US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5304

On October 04 2016 04:31 Danglars wrote:

They finally found it. The actual over-the-top Trump supporter creation.

Next up: Ask Trump what he thinks about vigilantes executing Hillary.

On October 04 2016 04:32 Doodsmack wrote:


This mischaracterization of what Donald did had already been rebutted 5 or so times before your post. You could at least respond to the rebuttal, right?

On October 04 2016 04:48 ticklishmusic wrote:


Well he did make that second amendment comment...

There is a large swathe of white America which feels the society/ the government has utterly failed them (see P6's article yesterday). For many of them, it's true - the nation has moved on and kind of forgotten about them, they've fallen through gaps, or they've well and truly been screwed by someone who took advantage of the system to do so. And they don't get why we're worrying about LGBT people and all the rest.

I don't blame them for their anger, their frustration or their hate of Obama or others, and to a degree I understand where it comes from. Their blame is not wholly misplaced. Regardless, that does not make this sort of display acceptable.

Look at the Middle East or parts of Africa. It's a shithole, and people do terrible things. While those things remain terrible and unacceptable, you can see what gives rise to acts of terrorism and such. I don't wan't to make a false equivalence - actually blowing people up is far worse - but there are certain parallels b/w the behaviors of desperate people all around the world.

On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense.

On October 04 2016 04:58 Danglars wrote:

Rofl those are rebuttals? The entire news story is a farce on its face. Trump voters know what a billionaire playboy and beauty show host is likely to have done. But let's raise the debate to what you think passes for a rebuttal. Confess to thinking rape is less of a deal than unwelcome sexual remarks.

On October 04 2016 04:58 Danglars wrote:

Rofl those are rebuttals? The entire news story is a farce on its face. Trump voters know what a billionaire playboy and beauty show host is likely to have done. But let's raise the debate to what you think passes for a rebuttal. Confess to thinking rape is less of a deal than unwelcome sexual remarks.

On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:

You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it.

On October 04 2016 05:00 farvacola wrote:

No one seems to care about this.

On October 04 2016 05:17 Doodsmack wrote:


News stories tell us the extent of things a playboy/beauty show host running for president has done. Saying "I knew he probably did this" is not a response to an argument that says he shouldn't do it and it's part of a pattern in him. Nor is "Hillary's cover up of rape is worse than Donald's actual rape of his wife" an actual response.

Donald Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway will emerge from the 2016 campaign as a winner, regardless of the result on Election Day, thanks to her unique relationships with a succession of overlapping committees and mega-donors.

As Conway’s profile has soared during the 2016 campaign, her small Washington-based polling firm has collected nearly $1.9 million and counting in fees from federally registered political campaign committees — more than twice as much as in any prior election, according to a POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission filings.

Yet her firm’s work for Trump’s presidential campaign and a supportive super PAC that had previously backed Ted Cruz’s rival campaign for the GOP nomination has raised eyebrows among Republicans who have worked with the veteran pollster.
They suggest that her firm’s lucrative 2016 portfolio undermines Trump’s anti-big-money messaging, while raising questions about the depth of Conway’s loyalty to Trump, not to mention his campaign’s efforts to adhere to complicated election rules prohibiting coordination between super PACs and campaigns.

Conway told POLITICO that her firm, which is called The Polling Company, has “separate staffs” that worked on the campaign and super PAC accounts, and that “we have a firewall” between them. Additionally, she said “I have never been inside the PAC firewall and have done no work for this PAC.”

She did, however, serve as president of the PAC under its previous incarnation as a pro-Cruz vehicle called Keep the Promise I during the Texas senator’s bitter primary battle against Trump, but she said she "resigned in writing from KTPI [the pro-Cruz super PAC] in June, having previously expressed my intention to not manage the newly forming PAC."

While Conway, 49, has been a well-regarded player in GOP politics since the late 1980s, her work for Trump over the last few months has catapulted her into the national spotlight in a way experienced by only a tiny fraction of career political consultants.

Her journey to Trump’s inner circle was circuitous, but profitable.

It traced to some extent the path taken by the family of hedge fund tycoon Bob Mercer, a longtime Conway ally who has emerged as among the leading financiers of the anti-establishment right.

On October 04 2016 05:23 xDaunt wrote:

I don't think that any Trump voters are deluding themselves into thinking that the Donald hasn't done rails off of a supermodel's ass.

On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:

All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems.

On October 04 2016 05:34 Danglars wrote:

The argument wasn't the should/shouldn't, try again. He isn't running on the strength of his moral character nor is he hoping to be elected pope.

And maybe you should quote the whole post of mine if you're so poor at reading comprehension to think I was bringing up rape in respect to Donald. One highlight of a successful rebuttal is to show you've read and understood the original argument by your response. Don't immediately launch into mischaracterizing the framing and content of the post you're responding to. It will just confirm you intend to forge the controversy and not debate the topic.

On October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:
I disagree Trump is really much different in substance

On October 04 2016 05:41 KwarK wrote:
I am baffled by the willful belief in there being absolutely nothing sexist about Trump bringing young women onto a show in which he was supposed to mentor them into becoming professional businesswomen and then talking about which of them he'd like to fuck. Everything about it is slimy, from the position of power and seniority to the chasm between the respect they clearly deserve and the respect he gives them. Again, despite what everyone on the right seems to believe, context matters. Remarking on the ass of a stripper is not the same as remarking on the ass of an aspiring businesswoman you're mentoring.

It's not just a playboy commenting on a woman's ass.