Hadn’t heard the “Russia helped us against the Soviets” thing. (Good gravy–Hillary has GOT to add funding for US basic education!)
But as asahi wrote, it’s not a question of converting the “Trump is God” believers, it’s a question of chipping away at the convictions of the less-fervent.
Seeing that “$915,729,293” on a familiar form (well, state forms, but they do resemble the federal version) has an impact that is missing from ‘he wrote about it in a book.’
Focus on Trump not paying his contractors and workers-run ads on that in every swing state and bring the topic up at every conceivable opportunity. This attack undermines Trump with his core support base, the white working-class, especially the small business blue-collar contractors like plumbers and carpenters who in turn make up a significant portion of the electorate in most of the swing states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.
There’s also this little packet of C-4.
Revealed: Trump ditched US workers and secretly purchased steel and aluminum for last two projects from China
This is one which I’d run with if I were on Clinton’s team.
Vote for Trump! Chinese workers need the money!
The problem is that Trump has redefined the term “Teflon.”
Chris Cillizza on The Fix has the article This ‘Apprentice’ story would kill most candidacies. For Trump, it’s just another Monday. which links to this gem from the Simpsons, Mr. Burns is Indestructible.
Taking the conventional approach, there are going to be the swing voters in the swing states. Who are they and what would be the right breeze to move them?
I presume that this is being carefully looked at now over the HRC for Pres. offices. What says the Dope?
"Donald Trump is a putz. He hasn’t paid taxes for twenty years only because he took such massive losses in the 1990’s that he gets to a negative capital gains tax to deduct from his taxable income to this day. And yes, that means he’s worth less now than he was then. Some rich guy!
"And now he’s in the Republican Party? The party that wants to get rid of all capital gains taxes? But if you don’t pay taxes on capital gains, why would you get to write capital losses off your tax bill? You wouldn’t, that’s what. Donald Trump’s tax plan would have left him in debt to the IRS for decades. He’s a stupid lunkhead.
“Compare that to my party, the smart people’s party. Look at Marc Rich, a good friend of mine and my husband’s, and a Democrat like all *smart *rich people. He owed 100 million dollars in taxes. What did he do? He gave Bill and me slightly more than one-half of 1% of that, and my husband pardoned him. That’s how actual billionaires evade taxes. That’s smart. Marc Rich was a winner because he played on our team. Donald John Trump is a loser. Vote for the winner.”
Wait, sorry, that was too long and complex for the common clay of the New West.
She should go with, “I have boobs, you must obey!”
The sad thing is, maybe she should just be blunt about her brand of transactional politics. At least it gets the real differences out there. “Yes, I’m a crook, but at least I didn’t lose nine hundred million dollars in one year. Wouldn’t you rather the country be pilfered by me than bankrupted by him?”
Cite that Hillary is a crook who is preparing to pilfer the country? Also, for future reference, I believe the word you’re looking for is, “plunder”.
I said “pilfer,” trying to indicate that she’ll skim off a little bit, and I don’t like her. If you think she’ll “plunder” the country, that’s expecting another level of villainy.
I don’t think that Hillary has any serious intention to plunder the country like one might expect of Mitt Romney. She might try to make a fast buck selling influence/access/pardons, which is why I don’t trust her in the office, but I don’t think she’s actually trying to loot the country wholesale.
I don’t know what Trump would do, but it’d almost certainly be stupid.
So Hillary is venal & vain, while Trump is particularly reckless with money, and has no real credibility in anything else. She’s the less risky crook. Is that clear enough?
For a cite, how about the Marc Rich pardon?
I’m not editing in links to all the footnotes. This is what Clintonian decision-making has looked like.
I get your point, but there’s something about seeing the numbers on official tax documents. It’s the difference between hearing about someone’s indiscretions and actually producing a sex tape. The bigger question is, are there other ‘sex tapes’ that exist? Probably so. That’s probably the issue. Until Donald Trump releases tax returns, he leaves himself open to the human imagination and the freedom of the press to create whatever narrative they want.
Wait, are you in all seriousness implying that vanity is more of an issue with HRC than DJC? On what planet are you living?
Planet Bernie. He’s still a Bro.
Pilfer is not a synonym of plunder or skimming. Pilfer is a synonym of steal. One pilfers specific items. One cannot “pilfer America” unless one plans to steal America and sell it at a pawnshop.
Other random peoples’ characterization of the Marc Rich pardon as having been prompted by campaign donation is not actual evidence of a quid pro quo action. Furthermore, even if actual evidence was provided showing that Marc Rich was pardoned specifically because of the donations, it would merely demonstrate the Clintons’ ability to plunder the bank accounts of their wealthy friends. It would not be pilfering, stealing, or plundering America, even if there was evidence of bribery. Which there isn’t.
I don’t think the no taxes thing is going to matter to his fans, since what he did was legal. Pointing out that his tax plan doesn’t fix the issue should make a difference, but I’m not sure it will.
I think Hilary needs to stay above the fray as much as possible. Let Donald do most of the talking.
From what I hear, the big worry is getting the young people to vote. How do you fight apathy?
There are a hundred other, more important and relevant things that should disqualify Trump in the minds of voters, and therefore in an ideal world should be the focus of Clinton’s attacks, but for some reason Trump’s legal non-payment of taxes seems to be getting some traction. So, even though I don’t fault him for this, I suppose it should be the focus of some attack ads and perhaps rally speeches, maybe for a week or so.
Changing my mind again. I think that keeping going on the tax story is the way to go.
White suburban women represent one group of the swing voters in swing states who can make or break the election. 538 has an article on them today.
I liked one quote:
The idea that Trump is getting handouts from the government goes against the very core of perceived values.
I think that people like this woman see a social contract: you work hard, you pay your share of taxes but those taxes shouldn’t be used for people who don’t work.
There will always be a big divide between Republicans and Democrats on the question of how much aid to provide for the lower income families and individuals.
However, I wonder if one of the reasons this resonates where so many other issues hasn’t is that Trump is breaking the contract where Mitt was just bending it.
Highlighting the unfairness and that your tax money is going to subsidize his lavish lifestyle may sway this block of voters.
But Trump’s capital loss meant his actual fair share of taxes was much lower than almost anyone’s. Harping on it makes Hillary look stupid or disingenuous.
I think you’re better off pointing out his severe disrespect to those killed or captured in war. To John McCain, to the Khans, and so on. We’ve had chicken hawks in the White House before, but mocking people who suffer in war is stupid.
I hope she can at least show some sympathy to her own nation’s warfighters. Can she?
:rolleyes:
Memo to foolsguinea: Bernie lost.