Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[Foxfyre]

Ok, back on point. What do you think the Donald is doing behind the scenes? Money is going to be a,problem no matter what he says and there seems to be an establishment change of strategy. Ther is now a two pronged plan, separate the presidential run from the down ticket. This is not a good strategy guys, ever hea d of divide and conquer. At some point EVERY republican candidate is going to be asked if he or she supports Donald trump and they better have a good answer. Every one is f them are going to need trump supporters to win their races. Trump is going to be in their states politicking. Time to start thinking now about how bad,Hilary is and not the Donald. Don't get caught up in democratic diversionary tactics. Donald is almost at the point where he is running as an independent.

I am stating the obvious but the critical junctures now are
The conventions
The vp picks
The debates, I firmly believe the debates will decide it all
The increasing outside probability Hilary will get indicted, the longer this goes on
The more likely the fix is in. The latest take on this, and an interesting one, is
That James Comey believes in America so much that he won't indict believing
That it would cause too much civil unrest. I don't buy it but what do I know.

See, I do not quite comprehend why there is such controversy in politics. My position is fundamentally stated upon already established order and progress, the very same allowing me these words. Politics is a simple functional methodology for extensive civil and personal improvement. I have indeed been blasted, since I was born, with persistent dissent between citizens of all sorts of jobs and relationships, even when one would be providing to the other, to the extreme extent that politics - essential, methodological civil communication - would be deemed criminal. That, of course, is an absurd claim, that the very own facilitator of civility would also somehow be detrimental.

In any case, I yet exercised my political functions by reaching to my fellow citizens, both those who also exercised them and those who instead continued with their absurd dissent. As I became closer with the pragmatics of politics, the legislation which conducts to jurisprudence and execution, and spent time relating the apparently politically deviant behavior I saw very common to the citizens in the streets, in buildings, on the media, to the legislature, that is, textual information, I was able to make my joined perceptions of apparently repelling behaviors into stable applicable knowledge. I could have as a reference many unique citizens with their individuality maintained and also many unique regions in which these unique citizens had been, were and would be at the same time, even as they would continue their dissent by using each others work, absurd as it was.

I still do observe the unnecessary behavior of dissent occurring, although less frequently and less persistently, as if by inertia of the decades they had been pushed impulsively, retroactively. When defending fellow politically active citizens of politically dissenting citizens, to further the cause of politics and not of any segregate party or individual, I have been verbosely shamed or oppressed to express my views in promotion of political development (by verbose I mean speech without any truly, carefully calculated, contextually responsive intent, but only an emotional contraption being purged. Not every emotional spontaneous speech is verbose, so the alternating absurdity could be handled in gentility after I had already studied the law more closely).

My comprehension is that dissent contains no intellectual value, value that is respectively inherent in politics. Politics may include many values beyond the intellect, however, emotional included. Dissent still occurring, I now know it is emotional value requiring adequate investment for its purge and don't make the mistake to confuse it with any intent towards intellect, no matter how many times the intellect may be cited or referred to. My capacity to distinguish has been improved upon studying and associating the law with civil behavior, even as the latter may have persisted to defy the stated law upon its own constantly regulating adjustments.

After all that having been said, I think what any candidate does is just what I described above, continuously, which is why they call it a campaign. Political camps, urban, natural, ecological, physical, progressive in development, requiring constant improvement and efficiently enhanced conductive ease for greater political activity. Ideally, the ultimate goal should be integrating the maximum possible amount of citizens into being actively political, because if not a winner (the anarchist would be wont to argue), we still need a breather.

How could I possibly vote on any candidate, if I do not have equal access to a standard of measurement to compare their progress within their campaigns? When I search for their progresses, hoping to find an online (pliable) channel for each candidate with all their recorded speeches so I could make a proper analysis, what I get is disjointed, only brief excerpts of each with many political dissenting comments obscuring their continued progress. Each on their own will of course be perfectly active political citizens in their scheduled discourses, and I would of course entrust my vote on any of them as they have recognized and applied the communicative mechanics of politics properly, in their own names, styles and chosen topics. And they would still be perfectly active political citizens if their names, styles and chosen topics were given by another, direct opponent or some agent behind the scenes. If they were all debating together, also they would be perfectly active political citizens. However, even knowing they are traveling from state to state, either broadcasting or not, but surely progressing in their campaign, I am still left with little to no access to any of their rallies. They must be exercising their political faculties every week, but for whatever reason, I am neither personally nor generally given a weekly notice of their own words. How could I ever choose for only one with these circumstances? I wouldn't be able. Even if I had access to 99% of them in their political developing campaigns, but 1% of candidates did not relay their progress back to me, or to a channel that was of my access, I could not make a decision based on 99%, since myself as a politically active citizen is as capable as any to alone ensure 100% responsiveness when required.

I didn't read all that word for word Holos, but the gist of your post that I think I got is that you are frustrated that there is no source providing all the words and commentary on any candidate. Instead we are forced to search through multiple websites and sources to find bits of information here and there, much of it contradictory, or slanted with intention to generate a specific response.

But since no single website would ever be able to contain the sum total of everything a person is, says, or does, we are stuck with using our intellect, wisdom, ability to research, and our gut to assess which of the candidates available to us has the vision, skill set, track record, and ability to get things done that we are looking for.

Yes, thank you for summarizing.

Ideally, however, I have no need of commentaries. Only the original source (recorded or registered whatever way) is relevant in the case for general elections.

I also disagree that a single website could not contain what is needed to make an informed, educated decision. Even if a single website would serve only as a compilation, still, multiple sites could serve to ease each candidate's original relays.

Again, without being able to find and be assured of what every single candidate is doing they will not be able to do what we are looking for to get done, even if our preferences are reflected on one or another, not through an intermediary electorate, but instead we then have to rely on ourselves.

I have watched enough of Trump and have read up enough on who and what he is to know that he is much more than the candidate we usually see on TV. And, while I frequently wish he had chosen a different phrase, term, or expression and wish he had taken a different tact, I have listened carefully to what he says, how he says it, and the context in which he says it to be able to believe he is not the extremist, racist, misogynistic extremists as the media, the left, and the permanent political class on the right characterize him.

But it all does move fast and you have to pay regular attention to keep up. Google and others often make it difficult to find the actual video or transcript of Trump's actual words for instance, but they are there if you have the time and patience to find them. And, IMO, it then takes honesty to interpret his words as he obviously intended them instead of what his enemies choose to make of them. And it requires intellectual honesty to recognize that he is telling it like it really is if not technically 100% accurate in how he expresses it.

Ann Coulter did a really good job of analyzing what he actually said and how the media interpreted it in a June speech:

Ann Coulter: Anyone actually hear Trump's speech?

 

[Holos]

Ok, back on point. What do you think the Donald is doing behind the scenes? Money is going to be a,problem no matter what he says and there seems to be an establishment change of strategy. Ther is now a two pronged plan, separate the presidential run from the down ticket. This is not a good strategy guys, ever hea d of divide and conquer. At some point EVERY republican candidate is going to be asked if he or she supports Donald trump and they better have a good answer. Every one is f them are going to need trump supporters to win their races. Trump is going to be in their states politicking. Time to start thinking now about how bad,Hilary is and not the Donald. Don't get caught up in democratic diversionary tactics. Donald is almost at the point where he is running as an independent.

I am stating the obvious but the critical junctures now are
The conventions
The vp picks
The debates, I firmly believe the debates will decide it all
The increasing outside probability Hilary will get indicted, the longer this goes on
The more likely the fix is in. The latest take on this, and an interesting one, is
That James Comey believes in America so much that he won't indict believing
That it would cause too much civil unrest. I don't buy it but what do I know.

See, I do not quite comprehend why there is such controversy in politics. My position is fundamentally stated upon already established order and progress, the very same allowing me these words. Politics is a simple functional methodology for extensive civil and personal improvement. I have indeed been blasted, since I was born, with persistent dissent between citizens of all sorts of jobs and relationships, even when one would be providing to the other, to the extreme extent that politics - essential, methodological civil communication - would be deemed criminal. That, of course, is an absurd claim, that the very own facilitator of civility would also somehow be detrimental.

In any case, I yet exercised my political functions by reaching to my fellow citizens, both those who also exercised them and those who instead continued with their absurd dissent. As I became closer with the pragmatics of politics, the legislation which conducts to jurisprudence and execution, and spent time relating the apparently politically deviant behavior I saw very common to the citizens in the streets, in buildings, on the media, to the legislature, that is, textual information, I was able to make my joined perceptions of apparently repelling behaviors into stable applicable knowledge. I could have as a reference many unique citizens with their individuality maintained and also many unique regions in which these unique citizens had been, were and would be at the same time, even as they would continue their dissent by using each others work, absurd as it was.

I still do observe the unnecessary behavior of dissent occurring, although less frequently and less persistently, as if by inertia of the decades they had been pushed impulsively, retroactively. When defending fellow politically active citizens of politically dissenting citizens, to further the cause of politics and not of any segregate party or individual, I have been verbosely shamed or oppressed to express my views in promotion of political development (by verbose I mean speech without any truly, carefully calculated, contextually responsive intent, but only an emotional contraption being purged. Not every emotional spontaneous speech is verbose, so the alternating absurdity could be handled in gentility after I had already studied the law more closely).

My comprehension is that dissent contains no intellectual value, value that is respectively inherent in politics. Politics may include many values beyond the intellect, however, emotional included. Dissent still occurring, I now know it is emotional value requiring adequate investment for its purge and don't make the mistake to confuse it with any intent towards intellect, no matter how many times the intellect may be cited or referred to. My capacity to distinguish has been improved upon studying and associating the law with civil behavior, even as the latter may have persisted to defy the stated law upon its own constantly regulating adjustments.

After all that having been said, I think what any candidate does is just what I described above, continuously, which is why they call it a campaign. Political camps, urban, natural, ecological, physical, progressive in development, requiring constant improvement and efficiently enhanced conductive ease for greater political activity. Ideally, the ultimate goal should be integrating the maximum possible amount of citizens into being actively political, because if not a winner (the anarchist would be wont to argue), we still need a breather.

How could I possibly vote on any candidate, if I do not have equal access to a standard of measurement to compare their progress within their campaigns? When I search for their progresses, hoping to find an online (pliable) channel for each candidate with all their recorded speeches so I could make a proper analysis, what I get is disjointed, only brief excerpts of each with many political dissenting comments obscuring their continued progress. Each on their own will of course be perfectly active political citizens in their scheduled discourses, and I would of course entrust my vote on any of them as they have recognized and applied the communicative mechanics of politics properly, in their own names, styles and chosen topics. And they would still be perfectly active political citizens if their names, styles and chosen topics were given by another, direct opponent or some agent behind the scenes. If they were all debating together, also they would be perfectly active political citizens. However, even knowing they are traveling from state to state, either broadcasting or not, but surely progressing in their campaign, I am still left with little to no access to any of their rallies. They must be exercising their political faculties every week, but for whatever reason, I am neither personally nor generally given a weekly notice of their own words. How could I ever choose for only one with these circumstances? I wouldn't be able. Even if I had access to 99% of them in their political developing campaigns, but 1% of candidates did not relay their progress back to me, or to a channel that was of my access, I could not make a decision based on 99%, since myself as a politically active citizen is as capable as any to alone ensure 100% responsiveness when required.

I didn't read all that word for word Holos, but the gist of your post that I think I got is that you are frustrated that there is no source providing all the words and commentary on any candidate. Instead we are forced to search through multiple websites and sources to find bits of information here and there, much of it contradictory, or slanted with intention to generate a specific response.

But since no single website would ever be able to contain the sum total of everything a person is, says, or does, we are stuck with using our intellect, wisdom, ability to research, and our gut to assess which of the candidates available to us has the vision, skill set, track record, and ability to get things done that we are looking for.

Yes, thank you for summarizing.

Ideally, however, I have no need of commentaries. Only the original source (recorded or registered whatever way) is relevant in the case for general elections.

I also disagree that a single website could not contain what is needed to make an informed, educated decision. Even if a single website would serve only as a compilation, still, multiple sites could serve to ease each candidate's original relays.

Again, without being able to find and be assured of what every single candidate is doing they will not be able to do what we are looking for to get done, even if our preferences are reflected on one or another, not through an intermediary electorate, but instead we then have to rely on ourselves.

I have watched enough of Trump and have read up enough on who and what he is to know that he is much more than the candidate we usually see on TV. And, while I frequently wish he had chosen a different phrase, term, or expression and wish he had taken a different tact, I have listened carefully to what he says, how he says it, and the context in which he says it to be able to believe he is not the extremist, racist, misogynistic extremists as the media, the left, and the permanent political class on the right characterize him.

But it all does move fast and you have to pay regular attention to keep up. Google and others often make it difficult to find the actual video or transcript of Trump's actual words for instance, but they are there if you have the time and patience to find them. And, IMO, it then takes honesty to interpret his words as he obviously intended them instead of what his enemies choose to make of them. And it requires intellectual honesty to recognize that he is telling it like it really is if not technically 100% accurate in how he expresses it.

Ann Coulter did a really good job of analyzing what he actually said and how the media interpreted it in a June speech:

Ann Coulter: Anyone actually hear Trump's speech?

I wasn't writing about Trump, I was writing about politics. I have no interest for Trump, even as he might have for me, since I do not disagree about anything you or him have made reachable to me about your own selves in our brief intermediated exchanges, but have not been given any notice of other politician's activities (not even my own casual exercise), as I had previously stated in my post to be a necessity I personally face in making an informed, educated choice for general elections.

Your words could be my own, and so could Trump's, and since my own words weren't further reflected at my first proposition for improvement, but instead requested thrice, and in its third time through deflective repetition, I cannot make adequate comments on your words or on Trump's, even as I comprehend them perfectly and would very much like to include them in my invested perspective of active political citizen.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, back on point. What do you think the Donald is doing behind the scenes? Money is going to be a,problem no matter what he says and there seems to be an establishment change of strategy. Ther is now a two pronged plan, separate the presidential run from the down ticket. This is not a good strategy guys, ever hea d of divide and conquer. At some point EVERY republican candidate is going to be asked if he or she supports Donald trump and they better have a good answer. Every one is f them are going to need trump supporters to win their races. Trump is going to be in their states politicking. Time to start thinking now about how bad,Hilary is and not the Donald. Don't get caught up in democratic diversionary tactics. Donald is almost at the point where he is running as an independent.

I am stating the obvious but the critical junctures now are
The conventions
The vp picks
The debates, I firmly believe the debates will decide it all
The increasing outside probability Hilary will get indicted, the longer this goes on
The more likely the fix is in. The latest take on this, and an interesting one, is
That James Comey believes in America so much that he won't indict believing
That it would cause too much civil unrest. I don't buy it but what do I know.

See, I do not quite comprehend why there is such controversy in politics. My position is fundamentally stated upon already established order and progress, the very same allowing me these words. Politics is a simple functional methodology for extensive civil and personal improvement. I have indeed been blasted, since I was born, with persistent dissent between citizens of all sorts of jobs and relationships, even when one would be providing to the other, to the extreme extent that politics - essential, methodological civil communication - would be deemed criminal. That, of course, is an absurd claim, that the very own facilitator of civility would also somehow be detrimental.

In any case, I yet exercised my political functions by reaching to my fellow citizens, both those who also exercised them and those who instead continued with their absurd dissent. As I became closer with the pragmatics of politics, the legislation which conducts to jurisprudence and execution, and spent time relating the apparently politically deviant behavior I saw very common to the citizens in the streets, in buildings, on the media, to the legislature, that is, textual information, I was able to make my joined perceptions of apparently repelling behaviors into stable applicable knowledge. I could have as a reference many unique citizens with their individuality maintained and also many unique regions in which these unique citizens had been, were and would be at the same time, even as they would continue their dissent by using each others work, absurd as it was.

I still do observe the unnecessary behavior of dissent occurring, although less frequently and less persistently, as if by inertia of the decades they had been pushed impulsively, retroactively. When defending fellow politically active citizens of politically dissenting citizens, to further the cause of politics and not of any segregate party or individual, I have been verbosely shamed or oppressed to express my views in promotion of political development (by verbose I mean speech without any truly, carefully calculated, contextually responsive intent, but only an emotional contraption being purged. Not every emotional spontaneous speech is verbose, so the alternating absurdity could be handled in gentility after I had already studied the law more closely).

My comprehension is that dissent contains no intellectual value, value that is respectively inherent in politics. Politics may include many values beyond the intellect, however, emotional included. Dissent still occurring, I now know it is emotional value requiring adequate investment for its purge and don't make the mistake to confuse it with any intent towards intellect, no matter how many times the intellect may be cited or referred to. My capacity to distinguish has been improved upon studying and associating the law with civil behavior, even as the latter may have persisted to defy the stated law upon its own constantly regulating adjustments.

After all that having been said, I think what any candidate does is just what I described above, continuously, which is why they call it a campaign. Political camps, urban, natural, ecological, physical, progressive in development, requiring constant improvement and efficiently enhanced conductive ease for greater political activity. Ideally, the ultimate goal should be integrating the maximum possible amount of citizens into being actively political, because if not a winner (the anarchist would be wont to argue), we still need a breather.

How could I possibly vote on any candidate, if I do not have equal access to a standard of measurement to compare their progress within their campaigns? When I search for their progresses, hoping to find an online (pliable) channel for each candidate with all their recorded speeches so I could make a proper analysis, what I get is disjointed, only brief excerpts of each with many political dissenting comments obscuring their continued progress. Each on their own will of course be perfectly active political citizens in their scheduled discourses, and I would of course entrust my vote on any of them as they have recognized and applied the communicative mechanics of politics properly, in their own names, styles and chosen topics. And they would still be perfectly active political citizens if their names, styles and chosen topics were given by another, direct opponent or some agent behind the scenes. If they were all debating together, also they would be perfectly active political citizens. However, even knowing they are traveling from state to state, either broadcasting or not, but surely progressing in their campaign, I am still left with little to no access to any of their rallies. They must be exercising their political faculties every week, but for whatever reason, I am neither personally nor generally given a weekly notice of their own words. How could I ever choose for only one with these circumstances? I wouldn't be able. Even if I had access to 99% of them in their political developing campaigns, but 1% of candidates did not relay their progress back to me, or to a channel that was of my access, I could not make a decision based on 99%, since myself as a politically active citizen is as capable as any to alone ensure 100% responsiveness when required.

I didn't read all that word for word Holos, but the gist of your post that I think I got is that you are frustrated that there is no source providing all the words and commentary on any candidate. Instead we are forced to search through multiple websites and sources to find bits of information here and there, much of it contradictory, or slanted with intention to generate a specific response.

But since no single website would ever be able to contain the sum total of everything a person is, says, or does, we are stuck with using our intellect, wisdom, ability to research, and our gut to assess which of the candidates available to us has the vision, skill set, track record, and ability to get things done that we are looking for.

Yes, thank you for summarizing.

Ideally, however, I have no need of commentaries. Only the original source (recorded or registered whatever way) is relevant in the case for general elections.

I also disagree that a single website could not contain what is needed to make an informed, educated decision. Even if a single website would serve only as a compilation, still, multiple sites could serve to ease each candidate's original relays.

Again, without being able to find and be assured of what every single candidate is doing they will not be able to do what we are looking for to get done, even if our preferences are reflected on one or another, not through an intermediary electorate, but instead we then have to rely on ourselves.

I have watched enough of Trump and have read up enough on who and what he is to know that he is much more than the candidate we usually see on TV. And, while I frequently wish he had chosen a different phrase, term, or expression and wish he had taken a different tact, I have listened carefully to what he says, how he says it, and the context in which he says it to be able to believe he is not the extremist, racist, misogynistic extremists as the media, the left, and the permanent political class on the right characterize him.

But it all does move fast and you have to pay regular attention to keep up. Google and others often make it difficult to find the actual video or transcript of Trump's actual words for instance, but they are there if you have the time and patience to find them. And, IMO, it then takes honesty to interpret his words as he obviously intended them instead of what his enemies choose to make of them. And it requires intellectual honesty to recognize that he is telling it like it really is if not technically 100% accurate in how he expresses it.

Ann Coulter did a really good job of analyzing what he actually said and how the media interpreted it in a June speech:

Ann Coulter: Anyone actually hear Trump's speech?

I wasn't writing about Trump, I was writing about politics. I have no interest for Trump, even as he might have for me, since I do not disagree about anything you or him have made reachable to me about your own selves in our brief intermediated exchanges, but have not been given any notice of other politician's activities (not even my own casual exercise), as I had previously stated in my post to be a necessity I personally face in making an informed, educated choice for general elections.

Your words could be my own, and so could Trump's, and since my own words weren't further reflected at my first proposition for improvement, but instead requested thrice, and in its third time through deflective repetition, I cannot make adequate comments on your words or on Trump's, even as I comprehend them perfectly and would very much like to include them in my invested perspective of active political citizen.

Holos, is it possible you are not in an English speaking country and are using a translator? If so kudos on your posts though the translation does make the syntax a bit confusing at times. But bear with us. We'll figure it out.

I am just saying that my perception of Trump is that he uses the shock factor of being so politically incorrect to keep himself on the front pages of the newspapers and leading every newscast and a coveted guest on every TV and radio program that has guests. It has been very effective so far because as much as many of us dislike some of the ways he expresses himself, he is nevertheless intending to speak what people have been thinking for a very long time. Millions of us are sick of political correctness that tippy toes around the way things actually are. Political correctness that is destructive to our whole society and also to those it is intended to protect and shield from any sort of offense.

 

[Shrimpbox]

It's happening fox. Hilary is getting more guilty and trump is getting more electable. You couldn't write a better intro for the election than the Brexit vote. Hilary's response was so lame, and every dem pundit is at a loss for explanation, they are scrambling just to spin this. Obama and Hilary on the wrong side of history, only handing the keys of the White House to Donald trump is a worse nightmare for Barry. I can't wait!

 

[Foxfyre]

It's happening fox. Hilary is getting more guilty and trump is getting more electable. You couldn't write a better intro for the election than the Brexit vote. Hilary's response was so lame, and every dem pundit is at a loss for explanation, they are scrambling just to spin this. Obama and Hilary on the wrong side of history, only handing the keys of the White House to Donald trump is a worse nightmare for Barry. I can't wait!

I wish I could see it that way Shrimp. I still hold out hope that enough Americans well set aside their personal feelings and do the right thing for the country which will be to be sure Hillary is not elected. But I don't see Hillary getting more 'guilty' as the media will continue to downplay and minimalize any negatives and try to portray her in the best possible light.

The only thing keeping Trump in the game right now is high visibility. Even the most leftist anti-conservative media sources can't resist giving him publicity because he is so much more interesting and keeps viewers watching and reading. Hillary doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

The RCP battleground polls are looking better for Trump day by day as he closes in on Hillary bit by bit. He has taken the lead in George and North Carolina and is within 1/2 percentage point in Pennsylvania. Both Hillary and Trump's overall numbers are pathetic for this stage of the election cycle though.

Here is what one pundit is saying Trump needs to do to win. Agree or disagree?

. . .
First, keep pummeling Hillary. The only presidential candidate in history to run while under federal investigation, Clinton has benefited from chummy relationships with media pooh-bahs who have successfully shielded her for decades. But the former first lady has a thin skin and a glass jaw; she’s never faced sustained, fearless criticism before and doesn’t handle it well.

Her brazen defiance of federal regulations, State Department protocols, national-security concerns and espionage and bribery laws make her the tomato can of candidates. Heck, the guy who set up her private e-mail server just took the Fifth 125 times in a deposition. Think he’s got something to hide?

Second, learn a lesson from John McCain and Mitt Romney. The Maverick was a media darling until he had the effrontery to run against The One in 2008, while Romney was transformed from a successful Mormon businessman into a rapacious ogre. Overwhelmingly Democratic and partisan, the media votes with its pens and cameras every day during campaign season.

Much of Trump’s early appeal derived from his combative relationship with reporters, whom he not only doesn’t fear but treats with overt contempt. He should keep doing it. As Churchill said about the Germans, “The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet.” So’s the media. Like Hillary (who largely shuns the press), Trump should control his availability, answer the questions he likes, turn around the questions he doesn’t, and leave.

Third, skip the “gotcha” game. During one of the GOP debates, Trump filibustered a response to radio host Hugh Hewitt’s question about the three legs of the “nuclear triad” because he didn’t know what that phrase meant (subs, bombers, missiles). But that’s the sort of thing instantly explained and learned. After all, he’s a first-time candidate navigating an ocean of wonks who think they alone should decide the qualifications necessary to become president.

A presidential campaign is not a quiz show, so the next time Trump’s confronted with unfamiliar Beltway jargon he should just ask for clarification, answer the question forthrightly and move on.

Fourth, make it clear to the junior wing of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party who’s boss now. Despite its success in the congressional elections of 2010 and ’14, the GOP has been whining it can’t shape policy without holding the White House, too. Here’s their big chance.

The center-right public is outraged at the Republicans’ largely ineffective opposition to Democrat progressivism and executive overreach. Let’s hope last week’s Supreme Court decision blocking Obama’s amnesty for illegals — and the Democrats’ childish sit-in in the House — will stiffen GOP “leadership” spines. But if not, Trump should do it by actually leading.

Finally, be yourself — but better. Trump walks, talks and acts like the quintessential guy from Queens, from his un-pukka accent to his stream-of-consciousness barroom bluster. He’s that anomaly, a rich man with a peasant’s taste for shiny material things. . .
--Michael Walsh
http://nypost.com/2016/06/25/five-things-trump-must-do-to-win-the-election/​

My instincts tell me that Walsh has likely nailed it. I hope the Trump campaign reads it.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I think it is real simple fox. Other pundits have already nailed it. If Hilary is able to make it all about the Donald, she wins. If Donald can make it about the old, corrupt, ideologue establishment vs. a populist, non politician, make America great again change agent he will win.

Listening to the news we are told trump is losing ground faster than West Virginia. I don't think polls mean much now but an ability to control the narrative must get trumps attention. The media is totally against him. The establishment is totally against him. Many republicans are against him. And they haven't even brought in big gun Obama yet. The brexit vote should be a huge springboard for trump, but he has to get on it right now.

Keep pummeling Hilary. Yeah, but keep pummeling her democratic operatives. I can't believe the incredible opportunities every night that are missed by trump supporters. Democrats lie constantly, all the time, incessantly. Come down hard on these people. If you can't find people to do the job than hire me, hell I will work for free and I won't even repeat myself. The point is you can never let up because there is no quarter given by dems. If you don't have a taste for blood get out of the way. Who is doing a good job on this now? Laura Ingraham.

Keep doing what you are doing with the press but do it in half the time. Judge every question under the gotcha rule, and redirect the conversation always by asking are you going to ask Hilary the same question. Question the assumptions of the questions. I like it that he will be interviewed by anyone but then have the awareness to ask the interviewer if this question posed so you can call me a racist. Don't try to have an opinion on everything. Focus on country, jobs, corruption, and change. Stop tweeting and curtail the off the cuff remarks. Parade your family and your wife out. Swallow your ego and ask, don't beg, republicans to help you win the presidency. Go to inner city Chicago, the barrios and the slums and tell them you want to bring them jobs.

Emphasize strong leadership, sovereignty, patriotism, small business, cleaning up corruption, and most of all action. Keep it about the country and not yourself and you can't go wrong.

The contest so far reminds me of the old joke. I'm fat but you are ugly and I can lose weight. Let's hope Donald can lose some weight.

 

[Foxfyre]

I hope he gets a good handle on what works too. I don't trust the polls that I suspect are mostly skewed to favor Hillary, but I also realize that all polls show Trump's negatives to be as high or higher than hers. He needs to persuade more folks that most of those negatives are a lie in order to win.

Of course the pro Hillary crowd will never be convinced as they are the ones promoting the lies as well as capitalizing on the legitimate criticisms. But they will ignore all of her negatives--she has the D after her name--while trying to make as much hay with Trumps' negatives as possible.

I despair that we will ever have again a country where most of the people really wants the best there is for America and its people instead of the irrational and stupid partisanship and prejudices that run the process now.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Chin up fox. Remember this is going to be a roller coaster ride. Democrats are counting that their offensive will dishearten trump supporters, so don't fall for it.

My point is that trump has tremendous up side. Hilary has none. Once again it is totally up to him. He is in uncharted territory but he has called himself,the master of the deal. Well man, it is time for you to step up to the plate and seal the deal with the American people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If only the media wasn't determined to make Trump out to be something he isn't.....and the Hillary supporters weren't all so blind, things would be super.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know where Mark Dice was working here, but Hillary supporters were out in force.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't know where Mark Dice was working here, but Hillary supporters were out in force.

You are breaking the rules of your thread. You should delete that and follow your own rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know where Mark Dice was working here, but Hillary supporters were out in force.

You are breaking the rules of your thread. You should delete that and follow your own rules.

How so? The video is unoffensive and completely civil and it is on topic. I can't see how that breaks anybody's rules unless politics or personalities are off limits. And neither are in this thread.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Would you like the question answered? You asked "How so?"

 

[Foxfyre]

So however slowly, the worm may be turning. One thing the media didn't report on but I think those watching yesterday's hearing picked up on is that the GOP had nothing to do with the FBI investigation that resulted in Comeys saying no criminal charges should be brought against Hillary. But in the process of several hours of testimony yesterday, he did say that she was extremely careless, did not follow official rules/protocol for treatment of her emails, her lawyers erased 30,000 or so of those e-mails and so scrubbed the hard drive that they could not be recovered, and she is dumb as a post. And the Senators were able to get it on the record that if we go with her testimony with the FBI, then she absolutely lied to Congress and the American people.

It is interesting how much the tenor of the GOP response to Trump has changed in the wake of all this. I'm not see so much #neverTrump and a whole lot more willingness to work with him all of a sudden.

And the people are definitely in his camp without much qualification:

What Would It Take for GOP Voters to Dump Trump? | RealClearPolitics

 

[Shrimpbox]

Fair weather republicans. You would not even have to have an election if they try to dethrone trump. Those who actively push never trump or those who passively work against trump by saying they are no longer republicans really need to ask themselves, to what end?

 

[Shrimpbox]

Ok fox, vp pick. you know I love directness and candor and pugnaciousness. I know it doesn't do anything for the electoral map but newt is the one for me. Let trump work the crowds and behind the scenes and let newt tak all the incoming. His understanding of the process and his vision for the country will be a plus. Yes he has been vetted before and he is unlikely to endear himself to women as a man, but he more than makes up for it in competence, and I also think he has tamped down the massive ego. Can two alpha personalities find some chemistry, I hope so. Newt would take that lieawatha fake to the woodshed in a debate.

You going to Cleveland ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok fox, vp pick. you know I love directness and candor and pugnaciousness. I know it doesn't do anything for the electoral map but newt is the one for me. Let trump work the crowds and behind the scenes and let newt tak all the incoming. His understanding of the process and his vision for the country will be a plus. Yes he has been vetted before and he is unlikely to endear himself to women as a man, but he more than makes up for it in competence, and I also think he has tamped down the massive ego. Can two alpha personalities find some chemistry, I hope so. Newt would take that lieawatha fake to the woodshed in a debate.

You going to Cleveland ?

I don't think Newt would be a terrible pick but my gut isn't secure that he is the best pick yet. I'll see how I feel about it as we get closer to the time. And no, I won't be going to Cleveland. Not within my budget I'm afraid and I don't have a role there. Will be glued to the TV though.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, so much for my characterization of Bernie Sanders as principled and a man of character:

 

[Foxfyre]

So the pick is Mike Pence. I think that's a good choice--a governor to help bolster skills sets in governing that the Donald hasn't mastered yet--management is similar to but somewhat different than governance. And Pence is relatively scandal free and brings solid conservative credentials that should allay some of the fears that Trump not being a 'real conservative' is a serious problem. I don't look to the President for social issues anyway--I want somebody with the smarts to be a competent administrator, strong on the military and national security, and common sense on international issues. I don't think social engineering was intended to be the prerogative of the central government and I think Trump will appoint good judges who see it that way too.