• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pence on Meet the Press: women who report sexual assault should not be ignored. There's more evidence* that's come out now that the Trump accusers are lying. Shifts to claiming Clinton is corrupt.

These hypocrites bogle the mind.


*No, more evidence has not come out.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I would, and not for any snide reason. Tensions seem pretty high on both sides of the divide, and "the left" does have its crazy people, even if they seem much fewer or less active.
Click to expand...

Someone has linked to a blogpost arguing that hate is a more corrosive emotion to stir up than, say fear. as it tends to incite hatered for the inciter in the targets.

I could believe virtually any scenario except for Clinton or the mainstream Democrato approving of it.
 
Ladewig said:
... Why would Trump's claims of election rigging be over-the-top in some way?
Click to expand...
Because the evidence has been clear, there is no evidence of widespread election fraud. At most a couple cases of people voting using deceased person's name have been uncovered.


More on MTP: Pence keeps talking over Chuck Todd, spouting lies that Todd calls him out on, yet Pence just keeps repeating his canned spiel.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Because the evidence has been clear, there is no evidence of widespread election fraud. At most a couple cases of people voting using deceased person's name have been uncovered.


More on MTP: Pence keeps talking over Chuck Todd, spouting lies that Todd calls him out on, yet Pence just keeps repeating his canned spiel.
Click to expand...

I think the point is, to Republicans, it is not over the top. To reasonable people, however, it is nonsense.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Pence on Meet the Press: women who report sexual assault should not be ignored. There's more evidence* that's come out now that the Trump accusers are lying. Shifts to claiming Clinton is corrupt.

These hypocrites bogle the mind.


*No, more evidence has not come out.
Click to expand...


I suspect this is some vague and ignorant reference to Gilberthorpe.
 
Another thought.

I get articles from CNN and elsewhere commenting on how badly Clinton is outspending Trump, with special emphasis on states that could be close, such as Florida.

Trump is allegedly a multi-billionaire.

15 or 20 million dollars or more of his own money spent in swing states might actually make a difference in the outcome of this election, yet he holds back.

Why?

Possibilities:

A) He's not as rich as he purports, and might have trouble putting his hands on even those trivial amounts of cash, relative to his stated net worth.

B) Neither he nor his staff is smart enough to spend money where it might actually do some good.

C) He's resigned to losing, and sees that as "good money after bad".

D) He never intended to win and is doing everything he can behind the scenes not to.

E) He's so far down the rabbit hole that he thinks he's winning by a landslide, so he doesn't need to spend any more money. (Thanks to Dave Rogers)

F) He doesn't think political advertising does much good, and he relishes the idea of beating Hillary on a shoestring budget. (Thanks to sunmaster14)

I'm leaning towards "D", though of course the options are not mutually exclusive.

Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Another thought.

I get articles from CNN and elsewhere commenting on how badly Clinton is outspending Trump, with special emphasis on states that could be close, such as Florida.

Trump is allegedly a multi-billionaire.

15 or 20 million dollars or more of his own money spent in swing states might actually make a difference in the outcome of this election, yet he holds back.

Why?

Possibilities:

A) He's not as rich as he purports, and might have trouble putting his hands on even those trivial amounts of cash, relative to his stated net worth.

B) Neither he nor his staff is smart enough to spend money where it might actually do some good.

C) He's resigned to losing, and sees that as "good money after bad".

D) He never intended to win and is doing everything he can behind the scenes not to.

I'm leaning towards "D", though of course the options are not mutually exclusive.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I lean towards C although can he really envision losing? I believe he wants to win so I don't think "D" . I doubt if it is A because whether he is worth 1 billion or 10 billion I believe he could still easily pull 50 to 100 million together. Although the less he he is worth the less he would want to throw 50 million away.
Pure speculation because who knows what is really going through his head.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
15 or 20 million dollars or more of his own money spent in swing states might actually make a difference in the outcome of this election, yet he holds back.
Why?

Possibilities:

A) He's not as rich as he purports, and might have trouble putting his hands on even those trivial amounts of cash, relative to his stated net worth.

B) Neither he nor his staff is smart enough to spend money where it might actually do some good.

C) He's resigned to losing, and sees that as "good money after bad".

D) He never intended to win and is doing everything he can behind the scenes not to.

I'm leaning towards "D", though of course the options are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Honestly I can't see D being the answer. Trump sees high numbers of screaming people at his rallies and while he is lapping up the adoration, his drug of choice, he honestly cannot fathom that those numbers don't translate into winning votes. He is loath to spend money on anything in general, and because he only listens to his own advice, the money that does get spent is best used on his next fix. Trump has consistently held almost 3 times as many rallies over the past 3 months as Clinton has. It's what he feeds on.
 
Dave Rogers said:
E) He's so far down the rabbit hole that he thinks he's winning by a landslide, so he doesn't need to spend any more money.

Dave
Click to expand...

It's the Willard Romney echo chamber all over again.

The Great Zaganza said:
Trump's no.1 concern right now is how to siphon more of the donations to his campaign into his own pockets.
Click to expand...

That does seem to be the most reasonable explanation for his behavior and the dicey campaign finances that have come to light.

It occurs to me, given his zeal for lobbing his political opponents in jail, it's entirely possible most of us here would face repercussions of some kind from a Trump presidency. He strikes me as the kind of thin-skinned, petty ******* who would dedicate his administration to attacking anyone he perceives as an "enemy." Given his reliance upon social media, folks like us might at the very least warrant digital attacks by a subset of his Deplorable Frogs.
 
A good segment by Fareed Zakaria on Donald the BS Artist. Warning:Contains the BS word.



Steve S
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Another thought.

I get articles from CNN and elsewhere commenting on how badly Clinton is outspending Trump, with special emphasis on states that could be close, such as Florida.

Trump is allegedly a multi-billionaire.

15 or 20 million dollars or more of his own money spent in swing states might actually make a difference in the outcome of this election, yet he holds back.

Why?

Possibilities:

A) He's not as rich as he purports, and might have trouble putting his hands on even those trivial amounts of cash, relative to his stated net worth.

B) Neither he nor his staff is smart enough to spend money where it might actually do some good.

C) He's resigned to losing, and sees that as "good money after bad".

D) He never intended to win and is doing everything he can behind the scenes not to.

I'm leaning towards "D", though of course the options are not mutually exclusive.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I am leaning towards E) he doesn't think political advertising does much good, and he relishes the idea of beating Hillary on a shoestring budget. I am inclined to agree with him. I doubt political advertising makes more than a 1 to 2 point difference, even if it's done well. And there is no guarantee that you do it well. It could just as easily turn people off.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I am leaning towards E) he doesn't think political advertising does much good, and he relishes the idea of beating Hillary on a shoestring budget. I am inclined to agree with him. I doubt political advertising makes more than a 1 to 2 point difference, even if it's done well. And there is no guarantee that you do it well. It could just as easily turn people off.
Click to expand...

It will be hilarious if those 1-2 points plus another 1-2 for his terrible ground game end up costing him the election. Though he will probably end up losing by more than that, so maybe he is smart not to waste a bunch of his own money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom