2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Peist2007

K-9 wrote: »

Don't know but it was an example of an increasingly desperate campaign, same as it is with Trump.

Ah so Trump is a lunatic but Hillary saying the same thing is just desperation. No hypocrisy here!

molloyjh

RobertKK wrote: »

Was Hillary ever investigated for implying in 2008 that Obama could end up like Robert Kennedy?

There is an enormous difference between a candidate saying that they are still in the race because it isn't over (which is what Clinton was saying in 2008) and a candidate suggesting to people to commit an act of murder in order to get what they want (which is what Trump is saying now). You can twist the first into something sinister. The second is something sinister by default.

Peist2007

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Something tells me she didn't word that suggestion as Trump did, e.g. "maybe some States' Rights people could do something about an Obama presidency".

She said she wasnt pulling out of the race because there might be an assassination. When running against what would be the first African American President it was an abominable comment.

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper.

What Trump said yesterday was completely idiotic and another example of a man who really doesnt want to win this election. Go over the comments in the past month, there has been an escalation.

The cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy and sheer dishonesty when it comes to those defending Hillary is absolutely amazing.

Peist2007

molloyjh wrote: »

There is an enormous difference between a candidate saying that they are still in the race because it isn't over (which is what Clinton was saying in 2008)

Complete bollocks.

Suryavarman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Something tells me she didn't word that suggestion as Trump did, e.g. "maybe some States' Rights people could do something about an Obama presidency".

She was asked why she was still in the race prior to California. She replied that anything could happen, citing how Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968. An example of foot in mouth disease but it's worth remembering that this would have been said 2 weeks prior to his 40th anniversary and there would have been much discussion of his death in the press.

It's also worth bearing in mind that Clinton didn't (and still doesn't) have a reputation for making extreme inflammatory statements. So it's believable that she made an innocent gaffe.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Was Hillary ever investigated for implying in 2008 that Obama could end up like Robert Kennedy?

Did the secret service comment on that case?

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

Ah so Trump is a lunatic but Hillary saying the same thing is just desperation. No hypocrisy here!

Well I've never called Trump a lunatic. Hillary's campaign in 08 was terrible, the book about Trump's will be a must read by the looks of it, a best seller.

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

Complete bollocks.

Hey, no need for that.

molloyjh

Peist2007 wrote: »

Complete bollocks.

Really? Okay, what exactly did she mean by the comment? Did she mean she had hired goons to whack Obama? Did she mean to suggest that someone do that for her? What exactly did she mean? I mean if you know, please share.

It was a bloody daft statement, but do you really think there was intent there?

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Now again I will ask, because you seemed eager to avoid these after throwing out accusations:

Please find where I implied the DNC emails were not real. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Please find where I implied the people who released them did. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Please find where I said Wikileaks revelations have ever turned out to be false. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Peist2007, I would appreciate you backing up your claims.

BoatMad

Peist2007 wrote: »

She said she wasnt pulling out of the race because there might be an assassination. When running against what would be the first African American President it was an abominable comment.

We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper.

What Trump said yesterday was completely idiotic and another example of a man who really doesnt want to win this election. Go over the comments in the past month, there has been an escalation.

The cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy and sheer dishonesty when it comes to those defending Hillary is absolutely amazing.

I was in the US at the time, there was actually a serious narrative that he might be assassinated , as it became obvious that he was going to win. Her comment has no equivalent to Trumps recent comments on Hilary, and you and others attempt to generalise some ( im)moral equivalences here are plain to see

PopePalpatine

Suryavarman wrote: »

Did the secret service comment on that case?

Hang on, give them time to ask the neo-fascist "safe space" /r/the_donald for a good conspiracy theory.

Amerika

Peist2007 wrote: »

They have to ignore this also in order to maintain their outrage:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html

Of course they do. Didn't you know history starts today?

But those Hillary and Trumps comments are table scraps compared to the really concerning things the media is ignoring. Recently released emails from Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton show that the State Department coordinated its efforts with the Clinton Foundation to benefit its donors. Add to that the Uranium One deal which moved control of much of the US’s uranium assets into the hands of the Russians and personally benefited the Clintons. The deal even had connections to the Bill Clinton corrupt presidential pardon of Bill Marc Rich via Gilbert Chagoury, Marc Rich’s partner. And the media ignores the Clinton Foundation’s lies on tax returns, their money laundering schemes, and how it aided the Clintons in amassing their personal wealth and advancing her political ambitions.

The media merely asks questions of Clinton, and takes her responses as Gospel, no follow up, no investigation... thank you sir, may I have another. They are mere scribes to the Clinton machine. Now, I can understand the media because they’re biased and dishonest, but I can’t understand why Trump isn’t screaming from the rooftops about Hillary’s corrupt and underhanded dealings. Sadly, I’m starting to fear he may not really want to win because regardless of all his bluster, he doesn’t seem willing to play hardball.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Did the secret service comment on that case?

I'm sure they didn't. And I don't understand why they needed to make a comment this time. They were right there next to Trump when he made the statement. If it was so over the top, as so many here describe, the Secret Service would have stopped Trump in his tracks and taken action.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I'm sure they didn't. And I don't understand why they needed to make a comment this time. They were right there next to Trump when he made the statement. If it was so over the top, as so many here describe, the Secret Service would have stopped Trump in his tracks and taken action.

Do you actually believe half the rubbish you type?

TheDoctor

The Secret Service do not police the content of speeches of Presidential candidates.

Billy86

Nobody want to mention that the Secret Service, who typically do not get involved for the primaries and often don't do so in the early stages of the presidential election itself, felt the need to begin protection on Barack Obama as early as May... 2007?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04obama.html?_r=0

The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, authorized the protection for Mr. Obama after consulting with a Congressional advisory committee that reviews security for presidential hopefuls. The decision to assign agents to Mr. Obama, nearly nine months before voting begins in the Democratic primaries for president, is the earliest the Secret Service has ever issued a security detail to a candidate.

All the same, I guess the gigantic, never-ending pro-Clinton media conspiracy was in full force back in 2008... when it gave her a smacking for that RFK comment. This is off one very quick google search...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/23/hillaryclinton.barackobama
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/23/wow-hillary-sticking-around-in-case-obama-gets-shot/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052303158.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/23/clinton.comments/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html
http://nypost.com/2008/05/24/hills-assassin-talk-a-shocker/

Clinton later apologised for her comment... who here sees Trump having the wherewithal to do the same?

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

The Secret Service do not police the content of speeches of Presidential candidates.

The Secret Service’s job during the presidential election is to protect the candidates. If they felt there was an actual threat to a candidate they would have taken action immediately. There wasn’t, so they didn’t.

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

Of course they do. Didn't you know history starts today?

But those Hillary and Trumps comments are table scraps compared to the really concerning things the media is ignoring. Recently released emails from Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton show that the State Department coordinated its efforts with the Clinton Foundation to benefit its donors. Add to that the Uranium One deal which moved control of much of the US’s uranium assets into the hands of the Russians and personally benefited the Clintons. The deal even had connections to the Bill Clinton corrupt presidential pardon of Bill Marc Rich via Gilbert Chagoury, Marc Rich’s partner. And the media ignores the Clinton Foundation’s lies on tax returns, their money laundering schemes, and how it aided the Clintons in amassing their personal wealth and advancing her political ambitions.

The media merely asks questions of Clinton, and takes her responses as Gospel, no follow up, no investigation... thank you sir, may I have another. They are mere scribes to the Clinton machine. Now, I can understand the media because they’re biased and dishonest, but I can’t understand why Trump isn’t screaming from the rooftops about Hillary’s corrupt and underhanded dealings. Sadly, I’m starting to fear he may not really want to win because regardless of all his bluster, he doesn’t seem willing to play hardball.

All thats happening here , is an attempt to paint Clinton as bad as Trump. the fact remains that Trump has not only a shady past, he's nuts as well

Amerika

BoatMad wrote: »

All thats happening here , is an attempt to paint Clinton as bad as Trump. the fact remains that Trump has not only a shady past, he's nuts as well

I can see the new Clinton campaign slogan, now... 'Sure, Hillary is corrupt and a liar, but at least she's not nuts.' :P

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

The Secret Service’s job during the presidential election is to protect the candidates. If they felt there was an actual threat to a candidate they would have taken action immediately. There wasn’t, so they didn’t.

Why would secret service agents protecting Trump act immediately to protect Hillary? Are they able to teleport? Were they supposed to use their magic powers to go to Hillary's aid immediately?

Do you even understand what exactly we are talking about? Your posts on this matter are completely devoid of anything that might be construed as logic.

TheDoctor

Amerika wrote: »

The Secret Service’s job during the presidential election is to protect the candidates.

Agreed. So when Trump in the middle of his supporters, suggested assassination of another candidate as a method of preventing the loss of the second amendment, there was no need for them to get involved.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

I can see the new Clinton campaign slogan, now... 'Sure, Hillary is corrupt and a liar, but at least she's not nuts.' :P

The only thing funny about this is that Trump fans spent most of the primaries and the earlier part of the presidential run itself claiming that Trump's lies were one of his best traits.

As the polls show, that has backfired massively and as your post shows, the messaging has needed to be changed because of it. But in the internet age, it's so much easier to call this type of nonsense for what it is.

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

Agreed. So when Trump in the middle of his supporters, suggested assassination of another candidate as a method of preventing the loss of the second amendment the NRA and voters who care about 2nd amendment rights will be motivated and organized in November and through their votes they will prevent Clinton from becoming president, there was no need for them to get involved.

There... fixed that for you. And yes, I agree.

But it's obvious Trump isn't politically savvy in his speeches, and should realize the media will twist and turn any comment he might say, that could be misconstrued against him, into the newest and biggest outrage of the century.

Oh, how I miss the good old days with binders full of women. :P

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

There... fixed that for you. And yes, I agree.

But it's obvious Trump isn't politically savvy in his speeches, and should realize the media will twist and turn any comment he might say, that could be misconstrued against him, into the newest and biggest outrage of the century.

Oh, how I miss the good old days with binders full of women. :P

He said if Clinton gets elected there is nothing they can do to defend their rights except...

Not the if Clinton is elected part. If Clinton is elected it is a bit late to go out and vote for Trump me thinks.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

We covered this about a week back, if I recall he considers Rice to be 'one of the best secretaries of state in a long time' on the basis that she played a big role in Libya's end to seeking nukes. On the other hand, that Clinton is heavily credited with doing the exact same in Iran means nothing.

Then, Clinton's voting for Iraq and role in Libya are seen as proof she is a warmonger and automatically (one of, or was it the?) worst the US has ever had... and on the flipside, Rice being a crucial player in the Iraq war means nothing.

That Trump supported the war in Iraq and Mike Pence was one of the staunch supporters of it, and remains as such is also irrelevant, but somehow Clinton voting yes on Iraq has come up repeatedly from him in this thread alone.

I get that Robert isn't backing Trump for the nefarious reasons many in this thread have before, I do fully get that and it's reassuring. But the logical loopholes on this would break your brain.

It helped having Kerry for the last two years of the Iran deal, given he has not said he would obliterate the Iranians.
I think the west would be better if we had the Shia Muslims as our allies, Trump is towing the Iran line too over the money the US gave Iran, but that money is better going to Iran than the billions in weapons/fighter jets that have been sold to the Saudis who are responsible for a lot of ills in the world.
All the terrorists who seem to be attacking the west seem to be radicalised Sunni Muslims.
Not the Shia Muslims.

I also feel the West and whether that was Democrat or Republic in the US, they should have placed sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for their roles in making Pakistan a country with nuclear weapons. The Saudis for financing it and Pakistan for the nuclear bombs.

One thing Trump has done which I admire is he has called out Saudi Arabia and it's role in sponsoring terrorism.
This is another reason why I have a problem with the Clinton foundation and it accepting money from the Saudis,
The DNC convention, it had a lot about 9/11, no Charles Schumer who said after reading a congress report on 911: "Preliminary readings show that there may well have been Saudi involvement in the terror of 9/11 both in the Saudi government and within the Saudi country, within Saudi Arabia,"

The Clinton foundation accepts $25 million from the Saudis and Hillary then as Secretary of State sells Saudi Arabia fighter jets and military equipment totaling $29.4 billion.
If I was Trump I would use all this against Hillary Clinton. Hillary seems to have her fingers stuck in many pies, one hand with the victims of 9/11, the other hand with fingers accepting millions in money for their foundation and signing off on arms deal to a country directly implicated in 9/11.
Is it any wonder her honesty and trustworthy figures are way worse than Trump.
I just don't get how you can have a convention and so much about what you did for the 9/11 victims, but sshhhh about being all one with the Saudis who are accused of being involved in 9/11.
I would have to side with Russia who do not view Saudi Arabia as an ally and with Trump on this who also accused the Saudis of being involved in 9/11.
Clinton has given the Saudis a free ride. There was talk that Obama's last visit to Saudi Arabia was more frosty. The Guardian described the meeting as being chilly with a mutual distrust of each other.

I think Obama has been more pragmatic than Hillary, I can admire Obama for learning from the Libya disaster.
I don't believe Hillary has learned anything.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

He said if Clinton gets elected there is nothing they can do to defend their rights except...

Not the if Clinton is elected part. If Clinton is elected it is a bit late to go out and vote for Trump me thinks.

Do you happen to know if the media has gone through this kind of effort as of yet, regarding what Trump said?

jimmycrackcorm

All the almost daily gaffes demonstrate that Trump cannot learn anything at all. It's also clear that if there was any money to be made that he would happily be very pally with the Saudis.

LostinKildare

Trump is hemorrhaging support from Republican women.

Generally, Republican strategists agree that their candidate must win 90% of all Repub voters (men + women) in order to win the presidency. As of late July, Trump's support among R women was 72% (having dropped 13 points since the conventions). By comparison, Romney and GWB won 93% of R women, and McCain won 89%. There aren't enough male Rs to offset the deficit of female Rs.

Of all the tribulations facing Donald J. Trump, perhaps none is stirring as much anxiety inside his campaign as the precipitous decline of support from Republican women, an electoral cornerstone for the party’s past nominees that is starting to crumble.

In a striking series of defections, high-profile Republican women are abandoning decades of party loyalty and vowing to oppose Mr. Trump, calling him emotionally unfit for the presidency and a menace to national security. . . .
In politically moderate swing states like Pennsylvania, which aides to Mr. Trump say are crucial to his victory, Mr. Trump’s standing with women over all is perilously low among registered voters: Just 27 percent of women back him, compared with 58 percent for Mrs. Clinton, according to a poll by Franklin & Marshall College. . . .
Four years ago, about 10 million more women voted than men [nationally], the Rutgers center found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-gop-women.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=1

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And to prove the point, Obama, through executive orders, has directed federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, our immigration laws.

The presidential Executive Orders issued by presidents are numbered. Which EO numbers support your point? Please list them, or your argument is without merit.