The Next American President Thread (2016)

1122123125127128198

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    What's this about Trump and sex bomb stories?
  • What's this about Trump and sex bomb stories?

    It's about Hillary Clinton destroying Donald Trump with so much gusto and brilliance. She's smart, damn smart, and finally people start to think that perhaps this could be an asset:
    Trump Fell into a Trap in the Debate

    Near the end of the debate, Hillary Clinton brought up a little anecdote about Donald Trump calling one of the women in the Miss Universe pageant (which he then owned) "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping." Clinton knew her name, Alicia Machado, much to Trump's surprise. The anecdote showed that Trump disparages women, Latinas, and low-paid workers, all at once. It even has a great punchline: The woman became a U.S. citizen and will vote in November. It won't be for Trump.

    This whole episode was not an accident. It was a trap that Clinton has been planning for weeks, and Trump stepped right into it. For someone who thinks he is a shrewd operator, he got suckered. Within an hour of the debate, Clinton released a devastating, professionally produced video in which Machado talks about her experience with Trump. For starters, he told her she was ugly (and this after she just won the Miss Universe pageant). He also would say, "Hello, Miss Piggy" or "Hello, Miss Housekeeping," just as Clinton noted. As Miss Universe, she participated in many ad campaigns. According to her contract, she was entitled to 10% of what she earned for Trump's company, but he simply didn't pay her. When she gained some weight, he had her work out—and without her knowledge—invited reporters and photographers to watch. He tried to humiliate her. She also said that he is a racist who bears grudges and is completely unfit to be president of the United States.

    The interesting thing about the video is not so much what Machado says in it, but the fact that it undoubtedly took weeks to collect the 34 clips in the video (including some old footage), add transitions and subtitles (Machado speaks in Spanish in the video), and generally put together a very professional ad. Clinton's bringing this up during the debate—and near the end to maximize the chance of people's remembering it—was no accident or idea that suddenly popped into her head. Trump may eventually realize that he is up against a pro.

    Worse yet, the story is raging on and on. Machado was interviewed yesterday on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, Telemundo, and Univision. Pundits of all stripes are talking about her. She was mentioned in 150 print articles, 6,000 times on television, and 200,000 times in tweets. When you combine a beauty queen, tabloid journalism with presidential politics, it doesn't go away quickly. Machado, who is an actress is Spanish-language soap operas, is used to appearing in public and is well known to Latinos, so she could become a powerful voice for Clinton's outreach to that community.

    Now, many forum members need to sit back for a bit and realize that THIS kind of meticulous and brilliant deconstruction (or destruction) of machismo and pathological dumbness is actually the biggest asset a future president of the United States needs. Make no mistake, the Putin's, Mugabe's, Orban's, Wilders', Duterte's, Jinping's and Maduro's on this planet fear Hillary (slightly) more than Obama.

    There's a reason Putin likes Trump more. He knows that a con man-businessman like him can't really protect the interests of the United States of America, because with him in the White House, Russia fares better, thus making the USA loose more. And isn't it that what all those white blue collar workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Wisconsin should fear most? An even faster decrease of American power, and with it an even faster decrease of factory jobs?

    Looking at the polls right now, I am starting to think.......that this first debate at first didn't seem like a 'knock-out blow', as Hillary was very measured and she let Trump do all the ranting. But I do think now, after a few days, that the overall effect of this debate actually very much is a 'knock-out blow' after all. And Hillary knew this all along. This debate could become the most historic debate ever since the 1970's, because it seems to become a rare 'game changer debate'.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    That's certainly one way of analyzing this.

    There's no doubt it was a trap and it was certainly well set and sprung. The question is, will it work in the long run (of course there will be a poll bump), and is Trump smart enough to turn it around on her? So far, he looks like he is going to fall for it and get into the pigsty. I hope he doesn't.

    I personally would have preferred if this kind of muckraking hadn't come up during the debate. It is serving as a distraction during the last few months of the campaign, and isn't doing the public any good whatsoever as it is distracting from the issues that have to be discussed.

    Predictions:
    1. small poll bump for Clinton post-debate (more on account of the Machado story than anything else, since that's what the media is going with)
    2. 2nd debate goes much better for Trump but is probably declared a draw
    3. 3rd debate also considered a draw but Trump is much better than he was in the first

    The media narrative at the moment is to blunt the Trump train (like they did post-conventions) which was gaining momentum. It's predictable. The narrative will change again before the election, but I'm not sure when.

    The candidate who owns the narrative towards the end of October will clinch this election, and as I speculated some time back, the media will drive it to the end.

    Oh, and look for attempts to discredit Gary Johnson's campaign as well.
  • I'm getting a bit tired of this constant 'the media' argument. What is media? Breitbart is media too. So is Fox News. And Wallstreet Journal. And New York Post. And they are not exactly....slamming Trump.

    Moreover, it's not just the media narrative that is blunting Trump. Trump blunted himself. Let's see if he can recover. But given his reckless nature, don't suddenly expect a nuanced 'presidential' ego from him.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    You're getting tired of it? Your previous post was playing it up. You even said that the story was a plant and seemed to be advocating it.

    It's obvious, if you look. This is all one big game, and it's quite predictable.

    The Trump 'mo' was too strong of late, and it had to be blunted. The media needs a horse race for ratings.

    There will be a narrative going in one direction, and then it will turn again (probably in about two weeks). Watch for it.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    You're getting tired of it? Your previous post was playing it up. You even said that the story was a plant and seemed to be advocating it.

    It's obvious, if you look. This is all one big game, and it's quite predictable.

    The Trump 'mo' was too strong of late, and it had to be blunted. The media needs a horse race for ratings.

    There will be a narrative going in one direction, and then it will turn again (probably in about two weeks). Watch for it.

    Do you believe in conspiracies @BondJames? :-)
  • Posts: 12,526
    From the bits i saw of the debate? Trump seemed to struggle against Clinton?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    You're getting tired of it? Your previous post was playing it up. You even said that the story was a plant and seemed to be advocating it.

    It's obvious, if you look. This is all one big game, and it's quite predictable.

    The Trump 'mo' was too strong of late, and it had to be blunted. The media needs a horse race for ratings.

    There will be a narrative going in one direction, and then it will turn again (probably in about two weeks). Watch for it.

    Do you believe in conspiracies @BondJames? :-)
    If you're asking whether I have alternate theories of the universe and what not, then no. I believe in natural selection and I'm not religious. I don't believe in conspiracies not based in fact.

    If on the other hand, you're asking whether I think that we should take everything we are told by politicians and the media at face value, then no, I don't think we should. The evidence over the years has proven that, wouldn't you say? Especially when the stakes are high. That's why they have 'spin rooms', 'media consultants' and spend $m on advertising. I believe the public should always be skeptical and ask questions. I would think that most people with common sense would agree with me.

    How is this relevant to Machado and the 'spin' of the election horse race?
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    You're getting tired of it? Your previous post was playing it up. You even said that the story was a plant and seemed to be advocating it.

    It's obvious, if you look. This is all one big game, and it's quite predictable.

    The Trump 'mo' was too strong of late, and it had to be blunted. The media needs a horse race for ratings.

    There will be a narrative going in one direction, and then it will turn again (probably in about two weeks). Watch for it.

    Do you believe in conspiracies @BondJames? :-)
    If you're asking whether I have alternate theories of the universe and what not, then no. I believe in natural selection and I'm not religious. I don't believe in conspiracies not based in fact.

    If on the other hand, you're asking whether I think that we should take everything we are told by politicians and the media at face value, then no, I don't think we should. The evidence over the years has proven that, wouldn't you say? Especially when the stakes are high. That's why they have 'spin rooms', 'media consultants' and spend $m on advertising. I believe the public should always be skeptical and ask questions. I would think that most people with common sense would agree with me.

    How is this relevant to Machado and the 'spin' of the election horse race?

    Well, I came across this bullocks today:
    clinton-earpiece.jpg

    And to those 'conspiracy believers' I say this:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/19/fifty-percent-of-americans-believe-in-some-conspiracy-theory-heres-why/

    As written in The Washington Post about scientific research on conspiracy thinkers: "We do find that conspiracy theories are more popular among the less educated."

    Hence the increasing number and ever-growing amount of conspiracy blogs who weren't created by founders that embrace more established forms of education, like a Masters Degree in Journalism.

    That 'device' was nothing more than a microphone transmitter. Period. And again, it saddens me that we keep referring newspapers and news channels as 'the media'.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    That's just a bunch of nonsense. The internet unfortunately allows for this kind of rubbish to get airtime.

    At the end of the day, this is an important election. Sadly, the real issues are not being discussed, but time is being spent on idiotic sideshows. It will be looked back on as the election 'about nothing', which is quite sad.

    That debate on Monday was really very poor quality for 'leader of the free world'. An embarrassment to be quite frank.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    I must say, @bondjames, that while I disagree with your overall take on Trump, I do appreciate your logical, rational approach to him, HRC, and political matters. Our public discourse needs more of it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thank you @TripAces. Likewise. I've always found you to be sensible and rational in your observation of this election.
  • 57ed21cf1a0000de085b5af6.png?cache=btngzzzjbx

    :-O
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Conspiracy theories (and why they exist) boil down to one feeling: People want to believe the world is far more interesting than it actually is. In the face of the ordinary, we create the extraordinary, if only to stave off the yawning.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    Conspiracy theories (and why they exist) boil down to one feeling: People want to believe the world is far more interesting than it actually is. In the face of the ordinary, we create the extraordinary, if only to stave off the yawning.

    Hence why JB exists in the first place.
    ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    TripAces wrote: »
    Conspiracy theories (and why they exist) boil down to one feeling: People want to believe the world is far more interesting than it actually is. In the face of the ordinary, we create the extraordinary, if only to stave off the yawning.

    Hence why JB exists in the first place.
    ;)

    Absolutely. Movies, TV and literature are all successful for how viscerally we are able to experience the worlds and circumstances that appeal to us outside of our own experiences. Bond and its escapist aspects are inarguably one of the greatest examples of this.
  • Posts: 4,622
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thank you @TripAces. Likewise. I've always found you to be sensible and rational in your observation of this election.
    Bravo! @bondjames. Just catching up. Your always lucid observations are a credit to the general discourse.
    Your posting energy is exemplary.
    Speaking of energy
    Where did @GL go? She was stirring it up good I thought.
    As for the debate, I would not waste my time watching such tedious theatre.
    I have other ways to waste my time.
    But my sense of the reviews is that Hilly was quite adept at baiting Trump into talking about himself.
    Trump being a bombastic sort is happy to oblige, not being inclined toward disciplined, stay-on-message presentation.

    If I were advising him, I'd say stick to the talking points that resonate ie the illegal immigration problem, law and order and fostering a vibrant business climate.
    Otherwise, be constantly attacking.
    It's politics. It's all about good strategy and execution.
    One is not required to actually answer questions as asked.
    On this stage the skill is in deflecting and putting heat back on your opponent.
    Not sure Trump has the political saavy or discipline to execute a prepared strategy.
    He's got to make some effort though, as he's up against a political barracuda who knows the game better than anyone on the planet.

    You could toss Hillary into Blofeld's piranha pool, and she'd emerge calmly asking for a towel with a school of bloodied belly-up carnivores in her wake.





  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thank you @timmer. I completely agree with your salient recommendations for the Trump campaign. It was somewhat refreshing to hear a candidate actually answer the questions asked, but the trick is indeed to get that out of the way quickly and then pivot to a counterattack. Discipline is not something The Donald is known for.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited September 2016 Posts: 17,827
    Bernie was our best hope...
    CioDAnVUYAI3Ar4.jpg
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    And I still hope Sarah Palin will all of a sudden replace Trump and become the first Mrs President :D
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    And I still hope Sarah Palin will all of a sudden replace Trump and become the first Mrs President :D

    Don't even joke about that. I'd leave the goddamn country the night after the election.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Newt Gingrich & Laura Ingraham (for the right) & Robert Reich & Jennifer Granholm (for the left) were at The Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto yesterday.

    They debated the motion: be it resolved, Donald Trump can make America great again.

    Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but had an opportunity to watch it on The Public Affairs Channel. For those who weren't too impressed with Monday's proceedings, this was a more substantive exchange, with vigorous arguments on both sides.

    http://munkdebates.com/livestream

    http://munkdebates.com/debates/US-Election
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 1,469
    I've been offline the last week and don't know where to start with replying to comments, but you've covered the bases really well. I last posted after the debate, thinking Trump did well and that he could surprise the country in November. I want to say that I'd watched only the first third or half of the debate and assumed the rest was similar, but I read later it went downhill for him after that. Then he tweets about the former Miss Universe, and two new polls (Reuters and Fox) show Clinton's lead has expanded--she leads by five points. I almost want to say now I think Trump has no hope of winning. Normally a Democratic voter, I was never totally on his side--I just like the idea of change he might bring and was wondering, should I vote for him--and I'm not very enthusiastic about Clinton and was never a Bernie guy.

    There's no denying that he's got a lot of supporters, but my suspicion now is that either Trump deliberately wants to lose (probably not)...or his bluster, reactionary stance and lack of filter and control will keep leading him in that direction, and Clinton seems the more sensible choice to me. So, like some other Americans I'm sure, I've gone in the last week from clinging to hope, to acceptance, surrender and some depression. It's an important election for us, but luckily that's not nearly all there is to life.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Trump just scares the living shit out of me... sorry for any supporters here - but i truly feel like we are what Germany was becoming circa the rise of the third reich... i am not even a big Hillary supporter, but nothing Trump says, or does really fills me with confidence that he is fit to be the leader of a nation of people... if he wants to go play monopoly with real buildings - then let him.... but i am scared to death of what America would potentially become under his Presidency... we are already despised enough. lol.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    I agree. Trump would probably reenact that scene from the Dead Zone.

    "The missiles are flying... hallelujah, hallelujah." :-S
  • Posts: 15,229
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Trump just scares the living shit out of me... sorry for any supporters here - but i truly feel like we are what Germany was becoming circa the rise of the third reich... i am not even a big Hillary supporter, but nothing Trump says, or does really fills me with confidence that he is fit to be the leader of a nation of people... if he wants to go play monopoly with real buildings - then let him.... but i am scared to death of what America would potentially become under his Presidency... we are already despised enough. lol.

    Germany no, but Mussolini's Italy absolutely.
  • edited October 2016 Posts: 11,119
    I think it's important to focus on the issues a bit more shall we? Especially on issues like...taxes. We know Democrats prefer higher taxation on the rich, whereas Republicans prefer lower taxes in a 'flat' way, from poorest to the richest billionaires.

    But what about...avoiding to pay taxes? Obviously, we all know that everyone HAS to pay taxes. It's a necessity for all of us. But here is where especially Trump will have the worst day of his life I think.

    Some good old proper research journalism came out with this story yesterday. And it may well prove the most damaging week ever in the history of presidential campaigns:
    NEW YORK TIMES BOMBSHELL: TRUMP HASN'T PAID TAXES FOR DECADES

    Donald Trump was already having a very bad week this week. There was the debate, and Machadogate (accompanied by the 3:00 a.m. Twitter storm), and revelations that his company violated the United States' embargo with Cuba, and a host of other lesser embarrassments. And then, on Saturday evening, it turned from a very bad week into what some are calling "the worst week in presidential campaign history." The New York Times published key details from his 1995 tax return, most notably that Trump took a $916 million loss that year. Experts who examined the return said that Trump may very well have been able to manage the loss in such a way as to avoid paying any taxes for the next 18 or 19 years (i.e., until 2013 or 2014).

    It was entirely foreseeable that somehow, some way, this was going to happen. Hackers? An enterprising reporter who managed to look in the right place? A careless accounting firm that didn't keep its files secure? The possibilities were numerous. As it turns out, the Times received the documents anonymously, in an envelope mailed from—wait for it—Trump Tower in New York City. So, it could be a disgruntled employee or it could be an outsider who just wanted to create additional intrigue. Or, if we recall the conspiracy theories suggesting that Trump is really just running to throw the election to Hillary Clinton, it could even be self-sabotage. We may never know.

    The envelope received by the Times contained only a few pages total, from three different returns. So, a full assessment of Trump's 1995 finances is not possible. The $916 million figure comes from the first page of the candidate's New York State return. It is all but certain that the copies are authentic, according to Jack Mitnick, the accountant who prepared the originals. Now semi-retired, he no longer has access to the returns, but he said they certainly look correct. In particular, he noted a critical detail—the accounting software in use in 1995 could not handle nine-figure numbers, so the loss printed out as "5,729,293," with "-91" added in front of that by a manual typewriter (with a slightly different font). That is something that a forger would be very unlikely to get correct.

    Accountants who were asked about the write-off said that losses can be carried backward 3 years and forward 15 years, so Trump could have legally written off about $60 million in each of the next 15 years. That could have been enough to offset all his other income, leaving him with no taxable income. The interesting question though is how he lost nearly a billion dollars in 1995. What did he do that was so disastrous financially and what does that say about his business ability? Did he make a horrendous deal in which he lost almost a billion dollars? What was it? Expect reporters to begin digging into this shortly.

    Asked to respond to the revelation, the Trump campaign issued a non-committal statement:

    Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required. That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes. Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.

    Needless to say, a non-denial like this is effectively a confirmation. And just in case, the candidate himself confirmed the story in his own characteristic way: He went on the attack, as he does whenever he feels cornered. Appearing at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump wondered whether Hillary Clinton is "crazy" and if she is "loyal" to her husband. He also mocked Clinton's stumble at the 9/11 memorial, a choice that will primarily serve to remind voters of Trump's past lampooning of disabled reporter Serge Kovaleski. Later, The Donald returned to an old refrain, encouraging followers to monitor polls "in certain areas." This seems to suggest that he wants Democratic voters to be intimidated, and at very least, it is yet another attempt to de-legitimize a potential Clinton victory.

    So, what impact will this have? Obviously, we won't know for certain for at least a week or two. However, there is no question that the revelation strikes at the heart of two big parts of Trump's case for the presidency:

    (1) That he's trying to make sure the little guy gets a fair shake, instead of the Wall Street fat cats, and
    (2) That he's a winner and a wildly successful businessman.


    At the same time, he looks like a hypocrite, since he has often taken to Twitter to tax-shame those who did not pay their fair share. There are also renewed suggestions that the GOP nominee may choose to skip the last two debates, since he will be unable to dodge questions about the $916 million. In any case, Trump should strongly consider spending Sunday in church, praying that nothing else bad happens this week.

    To be honest? I am awed and stunned.

    Well....perhaps I can end on a funny note? This is the newest scetch from Saturday Night Live, with Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump and Kate McKinnon as Hillary Clinton :-P:



    Later on in the show, a 'Donald Trump camp' and a 'Hillary Clinton camp' faced off some arguments :-P:

  • edited October 2016 Posts: 3,566
    Well, I thought the debate was funny...not the one Gustav posted, the REAL one... ah, just kidding, Gustav, thanks for posting this. (And of course, the tax stuff is probably going to be dominating the next several days' worth of discussion.) But there's something that I want people to be on the lookout for in the NEXT debate...

    At the Democratic convention and again at the first debate, Hillary brought out someone (either physically, with the Gold Star parents, or just in a mention, with "Miss Housekeeping") who got under Trump's skin so badly that he couldn't resist getting into a distracting twitter war with them, taking his eyes off the prize and demonstrating his excellent temperament to the American people. I see a pattern developing here... the only question is, who's Hillary going to produce for the next two debates? Given that Donald's threatening to bring up Bill's bimbos in the next debate (because obviously that's the best way to make America great again) I suspect we'll be getting a glimpse of somebody with insight into Donald's own sexual history...but who's after that? I hope we'll be seeing a small army of the contractors that Donald has habitually stiffed over the past few decades...but that might be too on-point. We'll see...

    I'd just like to add, I used to be among those who suspected that Donald was trying the throw the election so that Hillary could be elected...but now I'm pretty sure an act of that generosity just isn't in his make-up. He may have gotten into it just to promote the Trump brand...but now his ego is too heavily involved. Be it resolved: the best way for Donald Trump to Make America Great Again is for him to just shut up and go away... but somehow, I don't see that happening.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
  • It's surprising to me that after the events of this weekend, no one has really stepped up to either defend or disparage the Donald. Can it be that no Trumpettes are willing to even try to defend him at this point -- while the Hillarites are just holding their breath, hoping that their run of good luck can keep going? Is Taxgate the straw that finally broke the Donald's back? Or was it the State of NY finally putting the kibosh on the Trump Foundation's fund-raising efforts that let the wind out of his surrogates' sails?
This discussion has been closed.