Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Gestopft]

I was saying, that actual experts in the field, such as White House Council of Economic Advisors, people who know what they're talking about, would come out and point out the flaw.

It's not farfetched. Of the 45, going back to Nixon, none support Trump.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/...-donald-trump/

EDIT: Now, maybe Trump's rabid fanbase would ignore that, too. And by "maybe" I mean "of course they would". Moderate conservatives, however, might take note of the growing list of GOP with actual experience running things who are increasingly against Trump and say "You know..."

This didn't surprise me at all, even though it should, because economists never agree on anything.

It's staggeringly damning to me that the economists that advised presidents on both sides are all passing on Trump.

[Merkava]

Nobody is saying that an investigation wasn't warranted. The allegation, to sum it up succinctly, is that for congressional Republicans, "damage Hillary's reputation" became an equal or more important goal than "ascertain the truth." Given the number of committees and length of time spent investigating the attack when compared to comparable events, the divisiveness and partisanship on Capitol Hill, and the rampant obstructionism coming from the Republicans, it isn't a hard sell. This is, after all, the party that was refusing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy before Scalia's body had even cooled down.

I said earlier that the number of committees related to the fact that different committees were investigating different aspects of the attacks that fell under their jurisdiction. That shouldn't surprising. If you watched the hearings, for every Republican you saw that was clearly trying to score political points and/or grandstanding for their home districts, you could find their counterpart on the Democrat side who had no interest in anything other than throwing softballs to their future President. There wasn't a lot of honor on either side.

[Taneras]

It really all just an extension of the doctrine of proportionality - the reaction to any kind of scandal or tragedy needs to be appropriate given the actual amount of damage done, or else people assume ulterior motives and begin to tune you out. Okay, four people died, but then again far more than four people have died in the time that it took me to type out this post, so it's hard to be drawn in emotionally by Benghazi, especially four years later. I'm far more disgusted by the cottage industry that's grown up around Benghazi than Hillary's lies.

This pretty much sums up the reaction that people have to Benghazi these days:

I guess we just differ, a president that'd so easily and unapologetically lie to the American people about an event like that scares the crap out of me. My entire point was its hard to imagine why anyone would be excited about voting this presidential election. Neither candidate inspires confidence within me and I don't see how anyone can honestly look at both candidates and not feel the same way.

[Macaquerie]

I guess we just differ, a president that'd so easily and unapologetically lie to the American people about an event like that scares the crap out of me. My entire point was its hard to imagine why anyone would be excited about voting this presidential election. Neither candidate inspires confidence within me and I don't see how anyone can honestly look at both candidates and not feel the same way.

Because for all of her lack of charisma and untrustworthiness and numerous other flaws, Hillary at least seems like someone who's interested in governing the country, and not just some oddly-coiffed buffoon who just wants to hand off domestic and foreign policy to his VP while he focuses on "making America great again" whatever that entails.

[Gestopft]

I said earlier that the number of committees related to the fact that different committees were investigating different aspects of the attacks that fell under their jurisdiction. That shouldn't surprising. If you watched the hearings, for every Republican you saw that was clearly trying to score political points and/or grandstanding for their home districts, you could find their counterpart on the Democrat side who had no interest in anything other than throwing softballs to their future President. There wasn't a lot of honor on either side.

Alright, but how many other attacks on embassies, bombings, etc. have required so many committees?

Boston Marathon bombing: 2 Congressional Committees, 5 hearings.
USS Cole attack: 2 Congressional Committees, 8 hearings.
1983 Beirut attack: 1 Congressional Committee, 4 hearings.
1998 Embassy Bombings: 0 Congressional Committee, 12 hearings.
9/11: 2 Congressional Committees, 22 hearings.
Benghazi: 8 Congressional Committees, 32 hearings.

Of the last 40 attacks on US diplomats 25 resulted in no congressional hearings or reports. The remaining 14 (Benghazi excluded) averaged just over 4 hearings per attack. What makes Benghazi so special, other than that it happened right before the 2012 debates and it involves Hillary Clinton? Or alternatively, why were all of the previous attacks so poorly investigated?

[Merkava]

Alright, but how many other attacks on embassies, bombings, etc. have required so many committees?

Boston Marathon bombing: 2 Congressional Committees, 5 hearings.
USS Cole attack: 2 Congressional Committees, 8 hearings.
1983 Beirut attack: 1 Congressional Committee, 4 hearings.
1998 Embassy Bombings: 0 Congressional Committee, 12 hearings.
9/11: 2 Congressional Committees, 22 hearings.
Benghazi: 8 Congressional Committees, 32 hearings.

Of the last 40 attacks on US diplomats 25 resulted in no congressional hearings or reports. The remaining 14 (Benghazi excluded) averaged just over 4 hearings per attack. What makes Benghazi so special, other than that it happened right before the 2012 debates and it involves Hillary Clinton? Or alternatively, why were all of the previous attacks so poorly investigated?

You'd have to find me an attack that ticked all of the same boxes that Benghazi did. You'd have to find one with a dead Ambassador, in a country that we had recently helped overthrow, in a location that had CIA activity, that had it's success at least partially attributed to shortcomings in department assigned to protect them. You'd have to find deception in the administration regarding the nature of the attack, and wrap it all up intertwined with what, I think we all could agree, was a rather unconventional email arrangement by our country's top diplomat.

[Wells]

You'd have to find me an attack that ticked all of the same boxes that Benghazi did. You'd have to find one with a dead Ambassador, in a country that we had recently helped overthrow, in a location that had CIA activity, that had it's success at least partially attributed to shortcomings in department assigned to protect them. You'd have to find deception in the administration regarding the nature of the attack, and wrap it all up intertwined with what, I think we all could agree, was a rather unconventional email arrangement by our country's top diplomat.

This is a ludicrously high level of particularity to compare congressional response.

[Merkava]

This is a ludicrously high level of particularity to compare congressional response.

Care to explain why you think so?

[Gestopft]

You'd have to find me an attack that ticked all of the same boxes that Benghazi did. You'd have to find one with a dead Ambassador, in a country that we had recently helped overthrow, in a location that had CIA activity, that had it's success at least partially attributed to shortcomings in department assigned to protect them. You'd have to find deception in the administration regarding the nature of the attack, and wrap it all up intertwined with what, I think we all could agree, was a rather unconventional email arrangement by our country's top diplomat.

It's not like the other attacks didn't arise out of their own set of unique political and social circumstances- I'm sure you could compile a list of complicating factors for most of them too.

[Merkava]

It's not like the other attacks didn't arise out of their own set of unique political and social circumstances- I'm sure you could compile a list of complicating factors for most of them too.

You probably could. Why don't you tell me which committees you think should not have investigated?

[Wells]

Care to explain why you think so?

We've been over this before. You're using a definition of "similar" that's indistinguishable from "exactly the same".

[Merkava]

We've been over this before. You're using a definition of "similar" that's indistinguishable from "exactly the same".

Come on. You're correct on the fact that we've gone over it. You're wrong if you think that you proved your case, however. And the subject of that discussion was concerned with the reaction to Benghazi, public, media, governmental. Here I think we're talking merely about the number of committees involved. But, if you think Congress' response was overblown, you can tell me which committees you think should't have bothered to investigate. I might actually agree with you on some things, I haven't really looked at it.

[Macaquerie]

You'd have to find me an attack that ticked all of the same boxes that Benghazi did. You'd have to find one with a dead Ambassador, in a country that we had recently helped overthrow, in a location that had CIA activity, that had it's success at least partially attributed to shortcomings in department assigned to protect them. You'd have to find deception in the administration regarding the nature of the attack, and wrap it all up intertwined with what, I think we all could agree, was a rather unconventional email arrangement by our country's top diplomat.

Also none of those other attacks had a Michael Bay movie made about them starring Jim from the Office as a private military contractor.

[Wells]

Come on. You're correct on the fact that we've gone over it. You're wrong if you think that you proved your case, however. And the subject of that discussion was concerned with the reaction to Benghazi, public, media, governmental. Here I think we're talking merely about the number of committees involved. But, if you think Congress' response was overblown, you can tell me which committees you think should't have bothered to investigate. I might actually agree with you on some things, I haven't really looked at it.

Here's the full list of all participating committees.

10: Number of congressional committees that have participated in Benghazi investigations.
House Committee on the Judiciary. [Interim Progress Report on Benghazi Investigation, 4/23/13]
House Committee on Armed Services. [Interim Progress Report on Benghazi Investigation, 4/23/13]
House Committee on Foreign Affairs. [Interim Progress Report on Benghazi Investigation, 4/23/13]
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. [Interim Progress Report on Benghazi Investigation, 4/23/13]
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. [Interim Progress Report on Benghazi Investigation, 4/23/13]
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. [Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi, 12/30/12]
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. [Senate Intelligence Committee press release, 10/25/12]
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. [Benghazi: The Attacks and the Lessons Learned, 1/23/13]
Senate Committee on Armed Services. [Attack on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, 2/7/13]
The Select Committee on Benghazi. [Select Committee on Benghazi, accessed 3/24/15]

Even if you can argue that any given one had a place its impossible to reasonably hold that they all did.

[Merkava]

Even if you can argue that any given one had a place its impossible to reasonably hold that they all did.

Because you declare it to be so? Instead, just tell me which ones you think are redundant, you know, since it's impossible to think otherwise.

[Wells]

Because you declare it to be so?

Because 10 committees all studying the same event is going to be redundant as fuck.

Instead, just tell me which ones you think are redundant, you know, since it's impossible to think otherwise.

As I just said, this is a wrong question. If the claim is that it was politically motivated over kill then the problem isn't any specific committee on its own, with the possible exception of of the select committee I suppose.

More meaningfully, it should be shown that each committee independently found something of worth justifying their involvement.

[Merkava]

Because 10 committees all studying the same event is going to be redundant as fuck.


As I just said, this is a wrong question. If the claim is that it was politically motivated over kill then the problem isn't any specific committee on its own, with the possible exception of of the select committee I suppose.

More meaningfully, it should be shown that each committee independently found something of worth justifying their involvement.

First of all, there weren't 10 investigations. Some merely participated in other committee's investigations.

Second of all, I hear you declare that it's redundant. I didn't hear you offer any proof that they were redundant.

Third, it's not the wrong question. It's the logical and appropriate response to you declaring that they were redundant. Again, if you think some were redundant, then tell me which ones. It's not on me to prove that they weren't. I never made any such declarations. You, however, did.

[Blur4stuff]

People who hate Hillary more than anyone on this forum used congressional power and millions of taxpayer dollars to repeatedly investigate Benghazi. Even they were forced to conclude that she did nothing wrong.

It's time to admit you're wrong and move on. If you want to attack Clinton then do it for one of the many reasons that are actually real.

[Merkava]

People who hate Hillary more than anyone on this forum used congressional power and millions of taxpayer dollars to repeatedly investigate Benghazi. Even they were forced to conclude that she did nothing wrong.

It's time to admit you're wrong and move on. If you want to attack Clinton then do it for one of the many reasons that are actually real.

That includes Democrats in the House and Senate, as well as the State Department, too?

[Orbitus]

Here is another scandal that Trump is a part of.

Apparently Trump gave $45,000 to the campaign of a New York City Comptroller Alan Hevesi. This was back in 2002 when he sued NYC for $500 million for them raising the taxes on his buildings to which they settled giving him a 17% tax break while it saved him $97 million in taxes he didn't have to pay. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0071a6e05666b