Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[DeadmanWalking]

Those sources are unaware daddy Hilton cut her out 10 years ago.

- - - Updated - - -


get
Do you actually believe Hillary Clinton is honest and not completely corrupt? I don't have insane fears that her obvious corruption will doom us all but, come on. She clearly is one of the most corrupt in history. And, she is the only person in history to become a millionaire while being Secretary of State.

If you are genuine Hillary supporter, and not just anti-Trump, someone should take away your voting card.

I'm not in support of Hillary but I am excitingly against Trump. As for corruption you have to prove in court that someone is corrupt, and that is the Magic bullet that all republican claims lack, a guilty verdict found in a court of law. Unfortunately in this country our founding fathers created a system where a person is innocent until proven guilty and not guilty because she is the nominee of a party whose policies I don't like.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Do you actually believe Hillary Clinton is honest and not completely corrupt?

I stick within the realm of what information is there and is available to us, which should very easily answer your question here.

I don't have insane fears that her obvious corruption will doom us all but, come on. She clearly is one of the most corrupt in history. And, she is the only person in history to become a millionaire while being Secretary of State.

Considering how corrupt some of our past politicians are, and some that are currently serving in office, you can't honestly say this without either ignoring a huge chunk of history, or prescribing to the school of thought that every unfounded allegation against her is true.

If you are genuine Hillary supporter, and not just anti-Trump, someone should take away your voting card.

You make everything so black and white here. I'm more against Trump than I am for Hillary. I also do not deny the great amount of money in politics either, nor pretty much everything else we know for certain about her that makes her undesirable.

But I've pointed this out before, she's changed her stances on a great many things in response to Stein and Bernie. Bernie, while he had a great many ideas about a great many domestic issues, had a foreign policy understanding rivaling Trump's ignorance. Bernie was hugely popular among millennials, and for good reason. Now here's the thing, millennials are the largest population percentage boom since the baby boomers. They're a huge voting block. Democrats have to appeal to them or risk losing significant power in the coming decades. Democrats are not so stupid as to make promises akin to Bernie's to millennials, then go back on them in a bold lie. Which is why I have to give a nice chuckle at all of the rabid Bernie supporters on here still badmouthing Clinton for lying about her policy changes.

You can't simultaneously call Democrats power hungry, while also saying they're going to make moves that would alienate what stands to be their biggest voting base in the next few decades. Free college and expansion of health care is a small price to pay for retention of power.

Trump is a massive buffoon, and Hillary is undesirable in many ways for many reasons, but calling her the most corrupt politician in our history is really stretching it beyond the bounds of reality.

[Venant]

The moment you provide one shred of evidence, I just might humor your drivel.

I'm going to have to ask you to stop with the Conspiracy Theories and actually provide some evidence that isn't your own speculation based on what you believe is in an e-mail. So far your post history has proven you to have absolutely zero knowledge what you're talking about yet you make these wild claims....You know what they call people who make claims with no evidence to back them don't you?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ileaks/505043/

The chief complaint that critics make about the Clinton Foundation is that the former and perhaps future presidents engaged in a “pay-to-play” scheme, whereby donors—many of them foreign governments—would contribute money to the charity in exchange for access to Bill or Hillary Clinton, or worse, beneficial treatment from the State Department.

On Thursday, hacked emails from WikiLeaks suggest that is precisely what happened when the king of Morocco agreed to host a Clinton Global Initiative summit and give $12 million, but only if Hillary Clinton attended the May 2015 meeting.

So yeah, The Atlantic has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and they also wrote this article about what happened.

[Garnier Fructis]

Hard to claim this is true when she's never even been indicted for anything and lots of people have wound up in prison.

I think it's a product of the sheer amount of conspiracy drivel surrounding the Clintons. Sure, you might not be able to prove any one piece of it, but how could it not be true when there's so many other claims?

[Venant]

Hard to claim this is true when she's never even been indicted for anything and lots of people have wound up in prison.

We have a system where journalists are thrown in prison by the president, while the same administration refuses to prosecute people who orchestrated government torture programs. Can you really explain how, from your ideological perspective, it makes sense who is put in prison?

[Espe]

She clearly is one of the most corrupt in history.

That imagination of yours is really something. You should do something productive with it IRL if you don't already.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's a product of the sheer amount of conspiracy drivel surrounding the Clintons. Sure, you might not be able to prove any one piece of it, but how could it not be true when there's so many other claims?

Exactly. I don't believe for a second Trump raped that many young boys, at least not as much as they claim he did anyway.

[I Push Buttons]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ileaks/505043/



So yeah, The Atlantic has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and they also wrote this article about what happened.

You seem to have not even read your own evidence... It not only doesn't prove your absurd argument, it proves mine.

...nothing in the exchange appears to be illegal. Hillary Clinton wasn’t secretary of state at the time, and there is no evidence in the emails that Morocco gained any official concessions in terms of U.S. policy other than potentially the good will of the next president.

[Captain N]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ileaks/505043/



So yeah, The Atlantic has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and they also wrote this article about what happened.

From your own link -- which I'm certain you did not read.

On Thursday, hacked emails from WikiLeaks suggest that is precisely what happened when the king of Morocco agreed to host a Clinton Global Initiative summit and give $12 million, but only if Hillary Clinton attended the May 2015 meeting.

Ultimately, Clinton’s aides prevailed upon her, and she sent Bill and Chelsea Clinton in her place.

All of that may be true, and nothing in the exchange appears to be illegal. Hillary Clinton wasn’t secretary of state at the time, and there is no evidence in the emails that Morocco gained any official concessions in terms of U.S. policy other than potentially the good will of the next president.

Once more you're spouting conspiracies based on your feels and nothing based in reality.

[AndaliteBandit]

You seem to have not even read your own evidence... It not only doesn't prove your absurd argument, it proves mine.

Seems to be a recurring theme.

So yeah, The Atlantic has endorsed Hillary Clinton

How many newspapers have endorsed Trump?

[Breccia]

When you read that quote, he isn't saying we literally don't have any chess grand masters, he is saying we figuratively don't have any chess grand masters

First of all, he said "It's like you have to be a grand chess master. And we don't have any of them." That's literal. Trump doesn't wax poetic very often, and those two sentences don't have enough moving parts to contain "figurative".

Second of all, the quote is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with him being a poor businessman, incapable governor, or unfit leader. It's just something else that his brain fired out of his mouth that directly gets refuted by reality. It was either an intentional lie, or a statement of fact without the knowledge of the truth (just as bad), for zero reason at all.

[Wells]

We have a system where journalists are thrown in prison by the president, while the same administration refuses to prosecute people who orchestrated government torture programs. Can you really explain how, from your ideological perspective, it makes sense who is put in prison?

No one said the system we have is without flaws. Its still stupid to claim that someone who hasn't even been indicted despite intense scrutiny is the "most corrupt".

[Tijuana]

First of all, he said "It's like you have to be a grand chess master. And we don't have any of them." That's literal. Trump doesn't wax poetic very often, and those two sentences don't have enough moving parts to contain "figurative".

Second of all, the quote is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with him being a poor businessman, incapable governor, or unfit leader. It's just something else that his brain fired out of his mouth that directly gets refuted by reality. It was either an intentional lie, or a statement of fact without the knowledge of the truth (just as bad), for zero reason at all.

So, you think he was literally speaking about chess, and using trade agreements as a metaphor? Like, how can you be that...just never mind I guess...

I think I get dumber every time I read this forum.

[Templar 331]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...arJ?li=BBnb7Kz

So King Trump has decided to break up Comcast's acquisition of NBC and stop AT&T's buying of Time Warner, but first he must sue those dirty women who have falsely accused him!!

"When a simple phone call placed with the biggest newspapers or television networks gets them wall to wall coverage with virtually no fact-checking whatsoever, here is why this is relevant to you," he said. "If they can fight somebody like me who has unlimited resources to fight back, just look at what they could do to you, your jobs, your security, your education, your health care."

This is the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that I have ever seen. That or this is just a huge troll attempt that I'm still wishing his campaign is.

[Breccia]

I think it's a product of the sheer amount of conspiracy drivel surrounding the Clintons. Sure, you might not be able to prove any one piece of it, but how could it not be true when there's so many other claims?

I want to agree with, and extend, this logic. Trump has been accused of sexual assault and rape enough times that he must now be a child rapist. How could it not be true? There are so many other claims against him!

Yes, the child rape case is still bullshit, just so we're clear.

[Venant]

You seem to have not even read your own evidence... It not only doesn't prove your absurd argument, it proves mine.

From your own link -- which I'm certain you did not read.

On Thursday, hacked emails from WikiLeaks suggest that is precisely what happened when the king of Morocco agreed to host a Clinton Global Initiative summit and give $12 million, but only if Hillary Clinton attended the May 2015 meeting.

Ultimately, Clinton’s aides prevailed upon her, and she sent Bill and Chelsea Clinton in her place.

All of that may be true, and nothing in the exchange appears to be illegal. Hillary Clinton wasn’t secretary of state at the time, and there is no evidence in the emails that Morocco gained any official concessions in terms of U.S. policy other than potentially the good will of the next president.

Once more you're spouting conspiracies based on your feels and nothing based in reality.

Seems to be a recurring theme.


How many newspapers have endorsed Trump?

You guys are doing a bad job at proving that Clinton isn't horribly corrupt. Is anyone going to make an affirmative argument on behalf of your candidate?

[Vorkreist]

A link? You give them far too much credit. They normally just say "Go read wikileaks! Go read the emails!" as if you know which email proves their point. Because staring at a few hundred emails of routine stuff such as wishing someone a happy mother's day certainly screams "guilty of every crime under the sun".

Of course, you don't even necessarily need proof of anything when you ascribe to the feels before reals school of thought. It's a shame that she's banned, but it's rather funny that one of the worst offenders of feels before reals, Theo, isn't even all that strong of a Trump supporter. She just hates Clinton that much that anything she feels like projecting onto Clinton that day is the absolute honest to god truth.

Proof? What proof. Proof is not needed when bad mouthing Clinton, so long as you feel it is the truth!

Its not someone else job to write essays and gather all the proof for you on the table. Its your job to get informed from the fuckton of existing proof that Clinton is a criminal that should be in jail.

[Wells]

You guys are doing a bad job at proving that Clinton isn't horribly corrupt. Is anyone going to make an affirmative argument on behalf of your candidate?

We have to prove she's not corrupt?

[DeadmanWalking]

From your own link -- which I'm certain you did not read.

On Thursday, hacked emails from WikiLeaks suggest that is precisely what happened when the king of Morocco agreed to host a Clinton Global Initiative summit and give $12 million, but only if Hillary Clinton attended the May 2015 meeting.

Ultimately, Clinton’s aides prevailed upon her, and she sent Bill and Chelsea Clinton in her place.

All of that may be true, and nothing in the exchange appears to be illegal. Hillary Clinton wasn’t secretary of state at the time, and there is no evidence in the emails that Morocco gained any official concessions in terms of U.S. policy other than potentially the good will of the next president.

Once more you're spouting conspiracies based on your feels and nothing based in reality.

To be fair it is awfully hard to read a WHOLE article.

[Orbitus]

Seems to be a recurring theme.


How many newspapers have endorsed Trump?

If you don't count tabloids, to which I think he has them all because his ridiculous shit sells papers, he has 3 as of last count. But no big ones, and literally none of the ones that have traditionally gone to Republicans. Hell, Trump has gotten some places to officially endorse Clinton over him that have NEVER endorsed anyone before.

[GennGreymane]

Sooooo no one understands that the burden is on the accuser to provide evidence?