US elections: The Trumpening

[Maithanet]

Has anyone posted this transcript of the Stephanopolis interview with Christie?  It is incredible.  Stephanopolis is asking hard questions about how Christie can be supporting Trump when he blasted his policies as ridiculous and impossible.  It is exactly the kind of hard questions that Trump never answers, and Christie obviously isn't as good at the rope-a-dope. 

Over and over again, on the Wall, on Social Security, on banning Muslim immigration, Christie had to answer for Trump on his ridiculous positions.  And he just couldn't do it.
 

Quote

STEPHANOPOULOS: How is Donald Trump going to force Mexico to pay [for the wall]?

(Several minutes of non-answers, until we finally get to)

CHRISTIE: And he will answer that question. But you know, to me, I'm not answering the question for him this morning.

Quote

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- finally, you talk about Donald Trump as the person who can be trusted. He still maintains that he saw thousands of people celebrating in New Jersey after the 9/11 attacks. You said that didn't happen, it was not factual.

So if he continues to hold that position, isn't that a slander of your state citizens?

CHRISTIE: Now, listen, I don't think he means it as that at all, as a slander of my state's citizens. You, what I think, though, is when I say he's -- can be trusted, this is a guy who, when he makes promises, he keeps them. Um, and I've seen that over the course of a 14-year relationship with him.

 

 

Quote

STEPHANOPOULOS: I've just pointed out three of the biggest issues in this campaign, the ones he talks about all the time. You disagree with him on all those issues.

Ooof.  Being a surrogate for Trump is TOUGH because you have to defend the indefensible, and they aren't even your policies. 

[Jaxom 1974]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Has anyone posted this transcript of the Stephanopolis interview with Christie?  It is incredible.  Stephanopolis is asking hard questions about how Christie can be supporting Trump when he blasted his policies as ridiculous and impossible.  It is exactly the kind of hard questions that Trump never answers, and Christie obviously isn't as good at the rope-a-dope. 

Over and over again, on the Wall, on Social Security, on banning Muslim immigration, Christie had to answer for Trump on his ridiculous positions.  And he just couldn't do it.
 

 

Ooof.  Being a surrogate for Trump is TOUGH because you have to defend the indefensible, and they aren't even your policies. 

Is Christie angling for the VP slot?

[alguien]

27 minutes ago, ThePrunesThatWasPromised said:

I'm comparing Clinton/Byrd specifically to Trump/Duke.

I'm comparing Libya to the worst you can find on Trump and am not worried at all. Trump's worst bankruptcy doesn't compare to that moral bankruptcy?

I specifically support Trump threatening it over Hillary because, yeah, she actually did it already.

I could've opened my mind to some Berniesplaining, but it's MAGA for me now after that dog and pony D primary.

I don't think words mean what you think they do. 

[Mexal]

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Has anyone posted this transcript of the Stephanopolis interview with Christie?  It is incredible.  Stephanopolis is asking hard questions about how Christie can be supporting Trump when he blasted his policies as ridiculous and impossible.  It is exactly the kind of hard questions that Trump never answers, and Christie obviously isn't as good at the rope-a-dope. 

Over and over again, on the Wall, on Social Security, on banning Muslim immigration, Christie had to answer for Trump on his ridiculous positions.  And he just couldn't do it.

This is incredible. Stephanopuolos basically challenged every belief Christie held and disagreed with and Christie failed miserably to spin it. I mean, that was literally the worst example of spin I've ever seen which makes his blatant political angling even more obvious. Unbelievable.

18 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Is Christie angling for the VP slot?

That or AG. More likely the latter I'd think.

[Free Northman Reborn]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/29/trump-trounces-primary-poll/81104418/

New poll out. Trump now up to 50% among Republican leaning voters, with his nearest challengers in the 15% range. He is accelerating away from them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Kal,

I don't disagree without a lot of the points you've raised. I just think they can be true AND that big money is some what afraid of Trump. One of the things that I've found surprising this cycle is how opposed to big money the Republican base is. And Trump has tapped into that. It doesn't matter if liberals attack the Koch brothers et al., but if the nominee of the Republican Party did it could actually hurt them.

42 minutes ago, alguien said:

Yeah, but for the poor and people of color.

Oh he has a long record of screwing over rich people too.

And in other Trump news, a new national poll has him at 49%. This is the closest he's come to having majority support from the Republican Party.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Mlle. Zabzie]

45 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Is Christie angling for the VP slot?

AG.  Absolutely AG.  No one wants the Veep spot.  

The whole thing is fascinatingly scary.  Dems better get their house in order but quick.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

So yesterday Marco Rubio insinuated that Trump has a small package.

Stay classy, GOP.

[Jaxom 1974]

25 minutes ago, Mexal said:

 

That or AG. More likely the latter I'd think.

Hmmmm...true...some of these early "big" endorsements have to be coming from people who've been made promises by Trump for a Trump Presidency right?  I mean, the Governor of Maine had to have gotten word of something to change his tune like he did, right?

I could also see Christie getting the AG gig and then actually turning on President Trump.

[Dr. Pepper]

5 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I do, yes. I don't want to debate Dr. Pepper in her absence, but the core of our disagreement (as I understand it) is that I am more skeptical than she that voters in 2016 are going to be moved by scandals from the 90s. As far as I can tell, that's the nut of the issue. 

I know the thread has moved on from this topic, but just thought I'd reply real quick and then I'll leave it alone until it comes up again.

I think it's important to take the pulse of things.  Each year there is always going to be certain topics that are just more prevalent in the conversation than others.  Sexual assault has been a much discussed topic.  Everything from widely publicized campus protests to big headlines of the entertainment elite.  Bill Cosby, Kesha, half the big movies and several major tv shows covered sexual abuse.  Shit, Joe Biden was just on the Oscars delivering a speech about survivors of sexual violence.  Point is, it's in our heads and the way it's being discussed is a bit different than years past.  It probably wouldn't have been an issue for HRC in even 2014,( in a similar way that her comments on superpredators wouldn't have been an issue in previous years but has come up this election cycle). This year it takes on a different tone when she's parading around Bill while also speaking about believing victims and that's all countered with memes like this or Bills victims on tv discussing how Hillary was complicit in silencing them.  I see plenty of reason why this would be damaging, specifically this year.  

Obviously, I'm not claiming that this will be THE issue voters don't turn out for her.  It's more like what another poster mentioned, death by a thousand cuts sort of thing.  I definitely don't think it will be something that she'll be able to wish away like her recent missteps with BLM.  

[DanteGabriel]

15 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Hmmmm...true...some of these early "big" endorsements have to be coming from people who've been made promises by Trump for a Trump Presidency right?  I mean, the Governor of Maine had to have gotten word of something to change his tune like he did, right?

The governor of Maine is Trump's natural constituency: old white racist blowhard with a tendency to crackpottery. The most surprising thing in the NY Times piece about the Republican mainstream's efforts to fend Trump off was his initial reaction against Trump, not the fact that he ended up endorsing Trump at the end.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Trump isn't particularly scary in any of these ways. He's if anything something of a scapegoat - someone that will attract a lot of attention away from some of their more nefarious horribleness. And he aligns well with many of the Koch concerns - stopping clean energy, repealing the EPA, tariffs against their competitors.  

I think Trump has to at least concern the Koch brothers to the extent that there is the possibility that he is invested/financially involved in competitors of their's and would be motivated to help that competition over them. We know Trump hates wind farms, at least when near golf courses, but that's pretty much all we know. For instance, if Trump has some ongoing deals where he's partnered with people making money from nuclear energy he may seek to increase subsidies for nuclear energy at the expense of oil subsidies. Directly hurting the Koch brothers. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Ooof.  Being a surrogate for Trump is TOUGH because you have to defend the indefensible, and they aren't even your policies.

 

Yeah it's a tight spot for many GOP politicians if Trump gets the nomination. Defending his policies is the kind of thing that could appear in an opponents commercials, even in future elections. 

It's a lose lose situation too. McConnell telling senators to turn on Trump if needed to win may be an unwise strategy as well. It's a pretty muddled situation to attack or not defend your presidential nominee and doesn't seem like it will work out well. Yet siding with Trump could destroy your and/or your party's brand long term.

 

[Kalbear]

Fez, I guess that's possible - but Trump isn't and has never been in the energy business in any way. His brands are mostly focused around high profile real estate, with occasional branch outs into fairly shitty other industries (magazines, meat, mortgage selling, etc). It's certainly possible - but I doubt the Kochs are that fearful of that possibility except inasmuch as they're afraid of any possibility, period. Probably the scariest thing for them might be the protectionist policies, but they are likely well-situated to make money in that case, too. 

And really, him pledging to destroy the EPA? That would be such a massive boon to their industries that nothing else matters. 

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

So yesterday Marco Rubio insinuated that Trump has a small package.

Stay classy, GOP.

 

 

 

Yeah, I read it's part a new strategy of literally sinking to Trump's level. The next debate is likely to somehow be worse than the last one.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Fez, I guess that's possible - but Trump isn't and has never been in the energy business in any way. His brands are mostly focused around high profile real estate, with occasional branch outs into fairly shitty other industries (magazines, meat, mortgage selling, etc). It's certainly possible - but I doubt the Kochs are that fearful of that possibility except inasmuch as they're afraid of any possibility, period. Probably the scariest thing for them might be the protectionist policies, but they are likely well-situated to make money in that case, too. 

And really, him pledging to destroy the EPA? That would be such a massive boon to their industries that nothing else matters. 

Right. I think the possibility is more that Trump has a big real estate deal he wants complete, and one of his partners in it is from the energy industry and needs some big subsidy to ensure they'll have the the liquidity for the real estate deal. That sort of thing.

As for destroying the EPA, I doubt Trump would get rid of any federal agency. Any agency he gets rid of is an agency he can't use/threaten to use as a weapon against his opponents.

[Kalbear]

Quote

It's a lose lose situation too. McConnell telling senators to turn on You-Know-Who if needed to win may be an unwise strategy as well. It's a pretty muddled situation to attack or not defend your presidential nominee and doesn't seem like it will work out well. Yet siding with You-Know-Who could destroy your and/or your party's brand long term.

I think not siding with Trump directly is probably not too horrible a strategy, or making sure you're taking positions that can easily indicate you don't support him. 4 years isn't that long in the political career, and much like the Iraq vote defined a lot of Obama's success (or McCain's opposition to Bush) you can make some political capital by being a staunch opponent of Trump. 

I also suspect that there are a lot of Republicans who view Clinton as not particularly bad as a compromise due to her generally moderate stances on many things, and would tolerate her for 4 years too. 

I do have to say - this election cycle has turned me around on Obama a lot. I was really pissed at him for what he hasn't accomplished relative to what he's said he wanted to do and what his goals were, but he did get a fair amount of stuff done despite massive obstruction, manage to at least remove obstacles for gay marriage and isn't a national embarrassment. He's funny, witty, a great speaker and a very reasonable person. I'll miss him as president. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Right. I think the possibility is more that You-Know-Who has a big real estate deal he wants complete, and one of his partners in it is from the energy industry and needs some big subsidy to ensure they'll have the the liquidity for the real estate deal. That sort of thing.

As for destroying the EPA, I doubt You-Know-Who would get rid of any federal agency. Any agency he gets rid of is an agency he can't use/threaten to use as a weapon against his opponents.

He'd make such a mint from getting rid of the EPA go, and it's one of the few things he can do via Executive Order that can't really be opposed via congress in any way. 

[Maithanet]

59 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This is incredible. Stephanopuolos basically challenged every belief Christie held and disagreed with and Christie failed miserably to spin it. I mean, that was literally the worst example of spin I've ever seen which makes his blatant political angling even more obvious. Unbelievable.

Christie came off horribly, no doubt.  But Trump does too.  His policies are so off the wall that any politician still vaguely tethered to reality is unable to speak about them.  Even if Trump can hide the fact that the Emperor has no clothes, the spell doesn't work when his surrogates are talking. 

 

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I also suspect that there are a lot of Republicans who view Clinton as not particularly bad as a compromise due to her generally moderate stances on many things, and would tolerate her for 4 years too.

The Republican Elites?  Maybe.  But Republicans as a whole hate Clinton like she everything loathsome about Bill, Obama and Satan rolled into one. 

And I will miss No Drama too. 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

 

 

Yeah, I read it's part a new strategy of literally sinking to Trump's level. The next debate is likely to somehow be worse than the last one.

I'm wondering if Marco just realizes he's not going to win, probably won't retain his Senate seat (would he even run to keep it or did he put all of his eggs in this presidency basket?)  and is just going scorched earth hoping to hurt Trump as much as possible.  

I'm also wondering whether or not Trump will even go to the debate on Thursday since it's hosted by Fox News with Megyn Kelley as a moderator.