The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[cybrguy]

Will the Media Get Punked Again By the Merchants of Doubt?
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 9, 2016 12:19 PM

I’d like to take a moment to step back and take a look at what has happened in this presidential election over the last month.

1. Republicans suggest that it’s “midnight in America” at their convention and many Republican leaders begin to distance themselves from their party’s nominee.
2. The DNC is attacked with the Wikileaks release of internal emails in an attempt to promote the idea that they “rigged” the primaries against Bernie Sanders. Facts fail to support that claim.
3. The Democratic Convention is a tremendous success. Polls begin to indicate the election could be a landslide.
4. Polls tighten as the media spins stories about the Clinton Foundation to suggest a “pay for play” relationship while she was Secretary of State. Facts fail to support that claim.

I’m beginning to see a pattern. Just as it looks like Hillary Clinton is about to put this election away, the “merchants of doubt” spin a story to discredit her and lead the media into weeks of speculation about this “flawed” candidate. The race begins to tighten until Donald Trump does something even more inflammatory than the last thing he did, and/or the facts emerge to discredit the story.

I have never been one to prognosticate about what will happen in the future. But the “merchants of doubt” are giving us a pretty clear heads-up about what’s coming. First of all, Donald Trump just hired David Bossie. We know the history of how he operates. And Kellyanne Conway was pretty clear in describing what his role would be.

Bossie will also work on crafting attacks against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, mining past controversies involving her and former president Bill Clinton, and cultivating Trump’s bond with conservative activists.​

From another corner, we have the guy who described Clinton as “a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone’s necks as soon as she wins the election” – Julian Assange – about to begin releasing more documents.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Tuesday that he plans to release several batches of documents pertaining to the Hillary Clinton campaign within the next few weeks and the first could come out as soon as next week.​

That gives us a moment to prepare for what we’re about to witness. Will the major media outlets get punked by these folks once again? Or have they learned anything about them that would urge more caution next time?

As a prelude, just yesterday the Trump campaign jumped on the conspiracy theory drummed up by Alex Jones about Clinton wearing an earpiece during the NBC forum on Tuesday night. Not wanting to be left behind on that one, Julian Assang’e Wikileaks joined the fray with this little tidbit.

WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
Emails show Huma Abedin in charge of Hillary Clinton's earpiece https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14039#efmAGDAG2 …

Jon Favreau ✔ @jonfavs
I hate that I have to say that many politicians do have their own earpieces made for all of their satellite interviews, but you know, 2016​

Jon Favreau captured the reluctance so many people feel at having to respond to this kind of nonsense.

One can hope that people (especially in the media) are taking note that these are the people who are preparing to spread more innuendo and dirt. Rather than chasing after the non-stories they promote, perhaps it is time to begin to question the source rather than have to wipe the egg off your face after you’ve bought into their nothingburgers. We’re about to find out whether or not anyone has learned that lesson.

 

[Serious]

Will the Media Get Punked Again By the Merchants of Doubt?
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 9, 2016 12:19 PM

I’d like to take a moment to step back and take a look at what has happened in this presidential election over the last month.

1. Republicans suggest that it’s “midnight in America” at their convention and many Republican leaders begin to distance themselves from their party’s nominee.
2. The DNC is attacked with the Wikileaks release of internal emails in an attempt to promote the idea that they “rigged” the primaries against Bernie Sanders. Facts fail to support that claim.
3. The Democratic Convention is a tremendous success. Polls begin to indicate the election could be a landslide.
4. Polls tighten as the media spins stories about the Clinton Foundation to suggest a “pay for play” relationship while she was Secretary of State. Facts fail to support that claim.

I’m beginning to see a pattern. Just as it looks like Hillary Clinton is about to put this election away, the “merchants of doubt” spin a story to discredit her and lead the media into weeks of speculation about this “flawed” candidate. The race begins to tighten until Donald Trump does something even more inflammatory than the last thing he did, and/or the facts emerge to discredit the story.

I have never been one to prognosticate about what will happen in the future. But the “merchants of doubt” are giving us a pretty clear heads-up about what’s coming. First of all, Donald Trump just hired David Bossie. We know the history of how he operates. And Kellyanne Conway was pretty clear in describing what his role would be.

Bossie will also work on crafting attacks against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, mining past controversies involving her and former president Bill Clinton, and cultivating Trump’s bond with conservative activists.​

From another corner, we have the guy who described Clinton as “a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone’s necks as soon as she wins the election” – Julian Assange – about to begin releasing more documents.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Tuesday that he plans to release several batches of documents pertaining to the Hillary Clinton campaign within the next few weeks and the first could come out as soon as next week.​

That gives us a moment to prepare for what we’re about to witness. Will the major media outlets get punked by these folks once again? Or have they learned anything about them that would urge more caution next time?

As a prelude, just yesterday the Trump campaign jumped on the conspiracy theory drummed up by Alex Jones about Clinton wearing an earpiece during the NBC forum on Tuesday night. Not wanting to be left behind on that one, Julian Assang’e Wikileaks joined the fray with this little tidbit.

WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
Emails show Huma Abedin in charge of Hillary Clinton's earpiece https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14039#efmAGDAG2 …

Jon Favreau ✔ @jonfavs
I hate that I have to say that many politicians do have their own earpieces made for all of their satellite interviews, but you know, 2016​

Jon Favreau captured the reluctance so many people feel at having to respond to this kind of nonsense.

One can hope that people (especially in the media) are taking note that these are the people who are preparing to spread more innuendo and dirt. Rather than chasing after the non-stories they promote, perhaps it is time to begin to question the source rather than have to wipe the egg off your face after you’ve bought into their nothingburgers. We’re about to find out whether or not anyone has learned that lesson.

I think it's a good thing that Assange is making it clear to the world that he has an anti-Clinton bias, and as the Washington Post points out, a lot of his disclosures seem to benefit Russia. I'm glad that he does so in plenty of time for people to start questioning his goals and collaborators.

 

[cybrguy]

Immoral Leaders Corrupt Our Morals
by Martin Longman
September 9, 2016 10:47 AM

In a candid moment, John McCain would admit that he screwed up when he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. He’d allow that he and his team did a piss-poor job of vetting her on every level, from her personal life to her performance as the governor of Alaska to her skills as a politician to her base of knowledge and preparedness to be the commander in chief. Even their assessment of her basic character was off by half the circumference of the globe.

But, because people actually care about stuff, millions of Americans who wanted the Republicans to win the 2008 presidential election suddenly had to start making excuses for Sarah Palin’s shortcomings. So, family values went out the window, as did critiques of abuse of power, and the idea that a president should read a newspaper from time to time or know anything about the world outside of the United States.

I don’t really share a whole lot of values in common with conservative Republicans but many of these were values we had largely shared. Really, almost all Americans shared these values.

But the perceived need to protect McCain and prevent an Obama presidency changed that. And the next step, which was a short one, was the Tea Partification of the Republican Party. The damage, in other words, was immediate and lasting.

Now, I’ve been reading conservatives’ criticisms of Mao Tse-tung for decades. In their telling, which is exaggerated but not far from the truth, Mao is the greatest butcher of the 20th Century. In the following Tweet, Hugh Hewitt is willing to allow that perhaps Hitler and Stalin had higher body counts.

Hugh Hewitt ✔ @hughhewitt
2. Crimea, cyber-espionage, intimidation of Europe...this is great power politics that, while morally repugnant, is effective.

Follow
Hugh Hewitt ✔ @hughhewitt
3. When Nixon met with Mao it didn't make Mao any less the greatest murderer of post WW 2 era, but most historians rank him effective leader

Now, how is it possible to argue that a man murdered more people in the latter half of the 20th Century than anyone else but that that person was “an effective leader”?

First we have to ask “effective for whom?” because he certainly wasn’t effective for the millions of people who died as a result of his policies.

Second, why is Hewitt even making this comment? What purpose does he have?

And it turns out that he’s trying to rationalize Donald Trump saying that Vladimir Putin is a strong and effective leader by arguing that Mao was also a strong and effective leader. So, in other words, Trump isn’t wrong about Putin. It may be true that some leaders are monsters but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t good for their people and their nation.

Now, is it me, or does is seem impossible to make this argument and then complain about the president issuing a signing statement or an executive order? How can you say that a mass murdering despot is an effective leader and then turn around and say that failing to adequately submit to congressional oversight is evidence of obscene tyranny?

Of course, this is all nonsense. What’s actually happening is that Trump is the new Palin. And if he says warm things about Putin then naturally the next step is start praising dictators and strongmen rather than sticking to that small, local government schtick.

Why does Hewitt do this?

Because he cares about other things more.

On a smaller scale, the same thing happens on the left where excuses are made for Clinton and Obama that would not have been made for Bush. It’s human nature to make excuses if you think you’re doing it for the greater good. And that’s usually a pretty rational thing in a situation where you have a binary choice and a clear preference.

But it’s getting extreme when you start arguing that a homophobic crime boss like Putin who murders his critics at home and abroad is a better leader than our president because he’s “stronger.” And when you justify that by saying that Mao was also a really effective guy, unlike our president, even though he deserves a wing in the mass murder hall of fame?

What’s going on here is a clear demonstration of the importance of moral leadership, because without it you can see how fast a party can jettison all the decent things it stands for in the blink of an eye. And you can see from both Palin and Trump how fast this can corrupt the morals of a party and a people.

People constantly underestimate the value of the Obama family’s example of basic decency. Because the left is not immune to these pitfalls, and there’s a real cost (even when it’s justified) when a party has to rally around a morally compromised champion. See the results of the 2000 election for the Democrats’ most recent experience with paying the price for that. (And, yes, I’m referring to Bill here.)

I give the Republican Party credit for taking a good hard look at all the issues raised during Watergate and deciding that it simply wasn’t tenable to defend their president. That upheld (kind of established, really) a standard worth having. That showed an ability to put country before self-interest.

In retrospect, we can see how rare and special that was.

 

[Serious]

I've been staying out of this conversation because it's taken a 'personal' and 'argumentative' direction, but, because my opinion is so valuable , I had share this thought.

This is one the problems I have with alternate parties. They have no foreign policy.
Gary Johnson did great things for New Mexico that's undeniable but...............
I feel that any candidate running for the office of president should have knowledge of world events, world leaders, and a strong knowledge of international goings on. Look, I get it, I myself am awkward, odd, and take for ever to finish a sentence, and probably couldn't find Belarus on a map, but I'm not running for public office. Johnson's slip, brain fart, whatever you want to call it is inexcusable for a potential world leader.

I completely agree with you, but I'd never vote for a third party candidate in a two-party system in the first place. If you want to make a statement, buy a t-shirt.

I do like Johnson as a person though, and I compare his honesty about this with Sarah Palin who would always try to fake her way out of her lack of knowledge.

Hillary I'm expecting will destroy Trump in the debates. The debates will determine what happens. So will whatever comes out about Hillary's emails. What will come up? Maybe some pretty horrible stuff will come out about Trump. He will probably say some more stupid stuff that will keep even the republicans scratching their heads.

I support mainly democratic ideas. I've always voted democrat. I don't like all these loose ends floating out there, it's hurts the democrat's chances.

Nothing more is coming out about Hillary's emails. Comey said it wasn't even close. That's not to say that House Republicans aren't going to be "investigating" the matter for the next 8 years. We've seen this time after time.

Some pretty horrible stuff just came out about Trump. What we need to fear now is Russians intrusion into the American election.

 

[reklaw420]

I completely agree with you, but I'd never vote for a third party candidate in a two-party system in the first place. If you want to make a statement, buy a t-shirt.

Why not buy a t-shirt AND vote third party? Since he is on the ballot in all 50 states and the two major party candidates are the most disliked candidates ever, he has a legitimate shot at winning the election I think. Especially if he keeps Trump or Clinton from getting the required electoral votes.

 

[FreddieFresh]

The problem with this election (and most elections) is having to choose the lesser of 2 evils while knowing they're still totally fucking evil. Of course, Trump is a joke that turned into a serious problem. I don't understand where his support comes from, but it's frightening. Nobody in their right minds would vote for an oompa loompa with a napoleon complex. But just because he makes Hillary look good in comparison doesn't mean she is any more trustworthy, in my opinion. I think people are so desperate for another option, that they would take just about anyone and feel better off. Seriously, a potato would make a better president than Trump or Clinton

 

[Serious]

Why not buy a t-shirt AND vote third party? Since he is on the ballot in all 50 states and the two major party candidates are the most disliked candidates ever, he has a legitimate shot at winning the election I think. Especially if he keeps Trump or Clinton from getting the required electoral votes.

Okay, first of all, he DOESN'T have a legitimate shot at winning. Or at any rate his chances are only 9-10% better than yours and mine.

Second, but somewhat more important, if you'll notice, Hillary Clinton wasn't all that disliked until the Republican Nasty Machine realized a that Obama wasn't on the ballot this year. As Secretary of State, she had a 67% approval rating, not that that's the most important thing to be talking about here.

If Johnson keeps Clinton from getting the required electoral votes Donald Trump, who criticizes American policy on Russian TV, who hasn't released his tax returns, so we don't know who he owes in Russia, who lies more often than every day, THAT Donald TRump will be President of the United States.

That's why.

 

[cybrguy]

Trump attacks U.S. foreign policy, political press corps on state-owned Russian television network

By Jose A. DelReal September 8 at 8:38 PM
Donald Trump’s constant: Vladimir Putin

On Sept. 7, during a town hall event hosted by MSNBC, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated he would have “a good relationship” with Russian president Vladimir Putin. It wasn’t the first time he's been friendly towards him.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized U.S. foreign policy and the American political press corps Thursday during an interview on RT America, a state-owned Russian television network.

In a wide-ranging interview that aired Thursday evening, Trump spoke with journalist Larry King about the presidential race, American intervention in Iraq and the Middle East, and the potential intrusion by Russian hackers into Democratic Party databases. RT, which airs in several countries in English and Russian, is funded by the Russian government; though it characterizes itself as independent, the network has been regularly accused of pro-Kremlin bias.

The interview came as Trump faced sustained criticism for praising Russian President Vladimir Putin, which he has regularly done on the campaign trail — to the discomfort of many members of his own party, who have distanced themselves from the comments.

The GOP presidential nominee is out on the trail ahead of the general election in November.
During an NBC presidential forum Wednesday evening, Trump went further in his praise and said that Putin has been a better leader than President Obama: “Certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader,” Trump said.

Asked during the RT America interview what has surprised him most about the political process, Trump unloaded on the American press.

“Well, I think the dishonesty of the media. The media has been unbelievably dishonest,” Trump responded. “I mean they’ll take a statement that you make which is perfect and they’ll cut it up and chop it up and shorten it or lengthen it or do something with it.”

“And all of a sudden it doesn’t look as good as it did when you actually said it. But there’s tremendous dishonesty with the media. Not all of it, obviously, but tremendous dishonesty,” he said.

The Trump campaign recently lifted a ban on various news outlets, including The Washington Post, which he accused of bias in its coverage.

Trump also dismissed accusations that he doesn’t have a firm grasp of military issues or a plan to combat the Islamic State. He said he has a “very distinct plan” and knocked foreign policy under Obama, Hillary Clinton, and former president George W. Bush.

“Hillary Clinton with her policies and Barack Obama — you know, look, we should have never gone into Iraq. Period. We should have never gone in. But once we went in, Larry, we shouldn’t have gotten out the way we got out. And the way they got out really caused ISIS, if you think about it. We got out in such a horrible, foolish fashion, instead of leaving some troops behind.”

When King asked Trump if he believed reports that Russian hackers may have targeted Democratic Party databases as part of an effort to influence the American presidential election, Trump said he did not believe that to be the case.

“I think it’s probably unlikely. I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out. Who knows? But I think that it’s pretty unlikely,” he said. “I hope that if they are doing something I hope that somebody’s going to be able to find out so they can end it, because that would not be appropriate.”

King also asked Trump about Putin’s assertion that the hack was a “public service,” even as he claimed the Russian government was not involved.

“I don’t have any opinion on it. I don’t know anything about it. I don’t know who hacked. I’m not sure. You tell me. Who hacked? Who did the hacking?” Trump said.

Trump’s critics have regularly insinuated that he is overly cozy with pro-Russian interests. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, came under fire last month after he was named in a Ukrainian corruption investigation that tied him to a pro-Kremlin political party. Manafort, who has since resigned from the campaign, denied all such connections.

Before that, Trump was widely condemned in July when, in an off-handed remark, he called on the Russian government to intervene in the election by releasing thousands of Clinton’s private emails. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said during a press conference at one of his South Florida resorts. He added later, “They probably have them. I’d like to have them released.”

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — one of Trump's closest advisers — received payment to deliver a speech at an RT party last year, where he sat next to Putin. In an interview with The Washington Post last month, he said that he saw no distinction between RT and news outlets like CNN or MSNBC.

Trump came under fire within minutes of the interview airing. Veteran GOP strategist John Weaver, a vocal anti-Trump Republican, expressed incredulity on social media.

“Condemning the free, 1st amendment protected American media on Russian owned @RT_com is outrageous, even by the lowest of Trump standards,” Weaver said in one tweet.

“I’m just stunned at the insanity of the campaign staff to even consider, allow a @RT_com interview, given the Russian ties already,” Weaver wrote in another tweet.

The Trump campaign played down the interview Thursday evening, explaining that they did not realize it would be broadcast on RT.

"Mr. Trump recorded a short interview with Larry King for his podcast as a favor to Mr. King. What Larry King does with the interview content is up to him; we have nothing to do with it," a Trump spokesperson told The Post.

 

[reklaw420]

Okay, first of all, he DOESN'T have a legitimate shot at winning

Okay, first of all, he DOES have a shot at winning..... lol. If everyone thought like you, then you're right, he doesn't. He might not get the majority of the popular vote, but if he is able to force the election to the house, it is possible they choose him as our president (see 12th amendment). The fact that we have elected a president that did not receive the majority of the popular vote before means it's still possible... Lincoln even won the presidency when the republican party was in it's infancy. If the CPD invited Gary to the debates and the media actually covered him, then I guarantee you he would be much higher than the 15% threshold.

 

[cybrguy]

Why on earth would you think there is ANY possibility of the House choosing Johnson if neither Hillary or Trump get to 270? While I think there would be a 80% or 90% chance (yes, I made these numbers up) they would choose Trump, it is POSSIBLE that they might choose some other republican, likely one who ran. But the chance they would choose Johnson is probably less than the chance they would choose Hillary, and that is under 10%.

The republicans in this cycle have shown ZERO interest in the libertarians.

It is a republican House, they would choose a republican. We can argue about which, but not if...

Edit: grammar

 

[Serious]

Okay, first of all, he DOES have a shot at winning..... lol. If everyone thought like you, then you're right, he doesn't. He might not get the majority of the popular vote, but if he is able to force the election to the house, it is possible they choose him as our president (see 12th amendment). The fact that we have elected a president that did not receive the majority of the popular vote before means it's still possible... Lincoln even won the presidency when the republican party was in it's infancy. If the CPD invited Gary to the debates and the media actually covered him, then I guarantee you he would be much higher than the 15% threshold.

In this regard, I think you'll find that 85% of the people think like me. Wouldn't Johnson need a lot of FRIENDS who are currently members of the two major parties to accomplish something like what you describe? How will he make those friends in 60 days? FiveThirtyEight gives Johnson an 8.6% chance of winning the popular vote, and a 0.6% chance of his winning the electoral vote.

Then there's the inadvisability of having a president who wasn't elected by a majority of the people, and it wouldn't be something close, like Bush v. Gore, it would be a president that had maybe 20% max, of the vote.

 

[lwien]

@reklaw420, you're new here so I need to qualify what I'm about to say while at the same time, apologizing for the old-timers here who have heard this all before.

When I was in the Air Force, I was an intercept/cryptographic analyst that required a Top Secret Cryptographic Clearance. During my stint in the AF, I was stationed in Pakistan intercepting Russian radar communications and was also stationed at FT. Meade, Maryland while the AF had me working at the NSA so I am TOTALLY familiar with intelligence document classifications.

EVERY document that I had to work with had a heading at the top of each page along with a sub-label at the bottom of the same page, which was either marked Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Along with those words, in the same heading and the same size font was a codeword designating if it was signet (signal) intelligence, cryptographic intelligence, etc etc. Those headings were typically in a 36 to 48 size font. If anything came across my desk that was not marked with those headings, the assumption was that the document was not classified. The heading label indicated the highest classification that was present within the document.

The portion markings, U, C, S, and TS are only used to identify specific sentences, paragraphs, charts or pictures WITHIN the labeled document.

I can easily see that if a document did not have ANY classified headings at both the top and bottom of the page, one could easily overlook those portion markings as the assumption would be that the document is not classified.

Edit: One more thing. The portion marking "C" does not mean classified, but rather, confidential, which is the lowest of classifications.

One other thing that I have to add here. I kept hearing and continue to hear on the news that classified material that was marked with a "c" that was kept on Clintons private server put our national security at risk. What a bunch of hooey. To think that material marked as "confidential" put our national security at risk is laughable to say the least. Hell, half the shit you see on the news could be marked as "confidential" within the intelligence community. It would be a whole different story though of those portion markings were labeled with an "S" or a "TS".

Someone fucked up big time with the classification headings though. There should never be portion markings on a document without header and sub-header labels.

 

[grokit]

Mexico threatens to cancel treaty that ceded Texas and California to US if Trump gets elected

Mexican Senator Armando Ríos Piter (Photo: Facebook)

While Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump might have taken a victory lap after his meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, those south of the U.S. border are not.

Finance Minister Luis Videgaray resigned Wednesday, after backlash from the invitation to Trump to meet with Peña Nieto. Now, Mexican Senator Armando Rios Piter is proposing legislation that could put Mexico in conflict with the United States.

“It was a historic error for our president to invite a person like that to our country. [Mr Trump] used us as a campaign tool,” the senator told the Telegraph.

In the past, Trump has threatened to cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), claiming it was bad policy that hurt the U.S. manufacturing industry. If Trump were to do this, however, Piter’s bill would trigger a review and possible cancelation of all of the bilateral agreements between Mexico and the U.S.

The bill Piter is proposing would specifically cancel the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War and ceded Texas and California as well as parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming to the U.S. if Trump cancels NAFTA.

“The goal is to foresee and prevent any negative effects on Mexico if Trump becomes president of the United States,” he said.

more:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/mex...s-and-california-to-us-if-trump-gets-elected/

 

[BD9]

The republicans in this cycle have shown ZERO interest in the libertarians.

It is a republican House, they would choose a republican. We can argue about which, but not if...

Edit: grammar

I don't know if it would be much of an argument, people forget about Evan McMullin. He was recruited by the never trump people.

https://www.evanmcmullin.com/

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Trump attacks U.S. foreign policy, political press corps on state-owned Russian television network

By Jose A. DelReal September 8 at 8:38 PM
Donald Trump’s constant: Vladimir Putin

On Sept. 7, during a town hall event hosted by MSNBC, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated he would have “a good relationship” with Russian president Vladimir Putin. It wasn’t the first time he's been friendly towards him.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized U.S. foreign policy and the American political press corps Thursday during an interview on RT America, a state-owned Russian television network.

In a wide-ranging interview that aired Thursday evening, Trump spoke with journalist Larry King about the presidential race, American intervention in Iraq and the Middle East, and the potential intrusion by Russian hackers into Democratic Party databases. RT, which airs in several countries in English and Russian, is funded by the Russian government; though it characterizes itself as independent, the network has been regularly accused of pro-Kremlin bias.

The interview came as Trump faced sustained criticism for praising Russian President Vladimir Putin, which he has regularly done on the campaign trail — to the discomfort of many members of his own party, who have distanced themselves from the comments.

The GOP presidential nominee is out on the trail ahead of the general election in November.
During an NBC presidential forum Wednesday evening, Trump went further in his praise and said that Putin has been a better leader than President Obama: “Certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader,” Trump said.

Asked during the RT America interview what has surprised him most about the political process, Trump unloaded on the American press.

“Well, I think the dishonesty of the media. The media has been unbelievably dishonest,” Trump responded. “I mean they’ll take a statement that you make which is perfect and they’ll cut it up and chop it up and shorten it or lengthen it or do something with it.”

“And all of a sudden it doesn’t look as good as it did when you actually said it. But there’s tremendous dishonesty with the media. Not all of it, obviously, but tremendous dishonesty,” he said.

The Trump campaign recently lifted a ban on various news outlets, including The Washington Post, which he accused of bias in its coverage.

Trump also dismissed accusations that he doesn’t have a firm grasp of military issues or a plan to combat the Islamic State. He said he has a “very distinct plan” and knocked foreign policy under Obama, Hillary Clinton, and former president George W. Bush.

“Hillary Clinton with her policies and Barack Obama — you know, look, we should have never gone into Iraq. Period. We should have never gone in. But once we went in, Larry, we shouldn’t have gotten out the way we got out. And the way they got out really caused ISIS, if you think about it. We got out in such a horrible, foolish fashion, instead of leaving some troops behind.”

When King asked Trump if he believed reports that Russian hackers may have targeted Democratic Party databases as part of an effort to influence the American presidential election, Trump said he did not believe that to be the case.

“I think it’s probably unlikely. I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out. Who knows? But I think that it’s pretty unlikely,” he said. “I hope that if they are doing something I hope that somebody’s going to be able to find out so they can end it, because that would not be appropriate.”

King also asked Trump about Putin’s assertion that the hack was a “public service,” even as he claimed the Russian government was not involved.

“I don’t have any opinion on it. I don’t know anything about it. I don’t know who hacked. I’m not sure. You tell me. Who hacked? Who did the hacking?” Trump said.

Trump’s critics have regularly insinuated that he is overly cozy with pro-Russian interests. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, came under fire last month after he was named in a Ukrainian corruption investigation that tied him to a pro-Kremlin political party. Manafort, who has since resigned from the campaign, denied all such connections.

Before that, Trump was widely condemned in July when, in an off-handed remark, he called on the Russian government to intervene in the election by releasing thousands of Clinton’s private emails. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said during a press conference at one of his South Florida resorts. He added later, “They probably have them. I’d like to have them released.”

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — one of Trump's closest advisers — received payment to deliver a speech at an RT party last year, where he sat next to Putin. In an interview with The Washington Post last month, he said that he saw no distinction between RT and news outlets like CNN or MSNBC.

Trump came under fire within minutes of the interview airing. Veteran GOP strategist John Weaver, a vocal anti-Trump Republican, expressed incredulity on social media.

“Condemning the free, 1st amendment protected American media on Russian owned @RT_com is outrageous, even by the lowest of Trump standards,” Weaver said in one tweet.

“I’m just stunned at the insanity of the campaign staff to even consider, allow a @RT_com interview, given the Russian ties already,” Weaver wrote in another tweet.

The Trump campaign played down the interview Thursday evening, explaining that they did not realize it would be broadcast on RT.

"Mr. Trump recorded a short interview with Larry King for his podcast as a favor to Mr. King. What Larry King does with the interview content is up to him; we have nothing to do with it," a Trump spokesperson told The Post.

So much for the "great American tradition" that politics ends at the water's edge (meaning, we didn't argue our internal BS on foreign soil). Do we have any 'traditional American value's that haven't already been raped at gunpoint by the Slavers and their Party?

 

[Nooky72]

A glimpse of the future?
On the basis that Trump would fuck anything (up) - literally

 

[cybrguy]

I don't know if it would be much of an argument, people forget about Evan McMullin. He was recruited by the never trump people.

https://www.evanmcmullin.com/

I see your point, but I think they made this decision too late. Nobody seems to be talking about him much or including him in polls. I think if the House had to pick someone it would more likely be Cruz or Rubio. Not that I like that idea, but I think that is what would happen. Selecting someone nobody voted for would go very very badly in the fever swamps...

The chance that we would need to worry about this is very low. The third party guys just aren't getting much love.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Okay, first of all, he DOES have a shot at winning..... lol. If everyone thought like you, then you're right, he doesn't. He might not get the majority of the popular vote, but if he is able to force the election to the house, it is possible they choose him as our president (see 12th amendment). The fact that we have elected a president that did not receive the majority of the popular vote before means it's still possible... Lincoln even won the presidency when the republican party was in it's infancy. If the CPD invited Gary to the debates and the media actually covered him, then I guarantee you he would be much higher than the 15% threshold.

Which was the first presidential campaign you really remember?

===re: Evan McMullin
Evan McMullin is a bog-standard, completely unexceptional modern Republican What he lacks in branding & paint-job he makes up for in line-toeing, devout, catechized "conservatism" - by which of course I mean "radical anti-progressive Christian soldier".

I hate to say it, but there are no " 'good' Republicans"; there are however worse Republicans....

 

[CarolKing]

@reklaw420 Its been a long time since the infancy of the Republican Party. You stated "Lincoln even won the presidency in their infancy" what do you mean by that? Ive read that the Democratic Party was very decided. Lincoln was able to win that way?

There were plenty of people in America by then that thought slavery was a crime and evil against the people of the U.S. I don't know if he mentioned the abolishment of slavery while he was running for prez? He had stated he didn't like it. I will have to look that up. This thread has made me bone up on my history. That's a good thing. Food for thought.

People were ready to abolish slavery. There were some in the south that though slavery was still OK. That wasn't the majority of America.

People said terrible things about Lincoln when he was president.

 

[cybrguy]

Why Isn’t Anyone Paying Attention to Clinton’s Other Basket?
by David Atkins
September 10, 2016 12:13 PM

The right wing and much of the press are all aflutter today over Clinton’s statement at a fundraiser that half of Trump’s supporters are in a “basket of deplorables” driven by bigotries of all kinds.

Honestly, though–how is that even controversial at this point? Clinton herself already signaled that she believed exactly that when she gave her speech about Trump and the rise of the alt right. Did people think she was only referring to a tiny slice of them? Has anyone been paying attention to commentary from Romney-style Republicans about how they’ve allowed a racist, xenophobic movement to take over their party?

Clinton is being faulted here for telling the truth about whom Trump speaks for and represents. The data shows that Clinton is right about a large portion of not only Trump supporters but Republicans generally. Attacking her for telling the blunt truth about it is frankly a form of right-wing political correctness. Isn’t that what political correctness supposedly is–that we’re all supposed to stay silent about what everyone knows? Everyone knows what drives a huge faction of Trump supporters. 44% of Americans in a recent poll thought Trump was a racist. It’s obvious on its face. Anyone who is actually insulted by that wasn’t ever going to vote for Clinton in the first place. Frank Luntz is saying that this is Clinton’s “47 percent” moment, but I find that difficult to believe.

What’s receiving less attention than it ought to is what Clinton said afterward, which is one of the frankest acknowledgments from Clinton of what is actually going on among the more reasonable Trump voters I’ve seen yet:

“The other basket, and I know because I look at this crowd, I see friends from all over America here…But that other basket of people are people who feel that government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures,” she said. “They are just desperate for change. Doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope their lives will be different.”​

That is a profound truth, and it’s one I’ve been writing about for a long time. Much of the left doesn’t want to acknowledge it, but there is a giant swath of voters who now belong to the Smash Everything Coalition, willing to try almost anything to shake up what they see as a completely unresponsive political and economic system. These are the people that David Brooks sees and unrealistically hopes for as part of a future GOP realignment.

It’s a good sign that Clinton is showing an understanding of this and why they’re voting for him. It bodes well for her trying to help them economically in a potential Clinton Administration, instead of dismissing them as hopeless bigots who can never be reached.

 

[cybrguy]

Sorry about the double, but y'all are quiet today.

I hate to say it, but there are no " 'good' Republicans"

There may still be some "good republicans" but if they exist they are staying quiet. If/when they speak up they tend to get primaried from the right so they tend to keep to themselves now. I hope they still exist because we are going to need them. I don't see how we get to 60 on important issues without them, and I have little hope that republicans won't filibuster everything going forward...

 

[CarolKing]

I really think there is a good possibility that the polls will be skewed. Most polls are taken by landline phones. Most younger folks don't even have land lines anymore. I do but I have number ID, if I'm not familiar with the name or number I don't answer. I haven't been included in any polls.

I've seen a few polls online but haven't taken any. You really have to be careful what you click on with your computers.

Hillary and the third party candidate could be higher in popularity than we think.

Instead of Hillary continuing the attack on Trump she needs to talk more about issues. She doesn't need to contribute with the Twiiter feud with Trump. That's reducing herself to his juvenile behavior.

 

[cybrguy]

Hillary ... could be higher in popularity than we think.

A yup...

And Trump is hated more than many think. The results will be the same.

I am not going to say that there is no need to keep pushing, that is a mistake I will never repeat. But I truly believe that there is no way America elects someone who is so obviously an unqualified monster. No way. If he was better at hiding it, maybe. But he is SO full of himself that he doesn't think he needs to. And that will be his undoing...

Most people in America know exactly who Donald Trump is.

 

[Silat]

DEPLORABLES

She got it right at last.
Let us hope the Dems do not do their usual apology tour for speaking the truth

Hillary got it right. Current day cons give us a clear picture of a group who absolutely hate the changes taking place in this country since the 1950s, and will support almost any measures to turn back the clock.

Here is a listing some of their perceptions that will give a good sense of how strongly these folks resent
cultural change:

• 77 percent say it bothers them to come into contact with people who speak little or no English.

• 81 percent say discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minorities.

• 77 percent say discrimination against Christians in the U.S. is a major problem.

• 83 percent say the American way of life needs to be protected against foreign influences.

• 83 percent say the values of Islam are at odds with America's values and way of life.

• 80 percent say immigrants constitute a burden on American society.

• 68 percent say the country has changed mostly for the worse since the 1950s.

And here's the scariest one:

• 72 percent say we need a leader who is willing to break some rules to set things right.

Translation: Who cares about laws and the constitution.

 

[cybrguy]

The media is trying to make this into a "47%" moment. It is nothing like that and we need to fight that effort. What she said was absolutely correct and while she might have said it more elegantly, the message is critical and must be repeated over and over.

This is a double down moment...