Kristol is not lying, it'll definitely be Romney. Ties in with the fact that he's been trying to do that for months.
 
Nobby style said:
What´s truly sickening is the propaganda you Republicans keep insisting concerning, "States´rights."

First of all, one of your greatest strategists, Lee Atwater said exactly what it means for the ugly right wing of America - You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff . . .

It´s always been a particular southern thing, which fits in perfectly of how the Republican party and right wing shows the southernification of the GOP. We all know it began with the bloody civil war where the state´s rights of the south couldn´t permit slavery anymore. Then it was all about the federal government not permitting racist south to continue its apartheid, institutionalized racism, segregation, jim crow laws, lynching, flying the white supremacist symbol of the confederate flag, et al, perfectly summed up by Reagan in Philadelphia, Mississippi pandering to this ugliness where a short 16 years before they wanted to exercise state´s rights and lynch those uppity white civil rights workers from the north and that uppity black man for pursuing some sort of decency in this "great" country.

Now state´s rights is always mentioned as these southern states and right wing northern states want to impose their bigotry on minorities and their voting rights, the LGBT community, sexism, draconian drug laws that mostly affect minorities, guns laws to protect them from those savage minorities etc etc etc.

And of course the 1% donor class and corporate culture jump perfectly on this bandwagon so they can continue their movement of lower taxes on the wealthy, lowering corporate taxes, destroying worker´rights and the middle class, keeping the minimum wage low, cutting down of environmental rights to increase their profits, . . . the deregulation of everything that hinders their profit line (while regulating with abandon morality).

This state´s rights ideal is such a farce and the truly disgusting thing is the American right wing continuing this propaganda to fool the uneducated. This nice sounding ideal has for the most part been hijacked by the the ugliness and bigoted, greedy side of the American character that is a symbol of what´s wrong in this country.
Click to expand...

Garbage.

Of there are the David Dukes of the world out there but the vast majority of Republicans are not racists but yet truly do believe that the federal government has gotten out of control and that states are better equipped to handle some problems than the federal government. You'd have a fair argument to quarrel with Republicans on how much power the federal government should have, but you're out of your mind if you seriously equate "state's rights" TODAY with racial segregation or racism itself.

Was "states' rights" code for racial segregation or racism itself in the 1960s? Absolutely. But even then a universally acknowledged man free of racial prejudicial, Barry Goldwater, believed in states' rights. He was horrifically wrong to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (specifically, Section 2 is what troubled him) and the Buckley and the entire National Review were wrong to oppose the act and to believe that racism was naturally, eventually going to expire the way that helium naturally, eventually escapes a balloon.

The debate over states' right today, which is what we're talking about, is no longer about racial oppression but about whether the federal government should have plenary power over education and myriad other policies over the states. The answer might yes or it might be no, but that's what it's about.

Not too long ago President Obama argued that the regulation of marijuana consumption is properly a matter of "states' rights" (the Harris Amendment that would have barred the disbursement of federal monies to states and local jurisdictions which weaken federal drug laws) would "undermine the principles of States’ rights". I happen to agree with him, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the ridiculous claim that the term "states' rights" is nothing more than a dog whistle to the ears of racists everywhere.

Is Barack Obama, by virtue of invoking "the principles of states' rights" a racist?




NB: It should be noted that the White House press released capitalized the "S" in "States' rights.)
 
MrMarcello said:
Heck, let's find 2-3 independents to run, make it real fun. And possibly find someone more likeable than Clinton and Trump. This is a GE that could see a third party win the vote.

Mark Cuban?
Michael Bloomberg?
One of those failed Republicans?
Click to expand...

Why Cuban? Isn't he kind of a dick?
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Hillary gets a lot of stick for the email thing, but there is a lot more crap in Trump's closet than Hillary's. Problem is, no one has been able to make the crap stick so far.
Click to expand...

The difference being Trump's closet of crap is that of a private citizen. Hillary's email gaffe was that of a sitting secretary of state.

As such, the possibility, however remote, exists that Trump may change his behaviour once in office. Hillary, on the other hand, has demonstrated that she does what she wants rules or no.
 
Just a small gem (apparently) from the unsealed documents pertaining to the Trump UIniversity case.

“Trump University provided handouts with scripted talking points for students to use in their phone calls with credit-card companies, explicitly encouraging people to falsify their current income, ‘adding projected income from our future real estate ventures,’ and to deceive credit card companies by declaring income streams from corporate entities that had not been created, with the script telling students: ‘If they ask you to prove income, inform them that it will be too much trouble to put all the paperwork together,’

Ouch! This is going to be tremendous!
 
langster said:
Just a small gem from the unsealed documents pertaining to the Trump UIniversity case.

“Trump University provided handouts with scripted talking points for students to use in their phone calls with credit-card companies, explicitly encouraging people to falsify their current income, ‘adding projected income from our future real estate ventures,’ and to deceive credit card companies by declaring income streams from corporate entities that had not been created, with the script telling students: ‘If they ask you to prove income, inform them that it will be too much trouble to put all the paperwork together,’

Ouch! This is going to be tremendous!
Click to expand...

:D
 
Spock said:
Garbage.

Of there are the David Dukes of the world out there but the vast majority of Republicans are not racists but yet truly do believe that the federal government has gotten out of control and that states are better equipped to handle some problems than the federal government. You'd have a fair argument to quarrel with Republicans on how much power the federal government should have, but you're out of your mind if you seriously equate "state's rights" TODAY with racial segregation or racism itself.

Was "states' rights" code for racial segregation or racism itself in the 1960s? Absolutely. But even then a universally acknowledged man free of racial prejudicial, Barry Goldwater, believed in states' rights. He was horrifically wrong to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (specifically, Section 2 is what troubled him) and the Buckley and the entire National Review were wrong to oppose the act and to believe that racism was naturally, eventually going to expire the way that helium naturally, eventually escapes a balloon.

The debate over states' right today, which is what we're talking about, is no longer about racial oppression but about whether the federal government should have plenary power over education and myriad other policies over the states. The answer might yes or it might be no, but that's what it's about.

Not too long ago President Obama argued that the regulation of marijuana consumption is properly a matter of "states' rights" (the Harris Amendment that would have barred the disbursement of federal monies to states and local jurisdictions which weaken federal drug laws) would "undermine the principles of States’ rights". I happen to agree with him, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the ridiculous claim that the term "states' rights" is nothing more than a dog whistle to the ears of racists everywhere.

Is Barack Obama, by virtue of invoking "the principles of states' rights" a racist?




NB: It should be noted that the White House press released capitalized the "S" in "States' rights.)
Click to expand...

Of course you´re going to find example of democrats and states´rights including marijuana and other issues. But stop ignoring your party´s biggest deals with state´s rights is the same ol´same ol of pushing your bigotry, sexism, gun rights and stand your ground, the inherent racism of voter restrictions and outrageous gerrymandering. The quote from Lee Atwater was from 1981, just when your boy Reagan was riding into town. He also masterminded herbert Bush and brought out the ol´Willie Horton crap. Your party´s dog whistles have changed, hardly your attitudes as evidenced by the reaction to Obama. Funny thing is, Trump as forgotten Atwater´s idea of hiding the bigotry and racism behind such codes as states rights, and he just mouths off with no filter, hence his popularity, and extreme popularity with the white supremacist bet in your party. The establishment seems to be quite flabbergasted with his blowing their cover. You guys love states rights for the extreme shit you can try to pass beyond fairness and common decency.

And loads of the other part of states rights is the push of the Kochs and their ilk, getting in there to push their pro business agenda. Great work in Brownback´s Kansas by the way. The scary thing about them is their anti environmentalism and climate denial. The environment should not come into states rights actions as it affects everyone, including other countries. The whole states rights thing about fracking and states rights where that kook Rick Scott can take actions where you´re not even allowed to mention climate change. Extreme crap like that. That´s the dog whistle for states rights. Extreme shit you can´t get away with on a national level or a common decency one.

You guys are not fooling anybody. Except for maybe yourselves.
 
langster said:
Just a small gem (apparently) from the unsealed documents pertaining to the Trump UIniversity case.

“Trump University provided handouts with scripted talking points for students to use in their phone calls with credit-card companies, explicitly encouraging people to falsify their current income, ‘adding projected income from our future real estate ventures,’ and to deceive credit card companies by declaring income streams from corporate entities that had not been created, with the script telling students: ‘If they ask you to prove income, inform them that it will be too much trouble to put all the paperwork together,’

Ouch! This is going to be tremendous!
Click to expand...

Not sure what the trouble is there? False income statements are an issue when filing your taxes but on a credit application it amounts to little. Indeed, card sales rely on a bit of padding to ensure approval.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.