Trump said he would get the biggest stars and ended up with Baio. That's why they were making fun of him.

There is no substance in this speech. Just way too many words and empty promises.

So basically his entire campaign shrunk down into one speech?

I never said I didn't agree with this. However, they do need to pay for their own defense.

I don't think this is what he will actually do. There are many member states that are not adequately funding their military, I think he is trying to scare them over it.

I do find it ironic that many that are complaining about the Russian threat are those who scoffed at Romney 4 years ago when he said Russia was the major threat to world peace.

Russia still isn't the biggest threat we face, but giving them carte blanche in the Baltic is still a terrible idea.

So much of Trump's appeal seems to rely on believing he doesn't actually mean what he says, but what if he's telling the truth? The worst case trump presidency probably won't happen, but it might. Are you willing to take that chance?

We're coming up on an hour and I have no idea what Trump would do other than wave a magic wand to make me safe and rich. Where do I sign up?

Oh and build a wall.

All we have to do is believe.

There's no place like home.

There's no place like home.

There's no place like home.

So...was my wife's observation that Trump thanked all of his family individually for their great speeches except for Tiffany correct?

Also, how do the other CNN commentators not collectively bum-rush Jeffrey Lord?

edit: actually, Ana Navarro just might...

Um, yes. Is that a serious question?

Democrats have no problem with celebrities in politics. It's Republicans who always complain about that, but then trot out C-list celebrities whenever they can. Also, Baio was rightly taken to task for preaching traditional values, but then calling Hillary a "cunt".

So I don't get it. Are you guys saying yay actors or no please no actors? Put me in the second camp. I could not care less what some vain glory hound with good look genes says to us all about politics, no matter what side of the aisle he takes. And I struggle to understand why any other rational human being would.

Yeah, that's really unfair ... to the word.

A person's profession or attractiveness has literally zero percent to do with my reaction to their political thoughts.

I am torn. She is, or at least was, totally self absorbed to the point where it detracted from attractiveness.... But damn...

Good for you?

As for his speech. At least he stayed on script and didn't turn it I to a Springer show like most of his appearances. Still waiting for the plans he was going to detail.

Just an observation but did his wife looked bored out of her mind? She barely reacted whenever they cut to the family and at best gave him a golf clap a couple times.

She's got confused cuz she thought the Don was going to use Obama's 2008 nomination acceptance speech.

Huh? Simply explaining why I don't care if it's an actor.

But you and others were discussing the "quality" of each party's actor choices to give speeches. So I have no idea now why that discussion even happened.

People on the left mocked Baio for being a washed up actor and the RNC for letting him speak during their convention. That it was pathetic to have Scott Baio as a voice for your party.

Nothing wrong with that stance. Just think you look a bit hypocritical not saying the same when the DNC brings in Lena Dunham and others.

And I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm talking about most of the media and political commentators who made it into a joke.

I mean nothing screams party of the working class like mocking a guy for not being a wealthy and successful enough.

Wait, you mean he's not going to end crime and violence??? :confused:

Donald Trump at RNC full Speech. July 21, 2016. Republican National Convention. Cleveland, Ohio. - YouTube

(4:09)

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

I thought he just said Melania and totally hot Ivanka. I may have missed the reference to the young studs, but definitely no Tif.

Thinking through last night, it's interesting how far to the left things are moving for the Republican party on certain issues. Trump trashed NAFTA and other trade agreements that you usually only see far left politicians do. You had a gay man get on stage and tell the party to stop with the culture wars and it got cheers. Ivanka talked about equal pay for women.

I mean Trump didn't give a single plan for how he was going to do all the things he promised, but it was a much more populous message than we normally see from the GOP. Media will hate it but I think outside that bubble working class people will eat it up.

well crowd reacted better than I thought they would, but that was warming them up for four minutes on Donald Trump:

Peter Thiel's entire Republican convention speech - YouTube

I think it's more of a sign that people don't give a shit about policy, they vote based on affinity. The same people that cheered Theil are fine with a platform that says the opposite. The same people that cheered protectionism cheered free trade four years ago. The same people that want America First wanted an interventionist policy four years ago.

The U.S. media has predictably ignored it (although it does seem to be getting international press), but Wikileaks put out the 20,000 e-mails from the DNC.

WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) | Twitter

Most of the interesting stuff is in regards to Bernie who the DNC was actively campaigning against. They wanted to paint him as an Atheist in evangelical states. Encouraged Super PAC to go after Sanders supporters online. Bunch of other stuff where they linked stuff to the press to make him look bad.

Also was fascinated reading through some of the stuff with the media. Politico was running stories by the DNC first. Washington Post agreed to not write some stuff about fundraising. And they really went hard after MSNBC to stop bashing Wasserman-Shultz for her bias in the primary.

Figured this would be a bigger story but I understand why media outlets don't cover it.

Doesn't fit the story they want to tell.

Also this made me laugh.

WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

Tim Kaine is the VP pick for Clinton.

Looks like Clinton has selected Senator Tim Kaine for VP. A conservative choice, to be sure, but a smart one, I think.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I'm guessing FOFC is going to go crazy over a Mizzou grad for VP! :)

And Hillary says fuck you to the progressive wing.

She probably believes that she has their vote already so there's no need to pander to them with the vp pick.

Oh, I see the sense in it. It's a safe pick that won't disrupt her message (pro-TPP and all that) and gets a white dude on the ticket.

But by the same token, in this election cycle, relying on lesser of two evils to bring in the furthest wings of the party is a dangerous gamble IMO.

It's fascinating to see the Democratic candidate supporting TPP and the Republican candidate against it.

As much as I dislike Trump and find him clueless on so many topics, I'd almost consider voting for him if he wasn't anti-net neutrality.

Jeez, a pro-lifer as VP pick.

Oh, he's not just any Mizzou grad. He's a turncoat. Between this and the Wikileaks, it appears the DNC may out-WWE the Republicans before all is said and done.

Tim Kaine, A Mizzou Grad, Roots For The Kansas Jayhawks

And Donald Trump got one last fuck you in on Elizabeth Warren, tweeting about how "Pocohantas" didn't get the VP pick.

I'm imagine that Hillary will be giving her a nice cabinet spot for her continued campaign against Trump

Personally pro-life, but supports a woman's right to choose. That describes a lot of people in the party, even on the progressive wing.

yeah probably, but she might be more helpful/useful as a bulldog in the Senate.

That would be very unwise for the party to do

Aside from TPP, Kaine has a pretty solid progressive record. I imagine that's going to be highlighted in the coming weeks.

Should be okay as long as they lock Coakley in a closet until the qualifying deadline passes.

I think it is also about keeping some on the moderate-right at bay.

My wife dislikes Clinton. But, she really dislikes Trump, too. I'm not sure if she's going to bother on election day or not. But Warren? For whatever reason, she really can't stand Warren. The double-shot of her and Clinton would probably move her to vote Trump (TWO opinionated women who won't keep their voices down?!?). Not that it much matters in MD, but if folks from swing states have similar thoughts, who knows.

CNN stands for Clinton News Network

Have you read this?

What Does Peter Thiel Want?

Granted, this is from Gawker, so they're not exactly unbiased here. But this was...interesting:



Sounds about as far from "looking out for the little guy" as you can get.

The Education of a Libertarian | Cato Unbound

Way to quote things out of context. Did you even read the rest after that statement?

wow cuervo, I knew nothing about this guy before the convention-sounds like a real wacko.

How am I supposed to take that? If he doesn't think the two can co-exist, and he's not anti-freedom (which if he is a Libertarian, I would assume he's not), then his beef would be with democracy, no? It sounds like he is in favor of a world where capital is king, monopoly is good, and government just serves to get in the way of the creators. It sounds reasonable that he would back Trump because, well, Trump might lead to a little bit of anarchy. If that's your thing, hey, great. I'm not quite as keen on it.

It's not like his speech was groundbreaking, he did not say anything about gay marriage or that some states can fire you for being gay. It was like one sentences about politicians using social issues to distract people. But he was still presenting it in front of a majority of people who likely use those social issues as a litmus test. Plus, the entire day before his transcript was released and talked about, so it gave everyone time to get in line and cheer.

But if he honestly believes that social issues will take a back seat, he is as crazy as he sounds.

At any rate, I think it's somewhat clear he wants to upset the apple cart. And he seems to be against globalization.

https://medium.com/conversations-wit...0dd#.cvzv2sh47


See? He even tells us his ideas are dangerous. ;)



Seems to really have a bone to pick with zoning regulations...

Great now we get to listen to hillary; was bad enough listening to the con man last week now we get the criminal this week.

How can anyone in their right mind vote for this piece of garbage? She'll sell the country to the highest bidder.

You know, you don't have to watch the convention.

After hearing his speech today. Kaine seems like he might be Clinton's Jiminy Cricket. Not a bad thing, she now needs Bernie and Warren to proclaim she has no strings (attached).

I'd be okay with that. Would convert all the Bernie supporters to Stein or not vote at all. Less votes for Hillary and Trump either way.

Kaine doesn't excite me. I get he's safe.

Yes, that's why they hired Lewandowski.

And Jeffrey Lord, and Scottie Nell Hughes.

CNN's Scottie Nell Hughes hates Kaine's Spanish: I shouldn't have to brush up on Dora the Explorer - YouTube

I just cannot stand the Trump "shill's" on the various news channels. Though probably the Republicans here can't stand the Clinton ones too. I tend to just tone out whatever they say because their first priority certainly is not the network they appear on. She is one of the worse too. That Dora the Explorer line was just horrible.

I mean, this isn't entirely new - it may have predated the Clintons, but I feel like that Pandora's box was opened when ABC hired Stephanopoulos. (And for the longest time I could not stand seeing James Carville on. Hmm, and there's Donna Brazile, too.) But now, to ask avowed supporters of a candidate how they thought that candidate did or how their opponent did...I mean, what the heck do you think they're going to say? It's basically free time for them to sound off. Well, worse, the folks are getting paid to shill.

The entire Crossfire model needs to die. It's really easy, really cheap, and takes time, so it's perfect for 24 hour news.

Wasserman-Shultz really is a dirtbag reading through those DNC leaks. How have they not forced her to step down yet?

Just saw she will not be speaking at the convention due to those emails. I suspect once the election is over, she will quietly be drummed out.

Her term was already due to end after the election. I can see offering Warren the DNC Chair head.

And both Sanders and Warren will be vocal for Hillary in the Democratic Primary this week. Sanders ripped Trump a new one in Twitter on Thurs. Kaine is a well liked center-left Senator. In addition, he is strongly Catholic. So you have the very interesting phenomenon that both on Democratic ticket are strong religious left politicians facing a Republican candidate who seemingly doesn't care about religion at all (though his veep is a strong religious right person).

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

...and yet Trump will keep the Evangelicals, which just goes to further prove to me that Evangelicals these days really aren't all that religious. They're more like the Moose, only with more Jesus.

(I left my last church because a number of the men started open carrying to church...in case we needed to be protected during services from Muslim extremists. Let that sentence sink in for a second. Our church had 50 people in it on a good Sunday, square in the middle of Podunk, Indiana, population 3,000. Their scriptural justification was a verse about men being responsible for providing for their families, where provision means shooting motherfuckers who might try to hurt you. We've come a long way from Christians who imagined martyrdom to be the greatest sign of Christian faithfulness.)

Some reports that she has resigned. Doesn't seem to have made the mass media yet...

Oops. There it is.

BREAKING: Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she will step down at end of party's convention.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 24, 2016

Of course as far as she's concerned, mission accomplished.

DWS and the DNC do ONE relatively wise thing in their existence ... and people call for her head.

LMFAO.

I'm sure she was rewarded handsomely for her efforts.

I'm still surprised at how little coverage this is getting. I know there is bias in the media, but the leaks should be a huge story. If this was the RNC e-mails leaking, there'd be around the clock coverage.

It should be a bigger story that the leaks were likely orchestrated by Russia

Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump - The Washington Post

They were mentioned on ABCNews last night. Munich got more time. As did a story of boat thieves being caught by a drone. I'd assume the resignation would be covered tonight.

One, it's a pretty big story. I only looked a few places, but it was the top story at all of them.

Two, this happens every four years for the GOP and/or Dems. No election is fair, and the political reporters that cover this stuff damn well know that.

HRC has elite level PR management/connections but it's everywhere on the internet.

When the story popped most places covered it, but it seemed like the 10th biggest story on their sites. MSNBC and CNN didn't even have a story up for a couple days on it.

Really the only major outlet I saw covering it like a big story was the Washington Post.

Obviously some places like MSNBC and Politico have to hold back because they were colluding with the DNC on their coverage. Still a major rigging its primary for a candidate should be a huge story.

Come on. You think there aren't similar emails about Trump? What about Bush/McCain? Or Gore/Bradley?

Elections don't start from neutral and they aren't fair. This is the way it's always been.

Fox News has a bigger story to cover for now.

It's really not surprising that top-level people in a political party would prefer and work towards a nomination for someone who is actually a party member (and didn't just sign up specifically for this election). Is there any internal rules against DNC members taking sides like that? Or are they supposed to be neutral?

I have had MSNBC on the background and it's pretty much the only thing that has been discussed all day.

This.

The neutrality Bernie wants would mean Trump could have run the exact same race as a Dem and nobody at the DNC should have said anything.

Also, if you can join the party and get the same treatment as someone that's worked for decades to build relationships, why bother? Wouldn't this kill a party over the long-term?

It really doesn't matter how much you try to rationalize it, Hillary lost a good chunk of potential Bernie supporters. Bernie endorsing Hillary after this whole shit didn't really help her case.

They'll almost all be back come November. Every primary the loser's supporters say they won't support the nominee, and every general almost all of them do. Any Bernie supporter that chooses Trump over Clinton is a fool.

Any Bernie supporter that votes for Trump shows that policy didn't mean anything to them. They just wanted their guy to win.

Every time Rainmaker says the liberal media isn't covering a story, I turn on the TV or go to a news website to see them covering exactly that story.

The problem with that idea is thinking that Bernie supporters want anything to do with the democratic party anymore this cycle. They'll vote Jill Stein or not vote at all. The ones who really hate Hillary will vote Trump.

I mean this forum (and many others) mocked his supporters for their tinfoil hat theories. Any self-respecting Bernie believer has no business supporting HRC because for them it's not about beating the republicans. It's about beating the DNC establishment to make sure a true progressive represents the democratic party every 4 years.

Bernie supporters were claiming voter suppression and ballot manipulation in every state he lost. Many still refuse to accept that more people voted for Hillary than Bernie. Collusion with the DNC was a tiny part of many, many tinfoil hat theories thrown around to explain why Bernie was losing.

Bernie was good for this election and he brought important talking points to the forefront. Voting Trump out of spite would throw that progress down the drain. Bernie seems smart enough to know that the best way to keep moving progressives forward is to make sure Trump doesn't get the presidency. Not all of his supporters seem to get that.

Ironically, that would make it harder for a true progressive to get elected. A Trump victory means a 6-3 SCOTUS majority for Citizens United. A Hillary victory means a 5-4 majority for the anti-Citizens United group. Citizens United needs to be overturned for a "true progressive", as defined by the Bernie people, to have a legitimate chance in future elections.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
#TrumpPence16 https://t.co/gCzHX1nyxD"

Stalin Clapping Test - YouTube


“Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding.” A. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago.

Ask the tea party whether this approach worked out for them.

OTOH it got the Tea Party roughly 50 members in Congress.

And a demagogue for president. Congrats!

Kasich, Jeb, and Rubio sure fared well against this year's two non-establishment candidates.

Bernie supporters aren't going to change the outcome. Hillary will do a better job than Trump at sweeping up the middle come November.