US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[Achas Veachas]

Can we start using the "-gate" suffix with Trump?

Anyone see how he's responding to breastpump-gate?

Can't we just lump it all into one big Trumpgate?

[aygart]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/durham-we-have-a-problem-1438279548

Or if you don't have WSJ access
https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&q=Durham%2C+We+Have+a+Problem&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

  No More Mr. Nice Guy
 “Donald Trump is not shy about stating his strengths as a candidate,” observes Susan Jones of CNSNews.com:

So when Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren asked him, “What’s your weakness?” on Tuesday night, Trump responded this way:
“Some people think I’m not a nice person, and I actually am. I love people. You know I’m a nice person. But some people think, maybe it’s the ‘you’re fired’ and ‘The Apprentice.’ Who knows? But some people think I’m not a nice person.
“But you know what I tell somebody that said that, that really wants me to win. He said, Mr. Trump, can you be nicer?
“I said, look, I don’t think this election is going to be won by a nice person. I think people want competence for a change. We need compet—we need really, really, smart, competent people. And if we don’t get that kind of leader and leadership in particular at the level of the president, this country is in big trouble.”

According to Trump, (1) he is a nice person, and (2) a nice person is not going to win the election. It follows logically that Trump does not believe he is going to win the election. Some good news for a change.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

“Donald Trump is not shy about stating his strengths as a candidate,” observes Susan Jones of CNSNews.com: According to Trump, (1) he is a nice person, and (2) a nice person is not going to win the election. It follows logically that Trump does not believe he is going to win the election. Some good news for a change.

Now I can sleep better at night. 

[Achas Veachas]

 “Donald Trump is not shy about stating his strengths as a candidate,” observes Susan Jones of CNSNews.com: According to Trump, (1) he is a nice person, and (2) a nice person is not going to win the election. It follows logically that Trump does not believe he is going to win the election. Some good news for a change.

Who said anything about logic?

[aygart]

Peggy Noonan writes the following:

His rise is not due to his supporters' anger at government. It is a gesture of contempt for government, for the men and women in Congress, the White House, the agencies. It is precisely because people have lost their awe for the presidency that they imagine Mr. Trump as a viable president. American political establishment, take note: In the past 20 years you have turned America into a nation a third of whose people would make Donald Trump their president. Look on your wonders and despair.

[harrym]

Peggy Noonan writes the following:

And if I may add: The reason the people lost their awe for the presidency is Barack Obama.

[aygart]

And if I may add: The reason the people lost their awe for the presidency is Barack Obama.

-1. Had there been awe for the presidency he would never have been elected.

[avremie]

Has anyone seen Trump the movie?
Please review.

[Nitantnel]

If this guy makes it to the presidency, he will completely overshadow Obama's presidency and legacy.

Though I still think that he has zero--zilch--chance to make it to the nomination, this thought is very entertaining.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Surprised he didn't promote the guy.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-campaign-staffer-sam-nunberg-fired-after-racist-facebook-posts-n402756

[Achas Veachas]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/donald-trump-2016-trumping-20150731

[JoeyShmoe]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/donald-trump-2016-trumping-20150731

Very interesting read!

[Aj3042]

Very interesting read!

More like the rant of someone insulted by Trump's snubbing of him.

[JoeyShmoe]

More like the rant of someone insulted by Trump's snubbing of him.

A) The article for the most part points out how a chunk of the media is following him as if he were a regular candidate, when in fact he isn't acting like one (and his random and selective responses prove that)

B) I also want to know his answers to those 6 questions

[aygart]

More like the rant of someone insulted by Trump's snubbing of him.

Do you know any substantive positions of his that we don't? That would be any at all

[Aj3042]

Do you know any substantive positions of his that we don't? That would be any at all

Did I say he's substantive? All I said was that this guy has a grudge against him for ignoring him. Besides, since when does the media only follow "substantive" parts of campaigns? They holler for days about how Mitt Romney put a dog on top of his car and eagerly follow Obama into the nighttime comedy shows and then claim to be interested in "substance"? Give me a break-I wish the election was about substance instead of who looks better and sounds funnier but the media participates plenty in this sort of shallow routine.
The funniest part of this article is about who he talks about the British attitude toward Trump. For anyone knowledgable about history the British example is exactly the one that we want to avoid. They went from having the largest empire in history to being an unexceptional regional power in just 50-60 years. They threw Churchill, a war hero who won the Second World War for them, out of office right after the war was over, which goes to show their poor taste in elections (in contrast think of the American gratitude toward FDR). So yes, let's listen to them if we want to decline like them.

[aygart]

Besides, since when does the media only follow "substantive" parts of campaigns?

FTFY and new example needed because we are not dealing with unsubstantive parts of a substantive campaign

They went from having the largest empire in history

Greater than those who were "malchu bikipah"? Was that ever a measure of America at all? Is ability and will to conquer militarily a true gauge of greatness?

For anyone knowledgable about history the British example is exactly the one that we want to avoid. They went from having the largest empire in history to being an unexceptional regional power in just 50-60 years.

Their domestic policies are in many ways in the American tradition partially due to and cause of the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher

[Aj3042]

Greater than those who were "malchu bikipah"? Was that ever a measure of America at all? Is ability and will to conquer militarily a true gauge of greatness?

The simple answer to that question is yes. It doesn't say "malchu b'kipah" for no reason, right? The megillah says Achashveirosh ruled over 127 lands as a gauge of his power, right?. However, it's besides the point, as losing almost all your empire in a few decades is certainly not a sign of power. In fact, it's the biggest sign of a weak and crumbling empire.

FTFY and new example needed because we are not dealing with unsubstantive parts of a substantive campaign

The media's constant focus on stupidity and shallowness rather than on important issues means that they have yet to substantively cover any serious issue. For example, what coverage have you heard recently over the border issue besides Trump's comments? Does the liberal media actually discuss the great danger of this border problem to the health of the nation or only Trump's comments about illegal immigrants (which quite frankly shouldn't be the main issue on people's minds now given the countless perils Americans are facing).

[aygart]

The simple answer to that question is yes. It doesn't say "malchu b'kipah" for no reason, right? The megillah says Achashveirosh ruled over 127 lands as a gauge of his power, right?. However, it's besides the point, as losing almost all your empire in a few decades is certainly not a sign of power. In fact, it's the biggest sign of a weak and crumbling empire.

I don't get your answer about malchu bikipah. If they ruled the world then that was greater than Britain. Maybe a crumbling empire but it happened due to the realization that colonialism was poor policy and not a measure of greatness.

The media's constant focus on stupidity and shallowness rather than on important issues means that they have yet to substantively cover any serious issue. For example, what coverage have you heard recently over the border issue besides Trump's comments? Does the liberal media actually discuss the great danger of this border problem to the health of the nation or only Trump's comments about illegal immigrants (which quite frankly shouldn't be the main issue on people's minds now given the countless perils Americans are facing).

And here one reporter actually did try to report on some substance and was rebuffed. That is in itself substantive news. Yet when he reports it you complain that he has a chip on his shoulder. If his campaign is without substance then PuffHo is correct for placing it in the entertainment section. It sure isn't politics.

[Aj3042]

Your question about Britain regarding "malchu b'kipah" has a very simple answer. Chazal say that they were "malchu b'kipah" and whatever that means (whether only the civilized world at the time, or literally the whole world) I was merely quoting current scientific knowledge on the subject. If it argues with chazal then it's wrong and if chazal meant something else than what the literal interpretation implies it is right. (As it is to say they meant he ruled over North America and Antarctica is unlikely so there's room for explaining that it means the whole civilized world. But that's for another time.)

And Trump is right in his disdain for the liberal media which is a bigger mockery of substance than he is. It's not for no reason he gets cheers when he digresses his disgust with them. If they were honest and at least a little impartial this guy's complaints would have merit. Given their constant skewering of Republicans he has every reason to distance himself from them.