Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Osmeric]

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.

He will have to prove they fabricated it, and did so with malicious intent. This in the face of statements from friends that they talked with the victim about the incidents 11 years ago, in one case.

The threat is idiotic bluster and will rebound disastrously on Trump if pursued. He will be forced to testify extensively under oath, and if he pulls out he can get penalities assessed against him. The thought of mister stream-of-consciousness testifying under oath makes me smile (and anticipate perjury charges).

I think what happened here is Trump thought he had bullied these women into silence, and was outraged when his threats stopped working. Doubtless these women wouldn't have spoken up if they had not been guaranteed their legal fees would be taken care of if Trump sued.

[Spectral]

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.

Super obvious mishandling of sensitive information isn't unrelated to the position she's running for.

[DeadmanWalking]

"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 the part where you don't earn criminal status until you have been found guilty of a crime in a court of law and not guilty by a council of political opponents. Otherwise yeah.

[Wulfey]

He will have to prove they fabricated it, and did so with malicious intent. This in the face of statements from friends that they talked with the victim about the incidents 11 years ago, in one case.

The threat is idiotic bluster and will rebound disastrously on Trump if pursued. He will be forced to testify extensively under oath, and if he pulls out he can get penalities assessed against him. The thought of mister stream-of-consciousness testifying under oath makes me smile (and anticipate perjury charges).

More than that, his giant accusations that they are liars about their trauma is actually prime facie for a defamation charge.

"First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.
Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.
Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.
Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages."

Trump made a knowing false statement and attacked their characters as liars, unprivileged, and with malicious intent.

http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-...d-slander.html

[Templar 331]

He will have to prove they fabricated it, and did so with malicious intent. This in the face of statements from friends that they talked with the victim about the incidents 11 years ago, in one case.

The threat is idiotic bluster and will rebound disastrously on Trump if pursued. He will be forced to testify extensively under oath, and if he pulls out he can get penalities assessed against him. The thought of mister stream-of-consciousness testifying under oath makes me smile (and anticipate perjury charges).

I think what happened here is Trump thought he had bullied these women into silence, and was outraged when his threats stopped working. Doubtless these women wouldn't have spoken up if they had not been guaranteed their legal fees would be taken care of if Trump sued.

Any bets on him doing like Nixon when found guilty of perjury and stepping down to let his VP absolve him if he wins the election? Or maybe he's stupid enough to try and fight it. Either way I'd like to see it.

[Endus]

"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 that Clinton is in no rational sense a "criminal". That's baseless fantastical slander, not an argument. This is the kind of garbage I was referring to.

[Noxx79]

Any bets on him doing like Nixon when found guilty of perjury and stepping down to let his VP absolve him if he wins the election? Or maybe he's stupid enough to try and fight it. Either way I'd like to see it.

Trumps too egotistical to step down, even if it would benefit him in the long run. He can't accept any form of loss.

[Garnier Fructis]

I think what happened here is Trump thought he had bullied these women into silence, and was outraged when his threats stopped working. Doubtless these women wouldn't have spoken up if they had not been guaranteed their legal fees would be taken care of if Trump sued.

Hell, if they started a GoFundMe to cover legal fees, I'd donate and I'm sure many, many others who wanted to see the Trump-tanic sink would also do so.

[Kasierith]

Super obvious mishandling of sensitive information isn't unrelated to the position she's running for.

I care more about the president being the president than being an IT security specialist. Like I said, the establishment of the server, even with the Republican-led committee and the FBI finding no evidence that information was breached and that it was highly suggestible that the slip ups with confidential emails were due to poor formatting by the senders, is problematic. But you looking at a single event in a 30 year career and screaming "she mishandles sensitive information!!" without being able to establish any sort of pattern of reckless disregard for handling such information is pretty bland, and speaks less to her incompetence in a presidential role as much as your desperate reaching to find fault with her, which has most definitely been a consistent pattern.

[Templar 331]

Trumps too egotistical to step down.

Walk out of the White House in shame or stand in the fire arguing with everyone. Either way is fine with me.

[Orbitus]

"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.

Yes we know Trump is a possible criminal but Hillary not knowing what she is doing? Nope. Not even remotely close. I know you are trying to say it is the other way around but Clinton was never convicted of anything and it is hard to call her a criminal without a conviction. Trump is the only one that could face potential time in prison. Will he if convicted? Most likely not. But he will pay tens of millions if not more in damages for the rape case and the Trump University case against him. Then you have the probe into whether or not he committed a crime by bribing Ken Paxton and Pam Bondi for dropping their cases against him for "donations" from Trump's Foundation. Which is illegal.

[Spectral]

I care more about the president being the president than being an IT security specialist. Like I said, the establishment of the server, even with the Republican-led committee and the FBI finding no evidence that information was breached and that it was highly suggestible that the slip ups with confidential emails were due to poor formatting by the senders, is problematic. But you looking at a single event in a 30 year career and screaming "she mishandles sensitive information!!" without being able to establish any sort of pattern of reckless disregard for handling such information is pretty bland, and speaks less to her incompetence in a presidential role as much as your desperate reaching to find fault with her, which has most definitely been a consistent pattern.

I don't think this is a single event - I think it's a pattern of misbehavior that's just barely within the realm of plausible deniability on a single event. I also don't think it's a weird IT technicality - pretty much everyone working for the federal government is well informed about how to handle sensitive information and she went wayyyy out of her way to do something weird with it for the sake of personal privacy rather than following standard protocol.

The idea that this is "desperate reaching" is truly bizarre. This malfeasance is pretty obvious if you haven't become deeply invested in defending her in this unusual election and would be pretty disqualifying with any kind of normal opponent.

[AndaliteBandit]

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.

Didn't he claim that he's never even met any of them?

Including the People editor who interviewed him and Melania, and The Apprentice contestant...

[Endus]

The idea that this is "desperate reaching" is truly bizarre. This malfeasance is pretty obvious if you haven't become deeply invested in defending her in this unusual election and would be pretty disqualifying with any kind of normal opponent.

"Disqualifying"? No. "Disqualifying" means she'd no longer be eligible to even run. Not that there would be a better alternative voters might prefer.

Absolutely nothing about Clinton's actions is remotely "disqualifying". That, again, is fantastical nonsense that has no basis in the facts.

[Spectral]

"Disqualifying"? No. "Disqualifying" means she'd no longer be eligible to even run. Not that there would be a better alternative voters might prefer.

Absolutely nothing about Clinton's actions is remotely "disqualifying". That, again, is fantastical nonsense that has no basis in the facts.

The term "disqualifying" in the context of the current election has been repeatedly used to mean, "really has no business being there".

I agree with your semantic point that she's not legally disqualified. It's a typically stupid point, but I agree with it. I suppose if I wanted to engage in idiotic semantics, this would be relevant:

(of a feature or characteristic) make (someone) unsuitable for an office or activity.

So, yeah, I guess you're not even technically right. Whatever though.

[Endus]

The term "disqualifying" in the context of the current election has been repeatedly used to mean, "really has no business being there".

Then they're using the word incorrectly, and it's exactly that kind of willful hyperbole that's the issue.

And don't use "semantics" dismissively. Semantics basically boils down to "what words mean". Yes, if I say "Trump is literally a murdering rapist", that's wrong, and I don't get to go all "well, if you want to be semantic about things" and act like that's a defense of the lie.

[Wells]

Super obvious mishandling of sensitive information isn't unrelated to the position she's running for.

Unrelated? No, but hardly likely to repeat.

[Spectral]

Unrelated? No, but hardly likely to repeat.

This exact thing? No, probably not. A million little idiosyncrasies that are similar? Almost certainly. It's actually pretty hard to imagine a Clinton Presidency that doesn't pretty much top the charts for secrecy and paranoia.

[Kraenen]

Then they're using the word incorrectly, and it's exactly that kind of willful hyperbole that's the issue.

And don't use "semantics" dismissively. Semantics basically boils down to "what words mean". Yes, if I say "Trump is literally a murdering rapist", that's wrong, and I don't get to go all "well, if you want to be semantic about things" and act like that's a defense of the lie.

Didn't you once say

Yeah, you're literally running with my analogy and ...

?

[Breccia]

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

Never even claimed it did. Only that, a comment aimed at "defending Clinton to the death" was unfounded by evidence. Mine, wasn't. There was a personal experience on this very thread under an hour before I posted this.