2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

You've sunken to a new low. Are you really insinuating that the Clintons are responsible for 46 deaths over the past 30 years? Your referenced article is right-wing trash.

no no no no no...they aren't responsible for ALL of those 46 deaths

 

[connor_in]

He also allegedly took a check from Clinton Foundation for $350k to politicize his son's death... and now he has the balls to ask to be left alone. It's, at best, hypocritical... but at the same time, Trump is an absolute clown for how he has handled the whole thing. So as much as I don't like someone who tries to play politics and profit and then ask for privacy when there are unintended consequences, I'd rather side with him and his family than the Trump side of things.

All kinds of THIS

 

[phgreek]

He also allegedly took a check from Clinton Foundation for $350k to politicize his son's death... and now he has the balls to ask to be left alone. It's, at best, hypocritical... but at the same time, Trump is an absolute clown for how he has handled the whole thing. So as much as I don't like someone who tries to play politics and profit and then ask for privacy when there are unintended consequences, I'd rather side with him and his family than the Trump side of things.

No way...really? Where was that 350K covered...how did that come out...I'd like to read that.

 

[ACamp1900]

No way...really? Where was that 350K covered...how did that come out...I'd like to read that.

It's a bold new world, the Clinton's actually paying obscene money for someone to speak at their event....

(We're in the upside down, this confirms it).

 

[phgreek]

It's a bold new world, the Clinton's actually paying obscene money for someone to speak at their event....

(We're in the upside down, this confirms it).

I don't doubt they did it...I don't doubt they scripted his speech either. I'm shocked it got out, and curious how.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't think it matters if you are, or aren't. I started this line of discussion hoping to point out that the "attacks" and "insults" to the Khan family are largely things that were made up (or at best, incredibly exaggerated) by the media. With the exception of the comment about the wife not speaking, Trump didn't say ANYTHING negative (that I saw) about the family. I've asked, multiple times, for people to specify what "attacks" and "insults" they are upset about. So far, only wooly has responded. And I think he is confusing "handling it poorly" with "attacking and insulting". It's the same thing that has happened with Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants, vis-à-vis rape and other crimes. The narrative out there is that Trump said that Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals. But that's not what he said. However, if it gets repeated often enough, it just becomes the truth. THAT is why our government is so fucked up!! Because we allow hyperbole and opinion to become "facts". If WE were smarter, more demanding, more skeptical; we might have better government.

Adding nuance to Trump's comments after the fact -- nuance that he clearly never gave a minute's thought before blurting ithem out -- makes you appear as an apologist for him. His comments about Mexicans and Muslims were clearly meant to be derogatory. Suggesting that they weren't -- that he is in full control of the crap that moves from his brain to his mouth unobstructed by any sort of filters -- suggests that you are not really concerned by what he meant and are not concerned with anything but arguing. IMO that has much more to do with the reason our government is so fucked up than people framing an idiot's comments AS HE MEANT THEM in the moment he said them.

Also Wooly is not the only one to respond to your question about what Trump said about the Khan family.

 

[connor_in]

I don't doubt they did it...I don't doubt they scripted his speech either. I'm shocked it got out, and curious how.

 

[phgreek]

It's a bold new world, the Clinton's actually paying obscene money for someone to speak at their event....

(We're in the upside down, this confirms it).

Welp...the only thing I could find is an alleged deposit slip from the campaign to Khan on a website...Anonymous Leaks Clinton Foundation Payoff to Khan - Get Off The BSGet Off The BS

and then the same material on youtube.

Meh...maybe it is authentic...IDK.


If True...
-Trump still took the bait...dumb.
-Clintons and associates are scum...already WELL established.

Shrug

 

[phgreek]

...ok, yea well, I'm dumb for thinking they kinda addressed all of that...

 

[kmoose]

Adding nuance to Trump's comments after the fact -- nuance that he clearly never gave a minute's thought before blurting ithem out -- makes you appear as an apologist for him. His comments about Mexicans and Muslims were clearly meant to be derogatory.

You assigning meaning to his words, to suit your own purposes and viewpoint, makes you appear to be not only delusionally biased, but pretty fvcking stupid as well. I submit the following:


Trump tweet:

This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!

"It's about radical Islamic terrorism" when referring to the reason he was even talking about the family. It assumes that all Muslims are radical terrorists. It's bigotry. Worse it's bigotry to a family that has sacrificed more than Trump for this country. This is to say nothing of the proposed ban of Muslims. There aren't many who think Trump's handling of the Khans was not offensive.

How the holy fvck do you get that Trump is calling the Khans radical Islamic terrorists, from his tweet? You're bordering on pathetic, these days. Polls show that your criminal is leading in the polls. Just relax and enjoy it. Oh, and go back to finding racism in places like the writings of Desmond Tutu.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Trump stated that we should cut off all immigration from Muslim countries.

This kind of statement could be taken to imply that no Muslims can be trusted, and they are all potential terrorists.

That provides some basis for concluding he is bigoted against Muslims.

Trump then clarified that what he meant (i.e., what he should have said in retrospect). He thinks we should stop all immigration from Muslim countries with terrorist problems because we have no effective means of screening out the very few extremists from the much larger groups of peaceful immigrants. We need to figure that part out first.

This is true. It's almost impossible to deny. If this is really what he originally meant, it takes away a lot of the basis for thinking he is Islamaphobic.

The democrats want to say that Trump may have nuanced his official position, but his knee-jerk reaction shows that he is really bigoted in a manner unbecoming of a President. And they don't like his proposal because, even if its true, is smells anti-American, whether or not its constitutional.

The Trump repubs agree with his nuanced position and are willing to accept that this is what he meant all along. They don't think America has a duty to take anyone (for the most part), and so it gets to be generous with its immigration policy on its own terms (safety first).

 

[pkt77242]

What are people's opinions on what Trump does now that he is so far down in the polls (though there is 90+ days left till the election, plenty of time).

I see it going 1 of 3 ways.

1. He comes out attacking Hillary and going after her hard. He might be able to get back in it this way, but if his attacks misfire, it could drive him down even farther in the polls.

2. He keeps running the same campaign. Some nice jabs at Clinton, some interesting commentary on the average working person, and some missteps as he sticks his foot in his mouth.

3. He starts to pack it in and complains about how the process is rigged and he isn't being treated fairly, etc. Railing against the system would be his way of not accepting any responsibility for losing. I don't see him going this way completely yet, but if after a debate or two he is still down a fair amount, I think he will go this way to protect his ego.

 

[irishfan]

What are people's opinions on what Trump does now that he is so far down in the polls (though there is 90+ days left till the election, plenty of time).

I see it going 1 of 3 ways.

1. He comes out attacking Hillary and going after her hard. He might be able to get back in it this way, but if his attacks misfire, it could drive him down even farther in the polls.

2. He keeps running the same campaign. Some nice jabs at Clinton, some interesting commentary on the average working person, and some missteps as he sticks his foot in his mouth.

3. He starts to pack it in and complains about how the process is rigged and he isn't being treated fairly, etc. Railing against the system would be his way of accepting any responsibility for losing. I don't see him going this way completely yet, but if after a debate or two he is still down a fair amount, I think he will go this way to protect his ego.

He just has to somehow muddy the waters even more and bring her down to his level. He seemed to have done that....and then he brought himself down even further. He needs more email releases by Wikileaks pretty much....

 

[kmoose]

Trump stated that we should cut off all immigration from Muslim countries.

This kind of statement could be taken to imply that no Muslims can be trusted, and they are all potential terrorists.

That provides some basis for concluding he is bigoted against Muslims.

Trump then clarified that what he meant (i.e., what he should have said in retrospect). He thinks we should stop all immigration from Muslim countries with terrorist problems because we have no effective means of screening out the very few extremists from the much larger groups of peaceful immigrants. We need to figure that part out first.

This is true. It's almost impossible to deny. If this is really what he originally meant, it takes away a lot of the basis for thinking he is Islamaphobic.

The democrats want to say that Trump may have nuanced his official position, but his knee-jerk reaction shows that he is really bigoted in a manner unbecoming of a President. And they don't like his proposal because, even if its true, is smells anti-American, whether or not its constitutional.

The Trump repubs agree with his nuanced position and are willing to accept that this is what he meant all along. They don't think America has a duty to take anyone (for the most part), and so it gets to be generous with its immigration policy on its own terms (safety first).

That's all well and good, but can you show me where Trump "attacked" the Khan family?

 

[IrishLax]

What are people's opinions on what Trump does now that he is so far down in the polls (though there is 90+ days left till the election, plenty of time).

I see it going 1 of 3 ways.

1. He comes out attacking Hillary and going after her hard. He might be able to get back in it this way, but if his attacks misfire, it could drive him down even farther in the polls.

2. He keeps running the same campaign. Some nice jabs at Clinton, some interesting commentary on the average working person, and some missteps as he sticks his foot in his mouth.

3. He starts to pack it in and complains about how the process is rigged and he isn't being treated fairly, etc. Railing against the system would be his way of accepting any responsibility for losing. I don't see him going this way completely yet, but if after a debate or two he is still down a fair amount, I think he will go this way to protect his ego.

I think he does this, and Clinton wins by the largest margin we've seen in awhile. Either that or he drops out sometime before the first debate.

 

[ACamp1900]

3. He starts to pack it in and complains about how the process is rigged and he isn't being treated fairly, etc. Railing against the system would be his way of accepting any responsibility for losing. I don't see him going this way completely yet, but if after a debate or two he is still down a fair amount, I think he will go this way to protect his investments in the Clinton Foundation.

 

[Domina Nostra]

That's all well and good, but can you show me where Trump "attacked" the Khan family?

I think the argument is that while he expressed appreciation for the family's sacrifice and their son's service (calling him a hero), he was inappropriate when he flippantly stated that he's like to hear from his wife. It sure seemed like Trump was taking a jab at Muslims for not letting their women talk.

This is rude, albeit confusing for a liberal to defend. You can pretend Muslims are whatever you want them to be, but women have far less rights and privileges in many Muslim countries.

Also, it's a little inconsistent that they don't get on Hilary for implying that the Benghazi families are either mis-remembering, lying, or political, when the Judical Watch e-mails confirmed that their story corresponded to the facts: i.e., we all know for a fact that the State Department was blaming the incident on the tape after confirming it knew that the tape had nothing to do with it. So the victim's familiies should have been vindicated. However, she's still pushing the story, like she's pushing the "I didn't lie about the e-mails" story.

3. He starts to pack it in and complains about how the process is rigged and he isn't being treated fairly, etc. Railing against the system would be his way of not accepting any responsibility for losing. I don't see him going this way completely yet, but if after a debate or two he is still down a fair amount, I think he will go this way to protect his ego.

While I have no doubt Trump is his own worst enemy in the election, more and more people are starting to think the system is rigged.

1) The FBI gave Repubs a lot of reason to think it is.
2) The DNC gave the Bernie people a lot of reason to think it is.

So when trump talks about rigged elections, and someone says that's crazy, and look at him for his crazy answer and he says

"There is no ID requirement like there is in EVERY other aspect of modern life! Why would you lift an ID requirement if you didn't want to cheat?"

Guess what? No matter how crazy you think Trump is, that just doesn't sound very crazy at all. It just doesn't. People have their responses, but they are weak and don't get past the problem that--just or not--the no ID thing creates an opening for cheating. No ID, no purple fingers, nothing. Just sign the affidavit. Combine that with mail-in voting... It is an honor system in a country that doesn't believe in honor anymore.

So people who are primed to distrust the system are going to, and they aren't going to think they are being crazy or absurd.

And when the response is "That's crazy, the EXPERTS have shown us that there is no substantial cheating going on." People aren't going to buy that anymore.

I have no reason, personally, to think any large scale cheating is going on, but I certainly wouldn't be shocked to find out, say, Philadelphia or a few key Ohio suburbs were cheating. I know first hand that state-level cheating was rampant in Alabama even 10 years ago.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hillary Clinton: "I want you to hold me accountable, press & citizens... there's too much at stake." <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NABJNAHJ16?src=hash">#NABJNAHJ16</a> <a href="https://t.co/v0PiTTY5NF">pic.twitter.com/v0PiTTY5NF</a></p>— Felecia D.Henderson (@Newsgirl84) <a href="https://twitter.com/Newsgirl84/status/761606603372130304">August 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/Newsgirl84">@Newsgirl84</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/michellemalkin">@michellemalkin</a> That's from The Onion, right? RIGHT?</p>— Alfred E. Newman (@AlfredENewman5) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlfredENewman5/status/761607736291229696">August 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Clinton, to a room of clapping journalists: "I hope you keep calling it like you see it. Hold us all accountable.” <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NABJNAHJ2016?src=hash">#NABJNAHJ2016</a></p>— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) <a href="https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/761605139266428928">August 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee in front of my computer screen just now... <a href="https://t.co/ZAjfOs11vc">https://t.co/ZAjfOs11vc</a></p>— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) <a href="https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/761607049717264385">August 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HillaryShortCircuit?src=hash">#HillaryShortCircuit</a> <a href="https://t.co/tjXCtRiP6y">pic.twitter.com/tjXCtRiP6y</a></p>— Donald J. Mondale (@DefendWallSt) <a href="https://twitter.com/DefendWallSt/status/761616629167972352">August 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/DefendWallSt">@DefendWallSt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro">@benshapiro</a> *Scotty voice* "Humanity simulation circuits are overloading. She cannot take much more of this, Captain!"</p>— W. E. Ted Wade (@TedWade73) <a href="https://twitter.com/TedWade73/status/761627251716657152">August 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

Hillary just can’t quit you, email lies (and some of these ‘journalists’ loved it!) – twitchy.com

Yep, “short circuited.” That’s how Clinton explains the lies she was caught telling

 

[ACamp1900]

Hillary just can’t quit you, email lies (and some of these ‘journalists’ loved it!) – twitchy.com

 

[connor_in]

Johnny 5 was waaaaaay more lifelike

 

[connor_in]

Trump campaign won’t allow people to stop recurring donations to campaign on site – twitchy.com


OOPSISES !!!

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We should just rename newscasters Trumpcasters. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AllTrumpAllTheTime?src=hash">#AllTrumpAllTheTime</a></p>— Jim Gaffigan (@JimGaffigan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JimGaffigan/status/761630407586701313">August 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[kmoose]

I think the argument is that while he expressed appreciation for the family's sacrifice and their son's service (calling him a hero), he was inappropriate when he flippantly stated that he's like to hear from his wife. It sure seemed like Trump was taking a jab at Muslims for not letting their women talk.

I've granted that the comment about Mrs. Khan not speaking appears to be an attack. But the media keeps talking about Trump's attackS, plural. And the Progressives have yet to show me where Trump spoke unkindly of the Khan family, other than the comment about his wife, let alone "attacked" them. It's not a defense of Trump; it's a call for people not to allow the mainstream media to dictate what is truth and what is not. For the love of God, the DNC email leaks should be enough to prove that the media is not only NOT unbiased, but they are knee deep involved in putting forth the preferred narrative of their "friends". This go round it was HRC vs Bernie Sanders. Who knows what it was in the past, or what it will be in the future?

 

[phgreek]

What are people's opinions on what Trump does now that he is so far down in the polls (though there is 90+ days left till the election, plenty of time).

I see it going 1 of 3 ways.

1. He comes out attacking Hillary and going after her hard. He might be able to get back in it this way, but if his attacks misfire, it could drive him down even farther in the polls.

2. He keeps running the same campaign. Some nice jabs at Clinton, some interesting commentary on the average working person, and some missteps as he sticks his foot in his mouth.

3. He starts to pack it in and complains about how the process is rigged and he isn't being treated fairly, etc. Railing against the system would be his way of not accepting any responsibility for losing. I don't see him going this way completely yet, but if after a debate or two he is still down a fair amount, I think he will go this way to protect his ego.

Combination of 1&2...where there is less 2, but more 1...but I think you know he won't be able to remain clean. This will allow the media to continue to do what we all know they do well...carry Clinton water.

By the time the debates happen, the proportion of time spent on economy and national security will be diminished, and even when those come up we'll hear about tax returns and walls...

Trump will hurt himself...but folks are delusional if they think the debates will contain questions which force Mrs Clinton to do much of any explaining regarding her weak points. You can also bet the questions are being carefully crafted to force Trump to spend time on things that support the Clinton campaign's narrative of Trump.

Then we'll see 3.

So my short answer is All the above.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/jaketapper">@jaketapper</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro">@benshapiro</a> <a href="https://t.co/8uVZttHtOr">pic.twitter.com/8uVZttHtOr</a></p>— Adam Baldwin (@AdamBaldwin) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/761607247931711488">August 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

OK...so SHE hears people correctly, but Benghazi family members don't hear her correctly?

 

[connor_in]

What are people's opinions on what Trump does now that he is so far down in the polls (though there is 90+ days left till the election, plenty of time).

I don't like either one and want them both to go away

I am starting to miss the calm serenity of the W/Gore presidential race and election

 

[NorthDakota]

I don't like either one and want them both to go away

I am starting to miss the calm serenity of the W/Gore presidential race and election

I was 8 when that was happening. Can you expand on that?

 

[Domina Nostra]

I've granted that the comment about Mrs. Khan not speaking appears to be an attack. But the media keeps talking about Trump's attackS, plural. And the Progressives have yet to show me where Trump spoke unkindly of the Khan family, other than the comment about his wife, let alone "attacked" them. It's not a defense of Trump; it's a call for people not to allow the mainstream media to dictate what is truth and what is not. For the love of God, the DNC email leaks should be enough to prove that the media is not only NOT unbiased, but they are knee deep involved in putting forth the preferred narrative of their "friends". This go round it was HRC vs Bernie Sanders. Who knows what it was in the past, or what it will be in the future?

I agree with you on this.

I was not for Trump during the primaries but ended up defending him a lot because its pretty silly to call a New York liberal with a daughter rising up the ranks of his company and a Jewish son-in-law running his campaign, married to an immigrant, etc., etc., a racist, anti-semetic, sexist .... Just because that is the script democrats apply to "every Republican ever" (remember when Romney was sexist for assembling a binder full of highly-qualified women he might call on) doesn't mean the description fits Trump, who is not a Republican.

I just think its helpful to try to set everything out from both sides, so the argument can get re-focused on the issues.