Trump isn't so bad, neither was P.T. Barnum I wouldn't want Barnum for president either. For pretty much for the same reasons I wouldn't want Trump. On the 19th hole a friend of mine did point out that at least as far as we know know nobody has died because of Donald's actions or inaction's, we can't say the same for Hillary. I am completely in favor of indicting Clinton and Trump and giving both parties a "do over"
Trump 2016 Or Hillary?
- Thread starter WhiteGuyintoThis
- Start date
Oh good grief, here we go again ... Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi .... what about the 11 or so US Embassies with 60+ Americans killed under GW?
In that case, shouldn't we then credit the 9-11 deaths (2,016 + city emergency service personnel) and the fabricated Iraq military deaths (5,000+) to GW Bush and THANK GOD Republicans lost the 2008 election or there would have been thousands more of our military dead and probably a couple more wars as well. Why didn't Cheney, Rumfeld and John Rendon go to prison for their fabrication of the Iraq War?
New data backs argument that Trump has not expanded the GOP
There is more evidence now casting doubt on Donald Trump’s claim that he is expanding the Republican Party.
Additional data from the GOP primary shows that increased turnout in several primary states was driven largely by already-active Republican voters who have historically skipped primaries and voted only in general elections.
Trump has boasted that he is drawing new voters to the political process and to the GOP. And the theory of how he might overcome the Democrats’ growing demographic advantage in key swing states where white voters are no longer dominant majorities rests on the assumption that nontraditional voters, many from the white working class, have been flocking to the polls for the first time in their lives in order to cast their votes for Trump.
Primary election statistics collected by Politico this week first cast doubt on that claim. And now new data – voter files combined with field polling from these states collected by a Republican data analysis firm that worked for the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. – lend more weight to the conclusion that Trump’s candidacy is not game-changing, or particularly well-positioned for the general election.
There is a significant caveat to all this, an unknown that can’t be measured. Even if Trump’s support has come from traditional Republican voters, is the fact that so many individuals who don’t usually vote in primaries did so predictive of a wave of entirely new voters who will come to the polls in November? It’s possible. The general election is a far bigger event than any one state’s primary, so participation is easier for voters who don’t follow politics as closely as those who vote in primaries.
And of course, the other significant question is whether likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton can turn out as many voters as President Obama did in 2008 and 2012. This, also, is a big hurdle.
What is clear is, the data so far do indicate that Trump has not yet significantly grown the Republican Party. There are small numbers of new voters who came to the polls this year, and in one state — New Hampshire — that might be enough to help Trump win. But in several other swing states — Virginia, Ohio and Michigan — if the Democrats can reassemble the Obama coalition, Trump’s new support is not enough to win.
In Virginia, there was a stunning turnout in the Republican primary on March 1. More than three times the number of primary voters in 2012 came to the polls, a total of 1,025,452.
Of that total, 18.6 percent, or 190,734, were regular primary voters. But they were swamped by voters who usually only participate in general elections. That group made up 72.1 percent of the Republican primary electorate in Virginia. Younger voters who weren’t eligible for previous elections and those who moved into the state made up 3.6 percent.
Only 5.7 percent of the more than 1 million primary voters were new voters. That’s a total of 58,450 new voters.
To put that in perspective, look at the 2012 general election. In 2012 in Virginia, President Obama defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney by almost 150,000 votes. Obama received 1,971,820 votes to Romney’s 1,822,522.
So if you add the nearly 60,000 votes to a Republican nominee, but the Democrat recreates Obama’s turnout — which, again, is not a sure thing — then the Republican is still 90,000 votes short.
And keep in mind that the Virginia primary was one of the most closely contested in the GOP race. Trump won the state, but with only one-third of the vote. He got 356,840 votes but Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson received a combined 657,080 votes.
Many of those Republican voters will turn out for Trump against Clinton even if they opposed him in the primary. But some number won’t.
To go further, Optimus looked at the results of almost 4,000 telephone surveys they did around the time of the primary. Using those responses, they built a model of the Virginia electorate, and found that of the 72 percent of voters who were new to the primary but usually voted in the general election, “the vast majority” were voters who were likely to support a Republican candidate already.
This confirmed that the “new” primary voters were almost all regular Republican voters who usually just cast ballots in a general election in the fall. They are not first-time voters or traditionally Democratic-leaning individuals who crossed over.
The same dynamic occurred when 0ptimus looked at Ohio. The Buckeye State saw 1,988,960 people come to the polls for the Republican primary this year, up from 1,213,879 in 2012 and 1,095,917 in 2008. Of those, some 53.6 percent were regular primary voters, and 36.8 percent were regular general election voters. Only 5.9 percent were new voters, yielding a total of roughly 118,000 votes.
Romney lost Ohio in 2012 by 166,000 votes, so while 118,000 new voters would get Trump closer to winning if Clinton maintains the Obama number, it wouldn’t get him over the top.
The same scenario played out in Michigan, where there were a lot of new voters this year, about 119,000. Even so, Romney lost that state in 2012 by 450,000 votes.
In New Hampshire, there were 37,000 new voters, and Romney only lost by 39,000 in 2012. That was the one state surveyed by 0ptimus where Trump’s primary election numbers indicated a better chance of winning there than Romney had in 2012. But flipping New Hampshire into the Republican column would not be nearly enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes required to secure the presidency.
The authors of the paper from 0ptimus concluded: “The increase in presidential primary turnout should give little comfort to the GOP as it looks ahead to November’s general election.”
as usual Trump is just blowing his own horn.... facts are... he sucks!
There is more evidence now casting doubt on Donald Trump’s claim that he is expanding the Republican Party.
Additional data from the GOP primary shows that increased turnout in several primary states was driven largely by already-active Republican voters who have historically skipped primaries and voted only in general elections.
Trump has boasted that he is drawing new voters to the political process and to the GOP. And the theory of how he might overcome the Democrats’ growing demographic advantage in key swing states where white voters are no longer dominant majorities rests on the assumption that nontraditional voters, many from the white working class, have been flocking to the polls for the first time in their lives in order to cast their votes for Trump.
Primary election statistics collected by Politico this week first cast doubt on that claim. And now new data – voter files combined with field polling from these states collected by a Republican data analysis firm that worked for the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. – lend more weight to the conclusion that Trump’s candidacy is not game-changing, or particularly well-positioned for the general election.
There is a significant caveat to all this, an unknown that can’t be measured. Even if Trump’s support has come from traditional Republican voters, is the fact that so many individuals who don’t usually vote in primaries did so predictive of a wave of entirely new voters who will come to the polls in November? It’s possible. The general election is a far bigger event than any one state’s primary, so participation is easier for voters who don’t follow politics as closely as those who vote in primaries.
And of course, the other significant question is whether likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton can turn out as many voters as President Obama did in 2008 and 2012. This, also, is a big hurdle.
What is clear is, the data so far do indicate that Trump has not yet significantly grown the Republican Party. There are small numbers of new voters who came to the polls this year, and in one state — New Hampshire — that might be enough to help Trump win. But in several other swing states — Virginia, Ohio and Michigan — if the Democrats can reassemble the Obama coalition, Trump’s new support is not enough to win.
In Virginia, there was a stunning turnout in the Republican primary on March 1. More than three times the number of primary voters in 2012 came to the polls, a total of 1,025,452.
Of that total, 18.6 percent, or 190,734, were regular primary voters. But they were swamped by voters who usually only participate in general elections. That group made up 72.1 percent of the Republican primary electorate in Virginia. Younger voters who weren’t eligible for previous elections and those who moved into the state made up 3.6 percent.
Only 5.7 percent of the more than 1 million primary voters were new voters. That’s a total of 58,450 new voters.
To put that in perspective, look at the 2012 general election. In 2012 in Virginia, President Obama defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney by almost 150,000 votes. Obama received 1,971,820 votes to Romney’s 1,822,522.
So if you add the nearly 60,000 votes to a Republican nominee, but the Democrat recreates Obama’s turnout — which, again, is not a sure thing — then the Republican is still 90,000 votes short.
And keep in mind that the Virginia primary was one of the most closely contested in the GOP race. Trump won the state, but with only one-third of the vote. He got 356,840 votes but Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson received a combined 657,080 votes.
Many of those Republican voters will turn out for Trump against Clinton even if they opposed him in the primary. But some number won’t.
To go further, Optimus looked at the results of almost 4,000 telephone surveys they did around the time of the primary. Using those responses, they built a model of the Virginia electorate, and found that of the 72 percent of voters who were new to the primary but usually voted in the general election, “the vast majority” were voters who were likely to support a Republican candidate already.
This confirmed that the “new” primary voters were almost all regular Republican voters who usually just cast ballots in a general election in the fall. They are not first-time voters or traditionally Democratic-leaning individuals who crossed over.
The same dynamic occurred when 0ptimus looked at Ohio. The Buckeye State saw 1,988,960 people come to the polls for the Republican primary this year, up from 1,213,879 in 2012 and 1,095,917 in 2008. Of those, some 53.6 percent were regular primary voters, and 36.8 percent were regular general election voters. Only 5.9 percent were new voters, yielding a total of roughly 118,000 votes.
Romney lost Ohio in 2012 by 166,000 votes, so while 118,000 new voters would get Trump closer to winning if Clinton maintains the Obama number, it wouldn’t get him over the top.
The same scenario played out in Michigan, where there were a lot of new voters this year, about 119,000. Even so, Romney lost that state in 2012 by 450,000 votes.
In New Hampshire, there were 37,000 new voters, and Romney only lost by 39,000 in 2012. That was the one state surveyed by 0ptimus where Trump’s primary election numbers indicated a better chance of winning there than Romney had in 2012. But flipping New Hampshire into the Republican column would not be nearly enough to win the 270 Electoral College votes required to secure the presidency.
The authors of the paper from 0ptimus concluded: “The increase in presidential primary turnout should give little comfort to the GOP as it looks ahead to November’s general election.”
as usual Trump is just blowing his own horn.... facts are... he sucks!
Why Donald Trump’s polling advantage may be a bit misleading
A slew of surveys have come out over the past few days, exploring the state of the presidential race and the extent to which Americans are fed up with the two options that are likely be on the ballot in November. But it's worth introducing a bit more context to the polling across the board.
The thing you really hate is Hillary Clinton, or, if you're a Clinton supporter, Donald Trump. The thing you hate slightly less is the candidate from your own party. (Yes, I know there are a lot of people who actually support the candidates from their own party. Just bear with me.) But that's why, in the Washington Post/ABC News poll released Sunday, more than 44 percent of the electorate says they would like a third-party option
Which option will be the preferred meal on Election Day, 2016? We know from our Post/ABC polling that a lot of people are making their selections for the reason stated above: They simply loathe the alternative. Here's how our Dan Balz and Scott Clement described voters' thinking:
Among those registered voters who say they favor Clinton, 48 percent say their vote is in support of the candidate while an identical percentage say their vote is mainly to oppose Trump. Among Trump’s backers, 44 percent say they are casting an affirmative vote for the Republican, while 53 percent say their motivation is to oppose Clinton.
As it stands, registered voters prefer Trump by a narrow two-point margin.
But that figure is probably a bit misleading. No one is actively running against Trump. Clinton is still being challenged by Bernie Sanders, whose vocal base of young voters continues to hope that he'll defy the odds between now and the convention. Republicans who were leaning against Trump while he was still battling for the nomination have, largely, fallen in line. Democrats who don't want to vote for Clinton haven't.
In 2008, the last time the Democrats had a contested nomination contest, Barack Obama led in head-to-head match-ups against John McCain for most of the year. There were two big exceptions: Right after the Republican convention — and right after McCain clinched his party's nomination. That happened in March, three months before the Democratic contest ended.
His spike was short-lived.
There are big differences between this year and 2008. One is that Post/ABC polling eight years ago consistently showed independent voters preferring Obama to McCain — even shortly after McCain clinched. In our most recent poll, independents prefer Trump by 13 points. There's overlap here with the point above, that Sanders backers haven't come around to Clinton yet.
But there's less incentive for them to do so than there was for Clinton supporters in 2008. The split was larger then, but it was also mostly Democrats. This year, much of Sanders's support has consistently come from self-identified independents — people who may feel less loyalty to the party than voters eight years ago did. In May 2008, 27 percent of registered voters who preferred Clinton said they would vote for McCain in Post/ABC polling. By October, that had fallen to 14 percent.
At the end of the day, Sanders supporters will have to pick from the same menu as everyone else. Our very limited history of such contests suggests that most will bite the bullet and pick the candidate they hate less. Once the Democratic contest formally ends, we'll see if that's the case — or if they simply go hungry.
A slew of surveys have come out over the past few days, exploring the state of the presidential race and the extent to which Americans are fed up with the two options that are likely be on the ballot in November. But it's worth introducing a bit more context to the polling across the board.
The thing you really hate is Hillary Clinton, or, if you're a Clinton supporter, Donald Trump. The thing you hate slightly less is the candidate from your own party. (Yes, I know there are a lot of people who actually support the candidates from their own party. Just bear with me.) But that's why, in the Washington Post/ABC News poll released Sunday, more than 44 percent of the electorate says they would like a third-party option
Which option will be the preferred meal on Election Day, 2016? We know from our Post/ABC polling that a lot of people are making their selections for the reason stated above: They simply loathe the alternative. Here's how our Dan Balz and Scott Clement described voters' thinking:
Among those registered voters who say they favor Clinton, 48 percent say their vote is in support of the candidate while an identical percentage say their vote is mainly to oppose Trump. Among Trump’s backers, 44 percent say they are casting an affirmative vote for the Republican, while 53 percent say their motivation is to oppose Clinton.
As it stands, registered voters prefer Trump by a narrow two-point margin.
But that figure is probably a bit misleading. No one is actively running against Trump. Clinton is still being challenged by Bernie Sanders, whose vocal base of young voters continues to hope that he'll defy the odds between now and the convention. Republicans who were leaning against Trump while he was still battling for the nomination have, largely, fallen in line. Democrats who don't want to vote for Clinton haven't.
In 2008, the last time the Democrats had a contested nomination contest, Barack Obama led in head-to-head match-ups against John McCain for most of the year. There were two big exceptions: Right after the Republican convention — and right after McCain clinched his party's nomination. That happened in March, three months before the Democratic contest ended.
His spike was short-lived.
There are big differences between this year and 2008. One is that Post/ABC polling eight years ago consistently showed independent voters preferring Obama to McCain — even shortly after McCain clinched. In our most recent poll, independents prefer Trump by 13 points. There's overlap here with the point above, that Sanders backers haven't come around to Clinton yet.
But there's less incentive for them to do so than there was for Clinton supporters in 2008. The split was larger then, but it was also mostly Democrats. This year, much of Sanders's support has consistently come from self-identified independents — people who may feel less loyalty to the party than voters eight years ago did. In May 2008, 27 percent of registered voters who preferred Clinton said they would vote for McCain in Post/ABC polling. By October, that had fallen to 14 percent.
At the end of the day, Sanders supporters will have to pick from the same menu as everyone else. Our very limited history of such contests suggests that most will bite the bullet and pick the candidate they hate less. Once the Democratic contest formally ends, we'll see if that's the case — or if they simply go hungry.
******* didn't post the graph.................
I think Trump seems to think we are all Trump University graduates!
HH probably.... but the rest of us are smarter than that!
Most of the events you mention were beyond the presidents control. You seem to be missing the point on Benghazi. Clinton and Obama could have likely contained the situation if they had acted promptly. This isn't just Republican drivel, it is a pretty common assessment of a number of intelligence services and agencies around the world. The she lied about and then resigned as Secretary of State. You like to rant about the Republicans not letting this go but despite all the inquiries and investigations all the pertinent communications still haven't been released not even in redacted for.
Mac I really wish you would do some real research, if your research ability matched your graphics skills I could get you a job that would likely pay you more than I ever made.
Let's do a little history
Key Dates: The First Gulf War
2 August 1990—Iraq invades Kuwait. Saddam Hussein proclaims Kuwait as a province of Iraq.
7 August 1990—Operation Desert Shield begins. The first US forces arrive in Saudi Arabia.
29 November 1990—UN authorizes any ******* necessary to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Iraqis are given to 15 January to leave Kuwait.
21 January 1991—Congress grants President George H.W. Bush the authority to use military *******.
15 January 1991—Deadline passes for Iraqi withdrawal.
16 January 1991—Air campaign begins against military leadership targets in Kuwait and Iraq (concentrating on Baghdad).
24 February 1991—Desert Storm begins as coalition ground forces drive on Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
28 February 1991—After 100 hours, Iraq agrees to a ceasefire. Iraqi forces have retreated from Kuwait. The United States (under the leadership of President George H.W. Bush, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell) is satisfied with U.N. objectives and does not push on to Baghdad. Within Iraq, Saddam brutally crushes Shi'ite and Kurdish opposition.
3 March 1991—Iraq accepts conditions for a permanent cease fire.
Key Dates: From the end of the First Gulf War to the beginning of the second
April 3, 1991—The Security Council passes Resolution 687, allowing Saddam to stay in power but demanding he destroy all weapons of mass destruction. Until he does, economic sanctions are to remain in place. Iraqi officials begin hiding weapons and data.
April 14, 1993—As former President Bush visits Kuwait, police arrest 14 people in a plot to assassinate the ex-President. President Clinton orders a retaliatory strike against Iraqi intelligence headquarters.
January. 26, 1998—After nearly seven years, Iraq has not disarmed and continues to obstruct the disarmament process. On this date, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others send an open letter to Clinton calling for him to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
August 5, 1998—Iraq suspends all cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. After four months of fruitless Security Council negotiations, Clinton orders four days of air strikes beginning December 16. Weapons inspectors do not return to Iraq. The U.S. shifts to a strategy of containing Saddam.
October 31, 1998—President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act.
December 2, 1999—In a New Hampshire primary debate, George W. Bush is asked about Saddam. Bush responds, "If I found out he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take him out." After taking office, Secretary of State Powell tries to develop "smart" U.N. sanctions.
September 15, 2001—President Bush signs a directive for the Afghan campaign and instructs the Pentagon to develop plans for a possible war in Iraq.
January 29, 2002—In his State of the Union speech, Bush calls Iraq, North Korea and Iran an "axis of evil" and says, "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather." In the next few months Bush will tell Condoleeza Rice to begin planning a strategy for Iraq, and General Tommy Franks begins giving monthly briefings to Bush on plans to topple Saddam.
June 1, 2002—Addressing graduates at West Point, Bush declares that America should be ready to use pre-emptive action against possible threats.
September 12, 2002—President Bush addresses the U.N. General Assembly and challenges it to hold Iraq to its promise to disarm. The following week the Administration discusses possible resolutions and stresses that Iraq will have "days and weeks, not months," to comply.
October 10, 2002—Congress authorizes Bush to use ******* against Iraq.
November 8, 2002—After two months of diplomacy and three proposals, the Security Council passes Resolution 1441 by a 15-to-0 vote. The first UNMOVIC teams arrive in Baghdad 17 days later. Iraq does not give inspectors full cooperation and refuses to acknowledge stockpiles of chemical weapons.
January 1, 2003—The first 25,000 U.S. troops start deploying to the Persian Gulf region.
January 19, 2003—Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector for the UN, carries a message to Saddam Hussein warning him of the "seriousness of the situation". Blix states, "Inspection is not a prelude, it is an alternative to war, and that is what we want to achieve." But, Blix, adds, “There has not been sufficient co-operation. They need to have a sincere and genuine co-operation."
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets around the world to show their support for the dictator of Iraq. This was not lost on Saddam. "They are supporting you because they know that evil-doers target Iraq to silence any dissenting voice to their evil and destructive policies," Saddam told senior military officers and his ******* Qusay, commander of Iraq's elite Republican Guards, Reuters reported.
January 20, 2003—One week before Hans Blix's first major report to the council, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin blindsides the United States at a U.N. press conference, saying France will oppose any move toward war.
February 5, 2003—In an address to the Security Council, Colin Powell presents the case for ******* against Saddam Hussein's regime. America's former allies are unmoved.
March 5, 2003—More than 200,000 U.S. troops, five carrier groups and 1,000 aircraft are in place or en route to the Middle East. France and Russia pledge to veto any resolution authorizing *******. Two days later, the British begin a final effort at diplomacy.
March 16, 2003—Bush, Blair and Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar convene for a summit in the Azores. They announce the next day will be the Security Council's last chance to act. The Council does nothing.
March 17, 2003—President Bush issues an ultimatum to Saddam, giving him 48 hours to leave the country or face war.
March 19, 2003—Cruise-missile and bomb salvos hit Baghdad an hour after the deadline passes. Operation Iraqi Freedom begins.
Te only reason the Second Gulf War happened was because Saddam Hussein refused to comply with multiple United Nations not United States resolutions. If he had at anytime between March 3, 1991 and March 17, 2003 he had complied with United Nations resolutions the second war would not have happened. Saddam Hussein did have WMD in the form of chemical and nerve agents. He also implied that he had nuclear capability (he didn't as far we know) One of the intelligence services I subscribed to and they generally were spot on in their knowledge felt there was a high probability that he might have a limited nuclear capability. Nothing deliverable by a missile but something that could be loaded onto a truck and delivered close to an enemy and detonated. This would have resulted in a ground burst and all the associated long term radiation problems that went with this type of event. So would you please quit the bullshit about the war that Bush and Cheney started started? Saddam Hussein rolled the dice one too many times and he lost. If Bush is to be faulted I see the following problems. (1)There was no exit strategy. This is not unique to the Gulf Wars. One of the problems with going to war is what do you do afterwards? This is rarely part of the equation(2)There was a poor understanding of the relationship between various Muslim sects. The majority of the population of Iraq are Shi'a Muslims which are a minority over all in the Muslim world. They were ruled by an Arab Sunni minority. The animosity between the Shi'a and the Sunni goes back to the beginnings of Islam. Then throw in for good measure the Kurds. Most are Sunni but they aren't Arab, then there a a population of Kurds that are Shi'a Feyli Muslims. The Kurds have been left swinging in the wind every since the British and French redrew the borders of the Ottoman Empire in, I believe, 1916. I have no doubt they see the turmoil in the Gulf region as a chance to get their own homeland.
Donald Trump reminds me of PT Barnum
Predicting elections is a lot like picking the next winner of the Superbowl on the first day of the season. What matters is who peaks at the right time. I recently read that Clinton is loosing ground in the polls to Trump. At this point it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is who is on top in November. Any baseball fans out there? Remember the 1969 Mets? It can happen in politics too.
If we are so damn smart then look at what we have elected over the last 40 years or so
Elizabeth Warren just absolutely shredded Donald Trump. There’s a lot more like this to come.
THE MORNING PLUM:
Early in the 2012 campaign, when top Democratic strategists were debating how to target Mitt Romney, they worked to hone their message about him down to a single, tight, pithy phrase. According to one senior Democrat in on the discussions, they finally settled on this:
“When people like him do well, people like you get screwed.” While this sentence never appeared in any Dem messaging, it functioned as a thematic guide, the senior Dem tells me.
Now Democrats are wrestling with how to deliver a similar message about Trump, while also dealing with a key strategic problem: In many ways, Trump is a very different kind of billionaire from Romney.
Elizabeth Warren delivered an extensive, blistering speech last night about Trump that will serve as a template for how Democrats will attack him — both in terms of how they’ll prosecute his business past and how they’ll try to undercut his central arguments about the economy.
The line that is driving all the attention this morning is Warren’s suggestion, in the context of Trump’s 2006 comment that a housing crash might enrich him, that the Donald is a “small, insecure money-grubber.” But Warren isn’t merely dissing Trump’s manhood. Warren — who went on to note that Trump “roots for people to get thrown out of their house” because he “doesn’t care who gets hurt, as long as he makes a profit” — is making a broader argument. Trump is not just a small, greedy person, but a cruel one, too.
That theme is also threaded through Warren’s broadside against Trump on taxes. He isn’t just paying as little as possible — and openly boasting about it — because he’s greedy. He isn’t just refusing to release his returns because he doesn’t want to reveal he’s not as rich as he claims (another shot at Trump’s self-inflated masculinity). All this, Warren suggests, also reflects a larger moral failing: Trump plays by his own set of rules, engorging himself, while simultaneously heaping explicit scorn on social investments designed to help those who are struggling in the same economy that made him rich. Warren notes that Trump recently likened paying his taxes to “throwing money down the drain” — i.e., he is reneging on the social contract — after “inheriting a fortune from his *******” and “keeping it going by scamming people.” Thus, Warren is making a broader argument about Trump’s fundamental cruelty.
One lingering question is what kind of affirmative argument Hillary Clinton will make in terms of how she’d be better than Trump on the economy. Trump argues that Clinton belongs to a corrupt elite that has screwed over working people for decades, with bad trade deals that sucked jobs out of the industrial Midwest and lax immigration policies that gave Americans’ livelihoods away to parasites and criminals. The system is failing those people, and he’d snap it over his knee and get it working again.
The Clinton response is to cast Trump as a sleazy fraud, to undercut his claims to economic prowess. But it’s also to lay out a programmatic economic agenda: A minimum wage hike; equal pay for women; paid family leave; expanded baby care; investments designed to boost American businesses’ ability to compete in a globalizing economy, rather than protectionism that would start destructive trade wars. (Warren laid out a similar slate of policy solutions in her speech’s conclusion.) Clinton strategist Joel Benenson has argued that policies designed to make a concrete difference in people’s lives actually can win the argument against the seemingly seductive, but ultimately empty, story Trump is telling.
It remains to be seen whether that will be enough as an affirmative argument for Clinton. But one thing is now clear: Democrats are honing an attack on Trump that is subtly different from the one on Romney. The challenge in both cases: How to drive home that the GOP nominee isn’t actually on your side. Romney was depicted as a plutocratic, aloof elitist and symbol of the rapacious cruelties of global capitalism: When he did well, people like you got screwed. Trump is not like Romney; he is adeptly posing as the Man in the Street’s Billionaire. But he is personally cruel and rapacious: He, and his presidential candidacy, are directly screwing you.
* RIGHT WING MEDIA FINALLY SEES WISH COME TRUE: With Donald Trump going hard at the Clintons over Bill’s sexual exploits, the New York Times reports that right wing media are gratified to see a candidate who is finally willing to get tough enough:
That the Republican Party has embraced someone willing to traffic in the most inflammatory of accusations comes as wish fulfillment for an element of the right that is convinced that the party lost the past two elections because its candidates were unwilling to attack President Obama forcefully enough.
These losses in national elections are always the fault of either the candidate’s refusal to traffic in the sleaziest of right wing attacks, or his insufficiently pure conservatism: It’s the fantasy that will never die.
* TRUMP INSULTS HILLARY AND ELIZABETH WARREN: Hillary Clinton has been slamming Trump for saying he sorted of wanted the housing crash to happen. Here’s Trump’s response, with a shot at Elizabeth Warren thrown in:
In his own defense, Trump called Clinton a “low life” for using a clip of his comments about the housing crisis in an ad. “I’m a businessman, that’s what I’m supposed to do,” Trump said at a rally in Albuquerque on Tuesday night. He also targeted Warren, calling her “Pocahontas” and accusing her of saying that she was Native American because “her cheekbones were high.”
Trump is “unpredictable” and “unconventional,” which means you should be terrified that these schoolyard insults will actually prove frighteningly potent and persuasive.
THE MORNING PLUM:
Early in the 2012 campaign, when top Democratic strategists were debating how to target Mitt Romney, they worked to hone their message about him down to a single, tight, pithy phrase. According to one senior Democrat in on the discussions, they finally settled on this:
“When people like him do well, people like you get screwed.” While this sentence never appeared in any Dem messaging, it functioned as a thematic guide, the senior Dem tells me.
Now Democrats are wrestling with how to deliver a similar message about Trump, while also dealing with a key strategic problem: In many ways, Trump is a very different kind of billionaire from Romney.
Elizabeth Warren delivered an extensive, blistering speech last night about Trump that will serve as a template for how Democrats will attack him — both in terms of how they’ll prosecute his business past and how they’ll try to undercut his central arguments about the economy.
The line that is driving all the attention this morning is Warren’s suggestion, in the context of Trump’s 2006 comment that a housing crash might enrich him, that the Donald is a “small, insecure money-grubber.” But Warren isn’t merely dissing Trump’s manhood. Warren — who went on to note that Trump “roots for people to get thrown out of their house” because he “doesn’t care who gets hurt, as long as he makes a profit” — is making a broader argument. Trump is not just a small, greedy person, but a cruel one, too.
That theme is also threaded through Warren’s broadside against Trump on taxes. He isn’t just paying as little as possible — and openly boasting about it — because he’s greedy. He isn’t just refusing to release his returns because he doesn’t want to reveal he’s not as rich as he claims (another shot at Trump’s self-inflated masculinity). All this, Warren suggests, also reflects a larger moral failing: Trump plays by his own set of rules, engorging himself, while simultaneously heaping explicit scorn on social investments designed to help those who are struggling in the same economy that made him rich. Warren notes that Trump recently likened paying his taxes to “throwing money down the drain” — i.e., he is reneging on the social contract — after “inheriting a fortune from his *******” and “keeping it going by scamming people.” Thus, Warren is making a broader argument about Trump’s fundamental cruelty.
One lingering question is what kind of affirmative argument Hillary Clinton will make in terms of how she’d be better than Trump on the economy. Trump argues that Clinton belongs to a corrupt elite that has screwed over working people for decades, with bad trade deals that sucked jobs out of the industrial Midwest and lax immigration policies that gave Americans’ livelihoods away to parasites and criminals. The system is failing those people, and he’d snap it over his knee and get it working again.
The Clinton response is to cast Trump as a sleazy fraud, to undercut his claims to economic prowess. But it’s also to lay out a programmatic economic agenda: A minimum wage hike; equal pay for women; paid family leave; expanded baby care; investments designed to boost American businesses’ ability to compete in a globalizing economy, rather than protectionism that would start destructive trade wars. (Warren laid out a similar slate of policy solutions in her speech’s conclusion.) Clinton strategist Joel Benenson has argued that policies designed to make a concrete difference in people’s lives actually can win the argument against the seemingly seductive, but ultimately empty, story Trump is telling.
It remains to be seen whether that will be enough as an affirmative argument for Clinton. But one thing is now clear: Democrats are honing an attack on Trump that is subtly different from the one on Romney. The challenge in both cases: How to drive home that the GOP nominee isn’t actually on your side. Romney was depicted as a plutocratic, aloof elitist and symbol of the rapacious cruelties of global capitalism: When he did well, people like you got screwed. Trump is not like Romney; he is adeptly posing as the Man in the Street’s Billionaire. But he is personally cruel and rapacious: He, and his presidential candidacy, are directly screwing you.
* RIGHT WING MEDIA FINALLY SEES WISH COME TRUE: With Donald Trump going hard at the Clintons over Bill’s sexual exploits, the New York Times reports that right wing media are gratified to see a candidate who is finally willing to get tough enough:
That the Republican Party has embraced someone willing to traffic in the most inflammatory of accusations comes as wish fulfillment for an element of the right that is convinced that the party lost the past two elections because its candidates were unwilling to attack President Obama forcefully enough.
These losses in national elections are always the fault of either the candidate’s refusal to traffic in the sleaziest of right wing attacks, or his insufficiently pure conservatism: It’s the fantasy that will never die.
* TRUMP INSULTS HILLARY AND ELIZABETH WARREN: Hillary Clinton has been slamming Trump for saying he sorted of wanted the housing crash to happen. Here’s Trump’s response, with a shot at Elizabeth Warren thrown in:
In his own defense, Trump called Clinton a “low life” for using a clip of his comments about the housing crisis in an ad. “I’m a businessman, that’s what I’m supposed to do,” Trump said at a rally in Albuquerque on Tuesday night. He also targeted Warren, calling her “Pocahontas” and accusing her of saying that she was Native American because “her cheekbones were high.”
Trump is “unpredictable” and “unconventional,” which means you should be terrified that these schoolyard insults will actually prove frighteningly potent and persuasive.
Donald Trump's attack on a Republican governor shows he can't be taken at his word
Perhaps Donald Trump should amend his claim to love “the Hispanics” to include the caveat “unless they don’t come to my rallies.”
On Tuesday, Trump trained his fire on another accomplished woman: New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, the first Latina governor in the United States. Martinez is not a Democrat, but a Republican. Up until this incident, she was mentioned as a possible running mate for Trump.
"We have to get your governor to get going — she’s got to do a better job, OK?" Trump said at his Tuesday rally from Martinez's home state. "Your governor has got to do a better job. ... She’s not doing the job. Hey, maybe I’ll run for governor of New Mexico — I’ll get this place going. She’s not doing the job. We got to get her moving. Come on. Let’s go, governor."
Why did Trump lash out? Because Martinez was unable to attend his campaign event in New Mexico last night. That is not the best way to unite a still fractured Republican Party. In fact, Trump’s antics are still dividing Republicans and proof that he cannot be presidential (despite his claims to the contrary).
A few days ago, Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, made it clear to Republicans that if they distanced themselves from Trump, they would not face any retribution. This was a smart move considering how toxic Trump is with every key demographic needed to win an election. Unfortunately, it seems that Donald Trump either did not get the memo or, even worse, he decided to ignore it. The message this sends to other Republicans should be chilling: Trump cannot be taken at his word.
Time and time again Trump has demonstrated an insanely thin skin and irrational need to seek vengeance against those who offend his inflated ego. His weapon of choice is some sort of insult delivered to a sympathetic audience. Further, when he has attacked women, he has done so by using their gender as an insult.
Last year, Trump insinuated that Megyn Kelly was menstruating because she had the temerity to ask him tough questions about his record and prior statements about women. He attacked fellow presidential candidate Carly Fiorina for being ugly. In March, Trump threatened to “spill the beans” about Heidi Cruz and retweeted an unflattering photograph of her. Why? Because a PAC that was against Trump and had nothing to do with Cruz ran a tiny digital ad against Trump in Utah.
Of course, his campaign and supporters will now defend Trump’s attack on Martinez. Perhaps they will say he was “being presidential” by only attacking her record. Whatever lame defense Trump’s mouthpieces offer, they are defending the indefensible.
As the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Trump has a duty to unite the party. Attacking Governor Martinez, the future of the GOP, is the exact opposite of that. No, Martinez did not say that she would not be voting for Trump in November. She just was unable to attend a Trump campaign event.
Is this presidential? No.
For quite some time, I and several others have warned Republicans that Donald Trump lacks the judgment and temperament required to be president of the United States. His lack of a core set of beliefs were a major red flag. Trump’s disdain for facts and actual policy were a major red flag. His praise of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un were a major red flag. How about when Trump openly admired the Chinese for using tanks to crush pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square? Another major red flag.
When it comes to actual policies that Trump would enact as president, he has provided few to no details. What he has offered would be disastrous for the economic and national security of the United States.
He often talks about how we are being “killed” on trade. The Trump solution? To impose massive tariffs on other countries. He dismisses the fact that doing so would destroy Americans financially and cause their cost of living to skyrocket. His immigration plan is to simply build a wall along the Mexican border (and make Mexico pay for it via tariffs).
Trump ignores the fact that 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter the country legally and overstay their visas. He has no plan to deal with that and should not be taken seriously on the issue of immigration.
For quite some time, I and several others have warned Republicans that Donald Trump lacks the judgment and temperament required to be president of the United States. His lack of a core set of beliefs were a major red flag. Trump’s disdain for facts and actual policy were a major red flag. His praise of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un were a major red flag. How about when Trump openly admired the Chinese for using tanks to crush pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square? Another major red flag.
When it comes to actual policies that Trump would enact as president, he has provided few to no details. What he has offered would be disastrous for the economic and national security of the United States.
He often talks about how we are being “killed” on trade. The Trump solution? To impose massive tariffs on other countries. He dismisses the fact that doing so would destroy Americans financially and cause their cost of living to skyrocket. His immigration plan is to simply build a wall along the Mexican border (and make Mexico pay for it via tariffs).
Trump ignores the fact that 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter the country legally and overstay their visas. He has no plan to deal with that and should not be taken seriously on the issue of immigration.
Trump’s approach to national security and foreign affairs would significantly weaken the United States. He has said that the US should outsource the fighting of ISIS to Russia. That is worse than President Obama’s plan to combat ISIS.
When it comes to other enemies, Trump has expressed a desire to meet directly with Kim Jong Un, which would directly reward North Korea’s development and testing of nuclear weapons. With Iran, Trump has repeatedly complained that the bad Iran deal made it so that the United States cannot sell arms to Iran. Why would we want to arm our enemy?!
Our allies are not treated as well by Trump. Just like the mob, Trump believes that they should pay us protection money. He ignores the strategic importance of partnerships and the mutual benefit of America being an influence in various regions. It boggles the mind and is far from a commander in chief.
Trump’s response to this criticism? It’s just “sore losers” attacking him. Wait until he unites Republicans to take on Hillary Clinton in November and America starts winning again.
At this time, our country is deeply divided. Whomever is elected president in November will confront the challenge of trying to bring us together. Trump’s attack on Governor Martinez clearly demonstrates that he is unable to be the unifier that America needs.
Perhaps Donald Trump should amend his claim to love “the Hispanics” to include the caveat “unless they don’t come to my rallies.”
On Tuesday, Trump trained his fire on another accomplished woman: New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, the first Latina governor in the United States. Martinez is not a Democrat, but a Republican. Up until this incident, she was mentioned as a possible running mate for Trump.
"We have to get your governor to get going — she’s got to do a better job, OK?" Trump said at his Tuesday rally from Martinez's home state. "Your governor has got to do a better job. ... She’s not doing the job. Hey, maybe I’ll run for governor of New Mexico — I’ll get this place going. She’s not doing the job. We got to get her moving. Come on. Let’s go, governor."
Why did Trump lash out? Because Martinez was unable to attend his campaign event in New Mexico last night. That is not the best way to unite a still fractured Republican Party. In fact, Trump’s antics are still dividing Republicans and proof that he cannot be presidential (despite his claims to the contrary).
A few days ago, Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, made it clear to Republicans that if they distanced themselves from Trump, they would not face any retribution. This was a smart move considering how toxic Trump is with every key demographic needed to win an election. Unfortunately, it seems that Donald Trump either did not get the memo or, even worse, he decided to ignore it. The message this sends to other Republicans should be chilling: Trump cannot be taken at his word.
Time and time again Trump has demonstrated an insanely thin skin and irrational need to seek vengeance against those who offend his inflated ego. His weapon of choice is some sort of insult delivered to a sympathetic audience. Further, when he has attacked women, he has done so by using their gender as an insult.
Last year, Trump insinuated that Megyn Kelly was menstruating because she had the temerity to ask him tough questions about his record and prior statements about women. He attacked fellow presidential candidate Carly Fiorina for being ugly. In March, Trump threatened to “spill the beans” about Heidi Cruz and retweeted an unflattering photograph of her. Why? Because a PAC that was against Trump and had nothing to do with Cruz ran a tiny digital ad against Trump in Utah.
Of course, his campaign and supporters will now defend Trump’s attack on Martinez. Perhaps they will say he was “being presidential” by only attacking her record. Whatever lame defense Trump’s mouthpieces offer, they are defending the indefensible.
As the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Trump has a duty to unite the party. Attacking Governor Martinez, the future of the GOP, is the exact opposite of that. No, Martinez did not say that she would not be voting for Trump in November. She just was unable to attend a Trump campaign event.
Is this presidential? No.
For quite some time, I and several others have warned Republicans that Donald Trump lacks the judgment and temperament required to be president of the United States. His lack of a core set of beliefs were a major red flag. Trump’s disdain for facts and actual policy were a major red flag. His praise of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un were a major red flag. How about when Trump openly admired the Chinese for using tanks to crush pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square? Another major red flag.
When it comes to actual policies that Trump would enact as president, he has provided few to no details. What he has offered would be disastrous for the economic and national security of the United States.
He often talks about how we are being “killed” on trade. The Trump solution? To impose massive tariffs on other countries. He dismisses the fact that doing so would destroy Americans financially and cause their cost of living to skyrocket. His immigration plan is to simply build a wall along the Mexican border (and make Mexico pay for it via tariffs).
Trump ignores the fact that 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter the country legally and overstay their visas. He has no plan to deal with that and should not be taken seriously on the issue of immigration.
For quite some time, I and several others have warned Republicans that Donald Trump lacks the judgment and temperament required to be president of the United States. His lack of a core set of beliefs were a major red flag. Trump’s disdain for facts and actual policy were a major red flag. His praise of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un were a major red flag. How about when Trump openly admired the Chinese for using tanks to crush pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square? Another major red flag.
When it comes to actual policies that Trump would enact as president, he has provided few to no details. What he has offered would be disastrous for the economic and national security of the United States.
He often talks about how we are being “killed” on trade. The Trump solution? To impose massive tariffs on other countries. He dismisses the fact that doing so would destroy Americans financially and cause their cost of living to skyrocket. His immigration plan is to simply build a wall along the Mexican border (and make Mexico pay for it via tariffs).
Trump ignores the fact that 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter the country legally and overstay their visas. He has no plan to deal with that and should not be taken seriously on the issue of immigration.
Trump’s approach to national security and foreign affairs would significantly weaken the United States. He has said that the US should outsource the fighting of ISIS to Russia. That is worse than President Obama’s plan to combat ISIS.
When it comes to other enemies, Trump has expressed a desire to meet directly with Kim Jong Un, which would directly reward North Korea’s development and testing of nuclear weapons. With Iran, Trump has repeatedly complained that the bad Iran deal made it so that the United States cannot sell arms to Iran. Why would we want to arm our enemy?!
Our allies are not treated as well by Trump. Just like the mob, Trump believes that they should pay us protection money. He ignores the strategic importance of partnerships and the mutual benefit of America being an influence in various regions. It boggles the mind and is far from a commander in chief.
Trump’s response to this criticism? It’s just “sore losers” attacking him. Wait until he unites Republicans to take on Hillary Clinton in November and America starts winning again.
At this time, our country is deeply divided. Whomever is elected president in November will confront the challenge of trying to bring us together. Trump’s attack on Governor Martinez clearly demonstrates that he is unable to be the unifier that America needs.
Obama: World leaders rightfully 'rattled' by Trump
SHIMA, Japan (AP) — President Barack Obama asserted Thursday that foreign leaders are "rattled" by Donald Trump and have good reason to feel that way, as he accused the presumptive Republican presidential nominee of ignorance about world affairs.
Weighing in on the Democratic race to replace him, Obama also downplayed concerns that the protracted fight between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is hurting his party's chances, brushing off their escalating attacks as the inevitable "grumpiness" of a primary campaign.
Obama's assessment of the presidential campaign came on the sidelines of a Group of Seven advanced economies summit in Japan, the latest world gathering to be colored by global concerns about Trump. Obama said foreign leaders at the conference are "surprised by the Republican nominee" and unsure how seriously to take his pronouncements.
"They are rattled by it — and for good reason," Obama said. "Because a lot of the proposals he has made display either ignorance of world affairs, or a cavalier attitude, or an interest in getting tweets and headlines."
He contrasted that to proposals that thoughtfully address what's required to keep the U.S. safe and prosperous and "to keep the world on an even keel."
In a news conference, Obama brushed off calls for Sanders and Clinton to move hurriedly to resolve the primary so that Democrats can unite behind one candidate, arguing that unlike the Republicans, this year's Democratic candidates aren't that ideologically divided. He likened the hard-fought campaign between Clinton and Sanders to the one he waged with Clinton in 2008.
"During primaries, people get a little grumpy with each other. Somebody's supporter pops off and there's a certain buildup of aggravation," Obama said. "Every little speed bump, conflict trash-talking that takes place is elevated."
He urged both Democratic candidates to "try to stick to the issues," adding that the grumpiness often stems from voters' frustration when the campaign instead becomes dominated by talk about "personalities and character."
SHIMA, Japan (AP) — President Barack Obama asserted Thursday that foreign leaders are "rattled" by Donald Trump and have good reason to feel that way, as he accused the presumptive Republican presidential nominee of ignorance about world affairs.
Weighing in on the Democratic race to replace him, Obama also downplayed concerns that the protracted fight between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is hurting his party's chances, brushing off their escalating attacks as the inevitable "grumpiness" of a primary campaign.
Obama's assessment of the presidential campaign came on the sidelines of a Group of Seven advanced economies summit in Japan, the latest world gathering to be colored by global concerns about Trump. Obama said foreign leaders at the conference are "surprised by the Republican nominee" and unsure how seriously to take his pronouncements.
"They are rattled by it — and for good reason," Obama said. "Because a lot of the proposals he has made display either ignorance of world affairs, or a cavalier attitude, or an interest in getting tweets and headlines."
He contrasted that to proposals that thoughtfully address what's required to keep the U.S. safe and prosperous and "to keep the world on an even keel."
In a news conference, Obama brushed off calls for Sanders and Clinton to move hurriedly to resolve the primary so that Democrats can unite behind one candidate, arguing that unlike the Republicans, this year's Democratic candidates aren't that ideologically divided. He likened the hard-fought campaign between Clinton and Sanders to the one he waged with Clinton in 2008.
"During primaries, people get a little grumpy with each other. Somebody's supporter pops off and there's a certain buildup of aggravation," Obama said. "Every little speed bump, conflict trash-talking that takes place is elevated."
He urged both Democratic candidates to "try to stick to the issues," adding that the grumpiness often stems from voters' frustration when the campaign instead becomes dominated by talk about "personalities and character."
I think the reason Ryan hasn't endorsed Trump.... he still has plans/ideas of his own... and hoping people will... "push" him into it... he likes being ******* while saying no
How do you figure? The most devisive presidential candidate in recent memory is trump. From his hedging on distancing himself from white supremacist to hedging with david duke a former grand wizard of thr KKK how is he multicultural or inclusive?
Torpedo donald trump has not been elected into a position that is life and death and to hear him speak about how america handles foreign affairs, if realized or he is to become commander and chief, i assure hillary and benghazi will be a footnote compared to president trump's avalanche of security threats he single handled created bc of the enemies he has created and the alliances he has forged.
I agree with the do over but the only problem is these candidates were democratically chosen. In my honest opinion I think every american that wants to vote ought to take civics course. Half if not most of the people who go to the polls don't even know who the speaker of house is, or how many house of representative, congressmen and women we have. Some dont even know how laws are made and yet they follow blindly with misinformation from political pundits who rely on the viewers ignorance. Its annoying and upsetting. The donald pheoneom wasnt an accident it flawlessly timed and calculated and it worked like magic bc americans are stupid.
Similar threads
