Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Edge-]

Blood is thicker than water and political parties apparently.

Not really. The Bushes have made it clear that they have zero interest in supporting Trump for some time, regardless of what Trump said about H.W. or Jeb. Believe it or not, not everyone is as thin skinned or holds a grudge like Trump does

Bush Sr. probably won't be around long enough to see either one finish their first term so it probably doesn't matter to him.

Do you honestly think that Bush Sr. doesn't care what happens after he dies? Do you think so little of him?

But yes, it is unprecedented. I doubt it will matter much or sway anyone's vote though.

Possibly, but it's pretty embarrassing. Or it would be, if Trump was capable of feeling embarrassment.

He just wanted to get in one last dig on Trump before it's too late, lol.

Yeah, he's that petty.

Lolnope, that's childish Trump thinking. Bush Sr. isn't a bloody child and doesn't act like one.

[0ptimo]

Not really. The Bushes have made it clear that they have zero interest in supporting Trump for some time, regardless of what Trump said about H.W. or Jeb. Believe it or not, not everyone is as thin skinned or holds a grudge like Trump does



Do you honestly think that Bush Sr. doesn't care what happens after he dies? Do you think so little of him?



Possibly, but it's pretty embarrassing. Or it would be, if Trump was capable of feeling embarrassment.



Yeah, he's that petty.

Lolnope, that's childish Trump thinking. Bush Sr. isn't a bloody child and doesn't act like one.

In order:

True, but to think any of the Bush's would support Trump, vocally or not, after the primaries is a long shot even if his policies matched up with theirs. Trump took jabs at the Bush matriarch. C'mon... Trump wasn't getting their vote, ever.

Not really. The Bush's are a politically connected family and very rich. Nothing for them or their inner circle will change regardless of who becomes president. It just won't be their son this time around.

Trump is capable of feeling embarrassed or he wouldn't file / threaten frivolous lawsuits against people who challenge his wealth.

He could have kept it to himself who he was voting for instead of putting it out there. Gotta make headlines though!

[jdbond592]

It is amazing how for a tough guy, Trump is always complaining about mean people. He uses clever words like mean, nasty and what not. I guess it is easy to act "tough" while making a speech. Hard to do so in a room when other guy is not an adoring fan.

[Edge-]

True, but to think any of the Bush's would support Trump, vocally or not, after the primaries is a long shot even if his policies matched up with theirs. Trump took jabs at the Bush matriarch. C'mon... Trump wasn't getting their vote, ever.

It's almost like Trump regularly acts like a childish, unpresidential asshole, which doesn't really endear him to the more rational wing of the GOP.

But again, this is unprecedented, would be embarrassing for the Trump campaign and his supporters if they didn't revel in anything that could be remotely perceived as anti-establishment, no matter what it is.

Not really. The Bush's are a politically connected family and very rich. Nothing for them or their inner circle will change regardless of who becomes president. It just won't be their son this time around.

Sure, because I'm sure neither W. nor H.W. give a crap about the future of the US. Not one bit.

Trump is capable of feeling embarrassed or he wouldn't file / threaten frivolous lawsuits against people who challenge his wealth.

No, that's him posturing and throwing a temper tantrum that someone dare challenges him.

He could have kept it to himself who he was voting for instead of putting it out there. Gotta make headlines though!

Remember, this is all based off of a Facebook post from Kathleen Kennedy with a picture of her and Bush Sr., he didn't come out and proactively state this for "headlines". His staff is now officially saying that he won't say who he's voting for, so we're taking her comments at face value in this discussion right now.

[infinitemeridian]

I didn't say that the IRS had "whatever resources they need on any case," I said, in reference to Donald Trump's audit, "The IRS will allocate whatever resources they need to find whatever they think they need to find." In other words, I think the IRS would prioritize it.

How do I know that there isn't anything treasonous on Trump's tax returns? I don't know. I said that I don't think there's anything treasonous on there. Maybe there is.

Only the IRS can perform the audit. It's not like the media crowd-sourcing Sarah Palin's emails.

The only thing I can take from your laundry list of grievances with the Trump Foundation, is that if that's what really turns you off about Trump, then you must not have been listening very hard to his actual policy positions. He thinks it would be a good idea for the US to default on it's debt. He thinks global warming is a Chinese conspiracy to ruin our manufacturing base. His immigration "plan" is going to cost us hundreds of billion's of dollars. Compared to that, I'm not completely outraged over the possibility that he may have done business with Russian oligarchs.

He doesn't owe the public anything. Barack Obama doesn't owe us his transcripts or his birth certificate. It's not an obligation. There's a tradition of candidates releasing their returns. Maybe you can say it's a responsibility, but If you don't like his lack of transparency, then don't vote for him. I'm not.

If you had to pick one reason for not voting for Trump, and the choices were, A) because of his racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic statements; B) his refusal to release his tax returns; or C) his absolutely disastrous policy proposals and lack of experience, the obvious answer is C.

- - - Updated - - -



I think anything that comes out of Trump's mouth has a legitimate doubt attached to it.

My thing is, why have our standards dropped so much this election? Why are we ok with Trump doing the dozens of things he has done that would have disqualified any other candidate in this race? Why are we ok with him not showing the same transparency that candidates for the last 40 years have displayed?

In an election as important as this, when we have more to lose than any other, when the US is the center of attention globally because of how bad our candidates are, when people are so mad at the status quo and so mad at the "establishment", isn't it it contradictory to LOWER our standards?

[BrerBear]

True, but to think any of the Bush's would support Trump, vocally or not, after the primaries is a long shot even if his policies matched up with theirs. Trump took jabs at the Bush matriarch. C'mon... Trump wasn't getting their vote, ever.

Trump called Chris Christie a criminal, and Chris Christie is now running Trump's transition team.
Obama made Hillary his Secretary of State after their tough primary.
Politicians forgive and move on for the greater goal.

The reason Bush Sr. (and all the other Republicans rejecting Trump) are such a big deal is because Trump is just so abhorrent that he is utterly unacceptable.
That's the big deal.

- - - Updated - - -

My thing is, why have our standards dropped so much this election? Why are we ok with Trump doing the dozens of things he has done that would have disqualified any other candidate in this race? Why are we ok with him not showing the same transparency that candidates for the last 40 years have displayed?

Hell, can you imagine what these God-fearing Trump supporters would be calling Hillary if she had five kids by three husbands?

[Merkava]

I don't think Trump or his Foundation's taxes will escape scrutiny now that it has been shown that the IRS previous missed wrongdoing. So going forward, the IRS might be able to prioritize them, assuming Trump doesn't win the election and pull shenanigans.

But even if they have the authority, the IRS have to treat him fairly based on the dwindling resources they have. That means that fewer audits and fewer people assigned to audits across the board. The fact that the IRS missed these problems in Trump's taxes that journalists later found just shows that the public can do a better job than the government here.

Of course the IRS has to treat him fairly. And that's not a bad thing. Neither is the fact that the IRS has the discretion to pursue what it wants.

What exactly is the argument that you're making? That Donald Trump should make the decision to release his tax returns to the public so tens of thousands of CPAs can pour over them and report their findings to the IRS? That he somehow has an obligation to do that? He does not. No Presidential candidate does. And why would you expect Trump to act completely against his own best interests?

And I'm not sure that the public can do a better job. The fact that the IRS missed something in regards to normal filings of the Trump Foundation, doesn't necessarily indicate that they're not equipped to do a thorough job on his audit.

- - - Updated - - -

My thing is, why have our standards dropped so much this election? Why are we ok with Trump doing the dozens of things he has done that would have disqualified any other candidate in this race? Why are we ok with him not showing the same transparency that candidates for the last 40 years have displayed?

In an election as important as this, when we have more to lose than any other, when the US is the center of attention globally because of how bad our candidates are, when people are so mad at the status quo and so mad at the "establishment", isn't it it contradictory to LOWER our standards?

If I knew the answer to that question, well, I wouldn't be sitting here. Either good candidates won't make the decision to subject themselves to the process, the primary system is broken, or there's been some weird cultural political shift. Or some combination of those three. Or something completely different. I have no idea.

[Breccia]

My thing is, why have our standards dropped so much this election? Why are we ok with Trump doing the dozens of things he has done that would have disqualified any other candidate in this race?

That's an excellent question. I'm sure the RNC/GOP will be asking themselves that for a while now. I honestly think the answer comes to one of two options:
1) The average Republican voter has grown so tired of perceived failings by their Senators and Representatives, as shown by their low approval ratings and the historically low number of things actually passed, that they decided to try something different than the establishment. But they're not yet willing to vote differently in Congress, because the 50/50 split is too close to risk. After all, they figured, I'd like to see the bums thrown out, but not if it costs me my guy! So instead, they attacked the Presidency directly, putting in someone they think will get stuff done. And they're so adamant against the perceived failings of their elected officials that they won't throw out, that they choose to ignore the very real failings of the first person that fits the non-establishment bill. In other words, they wanted someone new for Congress so badly, that they grabbed the first person running for President that wanted the job, regardless of how unqualified he was by conventional standards or how poorly he's done in the only realm in which he claims to be qualified at all.

2) The growing rightwards shift, by global metrics at least, has slowly pushed the Democratic party closer to the center, forcing the classic Republican market share to a smaller wedge. Desperate to hang onto anything close to the 50/50 split, the GOP slowly over the years attached themselves to those they thought would suit their cause, such as the Religious Right and the Gun Nuts. There is absolutely nothing inherently Christian about the Republican Party's core platform of smaller government (sans military), other than what they've chosen to add to keep the Religious Right happy. The Gun Nuts are a different story. The GOP already had good relations with the NRA and responsible gun owners, mostly via their attachment to the military. But Gun Nuts are a different breed. The GOP aned in that direction to, somehow, become the political party of those who didn't trust the government. I'm still not sure how that happened.

This swelling of their ranks helped them, but at a cost. In order to keep the 50/50 split or close to it, the Religious Right and Gun Nuts had to have certain things thrown their way, of course. But they eventually thought they were running the show. Enter the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, two symptoms of the cause described above. The GOP was stung by a bitter loss when McCain, one of the most honorable and dedicated men to serve this country, was burdened with the sideshow clown Palin who didn't care a bit about foreign policy as long as you praised God before you pulled your fully automatic trigger.

Naturally, the furthest right members of this new GOP refused to see themselves to blame, and have doubled down on their efforts to prove they're the ones in charge. This is where Trump saw an opportunity to move in. Unable to corner the religious crowd (how could he?) he went directly after the craziest of the far right, those so deep into anti-government paranoia that they willingly swallowed whatever Trump said, with his "I will fix it, everyone is against you but me" message (dumbed down to fifth-grader level so he wouldn't scare them off with things like conjunctions) ringing true to people who didn't realize they were being taken. Worse, this message was used to gloss over what would in any other year be damning evidence that Trump would be unqualified, as Trump said (and his rabid fanbase believed) that these things were only presented because They Were Out To Get Him and he was being treated Unfair Very Unfair. Their willful ignorance led them past where Trump, a long-time lobbyist himself, was pushing policy that helped his own ends, but offered very little to the low-income undereducated crowd who will suffer without a minimum wage and when Medicare/Medicaid/low-income health insurance deductions, public education, and free trade all take massive hits due to his stated policies.

Then during the primaries, the GOP watched as Trump's free advertising got him to swallow person after person far more qualified than he. They had fielded so many candidates that Trump, who almost never had a majority, used the Gun Nut startup to snowball his results over time -- but not just with Gun Nuts, who do not represent enough people to carry his campaign, but with other voters who saw the other options as worse (especially Cruz) and those who saw a benefit in his pitch (such as his crippling tax plan). Now the GOP sees the problem, but it's too late. Their party is now in pieces, and since those pieces are inherently mismatched -- Christianity being directly opposed to cutting aid for the poor and sick, while Gun Nuts shouldn't be with ANY political party -- they find themselves in a place where even their most detested enemy might defeat them, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

"If Hillary (Clinton) can't unite Republicans, I don't think anything can."
-- House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy

[Merkava]

snip

I disagree with you often, but not much to disagree with here. Nice assessment.

[DeadmanWalking]

What I have seen from Republicans since the invention of the Tea Party is this uncompromising ideal that they are going to send a republican politician in and the politician will get everything the Republican voters want while destroying everything that Democrats want but the reality is that unless your party is a majority in all three houses this is not even in the realm of possibility, then when the politician fails to meet the expectations of the R voters the voters blame the politicians for being corrupt and then demand a non-politician to represent them as president to the point that the only candidates they would even look at were people who had no clue what politics entail, and in walks Donald Trump. Right place, right time.
Even in the last election cycle they wanted to look at any non-politician first until their disgressions like fondling women disqualified them and they got stuck with Romney. This time no matter what indescretions Trump is guilty of the R voters don't care, they just want a non-politician no matter the cost.

Gingrich cheated on two wives to marry his mistress, Herman Cain fondled employees, ect and now? "Fuck it, so long as they are not a politician I don't care what they do."

The reality is it doesn't matter who you send in, unless you own all three houses you have to compromise with the other side. Republican voters don't want any compromise, they just want everything they want and they want Democrats to get nothing and it isn't realistic.

[Stommped]

Calling refugees skittles is about as bad as saying (to the United Nations!) that the majority of refugees are women and children:

[DeadmanWalking]

Calling refugees skittles is about as bad as saying (to the United Nations!) that the majority of refugees are women and children:

Typical misdirection, someone calls out a Trump for the shit flowing out of their mouths and you try to scream "Squirrel!" While pointing off in the distance to take everyone's attentions off the skittle comment. If you want to talk about refugees go make a thread about it and stop trying to take the conversation off thread.

Calling refugees skittles is just bad. Period. But I don't expect much in depth thought or high morale standards from Trump kids who have pictures of them cutting off an endangered elephants trunk to take as a trophy.

[Stommped]

Typical misdirection, someone calls out a Trump for the shit flowing out of their mouths and you try to scream "Squirrel!" While pointing off in the distance to take everyone's attentions off the skittle comment. If you want to talk about refugees go make a thread about it and stop trying to take the conversation off thread.

Calling refugees skittles is just bad. Period. But I don't expect much in depth thought or high morale standards from Trump kids who have pictures of them cutting off an endangered elephants trunk to take as a trophy.

Its not Trump though, its his son.

[Edge-]

The point is also that the skittles comparison is beyond retarded. You can use it for everything.
3 Men out of 100 are rapists - imprison everyone
3 People out of 100 are murderers - imprison everyone
etc

Also the irony of them using a photo taken by a refugee without his permission. That's always a fantastic gem.

Its not Trump though, its his son.

Yes, the post clearly indicated that it was his son. And that his son(s) are a pretty big part of his campaign and are responsible (as is his daughter) for advising him and helping make major decisions.

[Stommped]

Also the irony of them using a photo taken by a refugee without his permission. That's always a fantastic gem.



Yes, the post clearly indicated that it was his son. And that his son(s) are a pretty big part of his campaign and are responsible (as is his daughter) for advising him and helping make major decisions.

Obama has done his fair share of campaigning for hillary as well. I realy don't think the comparison is that far off in terms of their connection to the respective campaigns

[Breccia]

Calling refugees skittles is about as bad as saying (to the United Nations!) that the majority of refugees are women and children:

Um...the UN actually backs that statement up.

23.0% of Syrian refugees are male and 21-up, and it was last updated Sept 18th of this year.

Nice try.

- - - Updated - - -

Typical misdirection

No. It's flat-out factually false.

[Edge-]

Obama has done his fair share of campaigning for hillary as well. I realy don't think the comparison is that far off in terms of their connection to the respective campaigns

They're totally different things.

This was Trump Jr. tweeting specifically about the campaign, it's directly relevant to it in every way.

Whereas Obama's comments were unrelated to the campaign in the slightest, and were made to the UN. Also, not sure where that guy pulled numbers, this was the first thing that turned up for me regarding Syrian refugees specifically: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Stupid for him to exaggerate either way, I agree, but I don't see how that's remotely in the same league as comparing refugees to skittles, using a photo without the photographers permission (or even asking), and using the, "But there are a few bad eggs so throw the whole lot out!" argument that falls apart the second you start actually looking at it. Chelly pointed out exactly why.

[Stommped]

Um...the UN actually backs that statement up.

23.0% of Syrian refugees are male and 21-up, and it was last updated Sept 18th of this year.

Nice try.

- - - Updated - - -



No. It's flat-out factually false.

Source? Is it same time frame as the source i linked above?

[Breccia]

Source?

I linked the source. It's the United Nations!

[Stommped]

They're totally different things.

This was Trump Jr. tweeting specifically about the campaign, it's directly relevant to it in every way.

Whereas Obama's comments were unrelated to the campaign in the slightest, and were made to the UN. Also, not sure where that guy pulled numbers, this was the first thing that turned up for me regarding Syrian refugees specifically: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

Stupid for him to exaggerate either way, I agree, but I don't see how that's remotely in the same league as comparing refugees to skittles, using a photo without the photographers permission (or even asking), and using the, "But there are a few bad eggs so throw the whole lot out!" argument that falls apart the second you start actually looking at it. Chelly pointed out exactly why.

Trump jrs comment was trying to reinforce Trumps position on refugees, while.obamas was trying to reinforce HIS (and Hillarys) position on refugees. Theyre taking different routes but trying to achieve the same goal: convince ppl that their position is correct.