2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

Those sources will be dismissed as partisan rags..

Or more likely, the exact same post with slightly different wording will simply be regurgitated.

Overheal

Skylinehead wrote: »

What happens when you add in conventional airstrikes, cruise missiles and good ol' guns? I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here.

Drone strikes get reasonably well documented at least. Nobody is still sure what the body count actually was for Iraq/Afghanistan, but the estimates are still staggering.

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

And he used a much higher percentage of 5th generation fighters too. And so many fewer CRT computer monitors.

You're making a hollow point about the state of technology. Drone technology was developed but on infancy during the Bush presidency. And long before either got into office, the Military Industrial Complex entangled its roots into the whole thing.

Do not mistakingly think a future sitting president will turn the trend backward

That is what I said, neither Clinton or Trump will pull back on drone strikes, which kill mostly civilians, not terrorists.

RobertKK

briany wrote: »

That Mike Pence seems like the most presidential and 'leaderly' out of the lot of them. I was impressed by his performance in that VP debate, particularly as he was having to promote, defend and deflect on Donald Trump crazy platforms. If Trump gets elected, he'll have to give this man huge thanks.

Mike Pence is probably very well grounded, well he did come over to Ireland on his summer holidays as a child with his parents and helped his relations in Clare I think it is with making the hay. That would help remove notions about oneself.

Tim Kaine too I think is the same, but the Clinton's got it wrong as they had him too much the attack dog in the debate, he was right to attack because that is what they all do, but if it had been a bit less, it might have helped more.

The VP candidates are much better than the top of the ticket people.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Mike Pence is probably very well grounded, well he did come over to Ireland on his summer holidays as a child with his parents and helped his relations in Clare I think it is with making the hay. That would help remove notions about oneself.

Tim Kaine too I think is the same, but the Clinton's got it wrong as they had him too much the attack dog in the debate, he was right to attack because that is what they all do, but if it had been a bit less, it might have helped more.

The VP candidates are much better than the top of the ticket people.

In Pence's case that wouldn't be very hard now would it !

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Tim Kaine too I think is the same, but the Clinton's got it wrong as they had him too much the attack dog in the debate, he was right to attack because that is what they all do, but if it had been a bit less, it might have helped more.

I think he did exactly what was required of him, which is to help Clinton get elected. He basically put Pence through a live-on-air deposition, getting him to claim several times that Trump hadn't said things he had, or to duck and dive to avoid having to defend the indefensible.

The VP candidates are much better than the top of the ticket people.

I'd agree that that's a spectacularly low bar in Pence's case, but I'd still hate to see someone quite that homophobic and anti-science in the Oval.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

That is what I said, neither Clinton or Trump will pull back on drone strikes, which kill mostly civilians, not terrorists.

From your earlier post:

Obama has authorized 506 strikes that have killed 3,040 terrorists and 391 civilians

Which is it then?

Call Me Jimmy

Pence is a classic politician, but like Hillary you can tell there's no humanity there. They've spent their whole lives trying to live up to an extreme bull**** version of themselves. Kaine seemed too amped up, but I get the sense there is some life there (even if he didnt particularly come off great). Can't say the same for Pence or Hillary.

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

What happens when you add in conventional airstrikes, cruise missiles and good ol' guns? I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here.

The problem with drone strikes is they are used too much.

The problem is the perception of a president, Obama seem as good, and Bush bad.
Yet on day 3 of the Obama presidency, children were being killed in drone strikes he ordered.
Will it be the same based on who wins the election, Hillary gets a free ride and Trump not?

I mean you have people who say 'I love Obama', nothing about it being the president being responsible for the following:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 2014

the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November.

We have seen people on this thread talk about Trump saying he would kill families of terrorists, when it is clear some don't know what the situation really is.
Imagine if Trump as president was responsible for over 1,100 innocent people being killed in a bid to kill 41 suspected terrorists, would he get away with such crimes?
Hillary should be asked if she can stand over that record by Obama.
Trump asked what would he do.
This is the problem with this election, a lot of really serious stuff is not being discussed for what is at times like a tabloid driven election.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

From your earlier post:


Which is it then?

The official figures given by the US do not stand up on the ground where the death tolls are far higher, but as the New York Times said, both Republicans and Democrats have been involved in drone strikes, and neither want to bring it up for discussion, given the American people accept it.

The truth on this is very damaging to the US, and whoever is president, it is like free reign to murder people, wouldn't care if they were bad people, but most are not.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

The official figures given by the US do not stand up on the ground where the death tolls are far higher, but as the New York Times said, both Republicans and Democrats have been involved in drone strikes, and neither want to bring it up for discussion, given the American people accept it.

The truth on this is very damaging to the US, and whoever is president, it is like free reign to murder people, wouldn't care if they were bad people, but most are not.

Soo - anything to suggest that the drone attacks do actually kill more civilians than militias?

Overheal

alastair wrote: »

Soo - anything to suggest that the drone attacks do actually kill more civilians than militias?

some of the highlights are troubling, air strikes on weddings and such.

the nonpartisan perspective on the matter is the official military numbers will tend to label casualties terrorists unless it can be proven otherwise. Any male that can hold a weapon is a potential combatant after all.

alastair

Overheal wrote: »

some of the highlights are troubling, air strikes on weddings and such.

the nonpartisan perspective on the matter is the official military numbers will tend to label casualties terrorists unless it can be proven otherwise. Any male that can hold a weapon is a potential combatant after all.

No doubt the civilians deaths are under-represented, and the combatant deaths are probably exaggerated, but I've read nothing that suggests that civilian deaths outnumber combatant deaths - even on the non-partisan sources.

Mr. Zenko said that an average of separate counts of American drone strikes by three organizations, the New America Foundation, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Long War Journal, finds that 522 strikes have killed 3,852 people, 476 of them civilians. But those counts, based on news accounts and some on-the-ground interviews, are considered very rough estimates.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Soo - anything to suggest that the drone attacks do actually kill more civilians than militias?

Should we expect a president or a political figure to have higher standards than a terrorist?
I mean would it be more ok if lets say Obama killed your family with a drone strike, than let say a terrorist blows them up?
The Guardian reported it took the innocent lives of over 1,100 people, all their hopes and dreams wiped out so 41 men could be killed.
To the relatives and neighbours of these people, those attacks were no different to a terrorist attack on these innocent people.

This is what is so wrong with this election, there is not enough focus on policy.
It won't make any difference to the world if Trump called a former Miss Universe 'Miss Piggy' or if Hillary while ill with pneumonia on a hot day was falling around the place.
This election from most angles is a disgrace, policy is not the important thing, but personality.
Trump's very questionable foundation or serial cheat Bill while discussed so much - means nothing - nothing to do with policy.

But you can kill lots of people in drone strikes and that is accepted, and sure that is not an issue to discuss in a debate when whoever is president will be giving the go ahead to kill people and you will not be accountable for the number of civilians killed.
Weeks from the elections and policy is not high on the agenda.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

It won't make any difference to the world if Trump called a former Miss Universe 'Miss Piggy'...

It does to me. I don't want a thin-skinned narcissist who's pathologically incapable of diplomacy to have nuclear codes.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Should we expect a president or a political figure to have higher standards than a terrorist?

Actually, I was expecting you to have some manner of evidence to back up your (erroneous) claim.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

The Guardian reported it took the innocent lives of over 1,100 people, all their hopes and dreams wiped out so 41 men could be killed.

No they didn't. They said that "Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November." No suggestion as to the innocence of any of those 1,147 people. They could well have all been combatants, or, if the impartial observers are to be believed, about 12.5% of them may have been civilians.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Should we expect a president or a political figure to have higher standards than a terrorist?
I mean would it be more ok if lets say Obama killed your family with a drone strike, than let say a terrorist blows them up?
The Guardian reported it took the innocent lives of over 1,100 people, all their hopes and dreams wiped out so 41 men could be killed.
To the relatives and neighbours of these people, those attacks were no different to a terrorist attack on these innocent people.

This is what is so wrong with this election, there is not enough focus on policy.
It won't make any difference to the world if Trump called a former Miss Universe 'Miss Piggy' or if Hillary while ill with pneumonia on a hot day was falling around the place.
This election from most angles is a disgrace, policy is not the important thing, but personality.
Trump's very questionable foundation or serial cheat Bill while discussed so much - means nothing - nothing to do with policy.

But you can kill lots of people in drone strikes and that is accepted, and sure that is not an issue to discuss in a debate when whoever is president will be giving the go ahead to kill people and you will not be accountable for the number of civilians killed.
Weeks from the elections and policy is not high on the agenda.

Why do you think policy is not high on the agenda ? Hillary loves policy , she could 'drone' on about it all day.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Actually, I was expecting you to have some manner of evidence to back up your (erroneous) claim.

Former US drone operators:

http://www.thejournal.ie/drone-operators-airmen-open-letter-to-obama-carter-2455824-Nov2015/

We came to the realisation that the innocent civilians we were killing only fuelled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantánamo Bay.

They told the newspaper that drone operators quickly grow numb to their work and sometimes killed people even if they were unsure whether they were hostile or not.
In one case, Bryant said his drone team killed five tribal men and a camel traveling from Pakistan to Afghanistan, even though they weren’t certain who they were or what they were doing.

"We waited for those men to settle down in their beds and then we killed them in their sleep. That was cowardly murder."

When he left the service, Bryant was given an envelope containing a report card with the number of killings he’d been involved in – that number was 1,626.

According to whistleblower papers published by The Intercept website last month, the Obama administration has under-represented the true number of civilians killed in drone strikes.
In classified slides, the US military describes fatalities from targeted strikes as “enemy killed in action,” even if their identity is unknown or they were not the intended targets, according to The Intercept.
In one five-month period, nearly 90 percent of those killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets, The Intercept said.
In this week’s letter, the four former airmen go on to draw a causal link between drone strikes and last week’s terrorist attack in Paris, which killed 129 people.

"We witnessed gross waste, mismanagement, abuses of power, and our country’s leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone program.

We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone program has overseas and at home."

I am telling you, the truth about drone strikes are, if it was any other country, the leader of that country who was responsible for such crimes would be wanted in The Hague to answer for it.
Bush, Obama and either Clinton or Trump will continue this, and it goes unquestioned because both the main parties support it and both would have to answer a lot of difficult questions if they didn't tell the pubic so much lies about the drone program.
Trump says he would target families of terrorists, so what is what people should say, so what, it is already the policy, and it is really bad policy that neither Clinton or Trump will change or be asked to explain about before the election.
Whoever is president they will like Bush and Obama, have a free reign to commit war crimes by intentionally killing people and knowing some of these people are not terrorists.
That is how ill the political system and media is in the US, they all play along while the rest of the world looks on in horror.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Why do you think policy is not high on the agenda ? Hillary loves policy , she could 'drone' on about it all day.

"Can't we just drone Assange?"

Hillary Clinton, she may like policy but there is something seriously rotten within her mind.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

Should we expect a president or a political figure to have higher standards than a terrorist?.

The US public love these things. I'm afraid drones are here to stay. They're the wave of the future. There's even talk of making them semi autonomous. Give them a map reference and send them off to do their bombing on there own.

If there's issues with failing to identify targets correctly then I'm afraid that's an issue for the developers to try and fix.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Former US drone operators:
...

Nothing there to suggest more civilian deaths caused by drone strikes than combatants killed.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

No they didn't. They said that "Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November." No suggestion as to the innocence of any of those 1,147 people. They could well have all been combatants, or, if the impartial observers are to be believed, about 12.5% of them may have been civilians.

These estimated 1,100 other people were not on the kill list, they are people who died so 41 men could be killed.
That is a disastrous policy, and only assists in the radicalisation of people, would people in Europe, North America or anywhere accept a life where drones hum overhead 24 hours a day, 7 days a week not knowing when it will fire it's missile, who the target is?
It would create great anger, frightened people, resentful people and as a policy would only drive people to fight back because that is no way for anyone to live.
It doesn't justify terrorism, but it is a policy that creates terrorists.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

"Can't we just drone Assange?"

Hillary Clinton, she may like policy but there is something seriously rotten within her mind.

Ahh, an unsubstantiated joke is now evidence of Hillary having a mental illness. Gotcha.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

These estimated 1,100 other people were not on the kill list, they are people who died so 41 men could be killed.
That is a disastrous policy, and only assists in the radicalisation of people, would people in Europe, North America or anywhere accept a life where drones hum overhead 24 hours a day, 7 days a week not knowing when it will fire it's missile, who the target is?
It would create great anger, frightened people, resentful people and as a policy would only drive people to fight back because that is no way for anyone to live.
It doesn't justify terrorism, but it is a policy that creates terrorists.

Personally I think drones are terrible but they are a huge improvement on carpet bombing Iraq .

But what has this got to do with the election ?

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Nothing there to suggest more civilian deaths caused by drone strikes than combatants killed.

It is handy because you can say the unknown people killed were 'enemies killed in action''.
"the US military describes fatalities from targeted strikes as “enemy killed in action,” even if their identity is unknown or they were not the intended targets,"

If you make up the figures you can call them what you want. For the public it handy to label unknown people killed as being terrorist, less questions to answer.
It is a license to kill.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

These estimated 1,100 other people were not on the kill list,

Most combatants are not on a kill list.

RobertKK wrote: »

they are people who died so 41 men could be killed.

There's nothing to suggest that the sole activity of drone attacks was to just kill 41 people. The point of the Guardian article was that the identity of those killed by drone strikes are often/generally not known - just as it is with the rest of military attacks. It's also true to say that civilian deaths are proportionally higher for 'conventional' military attacks, so bad and all as the drone strikes may be, they're less destructive to civilians that the other military options.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

It is handy because you can say the unknown people killed were 'enemies killed in action''.
"the US military describes fatalities from targeted strikes as “enemy killed in action,” even if their identity is unknown or they were not the intended targets,"

If you make up the figures you can call them what you want. For the public it handy to label unknown people killed as being terrorist, less questions to answer.
It is a license to kill.

Impartial observers don't bother with US military designations. They don't make any claim that more civilians than combatants have been killed in drone attacks.

Mr. Zenko said that an average of separate counts of American drone strikes by three organizations, the New America Foundation, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Long War Journal, finds that 522 strikes have killed 3,852 people, 476 of them civilians. But those counts, based on news accounts and some on-the-ground interviews, are considered very rough estimates.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Personally I think drones are terrible but they are a huge improvement on carpet bombing Iraq .

But what has this got to do with the election ?

Whoever is president will have the power to give or not give the go ahead to such attacks.
As the NYT said on day three of the Obama presidency, he gave the go ahead to a drone strike that was to kill one terrorist, but it also killed about 4 or 5 children and around 4 other civilians.

It is how bad the debates have been. Serious stuff ignored for a Miss Piggy comment, or Trump saying he would will be nastier in future debates.
They all seem to prefer attacking each other than attacking real present day policy and what they would do.
They are both so awful, there will be no change.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

"Can't we just drone Assange?"

Hillary Clinton, she may like policy but there is something seriously rotten within her mind.

Right, you do realise that in the unlikely scenario that she ever said that, it was said sarcastically, don't you?

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Impartial observers don't bother with US military designations. They don't make any claim that more civilians than combatants have been killed in drone attacks.

So what, they believe the government.

The former drone operators are more credible.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Right, you do realise that in the unlikely scenario that she ever said that, it was said sarcastically, don't you?

...and as people laughed thinking she was not serious she continued and called Julian Assange a 'soft target'.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Whoever is president will have the power to give or not give the go ahead to such attacks.
As the NYT said on day three of the Obama presidency, he gave the go ahead to a drone strike that was to kill one terrorist, but it also killed about 4 or 5 children and around 4 other civilians.

It is how bad the debates have been. Serious stuff ignored for a Miss Piggy comment, or Trump saying he would will be nastier in future debates.
They all seem to prefer attacking each other than attacking real present day policy and what they would do.
They are both so awful, there will be no change.

Reminder, Donald J Trump's stated plan is to "bomb the ****" out of ISIS and to target their families.

So why do you believe it will be better under Trump? Are you arguing that he'll make a better president because he's never ordered a drone strike?

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

...and as people laughed thinking she was not serious she continued and called Julian Assange a 'soft target'.

Maybe the second amendment people could do something about it.

I fail to see the end point that is relevant for this thread. It could probably do with its own thread with how the us should be fighting terrorism in the middle east. I mean I can't think Obama controls that much of the strategy even if he has given the ok to things I would prefer he hadn't. Maybe we need a political push from all aspects of government for change in the dod to enact a change in strategy but again that isn't unique to the president (especially as no candidate has made this an issue afaik).

In the mean time we have to discuss who will be the best president and given they seem about equal in the drone strike department (I imagine all 4 will go along with whatever the top generals say unless it hits upon a point they feel strongly about) we need to discuss other things such as the importance of Nato commitments and whether the president knows what is going on in with trade agreements and relations with other political powers.

B_Wayne

RobertKK wrote: »

So what, they believe the government.

The former drone operators are more credible.

Impartial watchdogs etc are far more credible plus drone operators are inherently anecdotal.

Amerika

Trump pulled his punches in the first debate and was reluctant to aggressively attack Hillary. She responded to that gentle gesture with tons of negative and vicious attack ads against Trump. She therefore has given him full license to go nuclear on her, with no self-restraint in the second debate. He shouldn’t let her get him on the defensive and merely respond to her attacks with witty and snappy retorts that call her out on similar circumstances, and that will resonate with the voters. I hoping for a bloodbath on Sunday.

B_Wayne

Amerika wrote: »

Trump pulled his punches in the first debate and was reluctant to aggressively attack Hillary. She responded to that gentle gesture with tons of negative and vicious attack ads against Trump. She therefore has given him full license to go nuclear on her, with no self-restraint in the second debate. He shouldn’t let her get him on the defensive and merely respond to her attacks with witty and snappy retorts that call her out on similar circumstances, and that will resonate with the voters. I hoping for a bloodbath on Sunday.

Meanwhile Trump has engaged in a smear campaign against Miss Universe.... I think you have very high expectations of him.

Amerika

B_Wayne wrote: »

Meanwhile Trump has engaged in a smear campaign against Miss Universe.... I think you have very high expectations of him.

And if Hillary bring this up again, or anything about his treatment of women, he should respond with something like “If you’d like to discuss the treatment of women, I’m more than happy to talk about your husband’s long record of rape and sexual assault, and your dogged efforts to smear and destroy the women who were involved with or accused your husband of such crimes.” (credit here goes to Monica Crowley)

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

And if Hillary bring this up again, or anything about his treatment of women, he should respond with something like “If you’d like to discuss the treatment of women, I’m more than happy to talk about your husband’s long record of rape and sexual assault, and your dogged efforts to smear and destroy the women who were involved with or accused your husband of such crimes.” (credit here goes to Monica Crowley)

I... don't think this poster has the slightest clue what Trump needs to do to get back into the race. Good God! :pac:

And what is up with members of the Trump congregation constantly seeming to confuse themselves over which Clinton is running for office?

Needless to say, this is a classic example of the mindset in his base that Trump has built and promoted, that is looking on course to cost him his chances of winning, despite running against a very unpopular candidate in Hillary Clinton.

RobertKK

The Clinton campaign have bought ad space for the weather channel so people fearing for their lives and their homes and who tune in to the weather channel to see the latest on hurricane Matthew will see Hillary promoting herself/attacking Trump.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

The Clinton campaign have bought ad space for the weather channel so people fearing for their lives and their homes and who tune in to the weather channel to see the latest on hurricane Matthew will see Hillary promoting herself/attacking Trump.

Whereas Trump fans will just be told they can drop dead come November 9th, for all he cares. By the man himself.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

I... don't think this poster has the slightest clue what Trump needs to do to get back into the race. Good God! :pac:

And what is up with members of the Trump congregation constantly seeming to confuse themselves over which Clinton is running for office?

Needless to say, this is a classic example of the mindset in his base that Trump has built and promoted, that is looking on course to cost him his chances of winning, despite running against a very unpopular candidate in Hillary Clinton.

Trump should avoid bringing up the Clinton's treatment of women, but if he does he should ask Hillary if she believes Juanita Broaddrick who says Bill Clinton raped her.

Hillary said the following:

"Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault," Clinton said. "Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you."

"There is a big divide between survivors who do not want to seek the criminal justice system for different reasons and those who want to but are not sure that it would be responsive," Clinton said today. "So we need to do a much better job on the fairness of the response so that people feel like whichever route they go on campus or off they're going to be taken seriously, that doesn't mean that, you know, that there's no process. There has to be one."

Clinton said women should immediately be believed, starting a process to "determination as to what if anything should be done about the claim that was made."

"I think that when someone makes the claim, they come forward, they should be believed and that is what starts the process and then there is a determination as to what if anything should be done about the claim that was made," Clinton said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/14/hillary_clinton_women_should_be_believed_when_they_claim_rape_have_to_increase_prevention.html

The above was in 2015, and then this August, the believe women who say they have been raped was removed from the Hillary Clinton website. This was in response to Juanita Broaddrick who again said she was raped by former president Bill Clinton and Hillary tried to silence her.

'I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741760/Hillary-Clinton-s-website-removed-promise-believe-sexual-assault-survivors-emergence-Bill-Clinton-Juanita-Broaddrick-historic-rape-allegations.html#ixzz4MKlUsz5k
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Whereas Trump fans will just be told they can drop dead come November 9th, for all he cares. By the man himself.

You mean like how Trump went to Louisiana to see the flood victims and Hillary didn't since Louisiana will not vote for her?

Billy86

Not a good idea, all that does is open up the doors to the multiple rape cases against him, including of children.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You mean like how Trump went to Louisiana and to see the flood victims and Hillary didn't since Louisiana will not vote for her?

Nope, more like when he told people they can drop dead... as soon as they're done voting for him. That was from today, I believe.

Quin_Dub

Billy86 wrote: »

Nope, more like when he told people they can drop dead... as soon as they're done voting for him. That was from today, I believe.

This is what you are referring to..

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

You mean like how Trump went to Louisiana to see the flood victims and Hillary didn't since Louisiana will not vote for her?

The Governor of Louisiana specifically asked the candidates and President to stay away until the first responders were on top of things in the flooding. Trump ignored him. Hillary Clinton did not.

What exactly is your point?

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

You mean like how Trump went to Louisiana to see the flood victims and Hillary didn't since Louisiana will not vote for her?

You mean like how the Governor of Louisiana asked the candidates and the President not to disrupt from the recovery mission (because their visits require security details, which diverges resources), and Donald Trump went, and said "he didn't want cameras" but still showed up in a suit and a MAGA hat and him and pence were taped handing out toys from a truck, and that video ended up being plastered in all of their commercials?

I think we're talking about the same thing, just at cross purposes.

bajer101

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is what you are referring to..

It's even more bizarre when Peter Serafinowicz does his voiceover as "Sassy Trump".

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

You mean like how the Governor of Louisiana asked the candidates and the President not to disrupt from the recovery mission (because their visits require security details, which diverges resources), and Donald Trump went, and said "he didn't want cameras" but still showed up in a suit and a MAGA hat and him and pence were taped handing out toys from a truck, and that video ended up being plastered in all of their commercials?

I think we're talking about the same thing, just at cross purposes.

Obama went to Louisiana.