Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Breccia]

1) Bill's infidelity.

You're right. Trump would have to be Time-Travelling Garrosh levels of stupid to bring this up.

The rest depends a lot on the format. If it is what I think i read, the moderator will be asking some very specific questions on some very specific topics. "Email" might not be one of them, which means Trump will have to do a massive leap of logic to connect that to something else, eating a ton of time -- or just flat-out ignore the moderators, who are likely gunning for him to challenge their authority. Trump won't win if he's surrounded.

Trump should also be careful about "throwing stones" about Clinton's poll numbers, She's still ahead nationally, and leading in a lot of major demographics.

[Merkava]

So, given the unfortunate detour that should really go in the Clinton thread -- what do people think we'll see from Trump during the debates?

Here are my guesses:
1) Trump will go after Clinton about her emails.
2) Trump will try to paint Clinton as soft on terrorism, if not a full on *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* to imply that she supports ISIS. AKA -- founder of ISIS type comments.
3) Trump will likely bring up her unfavorable ratings, her general lack of enthusiasm with her base, and such.

Things that are options but I'm not sold that he'll go after due to the risk of it getting thrown right back in his face:
1) Bill's infidelity. I can almost promise you that Clinton is prepared and ready to throw that right back in his face in a way that would be really embarrassing for Trump.
2) Clinton's health. He's been fairly reserved on this. And if Clinton appears strong and energetic it might appear desperate.
3) The moderation -- he doesn't want to appear a whiny baby. He will probably save that for after the debate in press conferences and interviews.
4) Anything that would appear misogynistic. He has a bit of a problem with off-the-cuff remarks about women that are less than flattering and if he whips one of them out during the debate he will likely pay for it.
5) Benghazi -- I'm sure Trump realizes that only plays to the GOP base these days, which he doesn't need. And it is something people are really starting to tire of...however the GOP convention trotted it out so he might bring it up. It would give Clinton a really good opportunity to just list off all the investigations that found no wrongdoing on her part -- Trump is not likely to be the winner out of the exchange.
6) Clinton's bank ties -- he might bring it up, but he runs the risk of her being able to retort that while she's given speeches and run around with special interests he IS the special interest that corrupted the politicians -- and could bring up his statements about bragging about buying off politicians. Not something that is endearing to the public these days.

What do other people think?

I think Trump will surprise us on policy details. Or try to. I'm not saying that they'll make sense, but he will be more policy focused than usual.

I think he'll go after Hillary on everything. I think he'll be caught repeating himself verbatim several times. I don't think Clinton wants to start listing the number of investigations that she was the subject of. I think Trump has a ready made response for something like that, and she's too smart to play into ready made responses.

I agree on point 1.

On point two, I agree, unless she has a coughing fit, or other medical issue.

There's no way that he can win this. Not in the debate or in the press afterwards. Unless Hillary has some type of health crisis. He's off the teleprompter. There's no telling what he'll say.

[Wulfey]

You're right. Trump would have to be Time-Travelling Garrosh levels of stupid to bring this up.

The rest depends a lot on the format. If it is what I think i read, the moderator will be asking some very specific questions on some very specific topics. "Email" might not be one of them, which means Trump will have to do a massive leap of logic to connect that to something else, eating a ton of time -- or just flat-out ignore the moderators, who are likely gunning for him to challenge their authority. Trump won't win if he's surrounded.

Trump should also be careful about "throwing stones" about Clinton's poll numbers, She's still ahead nationally, and leading in a lot of major demographics.

He invited Gennifer Flowers on Twitter. 1) Bill's infidelity is basically topic number 1 at this point.

[Merkava]

He invited Gennifer Flowers on Twitter. 1) Bill's infidelity is basically topic number 1 at this point.

She's not going to be there, according to Trump's campaign.

[Breccia]

He invited Gennifer Flowers on Twitter.

He suggested it, His campaign said no invite was given.

[Wulfey]

She's not going to be there, according to Trump's campaign.

And according to the candidate:

"If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...29180334387200

More proof that the biggest chumps are Trump's boneheaded supporters who trust a damned thing he says. He cucks anyone who trusts a word out of his mouth within hours. To support Trump is to endorse the unreal and embrace the fantasy that the President's words are just for counterpunching.

EDIT: I watched in real time on Twitter as the Trumpkins cheered the invite, and now his campaign scrambles to pretend what was said wasn't said. And Trump just goes on pretending. This election shouldn't be close if you give a rats ass about objective reality existing.

[Venant]

Well, you just spent five pages on the difference between
a) being a public defender, and
b) being a young inexperienced lawyer trying to get bar support for your legal clinic when a judge throws a really filthy rapist trial directly at you and you think, hmm, as a young inexperienced lawyer trying to get bar support for a legal clinic, would turning this down really help?

when you've admitted that essentially everything else in the story makes her look good. Except the part where you say she was making a name for herself -- you know, by defending a rapist guilty as sin, that makes someone look really spiffy -- an opinion that is contradicted by the two people that were actually there and disagree with you.

And in an interview about the subject she laughed about the whole affair, you know like she laughed about the brutal murder of Gaddafi. Some would argue that these episodes are a brief glimpse into her true nature, the heart of a sociopath who laughs about abusing rape victims and a man having a bayonet shoved up his anus.

[Lenonis]

I think Trump will surprise us on policy details. Or try to. I'm not saying that they'll make sense, but he will be more policy focused than usual.

Absolutely -- and I think what will matter here is if the moderators and/or Clinton will get a chance to ask for clarification or bring up things that don't make sense. For examples -- the wall -- if Mexico is going to pay for it the question of "how" needs to be asked and answered. Similarly any tax policies can be questioned if they don't add up. Clinton is likely to have a significant edge over here given her high knowledge of policy in general. Trump is likely to shy away from being pressed about details though and either deflect or default to "trust me" which may or may not look good depending on how it plays out.

I think he'll be caught repeating himself verbatim several times.

This by far is one of his more annoying traits. His repetition can get really annoying.

I don't think Clinton wants to start listing the number of investigations that she was the subject of. I think Trump has a ready made response for something like that, and she's too smart to play into ready made responses.

Maybe not -- but she'll have some level of response crafted. At this point I don't think Benghazi is a weakness of hers.

There's no way that he can win this.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If he can get Clinton to lose her composure or get shrill he'll likely get a few points. It would also, however, require him to avoid saying anything stupid or offensive -- which is NOT his forte in an unscripted environment.

I think the debate is likely to be a letdown for everyone -- because both candidates will be highly guarded and try to stay restrained. If either candidate can push the buttons of the other it'll be a win. If both candidates fly off the handle...well...who knows!

[Merkava]

And according to the candidate:

"If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...29180334387200

More proof that the biggest chumps are Trump's boneheaded supporters who trust a damned thing he says. He cucks anyone who trusts a word out of his mouth within hours. To support Trump is to endorse the unreal and embrace the fantasy that the President's words are just for counterpunching.

I agree with everything you said.

There's a reason why I said "according to Trump's campaign."

And if you want to hit him on something else, he couldn't even spell her name right in the original tweet.

[Lenonis]

And in an interview about the subject she laughed about the whole affair, you know like she laughed about the brutal murder of Gaddafi. Some would argue that these episodes are a brief glimpse into her true nature, the heart of a sociopath who laughs about abusing rape victims and a man having a bayonet shoved up his anus.

Is that from a tweet you can't find anymore by any chance?

[Merkava]

Absolutely -- and I think what will matter here is if the moderators and/or Clinton will get a chance to ask for clarification or bring up things that don't make sense. For examples -- the wall -- if Mexico is going to pay for it the question of "how" needs to be asked and answered. Similarly any tax policies can be questioned if they don't add up. Clinton is likely to have a significant edge over here given her high knowledge of policy in general. Trump is likely to shy away from being pressed about details though and either deflect or default to "trust me" which may or may not look good depending on how it plays out.

This by far is one of his more annoying traits. His repetition can get really annoying.

Maybe not -- but she'll have some level of response crafted. At this point I don't think Benghazi is a weakness of hers.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If he can get Clinton to lose her composure or get shrill he'll likely get a few points. It would also, however, require him to avoid saying anything stupid or offensive -- which is NOT his forte in an unscripted environment.

I think the debate is likely to be a letdown for everyone -- because both candidates will be highly guarded and try to stay restrained. If either candidate can push the buttons of the other it'll be a win. If both candidates fly off the handle...well...who knows!

I agree, disappointingly admittedly, with your conclusion. I'm hoping for fireworks, like some Pistons Pacers game, with Trump wading into the audience throwing punches, and someone hitting Cuban over the head with a chair. But they'll both probably be pretty cautious.

I'll clarify what I said. Maybe Trump could be seen by the majority of viewers as having won. But I think that would be more because Hillary didn't challenge him, the moderator lets him get away without answering questions, and the audience maybe laughs at a few key moments. I don't really see how, after the fact checking and the policy details are reviewed, Trump could ever be declared a winner in the media the following day. I don't think that could ever be the narrative. At least I hope not.

This is what Hillary does. This is what the people around her do. I think for debating, arguing a case, she's a dream candidate, with absolute pros prepping her. Her delivery and demeanor might need a little polishing, but that shouldn't matter against Trump. Again, I hope not.

The headlines on Tuesday are going to be something like "Trump loses cool (get's personal, etc.) in face of calm, presidential Hillary," and or something like "Trump light on details as Clinton outlines policy." Again, I hope. And again, I've been wrong on literally every projection I've made on here (this forum) this entire election cycle, so I'm a little afraid to make predictions...

[Wulfey]

I agree with everything you said.

There's a reason why I said "according to Trump's campaign."

And if you want to hit him on something else, he couldn't even spell her name right in the original tweet.

How bad should it be for a Candidate and a Campaign to have radically different messages?**

1) Is this just Trump cucking the press and playing uber-mench with his lies as Scott Adams and Cernovich would say?

2) Or is this evidence that he is a reckless man-baby who couldn't handle a real billionaire clowning on him, and then needed his handlers to come and clean up the shit he left all over himself?

** I will go first. This is proof of 2). President Trump would be the doom of the Office, and likely the collapse of the executive branch as a whole. He would need to be silenced and permanently handled by his masters, or quietly "resigned" to his television network.

[Edge-]

Is that from a tweet you can't find anymore by any chance?

Hey, some people say a great many, many things. Who are these people? That's not the right question to ask, I don't think. I think we should asking if what these people say is true. Is it? I don't know! But I do know they're saying them, and we need to get to the bottom of this. Nobody else is doing anything, and nobody gets to the bottom of things like me. I've been called the greatest "getter to the bottom of things" by many very important people all around the world, so it's not like I'm tooting my own horn here.

[Merkava]

How bad should it be for a Candidate and a Campaign to have radically different messages?**

1) Is this just Trump cucking the press and playing uber-mench with his lies as Scott Adams and Cernovich would say?

2) Or is this evidence that he is a reckless man-baby who couldn't handle a real billionaire clowning on him, and then needed his handlers to come and clean up the shit he left all over himself?

** I will go first. This is proof of 2). President Trump would be the doom of the Office, and likely the collapse of the executive branch as a whole. He would need to be silenced and permanently handled by his masters, or quietly "resigned" to his television network.

It's horrible. It's even more evidence that Trump's campaign can't get him to stay on message. It speaks to a shitty campaign and a shitty candidate.

[NED funded]

I'm really curious on the details of Trump's plan. The numbers don't add up for most of the stuff he proposes.

[Lenonis]

the moderator lets him get away without answering questions

I think if I had to pick one single item in this debate it would be the moderation.

If the moderations fact check and press the candidates for answers then Hillary is likely to shine. If the moderators are weak or try to avoid appear biased to the point of letting Trump just say whatever then Clinton will be at a disadvantage. That in and of itself should be a warning sign for everyone...but...well...this election is just...stupid.

Trump could ever be declared a winner in the media the following day. I don't think that could ever be the narrative. At least I hope not.

I have no doubt even if moderation is good Trump will get skewered by fact checkers. But as we've started seeing there is a narrative that all of the fact checkers are just extensions of Hillary's campaign and they are all biased and just doing a smear job against Trump. Reality no longer matters...and it's really surreal at times.

"Trump light on details as Clinton outlines policy."

This, or some variation, is what I expect. With a few sources likely rolling out a headline along the lines of "Trump dishes up a lot of promises but very few facts"

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, some people say a great many, many things. Who are these people? That's not the right question to ask, I don't think. I think we should asking if what these people say is true. Is it? I don't know! But I do know they're saying them, and we need to get to the bottom of this. Nobody else is doing anything, and nobody gets to the bottom of things like me. I've been called the greatest "getter to the bottom of things" by many very important people all around the world, so it's not like I'm tooting my own horn here.

As much fun as it is to mock Trump for his blatant ridiculousness it is rather frightening at how effective it is.

[Venant]

Is that from a tweet you can't find anymore by any chance?

Hopefully, for Hillary's sake, she has some zingers like that ready for the debate ^_^

[Lenonis]

Hopefully, for Hillary's sake, she has some zingers like that ready for the debate ^_^

I can't help but imagine both candidates have a few lined up. If not it'll be one boring debate.

[akris15]

I think if I had to pick one single item in this debate it would be the moderation.

If the moderations fact check and press the candidates for answers then Hillary is likely to shine. If the moderators are weak or try to avoid appear biased to the point of letting Trump just say whatever then Clinton will be at a disadvantage. That in and of itself should be a warning sign for everyone...but...well...this election is just...stupid.

Im sure Holt is going to come in and look professional and fact check because he needs to for his network's rep. NBC networks have repeatedly dropped the ball this year with that disastrous RNC primary debate, Matt Lauer royally screwing up the commander and chief forum and Morning Joe's "unique" relationship with Trump.

[Wulfey]

It's horrible. It's even more evidence that Trump's campaign can't get him to stay on message. It speaks to a shitty campaign and a shitty candidate.

Good to hear