The Trump/Republican Primary/General Election Megathread

[indiucky]

Wow...Breitbart has really gone around the bend with their Trump-mania.

You should see how far around the bend ABC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NBC, CNN have gone with their Clinton-Mania...Wow....

 

[nate77]

Guessing he would have shut that **** down. He fought against this very thing... and now it's just all-around awful.

Brietbart is doing that same thing now as when Andrew was alive, fighting globalism.

 

[printcraft]

You should see how far around the bend ABC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NBC, CNN have gone with their Clinton-Mania...Wow....

QFT ..... it's almost like there is collusion with the demoncrat party going on..... via email......

 

[nate77]

Well, really not many parallels. Or, I'm interested in what you consider to be parallels, other than the Dem ahead in national polls.

The candidates are starkly different. The parties are different. The electorate is different. Polling is different.

Oh, and in that link:


LOL

That link is from 4 years ago. Evidence, although not proof, that 1980 isn't necessarily a good predictor of today.

I knew the article was from 2012, but it's hard to find polling data from the summer of 1980, so I went with it.

Trump anti establishment celebrity, facing a total failure of a democrat candidate, but with the media fully in their corner.
Reagan anti establishment celebrity, facing a total failure of a democrat candidate, but with the media fully in their corner.

 

[T.Lex]

Trump anti establishment celebrity, facing a total failure of a democrat candidate, but with the media fully in their corner.
Reagan anti establishment celebrity, facing a total failure of a democrat candidate, but with the media fully in their corner.

Whoa hoss.

Reagan was an established politician when he ran for president. By 1980, he'd already gotten a nomination vote in a national convention. He was an actor-turned-legitimate-elected-official. Trump is just a celebrity.

Reagan faced an incumbent. A failure of an incumbent, but still the incumbent. In political science, that's meaningful. People could directly protest the failed policies by not voting for the person they hold responsible. Obama still has (astoundingly) good favorable numbers, despite most people believing the country is on the wrong track. Either way, they can't vote for Obama this time around.

I will give you the media thing. Seems like Reagan gave the media stuff to report just like Trump is doing. Come to think of it, I think CNN launched right around that time.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

They mistakenly picked the photo up off of social media, mistakes happen.

If they were trying to pull something over, they wouldn't have used an outdoor photo, with recognizable landmarks.

This is sort of part of the larger issue here... and just comes with forming alliances with a side.

There's no skepticism. You take their word for it (people that have been caught embellishing in the past) without question. But if CNN were to do something like this, I don't think anyone here would react how you did ("mistakes happen."). That's just my assumption though.

Breitbart, like many organizations in the media, they lie. They do things for the clicks.

Maybe they got caught on this, and made up a silly excuse. Or maybe it was just a mistake...

Just be more skeptical, pleeeease. Everyone. Of everything.

 

[T.Lex]

Just be more skeptical, pleeeease. Everyone. Of everything.

Plagiarism alert.

Veritatem inquirenti, semel in vita de omnibus, quantum fieri potest, esse dubitandum.

 

[printcraft]

This is sort of part of the larger issue here... and just comes with forming alliances with a side.

There's no skepticism. You take their word for it (people that have been caught embellishing in the past) without question. But if CNN were to do something like this, I don't think anyone here would react how you did ("mistakes happen."). That's just my assumption though.

Breitbart, like many organizations in the media, they lie. They do things for the clicks.

Maybe they got caught on this, and made up a silly excuse. Or maybe it was just a mistake...

Just be more skeptical, pleeeease. Everyone. Of everything.

I'm not so sure.

 

[nate77]

Whoa hoss.

Reagan was an established politician when he ran for president. By 1980, he'd already gotten a nomination vote in a national convention. He was an actor-turned-legitimate-elected-official. Trump is just a celebrity.

Reagan faced an incumbent. A failure of an incumbent, but still the incumbent. In political science, that's meaningful. People could directly protest the failed policies by not voting for the person they hold responsible. Obama still has (astoundingly) good favorable numbers, despite most people believing the country is on the wrong track. Either way, they can't vote for Obama this time around.

I will give you the media thing. Seems like Reagan gave the media stuff to report just like Trump is doing. Come to think of it, I think CNN launched right around that time.

Bush Sr, and his ilk were the progressive establishment, and Reagan, was the conservative rebel.

Hillary is a close to an incumbent as you can get, she and Obama are two peas, in the Alinsky, communist, globalist pod.

 

[T.Lex]

Bush Sr, and his ilk were the progressive establishment, and Reagan, was the conservative rebel.

Reagan was more conservative on some issues, but he wasn't really a rebel. At all. Heck, in 1976, he walked out of the convention without the nomination, but with alot of establishment support. Arguably more than Ford, who "won."

Hillary is a close to an incumbent as you can get, she and Obama are two peas, in the Alinsky, communist, globalist pod.

Ok. It is hard to say this on INGO. But, here it goes: HRC is considered a moderate by Dems.

Yeah, I know. It is hard to believe.

 

[jamil]

You should see how far around the bend ABC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NBC, CNN have gone with their Clinton-Mania...Wow....

I've been seeing it. I'd rather news sources be more neutral, and just report the facts. And not make up stuff or selectively edit out facts to support a particular viewpoint. And I'm okay with news sources selecting stories to tell that exemplify a particular viewpoint, as long as those stories are factual and don't cherry pick facts to skew the meaning. And that's what Breitbart used to be.

But if they indeed chose an image to run in a story about Trump's crowds, when the image actually depicts a different place and event, that's just making **** up. That's really propaganda. In the past two years, they've declined in their quality of reporting, and since they've become the official Trumper News Agency, they've completely ruined their reputation for honest journalism.

It's to the point now where I regard the veracity of a Breitbart piece the same as I would Solon, or Slate, or Huffpo.

QFT ..... it's almost like there is collusion with the demoncrat party going on..... via email......

We've long suspected as much, and it took Russians (allegedly) hacking the DNC to prove it. And the Democrats largely don't care. I ask Democrats what they think about it and they're like, yeah, so what?

So, are Republicans any different? If we found out the RNC and the Trump campaign were colluding with Fox News or Breitbart, would we care? Would we condemn them?

Brietbart is doing that same thing now as when Andrew was alive, fighting globalism.

Breitbart did it by reporting hard hitting facts. Now they're hard hitting propaganda. People need to stop consuming ideologically satisfying news just because it's what you want to hear. I'd feel a lot better about Trump if his supporters were fiercely loyal to the truth. I just have this nagging suspicion that if he did somehow beat Hillary, your fierce loyalty will make you rationalize and justify whatever he says.

I'll agree with you that the other side makes him out to be worse than he actually is, but you guys won't admit how bad he actually is. I don't see that changing if he gets in office.

 

[jamil]

Reagan was more conservative on some issues, but he wasn't really a rebel. At all. Heck, in 1976, he walked out of the convention without the nomination, but with alot of establishment support. Arguably more than Ford, who "won."


Ok. It is hard to say this on INGO. But, here it goes: HRC is considered a moderate by Dems.

Yeah, I know. It is hard to believe.

Part of the disconnect is whatever the hell we think the establishment is. Hell, if Trumpers get their way and purge the Republican party of everyone who disagrees with them, THEY will be the establishment. And they will be the ones protecting their franchise.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You should see how far around the bend ABC, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NBC, CNN have gone with their Clinton-Mania...Wow....

That's their well tread ground though. Trumpbart and Trudge are the new idol worshipers on the block.

 

[indiucky]

Bill Burr sums it up pretty well......

“The human being in me, I don’t want to see Trump win. But I’ve got to tell you something, just living in Hollywood, how f*cking terrified they are he’s going to win, it’s worth it,” Burr said. “If Trump wins, there’s no place in the world you’d rather be than in Hollywood. Just listen to them f*cking lose their minds.”

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The "stabbed in the back" myth has already begun, to explain what every sane person saw coming from miles away.

Sean Hannity:

 

[printcraft]

The "stabbed in the back" myth has already begun, to explain what every sane person saw coming from miles away.

Sean Hannity:

Second time I saying this but... he's not wrong.
Not necessarily the "loses" first sentence but the rest is spot on.

 

[T.Lex]

Second time I saying this but... he's not wrong.
Not necessarily the "loses" first sentence but the rest is spot on.

I'm not sure what you mean. Every single one of those listed has attacked the policies of Obama (not running) and HRC (actual opponent) more than Trump has.

And, if those 16 were that essential for victory, why wouldn't Trump have tried harder to convince them he was a good candidate?

We're supposed to be Republicans - logical conservatives - not automatons.

 

[printcraft]

I'm not sure what you mean. Every single one of those listed has attacked the policies of Obama (not running) and HRC (actual opponent) more than Trump has........

And .... done nothing to stop it. Rolled over at every opportunity. Thank you sir, may I have another.
"I oppose obamacare!!! NOW I'll vote to fund it! SEE how opposed to obama I am?!"
Trump is a direct result of their failure to act. They ARE to blame that he is where he is today.

 

[T.Lex]

And .... done nothing to stop it. Rolled over at every opportunity. Thank you sir, may I have another.
"I oppose obamacare!!! NOW I'll vote to fund it! SEE how opposed to obama I am?!"
Trump is a direct result of their failure to act. They ARE to blame that he is where he is today.

Ok. But if they are to be blamed/credited for his rise, how can they also be responsible for his failure?

I mean, I may give you Jeb, if Trump loses FL. Jeb could've probably helped with the ground game there.

But even then, Trump was REALLY ****ty to him. If Trump burned that bridge to win the primary, how smart does that make HIM?

 

[BugI02]

She's probably okay. Isn't New York a sanctuary city?



I wonder what Breitbart would have thought if he'd have known his creation would turn into a political propaganda source.

You could probably attach armatures to his body and measure the voltage