Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[DeadmanWalking]

Actually it seems I'm only having to deal with your inability to take in the full context of a statement.

You're zeroing in on the "its just words" part and not recognizing that it was a comparison between words and actions.

And I will continue to focus on the 'its just words' part because it was fundamentally stupid and exposes that the rest of what you have to say can just be defeated by using your own argument against you because your argument 'is just words'. That's what happens when you lay out terms of absolute rediculousness, you are no longer taken seriously in an adult coversation. Sorry but you built your own means of defeat by constantly disavowing reality, that's what happens when you think you are always right no matter what and wrap reality around you to make reality fit your opinions.

[Merkava]

I mean electorally -- that's what actually gets her elected.

Honestly right now the Democrats are in the best spot they can likely get. They are likely to win the white house and get back a senate majority. The ability to get back the house is slim and I'm not even sure it's possible for them to get a filibuster proof senate.

Solidifying those wins seems the safest and best bet for her -- going beyond that...why add risk with no real reward?

I think there is reward. She's still tremendously unpopular. Increasing her margin percentage wise will give her more of an ability to claim a popular mandate, which can help her govern and help bust the notion that she's the electoral landslide winner that nobody wanted. If the waning Republican enthusiasm translates into poor Republican turnout, maybe, just maybe, you could be looking at Speaker Pelosi. Her firewall is going to hold up. She's not under threat of some non existent Trump money poring into North Carolina or Virginia, so why not go for the kill? That's what I'd advise her anyway. Of course, I'd also have to tell her not to listen to me, since I've been wrong on nearly everything this election, lol.

[kaid]

I mean electorally -- that's what actually gets her elected.

Honestly right now the Democrats are in the best spot they can likely get. They are likely to win the white house and get back a senate majority. The ability to get back the house is slim and I'm not even sure it's possible for them to get a filibuster proof senate.

Solidifying those wins seems the safest and best bet for her -- going beyond that...why add risk with no real reward?

- - - Updated - - -


Bad news -- they excluded SCOTUS picks from the filibuster removal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...enate/3662445/

If they get control of the senate if the republicans try to filibuster a noncontroversial supreme court pick expect to see that get changed fast. I don't think they are going to stand for it after already having a valid nominee for over a year by the time hillary gets into office who never even got a hearing.

[Lenonis]

I think there is reward. She's still tremendously unpopular. Increasing her margin percentage wise will give her more of an ability to claim a popular mandate, which can help her govern and help bust the notion that she's the electoral landslide winner that nobody wanted. If the waning Republican enthusiasm translates into poor Republican turnout, maybe, just maybe, you could be looking at Speaker Pelosi. Her firewall is going to hold up. She's not under threat of some non existent Trump money poring into North Carolina or Virginia, so why not go for the kill? That's what I'd advise her anyway. Of course, I'd also have to tell her not to listen to me, since I've been wrong on nearly everything this election, lol.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's a strategy that could pay off, I'm just saying that it appears to me that Clinton has chosen the safe predictable route.

My personal belief is at this point people are likely either locked in their beliefs (quoted so-called "undecideds" I've seen really seem partisan but they just don't like their candidate. To me that's not undecided) or they already have voted. I think it's just too late for any major play for a state.

You could be right -- voter turnout on the GOP side could be so bad it brings into play things normally unthought of...but I'm not sure given Hillary's level of unpopularity if she's the right person to capitalize on it.

I think the people actually running on the downballot races, however, can really capitalized. For instance Mark Kirk is doing HORRIBLY in Illinois and is very likely to lose his senate seat.

- - - Updated - - -

If they get control of the senate if the republicans try to filibuster a noncontroversial supreme court pick expect to see that get changed fast. I don't think they are going to stand for it after already having a valid nominee for over a year by the time hillary gets into office who never even got a hearing.

McConnell has already said he will block any nominee Hillary puts forward for her entire term. Zero mention of any caveats about if s/he's qualified or moderate or anything. They are doubling down on their policy of obstructionism.

[Merkava]

Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's a strategy that could pay off, I'm just saying that it appears to me that Clinton has chosen the safe predictable route.

My personal belief is at this point people are likely either locked in their beliefs (quoted so-called "undecideds" I've seen really seem partisan but they just don't like their candidate. To me that's not undecided) or they already have voted. I think it's just too late for any major play for a state.

You could be right -- voter turnout on the GOP side could be so bad it brings into play things normally unthought of...but I'm not sure given Hillary's level of unpopularity if she's the right person to capitalize on it.

I think the people actually running on the downballot races, however, can really capitalized. For instance Mark Kirk is doing HORRIBLY in Illinois and is very likely to lose his senate seat.

Oh I see what you're saying. I'm sorry, I didn't know that was the strategy that Hillary was taking.

I agree that there might not be any chance for a major play for a state, but she might increase her popular percentage victory. And I don't think that's inconsequential.


Edit - McConnell said that? I didn't know that. When did he say that?
Kirk is doing terrible. I actually thought that might be close. Of course I reference the last sentence in my previous reply to you, lol.

[alexw]

It depends what you mean by landslide. I think it will be a landslide electorally already. I don't think Trump will get to 200, puts Hillary around 330. I say go for the knockout. Republican enthusiasm is trending downward. If the the race is gonna break it's going to break even harder for Hillary. I'd say go for the knockout and try to win some downballot races.

Exactly this. If Hillary wants to get anything done, and I'm sure she does, she is going to need a democratic senate and a democratic house. Otherwise republicans will be able to be the party of no for another term and block everything. Right now republican internal polling shows democrats will win about 25 house seats and the house is continuing to trend democrat so Hillary just needs to push it a little more (see 8:35 in video).

[Merkava]

Exactly this. If Hillary wants to get anything done, and I'm sure she does, she is going to need a democratic senate and a democratic house. Otherwise republicans will be able to be the party of no for another term and block everything. Right now republican internal polling shows democrats will win about 25 house seats and the house is continuing to trend democrat so Hillary just needs to push it a little more (see 8:35 in video).

Is that today's Morning Joe? I record it and watch it after dinner, lol. I do it backwards, I watch the earliest shows last.

[Breccia]

Exactly this. If Hillary wants to get anything done, and I'm sure she does, she is going to need a democratic senate and a democratic house.

Or -- and this is a novel idea, bear with me -- the President, House, and Senate could actually get some bipartisan measures going for the good of the country, and find some common ground and compromise for once in the last fucking millenium.

I'd MUCH rather see that, than one side running everything, even if that side is my own political party.

[cubby]

Bad news -- they excluded SCOTUS picks from the filibuster removal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...enate/3662445/

It is currently, and I should have been clearer, but the Senate can nuke it out pretty easily with Clinton in the seat (and assuming a Dem Senate takeover, of course, which is NOT guaranteed whatsoever).

The Nuclear Option

In the current Garland case, I said above that it “might” take 60 votes to end a filibuster. Current Senate rules require 60 votes to break a filibuster on a Supreme Court nomination, but that rule hangs by a fairly thin thread. All nominations used to be susceptible to a filibuster that required 60 votes for cloture. And Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change a rule. But, in 2014, when the Democrats controlled the Senate majority (but less than two-thirds), they used their control to exercise what was called the “nuclear option.”

The theory behind that tactic was that a rule could be appealed to the chair of the Senate (either the vice president, if present, or a member of the majority party) and, if that chair rules something permissible, that evades the need for a two-thirds majority to vote to change the rule. This has been used rarely, and is called the “nuclear option” because it is like dropping a powerful bomb on the minority party, at the risk of blowing up Senate comity on other matters.

I could see the Dems doing that almost immediately - with the prospect of 2-4 open positions over the next four years.

[Lenonis]

Oh I see what you're saying. I'm sorry, I didn't know that was the strategy that Hillary was taking.

I said it's my perception that's her strategy. I could very well be wrong, but that's just how it seems to me. She may do something different for sure.

I agree that there might not be any chance for a major play for a state, but she might increase her popular percentage victory. And I don't think that's inconsequential.

Yeah, we'll see. Maybe she feels that the current gap is enough to claim a mandate? I mean it's around 7% right now which is right where Obama's first election was (which is remarkable given Hillary's unfavorables). This is all speculation of course.

Edit - McConnell said that? I didn't know that. When did he say that?

Oops. I meant McCain. I got my GOP McC people mixed up in my head. Also he walked it back 2 days ago I guess soooooooooooo nevermind.

Kirk is doing terrible. I actually thought that might be close. Of course I reference the last sentence in my previous reply to you, lol.

I live in Illinois so let me give you my perspective -- Kirk has three problems. 1) In an attempt to be moderate he ying-yanged between extremes and alienated pretty much everyone. 2) His stroke in 2012 really (and I mean really) cast a shadow over his ability to effectively do his job. Right or wrong, fair or not, it's an issue that has affected perception to the point where a major newspaper endorsed his opponent mainly because of his stroke. 3) His opponent is very popular -- and as a wounded vet can yank sympathy votes from across the aisle fairly easily.

[cubby]

Exactly this. If Hillary wants to get anything done, and I'm sure she does, she is going to need a democratic senate and a democratic house. Otherwise republicans will be able to be the party of no for another term and block everything. Right now republican internal polling shows democrats will win about 25 house seats and the house is continuing to trend democrat so Hillary just needs to push it a little more (see 8:35 in video).

Dare to dream. If Hillary gets the House as well as the Senate, they could get a lot done in four years.

[TrumpIsPresident]

That's what happens when you lay out terms of absolute rediculousness, you are no longer taken seriously in an adult coversation. Sorry but you built your own means of defeat by constantly disavowing reality, that's what happens when you think you are always right no matter what and wrap reality around you to make reality fit your opinions.

Haha you've put so much effort into this.

So much of your time, trying so hard.

So much energy invested into trying to talk down to somebody on an internet forum because you couldn't recognize a simple comparison made in a single sentence, haha.

And you talk about being "ridiculousness" and "adult conversations"

For one, your defense of "just words" was still really, really stupid. Yeah, I said I wasn't going to bring it up again, but I lied.

Nah hes just feeding off you.

He thinks that because you and I had a somewhat decent convo and he was sitting on the side that its somehow a personal win or something.

But while we're on the subject of "words" lets talk about PEPE!

Remember, this shit was actually a major part of a Presidential campaign:

[Lenonis]

I'd MUCH rather see that, than one side running everything, even if that side is my own political party.

Even if the Dems take the house they won't have a filibuster proof majority in the senate so they STILL won't have full control given the power of the filibuster.

Unless the Senate decides to do away with the filibuster...which would be remarkable.

- - - Updated - - -

It is currently, and I should have been clearer, but the Senate can nuke it out pretty easily with Clinton in the seat (and assuming a Dem Senate takeover, of course, which is NOT guaranteed whatsoever).

The Nuclear Option


I could see the Dems doing that almost immediately - with the prospect of 2-4 open positions over the next four years.

It's a possibility but I just don't know if they'd be willing to go that far and open up the door to reprisal down the road (not to mention the likely blowback for a power grab like that from the electorate). But yes, they may decide have the SCOTUS locked up for 30 years is far far better than losing the legislative branch for a few cycles.

[Merkava]

I live in Illinois so let me give you my perspective -- Kirk has three problems. 1) In an attempt to be moderate he ying-yanged between extremes and alienated pretty much everyone. 2) His stroke in 2012 really (and I mean really) cast a shadow over his ability to effectively do his job. Right or wrong, fair or not, it's an issue that has affected perception to the point where a major newspaper endorsed his opponent mainly because of his stroke. 3) His opponent is very popular -- and as a wounded vet can yank sympathy votes from across the aisle fairly easily.

I live in Illinois as well. Kirk got a lot of heat from the right for his vote on the sanctuary cities issue. My overall feeling is the same as yours, he tried to thread the needle between both sides, and never really was able to appeal to anyone.

[cubby]

Or -- and this is a novel idea, bear with me -- the President, House, and Senate could actually get some bipartisan measures going for the good of the country, and find some common ground and compromise for once in the last fucking millenium.

I'd MUCH rather see that, than one side running everything, even if that side is my own political party.

You know, if there is a lot of Trump rebellion and a desire to run away from his smear, that might push some GOP strong hold members into going bi-partisan. With Reid out, who gets Majority Leader if the Dems take it?

And on that note, Speaker Pelosi? LOL.

[alexw]

Is that today's Morning Joe? I record it and watch it after dinner, lol. I do it backwards, I watch the earliest shows last.

It's the one from just before the third debate.

[zenkai]

Trump is not a fucking newborn, he has 30+ years in the public eye. But, even by that standard, you are agreeing that the differance between the two is that he is an asshole?

Ozzy Osborn has been 30+ years in the public eye, we should compare his policies to Clintons.

[Merkava]

It's a possibility but I just don't know if they'd be willing to go that far and open up the door to reprisal down the road (not to mention the likely blowback for a power grab like that from the electorate). But yes, they may decide have the SCOTUS locked up for 30 years is far far better than losing the legislative branch for a few cycles.

I don't know who's up for relection in the Senate in the midterms, but that could cause a lot of blowback.

[alexw]

Or -- and this is a novel idea, bear with me -- the President, House, and Senate could actually get some bipartisan measures going for the good of the country, and find some common ground and compromise for once in the last fucking millenium.

I'd MUCH rather see that, than one side running everything, even if that side is my own political party.

Not going to happen. The republican party is too crazy, too insane, and too angry, to compromise in any way shape or form. Even if the republican party establishment wanted to compromise their base will not let them.

[cubby]

Not going to happen. The republican party is too crazy, too insane, and too angry, to compromise in any way shape or form. Even if the republican party establishment wanted to compromise their base will not let them.

Overall they are, but a few members might be sick of the craziness and want to actually DO something. It wouldn't take but a few with a Dem controlled House and Senate to get some actual good work done.