El Presidente Trump

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 02:39PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Where's the proof Trump sexually assaulted someone? Spin it whatever way you want, the world knows Clinton is a sexual fiend. Lewinsky knew to as she refers to him as "The creep" on the recorded calls.

Wikileaks it irrefutable. 7 DNC staffers and media personal were fired because of the leaks, and just because you're ignorant of available information, you shouldn't pretend it isn't.

See? Here you go again, you are simultaneously convinced that all the women who accused Trump of sexual assault are liars AND that all the allegations against Bill Clinton are true.

How can you not see that you are behaving in a cult-like manner - you apparently reject any evidence, from any source which contradicts your existing beliefs, no matter what.

And of course Wikileaks is refutable, do you remember just before the election they kept saying that the NEXT release would be the one that would totally wipe Clinton out?

Remeber how that never happened?

Remember when Assange held a press conference at which he said he would reveal a MASSIVE story, and it turned out to be very long ad for his book (30% off!)

edit: Aaaaaand he's gone. Guess all the winning got too much for him, poor guy

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 02:49PM

B0jangles wrote: »

See? Here you go again, you are simultaneously convinced that all the women who accused Trump of sexual assault are liars AND that all the allegations against Bill Clinton are true.

How can you not see that you are behaving in a cult-like manner?

Of course Wikileaks is refutable, do you remember just before the election they kept saying that the NEXT release would be the one that would totally wipe Clinton out?

Remeber how that never happened?

Remember when Assange held a press conference at which he would reveal a MASSIVE story, and it turned out to be very long ad for his book (30% off!)

No I'm not, you brought up the Bill Clinton thing saying I was spouting allegations as fact. I specifically said in my previous posts about things which were fact and he admitted, and separated the other Women into allegations which I'm highly suspicious of.

Correcting what you implied is behaving in a cult like manner?

Any content Wikileaks has released is irrefutable. And that's what I've always referred to. Over 10 million documents and not a single one that wasn't real. What Assange says in an interview is irrelevant, but I'll bite. There is still two separate investigations ongoing by Congress and the FBI into the Clinton foundation, so he might well end up being right.

MadYaker · 13-12-2016 02:57PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Your post is just a belittlement of people, and I find it quite ignorant tbh. I could make a generalized post with a random quote and spin the same bottle, as in when given opposite viewpoints, often it boils down to insults of intellect by people on the left.

Hillary supporters campaign strongly for social rights, Hillary takes huge sums of money and gives speeches from places like Saudi Arabia, a place where gays are prosecuted and Women treated like dogs. That sounds like all kinds of crazy to me but it must be my low IQ kicking in.

Hillary supporters believe strongly in multiculturalism, she goes out and creates havoc in the middle east essentially creating terror groups the very people on the right don't want anywhere near their country. Ironic no?

Well I could go on, but I fear it would turn into more insults.

This is such a standard Trump supporter response at this stage its actually funny. The post you're replying to is very relevant and makes a good point in regard to Trump and uses a very appropriate quote. Yet instead of engaging with that and trying to refute it you resort to the standard Trump supporter response: "but but but.... Hillary!" this thread isn't about Hillary or Jill Stein or anyone else, it's about Trump. But because he is indefensible the only option for his supporters is to go on the attack and try to divert attention away from his flaws by bringing up losers.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 03:00PM

MadYaker wrote: »

This is such a standard Trump supporter response at this stage its actually funny. The post you're replying to is very relevant and makes a good point in regard to Trump and uses a very appropriate quote. Yet instead of engaging with that and trying to refute it you resort to the standard Trump supporter response: "but but but.... Hillary!" this thread isn't about Hillary or Jill Stein or anyone else, it's about Trump. But because he is indefensible the only option for his supporters is to go on the attack and try to divert attention away from his flaws by bringing up losers.

I said a few posts up he should ditch his Business connections.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:00PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

No I'm not, you brought up the Bill Clinton thing saying I was spouting allegations as fact. I specifically said in my previous posts about things which were fact and he admitted, and separated the other Women into allegations which I'm highly suspicious of.

Correcting what you implied is behaving in a cult like manner?

Any content Wikileaks has released is irrefutable. And that's what I've always referred to. Over 10 million documents and not a single one that wasn't real. What Assange says in an interview is irrelevant, but I'll bite. There is still two separate investigations ongoing by Congress and the FBI into the Clinton foundation, so he might well end up being right.

He might also turn into a helium baloon and float off into space, he 'might' say or do anything... Again, you accept and believe anything that supports your established beliefs and reject anything which contradicts them.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:03PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I said a few posts up he should ditch his Business connections.

If he doesn't, what will you say? If past behavious is any guide, I'm guessing you'll come up with some justification for why it's actually the right and proper thing to do because 'reasons'

(BTW he's not actually going to ditch them, he has already said he's handing them over to his adult children, who he will totallyabsolutely, never ever talk to about business matters, cross his fingers and hope to die)

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 03:05PM

B0jangles wrote: »

He might also turn into a helium baloon and float off into space, he 'might' say or do anything... Again, you accept and believe anything that supports your established beliefs and reject anything which contradicts them.

Wikileaks has never released a false document, spin it whatever way you want. It's a fact.

MadYaker · 13-12-2016 03:12PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Wikileaks has never released a false document, spin it whatever way you want. It's a fact.

Yeah but it would be foolish to think that they aren't selective in what they choose to release. They have become a very powerful organisation just like any other news outlet.

13-12-2016 03:13PM

I think you'll find that there isn't much a of cult of personality here.

It's a disdain for Clinton and for me, a complete and utter lack of caring for the American populace after seeing how Hillary's supporters reacted to proven complaints of how the Primary went down. Her supporters, Trump's and everyone who didn't vote deserve whatever fuk ups he brings.

And I really don't care about the world stage with Trump in it. While some things have gone up in America under Obama, everything else in the world continues to shatter and fall apart. Just look at what their foreign policy is doing to Europe.

Tensions have been rising with Russia and China for years but an allegation that Russia hacked the DNC (a lot of people think they actually hacked voting machines) and a phone call from Taiwan seem to be the end of good times between the superpowers. Apparently, everything was fine until Trump won.

Today, I've started seeing Russia being blamed for causing Brexit and movements like BLM elsewhere online and that is sure to spread to boards over the coming days. It's all overblown crap and it's dangerous. The hard-core left it seems would rather war with Russia than accept that Trump won because Hillary was an awful candidate across most of America. The cheek of it. There is literally a video of Hillary talking about rigging elections in Palestine, there's proof that her own primary was a complete farce, but none of that sort of thing was remotely possible until she lost the big one. I won't apologize for enjoying the meltdown.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:15PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Wikileaks has never released a false document, spin it whatever way you want. It's a fact.

How do you know that, because Wikileaks told you?

Also have you ever considered that it is really incredibly easy to create a narrative if you only release information selectively.

For example, if you have a set of 10,000 emails covering a wide range of topics but only release the 50 which mention pizza, then you creating the false impression that all the people involved talk about is pizza.

Then you convince people that 'pizza' is a actually codeword for children because why the hell not, your supporters apparently believe anything you say.

silverharp · 13-12-2016 03:21PM

B0jangles wrote: »

How do you know that, because Wikileaks told you?

Also have you ever considered that it is really incredibly easy to create a narrative if you only release information selectively.

For example, if you have a set of 10,000 emails covering a wide range of topics but only release the 50 which mention pizza, then you creating the false impression that all the people involved talk about is pizza.

Then you convince people that 'pizza' is a actually codeword for children because why the hell not, your supporters apparently believe anything you say.

wikileaks never drew attention to "pizza" in the emails, the weaponised autism of the internet did that. Wikileak released thousands of Podesta emails

MadYaker · 13-12-2016 03:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find that there isn't much a of cult of personality here.

Trump supporters constantly spew out stuff like this but yeah there's definitely no personality cult here, no sir!

A Little Pony wrote: »

He is too quick for his opponents. I remember Newt Gingrich said during the primaries that Donald Trump would be like the militia during the American revolutionary war, attacking the British Army from all directions, using ambush tactics, using quick skirmish tactics.

Donald Trump is too quick for the media, say something to take attention off his last 'outrage', shift media focus, destroy Hillary to win the election and render the mainstream media useless against him but also using them to HELP him. The guy is very clever, a great general.

And that's just on boards, go read r/TheDonald if you want to see the worst of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a disdain for Clinton and for me, a complete and utter lack of caring for the American populace after seeing how Hillary's supporters reacted to proven complaints of how the Primary went down. Her supporters, Trump's and everyone who didn't vote deserve whatever fuk ups he brings.

And I really don't care about the world stage with Trump in it. While some things have gone up in America under Obama, everything else in the world continues to shatter and fall apart. Just look at what their foreign policy is doing to Europe.

Tensions have been rising with Russia and China for years but an allegation that Russia hacked the DNC (a lot of people think they actually hacked voting machines) and a phone call from Taiwan seem to be the end of good times between the superpowers. Apparently, everything was fine until Trump won.

Today, I've started seeing Russia being blamed for causing Brexit and movements like BLM elsewhere online and that is sure to spread to boards over the coming days. It's all overblown crap and it's dangerous. The hard-core left it seems would rather war with Russia than accept that Trump won because Hillary was an awful candidate across most of America. The cheek of it. There is literally a video of Hillary talking about rigging elections in Palestine, there's proof that her own primary was a complete farce, but none of that sort of thing was remotely possible until she lost the big one. I won't apologize for enjoying the meltdown.

No sure how the rest of this rant is relevant to the thread. Everyone (apart from the Green Party morons) has accepted that Trump has won. The US has been toppling governments and rigging elections since Hillary was in nappies. Saying the primary was a farce is a bit much, it wasn't really and it's no more of a farce than the donald being elected president after losing the popular vote by over 2,000,000 votes. You're dead right she was a terrible candidate, probably the worst dem candidate since that guy who ran against Reagan and lost by a landslide, can't remember his name.

13-12-2016 03:28PM

B0jangles wrote: »

How do you know that, because Wikileaks told you?

I've explained this a few times before but people are too stupid to understand so I'll give an example instead.

I meet your wife or husband and show them a message you sent me where you talk about cheating on them. I've altered the message and you know it. Do you just let your life fall apart or do you show your spouse the two messages next to each other?

That's about as basic as I can make it. If there was ever a fake document, it would be publicized by the "victim" and Wikileaks would die a quick death. To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous and just really fưcking annoying.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:29PM

silverharp wrote: »

wikileaks never drew attention to "pizza" in the emails, the weaponised autism of the internet did that. Wikileak released thousands of Podesta emails

You're missing the point. If you selectively release data, you're probably doing so to create a narrative, to create an impression. You don't have to change the documents themselves to do so.

Another example , say you're emailing back and forth with a friend about what is the worst thing you've ever heard anyone say in real life. You go back and forth a bit quoting various awful things you've heard and eventually you mail back "I think Blacks are naturally less intelligent than Whites"

If that one email gets leaked out of context, hey you're now a terrible, horrible racist!

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I've explained this a few times before but people are too stupid to understand so I'll give an example instead.

I meet your wife or husband and show them a message you sent me where you talk about cheating on them. I've altered the message and you know it. Do you just let your life fall apart or do you show your spouse the two messages next to each other?

That's about as basic as I can make it. If there was ever a fake document, it would be publicized by the "victim" and Wikileaks would die a quick death. To suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous and just really fưcking annoying.

See above, people aren't too stupid to understand your point, they just realise there are ways of manipulating the perception of data by releasing it selectively.

A possibility you appear to have missed entirely.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 03:34PM

B0jangles wrote: »

If he doesn't, what will you say?

If he doesn't it's not gonna change my mind, he'd be better off cutting ties completely, it would be good PR and eliminate any possible conflicts.

He won't though .

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:37PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If he doesn't it's not gonna change my mind, he'd be better off cutting ties completely, it would be good PR and eliminate any possible conflicts.

He won't though .

So whether he does it or not, he has your unwavering support. That is not political thinking, it's religiosity.

Call Me Jimmy · 13-12-2016 03:41PM

MadYaker wrote: »

Yeah but it would be foolish to think that they aren't selective in what they choose to release. They have become a very powerful organisation just like any other news outlet.

That is completely irrelevant, you can trust that anything they have is true which is better than any other 'powerful organisation'.

13-12-2016 03:42PM

B0jangles wrote: »

See above, people aren't too stupid to understand your point, they just realise there are ways of manipulating the perception of data by releasing it selectively.

A possibility you appear to have missed entirely.

You're making it sound like they only released damning emails or made emails sound worse because they were missing context. They released everything for all to see.

What you really mean is you think it's unfair only the left got everything released on them. That just doesn't "manipulate the perception" of them. How would Trump's business emails or the RNC's emails being released change anything about the current ones?

The vibe I get from people you is that you hate that the other side was more informed. It's only ok if either every voter is uninformed or informed. Like it's a game or something.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:45PM

Remember when the current story was "Clinton Hates Everyday Americans"

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-bombshell-hillary-advisors-admit-hates-everyday-americans/

WIKILEAKS BOMBSHELL: Hillary Advisors Admit She “HATES EVERYDAY AMERICANS”

Jim Hoft Oct 11th, 2016 9:21 am 317 Comments
hillary angry mail

WOW—–
Wikileaks released its third set of John Podesta emails on Tuesday.

Wikileaks has released over 5,000 of Podesta’s emails in the last week.
Podesta is a top Clinton advisor and confidant.

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 3 (1190 new emails) #HillaryClinton #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails3 https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm pic.twitter.com/75jVhpvtX8

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 11, 2016

In one email the Clinton team admits Hillary has “begun to hate everyday Americans.”

The email is titled “truth.”
hillary-hate-americans

Hillary hates every day Americans. ARE YOU LISTENING??

It was abundantly clear from the context that she hates the phrase "everyday Americans", but that is absolutely not how it was presented to the average person who has neither the time nor energy to trawl through thousands of emails.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 03:47PM

B0jangles wrote: »

So whether he does it or not, he has your unwavering support. That is not political thinking, it's religiosity.

Did you misread my post? I said if he doesn't I'd still think it's a mistake. Should I drop my support because of it?

ebbsy · 13-12-2016 03:48PM

B0jangles wrote: »

See? Here you go again, you are simultaneously convinced that all the women who accused Trump of sexual assault are liars AND that all the allegations against Bill Clinton are true.

How can you not see that you are behaving in a cult-like manner - you apparently reject any evidence, from any source which contradicts your existing beliefs, no matter what.

And of course Wikileaks is refutable, do you remember just before the election they kept saying that the NEXT release would be the one that would totally wipe Clinton out?

Remeber how that never happened?

Remember when Assange held a press conference at which he said he would reveal a MASSIVE story, and it turned out to be very long ad for his book (30% off!)

edit: Aaaaaand he's gone. Guess all the winning got too much for him, poor guy

They are all liars. The money grabbing witches. Where are they now by the way ? Out spending Billary's cash no doubt.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're making it sound like they only released damning emails or made emails sound worse because they were missing context. They released everything for all to see.

What you really mean is you think it's unfair only the left got everything released on them. That just doesn't "manipulate the perception" of them. How would Trump's business emails or the RNC's emails being released change anything about the current ones?

The vibe I get from people you is that you hate that the other side was more informed. It's only ok if either every voter is uninformed or informed. Like it's a game or something.

Of course it would! Do you seriously think people would keep harping on about Saudi donations to the Clinton foundation if it were revealed that Trumps election campaign was being directly financed by the Saudi government?

Or if it were revealed that the RNC was explicitly planning to purge voter rolls in swing states with the direct intention of targeting likely Democrat voters?

pumpkin4life · 13-12-2016 03:53PM

Confirmation bias. You look for the view and information that reinforces your own beliefs about the world, rather than a factual, objective evaluation of the facts at hand. We're all subject to it. The people who are often the biggest victim to it are the ones who ironically the people most likely to consider themselves rational, logical, whathaveyous. All of us are subject to these biases and manipulations. They're all over this thread.

One of the best examples of it was the grab em by the pussy tape, where people were saying Trump advocated sexual assault. All you have to do is listen to the tape, all of that.

Subsequently, this is where the "post truth" stuff is coming through, or why Jill Stein so ingeniously was able to make a truckload of money from the recounts.

When there are signs that the world is not lending itself to your viewpoint, you try and change the information coming in accordingly.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 03:54PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Remember when the current story was "Clinton Hates Everyday Americans"

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-bombshell-hillary-advisors-admit-hates-everyday-americans/

It was abundantly clear from the context that she hates the phrase "everyday Americans", but that is absolutely not how it was presented to the average person who has neither the time nor energy to trawl through thousands of emails.

Quoting some site that spouts garbage isn't a good way to prove any point.

Remember when Hillary was being told what to do in Albania by George Soros?

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972

You probably don't, since the MSM didn't report it. But Trump is the one with baggage. :pac:

Any idiot can take something out of perspective, it doesn't make the documents themselves any less legit. The DNC and Podesta were released in sequential batches. They still have more.

13-12-2016 03:54PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Remember when the current story was "Clinton Hates Everyday Americans"

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-bombshell-hillary-advisors-admit-hates-everyday-americans/

It was abundantly clear from the context that she hates the phrase "everyday Americans", but that is absolutely not how it was presented to the average person who has neither the time nor energy to trawl through thousands of emails.

I really can't believe you just tried to discredit Wikileaks because of how a different website presented an email. All you did was prove how valuable they are because you showed what the media can do with information.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 03:55PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Did you misread my post? I said if he doesn't I'd still think it's a mistake. Should I drop my support because of it?

Um, yes?

Rational people change their minds when presented with new information; such a massive conflict of interest absolutely should be enough to cause you to drop your support.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 03:56PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Of course it would! Do you seriously think people would keep harping on about Saudi donations to the Clinton foundation if it were revealed that Trumps election campaign was being directly financed by the Saudi government?

Or if it were revealed that the RNC was explicitly planning to purge voter rolls in swing states with the direct intention of targeting likely Democrat voters?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

silverharp · 13-12-2016 03:57PM

B0jangles wrote: »

You're missing the point. If you selectively release data, you're probably doing so to create a narrative, to create an impression. You don't have to change the documents themselves to do so.

Another example , say you're emailing back and forth with a friend about what is the worst thing you've ever heard anyone say in real life. You go back and forth a bit quoting various awful things you've heard and eventually you mail back "I think Blacks are naturally less intelligent than Whites"

If that one email gets leaked out of context, hey you're now a terrible, horrible racist!

I'd assume they released the emails in time order oldest first, if you can show evidence that they cherry picked to mislead link someone who has suggested this? People at the time were complaining that they didn't filter out obvious junk and spam mail so were wasting time so it appears they just released block by block

13-12-2016 03:59PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Of course it would! Do you seriously think people would keep harping on about Saudi donations to the Clinton foundation if it were revealed that Trumps election campaign was being directly financed by the Saudi government?

Or if it were revealed that the RNC was explicitly planning to purge voter rolls in swing states with the direct intention of targeting likely Democrat voters?

Lots of IFs and crying that people were informed. Why not sit back and think about what you're saying here before digging further.