Jump to content
southsider2k5

2016 Republican Thread

Recommended Posts

Trump so gonna sub tweet Anderson Cooper later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 08:42 PM)
Why? I think Democrats are thrilled to run against Trump in the GE.

 

Why did the guy lie about ever having met or touched her in the first place?

"Met"? I've bumped into many people before. I would not consider having met them. Or are you saying they actually have met?

 

4w6Nw7F.gif

 

So petty.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transcript of Trump's interview with the NYT editorial board focusing on foreign policy.

 

This is only a small sampling of his lucid, coherent understanding of the world:

 

SANGER: The question was about cyber, how would you envision using cyberweapons? Cyberweapons in an attack to take out a power grid in a city, so forth.

 

TRUMP: First off, we’re so obsolete in cyber. We’re the ones that sort of were very much involved with the creation, but we’re so obsolete, we just seem to be toyed with by so many different countries, already. And we don’t know who’s doing what. We don’t know who’s got the power, who’s got that capability, some people say it’s China, some people say it’s Russia. But certainly cyber has to be a, you know, certainly cyber has to be in our thought process, very strongly in our thought process. Inconceivable that, inconceivable the power of cyber. But as you say, you can take out, you can take out, you can make countries nonfunctioning with a strong use of cyber. I don’t think we’re there. I don’t think we’re as advanced as other countries are, and I think you probably would agree with that. I don’t think we’re advanced, I think we’re going backwards in so many different ways. I think we’re going backwards with our military. I certainly don’t think we are, we move forward with cyber, but other countries are moving forward at a much more rapid pace. We are frankly not being led very well in terms of the protection of this country.

 

HABERMAN: But would you continue the programs that are in place now, or would you halt them, in terms of spying against our allies?

 

SANGER: Like Israel and Germany.

 

TRUMP: Right. They’re spying against us. Edward Snowden has caused us tremendous problems. Edward Snowden has been, you know, you have the two views on Snowden, obviously: You have, he’s wonderful, and you have he’s horrible. I’m in the horrible category. He’s caused us tremendous problems with trust, with everything about, you know, when they’re showing, Merkel’s cellphone has been spied on, and are – Now, they’re doing it to us, and other countries certainly are doing it to us, and but what I think what he did, I think it was a tremendous, a tremendous disservice to the United States. I think and I think it’s amazing that we can’t get him back.

 

SANGER: President Obama ordered an end to the spying, to the listening in on Angela Merkel’s cellphone, if that’s in fact what we were doing. Was that the right decision?

 

TRUMP: Well you see, I don’t know that, you know, when I talk about unpredictability, I’m not sure that we should be talking about me – On the assumption that I’m doing well, which I am, and that I may be in that position, I’m not sure that I would want to be talking about that. You understand what I mean by that, David. We’re so open, we’re so, “Oh I wouldn’t do this, I wouldn’t do that, I would do this, I would do that.” And it’s not so much with Merkel, but it’s certainly with other countries. You know, that really, where there’s, where there’s a different kind of relationship, and a much worse relationship than with Germany. So, you know there’s so, there’s such predictability with our country. We go and we send 50 soldiers over to the Middle East and President Obama gets up and announces that we’re sending 50 soldiers to the Middle East. Fifty very special soldiers. And they now have a target on their back, and everything we do, we announce, instead of winning, and announcing when it’s all over. There’s such, total predictability of this country, and it’s one of the reasons we do so poorly. You know, I’d rather not say that. I would like to see what they’re doing. Because you know, many countries, I can’t say Germany, but many countries are spying on us. I think that was a great disservice done by Edward Snowden. That I can tell you.

 

SANGER: But I just want to make sure I understand your answer to Maggie’s question. So you said earlier this week that we should use air power but not send in ground forces. That had to be done by the regional Arab partners. We assume by that, you mean the Saudis, the U.A.E. and others from whom we might purchase oil or have alliances. I think Maggie’s question, if I understood it right, was if these countries are unwilling to send in ground troops against ISIS, and so far they have been, despite President Obama’s efforts to get them in, would you be willing to say, “We will stop buying oil from you, until you send ground troops?”

 

TRUMP: There’s two answers to that. The answer is, probably yes, but I would also say this: We are not being reimbursed for our protection of many of the countries that you’ll be talking about, that, including Saudi Arabia. You know, Saudi Arabia, for a period of time, now the oil has gone down, but still the numbers are phenomenal, and the amount of money they have is phenomenal. But we protect countries, and take tremendous monetary hits on protecting countries. That would include Saudi Arabia, but it would include many other countries, as you know. We have, there’s a whole big list of them. We lose, everywhere. We lose monetarily, everywhere. And yet, without us, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t exist for very long. It would be, you know, a catastrophic failure without our protection. And I’m trying to figure out, why is it that we aren’t going in and saying, at a minimum, at a minimum it’s a two-part question, with respect to Maggie’s question. But why aren’t we going in and saying, “At a minimum, I’m sorry folks, but you have to, under no circumstances can we continue to do this.” You know, we needed, we needed oil desperately years ago. Today, because – again, because of the new technologies, and because of places that we never thought had oil, and they do have oil, and there’s a glut on the market, there’s a tremendous glut on the market, I mean you have ships out at sea that are loaded up and they don’t even know where to go dump it. But we don’t have that same pressure anymore, at all. And we shouldn’t have that for a long period of time, because there’s so many places. I mean, they’re closing wells all over the place. So, I would say this, I would say at a minimum, we have to be reimbursed, substantially reimbursed, I mean, to a point that’s far greater than what we’re being paid right now. Because we’re not being reimbursed for the kind of tremendous service that we’re performing by protecting various countries. Now Saudi Arabia’s one of them. I think if Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection of our country’s, of U.S. protection, think of Saudi Arabia. I don’t think it would be around. It would be, whether it was internal or external, it wouldn’t be around for very long. And they’re a money machine, they’re a monetary machine, and yet they don’t reimburse us the way we should be reimbursed. So that’s a real problem. And frankly, I think it’s a real, in terms of bringing our country back, because our country’s a poor country. Our country is a debtor nation, we’re a debtor nation. I mean, we owe trillions of dollars to people that are buying our bonds, in the form of other countries. You look at China, where we owe them $1.7 trillion, you have Japan, $1.5 trillion. We’re a debtor nation. We can’t be a debtor nation. I don’t want to be a debtor nation. I want it to be the other way. One of the reasons we’re a debtor nation, we spend so much on the military, but the military isn’t for us. The military is to be policeman for other countries. And to watch over other countries. And there comes a point that, and many of these countries are tremendously rich countries. Not powerful countries, but – in some cases they are powerful – but rich countries.

 

TRUMP: Certainly the deal is not long enough. Because at the end of the deal they’re going to have great nuclear capability. So certainly the deal isn’t long enough. I would never have given them back the $150 billion under any circumstances. I would’ve never allowed that to happen. They are, they are now rich, and did you notice they’re buying from everybody but the United States? They’re buying planes, they’re buying everything, they’re buying from everybody but the United States. I would never have made the deal.

 

SANGER: Our law prevents us from selling to them, sir.

 

TRUMP: Uh, excuse me?

 

SANGER: Our law prevents us from selling any planes or, we still have sanctions in the U.S. that would prevent the U.S. from being able to sell that equipment.

 

SANGER: But with the North Korea threat you think maybe Japan does need its own nuclear…

 

TRUMP: Well I think maybe it’s not so bad to have Japan — if Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.

 

SANGER: You mean if Japan had a nuclear weapon it wouldn’t be so bad for us?

 

TRUMP: Well, because of North Korea. Because of North Korea. Because we don’t know what he’s going to do. We don’t know if he’s all bluster or is he a serious maniac that would be willing to use it. I was talking about before, the deterrent in some people’s minds was that the consequence is so great that nobody would ever use it. Well that may have been true at one point but you have many people that would use it right now in this world.

 

(note that Trump has made unpredictable bluster a cornerstone of his foreign policy, and here and elsewhere argues in favor of nuclear proliferation)

 

TRUMP: So much of their lifeblood comes through China, that’s the way it comes through. They have tremendous power over North Korea, but China doesn’t say that. China says well we’ll try. I can see them saying, “We’ll try, we’ll try.” And I can see them laughing in the room next door when they’re together. So China should be talking to North Korea. But China’s tweaking us. China’s toying with us. They are when they’re building in the South China Sea. They should not be doing that but they have no respect for our country and they have no respect for our president. So, and the other one, and this is an opportunity passed because why would Iran go back and renegotiate it having to do with North Korea?But Iran is the No. 1 trading partner, but we should have had something in that document that was signed having to do with North Korea as the No. 1 trading partner and as somebody with a certain power because of that. A very substantial power over North Korea.

 

SANGER: Mr. Trump with all due respect, I think it’s China that’s the No. 1 trading partner with North Korea.

 

TRUMP: I’ve heard that certainly, but I’ve also heard from other sources that it’s Iran.

 

Circling back to nuclear proliferation:

 

TRUMP: Well, you know, at some point, there is going to be a point at which we just can’t do this anymore. And, I know the upsides and the downsides. But right now we’re protecting, we’re basically protecting Japan, and we are, every time North Korea raises its head, you know, we get calls from Japan and we get calls from everybody else, and “Do something.” And there’ll be a point at which we’re just not going to be able to do it anymore. Now, does that mean nuclear? It could mean nuclear. It’s a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation. At the same time, you know, we’re a country that doesn’t have money. You know, when we did these deals, we were a rich country. We’re not a rich country. We were a rich country with a very strong military and tremendous capability in so many ways. We’re not anymore. We have a military that’s severely depleted. We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape. They don’t even know if they work. We’re not the same country, Maggie and David, I mean, I think you would both agree.

 

Trump is Schrodinger's candidate, holding all possible positions simultaneously. We spend too much being the world's police, but our military is weak and ineffective. Nuclear proliferation is the biggest problem in the world, but it'd probably be okay if more countries pursued nuclear weapons. Iran is actually NK's biggest trading partner. We should have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran while simultaneously selling them stuff.

 

I feel sorry for the transcribers that had to put his rambling word salad down on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 09:06 PM)
"Met"? I've bumped into many people before. I would not consider having met them. Or are you saying they actually have met?

 

4w6Nw7F.gif

 

So petty.

 

I think they had actually met before though, and he definitely grabbed her. I'm surprised you're using that footage rather than the one released today that 100% clearly showed him grabbing her.

 

What was even more petty was 1) denying he ever touched her 2) calling her a liar and trying to tie a history of making things up for attention to her and 3) Trump's man-baby twitter response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 09:11 PM)
I think they had actually met before though, and he definitely grabbed her. I'm surprised you're using that footage rather than the one released today that 100% clearly showed him grabbing her.

 

What was even more petty was 1) denying he ever touched her 2) calling her a liar and trying to tie a history of making things up for attention to her and 3) Trump's man-baby twitter response.

The other footage release today just shows him bumping into her. It looks way more petty than even the angle I posted, but there are frames missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 09:13 PM)
The other footage release today just shows him bumping into her. It looks way more petty than even the angle I posted, but there are frames missing.

I'm sure you truly believe that.

 

edit: here he is doing something similar to a protester a couple of weeks ago

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-elect...otester-n542071

 

edit2: this NYT link has the footage that was released today that shows Lewandowski grabbing her, and she had posted photos of the bruising he caused right after the incident.

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 09:14 PM)
I'm sure you truly believe that.

 

edit: here he is doing something similar to a protester a couple of weeks ago

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-elect...otester-n542071

 

Is his the video you're talking about? Yes, I truly believe that is less damning than the one I posted. Do you think this whole incident is petty?

Edited by Buehrle>Wood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 09:21 PM)

 

Is his the video you're talking about? Yes, I truly believe that is less damning than the one I posted. Do you this this whole incident is petty?

 

Whether or not I find this "whole incident" petty isn't really relevant. He clearly grabbed her and left bruises on her arm, which yeah that is and should be battery and he shouldn't be doing that. If he doesn't try gaslighting her and instead apologizes right away, maybe the whole thing dies quickly and quietly.

 

I honestly do not know how you can see that video and still claim that he only "bumped into her." At the 3 second mark he's clearly reaching for her left arm between Trump and the guy in the black suit. At 5 seconds, she's suddenly stopped walking with Trump and is now turned more towards Lewandowski.

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't want Trump's insightful foreign policy ideas to get lost in the shuffle of a new page:

 

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 09:08 PM)
Transcript of Trump's interview with the NYT editorial board focusing on foreign policy.

 

This is only a small sampling of his lucid, coherent understanding of the world:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(note that Trump has made unpredictable bluster a cornerstone of his foreign policy, and here and elsewhere argues in favor of nuclear proliferation)

 

 

 

Circling back to nuclear proliferation:

 

 

 

Trump is Schrodinger's candidate, holding all possible positions simultaneously. We spend too much being the world's police, but our military is weak and ineffective. Nuclear proliferation is the biggest problem in the world, but it'd probably be okay if more countries pursued nuclear weapons. Iran is actually NK's biggest trading partner. We should have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran while simultaneously selling them stuff.

 

I feel sorry for the transcribers that had to put his rambling word salad down on paper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain we can sell planes to Iran thanks to the very deal they're talking about and that the New York Times was simply wrong.

Edited by Buehrle>Wood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that particular sanction was lifted a month or so ago. Trump still advocated doubling down on the previously existing sanctions, which would bar aircraft sales. As of now, Boeing can sell them if Iran wanted them, so trumps complaint doesn't seem to make much sense either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to know in what world our military is "severely depleted." That's simply insane.

 

As for the reimbursements from other countries for being the world's policeman, does he think we do that out of the kindness of our hearts? That whole passage made me think of gangster movies where the low level guys walk around to neighborhood businesses collecting "protection money."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this on the FB wall of all my friends who are Trump and Cruz supporters.

 

"Democrats all over the country would like to thank you for supporting Trump or Cruz instead of Kasich, thus ensuring that there is no way Hillary Clinton can lose in November."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasich just finished 4th place in a primary despite there being 3 people left in the race. Impressively bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 01:43 PM)
Kasich just finished 4th place in a primary despite there being 3 people left in the race. Impressively bad.

 

I guess Kasich just doesn't have the GOP factor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess Kasich just doesn't have the GOP factor?

 

If Kasich doesn't have the GOP factor then the GOP might as well cease to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 02:05 PM)
If Kasich doesn't have the GOP factor then the GOP might as well cease to exist.

The GOP is getting record turnout thanks to a lot of factors. It's certainly not Kasich though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Tony @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 02:18 PM)
Jake Tapper@jaketapper

 

 

re: abortion

 

TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes

 

 

 

 

So........

 

I guarantee you Ted Cruz thinks the exact same thing, except he is a career politician so he knows better than to say that out loud. Trump will say it, that is why he is winning the GOP nomination. (And no I don't support him, that's just an observation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Tony @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 02:18 PM)
Jake Tapper@jaketapper

 

 

re: abortion

 

TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes

 

 

 

 

So........

Even by the press covering trump standards that is an all-time out of context tweet about what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 02:35 PM)
Even by the press covering trump standards that is an all-time out of context tweet about what he said.

 

How the f*** do you take that out of context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2016 -> 03:43 PM)
How the f*** do you take that out of context?

 

Because he thinks Trump can do no wrong. That's who Trump supporters are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×