The 2016 US American Election Thread

[RougeUnderoos]

How is directly quoting someone considered a bad thing?

I do kind of get it: that they make him look bad by compiling all this stuff into one place, but they are his words.

It's gone so far south that reminding people of what he said seems unfair, but it really isn't.

[photon]

Regarding the claim about the IBD poll being the most accurate, I don't think that claim is incorrect when it comes to their final poll right before the election vs. the election itself, but I have seen a couple of articles about that poll having a republican house effect that seems to evaporate right before the election.

I haven't read in detail though.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/hittin..._a_bullet.html

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How is directly quoting someone considered a bad thing?

I do kind of get it: that they make him look bad by compiling all this stuff into one place, but they are his words.

It's gone so far south that reminding people of what he said seems unfair, but it really isn't.

Not only that, but it's twitter - there is no "context" to these insults missing, if that were the argument. (for the most part)

[octothorp]

That's fascinating to read the reasons behind it (the IBD poll)... while I'll give the pollster the benefit of the doubt in regards to the intent and their methods, the pollster is essentially admitting that their polls have next to no predictive power until they make their final, election-day adjustment. By his own argument they're only in it to produce an election-day prediction that is as close to the outcome as possible.

[RougeUnderoos]

He's on the tube now railing against the "stupid" leadership, because they didn't keep the effort to retake Mosul a secret.

What am I missing here? I have to be missing something. How dumb does he think the enemy in this war is?

"Oh they never would have figured out we were going to try retake a major city if it wasn't on the news!"

That's what he's saying.

I wouldn't trust this creep to understand a level of Medal Of Honor. Can you imagine him with actual power? Making life and death decisions? Luckily he's such a jackass that it isn't going to happen, but everyone should look back on this and evaluate how close it really was and figure out how to avoid it next time.

[Red Ice Player]

I have never seen a candidate for POTUS publically rooting against an active US military operation, and actually predicting it's failure, until now. American lives have already been lost in this operation. Yes...I know...emails.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Mosul stuff would obviously disqualify any normal candidate. Just appalling and really one of the greatest showcases of how if it doesn't benefit Trump (or if it hurts Trump), he does not care about it's success and will likely root for the opposite. Truly an incredibly small, pathetic man. But it's really coming into focus that his supporters are truly worse, that they endorse straight up anti-American behavior because they fear Hillary or that they believe the white race is in peril. Sad, sad people.

[Looch City]

So you're say they're...deplorable?

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Don't worry folks, the lying hypocrite quiff won't loose to the crazy billionaire.

Hope everyone sleeps well at night with this news

Go away.

And I'll sleep just fine.

[octothorp]

Hypothetical question:

If Trump loses, launches a Trump TV / Breitbart media brand that maintains loyalty of, say 20% of Republican voters, what are going to the long-term political ramifications?

No matter how I work through the possibilities, this seems to be worse for the Republican Party than the Democrats. The ideal situation for the GOP seems to be that he goes away quickly and quietly and everyone forget everything that happened this year. The ideal situation for the Democrats seems to be that he sticks around as a divisive agent that becomes impossible to ignore and can always be used to invoke racist / misogynist reminders.

But that's just in terms of relatively short-term political gains. I'm kinda more interested in how such a development shapes the policy and influence of either party, and that's a lot harder to put one's finger on.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Pay to play, or how Donald Trump projects more than any individual who has ever lived

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is facing a fundraising scandal after a Telegraph investigation exposed how key supporters were prepared to accept illicit donations from foreign backers.

Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.

In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain “influence” if Mr Trump made it to the White House.

Undercover reporters posing as consultants acting for a Chinese benefactor approached specific pro-Trump and pro-Clinton fundraisers and groups after receiving information that individuals were involved in hiding foreign donations.

Sources also said PACs, “independent” organisations that can raise unlimited sums of money to lobby for or against particular candidates, were being used to circumvent rules.

The pro-Clinton organisations did not respond to initial approaches. But earlier this month an undercover reporter spoke by telephone to Eric Beach, co-chairman of the pro-Trump Great America PAC, which has the backing of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr Trump’s most senior advisers, as well as the billionaire's son Eric.

The reporter said a Chinese client wished to donate to the PAC to support Mr Trump's campaign.

Mr Beach appeared interested despite raising concerns about his nationality and saying he would need to know the donor’s identity.

He suggested the donation could be put through a social welfare organisation called a 501(c)(4) - or C4 - , which unlike a PAC is not subject to a blanket ban on receiving foreign money, and not required to name donors. He stressed in an email that "any path we recommend is legal".

The reporter then received an email from Jesse Benton, a senior figure at the PAC until being convicted in May in connection with buying a senator’s endorsement on a prior campaign. He said he was a “consultant” and that Mr Beach had not wanted a “paper trail” of contact. He and the PAC later denied that he had worked for it at all since May.

Mr Benton proposed channelling the donation through his own company to mask its origin. It would then be passed on to two C4s before being donated by them to the PAC, or simply used to fund projects the PAC had already planned.

Mr Benton said the $2 million, for which he would submit an invoice for “appearances” would “definitely allow us to spend two million more dollars on digital and television advertising for Trump.” The Chinese benefactor's generosity would be “whispered into Mr Trump’s ear.” He said he had previously helped US donors conceal donations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...donor-fundrai/

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Hypothetical question:

If Trump loses, launches a Trump TV / Breitbart media brand that maintains loyalty of, say 20% of Republican voters, what are going to the long-term political ramifications?

No matter how I work through the possibilities, this seems to be worse for the Republican Party than the Democrats. The ideal situation for the GOP seems to be that he goes away quickly and quietly and everyone forget everything that happened this year. The ideal situation for the Democrats seems to be that he sticks around as a divisive agent that becomes impossible to ignore and can always be used to invoke racist / misogynist reminders.

But that's just in terms of relatively short-term political gains. I'm kinda more interested in how such a development shapes the policy and influence of either party, and that's a lot harder to put one's finger on.

Definitely because the Republicans get split into another way.

Fiscal Republicans
Tea Partiers

and now Trumpers (people who are mad and racist).

Democrats would hold power for decades

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't get this "media empire" stuff. Has he said he wants to do this, or is it just speculation?

Appealing to a small subsection of people who find FOX News to be too mainstream is not a recipe for success. As big as his ego is, I don't see him willing to lose money (or being devoted enough to literally any cause) to keep going with this crazy "message" after he gets pummelled in the general election.

[Minnie]

A friend posted this today. Haven't looked into it other than to give it a quick read. Interesting, what I did catch when I skimmed it.

Trump's Campaign Pre-planned Con Job

This is a quote from Donald Trump:

“‘I’m going to walk away with it and win it outright,’” a long-time New York political consultant recalled. “Trump told us, ‘I’m going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that they will never take the lights off of me.’”

Trump laid out his plans more than 25 months before announcing his candidacy. All that truth Trump says he speaks? It’s a political con job aimed at attracting the largest GOP base: angry white racists who blame people of color and immigrants for their woes. Not only did Trump attract that demographic while trying to impress them by bragging that he was “self-funding” his campaign, he intended to do so while spending as little of his money as possible.

Notoriously frugal, Trump insisted he wouldn’t need to spend much money on paid advertising, drawing disbelief from the professionals gathered around his table.

“You can’t run for president on earned media,” one attendee recalled telling Trump.

The billionaire looked up, and paused for a long moment. “I think you’re wrong,” Trump said.

How has Trump earned that media? By saying outlandishly racist, sexist, and misogynistic things so that the media will continue to blast his face and his message, which is completely acceptable and echoes the voices of angry white racists, whether or not the statements are true. Facts don’t seem to mean much to his voters.

Trump nailed this point. He hasn’t needed to spend much at all to stay in the limelight. He can simply say horrible things and the media blasts his face everywhere. That doesn’t necessarily mean he believes the things he says, just that he knows what his base believes and will express those beliefs publicly, even if they’re horrible.

Hello, Trump supporters: you are being duped. Trump is not now and has never been a conservative or a Republican. He doesn’t hate our president or his healthcare plan. He isn’t pro-life. He isn’t against Hillary. He simply knows exactly what to say to you to keep you riled up, on his side, and to keep you watching him on television.

Congratulations, GOP. You’ve been had.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Hypothetical question:

If Trump loses, launches a Trump TV / Breitbart media brand that maintains loyalty of, say 20% of Republican voters, what are going to the long-term political ramifications?

No matter how I work through the possibilities, this seems to be worse for the Republican Party than the Democrats. The ideal situation for the GOP seems to be that he goes away quickly and quietly and everyone forget everything that happened this year. The ideal situation for the Democrats seems to be that he sticks around as a divisive agent that becomes impossible to ignore and can always be used to invoke racist / misogynist reminders.

But that's just in terms of relatively short-term political gains. I'm kinda more interested in how such a development shapes the policy and influence of either party, and that's a lot harder to put one's finger on.

The cancer has been seeded and the election won't be the cure. Hopefully reason puts it back to obscurity

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't get this "media empire" stuff. Has he said he wants to do this, or is it just speculation?

Appealing to a small subsection of people who find FOX News to be too mainstream is not a recipe for success. As big as his ego is, I don't see him willing to lose money (or being devoted enough to literally any cause) to keep going with this crazy "message" after he gets pummelled in the general election.

Considering his hotel brand has had to remove the name "Trump" from future projects and many existing Trump buildings are struggling or trying to have the Trump name removed, I think most people are trying to figure out what he can even do anymore with him destroying his company brand. A Breitbart type media empire is the only thing that makes any sense, he has a receptive audience and from this campaign clearly a lot of suckers and marks. It's really his highest potential venture for the forseeable future

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't get this "media empire" stuff. Has he said he wants to do this, or is it just speculation?

Appealing to a small subsection of people who find FOX News to be too mainstream is not a recipe for success. As big as his ego is, I don't see him willing to lose money (or being devoted enough to literally any cause) to keep going with this crazy "message" after he gets pummelled in the general election.

His newspaper-owning son-in-law has apparently had discussions with media dealmakers about this, but I believe that's the only thing concrete beyond his hiring of a lot of people who make more sense for this plan than they do for an election campaign. Glenn Beck had a media company that was at least briefly making tens of millions a year but has recently been tanking. So if Trump is simply the next media brand in that ilk, that's still a significant market and potential revenue, with Trump having far better connections and a more recognizable brand than Beck. I don't think Beck really got any other notable personalities (at least notable beyond the fringe right echo chamber) on his network, but Trump could probably get a celebrity-apprentice calibre cast of b-list celebrity hosts.

[kerriffic]

Found this interesting. The LA times posted this letter from 2007 that was sent to them from Trump who was threatening to sue them for a story they did on Trump university. What I find interesting is look at the similarities between things he said then, and things he says now. It's obviously not an act. Also I like how even in the letter he lies about never having been bankrupt.

Maybe it's not like he claims that the media is against him, perhaps he's always just been a pompous jerk to the press as evidenced by this letter.

[troutman]

http://www.30days30songs.com/

[troutman]

^^^
Look at his signature - what would a hand-writing expert say about that?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ic-symbol.html

[Trump's penmanship lacks curves and he writes using up and down angles. 'Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged,' Dresbold said. 'When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration.']