Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

[Foolmewunz]

I was just repeating what I read on their site regarding background on their methodology. I apologize if it wasn't accurate.

Didn't mean to seem to be attacking you; I think I'd repeated the same argument, myself and don't remember where, but I read it somewhere - not on their site. Just curious as to whether there's a backtrack to a source for the claim. I remember hearing it back during the primaries.

 

[Ladewig]

The number fraudulent votes will be more than the amount that Donald loses by (so millions).

I understand that nationwide the difference would be in the millions, but there is no reason to rig every state. I was thinking four or five states might involve a total measured in the hundreds of thousands, but I looked it up and for Trump to say that every margin of victory in a half dozen key states was rigged would involve millions of fraudulent votes.

So discouraging. I think I'll go listen to President Obama's "C'mon, man" speech.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The accusation is the Trump and his supporters are the extreme fringe of the GOP.

Trump and the Trumpistas are responsible for the multiple state legislatures' attempts at suppression-through-Voter ID laws?

The GOP are mealy-mouthed. For four months during Presidential elections and off-year elections, they pose as fine upstanding supporters of our precious democracy. As soon as they re-set their minions in their seats, they go right back to their re-districting, gerrymandering and voter suppression.

 

[timhau]

So the media is rigged, the polls are rigged and the election is rigged.

How have democrats ever lost any election?

... and why are they only taking the presidency, why don't they take control of Congress while they're at it?

 

[SezMe]

Because the evidence has been clear, there is no evidence of widespread election fraud.

... voter ... There's a big difference.

 

[quadraginta]

You seem to be implying that it is somehow incumbent on President Obama/Clinton to make a reasonable nomination when the Republicans have made it clear they won't support any nomination. The Republican's had the chance to approve a reasonable candidate and rejected it for purely ideological reasons, it's not revenge to punish them for such actions, it's a necessity to prevent it happening in future.

If only.

They weren't even that principled.

They refused to even consider the candidate at all for no reason aside from unadulterated obstructionism.

They deserve no respect or regard. They've made that apparent through their own actions.

 

[trustbutverify]

Didn't mean to seem to be attacking you; I think I'd repeated the same argument, myself and don't remember where, but I read it somewhere - not on their site. Just curious as to whether there's a backtrack to a source for the claim. I remember hearing it back during the primaries.

Didn't take it that way... I'm curious about the claim as well. Maybe I'll look into it a little deeper.

 

[trustbutverify]

If only.

They weren't even that principled.

They refused to even consider the candidate at all for no reason aside from unadulterated obstructionism.

They deserve no respect or regard. They've made that apparent through their own actions.

Can you imagine if a senior Democratic senator had made this statement? All hell would break loose.

 

[SezMe]

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.

(I cut the stuff about Trump; just not interested.)
I too have wondered about political advertising. When I see a political ad, I discount the message because it is a political ad. But campaigns spend hundreds of millions on TV advertising. One would think that after all these years of TV ads since TV became a thing that someone would have figured out that political ads aren't convincing. So why continue?

The counter argument is that products advertising is proven to work. So why would it fail for political ads? Dumb people are still dumb people. BTW, I realize that one can be pretty smart and still be taken in by well done advertising.

So, sunmaster14, smarter people than you and I see value in TV political ads. On what basis do you find them unpersuasive?

 

[quadraginta]

Both parties use extensive poll watchers and have for decades.

It isn't poll watchers that Trump, et.al. are advocating. It's poll intimidators.

 

[SezMe]

Regarding Trump funding his campaign, I suspect he's "land-poor". He has most of his wealth tied up in illiquid real estate and not all that much free cash.

Don't you mean cash-poor and land-rich? That's a vocabulary-poor way of saying illiquid.

 

[SezMe]

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.)

With Ailes out at Fox (and in with Trump) it appears that Murdock's sons are looking to remake Fox into more of a news organization by, in part, dropping the large segment of opinion hours. If that's the case - and Ailes ought to have more than a little insight - then there is room for a new Fox TV Trump TV on the far right. If Ailes is in the bag with Trump, given his enormous success with Fox, his presence as, say, president of Trump TV he might be able to overcome the financing problem.

If this is in the planning stage one thing Trump TV will need are some big names. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the negotiating rooms when Hannity, Kelly, Bair, et. al. are trying to fatten their wallets by jumping ship. Oh, and O'really. With his ego in the same room as Trump's an ego black hole would form.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

"The Donald doth protest too much, methinks"

I think he is counting on sympathizers and Russian hackers to rig the election in his favor, and is laying the groundwork to shield himself from potential negative fallout.

 

[quadraginta]

They sometimes lose elections on purpose to fool people into thinking they aren't rigged.

Diabolical!!!

 

[SezMe]

She should appoint a 35 year old, black, atheist, lesbian, disabled ACLU lawyer.

In for a dime, in for a dollar.

 

[SezMe]

I hope it doesn't come to that. But if they continue to flat-out obstruct, as they have with Garland, I don't see an alternative.

In the face of continuing obstrctionism, HRC could nominate a candidate with an accompanying stipulation that if the Senate does not have an up-or-down vote in 120 days, she will take their silence as consent and swear in the nominee.

I suspect that would trigger a constitutional crises but some way has to be found to overcome mindless obstrctionism on judicial nominations. Even Roberts has cited a major problems with backlogs in the court system at all levels of the judiciary.

Here's a fun scenario: A constitutional crises based on the above scenario is in hand and it goes immediately to the Supreme Court. Does the nominee who was sworn in get to sit in on the case? Remember, there is no rule about recusal at the Supreme Court level - it is up to the individual judges.

 

[SezMe]

When Hillary becomes President, I wouldn't put it past them to totally ignore what they said before and make up some BS excuse to block her nominee if they can.

Make an excuse? Excuses are for pussies. Damn the iceberg, full speed ahead.

 

[Nova Land]

In the face of continuing obstrctionism, HRC could nominate a candidate with an accompanying stipulation that if the Senate does not have an up-or-down vote in 120 days, she will take their silence as consent and swear in the nominee.

One problem with that is that presidents don't usually swear in Supreme Court justices; the chief justice does. For example:

Elena Kagan was sworn in as the 100th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on Saturday, August 7, 2010. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., first administered the Constitutional Oath in the Justices’ Conference Room attended by members of the Kagan family and several Justices. The Chief Justice then administered the Judicial Oath in the West Conference Room before a small gathering of Elena Kagan’s family and friends. A formal investiture ceremony will take place in the Courtroom on Friday, October 1, 2010, at 2 p.m. at a special sitting of the Court.

 

[SezMe]

Could be, but let's wait and see before criticizing them thus.

Now that McCain has said that very thing, can we start?

 

[SezMe]

I was assuming it was sarcasm

Given Bob's oeuvre, that's not a wise assumption.