Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Breccia]

Sept 26th. Hosted by Fox News.

Ho ho ho! Fucking seriously? That's huge, they didn't get a damn thing in 2012. Nice get for them.

- - - Updated - - -

Shit! Didn't read the rest.

Trump has to win 3 of these 4 states, Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Penn. Hillary only has to win 2 of those. She certainly has the advantage. I think he has to win Florida and Ohio, along with Penn or Virginia. And if it was held today, Hillary would win I think. But the next couple months, things can change. Just a opinion and I certainly could be wrong.

I'm really curious how Trump plans to win Virginia. I just don't see that happening. Pennsylvania will be an uphill battle, too. Ohio's a crapshoot, and Florida will get thiiiiiis close to the election then go Red, but that won't be enough.

[LaserSharkDFB]

You just did. By posting article that didn't contain a single quote from Trump.

So, 6/7 - my claim is 85% true (or 100% since #4 supports "acting better now").

It would seem Breccia is the liar here, sorry.

Are you really using 'number of posts by one poster on an active thread' to justify the claim 'lately the media hasn't been attacking what Trump actually says'? Because let's use a more rational method: timestamps.

You made your claim at, by forum time, 9:04 AM today. The most recent direct Trump quote was on Saturday, 6:50 PM: Pangean's post about the Don's current position about immigration as reported by the WSJ (that would be #5689 in this thread; can't post links yet). So, you said that he must be 'acting better' because he hadn't been quoted for a whole day and a half. Well, kudos to you, Mr. Trump. Can't believe you restrained yourself that long.

Trying to pretend that, because he didn't commit any faux pas over the weekend he's somehow improved, is either foolish, dishonest, or indicative of incredibly low standards.

[Ghostpanther]

Ho ho ho! Fucking seriously? That's huge, they didn't get a damn thing in 2012. Nice get for them.

- - - Updated - - -

Shit! Didn't read the rest.



I'm really curious how Trump plans to win Virginia. I just don't see that happening. Pennsylvania will be an uphill battle, too. Ohio's a crapshoot, and Florida will get thiiiiiis close to the election then go Red, but that won't be enough.

I was wrong. It will be televised by Fox News of course and all the major networks. So not primarily hosted by a news network like they did in the Primaries. However, I did read Cooper ( CNN ) and Kelly ( Fox ) are the top choices for moderators.

I am not sure he can win Virginia. But I think he can Penn. He has to win one of those however and for sure, Ohio and Florida.

[Breccia]

Hmm. Actually, this story could be relevant. Apparently, the FBI found evidence of foreign hacking in a couple of state election systems. Details (such as "was it Russia again?") are not available yet. But the question is: if the FBI is warning people about the election being hacked by outside forces, and because of this, everyone doubles and triples down on election security...what will this do to Trump's pre-emptive claims of a rigged election? I mean, if law enforcement at every level is watching everything with extreme vigilance, how could Clinton, who apparently is a brain-damaged woman who can't handle even email, going to rig it?

[Ghostpanther]

Hmm. Actually, this story could be relevant. Apparently, the FBI found evidence of foreign hacking in a couple of state election systems. Details (such as "was it Russia again?") are not available yet. But the question is: if the FBI is warning people about the election being hacked by outside forces, and because of this, everyone doubles and triples down on election security...what will this do to Trump's pre-emptive claims of a rigged election? I mean, if law enforcement at every level is watching everything with extreme vigilance, how could Clinton, who apparently is a brain-damaged woman who can't handle even email, going to rig it?

He can claim all his wants. Does not mean it happened or anything will come of it. I think the hacking was more for information on people than trying to rig the election.

[Breccia]

I was wrong. It will be televised by Fox News of course and all the major networks. So not primarily hosted by a news network like they did in the Primaries.

Ugh...I'm no fan of FOX, but I am a touch disappointed. I had hoped their anti-Trump attitude and loss of Ailes was enough to push them close enough to the center, to get at least one of the debates. Oh, and Kelly moderating, that'd be a huge added plus.

I am not sure he can win Virginia. But I think he can Penn. He has to win one of those however and for sure, Ohio and Florida.

I can't find anything good to link, but I watched nothing but PA TV for the last few weeks, and there didn't seem to be a lot of love going Trump's way. He has a lot of work to do if he wants it, and quite frankly, the Clinton camp isn't staffed with idiots and has way more money than he does.

- - - Updated - - -

He can claim all his wants. Does not mean it happened or anything will come of it. I think the hacking was more for information on people than trying to rig the election.

Hmm, could be. It's an ongoing story, I'd like to hear more details -- especially country of origin.

EDIT: Also, this: Trump to speak at predominantly African-American church in Detroit. Okay, credit where it's due, that's a big move. And risky. I mean, yeah it's all Christians so it's a calculated risk, but still. Clinton leads by ten in Michigan, so "what does he have to lose?"

[Pangean]

Hmm. Actually, this story could be relevant. Apparently, the FBI found evidence of foreign hacking in a couple of state election systems. Details (such as "was it Russia again?") are not available yet. But the question is: if the FBI is warning people about the election being hacked by outside forces, and because of this, everyone doubles and triples down on election security...what will this do to Trump's pre-emptive claims of a rigged election? I mean, if law enforcement at every level is watching everything with extreme vigilance, how could Clinton, who apparently is a brain-damaged woman who can't handle even email, going to rig it?

What I would love to see is some serious looks at the security of the voting machines. This has been a concern for decades and if there is going to be some nonsense more than likely it will be at this point.

[Shalcker]

Are you really using 'number of posts by one poster on an active thread' to justify the claim 'lately the media hasn't been attacking what Trump actually says'? Because let's use a more rational method: timestamps.

Full quote is "Lately media (at least the ones linked here) seems to avoid quoting from Trump himself, and focuses on his aides and campaign staff - so it looks like he is indeed acting better right now."

Note "seems". I do not claim it to be absolute truth. It is just my perception from reading this thread. And it seems my perception was right as far as this thread is concerned. Which is reassuring - it's always good to know that snap estimations are actually "more true then false".

You made your claim at, by forum time, 9:04 AM today. The most recent direct Trump quote was on Saturday, 6:50 PM: Pangean's post about the Don's current position about immigration as reported by the WSJ (that would be #5689 in this thread; can't post links yet). So, you said that he must be 'acting better' because he hadn't been quoted for a whole day and a half. Well, kudos to you, Mr. Trump. Can't believe you restrained yourself that long.

Nope, there was that twitter remark anyway, and it was reported in some media.

But as far as his rallies go, as per original claim that was from Farage article, he does seem to do better. And so he is no longer quoted from rallies.

Trying to pretend that, because he didn't commit any faux pas over the weekend he's somehow improved, is either foolish, dishonest, or indicative of incredibly low standards.

I'm just telling what i see, i do not "pretend" here. By definition what i see is subjective.

[Breccia]

What I would love to see is some serious looks at the security of the voting machines. This has been a concern for decades and if there is going to be some nonsense more than likely it will be at this point.

Despite election fraud being even more rare than black people in New Hampshire, I wouldn't mind seeing a little more effort into protecting democracy in the most direct way, either. There must be some way to satisfy the public those things are not tampered with, without actually revealing votes of course.

[Ghostpanther]

Ugh...I'm no fan of FOX, but I am a touch disappointed. I had hoped their anti-Trump attitude and loss of Ailes was enough to push them close enough to the center, to get at least one of the debates. Oh, and Kelly moderating, that'd be a huge added plus.



I can't find anything good to link, but I watched nothing but PA TV for the last few weeks, and there didn't seem to be a lot of love going Trump's way. He has a lot of work to do if he wants it, and quite frankly, the Clinton camp isn't staffed with idiots and has way more money than he does.

- - - Updated - - -





Hmm, could be. It's an ongoing story, I'd like to hear more details -- especially country of origin.

EDIT: Also, this: Trump to speak at predominantly African-American church in Detroit. Okay, credit where it's due, that's a big move. And risky. I mean, yeah it's all Christians so it's a calculated risk, but still. Clinton leads by ten in Michigan, so "what does he have to lose?"

I like Cooper and think he would make a fair moderator. Do not care much for Kelly. She is a attention drama queen.

He has a uphill battle in Penn. Mainly from the eastern part of the state I think, when you get around Philly. But the last polls I saw, it is not a state he has no chance to win.

It is a good decision and one his campaign manager said a couple days ago, they planned on making. Rallies in the such cities where more minorities can get to attend. May not be his only one also.

[Wulfey]

Kelly is team FOX through and through. There was no editorial and reporting wall at FOX. It was Ailes from top to bottom and he made damn sure of that. Cooper at least has a plausibly claim to neutrality (not objectivity though).

[Breccia]

It is a good decision and one his campaign manager said a couple days ago, they planned on making. Rallies in the such cities where more minorities can get to attend. May not be his only one also.

Um... I may have led you astray there. It's not a rally. It's a televised interview and a prepared speech.

"Jackson told his parishioners that the visit was planned and released a statement early Monday morning that the 11 a.m. interview with Trump, which will be broadcast on his Impact Television Network, was neither a rally nor an endorsement of Trump's candidacy."

Sorry about the misleading description.

[Ghostpanther]

Um... I may have led you astray there. It's not a rally. It's a televised interview and a prepared speech.

"Jackson told his parishioners that the visit was planned and released a statement early Monday morning that the 11 a.m. interview with Trump, which will be broadcast on his Impact Television Network, was neither a rally nor an endorsement of Trump's candidacy."

Sorry about the misleading description.

It is still a good move for him. And should have done it earlier and I hope he does not let it be his only one. A actual rally is planned, is what I understood his campaign manager say this last weekend. We shall see.

[truckboattruck]

This is an argument used by people to excuse their hate on liberals using a word... liberally...

ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? welcome to reality

[Breccia]

Cooper at least has a plausibly claim to neutrality (not objectivity though).

Heh, "Isn't that the argument of a five year old child?" and "But the overwhelming number of African Americans who support her..." Cooper? You might have a point there. But man, is he patient.

- - - Updated - - -

It is still a good move for him. And should have done it earlier and I hope he does not let it be his only one. A actual rally is planned, is what I understood his campaign manager say this last weekend. We shall see.

I'd like to see a Trump rally in downtown Harlem. His home state, and everything. See what kind of reception he gets there. That'd just be glorious.

[Edge-]

Heh, "Isn't that the argument of a five year old child?" and "[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7iIiXeoAh8]

Holy shit, how did I miss that one. He really tried to hide behind, "But he started it!"...

[Wulfey]

Neutrality is about avoiding taking sides.
Objectivity is fidelity to the facts and acknowledging/correcting self biases in viewing said facts.

Cooper can pull off neutrality when he tries. But when Trump says something demonstrably impossible or untrue, the debate moderator is going to have to suspend objectivity and pretend like the facts aren't as they are in order to maintain neutrality.

EDIT: my point is that you have to choose. We can't have both a Neutral moderator and an objective Moderator and have them be the same person.

[Pangean]

Neutrality is about avoiding taking sides.
Objectivity is fidelity to the facts and acknowledging/correcting self biases in viewing said facts.

Cooper can pull off neutrality when he tries. But when Trump says something demonstrably impossible or untrue, the debate moderator is going to have to suspend objectivity and pretend like the facts aren't as they are in order to maintain neutrality.

EDIT: my point is that you have to choose. We can't have both a Neutral moderator and an objective Moderator and have them be the same person.

Excellent points. I would love to see the debates fact checked in real time on the screen myself.

[Edge-]

Excellent points. I would love to see the debates fact checked in real time on the screen myself.

Honestly, they should have a few folks there whose sole job is to fact check both candidates and call them out when they're wrong.

And Gilbert Gottfried is the one to do all the speaking on their behalf and argue with candidates when they don't like being fact checked.

[Wulfey]

Honestly, they should have a few folks there whose sole job is to fact check both candidates and call them out when they're wrong.

And Gilbert Gottfried is the one to do all the speaking on their behalf and argue with candidates when they don't like being fact checked.

Crowley read the transcript, and it said what it said. Romney was bullshitting and Crowley couldn't remain neutral and chose objectivity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmKpA30Xeo

The FOX/Conservativemediaverse howled for years over one act of objectivity in a presidential debate. Every Radio station cried and cried over the biased Crowley who wasn't neutral for a moment. Trump will present a terrible problem in the debate. I kind of hope he just bails on them because our media system won't be able to deal with the neutrality/objectivity conflict.