2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

There is no comparison between Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow to be made. I can't even believe we're having this conversation or that the conservatives on this board got so god damn defensive.

We've got a pretty good corner of the internet here at IE. We can do better than that clown Alex Jones or anything posted on his site whether it's true or not. It's like trying to cite a wiki page on a dissertation, completely useless.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

But don't you see, this is part of the problem. Even if this guy would post something that is true (once again, not really familiar with him), you want no exposure to it. And I know you said you do not care for Maddow either, but if she posts something that is true will you accept it? What if she posts something that is not true?
My question is that if something is true, who it comes from should not matter.

As far as defensive, rip the guy all you want, I really don't give a crap, but address the issue I raised instead of ignoring it and simply attacking the source. (All the arguing on this has been source related and no one has talked about the issue that the article was about...you didn't even follow the link you said.)

We have both been on this site for a while and I do have respect for you, but if someone was turned off by your posts in this thread does that discount what you have to say about our defensive alignments/personnel in another? NO! That is the agreement I have with you on IE having a "pretty good corner of the internet"

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Quick question: As you guys are bashing Alex Jones & Inforwars, who, honestly I am not very familiar with, does that automatically mean the article I posted from the link at Drudge is incorrect? Is the article, detailing the fact that HRC has not had a press conference in 200 days and that when an MSNBC reporter tried to ask a question, she was ignored and then she and the anchor laughed about it because it happens all the time, incorrect?

Whether the source be HuffPo, WaPo, Media Matters, NewsMax, FNC, Infowars...if the information is correct, then the information is correct. The focus of the issue should be on the information, unless of course whatever site chooses to skew/spin that, which while their might be some of that deep into the item, I think the main part of the article was factual and used the direct MSNBC video as reference.

I'm not commenting on the veracity of the story. But people were comparing WaPo with Infowars. That's when I jumped in. He's a conspiracy theorist, nothing more.

 

[wizards8507]

somewhere in here was an exchange that amounted to questioning source credibility...and then I see atop this post....Rachel fuckin Maddow...WOW.

She's right.

Donald Trump’s Fundraising Report: Campaign Is in Deep Trouble | National Review

 

[IrishJayhawk]

But don't you see, this is part of the problem. Even if this guy would post something that is true (once again, not really familiar with him), you want no exposure to it. And I know you said you do not care for Maddow either, but if she posts something that is true will you accept it? What if she posts something that is not true?
My question is that if something is true, who it comes from should not matter.

As far as defensive, rip the guy all you want, I really don't give a crap, but address the issue I raised instead of ignoring it and simply attacking the source. (All the arguing on this has been source related and no one has talked about the issue that the article was about...you didn't even follow the link you said.)

We have both been on this site for a while and I do have respect for you, but if someone was turned off by your posts in this thread does that discount what you have to say about our defensive alignments/personnel in another? NO! That is the agreement I have with you on IE having a "pretty good corner of the internet"

Also...correct me if I'm wrong. I posted a PolitiFact check of a story that you were discussing several months ago. Rather than commenting on the veracity of their fact check, you posted this about the source...

 

[connor_in]

Also...correct me if I'm wrong. I posted a PolitiFact check of a story that you were discussing several months ago. Rather than commenting on the veracity of their fact check, you posted this about the source...

I do not recall that...refer me to it and I will be happy to discuss.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I do not recall that...refer me to it and I will be happy to discuss.

It might have been another poster. Apologies if that's not accurate. Your general point is well taken.

 

[woolybug25]

She's right.

Donald Trump’s Fundraising Report: Campaign Is in Deep Trouble | National Review

Ain't that the truth...

It’s Scampaign 2016, and we’re proving a nation of suckers.

Read more at: Donald Trump’s Fundraising Report: Campaign Is in Deep Trouble | National Review

 

[kmoose]

She's right.

Donald Trump’s Fundraising Report: Campaign Is in Deep Trouble | National Review

If this were a fundraising campaign, then it might matter. But the idea is to get votes, not cash. We sit here and bemoan the purchasing of politicians by corporations and special interests, but this is only an issue because we have bought into the subliminal bias that the person who raises the most money is in the best position to win the election. It's simply not (always) true. For a politician, the money they spend buys exposure. Trump doesn't need to spend billions, or even millions, on exposure. The media can't stop talking about him; good or bad.

 

[wizards8507]

If this were a fundraising campaign, then it might matter. But the idea is to get votes, not cash. We sit here and bemoan the purchasing of politicians by corporations and special interests, but this is only an issue because we have bought into the subliminal bias that the person who raises the most money is in the best position to win the election. It's simply not (always) true. For a politician, the money they spend buys exposure. Trump doesn't need to spend billions, or even millions, on exposure. The media can't stop talking about him; good or bad.

Did you read the article, or just the headline? Trump is paying himself a goddamn salary out of his campaign. He's using fundraising dollars to repay loans his campaign took from Trump-owned businesses. The whole "self-funding" bullshit in the primary was a lie. He wasn't funding his campaign, he was loading his campaign up with debt payable to himself and now that he has some semblance of fundraising he's actually taking money out of the campaign.

No, money is not the same as votes. But Trump is where he is largely on his reputation as a businessman. This kind of thing doesn't give you much confidence in his ability to run an organization.

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm becoming more convinced by the day that he has no intentions of winning.

 

[kmoose]

Did you read the article, or just the headline? Trump is paying himself a goddamn salary out of his campaign. He's using fundraising dollars to repay loans his campaign took from Trump-owned businesses. The whole "self-funding" bullshit in the primary was a lie. He wasn't funding his campaign, he was loading his campaign up with debt payable to himself and now that he has some semblance of fundraising he's actually taking money out of the campaign.

No, money is not the same as votes. But Trump is where he is largely on his reputation as a businessman. This kind of thing doesn't give you much confidence in his ability to run an organization.

Yes. I read that Trump is paying himself a goddamn salary out of his campaign. You seem to be outraged that he's profiting, personally, from his campaign contributions. What are you, 7 years old? Or maybe you've been living under a rock for the last, say................ 50 years? Candidates have been profiting off of their campaign contributions for longer than I have been alive.

 

[woolybug25]

Yes. I read that Trump is paying himself a goddamn salary out of his campaign. You seem to be outraged that he's profiting, personally, from his campaign contributions. What are you, 7 years old? Or maybe you've been living under a rock for the last, say................ 50 years? Candidates have been profiting off of their campaign contributions for longer than I have been alive.

You should read the article, kmoose. It's not just the salary, his entire campaign is built like a Ponzi scheme to pay Trump entities, not just salary to himself. There's never been a campaign like his.

 

[wizards8507]

You should read the article, kmoose. It's not just the salary, his entire campaign is built like a Ponzi scheme to pay Trump entities, not just salary to himself. There's never been a campaign like his.

Even if this was normal, I don't think we should be excusing corruption on the basis that "yeah... but EVERYONE is corrupt, so..."

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Did you read the article, or just the headline? Trump is paying himself a goddamn salary out of his campaign. He's using fundraising dollars to repay loans his campaign took from Trump-owned businesses. The whole "self-funding" bullshit in the primary was a lie. He wasn't funding his campaign, he was loading his campaign up with debt payable to himself and now that he has some semblance of fundraising he's actually taking money out of the campaign.

No, money is not the same as votes. But Trump is where he is largely on his reputation as a businessman. This kind of thing doesn't give you much confidence in his ability to run an organization.

You should read the article, kmoose. It's not just the salary, his entire campaign is built like a Ponzi scheme to pay Trump entities, not just salary to himself. There's never been a campaign like his.

Yup.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Even if this was normal, I don't think we should be excusing corruption on the basis that "yeah... but EVERYONE is corrupt, so..."

I'm actually surprised there isn't more from supporters applauding him for taking advantage of the system. "It's not illegal. It's just what good businessmen do. You wouldn't understand. #Trump #MakeAmericaGreatAgain."

 

[kmoose]

Even if this was normal, I don't think we should be excusing corruption on the basis that "yeah... but EVERYONE is corrupt, so..."

No one is excusing it. I think it's hysterical that you are outraged by it. It's like a 2 year old crying that the rain is wet.

 

[wizards8507]

No one is excusing it. I think it's hysterical that you are outraged by it. It's like a 2 year old crying that the rain is wet.

Right, because corruption is the same thing as rain being wet.

It's left and right calling him out on this bullshit. The real two year old behavior is coming from the Trump bots who stick their fingers in their ears and yell "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

 

[ACamp1900]

I mean,... If I were doing all this hard work for Hillary's campaign I'd want to get paid too...

 

[kmoose]

I mean,... If I were doing all this hard work for Hillary's campaign I'd want to get paid too...

And it sure beats the "Vince Foster" compensation plan.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm becoming more convinced by the day that he has no intentions of winning.

Been saying it for months it was all just a false flag campaign to get his friends the Clintons back in the White House.

 

[kmoose]

You should read the article, kmoose. It's not just the salary, his entire campaign is built like a Ponzi scheme to pay Trump entities, not just salary to himself. There's never been a campaign like his.

Is it really any different from those politicians who amass HUGE campaign accounts, then when they retire from elected office, they transfer those monies to the national committee, who then turns around and pays them huge consulting and/or speaking fees for years on end?

 

[woolybug25]

Is it really any different from those politicians who amass HUGE campaign accounts, then when they retire from elected office, they transfer those monies to the national committee, who then turns around and pays them huge consulting and/or speaking fees for years on end?

Yes... And you should actually read the article if you're going to have such a strong opinion on it. No?

 

[kmoose]

Yes... And you should actually read the article if you're going to have such a strong opinion on it. No?

I did read the fucking article....

 

[woolybug25]

I did read the fucking article....

Fooled us.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Here's a brief blog post by Alan Jacobs:

The general problem is that the modern liberal nation-state and its characteristic institutions are simply no longer capable of delivering on their baseline promises and possibilities to any national population anywhere. Even in nations that appear by most measures to be successful, the state withers due its lack of vision. Liberalism cannot handle the extension of its rights to all who are entitled, and its major alleged champions increasingly endorse depraved forms of military and economic illiberalism in the name of its defense. The brief moment of reform in which capital seemed to be harnessed to social democracy is very nearly over, and the difference between illicit and licit economies now seems paper-thin at best. Very little policy gets made because it’s the right thing to do; most policy is about transfer-seeking. Every dollar is spoken for. Every play is a scrum in the middle that moves the ball inches, never yards. Political elites around the world either speak in laughably dishonest ways about hope and aspiration or stick to grey, cramped horizons of plausibly incremental managerialism. Young people all around the world recognize that there is little hope of living in a better or more comfortable or more just world than their parents did, and their grandparents must often live every day with the possibility of losing whatever they’ve gained, that they are one lost job or sickness away from falling without a safety net.

In the United States, what this all means in a more immediate sense is that Donald J. Trump is only the beginning. He may have a peculiarly American cast to his authoritarian populism, but he has his counterparts elsewhere in the world, many of whom have enjoyed or threaten to enjoy similar electoral success or other access to power. We reach out for analogies, fascism most prominently, but those are useful only in suggesting the dangerousness of our moment.

So I worry about a Clinton Presidency because it is at best likely to be a stalling action in the face of this gathering storm, and at worst may well accelerate and aggravate its arrival. Trump is only the herald; his successor will likely be a more fearsome, skillful and dangerously plausible version who will speak directly to the spirit of desperation in the hearts of many.

 

[GATTACA!]

Donald Trump makes a lot of money for a speech - Business Insider

Forbes Welcome

I wasn't defending Trump. Just saying it's hypocritical to bash Trump on this one issue when Hillary is just as bad.

Did you read the article, or just the headline? Trump is paying himself a goddamn salary out of his campaign. He's using fundraising dollars to repay loans his campaign took from Trump-owned businesses. The whole "self-funding" bullshit in the primary was a lie. He wasn't funding his campaign, he was loading his campaign up with debt payable to himself and now that he has some semblance of fundraising he's actually taking money out of the campaign.

No, money is not the same as votes. But Trump is where he is largely on his reputation as a businessman. This kind of thing doesn't give you much confidence in his ability to run an organization.

Are we really concerned about Trump paying his businesses one million dollars? If this was all really some money making scheme wouldn't he be doing all the fundraising possible so he could maximize profits? He has $63.3 million to pay himself back for if your theory is true, he better pick up the pace.

 

[kmoose]

Fooled us.

I never said I didn't. Wizards just assumed that I had not, because I didn't agree with his foot stomping outrage.

Trump held campaign events at Trump facilities and utilized Trump products. Those facilities and companies rightly should be paid for their products and services. It's not a bad idea for him to be holding a campaign event at a venue that is opulent, and has his name all over it. Subliminally, it probably causes people to equate his name with success. And that's what his campaign is selling.

 

[GoIrish41]

I never said I didn't. Wizards just assumed that I had not, because I didn't agree with his foot stomping outrage.

Trump held campaign events at Trump facilities and utilized Trump products. Those facilities and companies rightly should be paid for their products and services. It's not a bad idea for him to be holding a campaign event at a venue that is opulent, and has his name all over it. Subliminally, it probably causes people to equate his name with success. And that's what his campaign is selling.

Sure, all that opulence makes him appear as a man of the people. I'm sure that plays well for all the mouthbreathers who think he is out for the little guy.

 

[woolybug25]

I wasn't defending Trump. Just saying it's hypocritical to bash Trump on this one issue when Hillary is just as bad.



Are we really concerned about Trump paying his businesses one million dollars? If this was all really some money making scheme wouldn't he be doing all the fundraising possible so he could maximize profits? He has $63.3 million to pay himself back for if your theory is true, he better pick up the pace.

That's not the point. He has set up an infrastructure that will make the PAC money in the general go directly to him. It's not like the Republican PAC money is just gonna sit on a table somewhere. It will get spent in the general. Unfortunately for them, Trump has set up a system where $1 of every $5 ends up in his own pocket.

 

[wizards8507]

Young people all around the world recognize that there is little hope of living in a better or more comfortable or more just world than their parents did, and their grandparents must often live every day with the possibility of losing whatever they’ve gained, that they are one lost job or sickness away from falling without a safety net.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_bqa7B_jYyA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>