the_human_being
Gold Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 15,277
- 2,741
NOT a good sign Hildebeast fans...CNN Poll : Pence Won VP Debate Even with 11% More Democrats Polled
- Thread starter Vigilante
- Start date
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
- Nov 19, 2010
- 5,077
- 749
Yes you ran the same excuse for the manipulated figures in both threads. It's again no surprise the democrats would love to play with the numbers of those who participated.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
- Nov 19, 2010
- 5,077
- 749
It's mostly for those undecided independents more than anyone else
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 66,972
- 17,023
I will say you are good at regurgitating the talking points. But lets dig a little deeper and add a little common sense... The Status Quo talking point. On the surface it may appear that way as we are in an election and Hillary needs to get Obama supporters rallied on her side. She is not going to challenge or make a focal point of anything that is anti Obama. However the past as shown many differences between the two. That takes us down a new rabbit hole so I'll stick to the issue at hand... Immigration and Refugees.Kaine was obviously out to discredit Trump and throw out some zingers. Both sides "rehearse" their talking points so don't pretend it is one sided... I don't agree with your assessment of Clintons plan though. Though Trump and Pence claim Hillary is for open boarders and no security with the Refugees that doesn't make it true. Obama has funding the boarder and had a record number of deportations, the flow of illegal immigrants from the Mexican board has been a steady decrease. Hillary has never said anything about open boarders, in fact she has supported boarder control, the main difference between the two is she wants to give illegals in the country a pathway to citizenship or amnesty while Trump wants to enforce the laws and deport. This can be argued both ways but lets at least be honest about the foundation of each side.Drive-By Media Spin: Jealous Trump Mad Because Pence Won, Pence Running for 2020,
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | October 5, 2016 | Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: MSNBC today floating a rumor. I don't know if MSNBC created the rumor or if they heard the rumor and are repeating it, but here's the rumor that PMSNBC was tossing around this morning. It is that Donald Trump is mad at Mike Pence for his debate performance because he didn't defend Trump nearly well enough, but he did good enough that it puts pressure on Trump to do better on Sunday night, and Trump doesn't like being outshined this way. The vice presidential candidate's not supposed to look better than the top of the ticket. Trump is supposedly ticked off about this.
Do you believe that? (interruption) Is that right, Politico? So I guess it's not a rumor, then. Politico has that story out there, with that theme in the story, that Trump is mad at Pence for his debate performance since it puts pressure on Trump to do better in the next debate Sunday night.
In fact, The Politico insiders, they have this group of establishment elitists that they convene now and then at Politico to assess and analyze these events, these comings and goings in our daily political lives. And The Politico insiders say that Mike Pence didn't just defeat Tim Kaine, he outshined Donald Trump. "A majority of the battleground-state insiders who comprise The POLITICO Caucus gave Pence the edge over Kaine," in the debate.
"But the Pence-vs.-Trump comparison was unanimous: Each and every one of the four dozen GOP insiders who responded to a post-debate survey Tuesday night said Pence delivered a better debate performance than the New York businessman at the top of the Republican ticket, after what was widely seen as a flop last week. ... 'Not even close,' said an Ohio Republican, 'Is there anyone outside of the Trump family who isn't wishing we could flip the ticket?'"
Again, this is one of the Politico insiders, one of 48 Republican insiders responding to the debate wishing that Pence was at the top of the ticket. Another Republican in this group from Nevada said, "Pence was the anti-Trump. He was prepared, smart, composed and he showed respectful competence and leadership." A Virginia Republican said Trump "was a disaster."
"A New Hampshire Republican suggested Pence 'pinch hit' for Trump in the final two debates with Hillary Clinton. A Colorado Republican said, 'If the Republican ticket were flipped, it would be game over.'"
So you see, Trump cannot win, it cannot be purported, it cannot be reported, it cannot be said that Trump won, because even when his vice president does well, Trump loses. And this is how the mainstream media constructs these things. So the Trump campaign had, by every estimate last night, a resounding victory. And what it means is that Trump lost in the Drive-By Media. This is the kind of crap that is beneath us. It's all together driven by fear. These people on the left simply cannot run the risk of the ideas we believe in gaining prominence or even being heard.
Now, I had bunch of people in the email -- I check it during the break -- ask me if I thought the debate would mean anything to the presidential election. I said yesterday to a caller that vice presidential debates usually don't matter a hill of beans. Can I give you an example? Let's go back to 1988. George H. W. Bush running for the presidency, his first term, he had chosen Dan Quayle to be his veep. He was up against Michael Dukakis, and "Lord" Bentsen of Texas was the vice presidential nominee. And during the vice presidential debate, Quayle versus "Lord" Bentsen, the subject of Quayle's lack of experience came up. He'd only been in the Senate not long.
So Quayle drew an analogy. "Well, John F. Kennedy wasn't in the Senate very long when he was elected president." "Lord" Bentsen paused and said, "Senator, I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine. And, Senator, you are no John Kennedy." And the roof blew off the place, and it was thought to be one of the best killer lines ever delivered in a political debate in the history of the universe. And it didn't matter a whit. George H. W. Bush beat Dukakis by eight points. The vice presidential debate didn't matter.
Now, that was just one aspect. Quayle didn't do poorly in the debate at all, but that one instance you can imagine the post-debate commentary was embarrassing. They started talking about how George Bush had chosen the wrong guy. Quayle was all energetic and flapping his arms out there on the campaign stump, and they were all beating up on George W. Bush for choosing -- they accused Bush of choosing a young guy to get women. Remember that? Quayle was chosen because he was supposedly gonna be a chick magnet. Well, anyway, the point is the vice presidential debate, Quayle reputedly got nailed by the line from "Lord" Bentsen, and George H. W. Bush still won.
So the vice presidential debate traditionally doesn't matter. But this is a different year with different dynamics and all different ingredients. I still maintain that you can't judge things happening in this political campaign the way you would judge them if both candidates were from the inside or from the establishment. There clearly is an outsider here, and, boy, are they threatened by that.
All these Democrats who wanted Trump to be donating to 'em. All these Democrats that have been sucking up to Trump for golf club memberships over the years. All of these people that desperately wanted to be invited to Trump parties when he throws them at Mar-a-Lago and everywhere. Now all of a sudden these Democrats are talking about Donald Trump as though he is the reprobate of all humanity.
I'm old enough now that I can see this stuff repeating. If you're new to this, I'm sure it's all exciting, I'm sure it's got you amped up, I'm sure you're jazzed, "Wow, this is cool, man, I love getting all chalked up like this." When you start seeing this stuff repeat and you start seeing it disintegrate and get worse and deviancy seeming to rise and become a major factor in these events, it has an effect, at least it has an effect on me. It just makes me sick of it. I'm tired of it. I'm worn out by these tactics. It's not just that it's unfair or anything like that, that would be childish to say that. It's just beneath us. We deserve better than this.
You could pick a hundred people out of the phone book and you'd get a better debate than we had last night. Just pick a hundred names and choose two of them. No, I'm not slighting Pence. Okay, do this. Pick a hundred names and choose two. Choose a moderator from the phone book and choose the Democrat candidate from the phone book and I guarantee you we'll have a better debate than what we had last night. A debate that would better serve us and actually have some meaning, play some role in determining the outcome. The way this is gonna determine, if it determines anything, is that the Democrat was such a jerk that maybe, just maybe, people will start putting two and two together and realizing that's who they all are.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To the audio sound bites we go. Here we have a montage of Drive-By Media types, saying that Pence failed to defend Trump and that there was a reason that Pence didn't defend Trump. See if you can pick it out of here.
CHUCK TODD: Tim Kaine was running for Vice President in 2016; Mike Pence was running for president in 2020.
ANDREA MITCHELL: (background noise) Mike Pence defended his turf for 2020.
JOHN BERMAN: Mike Pence just won the first presidential debate for 2020.
WOMAN: (giggling)
PAUL BEGALA: Mike Pence, he's running in 2020! He threw Trump under the bus!
MARK PRESTON: But Mike Pence certainly did himself well if he (chuckles) decides to run in 2020.
EZRA KLEIN: Mike Pence came in and made Mike Pence look good for 2020.
JACKIE KUCINICH: I think Mike Pence may have been looking a little bit at 2020.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Made himself probably the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2020.
RUSH: Lockstep. Every damned one of them, lockstep, with the same damn take. And I'm just gonna tell you, throughout that whole debate last night, that didn't occur to me once, not one time, because I know that's not what Pence was doing. Pence wants to win now. Pence wants to correct the lies and character assassinations that are taking place now. 2020? These people can't stop thinking about this in their formulaic way, that even in the middle of this campaign what some people are really positioning for is 2020, and there probably are people doing that.
The same usual insiders that play all of this as a game when all of us treat this is as real as it gets. To them, it's a game. Pence setting himself up for the 2020 election. It is humanly impossible, it defies any notion of common sense and intelligence that after a debate last night you could have a front-runner for 2020! It's beyond absurd. But look, somebody sent the memo out, or maybe they didn't need a memo. Maybe they think in lockstep without being told. Just mind-boggling. Frank Luntz had a focus group over on CBS, special coverage, vice presidential debate. Luntz said to his focus group, "Give me a word or a phrase to describe Mike Pence this evening."
WOMAN: Calm.
WOMAN: Classy.
MAN: Polished.
WOMAN: Effective.
MAN: Knockout.
WOMAN: Compelling.
MAN: Composed.
WOMAN: Eloquent.
RUSH: And then Luntz were, "You were all critical of Senator Kaine. So give me your reactions to Senator Kaine."
WOMAN: Kaine cherry-picked things that made Trump sound like a crazy person, and Kaine came off looking like a crazy person.
MAN: (chuckles) Kaine came off as a jerk. I actually liked that guy, and I was really disappointed in him this time. He just kept going back to trying to needle little points. A total jerk. Condescending. I think he reinforced the worst of Hillary.
VOICE: Mmm-hmm.
VOICE: Yes!
MAN: I think he really did her a disservice.
RUSH: Okay. So that's encouraging. These are average American voters, and they saw it the way we did, correct? (interrupting) You saw it that way, pretty much. I mean, it was Jerk City last night. (interrupting) Look, that's my point. It was beyond irritating. It was beneath us. It was insulting to us, particularly if that was a strategy. I don't know if Kaine... See, I don't know the guy. All I know is what people inside the establishment say about him is what they say about everybody. "He's a great guy! He's got a great family!"
They all talk about each other that way. I don't know the guy. I've always been suspicious of the guy. The guy's always looked like... I was not surprised with this last night. I just think it's beneath us. If that was a strategy to go out there and be as jerky and abrasive as you can and lose the debate on purpose to make sure you get all that negative stuff in on Trump? Well, then they pulled that off, too. Now, here's Luntz. After talking to his focus group participants, Luntz had to wrap it up for anybody.
LUNTZ: Are any of you now more likely to vote for Donald Trump because of what you heard from Mike Pence? Raise your hands. Two, four, six, eight, 10. So half of you. Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant. These are undecided or uncommitted voters in Ohio. They're the ones that really matter, and tonight was a very good night for the Trump-Pence ticket.
RUSH: Why? Nobody's gonna change their vote. Didn't I hear him say that? "Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant." Ohio doesn't count anyway. The New York Times just told us it's no longer a bellwether. Hillary's pulled out of there. The New York Times said it's not a factor. Luntz should close up shop there. Ohio doesn't matter anymore, the people of Ohio. You know why? Because Ohio is "too white." That's right, my friends. Too many white middle-class people live in Ohio.
There aren't enough Black Lives Matter people there.
There aren't enough illegal immigrants.
There aren't enough ex-cons that need the permission to vote.
There's not a good left-wing cross section of America.
There are too many decent, hardworking, middle-class people in Ohio to appeal to the Democrat Party, and so the New York Times told us it's no longer a bellwether. Back in July, the New York Times did a story on how Ohio was crucial when Hillary was winning there. But now she's not, and so it's not important. Here's John King. And this, by the way, loops back to the rumor that PMSNBC was floating and that Snerdley says The Politico is reporting. This is last night -- Debate Night in America on CNN -- with John King, and he's discussing the reaction, the aftermath of the debate last night.
KING: I wanna give you one insight from somebody inside Trump world who is in the inner circle in Trump world who said that he does not think this is going to go down terribly well with Donald Trump. Even though the Trump campaign is rushing out statements with all conservatives across the country praising Mike Pence, they say Donald Trump is watching the reviews and he's hearing, "Mike Pence won. But he didn't defend Donald Trump and that Hillary Clinton and Mike Pence are better debaters than Donald Trump." Some people think that might not sit well with the boss.
RUSH: There you go. So that's the second place that it's been promulgated out there. So, see, the take-away is even when the Trump team wins, Trump loses. "Pence had a great debate. Pence outclassed the jerk! Pence outclassed the moderator. Pence was calm, he was cool, he was collected, he was fabulous, he did a great job. Trump loses! Trump lost the debate last night because Pence so easily outclassed him, and Trump is now mad that he was made to look bad and he's mad that he's got added pressure now to be as good as Pence." That's the story they're putting out, which equals "Trump lost". And then, at the end of the all of that, it didn't matter, because none of the people in the Luntz focus group say their vote was changed anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. On this by the way, Drive-Bys say that Pence was actually positioning himself for 2020. You know what? There's good chance that that talking point went right from the Clinton campaign to the Drive-By Media. Somebody had to write it. I mean, the idea they're gonna think of this independently, lockstep like this? Somebody is behind this. And if you ask me, folks, the Clinton campaign is behind this.
They want to create the impression that Pence knows Trump's gonna lose. "Pence knows that Hillary's gonna win in 2016; it's all about 2020 for Pence. That's what they're trying to establish. It's all about 2020 because Pence obviously can see, read the tea leaves. It's over! Hillary's the big winner this year. There's no chance for him. So 2020." That's what's going on with that. Mark my words.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Ann in Williamsport, Maryland. Great that you got through today. Hi. How are you?
CALLER: Hi. I'm good. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: Yes, ma'am.
CALLER: I just appreciate all you do. I love listening to you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: But the reason I called was I really loved the way last night Pence looked into the camera and spoke to the American people. Even if they tried getting him off course, he actually acknowledged the America out in TV land, I should say. But I just really appreciated that.
RUSH: That's interesting.
CALLER: And I hope Trump does the same thing.
RUSH: Well, you know what? Your observation, I think, is shared by a lot of people. He kept his cool; he was -- importantly, he was not flustered off of the points that he wanted to make. They were trying to just rat-tat-tat endless interruptions and assaults, trying to get him off his line of thinking, forget his train of thought and the points that he wanted to make, and they didn't succeed.
Kaine ended up looking like el jerko. And, of course, now we've got the cover theory. "Well, Rush, I mean, they're so far ahead. Kaine actually went in this to lose it." That was the first theory I heard last night from Drive-By analysts. "Oh, yeah, he wanted to lose this. They've got a cushion. They can lose this. It was important to have the stuff about Trump said, and Kaine said it. And he said it and said it. He repeated himself five or six times on each one of those things, and he was willing to run the risk of losing the debate on style points or whatever just to make sure that those talking points --"
And then they concluded, "Well, you know, Pence really did well. Pence didn't rise to the bait. He kept his cool and all that, and in the process Donald Trump lost, 'cause Pence did so good he made Trump look bad." Then they told us that Trump was mad that Pence did so well because Pence doing well puts more pressure on Trump to do well as though Trump's going into the debate not really giving it his all, but now he's mad because Pence did so well that Trump really has to try now.
They actually try to make us believe this pap in the immediate debate aftermath last night where we were treated to all the analysis. Oh, and then the piece de resistance, that Pence knows that Hillary's got this locked down. It's over. Pence was simply positioning himself for his own 2020 presidential run. These people, I don't think they realize how obvious and transparent they are now to people.
END TRANSCRIPT
I don't really care all that much what Rush says. What I did see was a rehersed Tim Kainr trying to throw negatives "talking points" on Trump that had nothing to do with the question being asked, as if his Teleprompter suddenly malfunctioned.
What is rather evident is Hillary Clinton wants illegals to be granted the same opportunity as amnesty, without ever solving the flow of immigration. So nothing is expected to change under her administration.
Kaine also stresses there is no real concern for terrorism from Refugees, didn't agree with the Trump ticket to suspend from regions that are home to terrorist activity (I believe he called that concern racist), yet didn't appear to reveal to the moderator a well thought out plan at all to protect American citizens. Perhaps that became the reason Kaine felt the need to change topic, and see just how many short self interpreted segments he could demonize Trump with in 15 seconds?
As for the refugees I thought Kaine gave a pretty good answer... If somebody can not be vetted then don't let them in. For the ones that can be vetted and shown as non threatening, like the hundred of thousands of women, children and elderly that are fighting for their lives each day... Then yes, we can do our part to help.
Hillary's position is one of the status quo, which enables more illegals to enter this country. We have seen this approach back in the 80s, with no real solutions. In fact nothing in Kaines discussion reveals a real concern to really address the flow of illegals coming into this country. It further demonstrates they don't care to bring in any new ideas to address the issue, even with Obama's refusal to address sanctuary cities, as it shows an undermining of Federal law rather than a respect for it. Obama would also like to have illegals given the opportunity to vote, that in itself cuts into your belief behind border enforcement.
On the issue of refugees the democrats don't have a clear identified vetting process they want to address, merely throwing the term around and push the discussion towards emotional simpathy. How do you look at a refugee from a known hostile terrorist location and say that they are not a terrorist trying to infiltrate and take advantage of an opportunity? It takes YEARS for foreign immigrants to go through the federal process and background checks just to become citizens, and Hillary believes she has a convincing argument that she can make our nation more secure? She has no clear laid out plan for that, and would rather call Trump a racist for taking a more cautious approach and not accept immigrants or refugees from known hostile regions. To be quite honest, the words and promises of democrats believing they can make us safer, really doesn't line up with their actions we have seen thus far.
Clinton and Trump have very different approaches to immigration. Trump wants a wall and mass deportations. This will likely open up more low wage jobs and/or raise wages. Clinton wants amnesty for working family's with the reasoning of bringing these individuals out of the shadows and entering them into our society and communities as tax paying individuals. This will likely stimulate the economy by expanding our work force and increasing revenue. I personally think that Trumps wall is a huge waste of money and will be ineffective. I would like to see better visa tracking and border control efforts along with more efficient deportations of illegal criminals. But to mass deport the 17 million illegals in the country is completely unrealistic. Its not an obvious right/wrong answer to this, it is a good debate to have. But both sides should be represented accurately. Clinton/Kaine laid have added border security in their plan however the Right says they are for open borders. It is a plain lie.
As for the Refugees, Did you know we have a very extensive vetting process? If you are interested in the details refer to the link. Main point being "If there is doubt as to whether an individual causes a security risk then they will NOT be admitted." This process takes typically takes 1-2 years of vetting before refugees are let in. If you think more should be done to better the security then that is a good debate to have, but point to specifics. Recycling a talking point that "we don't know what we are doing" and that we are "letting terrorist into our country" without even knowing what our process is, well that is just plain ignorant. Trump has been playing off that ignorance.
Infographic: The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 66,972
- 17,023
Can you find a graphic that is any more bias?
Billy000
Democratic Socialist
- Nov 10, 2011
- 32,076
- 12,825
I'm not in denial that Pence did well. He was composed and confident through out. He didn't ramble like a moron like Trump does. The thing is though, he didn't make any attempt to defend Trump when Kaine attacked his record so many times. Pence doesn't give two shits about Trump. All he is focused on is making a good impression to voters for 2020.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
- Nov 19, 2010
- 5,077
- 749
I will say you are good at regurgitating the talking points. But lets dig a little deeper and add a little common sense... The Status Quo talking point. On the surface it may appear that way as we are in an election and Hillary needs to get Obama supporters rallied on her side. She is not going to challenge or make a focal point of anything that is anti Obama. However the past as shown many differences between the two. That takes us down a new rabbit hole so I'll stick to the issue at hand... Immigration and Refugees.Kaine was obviously out to discredit Trump and throw out some zingers. Both sides "rehearse" their talking points so don't pretend it is one sided... I don't agree with your assessment of Clintons plan though. Though Trump and Pence claim Hillary is for open boarders and no security with the Refugees that doesn't make it true. Obama has funding the boarder and had a record number of deportations, the flow of illegal immigrants from the Mexican board has been a steady decrease. Hillary has never said anything about open boarders, in fact she has supported boarder control, the main difference between the two is she wants to give illegals in the country a pathway to citizenship or amnesty while Trump wants to enforce the laws and deport. This can be argued both ways but lets at least be honest about the foundation of each side.Drive-By Media Spin: Jealous Trump Mad Because Pence Won, Pence Running for 2020,
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | October 5, 2016 | Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: MSNBC today floating a rumor. I don't know if MSNBC created the rumor or if they heard the rumor and are repeating it, but here's the rumor that PMSNBC was tossing around this morning. It is that Donald Trump is mad at Mike Pence for his debate performance because he didn't defend Trump nearly well enough, but he did good enough that it puts pressure on Trump to do better on Sunday night, and Trump doesn't like being outshined this way. The vice presidential candidate's not supposed to look better than the top of the ticket. Trump is supposedly ticked off about this.
Do you believe that? (interruption) Is that right, Politico? So I guess it's not a rumor, then. Politico has that story out there, with that theme in the story, that Trump is mad at Pence for his debate performance since it puts pressure on Trump to do better in the next debate Sunday night.
In fact, The Politico insiders, they have this group of establishment elitists that they convene now and then at Politico to assess and analyze these events, these comings and goings in our daily political lives. And The Politico insiders say that Mike Pence didn't just defeat Tim Kaine, he outshined Donald Trump. "A majority of the battleground-state insiders who comprise The POLITICO Caucus gave Pence the edge over Kaine," in the debate.
"But the Pence-vs.-Trump comparison was unanimous: Each and every one of the four dozen GOP insiders who responded to a post-debate survey Tuesday night said Pence delivered a better debate performance than the New York businessman at the top of the Republican ticket, after what was widely seen as a flop last week. ... 'Not even close,' said an Ohio Republican, 'Is there anyone outside of the Trump family who isn't wishing we could flip the ticket?'"
Again, this is one of the Politico insiders, one of 48 Republican insiders responding to the debate wishing that Pence was at the top of the ticket. Another Republican in this group from Nevada said, "Pence was the anti-Trump. He was prepared, smart, composed and he showed respectful competence and leadership." A Virginia Republican said Trump "was a disaster."
"A New Hampshire Republican suggested Pence 'pinch hit' for Trump in the final two debates with Hillary Clinton. A Colorado Republican said, 'If the Republican ticket were flipped, it would be game over.'"
So you see, Trump cannot win, it cannot be purported, it cannot be reported, it cannot be said that Trump won, because even when his vice president does well, Trump loses. And this is how the mainstream media constructs these things. So the Trump campaign had, by every estimate last night, a resounding victory. And what it means is that Trump lost in the Drive-By Media. This is the kind of crap that is beneath us. It's all together driven by fear. These people on the left simply cannot run the risk of the ideas we believe in gaining prominence or even being heard.
Now, I had bunch of people in the email -- I check it during the break -- ask me if I thought the debate would mean anything to the presidential election. I said yesterday to a caller that vice presidential debates usually don't matter a hill of beans. Can I give you an example? Let's go back to 1988. George H. W. Bush running for the presidency, his first term, he had chosen Dan Quayle to be his veep. He was up against Michael Dukakis, and "Lord" Bentsen of Texas was the vice presidential nominee. And during the vice presidential debate, Quayle versus "Lord" Bentsen, the subject of Quayle's lack of experience came up. He'd only been in the Senate not long.
So Quayle drew an analogy. "Well, John F. Kennedy wasn't in the Senate very long when he was elected president." "Lord" Bentsen paused and said, "Senator, I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine. And, Senator, you are no John Kennedy." And the roof blew off the place, and it was thought to be one of the best killer lines ever delivered in a political debate in the history of the universe. And it didn't matter a whit. George H. W. Bush beat Dukakis by eight points. The vice presidential debate didn't matter.
Now, that was just one aspect. Quayle didn't do poorly in the debate at all, but that one instance you can imagine the post-debate commentary was embarrassing. They started talking about how George Bush had chosen the wrong guy. Quayle was all energetic and flapping his arms out there on the campaign stump, and they were all beating up on George W. Bush for choosing -- they accused Bush of choosing a young guy to get women. Remember that? Quayle was chosen because he was supposedly gonna be a chick magnet. Well, anyway, the point is the vice presidential debate, Quayle reputedly got nailed by the line from "Lord" Bentsen, and George H. W. Bush still won.
So the vice presidential debate traditionally doesn't matter. But this is a different year with different dynamics and all different ingredients. I still maintain that you can't judge things happening in this political campaign the way you would judge them if both candidates were from the inside or from the establishment. There clearly is an outsider here, and, boy, are they threatened by that.
All these Democrats who wanted Trump to be donating to 'em. All these Democrats that have been sucking up to Trump for golf club memberships over the years. All of these people that desperately wanted to be invited to Trump parties when he throws them at Mar-a-Lago and everywhere. Now all of a sudden these Democrats are talking about Donald Trump as though he is the reprobate of all humanity.
I'm old enough now that I can see this stuff repeating. If you're new to this, I'm sure it's all exciting, I'm sure it's got you amped up, I'm sure you're jazzed, "Wow, this is cool, man, I love getting all chalked up like this." When you start seeing this stuff repeat and you start seeing it disintegrate and get worse and deviancy seeming to rise and become a major factor in these events, it has an effect, at least it has an effect on me. It just makes me sick of it. I'm tired of it. I'm worn out by these tactics. It's not just that it's unfair or anything like that, that would be childish to say that. It's just beneath us. We deserve better than this.
You could pick a hundred people out of the phone book and you'd get a better debate than we had last night. Just pick a hundred names and choose two of them. No, I'm not slighting Pence. Okay, do this. Pick a hundred names and choose two. Choose a moderator from the phone book and choose the Democrat candidate from the phone book and I guarantee you we'll have a better debate than what we had last night. A debate that would better serve us and actually have some meaning, play some role in determining the outcome. The way this is gonna determine, if it determines anything, is that the Democrat was such a jerk that maybe, just maybe, people will start putting two and two together and realizing that's who they all are.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To the audio sound bites we go. Here we have a montage of Drive-By Media types, saying that Pence failed to defend Trump and that there was a reason that Pence didn't defend Trump. See if you can pick it out of here.
CHUCK TODD: Tim Kaine was running for Vice President in 2016; Mike Pence was running for president in 2020.
ANDREA MITCHELL: (background noise) Mike Pence defended his turf for 2020.
JOHN BERMAN: Mike Pence just won the first presidential debate for 2020.
WOMAN: (giggling)
PAUL BEGALA: Mike Pence, he's running in 2020! He threw Trump under the bus!
MARK PRESTON: But Mike Pence certainly did himself well if he (chuckles) decides to run in 2020.
EZRA KLEIN: Mike Pence came in and made Mike Pence look good for 2020.
JACKIE KUCINICH: I think Mike Pence may have been looking a little bit at 2020.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Made himself probably the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2020.
RUSH: Lockstep. Every damned one of them, lockstep, with the same damn take. And I'm just gonna tell you, throughout that whole debate last night, that didn't occur to me once, not one time, because I know that's not what Pence was doing. Pence wants to win now. Pence wants to correct the lies and character assassinations that are taking place now. 2020? These people can't stop thinking about this in their formulaic way, that even in the middle of this campaign what some people are really positioning for is 2020, and there probably are people doing that.
The same usual insiders that play all of this as a game when all of us treat this is as real as it gets. To them, it's a game. Pence setting himself up for the 2020 election. It is humanly impossible, it defies any notion of common sense and intelligence that after a debate last night you could have a front-runner for 2020! It's beyond absurd. But look, somebody sent the memo out, or maybe they didn't need a memo. Maybe they think in lockstep without being told. Just mind-boggling. Frank Luntz had a focus group over on CBS, special coverage, vice presidential debate. Luntz said to his focus group, "Give me a word or a phrase to describe Mike Pence this evening."
WOMAN: Calm.
WOMAN: Classy.
MAN: Polished.
WOMAN: Effective.
MAN: Knockout.
WOMAN: Compelling.
MAN: Composed.
WOMAN: Eloquent.
RUSH: And then Luntz were, "You were all critical of Senator Kaine. So give me your reactions to Senator Kaine."
WOMAN: Kaine cherry-picked things that made Trump sound like a crazy person, and Kaine came off looking like a crazy person.
MAN: (chuckles) Kaine came off as a jerk. I actually liked that guy, and I was really disappointed in him this time. He just kept going back to trying to needle little points. A total jerk. Condescending. I think he reinforced the worst of Hillary.
VOICE: Mmm-hmm.
VOICE: Yes!
MAN: I think he really did her a disservice.
RUSH: Okay. So that's encouraging. These are average American voters, and they saw it the way we did, correct? (interrupting) You saw it that way, pretty much. I mean, it was Jerk City last night. (interrupting) Look, that's my point. It was beyond irritating. It was beneath us. It was insulting to us, particularly if that was a strategy. I don't know if Kaine... See, I don't know the guy. All I know is what people inside the establishment say about him is what they say about everybody. "He's a great guy! He's got a great family!"
They all talk about each other that way. I don't know the guy. I've always been suspicious of the guy. The guy's always looked like... I was not surprised with this last night. I just think it's beneath us. If that was a strategy to go out there and be as jerky and abrasive as you can and lose the debate on purpose to make sure you get all that negative stuff in on Trump? Well, then they pulled that off, too. Now, here's Luntz. After talking to his focus group participants, Luntz had to wrap it up for anybody.
LUNTZ: Are any of you now more likely to vote for Donald Trump because of what you heard from Mike Pence? Raise your hands. Two, four, six, eight, 10. So half of you. Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant. These are undecided or uncommitted voters in Ohio. They're the ones that really matter, and tonight was a very good night for the Trump-Pence ticket.
RUSH: Why? Nobody's gonna change their vote. Didn't I hear him say that? "Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant." Ohio doesn't count anyway. The New York Times just told us it's no longer a bellwether. Hillary's pulled out of there. The New York Times said it's not a factor. Luntz should close up shop there. Ohio doesn't matter anymore, the people of Ohio. You know why? Because Ohio is "too white." That's right, my friends. Too many white middle-class people live in Ohio.
There aren't enough Black Lives Matter people there.
There aren't enough illegal immigrants.
There aren't enough ex-cons that need the permission to vote.
There's not a good left-wing cross section of America.
There are too many decent, hardworking, middle-class people in Ohio to appeal to the Democrat Party, and so the New York Times told us it's no longer a bellwether. Back in July, the New York Times did a story on how Ohio was crucial when Hillary was winning there. But now she's not, and so it's not important. Here's John King. And this, by the way, loops back to the rumor that PMSNBC was floating and that Snerdley says The Politico is reporting. This is last night -- Debate Night in America on CNN -- with John King, and he's discussing the reaction, the aftermath of the debate last night.
KING: I wanna give you one insight from somebody inside Trump world who is in the inner circle in Trump world who said that he does not think this is going to go down terribly well with Donald Trump. Even though the Trump campaign is rushing out statements with all conservatives across the country praising Mike Pence, they say Donald Trump is watching the reviews and he's hearing, "Mike Pence won. But he didn't defend Donald Trump and that Hillary Clinton and Mike Pence are better debaters than Donald Trump." Some people think that might not sit well with the boss.
RUSH: There you go. So that's the second place that it's been promulgated out there. So, see, the take-away is even when the Trump team wins, Trump loses. "Pence had a great debate. Pence outclassed the jerk! Pence outclassed the moderator. Pence was calm, he was cool, he was collected, he was fabulous, he did a great job. Trump loses! Trump lost the debate last night because Pence so easily outclassed him, and Trump is now mad that he was made to look bad and he's mad that he's got added pressure now to be as good as Pence." That's the story they're putting out, which equals "Trump lost". And then, at the end of the all of that, it didn't matter, because none of the people in the Luntz focus group say their vote was changed anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. On this by the way, Drive-Bys say that Pence was actually positioning himself for 2020. You know what? There's good chance that that talking point went right from the Clinton campaign to the Drive-By Media. Somebody had to write it. I mean, the idea they're gonna think of this independently, lockstep like this? Somebody is behind this. And if you ask me, folks, the Clinton campaign is behind this.
They want to create the impression that Pence knows Trump's gonna lose. "Pence knows that Hillary's gonna win in 2016; it's all about 2020 for Pence. That's what they're trying to establish. It's all about 2020 because Pence obviously can see, read the tea leaves. It's over! Hillary's the big winner this year. There's no chance for him. So 2020." That's what's going on with that. Mark my words.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Ann in Williamsport, Maryland. Great that you got through today. Hi. How are you?
CALLER: Hi. I'm good. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: Yes, ma'am.
CALLER: I just appreciate all you do. I love listening to you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: But the reason I called was I really loved the way last night Pence looked into the camera and spoke to the American people. Even if they tried getting him off course, he actually acknowledged the America out in TV land, I should say. But I just really appreciated that.
RUSH: That's interesting.
CALLER: And I hope Trump does the same thing.
RUSH: Well, you know what? Your observation, I think, is shared by a lot of people. He kept his cool; he was -- importantly, he was not flustered off of the points that he wanted to make. They were trying to just rat-tat-tat endless interruptions and assaults, trying to get him off his line of thinking, forget his train of thought and the points that he wanted to make, and they didn't succeed.
Kaine ended up looking like el jerko. And, of course, now we've got the cover theory. "Well, Rush, I mean, they're so far ahead. Kaine actually went in this to lose it." That was the first theory I heard last night from Drive-By analysts. "Oh, yeah, he wanted to lose this. They've got a cushion. They can lose this. It was important to have the stuff about Trump said, and Kaine said it. And he said it and said it. He repeated himself five or six times on each one of those things, and he was willing to run the risk of losing the debate on style points or whatever just to make sure that those talking points --"
And then they concluded, "Well, you know, Pence really did well. Pence didn't rise to the bait. He kept his cool and all that, and in the process Donald Trump lost, 'cause Pence did so good he made Trump look bad." Then they told us that Trump was mad that Pence did so well because Pence doing well puts more pressure on Trump to do well as though Trump's going into the debate not really giving it his all, but now he's mad because Pence did so well that Trump really has to try now.
They actually try to make us believe this pap in the immediate debate aftermath last night where we were treated to all the analysis. Oh, and then the piece de resistance, that Pence knows that Hillary's got this locked down. It's over. Pence was simply positioning himself for his own 2020 presidential run. These people, I don't think they realize how obvious and transparent they are now to people.
END TRANSCRIPT
I don't really care all that much what Rush says. What I did see was a rehersed Tim Kainr trying to throw negatives "talking points" on Trump that had nothing to do with the question being asked, as if his Teleprompter suddenly malfunctioned.
What is rather evident is Hillary Clinton wants illegals to be granted the same opportunity as amnesty, without ever solving the flow of immigration. So nothing is expected to change under her administration.
Kaine also stresses there is no real concern for terrorism from Refugees, didn't agree with the Trump ticket to suspend from regions that are home to terrorist activity (I believe he called that concern racist), yet didn't appear to reveal to the moderator a well thought out plan at all to protect American citizens. Perhaps that became the reason Kaine felt the need to change topic, and see just how many short self interpreted segments he could demonize Trump with in 15 seconds?
As for the refugees I thought Kaine gave a pretty good answer... If somebody can not be vetted then don't let them in. For the ones that can be vetted and shown as non threatening, like the hundred of thousands of women, children and elderly that are fighting for their lives each day... Then yes, we can do our part to help.
Hillary's position is one of the status quo, which enables more illegals to enter this country. We have seen this approach back in the 80s, with no real solutions. In fact nothing in Kaines discussion reveals a real concern to really address the flow of illegals coming into this country. It further demonstrates they don't care to bring in any new ideas to address the issue, even with Obama's refusal to address sanctuary cities, as it shows an undermining of Federal law rather than a respect for it. Obama would also like to have illegals given the opportunity to vote, that in itself cuts into your belief behind border enforcement.
On the issue of refugees the democrats don't have a clear identified vetting process they want to address, merely throwing the term around and push the discussion towards emotional simpathy. How do you look at a refugee from a known hostile terrorist location and say that they are not a terrorist trying to infiltrate and take advantage of an opportunity? It takes YEARS for foreign immigrants to go through the federal process and background checks just to become citizens, and Hillary believes she has a convincing argument that she can make our nation more secure? She has no clear laid out plan for that, and would rather call Trump a racist for taking a more cautious approach and not accept immigrants or refugees from known hostile regions. To be quite honest, the words and promises of democrats believing they can make us safer, really doesn't line up with their actions we have seen thus far.
Clinton and Trump have very different approaches to immigration. Trump wants a wall and mass deportations. This will likely open up more low wage jobs and/or raise wages. Clinton wants amnesty for working family's with the reasoning of bringing these individuals out of the shadows and entering them into our society and communities as tax paying individuals. This will likely stimulate the economy by expanding our work force and increasing revenue. I personally think that Trumps wall is a huge waste of money and will be ineffective. I would like to see better visa tracking and border control efforts along with more efficient deportations of illegal criminals. But to mass deport the 17 million illegals in the country is completely unrealistic. Its not an obvious right/wrong answer to this, it is a good debate to have. But both sides should be represented accurately. Clinton/Kaine laid have added border security in their plan however the Right says they are for open borders. It is a plain lie.
As for the Refugees, Did you know we have a very extensive vetting process? If you are interested in the details refer to the link. Main point being "If there is doubt as to whether an individual causes a security risk then they will NOT be admitted." This process takes typically takes 1-2 years of vetting before refugees are let in. If you think more should be done to better the security then that is a good debate to have, but point to specifics. Recycling a talking point that "we don't know what we are doing" and that we are "letting terrorist into our country" without even knowing what our process is, well that is just plain ignorant. Trump has been playing off that ignorance.
Infographic: The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States
I have found Hillary's position on the border to be no different then President Reagan, we will promise look into it our borders after we make those in this country citizens. We have had enforcement, and deportations since amnesty in the 80s and we are right back to where we were then. You can't deny that. We also have efforts like sanctuary cities, as well as Obama wanting to give voting opportunities to illegals, that clearly undermine the enforcement of our federal immigration law. It also does absolutely nothing to discourage illegals from coming here, and Hillary Clinton has introduced no clear plan that addresses that. Americans are not going to want a smoke repeat of what we have in the 80s, while looking the other way with repeat to the real problem of illegals still entering this country without real strict reinforment of the law. It's not discrimination, it's about discouragement and respectful enforcement of our current legislation passed into law, and that's one thing Hillary's issue on immigration does not have.
With respect to refugees, there is no way you can accurately tell the difference between a refugee needing help and a sympathizer of Islamic terrorism. Ttere is no record of the United States accepting known Japanese and German civilians from either nation in the middle of Works War II, who we were at war with during a time of war. We are fighting an ideology, not a clear nation with very specific ethic traits you can identify as a civilian from within the boundaries of a nation we are at war with. We will be accepting refugees from KNOWN location that has terorist camps and high terrorist activity, without an accurate way of determining where their sympathies lie (as a threat to our nation or someone in need of aid). We have military vets as well as our own homeless to consider, before I would seek to add more that we don't have he capacity to properly care for AND (more importantly) carries the potential of putting our nation at risk. Those involved in the Paris attack were the very ones who took advantage of the refugee situation. I'd choose our national security, over refugees from a know active terror region.
Democracy's don't like or believe we should be involved with "nation building", but we are willing to find a way to bring the nation's problems into ours.
Last edited:
Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 66,972
- 17,023
I appreciate your reply and agree with some of your points about the immigration issue. Hillary is weak on border security but she has a more realistic and humane approach to dealing with the current illegals that live in this country. Trump has some tough talk which is a good thing but I don't think his plan for the wall and the mass deportations is at all realistic, fiscally responsible, or operationally possible.I will say you are good at regurgitating the talking points. But lets dig a little deeper and add a little common sense... The Status Quo talking point. On the surface it may appear that way as we are in an election and Hillary needs to get Obama supporters rallied on her side. She is not going to challenge or make a focal point of anything that is anti Obama. However the past as shown many differences between the two. That takes us down a new rabbit hole so I'll stick to the issue at hand... Immigration and Refugees.Kaine was obviously out to discredit Trump and throw out some zingers. Both sides "rehearse" their talking points so don't pretend it is one sided... I don't agree with your assessment of Clintons plan though. Though Trump and Pence claim Hillary is for open boarders and no security with the Refugees that doesn't make it true. Obama has funding the boarder and had a record number of deportations, the flow of illegal immigrants from the Mexican board has been a steady decrease. Hillary has never said anything about open boarders, in fact she has supported boarder control, the main difference between the two is she wants to give illegals in the country a pathway to citizenship or amnesty while Trump wants to enforce the laws and deport. This can be argued both ways but lets at least be honest about the foundation of each side.Drive-By Media Spin: Jealous Trump Mad Because Pence Won, Pence Running for 2020,
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | October 5, 2016 | Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: MSNBC today floating a rumor. I don't know if MSNBC created the rumor or if they heard the rumor and are repeating it, but here's the rumor that PMSNBC was tossing around this morning. It is that Donald Trump is mad at Mike Pence for his debate performance because he didn't defend Trump nearly well enough, but he did good enough that it puts pressure on Trump to do better on Sunday night, and Trump doesn't like being outshined this way. The vice presidential candidate's not supposed to look better than the top of the ticket. Trump is supposedly ticked off about this.
Do you believe that? (interruption) Is that right, Politico? So I guess it's not a rumor, then. Politico has that story out there, with that theme in the story, that Trump is mad at Pence for his debate performance since it puts pressure on Trump to do better in the next debate Sunday night.
In fact, The Politico insiders, they have this group of establishment elitists that they convene now and then at Politico to assess and analyze these events, these comings and goings in our daily political lives. And The Politico insiders say that Mike Pence didn't just defeat Tim Kaine, he outshined Donald Trump. "A majority of the battleground-state insiders who comprise The POLITICO Caucus gave Pence the edge over Kaine," in the debate.
"But the Pence-vs.-Trump comparison was unanimous: Each and every one of the four dozen GOP insiders who responded to a post-debate survey Tuesday night said Pence delivered a better debate performance than the New York businessman at the top of the Republican ticket, after what was widely seen as a flop last week. ... 'Not even close,' said an Ohio Republican, 'Is there anyone outside of the Trump family who isn't wishing we could flip the ticket?'"
Again, this is one of the Politico insiders, one of 48 Republican insiders responding to the debate wishing that Pence was at the top of the ticket. Another Republican in this group from Nevada said, "Pence was the anti-Trump. He was prepared, smart, composed and he showed respectful competence and leadership." A Virginia Republican said Trump "was a disaster."
"A New Hampshire Republican suggested Pence 'pinch hit' for Trump in the final two debates with Hillary Clinton. A Colorado Republican said, 'If the Republican ticket were flipped, it would be game over.'"
So you see, Trump cannot win, it cannot be purported, it cannot be reported, it cannot be said that Trump won, because even when his vice president does well, Trump loses. And this is how the mainstream media constructs these things. So the Trump campaign had, by every estimate last night, a resounding victory. And what it means is that Trump lost in the Drive-By Media. This is the kind of crap that is beneath us. It's all together driven by fear. These people on the left simply cannot run the risk of the ideas we believe in gaining prominence or even being heard.
Now, I had bunch of people in the email -- I check it during the break -- ask me if I thought the debate would mean anything to the presidential election. I said yesterday to a caller that vice presidential debates usually don't matter a hill of beans. Can I give you an example? Let's go back to 1988. George H. W. Bush running for the presidency, his first term, he had chosen Dan Quayle to be his veep. He was up against Michael Dukakis, and "Lord" Bentsen of Texas was the vice presidential nominee. And during the vice presidential debate, Quayle versus "Lord" Bentsen, the subject of Quayle's lack of experience came up. He'd only been in the Senate not long.
So Quayle drew an analogy. "Well, John F. Kennedy wasn't in the Senate very long when he was elected president." "Lord" Bentsen paused and said, "Senator, I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine. And, Senator, you are no John Kennedy." And the roof blew off the place, and it was thought to be one of the best killer lines ever delivered in a political debate in the history of the universe. And it didn't matter a whit. George H. W. Bush beat Dukakis by eight points. The vice presidential debate didn't matter.
Now, that was just one aspect. Quayle didn't do poorly in the debate at all, but that one instance you can imagine the post-debate commentary was embarrassing. They started talking about how George Bush had chosen the wrong guy. Quayle was all energetic and flapping his arms out there on the campaign stump, and they were all beating up on George W. Bush for choosing -- they accused Bush of choosing a young guy to get women. Remember that? Quayle was chosen because he was supposedly gonna be a chick magnet. Well, anyway, the point is the vice presidential debate, Quayle reputedly got nailed by the line from "Lord" Bentsen, and George H. W. Bush still won.
So the vice presidential debate traditionally doesn't matter. But this is a different year with different dynamics and all different ingredients. I still maintain that you can't judge things happening in this political campaign the way you would judge them if both candidates were from the inside or from the establishment. There clearly is an outsider here, and, boy, are they threatened by that.
All these Democrats who wanted Trump to be donating to 'em. All these Democrats that have been sucking up to Trump for golf club memberships over the years. All of these people that desperately wanted to be invited to Trump parties when he throws them at Mar-a-Lago and everywhere. Now all of a sudden these Democrats are talking about Donald Trump as though he is the reprobate of all humanity.
I'm old enough now that I can see this stuff repeating. If you're new to this, I'm sure it's all exciting, I'm sure it's got you amped up, I'm sure you're jazzed, "Wow, this is cool, man, I love getting all chalked up like this." When you start seeing this stuff repeat and you start seeing it disintegrate and get worse and deviancy seeming to rise and become a major factor in these events, it has an effect, at least it has an effect on me. It just makes me sick of it. I'm tired of it. I'm worn out by these tactics. It's not just that it's unfair or anything like that, that would be childish to say that. It's just beneath us. We deserve better than this.
You could pick a hundred people out of the phone book and you'd get a better debate than we had last night. Just pick a hundred names and choose two of them. No, I'm not slighting Pence. Okay, do this. Pick a hundred names and choose two. Choose a moderator from the phone book and choose the Democrat candidate from the phone book and I guarantee you we'll have a better debate than what we had last night. A debate that would better serve us and actually have some meaning, play some role in determining the outcome. The way this is gonna determine, if it determines anything, is that the Democrat was such a jerk that maybe, just maybe, people will start putting two and two together and realizing that's who they all are.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To the audio sound bites we go. Here we have a montage of Drive-By Media types, saying that Pence failed to defend Trump and that there was a reason that Pence didn't defend Trump. See if you can pick it out of here.
CHUCK TODD: Tim Kaine was running for Vice President in 2016; Mike Pence was running for president in 2020.
ANDREA MITCHELL: (background noise) Mike Pence defended his turf for 2020.
JOHN BERMAN: Mike Pence just won the first presidential debate for 2020.
WOMAN: (giggling)
PAUL BEGALA: Mike Pence, he's running in 2020! He threw Trump under the bus!
MARK PRESTON: But Mike Pence certainly did himself well if he (chuckles) decides to run in 2020.
EZRA KLEIN: Mike Pence came in and made Mike Pence look good for 2020.
JACKIE KUCINICH: I think Mike Pence may have been looking a little bit at 2020.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Made himself probably the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2020.
RUSH: Lockstep. Every damned one of them, lockstep, with the same damn take. And I'm just gonna tell you, throughout that whole debate last night, that didn't occur to me once, not one time, because I know that's not what Pence was doing. Pence wants to win now. Pence wants to correct the lies and character assassinations that are taking place now. 2020? These people can't stop thinking about this in their formulaic way, that even in the middle of this campaign what some people are really positioning for is 2020, and there probably are people doing that.
The same usual insiders that play all of this as a game when all of us treat this is as real as it gets. To them, it's a game. Pence setting himself up for the 2020 election. It is humanly impossible, it defies any notion of common sense and intelligence that after a debate last night you could have a front-runner for 2020! It's beyond absurd. But look, somebody sent the memo out, or maybe they didn't need a memo. Maybe they think in lockstep without being told. Just mind-boggling. Frank Luntz had a focus group over on CBS, special coverage, vice presidential debate. Luntz said to his focus group, "Give me a word or a phrase to describe Mike Pence this evening."
WOMAN: Calm.
WOMAN: Classy.
MAN: Polished.
WOMAN: Effective.
MAN: Knockout.
WOMAN: Compelling.
MAN: Composed.
WOMAN: Eloquent.
RUSH: And then Luntz were, "You were all critical of Senator Kaine. So give me your reactions to Senator Kaine."
WOMAN: Kaine cherry-picked things that made Trump sound like a crazy person, and Kaine came off looking like a crazy person.
MAN: (chuckles) Kaine came off as a jerk. I actually liked that guy, and I was really disappointed in him this time. He just kept going back to trying to needle little points. A total jerk. Condescending. I think he reinforced the worst of Hillary.
VOICE: Mmm-hmm.
VOICE: Yes!
MAN: I think he really did her a disservice.
RUSH: Okay. So that's encouraging. These are average American voters, and they saw it the way we did, correct? (interrupting) You saw it that way, pretty much. I mean, it was Jerk City last night. (interrupting) Look, that's my point. It was beyond irritating. It was beneath us. It was insulting to us, particularly if that was a strategy. I don't know if Kaine... See, I don't know the guy. All I know is what people inside the establishment say about him is what they say about everybody. "He's a great guy! He's got a great family!"
They all talk about each other that way. I don't know the guy. I've always been suspicious of the guy. The guy's always looked like... I was not surprised with this last night. I just think it's beneath us. If that was a strategy to go out there and be as jerky and abrasive as you can and lose the debate on purpose to make sure you get all that negative stuff in on Trump? Well, then they pulled that off, too. Now, here's Luntz. After talking to his focus group participants, Luntz had to wrap it up for anybody.
LUNTZ: Are any of you now more likely to vote for Donald Trump because of what you heard from Mike Pence? Raise your hands. Two, four, six, eight, 10. So half of you. Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant. These are undecided or uncommitted voters in Ohio. They're the ones that really matter, and tonight was a very good night for the Trump-Pence ticket.
RUSH: Why? Nobody's gonna change their vote. Didn't I hear him say that? "Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant." Ohio doesn't count anyway. The New York Times just told us it's no longer a bellwether. Hillary's pulled out of there. The New York Times said it's not a factor. Luntz should close up shop there. Ohio doesn't matter anymore, the people of Ohio. You know why? Because Ohio is "too white." That's right, my friends. Too many white middle-class people live in Ohio.
There aren't enough Black Lives Matter people there.
There aren't enough illegal immigrants.
There aren't enough ex-cons that need the permission to vote.
There's not a good left-wing cross section of America.
There are too many decent, hardworking, middle-class people in Ohio to appeal to the Democrat Party, and so the New York Times told us it's no longer a bellwether. Back in July, the New York Times did a story on how Ohio was crucial when Hillary was winning there. But now she's not, and so it's not important. Here's John King. And this, by the way, loops back to the rumor that PMSNBC was floating and that Snerdley says The Politico is reporting. This is last night -- Debate Night in America on CNN -- with John King, and he's discussing the reaction, the aftermath of the debate last night.
KING: I wanna give you one insight from somebody inside Trump world who is in the inner circle in Trump world who said that he does not think this is going to go down terribly well with Donald Trump. Even though the Trump campaign is rushing out statements with all conservatives across the country praising Mike Pence, they say Donald Trump is watching the reviews and he's hearing, "Mike Pence won. But he didn't defend Donald Trump and that Hillary Clinton and Mike Pence are better debaters than Donald Trump." Some people think that might not sit well with the boss.
RUSH: There you go. So that's the second place that it's been promulgated out there. So, see, the take-away is even when the Trump team wins, Trump loses. "Pence had a great debate. Pence outclassed the jerk! Pence outclassed the moderator. Pence was calm, he was cool, he was collected, he was fabulous, he did a great job. Trump loses! Trump lost the debate last night because Pence so easily outclassed him, and Trump is now mad that he was made to look bad and he's mad that he's got added pressure now to be as good as Pence." That's the story they're putting out, which equals "Trump lost". And then, at the end of the all of that, it didn't matter, because none of the people in the Luntz focus group say their vote was changed anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. On this by the way, Drive-Bys say that Pence was actually positioning himself for 2020. You know what? There's good chance that that talking point went right from the Clinton campaign to the Drive-By Media. Somebody had to write it. I mean, the idea they're gonna think of this independently, lockstep like this? Somebody is behind this. And if you ask me, folks, the Clinton campaign is behind this.
They want to create the impression that Pence knows Trump's gonna lose. "Pence knows that Hillary's gonna win in 2016; it's all about 2020 for Pence. That's what they're trying to establish. It's all about 2020 because Pence obviously can see, read the tea leaves. It's over! Hillary's the big winner this year. There's no chance for him. So 2020." That's what's going on with that. Mark my words.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Ann in Williamsport, Maryland. Great that you got through today. Hi. How are you?
CALLER: Hi. I'm good. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: Yes, ma'am.
CALLER: I just appreciate all you do. I love listening to you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: But the reason I called was I really loved the way last night Pence looked into the camera and spoke to the American people. Even if they tried getting him off course, he actually acknowledged the America out in TV land, I should say. But I just really appreciated that.
RUSH: That's interesting.
CALLER: And I hope Trump does the same thing.
RUSH: Well, you know what? Your observation, I think, is shared by a lot of people. He kept his cool; he was -- importantly, he was not flustered off of the points that he wanted to make. They were trying to just rat-tat-tat endless interruptions and assaults, trying to get him off his line of thinking, forget his train of thought and the points that he wanted to make, and they didn't succeed.
Kaine ended up looking like el jerko. And, of course, now we've got the cover theory. "Well, Rush, I mean, they're so far ahead. Kaine actually went in this to lose it." That was the first theory I heard last night from Drive-By analysts. "Oh, yeah, he wanted to lose this. They've got a cushion. They can lose this. It was important to have the stuff about Trump said, and Kaine said it. And he said it and said it. He repeated himself five or six times on each one of those things, and he was willing to run the risk of losing the debate on style points or whatever just to make sure that those talking points --"
And then they concluded, "Well, you know, Pence really did well. Pence didn't rise to the bait. He kept his cool and all that, and in the process Donald Trump lost, 'cause Pence did so good he made Trump look bad." Then they told us that Trump was mad that Pence did so well because Pence doing well puts more pressure on Trump to do well as though Trump's going into the debate not really giving it his all, but now he's mad because Pence did so well that Trump really has to try now.
They actually try to make us believe this pap in the immediate debate aftermath last night where we were treated to all the analysis. Oh, and then the piece de resistance, that Pence knows that Hillary's got this locked down. It's over. Pence was simply positioning himself for his own 2020 presidential run. These people, I don't think they realize how obvious and transparent they are now to people.
END TRANSCRIPT
I don't really care all that much what Rush says. What I did see was a rehersed Tim Kainr trying to throw negatives "talking points" on Trump that had nothing to do with the question being asked, as if his Teleprompter suddenly malfunctioned.
What is rather evident is Hillary Clinton wants illegals to be granted the same opportunity as amnesty, without ever solving the flow of immigration. So nothing is expected to change under her administration.
Kaine also stresses there is no real concern for terrorism from Refugees, didn't agree with the Trump ticket to suspend from regions that are home to terrorist activity (I believe he called that concern racist), yet didn't appear to reveal to the moderator a well thought out plan at all to protect American citizens. Perhaps that became the reason Kaine felt the need to change topic, and see just how many short self interpreted segments he could demonize Trump with in 15 seconds?
As for the refugees I thought Kaine gave a pretty good answer... If somebody can not be vetted then don't let them in. For the ones that can be vetted and shown as non threatening, like the hundred of thousands of women, children and elderly that are fighting for their lives each day... Then yes, we can do our part to help.
Hillary's position is one of the status quo, which enables more illegals to enter this country. We have seen this approach back in the 80s, with no real solutions. In fact nothing in Kaines discussion reveals a real concern to really address the flow of illegals coming into this country. It further demonstrates they don't care to bring in any new ideas to address the issue, even with Obama's refusal to address sanctuary cities, as it shows an undermining of Federal law rather than a respect for it. Obama would also like to have illegals given the opportunity to vote, that in itself cuts into your belief behind border enforcement.
On the issue of refugees the democrats don't have a clear identified vetting process they want to address, merely throwing the term around and push the discussion towards emotional simpathy. How do you look at a refugee from a known hostile terrorist location and say that they are not a terrorist trying to infiltrate and take advantage of an opportunity? It takes YEARS for foreign immigrants to go through the federal process and background checks just to become citizens, and Hillary believes she has a convincing argument that she can make our nation more secure? She has no clear laid out plan for that, and would rather call Trump a racist for taking a more cautious approach and not accept immigrants or refugees from known hostile regions. To be quite honest, the words and promises of democrats believing they can make us safer, really doesn't line up with their actions we have seen thus far.
Clinton and Trump have very different approaches to immigration. Trump wants a wall and mass deportations. This will likely open up more low wage jobs and/or raise wages. Clinton wants amnesty for working family's with the reasoning of bringing these individuals out of the shadows and entering them into our society and communities as tax paying individuals. This will likely stimulate the economy by expanding our work force and increasing revenue. I personally think that Trumps wall is a huge waste of money and will be ineffective. I would like to see better visa tracking and border control efforts along with more efficient deportations of illegal criminals. But to mass deport the 17 million illegals in the country is completely unrealistic. Its not an obvious right/wrong answer to this, it is a good debate to have. But both sides should be represented accurately. Clinton/Kaine laid have added border security in their plan however the Right says they are for open borders. It is a plain lie.
As for the Refugees, Did you know we have a very extensive vetting process? If you are interested in the details refer to the link. Main point being "If there is doubt as to whether an individual causes a security risk then they will NOT be admitted." This process takes typically takes 1-2 years of vetting before refugees are let in. If you think more should be done to better the security then that is a good debate to have, but point to specifics. Recycling a talking point that "we don't know what we are doing" and that we are "letting terrorist into our country" without even knowing what our process is, well that is just plain ignorant. Trump has been playing off that ignorance.
Infographic: The Screening Process for Refugee Entry into the United States
I have found Hillary's position on the border to be no different then President Reagan, we will promise look into it our borders after we make those in this country citizens. We have had enforcement, and deportations since amnesty in the 80s and we are right back to where we were then. You can't deny that. We also have efforts like sanctuary cities, as well as Obama wanting to give voting opportunities to illegals, that clearly undermine the enforcement of our federal immigration law. It also does absolutely nothing to discourage illegals from coming here, and Hillary Clinton has introduced no clear plan that addresses that. Americans are not going to want a smoke repeat of what we have in the 80s, while looking the other way with repeat to the real problem of illegals still entering this country without real strict reinforment of the law. It's not discrimination, it's about discouragement and respectful enforcement of our current legislation passed into law, and that's one thing Hillary's issue on immigration does not have.
With respect to refugees, there is no way you can accurately tell the difference between a refugee needing help and a sympathizer of Islamic terrorism. Ttere is no record of the United States accepting known Japanese and German civilians from either nation in the middle of Works War II, who we were at war with during a time of war. We are fighting an ideology, not a clear nation with very specific ethic traits you can identify as a civilian from within the boundaries of a nation we are at war with. We will be accepting refugees from KNOWN location that has terorist camps and high terrorist activity, without an accurate way of determining where their sympathies lie (as a threat to our nation or someone in need of aid). We have military vets as well as our own homeless to consider, before I would seek to add more that we don't have he capacity to properly care for AND (more importantly) carries the potential of putting our nation at risk. Those involved in the Paris attack were the very ones who took advantage of the refugee situation. I'd choose our national security, over refugees from a know active terror region.
Democracy's don't like or believe we should be involved with "nation building", but we are willing to find a way to bring the nation's problems into ours.
I just don't agree with what you say about the Refugee's. We are not at war with an ideology, we are at war with insane terrorists. They are not devote Muslims nor do they follow the teachings of Islam. They use islam as a propagandist talking point. The Refugees that we are trying to help are being murdered by the 100's of thousands. They have no home, no opportunity, no country. We are the most powerful nation in the world. We set the bar and we set the example for other countries in the world. What kind of message does it send if we step out of the refugee program? Not the kind of message that represents my thinking nor the thinking of what I see the majority of Americans identifying with.
To be honest I was really hoping for a good conservative candidate to vote for in this election, I love the idea of a smart business man running our country. I think our country really needs it... But Trump is neither of those. He is a phony spoiled billionaire bully. He was quite amusing when he first came out but his true colors have been shown and the more I see the more disgusted I get.
This is probably the worst election in history.
the_human_being
Gold Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 15,277
- 2,741
Why should I? That one is truthful.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
- Nov 19, 2010
- 5,077
- 749
I appreciate your views in your response. I believe a lot of Americans are not crazy about the choices for the presidential election this year. On the republican side, I believe it's on the issues such as immigration that's never solved and a growing national debt (two of the biggest issues that generally come up). Democrats used to be prideful of Bill Clintons's efforts to reduce the national deficit, its one of the reasons why I supported him for his initial run as president.
Then joining the military I became part of an AC-130 special forces group working in conjunction with other special forces ground troops, I was overseas when the Khobar Tower was attacked June 25, 1996 that killed 19 of our servicemen. We placed on high alert to respond immediately following the attack, but no response into action ever came. As each of the attacks against our military and country from terrorist extremists became more emboldened, the presidential issue turned towards national security with the defending of this nation from terrorists. I became skeptical and untrusting of Democrats, from my personal experience with how President Bill Clinton handled the issue. The responses I hear from Hillary, and not calling our military to take action to strike at these strongholds and terror camps, puts me in mind of her husband as President.
Our nation needs a strong military and a strong response that keeps these extremist groups on the defensive. If we aren't willing to promote a strong military response there, they will remain organized rather than defensive and those attacks will come here. Border security plays a big part of our national security and I don't see Hillary Clinton taking either seriously. A very tightened well funded border is what this nation needs. We have the investment towards stricter airport security after 9-11 but we are not willing to look at the issue of a better security of our borders? We are concerned about home grown terrorists, but not at all concerned with who might be coming into this country that may have terorist ties. This is not a game where if you don't like the answer we will just call you a racist for suggesting it. Quite frankly from my personal experience, it's democrat's view towards a lack of a response and to hold back from using our military forces to go after terrorist strongholds, that allowed these mastermind extremists to be embolden enough succeed on 9-11.
thanatos144
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2009
- 15,327
- 1,351
What a crock of shit! The only thing real about Trump is his ego and lack of any manners. The rest is just bullshit liberals say to keep the useful idiots like you inline.THAT is what MOST of the Trump supporters LOVE...He's REAL and we could care less what you subversives and NeverTrump Repubicks say!Trumps judgement to rant on twitter about miss universe in the middle of the night is anything but presidential. It's petty and juvenile and displays how his ego only gets him into troubleTrump shows presidential judgement...Hillary does not.Drive-By Media Spin: Jealous Trump Mad Because Pence Won, Pence Running for 2020,
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | October 5, 2016 | Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: MSNBC today floating a rumor. I don't know if MSNBC created the rumor or if they heard the rumor and are repeating it, but here's the rumor that PMSNBC was tossing around this morning. It is that Donald Trump is mad at Mike Pence for his debate performance because he didn't defend Trump nearly well enough, but he did good enough that it puts pressure on Trump to do better on Sunday night, and Trump doesn't like being outshined this way. The vice presidential candidate's not supposed to look better than the top of the ticket. Trump is supposedly ticked off about this.
Do you believe that? (interruption) Is that right, Politico? So I guess it's not a rumor, then. Politico has that story out there, with that theme in the story, that Trump is mad at Pence for his debate performance since it puts pressure on Trump to do better in the next debate Sunday night.
In fact, The Politico insiders, they have this group of establishment elitists that they convene now and then at Politico to assess and analyze these events, these comings and goings in our daily political lives. And The Politico insiders say that Mike Pence didn't just defeat Tim Kaine, he outshined Donald Trump. "A majority of the battleground-state insiders who comprise The POLITICO Caucus gave Pence the edge over Kaine," in the debate.
"But the Pence-vs.-Trump comparison was unanimous: Each and every one of the four dozen GOP insiders who responded to a post-debate survey Tuesday night said Pence delivered a better debate performance than the New York businessman at the top of the Republican ticket, after what was widely seen as a flop last week. ... 'Not even close,' said an Ohio Republican, 'Is there anyone outside of the Trump family who isn't wishing we could flip the ticket?'"
Again, this is one of the Politico insiders, one of 48 Republican insiders responding to the debate wishing that Pence was at the top of the ticket. Another Republican in this group from Nevada said, "Pence was the anti-Trump. He was prepared, smart, composed and he showed respectful competence and leadership." A Virginia Republican said Trump "was a disaster."
"A New Hampshire Republican suggested Pence 'pinch hit' for Trump in the final two debates with Hillary Clinton. A Colorado Republican said, 'If the Republican ticket were flipped, it would be game over.'"
So you see, Trump cannot win, it cannot be purported, it cannot be reported, it cannot be said that Trump won, because even when his vice president does well, Trump loses. And this is how the mainstream media constructs these things. So the Trump campaign had, by every estimate last night, a resounding victory. And what it means is that Trump lost in the Drive-By Media. This is the kind of crap that is beneath us. It's all together driven by fear. These people on the left simply cannot run the risk of the ideas we believe in gaining prominence or even being heard.
Now, I had bunch of people in the email -- I check it during the break -- ask me if I thought the debate would mean anything to the presidential election. I said yesterday to a caller that vice presidential debates usually don't matter a hill of beans. Can I give you an example? Let's go back to 1988. George H. W. Bush running for the presidency, his first term, he had chosen Dan Quayle to be his veep. He was up against Michael Dukakis, and "Lord" Bentsen of Texas was the vice presidential nominee. And during the vice presidential debate, Quayle versus "Lord" Bentsen, the subject of Quayle's lack of experience came up. He'd only been in the Senate not long.
So Quayle drew an analogy. "Well, John F. Kennedy wasn't in the Senate very long when he was elected president." "Lord" Bentsen paused and said, "Senator, I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine. And, Senator, you are no John Kennedy." And the roof blew off the place, and it was thought to be one of the best killer lines ever delivered in a political debate in the history of the universe. And it didn't matter a whit. George H. W. Bush beat Dukakis by eight points. The vice presidential debate didn't matter.
Now, that was just one aspect. Quayle didn't do poorly in the debate at all, but that one instance you can imagine the post-debate commentary was embarrassing. They started talking about how George Bush had chosen the wrong guy. Quayle was all energetic and flapping his arms out there on the campaign stump, and they were all beating up on George W. Bush for choosing -- they accused Bush of choosing a young guy to get women. Remember that? Quayle was chosen because he was supposedly gonna be a chick magnet. Well, anyway, the point is the vice presidential debate, Quayle reputedly got nailed by the line from "Lord" Bentsen, and George H. W. Bush still won.
So the vice presidential debate traditionally doesn't matter. But this is a different year with different dynamics and all different ingredients. I still maintain that you can't judge things happening in this political campaign the way you would judge them if both candidates were from the inside or from the establishment. There clearly is an outsider here, and, boy, are they threatened by that.
All these Democrats who wanted Trump to be donating to 'em. All these Democrats that have been sucking up to Trump for golf club memberships over the years. All of these people that desperately wanted to be invited to Trump parties when he throws them at Mar-a-Lago and everywhere. Now all of a sudden these Democrats are talking about Donald Trump as though he is the reprobate of all humanity.
I'm old enough now that I can see this stuff repeating. If you're new to this, I'm sure it's all exciting, I'm sure it's got you amped up, I'm sure you're jazzed, "Wow, this is cool, man, I love getting all chalked up like this." When you start seeing this stuff repeat and you start seeing it disintegrate and get worse and deviancy seeming to rise and become a major factor in these events, it has an effect, at least it has an effect on me. It just makes me sick of it. I'm tired of it. I'm worn out by these tactics. It's not just that it's unfair or anything like that, that would be childish to say that. It's just beneath us. We deserve better than this.
You could pick a hundred people out of the phone book and you'd get a better debate than we had last night. Just pick a hundred names and choose two of them. No, I'm not slighting Pence. Okay, do this. Pick a hundred names and choose two. Choose a moderator from the phone book and choose the Democrat candidate from the phone book and I guarantee you we'll have a better debate than what we had last night. A debate that would better serve us and actually have some meaning, play some role in determining the outcome. The way this is gonna determine, if it determines anything, is that the Democrat was such a jerk that maybe, just maybe, people will start putting two and two together and realizing that's who they all are.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To the audio sound bites we go. Here we have a montage of Drive-By Media types, saying that Pence failed to defend Trump and that there was a reason that Pence didn't defend Trump. See if you can pick it out of here.
CHUCK TODD: Tim Kaine was running for Vice President in 2016; Mike Pence was running for president in 2020.
ANDREA MITCHELL: (background noise) Mike Pence defended his turf for 2020.
JOHN BERMAN: Mike Pence just won the first presidential debate for 2020.
WOMAN: (giggling)
PAUL BEGALA: Mike Pence, he's running in 2020! He threw Trump under the bus!
MARK PRESTON: But Mike Pence certainly did himself well if he (chuckles) decides to run in 2020.
EZRA KLEIN: Mike Pence came in and made Mike Pence look good for 2020.
JACKIE KUCINICH: I think Mike Pence may have been looking a little bit at 2020.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Made himself probably the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2020.
RUSH: Lockstep. Every damned one of them, lockstep, with the same damn take. And I'm just gonna tell you, throughout that whole debate last night, that didn't occur to me once, not one time, because I know that's not what Pence was doing. Pence wants to win now. Pence wants to correct the lies and character assassinations that are taking place now. 2020? These people can't stop thinking about this in their formulaic way, that even in the middle of this campaign what some people are really positioning for is 2020, and there probably are people doing that.
The same usual insiders that play all of this as a game when all of us treat this is as real as it gets. To them, it's a game. Pence setting himself up for the 2020 election. It is humanly impossible, it defies any notion of common sense and intelligence that after a debate last night you could have a front-runner for 2020! It's beyond absurd. But look, somebody sent the memo out, or maybe they didn't need a memo. Maybe they think in lockstep without being told. Just mind-boggling. Frank Luntz had a focus group over on CBS, special coverage, vice presidential debate. Luntz said to his focus group, "Give me a word or a phrase to describe Mike Pence this evening."
WOMAN: Calm.
WOMAN: Classy.
MAN: Polished.
WOMAN: Effective.
MAN: Knockout.
WOMAN: Compelling.
MAN: Composed.
WOMAN: Eloquent.
RUSH: And then Luntz were, "You were all critical of Senator Kaine. So give me your reactions to Senator Kaine."
WOMAN: Kaine cherry-picked things that made Trump sound like a crazy person, and Kaine came off looking like a crazy person.
MAN: (chuckles) Kaine came off as a jerk. I actually liked that guy, and I was really disappointed in him this time. He just kept going back to trying to needle little points. A total jerk. Condescending. I think he reinforced the worst of Hillary.
VOICE: Mmm-hmm.
VOICE: Yes!
MAN: I think he really did her a disservice.
RUSH: Okay. So that's encouraging. These are average American voters, and they saw it the way we did, correct? (interrupting) You saw it that way, pretty much. I mean, it was Jerk City last night. (interrupting) Look, that's my point. It was beyond irritating. It was beneath us. It was insulting to us, particularly if that was a strategy. I don't know if Kaine... See, I don't know the guy. All I know is what people inside the establishment say about him is what they say about everybody. "He's a great guy! He's got a great family!"
They all talk about each other that way. I don't know the guy. I've always been suspicious of the guy. The guy's always looked like... I was not surprised with this last night. I just think it's beneath us. If that was a strategy to go out there and be as jerky and abrasive as you can and lose the debate on purpose to make sure you get all that negative stuff in on Trump? Well, then they pulled that off, too. Now, here's Luntz. After talking to his focus group participants, Luntz had to wrap it up for anybody.
LUNTZ: Are any of you now more likely to vote for Donald Trump because of what you heard from Mike Pence? Raise your hands. Two, four, six, eight, 10. So half of you. Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant. These are undecided or uncommitted voters in Ohio. They're the ones that really matter, and tonight was a very good night for the Trump-Pence ticket.
RUSH: Why? Nobody's gonna change their vote. Didn't I hear him say that? "Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant." Ohio doesn't count anyway. The New York Times just told us it's no longer a bellwether. Hillary's pulled out of there. The New York Times said it's not a factor. Luntz should close up shop there. Ohio doesn't matter anymore, the people of Ohio. You know why? Because Ohio is "too white." That's right, my friends. Too many white middle-class people live in Ohio.
There aren't enough Black Lives Matter people there.
There aren't enough illegal immigrants.
There aren't enough ex-cons that need the permission to vote.
There's not a good left-wing cross section of America.
There are too many decent, hardworking, middle-class people in Ohio to appeal to the Democrat Party, and so the New York Times told us it's no longer a bellwether. Back in July, the New York Times did a story on how Ohio was crucial when Hillary was winning there. But now she's not, and so it's not important. Here's John King. And this, by the way, loops back to the rumor that PMSNBC was floating and that Snerdley says The Politico is reporting. This is last night -- Debate Night in America on CNN -- with John King, and he's discussing the reaction, the aftermath of the debate last night.
KING: I wanna give you one insight from somebody inside Trump world who is in the inner circle in Trump world who said that he does not think this is going to go down terribly well with Donald Trump. Even though the Trump campaign is rushing out statements with all conservatives across the country praising Mike Pence, they say Donald Trump is watching the reviews and he's hearing, "Mike Pence won. But he didn't defend Donald Trump and that Hillary Clinton and Mike Pence are better debaters than Donald Trump." Some people think that might not sit well with the boss.
RUSH: There you go. So that's the second place that it's been promulgated out there. So, see, the take-away is even when the Trump team wins, Trump loses. "Pence had a great debate. Pence outclassed the jerk! Pence outclassed the moderator. Pence was calm, he was cool, he was collected, he was fabulous, he did a great job. Trump loses! Trump lost the debate last night because Pence so easily outclassed him, and Trump is now mad that he was made to look bad and he's mad that he's got added pressure now to be as good as Pence." That's the story they're putting out, which equals "Trump lost". And then, at the end of the all of that, it didn't matter, because none of the people in the Luntz focus group say their vote was changed anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. On this by the way, Drive-Bys say that Pence was actually positioning himself for 2020. You know what? There's good chance that that talking point went right from the Clinton campaign to the Drive-By Media. Somebody had to write it. I mean, the idea they're gonna think of this independently, lockstep like this? Somebody is behind this. And if you ask me, folks, the Clinton campaign is behind this.
They want to create the impression that Pence knows Trump's gonna lose. "Pence knows that Hillary's gonna win in 2016; it's all about 2020 for Pence. That's what they're trying to establish. It's all about 2020 because Pence obviously can see, read the tea leaves. It's over! Hillary's the big winner this year. There's no chance for him. So 2020." That's what's going on with that. Mark my words.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Ann in Williamsport, Maryland. Great that you got through today. Hi. How are you?
CALLER: Hi. I'm good. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: Yes, ma'am.
CALLER: I just appreciate all you do. I love listening to you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: But the reason I called was I really loved the way last night Pence looked into the camera and spoke to the American people. Even if they tried getting him off course, he actually acknowledged the America out in TV land, I should say. But I just really appreciated that.
RUSH: That's interesting.
CALLER: And I hope Trump does the same thing.
RUSH: Well, you know what? Your observation, I think, is shared by a lot of people. He kept his cool; he was -- importantly, he was not flustered off of the points that he wanted to make. They were trying to just rat-tat-tat endless interruptions and assaults, trying to get him off his line of thinking, forget his train of thought and the points that he wanted to make, and they didn't succeed.
Kaine ended up looking like el jerko. And, of course, now we've got the cover theory. "Well, Rush, I mean, they're so far ahead. Kaine actually went in this to lose it." That was the first theory I heard last night from Drive-By analysts. "Oh, yeah, he wanted to lose this. They've got a cushion. They can lose this. It was important to have the stuff about Trump said, and Kaine said it. And he said it and said it. He repeated himself five or six times on each one of those things, and he was willing to run the risk of losing the debate on style points or whatever just to make sure that those talking points --"
And then they concluded, "Well, you know, Pence really did well. Pence didn't rise to the bait. He kept his cool and all that, and in the process Donald Trump lost, 'cause Pence did so good he made Trump look bad." Then they told us that Trump was mad that Pence did so well because Pence doing well puts more pressure on Trump to do well as though Trump's going into the debate not really giving it his all, but now he's mad because Pence did so well that Trump really has to try now.
They actually try to make us believe this pap in the immediate debate aftermath last night where we were treated to all the analysis. Oh, and then the piece de resistance, that Pence knows that Hillary's got this locked down. It's over. Pence was simply positioning himself for his own 2020 presidential run. These people, I don't think they realize how obvious and transparent they are now to people.
END TRANSCRIPT
Trump didn't win because Trump wasn't there, and his VP pick shit on everything he said.
thanatos144
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2009
- 15,327
- 1,351
and there it is.....the answer to the question of why you are so hard for Trump. You are a nut.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
- Nov 19, 2010
- 5,077
- 749
What a crock of shit! The only thing real about Trump is his ego and lack of any manners. The rest is just bullshit liberals say to keep the useful idiots like you inline.THAT is what MOST of the Trump supporters LOVE...He's REAL and we could care less what you subversives and NeverTrump Repubicks say!Trumps judgement to rant on twitter about miss universe in the middle of the night is anything but presidential. It's petty and juvenile and displays how his ego only gets him into troubleTrump shows presidential judgement...Hillary does not.Drive-By Media Spin: Jealous Trump Mad Because Pence Won, Pence Running for 2020,
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | October 5, 2016 | Rush Limbaugh
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: MSNBC today floating a rumor. I don't know if MSNBC created the rumor or if they heard the rumor and are repeating it, but here's the rumor that PMSNBC was tossing around this morning. It is that Donald Trump is mad at Mike Pence for his debate performance because he didn't defend Trump nearly well enough, but he did good enough that it puts pressure on Trump to do better on Sunday night, and Trump doesn't like being outshined this way. The vice presidential candidate's not supposed to look better than the top of the ticket. Trump is supposedly ticked off about this.
Do you believe that? (interruption) Is that right, Politico? So I guess it's not a rumor, then. Politico has that story out there, with that theme in the story, that Trump is mad at Pence for his debate performance since it puts pressure on Trump to do better in the next debate Sunday night.
In fact, The Politico insiders, they have this group of establishment elitists that they convene now and then at Politico to assess and analyze these events, these comings and goings in our daily political lives. And The Politico insiders say that Mike Pence didn't just defeat Tim Kaine, he outshined Donald Trump. "A majority of the battleground-state insiders who comprise The POLITICO Caucus gave Pence the edge over Kaine," in the debate.
"But the Pence-vs.-Trump comparison was unanimous: Each and every one of the four dozen GOP insiders who responded to a post-debate survey Tuesday night said Pence delivered a better debate performance than the New York businessman at the top of the Republican ticket, after what was widely seen as a flop last week. ... 'Not even close,' said an Ohio Republican, 'Is there anyone outside of the Trump family who isn't wishing we could flip the ticket?'"
Again, this is one of the Politico insiders, one of 48 Republican insiders responding to the debate wishing that Pence was at the top of the ticket. Another Republican in this group from Nevada said, "Pence was the anti-Trump. He was prepared, smart, composed and he showed respectful competence and leadership." A Virginia Republican said Trump "was a disaster."
"A New Hampshire Republican suggested Pence 'pinch hit' for Trump in the final two debates with Hillary Clinton. A Colorado Republican said, 'If the Republican ticket were flipped, it would be game over.'"
So you see, Trump cannot win, it cannot be purported, it cannot be reported, it cannot be said that Trump won, because even when his vice president does well, Trump loses. And this is how the mainstream media constructs these things. So the Trump campaign had, by every estimate last night, a resounding victory. And what it means is that Trump lost in the Drive-By Media. This is the kind of crap that is beneath us. It's all together driven by fear. These people on the left simply cannot run the risk of the ideas we believe in gaining prominence or even being heard.
Now, I had bunch of people in the email -- I check it during the break -- ask me if I thought the debate would mean anything to the presidential election. I said yesterday to a caller that vice presidential debates usually don't matter a hill of beans. Can I give you an example? Let's go back to 1988. George H. W. Bush running for the presidency, his first term, he had chosen Dan Quayle to be his veep. He was up against Michael Dukakis, and "Lord" Bentsen of Texas was the vice presidential nominee. And during the vice presidential debate, Quayle versus "Lord" Bentsen, the subject of Quayle's lack of experience came up. He'd only been in the Senate not long.
So Quayle drew an analogy. "Well, John F. Kennedy wasn't in the Senate very long when he was elected president." "Lord" Bentsen paused and said, "Senator, I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine. And, Senator, you are no John Kennedy." And the roof blew off the place, and it was thought to be one of the best killer lines ever delivered in a political debate in the history of the universe. And it didn't matter a whit. George H. W. Bush beat Dukakis by eight points. The vice presidential debate didn't matter.
Now, that was just one aspect. Quayle didn't do poorly in the debate at all, but that one instance you can imagine the post-debate commentary was embarrassing. They started talking about how George Bush had chosen the wrong guy. Quayle was all energetic and flapping his arms out there on the campaign stump, and they were all beating up on George W. Bush for choosing -- they accused Bush of choosing a young guy to get women. Remember that? Quayle was chosen because he was supposedly gonna be a chick magnet. Well, anyway, the point is the vice presidential debate, Quayle reputedly got nailed by the line from "Lord" Bentsen, and George H. W. Bush still won.
So the vice presidential debate traditionally doesn't matter. But this is a different year with different dynamics and all different ingredients. I still maintain that you can't judge things happening in this political campaign the way you would judge them if both candidates were from the inside or from the establishment. There clearly is an outsider here, and, boy, are they threatened by that.
All these Democrats who wanted Trump to be donating to 'em. All these Democrats that have been sucking up to Trump for golf club memberships over the years. All of these people that desperately wanted to be invited to Trump parties when he throws them at Mar-a-Lago and everywhere. Now all of a sudden these Democrats are talking about Donald Trump as though he is the reprobate of all humanity.
I'm old enough now that I can see this stuff repeating. If you're new to this, I'm sure it's all exciting, I'm sure it's got you amped up, I'm sure you're jazzed, "Wow, this is cool, man, I love getting all chalked up like this." When you start seeing this stuff repeat and you start seeing it disintegrate and get worse and deviancy seeming to rise and become a major factor in these events, it has an effect, at least it has an effect on me. It just makes me sick of it. I'm tired of it. I'm worn out by these tactics. It's not just that it's unfair or anything like that, that would be childish to say that. It's just beneath us. We deserve better than this.
You could pick a hundred people out of the phone book and you'd get a better debate than we had last night. Just pick a hundred names and choose two of them. No, I'm not slighting Pence. Okay, do this. Pick a hundred names and choose two. Choose a moderator from the phone book and choose the Democrat candidate from the phone book and I guarantee you we'll have a better debate than what we had last night. A debate that would better serve us and actually have some meaning, play some role in determining the outcome. The way this is gonna determine, if it determines anything, is that the Democrat was such a jerk that maybe, just maybe, people will start putting two and two together and realizing that's who they all are.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To the audio sound bites we go. Here we have a montage of Drive-By Media types, saying that Pence failed to defend Trump and that there was a reason that Pence didn't defend Trump. See if you can pick it out of here.
CHUCK TODD: Tim Kaine was running for Vice President in 2016; Mike Pence was running for president in 2020.
ANDREA MITCHELL: (background noise) Mike Pence defended his turf for 2020.
JOHN BERMAN: Mike Pence just won the first presidential debate for 2020.
WOMAN: (giggling)
PAUL BEGALA: Mike Pence, he's running in 2020! He threw Trump under the bus!
MARK PRESTON: But Mike Pence certainly did himself well if he (chuckles) decides to run in 2020.
EZRA KLEIN: Mike Pence came in and made Mike Pence look good for 2020.
JACKIE KUCINICH: I think Mike Pence may have been looking a little bit at 2020.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Made himself probably the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2020.
RUSH: Lockstep. Every damned one of them, lockstep, with the same damn take. And I'm just gonna tell you, throughout that whole debate last night, that didn't occur to me once, not one time, because I know that's not what Pence was doing. Pence wants to win now. Pence wants to correct the lies and character assassinations that are taking place now. 2020? These people can't stop thinking about this in their formulaic way, that even in the middle of this campaign what some people are really positioning for is 2020, and there probably are people doing that.
The same usual insiders that play all of this as a game when all of us treat this is as real as it gets. To them, it's a game. Pence setting himself up for the 2020 election. It is humanly impossible, it defies any notion of common sense and intelligence that after a debate last night you could have a front-runner for 2020! It's beyond absurd. But look, somebody sent the memo out, or maybe they didn't need a memo. Maybe they think in lockstep without being told. Just mind-boggling. Frank Luntz had a focus group over on CBS, special coverage, vice presidential debate. Luntz said to his focus group, "Give me a word or a phrase to describe Mike Pence this evening."
WOMAN: Calm.
WOMAN: Classy.
MAN: Polished.
WOMAN: Effective.
MAN: Knockout.
WOMAN: Compelling.
MAN: Composed.
WOMAN: Eloquent.
RUSH: And then Luntz were, "You were all critical of Senator Kaine. So give me your reactions to Senator Kaine."
WOMAN: Kaine cherry-picked things that made Trump sound like a crazy person, and Kaine came off looking like a crazy person.
MAN: (chuckles) Kaine came off as a jerk. I actually liked that guy, and I was really disappointed in him this time. He just kept going back to trying to needle little points. A total jerk. Condescending. I think he reinforced the worst of Hillary.
VOICE: Mmm-hmm.
VOICE: Yes!
MAN: I think he really did her a disservice.
RUSH: Okay. So that's encouraging. These are average American voters, and they saw it the way we did, correct? (interrupting) You saw it that way, pretty much. I mean, it was Jerk City last night. (interrupting) Look, that's my point. It was beyond irritating. It was beneath us. It was insulting to us, particularly if that was a strategy. I don't know if Kaine... See, I don't know the guy. All I know is what people inside the establishment say about him is what they say about everybody. "He's a great guy! He's got a great family!"
They all talk about each other that way. I don't know the guy. I've always been suspicious of the guy. The guy's always looked like... I was not surprised with this last night. I just think it's beneath us. If that was a strategy to go out there and be as jerky and abrasive as you can and lose the debate on purpose to make sure you get all that negative stuff in on Trump? Well, then they pulled that off, too. Now, here's Luntz. After talking to his focus group participants, Luntz had to wrap it up for anybody.
LUNTZ: Are any of you now more likely to vote for Donald Trump because of what you heard from Mike Pence? Raise your hands. Two, four, six, eight, 10. So half of you. Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant. These are undecided or uncommitted voters in Ohio. They're the ones that really matter, and tonight was a very good night for the Trump-Pence ticket.
RUSH: Why? Nobody's gonna change their vote. Didn't I hear him say that? "Will it actually change any of your votes? Nobody. Well, that's pretty significant." Ohio doesn't count anyway. The New York Times just told us it's no longer a bellwether. Hillary's pulled out of there. The New York Times said it's not a factor. Luntz should close up shop there. Ohio doesn't matter anymore, the people of Ohio. You know why? Because Ohio is "too white." That's right, my friends. Too many white middle-class people live in Ohio.
There aren't enough Black Lives Matter people there.
There aren't enough illegal immigrants.
There aren't enough ex-cons that need the permission to vote.
There's not a good left-wing cross section of America.
There are too many decent, hardworking, middle-class people in Ohio to appeal to the Democrat Party, and so the New York Times told us it's no longer a bellwether. Back in July, the New York Times did a story on how Ohio was crucial when Hillary was winning there. But now she's not, and so it's not important. Here's John King. And this, by the way, loops back to the rumor that PMSNBC was floating and that Snerdley says The Politico is reporting. This is last night -- Debate Night in America on CNN -- with John King, and he's discussing the reaction, the aftermath of the debate last night.
KING: I wanna give you one insight from somebody inside Trump world who is in the inner circle in Trump world who said that he does not think this is going to go down terribly well with Donald Trump. Even though the Trump campaign is rushing out statements with all conservatives across the country praising Mike Pence, they say Donald Trump is watching the reviews and he's hearing, "Mike Pence won. But he didn't defend Donald Trump and that Hillary Clinton and Mike Pence are better debaters than Donald Trump." Some people think that might not sit well with the boss.
RUSH: There you go. So that's the second place that it's been promulgated out there. So, see, the take-away is even when the Trump team wins, Trump loses. "Pence had a great debate. Pence outclassed the jerk! Pence outclassed the moderator. Pence was calm, he was cool, he was collected, he was fabulous, he did a great job. Trump loses! Trump lost the debate last night because Pence so easily outclassed him, and Trump is now mad that he was made to look bad and he's mad that he's got added pressure now to be as good as Pence." That's the story they're putting out, which equals "Trump lost". And then, at the end of the all of that, it didn't matter, because none of the people in the Luntz focus group say their vote was changed anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. On this by the way, Drive-Bys say that Pence was actually positioning himself for 2020. You know what? There's good chance that that talking point went right from the Clinton campaign to the Drive-By Media. Somebody had to write it. I mean, the idea they're gonna think of this independently, lockstep like this? Somebody is behind this. And if you ask me, folks, the Clinton campaign is behind this.
They want to create the impression that Pence knows Trump's gonna lose. "Pence knows that Hillary's gonna win in 2016; it's all about 2020 for Pence. That's what they're trying to establish. It's all about 2020 because Pence obviously can see, read the tea leaves. It's over! Hillary's the big winner this year. There's no chance for him. So 2020." That's what's going on with that. Mark my words.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Ann in Williamsport, Maryland. Great that you got through today. Hi. How are you?
CALLER: Hi. I'm good. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: Yes, ma'am.
CALLER: I just appreciate all you do. I love listening to you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: But the reason I called was I really loved the way last night Pence looked into the camera and spoke to the American people. Even if they tried getting him off course, he actually acknowledged the America out in TV land, I should say. But I just really appreciated that.
RUSH: That's interesting.
CALLER: And I hope Trump does the same thing.
RUSH: Well, you know what? Your observation, I think, is shared by a lot of people. He kept his cool; he was -- importantly, he was not flustered off of the points that he wanted to make. They were trying to just rat-tat-tat endless interruptions and assaults, trying to get him off his line of thinking, forget his train of thought and the points that he wanted to make, and they didn't succeed.
Kaine ended up looking like el jerko. And, of course, now we've got the cover theory. "Well, Rush, I mean, they're so far ahead. Kaine actually went in this to lose it." That was the first theory I heard last night from Drive-By analysts. "Oh, yeah, he wanted to lose this. They've got a cushion. They can lose this. It was important to have the stuff about Trump said, and Kaine said it. And he said it and said it. He repeated himself five or six times on each one of those things, and he was willing to run the risk of losing the debate on style points or whatever just to make sure that those talking points --"
And then they concluded, "Well, you know, Pence really did well. Pence didn't rise to the bait. He kept his cool and all that, and in the process Donald Trump lost, 'cause Pence did so good he made Trump look bad." Then they told us that Trump was mad that Pence did so well because Pence doing well puts more pressure on Trump to do well as though Trump's going into the debate not really giving it his all, but now he's mad because Pence did so well that Trump really has to try now.
They actually try to make us believe this pap in the immediate debate aftermath last night where we were treated to all the analysis. Oh, and then the piece de resistance, that Pence knows that Hillary's got this locked down. It's over. Pence was simply positioning himself for his own 2020 presidential run. These people, I don't think they realize how obvious and transparent they are now to people.
END TRANSCRIPT
Trump didn't win because Trump wasn't there, and his VP pick shit on everything he said.
The same could easily be said of Obama or Hillary with respect to that ego. As far as Trumps manner of attack against Hillary, apparently liberals are unable to handle when they see the same democrat play book being thrown right back at them.
thanatos144
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2009
- 15,327
- 1,351
liberals are liberals
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
- Nov 19, 2010
- 5,077
- 749
I understand you may want to blame Trump for his use of the tax laws, maybe even how grew his business overseas, however he was working under what the current tax laws and legislation allowed him to do. Hillary was in the position to change it .... for 30 years.
thanatos144
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2009
- 15,327
- 1,351
Please stop you are embarrassing yourself. I could give two shits about Trumps taxes or his returns because the most they will show is that he is lying about how much he is worth. You also seem to be under the impression I support Clinton which I don't. I also don't support Trump. Not even sure if I will vote for him and daily he makes it harder to justify my vote. I am not sure one New York liberal is better then the other.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
- Nov 19, 2010
- 5,077
- 749
I don't know if any liberals today that are for a strong military, and a strong stance against reformism. They still view it more of a crime than an attack. Which is why the position tends to be weak and on the side of caution, more concerned with preserving their own "self" image to the world than the defending of our troops under a terrorist attack.
thanatos144
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2009
- 15,327
- 1,351
Who are you talking about? It sure isn't trump
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
- Nov 19, 2010
- 5,077
- 749
Hardly, I'm stating facts. As those who oppose trump often will use the excuse of how he handled his of taxes, and they criticize for how he ran his business while in the private sector. Trump did not do anything that was illegal. By virtue of his personal experience, he knows more about what regulations discourages business growth more than Clinton. With regard to how he chose to expand his business overseas, he was not in the position to change and set government policy, and there lies the difference between private business man Trump and politician Hillary Clinton.
Similar threads
