Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Felya]

Why doesn't the Trump campaign talk about how hillary clinton defended a rapist and got him off then laughed over how they fooled the jury

Because being good at your job is a strange shot to take at your opponent.

[RobertoCarlos]

Because being good at your job is a strange shot to take at your opponent.

Being good at skirting the law and looking after people with special interests means she would be a good president?

[Felya]

Considering his campaign just got derailed by the pussyleak tape, you would think showing the other side hasnt been friendly to woman either might help.

Also "liberal" Hillary was anti gay rights till 2013

The problem Trump would face with your logic, is that he would be attacking a Hillary for taking on a case where her obligation was constitutional, if not moral. She was a lawyer, he wants to grab pissy... if you really want that to be a contrast, it would be a strange point...

- - - Updated - - -

Being good at skirting the law and looking after people with special interests means she would be a good president?

Now the rapist is a special interest? See what I mean... you brought it up, now mixing your rhetoric... if you wanted to know why Trump doesn't bring it up, your post above should really explain it...

[Belize]

MysticSnow takes a peek into r/the_donald.

MysticSnow sees: https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/co...g_is_rigged_i/

MysticSnow slowly walks away.

Aren't those supposed to be government emails that have been leaked? Like, the 30k?

The U.S. gov. uses Gmail? Uh...huh... right.

I can't wait for the one from vp.biden@gmail.com the explains how they summon demons to posses high ranking politicians...

[Garnier Fructis]

Considering his campaign just got derailed by the pussyleak tape, you would think showing the other side hasnt been friendly to woman either might help.

Also "liberal" Hillary was anti gay rights till 2013

This would imply that the Trump campaign has even a modicum of sense or planning.

[Miztickow]

Like who? The entire republican field was a joke. DO you think Cruz the zodiac killer or Rubio would be ahead right now?

Cruz and Rubio were/are horrible candidates. Bush, while unexciting, probably would have been the best choice out of them.

[Benggaul]

Why doesn't the Trump campaign talk about how hillary clinton defended a rapist and got him off then laughed over how they fooled the jury

Probably because she was doing her job as defense attorney at the time (and I THINK she actually tried to get out of it, but don't have a source at hand) and the laughs in the recording were taken out of context and not at the expense of the victim.

SO, yah. There's that. Might have something to do with why it's only a battle cry for Trump sycophants.

[Wyrt]

Why doesn't the Trump campaign talk about how hillary clinton defended a rapist and got him off then laughed over how they fooled the jury

Because it would show a fundamental misunderstanding of the US judicial system if Trump went after her for being a lawyer doing her job by providing a constitutional right to an accused person.

Pretty sure the only ones stupid enough for listen to it are already in Trump's camp.

[RobertoCarlos]

The problem Trump would face with your logic, is that he would be attacking a Hillary for taking on a case where her obligation was constitutional, if not moral. She was a lawyer, he wants to grab pissy... if you really want that to be a contrast, it would be a strange point...

- - - Updated - - -


Now the rapist is a special interest? See what I mean... you brought it up, now mixing your rhetoric... if you wanted to know why Trump doesn't bring it up, your post above should really explain it...

Even if it was her job, votes can be won with emotion. A lot of people wouldn't be cool with defending a rapist and laughing. And why did she have to take the case? Thats where you argue special interests

[Miztickow]

Probably because she was doing her job as defense attorney at the time (and I THINK she actually tried to get out of it, but don't have a source at hand) and the laughs in the recording were taken out of context and not at the expense of the victim.

SO, yah. There's that. Might have something to do with why it's only a battle cry for Trump sycophants.

She did request to be excused from the case, but the judge denied the request.

[Breccia]

Why doesn't the Trump campaign talk about how hillary clinton defended a rapist and got him off then laughed over how they fooled the jury

Because that's factually false.

The defendant plead guilty to a plea bargain.

They did not fool the jury, because the defendant plead guilty.

And she did not laugh about fooling the jury, because they did not fool the jury, because the defendant plead guilty.

She laughed about losing her faith in lie detectors. Listen to the audio yourself.

Oh, then she helped start the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas almost immediately afterwards.

In other words, even the Trump campaign isn't stupid enough to go with the bullshit you're spewing.

[Felya]

Cruz and Rubio were/are horrible candidates. Bush, while unexciting, probably would have been the best choice out of them.

Rubio was not a horrible candidate. He would have beaten Hillary hands down. He doesn't have a horrible past. Is a fresh face in the GOP. First Latino presidential candidate versus Hillary's email? No shot...

It's why the Trump controversy against him doesn't make sense. Every single person in primaries of GOP had a better shot at Hillary than Trump. If Hillary wanted to be president, having Trump be her opponent would be critical to her winning.

#ImWithSouthPark

[Miztickow]

Rubio was not a horrible candidate. He would have beaten Hillary hands down. He doesn't have a horrible past. Is a fresh face in the GOP. First Latino presidential candidate versus Hillary's email? No shot...

It's why the Trump controversy against him doesn't make sense. Every single person in primaries of GOP had a better shot at Hillary than Trump. If Hillary wanted to be president, having Trump be her opponent would be critical to her winning.

#ImWithSouthPark

Rubio's biggest flaw is that he doesn't show up to work. I suppose you could argue that away as the responsibilities of the presidency being unavoidable, but he's basically been stealing money from the taxpayers of Florida and it speaks to his worth ethic.

[Garnier Fructis]

Even if it was her job, votes can be won with emotion. A lot of people wouldn't be cool with defending a rapist and laughing. And why did she have to take the case? Thats where you argue special interests

The prosecuting attorney in that case said Clinton tried to get off the case because she didn't want to be on it, but the judge didn't remove her. So she did her job.

Special interests my ass.

[RobertoCarlos]

Because that's factually false.

The defendant plead guilty to a plea bargain.

They did not fool the jury, because the defendant plead guilty.

And she did not laugh about fooling the jury, because they did not fool the jury, because the defendant plead guilty.

She laughed about losing her faith in lie detectors. Listen to the audio yourself.

Oh, then she helped start the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas almost immediately afterwards.

In other words, even the Trump campaign isn't stupid enough to go with the bullshit you're spewing.

"Origin:In May 2016, the image macro shown above began circulating on Facebook, holding that back in 1975 a young Hillary Clinton (then Hillary Rodham) had "volunteered" to represent a 42-year-old man (Thomas Alfred Taylor) who was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, that Clinton told the judge in the case that the complainant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about older men, that Clinton "got [the] rapist freed," and that Clinton later admitted she knew the defendant was guilty and "laughed about" the outcome of the case. Although Hillary Clinton was indeed involved in a case of this nature, the aspects of the case presented in the image were largely inaccurate or exaggerated."

So the source you quoted is pretty confusing. It confirms exactly what I said, then says it might be exaggerated? Which is probably true. She still seems crazy to me.

- - - Updated - - -

The prosecuting attorney in that case said Clinton tried to get off the case because she didn't want to be on it, but the judge didn't remove her. So she did her job.

Special interests my ass.

Look don't get so hung up on the special interests comment, Trump could say that if he wanted. Thats the beauty of the trump campaign it doesnt need to have facts. So relax on those 2 words in one sentence.

[Felya]

Rubio's biggest flaw is that he doesn't show up to work. I suppose you could argue that away as the responsibilities of the presidency being unavoidable, but he's basically been stealing money from the taxpayers of Florida and it speaks to his worth ethic.

That's the thing though... Everything you said might be true, but is nothing compared to Trump and Hillary. She had no shot against him. All he would have to do is just as you said, be an empty suit. By the way... I believe that litteraly... if empty suit was on the ballot in every state, I think it would have a shot against Hillary and Trump...

[Wyrt]

"Origin:In May 2016, the image macro shown above began circulating on Facebook, holding that back in 1975 a young Hillary Clinton (then Hillary Rodham) had "volunteered" to represent a 42-year-old man (Thomas Alfred Taylor) who was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, that Clinton told the judge in the case that the complainant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about older men, that Clinton "got [the] rapist freed," and that Clinton later admitted she knew the defendant was guilty and "laughed about" the outcome of the case. Although Hillary Clinton was indeed involved in a case of this nature, the aspects of the case presented in the image were largely inaccurate or exaggerated."

So the source you quoted is pretty confusing. It confirms exactly what I said, then says it might be exaggerated? Which is probably true. She still seems crazy to me.

- - - Updated - - -



Look don't get so hung up on the special interests comment, Trump could say that if he wanted. Thats the beauty of the trump campaign it doesnt need to have facts. So relax on those 2 words in one sentence.

It says it's largely inaccurate. I'm not sure you're reading it correctly.

[Garnier Fructis]

So the source you quoted is pretty confusing. It confirms exactly what I said, then says it might be exaggerated? Which is probably true. She still seems crazy to me.

They're repeating the claim before debunking it. Plus you actually highlighted the last sentence where it says the claims are largely inaccurate or exaggerated.

How did you miss that?

- - - Updated - - -

Look don't get so hung up on the special interests comment, Trump could say that if he wanted. Thats the beauty of the trump campaign it doesnt need to have facts. So relax on those 2 words in one sentence.

Those two words were essentially your last argument for this.

[Breccia]

So the source you quoted is pretty confusing. It confirms exactly what I said

No, it doesn't. You're illiterate. Go back again and actually try reading it.

[Felya]

"Origin:In May 2016, the image macro shown above began circulating on Facebook, holding that back in 1975 a young Hillary Clinton (then Hillary Rodham) had "volunteered" to represent a 42-year-old man (Thomas Alfred Taylor) who was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, that Clinton told the judge in the case that the complainant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about older men, that Clinton "got [the] rapist freed," and that Clinton later admitted she knew the defendant was guilty and "laughed about" the outcome of the case. Although Hillary Clinton was indeed involved in a case of this nature, the aspects of the case presented in the image were largely inaccurate or exaggerated."

So the source you quoted is pretty confusing. It confirms exactly what I said, then says it might be exaggerated? Which is probably true. She still seems crazy to me.

It's confusing because you stopped reading at the assertion.