Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[CapelDodger]

Not sure if this has been posted, but 30 former GOP members of congress have written a letter denouncing Trump.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...-ever-of-former-gop-1475767313-htmlstory.html


Steve S

Sweet. Would be nice if it was 30 sitting members, but of course they all had to check their cojones at the door.

 

[Tony Stark]

So Donald still thinks the Central Park Five are guilty. I hope Hillary brings it up at the next debate. It is an obvious trap and he would have to be a total moron to take the bait. So he would almost certainly do it.

A group of five teenage boys who were in the park at the time and who may have been involved in committing other crimes were arrested for the assault. After extended questioning over two days -- during which the suspects claim they were deprived of sleep and food -- police say they confessed to the crime. None acknowledged actually raping the victim, instead pointing fingers at the others.

The viciousness of the crime, which came in the midst of New York's crack epidemic and a spiraling crime rate, coupled with the fact that the victim was white and four of the suspects were black and one was Latino, added to the city's racial tensions.

Two weeks after the attack, Donald Trump took out full-page ads in four of the city's newspapers with the blaring headline, "Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!"



There were no witnesses to the attack. The victim had no memory of it, and DNA evidence was in its infancy and was not presented at the trial. The five youths were convicted almost exclusively on their confessions, which they testified were coerced by detectives.

In 2002, another man, a convicted rapist and murderer, confessed to the assault, and his DNA did match semen that was found on the victim. No DNA evidence has been found to tie any of the Central Park 5 to the crime.

The Central Park 5 were exonerated, and in 2014, New York paid them a $41 million settlement.

But Trump still is not buying their innocence.

"They admitted they were guilty," Trump said this week in a statement to CNN's Miguel Marquez. "The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politics/reality-check-donald-trump-central-park-5/index.html

Had Donald ever admitted he was wrong about anything? I've certainly never seen him do so.

 

[Prometheus]

This is the most stupid thing I have read.

Perhaps I should run for POTUS, then. NOBODY does stupid as good as me--not even Donald!

 

[Prometheus]

And I wouldn't actually carry out my threat either. And while I understand the desire to protest, I can't imagine doing it with someone who is as dangerous as Trump.

And people do win the Powerball. Just not me.

It's not really a genuine protest, as I don't believe I'm taking any real risk at all.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Not wanting to start another Trump thread (though the topic might just support its own discussion), I've been wondering what's become of the more vocal right wingers as of late. Never mind Huckabee, Santorum, the Professor, Mary Ann...why the hillbilly heck haven't we been hearing from the Alaskan crab?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not wanting to start another Trump thread (though the topic might just support its own discussion), I've been wondering what's become of the more vocal right wingers as of late. Never mind Huckabee, Santorum, the Professor, Mary Ann...why the hillbilly heck haven't we been hearing from the Alaskan crab?

It's hard to do something newsworthy when you are competing with the headline a day orange man

 

[phiwum]

I am planning to vote for Trump despite being absolutely convinced that he is just about the worst possible candidate for POTUS. I am doing this because there is absolutely no way that my vote can materially affect the outcome of the election. Even if I were to convince every eligible voter that I have any contact at all with to vote for Trump, Clinton would still win all of Massachusetts' Electoral College delegates by a healthy margin. I am utterly disenfranchised, and I am not happy about it.

That said, the Atlantic article is so strong and well-written that it actually gave me pause.

I am also in MA, but I sure as heck don't get your concern.

When I vote (and it isn't often), it's because I want to express my opinion on the candidate. I am saying that this person is my choice for the office. I can't imagine voting for a less qualified candidate just because I'm pissed that everyone else in my area will pick the only sane choice and, well, gosh darnit!

I can understand thinking your vote doesn't count. That's why I usually don't vote; it's just not worth the effort. But I can't imagine taking the time to vote and casting a ballot for a grossly underqualified candidate just to send a message. What message? Keep morons like these coming, boys?

 

[Puppycow]

So Donald still thinks the Central Park Five are guilty. I hope Hillary brings it up at the next debate. It is an obvious trap and he would have to be a total moron to take the bait. So he would almost certainly do it.

In 2002, another man, a convicted rapist and murderer, confessed to the assault, and his DNA did match semen that was found on the victim. No DNA evidence has been found to tie any of the Central Park 5 to the crime.

The Central Park 5 were exonerated, and in 2014, New York paid them a $41 million settlement.

But Trump still is not buying their innocence.

"They admitted they were guilty," Trump said this week in a statement to CNN's Miguel Marquez. "The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politics/reality-check-donald-trump-central-park-5/index.html

Had Donald ever admitted he was wrong about anything? I've certainly never seen him do so.

So another man confessed to it and DNA confirms it. Their "admissions" were basically intimidated out of them IIRC.

No, it's just like how Obama releasing his legal birth certificate still wasn't proof enough for Trump. He never admits he was wrong.

 

[Puppycow]

I am planning to vote for Trump despite being absolutely convinced that he is just about the worst possible candidate for POTUS. I am doing this because there is absolutely no way that my vote can materially affect the outcome of the election. Even if I were to convince every eligible voter that I have any contact at all with to vote for Trump, Clinton would still win all of Massachusetts' Electoral College delegates by a healthy margin. I am utterly disenfranchised, and I am not happy about it.
That said, the Atlantic article is so strong and well-written that it actually gave me pause.

How so?

 

[acbytesla]

It's not really a genuine protest, as I don't believe I'm taking any real risk at all.

I don't think it is either, just as it probably won't be in my state of Washington. That said, I've seen elections that people thought would be shoeins break the other way. There is a reason Ted Cruz was elected in Texas and Eric Cantor is no longer in Congress. Polls a week before the Virginia election had Cantor ahead 60 to 35. Cantor lost 55 to 44.

Maybe it's just me, I'm not really superstitious, but nevertheless I DON'T TEMPT FATE.

Makes me squeamish that anyone would.

 

[phiwum]

How so?

He is disenfranchised because his vote isn't the tie-breaker.

Honestly, that is the only way in which an individual vote matters: if everyone else splits evenly, then your vote counts. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether you vote or not. (NOTE: I'm ignoring the electoral college thing here and speaking of simple popular votes.)

Either that bothers you or it doesn't. Certainly, I have concluded that voting isn't worth the effort, though this year I will make an exception just to voice my opinion in favor of Clinton over Clown. I don't really regard voting as a duty and I would rather that those who don't want to vote don't vote. Chances are decent that they haven't an informed opinion.[1]

[1] I regard myself as having a fairly well-informed opinion on most national issues and candidates but choose not to vote nonetheless.

 

[cantonear1968]

So Donald still thinks the Central Park Five are guilty. I hope Hillary brings it up at the next debate. It is an obvious trap and he would have to be a total moron to take the bait. So he would almost certainly do it.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politics/reality-check-donald-trump-central-park-5/index.html

Had Donald ever admitted he was wrong about anything? I've certainly never seen him do so.

I'm sure in Trump's mind he thought this was him being a White Knight coming to the victim's defense and how this would appeal to women. He literally is not smart enough to realize there are 2 sides on a coin.

 

[Trebuchet]

Not wanting to start another Trump thread (though the topic might just support its own discussion), I've been wondering what's become of the more vocal right wingers as of late. Never mind Huckabee, Santorum, the Professor, Mary Ann...why the hillbilly heck haven't we been hearing from the Alaskan crab?

Palin? I suspect she's smarter than we've been giving her credit for. Hitching your wagon to Trump's star is probably not a brilliant move.

 

[Puppycow]

He is disenfranchised because his vote isn't the tie-breaker.

That is a curious definition of "disenfranchised".

Actually even in swing states, the vote has never (at least as long as I've been voting) come down to a one ballot difference between the winner and the loser. And the odds against that, even in such a state, are very minute. In 2000 it came down to a few hundred votes in FL, which was close, but still not a single vote would have any difference. Anyway, I'm from New York, also not a swing state, but actually you are not disenfranchised, nor am I. If a person cared so much I suppose they could move to a swing state but that sounds like a silly reason, unless you also want to move there for other reasons.

In a nation where in the last presidential election 125+ million voted, of course your individual vote makes no difference, but if you look at it that way we are all "disenfranchised", no matter which state we live in.

 

[steve s]

Just saw a new anti-Trump ad. A former ICBM launch officer is talking about how Trump shouldn't be in charge of our nuclear arsenal. I don't see the ad yet on Youtube.

Steve S

 

[Tony Stark]

Just saw a new anti-Trump ad. A former ICBM launch officer is talking about how Trump shouldn't be in charge of our nuclear arsenal. I don't see the ad yet on Youtube.

Steve S

Sounds like a good one, haven't seen it yet. Do you know if it was done by Hillary's campaign or by Priorities USA (the big pro Hillary superPAC)?

 

[steve s]

Sounds like a good one, haven't seen it yet. Do you know if it was done by Hillary's campaign or by Priorities USA (the big pro Hillary superPAC)?

It's from her. She says at the end that she approved the ad.

ETA: Come to think of it, nearly all the ads I see have the candidate at the end saying they endorse it. So where are the ads from the PACs?
Steve S

 

[Tony Stark]

So Donald had a mock town hall tonight with a friendly audience asking softball questions. He apparently bombed it, avoiding answering most questions and giving no plans.

This was probably the most debate prep he did. I imagine his campaign tried to get him to take it more seriously, say by having him study and practicing answering questions that a Democrat might ask. But Donald can't be bothered to do that. After all, he is convinced he won the first one, so why would he need to change anything.

He is such a moron. Hillary is going to dismantle him, probably worse than she did the first time. I can't wait.

ETA

[Imgw=640]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuIPPILVIAEkMqg.jpg[/imgw]

That last paragraph. He is so stupid it is unreal. Hillary is definitely prepping for the debate. Figuring out answers to questions she might be asked, studying, figuring out ways to get under Donald's skin, ect. Because she is way smarter than him and way more willing to do the necessary work.

 

[Tony Stark]

It's from her. She says at the end that she approved the ad.

ETA: Come to think of it, nearly all the ads I see have the candidate at the end saying they endorse it. So where are the ads from the PACs?
Steve S

I believe the superPACs are running ads in fewer states than the campaign so maybe you live in a state they aren't running ads in. I haven't seen any Priorities ads on TV, but have seen plenty of Hillary's ads (I live in Arizona BTW).

 

[Babbylonian]

In a nation where in the last presidential election 125+ million voted, of course your individual vote makes no difference, but if you look at it that way we are all "disenfranchised", no matter which state we live in.

It's childish nonsense and an insult to people who have actually been disenfranchised (as in unable to vote or otherwise participate in the political process) throughout history.