Kathianne
02-27-2016, 08:39 AM
don't blame those that warned about it.
I look into a candidate for information early on, whether I like what I hear or fear what I hear. When something says 'a tad off' I look more. Yes, I know that many didn't like when I was in this process with Trump, but must say that I don't have the time nor resources to really search, what I found is only the basics. Some of those that didn't like it with Trump, liked it with Ron Paul. For me it's the norm.
Soon it appears that those with both the time and resources will be looking more and they also will be running ads. Now the information-that I share only with friends, family will become daily on the airways and all over the internet and social media. Likely there will be more, though I do think the Trump University and fraud will be the 'big warning.' Then again, I have no clue to what maybe there that hasn't been easily accessible on the net.
Now maybe the general electorate will be just as easy for Trump to shake off any criticisms as has been the case in the primary. Time will tell.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/anti-donald-trump-ads-opinion-213675
he anti-Trump onslaught is coming. Perhaps within weeks. Just not necessarily from Republicans.
Almost as soon as Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee — which may be as soon as March 15 — Democrats will surely cut their negative ads, and then have at it.
They will attack Trump’s credentials as a tribune of the little guy by focusing on a money-grubbing venture like Trump University, designed to extract as much cash as possible from people who thought they would learn something about real estate from the shell of a school (Trump has been defending himself from charges of fraud for years).
They will dissect his business record. They will fasten on his failed casinos and the bankruptcies he used to stiff creditors while maintaining a lavish lifestyle, and see what they can make of mob connections to the New York real estate world.
They will fry him for hypocrisy on immigration by pointing out that Trump Tower was built by illegal Polish immigrants worked to the bone and that, according to news reports, illegal immigrants are helping build his new hotel in Washington.
They will make the cheap threats he throws at anyone who crosses him a character and temperament issue. They will hound him about his unreleased tax returns. And, of course, they will use decades-worth of controversial statements to portray him as racist and sexist.
...
How will Trump fare against such ads? Maybe he will prove impervious to all such criticism, and counterpunch effectively. Or maybe he will wilt under the assault. Who knows? But Democrats will sure as hell find out.
In this sense, Republicans are outsourcing the vetting of their front-runner to the other party. At this rate, they will make Trump their de facto standard-bearer in a little less than three weeks, never having run him through the paces of the painful testing that is usually inherent to the process.
Yes, Trump has been constantly criticized. But op-ed’s aren’t the same as attack ads. Dismissive pundits aren’t the same as rival candidates out for blood. A Politico analysis (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-megadonors-219690) found that of $238 million in spending by big-money groups so far, only 4 percent has been directed at the man on the cusp of securing the nomination.
...
A variety of reasons account for the de facto moratorium on sustained Trump attacks to this point: clashing candidate interests; exhaustion after so many donors gave so much to the Jeb Bush super PAC Right to Rise with so little effect; fear of Trump. Democrats won’t be similarly constrained. If David Brock doesn’t know more about Trump’s peccadillos than anyone in America right now, he is falling down on his job and should be summarily dismissed as a Clinton courtier.
...
I look into a candidate for information early on, whether I like what I hear or fear what I hear. When something says 'a tad off' I look more. Yes, I know that many didn't like when I was in this process with Trump, but must say that I don't have the time nor resources to really search, what I found is only the basics. Some of those that didn't like it with Trump, liked it with Ron Paul. For me it's the norm.
Soon it appears that those with both the time and resources will be looking more and they also will be running ads. Now the information-that I share only with friends, family will become daily on the airways and all over the internet and social media. Likely there will be more, though I do think the Trump University and fraud will be the 'big warning.' Then again, I have no clue to what maybe there that hasn't been easily accessible on the net.
Now maybe the general electorate will be just as easy for Trump to shake off any criticisms as has been the case in the primary. Time will tell.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/anti-donald-trump-ads-opinion-213675
he anti-Trump onslaught is coming. Perhaps within weeks. Just not necessarily from Republicans.
Almost as soon as Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee — which may be as soon as March 15 — Democrats will surely cut their negative ads, and then have at it.
They will attack Trump’s credentials as a tribune of the little guy by focusing on a money-grubbing venture like Trump University, designed to extract as much cash as possible from people who thought they would learn something about real estate from the shell of a school (Trump has been defending himself from charges of fraud for years).
They will dissect his business record. They will fasten on his failed casinos and the bankruptcies he used to stiff creditors while maintaining a lavish lifestyle, and see what they can make of mob connections to the New York real estate world.
They will fry him for hypocrisy on immigration by pointing out that Trump Tower was built by illegal Polish immigrants worked to the bone and that, according to news reports, illegal immigrants are helping build his new hotel in Washington.
They will make the cheap threats he throws at anyone who crosses him a character and temperament issue. They will hound him about his unreleased tax returns. And, of course, they will use decades-worth of controversial statements to portray him as racist and sexist.
...
How will Trump fare against such ads? Maybe he will prove impervious to all such criticism, and counterpunch effectively. Or maybe he will wilt under the assault. Who knows? But Democrats will sure as hell find out.
In this sense, Republicans are outsourcing the vetting of their front-runner to the other party. At this rate, they will make Trump their de facto standard-bearer in a little less than three weeks, never having run him through the paces of the painful testing that is usually inherent to the process.
Yes, Trump has been constantly criticized. But op-ed’s aren’t the same as attack ads. Dismissive pundits aren’t the same as rival candidates out for blood. A Politico analysis (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-megadonors-219690) found that of $238 million in spending by big-money groups so far, only 4 percent has been directed at the man on the cusp of securing the nomination.
...
A variety of reasons account for the de facto moratorium on sustained Trump attacks to this point: clashing candidate interests; exhaustion after so many donors gave so much to the Jeb Bush super PAC Right to Rise with so little effect; fear of Trump. Democrats won’t be similarly constrained. If David Brock doesn’t know more about Trump’s peccadillos than anyone in America right now, he is falling down on his job and should be summarily dismissed as a Clinton courtier.
...