POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[SirFozzie]

This is the kinda thing that makes politics such a dirty word.

Log In - The New York Times

So, he "deeply admired" someone, but decided to keep her from getting a vote as an ambassador because she was a friend of the president and it would be "a way to inflict special pain on the president."

[Thomkal]

Trump can't even get a dead man's vote:

Ronald Reagan's Son: I'm Not Voting For Trump And Neither Would My Dad

[digamma]

Paul Ryan: Trump's Attacks on Judge Are 'Definition of a Racist Comment' - NBC News

It continues to be an interesting time. Really bizarre situation on both fronts.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by digamma

Paul Ryan: Trump's Attacks on Judge Are 'Definition of a Racist Comment' - NBC News

It continues to be an interesting time. Really bizarre situation on both fronts.

And yet he still says he'll vote for him.

[PilotMan]

Graham to Trump backers: Judge comments an 'off-ramp' - CNNPolitics.com

I think we might have reached the point where the base of the Republican party is ready and willing to lose the White House to save the party.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Graham to Trump backers: Judge comments an 'off-ramp' - CNNPolitics.com

I think we might have reached the point where the base of the Republican party is ready and willing to lose the White House to save the party.

The confusing part is that they're not saving anything by doing so. A Trump loss will do nothing to change the climate among people who currently identify as Republicans.

[digamma]

The intent is to save their jobs.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And yet he still says he'll vote for him.

"Principled politicians"

[RainMaker]

I'm kind of surprised that someone hasn't just come out strongly against Trump. It would line you up as the lead candidate in 2020 if Trump gets trounced in the general election. Maybe that's Romney's strategy these days but I figured it would have been a perfect spot for Ryan.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Graham to Trump backers: Judge comments an 'off-ramp' - CNNPolitics.com

I think we might have reached the point where the base of the Republican party is ready and willing to lose the White House to save the party.

change "the party" to "Congressional majorities" and that might be true. That said...when Christie called out Graham for a lack of credibility, he ain't wrong. When you spend the primaries talking about how Trump represents a clear and present danger to the Republic and then after he locks it down you go "well party before country after all" and then double back on THAT after he says something else objectionable?

I don't care whether you're looking at it from the perspective of a Trump supporter, a #NeverTrump Republican, or someone who plans to vote for the Democratic nominee in November: that's the very picture of someone who's lost their credibility. He lost his credibility with the anti-Trump folks by endorsing Trump in the first place, and if he ever had any credibility with the Trump camp, it's gone at this point.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm kind of surprised that someone hasn't just come out strongly against Trump. It would line you up as the lead candidate in 2020 if Trump gets trounced in the general election. Maybe that's Romney's strategy these days but I figured it would have been a perfect spot for Ryan.

There's two ways that goes.

1) "NO TRUMP TODAY, NO TRUMP TOMORROW, NO TRUMP EVER."

Trump gets trounced.

"Oh, praise be, you saw the light before we did! Take us to the Promised Land!" Y'know, the scenario you laid out.

2) "#NEVERTRUMP"

Trump gets trounced.

"MOTHERFUCKER YOU COST REPUBLICANS THE WHITE HOUSE WE COULD HAVE NOMINATED SCALIA'S REPLACEMENT (and possibly replaced one or two liberal justices) IF NOT FOR YOU."

Said politician finds their political career at the bottom of a pile of flaming tires.

It's a risky play is what I'm saying. If, as a Republican politician, you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton is preferable to Donald Trump, and you vocalize that, that's fine. If you're doing it out of political calculation to try to put yourself in position to be the nominee in four years, that's a dangerous game to play.

[Butter]

Maybe it is dangerous, but how many people get to run for president. Like 10 every four years? It's a risky game to play but if you want to get your name out there and you're an unknown now, maybe it's a risk worth taking.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Maybe it is dangerous, but how many people get to run for president. Like 10 every four years? It's a risky game to play but if you want to get your name out there and you're an unknown now, maybe it's a risk worth taking.

I don't think it is. If you're sufficiently young - especially if you're a major officeholder at that young age - you have time. Four years is plenty of time to make a statement that gets you national press.

If you're older, any move like that is going to be viewed as inherently political, and if the base thinks that you handed a SCOTUS majority to the librulz for personal partisan advantage in four years, you're going to end up like Jon Huntsman. Maybe you're the best of the bunch, but you will be utterly ignored.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

you're going to end up like Jon Huntsman.

A worthless p.o.s.? Yeah, that's probably about the right level.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A worthless p.o.s.? Yeah, that's probably about the right level.

Respectfully, I really don't give a shit what you think about a Republican who isn't willing to die on Extremist Hill.

You think anybody a step to the left of you is a "worthless POS" so your three cents on this topic really ain't such of a much to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Respectfully, I really don't give a shit what you think about a Republican who isn't willing to die on Extremist Hill.

Well that's nice SA, but it may not be entirely the point. Sure, I'll bash that worthless waste of oxygen at any opportunity, no question about it, but ... which one of us is more in tune with the voters that align with the GOP at this point?

Huntsman couldn't draw flies if you covered him in fresh horse manure, he's utterly irrelevant to anything.

[SirFozzie]

Politico is reporting that some GOP fundraisers don't think Trump will even hit 30% of the 1 billion in funding his campaign will need. I mean, it's worked for him so far, but at some point, if your opponent is outspending you 3 to 1, "free press" by making outrageous statements can only get you so far, you know?

Trump’s fundraisers see no chance of hitting $1 billion - POLITICO

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Politico is reporting that some GOP fundraisers don't think Trump will even hit 30% of the 1 billion in funding his campaign will need.

Another sign of the disconnect between "party leadership' and the people who have actually been voting for the party.

Honestly, the GOP appears done to me, quite possibly regardless of a win or a loss in November.

A win, those people with issues will be kicked if they don't leave.
A loss, the voters won't be coming back due to the lack of support.

edit to add: And, hell, they've already lost me even with Trump as the nominee. Imagine how his actual supporters feel about things.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well that's nice SA, but it may not be entirely the point. Sure, I'll bash that worthless waste of oxygen at any opportunity, no question about it, but ... which one of us is more in tune with the voters that align with the GOP at this point?

Huntsman couldn't draw flies if you covered him in fresh horse manure, he's utterly irrelevant to anything.

What Huntsman had going for him, at least in term of "drawing flies," is that unlike literally anybody else in the 2012 primaries, he had the ability to say to independents "Look, I tried to work with the guy, but his shit didn't fly." Whatever his bona fides for Conservative True Believers, or lack thereof, he had the potential to tap a part of the electorate nobody else in the clown car could have. The problem is, the base heard "I tried to work with the guy" and ignored the rest. Because he gave Barack Obama the time of day, his candidacy was dead on arrival.

And THAT, I submit, is the point. Not whether you think he's a "worthless waste of oxygen" on whose corpse you'd gleefully dance. That he did one single thing that made the base clutch its pearls, and *that's* what made his Presidential candidacy irrelevant.

And that's the parallel I'm drawing between Huntsman and this putative "denounce Trump" politician who'd be trying to make a name for himself for 2020. Not that Huntsman ever was the perfect candidate, but that he did one thing that torpedoed any hope he MIGHT have had of being the nominee. Mitt Romney was certainly no "severe conservative," despite his efforts to convince the base of that. He got the nomination anyway despite his background as a left-of-center governor in GOP clothing.

This imaginary candidate, on the other hand, could have a perfect, unimpeachable conservative reputation, and he'd still be risking his denunciation of Trump killing his prospects if the base thought that denunciation was responsible for a liberal shift in the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Politico is reporting that some GOP fundraisers don't think Trump will even hit 30% of the 1 billion in funding his campaign will need. I mean, it's worked for him so far, but at some point, if your opponent is outspending you 3 to 1, "free press" by making outrageous statements can only get you so far, you know?

Trump’s fundraisers see no chance of hitting $1 billion - POLITICO

The thing about Trump is of all the candidates who could have won the nomination, he's the least likely to need a billion dollars worth of advertising to get his name out there. There's diminishing returns involved, in that anybody who's attracted to his brand of rhetoric is probably already on board. But at this point, what he needs isn't for his rhetoric to dominate the news cycle. He needs to keep Clinton from being able to get any positive play. If he can do that, then he can frame the narrative around her. Vince Foster, Whitewater, Benghazi, rawr. The point isn't to make himself look better (because at this point nobody who's repulsed by him is going to change their mind, and anybody like Jon has probably already hopped off that train.

At this point, what Trump wants to do is keep Hillary from improving her own image, either to keep Sanders supporters from "uniting the party," or dissuading Democratic-friendly independents from voting. And THAT he can accomplish without a billion dollars of airtime.

[Thomkal]

So Paul Ryan, Priebus, and Mitt Romney are supposedly meeting in Utah today. I wonder what they could be talking about...

[Thomkal]

Looks like the establishment on the Republican side's "defense" of Trump's remarks about the judge in his Trump U case is to bring up all the times prominent Democrats recently had racial remarks:

Grassley Compares Trump Judge Attacks To Sotomayor's 'Wise Latina' Remark

of course the whole quote was not given, nor the question she was asked which I'm guessing from her answer had to do about her Latina heritage.

Edit: And he's already "walked back" on his comments:

Grassley Walks Back Likening Trump Attacks To 'Wise Latina' Comment

[mckerney]

To his credit he didn't go as far as the guy on CNN Tuesday night who said a black man claiming a white judge couldn't judge him fairly but Trump saying the same thing about a judge of Mexican heritage was heroically calling attention to racism.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The confusing part is that they're not saving anything by doing so. A Trump loss will do nothing to change the climate among people who currently identify as Republicans.

Because Supreme Court.

Dow settlement signals impact of Scalia death on class actions

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Looks like the establishment on the Republican side's "defense" of Trump's remarks about the judge in his Trump U case is to bring up all the times prominent Democrats recently had racial remarks:

Grassley Compares Trump Judge Attacks To Sotomayor's 'Wise Latina' Remark

of course the whole quote was not given, nor the question she was asked which I'm guessing from her answer had to do about her Latina heritage.

Edit: And he's already "walked back" on his comments:

Grassley Walks Back Likening Trump Attacks To 'Wise Latina' Comment

You don't think a double standard is in play?

[nol]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

You don't think a double standard is in play?

You do, and that's all that matters! Why even go through the trouble of asking for another's opinion?

[SirFozzie]

We have our first twitter war between the candidates.

These Are The Best Reactions To Hillary Clinton's "Delete Your Account" Comment

Now all we need is a discussion about updog, and we'll have the modern election down pat.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

You don't think a double standard is in play?

I think we don't know enough about the context of her comments-when and where they were given and in response to what question or comment. And she is Latino, commenting on her own people, which Trump clearly was not. And in today's day and age, I think comments on race have a bit of a built in double standard. Nobody can comment about it, it seems without offending someone or making them angry.

[SirFozzie]

Elizabeth Warren gets an open mic and 15 minutes to speak about Donald Trump.

Damage Level 10. No Survivors.

Elizabeth Warren DESTROYS Donald Trump During ACS Convention - YouTube

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I think we don't know enough about the context of her comments-when and where they were given and in response to what question or comment. And she is Latino, commenting on her own people, which Trump clearly was not. And in today's day and age, I think comments on race have a bit of a built in double standard. Nobody can comment about it, it seems without offending someone or making them angry.

If a white person were to say what Sotomayor said, he or she would be called a racist.

Imagine if a white guy said this:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

And Sotomayor used that line numerous times.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I think we don't know enough about the context of her comments-.

We do know the context. Basically the idea was back when the concept of women judges was controversial, someone said something like, "a wise man and a wise woman will come to the same decision." That the wise women wouldn't be overly swayed by emotions or be irrational, which was a real concern people had. Sotomayor said, "well shit, if you look back at all the discrimination and injustice endorsed by judges when they were all white men, maybe women can actually do it better, and in fact, they have." The idea was that as the judiciary, (and maybe the rest of the government) gets more diverse, we progress more as a society.

It was a provocative way to put it, for sure, but she knew her audience, this was a very liberal university, she was a public service lawyer, this was 15 years ago. She was trying to make young students think about this issue of diversity and why it matters.

Let's compare that to Trump, the current Republican nominee for president. He thinks that, because everybody knows he doesn't like Mexicans, it's unfair for him to have a Mexican judge preside over his case, and that judge should be disqualified on account of his race. This is how he feels. This isn't something he said during a casual speech at some conservative group 15 years ago - he's saying this right now, as a presidential candidate, on the record, this is what he's selling. In Donald Trump's America, we shouldn't have to face judges of the race that we don't like.

It kind of reminds me of the old pro wrestler Col. DeBeers from the AWA in the 80s. His gimmick was that he was a racist South African militant. So sometimes, if there was a black ref, he refused to wrestle in in the match until a white ref was assigned. He was a bad guy cartoony wrestling character. But now, 30 years later, we see basically the same trait in the Republican nominee for president. It's pretty wild.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If a white person were to say what Sotomayor said, he or she would be called a racist.

Yes, it's true, members of oppressed, disadvantaged races in a society can tend to "get away" with being more provocative when talking about race than the race who historically has the privilege. That makes sense. Historically, when the privileged race starts getting provocative about racial matters, shit tends to hit the van for the disadvantaged races. There's totally different motivations for being racially provocative depending on where your race falls in that society's power rankings. I don't know why that makes some white people so upset though. I don't feel like I'm really missing out on anything there. I think this is a part of Donald Trump's America too though. "PC" is wrong and we should all be "allowed" to express any racially provocative ideas or dislikes we have for any particular races without being judged. I'm not exactly sure how a president enforces that, but that "anti-PC" thing has been one of his rallying cries since the start.

[Butter]

"Anti-PC" is basically just code for "we should be allowed to be openly racist or sexist."

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by molson

It kind of reminds me of the old pro wrestler Col. DeBeers from the AWA in the 80s.

This phrase appearing, in proper context, in a political thread is why I love FOFC so much.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by molson

We do know the context. Basically the idea was back when the concept of women judges was controversial, someone said something like, "a wise man and a wise woman will come to the same decision." That the wise women wouldn't be overly swayed by emotions or be irrational, which was a real concern people had. Sotomayor said, "well shit, if you look back at all the discrimination and injustice endorsed by judges when they were all white men, maybe women can actually do it better, and in fact, they have." The idea was that as the judiciary, (and maybe the rest of the government) gets more diverse, we progress more as a society.

It was a provocative way to put it, for sure, but she knew her audience, this was a very liberal university, she was a public service lawyer, this was 15 years ago. She was trying to make young students think about this issue of diversity and why it matters.

Let's compare that to Trump, the current Republican nominee for president. He thinks that, because everybody knows he doesn't like Mexicans, it's unfair for him to have a Mexican judge preside over his case, and that judge should be disqualified on account of his race. This is how he feels. This isn't something he said during a casual speech at some conservative group 15 years ago - he's saying this right now, as a presidential candidate, on the record, this is what he's selling. In Donald Trump's America, we shouldn't have to face judges of the race that we don't like.

It kind of reminds me of the old pro wrestler Col. DeBeers from the AWA in the 80s. His gimmick was that he was a racist South African militant. So sometimes, if there was a black ref, he refused to wrestle in in the match until a white ref was assigned. He was a bad guy cartoony wrestling character. But now, 30 years later, we see basically the same trait in the Republican nominee for president. It's pretty wild.



Yes, it's true, members of oppressed, disadvantaged races in a society can tend to "get away" with being more provocative when talking about race than the race who historically has the privilege. That makes sense. Historically, when the privileged race starts getting provocative about racial matters, shit tends to hit the van for the disadvantaged races. There's totally different motivations for being racially provocative depending on where your race falls in that society's power rankings. I don't know why that makes some white people so upset though. I don't feel like I'm really missing out on anything there. I think this is a part of Donald Trump's America too though. "PC" is wrong and we should all be "allowed" to express any racially provocative ideas or dislikes we have for any particular races without being judged. I'm not exactly sure how a president enforces that, but that "anti-PC" thing has been one of his rallying cries since the start.

No, you are just making excuses for the double standard. 15 years ago it was not controversial to have female judges, we already had a female supreme court justice and female judges were common.

Also, for you to say that Trump hates Mexicans is a flat out lie and distortion of fact. If we used the same logic to judge Sotomayor, we would say she hates men and white people. Nether Trump or Sotomayor said that.

The media and many others hold the opinion we need more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can't be trusted to be fair. But then when someone suggests that a female or a latino could be unfair just like a white man can, then you call them a racist. That is called a double standard.

Trump may or may not be right, but it is a double standard to treat him one way and females and latinos another way when comments like this are made. You can argue context to your hearts content to justify the double standard, but that is not logical.

The judge is not just simply a latino of mexican heritage. He has referred to himself as mexican and is a member of La Raza and has openly supported illegal immigration after swearing to uphold the law. Trump has promised to enforce the countries immigration laws and control the border. It seems logical to be concerned the judge may have reason to be biased.

[wustin]

Nobody hates white people as much as other white people.

[albionmoonlight]

Priorities USA (Clinton Super PAC) has an ad buy in North Carolina.

I am paying attention to that. In terms of the presidential race, I think that NC is not of first-tier importance. But the down ballot effects could be huge. There there is a very vulnerable GOP governor and a GOP Senate seat up for re-election. The GOP is favored in the Senate seat, but he's not Jesse Helms. If Trump becomes a disaster, that seat could come into play.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

and is a member of La Raza

You may or may not know, and you may or may not care, but the "La Raza" group to which he belongs is a bar association. It has nothing to do with the National Counsel of La Raza.

The fact that the right wing has had to resort to "he belongs to a group that has a similar name to a group advocating for a pathway to citizenship" to try and paint the Judge as a radical demonstrates just how non-radical the Judge actually is.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

No, you are just making excuses for the double standard. 15 years ago it was not controversial to have female judges, we already had a female supreme court justice and female judges were common.

Also, for you to say that Trump hates Mexicans is a flat out lie and distortion of fact. If we used the same logic to judge Sotomayor, we would say she hates men and white people. Nether Trump or Sotomayor said that.

The media and many others hold the opinion we need more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can't be trusted to be fair. But then when someone suggests that a female or a latino could be unfair just like a white man can, then you call them a racist. That is called a double standard.

Trump may or may not be right, but it is a double standard to treat him one way and females and latinos another way when comments like this are made. You can argue context to your hearts content to justify the double standard, but that is not logical.

The judge is not just simply a latino of mexican heritage. He has referred to himself as mexican and is a member of La Raza and has openly supported illegal immigration after swearing to uphold the law. Trump has promised to enforce the countries immigration laws and control the border. It seems logical to be concerned the judge may have reason to be biased.

FYI: Here in NY there's a group of police that call themselves Irish and belong to a radical group called the Emerald Society. They meet regularly and raise money for Irish causes and are entertained with strange Irish songs and dances. They give scholarships to other Irish children. They even proudly march in parades that celebrate their Irishness.

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

You may or may not know, and you may or may not care, but the "La Raza" group to which he belongs is a bar association. It has nothing to do with the National Counsel of La Raza.

The fact that the right wing has had to resort to "he belongs to a group that has a similar name to a group advocating for a pathway to citizenship" to try and paint the Judge as a radical demonstrates just how non-radical the Judge actually is.

Through the Trump camp is ignorant/dishonest about the identification of the group, I don't think it makes a difference because I'm sure they also oppose the concept of organizations that encourage diversity, and that support historically under-represented racial groups in professions like the law. Because hey, white people don't get to have "white bar associations" to help support the white community, a group which of course, has always had a hard time breaking into law and the judiciary.

Every state has these diversity-based bar sections. And there's plenty of white people in these groups, because a lot of lawyers of all races generally support the missions and community involvement of these groups. In Donald Trump's America, membership in these groups makes you unfit for the bench, at least when the parties before you are white.

Edit: This is all really incredible stuff for a current presidential candidate to say, and that's backed up by so many people in his own party criticizing him. And even though in context, I don't think Sotomayor's speech from 2001 was a big deal, even if it was, I don't know what that has to do with anything. She's not running for president. Trump isn't a Supreme Court candidate. I'm sure we can dig of all kinds of stuff said in liberal university speeches that are way more shocking (I've heard and cringed at plenty of those speeches myself.) That doesn't make Trump any less of a racist. So many Republicans are having this moral dilemma of whether they'd rather see another Clinton in the white house, or be led by an overt racist, and what that means for the party going forward. The fact that we're having this tension now is pretty crazy and tells you all you need to know about Trump.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

We have our first twitter war between the candidates.

These Are The Best Reactions To Hillary Clinton's "Delete Your Account" Comment

Now all we need is a discussion about updog, and we'll have the modern election down pat.

HRC is holding a press conference Monday to discuss BOFA

[nol]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

HRC is holding a press conference Monday to discuss BOFA

I give it 2 months until Clinton or Trump RTs a Photoshop of the other candidate with the Crying Jordan face.

[larrymcg421]

The media and many others hold the opinion we need more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can't be trusted to be fair.

Um, no. What the hell? The "media and many others" want more minorities because diverse perspectives are valuable on the court (and pretty much everywhere else in life). As a white man, I certainly think I can be trusted to be fair. I also think others have had different experiences in life and appreciate those perspectives in both my personal and professional life.

[Izulde]

Increasing chatter that Clinton might tap Warren as her VP.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Increasing chatter that Clinton might tap Warren as her VP.

Wins back all but the craziest Sanders supporters, but that's a very old ticket.

[Izulde]

True, but I think winning back progressives is something Clinton needs to do, and going with Warren is the single best thing she could do in order to do that. In fact, I'll go so far as saying that if she doesn't, Trump's going to be the next president.

[albionmoonlight]

I know nothing, but I think that the Warren chatter is just chatter to get the left wing energized. Then Warren will say she is honored but does not want the job.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

And isn't the governor of MA a Republican? If Warren is elected VP, doesn't that mean the Dems lose a Senate seat?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Wins back all but the craziest Sanders supporters, but that's a very old ticket.

The crazy Sanders supporters have turned on Warren for endorsing Hillary. She went from the most popular person in DC for them to absolutely hated with one endorsement.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

And isn't the governor of MA a Republican? If Warren is elected VP, doesn't that mean the Dems lose a Senate seat?

Don't worry. The Dems can always field Coakley in the special election!

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

And isn't the governor of MA a Republican? If Warren is elected VP, doesn't that mean the Dems lose a Senate seat?

Not necessarily. There's a loophole that I read about that I can't remember the particulars of offhand, but it would start the special election clock sooner, yet still keep the seat Dem until the election or close to it.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The crazy Sanders supporters have turned on Warren for endorsing Hillary. She went from the most popular person in DC for them to absolutely hated with one endorsement.

I was initially disappointed, but I suspected it was for purposes of getting the VP slot. We'll see, though.

[larrymcg421]

Or she's pragmatic and doesn't want President Trump to happen.