Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Merkava]

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.

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.

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 - - -


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

I don't think the moderators should fact check. I think in lieu of that, when something doesn't fit, the moderators should encourage the other candidates to challenge one another. But moving on from that I think Trump has gone absolutely as far as he can playing the media is biased theme. I think any further and he'll start to run into a sort of diminishing returns scenario, and it might just hurt him. I think that fact that undecideds and independents have greater faith in the media might support that.

I just want to see him implode so bad. I want to see him foaming at the mouth, embarrassed, audience gasping, cut away to shots of his kids with their hands in their faces, campaign makes no one available for interviews afterward, type of imploding.

[Lenonis]

I don't think the moderators should fact check. I think in lieu of that, when something doesn't fit, the moderators should encourage the other candidates to challenge one another.

I think there is a balance. I think if a candidate says something that is just blatantly untrue it should be challenged -- IE -- Trump's claim he never supported the war.

But moving on from that I think Trump has gone absolutely as far as he can playing the media is biased theme. I think any further and he'll start to run into a sort of diminishing returns scenario, and it might just hurt him. I think that fact that undecideds and independents have greater faith in the media might support that.

Yeah, I'd say he's at the tipping point where if he goes much further he's going to just look week and kind of a cry baby. There is already an image out there that he's thin skinned and that's very concerning for a lot of people when it comes to a potential POTUS -- the "media is mean" meme can just fuel that if he's not careful.

I just want to see him implode so bad. I want to see him foaming at the mouth, embarrassed, audience gasping, cut away to shots of his kids with their hands in their faces, campaign makes no one available for interviews afterward, type of imploding.

Everyone wants this to be a spectacle -- whether Trump lunges across the podium to strangle Hillary or Clinton drops dead after having a five minute seizure. Probably because this whole election has been a spectacle. We've really started seeing politics-as-entertainment this cycle and that's really disturbing when you think about what is actually at stake.

[Merkava]

I think there is a balance. I think if a candidate says something that is just blatantly untrue it should be challenged -- IE -- Trump's claim he never supported the war.

That's a fair perspective. I just think if you start down the road to fact checking, then you're going to have people in your ear telling you to dispute statements made all night. And however hard you try, you're never going to be able to keep the fact checking equal, kind of like penalties in a football game, and then you open up yourself to charges of bias. Just my thoughts on it though.

Everyone wants this to be a spectacle -- whether Trump lunges across the podium to strangle Hillary or Clinton drops dead after having a five minute seizure. Probably because this whole election has been a spectacle. We've really started seeing politics-as-entertainment this cycle and that's really disturbing when you think about what is actually at stake.

It is disturbing, I agree. But I think it's disturbing because it sets a precedent. As far as politics as entertainment this cycle, well I think the very essence of Trump's candidacy is spectacle. His campaign has thrived on spectacle. And as such, I want to see him go down in spectacular fashion. That's partly because I'm not yet convinced that Trump wants to win. Part of me thinks that Trump would be terrified at the possibility that he's actually in control of the free world. I think he may want to lose as closely as possible, so he can claim fraud, and still maintain his some of his (perceived) dignity.

[Biged781]

I spoke at length with my Trumpkin grandpa. His concern was the browning of America. Trump's message that he will fight back against that browning is very clear and compelling to a certain audience.

EDIT: compare the Trump positions with the Democratic party positions. On each, Trump has a hard answer that appeals to white vulnerability. Conservatives of all stripes are terrified of immigration reform because it will make so many brown voters that the white veto will be swamped. Democrats are embracing the fact that they are the most diverse political party in the world and refuse to do anything to slow down the browning of America. Of course, I think the Democrats have the better of this as they are embracing an immutable reality and maintaining liberal (due process and equality) values.

Ok, so your grandpa's a bigot. Bigots can join the heap as well. Trump doesn't have 'answers' though, he has rhetoric, and there's an important distinction. Most of Trump's supposed plans are completely infeasible or have been tried to one degree or another and failed. It's easy to say 'I'm gonna do this thing you really want!', but these are hard, large scale problems that don't often have a simple answer that sounds good to the masses.

I understand that his act appeals to some, but they're not the sort of people we want making decisions.

- - - Updated - - -

So you have that much disdain for tens of millions of law abiding, hard working, patriotic Americans simply because they support Trump. That is pretty sad you have sunk that low.

Yes

[10 chars]

[Nadiru]

Ok, so your grandpa's a bigot. Bigots can join the heap as well. Trump doesn't have 'answers' though, he has rhetoric, and there's an important distinction. Most of Trump's supposed plans are completely infeasible or have been tried to one degree or another and failed. It's easy to say 'I'm gonna do this thing you really want!', but these are hard, large scale problems that don't often have a simple answer that sounds good to the masses.

I understand that his act appeals to some, but they're not the sort of people we want making decisions.

No candidate has eternal answers, merely what works at the time, and in the US particularly, each new thing which works ends up also forming the seed of its own destruction. FWIW, I don't think Hillary has anything that works at the moment, certainly not for Americans in the bottom two income quintiles. Trump has negative externalities associated with his policies, but they're not the externalities that everybody presumes.

The real threat that a Trump presidency brings to the world (not to the US) is the threat of the world's largest supplier of consumer demand deciding to not consume so many foreign goods.

[Wulfey]

Ok, so your grandpa's a bigot. Bigots can join the heap as well. Trump doesn't have 'answers' though, he has rhetoric, and there's an important distinction. Most of Trump's supposed plans are completely infeasible or have been tried to one degree or another and failed. It's easy to say 'I'm gonna do this thing you really want!', but these are hard, large scale problems that don't often have a simple answer that sounds good to the masses.

I understand that his act appeals to some, but they're not the sort of people we want making decisions.

I slammed my grandpa with facts like this. I showed him pictures of the Rio Grande. I showed the public land. I showed the private farmers. I talked about Bush2's semi-failed 600 mile wall. The impracticality of the plans is what forced him back onto the "browning of America" concern. I think we libs get too bogged down poking holes in Trump's policy fantasies and headfakes without listening to the real message he is sending to his supporters between the lies. White nationalism is winning elections across the Western world. This stuff resonates and we should be countering it on the merits, not simply avoiding the hard questions and drilling Trump on his obvious impracticality.

What I have going now: (1) the new browner Americans aren't that bad, (2) American system of assimilation and police function much better than Europe, (3) liberal values should be defended by acting in concert with them without delving into fascism. This is still an ongoing process. I can attack the Trump Wall, Trump Muslim Ban, and Trump Mass Deportation plans on a factual basis pretty easily, but attacking the message of sending the browns back is harder. How do you reach someone who has already reached that conclusion?

[Orbitus]

Welcome to my world a few days ago. Just let it go -- Merkava likes being right even when it is irrelevant to the core discussion.

Never understood the whole "how dare she do her job well" line of attack...or why people have to go four decades back...wait, I'm sorry, 41 years to be precise or I'll get told I'm wrong it wasn't four decades ago...to find something to attack her on.

The discussion about her stance on TPP is a much better line of attack IMO -- although I really wonder how many people who throw TPP at her actually even care or know much about it.

Yep, I saw someone post a meme yesterday that said that Trump wasn't racist until he started running for president. And they posted a meme of him sitting next to Don King and Jesse Jackson. I guess they never saw that he lost court cases for not renting to black people.

- - - Updated - - -

So you have that much disdain for tens of millions of law abiding, hard working, patriotic Americans simply because they support Trump. That is pretty sad you have sunk that low.

I have seen those same supporters that you just tried to describe, call Non-Trump supporters, communists, fascists, unpatriotic and need to be killed. I have PERSONALLY had that happen to me twice over the last week while playing World of Warcraft from Trump supporters. I have NEVER seen a non-Trump supporter willfully ask someone to go kill themselves or to go leave the country like Trump supporters have.

[Merkava]

I guess they never saw that he lost court cases for not renting to black people.

I don't know that he lost a court case. Didn't he reach a settlement? I mean Bill Clinton settled a sexual harassment case for $850,000 but I don't know if you could say that's an admission of anything.

[Orbitus]

I don't know that he lost a court case. Didn't he reach a settlement? I mean Bill Clinton settled a sexual harassment case for $850,000 but I don't know if you could say that's an admission of anything.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald...racism-quotes/
While he settled it, he is most definitely not the "least racist person on earth".

When he adds an extra sheet to his applications for rentals that says "C for Colored" on them and then denies them.
Where he says he doesn't want blacks counting his money, he wants short guys wearing yarmulkes doing it
Where he wanted the Central Park 5 executed after the rape and beating of Trisha Melli, even though they were exonerated with DNA evidence and released from prison.

That was just the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and only part of it. I haven't even gotten to the shit that he has said in just this last year. From his remarks about Elizabeth Warren, his Mexican comments, and then his comments about Judge Curiel that even Paul Ryan said was "textbook racism".

And yes, I know, you aren't a Trump supporter and you will tell me this even though I have never claimed you were, but Trump is definitely a racist. If they try to deny this, then they are just as racist as him for denying it when it is all over his past.

[Deleted]

Ok, so your grandpa's a bigot. Bigots can join the heap as well. Trump doesn't have 'answers' though, he has rhetoric, and there's an important distinction. Most of Trump's supposed plans are completely infeasible or have been tried to one degree or another and failed. It's easy to say 'I'm gonna do this thing you really want!', but these are hard, large scale problems that don't often have a simple answer that sounds good to the masses.

And yet on the other side we have Hillary who hasnt tabled any policies whatsoever!

All we get from her are soundbites like "I promise to work hard for women!" or "I promise to work hard for the poor!" or "I promise to champion the cause for african-americans!" or "I promise to get tough against Wall Street!"

No substance whatsoever, just words. And words that the public dont trust....

[Breccia]

And yet on the other side we have Hillary who hasnt tabled any policies whatsoever!.

Looks like someone doesn't know she has a website. And a book!

Please don't confuse "I haven't bothered to look for it" with "it doesn't exist". Trump got a Pants on Fire for doing exactly that.

[Orbitus]

And yet on the other side we have Hillary who hasnt tabled any policies whatsoever!

All we get from her are soundbites like "I promise to work hard for women!" or "I promise to work hard for the poor!" or "I promise to champion the cause for african-americans!" or "I promise to get tough against Wall Street!"

No substance whatsoever, just words. And words that the public dont trust....

Apparently you have never visited her site and believed Trump when he said she has nothing? If anything you should really check things like Breccia has said before you say something this asinine.

I mean she has like 40 policies on her website and Trump can't even muster 10. In fact he can't even get 10. He has 9. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
But if you go to Clinton's site: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ She has 39. You just don't want to do the work.

[Deleted]

Looks like someone doesn't know she has a website. And a book!

Please don't confuse "I haven't bothered to look for it" with "it doesn't exist". Trump got a Pants on Fire for doing exactly that.

So your average voter is going to trawl the internet looking for these things?

Call me old fashioned but isnt the entire point of giving speeches the opportunity to explain your policies?

Oh wait... Hillary has spent her entire time on the stand slating Trump. A strategy thats clearly not working... maybe she should start talking more about herself and what shes going to do rather than focusing entirely on her opponent.

[Breccia]

So your average voter is going to trawl the internet looking for these things?

One, I can't help but notice you tried to deflect. Instead of, you know, saying "Oh, she does have publicly available policies that have been easily available for a year! My bad"

Two, "trawl"? Her website is ridiculously easy to find.

Three, um, if they're taking the election seriously...yes. Yes, they would find the candidate's stated policies and read them. Rather than, you know, make up shit like "she tabled any policies whatsoever!" because you can't spend 15 seconds verifying that before making yourself look bad. Or are you saying the average voter is stupid? Because, that sounds deplorable to me.

[Shalcker]

One, I can't help but notice you tried to deflect. Instead of, you know, saying "Oh, she does have publicly available policies that have been easily available for a year! My bad"

Two, "trawl"? Her website is ridiculously easy to find.

Three, um, if they're taking the election seriously...yes. Yes, they would find the candidate's stated policies and read them. Rather than, you know, make up shit like "she tabled any policies whatsoever!" because you can't spend 15 seconds verifying that before making yourself look bad. Or are you saying the average voter is stupid? Because, that sounds deplorable to me.

Here is example from someone who actually read it:
2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform.

So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.

The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on.

Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either.

You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)

[GennGreymane]

One, I can't help but notice you tried to deflect. Instead of, you know, saying "Oh, she does have publicly available policies that have been easily available for a year! My bad"

Two, "trawl"? Her website is ridiculously easy to find.

Three, um, if they're taking the election seriously...yes. Yes, they would find the candidate's stated policies and read them. Rather than, you know, make up shit like "she tabled any policies whatsoever!" because you can't spend 15 seconds verifying that before making yourself look bad. Or are you saying the average voter is stupid? Because, that sounds deplorable to me.

Why you gotta be so mean bro?

[Deleted]

One, I can't help but notice you tried to deflect. Instead of, you know, saying "Oh, she does have publicly available policies that have been easily available for a year! My bad"

Considering i was making the point regarding your average voter then theres obviously no deflection. Your average voter obtains all of his/her information via the media, therefore condidate speeches become imperative to communicating policies... thats the way its ALWAYS been so im shocked you are trying to make an issue out of this.

Two, "trawl"? Her website is ridiculously easy to find.

Refer to point above.

How many registered voters are there in the USA? Like 150mill? 200Mill?

And how many hits has Hillarys website reached now?

Do you think that Hillarys website has had anywhere near that kind of hit rate?

Three, um, if they're taking the election seriously...yes. Yes, they would find the candidate's stated policies and read them. Rather than, you know, make up shit like "she tabled any policies whatsoever!" because you can't spend 15 seconds verifying that before making yourself look bad. Or are you saying the average voter is stupid? Because, that sounds deplorable to me.

I think you need to wake up to the real world... because not everyone is as well informed as you are.

Im shocked that you can watch the current debacle in US politics and say otherwise!!!

[Daerio]

Can't believe people are still trying to say Clinton's website is the place to get all her policy positions rather than from the candidate herself. Since obviously, googling any particular issue for her is confusing, because she's been on both sides of almost everything.

If somebody asked me about a policy position Bernie Sanders had, I could tell them to just google him talking about any given issue and you could find a video of him clearly stating his position while purposefully being misrepresented by the media on the issues. What a stark contrast with a politician that actually believes in the positions he holds.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Here is example from someone who actually read it:
2. Confiscation of Property: Clinton proposed a new top Estate Tax of 65% on people with net worth over $500 million. Her website goes to great length to obscure the actual policy details, including the fact that taxes would increase on lower value estates as well. See the total lack of transparency here, where the text simply refers to going back to 2009 rates. It is clear that the intent of the page is to mislead, not inform.

So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.

The bottom line is that under Clinton’s plan, estate taxes would be higher for anyone with estates over $5 million(ish). I call this a confiscation tax because income taxes have already been paid on this money. In my case, a dollar I earn today will be taxed at about 50% by various government entities, collectively. With Clinton’s plan, my remaining 50 cents will be taxed again at 50% when I die. So the government would take 75% of my earnings from now on.

Yes, I can do clever things with trusts to avoid estate taxes. But that is just welfare for lawyers. If the impact of the estate tax is nothing but higher fees for my attorney, and hassle for me, that isn’t good news either.

You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)

This guy seems to think that Clinton invented the estate tax. Sorry that he thinks the rich should be able to hold on to their money forever and ever, but that would just exacerbate the massive problem we already have with the rich always getting richer at the expense of the poor.

[Kokolums]

The biggest thing in favor of Trump is that the top issue among voters is now the economy. Whenever the economy is the #1 issue, that's a change election and the party that holds the white house loses.

2016: economy
2012: debt
2008: economy
2004: war
2000: economy
1996: crime
1992: economy
1988: budget deficit

The white house changed parties every time the economy was the top issue. When something else was the top issue, the incumbent party won.