The General Election

[HuskerNation1]

 

So this says a lot .... Koch Brothers have determined they will not run any anti-Hillary ads during the election (in addition to outright saying they do not support Trump)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask?

 

 

I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

So this says a lot .... Koch Brothers have determined they will not run any anti-Hillary ads during the election (in addition to outright saying they do not support Trump)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask?

 

 

I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

 

 

In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

So this says a lot .... Koch Brothers have determined they will not run any anti-Hillary ads during the election (in addition to outright saying they do not support Trump)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask?

 

 

I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

 

 

In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs?

 

 

What i"m saying is that the outcome of their decision to sit this out he can play/spin as another sign that HIllary is the candidate of big money. She already has Soros and Bloomberg backing her, now Mark Cuban and the Apple CEO are backing her. She's supposed to represent the party that hates the 1%, yet it seems the 1% really want her to win.

[funhusker]

 

 

 

 

So this says a lot .... Koch Brothers have determined they will not run any anti-Hillary ads during the election (in addition to outright saying they do not support Trump)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask?

 

 

I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

 

 

In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs?

 

 

What i"m saying is that the outcome of their decision to sit this out he can play/spin as another sign that HIllary is the candidate of big money. She already has Soros and Bloomberg backing her, now Mark Cuban and the Apple CEO are backing her. She's supposed to represent the party that hates the 1%, yet it seems the 1% really want her to win.

 

Because even they realize the potential "tax expense" isn't worth the train wreck named Donald Trump...

[zoogs]

Ghazala Khan: Trump criticized my silence. He knows nothing about true sacrifice.

The Khans' story moves me near tears every time I come across it. And the thing is, they could well be among the most conservative of Americans -- socially and fiscally -- but in this country in 2016, we have a largely unified GOP that sneers at them through nominee and platform.

Which calls to mind this excellent piece from the Guardian: Extremism thrives because of cowardly collaborators. It's important to have conservative political views expressed in government, but what are their sane, decent representatives doing now?

 

Republican grandees must agree with Hillary Clinton when she said: “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons”, not least because Marco Rubio, one of their own, has said as much himself. Yet McCain and Ryan, those enemies of appeasement, have folded and endorsed Trump. Rubio, that piercing judge of his character, has decided that, after all, Trump’s finger should be on the button. Presidents Bush père et fils are bravely abstaining. Bobby Jindal, who described Trump as a “narcissist and egomaniacal madman”, wants him in the White House. Nearly all the Republican names you remember follow suit. The Dick Cheneys, Rand Pauls and Condoleezza Rices are backing Trump or refusing to commit. Confronted with a dictatorial menace in their own time and their own country they lack the courage to risk the unpopularity that Churchillian dissent would bring.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

So this says a lot .... Koch Brothers have determined they will not run any anti-Hillary ads during the election (in addition to outright saying they do not support Trump)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask?

 

 

I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

 

 

In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs?

 

 

What i"m saying is that the outcome of their decision to sit this out he can play/spin as another sign that HIllary is the candidate of big money. She already has Soros and Bloomberg backing her, now Mark Cuban and the Apple CEO are backing her. She's supposed to represent the party that hates the 1%, yet it seems the 1% really want her to win.

 

 

I agree that they will try to spin it into a positive.

 

But let's take a step back and examine the big picture. Perhaps a little meta-critique of Trump would be useful.

 

Every part of Trump's campaign is built upon playing on people's emotions. This is pretty much commonplace in politics, but most of the time candidates have varying degrees of underlying objective fact or empirical evidence behind their messages.

 

Trump eschews this in favor of building a brand of himself as a healer and champion of the people, sent by some divine intervention to protect the masses from the corrupt crony capitalists comprising the 1% and political class, out to completely screw you over at every turn to benefit themselves.

 

The irony of course is that Trump himself is a part of this class. He was given a lot of money and appears to have made a career out of dicking people over, semi-successfully. Lots of shady dealings, complaints from partners, and insider legs up lurking just beneath the surface of his business career, if one only looks.

 

Anyway, the point is that Trump doesn't rely on logic or fact, he plays on emotion almost all the time. Even the premise of his campaign that I highlighted above is factually incorrect, IMO. In spite of the strong populist backlash against the mega-rich and politicians this cycle courtesy of himself and Sanders, I don't really believe every 1%er and politician in Washington is acting solely out of self-interest at the expense of the common good. Truthfully, I think they act in part out of self-interest (we all do), and partly out of their widely differing views on what the best plan is to benefit the country and its people.

 

But that's a more nuanced and less sexy explanation than "they're screwing you over to help themselves, let's go after them." Trump relies on us getting so pissed off at this mythical evil establishment class that we vote for him to rectify things, instead of asking how rational or logically plausible his premise is.

 

The same process applies to almost anything about Trump's campaign. If you apply the slightest amount of factual scrutiny to his principles, they will tumble over. He's built a paper tiger. But he wants people so whipped up in emotion that they fail to get to that point.

 

The same is true of a lot of politicians, but Trump truly takes it to a whole new level.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So this says a lot .... Koch Brothers have determined they will not run any anti-Hillary ads during the election (in addition to outright saying they do not support Trump)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask?

I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs?

What i"m saying is that the outcome of their decision to sit this out he can play/spin as another sign that HIllary is the candidate of big money. She already has Soros and Bloomberg backing her, now Mark Cuban and the Apple CEO are backing her. She's supposed to represent the party that hates the 1%, yet it seems the 1% really want her to win.

Any patriotic rational minded decent human being should want her to win if the alternative is trump.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

So this says a lot .... Koch Brothers have determined they will not run any anti-Hillary ads during the election (in addition to outright saying they do not support Trump)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask?

I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs?

What i"m saying is that the outcome of their decision to sit this out he can play/spin as another sign that HIllary is the candidate of big money. She already has Soros and Bloomberg backing her, now Mark Cuban and the Apple CEO are backing her. She's supposed to represent the party that hates the 1%, yet it seems the 1% really want her to win.

Any patriotic rational minded decent human being should want her to win if the alternative is trump.

 

 

Both choices stink, but I think anybody who has a rational mind and doesn't like the current state of affairs in 2016 would want Trump to win if the alternative is Hillary.

[HuskerNation1]

It looks like Hillary is back to lying again as she did on the Fox Interview today. When pressed about Comey's statements indicating that Hillary was not telling the truth, she flat out lied to Chris Wallace and claimed "that's not what i heard" and then went into some political talk that made no sense.

And when pressed about many voters not trusting her, her only response was "you should ask if voters believe Trump is trustworthy."

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hillary-clinton-battles-chris-wallace-over-emailgate-thats-not-what-i-heard-comey-say/

[zoogs]

I mean, just for starters, I can think of a few ethnic minority groups who would take exception with that suggestion.

[HuskerNation1]

Have you guys been following this controversy with the Reuters/Ipsos poll. This is a poll that Nate Silver has normally rated pretty high, but when Trump took the lead in this poll during the RNC, it appears that Reuters/Ipsos have changed their polling approach in order to ensure it shows Hillary in the lead. It's rather baffling.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/clinton-lead-over-trump-surges-after-reuters-tweaks-poll

 

Even a long-time Democratic strategist believes Reuters is up to no good with the change in their methodology.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/30/exclusive-pat-caddell-blasts-reuters-back-rigging-polls-to-show-clinton-winning/

[Landlord]

It looks like Hillary is back to lying again as she did on the Fox Interview today. When pressed about Comey's statements indicating that Hillary was not telling the truth, she flat out lied to Chris Wallace and claimed "that's not what i heard" and then went into some political talk that made no sense.

And when pressed about many voters not trusting her, her only response was "you should ask if voters believe Trump is trustworthy."

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hillary-clinton-battles-chris-wallace-over-emailgate-thats-not-what-i-heard-comey-say/

 

 

Hillary sounds a lot like you.

[zoogs]

Breitbart's reputation is well-known and earned. For those unfamiliar with Zero Hedge:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

 

Lokey, a former paid Zero Hedge writer who left the website in 2016 over disagreements in editorial direction, characterizes the site's political content as "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."^%5B1%5D

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So this says a lot .... Koch Brothers have determined they will not run any anti-Hillary ads during the election (in addition to outright saying they do not support Trump)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/koch-retreat-paul-ryan/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask?

I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs?

What i"m saying is that the outcome of their decision to sit this out he can play/spin as another sign that HIllary is the candidate of big money. She already has Soros and Bloomberg backing her, now Mark Cuban and the Apple CEO are backing her. She's supposed to represent the party that hates the 1%, yet it seems the 1% really want her to win.

Any patriotic rational minded decent human being should want her to win if the alternative is trump.

Both choices stink, but I think anybody who has a rational mind and doesn't like the current state of affairs in 2016 would want Trump to win if the alternative is Hillary.

I don't like the current state.

 

I fear a future state under trump.

 

Seriously, the man is irrational. He's a psychopath, I think.

 

He lacks empathy. And he has an awful temper. And that's dangerous.

 

And apparently he doesn't even know how work an elevator.

[cm husker]

Have you guys been following this controversy with the Reuters/Ipsos poll. This is a poll that Nate Silver has normally rated pretty high, but when Trump took the lead in this poll during the RNC, it appears that Reuters/Ipsos have changed their polling approach in order to ensure it shows Hillary in the lead. It's rather baffling.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/clinton-lead-over-trump-surges-after-reuters-tweaks-poll

 

Even a long-time Democratic strategist believes Reuters is up to no good with the change in their methodology.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/30/exclusive-pat-caddell-blasts-reuters-back-rigging-polls-to-show-clinton-winning/

Good for them.

 

Trump must be stopped by any means possible.