Seriously. They’re jumping all over Martha Raddatz for being mean to Donald, demanding that she be fired.
Grow up.
Remember, Trump already has an appointment in late November in San Diego where he’ll face that “Mexican” judge and defend his Trump University scam. I wonder what will be in the mind of the judge as he calls that case?
Yeah right, he or other Trumpetistas may want to challenge. And competent judges across the various states may say “Counselor, please watch as I crumple your filing, lob it into the trashcan and set it on fire. Dismissed with prejudice.”
I disagree entirely that your scenario is the easy answer. It might be the easy answer if Donald had people on staff researching facts and useful information, which Donald would then remember and discuss. You know. Like normal politicians who had a basic curiosity about the world today.
Donald isn’t that guy.
Instead, the one and only fact Donald is quoting just happens to be the plagarized phony bit. In your scenario, we have to believe that someone on Donald’s staff “just happened” to read the Sputnik article in the brief few hours before it was taken down. And that staff member “just happened” to print the paragraphs with the plagarized lines. And Donald “just happened” to innocently pay attention when the staff member showed him the article. And Donald “just happened” to plan a theatrical reveal around the plagarized lines.
Your scenario is actually a long sequences of coincidences that led to Donald making a performance about citing the plagiarized propaganda.
I don’t believe it’s a coincidence. Donald has shown himself repeatedly to have deep ties with the Russian government. The Russian government, otoh, has been shown repeatedly trying to influence the election on Donald’s behalf.
The simple solution is that this is more of the same. Someone in Russia wrote the email, planted it in Wikileaks, published it on known propaganda outlet, Sputnik, and then tipped Trump’s people on where to look (and really - of course they did. There’s no point in going to the trouble planting propaganda if you can’t be sure that someone’s going to see it. You wouldn’t just slip it into the mess of wikileaks material and then wait around who knows how long without a way to draw attention to it.)
The whole point of faking the email was to give Donald something to hit Hillary with. I don’t believe that it’s just an innocent coincidence that Donald immediately zeroed in on the fake story and proceeded to hit Hillary with it. I don’t see that as the simple solution.
I think he can keep his personal feelings walled off from the proceedings.
The problem with an individual citizen refusing to accept the election results is minimal. The problem with thousands of citizens refusing to accept the result is also likely minimal for the reasons you describe. The problem with a major presidential candidate refusing to accept the results is non-trivial, to say the least. Trump contesting the election - in the bombastic, fact-starved way that we know he will - is bad because he will be given a soapbox to stand on.
Trump will be in a position to influence the thinking of millions of people. Trump will continue to erode confidence in our electoral system while nurturing the seething resentment that propelled him into the general election in the first place. At a minimum, it will increase polarization and cast a pall over Hillary’s historic moment and her right to govern. It is a virtual certainty that Trump will contest the results, due to his inability to accept failure and his desire to remain the center of attention. I’m still not sure how much damage it will ultimately do (that largely depends on how close the election is), but I don’t envision it as harmless, impotent grumbling.
Hillary needs to win by a wide margin in multiple states that have paper backup ballots. If, for example, Pennsylvania clinches the win for Hillary, Trump’s inevitable challenge will have more weight and things will get very, very ugly.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Donald immediately announces his intention to run again for 2020. He likes these campaigning rallies and he likes the money he makes renting his property to his campaign.
My scenario requires that someone on Trump’s staff have a google news alert set up, which I’m pretty certain (though, admittedly not 100%) they are competent enough to do.
No. Again - your scenario requires the Russian propagada team which is working to get Trump elected to create some propaganda and post it online for a few hours, which, “coincidentally” trips the “coincidental” Google Alert of someone on Trump’s staff who “coincidentally” highlights the plagarized bits, and then “coincidentally” shows them to Donald, who “coincidentally” finds them so compelling that he just “coincidentally” turns the plagarized propaganda into a theatrical announcement of Hillary’s wrongdoings.
This time…as a Democrat! Get ready Madam President!
I think you are using the word “coincidentally” where the word “inevitably” fits better.
His campaign should be playing Bon Jovi’s “Blaze of Glory” as his entrance music:
If you think Trump’s current attack on the party is a big deal, just wait until the RNC concedes and Trump doesn’t.
I am following that. What I have doubts about is if this will cause a significant number of his supporters to actually vote just for Trump, or if they will remain loyal Republicans and vote straight ticket despite Trump’s rantings.
Yeah, how does “coincidentally triggering the coincidental Google alert” make any sense? That’s what it’s supposed to do.
Trump on his way to victory. Well, at least as I see him now.
Tell me about it - I want poll numbers on how many plan to vote Trump, but not vote R down the line. That would have voted R otherwise.
Again - we know that Donald doesn’t read the news. Why on earth would you consider it “inevitable” that Donald would “just coincidentally” see, remember and quote the exact plagarized portion of an obscure Sputnik article that was faked by the Russians whom we know are working to get Donald elected?
If Donald wasn’t in on it, then it’s just lucky chance that he happened to see and quote the plagarized Russian propaganda. I don’t believe that “it was all just a series of coincidences” is a simpler answer than, “Donald was tipped off about the planted story”.
CNN host Carol Costello shuts down interview with Katrina Pierson
On the whole, a relatively decent performance for Ms. Pierson. I was expecting her to say that Hillary Clinton made those comments back in 1938.