Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Captain N]

He could always just throw a bunch of money into the hands of the girls so they testify nothing actually went on and they were lying. Or heck, even the judge could receive a nice "donation".

But this is Trump so we know he'll do something like claim that the women wanted it because he's a celebrity or claim the judge has bias because of his nationality. God forbid the Circus Peanut admit that he's an (alleged) sexual predator.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Please reread the posts in question in order from the beginning. I have faith in you.

Well, golly gee, Doctor, you started off with a useless 'I know you are but what am I' post, and people are responding to that by pointing out that your statement is wrong as, in fact, Trump does beat out Clinton with the uneducated, at least the white ones. Don't get all sniffy just because people can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say; it's not our fault you're terrible at making yourself clear.

Why not try actually putting down in words what you're trying to say rather than making us go back and guess.

[Truculentt]

so yeah - ive posted some stuff about hillary's marketing campaign strategies, how they work, what the goals were, etc.

of course, the hillary supporters were all "conspiracy blahhh".

welp.. this gem came out today - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7742



weeeeeeee

[Cthulhu 2020]

Nope....

I like how Trump only polls good in the 65+ age category. You know, the people who were alive and mature at a time when violence against black people was ok.

Also, lol @ those 2 vs 3 candidate results. I could have sworn there were people in here that were so cocksure Trump would take all of the third party votes and all of the Bernie supporters. Guess it didn't turn out like they had thought.

Oh wait, all of these polls are lying. I forgot.

[Noxx79]

You should look at the fact that Trump polls better with higher income people, and Hillary with lower income people. College degree does not equal success or intelligence. A lot of people who support her have a major in Gender Studies and no job and blue hair.

Income doesn't equal success or intelligence either.
A lot of rich people are brain-dead, stupid, and completely disengaged from actual life.

[Cthulhu 2020]

so yeah - ive posted some stuff about hillary's marketing campaign strategies, how they work, what the goals were, etc.

of course, the hillary supporters were all "conspiracy blahhh".

welp.. this gem came out today - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7742

weeeeeeee

There is a Hillary thread, ya'know.

Why all of these attempts to distract from the mountain of dirty laundry that just keeps growing? Are Clinton's non-scandals supposed to be worse than the bombs that just keep falling on Trump's head?

[Ryme]

They are not equally terrible. They are not both completely unelectable. It's beyond ridiculous to even attempt to claim.

Hm, just because the case for Trump being unelectable is so glaring obvious in comparison to Hillary doesn't mean the case for Hillary doesn't exist. The DNC's collusion in her favour, the corruption in the Clinton Foundation or the foreign interests in her campaign, for example, are adequate reasons - they're just perhaps not as important as Trump's lawsuits and lack of shown ability to run much of anything let alone a country.

I feel like most American's, that it's fine to say you want neither of them but more than that, that there's legitimate cause beyond disagreement in political views. I think a lot of this is getting caught up in the fact that one is worse than the other, which is certainly true, but it's easy to claim that neither should have been put forward or are worth voting for.

Personally, I would vote Hillary if I had to out of the two, but only by default.

[LaserSharkDFB]

so yeah - ive posted some stuff about hillary's marketing campaign strategies, how they work, what the goals were, etc.

of course, the hillary supporters were all "conspiracy blahhh".

welp.. this gem came out today - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7742



weeeeeeee

Uh. This appears to be a mail sent to Podesta from someone named Brent. Should we know who that is? What is this actually supposed to prove? Honestly confused here. Is receiving an email from some random guy proof of anything?

[Daerio]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/18/dr-...linton-health/

Dr. Drew was not capable of an analysis of Clinton's health, because he had never examined her and all he could go by was the medical report from her actual doctor. Unbiased or not, making unsubstantiated claims is not journalism.

More snopes nonsense I'm not going to bother reading. If doctor Drew was wrong in his analysis, explain how and why.

[Endus]

so yeah - ive posted some stuff about hillary's marketing campaign strategies, how they work, what the goals were, etc.

of course, the hillary supporters were all "conspiracy blahhh".

welp.. this gem came out today - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7742



weeeeeeee

... and?

That's an e-mail about her campaign during the primaries, in January last year, so not even near the end. And clearly, she overcame any such issues, because she won the nomination.

Basically none of those criticisms applied to her campaign as of the nomination, let along the current Presidential campaign itself.

[jackofwind]

so yeah - ive posted some stuff about hillary's marketing campaign strategies, how they work, what the goals were, etc.

of course, the hillary supporters were all "conspiracy blahhh".

welp.. this gem came out today - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7742



weeeeeeee

And why do we care what Budowsky has to say about his personal opinions of Hillary's campaign in the primaries?

If by "gem" you mean "completely uninteresting email describing one man's opinion regarding the failings of Hillary's campaign from over a year ago", then sure, "gem."

Totally groundbreaking stuff, Truculentt. You ought to be so proud.

[Endus]

Uh. This appears to be a mail sent to Podesta from someone named Brent. Should we know who that is? What is this actually supposed to prove? Honestly confused here. Is receiving an email from some random guy proof of anything?

It's apparently from Brent Budowsky, who's not a nobody. There's still nothing bad in the e-mail, regardless.

[Felya]

More snopes nonsense I'm not going to bother reading. If doctor Drew was wrong in his analysis, explain how and why.

You quoted him:

because he had never examined her and all he could go by was the medical report from her actual doctor.

Trump is a cocain edict and cannot stand for more than 5 min, before needing rest. Prove me wrong...

[Ryme]

And why do we care what Budowsky has to say about his personal opinions of Hillary's campaign in the primaries?

If by "gem" you mean "completely uninteresting email describing one man's opinion regarding the failings of Hillary's campaign", then sure. "Gem."

Just wait until the wetworks 'conspiracies' start getting mainstream attention, that's going to be a fun few weeks.

[jackofwind]

More snopes nonsense I'm not going to bother reading. If doctor Drew was wrong in his analysis, explain how and why.

Because he never actually gave her a medical exam?

No doctor worth anything gives a serious medical opinion to the public regarding someone without examining them first, because that's malpractice.

[Endus]

More snopes nonsense I'm not going to bother reading. If doctor Drew was wrong in his analysis, explain how and why.

He couldn't have been correct save by accident/coincidence, since he never examined Hillary Clinton. Doctors aren't able to properly diagnose anything without actually looking a the patient in question, and basically none of Dr. Drew's criticism held any weight.

[unfilteredJW]

Because he never actually gave her a medical exam?

No doctor worth anything gives a serious medical opinion to the public regarding someone without examining them first, because that's malpractice.

But that radio guy with doctor in his name confirmed my bias.

[Daerio]

Because he never actually gave her a medical exam?

No doctor worth anything gives a serious medical opinion to the public regarding someone without examining them first, because that's malpractice.

He has her publicly released medical records, how do you think doctors make conclusions?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I wouldn't like to be in Clinton's boots right now. I know that Trump can't jail her, but still, imagine running for class president, and if you lose to your opponent, you go to jail. She's literally fighting for her life.

Except, as you already said, Trump can't jail her...and the more he says it the worse he looks to everyone not already in his base. So, she's probably like "Please...tell me more about how you're going to send me to jail if you win and if you don't win it's just because the election was rigged"

[Felya]

He has her publicly released medical records, how do you think doctors make conclusions?

By examining the patient?

Here is what Newt Gingrich, the guy who was the majority speaker when Bill Clinton was impeached, was quoted as saying in the snopes article you refuse to read:

Well, first of all, just to get down to a human level for a second, all of us ought to include Hillary Clinton in our prayers. You can be opposed to somebody without hoping that they have bad health, and I hope that she's all right. Second, I'm always dubious, with all due respect to television doctors, when you have a doctor who has never seen the patient, begin to give you a complicated, fancy sounding analysis based on what? I mean, I would be very cautious and I would recommend to doctors for professional reasons to be very cautious deciding you're gonna start analyzing people.