Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

[Regnad Kcin]

But what did the butler see?

(It's not often one gets a chance to ask that in all seriousness.)

Do you suppose it was the same unhinged loon who thinks Mr. Obama should be killed?

 

[Stacko]

Do you suppose it was the same unhinged loon who thinks Mr. Obama should be killed?

Presumably as this occurred at Mar-a-Lago.

 

[cullennz]

It's is just amazing to watch from here for me (and probably sane people in the US) how it has just turned into character assassination from both sides and policy left the building a few weeks ago

 

[trustbutverify]

The main thing is that none of this is about winning the election. It's all about winning this stuff now. And there'll be other squirrels along soon enough, depend on it.

That's right.

 

[Cain]

Witnesses will no doubt be sought. Melania Trump may have to argue that she pretended to be friendly on occasion.

I wouldn't want the NY Times on my case, especially when it's about one of their own.

Doesn't Trump admit to being pretend-friendly?

"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman... I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her."

He also said she would make a terrific president.

“I’m a businessman. I contribute to everybody,” Trump said. “When I needed Hillary, she was there. If I say ‘go to my wedding,’ they go to my wedding.”

See, he only lies as a businessman. When he's a politician, he tells the truth.

http://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Donald's response to being called a sexual predator on Howard Stern while sitting next to Ivanka.

https://mobile.twitter.com/_SidVerma/status/786614831604441088?

Wow.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do like the campaign statement that Trump has "evidence" that the NYT story was fabricated, which he will release "at the appropriate time". Is it even possible for there to be an "inappropriate time" to release evidence absolving oneself of sexual assault?

Like Melania's press conference.

 

[trustbutverify]

It's is just amazing to watch from here for me (and probably sane people in the US) how it has just turned into character assassination from both sides and policy left the building a few weeks ago

Clinton is campaigning against what amounts to a head trauma patient who is now under the impression he's Benito Mussolini. You really think a rational debate on policy is possible with such an individual?

 

[cullennz]

Clinton is campaigning against what amounts to a head trauma patient who is now under the impression he's Benito Mussolini. You really think a rational debate on policy is possible with such an individual?

Maybe not, but surely the top dogs on both sides would get and say we are making a laughing stock of the US to the rest of the world.

Can some sedate Trump and just put out press releases by Dave

 

[I Am The Scum]

Wonder what Melania's strategy is here?

She's trying to remind people that Donald Trump is married.

 

[trustbutverify]

She's trying to remind people that Donald Trump is married.

Would one of those people be Donald Trump?

 

[cullennz]

The odd thing about Trump is I reckon he could be the only human alive who could lose the election by a land slide and still say he is the bestest and everyone loves him

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The NYT's response to Donald's lawyer's demand for a retraction.

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuqivY3WIAAPFpY.jpg[/qimg]

"Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself."​

Oh, I don't know. I suppose one could argue that it may actually enhance that reputation. Given Trump's previous statements, one could be forgiven for thinking that the NYT was doing him a favor.

I do like the campaign statement that Trump has "evidence" that the NYT story was fabricated, which he will release "at the appropriate time". Is it even possible for there to be an "inappropriate time" to release evidence absolving oneself of sexual assault?

It sounds like they're just re-purposing Trump's claims about the "evidence" of Obama's foreign birth.

I suppose "never" might be the "appropriate time" they had in mind.

I'm really hopeful that Trump will be completely destroyed by this, his brand ruined, company bankrupt. I want his destruction to be a cautionary tale to anyone like him who contemplates a presidential bid.

Those people aren't the ones that need this lesson. The people who support those people are the ones in desperate need of a smack upside the head. As long as there are people who honestly believe such a person is what this country needs, those types of candidates will always pose a legitimate threat.

 

[cullennz]

I reckon the 8 million people he has promised to deport en masse are fighting back

 

[Meadmaker]

It's is just amazing to watch from here for me (and probably sane people in the US) how it has just turned into character assassination from both sides and policy left the building a few weeks ago

I know I wish that there were more policy issues on either side. I know that I think there is too much focus on lurid tales of aggressive sexual advances.

However, I think there's a reason for that. For Donald Trump, Trump himself is policy. His admirers don't admire him because they have listened to what he would do as President, and agree that that's the right way to go. His core supporters admire him because he is Donald Trump. He's a billionaire businessman, and they think a smart, successful, guy is what this country needs.

Among Republicans for whom Donald Trump was not their first choice, or who may have been far down the list of choices, they will vote for him because, whatever else might be true, he is still more likely to pass a tax cut than Hillary Clinton would be, or more likely to appoint a conservative Supreme Court justice than Hillary Clinton would be. However, those people opposed his nomination. For his core supporters, the issue is Trump. He was supposed to be the great leader that would make America great again, through some combination of intelligence or business savvy or just plain fighting spirit that would tolerate no opposition. This guy was going to get things done!

So, Donald Trump himself really is the issue. Much more so than for most candidates, personal attacks make more sense. He has sold himself, not his policies, as the leader that can make America great. To refute that, it is necessary to expose his character flaws.

 

[jadebox]

The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, nor have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly.

At the time in question, Mrs. Trump would not even have recognized Ms. Stoynoff if they had encountered one another on the street.

If she wouldn't have recognized Stoynoff, how can she be sure that she didn't encounter her on the street?

-- Roger

 

[trustbutverify]

The odd thing about Trump is I reckon he could be the only human alive who could lose the election by a land slide and still say he is the bestest and everyone loves him

Not odd at all. He'll just claim the "elites" rigged the machines and mugged half his supporters on the way to the polls. And 40% of the country will believe him.

 

[cullennz]

I know I wish that there were more policy issues on either side. I know that I think there is too much focus on lurid tales of aggressive sexual advances.

However, I think there's a reason for that. For Donald Trump, Trump himself is policy. His admirers don't admire him because they have listened to what he would do as President, and agree that that's the right way to go. His core supporters admire him because he is Donald Trump. He's a billionaire businessman, and they think a smart, successful, guy is what this country needs.

Among Republicans for whom Donald Trump was not their first choice, or who may have been far down the list of choices, they will vote for him because, whatever else might be true, he is still more likely to pass a tax cut than Hillary Clinton would be, or more likely to appoint a conservative Supreme Court justice than Hillary Clinton would be. However, those people opposed his nomination. For his core supporters, the issue is Trump. He was supposed to be the great leader that would make America great again, through some combination of intelligence or business savvy or just plain fighting spirit that would tolerate no opposition. This guy was going to get things done!

So, Donald Trump himself really is the issue. Much more so than for most candidates, personal attacks make more sense. He has sold himself, not his policies, as the leader that can make America great. To refute that, it is necessary to expose his character flaws.

Fair call.

Seems odd they don't say how crap a business man he is with his bankruptcys

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't think the lawsuit threat is a result of a thought process. It's more like a reflex.

Exactly.

He isn't being rational, and I think we will see him more and more lose his grip on reality in the few weeks remaining before the election.


And that was always the issue with Trump. I feared and despised that man more so than I think I did any other politician, certainly more than any nominee or even serious candidate who was still in the race after New Hampshire. It isn't because of some extremist agenda. It is because he is dangerous. He lacks self control. He acts on reflex.

He should not have access to an army.

 

[Meadmaker]

The NYT's response to Donald's lawyer's demand for a retraction.

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuqivY3WIAAPFpY.jpg[/qimg]

Can I nominate the New York Times for a language award?