• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

*2016 US Presidential Elections* - Candidates, Statistics, Campaign Timelines, Debates

Is Trump deliberately throwing the election to Clinton?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...s-trump-deliberately-throwing-the-election-to



I would like to thank the author for providing a bold highlighters wet drea m. One pass and BAM, done. No clumping, good even spread, just enough italics to keep one riveted. I say thee, Bravo good sir....indeed, Bravisimo. :clap:



So, if he is (a plant), would that make you happy? Would it make you happy to know the American public is being manipulated by overlords Learned Elders of Zion style?


If Trump loses (which would confirm in finality that our votes are worth absolutely nothing) I will have given up on America totally...
 

Mayhem

Banned
So, if he is (a plant), would that make you happy? Would it make you happy to know the American public is being manipulated by overlords Learned Elders of Zion style?


If Trump loses (which would confirm in finality that our votes are worth absolutely nothing) I will have given up on America totally...

That's an excellent question Scott. The first step to solving a problem is admitting one exists. "American public is being manipulated". Yes they are and I wish they'd stop. Stop letting cheap ass snake oil salemen like Bonespur and Hilldawg talk you out of voting for someone better.

Watch Outlaw Josie Wales again and see if you can spot Trump.

Kennedy v Nixon, Reagan v Carter, Reagan v Mondale, Clinton v Dole.... and now this. How dafuck did we get to this sad state of affairs? I don't blame "the system". I blame you...and your little dog too. No, I blame the American voter for allowing themselves to be conned. "Nothing is more important to democracy than a well informed electorate." Regardless of ideology, Party or belief system; can you keep a straight face while telling me our electorate is "well informed"?

Trump is going to lose, but not from a "rigged" system. He's going to lose because he will generate less votes than his opponent. As happens in Democracy.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Here is another video that - at the end - has a segment with various trustworthy poll data.

Take a look


The situation, looking at the chances and the probable outcome in the votes to be expected is very clear. Veryunclear is, if you consider the Trump campaign to be in it to try their best to swing things, what the hell they are doing. And Trump himself can't stop shooting himself in the foot with his ramblings and tweets.

I share the view, right now, that he accepted he won't win and just runs on to keep his face and pushes his "rigged" agenda hard for the fools.
 

Mayhem

Banned
It's 50/50 at this point in my opinion.

Fair enough. And Lord knows in this election, I wouldn't actually bet money on any part of it at this point.

My point is, I refuse to blame "the system." I acknowledge that there is one and that it is corrupt, self serving, etc. But fuck it, I still believe in the vote, and I believe we put ourselves in the positions we're in.....and then we blame someone else.
 

BCsSecretAlias

Closed Account
That's an excellent question Scott. The first step to solving a problem is admitting one exists. "American public is being manipulated". Yes they are and I wish they'd stop. Stop letting cheap ass snake oil salemen like Bonespur and Hilldawg talk you out of voting for someone better.

Watch Outlaw Josie Wales again and see if you can spot Trump.

Kennedy v Nixon, Reagan v Carter, Reagan v Mondale, Clinton v Dole.... and now this. How dafuck did we get to this sad state of affairs? I don't blame "the system". I blame you...and your little dog too. No, I blame the American voter for allowing themselves to be conned. "Nothing is more important to democracy than a well informed electorate." Regardless of ideology, Party or belief system; can you keep a straight face while telling me our electorate is "well informed"?

Trump is going to lose, but not from a "rigged" system. He's going to lose because he will generate less votes than his opponent. As happens in Democracy.

The United States is a representative republic, Pvt. Pyle. Not to mention that less votes can produce a winner. You're about as sharp as a bowling ball.
 
I was watching PBS' "American Experience" on Nixon and there are parallels between that 1968 race and the race in 2016. You had race riots in major American cities, you had anti-war protests over Vietnam, it was crazy. You had the Democrats split over the war and at the convention there were protests by the anti-war left that are very similar to the Sanders delegates at the 2016 DNC. You could easily run this ad from 1968 today in 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsmaZ0TNfrI
 

Mayhem

Banned
Donald Trump's battle with the press continues as he threatens to revoke newspaper's credentials

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...eswoman-says-it-was-1471118986-htmlstory.html

Donald Trump's battle with the media continued Saturday as the Republican presidential nominee threatened to revoke the press credentials of the New York Times.

Trump assailed the newspaper for what he alleged was dishonest reporting in a newly published story that cited both named and unnamed sources in showing him shunning the advice of top aides.

"Maybe we will start thinking about taking their press credentials away from them," Trump said. “Maybe we’ll do it. I think so. I think so.”

Trump has sought retaliation for other critical coverage by revoking credentials. Reporters from the Washington Post, Politico, BuzzFeed and elsewhere have been denied entry into his events.

The latest story portrayed Trump as poorly executing such campaign basics as fundraising and staying on message.

Even the location of his Saturday rally, Connecticut, had veteran political operatives questioning his strategy as he trails Hillary Clinton in several swing states.

Connecticut hasn't voted for a Republican since 1988, when it selected George H.W. Bush for president.

"Trump foolishly campaigning in Connecticut less than 100 days before the election is what Democratic dreams are made of," tweeted Dan Pfeiffer, a former aide to President Obama.

Yet Trump, even noting the uphill climb a Republican faces in the state, seemed undeterred.

"We’re making a big move for the state of Connecticut, just so you know,"
he told supporters. "Normally that wouldn't happen because a Republican, in theory, doesn't win Connecticut."
 

Mayhem

Banned
RNC considers cutting cash to Trump
GOP officials lay the groundwork to blame their nominee if Clinton wins


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-rnc-support-226987

Publicly, Republican Party officials continue to stand by Donald Trump. Privately, at the highest levels, party leaders have started talking about cutting off support to Trump in October and redirecting cash to saving endangered congressional majorities.

Since the Cleveland convention, top party officials have been quietly making the case to political journalists, donors and GOP operatives that the Republican National Committee has done more to help Trump than it did to support its 2012 nominee Mitt Romney and that, therefore, Trump has only himself and his campaign to blame for his precipitous slide in the polls, according to people who have spoken with Republican leadership.

Sean Spicer, the RNC’s top strategist, on Wednesday made that case to 14 political reporters he convened at the organization’s Capitol Hill headquarters for an off-the-record conversation about the election.
Reporters from POLITICO and BuzzFeed were not invited.
According to several people who attended, Spicer spent much of the session detailing all the RNC resources that have been deployed to swing states and how the party’s infrastructure is stronger than it has ever been.

In the words of one person in the room, the message was that the RNC has “all these staffers out there working and knocking on doors, with a data system they believe rivals what Obama build in 2012—so it’s not their fault.”
Spicer emphasized that RNC chairman Reince Priebus has been working aggressively to coach Trump into being a more disciplined candidate, calling the nominee “five or six times a day,” according to another person present at last week’s closed-door meeting.

According to sources close to Priebus, the chairman has warned that if Trump does not better heed this persistent advice to avoid dust-ups driven by his rhetoric, the RNC might not be able to help him as much – suggesting the money and ground resources might be diverted.

To this point, Spicer has suggested a mid-October deadline for turning the presidential campaign around, suggesting last week to reporters and in separate discussions with GOP operatives that it would cause serious concern inside the RNC if Trump were to remain in a weakened position by then.

Operatives close to the RNC leadership, who have heard this argument from party leadership, say the committee might have to make a decision about pulling the plug on Trump before that.

“Early voting in Ohio starts in a few weeks, there’s a 45-day window for absentee voters, so mid-September would probably be the latest the RNC could redeploy assets and have any real impact,” said an RNC member privately: “The only thing you could change in mid-October would be to shift some TV ads, maybe try to prop up Senate candidates in tough races like [Rob] Portman, [Marco] Rubio and [Pat] Toomey.”

One high-level Republican strategist added: “The party committee has this same job every cycle, to employ limited resources to maximum effect at the ballot box … And that means not pouring precious resources into dysfunctional, non-cooperative losing campaigns.”

Spicer, asked Saturday night about the ongoing discussions, told POLITICO Trump could not be cut off soon because the party needs him to raise more money. "When I've gotten these questions, I've been correcting the record. There is no talk of shifting resources in mid-August and it's unlikely that would happen until late September or October."
He also said the RNC did not view the current polling deficit suffered by Trump to be impossible to overcome.

But on Thursday, POLITICO revealed that more than 70 Republicans had signed a letter to Priebus, urging him to immediately cut off spending on Trump and to instead shift cash to saving the party’s congressional majorities.

Within the Trump campaign, there has been suspicion for months that the RNC already has not been as supportive of its nominee as it could — and should — be, according to operatives in and around the campaign.

“There's lingering doubt,” said one operative who has worked with the campaign. “It's never really improved much, and never for long.” The operative dismissed efforts to withhold RNC support from Trump as “only coming from the usual suspects — the same crap from the same Republicans who can't win elections.”
One Trump staffer dismissed the possibility that the RNC might cut off funding to Trump, while downplaying talk of tension between the entities. The staffer said he communicates with his party counterparts “multiple times a day and the interactions are 100 percent good.”

Other Trump allies in and around the campaign fear that the RNC could use Democrat Hillary Clinton’s widening lead in polls to justify pulling the plug on Trump before he has a chance to even the race.
RNC fundraisers have in fact been signaling to major donors a way that they could write huge checks to Trump’s joint fundraising committee with the RNC and dictate that only a fraction — if any — of the cash would go to Trump.

Spicer has said RNC fundraisers are not communicating this sentiment.
But one fundraiser with knowledge of the party’s high-dollar fundraising efforts said earlier this summer that the message to leery donors was “people can give to the RNC and not to him.”
Through the end of June — the period covered by the most recent Federal Election Commission filings — the main Trump-RNC joint fundraising committee had transferred only $2.2 million to Trump’s campaign, as compared to $10.1 million to the RNC.
To be sure, the committee, Trump Victory, still had $12.1 million in the bank at that point. And his campaign announced that it had combined with the joint committee to raise $80 million in July, though it’s unclear how much of that was transferred to his campaign versus the party.
Trump himself declared Thursday that he’s doing more to boost the RNC’s coffers than the campaign is doing for him, and warned that he might back out of the joint fundraising arrangement.
By Friday, though, Trump was praising Priebus for doing “such a great job. We’re friends. We work together. We work with a lot of other people and I have to say we have great unification. Now, every once in a while, you read about somebody that wants to be a rebel, they get a little free publicly for themselves.”

Priebus, Spicer and other RNC brass also projected a united front, with Priebus rejecting reports of discord by showing up at a Friday Trump rally in Erie, Pa. “Don’t believe the garbage you read,” Priebus said. “Let me tell you something: Donald Trump, the Republican Party, all of you, we’re gonna put him in the White House and save this country together.”

But the RNC’s frustration is at a boiling point after a week of deepening division between the organization’s political and communications staffs and their counterparts on the Trump campaign.

Beyond the candidate’s continued rhetorical carelessness on the stump, his campaign has confounded GOP officials with a travel schedule—more events have been announced in Colorado and Virginia, two swing states that appear to be out of reach, and even deep blue Connecticut—that many believe is a poor use of the candidate’s time.

“He has shown no interest in doing the tough demographic work that's necessary in campaigns,” one RNC member said. “You don't see them trying to talk to independent women, educated Hispanics; and beyond that, it's an issue of strategic staffing. I don't think he understands how presidential campaigns are won.”

“The senior staff gets it,” that RNC member said, “but the true believers outnumber them.”
After four years spent working toward winning back the White House, the RNC’s shift toward an endgame it didn’t envision—essentially deciding when to concede the White House to focus on saving the Senate and saving face—is a sign of resignation setting in.

On Wednesday evening as reporters were filing into the RNC’s conference room, Spicer, Chris Carr and Lindsey Walters were ready to begin the briefing but the attendees were focused on the flat screen TVs on the walls, which were tuned to CNN’s live coverage of an unknown individual, later determined to be a Trump supporter from Virginia, climbing up the glass exterior of Trump Tower with suction cups.

Even in the belly of the RNC, there was no escaping the near constant distractions of Trump.

This my fave line out of the article:
“You don't see them trying to talk to independent women, educated Hispanics
Well OK, so maybe he is a Republican. :rofl2:
 

GodsEmbryo

Closed Account
Is this staged or are these "real people"? If the latter, I'm speechless.

Considering the amount of camera people (it's hand held because the image wobbles a little) and angles shooting from (from within the room; when it's shot from outside there are no camera people present within the room) I'm going to assume it's staged. I really do hope I'm right, people can't be that stupid

If not I suggest you to get on a porter pottie and migrate to Mexico
 


:picardfacepalm:


I hate it when Democrats prove they can be just as stupid as Republicans...
 
When Trump is not making stupid comments, you can always count on his staffers to do the job...


Obama took the US to Afghanistan, not Bush...

Also when he said that in 2006, Al Qaeda morphed into ISIS, she acknoleges this. But in 2006, Bush was the President, not Obama. In 2006, Obama was a US Senator fom Illinois. How could a US Senator from Illinois be the founder of ISIS ?

Here's the real story :
By 2007, US medias correspondents in Iraq and US intelligence there were aware that something was wrong there, that jihadis were on the march, attacking helpless civilians far from Baghdad, gathering forces in order toi strike hard when they'd be ready. And the US did nothing...
In 2008, ISIS had an internal crisis, it almost colapsed. Obama had promised he would withdraw from Iraq so he did what he had told he would do, otherwise the American people would have called him a liar. Then, outside of US sight, ISIS grew, solowly, silently, and when it had grown big enough, it striked, hard on the fragile Iraq state and the mess that was Syria.

I don't know who founded ISIS, most probably a bunch high-ranked jihadis. But the Bush administration could have killed the monster while it was still hatching...
 

Mayhem

Banned
:picardfacepalm:


I hate it when Democrats prove they can be just as stupid as Republicans...

I didn't watch because the title was all it took. But yes, plenty of stoopid to go around (as always). Especially since no one can really do anything to Trump that he's not doing to himself ever more effectively.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Trump’s Self-Reckoning
The GOP nominee and his supporters face a moment of truth.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-self-reckoning-1471213081

Donald Trump lashed out at the media on Sunday after more stories describing dysfunction inside his presidential campaign. “If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn’t put false meaning into the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20%,” Mr. Trump averred on Twitter.
Mr. Trump is right that most of the media want him to lose, but then that was also true of George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. It’s true of every Republican presidential nominee. The difference is that Mr. Trump has made it so easy for the media and his opponents.

The latest stories comport with what we also hear from sources close to the Trump campaign. Mr. Trump’s advisers and his family want the candidate to deliver a consistent message making the case for change. They’d like him to be disciplined. They want him to focus on growing the economy and raising incomes and fighting terrorism.

They think he should make the election a referendum on Hillary Clinton, not on himself. And they’d like him to spend a little time each day—a half hour even—studying the issues he’ll need to understand if he becomes President.

Is that so hard? Apparently so. Mr. Trump prefers to watch the cable shows rather than read a briefing paper. He thinks the same shoot-from-the-lip style that won over a plurality of GOP primary voters can persuade other Republicans and independents who worry if he has the temperament to be Commander in Chief.


He also thinks the crowds at his campaign rallies are a substitute for the lack of a field organization and digital turnout strategy. And he thinks that Twitter and social media can make up for being outspent $100 million to zero in battleground states.

By now it should be obvious that none of this is working. It’s obvious to many of his advisers, who are the sources for the news stories about dysfunction. They may be covering for themselves, but this is what happens in failing campaigns. The difference is that the recriminations typically start in October, not mid-August.

These stories are appearing now because the polls show that Mr. Trump is on the path to losing a winnable race. He is now losing in every key battleground state, some like New Hampshire by double digits. The Midwest industrial states he claimed he would put into play—Wisconsin, Pennsylvania—have turned sharply toward Mrs. Clinton.

More ominously, states won by John McCain and Mitt Romney are much closer than they should be. If Mr. Trump is fighting to hold Georgia, Arizona and even Utah by September, a landslide defeat becomes all too possible.

The tragedy is that this is happening in a year when Republicans should win. The political scientist Alan Abramowitz has spent years developing his “time for a change” forecasting model. The model looks at the rate of GDP growth in the second quarter of an election year (1.2% this year), the incumbent President’s approval rating, and the electorate’s desire for change after one party has held the White House for eight years.

No model is perfect, but Mr. Abramowitz’s has predicted the winner of the major-party popular vote in every presidential election since 1988. His model predicts that Mr. Trump should win a narrow victory with 51.4%. A mainstream GOP candidate who runs a reasonably competent campaign would have about a 66% chance of victory.

Mr. Trump has alienated his party and he isn’t running a competent campaign. Mrs. Clinton is the second most unpopular presidential nominee in historyafter Mr. Trump. But rather than reassure voters and try to repair his image, the New Yorker has spent the last three weeks giving his critics more ammunition.

Even with more than 80 days left, Mr. Trump’s window for a turnaround is closing. The “Trump pivot” always seemed implausible given his lifelong instincts and habits, but Mr. Trump promised Republicans. “At some point I’ll be so presidential that you people will be so bored, and I’ll come back as a presidential person, and instead of 10,000 people I’ll have about 150 people and they’ll say, boy, he really looks presidential,” he said in April.

Those who sold Mr. Trump to GOP voters as the man who could defeat Hillary Clinton now face a moment of truth. Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Paul Manafort and the talk-radio right told Republicans their man could rise to the occasion.

If they can’t get Mr. Trump to change his act by Labor Day, the GOP will have no choice but to write off the nominee as hopeless and focus on salvaging the Senate and House and other down-ballot races. As for Mr. Trump, he needs to stop blaming everyone else and decide if he wants to behave like someone who wants to be President—or turn the nomination over to Mike Pence.
 
Jill Stein on CNN today:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/15/politics/stein-hits-clinton-on-emails/index.html

(CNN)Green Party candidate Jill Stein attacked Hillary Clinton on Monday for her use of a private email server as Secretary of State, amid reports that notes from Clinton's interview with the FBI during its probe of the matter would be turned over soon to Congress.
Declining to say whether she thought Clinton should have faced criminal charges from the FBI after its probe, Stein said that the issue "raises real questions about her competency."

"I think there should have been a full investigation. I think the American people are owed an explanation for what happened, and why top secret information was put at risk, why the identity of secret agents were potentially put at risk," Stein told CNN's Carol Costello.

Asked if she thought Clinton should have faced criminal charges based on the FBI's investigation, Stein would only say that "that's a matter that deserves public discussion."

She continued, "There is much more that is coming to public attention about Hillary Clinton's behavior, including the recent revelations about favors bestowed on the Clinton Foundation's donors who got special deals, who got state partnerships."

Stein will have the opportunity to continue to make her case against Clinton and the other presidential candidates at a CNN-hosted Green Party Town Hall event on Wednesday at 9:00 p.m.

The Green Party presidential hopeful also said she agreed with calls for another investigation of Clinton's email server use, this time by an oversight committee from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

"We're talking about state secrets and these are the highest level of state secrets that were put at risk, when it is known that the protections for her e-mail were extremely inadequate," Stein said. "In fact, orders were being issued from her office to others in the Secretary of State Department to do the exact opposite of what she was doing. So certainly, you know, if she wasn't aware that she was violating State Department rules, it raises real issues about her competency."
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Stein's remarks.

I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum as far as politics go, but I like her.
 

Mayhem

Banned
The Green Party presidential hopeful also said she agreed with calls for another investigation of Clinton's email server use, this time by an oversight committee from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

This is where I draw the line and, believe it or not, I would draw it in the other direction too. They've investigated her. Just like Benghazi. Right, wrong or indifferent, if you couldn't cuff 'em in the first 2-3 tries, fuck it, time to move on. And I would, in fact, say the same thing toward a Republican who has been "probed" this much.

And just like Benghazi, you can't keep frittering away guvmint time and taxpayer money because you didn't like the way the last investigation turned out. :nono:
 
Top