Quote :

"Obviously it's not easy for a businessman running for president, who didn't go to law school."

poor guy

good point shoot!

7/6/2016 11:08:53 AM

trump doubling down on saddam hussein was a good guy bit tonight in cincy in addition to saying the meme his campaign sourced from white supremacists shouldn't have been taken down. mix in some dog whistles about walking around in DC or Baltimore and that's a triple play right there.

7/6/2016 7:18:54 PM

Such a bizarre rally.

He has the attention span of a puppy. Just all over the place.

7/6/2016 7:30:53 PM

Quote :

"saying the meme his campaign sourced from white supremacists shouldn't have been taken down."

That's fucking hilarious. Someone post the quote.

[Edited on July 6, 2016 at 10:21 PM. Reason : wait when was he going to starting acting like a general candidate again? long promised, yet to be seen...]

7/6/2016 10:20:36 PM

Ivanka Trump as VP

7/7/2016 2:16:20 PM

this dude is mental as fuck

today he implied that he might not even accept the office if he won the election

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/politics/donald-trump-president.html?_r=0

also promised to defend article 12 of the constitution

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 2:45:32 PM

but has he lied about it to the american people? to congress? to the fbi?

7/7/2016 7:18:07 PM

He's lied to the American people on a daily basis.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 8:15 PM. Reason : Also you're the worst with trying to run out false equivalencies on the regular]

7/7/2016 8:14:50 PM

That's a mighty big assumption you are making thinking I'm for Trump.

And with that your argument breaks down.

There is no equivalency between how Trump has lied vs how Clinton has lied.

They have both lied.

7/7/2016 9:33:55 PM

The difference is that Trump's lies didnt cause soldiers in Benghazi to die.

7/7/2016 9:36:28 PM

what lie caused those deaths in Libya?

7/7/2016 9:38:28 PM

^^^ I didn't say you did support Trump but this thread is about him. I find it bizarre that you keep bringing Clinton stuff to a Trump thread if you don't support him though.

7/7/2016 9:54:27 PM

^^Really, I dont know because I dont follow politics much. Its just fun to troll those who pathetically support any of these candidates. But I did see this from a quick google search.

7/7/2016 9:56:58 PM

so you get your info from terrible memes you find during a Google search?

7/7/2016 10:00:26 PM

Is that the Gowdy report?

7/7/2016 11:06:01 PM

Quote :

"That's a mighty big assumption you are making thinking I'm for Trump. And with that your argument breaks down."

Except he didn't say anything about you being "for Trump"

Words are hard, eh?

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 11:47 PM. Reason : I'm going to assume there is no substance to back up that stupid meme, because if there was, Chaffetz's hearings woulda been more successful]

7/7/2016 11:45:23 PM

Peacemaking Goes Awry as Donald Trump Lashes Out at G.O.P. Senators

Quote :

"Mr. Flake, of Arizona, told him that he wanted to support Mr. Trump, but could not because of Mr. Trump’s statements about Mexican-Americans and attacks on a federal judge over his Hispanic descent. Mr. Trump responded by saying that he had been going easy on Mr. Flake so far, but that he would ensure that Mr. Flake lost his re-election bid this year if the senator did not change his tune. Dumbstruck, Mr. Flake informed Mr. Trump that he was not up for re-election this year. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0

I guess Trump thinks he can go it alone for the campaign?


Going to paste the full article in case someone has burned their free views:

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — A peacemaking summit meeting between Republican lawmakers and their renegade presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, descended on Thursday into an extraordinary series of acrid exchanges, punctuated by Mr. Trump’s threatening one Republican senator and deriding another as a “loser.” Mr. Trump arrived in the capital with hopes of courting skeptical House and Senate Republicans and mending his relationship with Senator Ted Cruz, his former rival for the nomination, in a blitz of face-to-face meetings. But the friendly atmosphere turned fraught when Mr. Trump lashed out in the face of direct criticism. The tension reflects the lingering fissures in a Republican Party that continues to grapple with Mr. Trump as its standard-bearer, and underscores Mr. Trump’s limitations when it comes to unifying the party and moving beyond political grudges. He has disappointed some members of the party who have hoped his campaign would become more disciplined, but instead have seen him dwell on and even repeat his own missteps rather than maintaining a focused offensive against Hillary Clinton. His private meeting Thursday with 41 Senate Republicans, including some who have publicly criticized him repeatedly, grew acidly contentious, according to multiple lawmakers and other people present who insisted on anonymity to candidly recount the proceedings. Continue reading the main story Mr. Trump at one point jabbed at Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who has openly called for a third-party candidate to thwart Mr. Trump’s chances, asking Mr. Sasse rhetorically if he preferred to have Mrs. Clinton as president. Mr. Sasse did not respond in kind — but Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona did. Mr. Flake, of Arizona, told him that he wanted to support Mr. Trump, but could not because of Mr. Trump’s statements about Mexican-Americans and attacks on a federal judge over his Hispanic descent. Mr. Trump responded by saying that he had been going easy on Mr. Flake so far, but that he would ensure that Mr. Flake lost his re-election bid this year if the senator did not change his tune. Dumbstruck, Mr. Flake informed Mr. Trump that he was not up for re-election this year. (After the meeting, Mr. Sasse said through a spokesman that he still believed that, “with these two candidates, this election remains a Dumpster fire.”) Mr. Trump even aimed vitriol at a senator who did not show up, according to people who attended the meeting: Senator Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, who recently withdrew his support for Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump called Mr. Kirk “dishonest” and a “loser” and suggested that Mr. Kirk really wanted to support Mr. Trump but was refusing to for political reasons, the attendees said. Mr. Kirk is among the most embattled incumbent Republican senators seeking re-election in November. Sen. Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, spoke to reporters as he left a meeting with Donald J. Trump. Zach Gibson/Getty Images Two aides to Mr. Trump, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the meeting, insisted Mr. Trump never used the word “loser” and that Mr. Trump never threatened to harm Mr. Flake’s electoral chances. Yet Mike Huckabee, a top supporter of Mr. Trump’s, issued an even broader threat on Fox News, saying that should Mr. Trump win the White House, “When Jeff Flake needs something for Arizona, he ain’t going to get it.” Continue reading the main story In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Kirk shot back at Mr. Trump, calling him an “Eastern, privileged, wealthy bully.” “Our bullies are made of better stuff in Illinois,” he said. “We’re much more practical and polite.” Despite the tense exchanges, Mr. Trump’s visit was not for naught. He met and managed to reach an accommodation with Mr. Cruz, whom he had not seen since their ugly nomination battle ended in name-calling and personal insults in early May. The two were joined by Mr. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, along with Mr. Cruz’s aides and Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman. While there was no talk of an endorsement yet, Mr. Trump invited Mr. Cruz to speak at the party’s national convention in Cleveland and, according to Mr. Cruz’s spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, Mr. Cruz accepted. Mr. Cruz also agreed to counsel Mr. Trump on future judicial nominations, Ms. Frazier said. A senior aide to Mr. Trump said that as part of an agreement to give Mr. Cruz a prominent speaking slot, Mr. Cruz would not disrupt the proceedings of the nomination and the campaign would be able to review the speech before it is delivered. Some senators who attended the meeting said that it was largely cordial and thoughtful and played down Mr. Trump’s occasionally gruff tone. “He didn’t defeat 16 opponents by parroting Republican establishment talking points,” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, one of Mr. Trump’s most stalwart supporters. Continue reading the main story The broader meeting with Republican senators followed a more upbeat session with more than 200 Republican House members at the Capitol Hill Club. According to two lawmakers in attendance, the conversation was fairly subdued and focused on border security, the need to protect the Second Amendment and the high costs associated with the Affordable Care Act, the health law that Mr. Trump wants to repeal and replace. Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, speaking to reporters last month, recently withdrew his support for Mr. Trump. He was not at Thursday’s meeting with the candidate. Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times Mr. Trump also insisted that he could be trusted to pick conservative judges for the Supreme Court, thanks to the advice of the Heritage Foundation’s Jim DeMint, and warned about the fate of the bench in the hands of Hillary Clinton, the lawmakers said. As he did in a speech in Cincinnati on Wednesday, Mr. Trump complained about the tough news coverage he has faced, particularly reports of his saying that he admired Saddam Hussein, and he bragged of his impressive performance in the primary elections. Despite the recent protectionist tenor of his campaign, Mr. Trump insisted that he was a devoted free trader and that he wanted to renegotiate deals with other countries so that they favor the United States. Although the House members did not confront Mr. Trump about his policies, one did ask him how he could help the party maintain control of the Senate and the House, suggesting some concern about Republican losses in the House in the November elections. Representative John Mica, Republican of Florida, emerged from the meeting saying Mr. Trump had been greeted favorably by House Republicans, who gave him “two or three” standing ovations while he was present. Speaker Paul D. Ryan said the meeting was “great” during his weekly news conference and declined to discuss the controversy over Mr. Trump’s recent Twitter post of a Star of David shape in an image suggesting that Mrs. Clinton is corrupt. There were also signs of skepticism. Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, said he could sense some hesitation in the room, his own included. Mr. Kinzinger, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Mr. Trump’s recent remarks about Saddam Hussein were not helpful. Continue reading the main story “I’m not a Never Trump guy, I’m a Republican — I want to support him,” he said. “But things like saying the Saddam Hussein comment are not helping me to get there.” Resistance to Mr. Trump was also on display outside of the meetings. As the meeting with House Republicans was going on during a sweltering summer morning, a small cadre of protesters chanted “Dump Donald Trump!” from across the street. They waved signs with enlarged images of several lawmakers edited to wear Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” caps. Among the photos, labeled the “Party of Trump” by the demonstrators, were Senators Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Rob Portman of Ohio — vulnerable Republicans facing tough re-election fights who have been cautious about being tied too closely to their party’s polarizing presidential nominee. Asked if Republicans were becoming frustrated with Mr. Trump’s meetings and speeches ending in controversy despite venues that should be friendly, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee paused and looked at the sky. “They end up being memorable,” he said."

[Edited on July 8, 2016 at 1:22 AM. Reason : ]

7/8/2016 1:21:25 AM

Trump's not in it for the long haul.

7/8/2016 1:33:32 AM

Best quote from above:

Quote :

"Mr. Sasse said through a spokesman that he still believed that, “with these two candidates, this election remains a Dumpster fire.”"

7/8/2016 11:48:40 AM

they're going to replace him

7/8/2016 12:04:33 PM

How.

With who?

7/8/2016 12:07:26 PM

the rules committee can do a lot of things

7/8/2016 12:21:35 PM

see:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7337/exclusive-dump-trump-rnc-delegate-leader-we-have-daily-wire

Quote :

"Over the weekend, The Daily Wire had the opportunity to speak with Kendal Unruh, a member of the Colorado Republican delegation to the Republican National Convention. Unruh is also a member of the Rules Committee at the RNC, and a leading advocate for a vote that would unbind the delegates from the candidates to which their state primaries are pledged. Unruh explained that "28 committee members are required to pass a minority report, which then goes to the convention floor for all delegates to vote on. It then requires a simple majority to pass." She added that she does "have the 28 votes required for the minority report," continuing, "Not everyone who is with us is willing to be public yet, due in part to the threats being made by Trump's campaign and the RNC itself." Unruh added that the role of a responsible delegate required unbinding the delegates: It is the duty of the delegates to represent the best interests of their states and to select a Republican candidate who actually represents our party and who can beat Hillary in November. That's not Donald Trump. We don't live in a straight democracy, where majority rule has the absolute say. We have a measured, representative form of government that allows time for discussion, fact-finding, and wisdom before our elected representatives make the final decision. Many new facts have come out since the early primaries that should disqualify Trump, and the delegates have historically always been the final stop-gate through which our party's nominee must pass. Trump didn't even get the vote of a majority of Republicans, and over 50% agree that he should not be our nominee. In fact, he would be the first Republican nominee to receive the nomination with more votes cast against him in the primaries than for him. Unruh urged Republicans who want to dump Trump at the convention to "call and email the rules committee members from their state"; she pledged to coordinate efforts through Delegates Unbound, an organizating group available at delegatesunbound.com and on Facebook by clicking here. Unruh stated that should the delegates be unbound, Trump is likely to lose the nomination: "An internal survey conducted by RNC member Randy Evans (Georgia), who is trying to help Trump lock up the nomination, told the Wall Street Journal that only 890 delegates are personally loyal to Trump. Evans claims 680 are known to be opposed to Trump, and he says that 900 delegates are 'in play.' So, no, Trump certainly does not have this locked up - particularly if delegates are allowed to vote their consciences." Unruh further said that enthusiasm for the Dump Trump movement was "growing...Every day, we get traction on our social media accounts. We are contacted by delegates and by citizens who want to help. We hear from Republicans who believe that the freedom of conscience is a constitutional right that we must hold dear and protect in this society that strays ever further from the Constitution and our founding ideals. The enthusiasm is also growing because Donald Trump continues to prove that he is not a serious candidate with a serious organization, a serious on-the-ground campaign, or serious responses to the issues Republicans and Americans care about. People see that the Republican nominee should have no trouble beating Hillary - the most corrupt politician to run for president in history - and yet Trump is getting trounced." Here was Unruh's explanation of her personal opposition to Trump: Simply put, he doesn't represent our party and he can't win in November. Not only do the moral objections to his candidacy run deep, but his positions are also absolutely untrustworthy. He speaks by the seat of his pants and floats ideas out into thin air only to retract them the next day when they are ill-received. Republicans deserve a candidate who is grounded - in morals, in policy, and in constitutional truths. It's not that Trump isn't our preferred candidate or that we're sore losers because our guy didn't win. Donald Trump has only - conveniently - become a Republican in recent years, and even after switching his registration, he's continued his personal donations to corrupt, liberal Democrats. How can he run against Hillary when he's funded her? When he spoke to Bill Clinton on the phone prior to announcing his candidacy? Trump can't win against Hillary in November because people don't trust him either. The American citizens will continue to catch on to the fact that Trump is an entertainer who knows how to tickle ears and elicit enthusiasm. But ear-bait quickly turns into into insanity, as we've already seen, and Trump is already losing so badly to Hillary that it would be nearly impossible for him to recover by November. The delegates need to be free to choose a different nominee so that we can win in November and set the Supreme Court on the right side of the future. The Rules Committee is scheduled to meet next week. "

7/10/2016 6:26:25 PM

Schenagins are probably already planned. Trump gets to launch his new TV network on a a yugggge stage and the GOP gets en electable canidate.

7/10/2016 7:02:31 PM

^^LOL! No republican has a chance against Hillary. Over half of our country votes liberal. Most people have picked a side and will stand by that side no matter what. Plus if Trump who won the vote doesn't get the nomination handed to him I think it could spell the end for the republican party. That stat about for the first time ever a republican nominee would have won less than half the vote is kind of misleading. There were a lot of people running in the republican primaries for a while. The same thing probably would have happened with Hillary too, if the democrats had let everyone stay in the race a little longer. No doubt this is a dumpster fire, but all that mattered in the first place was who won the democratic nomination because they were going to be the next president.

7/10/2016 9:49:12 PM

Quote :

" No republican has a chance against Hillary"

You lost me at that, so I stopped reading.

7/10/2016 10:02:41 PM

^Who do you think would beat a democrat in today's political world? Cruz is too conservative, Jeb Bush is a Bush, Rubio??? Just about anyone is a better economist than Obama, but Romney still lost the last election. I'm just thankful we're not getting Bernie Sanders as our next president

7/10/2016 10:09:43 PM

Realistically, I think Romney, Kasich, or Huntsman could beat Clinton.

7/10/2016 10:51:07 PM

No one is beating the incumbent party with unemployment below 5%. The Democrats could run Al Gore against the ghost of Ronald Reagan and still win.

7/10/2016 11:48:32 PM

Come on though, you know there's a little bit of fudge factor in that 5%. Give me a real unemployment rate.

But that's not what I came here to talk about.

I realize that the recent tragedies have been taking over TV, the internet and radio recently but is Donald Trump still running for president? I see no ads, haven't heard anything about recent speeches, nothing.

7/11/2016 7:19:58 AM

^msnbc was showing his rally live last week. he doesnt need to buy ads in july with all the free media he gets

7/11/2016 8:17:42 AM

"I'm hearing people say that the real unemployment rate is 20, or even 30%. It's because our leaders are stupid people and we don't win anymore."

7/11/2016 8:18:18 AM

Don't know if he's still running, but I did hear that he doesn't like mosquitoes, and that's something I can get behind.

7/11/2016 8:26:03 AM

^^But I've heard he's been struggling much more for the general in terms of free media than he was with the primary. The general doesn't have the entertainment factor that the primary did.

7/11/2016 8:27:01 AM

Quote :

"Come on though, you know there's a little bit of fudge factor in that 5%. Give me a real unemployment rate."

it's been the way that they've always calculated the unemployment rate

you dislike the guy so much that you've told yourself that there's no way anything positive can happen under him, so "there's a little bit of fudge factor"

7/11/2016 10:36:37 AM

the participation rate is at a 40 year low or something so that obviously makes unemployment rate deceptively low

7/11/2016 10:57:40 AM

some significant portion of that low participation rate is Baby Boomers turning 65 en masse.

7/11/2016 11:06:38 AM

I am curious where those jobs were created and what cross section of society was hired.

College grads vs high school grads.

7/11/2016 11:15:49 AM

tanked with the great recession and never recovered

7/11/2016 11:21:01 AM

Look,

I only really got involved with politics in 2007. I understand that the rate has always been calculated as it is today.

But that doesn't change the fact that the rate is touted as some great thing, when it is not. When Republicans are in charge, I'll say the same. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I've said that about our state Republicans using the rate in their favor. Synapse can post-check me if he wants.

7/11/2016 11:34:16 AM

Quote :

"Synapse can post-check me if he wants."

I'm still waiting for your to post-check yourself and share all those posts you claimed to have made two years about about Hillary's emails.

Quote :

"tanked with the great recession and never recovered"

ITT I learned the great recession started in 2000

7/11/2016 11:44:22 AM

Quote :

"But that doesn't change the fact that the rate is touted as some great thing, when it is not."

which is better: the unemployment rate around 5% or 10%?

[Edited on July 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2016 12:41:47 PM

https://twitter.com/politico/status/752560780160208896/video/1

chilling. that look he gives after he calls himself the "law and order candidate." the face you'd see as the jackboots pass in review.

7/11/2016 2:28:44 PM

Next week is going to be crazy. Either with the VP selection, which already looks to be non-traditional (as is everything with this campaign). Or with the new republican candidate. Apparently, all delegates are unbound and not obligated to vote for the candidate their elctorate chose.

Quote :

"Although some claim it is “illegal” for delegates to defy state laws instructing them how to vote, the U.S. Supreme Court held in two cases nearly forty years ago that state laws could not trump national party rules. Part of their reasoning was that political parties must be free from government control, particularly in matters as important as who the party’s nominee would be, delegate selection, and how delegates could vote."

Regardless, I still don't see how the RNC can feasibly not choose the candidate who received a record number of primary votes. The RNC just needs to hold it's nose, understand that it will not win this presidential election, and focus on local elections. After this is over, they can re-examine their candidacy process to ensure a nut case like Trump is not given a platform.

7/12/2016 11:18:49 AM

Its very simple.

Take the exact same platform minus racial mess, with a candidate thats more stable.

The platform is correct. Playing on the right fears and frustrations. You need a Paul Ryan type that people in the middle can actually get behind.

7/12/2016 11:41:36 AM

Put Ted Cruz as VP. Problem solved.

7/12/2016 11:50:48 AM

His platform is "anti-establishment". I don't think people will just be "meh" when the establishment refuses to nominate the candidate who received the most votes for an establishment approved candidate.

7/12/2016 12:03:06 PM

^^^ or praising torture, war crimes, chemical weapons usage, climate denialism...

It's maybe 20% of a correct platform.



[Edited on July 12, 2016 at 12:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2016 12:17:58 PM

Yes, yes that.

7/12/2016 4:33:42 PM

Looks like Newt Gingrich might be the VP for Trump

7/12/2016 4:34:41 PM