Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Lenonis]

You obviously don't know the difference between voter fraud and election fraud. You look like you're a complete hack...stop embarrassing yourself.

I see we've gone to ad hominem which included a very telling lack of denial about the GOP's recent activities.

I see riiiiiiiiiiiiiight through you.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Voter fraud is chump change in the scheme of things. Did you happen to notice all the ACORN related election fraud convictions?

Every source I checked says voter fraud and election fraud are the same thing. Please clarify.

"It is clearly not the epidemic you want to say it is." He's being dishonest...I never said nor inferred that it was an epidemic.

You mean implied, not inferred. And yes, you did:

And don't forget Election fraud as well as it is much more destructive to the process. Anyway, it seems that Democrats are incredibly concerned that voter ID laws can disenfranchise some voters and yet seem to be totally unconcerned about registered voters who are disenfranchised by fraudulent votes that effectively cancel their vote. Personally, I like to see signs prominently posted at the polls which clearly state that voter/election fraud is a federal offense and punishable up to an $X fine and Y number of years in prison.

In order to disenfranchise people who actually cast their vote, there would have to be enough fraudulent votes to change the election's result. The number of fraudulent votes required to do so would be quite high, enough to be considered an epidemic. That is what you are claiming, and it is demonstrably false. So, no, I'm not the one being dishonest here.

[Venant]

Anyone care to learn about the history of Trump?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/op...=fb-share&_r=0

New information might seem toxic because it challenges your opinions, but it's really great in the end.

I think we need to know more about Carlos Slim, the guy who uses the NY Times as his own personal blog now and has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation and is heavily involved in the drug cartels in Mexico.

[DocSavageFan]

I see we've gone to ad hominem which included a very telling lack of denial about the GOP's recent activities.

I see riiiiiiiiiiiiiight through you.

And where have I failed to deny anything about the GOP's recent activities? Do you always make up twisted shit like this? Here's another ad hominem for you...you're not very intelligent and appear to be too stupid to know it.

infracted - minor flaming

[DeadmanWalking]

In Georgia they made it so no votes could be done on Sunday to 'reduce voter fraud' but the truth of the matter is that elderly black people who traditionally vote democrat go to church on Sunday and then the Church buses them to the voting polls. Removing Sunday as a voting day stopped these elderly black people from getting easy to access church bus rides to voting polls. Many of these elderly ride with family to church or are picked up by a church bus before going to the polls. By tapping down on black elderly church going voters Republicans are trying to gerrymander their way into office. Then these politicians try to hide under an umbrella of 'voter fraud'.

[DocSavageFan]

Every source I checked says voter fraud and election fraud are the same thing. Please clarify.

15 second Google search.

Terminology is important: Election Fraud v Voter Fraud
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/9...-v-Voter-Fraud

[DeadmanWalking]

And where have I denied anything about the GOP's recent activities? Do you always make up shit like this? Here's another ad hominem for you...you're not very intelligent and appear to be too stupid to know it.

If you can't manage to defend your viewpoints in an intellectual discussion without stooping to insulting the people you are discussing with then don't bother to post in an intellectual discussion.

Nobody is required to agree with you just because you believe yourself to be right. Everyone thinks that they themselves are always right and the only intelligent logical person in the room. It isn't possible for everyone to be so when so many people disagree with one another.

[alexw]

Voter fraud is chump change in the scheme of things. Did you happen to notice all the ACORN related election fraud convictions?

- - - Updated - - -


"It is clearly not the epidemic you want to say it is." He's being dishonest...I never said nor inferred that it was an epidemic.

No you have inferred and suggested to people its a problem we should be worried about. Ergo it has a significant effect in elections. It doesn't. It has no effect on national electoral outcomes whatsoever.

[LaserSharkDFB]

15 second Google search.

Terminology is important: Election Fraud v Voter Fraud
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/9...-v-Voter-Fraud

So, what this random article says, with no citations to back it up, is that election fraud and voter fraud are the same thing - an illegal interference in an election - but when voter fraud gets organized, it becomes election fraud. That's fine, as long as your random definition of terminology is made clear. You could call them cheese and anti-cheese for all I care as long as we know what you're talking about.

Now prove that election fraud actually happens to a degree that disenfranchises voters.

[DeadmanWalking]

So, what this random article says, with no citations to back it up, is that election fraud and voter fraud are the same thing - an illegal interference in an election - but when voter fraud gets organized, it becomes election fraud. That's fine, as long as your random definition of terminology is made clear. You could call them cheese and anti-cheese for all I care as long as we know what you're talking about.

Now prove that election fraud actually happens to a degree that disenfranchises voters.

I have proof, In florida at a voting site they hid Democrat voter registration cards in a closet and told voters only Republicans could vote at that site until voters called in the local law to inform them that everyone gets to vote there regardless of party. The Republicans in Florida tried to disenfranchise Democrat voters.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I have proof, In florida at a voting site they hid Democrat voter registration cards in a closet and told voters only Republicans could vote at that site until voters called in the local law to inform them that everyone gets to vote there regardless of party. The Republicans in Florida tried to disenfranchise Democrat voters.

Good point! So let's change the question: prove that Voter ID laws will prevent election fraud from disenfranchising voters.

[DocSavageFan]

If you can't manage to defend your viewpoints in an intellectual discussion without stooping to insulting the people you are discussing with then don't bother to post in an intellectual discussion.

Nobody is required to agree with you just because you believe yourself to be right. Everyone thinks that they themselves are always right and the only intelligent logical person in the room. It isn't possible for everyone to be so when so many people disagree with one another.

Agree, this is not an intellectual discussion. This is about me responding to some people here that have fabricated things I never said and then argue against pathetic strawmen. "Intellectual discussion"? That's a hoot, LaseerSharkDFB doesn't even know the difference between voter fraud and election fraud...even after checking several "sources".

Look, I'm new here and I don't want to get off on the wrong foot...but damn, all I did was correct someone who said voter and election fraud isn't real and that it never happens by saying "Voter and election fraud is indeed real and happens, it's just that it doesn't happen that often." and people come out of the woodwork to attack me for it. And then suddenly I'm perceived to be implying that it's an epidemic when I explicitly said the opposite! Wow....just wow.

[Ghostpanther]

Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to link a poll that shows Hillary ahead and declare that if this holds to the election it will be a bad night for Hillary?

I mean...you guys are doing 2012 all over again. I'll be interested to see all the shocked people flailing around if Trump loses.

I think you missed something. If Trump can get 20%- 25% of the African American votes, that would be huge. Consider what % Romney and Bush got. Like less than 3%? I am not saying this will happen like I posted before. But if it does turn out with him getting that much, it will be a game changer. And just so you understand, I will only be in shock if he wins. lol! But who knows, this time next month I may feel confident he will. A lot still can happen.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Agree, this is not an intellectual discussion. This is about me responding to some people here that have fabricated things I never said and then argue against pathetic strawmen. "Intellectual discussion"? That's a hoot, LaseerSharkDFB doesn't even know the difference between voter fraud and election fraud...even after checking several "sources".

Here is the actual legal definiton of electoral fraud, from uslegal.com:

"Electoral fraud refers to is illegal interference with the process of an election. The definition of the term varies from country to country. Generally it includes illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls and improper vote counting. Even though technically the term 'electoral fraud' covers only illegal acts, the term is also used to describe acts morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of electoral laws or in violation of the principles of democracy.

Electoral fraud is also termed voter fraud."

And yet you want to mock me from not looking at a single article from some random person that had no citations to back up their interpretation of the term. Yeah, okay. That's not dishonest at all.

Look, I'm new here and I don't want to get off on the wrong foot...but damn, all I did was correct someone who said voter and election fraud isn't real and that it never happens by saying "Voter and election fraud is indeed real and happens, it's just that it doesn't happen that often." and people come out of the woodwork to attack me for it. And then suddenly I'm perceived to be implying that it's an epidemic! Wow....just wow.

Yeah, sucks when the things you say are actually on record and people can make accurate interpretations of them, isn't it?

For the record, I said election/voter fraud (going by the actual definition) doesn't happen - which I admit was an exaggeration for effect - and immediately followed it by qualifying that it happened extremely rarely. It's all there to look at. Yet I'm apparently the one with reading comprehension difficulties.

Yeah. Okay.

[Shalcker]

Number one, ashamed isn't the same thing as afraid; the root word is 'shame', not 'fear'. Number two, only people who are extremely stupid would think there would be any kind of 'oppression' that results from an anonymous phone survey, and I'd like to see you prove that these hypothetical people exist in enough numbers to 'turn elections'. And number three, this isn't Russia, where the government actually does assassinate journalists and suppress the will of the people.

You're the one who think those "Shy Trump supporters" are ashamed of their choice. I'm saying "afraid". A few people were actually killed for being Trump supporters, so it is quite understandable in some areas... they are not journalists and don't have much protection.

And Trump also seems to be doing better in robocaller surveys then human calls - curious discrepancy.

[alexw]

In Georgia they made it so no votes could be done on Sunday to 'reduce voter fraud' but the truth of the matter is that elderly black people who traditionally vote democrat go to church on Sunday and then the Church buses them to the voting polls. Removing Sunday as a voting day stopped these elderly black people from getting easy to access church bus rides to voting polls. Many of these elderly ride with family to church or are picked up by a church bus before going to the polls. By tapping down on black elderly church going voters Republicans are trying to gerrymander their way into office. Then these politicians try to hide under an umbrella of 'voter fraud'.

Absolutely disgusting. Hopefully we can get a couple of liberal SCOTUS judges in to end this and the other crap republicans pull to disenfranchise voters (gerrymandering being the big one though democrats do it a bit too). It'll help make the political process better as well as it'll either force the republicans to moderate and reform, or die out and get replaced by something that isn't far right extremist. Either way its a win-win for everyone (unless you are one of the reactionary right wing extremists who would be electorally disemboweled).

[Shalcker]

Check out this article on CNBC:

Here's the real reason behind Trump's minority outreach

Jake Novak | @jakejakeny | Tuesday, 6 Sep 2016



What is it about ignorance that seems to encourage an abundance of snark in those afflicted with it? This syndrome is especially pronounced among people who clearly don't understand Donald Trump's improbable path to the GOP nomination and his resurgence in the polls. That lack of understanding seems to result most often in lots of hysterical anger, shouting, and plenty of social media posts peppered with lots of "LOL's" and "WTF's."

This ignorance fueled snarkiness has been in full bloom lately as Trump haters and less biased election observers alike have been scratching their collective heads over what his campaign is hoping to accomplish with Trump's recent outreach to minority voters. That would of course include his visit to Mexico last week where he praised Mexican-Americans and his trip to an African American church in Detroit this past weekend where he spoke humbly and warmly to the community as a whole.

The consensus response to these moves from all too much of the professional and amateur punditry is incredulity and scorn. Critics are bemused that Trump seems to think he can win over black and Latino voters and they're laughing at what seems to be a big waste of time. Of course they're laughing even as Trump's fortunes in the polls continue to markedly improve. Tuesday's CNN poll showed Trump leading Hillary Clinton by two points nationally, and that comes just a few days after a Reuters/Ipsos poll and Rasmussen Reports showed him ahead by one point in each of those surveys.

Do those polls mean Trump's minority outreach is working, despite the chorus of derision? The answer is yes, but not in the two-dimensional/direct way many think. No, Trump's numbers will not significantly improve among minority voters due to this shift in campaign strategy and tone. But his numbers among supposedly undecided Republican-leaning/moderate WHITE voters will. In fact, as the above cited polls prove, they already are.

By doing more mainstream/"acceptable" things like visiting a black church and by sounding more conciliatory in his tone, Trump is making himself more acceptable to a good deal of voters who haven't been able to feel comfortable supporting him before… at least not publicly. It's probably more accurate to say these voters were always going to vote for Trump all along, but they were just waiting for some kind of visible change in his campaign or news event to use as an excuse to say that's what changed their mind.



And make no mistake, the guarded and even sheepish nature of a great deal of Trump's support is real. The experts at the vaunted 538.com have recently noticed that Trump polls much better in surveys taken by computerized "robocalls" and in online surveys compared to his numbers in surveys taken by human pollsters on the phone or in person. 538 says it isn't able to explain why this is, but it's really not a mystery.

The reason is a lot of Trump voters are embarrassed to say they're supporting him in public. They either live in a neighborhood, work in a profession, or belong to an ethnic group where public attacks on "The Donald" are so prominent that his supporters need to think twice about coming out of the Trump closet. This is a reality the depths of which the poll dichotomy is just scratching the surface. That's the audience Trump is really reaching out to in his restructured and refocused campaign. His direct audience at his outreach events is not really the primary focus.

Trump isn't exactly breaking major new ground with this strategy. Ronald Reagan famously visited a devastated neighborhood in the South Bronx in 1980, a place where he wasn't going to get any votes and he was indeed heckled during that campaign visit. But lots of voters saw Reagan looking like he cared about people who weren't going to ever vote for him, and it made it easier for those non-Bronx residents to consider voting for him. Reagan never did get many African American voters in either of his general election presidential campaigns, but he did get a massive share of lower income Democrats and everyone else who liked what they saw that day in 1980 in the Bronx.

Trump also gets another benefit from his outreach and softer tone: he dilutes the 24/7 drumbeat from the Clinton campaign and much of the news media where he's portrayed as a hateful and dangerous maniac. The Clinton campaign is hoping it will be able to at least come close to matching the massive African American turnout that tipped the election for Barack Obama in 2012 and 2008. Clinton could have made an effort to do that by choosing an African American to be her running mate, but instead her campaign is clearly looking to use the fear factor to encourage minority turnout instead.

There's a double trap associated with that strategy. First, negative campaigning can be very effective in helping a candidate win an election but it almost always results in reduced turnout. If Clinton wants African Americans, Millennials, and the other groups who turned out in much higher than traditional numbers for Obama to come out for her this time, negative campaigning probably won't work. Second, all Trump has to do is continue not looking like a dangerous racist to introduce just enough doubt in the fear-mongering Clinton mantra. And that's just what he's done over the last three weeks or so. The polls say it's working.

Once again, the Trump campaign and its messaging have exceeded expectations by going after a new and unexpected target audience. And that audience isn't minority voters or any other block of traditional Democrats. It's the traditional Republicans and right-leaning moderates who never really wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton and are just looking for a way out of an embarrassing predicament. If Trump's campaign schedule and messages continue on this path, they'll get one.

[alexw]

Agree, this is not an intellectual discussion. This is about me responding to some people here that have fabricated things I never said and then argue against pathetic strawmen. "Intellectual discussion"? That's a hoot, LaseerSharkDFB doesn't even know the difference between voter fraud and election fraud...even after checking several "sources".

Look, I'm new here and I don't want to get off on the wrong foot...but damn, all I did was correct someone who said voter and election fraud isn't real and that it never happens by saying "Voter and election fraud is indeed real and happens, it's just that it doesn't happen that often." and people come out of the woodwork to attack me for it. And then suddenly I'm perceived to be implying that it's an epidemic when I explicitly said the opposite! Wow....just wow.

IMO the issue is is that you make it seem as if its something that people should be at least moderately concerned about in terms of its impact on the electoral process. If you'd said "its indeed real and happens but its still extremely rare and doesn't effect electoral outcomes" then no-one would have taken issue with your statements.

There are a lot of people who will blatantly lie on these forums for partisan political gain so these sorts of things get called out.

[zenkai]

Democrats are not concerned about election/voter fraud because it doesn't happen. There have only been the tiniest fraction of fraud cases reported compared to the number of votes actually cast. There is literally no reason to be concerned about it unless you're trying to scare people into letting you disenfranchise voters.

Allow me to educate you from a left winged site.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard...b_1418523.html

[cubby]

I think we need to know more about Carlos Slim, the guy who uses the NY Times as his own personal blog now and has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation and is heavily involved in the drug cartels in Mexico.

This is precisely the kind of Trumper deflection that is fueling all of Trump's uncontested lies. Almost every breath he takes is filled with lies and misdirections, yet when challenged, Trumpers do this - deflect the issue away from the horror of his past shenanigans and current lies.