The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[myboynoah]

The Dump is such an idiot.

Trump shakes up campaign, demotes top adviser

Donald Trump, following weeks of gnawing agitation over his advisers’ attempts to temper his style, moved late Tuesday to overhaul his struggling campaign by rebuffing those efforts and elevating two longtime associates who have encouraged his combative populism.

. . . . .

Trump's turn away from Manafort is in part a reversion to how he ran his campaign in the primaries with then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Lewandowski's mantra was "let Trump be Trump," and Trump wants to get back to that type of campaign culture, the aides said.

. . . . .

“I want to win,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal. “That’s why I’m bringing on fantastic people who know how to win and love to win.”

Edit: Nate Silver responds. lol

Embedded Tweet

[Maximus]

The new manager is breitbarts ceo. Lol

Bannon, in phone calls and meetings, has been urging Trump for months to not mount a fall campaign that makes Republican donors and officials comfortable, the aides said. Instead, Bannon has been telling Trump to run more fully as an outsider and an unabashed nationalist.

[I.J. Reilly]

Trump is such a great leader with obviously unparalleled executive ability. I can't wait until he has full control of the administrative state!

[cowboy]

cowboy, I’m not voting for either candidate, but as bad as she is, there are many reasons I think we’d be better off with Hillary than with Donald. I’ll mention only a few, but I’m sure I could generate a few dozen.

Like you, I'm not voting for either candidate. Your criticism of Trump makes sense, and I appreciate your response. I guess as I look at it, my big concern is that Hillary is just as bad but hides it better. Trump would be a disaster for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread, but I fear Clinton would be equally bad, albeit in slightly different ways.

Words mean something, particularly in foreign affairs.

While Clinton may be more diplomatic, my concern is for our sovereignty. What makes you believe that Clinton won't follow Obama in ceding control of aspects of our economy to world leaders through agreements like Obama has tried to do with climate change agreements, internet control, etc.?

I don’t think Hillary will order our military to commit war crimes (I don’t think Trump hasn’t retracted his promise to do so). And I’m sure Hillary won’t be seeking to impose huge, economy-killing tariffs on China, Mexico, etc.

Trump would start a trade war that would seriously wound the economy, especially agriculture. On the other hand, Hillary seems bent on the economy killing regulations, particularly on fossil fuels, that have made this the worst recovery ever. If GDP had returned to trend line as it has after every other recession, and even the Depression, it would be around $2 trillion higher, and tax revenues would be $340 billion greater.

For all her many flaws, including self-aggrandizing behaviors, Hillary seems somewhat teachable and open to change. Trump? He’s made clear he believes he’s the smartest guy in the room, that he knows more about ISIS than the generals, that only he can save us from our current problems, and that he can’t/won’t change the way he is. A man with such hubris doesn’t belong anywhere near the Oval Office.

And Hillary has less hubris? "The rules don't apply to me, and when you ask me about it I pretend to laugh and shrug it off as a right-wing conspiracy." The only difference in my mind between the two candidates' hubris is one gets made and the other ignores. Neither listen. I'm also interested in your opinion that she's teachable and open to change - can you provide an example, because I haven't seen that.

The majority of her supporters here have no illusions of her fitness as a candidate. We simply understand that on the spectrum of bad candidates, one is clearly worse.

You may believe that strongly, but to state it as fact and dismiss other opinions is where I disagree with your approach. I'm not defending Trump, just not in the 'Hillary isn't nearly as bad' camp.

Speaking of lazy arguments...
Is it really a given that Hillary will permanently threaten our constitutional rights via her SCOTUS nominees? Which ones are we talking about? I'll give you gun rights; I doubt her nominees will fight for the conservative side of that argument. But what else? I'm honestly curious about what other constitutional rights are in danger from her appointments...But what in Trump's history makes you feel at ease with his potential nominees? Given his very public attacks on multiple civil rights, why wouldn't he search out SCOTUS picks that would share his views?

Gun rights are a big one. Also, liberal judges have demonstrate a willingness to erode freedom of speech (Citizens United v. FEC), multiple aspects of property rights (most notably Kelo v. New London and Babbit v. Sweet Home), our choice regarding whether we should have to buy health insurance, and school choice (Zelman), in addition to siding with the EPA on economy killing carbon emissions rules that will have no noticeable effect on climate change.

These are judges who were vetted and ratified by the Senate, and most of the cases I mentioned were closely decided. There is no way Trump could 1) get a nominee with his radical views approved by a senate ruled by two parties who both dislike him, and 2) even if he were successful, place enough justices on the court to uphold his radical ideology. Clinton, on the other hand, could tip the court, which could lead to an overruling of Heller, Zelman, Citizens United, and the court's recent block on the EPA's carbon emissions plan. Executive orders can be undone a lot easier than SCOTUS nominees.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

#teamcowboy

[byu71]

#teamcowboy

Cowboy has a lot of smarts and can express it. Yea, let call me an idiot, but would anyone dare call Cowboy one? I think not.

[BlueK]

The new manager is breitbarts ceo. Lol

I wonder if this guy really thinks Trump can win this way or if he just sees Trump as a vehicle for carrying his fascist views into the mainstream? Probably more of the latter.

[Maximus]

oh my..."maybe we should give them fake vaccinates"

[BlueK]

Interesting points in this piece on why the media treats Trump differently than any other past presidential candidate. It's really not a right vs. left thing.

"Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory," I wrote. "He pairs terrible ideas with an alarming temperament; he's a racist, a sexist, and a demagogue, but he's also a narcissist, a bully, and a dilettante. He lies so constantly and so fluently that it's hard to know if he even realizes he's lying."

After the piece published, I got a call from a very conservative Republican member of Congress. He wanted to talk about the article, his office said. I figured he’d be angry. Instead, he congratulated me for speaking out.

That member of Congress, by the way, has now endorsed Trump.

I think this is why the Washington Post, for instance, isn’t panicking over being banned from Trump’s events. If the Post believed the Republican Party had turned on it so sharply that it was now permanently blacklisted from doing even basic reporting on GOP campaigns, it would be an institutional crisis."

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/16/1248464...a-donald-trump

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Trump is building his Election Day fraud watcher army!

Trump recruiting 'election observers' to scout for fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...for-fraud.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[myboynoah]

Trump is building his Election Day fraud watcher army!

Trump recruiting 'election observers' to scout for fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...for-fraud.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good idea. Start with that focus group. A very sharp bunch.

[BlueK]

Trump is building his Election Day fraud watcher army!

Trump recruiting 'election observers' to scout for fraud
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...for-fraud.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger Stone, a longtime political consultant formerly on the Trump campaign, agrees with the nominee’s warning about the potential for a rigged election and implied the real problems might come if Clinton wins as a result of voter fraud.

“I think we have widespread voter fraud,” Stone said in a Breitbart News interview in late July. “I think he has to put [voters] on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical. And when I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath. The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in.”

Trump is trying to plant the idea out there that elections are fake and therefore let's trash the whole system. We've seen this before. Everything he does is right out of the 1930s fascist playbook.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Like you, I'm not voting for either candidate. Your criticism of Trump makes sense, and I appreciate your response. I guess as I look at it, my big concern is that Hillary is just as bad but hides it better. Trump would be a disaster for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread, but I fear Clinton would be equally bad, albeit in slightly different ways.

While Clinton may be more diplomatic, my concern is for our sovereignty. What makes you believe that Clinton won't follow Obama in ceding control of aspects of our economy to world leaders through agreements like Obama has tried to do with climate change agreements, internet control, etc.?

Trump would start a trade war that would seriously wound the economy, especially agriculture. On the other hand, Hillary seems bent on the economy killing regulations, particularly on fossil fuels, that have made this the worst recovery ever. If GDP had returned to trend line as it has after every other recession, and even the Depression, it would be around $2 trillion higher, and tax revenues would be $340 billion greater.

And Hillary has less hubris? "The rules don't apply to me, and when you ask me about it I pretend to laugh and shrug it off as a right-wing conspiracy." The only difference in my mind between the two candidates' hubris is one gets made and the other ignores. Neither listen. I'm also interested in your opinion that she's teachable and open to change - can you provide an example, because I haven't seen that.


You may believe that strongly, but to state it as fact and dismiss other opinions is where I disagree with your approach. I'm not defending Trump, just not in the 'Hillary isn't nearly as bad' camp.

Gun rights are a big one. Also, liberal judges have demonstrate a willingness to erode freedom of speech (Citizens United v. FEC), multiple aspects of property rights (most notably Kelo v. New London and Babbit v. Sweet Home), our choice regarding whether we should have to buy health insurance, and school choice (Zelman), in addition to siding with the EPA on economy killing carbon emissions rules that will have no noticeable effect on climate change.

These are judges who were vetted and ratified by the Senate, and most of the cases I mentioned were closely decided. There is no way Trump could 1) get a nominee with his radical views approved by a senate ruled by two parties who both dislike him, and 2) even if he were successful, place enough justices on the court to uphold his radical ideology. Clinton, on the other hand, could tip the court, which could lead to an overruling of Heller, Zelman, Citizens United, and the court's recent block on the EPA's carbon emissions plan. Executive orders can be undone a lot easier than SCOTUS nominees.

I was unaware that any living person supported Citizen's United other than the justices that voted for it. That is good to know.

[imanihonjin]

I was unaware that any living person supported Citizen's United other than the justices that voted for it. That is good to know.

Most people don't know shit about the actual legal arguments made in Citizen's United. People in America are dumb and don't know shit about shit, so who knows if they actually support Citizen's United or not...in fact most don't really care about legal arguments at all, if they believe that corporations shouldn't be able to spend money on political ads, then it doesn't really matter to them to make a legal argument that will withstand constitutional muster.