POLITICAL THREAD

[qwesley]

I am not politics savvy so I ask with genuine curosity. Do any of you see this "inexpicable" Trump support as a backlash against a disrespected and even desmised media? We hear that it is "anti establishment". Is the mainstream media part of this "establishment"? Does the media hate that Trump does not play by their rules of political, liberal correctness?

Absofreakinglutely. The media being all in for the DNC has caused the Dems to be very arrogant and the GOP to be very angry. People don't feel (mostly correct) that McConnell and Boehner among others have fought for them or are ever on offense and now they want an attack dog even though that dog may or may not really agree with them on anything.

 

[-LEK-]

yep, right . . . intention of malice against a public figure . . . impossible to prove. Gives media a perma-shield against libel for almost any and everything they could possibly imagine to speak or print, as never can it be truly known what they, or who specifically, had in their heart-of-hearts, as necessary to determine any malicious intent. Speaking only for myself, I don't care either way, but I really see zero impingement on individual freedom of speech if media sources found themselves spending a little more time in court, as indeed they do write things against public figures time and again untrue, and indeed often motivated maliciously. There is less threat in this process to overall 1st Amendment / freedom of speech rights and liberties than there was when the assault weapons ban threatened overall 2nd Amendment rights and liberties. The former at worst case resulting in rich media ownership sending rich lawyers to shrug if off in court, the latter in a bunch of semi-autos.

This is completely untrue. You can prove it. There is a test the courts use, and its more than just "proving malice." It is a serious of tests that come from various cases such as NY v Sullivan, Gertz, Street, Time v Firestone, Wolston, Tavoulareas, etc... I knew I should not have hit show ignored content.

The New York Times settled against Israel's Prime Minister Sharon for libel. People win all the time, you just dont know about it and to act like its some problem?

Maybe we should just go to a Nazi state where the media cant write anything? Or maybe let you decide? It is why we have courts and a court system.

Ever wonder why the 1st Amendment is first? Great job advocating thought police though...

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Can you pardon somebody who hasn't been convicted of anything? (yet)

Presidential pardons can be granted anytime after an offense has been committed including before, during, or after a conviction for the offense. If granted before a conviction is given, it prevents any penalties from attaching to the person. If granted after a conviction, it removes the penalties, and restores the person to all his or her civil rights. However, a pardon can never be granted before an offense has been committed – because the president does not have the power to waive the laws.

 

[qwesley]

I have two issues when I hear the constant "establishment" phrase.

Who is in it? I see lots of conservative writers that have railed on GOP leadership for years about always being on defense now being lumped into "establishment" for opposing Trump. The phrase has become a catch all.

The underlying issue that has plagued the GOP is populism, or moreso the fear of populism. This is where the media has been very valuable for the DNC...whether it be the bleeding heart articles on immigration, the enabling of the selling and major failures of ACA, TPP and Iran deal being opposed by majority yet covered lightly, etc. The "establishment" has been unwilling to dig in other than the debt ceiling one time. McConnell thinks having a charade vote on ACA every few months means something.

 

[qwesley]

Yeah, if only Trump had gotten some coverage from Fox...just imagine.

 

[TransyCat09]

The GOP's problem is the played to fears of (mostly) poor and (mostly) white Americans while actually doing nothing that they said they would. They've been going on and on about the national debt, killing terrorists, deporting illegals, dismantling entitlements, gay marriage, etc. and have done nothing of the sort. They just say those things to get people to vote.

Now those chickens are coming home to roost and those chickens look like a Trump rally.

 

[wkycatfan]

Rubio and Kasich need to drop out this week. See what Cruz can do, one on one vs. Trump.

 

[From-the-stands]

I agree Trump has received a ton of coverage from Fox - they're not dummies with no regard to ratings. But no one can now ignore their attempts pave the road to the White House for Rubio.

 

[qwesley]

Garbage, go read your original post about wanting him to call Fox out for their treatment. Other than MK he has gotten unchallenged and substantial coverage from their whole lineup. Hannity has been brutal on Rubio. Their biggest draw, BOR, has been very kind to Trump. Zero substance to your claim.

 

[wkycatfan]

I'm going to caucus Saturday in Ky, and vote Rubio. He has the best chance to unite the party, and I like the people who have endorsed him best. He had a pretty good group in South Carolina.

Rubio has pretty much lost me lately. Thinking seriously about caucusing for Carson and sleeping with a clear conscience.

 

[qwesley]

Yeah, the guy needs some apologies...

Hannity unloads on Rubio
Fox News host Sean Hannity railed against Marco Rubio on Wednesday night for his intensifying attacks on Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Rubio has relentlessly gone after the businessman since last week’s Republican debate, mocking his hair and the size of his hands, invoking his failed business ventures and questionable hiring practices, and even ridiculing the billionaire on stage at a rally by reading his misspelled tweets aloud.

Hannity suggested Rubio — the “hired gun” to take out the insurgent Trump — had worn out those attacks but would use the same rhetoric in Thursday’s Republican debate.

“That’s not Marco,” Hannity said during a panel discussion on his show. “To me, it seems like the establishment is putting all this in his head. He’s regurgitating it and being somebody that he’s not.”

Hannity said Rubio’s onslaught is “turning into a suicide mission.” He speculated Rubio “is being fed this” and was “probably promised a lot of money” to go after Trump this way and slammed a pro-Rubio super PAC for running an ad on Trump’s refusal to disavow the Ku Klux Klan.

“Maybe it’s my conspiratorial mind,” Hannity began. “I think this is orchestrated, well-funded and well organized.”

As for Trump, Hannity lavished praise on the billionaire real estate showman for his Super Tuesday victory speech.

“Donald Trump showed a side of himself last night — I’m speaking objectively here. I’m not taking sides in this,” Hannity said. “But Donald Trump showed a side of him that was very different last night. You could even use the word 'presidential' in the way he approached. He was magnanimous when it comes to Ted Cruz and his victories, how tough it is to run for president, you know, and what I’m watching here is the kitchen sink, scorched earth, MMA bare-knuckle brawl, thorough nuclear attacks.”

..............................................
From Mediate
O’Reilly first warned that if Trump is the GOP nominee, “we can expect a media assault on him that will be unprecedented.” He did note that Trump is ready for it, bringing up The Donald’s comments about loosening libel laws to go after the media.

He then pivoted to the controversy over Trump’s refusal yesterday to disavow support from Duke. O’Reilly called it a “complete non-story” because he’s spoken to Trump hundreds of times and he’s “never run down anyone because of race.”

 

[qwesley]

From Business Insider, poor fella...first born wealthy and now this. Just needs a fair shot.

Donald Trump has appeared on Fox News more than twice as much as anyone else in the Republican field.

The Republican frontrunner logged nearly 23 hours of airtime in 119 appearances on the network from May 1 to Dec. 15

 

[P19978]

Romney coming out against Trump in a few minutes.

All we need now is to have McConnell, Ryan and Boehner come out against him and then we can cast our votes for Trump comfortably knowing that the Repub establishment is truly useless.

 

[From-the-stands]

New lows for Fox News because of their Pro-Rubio stance (that is until they saw he wasn't going to win).

"Here is something I never thought I would write in my lifetime: CNN’s handling of the Republican debates has been infinitely more professional, unbiased, and fair than Fox News. It’s not even close. If you go back and look at the debates, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer have out-classed Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace, and Bret Baier by a wide margin."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...hannels-brand-takes-50-hit-among-republicans/

 

[CatsBy90]

To hell with Romney for making this speech. What does this accomplish? Sooner or later these idiots are going to have to get behind Trump, because he's going to be the nominee.

 

[Mojocat]

This is the shameless truth that Fox "News" is in fact an arm of the Republican party. I wonder if MSNBC has secret meetings with Democrats? If they do then they are just as bad, but I haven't heard that accusation against them at least.

WTH? Is that an attempt at wry humor, are you trying to be clever? Or maybe you haven't taken note of the times CNN and 60 Minutes gave Hillary advance notice of questions to be asked in an interview?

Yes, absolutely, under Ailes, FoxNews leans definitively and demonstrably to the right, and gives candidates and causes on the right preferential treatment.

It always amuses, though, that those on the left are so quick to point that out with vehemence, and can't see or acknowledge that NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. etc. etc. do the same for the left.

MSNBC is in a different universe - which is why I suspect your were simply trying to be funny.....

 

[Mojocat]

Donald Trump has appeared on Fox News more than twice as much as anyone else in the Republican field.

The Republican frontrunner logged nearly 23 hours of airtime in 119 appearances on the network from May 1 to Dec. 15

Not true, Fox favors Rubio.

 

[Mojocat]

Rubio and Kasich need to drop out this week. See what Cruz can do, one on one vs. Trump.

This puzzles me. I am pretty certain that Trump cannot win a national election. I am 100% certain that Ted Cruz cannot win a national election.

getting this down to Trump and Cruz would serve only one purpose: it would take any/all suspense out of the election, and we'd have a winner by mid summer. Voting for Trump or Cruz is a vote for Hillary.

(There are troubling things about both Rubio and Kasich. That's not the point. The point is do you want Hillary to be President?)

 

[From-the-stands]

WTH? Is that an attempt at wry humor, are you trying to be clever? Or maybe you haven't taken note of the times CNN and 60 Minutes gave Hillary advance notice of questions to be asked in an interview?

Yes, absolutely, under Ailes, FoxNews leans definitively and demonstrably to the right, and gives candidates and causes on the right preferential treatment.

It always amuses, though, that those on the left are so quick to point that out with vehemence, and can't see or acknowledge that NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. etc. etc. do the same for the left.

MSNBC is in a different universe - which is why I suspect your were simply trying to be funny.....

I just googled "CNN and 60 Minutes gave Hillary advance notice of questions" and it brought up nothing, so can you source your claim please?

 

[wkycatfan]

This puzzles me. I am pretty certain that Trump cannot win a national election. I am 100% certain that Ted Cruz cannot win a national election.

getting this down to Trump and Cruz would serve only one purpose: it would take any/all suspense out of the election, and we'd have a winner by mid summer. Voting for Trump or Cruz is a vote for Hillary.

(There are troubling things about both Rubio and Kasich. That's not the point. The point is do you want Hillary to be President?)

The point is, I prefer Cruz to Trump. Cruz 'could' win, at this point Rubio or Kasich cannot. IMO.

For the record, I'm not wild about Cruz, I'm probably voting Carson Saturday.

 

[argubs2]

So, the establishment's plan is to trot out the stiff elites over the next two weeks and have them each take turns slamming Trump.

If I'm Trump, I'm sitting back with a cigar and laughing. Does he even need to acknowledge that speech or any others sure to come?

This is an unprecedented meltdown. It honestly excites me to see how far they are going to go to take him down. Nothing is out of the question here.

 

[argubs2]

I really think Romney and team used this as a reference point for his 2020 campaign under the assumption Clinton will win.

 

[qwesley]

MSNBC is in a different universe - which is why I suspect your were simply trying to be funny.....

Who knows with him, 99% of his posts are anti-gop trolling. If someone is making the case that Fox is the only one worth calling out for bias no amount of information you post will be absorbed.

 

[qwesley]

To hell with Romney for making this speech. What does this accomplish? Sooner or later these idiots are going to have to get behind Trump, because he's going to be the nominee.

terrible reasoning

 

[KingOfBBN]

I really think Romney and team used this as a reference point for his 2020 campaign under the assumption Clinton will win.

If Hillary gets in, you're not winning the 2020 election. It's over. That's a guaranteed two-term president and the demographic will heavily shift against Republicans from here on out, I believe.

 

[krazykats]

I think president should be nominated and not just whoever decides to run.

I also think we should get rid of electoral map and go 100% general pop vote.

However the twist is that the VP should go the same route, allowing for a R- president and D-VP, or vice Verza.

 

[KingOfBBN]

I think president should be nominated and not just whoever decides to run.

I also think we should get rid of electoral map and go 100% general pop vote.

However the twist is that the VP should go the same route, allowing for a R- president and D-VP, or vice Verza.

THANK YOU!

The electoral map is total BS! It always has been and yes, Dems, that includes the Bush win too. To me, it's absurd that your vote is absolutely meaningless in a state like California, which isn't all Democrats. They just get the automatic points but there's a lot of red cities/counties.

 

[Mojocat]

I just googled "CNN and 60 Minutes gave Hillary advance notice of questions" and it brought up nothing, so can you source your claim please?

not going down that rabbit hole. apparently you're not keeping up with the Hillary email dumps. in 2 minutes, I found references in released emails to collusion between the Clinton campaign and two CNN on air persons - Elise Labott and Paul Begala, as well as this exchange below where Crowley assures "H" that "60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview."

If FoxNews had done that, you'd have been crying the Republic was crumbling.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Looking at the map from 2012, what is a realistic chance that Republicans can win the electoral this time? What's the likely add up here?

 

[Mojocat]

The point is, I prefer Cruz to Trump. Cruz 'could' win, at this point Rubio or Kasich cannot. IMO.

For the record, I'm not wild about Cruz, I'm probably voting Carson Saturday.

At this point, it looks relatively remote that anyone but Trump could get the nod - although that depends on what you read. Media hype is difficult to wade through. But going forward, I think the general view is that Rubio is better positioned than Cruz because of the kinds of states left. Although that could just be that I read the wrong hype. heh.....

 

[Mojocat]

Looking at the map from 2012, what is a realistic chance that Republicans can win the electoral this time? What's the likely add up here?

Good question. I think the consensus is, what, 40-45 states are set in either red or blue, and it comes down to the handful. That's true for virtually any candidate on either side. Trump is the outlier there - as he is in so many ways. He's the one guy who might change things - maybe he turns some of those 'automatic' blues to red that no one else could. If you're trying to figure out a way Trump might win, that's how you start.

Personally, while I acknowledge that's true, I think it's more likely that he loses all the purple states and loses a few certain red states too. He's the only one who could disrupt your map - but he's also the only one who could lose in a McGovern/Mondale type landslide, too.....

 

[krazykats]

Add in a Florida, Ohio, and Michigan for republicans this go round. What people don't want to admit or touch because it may come off racist is that the black turnout will in fact be down this year so those areas could also change.

Argue away dems on how I don't know that to be fact etc etc, your right I can't prove it however you will find out soon enough.

 

[Mojocat]

538:

"Donald Trump Is Just Barely On Track To Win The GOP Nomination

Donald Trump’s Super Tuesday delegate haul was no blowout. He won 254 delegates, Ted Cruz won 217, and Marco Rubio took in 97. But Trump beat FiveThirtyEight’s delegate targets, which estimate the number of delegates each candidate needs to win in each contest to be on track to win the nomination. If Trump continues to meet or exceed those targets through the remainder of the primaries, he’ll end up with just enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination."

If the media, like Fox, are trying to derail Donald, they need to reconsider this narrative that he's an unstoppable runaway train....

 

[jamo0001]

I don't think many people would disagree with the statement that black turnout won't approach the numbers Obama was able to precipitate. Obama's numbers were about as good as could have been imagined.

The bigger question for democrats is (1) turning out the youth vote, which is notoriously difficult, and (2) keeping "legal Hispanics" in the Dem column

 

[ukalumni00]

Your looking at the pure elitist/corruption in Washington at its finest right now. Turds like Romney and many others telling us who we should/should not support. F them all. They are the problem and a lot of people are getting tired of it. Can include Bernie's supporters in that group as well (even though I disagree with most of his positions).

 

[From-the-stands]

not going down that rabbit hole. apparently you're not keeping up with the Hillary email dumps. in 2 minutes, I found references in released emails to collusion between the Clinton campaign and two CNN on air persons - Elise Labott and Paul Begala, as well as this exchange below where Crowley assures "H" that "60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview."

If FoxNews had done that, you'd have been crying the Republic was crumbling.

That appears to be a message from the state Department regarding the wiki leaks founder about a national security issue. That's in no way comparable to to the head of Fox News having secret meetings with an aspiring presidential candidate (RUBIO) to lobby for positive coverage of what amounted to his only significant legislation to date. And then:

--According to three Fox sources, Fox chief Roger Ailes has told people he's lost confidence in Rubio's ability to win. "We're finished with Rubio," Ailes recently told a Fox host. "We can't do the Rubio thing anymore." --

Why did Ailes issue that directive?

 

[fuzz77]

Good question. I think the consensus is, what, 40-45 states are set in either red or blue, and it comes down to the handful. That's true for virtually any candidate on either side. Trump is the outlier there - as he is in so many ways. He's the one guy who might change things - maybe he turns some of those 'automatic' blues to red that no one else could. If you're trying to figure out a way Trump might win, that's how you start.

Personally, while I acknowledge that's true, I think it's more likely that he loses all the purple states and loses a few certain red states too. He's the only one who could disrupt your map - but he's also the only one who could lose in a McGovern/Mondale type landslide, too.....

The biggest issue for the GOP is that Trump won't have any coattails. He is more in the mode of the Rockefeller Republican wing of the party that the GOP drove away when they changed their focus to evangelicals and 2nd amendment hawks in order to get the southern vote. Trump is a pragmatist, a deal maker and the GOP establishment doesn't like deals.

I agree that it is time for the Electoral College to go although off the top of my head there have only been two elections that have ever gone different than the popular vote. (looked it up, there have been 3 times 1876, 1888 and 2000)
It would be interesting if there was a way to know how the EC has affected the popular vote. I am almost certain that there are blue voters in red states and red voters in blue states that stay home because their votes don't really count. Also, candidates spend all their time and money campaigning in the purple states. How would it affect their campaigns if they needed to campaign for every vote?

 

[FusterCluck]

To hell with Romney for making this speech. What does this accomplish? Sooner or later these idiots are going to have to get behind Trump, because he's going to be the nominee.

Rush caller (I know, I know, but I knew it'd be good today) just made an excellent point. More evident than ever that a huge rift exists between Repub establishment and electorate. Mitt's speech working more to galvanize vote against establishment even if Trump is railroaded by establishment and nomination is brokered away from him.

At this point, I'd vote for Trump under any condition just for the chicken shit move they pulled with Mitt's speech today. After a decade of crying for radical party reform, it finally knocks on the door. If they turn him away and deny him the nomination or if they successfully railroad him in effort to undermine his campaign, I actually hope it decimates the establishment and gives rise to a new, truly conservative party... and I'm a life-long registered R.

The funny bit, to me, today, is the Dem playbook. All republicans are racist, evils bastards... except Romney, the most repub of repubs, b/c he sings our song today. How incredibly typical.

 

[KingOfBBN]

I did the math based on the 2012 election and what it would take for Republicans to win. You have to get Ohio, Florida, Virginia for sure and swing Iowa/Michigan. I assumed they lost Michigan and Wisconsin just for the sake of the discussion.

Basically, I didn't see Democrats swinging any state from the 2012 election but I do see Republicans swinging a few.

I think it will be super close but I got it at 271 for the Cons by adding
-Florida
-Iowa
-Ohio
-Virginia

Thoughts of that possibility?

 

[jamo0001]

I did the math based on the 2012 election and what it would take for Republicans to win. You have to get Ohio, Florida, Virginia for sure and swing Iowa/Michigan. I assumed they lost Michigan and Wisconsin just for the sake of the discussion.

Basically, I didn't see Democrats swinging any state from the 2012 election but I do see Republicans swinging a few.

I think it will be super close but I got it at 271 for the Cons by adding
-Florida
-Iowa
-Ohio
-Virginia

Thoughts of that possibility?

That deck has been stacked in Hillary's favor for quite awhile. Virginia will almost surely go blue again; Ohio and Florida are still anybody's game, IMO