After the first series of comments, the woman took the baby out on her own. While she was walking away, Trump noticed and made the second set of comments - after she voluntarily started waking out.

After the baby quieted down, she came back in to listen to the remainder of the speech.

8/10/2016 3:26:30 PM

It appears some RNC staffers are running for the exits:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/rnc-resignations-donald-trump/index.html

At least eight staffers have left the Republican National Committee at least in part due to discomfort over the party's nomination of Donald Trump for president.

Politico reported Wednesday that deputy press secretary James Hewitt, spokesman Fred Brown, director of Hispanic media Ruth Guerra and research analysts Lars Trautman and Colin Spence have left in recent months, citing Trump as a reason for their departure.
"Personally I wasn't comfortable working to elect him," Spence told Politico.

8/10/2016 3:52:23 PM

Quote :

"Saying what he thinks his base wants to hear just to get elected."

Who even fucking knows. There's definitely an element of this at play with the politicial stuff, but he's always been a bigoted asshole who says mean and crazy things, he just has a [much] larger stage now.

And then there's the issue of whether or not he *actually* wants to get elected/win.

8/10/2016 3:53:34 PM

Some dude is climbing Trump Tower with suction cups

8/10/2016 5:12:17 PM

stop the presses!

trump must not have let him in!

is he mexican?

I'm actually surprised the suction cups work...nothing stick to Trump.

The Clinton/Trump 2016....the Teflon Duo.

8/10/2016 5:30:45 PM

Quote :

"I'm curious as to exactly what threat is posed by the Supreme Court with regards to guns. Justices have no ability whatsoever to restrict gun rights. Worst case scenario (from the NRA's point of view) is that they decline to strike down gun control measures passed by legislatures, which of course voters can do something about. Justices have no ability whatsoever to restrict gun rights."

Huh? You don't see how the Supreme Court can restrict gun rights? All it takes is one case before the court for them to double-back and say "there is no personal right to own a firearm," and that's literally it, the floodgates open on gun control legislation again across the country. And given the exceedingly high likelihood that Dems, who are only barely hiding the fact that they want to ban private citizens from owning ANY guns (do I need to bring up that Diane Feinstein video for you?), will win the Presidency and both houses of Congress due to the absolute disaster that is Donald Trump, it's only a matter of time. Even if they don't take control this time, they will at some time in the future, and if the SC has said "there's no individual right to own a firearm," there is nothing to stop that legislation from passing and remaining.

For fuck's sake, man, the Supreme Court literally decides what rights we do and don't have, and you're honestly trying to say that they don't have any effect on restricting rights.

8/10/2016 7:07:56 PM

What Dianne Feinstein video are you talking about? Is it this one?

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jan/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-misfires-feinstein-gun-claim/

8/10/2016 7:23:29 PM

Maybe just stop having campaign events in Florida? Clinton has the Dad of a terrorist at hers and Trump has Mark fucking Foley at his tonight.

8/10/2016 8:13:17 PM

Maybe there is something to that whole NAMBLA thing.

8/10/2016 8:27:41 PM

^^^ Yup, that one. It's not clear that she is only talking about assault weapons. The context of the quote in the 60-Minutes piece certainly is about assault weapons, but we don't get the full context anywhere of what she said in that moment. She said she wanted an outright ban, and I'll take her at her word.

8/10/2016 8:53:58 PM

^Well if you're gonna take her at her word this should clear everything up for you:

"Let me be clear: If an individual wants to purchase a weapon for hunting or self-defense, I support that right," Feinstein wrote in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle in July 2012.

8/10/2016 9:42:05 PM

That's a good quote, but I wonder if you someone could find one more recent that contradicts it.

8/10/2016 10:06:39 PM

Quote :

" if you someone"

8/10/2016 11:56:39 PM

saying hillary is co-founder of ISIS good sound bite imo

8/11/2016 9:04:43 AM

Quote :

"In fact, in many respects, you know they honor president Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS, OK? He's the founder. He founded ISIS."

8/11/2016 9:22:00 AM

I mean surely at this point we can all agree he is trying to throw the election right? Any sane person would by now realize they are saying stupid shit and are getting trashed in the polls and would stop doing stupid shit unless they wanted to make sure there was no way they won right?

8/11/2016 9:28:20 AM

What's Giuliani's play? Sell his soul for a long shot at a cabinet position?

8/11/2016 9:33:58 AM

Worked out well for Christie

8/11/2016 9:46:35 AM

^^^^^ no. It's absurd. And he said it initially at Obama while enunciating his middle name. It was a dog whistle. Nothing more.

He had an interview with Hugh Hewitt this morning and he was basically trying to lead Trump to what he meant by saying something like you meant Clinton/Obama and their failed foreign policy left a vacuum which ISIS filled. Trump would have none of it and kept calling them founders.

A good clip would have been Trump saying their policies led to it. Not that they founded it.

He is the worst at actually communicating things that might help him.

8/11/2016 9:52:44 AM

Calling Obama an ISIS founder is not a huge leap from things Trump has said in the past--Obama the secret Muslim, birtherism, Obama was involved in the Orlando shooting, etc.

Trump may be sticking with calling Obama a founder because he actually believes it.

8/11/2016 11:23:23 AM

I don't think Trump thinks obama is literally an isis founder, this seems like obvious election-year rhetoric to me.

Kind of base and uncreative, but this is Trump we're talking about.

Trump knows his core supporters are not intelligent people, so he's going to use more heuristic language. Trying to say "obama's light touch in Iraq gave ISIS the oxygen it needed to initially thrive" won't play well with the type of voter he's trying to attract-- this would preclude him from being able to say "obama founded ISIS".

Kind of like the chant "Bush lied, people died", it's a short-circuit as Clinton would say.

8/11/2016 11:36:08 AM

the no 'splain zone



[Edited on August 11, 2016 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2016 11:38:55 AM

well... okay then...

8/11/2016 11:44:01 AM

What is crazy is that if he said exactly what Hugh was leading him to it would have been true and a sound critique of what many believe are failed policies.

Instead he says no and dog whistles to his ironclad supporters. He just has no clue how to run a general election campaign. And it will cost him any chance of winning.

[Edited on August 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM. Reason : He can't seriously be trying to win]

8/11/2016 11:58:27 AM

if you listen to the interview, you can hear the exact moment when Hewitt's heart breaks because Trump doesn't take the softball

8/11/2016 2:18:07 PM

Wtf, he has summarily shot down four times today the idea it was bad policy that led to the creation of ISIS and fell back to the "they founded it" line.

Is he stupid or something else? Does he not realize that he already has the votes of the mentally challenged who think Obama and Co are ISIS sympathizers?

Again, if he was intentionally trying to lose what would he be doing differently?

8/11/2016 3:14:14 PM

do wat

http://www.wral.com/in-lawsuit-former-nc-staffer-alleges-trump-s-state-director-pulled-gun-on-him/15920498/

8/11/2016 3:26:39 PM

he asked a room full of evangelicals if anyone was from utah because he's doing poorly there

not that there aren't any evangelicals in utah, but it just shows how stupid he is and how he doesn't even understand why he's doing poorly in that state

8/11/2016 3:36:04 PM

Quote :

"Again, if he was intentionally trying to lose what would he be doing differently?"

Put his dick inside a man. Or better yet, have a man put his dick inside of him. That's about it. I think his supporters could even find their way to excusing child molestation, as long as the child was female. They certainly don't seem to have any qualms with the way he is with Ivanka.

8/11/2016 3:57:26 PM

He is losing without it being obvious to the hardcore supporters. Leave it ambiguous enough that he loses in a rigged system vs self destruction. Go out fighting instead of pulling punches.

His strategy is find the right attacks that sound good to enough people but cant be taken too seriously to the general electorate.

8/11/2016 4:40:06 PM

So what's the theory here...he's just going this to elevate his brand?

To ensure he'll always have a larger stage to speak from?

8/11/2016 4:43:59 PM

you just got to laugh

Quote :

"Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) "the founder" of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM? "

[Edited on August 12, 2016 at 7:00 AM. Reason : ^narcissist a-hole but is too lazy to want to put work in required to be prez]

8/12/2016 6:46:20 AM

if he wins I wonder if Ivanka would be first lady

8/12/2016 7:00:29 AM

^^^But if that is the case - to elevate his brand, he's failing there too. His hotel bookings are down as of late. Maybe coincidence, but I doubt it.

8/12/2016 7:23:42 AM

Dear God, someone please post that 75 year old lunatic yelling at the press pen at his rally last night.

We aren't very far away from violence towards the press as he continues his tirade against them. The ultimate irony is that he accuses them of lying like he isn't a chronic liar himself.

8/12/2016 8:25:08 AM

getting boatraced in an election isn't going to elevate a brand that is based around "all i do is win"

8/12/2016 8:58:05 AM

He is stuck.

He originally started with Brand/Ego in mind. Maybe to push certain points.

But nobody, even he, thought he would win the nomination. I even think hes tried to sabotage himself by being so aggressive. But it didnt work. He tapped into all the anger of poor white America in struggling areas like West Virginia, Detroit, Ohio etc.

See this: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/

So then he is stuck. He is winning. He cant just back out. He cant say, "Guys, I never really wanted the Job." He does what he always does. Keeps attacking and attacking. But his message is lazy. Its unfocused. Anytime he starts gaining traction he makes an 'unforced' error. Its on purpose. Clever/Difficult in fact. To ride the line of appearing to want to win without trying to win.

Now, to be honest. I don't see how people haven't gone the extra step and ask how the hell that Trump, a former Democrat and friend of the Clinton's, isn't being paid off by the Clinton's to torpedo the Republican side. I don't necessarily believe that. But when you have a campaign staff, RNC, and congressmen pushing him to try to win the general election, he is doing almost everything he can to attack ineffectively. He single handedly ruined the chances for any Republican President.

He claims his name has a 3 billion dollar value when he talks about his net worth. Most of his properties are in Democrat land. Hes had an average of a 15% falloff in traffic to his establishments in the past 6-9 months. He has lost big time if you look at brand value.

Another point. I wonder if certain republicans stayed out of this presidential election because they thought Clinton would be a stronger candidate. Without the email scandal. Save their best effort for 2020/2024.

[Edited on August 12, 2016 at 9:10 AM. Reason : sdf]

8/12/2016 9:08:41 AM

That last point may have had merit if the best and brightest coming in (Rubio and Walker specifically) didn't get stomped in the primary. I mean Walker was supposed to be THE guy and he didn't even make it to October...

8/12/2016 9:31:05 AM

Dude, watch the media from that time frame, and almost EVERYBODY was supposed to be that guy.

Rubio
Jeb
Walker
Cruz

8/12/2016 9:32:38 AM

Maybe it's recency bias but Walker was talked about on a different plain then the others. And Cruz was only latched on to when it was apparent he was the only alternative to a near extinction level event for the party (Trump).

8/12/2016 9:34:24 AM

Quote :

"I wonder if certain republicans stayed out of this presidential election because they thought Clinton would be a stronger candidate. Without the email scandal. Save their best effort for 2020/2024."

Who?

8/12/2016 9:35:07 AM

Paul Ryan, McCain, Romney. Probably 1 or 2 strong Republicans I am not aware of. Any of them with a reasonable campaign can pounce on Hillary. There are real weaknesses there and Obama to go after.

Trump is blunting the attacks by making absurd statements.

8/12/2016 9:38:10 AM

2012 Romney would have a great chance in 2016, but he blew his chance. 2012 Ryan would have no chance, but he's actually turned into a relatively reasonable moderate over the last 4 years and could have given her a run. McCain? lol

8/12/2016 9:40:17 AM

I think anyone respectable would have been doing better than Trump against Hillary.

But that goes to show how weak they both are.

Without Trump, Hillary would be getting destroyed.

With Trump, she's up 1.

And the fact that a lot of the news media are talking about Johnson and Stein are indicators that A LOT of people on both sides are tired of Clinton's corruption & lies and Trumps idiocy and instability.

8/12/2016 9:53:25 AM

bruh, she's up more than 1

8/12/2016 9:56:30 AM

sorry, just went by the recent la times poll

but if what you are saying about weakness is true, she should be up by 20-30

the DNC itself showed us that not everyone on the left is a staunch supporter of her, and many those those who supported burned Bernie are jumping to stein

8/12/2016 10:00:33 AM

Lol you people are fucking delusional or get all your political news from Reddit. I said way back in 2012 that an Obama victory ensured a Democrat would be in the WH until at least 2024 and literally nothing that has happened in the interim has changed my mind. Y'all enjoy now.

8/12/2016 10:05:04 AM

Quote :

"Again, if he was intentionally trying to lose what would he be doing differently?"

Maybe he should do a Costanza. If every instinct he has is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.

8/12/2016 10:10:32 AM

What I meant more than anything by my last post is that any normal republican candidates from any of the past half dozen presidential campaigns would have the edge.

There have been 3 consecutive democratic terms as president once, ever. The only reason this has a chance of happening now is because the republican party is having an identity crisis. The party chose to be obstructionist during Obama's terms. Most of the people in the republican party in this environment haven't had a chance to pass or find middle ground with effective policy/legislation. So at the end of it Rubio, Bush, Kasich are weak while Cruz and company are slimy and punchable. You need competence tied to power to win. Without developing strong leadership it left a vacuum. Trump filled the vacuum at the head of the Republican party.

They have the grow the party. But their base in the primaries is white, somewhat racist, and angry as hell. That doesn't translate to general elections well. Play to their base and cut out huge demographics or make giant pivots from primary possibly alienating their base.

ALL of that was spelled out in the 2012 aftermath.

[Edited on August 12, 2016 at 10:21 AM. Reason : hg]

8/12/2016 10:17:23 AM

^actually twice (or 4 times if you want to be technical about it). Jackson was followed by MVB. And then FDR had 4 terms followed by Truman.

Quote :

"she should be up by 20-30"

lol - first of all, only 5 elections in the history of the country have had a 20+ margin of victory (Nixon v. McGovern was the most recent). second, to even think that a person could get a +20 point lead basically throws out the strict partisanship that has arisen since obama came in to office. third, the 8 point lead she has in the 538 projections is more than double the margin by which obama beat romney in 2012. saying that because the impossible isn't happening proves that she is weak is just wrong.

[Edited on August 12, 2016 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

8/12/2016 10:21:51 AM