Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[PosPosPos]

That's all you have to say when I ask you to prove your point? If that's the case, then why even bother replying?

And why are you bothering to reply and solicit for more proof if you refuse to budge from your position against overwhelming evidence?

Oh right, because you are just fishing for responses and hopefully bait someone into an infraction as a result of trying to entertain your attempt at being obtuse.

[Merkava]

When you add stuff to the statements, you're obviously changing context.

Your two arguments thus far have been;

1> "The rest of the video doesn't exist so you can't use that context to understand what Trump's words meant, in that context that I don't want to admit exists", and

2> "If you completely change what was said, the new statement isn't necessarily bad", which is pointless since it applies to literally ANY words.



At this point, I'm going to ask you to define "context", since you're using it in a non-English sense, apparently.

No. I'm not adding anything to the content. I'm merely providing context. My only argument so far has been that Trump's ramblings on that tape do not amount to an admission of having committed a crime. That's because there is no context provided.

And why are you bothering to reply and solicit for more proof if you refuse to budge from your position against overwhelming evidence?

What's the overwhelming evidence, exactly?

[Edge-]

I don't think you understand what i'm talking about 12 million Democrats voted for Trump in the Republican Primaries. Close to 4 times more than Republicans, Which means Democrats elected the Republican Candidate.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/creins...can-primaries/

One thing that article is missing is a single link to any of the evidence he used to support his conclusion. Or did I miss something?

Because as it stands, that's a tall allegation to make without proof, and one I don't think can be reasonably backed up by any of the evidence available (hence the lack of citations).

[Endus]

No. I'm not adding anything to the content. I'm merely providing context. My only argument so far has been that Trump's ramblings on that tape do not amount to an admission of having committed a crime. That's because there is no context provided.

Nobody's claimed he committed a crime. Just that his words were descriptions of a crime, and if he HAD acted on them, that WOULD have been a crime.

So we can add "attacking straw men" to your list of offenses.

The context in the video is clear. You refusing to call it "context" for some misbegotten and never-provided reason does not change that.

[Merkava]

That post doesn't stand alone. I've made plenty of other responses to you on this. Choosing to not repeat myself every post is a favor I do for those reading the thread.

You don't have the context merely because you have the whole video. What you have is the extant video. We don't know how much video existed in the first place. And merely having the whole video might not provide context either.

[Daerio]

Nobody's claimed he committed a crime. Just that his words were descriptions of a crime, and if he HAD acted on them, that WOULD have been a crime.

Again, it's not a crime to grope a woman's vagina when she lets you do it, and his point from the recording was pretty clearly that women let him do it because he's rich and they're greedy.

Arguing that Trump is a criminal and that people should vote for Clinton is the ultimate lulz.

[Merkava]

Nobody's claimed he committed a crime. Just that his words were descriptions of a crime, and if he HAD acted on them, that WOULD have been a crime.

So we can add "attacking straw men" to your list of offenses.

The context in the video is clear. You refusing to call it "context" for some misbegotten and never-provided reason does not change that.

Plenty of people here have called his statement an admission of sexual assault. I've pointed that out and linked their posts several times. Don't think you can back out of that one.

And again, there is no context given. Not for his comments about how he behaves with women. I've shown that. If you'd like to try and show the context that you say exists, go ahead. Please.

[Endus]

You don't have the context merely because you have the whole video. What you have is the extant video.

And that video is context, since it contains what happened before and after the specific phrases in question.

Like I said; you keep ignoring this, and never provided a shred of rationale for doing so.

You're basically trying to argue that no one can ever say anything that means anything, because anyone hearing their words is not literally omniscient, and thus cannot claim to understand the "full context". Which is so ridiculous an idea it's self-satirizing.

[Captain N]

Again, it's not a crime to grope a woman's vagina when she lets you do it, and his point from the recording was pretty clearly that women let him do it because he's rich and they're greedy.

Arguing that Trump is a criminal and that people should vote for Clinton is the ultimate lulz.

Except he comes right out and says he kisses women...He doesn't wait...He just does it. Then claims that they let him....which is why Merkava is in support of Sexual Assault because there's a difference in being allowed...and doing it and not waiting. Spin it however you want...when you force yourself upon someone without consent it's assault.

[Endus]

Again, it's not a crime to grope a woman's vagina when she lets you do it

If she didn't consent first? Yes, it obviously is.

You're basically arguing that a girl who gets raped by her boyfriend because she doesn't want to hurt him by fighting him off wasn't actually raped, because she "let him". Which is asinine.

[cubby]

And why are you bothering to reply and solicit for more proof if you refuse to budge from your position against overwhelming evidence?

Oh right, because you are just fishing for responses and hopefully bait someone into an infraction as a result of trying to entertain your attempt at being obtuse.

You too? /10

[ati87]

I don't think you understand what i'm talking about 12 million Democrats voted for Trump in the Republican Primaries. Close to 4 times more than Republicans, Which means Democrats elected the Republican Candidate.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/creins...can-primaries/

Lets be honest and agree that the last time right wingers broke a story that was true you may have to go back a few decades.

Trump won the nomination fair and square, he was top on almost every polls during the nomination from the beginning to the end. Those polls (Actually polls and not the internet polls) look at likely primary voters based on past elections which frankly aren't democrats.

And lets be honest one more time, do you think that the likes of Ted Cruz would have accepted Trump as the nomination if democrats elected him?

[Daerio]

Except he comes right out and says he kisses women...He doesn't wait...He just does it.

This isn't rape in any state in the US as far as I'm aware.

And again, if his advances were rebuffed and he continued anyway that would be something to talk about. Except, none of the women claiming Trump "harassed" or "raped" them are claiming this. So... what crime?

Not paying for services rendered?

The only thing Trump needs to do to get elected at this point is follow through on his last debate promise - when he gets elected, Clinton is going to jail.

The crowd burst out in cheers, along with the entire country. If he made his central campaign issue putting Clinton in jail where she rightly belongs, it would be a landline victory. As a Sanders voter, I'd vote for Trump on that basis, as our only hope for political reform does lie in politicians going to jail when they break the law.

[cubby]

Plenty of people here have called his statement an admission of sexual assault. I've pointed that out and linked their posts several times. Don't think you can back out of that one.

And again, there is no context given. Not for his comments about how he behaves with women. I've shown that. If you'd like to try and show the context that you say exists, go ahead. Please.

You don't understand what your own links tell you about context. You read one thing on Quora and now you think you're god's gift to rationalizing statements. It's not true. You're categorically wrong. Many people here, smart people, have explained why you're wrong.

[Edge-]

If she didn't consent first? Yes, it obviously is.

You're basically arguing that a girl who gets raped by her boyfriend because she doesn't want to hurt him by fighting him off wasn't actually raped, because she "let him". Which is asinine.

Well, that's not "legitimate rape" then! : D : D

[Merkava]

And that video is context, since it contains what happened before and after the specific phrases in question.

Like I said; you keep ignoring this, and never provided a shred of rationale for doing so.

You're basically trying to argue that no one can ever say anything that means anything, because anyone hearing their words is not literally omniscient, and thus cannot claim to understand the "full context". Which is so ridiculous an idea it's self-satirizing.

Context does not exist merely because you have what precedes and follows. That should be easy to understand.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm disagreeing with it.

What I'm saying is that, if we're going to be accusing people of admitting to having committed crimes, it's important to be correct. Like I've shown earlier, if Trump was asked to clarify his remarks it would remarkably easy to put them into a context where it's clear he's not talking about having committed sexual assault. The only reason that would be possible, is if there was no context, or if there was indeterminate context previously.

[Captain N]

This isn't rape in any state in the US as far as I'm aware.

And again, if his advances were rebuffed and he continued anyway that would be something to talk about. Except, none of the women claiming Trump "harassed" or "raped" them are claiming this. So... what crime?

Not paying for services rendered?

The only thing Trump needs to do to get elected at this point is follow through on his last debate promise - when he gets elected, Clinton is going to jail.

The crowd burst out in cheers, along with the entire country. If he made his central campaign issue putting Clinton in jail where she rightly belongs, it would be a landline victory.

Did I say rape? Can you quote me where I said rape? I said sexual assault. They're two different things.

There's a number of references in this thread about Trump walking into women's dressing rooms and watching them get changed....or kissing/touching women inappropriately.

Are you going to do that thing where you bring up one argument and then make up your own and attack those again?

[cubby]

This isn't rape in any state in the US as far as I'm aware.

And again, if his advances were rebuffed and he continued anyway that would be something to talk about. Except, none of the women claiming Trump "harassed" or "raped" them are claiming this. So... what crime?

Not paying for services rendered?

The only thing Trump needs to do to get elected at this point is follow through on his last debate promise - when he gets elected, Clinton is going to jail.

The crowd burst out in cheers, along with the entire country. If he made his central campaign issue putting Clinton in jail where she rightly belongs, it would be a landline victory.

Um, no - nothing in here is correct. If I thought it would do any good, I'd point out each and every part that is wrong. But you're a Trumper - so facts and reality have nothing to do with you.

[Merkava]

which is why Merkava is in support of Sexual Assault because there's a difference in being allowed...and doing it and not waiting. .

That's a shameful slander and you should apologize.

[0ptimo]

That post doesn't stand alone. I've made plenty of other responses to you on this. Choosing to not repeat myself every post is a favor I do for those reading the thread.

Thank you for that. The less we hear from you the better.