Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Orbitus]

Yep. Over-investigated, minimal wrongdoing found. In the case of Benghazi, none.

Ironically, if surveyed the average person wouldn't be able to tell you what she did wrong in Benghazi or her email server either. They are relying on "other people's opinions and selective mentioning of the facts" to come to the conclusion that she did something wrong.

If you surveyed the average person no, but if you surveyed the average Trump supporter? They think she went down to Benghazi and slit their throats and killed him for the Al-Qaeda that attacked the compound. All while saying no to air support and stand down to the CIA outpost that was a few blocks away. That is why the 13 hours movie was such shit.

[Taneras]

My last post was quoting Thepersona but anyone is free to chime in.

[Orbitus]

My last post was quoting Thepersona but anyone is free to chime in.

Well, this is an open forum. When you are wrong, and people are watching the thread, then you can be called out by everyone.

[Thepersona]

Well, this is an open forum. When you are wrong, and people are watching the thread, then you can be called out by everyone.

the thing is, the GOP has attacked Hillary for the last 20-25 years? that should plant the seed of doubt on her, even if all of those attacks were without substance

[Orbitus]

the thing is, the GOP has attacked Hillary for the last 20-25 years? this is going to backfire

Oh, I know. I have been watching the shit show since basically its inception. People like to blame everything they can on the Clintons because it tries to hide the shit they just did.

[Taneras]

Well, this is an open forum. When you are wrong, and people are watching the thread, then you can be called out by everyone.

You misread, I wasn't negatively commenting on all the replies I got, only saying that despite me quoting a specific person anyone should feel free to weigh in.

I do find it odd how quickly my first comment was shot down but now that I'm asking for specifics there's crickets. Lots of google searches going on no doubt.

[Orbitus]

You misread, I wasn't negatively commenting on all the replies I got, only saying that despite me quoting a specific person anyone should feel free to weigh in.

I do find it odd how quickly my first comment was shot down but now that I'm asking for specifics there's crickets. Lots of google searches going on no doubt.

Highly unlikely. As I think everyone ignored what you said about why we think the hearings went to Hillary.

[Taneras]

Highly unlikely. As I think everyone ignored what you said about why we think the hearings went to Hillary.

I guess ignoring someone would be a lot easier than actually looking to what actually occurred in these hearings. Nah, this forum is full of well educated and well informed people... Well, just the Hillary supporters of course... They could answer my question if they really wanted.

EDIT: I had 5 scoffing replies in 10 minutes, now that I've asked for specifics I haven't gotten a single response in 30 minutes. It's good that people are looking into these sorts of things. I'd suggest watching actual footage of some of these hearings so you're actually hearing this straight from the horses mouth and not some potentially biased reporter (biased either way). Sure its boring, but that's how you become well informed. I'll come back later, I'm off to do some daily missions.

[Lenonis]

Wait...there are people who still think Benghazi is a legit issue even though multiple GOP leaders has admitted it was pure politics?

How twisted up in your rhetoric do you have to be to disbelieve your own party leaders for your own narrative you made up in your head?

[Orbitus]

Wait...there are people who still think Benghazi is a legit issue even though multiple GOP leaders has admitted it was pure politics?

How twisted up in your rhetoric do you have to be to disbelieve your own party leaders for your own narrative you made up in your head?

Apparently Taneras thinks that Benghazi is still an issue, even though the leader in the committee has all but stated it is over. Especially since Gowdy admitted that there was no way help could have arrived in time.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I guess ignoring someone would be a lot easier than actually looking to what actually occurred in these hearings. Nah, this forum is full of well educated and well informed people... Well, just the Hillary supporters of course... They could answer my question if they really wanted.

EDIT: I had 5 scoffing replies in 10 minutes, now that I've asked for specifics I haven't gotten a single response in 30 minutes. It's good that people are looking into these sorts of things. I'd suggest watching actual footage of some of these hearings so you're actually hearing this straight from the horses mouth and not some potentially biased reporter (biased either way). Sure its boring, but that's how you become well informed. I'll come back later, I'm off to do some daily missions.

If you're talking about 'what was the best evidence used against her', nobody's answering it because it's completely irrelevant. "Hey, that guy accused of murder was completely exonerated, but even so which piece of evidence was most likely to convict him?" If she's cleared of wrongdoing, any evidence suggesting otherwise doesn't really matter.

If you have an actual point, just say it instead of trying to get people to play guessing games and throwing a snit if they don't.

[Orbitus]

If you're talking about 'what was the best evidence used against her', nobody's answering it because it's completely irrelevant. "Hey, that guy accused of murder was completely exonerated, but even so which piece of evidence was most likely to convict him?" If she's cleared of wrongdoing, any evidence suggesting otherwise doesn't really matter. If you have an actual point, just say it instead of trying to get people to play guessing games and throwing a snit if they don't.

Yeah, he basically wants us to do his work for him.

[Breccia]

With African American's averaging 2.5% of the population in Iowa cities

Jesus. You missed the point incredibly badly. My point was that just that Iowa has no African Americans. My point was, Trump chose to go to Iowa, chose to go to New Hampshire, and chose to go to Lansing, all of which are highly white, and talk about black people, to crowds of white people. Hell even in the "ever ever ever" speech, his audience was pretty damn monochromatic, as shown in the half-dozen videos and this audience shot. Again: if Trump really wanted, really honestly wanted, to talk to African-Americans, why is he hiding from them in places like Iowa?

A 100% failure rate can be debunked by pointing to a single black person who

Nope. He gave one speech one time at a primarily minority venue. And he was heckled during 100% of those. You should have gone with "small number statistics" rather than "oh wait, when you said 'failure rate' you clearly meant the speech failed, as nearly every major publication said, not that he didn't reach even a single voter at all".

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

Tell you what, you count the number of African-Americans on that stage, and in that audience. Let me know when you hit 50%. Good luck with that.

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.

You gave me an example of a large black church FILLED WITH WHITE PEOPLE which prove my point not yours!

So long as Bishop Jackson asked what he wanted to ask, what's the problem?

He didn't. Did you see who wrote the speech? I'm pretty sure I linked it. It was Trump's campaign. Not the bishop. The campaign.

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

You are not even attempting to address my point with that line of garbage. And I'm honestly worried that you can't see the difference in the context of this discussion.

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

Hmm, valid point. He did, in fact, speak for roughly ten minutes. That's valid, and I apologize. He only has a 50% failure rate...

...until I saw the video. There's a lot of white people in that black church. Count the heads. Is that 50%? Is that over 50%? Huh. What are the odds?

Also, did you seethe protest! the following week? Apparently, not everyone liked the idea of the wealthy bishop and a poor congregation. Interesting how this happened just after Trump stopped by...but whatever. Could be unrelated. Could be coincidence.

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

That it was provably worse during Reagan, Bush, and Bush's terms, and he's still flat-out wrong? I believe I went over that, too. Also, if he meant "in recent times" maybe he should have said "in recent times"? Remember, this is a man who knows the best words.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd call Benghazi and her email scandal "more or less witch hunts"?

Well, no charges were filed. And there was no censure. Oh, and Colin Powell did use the exact phrase 'stupid witch hunt' so...yes. Yes I would.

- - - Updated - - -

How twisted up in your rhetoric do you have to be to disbelieve your own party leaders for your own narrative you made up in your head?

I dunno, how twisted up do you have to be to think there are 30 million illegal immigrants and they can vote?

[Edge-]

I dunno, how twisted up do you have to be to think there are 30 million illegal immigrants and they can vote?

I mean, they can via in-person voter fraud. You know, that thing that Republicans keep talking about as if it's an epidemic that's destroying our elections. Something they've managed to convince people of, actually.

Despite the fact that there's little data that supports such a notion. Hell, the bigger issue is electronic voter fraud, but you rarely ever hear any discussion around that, it's all around voter id etc.

But I think the last time there was anything that could be considered widespread voter fraud was an issue was when Kennedy got elected.

[DeadmanWalking]

I mean, they can via in-person voter fraud. You know, that thing that Republicans keep talking about as if it's an epidemic that's destroying our elections. Something they've managed to convince people of, actually.

Despite the fact that there's little data that supports such a notion. Hell, the bigger issue is electronic voter fraud, but you rarely ever hear any discussion around that, it's all around voter id etc.

But I think the last time there was anything that could be considered widespread voter fraud was an issue was when Kennedy got elected.

Ah the good old days of political smear jobs, when Republicans spread the fear that Kennedy would answer directly to the Pope because he was a Catholic. I miss the simpler days.

[Edge-]

Ah the good old days of political smear jobs, when Republicans spread the fear that Kennedy would answer directly to the Pope because he was a Catholic. I miss the simpler days.

If only our problems were so simple and innocuous : (

[Breccia]

Ah the good old days of political smear jobs, when Republicans spread the fear that Kennedy would answer directly to the Pope because he was a Catholic. I miss the simpler days.

Thank Science that religion isn't part of USA elections anymore. Right?

[Gestopft]

Thank Science that religion isn't part of USA elections anymore. Right?

There are so many reasons I think Trump is a terrible candidate, but I am glad he at least isn't religious. Although it was hilarious when he tried.

[Taneras]

Jesus. You missed the point incredibly badly ... if Trump really wanted, really honestly wanted, to talk to African-Americans, why is he hiding from them in places like Iowa?

So now that he's stepping out and doing just what you'd expect, surely you won't find anything to complain about, right?

Nope. He gave one speech one time at a primarily minority venue. And he was heckled during 100% of those. You should have gone with "small number statistics" rather than "oh wait, when you said 'failure rate' you clearly meant the speech failed, as nearly every major publication said, not that he didn't reach even a single voter at all".

You said that his speech has a 100% failure rate with actual black people. One black person agreeing with Trump during/after one of his speeches blows that claim up. You know that right?

Tell you what, you count the number of African-Americans on that stage, and in that audience. Let me know when you hit 50%. Good luck with that. You gave me an example of a large black church FILLED WITH WHITE PEOPLE which prove my point not yours!

You act as if its a radical notion that a black church will have more than a 50% black congregation.

He didn't. Did you see who wrote the speech? I'm pretty sure I linked it. It was Trump's campaign. Not the bishop. The campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politi...leaked-script/

The title says it all. The Bishop submitted questions to Trump. He got to ask the questions he wanted to ask, he just gave them in advance.

You are not even attempting to address my point with that line of garbage. And I'm honestly worried that you can't see the difference in the context of this discussion.

Yes, I am. Your complaint is that he isn't talking to black people about black issues, so long as you ignore the interview where a black pastor asked him questions which was aired to a mostly black audience.

...until I saw the video. There's a lot of white people in that black church. Count the heads. Is that 50%? Is that over 50%? Huh. What are the odds?

During the moments leading up to the speech starting the camera is panned out. I don't see many white people. If its over 10-15% I'd be surprised. You can act outraged and surprised but that's what I saw and that's what you'd expect to see at a black church.

Also, did you seethe protest! the following week? Apparently, not everyone liked the idea of the wealthy bishop and a poor congregation. Interesting how this happened just after Trump stopped by...but whatever. Could be unrelated. Could be coincidence.

If only I said Trump had a 100% success rate with blacks in his speeches maybe then you could point to black protests as evidence against my claim. Thankfully I'm not that dense to make such an outlandish claim.

That it was provably worse during Reagan, Bush, and Bush's terms, and he's still flat-out wrong? I believe I went over that, too. Also, if he meant "in recent times" maybe he should have said "in recent times"? Remember, this is a man who knows the best words.

The correct answer was that a reasonable person would infer from his constant referencing to modern day events and time periods that he was speaking about modern day events and time periods.

Well, no charges were filed. And there was no censure. Oh, and Colin Powell did use the exact phrase 'stupid witch hunt' so...yes. Yes I would.

Remind me again what Colin Powell said about WMD's in Iraq? Funny how quickly you can trust someone when they're telling you what you want to hear.

[Ghostpanther]

So now that he's stepping out and doing just what you'd expect, surely you won't find anything to complain about, right?



You said that his speech has a 100% failure rate with actual black people. One black person agreeing with Trump during/after one of his speeches blows that claim up. You know that right?



You act as if its a radical notion that a black church will have more than a 50% black congregation.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politi...leaked-script/

The title says it all. The Bishop submitted questions to Trump. He got to ask the questions he wanted to ask, he just gave them in advance.



Yes, I am. Your complaint is that he isn't talking to black people about black issues, so long as you ignore the interview where a black pastor asked him questions which was aired to a mostly black audience.



During the moments leading up to the speech starting the camera is panned out. I don't see many white people. If its over 10-15% I'd be surprised. You can act outraged and surprised but that's what I saw and that's what you'd expect to see at a black church.



If only I said Trump had a 100% success rate with blacks in his speeches maybe then you could point to black protests as evidence against my claim. Thankfully I'm not that dense to make such an outlandish claim.



The correct answer was that a reasonable person would infer from his constant referencing to modern day events and time periods that he was speaking about modern day events and time periods.



Remind me again what Colin Powell said about WMD's in Iraq? Funny how quickly you can trust someone when they're telling you what you want to hear.

Very well done Tenaras. Hang in there.