Donald Trump's campaign: It's more calculated than it looks

[Mycroft]

What ? Bribery is still technically illegal even though we've made it practically legal...

shrug...

Perhaps you can point to some specific law that Trump violated in each of those cases? If you cannot, then what he did cannot be considered illegal...even if you don't particularly like what he did.

 

[Absentglare]

shrug...

Perhaps you can point to some specific law that Trump violated in each of those cases? If you cannot, then what he did cannot be considered illegal...even if you don't particularly like what he did.

Idk, it sounded like he publicly confessed to bribery. If he did bribe politicians, then i'm pretty sure that could be illegal.

I don't want to try to prove anything, i'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily "perfectly legal." I don't know what it is- seemed like just a debate to me. I'm not calling for blood or anything, i'm not worried about that comment. If Trump ever did anything THAT dirty, i doubt he would so casually air it on television.

 

[Mycroft]

Idk, it sounded like he publicly confessed to bribery. If he did bribe politicians, then i'm pretty sure that could be illegal.

I don't want to try to prove anything, i'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily "perfectly legal." I don't know what it is- seemed like just a debate to me. I'm not calling for blood or anything, i'm not worried about that comment. If Trump ever did anything THAT dirty, i doubt he would so casually air it on television.

Did he actually confess to bribery? I know that article contained this:

For those who may be too indoctrinated from 12 years in the citizen training centers here is the translation of what was said:

Rand Paul: This is what’s wrong. Trump bribes all of us. He even bribes Hillary Clinton. That’s what he does, he bribes us.

Trump: Yes, and I’ve bribed you too.

The problem is...that's a "translation" based on the writer's personal bias. We see the same kind of thing here in this forum often. For example, I'll say XXXX and some member will respond with "So what you mean is YYYYY?. But that's not what I mean at all and it's not what I said at all.

So, if you go by what Paul and Trump actually said, then you'd know that neither of them said anything about bribery.

In fact, all Trump said was, "I've given you plenty of money."

I don't think there is any law against a person giving a politician money, do you?

 

[Absentglare]

Did he actually confess to bribery? I know that article contained this:



The problem is...that's a "translation" based on the writer's personal bias. We see the same kind of thing here in this forum often. For example, I'll say XXXX and some member will respond with "So what you mean is YYYYY?. But that's not what I mean at all and it's not what I said at all.

So, if you go by what Paul and Trump actually said, then you'd know that neither of them said anything about bribery.

In fact, all Trump said was, "I've given you plenty of money."

I don't think there is any law against a person giving a politician money, do you?

Your claim is still to maintain that it's "perfectly legal" to give a politician money ?

Bribe : persuede (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

Notice, he said "given you money," not "donated to your campaign." Now, certainly, it may simply be legal, but, imo, it is not fair to characterize it as "perfectly legal."

 

[Mycroft]

Your claim is still to maintain that it's "perfectly legal" to give a politician money ?

Bribe : persuede (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

Notice, he said "given you money," not "donated to your campaign." Now, certainly, it may simply be legal, but, imo, it is not fair to characterize it as "perfectly legal."

Oh...quite trying to pick nits, dude. You know perfectly well that donating money to a politician's campaign is the same thing as giving that politician money. And yes...giving a politician money is perfectly legal. It is allowed by law. There is nothing wrong with doing it and it happens all the time.

So...until you can succeed in making it against the law, don't try to spin things to make it look illegal.

My god...freaking liberals will go to extraordinary efforts to falsely paint a law-abiding citizen as some kind of criminal.

 

[Absentglare]

Oh...quite trying to pick nits, dude. You know perfectly well that donating money to a politician's campaign is the same thing as giving that politician money. And yes...giving a politician money is perfectly legal. It is allowed by law. There is nothing wrong with doing it and it happens all the time.

So...until you can succeed in making it against the law, don't try to spin things to make it look illegal.

My god...freaking liberals will go to extraordinary efforts to falsely paint a law-abiding citizen as some kind of criminal.

No, i'm just pointing out that you're the one making assumptions here.

I came to no conclusion but to suggest that "perfectly legal" would be overstating your case.

 

[Mycroft]

No, i'm just pointing out that you're the one making assumptions here.

I came to no conclusion but to suggest that "perfectly legal" would be overstating your case.

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm simply applying laws, definitions, logic and reason to come to a conclusion...as opposed to you, the article writers and your ilk who apply feelings, spin and rhetoric to skew words and actions to look bad.

And...perfectly legal is applicable if the action is not in violation of any law, so your suggestion is worthless.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm simply applying laws, definitions, logic and reason to come to a conclusion...as opposed to you, the article writers and your ilk who apply feelings, spin and rhetoric to skew words and actions to look bad.

And...perfectly legal is applicable if the action is not in violation of any law, so your suggestion is worthless.

I get it, you refuse to admit the glaring error i pointed out.

It appears that there's no amount of reasoning that will persuade you.

Their own statements clearly did not explicitly deny any illegal activity.

 

[Mycroft]

I get it, you refuse to admit the glaring error i pointed out.

It appears that there's no amount of reasoning that will persuade you.

Their own statements clearly did not explicitly deny any illegal activity.

This "glaring error" you supposedly pointed out is nothing more than spin. Furthermore, their own statements clearly did not explicitly admit any illegal activity. All claims of illegal activity is rhetoric by you and other biased people.

However, I am open to reasoning that does not involve such biased rhetoric. Present that and I will consider it.

 

[Absentglare]

This "glaring error" you supposedly pointed out is nothing more than spin. Furthermore, their own statements clearly did not explicitly admit any illegal activity. All claims of illegal activity is rhetoric by you and other biased people.

However, I am open to reasoning that does not involve such biased rhetoric. Present that and I will consider it.

All i'm saying is that you cannot conclude that the transactions they referred to were "perfectly legal." They certainly might have been, but we don't have enough information to conclude that.

 

[Mycroft]

All i'm saying is that you cannot conclude that the transactions they referred to were "perfectly legal." They certainly might have been, but we don't have enough information to conclude that.

shrug...

If you have any doubts or if you want to dispute what I've said, then present some evidence...other than some guy writing an article and spout some unsupported spin. Otherwise, all you are doing is spouting unsupported spin, as well.

 

[Andalublue]

Trump's currently polling around 35% of Reps. Reps represent c.40% of registered voters (including 'leans'), so at best Trump's support in the nation is around 14%. I think his 'success' in the Rep process so far tells us much more about the poor quality of his GOP rivals than it does about his popularity to the American voter in general. What his campaign is guaranteeing is that the GOP will not win the White House since if he is the candidate, he will be easily defeated by just about anyone the Dems put up; and if he is not the GOP candidate, his ego will ensure a 3rd party campaign and guarantee a Dem. President in November.

Trump isn't Hillary's worst nightmare, he's her saviour. Now she just has to see off Bernie.

 

[Mycroft]

Trump's currently polling around 35% of Reps. Reps represent c.40% of registered voters (including 'leans'), so at best Trump's support in the nation is around 14%. I think his 'success' in the Rep process so far tells us much more about the poor quality of his GOP rivals than it does about his popularity to the American voter in general. What his campaign is guaranteeing is that the GOP will not win the White House since if he is the candidate, he will be easily defeated by just about anyone the Dems put up; and if he is not the GOP candidate, his ego will ensure a 3rd party campaign and guarantee a Dem. President in November.

Trump isn't Hillary's worst nightmare, he's her saviour. Now she just has to see off Bernie.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, those poll numbers will change...drastically. For one thing, most of the Republican base will fall in line and vote for Trump...even though they might want some other guy as the nominee. Then, there are the Independents...given a choice of Trump or Hillary, some percentage (and I think a large one) will side with Trump over Hillary.

Bottom line...I don't think it'll be as easy as you make it out to be if it comes to Hillary vs Trump. I don't think Hillary thinks it will be that easy, either. That's why she's paying so much attention to Trump and not the other Republican candidates.

 

[Mason66]

I have no doubt that everything Trump is doing is calculated. That's what makes him such an unattractive candidate to me. That he actually plans the jackassery that he says, does, and portrays. It's one thing to just be a buffoon. It's a whole other thing to be a calculated buffoon. That's not a person we want leading the Executive Branch in my opinion. He has no concrete policies that he can intelligently speak of. He always just refers back to his "We don't win anymore." crap every time someone presses him or yells over his opponents when they come after him. Rand Paul is about the only candidate I've seen that hangs with him and it's because he doesn't try to yell with him. He just sits with a smirk on his face until he's done then retorts. Bush and Christie have both tried and failed at that. Trump just seems to be in it for some sort of ulterior motive. Idk what that is yet but there seems to be one.

I think there would be something to be said for a President that foreign leaders couldn't read as opposed to a President that tells them everything he is doing even before he does it.

 

[Mason66]

:doh You are proof that bumper sticker talking points work way too easily among the American electorate.

It is funny you say that after we experienced the 2008 election.

 

[Mason66]

:lamo I dont recall Obama fear mongering off the backs of Mexican immigrants... I dont recall Obama fear mongering off one particular religion... I dont recall Obama calling for a ban on immigrants based off religion... You Trump fans are completely and utterly delusional...

So the tactics were OK but the subject matter of those tactics is what you have a problem with?

You didn't refute that Obama did the same thing in 2008.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

So the tactics were OK but the subject matter of those tactics is what you have a problem with?

You didn't refute that Obama did the same thing in 2008.

That "tactics" are not okay. Passing petty name calling off as political discourse, fear mongering, xenophobia, and flat out lying is not okay.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

It is funny you say that after we experienced the 2008 election.

A good political slogan is imperative for any campaign, however passing off constant bumper sticker slogans as "serious political discourse" is not.
Example:
Q: "How will you handle illegal immigration"
A: "I'll build a wall!"
Q: "How will you build this wall?"
A: "I'll get the Mexicans to pay for it because I'm good friends with the Mexican President"

 

[Mycroft]

A good political slogan is imperative for any campaign, however passing off constant bumper sticker slogans as "serious political discourse" is not.
Example:
Q: "How will you handle illegal immigration"
A: "I'll build a wall!"
Q: "How will you build this wall?"
A: "I'll get the Mexicans to pay for it because I'm good friends with the Mexican President"

You see...it's your simplistic interpretation of Trump's position that makes people think you don't know what the heck you are talking about and makes people just disregard anything you say. In other words, posts like this one does nothing except diminish your credibility.

I invite you to actually read Trump's position regarding illegal immigration. I think you'll find it involves much more than building a wall and making the Mexicans pay for it. (it's easy to find his policy statements on the Internet, but if you have trouble finding it, just ask...I'll be happy to provide a link)

 

[Hawkeye10]

I never understood how people could consider him anything but sharp.

Seriously? A lot of people tend to be ignorant and easily manipulated, all one needs to do to fool them is to use a wrapping paper that they dont expect, dont normally see. The majority of the elite went months without understanding how smart and calculating Trump is, even now on any given day you can find some slow on the uptake corporate media "journalist" claiming that Trump is a buffoon .

You cant fix stupid.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You see...it's your simplistic interpretation of Trump's position that makes people think you don't know what the heck you are talking about and makes people just disregard anything you say. In other words, posts like this one does nothing except diminish your credibility.

I invite you to actually read Trump's position regarding illegal immigration. I think you'll find it involves much more than building a wall and making the Mexicans pay for it. (it's easy to find his policy statements on the Internet, but if you have trouble finding it, just ask...I'll be happy to provide a link)

Has Trump not literally used this as a serious campaign point in the debates and also at speeches?

 

[Mycroft]

Has Trump not literally used this as a serious campaign point in the debates and also at speeches?

Irrelevant.

Do you actually know what his proposed actions are in regard to illegal immigration?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Irrelevant.

Do you actually know what his proposed actions are in regard to illegal immigration?

:doh :lamo "To build a wall"

 

[eohrnberger]

That "tactics" are not okay. Passing petty name calling off as political discourse, fear mongering, xenophobia, and flat out lying is not okay.

This from what appears to be a Hillary supporter?

 

[Mycroft]

:doh :lamo "To build a wall"

Okay...I can see you have no intention of being serious.

So it goes...