Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Ayla]

So, then you hate Republicans with a passion then? Because they do ALL of that you listed. Something I haven't heard from Democrats.

No? Screwing around with elections is something that happens everywhere. No one party is always innocent. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. All I mentioned was what 'cheating' could be

[Lenonis]

Because this is the feelings over facts election, duh.

I can't believe someone just basically said "anytime someone says something bad about Clinton I'll treat it as truth without any fact checking"


Wait...now that I typed that out I definitely can.

- - - Updated - - -

No? Screwing around with elections is something that happens everywhere. No one party is always innocent. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. All I mentioned was what 'cheating' could be

You are going to lose the false equivalency battle hardcore in this arena.

The general accusation is that dems engage in voter fraud (voting multiple times, illegals voting, etc.) but reps engage in election fraud -- and you have GOP politicians on record saying that they are implementing restrictions to voting rights to try to give GOP politicians an edge.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Perhaps people forget... perhaps people feel something Clinton did is more important after all (not what she said - everyone knows she is lying either way).

I don't get why people keep beating this dead horse.

It's not even recognizable as a dead horse, it's a decomposed pile of crap with some bone dust in it.

"Clinton is a liar!"

Yeah, she's lied about a couple of things. And the Trump supporters think this makes her unfit to be president...

Trump lies on a daily basis, sometimes many times. He's a pathological liar. So why do Trumples keep beating on the "she's a liar!" line? Do they think it has any meaning at this point as their beloved glorious leader Trump shouts lie after lie after lie after lie?

If you think a liar is unfit for office, then Trump is far far far far far less qualified than Hillary in this case.

[Bollocks]

Trump just stated he wants to put a 35% tariff on goods that were made in Mexico.

The obvious answer of companies would be to do their patriotic duty and return all jobs to the United States. These jobs would all pay middle class salaries like they did in the 70's (so 70k+), and provide full benefits. The companies would apologize to the workers and promise to never do something like this again.

[Edge-]

Heh Trump continues his claims of rigged election by claiming that if he looses in Pennsylvania it's because cheating occurred. And he is spouting that they need to call up law enforcement to prevent it.

http://nbcnews.to/2bdE4fG


At this point he has not claimed he was being sarcastic. That usually takes two days.

Honestly, this needs to be illegal. Its borderline incitement at this point, or laying the groundwork at the very least. I saw a brief bit of him talking about this on TV while visiting my folks and for the first time had to actually turn off the TV.

I've been able to chuckle at his absurdity for the most part, even knowing how dangerous it is, but this crossed the line for me.

[Pangean]

Honestly, this needs to be illegal. Its borderline incitement at this point, or laying the groundwork at the very least. I saw a brief bit of him talking about this on TV while visiting my folks and for the first time had to actually turn off the TV.

I've been able to chuckle at his absurdity for the most part, even knowing how dangerous it is, but this crossed the line for me.

He ain't done yet. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/lp/volu...ction-observer

This is not going to end well.

[Breccia]

So why do Trumples keep beating on the "she's a liar!" line?

Trump has spent his entire campaign trying to distract people from how ridiculously unqualified he is. Amongst other things, he paints other people as "liar" "unfit" "corrupt" so that his own transgressions, when called into focus, will look like "you're just throwing it back".

Trump will continue to beat the "she's a liar" drum to keep his own disdain for the truth off of center stage. Problem is, this only works for the ill-informed. Any realistic comparison between the levels of dishonesty, the levels of corruption, or the levels of unfit for President puts Trump in a very negative light.

Simply put, Trump can't win on the issues. He's demonstrated nothing but lack of knowledge and experience with things the office of the President requires. Since he cannot run on his record -- he hasn't got one -- he's forced to run on his history as a businessman, which is not only incompatible with how you run a country, he hasn't even had a great amount of success. He's had multiple bankruptcies, been sued successfully more times than I care to count, been caught cheating on his taxes, doesn't donate to charity, hires illegals, and deals with the mafia. And to top it all off, he's burning every bridge he can find, alienating his own party, and intentionally violating tradition (such as releasing tax records) that he himself criticized other candidates when they did exactly the same goddam thing.

Screaming "she's a liar!" at the screen keeps your mind off how horrifyingly poor your candidate is. Too bad you're stuck with him.

[Pangean]

That is fucking unbelievable.

- - - Updated - - -



it gets better. I filled the form out with fake info to see if I could see whats next. this is the first page.

I AM YOUR VOICE

To every parent who dreams for their child, and every child who dreams for their future, I say these words to you:

I’m With You, and I will FIGHT for you, and I will WIN for YOU.

This is a MOVEMENT. Contribute today.

Then they ask for a donation.

In the end it seems everything incuding his claims of election rigging are all about getting money off the rubes.

[Orbitus]

No? Screwing around with elections is something that happens everywhere. No one party is always innocent. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. All I mentioned was what 'cheating' could be

Funny, all of the things you listed, I haven't seen ANY democrat trying to take away peoples' votes, or their right to vote away in any way. Not like you described.

[Breccia]

In the end it seems everything incuding his claims of election rigging are all about getting money off the rubes.

Well if I remember correctly, he's no longer loaning his campaign money anymore, so he can't directly take his follower's money. With things like this, however, he's getting further and further from self-financing.

[Masark]

He ain't done yet. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/lp/volu...ction-observer

This is not going to end well.

Other than the first 2 lines, I don't see any problem.

Up here, any candidate can send representatives to observe at any polling station they like. They can watch the voting, obtain records of electors, and watch the ballots being counted at the end.

[Breccia]

Other than the first 2 lines, I don't see any problem.

Aren't the first two lines enough? When was the last time anyone in North America accused their opponent of election fraud 2 months before the election started, with a grand total of zero proof?

EDIT: Also,

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politi...ing/index.html

Trump called the media the lowest form of humanity. That is not interpretation. That's a direct fucking quote.

At this point, I don't think you can call the media "biased" against him anymore. The term will be closer to "and the horse you rode in on".

[Pangean]

Other than the first 2 lines, I don't see any problem.

Up here, any candidate can send representatives to observe at any polling station they like. They can watch the voting, obtain records of electors, and watch the ballots being counted at the end.

Well there is a difference between an observer (which I did in Toronto years ago) and someone there to "prevent" the rigging of the election. The first is representing the candidate at the polling station. The other is part of trying to de-legitimize the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting article on the history of observers and the GOP.

Donald Trump May Be Violating RNC Consent Decree Aimed at Voter Intimidation

With Trump’s dangerous and irresponsible hyperventilating about voter fraud and cheating in Pennsylvania potentially costing him the election, it is probably no surprise, as reported by the Weekly Standard, that Trump is seeking “election observers” to stop “Crooked Hillary” from “rigging this election.”

However, there’s a longstanding consent decree that bars the RNC afrom engaging in such activities. Here’s Tal Kopan and Josh Gerstein, reporting in 2013 on the RNC’s unsuccessful attempt to get the Supreme Court to lift the decree:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined the Republican National Committee’s request to lift a three-decade-old court order that limits the national GOP’s ability to challenge voters’ eligibility at the polls.

The case, Republican National Committee vs. Democratic National Committee, dealt with a consent decree issued in 1982 that prevents the RNC from engaging in some voter fraud prevention efforts without prior court consent. It specifically said the RNC could not engage in ballot security efforts (later defined in 1987 as “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit opinion), especially in areas where racial or ethnic makeup could be considered a reason for the activities.

A response to claims of voter intimidation in minority areas in the 1970s and early 1980s, the decree allowed the RNC to continue “normal poll watching” operations while barring activities that could be aimed at voter suppression, though the RNC complained to the courts that the distinction was unclear and difficult to follow. The decree effectively put the national party on the sidelines as concern about voter fraud became more and more pronounced in GOP ranks in recent years and as states passed a series of voter-identification measures.

In deciding the case, which stems from a 2008 lawsuit brought by the DNC, the district court clarified ballot security efforts as “any program aimed at combating voter fraud by preventing potential voters from registering to vote or casting a ballot,” and upheld the consent decree while adding a Dec. 1, 2017, expiration date.

In the consent decree, “The RNC agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, ‘whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.” Does Trump count as the RNC’s agent in these circumstances? They are certainly acting in concert, and it is plausible to argue that Trump and the RNC are agents of each other for purposes of this election. Also, the activity Trump is talking about engaging violate the consent decree? One thing the consent decree says is that they must:

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose…

If this activity violates the consent decree, the DNC can ask for it to be extended for up to another 8 years.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85289

[Breccia]

Well there is a difference between an observer (which I did in Toronto years ago) and someone there to "prevent" the rigging of the election. The first is representing the candidate at the polling station. The other is part of trying to de-legitimize the election.

I have to second this. How, exactly, are these people going to prevent the election from being rigged? With what training? With what actions? If these people, not in any way certifiied by the state to do anything, suspect a problem...then what? Do they interfere? Will they ask for ID, which by PA state law picture ID is not required? Aren't there laws against interfering with polling place, and if so, what does that leave these people as options?

And why the hell Pennsylvania, of all places? He's down 9, 10 points. PA's lost to him.

[Felya]

Up here, any candidate can send representatives to observe at any polling station they like. They can watch the voting, obtain records of electors, and watch the ballots being counted at the end.

I live in a funny state. They cannot watch people vote in Washington, we do it by mail. The rest is already possible. In fact, my gf's voting card was returned twice, because her signature didn't match registration.

We are also the state that gave majority of delegates, 2 month before votes were counted. To the evil democrat conspirer Bernie Sanders. Yep, we are the state that unjustly, if you believe primary voting is intrinsic to US elections (they are not), gave delegates to Bernie Sanders.

Voter ID is irrelevant here, as it should be everywhere. Maybe then Bernie could have won before anyone voted. /burn

[Garnier Fructis]

Trump called the media the lowest form of humanity. That is not interpretation. That's a direct fucking quote.

Well, he's not wrong.

[Aggrophobic]

He is not going to win. So I think it is safe to get off the Trumphobia bandwagon.

But the most scary part is that people vote for him, not the man himself.

[Seiklis]

I have to second this. How, exactly, are these people going to prevent the election from being rigged? With what training? With what actions? If these people, not in any way certifiied by the state to do anything, suspect a problem...then what? Do they interfere? Will they ask for ID, which by PA state law picture ID is not required? Aren't there laws against interfering with polling place, and if so, what does that leave these people as options?

And why the hell Pennsylvania, of all places? He's down 9, 10 points. PA's lost to him.

Because Pennsylvania going blue puts Clinton at 269 Electoral Votes

Coming up with a strategy that'll resonate with a group of similar states is one thing. When it's coming up with a strategy that wins him Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, 3 completely different beasts in themselves, bit of a different story

If New Hampshire keeps polling 7-10 up for Clinton, this is over anyway so long as the voters don't get lazy, or Clinton goes Gore mode at the debates...but it didn't get this way until Penn finally collapsed on him

[Tijuana]

Because Pennsylvania going blue puts Clinton at 269 Electoral Votes

Coming up with a strategy that'll resonate with a group of similar states is one thing. When it's coming up with a strategy that wins him Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, 3 completely different beasts in themselves, bit of a different story

If New Hampshire keeps polling 7-10 up for Clinton, this is over anyway so long as the voters don't get lazy, or Clinton goes Gore mode at the debates...but it didn't get this way until Penn finally collapsed on him

Man, he really never came back from Gore mode, did he? I can't believe I voted for that guy.

[Deleted]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=41326238


He's sarcastic but not sarcastic but still sarcastic?

Truly saying it like it is

You can't really accuse him of lying though, he's just telling different truths.