Official Donald Trump for President thread (5 Viewers)

[Murph]

Taking down the Jews would definitely put a hurting on the banks.

O/U 5.5 days until Trump uses this line in a speech

 

[sho nuff]

You don't honestly think Hillary is against them, right? She took paid speaking engagements with them, so we know she's in their pockets. Anything she says in that arena to separate herself from it is that she assumes the average voter won't investigate for themselves. It's not part of Trump's agenda or platform to pick a fight with Wall Street. I'll trade Trump's pending audit tax returns for those Wall Street paid speaking arrangement transcripts all day, rather Trump should just release the tax returns and put the heat on her to release the transcripts very publicly, along with her medical records. Bernie's not beholden to the banks, thus why he could and would rail against them relentlessly. Not a bad thing IMO when you read things like the recent WF news.

So Trump should release something she has already done...and that wwould force her to relase things he wont actually release about himself?  Thats the logic here?

 

[mquinnjr]

So Trump should release something she has already done...and that wwould force her to relase things he wont actually release about himself?  Thats the logic here?

Flood all his info out there. It's his window to do so and force her hand before the debates. His call if it's to be a position of strength or weakness.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

 

Joe Scarborough Verified account ‏@JoeNBC


"Donald Trump is the face of authoritarian populism in this country."

~Gen Michael Hayden

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Flood all his info out there. It's his window to do so and force her hand before the debates. His call if it's to be a position of strength or weakness.

It would be smart if at the right time he released his tax returns, some real medical records and transcripts (though I rather doubt he has the last) and in return demanded from Hillary - post audit Foundation tax returns (impossible), speech transcripts and medical records.

But he's not doing that.

 

[SoBeDad]

Trump: "Is there any place more fun than a Trump rally?"  Make America have fun again. 

I'm having difficulty imagining Trump look presidential. As president, if he speaks from a teleprompter for 4 years, it will be very boring.  

 

[CBusAlex]

It would be smart if at the right time he released his tax returns, some real medical records and transcripts (though I rather doubt he has the last) and in return demanded from Hillary - post audit Foundation tax returns (impossible), speech transcripts and medical records.

But he's not doing that.

If he were more concerned with winning the election than with people finding out how little money he actually has, it would be smart.

 

[sho nuff]

The Trump fans really seem obsessed with these speech transcripts.  Its an interesting dynamic for sure.

 

[Murph]

The Trump fans really seem obsessed with these speech transcripts.  Its an interesting dynamic for sure.

If you think Trump fans are the only people who want to see more transparency from Hillary then you're really missing the point.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The Trump fans really seem obsessed with these speech transcripts.  Its an interesting dynamic for sure.

She has like 99.9% of her stuff on record, so it's the one thing to attack, plus it provides a defense for Trump not disclosing anything. "Because they both do it. Therefore, Trump!"

 

[sho nuff]

If you think Trump fans are the only people who want to see more transparency from Hillary then you're really missing the point.

I understand transparency...the point being here...if she had said something all that bad, would you think it would be leaked by now?  Do you think you are keeping that many people quiet if she had said anything controversial (several who were there have already stated she said nothing controversial).

Seems like a trivial thing to continue to piss and moan about.

 

[mquinnjr]

The Trump fans really seem obsessed with these speech transcripts.  Its an interesting dynamic for sure.

They would be a dagger in terms of the right's ability to label her as a hypocrite with support in hand to do so that goes against things she has said to condemn Wall Street and the general feeling of her party's constituents towards Wall Street.  Would certainly not bolster her likability.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

You really aren't paying attention if this is what you think. Look how the media killed Lauer, it is obvious they are sending a message to the moderators to crush Trump and be easy on Hillary, so Trump is sending his own message to the moderators to be fair.

 

 

[cstu]

 

Hayden also raised "a concern that Gen. John Allen raised several days ago. He greatly fears, and I frankly share that fear, that we are heading toward — [that] we may be setting up the circumstances that create a crisis in civil military relationships. Not nuclear annihilation, but steps far below pressing the nuclear trigger."



If that happens, said Hayden, "it may actually strain and test the fabric of our civilian military control."

 

[cstu]

Bernie's the only politician I've ever given money to. I'll be voting third-party in November because neither of these clowns will do anything to reign in the banks.

Question - does Trump get us closer or further away from reigning in the banks?

ETA: Reminder, Trump is the man who made almost all of his money off loans from banks.  Think it through.

 

[Murph]

Question - does Trump get us closer or further away from reigning in the banks?

ETA: Reminder, Trump is the man who made almost all of his money off loans from banks.  Think it through.

I see no difference between Trump and Clinton on this issue. Where do you think Clinton made her money? She is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If you think Trump fans are the only people who want to see more transparency from Hillary then you're really missing the point.

How about we demand that Trump display transparency at least on the level Clinton has already done? Like say releasing his taxes, and actual medical information from a real, trusted doctor. Or responding to media requests for clarification of, and citations to, stuff the candidate says on the trail. Or that he clarify his tautological "policy" proposals with actual substance and be held accountable when he contradicts himself?  Clinton has already done all of these things. Perhaps we should do all of that stuff before seeking out more transparency from Clinton?

And if you think Clinton should be transparent regardless of what Trump does, you're obviously right ... but you're also obviously missing the point. 

 

[cstu]

I see no difference between Trump and Clinton on this issue. Where do you think Clinton made her money? She is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.

 

[Murph]

How about we demand that Trump display transparency at least on the level Clinton has already done? Like say releasing his taxes, and actual medical information from a real, trusted doctor. Or responding to media requests for clarification of, and citations to, stuff the candidate says on the trail. Or that he clarify his tautological "policy" proposals with actual substance and be held accountable when he contradicts himself?  Clinton has already done all of these things. Perhaps we should do all of that stuff before seeking out more transparency from Clinton?

And if you think Clinton should be transparent regardless of what Trump does, you're obviously right ... but you're also obviously missing the point. 

I expect Trump to be awful. Nothing he does at this point could convince me to vote for him so I honestly don't care what he does.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I see no difference between Trump and Clinton on this issue. Where do you think Clinton made her money? She is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.

The more accurate analogy would be that GS is an investor in the stock that is Hillary becoming president. Are you suggesting that 100% of her income (wholly owned) has been provided by GS?

 

[Murph]

The more accurate analogy would be that GS is an investor in the stock that is Hillary becoming president. Are you suggesting that 100% of her income (wholly owned) has been provided by GS?

Fine, use whatever metaphor you want. She's not going to do anything about Wall Street's crimes.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I expect Trump to be awful. Nothing he does at this point could convince me to vote for him so I honestly don't care what he does.

Sure, but the problem is that people like you criticizing Clinton for lack of transparency but not holding Trump to the same standards enables the media and the people who plan to vote for someone who might actually win to do the same.

You may not be voting for Trump, but voting is not the only way we express our preferences and impact the process. You can give money, you can lobby your friends and neighbors, and you can speak out on election issues in the public square (or the modern equivalent thereof).  You're doing the last one when you post here. And by criticizing Clinton for things that Trump is even worse on, while remaining silent on Trump, you are supporting his candidacy, like it or not.

 

[Murph]

And by criticizing Clinton for things that Trump is even worse on, while remaining silent on Trump, you are supporting his candidacy, like it or not.

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Criticizing Hillary is supporting Trump. Got it.

 

[sho nuff]

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Criticizing Hillary is supporting Trump. Got it.

Criticizing Hillary in a Trump thread while excusing Trump for the exact same things that he does or is worse on is pretty darn close to supporting him I would say.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Fine, use whatever metaphor you want. She's not going to do anything about Wall Street's crimes.

This is a strawman argument, namely that there are Wall St. crimes that no one is doing anything about, But absent presenting the crimes here, who exactly is going to do something about them? Is Donald out front saying he's going to prosecute Wall St.? Heck his position is to repeal Dodd Frank and de-regulate. A lot of Wall St. investors back Trump, have donated to his campaign. I don't think Wall St. is quaking in their boots right now.

 

[TobiasFunke]

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Criticizing Hillary is supporting Trump. Got it.

No, opposing Clinton publicly based on what you want from a candidate (transparency, truthfulness, whatever) while not doing the same to Trump is supporting Trump.  This is pretty much common sense, and shouldn't be news to anyone.  Campaigns themselves do it all the time and always have.  It's basic negative campaigning. 

If Kellyanne Conway goes on CNN and criticizes Clinton for a lack of transparency while not questioning Trump's transparency, you would say she's doing so in support of Trump's candidacy even if she doesn't mention Trump's name, yes?  Why doesn't the same logic apply to you on a smaller scale here in the FFA?  You may not like it, because I take you at your word that you think Trump is awful, but it's an inevitable conclusion.

 

[mquinnjr]

This is a strawman argument, namely that there are Wall St. crimes that no one is doing anything about, But absent presenting the crimes here, who exactly is going to do something about them? Is Donald out front saying he's going to prosecute Wall St.? Heck his position is to repeal Dodd Frank and de-regulate. A lot of Wall St. investors back Trump, have donated to his campaign. I don't think Wall St. is quaking in their boots right now.

It's not part of his platform to reform Wall St. If it were, taking money from such banks to speak at their events would appear to be hypocritical.

 

[bueno]

No, opposing Clinton publicly based on what you want from a candidate (transparency, truthfulness, whatever) while not doing the same to Trump is supporting Trump.  This is pretty much common sense, and shouldn't be news to anyone.  Campaigns themselves do it all the time and always have.  It's basic negative campaigning. 

If Kellyanne Conway goes on CNN and criticizes Clinton for a lack of transparency while not questioning Trump's transparency, you would say she's doing so in support of Trump's candidacy even if she doesn't mention Trump's name, yes?  Why doesn't the same logic apply to you on a smaller scale here in the FFA?  You may not like it, because I take you at your word that you think Trump is awful, but it's an inevitable conclusion.

To you, anything short of voting for Clinton is supporting Trump. Those f us who won't for either of these two most undesirable people is not supporting Trump. Sorry, not buying what either is selling.

 

[mquinnjr]

How about we demand that Trump display transparency at least on the level Clinton has already done? Like say releasing his taxes, and actual medical information from a real, trusted doctor. Or responding to media requests for clarification of, and citations to, stuff the candidate says on the trail. Or that he clarify his tautological "policy" proposals with actual substance and be held accountable when he contradicts himself?  Clinton has already done all of these things. Perhaps we should do all of that stuff before seeking out more transparency from Clinton?

And if you think Clinton should be transparent regardless of what Trump does, you're obviously right ... but you're also obviously missing the point. 

Yeah, they would hate it and absolutely not show up if she held an open press conference. It's been 283 days since she's held one. She ought to put one on the calendar when she's feeling better.

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, opposing Clinton publicly based on what you want from a candidate (transparency, truthfulness, whatever) while not doing the same to Trump is supporting Trump.  This is pretty much common sense, and shouldn't be news to anyone.  Campaigns themselves do it all the time and always have.  It's basic negative campaigning. 

If Kellyanne Conway goes on CNN and criticizes Clinton for a lack of transparency while not questioning Trump's transparency, you would say she's doing so in support of Trump's candidacy even if she doesn't mention Trump's name, yes?  Why doesn't the same logic apply to you on a smaller scale here in the FFA?  You may not like it, because I take you at your word that you think Trump is awful, but it's an inevitable conclusion.

Hey, just as I was posting this Ms Conway herself was charitable enough to provide a real world example!  So kind of her:


 

Eliza Collins Verified account ‏@elizacollins1


Conway asked about Trump’s short drs letter: “I don’t know why we need such extensive medical reporting when we all have a right to privacy”

Let's hear it, folks.  Explain to be why this attitude is acceptable for Trump but not Clinton.  Or, alternatively, how not criticizing this but criticizing Clinton's transparency on health issues doesn't amount to support for Trump.

 

[Murph]

No, opposing Clinton publicly based on what you want from a candidate (transparency, truthfulness, whatever) while not doing the same to Trump is supporting Trump.  This is pretty much common sense, and shouldn't be news to anyone.  Campaigns themselves do it all the time and always have.  It's basic negative campaigning. 

If Kellyanne Conway goes on CNN and criticizes Clinton for a lack of transparency while not questioning Trump's transparency, you would say she's doing so in support of Trump's candidacy even if she doesn't mention Trump's name, yes?  Why doesn't the same logic apply to you on a smaller scale here in the FFA?  You may not like it, because I take you at your word that you think Trump is awful, but it's an inevitable conclusion.

At the end of the day, I hate this argument because obviously you and I have a lot more in common than have in difference. So I'll just say this. I expect better from those who are capable of being better. i dismiss those who aren't. This applies to politics, work, life, and anything. If the Clinton camp wants to take criticism at face value and improve it will only help them. If they don't, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's not part of his platform to reform Wall St. If it were, taking money from such banks to speak at their events would appear to be hypocritical.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this sort of reasoning would encourage politicians not to adopt a platform at all. That way they can take money from anyone  without appearing hypocritical!

Every day I get a better and better understanding of how we've ended up this close to a Trump presidency.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, they would hate it and absolutely not show up if she held an open press conference. It's been 283 days since she's held one. She ought to put one on the calendar when she's feeling better.

She had one five days ago.

And I was speaking about the fact that Clinton's campaign staff responds to follow-up questions about what she says from the media but Trump's does not. 

Do better.

 

[mquinnjr]

Taken to its logical conclusion, this sort of reasoning would encourage politicians not to adopt a platform at all. That way they can take money from anyone  without appearing hypocritical!

Every day I get a better and better understanding of how we've ended up this close to a Trump presidency.

I didn't buy into Bernie's politics, but he is a complete 180 in terms of adhering to his platform vs. Clinton. Staggeringly so in this case.  There weren't opportunities to poke holes this easily in his platform points. He'd be up 15+ points on Trump if they didn't railroad him.

 

[mquinnjr]

She had one five days ago.

And I was speaking about the fact that Clinton's campaign staff responds to follow-up questions about what she says from the media but Trump's does not. 

Do better.

The HEADLINE:

Hillary Clinton gave her first formal press conference in more than nine months on Thursday and, all things considered, it was a non-event.

 

[TobiasFunke]

At the end of the day, I hate this argument because obviously you and I have a lot more in common than have in difference. So I'll just say this. I expect better from those who are capable of being better. i dismiss those who aren't. This applies to politics, work, life, and anything. If the Clinton camp wants to take criticism at face value and improve it will only help them. If they don't, they have no one to blame but themselves.

This is evasive.

I say that if you criticize Clinton publicly for something while not criticizing Trump for doing the same or worse, you are effectively supporting Trump, even if that is not your intention.  Do you disagree?  If so, why? 

 

[Sammy3469]

Hey, just as I was posting this Ms Conway herself was charitable enough to provide a real world example!  So kind of her:


 


Let's hear it, folks.  Explain to be why this attitude is acceptable for Trump but not Clinton.  Or, alternatively, how not criticizing this but criticizing Clinton's transparency on health issues doesn't amount to support for Trump.

People on twitter are saying he wants his privacy because he's hiding a serious health issue

 

[TobiasFunke]

The HEADLINE:

You understand the article is saying that it was boring and uneventful when it says it was a "non-event," right?  Not that it didn't happen.  It happened, without question. You said it hadn't happened in 283 days. It happened 5 days ago.  You were wrong.

You seem like a good dude and I also like brunettes in tropical locations too so I don't want to be mean or get into it. But holy ####, man.  Display at least a little reason.  Meet me halfway here. 

 

[Murph]

This is evasive.

I say that if you criticize Clinton publicly for something while not criticizing Trump for doing the same or worse, you are effectively supporting Trump, even if that is not your intention.  Do you disagree?  If so, why? 

This is repetitive.

I think I've made it clear I disagree. By definition, criticism of one thing is not support of another. I'm sorry if this is confusing to you.

 

[HellToupee]

Question - does Trump get us closer or further away from reigning in the banks?

ETA: Reminder, Trump is the man who made almost all of his money off loans from banks.  Think it through.

You know where hillery stands with the banks. I'll take my chances with her opponent 

 

[bueno]

You understand the article is saying that it was boring and uneventful when it says it was a "non-event," right?  Not that it didn't happen.  It happened, without question. You said it hadn't happened in 283 days. It happened 5 days ago.  You were wrong.

You seem like a good dude and I also like brunettes in tropical locations too so I don't want to be mean or get into it. But holy ####, man.  Display at least a little reason.  Meet me halfway here. 

Maybe it depends on what your definition of conference is.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is repetitive.

I think I've made it clear I disagree. By definition, criticism of one thing is not support of another. I'm sorry if this is confusing to you.

But you haven't explained why you disagree or answered my questions.

I've explained why I think criticism of one of two candidates with a realistic chance to win amounts to support for the other if you don't apply the same critical eye to the other candidate.  What's the flaw in my argument? If Conway offered the same criticisms of Clinton on CNN but didn't mention Trump, would you say what she was doing was in support Trump's candidacy?  If so why doesn't the same logic apply to you, regardless of intent?

By definition, you might be correct.  But the logic falls apart because it's focused on narrowly defining terms instead of considering impacts. To use a non-political analogy: If the wind blows during one team's field goal attempt but is calm for the second team's field goal attempt, it has helped the second team.  And that is pretty much exactly what you are doing. You're presenting obstacles for and opposition to one candidacy while refusing to do the same for the other.

 

[Murph]

If Conway offered the same criticisms of Clinton on CNN but didn't mention Trump, would you say what she was doing was in support Trump's candidacy?  If so why doesn't the same logic apply to you, regardless of intent?

For starters, I'm not employed by the Trump campaign.

 

[TobiasFunke]

For starters, I'm not employed by the Trump campaign.

Fine.  Say it's Paul Ryan doing it instead.

 

[cstu]

Samantha Bee: Why journalists are failing to call out Donald Trump on his lies


TBS's "Full Frontal" returned from its five-week hiatus on Monday and host Samantha Bee readily launched into ripping Matt Lauer for his performance during last week's "Commander-in-Chief Forum" with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

She summed up Lauer's qualifications for the forum with: "Its moderator was a man whose crack journalism skills include getting up early and asking tough questions about recipes."

After mocking Lauer's performance for the better part of four minutes, Bee really settled on the core issue concerning journalists in this election.

"The truth is Matt Lauer did a fantastic job at the meaningless campaign coverage we've come to demand from our media," she said. "At some point, networks decided that they can ask questions and the answers would just be someone else's problem."

She pointed to the lack of fact-checking in covering the election. For example, Trump said that he would've seized oil during the Iraq War. A panel of reporters and pundits wondered aloud if that would've been a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. One then suggested that viewers look up the definition of war crimes themselves.

"You heard her, average Americans," Bee said. "In your plentiful spare time, when you're not working your two jobs or not watching your screaming kids, why not spend 20 or 30 hours studying the Geneva Conventions, so you know whether or not it's okay to steal another country's oil. That's so much easier than asking reporters and moderators to do their f---ing jobs."

Yet just as Bee decided that journalists aren't preparing themselves for the issues that have come up in this presidential election, she also identified why that may be.

"The problem is news organizations are simply not equipped to cover a candidate whose entire being is a lie," she proposed, referring to Trump. "Maintaining the image of fairness requires them to portray Hillary and Trump as equally flawed candidates, even though they know that's incorrect."

 

[bueno]

They are failing to call out Trump on his lies because he provides them with so much other fodder.

 

[SoBeDad]

Median income rises 5.2% in 2015. One of largest increases ever. Middle class grows and poverty rate declines. Game over for Trump.

 

[ericttspikes]

You know where hillery stands with the banks. I'll take my chances with her opponent 

I don't like to take chances with my retirement $$$. The market hates unpredictability.

 

[msommer]

Median income rises 5.2% in 2015. One of largest increases ever. Middle class grows and poverty rate declines. Game over for Trump.

The statistics are rigged. If you unskew them by correcting for somethingimaginary and add  unrelatedprolemaboutdemographics then you will see that it's all going to hell in a handbasket

/Trumpette

 

[mquinnjr]

You understand the article is saying that it was boring and uneventful when it says it was a "non-event," right?  Not that it didn't happen.  It happened, without question. You said it hadn't happened in 283 days. It happened 5 days ago.  You were wrong.

You seem like a good dude and I also like brunettes in tropical locations too so I don't want to be mean or get into it. But holy ####, man.  Display at least a little reason.  Meet me halfway here. 

I will meet you at she let a few people on her plane from the press to ask a few questions that might or might not have been planned to be able to squash the argument against her avoiding holding press conferences. At that point, it's not worth arguing further IMO. The first debate is in a few days, anyways. Not a Hillary fan, but not a Trump fan either. Not a Bernie fan either, but respect him a lot more than Hillary or Trump because he was genuine. Leaning Gary Johnson because he aligns most with my views, and to get in front of the throw away vote thing, it's how I feel and it aligns with my politics...I'll feel free to vote that way in a democratic election having actually done some research into how I feel. Hillary just gives me the feel that her campaign is running under the mantra of, "Keep her out of all completely non-rehearsed situations possible." Something doesn't feel right about that.