Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Alakallanar]

Campaigning in Texas is pointless, no matter whether one believes the state to be safe or not. If Texas is in any real danger for Trump then he has already lost. Because at that point we are already looking at a landslide with pretty much all swing states going blue. So the only sensible move is to campaign as if Texas (and all other equally red states) are safe.

[Ausr]

Campaigning in Texas is pointless, no matter whether one believes the state to be safe or not. If Texas is in any real danger for Trump then he has already lost. Because at that point we are already looking at a landslide with pretty much all swing states going blue. So the only sensible move is to campaign as if Texas (and all other equally red states) are safe.

He's going to campaign in NY (saw it in the Daily News, can't find it unfortunately) because he thinks he can win it. A solid blue state. Yep.

[Merkava]

I cannot find the KTTV poll on 538, so I say take with a grain of salt.

Lol, OK. If you say so. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5694.html

Edit - The poll was Aug 9 actually, and it's KTVT not KTTV. And it's on 538 by the way. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...orecast/texas/

- - - Updated - - -

Ahh I though it was earlier than that. Well we need more poll results anyways. That'd tell us for sure the true state of Texas.

Both campaigns have internal polling, but I don't think Trump needs to worry about Texas. If he does, then that would mean he's got absolutely huge problems elsewhere. Which he probably already does.

[Ghostpanther]

Which "baseline policies"?

Pro Life.
Pro 2nd Amendment.
Rebuild the military.
Tax cuts for everyone.
Repeal Obamacare.
Renegotiate or eliminate NAFTA.
Oppose TPP.
Appoint Conservatives to the Supreme Court.
Decrease the trade deficits.
Increase Border Security.
Have stronger vetting of some trying to immigrant into the US.

I repeat this because I respect you Wells. I do not expect you to read all my posts or myself yours. But this is the same baseline policies I have stated here numerous times.

- - - Updated - - -

She has been devastating the local campaign.

http://www.tcpalm.com/opinion/guest-...390469971.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-...s-in-michigan/
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/pol...e95926367.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...he.html?pg=all

And that's what I got from the first google searches.

Oh yeah. She is going to win. She is leading now in Ohio by 6 points. I would be surprised ( however pleasantly ) If she loses.

[Deja Thoris]

Unless a person is getting public money, it is no one's business how much a person makes or gives to charity from their private work And like I said, in his case, it is only the public's right to know if he has done something illegal.

It says a lot about a persons character, solid democracy can't be hurt by a bit of transparency here can they? Plus hes made a lot of public statements about donating so it would be nice to verify he followed through or if it was just talk.

Also, his policies are a joke. "Build a wall!" is countered by "buy a ladder!" (or use a raft / dig a tunnel). He plans to deport 11 mill people (well he did but the reality has hit home now and a backtrack is in progress). Bottom line is do people even know what his policies are - he backtracks on them a few times a week but hey, he suckers in the gullible I guess and judging from his popularity thats one thing theres no shortage of in the US of A.

[Ghostpanther]

Oh, no. I want to see them. If he concealed them that long, and they were harmless, then he's a fucking idiot. And at this point, the reason isn't some small thing such as "he only paid 4% in taxes" or "he donated only 0.5% of his take-home to charity". It's something big. Something embarrassing. And it will hurt his chances, and I'd love to see that. He's applied a tournaquet (spelling, don't care) which is cutting off the bleeding, but still killing the limb. He's fucked, no matter what, and he has nothing and nobody to blame but himself and his own actions. I'm just curious how bad it is, but I'll take the self-inflicted loss of political points no matter what.

- - - Updated - - -



Also, how can you know/why do you care what his stances are when he's acting like such a hypocrite? Can you really trust that what he says he wants to do, is something he'll actually do, based on what he's said/done? By his own personal statements and actions? How can you?

I trust he will do what he says more than I trust Hilary , plus, she already stands for some things I do not support. Even if she was not a crook, I would not vote for her. But her being a crook and should be in jail, there is no way in hell I can vote for her.

[Ghostpanther]

It says a lot about a persons character, solid democracy can't be hurt by a bit of transparency here can they? Plus hes made a lot of public statements about donating so it would be nice to verify he followed through or if it was just talk.

Also, his policies are a joke. "Build a wall!" is countered by "buy a ladder!" (or use a raft / dig a tunnel). He plans to deport 11 mill people (well he did but the reality has hit home now and a backtrack is in progress). Bottom line is do people even know what his policies are - he backtracks on them a few times a week but hey, he suckers in the gullible I guess and judging from his popularity thats one thing theres no shortage of in the US of A.

Yep I know what they are. See above. You may not support those and if you are from the US, you have the right to vote against him.

- - - Updated - - -

What law did she break?

You did not watch the FBI's testimony before Congress? If you did and still feel that she did not, then we have nothing to discuss.

[Nadiru]

Some of your post does not make sense but I don't want to get bogged down in an economics discussion. I will however say that the reserve status of the dollar is a subject of debate among economists and that there are many who think it is beneficial to the united states as well as many who think it is not. I think the term exorbitant privilege sums it up well (you probably know what I mean).

"Exorbitant privilege" is one of those mangled terms. A few points:

1) It was spoken in the context of the Cold War, which is over and doesn't really apply.
2) The privilege referenced was political. As in, "The US government uses its economic leverage to gain political leverage and the only options for the non-US, non-Soviet actors are to go communist or stay in the US sphere."

Now, you could make the argument that the US can still use that economic power to gain political power, but the US has been remarkably absent in paying people to do what it wants as of late, even including that whole Iranian, it-wasn't-really-a-ransom deal with the prisoners. But also, that doesn't make it an economic gain for the US, but a political one.

[Masark]

Decrease the trade deficits.

So you also propose that the US dollar should no longer be used as a reserve currency?

[Merkava]

What law did she break? Or in your conservative utopia do we toss people in jail for no reason?

I think Comey clearly intimated that laws were broken, but that he didn't think there would be a successful prosecution.

[Merkava]

Clearly..........don't forget about Benghazi as well! I know if we look into that one more time "something" will come up!

What does that have to do with what Comey said? Or are you saying that you don't know what Comey said?

[Wells]

I think Comey clearly intimated that laws were broken

This seems a lot like hearing what you want to hear, as he didn't actually say that to my memory.

[Merkava]

This seems a lot like hearing what you want to hear, as he didn't actually say that to my memory.

Then let me refresh your memory.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case

[Wells]

Then let me refresh your memory.

Takes a pretty serious jump to go from "there's evidence of a potential crime" to "he's intimating that a crime was committed".

[Merkava]

Takes a pretty serious jump to go from "there's evidence of a potential crime" to "he's intimating that a crime was committed".

I think it takes a particularly serious brand of partisanship not to be able to see what Comey seems to be saying.

[Wells]

I think it takes a particularly serious brand of partisanship not to be able to see what Comey seems to be saying.

Sure, but not on the party you seem to think. He quite simply did not say what you claim. Anything else is just you hearing what you think is really being said.

[Spectral]

Go read what Skroe has said about it, his sources and knowledge on the subject far exceed mine.

Skroe says that we definitely needed to spend trillions of additional off-budget dollars on military expenditures? Well, it must be true then After all, it's not like he's personally invested in throwing money at the industry.

[Speaker]

What law did she break? Or in your conservative utopia do we toss people in jail for no reason?

She committed perjury on several occasions, and so did her aide Huma Abedin. Also, how the hell is deleting 33000 emails as Secretary of State not a crime? They were not only deleted, but the hard drives were wiped clean in a way that none of that data could be recovered, and that doesn't just happen accidentally. There was clear intent there. The only reason she would have needed her own server was so that it could not be audited by government officials, to prevent them from finding incriminating information. I don't even want to think what kind of incriminating information was in those emails. The whole thing makes me sick.

[Merkava]

Sure, but not on the party you seem to think. He quite simply did not say what you claim. Anything else is just you hearing what you think is really being said.

Here's what he said. Again.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case

If he's not implying that there were violations, then why even mention it? Unless you think he just has some personal axe to grind. If he didn't mean to imply that there were violations, he would have omitted that part of the statement and simply said something like "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case."

[Wells]

Here's what he said. Again.

If he's not implying that there were violations, then why even mention it? Unless you think he just has some personal axe to grind. If he didn't mean to imply that there were violations, he would have omitted that part of the statement and simply said something like "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case."

That's all pointless speculation on your part. One could just as easily claim that if he meant there were violations he would have said just that.

I'm not sure what to tell you Merkava. He said there was evidence of potential violations. This is clearly not the same as saying there was a violation. You can of course try to wiggle that into the shape your partisan inclinations push you towards, but its right there.