Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

**Thepersona** · 2016-10-21, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Matchles

She does that to grow. Becoming larger and more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

is it bad that i imagined her coming from planet nibiru, in order to enforce the reptilians will on earth?
(it's sarcasm btw)

**Ripster42** · 2016-10-21, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by Vegas82

I would honestly rather have the Supreme Court be 5 years younger on average. And, again, there's still that pressure even with a lifetime appointment. Changing it to a specific year doesn't do shit but let you know the expiration date.

Why would you want less experienced judges? This the "they're out of touch" argument? I'm way more in favor of them having a broader and deeper understanding of both the law and experience behind the bench. I'm not really a fan of having people get appointed to the most important judicial seats with that relative inexperience. Lawyers often don't graduate until they're 25-26. They don't become judges straight from law school. I'm way more in favor of them having 20 years on the bench than 15 before they're appointed (although some people don't think they should have experience at the federal level, or even experience on the bench at all, but I think those people are morons).

**ringpriest** · 2016-10-21, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Connal

I do not think this is going to come to pass.

I think Trump will lose the election, start whining, and then slowly get off the stage and start an Alt-Right network.

The GOP will rebrand, and probably lose a bunch of elections for a while, and the Democrats will try to (some how) fix the gerrymandering happening in the House.

I do not think the US will turn into Russia.

Hopefully you're right - the man (I use that term loosely) is, after all, obviously a coward of the highest order, and unlikely to risk his own hide (and purported fortune); but he's also stupid, unimaginative and narcissistic. A Trump-instigated revolt would be ugly beyond words and end terribly for him - but that's exactly what he seems to be dog-whistling for yesterday; I think it's entirely too possible that he has no real understanding of the impact (including on himself) of what he might unleash with the near-hypergolic cauldron of toxic inflammables he's eagerly brewing to sate his own swollen and diseased ego.

Whether defeating Trump will be enough to prevent the decay of the US into some post-1st world state (and not in any good way)... I doubt it, but I truly do hope that fate is avoided.

**Cthulhu 2020** · 2016-10-21, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by ringpriest

Hopefully you're right - the man (I use that term loosely) is, after all, obviously a coward of the highest order, and unlikely to risk his own hide (and purported fortune); but he's also stupid, unimaginative and narcissistic. A Trump-instigated revolt would be ugly beyond words and end terribly for him - but that's exactly what he seems to be dog-whistling for yesterday; I think it's entirely too possible that he has no real understanding of the impact (including on himself) of what he might unleash with the near-hypergolic cauldron of toxic inflammables he's eagerly brewing to sate his own swollen and diseased ego.

Whether defeating Trump will be enough to prevent the decay of the US into some post-1st world state (and not in any good way)... I doubt it, but I truly do hope that fate is avoided.

Trump's loss is already having resounding impacts on our system. While Trumples are busy shitting their pants over Clinton's usage of a private email server, Trump is undermining the confidence in our election system. And I'm not talking about people's issue with our two party system and all of the gripes that come with the problems that causes. I'm talking about simple confidence in the results of polling.

The thing is, polling is run by each state, and is not handled by the federal government in the least, only somewhat regulated by it. Each state independently runs its own election, and it would take a massive conspiracy involving more people than any conspiracy in history to rig an election on the national scale. And yet here we have a man convincing his followers that this is happening.

**starlord** · 2016-10-21, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by The Batman

Trump's loss is already having resounding impacts on our system. While Trumples are busy shitting their pants over Clinton's usage of a private email server, Trump is undermining the confidence in our election system. And I'm not talking about people's issue with our two party system and all of the gripes that come with the problems that causes. I'm talking about simple confidence in the results of polling.

The thing is, polling is run by each state, and is not handled by the federal government in the least, only somewhat regulated by it. Each state independently runs its own election, and it would take a massive conspiracy involving more people than any conspiracy in history to rig an election on the national scale. And yet here we have a man convincing his followers that this is happening.

thats because they have no idea how this whole "government" thing works, all they know is they dont like it.

**Aggrophobic** · 2016-10-21, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Theodarzna

I am the poster who found it odd that you so fervently endorse Hillary while she is so aggressively pro-Israel. I was just marveling at the contradictions.

I also marvel that effectively its Iraq 2.0. "That guy is a mustache twirling villain and we aught destroy him for reasons!"

Ignoring that America is also doing fucked up shit to this day, stuff we are not even allowed to know about unless CNN tells us (Well according to CNN anyway.)

He is right though, you're really trying too hard.

**Gestopft** · 2016-10-21, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by MysticSnow

That was the most awkward dinner I've ever seen.

It made me feel awkward just watching it, though there were some good lines in with the flops and the nastiness. Trump's bit about Michelle/Melania's speeches was hilarious.

...

Rachel Maddow, the politics junkie that she is, found an interesting video featuring former SCOTUS member David Souter talking over four years ago about how democracy is given away. Souter part starts at 3:25

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by darenyon

thats because they have no idea how this whole "government" thing works, all they know is they dont like it.

see above video I linked

**Shalcker** · 2016-10-21, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Truculentt

but no one is saying that there. if the videos are fake, that would be proven, and he could REALLY be charged for trying to manipulate the election

Apparently those "boring campaign stuff" emails already released by Wikileaks actually confirm what was being said in video...

Just a few days ago, Project Veritas released a bombshell video exposing coordinated efforts between the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Democracy Partners (run by Robert Creamer) and The Foval Group (run by Scott Foval) to incite violence at Trump rallies across the country. The Clinton campaign and the DNC have vehemently denied the validity of the Project Veritas video but new emails discovered from WikiLeaks' previous "DNC Leaks" seem to confirm the DNC's involvement.

Recall in the first Project Veritas video, that the following people made the following claims (video below):

* "Aaron Black" (real name: Aaron Minter) (appears at 9 mins 10 secs): "So, I'm basically deputy rapid response director for the DNC for all thing Trump on the ground. Nobody is really supposed to know about me. So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us. It was more him (Bob Creamer) than me, but non of this is supposed to come back to us, because we want it coming from people, we don't want it to come from the party."
* Bob Creamer (appears at 10 mins 50 secs): "We have a call with the campaign every day to go over the focuses that need to be undertaken."
* Zulema Rodrigues (appears at 10 mins 58 secs): "I just had a call with the campaign and the DNC. Everyday at one o'clock."

Well, if the video is faked, then it is certainly odd that several of the comments above line up perfectly with the email below in which Bob Creamer reaches out to Luis Miranda, the Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee, to setup a conference call. Here are a couple of the "coincidences":

First, the call is titled the "Trump Rapid Response" call, which perfectly aligns with Aaron Black's comment above that he is the "Rapid Response Director."

Second, the call is scheduled for 1pm which is exactly when Zulema Rodriguez confirms that she has her daily call with the "campaign and the DNC."

-more stuff skipped, follow the link if interested-

I guess the question is - do Clinton supporters really support candidate that condones inciting violence at opponent's rallies? Is she still better then Trump?

**Orlong** · 2016-10-21, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Edge-

No, but if you're told that you can apply and that you'll get an interview, generally you'll get an interview. Garland didn't even have a hearing for them to vote him down because the GOP flat out refused.

Many people get their applications thrown out without an interview when they apply for jobs. Lack of quality work history is a big reason, and he had a lot of rulings that were bad after he was appointed to a lower court. He didnt deserve a promotion. No point in wasting weeks of time questioning someone that you know isnt going to be approved

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Edge-

No they do not.

Indeed, and I hope to hell it comes back to bite them if Hillary wins. They have a chance at a supremely qualified nominee that's received high praise from both sides of the isle for many years, sitting on what I believe is the second highest court in the US right now.

If Hillary wins, I'd bet she goes with a more liberal nominee (which would be a shame for Garland), which is even worse for the GOP.

They wont approve any judge she submits. There is nothing that states they have to nor is there a requirement to have 9 judges. The senate decides how many judges there will be. The only thing they are required to do is advise and consent, and their advice is pick someone else every time she picks someone, until she picks one that is acceptable to the senate, which means she would need to appoint a judge that isnt a SJW who rules based on feelies, and only rules on the strict interpretation of the Constitution like Scalia

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Breccia

The military has stepped in to remind Trump that kind of going to military school doesn't mean you know battle strategy.

Donald Trump Is Wrong on Mosul Attack, Military Experts Say

“What this shows is Trump doesn’t know a damn thing about military strategy,” said Jeff McCausland, a retired Army colonel and former dean at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.

He doesnt need to. Once President he will have Joint Chiefs of Staff and lots of generals to advise him. Obama had no battle strategy either when he was elected. Many people would say he still doesnt

**Venant** · 2016-10-21, 10:05 AM