The Official Donald Trump Thread

[MASTERBAKER]

Sean Hannity just showed why a blowout Trump loss wouldn’t end the GOP civil war


By Aaron Blake August 4 at 1:55 PM

In this March 4, 2016, photo, Sean Hannity of Fox News arrives in National Harbor, Md. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Right now, if you are an establishment Republican, you probably think that Donald Trump is likely to lose badly in November. But if you are an optimistic establishment Republican, you might argue that this could be a good thing — that the party could win by losing, since that defeat could prove to the anti-establishment/tea party crowd that nominating unelectable, extreme candidates like Trump just doesn't work. Indeed, some have made this very argument — often privately.

This is a fantasy. And Sean Hannity just demonstrated why.

On his radio show Wednesday, Hannity rather amazingly sought to pre-blame the Republican establishment for a Trump loss in 2016.

"If in 96 days Trump loses this election, I am pointing the finger directly at people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and John McCain and John Kasich and Ted Cruz — if he won’t endorse — and Jeb Bush and everybody else that made promises they’re not keeping," Hannity said.


He added: "I have watched these Republicans be more harsh toward Donald Trump than they’ve ever been in standing up to Barack Obama and his radical agenda that has doubled the debt, that has resulted in a 51-year low in homeownership in this country ... the lowest labor participation rate since the '70s, and that has led to millions and millions of Americans in poverty and on food stamps and out of the labor force. They did nothing. Nothing."

This pretty well encapsulates the GOP's post-Trump dilemma.

The GOP establishment will say Trump was simply not electable — that he alienated too many people and opened himself up to charges of being anti-woman, anti-Muslim and even racist. They will cite his lack of message control, grasp of the issues and his constant fight-picking. They will say he should have focused on bread-and-butter issues like the economy rather than calling his opponent "the devil" and the "founder of ISIS."

5-Minute Fix newsletter

Keeping up with politics is easy now.



The likes of Hannity and other conservative talkers, though, will blame the GOP establishment for not sufficiently embracing Trump and giving him a chance to succeed. They will say, as Hannity did, that this lack of support for Trump is merely the latest in a long line of GOP capitulations, and proof the GOP establishment just doesn't get it. Some of them might argue a corollary: that Trump himself wasn't conservative enough on certain issues, and wasn't a true Republican (which he wasn't at all until a few years ago.)

In short, a Trump loss would provide a little something to bolster everyone's arguments — even if they're in direct opposition to one another. If you are predisposed to believe that the establishment is bad, you will find a way to blame them for Trump losing. If you are predisposed to believe that Trump was simply unelectable and a bad idea in the first place, you will find validation.

And it bears noting that the party has been fighting this internal battle for years, with no resolution and very little change. Nominating what many saw to be unelectable or at least far-less-electable Senate candidates like Todd Akin, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Richard Mourdock and Ken Buck may have cost the GOP years of Senate control, but it hasn't caused the grass roots of the party to do soul-searching when it comes to avoiding more-extreme candidates. They just nominated Donald Trump, after all.

For years, many of these folks have been crying foul when the party nominated moderates like John McCain and Mitt Romney who went on to lose presidential elections. The idea that they'll suddenly fall in line with the party establishment's wishes if and when Trump loses just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And apparently, the fight over whom to blame for Trump's impending loss has already begun.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[QueEx]

Fareed Zakaria: Trump is a 'bullshit artist'

Donald Trump's explanation of his latest remarks about handling Russian aggression in Ukraine shows a particular pattern, one of a "bulls--- artist," CNN's Fareed Zakaria said on live television Monday afternoon.

"Well, there’s a pattern here, Wolf. Every time it is demonstrated that Donald Trump is plainly ignorant about some basic public policy issues, some well-known fact, he comes back with the certain bravado and tries to explain it away with a tweet or statement," the host of "Fareed Zakaria GPS" told Wolf Blitzer.


Zakaria noted that Trump acted similarly with his past comments on Brexit, on his struggle to articulate the nuclear triad, on how U.S. debt markets work and his apparent confusion of Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as a former governor of New Jersey.

"And it’s sort of amusing to watch. How he is going to pull it off this time? What is he going to argue? Usually he adds that the press hates him, but there is a term for this kind of thing," Zakaria said. "This is the mode of a bullshit artist, and you know, it’s sometimes amusing. It’s entertaining if the guy is trying to sell you a condo or a car, but for a president of the United States, it’s deeply worrying."

Blitzer did not make note of Zakaria's on-air profanity as he followed up with another question about Trump remarking that people in Crimea prefer being a part of Russia rather than Ukraine.

Zakaria's comments came in reference to Trump's efforts to explain his remarks during an interview with ABC News host George Stephanopoulos that aired Sunday.

“When I said in an interview that Putin is ‘not going into Ukraine, you can mark it down,’ I am saying if I am President. Already in Crimea!” he tweeted Monday. He added: “So with all of the Obama tough talk on Russia and the Ukraine, they have already taken Crimea and continue to push. That’s what I said!”

In his interview with ABC, Trump said of Putin, “He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.”

“Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?” Stephanopoulos asked.

Putin is “there in a certain way, but I’m not there yet,” Trump responded, suggesting that he would sort things out as president.

​

SOURCE: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/fareed-zakaria-trump-b-s-artist-226516


.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

SPOKE TOO SOON: Donald Trump trashes Hillary Clinton over attendance of Omar Mateen’s father at her rally — as a disgraced ex-congressman sits right behind him!

Donald Trump trashes Hillary Clinton over Omar Mateen’s father at rally — while disgraced ex-Congressman Mark Foley sits behind him

• 125
• Tweet
• email

KERI BLAKINGER
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Thursday, August 11, 2016, 4:26 AM

As Donald Trump slammed his Hillary Clinton for attracting the support of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen’s father, a controversial figure was seen in the front rows of the billionaire’s rally in Florida.

Mark Foley, a former congressman who represented southern Florida, was seated just behind the candidate, sporting a navy jacket and a slight smile at Wednesday night’s Fort Lauderdale rally.

Foleyresigned his post in 2006after scandalous claims that he had sent sexually suggestive emails and messages to congressional pages.

“The people behind me, they’re all on television, they’re gonna be famous,” Trump told the BB&T Center crowd. “They’re gonna be famous.

Father of Pulse nightclub shooter backing Hillary Clinton

“And by the way, speaking of that, wasn’t it terrible when the father of the animal who killed the wonderful people in Orlando was sitting with a big smile on his face right behind Hillary Clinton?”

Disgraced former congressman Mark Foley sits behind Donald Trump during a rally in Florida.
(CNN)
Seddique Mateen, father of Pulse gunman Omar Mateen,threw his support behind the Democratic candidatewhen he showed up at one of her Florida rallies Monday.

"This individual wasn't invited as a guest, and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event," the Clinton camp later said in a statement.

But Trump called that response into question with a self-defeating demonstration.

Disgraced former congressman Mark Foley speaks

“By the way, including a lot of the people here, how many of you know me?” he said in Florida.

Foley (seen in a 2008 interview) resigned amid a wave of scandalous allegations.
(RICHARD DREW/AP)
A number of hands went up — including Foley’s.

“When you get those seats you sort of know the campaign, so when she said, 'Well we didn't know,' he knew, they knew,” Trump continued

After some eagle-eyed observers spotted him in the crowd, Foley boasted about his longstanding relationship with the presidential candidate.

Trump supporters dump drinks on protesters leaving Florida rally

“He’s been a friend of mine for 30 years and one of my biggest contributors,” the disgraced politician told MSNBC’sThomas Roberts.

Seddique Mateen, the father of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, sat in the background at a Hillary Clinton rally — a fact Trump targeted on Wednesday.
(WPTV NBC)
The billionaire wannabe president gave more than $8,000 to Foley’s political bids between 1997 and 2006, according to NBC’sKaty Tur.

"I've been a friend of Mr. Trump's since 1987. I've admired so much of what he's done. He's a different breed of leader and a different breed of candidate,” he told theSun-Sentinel.

Trump’s own statements seem to support that. Back in 2006 — after the Foley scandal broke — Trump spoke about their acquaintance onCNN.

Giuliani defends Trump’s apparent call for Clinton assassination

“Mark Foley would come to Mar-a-Lago with charities and everything and I've seen him for years and he always had a very beautiful woman with him and yet everybody knew that Mark was gay and he came out and admitted he was gay,” he told Larry King.

“And, you know, if I were gay, which is perhaps a well known story that I'm not, I would admit that I'm gay. But he would come in with magnificent-looking women. It was like torture to me watching this. And fortunately I'm married and very happy.”

Trump has not yet commented on Foley's presence at the Florida rally.

 

[QueEx]

The Scariest Nominee of Our Time​

Donald Trump is disruptive, self-destructive, and careless.


Imagine if Donald Trump’s foreign policy ideas were uttered in a saner tone by someone who seemed to have a little bit of knowledge about global politics. Would his ideas sound quite so dangerous? Maybe not, but they’d still be dangerous enough. In fact, they’d qualify as the most dangerous, disruptive, self-destructive ideas that any major party’s nominee has peddled in any living American’s memory.

These are the hardest times since the end of World War II for an American president to set and manage foreign policy.

From 1945–91, the rules of the game were fairly clear: It was the U.S. versus the USSR, and power was measured by the relative stockpiles of weapons they would need in a conflict. Most of the wars fought by smaller nations were viewed (sometimes misleadingly) in terms of their impact on the East–West balance.

When the Cold War imploded, so did the entire system of international relations it had spawned. Power blocs dissolved; the subjects and allies in each now-shattered sphere of influence were free to pursue their own interests without regard to the former superpowers’ wishes. In the Middle East, Cold War politics had propped up artificial borders and oppressive regimes that otherwise would have collapsed a decade or so after World War II, along with the whole string of French and British colonies. When the Cold War ended, this collapse resumed—triggering the chaos in the region today.

In one of those ironies common to history, America won the Cold War but emerged from it weaker, not stronger. President George W. Bush’s strategic error lay in failing to grasp this fact. He, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought they’d entered a “uni-polar” era with the United States reigning as “the sole superpower,” able to impose its will with little effort or the need for pesky allies. They didn’t realize that the old tokens of power (tanks, missiles, atom bombs) and the old devices of leverage (Do what we ask or succumb to the Soviet bear) had lost much of their former potency and that, as a result, allies—and compromising with them on strategic goals—were now not just useful but necessary.

Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, understood this even at the dawn of the new era. Hence his fervent campaign to preserve the vast alliance against Saddam Hussein during the 1990–91 Gulf War and his call for a cease-fire when the mission binding the alliance—ousting Iraq’s invasion forces from Kuwait—was complete. This awareness also informed the elder Bush’s decision not to rub America’s Cold War victory in Russia’s face.

Barack Obama, from early on in his presidency, understood very clearly these limits of power, the need for alliances, and the distinctions between interests and vital interests (and the levels of commitment that they justified) in this new multi-polar (or, in some ways, nonpolar) era.

Hillary Clinton understands these things as well, though she might be less resistant than Obama to using military force; some who have worked with her say she hasn’t internalized the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya to the same degree. But her experiences have taught her that, in this new era, nations with common interests in one realm often have opposing interests in other realms, and the job of a top diplomat or president is to navigate these shoals without surrender or collision. (In some ways, this is nothing new: The United States and the Soviet Union practiced diplomacy and signed treaties, without ever dropping guard on the East-West German border, through all but the tensest years of the Cold War.)​

Donald Trump, on the other hand, grasps none of these things—not the history, not the concepts, not the tools or limits or creative possibilities of power.

He is not so much an isolationist as a unilateralist. It’s easy to envision him barging into a foreign war, driven as much by avenging some personal slight as pursuing a national interest—and, in the process, waving off help from others, believing that he can win alone (or that he alone can win) with the right combination of firepower and rhetoric.​

Even if he didn’t start a war, or escalate one with no notion of how to end it, he is likely—judging from what he says—to wreck the few remnants of the post–World War II order that sustain America’s influence and its broad network of (mostly) democratic allies.​

When the Cold War’s demise gave smaller powers the license to go their own way and follow their own interests, several of them eventually decided to remain in the American camp. This was particularly true in East Asia, after China started flexing its naval muscle, and in Europe (especially among the more recent NATO members of Eastern and central Europe), after Vladimir Putin started living his dream of restoring the old empire out loud (or at least trying).​

Trump says he wants to blow up the whole edifice. He mistakes the mutual benefits of NATO for a strictly monetary transaction, telling allies that he’d pull out America’s troops—and cancel the country’s obligation to come to their defense in the event of armed aggression—unless they paid up their fair share, as he defined it. He issued this threat in response to a question about whether he’d defend the tiny Baltic states—which Putin could invade with little trouble if physical force were all that mattered and he had no worries of a Western response. In a later interview, Trump went further and said he might bring the American troops home as a first step, predicting that the Europeans would beg him to send them back, promising to pay the U.S. as much as he wants them to pay. “You always have to be prepared to walk away,” he explained, as if he were discussing a contract dispute or a real-estate deal (which is how he seems to view all relationships), not a trusted alliance based on a 67-year-old treaty that recent events have made newly relevant.​

He has issued similar warnings about what he sees as meager payments from Japan and South Korea. When CNN’s Jake Tapper suggested that a U.S. withdrawal might compel those countries to build their own nuclear weapons, as the only way to deter North Korean aggression, Trump shrugged and said “maybe we would be better off” if all three of those countries had nukes.

Trump doesn’t understand the consequences of even talking like this; he doesn’t understand the messages he’s sending to all sides. He doesn’t understand that Putin in particular must be agog at his potential good fortune. A man who might be the next president of the United States—quite aside from the fact that some of his aides have ties to Russia—has all but invited Putin to invade Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. This impression must have been confirmed when Trump said he accepted Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a done deal and possibly a desirable one, as he’s been told that many of the island’s residents consider themselves Russian, not Ukrainian.*​

No American president would, or should, go to war with Russia over the Crimea or even Ukraine. George W. Bush recognized this when he ruled against offering Ukraine NATO membership. And many people in Crimea do regard themselves as Russian. (It was part of Russia until Nikita Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine in 1954 at a time when both republics were part of the Soviet Union, and the distinction was thus fairly meaningless.) But it’s one thing to acknowledge these facts and quite another to accept with indifference a violent breach of long-standing borders. Acceding to a forcible annexation without objections, or a negotiated settlement, or even a trade of some sort (a deal), is to invite other violent breaches—and to announce to friend and foe that all borders, treaties, obligations, and alliances are moot.​

Here are a few of the things that would likely happen within days if Trump were elected.​

South Korea and Japan, as he concedes with a shrug, would start work at once on an atomic bomb (they certainly have the technology and resources), setting off a nuclear arms race and the possibility of catastrophic crises in northeast Asia.

The web of sanctions against Russia, which Obama has woven with Western European leaders in response to the Crimean grab, would collapse.

Ukraine’s political leaders, who still aspire to an affiliation with the European Union, would likely cut the best deal they can get from Moscow—as would the smaller NATO nations (including the Baltics) once they realize that the other large Western European powers can do little to ensure their security without American leadership.​

This is another irony of history:

In his articulation of American power’s limits, Obama has highlighted those as vital interests that warrant an unbridled commitment of the nation’s power. His erasure of the “red line” in Syria did have an impact on U.S. credibility in the Middle East—but little effect on U.S. standing in Europe or East Asia.

Trump often lambasts President Obama for signaling weakness in the red-line episode; but Trump is now proclaiming that, in his presidency, there would be no red line in Europe or East Asia, short of one purchased with cold cash—a transaction subject to continual review and revision, like the terms of an adjustable-rate mortgage. And yet, Trump somehow thinks his words beam a signal of awesome strength.​

In the Middle East, where the Cold War’s demise has wreaked the most calamitous damage,

Hillary Clinton has few compelling ideas beyond doing what Obama has done, just a little fiercer and faster.

But Trump has no ideas at all. He says he will get rid of ISIS “fast.” How? Not a clue.

He has also said he would form an anti-ISIS coalition of the region’s nations, a tough task given that they fear and loathe one another more than they fear and loathe ISIS. How would he do this? By holding “meetings,” he told the New York Times, as if diplomats—American, Russian, European, and Arab—haven’t held hundreds of meetings already.

Trump doesn’t seem to recognize that some of the world’s problems are simply hard, maybe intractable. He seems to think that the world’s a mess because American leaders are “very, very stupid” and that the globe’s bad guys will snap to order with a tough guy like him in the White House.​

Trump may have an idea, after all, of how to crush ISIS “fast,” and if my suspicions are right, it’s his most dangerous idea of all:

I suspect he thinks he can make the jihadi commanders cower by threatening to incinerate them with nuclear bombs. Richard Nixon tried this with North Vietnam, telling his aides to put out the word that he was a “madman” who could do anything, even go nuclear, to avoid losing. At least Nixon, it turned out, was bluffing.

Would Trump be?

Would he feel compelled to follow through on his threat if they scoffed?

He has revealed himself, on several occasions, to have a cavalier, even clueless attitude toward the bomb.​

And it’s worth noting (as the New York Times reminded its readers, who probably haven’t had cause to ponder these matters for a quarter-century or so, on Wednesday) that, when it comes to using nuclear weapons, the president decides and acts alone; the system is set up that way because, in the event of a surprise attack, there would be no time to consult with the National Security Council, much less with Congress.

Electing a president bestows upon a single man or woman the power to blow up the world.​

*** Former diplomat Richard Burt told an enlightening story to Politico about Trump’s notion of a tough negotiator. Around 1990, when Burt was U.S. ambassador to the Soviet-American nuclear arms talks, he ran into Trump at a reception in New York:

According to Burt, Trump expressed envy of Burt’s position and proceeded to offer advice on how best to cut a “terrific” deal with the Soviets. Trump told Burt to arrive late to the next negotiating session, walk into the room where his fuming counterpart sits waiting impatiently, remain standing and looking down at him, stick his finger into his chest and say, “Fuck you!”

Needless to say, that is not how Burt maneuvered the talks so that presidents George H.W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin came to sign the START II arms-reduction treaty in 1991.

One wonders if Trump thinks it might have been how it happened and if he thinks that’s how to handle adversaries today. Trump has said “I know more about ISIS than the generals” and, just in August, “I know far more about foreign policy” than Obama.​

My guess is he really believes these things.​

Most of Trump’s dangerous qualities boil down to these two fundamental dangers.

(1) He knows very little but thinks he knows a lot.

(2) And most of the things he doesn’t know, he doesn’t know they’re worth knowing.​

SOURCE: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/08/a_trump_win_would_lead_to_a_nuclear_arms_race_and_a_collapse_of_sanctions.html


.

 

[QueEx]

Most of Trump’s dangerous qualities boil down to these two fundamental dangers.

(1) He knows very little but thinks he knows a lot.

(2) And most of the things he doesn’t know, he doesn’t know they’re worth knowing.

As a good friend of mine's late father would say: "Its not what you don't know that scares me; its what you do know, that just isn't so."


.

 

[Naha-Nago]

As a good friend of mine's late father would say: "Its not what you don't know that scares me; its what you do know, that just isn't so."


.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR NOMINATION!

*two cents *

 

[Camille]

 

[Camille]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

SEE IT: Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson says President Obama started Afghanistan war
BYTOBIAS SALINGER
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, August 13, 2016, 11:19 PM

• 535
• Tweet
• email

calling Obama and Democratic nominee Hillary Clintonthe “co-founders” of ISIS in an appearanceon CNN.

She cited the war in Afghanistan as a factor in the terror group's origins. The conflict began “after 2007,” she said, when “Al Qaeda was in ashes” following the American troop surge in Iraq.

Clinton takes major lead over Trump in key swing state polls

Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said incorrectly that President Obama "went into Afghanistan" following the American troop surge in Iraq in 2007.
(CNN)
“Remember, we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time,” Pierson said. “Barack Obama went into Afghanistan, creating another problem.”

U.S. forces, under President George W. Bush, invaded Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. President Obama was still an Illinois state senator.

ISIS formed as Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2004, with the group changing its name to ISIS after the death of its real founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, two years later.

A photo from Oct. 30, 2001, shows U.S. Navy ordnance men launching a bombing strike against targets in Afghanistan. The war began shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
(DAVID LONGSTREATH/AP)
CNN anchor Victor Blackwell, who appeared dumbfounded by Pierson's comments, pointed out that both ISIS and the war began before Obama took office in January 2009. But the spokeswoman stuck to her version of events.

Trump insists Obama founded ISIS, then says it was sarcasm

“What I'm saying is the policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — that was Obama’s war, yes,” Pierson said.

She changed the subject when Blackwell gave her another chance to retract her statements following a commercial break.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks Saturday in Fairfield, Conn. He said he was being "sarcastic, but not that sarcastic" when he called President Obama and Hillary Clinton the "co-founders" of the Islamic State.
(MICHELLE MCLOUGHLIN/REUTERS)
“I thought we were talking about the founding of ISIS,” Pierson said. “I mean ISIS came out of the Obama side of the war. Is that not a fact?”

Pierson also made headlines for strange comments earlier this month. Sheblamed President Obama’s policies for the 2004 deathin Iraq of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, whose parents have publicly feuded with Trump.

The real founder of ISIS: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

“It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagement that probably cost his life,” Pierson said.

The mixed-up spokeswoman did admit later on Saturday that Obama had not started the war in Afghanistan,CNN reported. She saidon Twitterthat she had trouble hearing Blackwell’s questions.

“For the record, audio disruptions and echoes should be fixed immediately,” Pierson wrote. “Especially when you say it out loud on the air.”

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Sony P18 hours ago
It's Obama's fault Hitler came to power!
25

Willie Pierce9 hours ago
Actually, it was the Democrats who insisted on delaying the US getting involved. This caused countless deaths. And much blood is on the hands of Democrats.
1

Jules Mekler9 hours ago
Not sure Sony P was actually trying to re-litigate the violence of the 20th Century. Think he was being funny. Also, can never compare parties of olde to parties of today. Hence the problems when modern Republicans call themselves "the party of Lincoln."
1

Greg Baxter1 day ago
She is exactly like Trump, just says stuff without knowing anything. She's got that arrogant smile as if she is smarter than everyone....um no.
31

Despiser Despised23 hours ago
Clinton should be in PRISON you fucking dimwit. But she has an arrogant smile, FUCK YOU MORON>..

Greg Baxter19 hours ago
+Despiser Despised she is stupid, doesn't have a clue, and makes shit up, just like Trump....
7

Mr McEvechkin12 hours ago
Mainstream media especially Fox makes me sick.

Willie Pierce9 hours ago
And do you realize that you just said nothing? Typical filthy liberal. Commenting with no substance.

Greg Baxter3 hours ago
+Willie Pierce No substance???, look at the video, she said that Obama invaded Afghanistan,mans she also said that he and Clinton were responsible for Khan's death,maven though it happened 4 years before he was president. I guess video evidence means nothing. I suppose CNN has edited the video clip with enhanced computerized voice copying software and also edited the movement of her lips to match what they wanted her to say to embarrass her and the Trump campaign......right! Willie, you are a special kind of stupid, problem is there are millions of rubes out there who are just like you.
2

Detc0n15 minutes ago
Speak up for the deaf people in the back, Greg. You're not gonna win a fight against a conservative who refuses to listen.
Hide replies

johnny wright22 hours ago
WOW the bitch was speechless ,she had no idea what she was talking about and shes only a little bit smarter than Trumpanzee
20

Willie Pierce9 hours ago
Trump's IQ is 156. What's yours? LOL

Jules Mekler9 hours ago
Making up our IQ, along with our net-worth, is a super-fun hobby. I won't begrudge you that. I heard that Katrina learned to tie her shoes last week. So proud she was finally able to hit this critical developmental milestone. Her sp-ed teachers' next goals are the mastery of linear time; e.g., 2001 came before 2004 which then came before 2007 and 2008 and today we live in 2016. I heard Katrina's favorite show was True Detective (Season 1, of course), so she may've been unduly influenced by Rust Cohle's "flat circle" concept. Her tutors will need to walk that back.
3

Sasa Z9 hours ago
Surely, you mean -156........that Dumbo can't count to 156.....
3

Start | LearnToStrafe1 hour ago
+Willie Pierce The better question is what's yours?
1

manchesterblue20071 hour ago
+Willie Pierce did trump tell you that? seems legit....lol..... if trump told me it was night i would have to look out the window btw....whats your iq?
1
Hide replies

Nikolas Brady14 hours ago
She's even a bigger moron than that blond twit.
12

sciedpower11 hours ago
Bottle blonde twit please...Trump's hair dye has dissolved his frontal lobe.
2

Sumin Park11 hours ago (edited)
What a moron! omg! what is wrong with her and her boss? LOL! Everything is Obama's fault! Ignorance at its finest!
3

Thomas Bealy1 hour ago
and I thought bush was an idiot.

Antony Stringfellow22 hours ago
It was Republican president GW Bush who started the troop withdrawel from Iraq. This woman is as clueless as Donald himself.
15

Jules Mekler9 hours ago
Yes, 156, surely. He uses the best words. He reads good. I heard he even read "Art of the Deal," front to back.
2

Mike Burke8 hours ago
Exactly correct Antony Stringfellow! The accord that Bush entered into with the new Iraqi gov't set the date for withdrawal of American troops. Pres. Obama wanted to leave 10,000 troops there but the new Iraqi gov't wouldn't allow it.

Lisa Jones10 hours ago
She should go back to sucking dick.
8

pam martin10 hours ago
She's not the sharpest crayon is she?
4

Willie Pierce9 hours ago
Typical extremely low class comment by a disgusting liberal. You remind me of the "Latino Kids Pound Racism" video. You liberals are just filthy.

Lisa Jones9 hours ago
+Willie Pierce you put too much energy in this comment. Suck a dick.
7

Terry Morgan9 hours ago
Not half as vulgar as ascribing "low class" to millions of liberal who you do not know, while we know Donald Trump has publicly stated "Go fuck yourself" in front of women and children and Katrina Pierson preaches about family values after willingly getting knocked up when she was 15, having a child out of wedlock at 16 and then shoplifting at a store and getting arrested in front of her child, who she took shoplifting with her.
5

jariol9 hours ago
That's the problem all that cum she drank has affected her brain
1

Jules Mekler9 hours ago
So you assume that anyone commenting that Katrina Pierson should suck a dick is a liberal, huh. 'Cause in another post I guarantee you'd be whining about how liberals are so damn PC and can't take a good dick-sucking joke. My advice for you would be to remediate elementary school, middle school, and high school, and, while in high school, be sure to learn to properly suck a dick.
1

Jules Mekler9 hours ago
AND SHE GREW UP ON WELFARE. She embodies everything that is wrong with the Right.
1

jariol9 hours ago
I can tell she's a gaper if you bust her spokes
Hide replies

Barry Sharp14 hours ago
Katrina, we love you. Obama and Clinton allowed Isis to grow and armed them.
3

Clair Duffy19 hours ago
This is one smart cookie. She will not go far.
2

David Sloan15 hours ago
She know how to lie..
4

Roy Luisi10 hours ago
she doesn't know how to re-read the teleprompter

Ezequiel Lawrence14 hours ago
Is this lady mentally retarded?
6

zac717956 minutes ago
+Jules Mekler I think you owe the special needs community an apology. Comparing any group of society to the Trump campaign is an insult to that group.
1

Jules Mekler13 minutes ago
You have a good point... I apologize! Special-needs people aren't typically violent bigots either.

Diane Sylvester20 hours ago
I love how at 2:27, you can actually see her brain short-circuit. Had this gone on longer, her head would have just exploded like a fembot.
10

Patricia Bentley18 hours ago
LOL...Ican't stand her! how do her and her at the other spokespeople get on the news... moreover why does the news give them airtime?
2

Willie Pierce9 hours ago
Actually, it was bewildering that the goofball asking the questions didn't get it.

Timothy Nyota9 hours ago
+Willie Pierce no one gets her. Barrack was not president in 2004.
1

Jules Mekler9 hours ago
Willie, you are special. Have you applied to work on the Trump campaign? They've got an Affirmative Action policy in place in which the most special applicants get the top positions. Having an intellectual disability shouldn't prevent you from becoming a national spokesperson, nor a presidential candidate, after all... In America anyone can grow up to be president!
Hide replies

Willie Pierce9 hours ago
Notice the suspiciously similar comments being repeated over and again. And you thought Democrats didn't operate dirty? You know now.
1

Terry Morgan9 hours ago
Not half as vulgar as ascribing "low class" to millions of liberal who you do not know, while we know Donald Trump has publicly stated "Go fuck yourself" in front of women and children and Katrina Pierson preaches about family values after willingly getting knocked up when she was 15, having a child out of wedlock at 16 and then shoplifting at a store and getting arrested in front of her child, who she took shoplifting with her.
3

Gimmeaflakeman6 hours ago
She's an idiot. Just what Trump needs. Hey, with friends like Katrina, who needs an opposition? LOL.
1

Barry Sharp14 hours ago
CNN communist news network, close them down!
2

Jules Mekler9 hours ago
Hey Barry, Joe McCarthy called, he wants his obsession back.

Jules Mekler9 hours ago
As per his polling numbers. "Sad!"

 

[Camille]

Trump garners support from both those who would be seduced by flagrantly racist appeals and those who would be offended.




Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally in Warren, Michigan. (Reuters / Carlos Barria)


From his recent allegation that the Muslim American mother of a fallen war hero was not “allowed” to speak all the way back to his opening denigration of Mexicans as rapists, Donald Trump has suffused his presidential campaign with racial vitriol. Nothing better exemplifies this than his Republican National Convention speech resurrecting Richard Nixon’s loaded “law and order” campaign slogan. Squint-eyed and pursed-lipped, Trump flayed his audiences with dire warnings of crime, mayhem, murder, and chaos, then promised to redeem them with renewed strength, pride, and triumph.

But far scarier than Trump’s barbarians-at-the-gates performances are the throaty cheers from his audiences. Trump’s tales of racial doom—the four horsemen of Latino immigration, black crime, Islamic terrorism, and Chinese economic manipulation—lash his crowds into waves of applause, ovations, and approving roars. What was once funny—in a stomach-churning way—as Trump seemed to engage in repeated self-parody has become ever more chilling when met with the frenzied whoops erupting in stadiums across the country.

What are we to make of how Trump uses racial fear to goad the Republican base, and what does this portend for the country? Is Trump the latest example in the GOP’s long-running tradition of dog whistling—a practice that began with Barry Goldwater’s summons of “states’ rights,” morphed into Nixon’s “Southern strategy,” then found new guises in Ronald Reagan’s references to “welfare queens,” George H. W. Bush’s “Willie Horton,” and Mitt Romney’s “makers and takers”?


Or has Trump rendered dog whistles passé in a headlong rush toward outright demagoguery? Has Trump abandoned code and shifted to flagrant racist appeals —in his promises to wall off Mexico and to bar entry to Muslims, his calumnies against the Black Lives Matter movement and his insinuations that President Obama is secretly loyal to Islam and ISIS?

Even before his sulfurous acceptance speech, Trump’s charged rhetoric prompted some to argue that he has replaced veiled racial speech with outright racist blasts. A writer in Rolling Stone laments that Trump has “eradicated the dog whistle and replaced it with a large, bigoted megaphone”; another in The New York Times opines opines that Trump’s “air horn is so piercingly loud that few can pretend they don’t hear it, or understand what it represents about the country.”

They’re right and wrong—Trump has jettisoned one part of dog-whistle politics, but continued another.

The nuanced language of dog whistling traditionally sought to hide the underlying racial manipulation from two audiences: potential critics of such an appeal, including political opponents as well as the media; and the target voters themselves. For example, when Democrats first cried foul over the Willie Horton ad—linking their presidential candidate to a black rapist of a white woman—the media largely accepted Bush’s forceful denials of any racial intent. Indeed, not until three years later did the media come to see this paradigmatic example of dog whistling as a racial attack, as Princeton political scientist Tali Mendelberg showed.

Trump seemingly couldn’t care less whether his critics perceive and decry his racial fearmongering. On the contrary, it’s as if he intentionally trolls the media with xenophobic jibes. Every shockingly offensive statement leads to paroxysms of free coverage, concentrating attention on a candidate who largely eschews buying political ads. It’s Trump’s willingness to offend liberal sensibilities that has convinced so many that his campaign has rests on explicit racism—to most liberals, at least, the racism underlying Trump’s words is obvious, and so they conclude it’s undisguised bigotry.

But don’t think Trump has abandoned dog whistling altogether. Even as Trump almost flaunts his racism before his critics, he still seeks to hide it from another audience—his very supporters. Trump pushes the boundaries of acceptable racial speech, but still carefully uses language that allows his ardent followers to reassure themselves that they are not motivated by racism.

There’s no fixed number of white voters that Trump must enlist to prevail in November. Much turns on whether those voters reside in swing states, on how many white women walk away from Trump, and on mobilization among nonwhites. Nevertheless, NPR’s electoral web tool shows that Trump could capture the White House if 62 percent of white voters pull the lever for him (by way of comparison, Mitt Romney received 59 percent of the white vote in 2012).

Maybe intuitively, but more likely because he’s an astute salesman, Trump understands that he has no chance at the Oval Office—nor could he have won 13 million votes in the GOP primaries—as an open bigot. Were Trump to campaign explicitly on white solidarity, he would come nowhere near winning the three or more in five white votes that he needs to become president.

Solid data on how many whites consciously believe in white superiority is hard to come by, partly because after the civil-rights era the numbers dropped so low that many surveys stopped asking respondents directly. To be sure, multiple studies demonstrate that Republicans in general and Trump’s supporters in particular show high levels of racial resentment. But such feelings are often unconscious, and do not necessarily translate into self-conscious endorsements of white supremacy.

Nevertheless, a February poll of Republican voters in South Carolina by Public Policy Polling is suggestive. Asked, “Do you think that whites are a superior race,” 16 percent of Trump’s supporters agreed (as did only 10 percent of Republican primary voters surveyed overall). That’s distressing, and all the more so because another 14 percent effectively shrugged and answered that they could not say one way or the other. Still, 69 percent of Trump’s supporters disagreed with the statement (as did 78 percent of Republicans overall).

There’s good reason to distrust the number of Trump’s fans endorsing white superiority, as too high or maybe too low. The numbers come from South Carolina, a Deep South state with a blasted history of slavery and segregation, where support for white supremacy presumably runs hotter than in the country as a whole. On the other hand, surveys typically understate the level of support for unpopular ideas, as respondents often hesitate to reveal their actual beliefs to pollsters.

Regardless of whether, when extrapolated to the country as a whole, the South Carolina numbers are slightly off plus or minus, only a minority of Trump’s supporters forthrightly embrace white superiority. In campaigning, then, Trump must carve a course between mobilizing voters with tales of racial peril and not obviously appealing to them as outright bigots.

This has always been part of the art of dog whistling, though it does force a clarification of the metaphor. Sometimes dog whistling works like a secret handshake, benign to outsiders but clearly understood by those in the know. George W. Bush practiced it this way, for instance in using terms like “compassionate conservative” and “faith-based initiative.” To most, these phrases seemed anodyne, yet as journalist and author Craig Unger explains, Bush intended them to signal to Christian fundamentalists his commitment to their ascendance.

But when seeking to appeal to widely condemned group animosities—such as racism, sexism, and homophobia—dog whistling works differently. The most important goal becomes to hide the full ugliness of the underlying message from the target audience itself.

The racial dog whistle is a con: In the very moment it claims to be boldly telling politically incorrect truths, say about crime, immigration, terrorism, and trade, in fact it is surreptitiously manipulating people’s deepest fears about racial loss and betrayal. (Actually, it’s a double con, for in turn dog whistling exploits these anxieties to win working- and middle-class support for politicians indebted to the billionaire donor class—or, as with Trump, themselves the self-interested billionaires.)

So Trump must observe certain limits. The most basic—the red line that clearly demarcates pernicious racism—is to avoid racist epithets. You’ll hear the n-word and other slurs from some of his enraged fans (presumably they are among the 16 percent or so of avowed bigots), but Trump will never publicly use racial invective on the campaign trail.

Less rigid but still critical, Trump rarely speaks in color-coded terms—he almost never talks expressly about whites, browns, blacks, yellows, or reds. True, he has violated this norm on a few occasions. In one pants-on-fire instance, he retweeted an inflammatory graphic claiming that “blacks” were responsible for 81 percent of homicides against “whites” (the actual number, according to the FBI’s most recent data, is under 14 percent). Even so, however, these naked references to color are tellingly rare in a campaign predicated on racial fear.

Flirting openly with avowed white supremacists constitutes another limit on Trump’s racial rhetoric. Recall Trump’s “playing funny with the Klan,” as Van Jones put it. Asked to respond to former Klan grand wizard David Duke’s endorsement, Trump initially dissimulated, saying he didn’t know Duke and was unfamiliar with the Klan. Yet several days later he recalibrated, repudiating both. Accepting the enthusiastic embrace of white supremacists, Trump apparently calculated, cost more support than it gained him.

Finally, Trump must affirmatively embrace anti-racist norms. This is the perennial racial charade of Republican politics, in which the diversity on stage greatly exceeds that in the audience, speakers routinely invoke Martin Luther King Jr. as the patron saint of colorblindness, and it’s the Democrats, with their compulsive focus on minorities, who deserve blame for racially dividing the country. Following suit, Trump has proclaimed his racial bona fides in 144 characters or less, tweeting, “I am least racist person there is.”

Together these rules set an extremely low bar on what constitutes acceptable racial discourse in politics today—not using racist epithets, avoiding color-coded terms, keeping modest distance from white supremacists, insisting you’re not actually a racist. They are, in fact, too low to keep many observers from correctly perceiving the racially reactionary narratives at the heart of Trump’s campaign. Nevertheless, they suffice to keep Trump in good standing in the GOP. Compare the party’s immediate repudiation of David Duke when he recently announced he was running for the Senate as a Republican with the intent of representing “European-Americans” (notably, even Duke observed the norm of not expressing his racism in colored terms).

And as we’ve seen, these minimal norms are not violated by repeated attacks on Mexicans and Muslims. Trump can incessantly slam both—and blacks, too—so long as he leaves open the possibility that he denigrates these groups on the basis of national origin, culture, or behavior, not descent.

An exception helps illustrate the rule. In early summer Trump assailed the impartiality of the federal judge hearing the Trump University case, claiming that as a “Mexican,” Judge Gonzalo Curiel was biased against him. This attack could not be saved as one based on nationality, because Curiel was born in Indiana. Indeed, when pushed by CNN’s Jake Tapper, Trump made clear he meant “Mexican” as heritage: “I’m building a wall. I’m trying to keep business out of Mexico,” Trump explained. “He’s of Mexican heritage, and he’s very proud of it, as I am of where I come from.” This imputation of bias on the basis of descent went too far. Even House Speaker Paul Ryan admitted it was “textbook” racism, and within a few days—as he had in the Klan brouhaha—Trump retreated, claiming his comments had been “misconstrued.”

As with his broadsides against Mexicans, his condemnations of Muslims typically avoid emphasizing descent or color, instead stressing religion as a source of supposedly deficient cultural norms and violent behavior. So Trump impugns the silence of Ghazala Khan, Gold Star mother of a decorated soldier; calls for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”; blames, with no evidence whatsoever, Muslim Americans for cheering the 9/11 attacks; threatens to reinstate waterboarding and worse torture in the Middle East; and insinuates that Muslim communities harbor domestic terrorists—but his supporters can tell themselves that this reflects not racism but “common sense,” as Trump likes to say, about religious differences. And they do: According to a recent PRRI report, “More than eight in ten (83%) Trump supporters embrace the idea that Islam is opposed to American values.”

Donald Trump may not care whether his critics condemn him for racial pandering—indeed, even beyond the free media attention, he may believe this helps buttress his pretensions as a populist under attack by liberal elites. Nevertheless, Trump is still dog whistling. He carefully and strategically weaves coded racial narratives that simultaneously stir racial panic, while allowing most of his supporters to believe they are not racists.

Trump’s brimstone campaigning has deepened political and especially racial divisions in the country, wounds we will need to heal. Perversely, in this context his dog whistling is good news, at least when compared to the alternative. Trump routinely polls at 40 percent nationally, with a bump after his acceptance speech; if he were doing so as a flagrant racist, we would be facing looming race wars. Instead, as we as a country confront the racial resentment at the heart of contemporary conservatism, we can take small but genuine comfort in the fact that most of Trump’s supporters reject naked racism and see themselves as moral rather than hate-filled. In the difference between dog whistling and open racism hangs the likely fate of our democracy.


https://www.thenation.com/article/t...orters-convince-themselves-theyre-not-racist/

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Omarosa: Critics will ‘bow down’ to 'President Trump'
BY Joe Dziemianowicz
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, August 17, 2016, 9:44 AM

• 
  
• 1596
• Tweet
• email

It’s good to be king, sure. But in the U.S. — not so much.

Omarosa Manigault, Director of African-American Outreach for GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, should know that that. But she seems as clueless about our political system as Trump.

In a trailer for a “Frontline” special about the race for the Oval Office airing on Sept. 27 on PBS, Manigault says critics will “bow down” to Trump when, as she predicts, he is voted into office.

“Donald Trump is running for President because he really, truly believes he can turn the country around,” says Manigault. “More importantly, every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump.”

Michael Moore: Donald Trump never actually wanted to be President

Omarosa Manigault and Donald Trump in 2015
(TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)
Yep, the former “Apprentice” contestant really expressed her confidence in the tone-deaf fashion. The remark comes at the 3:10 mark in the trailer.

Memo to Omarosa: Bowing and curtseying is only done for royalty. And opinion is divided among etiquette experts as to whether Americans should ever bow. Miss Manners has said “no bowing allowed,” adding that while we believe that all human beings are worthy of respect, "we do not believe that any one of them is born at a higher level than the rest of us.” Emily Post has said it's okay to bow to indicate respect.

Besides casting Manigault on the first season of “The Apprentice,” Trump produced “The Ultimate Merger” on TV One with her as the star.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[QueEx]

LMAO!

Oh Lawd!
They got all the LARD in all the right places

 

[QueEx]

 

[yureeka9]

Democrat family values: Welfare

That's a misconception. Most welfare recipients are poor crackers in trailer parks that vote republican because they're looking for a party to make them feel better about the loser in the mirror.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Louisiana Gov To Donald Trump: F*ck You, We Will Not Let You Exploit Our Tragedy
August 19, 2016Samantha Kilgore News

Governor Edwards To Trump: Stay Home And Write A Check Instead
Louisiana Governor Edwards refuses to let the tragic flooding in his state of Louisiana be used for Donald Trump’s political advantages.

On Thursday, small-fingered, failed businessman and current GOP presidential nominee announced that he would visit the areas hardest hit by the flooding in Louisiana. And in an incredibly smooth, but no-nonsense move, Governor Edwards put Trump firmly in his place.


A spokesperson for Governor Edward’s office released the following statement:

Donald Trump hasn’t called the governor to inform him of his visit. We welcome him to LA but not for a photo-op. Instead we hope he’ll consider volunteering or making a sizable donation to the LA Flood Relief Fund to help the victims of the storm.

Or, in other words, fuck you, Donnie, find another tragedy to exploit, only, you know, more diplomatic, because it’s Governor Edwards.

On Friday morning, Trump’s newest gal pal and semi-sane (but not too sane, because she is working for Donald Trump, after all) campaign manager Kellyanne Conway hastily stated that the visit wasn’t at all a political stunt. Oh, no. This was simply Donald Trump being “presidential” (LOL), and it would be a “decidedly non-political event, no press allowed, going to help people on the ground who are in need.”

It’s too late, though. There is not one single person who believes that this is anything but what it is – a desperate attempt at attention from a floundering candidate who has realized that bashing a Gold Star family and doubling down on his racism may not win him all the votes. Governor Edwards knows that, the residents of Louisiana know that, all of America knows that.

Donald Trump has already shown us who he is, again and again. And we believe him.

Trump Is Trying To Be ‘Presidental’…And Failing
Furthermore, Governor Edwards has laid out, in detail, why visiting politicians actually create more harm than good during disasters. When a high-ranking official – or even someone who is making a desperate attempt to become such an official, like Trump – visits, it pulls critical personnel, such as police officers, away from the more pressing and immediate duties.

It’s why, despite growing cries of protest from the right and conservative pearl-clutching over President Obama’s decision to not drop everything and go to Louisiana, is actually the right decision. Obama has stayed away, and it is the presidential move to make. Furthermore, Governor Edwards asked President Obama to hold off on a visit, and expressed appreciation for it during an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Thursday evening.

“The president is welcome anytime he wants to come…In all honesty, if he was gonna visit I would just assume it’d be a week or ten days, fourteen days from now because the vice president was here about three weeks ago, to a memorial service for the victims of the police officers who were killed here, and I will tell you, it is a major ordeal. They free up the interstate for them, we have to take hundreds of local first responders, police officers, sheriff’s deputies and state troopers, to provide security for that type of visit. I would just as soon have those people engaged in the response rather than trying to secure the president. So I’ve asked him to wait, if he would, another couple of weeks.”

Stay Home, Donald
However, Donald Trump is so “presidential” that he simply does not care that his arrival in Louisiana will cause hundreds of first responders to leave the more pressing, urgent task of providing aid to flood victims and instead, escort his Day-Glo orange ass around the countryside. And that’s ridiculous. It’s disgraceful. His actions are an absolute insult to not only Governor Edwards, but to the entire state of Louisiana. And he is certainly not being presidential.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[Camille]

Shot's fired


Donald Trump took his escalating feud with "Morning Joe" to a new level on Monday, threatening to "tell the real story" of the relationship between hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.

In a series of tweets on Monday, the Republican presidential nominee slammed the MSNBC hosts over their criticism of his brash campaign style.

Trump claimed that he would share information about the personal relationship between the two hosts — the subject of much speculation.

"Tried watching low-rated @Morning_Joe this morning, unwatchable! @morningmika is off the wall, a neurotic and not very bright mess!" Trump wrote.


Some day, when things calm down, I'll tell the real story of @JoeNBC and his very insecure long-time girlfriend, @morningmika. Two clowns!

Scarborough quickly responded in kind on Twitter, slamming the real-estate mogul over his comments about Brzezinski and refuting Trump's claims that the show's ratings are low:


Neurotic and not very bright?
Look in the mirror. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/767683204039974912 …

Thanks for watching.
Morning Joe is enjoying it's best ratings ever thanks to obsessed fans like you. GLAD [URL='https://t.co/FPaqGW9JWv']https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/767683204039974912 …

[/URL]
Trump's comments on Monday come after months of criticism from the MSNBC hosts.

Last week, Scarborough authored an op-ed in The Washington Post urging Republicans to remove Trump from the ticket, citing his plan to bar all Muslims from entering the US and his refusal to tone down his occasionally authoritarian rhetoric.

The relationship between the hosts and Trump wasn't always tense.

Earlier in the campaign, critics charged the MSNBC hosts of going too easy on the real-estate magnate, who Scarborough and Brzezinski predicted would be successful in the Republican primary. Scarborough told an audience at a New York event last year that he'd given Trump some advice in preparation for the Republican presidential debates. And during an interview in February, Trump characterized the hosts as "supporters," though both hosts refuted the assertion.


http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-feud-2016-8

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Sorry Trump, but our American Muslim athletes are "making America great again" at the Olympics whether you like it or not.



Comments

Justin Hamaker I am so sick of hearing "make America great AGAIN". This country has always had greatness, even if we have sometimes failed to live up to it. What makes our country great is not the color, race, or religion of our people, but the people themselves.

Fu...See More
"}" class="UFILikeLink">Like · Reply · 1,453 · 22 hrs · Edited
139 Replies · 1 hr

David Cambra Americans MAKE America great and I was proud of their performance and the respect they all showed for living in the best country in the world!!!! Media needs to cut the shit and memorialize all these great American Athletes!!! Bless them all and their work ethic to be the best!!!!!!
"}" class="UFILikeLink">Like · Reply · 360 · Yesterday at 6:03pm · Edited
15 Replies · 1 hr

Shawana Burleson With all the hate American Muslims are enduring in the USA, be grateful they are representing America and winning. It's like de ja vu when there was segregation in the military, but America was too racist at the time to acknowledge anyone who wasn't wh...See More
"}" class="UFILikeLink">Like · Reply · 113 · Yesterday at 5:29pm
13 Replies · 6 hrs

Gwen Mize Trump said all Muslims are bad and should be on a watch list and have their place of worship watched constantly plus some kind of way to tag and track them like Jewish people were done. Stop protecting This modern day Bully called Donald Trump.
"}" class="UFILikeLink">Like · Reply · 111 · Yesterday at 5:59pm
53 Replies · 35 mins

Tim Kowalski What don't you get? They are American citizens. Nobody cares what religion they are. Trump doesn't care. Conservatives don't care. They are legal citizens and we are proud. Trump2016!!
"}" class="UFILikeLink">Like · Reply · 111 · Yesterday at 5:38pm

Tonya Hoy What don't YOU get? Trump said he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US and even entertained the idea of labeling them like Hitler did with the Jews. Sure sounds like their religion matters to him.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Donald Trump, black people have everything to lose if they vote for you

LEONARD GREENE
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Friday, August 26, 2016, 10:22 AM

• Tweet
• email

Trump: "What do you have to lose?'
NY Daily News

Autoplay:On|Off
white supremacist David Duke.

Clinton says Trump campaign is built on ‘prejudice and paranoia’

A protester chanting "Black Lives Matter" is escorted away as Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in New Orleans.
(GERALD HERBERT/AP)
And, if memory serves, you’re also the same presidential candidate who saw a black man at one of your campaign rallies and called him “my African-American.”

(Word of advice: that whole ownership thing doesn’t go over too well with the blacks.)

So, it is in that spirit, with as straight a face as I can, that I answer the question that you, Donald Trump, posed to me and all African-American voters:

“What the hell do you have to lose?”

Don't let Clinton's YUGE lead over Trump fool you

Well, here goes, in no particular order:

No. 1: My dignity.

No. 2: My self-respect.


71 PHOTOSVIEW GALLERY
New York Daily News front pages on the presidential election
No. 3: My standing among family and friends, black or white, and anyone who has ever held me in high regard.

Donald Trump must lose badly to abolish hate brewing in U.S.

No. 4: My future.

No. 5: My children’s future.

No. 6: Their children’s future.

A Trump supporter punches a black protester at a North Carolina rally in March.
(US UNCUT VIA YOUTUBE)
No. 7: My mind.

Schneiderman recalls ‘gruesome’ attacks from Trump's anti-Semites

No. 8: My soul.

No. 9: All rational thought.

“Look at how much African-American communities are suffering from Democratic control,” you said at a rally the other day.

“To those I say the following: What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump? What do you have to lose?

Trump ranks higher than Hitler in psychopath test

In June, a poll found Trump had the support of only 1% of black voters.
(NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)
“You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good. You have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”

Besides getting some of the statistics wrong, and painting us with a brush as broad as the Northeast Corridor, you imply that there is no greater hell for blacks than what exists today.

That, of course, is insulting to every African-American homeowner, entrepreneur, college graduate and any other black person who has ever achieved anything worth celebrating.

And, then for you, Mr. Trump, to pick up the mantle, to carry the bloodstained banner, to break out into a chorus of “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing” without ever saying a word about discrimination or police brutality is as empty a gesture as climbing Manhattan’s Trump Tower in hope of securing a meeting with a megalomaniacal billionaire.

Trump has danced around questions about support from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
(MAX BECHERER/AP)
The only thing more amusing than your question to black voters is your latest attack on your opponent.

“Hillary Clinton is a bigot,” you thundered, with your back against the wall, “who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future.”

For you, I have three words: Pot. Kettle. Black.


74 PHOTOSVIEW GALLERY
New York Daily News covers of Donald Trump through the years
Look, no one is saying Hillary Clinton is the Messiah who will lead black people to the blessed Promised Land.

But she won’t build a wall or deny that black lives matter.

But I digress.

No. 10: My lunch.

No. 11: My salvation.

No. 12: My right to protest.

No. 13: My right to vote.

No. 14: Diversity.

No. 15: My perspective.

No. 16: Everything I believe in.

No. 17: Everything I stand for.

Donald Trump tweets a questionable "USA Crime Statistics" about black murder rates.
(@REALDONALDTRUMP VIA TWITTER)
No. 18: Opportunity.

No. 19: Fairness.

No. 20: Hope.

This is by no means a complete list.

It is just an acknowledgment that there’s not enough space in a newspaper — or on the internet — to adequately answer the question.

John McGraw was arrested for allegedly punching a black protester at a Trump rally.
(CUMBERLAND COUNT

 

[MASTERBAKER]

2016 Us Election

Donald Trump just owned Mexico's president

By Alex Thompson

August 31, 2016 | 5:55 pm
Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in the past. But following a hastily arranged meeting between the two men on Wednesday afternoon in Mexico City, Peña Nieto was amenable to even the Republican nominee's most controversial policy proposals, which include plans to build a massive border wall and deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

On a stage with two podiums and the Mexican flag inside the presidential palace, Peña Nieto stood next to Trump and told reporters that that there had been "misinterpretations" by Mexicans about Trump. He said they had felt "attacked," perhaps a reference to the speech where Trump accused Mexico of sending criminals and rapists across the border. Peña Nieto continued, saying he "believed in [Trump's] sincere intention to build a relationship that will bring improvements for our societies."

Peña Nieto's deference to Trump, who Mexicans have burned in effigy and pummeled in the form of piñatas, drew instant rebuke from past Mexican presidents. His predecessor Felipe Calderón said Peña Nieto committed a "historic mistake," and said that he should have demanded an apology from Trump for his past remarks. Instead, Peña Nieto made an extraordinary effort to find common ground with the Republican nominee.

Related: Trump's visit has Mexicans confused, amused, and very pissed

On the subject of Trump's proposed border wall, Peña Nieto said every country has a "natural right" to protect their own borders, and that both Mexico and the US face a "shared challenge" in the form of Central American migrants crossing through Mexico to reach the US. Trump went on to say that he and Peña Nieto "recognize and respect" the right of either country to build a "physical barrier," but he said the subject of who would pay for such a wall was not discussed.

Peña Nieto also agreed that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), should be updated and renegotiated, one of Trump's central campaign promises. While making no policy concessions, Trump called the Mexican president's surprise invitation to meet a "great honor." Peña Nieto has extended a similar invitation to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.


As Trump's poll numbers have dipped over the last several weeks, his campaign has made an effort to present a softer, more diplomatic version of the candidate. He has been reading carefully from teleprompters at rallies, and he recently made a rare expression of regret for any of his comments that offended people. But most notably, his campaign has said he's reconsidering his controversial plan to deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the US. He's expected to elaborate on that plan during a speech Wednesday night in Arizona.

Related: Trump's first general election ad uses Syrians and Mexicans as scare-props

It was unclear if the meeting with Peña Nieto — Trump's first with a foreign leader during this campaign — would harm or help this recent effort. Many Mexicans expected their president to try and bolster his own sagging poll numbers by publicly upbraiding Trump. Instead, Peña Nieto called their conversation "open and constructive." He said that while they might "disagree on issues," he believed the candidate's presence in Mexico showed they could agree that the bilateral relationship was "very important" to them both.

As they left the stage, Trump patted Peña Nieto on the back as if they were old friends.

Follow Alex Thompson on Twitter: @AlxThomp

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Donald Trump dances at church service Totally at ease.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Trick Trump Sign
Glasses not included

 

[MASTERBAKER]

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Making fun of a sick person is no way to get votes on the other hand making fun of a dickhead like Trump it's ok

 

[QueEx]

Since he won the nomination, over half of voters
have said Donald Trump isn’t qualified for the job​

© Evan Vucci/AP Donald Trump


When The Washington Post and ABC News conducted a poll in May, they found that 56 percent of registered voters thought Donald Trump was not qualified to be president. Fair enough: This was shortly after the end of the contentious primary fight, and it may take some time for Republicans to come around. Perhaps that view was just a short-term thing.

It wasn't. The Post and ABC have asked this question about Trump six times, since September. At no point have more than 42 percent of registered voters said they think Trump is qualified. At no point have fewer than 56 percent said he is not qualified. That is a reverse of the numbers for Hillary Clinton, who has always been seen as qualified by at least 56 percent of voters.

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post


Three-quarters of Republicans think Trump is qualified for the presidency in the new Post-ABC poll; 23 percent do not. By contrast, only 7 percent of Democrats think Clinton is not qualified, and more than 9 in 10 say she is.

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post

This matters in part because there's (obviously) a correlation between the extent to which someone feels a candidate is qualified for the presidency and whether they will support that candidate. In other words, people who see Clinton as qualified mostly prefer Clinton's candidacy. People who see Trump as qualified mostly prefer his. Mind you, 11 percent of those who think Trump is not qualified for the presidency plan to vote for him anyway, suggesting either that they are in the group that views both candidates negatively or that they have a fairly loose definition of "qualified."

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post


A key split in this race is on racial and educational lines, with the heart of Trump's support coming from working-class whites (particularly men). White voters without college degrees are the only group in which a majority sees Trump as qualified for the presidency.

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post

That group is also the only one in which a majority doesn't think Clinton is qualified.

© Provided by WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post


To some extent, people are using the word "qualified" as a substitution for "good candidate." But unlike numbers on the candidates' honesty and trustworthiness, there's a substantial split between how the candidates are viewed, including by members of their own parties. It hasn't impeded Trump, to this point; he trails Clinton, but by only five points in the latest Post-ABC poll. Among registered voters, his support in a four-way race has never exceeded the percentage of people who think he is unqualified. Luckily for him, neither has Clinton exceeded hers.


SOURCE: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...the-job/ar-AAiQq9K?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Cher calls Dr. Oz a ‘chop shop doc’ after Donald Trump appears on his talk show, claims the host once photoshopped a picture of her
BYMICAELA HOOD
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, September 14, 2016, 3:06 PM

• Tweet
• email

Cher Calls Dr. Oz a ‘Chop Shop Coc’ After Donald Trump Appears On His Show
NY Daily News

Autoplay:On|Off
candidate Donald Trumpas his guest on his talk show airing Thursday.

The singer/actress, who is a staunch Democrat and supporter of Hillary Clinton, called the television star a "chop shop doc," claiming he once photoshopped a picture of her so that it appeared she was a guest on his show.

Singer and actress Cher called Dr. Oz a "chop shop doc" after Donald Trump appeared on his talk show.
(CAROLYN KASTER/AP)
"HE USED ME 2 SELL HIS DIET PILLS, & IVE NEVER MET HIM," Cher, 70,wrote to her nearly 3.12 million followers.

During 'Dr. Oz Show’ taping, Trump reveals weight issues

Adding, "WHY IS DR OZ LETTING TRUMP PIMP HIM OUT??OZ IS BOUND BY ETHICS??IS HE SO HUNGRY 4RATINGS,HE'LL LET TRUMP USE HIM,LIKE GUYS AT A FRAT PARTY."

Cher called out Dr. Oz after Donald Trump allegedly released medical records for the first time to the host in a show airing Thursday.
(GOTPAP/BAUER-GRIFFIN/GC IMAGES)
Trump appeared on Dr. Oz's show to present his medical records in light of Clinton's recent health issues.

But Cher wasn't having it.

"LYING REALITY SHOW HOST, GOES ON LYING"DRS"REALITY SHOW,2SHOW LYING"HEALTH RECORDS,FROMsLYING DR, WHO LET LYING WRITE HIS OWN LYING RECORDS."

Tags:
CHER
DR OZ
DONALD TRUMP