Reply With Quote
boutons is not very good at criticizing Trump.
Perry clearly wants a job. He brings nothing though... Texas is already in the bag for Trump and Texans never really loved him either.
boutons is not very good at criticizing Trump.
‘Choose me’: Sarah Palin says she’s ‘as vetted as anybody in the country’ for Trump’s VP
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/choo...for-trumps-vp/
The Repugs are so ed.
Sarah Palin backs Paul Ryan’s primary opponent as GOP civil war deepens
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/sara...e+Raw+Story%29
You really should learn about the topics you spout off about before said spouting.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsP.../ucm248731.htm
C1. Where will I see calorie labeling?
Calorie and other nutrition labeling will be required for standard menu items offered for sale in a restaurant or similar retail food establishment that is part of a chain with 20 or more locations
Donald Trump’s Warning to Paul Ryan Signals Further G.O.P. Discord
Mr. Trump demonstrated little interest in making peace with party leaders like Mr. Ryan who have called on him to more convincingly lay out his commitment to the issues and ideas that have animated the conservative movement for the last generation.
“I’m going to do what I have to do — I have millions of people that voted for me,” Mr. Trump said on ABC’s “This Week.” “So I have to stay true to my principles also. And I’m a conservative, but don’t forget, this is called the Republican Party. It’s not called the Conservative Party.”
If anything, Mr. Trump’s candidacy has thrived because of his resistance to party politics as usual, not in spite of it. He has broken with Republican leadership in Congress on trade, military intervention and immigration policy. And he appears as determined as ever not to fall in line now that he has effectively secured the nomination.
Mr. Trump’s differences with those in the party who think they have earned more of a right to set its political and ideological course have led to a rupture at the time when Republicans would ordinarily be trying to put the messy personal clashes of the primary contests behind them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/us...er=rss&emc=rss
More Than 50 Veterans Denounce Trump For Disrespectfully Using Vets As Political Props
The veterans led by Former Senator Max Cleland said in a statement:
Donald Trump recently discovered a new love for America’s veterans, promising that a Trump administration will ‘treat them really, really well.’http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/...iticus+USA+%29
Yet after a publicity stunt earlier this year when he ditched a GOP debate to hold an event on behalf of veterans, his campaign still hasn’t distributed more than half of the $6 million dollars it allegedly raised.
They don’t even know where that money has gone.
And worse, this is part of a long pattern of the real Donald J. Trump, who for over a decade tried to get disabled veterans, legally operating as street vendors, thrown off of Fifth Avenue in New York City.
He said that these Americans, who were simply trying to earn a living in the country they gave so much to defend, were ‘clogging and seriously downgrading the area.’
And yet, even as Donald Trump denigrates our nation’s current veterans, he’s putting our future veterans at risk with a risky and incoherent foreign policy.
Republican and Democratic national security professionals agree that a Trump administration would make America dangerously less safe while reducing its standing and influence in the world.
His embrace of both military adventurism and isolationism, and his support of the use of torture will not only recklessly place our troops in harm’s way, but will dramatically increase the risk to our service members serving in operations overseas.
Trump’s policies are detrimental to the young men and women who volunteer to serve this country, from the moment they join the armed services to the end of their career, civilian or military.
He can’t be trusted, by our veterans or anyone else.
It’s time for Donald Trump to stop using vets as political props, donate the rest of the money he raised and build a real understanding of the needs and concerns of the men and women who have served America.
the ing irony
I honestly think botox deuce will either kill himself or claim he's a trump supporter if the guy wins.
Trump needs to tell Palin to go back to Alaska. That needs to STFU quick.
She won't be VP for sure, but Ryan's political career is in danger, tbh. The GOP isn't too happy with him and Nehlen is ahead in the most recent Wisconsin 1st congressional poll - ie the guy challenging Ryan and he's gaining popularity.Trump needs to tell Palin to go back to Alaska. That needs to STFU quick.
Trump talk aside, I think Ryan is about to get humbled for trying to be a "maverick" in the GOP
Here's Nehlen's ad, btw - dude hates ryan's guts
Third-party anti-Trump push turns its attention to Romney
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, a prominent figure in Republican politics for many years, apparently isn’t kidding about helping organize a third-party campaign to run against his own party’s presumptive presidential nominee. As regular readers know, Kristol has spent months talking up such an effort, “probably for 2016 only,” and the initiative has moved beyond just random chatter.
“I think the ballot access question is manageable,” Kristol said in March. “The big question is, who’s the candidate?”
To that end, organizers reached out to former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who declined and endorsed Donald Trump. Then there was retired Gen. James Mattis, who seemed receptive, but who withdrewfrom consideration last week. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) bowed out, too.
A few days ago, attention reportedly shifted to Mitt Romney, according to this Washington Post report.
In spite of his insistence that he will not run, Mitt Romney is being courted this week by a leading conservative commentator to reconsider and jump into the volatile 2016 presidential race as an independent candidate.
William Kristol, the longtime editor of the Weekly Standard magazine and a leading voice on the right, met privately with the 2012 nominee on Thursday afternoon to discuss the possibility of launching an independent bid, potentially with Romney as its standard-bearer.
Kristol told the Post that the two had an informal chat in a D.C. hotel, asking not only about Romney’s potential interest in another candidacy, but also about whether he’d be willing to support such a campaign in the event he chooses not to run.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
apparently, the rumor of Romeny filing with FEC was false, at least in March:
Within a few minutes, we received the following response:
No, he has not filed for 2016.
From: [email protected] ([email protected]) Sent: Tue 3/08/16 6:38 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Judith Ingram
Press Officer
Federal Election Commission
o: (202) 694-1220
m: (202) 531-2882
http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/03/...for-president/
In A Rare Moment Of Truth Paul Ryan Admits That The Republican Party Is Falling Apart
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported:
“He’s the nominee.
I’ll do whatever he wants with respect to the convention,” Ryan said when asked about that scenario in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
“I just want to get to know the guy … we just don’t know each other,” said Ryan, who delivered a political bombs last Thursday when he said he wasn’t ready yet to support his party’s presumptive nominee.“
I never said never. I just said (not) at this point.
I wish I had more time to get to know him before this happened.
We just didn’t,” he said.“
We have right now a disunified Republican Party.
We shouldn’t sweep it under the rug without addressing it.
That would be to our detriment in the fall,” said Ryan, speaking in an interview that had been scheduled before Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee.
The Republican Party is not going to unify around Donald Trump, and even Paul Ryan can’t massage the truth enough to sell Trump as a good thing for the GOP.
If Trump puts Ryan in a support me or else situation, Speaker Ryan will probably walk away from his co-chair position at the Republican convention.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/...y-falling.html
The semi-articulate version of Quetzal-X
Trump’s rhetoric on taxes should not be taken at face value
Asked if he’s prepared to raise his own taxes, Trump said at the time, “That’s right. That’s right. I’m OK with it.”
Pundits marveled at Trump’s willingness to embrace economic populism and challenge some of his party’s cherished assumptions – but none of it was true. When the Trump campaign outlined the candidate’s actual tax plan, it was a ridiculous, multi-trillion-dollar scheme that would slash taxes for the wealthy. A Tax Policy Center found that a low-income taxpayer would get about $128 from Trump’s plan, while those in the top 0.1% would get $1.3 million.
Everyone who took Trump’s rhetoric at face value was misled. What the GOP candidate said and what he actually proposed were practically opposites.
And over the weekend, it happened again.
Donald Trump made a break from conservative orthodoxy on Sunday when he backed away from proposing large tax cuts for wealthy Americans.Reading the quote, one might believe Trump is talking about increasing taxes on the wealthy – a popular position with the American mainstream, to be sure – the opposite of one of his policy platform’s key tenets. What’s more, if he did make such a pronouncement, it’d be an extremely important development, both for his campaign and for Republican politics in general.
“On my plan they’re going down. But by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said on ABC’s This Week. “I am willing to pay more,” he said. “And you know what? The wealthy are willing to pay more. We’ve had a very good run.”
But a closer look reveals that’s really not what’s happened. A lot of observers appear to have been misled by deceptive rhetoric, which is the same thing that happened in August when Trump talked about raising the wealthy’s taxes shortly before he proposed cutting the wealthy’s taxes.
Many in the media flubbed Trump’s line on the minimum wage, and now they’re flubbing his line on taxes, too. In both instances, the candidate’s misleading rhetoric is driving the mistaken reporting.
To get to the bottom on this, consider this exchange yesterday between Trump and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, which is the basis for much of the confusion:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But bottom line, do you want taxes on the wealthy to go up or down?But what does that mean, exactly? The presumptive Republican nominee clarified on CNN this morning that he’s not proposing a tax increase on the wealthy.
TRUMP: They will go up a little bit. And they may got up, you know…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But they’re going down in your plan.
TRUMP: No, no, in my plan they’re going down, but by the time it’s negotiated, they’ll go up.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent flagged this quote from Trump’s interview this morning: “Now, if I increase it on the wealthy, they’re still going to pay less than they pay now. I’m not talking about increasing from this point. I’m talking about increasing from my tax proposal.”
I sympathize with journalists who fell for Trump’s trick; the candidate has deliberately used confusing language that has muddled the conversation. Last summer, ABC ran a headline that read, “Donald Trump Calls for Higher Taxes for Wealthiest Americans,” right around the time Trump released a plan that calls for the exact opposite. It’s happening again today.
But that’s all the more reason to pay careful attention to the details:
1. Trump has proposed, in writing, a multi-trillion-dollar tax plan that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest of the wealthy.
2. When Trump talks about being open to taxes “going up a little bit” for the rich, he’s talking about changes relative to his written proposal. It’s a reference to the negotiations he expects to have with Congress, not a change from the status quo.
3. For Trump, the debate is about the size of the tax break for the wealthy. He believes it should be a massive tax cut, but he’s open to accepting a slightly less massive tax cut.
Greg Sargent added, “There is, understandably, a strong temptation on the part of political and media observers to catch candidates out for flip-flopping or changing their positions. In the case of Trump, however, the eagerness to do this risks obfuscating more than it clarifies.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
He's conning his support for whom he wouldn't do jack .
And he's trolling the media with all his from-the-hip, loose-lips conflicting bull .
Thanks, Repugs!
Voter Suppression Is the Only Way Donald Trump Can Win
Given his terrible numbers among non-white and young voters, Trump may try to massively suppress Democratic votes.
In the latest CNN poll Hillary Clinton is beating Trump 81 percent to 14 percent among non-white voters, a big reason she’s leading Trump 54 percent to 41 percent overall.
“If the 2016 nominee gets no better than Romney’s 17 percent of the nonwhite vote, he or she would need 65 percent of the white vote to win, a level achieved in modern times only by Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide,” writes Dan Balzin The Washington Post.
“[George W] Bush’s 2004 winning formula — 26 percent of the nonwhite vote and 58 percent of the white vote—would be a losing formula in 2016, given population changes.”
Trump’s support in the primary directly correlated withracial resentment toward African Americans, Hispanics and Muslims.
“The higher you scored on racial resentment, the more likely you were to support Trump; the more you resented immigrants or professed your white ethnocentrism, the likelier you were to plan to vote for Trump,”
Suppressing votes may not be enough to save Trump, but it doesn’t mean he won’t try. Recent history suggests that we should expect the worst from his campaign.
http://www.thenation.com/article/voter-suppression-is-the-only-way-donald-trump-can-win/
The striking decline in women’s support for Donald Trump (in 2 graphs)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...p-in-2-graphs/
30% - 40% of women still don't rate Trump unfavorably?
Blue Dog Repugs, vote Repug no matter how ty, hateful, racist, misogynist the candidate.
Trump, paraphrase: "I'm conning you, every one of you", just like Repugs have for 45 years: gays, guns, God, fabricated external threats, abortion, deficit, debt (while increasing both) as campaign issues. Total, never-ending CON JOB.
A post-policy party finds a post-policy candidate
A source familiar with Trump’s thinking explained that the billionaire businessman was reluctant to add new layers of policy experts now, feeling it would only muddy his populist message that has been hyperfocused on illegal immigration, trade and fighting Islamic extremists.Oh. So, Trump will eventually put together a policy agenda, but not until after the election.
“He doesn’t want to waste time on policy and thinks it would make him less effective on the stump,” the Trump source said. “It won’t be until after he is elected but before he’s inaugurated that he will figure out exactly what he is going to do and who he is going to try to hire.”
Voters should support the least-experienced, least-prepared presidential candidate of the modern era first, and then he’ll let the public know how he intends to govern.
Why “waste time on policy” when the priority should be ensuring a candidate is “effective on the stump”? It’s the kind of thinking that suggests style must always trump substance, because governing isn’t nearly as important as winning.
“The A-level people, and there are not that many of them to begin with, mostly don’t want to work for Trump.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Donald Trump More Disliked Than Nickelback
The GOP presumptive nominee beats roaches and hemorrhoids, though
A national poll reveals that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is viewed less favorably than lice, root canals, hipsters, jury duty, the DMV and even Nickelback.
The poll by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that Trump is losing to lice by 26 points.
In fairness to Trump, lice has an approval rating above 50 percent
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Boo, if you think that's bad, you should see YOUR approval rating. Herpes beats you.
your opinion is as worthless as your knees
Trump prepared to keep tax returns hidden from public
In the modern era, major-party presidential nominees are expected to make certain disclosures, just as a matter of course. Candidates for the nation’s highest office are expected to release information related to their personal health and public scrutiny of candidates’ tax returns is a given.
In December, Donald Trump more or less met the first of these two tests. His campaign released an unintentionally hilarious letter from Dr. Harold Bornstein, who claimed he’s been Trump’s personal physician since 1980.
The physician insisted the Republican candidate’s “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary” and his recent lab tests results were “astonishingly excellent.” Bornstein added, “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”
And what of this fine physical specimen’s tax returns? The Associated Press reported this morning:
Despite pressure, the billionaire also doesn’t expect to release his tax returns before November, citing an ongoing audit of his finances. He said he will release them after the audit ends. But he said that he wouldn’t overrule his lawyers and instruct them to release his returns if the audit hasn’t concluded by November.
“There’s nothing to learn from them,” Trump told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. He also has said he doesn’t believe voters are interested.
I can’t speak to what voters may or may not find interesting, but if the AP report is correct, it appears Trump will be the first major-party nominee in the modern era to simply refuse to disclose his tax returns.
Trump, in contrast, is prepared to move forward with no disclosure in this area at all, prompting all kinds of questions about what, exactly, the Republican may be hiding from the public. Is he far less wealthy than he claims to be? Has most of his income come by way of television, rather than the purported success of his business?
We could know the answers – even if Trump is telling the truth about being audited, there’s nothing stopping him from releasing these materials – but according to the GOP candidate, we won’t.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Corporations still ‘wary’ of sponsoring Republican convention
the New York Times reports that the corporate money still isn’t rolling in.
The large corporations that usually fund both parties’ conventions have grown wary of becoming involved. They are holding back on sponsorships, leaving Cleveland about $7 million short of its $64 million fund-raising goal just 10 weeks before the festivities begin. […]
[S]ome previous corporate sponsors, like Coca-Cola and Walmart, have been reassessing their commitments. Joe Roman, the vice chairman of the Cleveland host committee, said the large national corporations that were needed to close the $7 million gap the city is facing were taking some time to line up.
In March, the gap was about $10 million, suggesting the party is still struggling to get on track.
There is, of course, still time for corporate sponsors to meet the party’s $64 million target, but theTimes’ reporting suggests Republicans aren’t accustomed to having these kinds of problems. If this is no longer about the threat of violence, then it’s probably about the danger of being associated with Donald Trump himself.
Indeed, as we’ve noted, every time Trump speaks, there are probably some corporate public-relations executives sending an email to their bosses saying, “Maybe we ought to scale back this year.”
Carla Eudy, a longtime Republican fundraising consultant, told the Times, “I have talked to several people at companies who have said, ‘I’ve always gone to the convention, I’ve always participated at some level, but this year we’re not putting it in our budget, we’re not going, we’re not going to sponsor any of the events going on.’”
corporate sponsors are reluctant to play favorites. When a company like Coca-Cola agrees to help sponsor one major-party convention, it nearly always writes a comparable check to the other party’s convention.
The more businesses pull back from the Republican convention this year, the more likely it is to cause at least some trouble for Dems.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Why Donald Trump’s tax-return defense isn’t working
The presumptive Republican nominee spoke to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren last night about his position, arguing that he’d “like to” disclose the tax do ents, “hopefully before the election,” but he’s waiting for the end of an IRS audit. The problem with this excuse is that it doesn’t make sense: an IRS audit doesn’t preclude someone from sharing their returns.
Politico reported:
Anthony Scaramucci, a New York financier who recently backed Trump, told Fox News that the real estate mogul’s reluctance is due to “the complication of the return, the fact that he’s under an audit, he feels that he doesn’t want to give out that information to the general public and have a whole nightmare situation with opposition research trying to pick holes through the return.”
Note, Scaramucci, a prominent Republican fundraiser, just this week signed on as an official member of Trump’s national finance committee. He’s not, in other words, just some outside observer; Scaramucci is a new member of Team Trump.
And his defense for keeping tax returns hidden from the public is cringe-worthy. The complexity of the do ents is irrelevant, as is the IRS audit. As for the notion that opposition researchers might uncover embarrassing information in Trump’s tax materials, that, almost by definition, is the worst of all possible defenses.
In effect, it’s like saying, “I have to keep the do ents hidden because the truth might make me look bad.”
If the Republican candidate is waiting for this story to simply fade away, that might take a while. BothHillary Clinton and
Mitt Romney,
for example, have begun slamming Trump over his refusal to disclose his returns.
Making matters worse, journalists have begun shining a light on the fact that Trump
not only committed to releasing the materials he now wants to keep hidden,
he also blasted Romney in 2012 for delaying the release of his returns.
In other words, we’re dealing with one of those nicely packaged controversies in which a presidential candidate is guilty of secrecy, dishonesty, and hypocrisy – all at the same time.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
