2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Pro Hoc Vice · 16-10-2016 12:15AM

oik wrote: »

Not that I don't believe him, it's just not evidence either way.

How many of your post say "what trump actually means is ......." by your own admission he is either saying what he says or he is a bad at getting his point across either way he is toast.

oik · 16-10-2016 12:16AM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So in absence of evidence you chose to believe one man when he said he didn't molest women but not when he said he did molest women. While at the same time discounting all the women who have accused him of exactly what he said he did.

We have a thing called the presumption of innocence.

It's curious how before this tape came out, accusations of sexual abuse meant nothing on this thread, now they're all you need.

Black Swan · 16-10-2016 12:16AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Been bugging me as well as I don't see Assange/Trump as a logical 'fit'.

A charitable explanation might be that they don't actually have anything to release on Trump as their sources/methods don't have an 'in' on someone from such a non-political background

The IRS is government, and has been hacked more than once, most recently hacked 10 February 2016, so why not now reveal Donald Trump's tax returns, which he continues to keep secret to avoid what he fears they would reveal to the American voters? What's to suggest that Wikileaks has already obtained Donald Trump's tax returns from hackers, as well as more hot mic behind-the-scenes (perhaps from Celebrity Apprentice) Trump bragging about groping young women recordings, or more about Trump going to the dressing rooms of Miss USA, Miss Teen USA, and Miss Universe to do his "inspections" while they were nude? Just one more Trump groping tape like that revealed Friday 7 October 2016 and GAME OVER!

Methinks that Wikileaks is one-sided and biased attacking only Clinton and Democratic HQ because Julian Assange has a very personal motive for doing so, and not a so-called lofty moral reason to pseudo-balance the 2016 American presidential election from the outside so that Donald Trump may win. Rather Donald Trump has spoken before from his political podium asking foreigners like Russian hackers to reveal Clinton's emails, which flies in the face of Donald Trump who claims 8 November is fixed or rigged by Democrats or anti-Trump GOPs, when he asked for such help from foreign hackers too.

Trump: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” This is a clear invitation for a foreign power, its hackers, and Wikileaks to attempt to influence the American presidential elections to Donald Trump's advantage. And Trump claims he's an American and will defend it? Maybe someone should check his birth certificate to see if he was born in New York and not Moscow?

Pro Hoc Vice · 16-10-2016 12:17AM

oik wrote: »

We have a thing called the presumption of innocence.

In the court of law but sadly not in the court of public opinion ask Mr. Evans.

jobbridge4life · 16-10-2016 12:17AM

oik wrote: »

You are playing pretend.

The audience knows she's insincere and you know it too.

And you are deciding what Trump means, what he doesn't mean.

What Hillary means and doesn't mean. When she compliments him she is being insincere when she jokes about bombing an embassy in London she is being deadly serious.

And now you know what Pro really means too.

Is there anyone whose mind you can't read?

jobbridge4life · 16-10-2016 12:18AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Been bugging me as well as I don't see Assange/Trump as a logical 'fit'.

Maybe they are members of the same sexual assailants support group?

oik · 16-10-2016 12:19AM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And you are deciding what Trump means, what he doesn't mean.

What Hillary means and doesn't mean. When she compliments him she is being insincere when she jokes about bombing an embassy in London she is being deadly serious.

And now you know what Pro really means too.

Is there anyone whose mind you can't read?

She's being insincere and you know it.

jobbridge4life · 16-10-2016 12:23AM

oik wrote: »

She's being insincere and you know it.

Let me assure Oik despite your delusions to psychic abilities to read people's minds, you can't read mine.

I 100% genuinely believe she meant what she said. She was asked what she respected about a man who has dried to destroy her and her husbands legacy. Who has uttered vileness that literally no other politician could and one who had just threatened to imprison her, a difficult task anyone could agree, and so she said she thought his children were great and this reflected well on him.

I believe this because if it were me it is probably what I would have said for want of anything else. However I am not sure I could have said because I don't hold his children in as high esteem.

Pro Hoc Vice · 16-10-2016 12:28AM

oik wrote: »

Only because the public is staffed by people like you.

How are the "public staffed" do you even know what you are saying. Yes as a member of the public I am a member of the public so!

jobbridge4life · 16-10-2016 12:28AM

oik wrote: »

Now you know I'm lying right?

Can you tell what I'm wearing?

Pro Hoc Vice · 16-10-2016 12:40AM

oik wrote: »

Poetic licence.

Well unlike you I can't read minds and take people statements as what they say. So can you enlighten me what you mean.

oscarBravo · 16-10-2016 12:41AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

All these reports about sexual assault claims against Trump, and when you actually read the details it's all, 'He tried to kiss me' or 'He put a hand on me'. Seriously?

Seriously. Outside the abhorrent PUA/"alpha male" (code for such an pathetic excuse for a man that you have to degrade women to cover your own insecurities) community, trying to kiss someone or putting a hand up their skirt without their consent is well understood to be sexual assault.

When you try to pretend that sexually assaulting women is socially acceptable behaviour, all you're doing is making yourself look bad. Do yourself a favour: stop it. Oh, and have a good hard look at yourself while you're at it.

We all know how certain women behave around the rich and famous.

Go on, tell us they were asking for it. I dare you.

At worst it's clumsy flirting, a miscommunication, nothing more.

No: at worst it's sexual assault.

I mean, ffs. How do you hear stories about someone putting their hand up someone's skirt and decide that "at worst" it's clumsy flirting? If "clumsy flirting" is the worst case you can make yourself imagine, does that mean that you can't conceive of a situation where sticking your hand up a stranger's skirt could possibly be considered sexual assault?

I'm actually pretty boggled by what you're saying. Seriously: what form does behaviour have to take before you consider it beyond the pale?

We've only heard one side of the story too, I'm sure the actual version, if any of these events did indeed happen, would be very different.

Oh, you're sure of that, are you? What makes you so sure? Your inherent certainty as a man that feeble-minded women are too stupid to understand that an alpha male sticking his hand up their skirt is intended as a compliment?

When I read the sort of drivel you've spewed forth here, I find myself wondering: do you even know any women?

oik · 16-10-2016 12:46AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu0ejFMUEAAaAn5.jpg

Clinton not on board with regulation of banks even though it's on her website.

Next time in a debate she says "It's on my website" Trump should point out her website is full of empty promises like this one.

jobbridge4life · 16-10-2016 12:50AM

oik wrote: »

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu0ejFMUEAAaAn5.jpg

Clinton not on board with regulation of banks even though it's on her website.

Next time in a debate she says "It's on my website" Trump should point out her website is full of empty promises like this one.

Where does she state that she opposes regulation of the banking industry?

Pro Hoc Vice · 16-10-2016 12:52AM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Where does she state that she opposes regulation of the banking industry?

But Oik can read her mind and knows exactly what she and we all mean.

aloyisious · 16-10-2016 01:06AM

Another angle from Don, according to CNN news, which has reported Don has suggested for both him and Hillary to be given drug tests before the next debate on the stated grounds that "Hillary seemed pumped-up at the last debate". The 1st link is from the NY Times, 11 minutes old, the 2nd is Telegraph.co.uk, 4 hours old & 3rd from Fortune about 5 hours ago. The NY Times seem's to be reporting on a story long after it was broken by other media outlets.

I'm assuming CNN has giving serious belief in the reported Donald Trump quote, seeing as it's going to be the host for the 3rd debate, and has checked it out to avoid an error in translation of the reported quote.....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKtMqbhN7PAhXlIcAKHRC1CT4QqQIIIDAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F10%2F16%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump-hillary-clinton-drug-test.html&usg=AFQjCNHJ7P2IimUBS6ry6cBUXujydtXKeQ

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKtMqbhN7PAhXlIcAKHRC1CT4QqQIIHjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2016%2F10%2F15%2Fdonald-trump-accuses-hillary-clinton-of-taking-drugs-before-deba%2F&usg=AFQjCNG2VJKPXYAiWol9eROKhGw_xMpLLA

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKtMqbhN7PAhXlIcAKHRC1CT4QqQIIIjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2016%2F10%2F15%2Fdonald-trump-hillary-clinton-drug-tests%2F&usg=AFQjCNEw_Pl4zyf8iKp_RDF7az28JhUeXA

jobbridge4life · 16-10-2016 01:09AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Another angle from Don, according to CNN news, which has reported Don has asked for both him and Hillary to be given drug tests before the next debate on the stated grounds that "Hillary seemed pumped-up at the last debate".

If by angle you mean 'baseless ramblings that besmirch American democracy and lower us all' then yes.

Overheal · 16-10-2016 03:14AM

oik wrote: »

Do you think NBC, CNN or ABC have set their interns to digging up dirt on Hillary Clinton?

Do you think the NYT and WP have mudrakers combing the country for women who are willing to make an allegation against Hillary Clinton?

Why only demand balance when it starts to affect one candidate and not the other?

There is a big difference between investigative journalism and hacking though. One is a crime.

The HRC camp equated the hacks to Watergate - which is reasonably true, the same type of information was targeted just on servers instead of in file cabinets. The only difference being it's foreign in nature and not orchestrated by a sitting President

gosplan · 16-10-2016 08:06AM

What exactly makes Trump a safe bet?

His inability to follow protocol and adhere to legalities?

His bankrupting economic plan?

His near total detachment from reality?

His ability to make enemies and pick fights with people?

The guy can't run a campaign, has lost countless supporters and backers, but he's a safe bet?

Slieve Gullion · 16-10-2016 09:13AM

Young and naive innocents along with those media gullible brick swallowers will back Clinton. It is such a pity for such honest to goodness regular decent salt of the earth folk from the once greatest nation on earth to have been manipulated and had their hands forced. Trump out of both of them is the better option. Just believe me ok.

ancapailldorcha · 16-10-2016 09:55AM

Guys, if you see below standard posts please ignore and report them.

Thread cleaned up and bans dispensed.

aloyisious · 16-10-2016 10:11AM

Sometimes I think Don has it off to a T, "hey, what do I know" followed by a shrug and tilt of the head to the left, shoulders raised, arms out sideways, palms to the front, and the audience eats out of his hands. Sorry, I don't buy into the "I love Trump" thing. I have this vision of day 01 of the Trump White House, Don walking around inside with his architect and casino staff deciding the best spots to put the slot machines for the W/W tours. I keep wondering why it is that Don is bothering to stay in the race, thinking maybe it's because his opponent is a woman and he can't stand to be bested by anyone, let alone a woman. He is an All-American hot-blooded boy after all.

jobbridge4life · 16-10-2016 01:18PM

Slieve Gullion wrote: »

Young and naive innocents along with those media gullible brick swallowers will back Clinton. It is such a pity for such honest to goodness regular decent salt of the earth folk from the once greatest nation on earth to have been manipulated and had their hands forced. Trump out of both of them is the better option. Just believe me ok.

Okay two reactions...

Either no thanks I can think for myself.

Or...

Kudos on this excellent satire.

alastair · 16-10-2016 01:23PM

Slieve Gullion wrote: »

Trump out of both of them is the better option. Just believe me ok.

Donald? Is that you?

https://youtu.be/zDTeMNhuPTc

Overheal · 16-10-2016 01:43PM

Slieve Gullion wrote: »

Trump out of both of them is the better option. Just believe me ok.

No.

KingBrian2 · 16-10-2016 08:08PM

gosplan wrote: »

What exactly makes Trump a safe bet?

His inability to follow protocol and adhere to legalities?

His bankrupting economic plan?

His near total detachment from reality?

His ability to make enemies and pick fights with people?

The guy can't run a campaign, has lost countless supporters and backers, but he's a safe bet?

He is supported by the lovers of the US constitution while Hillary is a war monger and her commitment to America is suspect. The mysterious deleted e-mail scandal is proof to a lot of Americans that she has a secret past which has yet to be uncovered. This election cycle has already brought to light the sordid sex life of Bill Clinton.

Billy86 · 16-10-2016 08:17PM

Donald Trump vs. The US Constitution - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-donald-trump-constitution-guide-unconstitutional-freedom-liberty-khan-214139

Just gonna link dump this here and save anyone else both hassle of even bothering. Some absolute gems in there, starting with this! :pac:

From early in his campaign, critics have been consistently astonished by his seeming indifference to the Constitution, as he has launched attacks on the press, on mosques, and on other institutions explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights.

Or consider Trump’s private meeting with Republican members of Congress, when the candidate expressed his admiration for Article 12 of the Constitution, apparently unaware that there are only seven Articles.

jobbridge4life · 16-10-2016 08:27PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He is supported by the lovers of the US constitution while Hillary is a war monger and her commitment to America is suspect.

So the people who support Hillary don't love the US constitution?

And on that point, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he neither comprehends nor respects the US constitution, as displayed most powerfully by his commitment to ban Muslims from entering the US, a prime facie unconstitutional proposal, not to mention his repeated promise to prosecute and jail his opponent should he win or allegations, in the face of repeated studies demonstrating the opposite, that the election will be rigged.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The mysterious deleted e-mail scandal is proof to a lot of Americans that she has a secret past which has yet to be uncovered. This election cycle has already brought to light the sordid sex life of Bill Clinton.

If by mysterious you mean thoroughly investigated then yes, as the Republican aligned director of the FBI determined there were no grounds for prosecuting her. As for a secret past... Hillary, having been the First Lady of Arkansas, the First Lady of the United States, Senator for New York, presidential candidate, and Secretary of State over the last few decades, is perhaps the most scrutinized individual to have ever stood for the Presidency and at the end of the day the most damning thing you have to say about her is that her husband has had questionable dealings with women, all of which have themselves been intensively tested, and come to nothing, since the early 90s.

Why not just make it easier for all of us and admit you are a moral bankrupt, willing to support a fascist blowhard because it makes the hairs on your arms stand up and give you a sense of strength?

BorneTobyWilde · 16-10-2016 08:43PM

Trump will win more states, it's the case that most of those states have very little say. It's why Hilary wants more and more refugees that she can make citizens, this gives her more votes next time too . It's all those citizens that were not born in US that will win her this race. The latina vote is huge, each year they make a millions of them US Citizens. They vote Democrat because of this.

Billy86 · 16-10-2016 08:44PM

Well to be fair Brian has already admitted that Trumps unconstitutional plans to ban all Muslims from entering the US is a reason he supports Trump. Of course that was after months of claiming Trumps call to ban all Muslims was distorted by the media (by which he was referring to Trumps own official website) and that he didn't want to ban all Muslims, despite Trump doubling and trebling down on it.

Midnight you, his reasoning is that he views Muslims as a problem; the enemy. He let that one slip after weeks of claiming he had nothing against Muslims and didn't view them as a problem.

Just a heads up on Brian's sense of logic.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments