Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Venant]

We have to prove she's not corrupt?

This election is really just one big false choice for liberals; on one side you have a neocon warmonger and on the other you have a hideous orange clown monster. Most people seem to be picking what they consider the lesser of two evils. I cannot comprehend why there are so many people who seem willing to fight to the death for the honor of Hillary Clinton, it just seems completely absurd to me beyond the idea that these people just want to argue with the people on the other 'side'.

The sad thing is that I believe this election has done irreparable damage to the potential for liberals and progressives to gain a political voice. So many people, like Warren and Sanders, and also many writers like Chomsky and Hedges, have just gone along with this ridiculous farce. It isn't 'brave' to speak out against Donald Trump, the only person I see taking legitimately brave positions is Jill Stein when she points out that Trump's foreign policy is actually preferable to Clinton's in terms of which is less likely to start a war.

This country needs an anti-war movement in place if Clinton becomes president, but I think the most recent generation of 'progressives' have been brainwashed into being placated by concessions on social issues.

[Garnier Fructis]

This election is really just one big false choice for liberals; on one side you have a neocon warmonger and on the other you have a hideous orange clown monster. Most people seem to be picking what they consider the lesser of two evils. I cannot comprehend why there are so many people who seem willing to fight to the death for the honor of Hillary Clinton, it just seems completely absurd to me beyond the idea that these people just want to argue with the people on the other 'side'.

The sad thing is that I believe this election has done irreparable damage to the potential for liberals and progressives to gain a political voice. So many people, like Warren and Sanders, and also many writers like Chomsky and Hedges, have just gone along with this ridiculous farce. It isn't 'brave' to speak out against Donald Trump, the only person I see taking legitimately brave positions is Jill Stein when she points out that Trump's foreign policy is actually preferable to Clinton's in terms of which is less likely to start a war.

This country needs an anti-war movement in place if Clinton becomes president, but I think the most recent generation of 'progressives' have been brainwashed into being placated by concessions on social issues.

What did any of this have to do with the question you quoted?

[Wells]

This election is really just one big false choice for liberals; on one side you have a neocon warmonger and on the other you have a hideous orange clown monster. Most people seem to be picking what they consider the lesser of two evils. I cannot comprehend why there are so many people who seem willing to fight to the death for the honor of Hillary Clinton, it just seems completely absurd to me beyond the idea that these people just want to argue with the people on the other 'side'.

Whether people like Clinton or not is irrelevant to pointing out claims against her are bullshit.

And there are plenty of things about Clinton for liberals to like.

legitimately brave positions is Jill Stein when she points out that Trump's foreign policy is actually preferable to Clinton's in terms of which is less likely to start a war.

You'd have to ignore almost everything Trump has said to believe this. Or be an idiot like Stein.

You also didn't answer the question.

[I Push Buttons]

This election is really just one big false choice for liberals; on one side you have a neocon warmonger and on the other you have a hideous orange clown monster. Most people seem to be picking what they consider the lesser of two evils. I cannot comprehend why there are so many people who seem willing to fight to the death for the honor of Hillary Clinton, it just seems completely absurd to me beyond the idea that these people just want to argue with the people on the other 'side'.

The sad thing is that I believe this election has done irreparable damage to the potential for liberals and progressives to gain a political voice. So many people, like Warren and Sanders, and also many writers like Chomsky and Hedges, have just gone along with this ridiculous farce. It isn't 'brave' to speak out against Donald Trump, the only person I see taking legitimately brave positions is Jill Stein when she points out that Trump's foreign policy is actually preferable to Clinton's in terms of which is less likely to start a war.

This country needs an anti-war movement in place if Clinton becomes president, but I think the most recent generation of 'progressives' have been brainwashed into being placated by concessions on social issues.

1. You seem to have your facts mixed up. Us "liberals" simply defend our preferred candidate from baseless accusations, not a particularly challenging endeavor considering you put forward no evidence in support of your position. You and those like you seem to argue for the sake of it since you have quite literally never made any strides or provided any evidence of anything.

2. Jill's Stein's opinion on foreign policy is worth about as much to any intelligent person as Trump's opinion on pussy grabbing techniques.

[Breccia]

I cannot comprehend why there are so many people who seem willing to fight to the death for the honor of Hillary Clinton

Um, I'm pretty sure the people willing to take up arms against a just election and resolve it with violence are fighting to the death for someone else. Just a thought.

[maomoa]

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!

I'm still reeling from the Scalia assassination conspiracy theory. ROFL

[Endus]

This election is really just one big false choice for liberals; on one side you have a neocon warmonger and on the other you have a hideous orange clown monster. Most people seem to be picking what they consider the lesser of two evils. I cannot comprehend why there are so many people who seem willing to fight to the death for the honor of Hillary Clinton, it just seems completely absurd to me beyond the idea that these people just want to argue with the people on the other 'side'.

I've done my share of "defending" Clinton, and the reason is, basically, "reason". There are valid reasons to take issue with Clinton as a potential President. I'm definitely not disputing that. But every time the Trump supporters attack Clinton, it is not for any of those reasons. It's for made-up fantastical nonsense that has no basis in reality whatsoever. It's the fevered imaginings of propagandists. It directly and concretely misrepresents the known facts, to prop up an indefensible partisan slander.

It's like this. Picture that we've got two guys at the fair selling chili. One chili is pretty meh; they used chickpeas which I don't like, and it's just not that flavorful. It's edible, but it's like Wendy's fast-food chili, not awesome chili. But the guy next door's chili is literally made with dogshit and rotten vegetables. It smells atrocious, and he spends all his time ranting about how his neighbour's chili is made with rat meat (not true) and will give you supercancer (not only untrue, but ridiculous on its face). I'm gonna eat that first guy's okay chili, given those options, and take issue with all the people supporting Dogshit Chili Guy's ranting. Because it's insane. There's no basis for any of it. Sure, the other guy's chili is only "okay", but it's the only one that's remotely edible.

So that's why we're "defending" Hillary's okay chili. Because it's at least edible, and is definitely palatable and acceptable food. Not the best, not what we'd prefer, but good enough. And the insane ranting by the other guy is even more toxic than his dogshit chili, because we can't go get the okay chili without hearing that guy's nuttery and that of his supporters. So yes, we have a lot more issue with that guy and what he and his supporters are doing. Give us a decent alternative chili that's actually something approaching "food", and we can get back to discussing the merits of each.

The sad thing is that I believe this election has done irreparable damage to the potential for liberals and progressives to gain a political voice. So many people, like Warren and Sanders, and also many writers like Chomsky and Hedges, have just gone along with this ridiculous farce.

Yeah, they only managed to pull the Democratic platform further left on a host of issues than it's ever been. If you think this election has been damaging to them, you haven't been paying attention because you've been blinded by the crazy things Trump and his supporters have been saying.

[Lenonis]

There are valid reasons to take issue with Clinton as a potential President. I'm definitely not disputing that. But every time the Trump supporters attack Clinton, it is not for any of those reasons. It's for made-up fantastical nonsense that has no basis in reality whatsoever. It's the fevered imaginings of propagandists. It directly and concretely misrepresents the known facts, to prop up an indefensible partisan slander.

This has been the most maddening thing about this election cycle. Instead of attacking Hillary on where she is legitimately weak everything is mach-10 batshit crazy conspiracy theory. I mean there's been more debate on whether or not she has Parkinson's (which STILL isn't a dead argument somehow) instead of her weakness around...say free trade (assuming you are anti-free trade). Or any number of other arguments.

Instead it's:
-Healtherism
-Hey she defending a rapist five thousand years ago ain't that awful
-Bill Clinton is running for a third term
-She personally killed over 60 people. And you might be next!
-She's the devil

It's INSANE.

[Endus]

This has been the most maddening thing about this election cycle. Instead of attacking Hillary on where she is legitimately weak everything is mach-10 batshit crazy conspiracy theory. I mean there's been more debate on whether or not she has Parkinson's (which STILL isn't a dead argument somehow) instead of her weakness around...say free trade (assuming you are anti-free trade). Or any number of other arguments.

Instead it's:
-Healtherism
-Hey she defending a rapist five thousand years ago ain't that awful
-Bill Clinton is running for a third term
-She personally killed over 60 people. And you might be next!
-She's the devil

It's INSANE.

You forgot;
- Emails! Despite 90% of those complaints being hokum, all the complaints about her e-mail use FOCUS on that hokum, and not the 10% of actually objectionable stuff, like the poor decision she made in using that private server (which she's admitted to and apologized for).
- BENGHAZI, despite 9(?) investigations clearing her of any kind of culpability.
- Accusations against Bill of sexual improprieties, none of which have held up to scrutiny over the years, and none of which reflect on Hillary anyway.

Being pro-free-trade is something people might not like, but it never gets discussed (other than the batshit "she's secretly for the TPP because I don't understand how time works and that people can change their minds about things as they change over time" nuttery), her hawkishness on foreign policy, etc. There's valid stuff there, but it doesn't remotely compare to Trump's flaws, so they need to make up nonsense that will somehow seem to compare, to make Trump look like a valid alternative by comparison.

Because once you remove that stuff, Clinton may have a few warts, but she's still largely acceptable. "We can work with this" level approval.

[rosebull]

Um, I'm pretty sure the people willing to take up arms against a just election and resolve it with violence are fighting to the death for someone else. Just a thought.

Both sides being wrong doesn't make either of them right.

[Endus]

Both sides being wrong doesn't make either of them right.

Yes, but there's "2+2=3.999" wrong, and then there's "2+2=Grab them by the pussy" wrong.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

A guy who talks like an asshole is worse than someone who is incompetent and shady?

Trump is also incompetent and shady though.

[rosebull]

Yes, but there's "2+2=3.999" wrong, and then there's "2+2=Grab them by the pussy" wrong.

"Both sides being wrong doesn't make either of them right."

Ones a criminal, the others a moron who has no idea wtf they're doing. You can validate either candidate all you want, all that matters in the end is who wins.

Whoever wins is still a POS though.

[Kasierith]

Both sides being wrong doesn't make either of them right.

When considering the office of the president, I would say that being wrong about properly setting up a private email server is a bit less important than being wrong about believing that standing up to a foreign superpower = starting a war, and thus should never ever be done. Trump is persistently, consistently wrong on matters of policy and substance, from his idea that a wall would save the American economy, to his analysis of the Middle East, to his perspective on how to influence insurance drug companies to lower out of pocket expenses, to his even more extreme version of trickle down economics, going on and on and on without even going into the numerous personal improprieties associated with him. Clinton's wrongs are largely elsewhere, and where you can argue that she is wrong in terms of her economic and foreign policies and such, for example I think she has no business touching the second amendment simply because it is a massive beehive of chaos in the US and there are more important problems to focus on at this time, they really aren't addressed in any substantive manner by the Trumpletons.

All in all, if she were an IT staff member applying for a job at a larger firm, a major fuck up with a private server would be something of considerable concern. And it is a problematic thing. But it is completely unrelated to the position she is running for.

[Benggaul]

"Both sides being wrong doesn't make either of them right."

Ones a criminal, the others a moron who has no idea wtf they're doing. You can validate either candidate all you want, all that matters in the end is who wins.

Whoever wins is still a POS though.

Except, again, Hillary isn't a criminal. No matter what the lazy rhetoric Trump's goons like to use daily may be, she's still not been convicted of any crimes--hell, there's still not a shred of evidence thus far, despite the GOP trying DESPERATELY to find some, that she's even done much in the "slightly shady" category, let alone full-blown crimes.

[Aggrophobic]

"Both sides being wrong doesn't make either of them right."

Ones a criminal, the others a moron who has no idea wtf they're doing. You can validate either candidate all you want, all that matters in the end is who wins.

Whoever wins is still a POS though.

How hard is it to get though. She's no criminal.

[Kasierith]

He's an overall conspiracy nutter, climate change deniar, anti-vaxer, and an Alex Jones fan - of course he thinks there's clean coal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzNeg9D-EZ4

So what I get from this is, trolling Alex Jones with random conspiracies sent by anonymous sources sounds like a hilariously fun idea.

[GennGreymane]

I wonder if we could get him to make a video of our choosing...

I got a video idea


Is GennGreymane really, Genn Greymane? Is it possible that he has been fooling us all along?

[Blobfish]

I am so Glad that Trumpy is going to sue the women who have falsely accused him of his advances.
Saying it has impacted his campaign.. I hope he sues these women for heeps, if they are found to have fabricated the whole thing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/22/po...duct-accusers/

Donald Trump vowed Saturday to sue the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct in recent weeks.
"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," Trump said during remarks in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. "Total fabrication.
The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

He added that a "simple phone call" to major news outlets "gets them wall-to-wall coverage with virtually no fact-checking ever."
In the last two weeks, at least 10 women have come forward accusing Trump of inappropriately touching them. Their allegations came after a 2005 videotape surfaced of Trump bragging about being able to grope women and get away with it.

[JohnBrown1917]

I am so Glad that Trumpy is going to sue the women who have falsely accused him of his advances.
Saying it has impacted his campaign.. I hope he sues these women for heeps, if they are found to have fabricated the whole thing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/22/po...duct-accusers/

Donald Trump vowed Saturday to sue the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct in recent weeks.
"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," Trump said during remarks in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. "Total fabrication.
The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over."

He added that a "simple phone call" to major news outlets "gets them wall-to-wall coverage with virtually no fact-checking ever."
In the last two weeks, at least 10 women have come forward accusing Trump of inappropriately touching them. Their allegations came after a 2005 videotape surfaced of Trump bragging about being able to grope women and get away with it.

So this is what makes Trump supporters happy?