Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[satimy]

And that is a blatant lie, because that happened on the very last page. Twice.

- - - Updated - - -



Before we go further down this route, I'll ask you: have Daerio's requests for information been met? Has he been provided with what he asked for, or not? Let's get fresh eyes on this. Weigh in. Don't be shy.

I have stated my peace, I'll wait for my ban in the middle of the night and come back in 2 months

[Breccia]

I also got a good laugh when conservatives were mad when Bradley Cooper was at the DNC convention. But..but..he was American Sniper!!

Wasn't he all "Um, you know I'm an actor, right?"

[Paranoid Android]

Wasn't he all "Um, you know I'm an actor, right?"

LoL! No idea. It was funny how mad they were that they didn't think he was the same person Chris Kyle.

[DeadmanWalking]

This is tiring. trying to mark politifact as a biased source is beyond the pale guys, and i dont' understand it. i cant understand why someone, when presented with hard facts and evidence dismisses it because it doesnt pick up the other candidate as much as yours.
Could these people understand that maybe, just maybe, Donald Trump lies much more than Hillary Clinton? (at least on one or two orders of magnitude). that's the Truth, so accept it. evidence is not partisan, and it doesnt follow a stupid balance issue

a fact checker job is rather self-explanatory. they check wether a statement done by a public person is true or false (or something in between). Just because there're much more lies on the republican side should say something for the GOP, not for the fact-checker. The GOP (and in this case, the trumpistas) ability to disregard facts and think they follow an agenda is baffling to say the least.

Jeffery Toobin on CNN said it was totally understandable that Trump wants a debate with no moderators because he doesn't want anyone fact checking him and the problem with fact checkers is that only liberals are fact checkers.

Which shows you a lot about the Republicans, in that they are not fact checkers nor do they care for facts to be checked.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Not nearly as hard as it is to take the moderation team in this thread seriously. You guys havnt done shit to stop the flaming that goes out against trump people within this own thread. You have neglected the rules that are posted on the first page of this thread.

And look it's cool to take sides, but don't claim to be impartial and take down the rules on the first page of the thread because they aren't being followed

Lol wut. The usual victim complex I guess. I've seen plenty of Hillary bashing and flaming without a single infraction. There's also conspiracy theories flying around about her. You know, all of that stuff about her having hundreds of people assassinated. That's technically against the rules, but none of them get infracted. The anti-Hillary stuff is blatantly against the rules in so many ways but goes unmoderated, so your complaints are lol-worthy.

[satimy]

Lol wut. The usual victim complex I guess. I've seen plenty of Hillary bashing and flaming without a single infraction. There's also conspiracy theories flying around about her. You know, all of that stuff about her having hundreds of people assassinated. That's technically against the rules, but none of them get infracted. The anti-Hillary stuff is blatantly against the rules in so many ways but goes unmoderated, so your complaints are lol-worthy.

Why post rules if they aren't to be followed? Where's the line? Can I call you a distasteful faggot because somebody posts a conspiracy in another thread? I'm not a vicitim, nor am I playing the victim card. You just can't see bias because you are incapable of not being a ctr shill. Objectivity waved bye bye to you ages ago my friend

[GennGreymane]

No that's valid, the character assassination bullshit is unbelievable.

What do you describe as character assassination? People seem to be pointing out (with proof) his lies.

[satimy]

What do you describe as character assassination? People seem to be pointing out (with proof) his lies.

People calling trump supporters white nationalists and nazis, it's all ad hominem. Clinton could eviscerate trump on policy debates, but she's getting sucked into his game and she won't win his game

[Zeek Daniels]

Im a Trump supporter and im an African American.

[GennGreymane]

People calling trump supporters white nationalists and nazis, it's all ad hominem. Clinton could eviscerate trump on policy debates, but she's getting sucked into his game and she won't win his game

kay?
/10chars

[cubby]

Im a Trump supporter and im an African American.

You're definitely not paying attention then.

[kail]

People calling trump supporters white nationalists and nazis, it's all ad hominem. Clinton could eviscerate trump on policy debates, but she's getting sucked into his game and she won't win his game

Adolf Trump and Shillary won't be going anywhere. This would be the first forum I'd see people banned for the childish terms because it's simply too popular and many will be guilty of it.

[Breccia]

People calling trump supporters white nationalists and nazis,

You came in on this thread and said...this? When was the last time exactly this happened here? I'm on here a lot and I can't remember the last time we used those words. Now idiot, that's a different story.

[BrerBear]

Trump finally got asked directly today about his Foundation scandal:

BG: "And with the Washington Post report out this week about the Trump Foundation. Could you explain to people why you may have used some charitable donations for personal uses?

Trump: "The foundation is really rare. It gives money to that. It's really been doing a good job. I think we put that to sleep just by putting out the last report."

Mmmmm word salad.
Next week's debate is going to be delicious.

[Taneras]

None of the crowds were even close to half that. Seriously, who talks to black people in Iowa?

"According to the 2010 U.S. Census, these cities comprised 55.2% of Iowa's black population. Of a total 2008 U.S. Census estimated population of 99,514, 9.2 percent - or 9,200 citizens are African-American. For comparison, the average African-American population in Iowa cities is 2.5 percent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa...avenport,_Iowa

With African American's averaging 2.5% of the population in Iowa cities, is it any surprise that when Trump gives a speech in an Iowa city that there are almost no black people in the crowd.

Again, unless there was a litmus test that kept black people from attending, you don't have a point. Anyone who wants to go, can go. If there are so few black people, who's to blame? Do you want Trump to force black people to attend his rallies to make people like you happy?

Why would you use a racial litmus test in Iowa? Again, my uncontested point, that he has a 100% failure rate in front of crowds with actual black people in them. You're backing my point here. Did you think this through?

A 100% failure rate can be debunked by pointing to a single black person who's attended a Trump rally and thought that he did well. But you did throw in a weasle word, "actual black people". Don't tell me you're going to claim that black people who agree with Trump aren't "actually" black people. You're not going to be that overtly racist are you?

You mean this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h610gWKkYQ

Look at those people you can actually see in the audience. Look at those people on stage! LOOK AT IT!

Another point for me.

You responded with this lengthy post within minutes, don't pretend you actually watched any significant portion of that nearly two hour video.

Moreover, there's no reasonable rebuttal here. You critiqued Trump for not speaking infront of black people enough, and I'm giving you examples of large black churches. I'm sorry some of Trump's entourage was white, and I'm sorry some of the front row seats were reserved for some white press members, but that was a black church. At some point you have to let go of your bias and at least concede a point.

Oh right, the interview with a script leaked ahead of time. You'll understand that I'll take that as a point in my favor, right? Also, you do know "interview in closed room" does not mean "speech in front of African Americans" right?

So long as Bishop Jackson asked what he wanted to ask, what's the problem? Sure, keep in mind that Trump's answers will sound more polished but so long as he wasn't asked easy questions there shouldn't be an issue to any reasonable person.

Moreover, the interview was aired to a mostly black audience. There isn't a big difference between an interview on TV and having a live audience so long as the footage isn't edited too heavily or purposefully.

He showed up. He didn't speak. Another point for me.

That article jumped the gun, apparently. Notice the future tense of the wording in the title.

A subdued Donald Trump on Saturday directly addressed a largely African-American audience for the first time as a presidential candidate, delivering a warmly received message of unity that focused on fixing economic hardship in the black community.

- http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/03/politi...oters-detroit/

Ouch, CNN even described his message as being warmly received. How do you contort reality to include such an even happening? CNN must be lying, Trump has the authors wife hostage, right?

First of all, then he shouldn't have fucking said it, should he?

If the context of his speech was modern day, and all of his references were modern day, what's the take away message a reasonable person would have?

but then, I could come up with billionaires who oppose Trump.

Oh I'm sure you could try and change the subject when you're shown to be wrong...

[Thepersona]

Trump finally got asked directly today about his Foundation scandal:


Mmmmm word salad.
Next week's debate is going to be delicious.

it just cant come soon enough, i really have high expectations, i want to see trumb being royally obliterated

[Felya]

Why post rules if they aren't to be followed? Where's the line? Can I call you a distasteful faggot because somebody posts a conspiracy in another thread? I'm not a vicitim, nor am I playing the victim card. You just can't see bias because you are incapable of not being a ctr shill. Objectivity waved bye bye to you ages ago my friend

The irony of complaining about mods not following the rules, by breaking the rule of not discussing moderating. That rule alone makes each and every complaint such as your, completley transparent that forum rules has nothing to do with this. Objectivity might have gone away, but irony is stronger than ever.

[alexw]

You came in on this thread and said...this? When was the last time exactly this happened here? I'm on here a lot and I can't remember the last time we used those words. Now idiot, that's a different story.

Me and a couple others who called satimy a white supremacist because.... wait for it.... he was espousing white supremacist view points.

He was talking about race replacement, the death of "white culture", and the turning of the US into third world status due to latin american immigration, if I remember correctly.

He got upset that we called him what he basically is - a white supremacist - doesn't like to hear the truth about himself I guess. He also reported us for calling him that. Needless to say none of us got banned.

[Merkava]

it just cant come soon enough, i really have high expectations, i want to see trumb being royally obliterated

I'd be careful about that. Hillary has set the bar pretty low. If Trump can come out and refrain from throwing his own shit at the camera, he might keep it close.

[Thepersona]

I'd be careful about that. Trump has set the bar pretty low. If Trump can come out and refrain from throwing his own shit at the camera, he might keep it close.

Fixed that for you