45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 6)

[Gameface]

p1stonhead said:

Anyone else wondering why the fk Trump is still holding 'rallies'? Isnt he already president?

We brushed on it yesterday.

It keeps the public riled up. Gives them something to vent about. Immigrants, the media etc...

Many dictators have used them down the years for propaganda purposes.

This is no different.

[Boydie88]

desolate said:

Boydie88 said:

Thanks for something I already knew?

Nor does it excuse the lies told over Beto's crowd. Beat him with policies, rather than playing the man at his own game.

Or play his own game better than him. His core don't really give a fk about policies as long as he ain't liberal.

Both sides have cores and that will never change - like here. The swingers decide it.

What I suspect has done more damage to Trump than anything else is seeing the middle Americans worse off tax wise.

[Byker28i]

Boydie88 said:

Byker28i said:

See above for the source of your information, I bothered to do the research for you, not just nick it off a reddit post.

And yes in hindsight it looks like trump drew a bigger crowd because of those outside. However, that doesn't excuse the lies told by trump over his and Beto's crowd size of which were easily challenged

Thanks for something I already knew?

Nor does it excuse the lies told over Beto's crowd. Beat him with policies, rather than playing the man at his own game.

Turns out the photo shown of O'Rourkes rally was as they were filtering in at the start.
Best I can find for O'Rourkes crowd is El Paso police estimated a crowd of 10,000 to 15,000 for the anti-Trump, anti-wall, pro-O’Rourke march and rally


The same police estimated trumps outside crowd as 6000-10000

O'Rourke's team said there were about 7,000 people at his rally with more on the mile long march before hand, NBC News reported that Trump's rally was at its 6,500 capacity with 10,000 to 12,000 watching outside or in overflow areas, per the local police and fire departments.

I think thats about as exhaustive as I can get on the numbers, so thats put that to bed.

[Byker28i]

Gameface said:

p1stonhead said:

Anyone else wondering why the fk Trump is still holding 'rallies'? Isnt he already president?

We brushed on it yesterday.

It keeps the public riled up. Gives them something to vent about. Immigrants, the media etc...

Many dictators have used them down the years for propaganda purposes.

This is no different.

It brings in the money. Back in October he'd already bought in over $100m and lets not forget he's already looking at charges for campaign finance violations as he uses it as his personal piggy bank. He's paying team trump legal fees over the trump investigation from it.

[captain_cynic]

desolate said:

Byker28i said:

See above for the source of your information, I bothered to do the research for you, not just nick it off a reddit post.

And yes in hindsight it looks like trump drew a bigger crowd because of those outside. However, that doesn't excuse the lies told by trump over his and Beto's crowd size of which were easily challenged

It's really very difficult to win with a person like Trump. You tell the truth he'll lie about you and if you lie it feeds his fake news narrative.

The democrats need to get serious and expose him and his family personally and without mercy.

I disagree, the Democrats need to get serious about their policies. For the 10% or so who actually change their votes, the four major swing states, the Dems need to show that a Democrat President and government will be different to the absolute cluster-flap of the last 3 years.

Going out on a smear campaign will just tell people that you can expect 4 more years of Trumpism.

Besides, Trump is doing a good enough job of besmirching his own good name. Not to mention the indictments against him. As old Boney said, "never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake".

[anonymous-user]

captain_cynic said:

I disagree, the Democrats need to get serious about their policies. For the 10% or so who actually change their votes, the four major swing states, the Dems need to show that a Democrat President and government will be different to the absolute cluster-flap of the last 3 years.

Going out on a smear campaign will just tell people that you can expect 4 more years of Trumpism.

Besides, Trump is doing a good enough job of besmirching his own good name. Not to mention the indictments against him. As old Boney said, "never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake".

It's not a smear campaign if it's the truth.

It's possible Trump will beat himself I agree.

[captain_cynic]

desolate said:

It's not a smear campaign if it's the truth.

A smear campaign doesn't need to be untrue.

But to phrase it another way, it'll be dropping to Trumps level and there he can just beat them with his superior ignorance. The Dems need to demonstrate they aren't Trump to the voters disaffected with Trump.

[p1stonhead]

Best campaign for Democrats will be simply saying;

'Why is Trump not using the same team of advisors / campaign managers for 2020 that put him in the White House in 2016?'

'Because they are all in jail'

[captain_cynic]

p1stonhead said:

Best campaign for Democrats will be simply saying;

'Why is Trump not using the same team of advisors / campaign managers for 2020 that put him in the White House in 2016?'

'Because they are all in jail'

Job Advertisement:

Campaign advisers requires. Must be flexible with facts. Guaranteed two terms, one in employment and one in prison.

[anonymous-user]

captain_cynic said:

A smear campaign doesn't need to be untrue.

Are you sure about that?

I can't see how telling the truth about someone is smearing them.

[p1stonhead]

desolate said:

captain_cynic said:

A smear campaign doesn't need to be untrue.

Are you sure about that?

I can't see how telling the truth about someone is smearing them.

Telling the truth about Trump definitely is!

[captain_cynic]

desolate said:

Are you sure about that?

I can't see how telling the truth about someone is smearing them.

Absolutely.

Smearing is spreading negative propaganda... At no point does that _need_ to be untrue. It often is, but being based on a falsehood is not a requirement.

And you're missing the point, it would be sending the wrong message to on the fence voters.

[anonymous-user]

captain_cynic said:

Absolutely.

Smearing is spreading negative propaganda... At no point does that _need_ to be untrue. It often is, but being based on a falsehood is not a requirement.

And you're missing the point, it would be sending the wrong message to on the fence voters.

A smear needs to be untrue. It's the very definition of the word.

[captain_cynic]

desolate said:

A smear needs to be untrue. It's the very definition of the word.

Nope.A smear is an attempt to defame or damage someone's reputation. There is no requirement for it to be untrue.

But we're getting off topic AND MISSING THE POINT.

[Bill]

captain_cynic said:

Job Advertisement:

Campaign advisers requires. Must be flexible with facts. Guaranteed two terms, one in employment and one in prison.

[anonymous-user]

captain_cynic said:

Nope.A smear is an attempt to defame or damage someone's reputation. There is no requirement for it to be untrue.

But we're getting off topic.

Having checked numerous dictionaries I see that you are wrong.

[Lazermilk]

Dictionary result for smear campaign
noun
a plan to discredit a public figure by making false accusations.

HTH

[captain_cynic]

desolate said:

captain_cynic said:

Nope.A smear is an attempt to defame or damage someone's reputation. There is no requirement for it to be untrue.

But we're getting off topic.

Having checked numerous dictionaries I see that you are wrong.

I respond with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia said:

A smear campaign, also referred to as a smear tactic or simply a smear, is an effort to damage or call into question someone's reputation, by propounding negative propaganda. It can be applied to individuals or groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign

Being untrue is not a requirement, nor is being true a defence in defamation.

The OED doesn't seem to think so either;
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/182504?rskey=cfrZyG&...

the OED said:

c. A slanderous or defamatory remark; an attempt to defame by slander. colloq. (orig. U.S.).

Neither require the remark or even whole campaign to be untrue.

HTH

NOW COULD YOU GIVE UP AND ADDRESS THE POINT I WAS MAKING.

[Gameface]

No-one else cares.

[anonymous-user]

captain_cynic said:

Neither require the remark or even whole campaign to be untrue.

HTH

NOW COULD YOU GIVE UP AND ADDRESS THE POINT I WAS MAKING.

You are demonstrably wrong even in one of your own examples.

You are Donald Trump AICMFP.

(The second sentence is a smear)