Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[DeadmanWalking]

It's almost like you did not read the article..

"Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, had released a statement before the GOP nominee's visit decrying a "photo-op," but Edwards told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" Sunday that Trump had always been welcome if he were coming to be "helpful.""

Well he was helpful so he did listen, maybe you should stop dreaming of Trumps penis?

He handed out toys, not food and water. Playdo is nice when kids have houses to play in but they can't drink or eat playdo.

[Saucexorzski]

Skroe says that we definitely needed to spend trillions of additional off-budget dollars on military expenditures? Well, it must be true then After all, it's not like he's personally invested in throwing money at the industry.

I'm pretty sure he has summerized the current upgrade would have happened during the Iraq war time frame if not for the Iraq war. I could be wrong it's been awhile since he was talking about it. If he is wrng then he is wrong ( and so am i) but what I remember reading was very plausible and we'll thought out. His skin in the game is even more reason to trust him on this imo.

[Wells]

He handed out toys, not food and water. Playdo is nice when kids have houses to play in but they can't drink or eat playdo.

Honestly? Toys are important during a time like this. Kids just aren't as able to regulate stress as adults. The ability to distract them is valuable.

That said it was still a stupid bullshit photo op that probably did more harm than good.

[Saucexorzski]

He handed out toys, not food and water. Playdo is nice when kids have houses to play in but they can't drink or eat playdo.

If it's so bad why did the Governor speak positivly about his actions?

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly? Toys are important during a time like this. Kids just aren't as able to regulate stress as adults. The ability to distract them is valuable.

That said it was still a stupid bullshit photo op that probably did more harm than good.

Not according to the the Governor.

[Speaker]

He handed out toys, not food and water. Playdo is nice when kids have houses to play in but they can't drink or eat playdo.

He handed out 70,000 lbs of supplies and 100,000 dollars. He had gave out a couple toys, but much of it was supplies.

[Nadiru]

He handed out toys, not food and water. Playdo is nice when kids have houses to play in but they can't drink or eat playdo.

Giving kids something to distract them from the fact that their houses may or may not be under a few feet of water isn't helpful? Have you even been in the same room as a child?

[Speaker]

Honestly? Toys are important during a time like this. Kids just aren't as able to regulate stress as adults. The ability to distract them is valuable.

That said it was still a stupid bullshit photo op that probably did more harm than good.

Press was not allowed, there was no photo op. A couple locals shooting from their iphones is not a photo op. If there was any press there they were told not to come, you can't blame Trump if they didn't listen.

[Wells]

Press was not allowed, there was no photo op. A couple locals shooting from their iphones is not a photo op.

Not according to the the Governor.

As to which point?

[Spectral]

I'm pretty sure he has summerized the current upgrade would have happened during the Iraq war time frame if not for the Iraq war. I could be wrong it's been awhile since he was talking about it. If he is wrng then he is wrong but what I remember reading was very plausible and we'll thought out. His skin in the game is even more reason to trust him on this imo.

I don't doubt the veracity of his position when it comes to what status quo politics are. I also don't doubt that he can run circles around me on the details of the matter. I just doubt the actual necessity of this spending. Of course he's wildly enthusiastic about throwing staggering sums of money at a field that he personally benefits from.

From a less cynical perspective, this is also just in line with his general political leanings - he's really enthusiastic about military technology and bolstering American military supremacy at any costs. I could probably dig up quotes where he outright says that raising taxes to pay for more military spending is trivial.

Skroe's very knowledgable and one of the absolute best posters here, don't get me wrong, but citing his position pieces as though they're facts just isn't really valid. He's a strong advocate for a specific set of positions. There's aren't non-partisan and factual, they're a stance.

[Merkava]

That's all pointless speculation on your part. One could just as easily claim that if he meant there were violations he would have said just that.

I'm not sure what to tell you Merkava. He said there was evidence of potential violations. This is clearly not the same as saying there was a violation. You can of course try to wiggle that into the shape your partisan inclinations push you towards, but its right there.

Seriously. Just read the fucking quote. After he says that, he goes into talking about how prosecutions in the past have been handled, the standards they had to meet. Here's the entire quote

Comey : Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

He's clearly implying that while there's a case to be made for violations, it doesn't have prosecutorial merit. Again, if all he wanted to say was that there was no proscutorial merit, then he would have omitted any mention of there being evidence of potential violations. The statement stands perfectly well by itself if you omit the first portion about violations. For some reason, you seem to be saying that Comey intentionally inserted a wholly amibiguous and frivolous, not to mention accusatory, statement into a speech where it had no place.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure he has summerized the current upgrade would have happened during the Iraq war time frame if not for the Iraq war. I could be wrong it's been awhile since he was talking about it. If he is wrng then he is wrong ( and so am i) but what I remember reading was very plausible and we'll thought out. His skin in the game is even more reason to trust him on this imo.

I think highly of Skroe as well, but that statement in itself isn't an open and shut indictment of the Iraq war. It's a little like saying we would have been able to afford a new kitchen if we didn't have to pay our daughters hospital bills.

[Lenonis]

I think it takes a particularly serious brand of partisanship not to be able to see what Comey seems to be saying.

Wait. Weren't you the one jumping up and down that the GOP platform didn't expressly state anything about conversion therapy thus you can't make inferences? Isn't that exactly what you are doing here?

[Saucexorzski]

As to which point?

I've link a cnn article like twice now I this thread where the Governor has come out and said Trumps trip to LA helped.

[Wells]

Seriously. Just read the fucking quote. After he says that, he goes into talking about how prosecutions in the past have been handled, the standards they had to meet. Here's the entire quote

He's clearly implying that while there's a case to be made for violations, it doesn't have prosecutorial merit. Again, if all he wanted to say was that there was no proscutorial merit, then he would have omitted any mention of there being evidence of potential violations. The statement stands perfectly well by itself if you omit the first portion about violations. For some reason, you seem to be saying that Comey intentionally inserted a wholly amibiguous and frivolous, not to mention accusatory, statement into a speech where it had no place.

- - - Updated - - -



I think highly of Skroe as well, but that statement in itself isn't an open and shut indictment of the Iraq war. It's a little like saying we would have been able to afford a new kitchen if we didn't have to pay our daughters hospital bills.

I've read the quote Merkava. Maybe you should try processing the idea that someone sees something other than what you think is between the lines. All he's said is that there's evidence for a potential violation. You're trying to stretch that into a definitive claim that it is simply not.

Wait. Weren't you the one jumping up and down that the GOP platform didn't expressly state anything about conversion therapy thus you can't make inferences? Isn't that exactly what you are doing here?

[Merkava]

Wait. Weren't you the one jumping up and down that the GOP platform didn't expressly state anything about conversion therapy thus you can't make inferences? Isn't that exactly what you are doing here?

No that's not what I'm doing here, and that's not what I said. What I said in my last reply to you was this

You can draw conclusions when you have enough evidence to draw them. In this case, you simply don't have enough evidence to support your opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

I've read the quote Merkava. Maybe you should try processing the idea that someone sees something other than what you think is between the lines. All he's said is that there's evidence for a potential violation. You're trying to stretch that into a definitive claim that it is simply not.

I never said it was a definitive claim. That's the fucking problem with you. I'll tell you again. You have no interest at all in debating anything in good faith. You deliberately try to attribute claims to people when they don't make them. What I said was this

I think Comey clearly intimated that laws were broken, but that he didn't think there would be a successful prosecution.

I then said this,

If he's not implying that there were violations, then why even mention it?

I'm not trying to stretch anything into a "definitive claim" That's a pathetic strawman. If I was, then I wouldn't have used words like "implied," and "intimated."

And I've made the case. It's clearly not the case that you'd like me to make. It's clearly not a case that you feel that you can attack successfully. But that doesn't give you the right to change it.

I'll say it again; If Comey had merely wanted to say that the case wouldn't be recommended for prosecution, then he simply could have said that. It's incredible to believe that he would insert a meaningless, ambiguous, frivolous, and accusatory statement talking about evidence of potential violations into the mix.

And I'm actually surprised you didn't fit that eyeroll into it's own text somehow. You must be slipping.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Just to be clear, I am not voting for him because he has been a successful business man. As long as he has not did anything illegal ( which has resulted in a conviction, not heresay ) I could not care less how much he has made and been successful at. I feel he is a better choice than Hillary is. And do agree with his base line policies as I have stated numerous times.

Unless a person is getting public money, it is no one's business how much a person makes or gives to charity from their private work And like I said, in his case, it is only the public's right to know if he has done something illegal.

What policies do you think you're voting for? The Trump campaign has already said that it was focusing on big time deportation rhetoric to win the primary, and now it's going for granting citizenship to illegals cause that's what's needed to win the general.

You may argue that he really wants to deport illegals, and it's just being "tactical" but that's what many Republican politicians have run on and... never done, and even gone after citizenship for illegals.

Trump lies constantly (and yes, exaggerations are lies, even if you don't want to call them that. Stating you are worth 8 billion when you're worth 2 billion is an exaggeration... and a lie. Among his hundreds of other lies), and he's reneging on all of the policy that you think you're voting for. He's flip flopping back and forth, and says anything is negotiable.

Your reasons for voting for Trump are so incredibly shaky these days, why not just say... you're voting against Clinton?

[Wells]

I'm entirely aware of what you said Merkava. And there is nothing in his statement beyond your own partisan lense "implying a violation".

I'll say it again; If Comey had merely wanted to say that the case wouldn't be recommended for prosecution, then he simply could have said that. It's incredible to believe that he would insert a meaningless, ambiguous, frivolous, and accusatory statement talking about evidence of potential violations into the mix.

Your entire claim rests on idle speculation. I could just as easily use this standard of "evidence" to claim he was really saying just about anything.

I mean seriously, you've spent months now arguing to anyone who will listen that Clinton committed a serious crime. Given your love for semantics and splitting hairs I'm not in the least bit surprised you're trying to read between the lines to find something to vindicate yourself.

[Ghostpanther]

Honestly? Toys are important during a time like this. Kids just aren't as able to regulate stress as adults. The ability to distract them is valuable.

That said it was still a stupid bullshit photo op that probably did more harm than good.

What harm did it do?

[Merkava]

I'm entirely aware of what you said Merkava. And there is nothing in his statement beyond your own partisan lense "implying a violation".


Your entire claim rests on idle speculation. I could just as easily use this standard of "evidence" to claim he was really saying just about anything.

I mean seriously, you've spent months now arguing to anyone who will listen that Clinton committed a serious crime. Given your love for semantics and splitting hairs I'm not in the least bit surprised you're trying to read between the lines to find something to vindicate yourself.

It's not speculation. It's reading comprehension. And you can make a case for anything that you like. But you have to actually make it. And you can't deliberately attempt to mischaracterize others positions to score cheap internet points.

Another strawman arguement. What I said was that she deserved the presumption of innocence, but that I thought there was enough evidence to indict her.

That's not bad, but I would go further and say that there's some of us who, while allowing Hillary the presumption of innocence that is her right, believe that there's enough evidence to support an indictment.

[Ghostpanther]

What policies do you think you're voting for? The Trump campaign has already said that it was focusing on big time deportation rhetoric to win the primary, and now it's going for granting citizenship to illegals cause that's what's needed to win the general.

You may argue that he really wants to deport illegals, and it's just being "tactical" but that's what many Republican politicians have run on and... never done, and even gone after citizenship for illegals.

Trump lies constantly (and yes, exaggerations are lies, even if you don't want to call them that. Stating you are worth 8 billion when you're worth 2 billion is an exaggeration... and a lie. Among his hundreds of other lies), and he's reneging on all of the policy that you think you're voting for. He's flip flopping back and forth, and says anything is negotiable.

Your reasons for voting for Trump are so incredibly shaky these days, why not just say... you're voting against Clinton?

Well, that is ok you feel that way. But not voting for Hillary or as you would seem to want it, voting against her. That make you feel better?

[Bollocks]

Trump announced that he will release a plan that will legalize millions of illegal immigrants. That is the ultimate fli-flop