Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[DeadmanWalking]

Listen friend its real simple.

You just lost an arrangement because you failed to address something because the act of doing so would highlight a failure of a person who worship.

Its fine, ok, I get it.

I'm not going to hold it against you or bring it up again so you can stop trying to bait me into fighting about it any longer.

We're good.

Just using your pathetic defence of Donald Trump against you. If Donald says something it is just words, if hillary says something it is damning. The back flips you do to make reality fit your delusion must be spine shattering, I mean I worry for your health, I just hope it was so spine shattering that you are no longer able to feel pain beneath the neck because I would hate for you to be in pain from all that damage you must of done to your skeletal structure after that amazing backflip defence of, "Those were just words."


Absolute stupidity doesn't pass for facts or logic where I come from, Friend.

[-Nurot]

Except super-predator and the slut-shaming of a preteen rape victim in open court.

Those words get a pass.

You do understand a lawyer's job correct? Even if you're guilty you deserve legal representation. If your lawyer isn't doing everything in their power to "prove" your innocence, including discrediting the victim in some cases, then you probably need a new lawyer. The victim even said she had no ill-will against Clinton until Republicans sensationalized the interview where she laughed 4 times. But even with the spin she never laughed over anything inappropriate.

“Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” Clinton and Reed both laugh at this remark.

“So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings [the judge] and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence before it was presented.” Faint laughter is heard between the words “evidence” and “before” in the second sentence.

“I handed it [information on her expert witness] to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.’” Both Clinton and Reed laugh, apparently at the irony of calling the case a “miscarriage of justice” when in Clinton’s opinion, her client was guilty.

“So Maupin [ie. the judge] had to, you know, under law he was supposed to determine whether the plea was factually supported. Maupin asked me to leave the room while he examined my client so that he could find out if it was factually supported. I said ‘Judge I can’t leave the room I’m his lawyer!’ he said ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.’” Reed is heard saying, “Oh God, really?” and both laugh at the idea that the details of the case were not suitable to be discussed in front of a woman, even the defendant’s own lawyer.

Hillary tried to get removed from the case before it started, she didn't want to defend him, but the judge denied her. As for challenging, in an affidavit, her credibility, because in the past the victim had supposedly cried wolf before and that she fantasized about older men, it was a valid defense. So I'm confused where the "slut-shaming" comes in. Why do you use the word slut, Hillary never did. Is it because the 12 year old victim had just had sex with a 15 year old moments before she was raped? Or because she said that she engage in fantasizing about older men?

Here's a link to the affidavit where she makes her case.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084...lor#fullscreen

So the fact that republicans have turned fantasizing, consensual sex and sexual exaggeration into the actions of being a slut is very telling. Who's really doing the "slut-shaming" there? They evidently think she's a slut, so in their minds Hillary is slut-shaming when she question the credibility of the victim.

What about super-predator? That one is even better. In a speech about law enforcement and crime she said it.

"But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs," Hillary Clinton said in a C-SPAN video clip. "Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first, we have to bring them to heel."

So no mention of African-Americans, but she says some gang members are called that. Yet Republicans assume all gang members must be African-American, so now in their racist minds they think they've caught her in a racist statement. So are you upset that she insulted gang members? Or do you too think only African-Americans can belong to a gang?

It's much worse than Donald Trump, in 1989, assuming the 5 youths in a rape case in NY who later turned out to be innocent were automatically guilty even before they went to trial. He even took out ads and claimed the 5 youths (4 African-American, 1 Hispanic) should be put to death.

So recap on those. TL : DR-

Republicans assuming African-Americans and Hispanics are rapists and should be put to death is good and fun, but calling gang members bad is racist?

Also, it's okay for Republicans to assume a woman is a slut, if she has sex with someone she just met, exaggerates sexual encounters and fantasizes, but if someone simply states those qualities about someone the Republicans perceived as a slut, then they're the bad ones for listing those actions aloud.

[Breccia]

Ya I get it, you're sold on well crafted mcnugget sized video clips stringing together edited sound-bytes designed to make you think you know more than the 60 seconds of content you actually just assimilated.

...the O'Keefe video? Nah, I didn't bother watching that one. Yeah, I Poisoned that Well, sue me, the dude's literally on Trump's payroll so I don't feel bad about it.

Oh, you meant just now. No, what I'm doing is mocking you for defending that as "just words". Because, when someone running for President announces policy, no, that is not "just words" and any attempt to defend it as "just words" is really really stupid.

"Trump says he wants to lower taxes! Eh, just words."
"Trump says he's pro-life! Eh, just words."
"Trump says he's going bankrupt again! Eh, just words. Wait, he did? How many times? Well, fuck!"

[DeadmanWalking]

snip

Did she say HEEL or HEAL?

[Fargus]

I guess the question is - do people really belive stuff the comes right out of the Kremlin?
Are people really that stupid?

Where is the proof of this?

It's always the Russians' fault isn't it?

[TrumpIsPresident]

No, what I'm doing is mocking you for defending that as "just words". Because, when someone running for President announces policy, no, that is not "just words" and any attempt to defend it as "just words" is really really stupid.

The comparison was between Trump's words and Hillary's actions.

You're hammering away at Trump and dodging the point because you either don't know/understand the gravity of what Clinton did or you just don't give a damn because shes got the "D".

[-Nurot]

Did she say HEEL or HEAL?

Restating it, she said the gang members had to come to heel, before deciding why they were that way. Which that expression means they have to stop what they're doing and fall in line even if forcefully persuaded.

Assuming the worst in meaning as a reference to a dog coming to heel, then she alluded that gang members were dogs and had to fall in line (which most likely she didn't since its just an expression), but where do African-Americans fall in there? Even if it's taken out of context, then she insulted gangs, to which was one of the topics of the speech.

[Breccia]

The comparison was between Trump's words and Hillary's actions.

Well, since Trump has noting BUT words so far, I think that's 100% fair. He's trying to get elected based solely on his words. Discounting them as "just words" is really really stupid.

You're hammering away at Trump and dodging the point because you --

No dude, I am chain mocking you for your laughable defense of Trump's proposed policy as "just words". That was really really stupid.

[Wyrt]

Where is the proof of this?

It's always the Russians' fault isn't it?

A good number of intelligence agencies have said it's the Russians.

[DeadmanWalking]

...the O'Keefe video? Nah, I didn't bother watching that one. Yeah, I Poisoned that Well, sue me, the dude's literally on Trump's payroll so I don't feel bad about it.

Oh, you meant just now. No, what I'm doing is mocking you for defending that as "just words". Because, when someone running for President announces policy, no, that is not "just words" and any attempt to defend it as "just words" is really really stupid.

"Trump says he wants to lower taxes! Eh, just words."
"Trump says he's pro-life! Eh, just words."
"Trump says he's going bankrupt again! Eh, just words. Wait, he did? How many times? Well, fuck!"

Not to mention he is a criminal. Personally if I find out someone edited film to lie to people in my own political party to make me react in a desired way I would never take anything they ever release seriously ever again, but gullible people love stuff that agrees with their political agenda regardless if it was doctored or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since Trump has noting BUT words so far, I think that's 100% fair. He's trying to get elected based solely on his words. Discounting them as "just words" is really really stupid.



No dude, I am chain mocking you for your laughable defense of Trump's proposed policy as "just words". That was really really stupid.

If there is one thing Donald is guilty of it is just spewing words rather than giving details that he doesn't have. That is his used car saleman go to move, if you don't know what you are talking about just spew words that are positive about you and negative about the competition and gullible people will get lost in the words and assume you answered the question.

[NED funded]

In which wikileaks goes full retard.

There is no US election. There is power consolidation. Rigged primary, rigged media and rigged 'pied piper' candidate drive consolidation.

This one is also good

What election? It has been clear from the beginning who is going to win. This is, in effect, a power consolidation exercise.

Some of my favorite answers to wikileaks idiocy:
https://mobile.twitter.com/fivefifth...93050145087489
https://mobile.twitter.com/Forecaste...09301131214848
https://mobile.twitter.com/JesseThor...12090557120513
https://mobile.twitter.com/Tierney_M...29778284883968

[Breccia]

A good number of intelligence agencies have said it's the Russians.

That number is seventeen. How many intelligence agencies do we have, that "seventeen" somehow isn't "ALL OF THEM"?

[DeadmanWalking]

The comparison was between Trump's words and Hillary's actions.

You're hammering away at Trump and dodging the point because you either don't know/understand the gravity of what Clinton did or you just don't give a damn because shes got the "D".

The comparison was between Trump's words about what his actions will be and Hillary's actions.

You're hammering away at HIllary and dodging the point because you either don't know/understand the gravity of what Trump said he would do or you just don't give a damn because he's got the "R".

[Wyrt]

In which wikileaks goes full retard.



This one is also good

Some of my favorite answers to wikileaks idiocy:
https://mobile.twitter.com/fivefifth...93050145087489
https://mobile.twitter.com/Forecaste...09301131214848
https://mobile.twitter.com/JesseThor...12090557120513
https://mobile.twitter.com/Tierney_M...29778284883968

And we're supposed to trust this site as undeniably true because?

[Fargus]

A good number of intelligence agencies have said it's the Russians.

A "good number". Which intelligence agencies? Do you have an official statement from them, or are you just relying on the Clinton campaign's word?

[-Nurot]

That number is seventeen. How many intelligence agencies do we have, that "seventeen" somehow isn't "ALL OF THEM"?

I also like how that's being labeled as false by conservative "fact checkers", because each of the 17 didn't make their own statements, and the US government statement didn't provide detailed evidence. So the whole, don't believe the government kicks in and it's somehow not a fact.

- - - Updated - - -

A "good number". Which intelligence agencies? Do you have an official statement from them, or are you just relying on the Clinton campaign's word?

Wow even beat me to it. Like I said, US government says it, so it has to be fake huh?

How about the Director of National Intelligence or Homeland Security? They both are accusing Russians and none of the other 16 departments are coming out after the statement and saying otherwise. Not every person in the world not collaborating with Trump is suddenly in the Hillary camp.

[DeadmanWalking]

A "good number". Which intelligence agencies? Do you have an official statement from them, or are you just relying on the Clinton campaign's word?

They have been listed, there is this thing called Google, I know it is tricky but instead of asking all the time about information I am seeking I usually just go look myself.

[Breccia]

A "good number". Which intelligence agencies? Do you have an official statement from them, or are you just relying on the Clinton campaign's word?

The FBI has been pretty vocal about it. And they do kind of work as a team.

[Fargus]

They have been listed, there is this thing called Google, I know it is tricky but instead of asking all the time about information I am seeking I usually just go look myself.

"Google it" isn't an argument. Give an actual source or get out.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Well, since Trump has noting BUT words so far, I think that's 100% fair. He's trying to get elected based solely on his words. Discounting them as "just words" is really really stupid.

No dude, I am chain mocking you for your laughable defense of Trump's proposed policy as "just words". That was really really stupid.

You know we'd have a better conversation if you weren't more intent on being insulting than you were on conveying your point.

I'll agree on the first sentence in theory - hes got just words so ok ya that's fair.

But I'm going to add caveat that campaign words only ever matter during a campaign and that politicians rarely ever own them during their term.

In the words of a certain somebody, adding to the debt was unpatriotic and that person was going to reduce it.

How'd that work out?

So ya, fair point - however when there are actual actions to consider those actions tip the scale.