• 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.
Interestingly, Paul Ryan and Mike Pence are backing away from this and state officials responsible for elections really oppose this rhetoric. I'm sure Trump doesn't get it that if the elections are rigged against him they could be rigged in favor of any Republican candidate who wins in November. Then again, in Trump world, if it isn't about Trump it isn't important.
 
With all the traffic in this thread, I might have overlooked someone posting this already...

Ever the hero, Trump has stated:
From: http://people.com/politics/trump-bo...nas-are-landmines-it-was-my-personal-vietnam/
Trump Boasted of Avoiding STDs While Dating: ‘Vaginas Are Landmines … It Was My Personal Vietnam’

Joke (slighly NSFW):
That's why I always engage in oral sex... its not that I'm trying to please my partner. I'm just checking for explosives.
 
halleyscomet said:
It looks like one of Trump's son-in-laws has tipped the hand and revealed all.

For those of you who predicted a Trump TV network after the election, come claim your prize

Trump son-in-law holds talks over post-election TV network

Everyone who is surprised please raise their hand.
Click to expand...
I'm not really show how that will work.

First of all, are there really financial institutions willing to front the money to Trump, given his string of business failures? (Remember, most big banks won't touch him now, and he often has to deal with foreign banks.)

Secondly, what exactly will this network be showing? Will it be a news network with a right-wing bias? We already have Fox news, so it will split the audience there. Some sort of lifestyle channel (like a 24 hour "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous")? Perhaps, but given how much Trump's name has been tarnished, that may not work well either. Perhaps, given Trump's voter base, it will constantly show reruns of DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Schindler's List (the edited version showing Schindler as a traitor.)
 
seayakin said:
I can't help but thinking that Trump's sex assault comments might have been survivable if he had approached it like almost any other politician especially given that wikileaks seems to have launched an all out attack on Hillary Clinton by dribbling out damaging emails.

For instance, the events starting with the statement would have been as follows for any sane and competent politician to control damage.

  1. News outlets air damaging video of the candidate making comments
  2. Politician apologizes using the locker room talk excuse and declares himself reformed and born again (add fundamentalist blather)
  3. 2 woman come out that he assaulted him, deny claim and provide an alibi that is difficult prove
  4. Rinse and repeat claim that he is born again and a changed man
  5. More women claim he assaulted him
  6. Rinse and repeat denial, alibi and changed man status

Because of Trump's incompetence and arrogance, he has kept the news cycle alive by attacking the women and claiming that at least one wasn't "pretty" enough for his advances. This has nothing to do with a liberal press and all to do with his narcissistic personality disorder and possibly borderline personality.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Hillary Clinton knows this. Hell most politicians know that at that level and professional strategists definitely know it. If Trump had said something like. "You know I've been wrong sometimes, in both the way I talk and how I interact with women. I can't change the past, but I think I can change the future and make it a better one for all Americans." He might have been able to get the media to tell a different story. But his defense is more a pathetic excuse and he made it worse by attacking Bill Clinton. Then he continues to make things worse by attacking the attractiveness of women.

The man doesn't have a clue about how to show humility or contrition.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Exactly, Hillary Clinton knows this. Hell most politicians know that at that level and professional strategists definitely know it. If Trump had said something like. "You know I've been wrong sometimes, in both the way I talk and how I interact with women. I can't change the past, but I think I can change the future and make it a better one for all Americans." He might have been able to get the media to tell a different story. But his defense is more an pathetic excuse and he made it worse by attacking Bill Clinton. Then he continues to make things worse by attacking the attractiveness of women.

The man doesn't have a clue about how to show humility or contrition.
Click to expand...

Maybe the Republicans shouldn't have nominated a totally inexperienced idiot with personality disorder.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
I'm not really show how that will work.

First of all, are there really financial institutions willing to front the money to Trump, given his string of business failures? (Remember, most big banks won't touch him now, and he often has to deal with foreign banks.)

Secondly, what exactly will this network be showing? Will it be a news network with a right-wing bias? We already have Fox news, so it will split the audience there. Some sort of lifestyle channel (like a 24 hour "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous")? Perhaps, but given how much Trump's name has been tarnished, that may not work well either. Perhaps, given Trump's voter base, it will constantly show reruns of DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Schindler's List (the edited version showing Schindler as a traitor.)
Click to expand...

Add to this that I know a few Trump voters, and they are all reluctant to endorse the man but think that Clinton is worse. They buy into the anti-Clinton rhetoric, but recognize that Trump sucks.

Obviously, he also has a passionate base, but it's at least somewhat smaller than his voter base.

I don't personally know anyone who supports Trump wholeheartedly. The Trump voters I know come from the Bible belt primarily, so are not necessarily representative.
 
Tony Stark said:
Maybe the Republicans shouldn't have nominated a totally inexperienced idiot with personality disorder.
Click to expand...

The man talked tough and he appealed to their xenophobic fears. I think Trump could have won this election if had been just a little disciplined and had some restraint. Which of course means they couldn't have.
 
Segnosaur said:
I'm not really show how that will work.

First of all, are there really financial institutions willing to front the money to Trump, given his string of business failures? (Remember, most big banks won't touch him now, and he often has to deal with foreign banks.)

Secondly, what exactly will this network be showing? Will it be a news network with a right-wing bias? We already have Fox news, so it will split the audience there. Some sort of lifestyle channel (like a 24 hour "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous")? Perhaps, but given how much Trump's name has been tarnished, that may not work well either. Perhaps, given Trump's voter base, it will constantly show reruns of DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Schindler's List (the edited version showing Schindler as a traitor.)
Click to expand...

I think it would operate pretty much the same way his casinos did, not as a viable business, but as a means of transferring investor funds to Trump's personal bank accounts.

There have been a number of articles about Trump using campaign funds, most of which were donated, to pay for his campaign and paying that money to his own businesses. Trump TV will be very similar. The key, as you said, will be who the investors are who will get fleeced. I think Trump is targeting the core he's built up during his campaign. He's going to wring blood from a stone with them. It's possible his silver spoon upbringing has left him unaware of just how small a pool of financial resources he's really dealing with compared to his past ventures. If he does realize the size of the pond he's playing in, he's probably doing it out of desperation.

He also might just be threatening to start a new network as a bargaining chip to get his name attached to something done by an existing network, or to con his way into a spin-off network. I can definitely see FOX financing a spin-off budget cable news network running out of their existing infrastructure to win back some of the alt-right cred and market Trump has taken from them.
 
halleyscomet said:
I think it would operate pretty much the same way his casinos did, not as a viable business, but as a means of transferring investor funds to Trump's personal bank accounts.

There have been a number of articles about Trump using campaign funds, most of which were donated, to pay for his campaign and paying that money to his own businesses. Trump TV will be very similar. The key, as you said, will be who the investors are who will get fleeced. I think Trump is targeting the core he's built up during his campaign. He's going to wring blood from a stone with them. It's possible his silver spoon upbringing has left him unaware of just how small a pool of financial resources he's really dealing with compared to his past ventures. If he does realize the size of the pond he's playing in, he's probably doing it out of desperation.

He also might just be threatening to start a new network as a bargaining chip to get his name attached to something done by an existing network, or to con his way into a spin-off network. I can definitely see FOX financing a spin-off budget cable news network running out of their existing infrastructure to win back some of the alt-right cred and market Trump has taken from them.
Click to expand...

I think there is a real possibility that Trump would license his name but Roger Ailes or someone like him would run and manage the network. They (not Trump) would actually do some market research to determine the feasibility of the network as a business. They might grab Sean Hannity from Fox.
 
seayakin said:
I have always thought that Trump was too unpredictable and uncontrolled to be assured he would pick a candidate the party as a whole favors. I wouldn't be surprised if he would appoint Giuliani or some NY Attorney that has worked with his family a long time.
Click to expand...

He has a sister that was a federal judge.
 
Monmouth national poll, likely voters:

Clinton 50%
Donald 38%
Johnson 5%

When I first saw this reported I thought it was a two way because Johnson didn't make the headline. The buried important detail is 57% of voters say it’s “very” or “somewhat” important that The Orange Menace not become president.
 
halleyscomet said:
I can definitely see FOX financing a spin-off budget cable news network running out of their existing infrastructure to win back some of the alt-right cred and market Trump has taken from them.
Click to expand...

Ailes is gone and Rupert's two sons aren't fans of Trump.

Steve S
 
Stacko said:
Monmouth national poll, likely voters:

Clinton 50%
Donald 38%
Johnson 5%

When I first saw this reported I thought it was a two way because Johnson didn't make the headline. The buried important detail is 57% of voters say it’s “very” or “somewhat” important that The Orange Menace not become president.
Click to expand...

A+ pollster

Good, good.
 
I hope Hillary appoints someone massively liberal to the Supreme Court and that they get confirmed no problem.

Mainly because I am raging bleeding heart liberal, but a big part of me would REALLY enjoy the Schadenfreude I would experience toward the Republican party's obstructionism.
 
Faydra said:
I hope Hillary appoints someone massively liberal to the Supreme Court and that they get confirmed no problem.

Mainly because I am raging bleeding heart liberal, but a big part of me would REALLY enjoy the Schadenfreude I would experience toward the Republican party's obstructionism.
Click to expand...

She should appoint a 35 year old, black, atheist, lesbian, ACLU lawyer.
 
timhau said:
G) He is just stingy.

Evidence for that overlaps with A) - I've read that his charitable contributions are extremely small for someone who's worth several billions.
Click to expand...
I'd say pathologically stingy. $7 for his son's Scout membership came from his "charitable" foundation. That's symptomatic of a genuine problem, I think.
 
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