Trump's Bannon Bomb [Archive] - Debate Policy

jimnyc

08-18-2016, 06:50 AM

Good or bad? I think it's a great idea to start pushing harder and harder against Hillary - but it needs to be done in a "nicer" way if that's possible. And hopefully this guy will revoke Trump's Twitter account from him. I think he has a much better chance in exposing Hillary than he does trying to suddenly being a nice guy for 90 days, which I don't think anyone would believe anyway.

-----

WASHINGTON -- If you thought the old Donald Trump campaign was wild and crazy, just wait for the new Trump campaign now that Breitbart's Steve Bannon has taken over as chief executive.

The new leadership -- with Bannon and pollster Kellyanne Conway displacing Paul Manafort of the Ukrainian Connection at the top of the heap -- is likely to steer Trump even more in the direction of the European far right. It also tells you something that Bannon sees Sarah Palin, about whom he made a laudatory documentary, as a model for anti-establishment politics.

Bannon is close to Nigel Farage, the former head of the right-wing UK Independence Party, who offered "massive thanks" to Breitbart News for supporting the party's successful campaign on behalf of Britain's departure from the European Union. "Your UKIP team is just incredible," Bannon told Farage during an interview after the June Brexit vote.

Judging from Bannon's history, Trump's campaign will become even harsher in its attacks on Hillary Clinton and work hard to insinuate anti-Clinton stories into the mainstream media. Bloomberg Businessweek's Joshua Green quoted Bannon proudly declaring in mid-2015: "We've got the 15 best investigative reporters at the 15 best newspapers in the country all chasing after Hillary Clinton."

And count on Trump to ramp up his appeals to Bernie Sanders' supporters and the left. Pushing his anti-Clinton film "Clinton Cash" in May, Bannon said he wanted progressives to "understand how the Clintons, who proclaim that they support all your values, essentially have sold you out for money." In his conversation with Farage, Bannon expressed great interest in the role played by left-of-center voters in Brexit's victory.

A Trump press release Wednesday bragged about the headline on Green's important Businessweek article describing Bannon as "the most dangerous political operative in America." The new CEO poses dangers not only to Clinton, but also to Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan who have been tiptoeing around their party's nominee by simultaneously criticizing him and endorsing him. Bannon has no use for Ryan. A December piece Bannon co-authored began: "Paul Ryan's first major legislative achievement is a total and complete sell-out of the American people masquerading as an appropriations bill."

Rest here - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/17/trumps_bannon_bomb_131537.html

Kathianne

08-18-2016, 07:01 AM

jimnyc

08-18-2016, 07:02 AM

For the record, I missed you yesterday. I was going to post on this, but without you to argue with didn't see a point.

Weird that Trump actually seemed to finally stay on point now he's changed it up again.

I don't think weird. I think all of the Ukraine crap, true or not, will be something they will never let go of, and would even go as far as to try and pin on Trump.

Kathianne

08-18-2016, 07:06 AM

I don't think weird. I think all of the Ukraine crap, true or not, will be something they will never let go of, and would even go as far as to try and pin on Trump.

I thought that too, especially since I first saw the third iteration just before the Ukraine stuff breaking regarding Manafort. I'm pretty sure that will not get thrown on Trump. However his loans from Russia, that may well be picked up. He's been trying to get into Russia for years and it seems some wealthy Russians were helpful when he was down on his luck.

Still, in the scheme of things, my guess is that if life were fair, his involvement to whatever degree would pale compared the to Clinton Foundation, but life isn't fair.

Kathianne

08-18-2016, 07:58 AM

jimnyc

08-18-2016, 08:07 AM

I don't think this is going to be good for Trump's getting elected, though it will certainly appeal to those already sold on him. Like Drudge, Breitbart has become the 'voice of Trump' pushing the narrative of 'sticking it to the elites.' Those outlets, along with Hannity, et al over at FOX are the go to for those on the train.

Will having Trump be more Trumpy attract those that didn't vote for him in the primaries, attract independents? I'm guessing no, but hey one never knows.

Will it bring bigger crowds to his rallies? Likely, meaning more of his supporters will be turned away. Problem is, the supporters are already all in for him. He's seeing and hearing the hosannas from those in his choir.

For a few months now folks around the nation, boards/pundits/new were wondering why Trump wasn't attacking certain things and going in the wrong direction with his conferences and other events. My guess is that IF he changes course and concentrates in other areas, folks will then say it's bad and that he should be concentrating on the things he was originally discussing.

I think he's doing perfectly fine just as he's doing BUT he needs to spend a LOT more, and discuss a lot more, Hillary's email scandal, Clinton foundation, Bill's alleged rape and other things that can be discussed with 'some' proof behind them to further destroy his opponent. I don't think he'll do much in 90 days to convince a ton of people that he is some great guy, but he CAN convince a lot that she is the wrong woman by far, and make those that have been under a rock aware of her and Bill's life of scandals.

There are about 10-15% undecided so far, and those are the folks that need to have this information beaten into them. Also Bernie supporters, even if just a tiny percentage, which is better than no percentage.

Kathianne

08-18-2016, 08:11 AM

For a few months now folks around the nation, boards/pundits/new were wondering why Trump wasn't attacking certain things and going in the wrong direction with his conferences and other events. My guess is that IF he changes course and concentrates in other areas, folks will then say it's bad and that he should be concentrating on the things he was originally discussing.

I think he's doing perfectly fine just as he's doing BUT he needs to spend a LOT more, and discuss a lot more, Hillary's email scandal, Clinton foundation, Bill's alleged rape and other things that can be discussed with 'some' proof behind them to further destroy his opponent. I don't think he'll do much in 90 days to convince a ton of people that he is some great guy, but he CAN convince a lot that she is the wrong woman by far, and make those that have been under a rock aware of her and Bill's life of scandals.

There are about 10-15% undecided so far, and those are the folks that need to have this information beaten into them. Also Bernie supporters, even if just a tiny percentage, which is better than no percentage.

Time will tell. I'm guessing it will harden more against than for, which is not what he should be after when he's already behind. However, maybe somehow the energized supporters can convince fence sitters. Those that have concerns about his behavior, where he'd take the country if elected? Not so much.

fj1200

08-18-2016, 10:24 AM

This will be excellent for Johnson. :) Going bad cop on hrc can't be a bad thing.

jimnyc

08-18-2016, 10:31 AM

This will be excellent for Johnson. :) Going bad cop on hrc can't be a bad thing.

Maybe he can light up a joint and try for 9%?

I've seen really no movement from him in the past 2 months. Sure, he's in a great place if you compare him to other 3rd party candidates at this stage. And maybe that is a good thing for 3rd parties going forward. He's maybe opened the door a 'little' bit more for candidates in years to come. But this year? I don't think he ever even reaches the magical 10%.

fj1200

08-18-2016, 10:33 AM

jimnyc

08-18-2016, 10:37 AM

Time will tell. He'll just have to suffer through being the current best candidate.

Yeah, the poor guy.

Believing one is the best, and a couple of bucks, MIGHT get you a cup of coffee anymore, but probably not even that. But "IF" someone wants to believe they are the best, they should probably allow enough time for the tar to evaporate from their lungs and not become the hero of heroin/meth addicts around the nation.

fj1200

08-18-2016, 10:41 AM

Yeah, the poor guy.

Believing one is the best, and a couple of bucks, MIGHT get you a cup of coffee anymore, but probably not even that. But "IF" someone wants to believe they are the best, they should probably allow enough time for the tar to evaporate from their lungs and not become the hero of heroin/meth addicts around the nation.

His being the best is a fact but as far as drug policy, this is the actual Johnson/Weld position:

Legalizing and regulating marijuana will save lives and make our communities safer by eliminating crime and creating an industry that can legitimately participate in America’s economy.The Federal government should not stand in the way of states that choose to legalize marijuana. Governors Johnson and Weld would remove cannabis from Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which will allow individual states to make their own decisions about both recreational and medical marijuana -- just as they have done for decades with alcohol. Eliminating the Federal government as an obstacle to state legalization decisions is not only constitutionally sound, but would allow much-needed testing of marijuana for medical purposes, as well as regulation that reflects individual states' values and needs. We need to treat drug abuse as a health issue, not a crime.

The War on Drugs is an expensive failure. We spend money to police it. We spend money to incarcerate nonviolent offenders. And what do we get in return? A society that kicks our troubled mothers, fathers, and young adults while they’re down, instead of giving them the tools to be healthier and more productive members of society.

We can save thousands of lives and billions of dollars by simply changing our approach to drug abuse. That is why Gary Johnson came out as an early proponent on the national stage in 1999 while Governor of New Mexico, and publicly stated his support of marijuana legalization.

Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal. It is, however, their belief that drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs result in a more productive society than incarceration and arrests for drug use.

Save money. Change lives. Protect families.

:)

Elessar

08-18-2016, 12:10 PM

I think Trump just has to get off Twitter and speak to the masses.

Social media such as Twitter is a crutch.

jimnyc

08-18-2016, 12:26 PM

I think Trump just has to get off Twitter and speak to the masses.

Social media such as Twitter is a crutch.

I think he's trying that with his events... but since the MSM took a different approach since the primaries, the dummy probably thinks that Twitter is a good idea. And I don't think it's a bad idea, but he should have a public relations team handling that for him. :)

Elessar

08-18-2016, 12:33 PM

I think he's trying that with his events... but since the MSM took a different approach since the primaries, the dummy probably thinks that Twitter is a good idea. And I don't think it's a bad idea, but he should have a public relations team handling that for him. :)

That is quite true. He has appeal so let the PR people push that. Get the F*** off social media!

Kathianne

08-18-2016, 08:49 PM

Maybe he can light up a joint and try for 9%?

I've seen really no movement from him in the past 2 months. Sure, he's in a great place if you compare him to other 3rd party candidates at this stage. And maybe that is a good thing for 3rd parties going forward. He's maybe opened the door a 'little' bit more for candidates in years to come. But this year? I don't think he ever even reaches the magical 10%.

I didn't think he'd do as well as he is doing. My son is going nuts because many of his 'friends' are asking questions about why I'd not vote for one of the two and when answered, some have flipped from Hillary to Johnson. Even his fiance is wavering and I got her father from Trump to Johnson. 3 of my friends from back home? From Trump to Johnson, they didn't even know about the Libertarian alternative. As you've said, "folks don't know who the heck he is." Funny how the smoking dope thing isn't making anyone 'freak out.' He inhales even. Though he says he quit doping months before announcing his run, doesn't think folks should be UTI when acting for the people.

aboutime

08-18-2016, 09:17 PM

Think about it. All of this crap is nothing but liberals paying Trump back for all of the Russian accusations about Hillary's emails..."Asking Putin to disclose the 33,000 Emails!"

It's gonna keep gettin' dirtier until November, and the losers will be WE THE PEOPLE if Hillary and Bubba get back to RUN the nation again.

Look at how scared Obama is....golfing while Americans in LA are treading water, and Hillary is hiding from the press, and everybody else. IT'S ALL AN ACT on Hillary. Draw attention away from her LAWBREAKING long enough for the DUMBEST of the DUMB to feel sorry for her, and VOTE HER IN.

fj1200

08-19-2016, 09:35 AM

I didn't think he'd do as well as he is doing. My son is going nuts because many of his 'friends' are asking questions about why I'd not vote for one of the two and when answered, some have flipped from Hillary to Johnson. Even his fiance is wavering and I got her father from Trump to Johnson. 3 of my friends from back home? From Trump to Johnson, they didn't even know about the Libertarian alternative. As you've said, "folks don't know who the heck he is." Funny how the smoking dope thing isn't making anyone 'freak out.' He inhales even. Though he says he quit doping months before announcing his run, doesn't think folks should be UTI when acting for the people.

I wonder what their plan is for a media push?

Kathianne

08-19-2016, 09:39 AM

I wonder what their plan is for a media push?

He's been having some appearances. Spent quite a bit of his $$ on ads, though seems to be aimed at where he's strong, UT and CO.

fj1200

08-19-2016, 09:41 AM

He's been having some appearances. Spent quite a bit of his $$ on ads, though seems to be aimed at where he's strong, UT and CO.

It's the 15% threshold he needs to be targeting right now.

Kathianne

08-19-2016, 09:45 AM

It's the 15% threshold he needs to be targeting right now.

Which seems smart. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00033226

Kathianne

08-19-2016, 09:47 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/politics/gary-johnson-outreach-fundraising-rallies/

DLT

08-20-2016, 09:53 AM

For a few months now folks around the nation, boards/pundits/new were wondering why Trump wasn't attacking certain things and going in the wrong direction with his conferences and other events. My guess is that IF he changes course and concentrates in other areas, folks will then say it's bad and that he should be concentrating on the things he was originally discussing.

I think he's doing perfectly fine just as he's doing BUT he needs to spend a LOT more, and discuss a lot more, Hillary's email scandal, Clinton foundation, Bill's alleged rape and other things that can be discussed with 'some' proof behind them to further destroy his opponent. I don't think he'll do much in 90 days to convince a ton of people that he is some great guy, but he CAN convince a lot that she is the wrong woman by far, and make those that have been under a rock aware of her and Bill's life of scandals.

There are about 10-15% undecided so far, and those are the folks that need to have this information beaten into them. Also Bernie supporters, even if just a tiny percentage, which is better than no percentage.

What do you think about Trump's "Let's give them the benefit of the doubt" comment re: the Clinton Foundation? I know what I think about it...and why he's saying 'leave them alone'....

just wondering what your comment might be....lol.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-on-clinton-foundation-lets-give-them-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/article/2599615

jimnyc

08-20-2016, 10:07 AM

What do you think about Trump's "Let's give them the benefit of the doubt" comment re: the Clinton Foundation? I know what I think about it...and why he's saying 'leave them alone'....

just wondering what your comment might be....lol.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-on-clinton-foundation-lets-give-them-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/article/2599615

I would assume that you, and those that like your comment, are still under the impression that this is all a scam, that Trump is just tossing the election and such? I think finding ONE comment and running with it is called "cherry picking". And then I can post other comments on other subjects - and he'll be labeled as non-presidential and such.

He's called the entire foundation illegal. He's called it a "pay to play" scheme. He's called it a "scam". He said it's a "disgusting situation".

His comments come on the heels of so many saying he is not presidential and needs to reel in his comments. But many will take a single comment and run with it, while ignoring the tons of comments he's already made.

Kathianne

08-20-2016, 10:17 AM

I would assume that you, and those that like your comment, are still under the impression that this is all a scam, that Trump is just tossing the election and such? I think finding ONE comment and running with it is called "cherry picking". And then I can post other comments on other subjects - and he'll be labeled as non-presidential and such.

He's called the entire foundation illegal. He's called it a "pay to play" scheme. He's called it a "scam". He said it's a "disgusting situation".

His comments come on the heels of so many saying he is not presidential and needs to reel in his comments. But many will take a single comment and run with it, while ignoring the tons of comments he's already made.

I'm not one to argue that all sides have their own blind spots. Those that haven't 'takin' a likin' to Mr. Trump' are likely to find fault-I actually have to work at not putting up negative stuff, whether on him or his 'best people.' OTOH, many of his supporters seem very able to explain away things that are actually quite serious; as do Hillary supporters, though they don't exist here. Cherry picking, blaming others, explaining away seem to be part and parcel of the human folly.

DLT

08-20-2016, 10:19 AM

I would assume that you, and those that like your comment, are still under the impression that this is all a scam, that Trump is just tossing the election and such? I think finding ONE comment and running with it is called "cherry picking". And then I can post other comments on other subjects - and he'll be labeled as non-presidential and such.

He's called the entire foundation illegal. He's called it a "pay to play" scheme. He's called it a "scam". He said it's a "disgusting situation".

His comments come on the heels of so many saying he is not presidential and needs to reel in his comments. But many will take a single comment and run with it, while ignoring the tons of comments he's already made.

Oh, honey....it ain't cherry-picking.....when you have so damned many fruits to pick from....(every time he opens his mouth, IOW).

But thanks for that sorta answer. So he called the foundation illegal then (that was then, this is now) but now he says give them the benefit of the doubt. Confusing, conflicted, convoluted much?.

jimnyc

08-20-2016, 10:32 AM

Oh, honey....it ain't cherry-picking.....when you have so damned many fruits to pick from....(every time he opens his mouth, IOW).

But thanks for that sorta answer. So he called the foundation illegal then (that was then, this is now) but now he says give them the benefit of the doubt. Confusing, conflicted, convoluted much?.

It's not cherry picking? Can you please point out to me then where the things were posted that I just posted?

Look, I completely get that you guys hate/detest him, but jumping all over him now, while having ignored his earlier comments.... It's also odd to me that some pay SO much attention to him, while barely a peep, maybe a little more, than the person who he is running against.

Hillary has 20x more fruit to pick from than Trump - and SO SO much of hers is falling by the tree and simply sitting there until it rots and disappears, and no longer being used against her. And the result will be placing her in the white house.

And then whether here or other places online, folks come back and will claim that they DON'T hate Trump... but I disagree with that too. SOOOOOOOOOO much time is spent on bashing him, threads about him, Hillary threads turning into subjects about him... the obsession about who gets into office is all about Trump, even from SO many on the right, including yourself. That's NOT a bad thing, just an observation about things since last year. It's like a mini MSM in here.

Kathianne

08-20-2016, 10:49 AM

Personally I'm looking at this contest now more or less from an academic position. Way back when one of my first degrees was in political science. I feel nothing but despair with this election, hoping that time proves my feelings wrong.

I look more at what Trump says, does, and what is written regarding him and his campaign out of fascination and disbelief more than anything else.

As many who've known me over the years are aware, I spend much time looking at many sources of information-from the MSM, new media on left and right. I've always tended libertarian and for the same reasons, pretty much a constitutionalist. I'm not the 'norm' here, which is much more partisan Republican, though I seem to have been officially aligned more with that party than most, having worked and volunteered on more than a few campaigns since college in the 70's.

When Trump first appeared, I assumed that most would actually agree with the craziness I saw. Boy, was I wrong. Many did agree with some of what I was seeing, but they were supporting candidates other than Trump at the time. After the first debate-it was a huge split. One that I saw coming even before, with a split in the GOP near inevitable, that is still being played out in the country, pretty much defined here.

What is fascinating though, those of us that are 'not pro-Trump' are still pretty different from each other. Some are very socially conservative, some more libertarian. Some would want more government in some areas, others much less.

What is also fascinating is that those that are in general partisan-here and on other venues-is they all are for 'big government' just differ in what it should do. Both are very vested in keeping the two party status quo.

DLT

08-20-2016, 02:51 PM

It's not cherry picking? Can you please point out to me then where the things were posted that I just posted?

Look, I completely get that you guys hate/detest him, but jumping all over him now, while having ignored his earlier comments.... It's also odd to me that some pay SO much attention to him, while barely a peep, maybe a little more, than the person who he is running against.

Hillary has 20x more fruit to pick from than Trump - and SO SO much of hers is falling by the tree and simply sitting there until it rots and disappears, and no longer being used against her. And the result will be placing her in the white house.

And then whether here or other places online, folks come back and will claim that they DON'T hate Trump... but I disagree with that too. SOOOOOOOOOO much time is spent on bashing him, threads about him, Hillary threads turning into subjects about him... the obsession about who gets into office is all about Trump, even from SO many on the right, including yourself. That's NOT a bad thing, just an observation about things since last year. It's like a mini MSM in here.

Ironic.....the accusation of "hate" usually comes from the die-hard leftists.

I distrust him. Can't, at this point, stand to hear or look at him. If that equates to hate in your vocabulary, whatever. But he's the biggest flaming hypocrite and ASS that I've ever seen. And after following politics for several decades, that's quite an achievement (stiff/limp? competition).

At the very moment he was accusing Cruz of being in bed with Goldman Sachs.....Trump's own connections with GS were already solid.

--> While Cruz took out a relatively modest loan against his assets in comparison to Trump,Trump is "owned by every bank on Wall Street." Note: Donald Trump is a Goldman Sachs shareholder:

As for Goldman Sachs, Trump is himself a shareholder in Goldman Sachs, which means he has a direct financial interest in its success. One would think that would make Trump even less enthusiastic about protecting me from Goldman Sachs (whatever that means) than Cruz would.

http://nflfans.com/x/showthread.php?100320-Trump-is-shareholder-in-Goldman-Sachs

He's already hired two ex-GS employees. And then there's this....

http://therightscoop.com/beholden-to-no-one-trump-owes-650-million-to-china-and-goldman-sachs/#ixzz4HtlyQ0LR

He's a lying, typical NY liberal POS in my book of logic. And no, I won't be voting for any POS this year. When your choice is between a poisonous cobra and a poisonous rattlesnake....

I vote not to choose between poisons.

Kathianne

08-20-2016, 05:45 PM

Ironic.....the accusation of "hate" usually comes from the die-hard leftists.

I distrust him. Can't, at this point, stand to hear or look at him. If that equates to hate in your vocabulary, whatever. But he's the biggest flaming hypocrite and ASS that I've ever seen. And after following politics for several decades, that's quite an achievement (stiff/limp? competition).

At the very moment he was accusing Cruz of being in bed with Goldman Sachs.....Trump's own connections with GS were already solid.

He's already hired two ex-GS employees. And then there's this....

http://therightscoop.com/beholden-to-no-one-trump-owes-650-million-to-china-and-goldman-sachs/#ixzz4HtlyQ0LR

He's a lying, typical NY liberal POS in my book of logic. And no, I won't be voting for any POS this year. When your choice is between a poisonous cobra and a poisonous rattlesnake....

I vote not to choose between poisons.

I can't say that I was ever a Cruz supporter, though would have voted for him over Clinton. I don't hate Trump, never thought about him at all until he chose to enter this foray.

I do have problems with whom he surrounds himself with-they are not GOOD, The Best! people. What business does Ivanka Trump have being in the intelligence briefing given to the campaign? What are they thinking?

Just for fun, I clicked on 'the right scoop' link you provided. I wouldn't put a whole lot of credence on things written on one source, but there one does find a bunch of tweets that Trump has made. Too many of them are now proven lies. So how does one believe, "One promise I can make to you, I'll never lie to you." Lots of applause.

jimnyc

08-20-2016, 05:57 PM

What business does Ivanka Trump have being in the intelligence briefing given to the campaign? What are they thinking?

It was a meeting with his campaign, not an intelligence briefing. It was him and all his advisors of his campaign, of which she is one. He had not even had a single confidential briefing of any kind until hours after this get together with his advisors. She's been on his team from the beginning.

Kathianne

08-21-2016, 03:33 PM

It was a meeting with his campaign, not an intelligence briefing. It was him and all his advisors of his campaign, of which she is one. He had not even had a single confidential briefing of any kind until hours after this get together with his advisors. She's been on his team from the beginning.

Speaking of cherry picking one part of my post. You're right though on the one you picked, I didn't realize that while reading.

jimnyc

08-21-2016, 03:53 PM

I can't say that I was ever a Cruz supporter, though would have voted for him over Clinton. I don't hate Trump, never thought about him at all until he chose to enter this foray.

I do have problems with whom he surrounds himself with-they are not GOOD, The Best! people. What business does Ivanka Trump have being in the intelligence briefing given to the campaign? What are they thinking?

Just for fun, I clicked on 'the right scoop' link you provided. I wouldn't put a whole lot of credence on things written on one source, but there one does find a bunch of tweets that Trump has made. Too many of them are now proven lies. So how does one believe, "One promise I can make to you, I'll never lie to you." Lots of applause.

Speaking of cherry picking one part of my post. You're right though on the one you picked, I didn't realize that while reading.

Fine, if that's what you prefer, I'll be happy to address every last thing you post. :rolleyes:

I'm happy to hear that you would have voted for Cruz versus Clinton, even though you weren't a supporter of his. I'm also happy to hear that you don't hate Trump. I'm sorry that the folks he surrounds himself with aren't up to your liking, or that you have an obsession with repeating his use of "the best" or whatever. I'm sorry you don't approve of his twitter feed, or the tweets of his that were proven to be lies/wrong. As I've said many times, he needs to have someone in charge of that crap, perhaps a PR firm.

As for Ivanka, they were thinking it was a part of their campaign, just as it was the day before, and the day before that. Advisors and others part of his campaign were in his offices for this meeting, and that included Ivanka. No wrongdoing there. I noticed that the media in a few instances, and liberals on quite a few boards, also ran with this as if he broke some law.

Since the other things have been discussed a million times, I shortened and addressed something that was new, that certainly needed correction. I'll be sure to include everything from now on.