Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[-Nurot]

She volunteered to be on the list of private attorneys willing to do work for the poor. She couldve stayed private and not volunteered. But then she got called up and didnt want to do it (she claims anyway).

You're going to have to provide citation that she volunteered to be on this list, especially since it doesn't sound that way.

She is always looking for the short way to the top. Its why when she wanted to be senator, she moved to New York because it was the easiest seat for her to win. She should have ran in Arkansas where she lived, but we all know she wouldve had a farts chance in the wind to win there so she did what was politically expedient and moved to New York to run for Senator.

Short way to the top? Isn't that something that is idolized in Trump by the same people frowning on Hillary?

[Endus]

No. Im arguing that she schemed to get to the top by trying to look like a compassionate person offering to take on cases for the poor (and then when called upon to do so, tried to get out of it) in order to get more eyeballs on her from the bar association so she could be seen as much more than she really was and move to the big money cases faster (the greed part), just like she is continuing to do today. It was simple ass kissing and brown nosing, except she got called on it. Hillary doesnt do anything for anyone except Hillary

Right. The problem is that you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to back this. The circumstances just as easily demonstrate that Clinton was an actually-compassionate person who, when called on to defend a client, determined that he was almost certainly guilty of the crime he was accused of, and that crime so disturbed her she tried to get herself taken off the case.

Everything beyond that, you are inventing out of nothing, because you irrationally hate Clinton.

She volunteered to be on the list of private attorneys willing to do work for the poor. She couldve stayed private and not volunteered. But then she got called up and didnt want to do it (she claims anyway).

She didn't want that particular defendant, because after looking at the case, she was convinced he was guilty of the rape he was accused of, and she didn't want to defend someone she was convinced had actually raped someone. It wasn't that she didn't want to try a case, she didn't want to try that case, on his side.

Then she bribed Obama for the SoS position by agreeing to resign her presidential campaign in 2008 so he could get the nomination as long as he gave her a juicy cabinet position that she could exploit for donations in her pay to play scheme, while she waited her turn for POTUS in 2016

COMPLETE fabrication. Just unadulterated bullshit, the pure straight-from-the-bull's-arse variety.

Im saying she should have done what any good lawyer does and start her pwn practice or partner with another lawyer that shares your beliefs instead of volunuteering for stuff just to look good that you dont really want to do.

Starting your own practice takes money, and contacts, which she didn't have, as the daughter of a fabric salesman. Partnering with another lawyer, same kind of deal. Volunteering like this gets you the experience and contacts you need to get that kind of position.

You're literally slandering Clinton because she volunteered her time. It's insane.

[Orlong]

Starting your own practice takes money, and contacts, which she didn't have, as the daughter of a fabric salesman. Partnering with another lawyer, same kind of deal. Volunteering like this gets you the experience and contacts you need to get that kind of position.

And why would it take money or contacts? Why couldnt she do like most people and just put an ad in the yellow pages (In 1975 they were likey $20 at most) and clients would call for legal representation. And once she made a couple hundred dollars she couldve made a cheesy TV commerical like you see 50 times during any daytime TV show these days

[Trump]

COMPLETE fabrication. Just unadulterated bullshit, the pure straight-from-the-bull's-arse variety.

LOL - struck a nerve , eh?

That is also the reason she got that Piece-Of-Shit-in-Chief Obama to utter the most fucking ridiculous line in politics that has ever been spoken since the inception of this country:

"I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill [Clinton], nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

Talk about "COMPLETE fabrication. Just unadulterated bullshit," LOL.

BTW - want some more "COMPLETE fabrication. Just unadulterated bullshit"? The women that have accused Trump of sexual assault. Every single one of them is a fucking liar, they have not provided ONE bit of evidence, yet you folks buy that shit 100%

[Merkava]

She didn't want that particular defendant, because after looking at the case, she was convinced he was guilty of the rape he was accused of, and she didn't want to defend someone she was convinced had actually raped someone. It wasn't that she didn't want to try a case, she didn't want to try that case.

Then she could have refused, right?

Listen, I've heard every argument on here; DeadManWalking said she was a PD who had to do it or she would have been disbarred; Breccia said she did it for the money, someone else said she did it to help her law practice. She took it because she wanted to. She had no real criminal trial experience and the guy was on trial for his life. She probably thought she could help him. That's noble. She was giving representation to someone who needed it. That's also noble. She probably thought she could make a name for herself as a litigator and for her legal aid clinic. She probably thought she could use the influence that came from the case to help other people. That's fine. All those things are good. But don't try to tell us that she was forced to do something that she didn't want to do.

[Breccia]

Im saying she should have done what any good lawyer does and start her pwn practice

She did start a pwn practice. She's pwning Trump right now.

[Dug]

She did start a pwn practice. She's pwning Trump right now.

Savage

/10pepperone

[DocSavageFan]

What percent of those would be based in reality? Zero?

If that's what you want to believe...go for it...but please don't preach to us about reality in the same breath.

[-Nurot]

LOL - struck a nerve , eh?

That is also the reason she got that Piece-Of-Shit-in-Chief Obama to utter the most fucking ridiculous line in politics that has ever been spoken since the inception of this country:

"I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill [Clinton], nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

Talk about "COMPLETE fabrication. Just unadulterated bullshit," LOL.

BTW - want some more "COMPLETE fabrication. Just unadulterated bullshit"? The women that have accused Trump of sexual assault. Every single one of them is a fucking liar, they have not provided ONE bit of evidence, yet you folks buy that shit 100%

They've provided as much evidence as Bill's accusers, who Trump would have us automatically believe. Hillary didn't believe them, so she suddenly was at fault too.

Now Melania refuses to believe and calls then liars and trump threatens to sue them.

Whew, talk about hypocrisy. Sounds like you seethe with hatred over Obama too though, so didn't really expect this to go anywhere rational.

[Benggaul]

Oh I could take a whole page putting down reasons why I hate her with every fiber of my being, but this case is probably the least of the reasons

Judging from everything else you've posted here, they're probably equally as poorly thought-out/reasoned.

I've made it no secret that she's not my favourite candidate ever, but I've yet to see any compelling argument for why she shouldn't be chosen over Trump. Still waiting for those damning emails that are supposedly forthcoming but apparently aren't going to be here in time to have any impact on the election given the strong surge of early voting this year--oh and Trump being a perpetual fuckhead.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

BTW - want some more "COMPLETE fabrication. Just unadulterated bullshit"? The women that have accused Trump of sexual assault. Every single one of them is a fucking liar, they have not provided ONE bit of evidence, yet you folks buy that shit 100%

You deny it 100% also without evidence.
I'm curious as to why this is ok for your side but not the other. Neither side can produce evidence, but course your side is right and the other side is wrong. You're engaging in the exact same behavior you profess to despise. Stop it.

[DeadmanWalking]

And why would it take money or contacts? Why couldnt she do like most people and just put an ad in the yellow pages (In 1975 they were likey $20 at most) and clients would call for legal representation. And once she made a couple hundred dollars she couldve made a cheesy TV commerical like you see 50 times during any daytime TV show these days

You do a fine job of showing that you have no clue what you are talking about, but do continue.

[The Penguin]

BTW - want some more "COMPLETE fabrication. Just unadulterated bullshit"? The women that have accused Trump of sexual assault. Every single one of them is a fucking liar, they have not provided ONE bit of evidence, yet you folks buy that shit 100%

I don't but certain sheeple do here sadly.

Then again all it takes to see the content of their character is to look at who is defending them. Gloria Allred doesn't exactly have the most sterling of reputations, either in Court or Domestically. I mean her ex-Husband has gone on tape calling her a Gold digger. Not saying that is factual or even true, but barring an actual court with proof, evidence and due process that's all that has been given on Trump. PSA's by unverified women who claim they are telling the "truth". Contrast that now to Bill Clinton who was actually found guilty of impropriety. Because of that, I think Trump is within his rights to sue these women, especially if their potentially another pack of "paid agitators" that haven't had their claims substantiated.

I mean it can't be worse than what Hillary's already done to Monica, Paula, and god knows how many other women.

[NineSpine]

Then she could have refused, right?

Listen, I've heard every argument on here; DeadManWalking said she was a PD who had to do it or she would have been disbarred; Breccia said she did it for the money, someone else said she did it to help her law practice. She took it because she wanted to. She had no real criminal trial experience and the guy was on trial for his life. She probably thought she could help him. That's noble. She was giving representation to someone who needed it. That's also noble. She probably thought she could make a name for herself as a litigator and for her legal aid clinic. She probably thought she could use the influence that came from the case to help other people. That's fine. All those things are good. But don't try to tell us that she was forced to do something that she didn't want to do.

She was asked by the Judge to take on a shitty case, per a referral from someone she knew. She probably could have gotten out of it, even though the Judge was asking for her, but she decided to do it even though she didn't want to. It isn't terribly complicated, but I am still unclear on why anyone should give a fuck. Attorneys represent people. That's their job. You seem to be having trouble with seeing outside of the absolutes here. You seem to believe that either she was FORCED into doing this and would GO TO PRISON if she refused to, or she merrily accepted the case and was super pumped about it. In reality, it's pretty clear she felt compelled to take a case she didn't want to, because it might be bad for her reputation if she didn't. An attorney who is up and coming and refuses a request from a Judge to take a case, even if this isn't a required emergency defense appointment, is likely to burn some bridges. By all accounts, she managed the case competently and didn't do anything ostentatious to defend him. Again, what's the issue?

[Trump]

You deny it 100% also without evidence.
I'm curious as to why this is ok for your side but not the other. Neither side can produce evidence, but course your side is right and the other side is wrong. You're engaging in the exact same behavior you profess to despise. Stop it.

We have PROOF that Bill Clinton is an adulterer - he got a blow job from Monica Lewinksy and was IMPEACHED for LYING ABOUT it!!

All you have is some tape from 11 years ago - and then all of YOU just ASSUMED the accusers are telling the truth. How about YOU stop it.

[Breccia]

Oh look, Trump is still trying the "Clinton is sick" approach. The more he says this, the more I honestly worry that Trump himself is sick. He projects a LOT of his negative features onto his opponents.

For those of you who didn't see it, Clinton was still up at 1AM answering reporter questions. Trump, by contrast, was in his car within 5 minute of the last debate ending and wasn't heard from, even by Twitter, until the next morning.

[-Nurot]

I don't but certain sheeple do here sadly.

Then again all it takes to see the content of their character is to look at who is defending them. Gloria Allred doesn't exactly have the most sterling of reputations, either in Court or Domestically. I mean her ex-Husband has gone on tape calling her a Gold digger. Not saying that is factual or even true, but barring an actual court with proof, evidence and due process that's all that has been given on Trump. PSA's by unverified women who claim they are telling the "truth". Contrast that now to Bill Clinton who was actually found guilty of impropriety. Because of that, I think Trump is within his rights to sue these women, especially if their potentially another pack of "paid agitators" that haven't had their claims substantiated.

I mean it can't be worse than what Hillary's already done to Monica, Paula, and god knows how many other women.

Bill was found guilty of something other than having relations with Monica Lewinsky? Would you recommend he sue his accusers too? Wonder how much Donald paid them to show up to the debates. "Paid agitators indeed".

We have PROOF that Bill Clinton is an adulterer - he got a blow job from Monica Lewinksy and was IMPEACHED for LYING ABOUT it!!

All you have is some tape from 11 years ago - and then all of YOU just ASSUMED the accusers are telling the truth. How about YOU stop it.

Trump was a proven adulterer. He cheated on 2 of his 3 wives and probably the third. You want to believe Bill's accusers from 20 years ago, because he got impeached, but the proof is just as lacking.

Also, is Hillary Clinton running for president? Now is it Trump, or Bill? Which adulterer is running?

[NineSpine]

We have PROOF that Bill Clinton is an adulterer - he got a blow job from Monica Lewinksy and was IMPEACHED for LYING ABOUT it!!

All you have is some tape from 11 years ago - and then all of YOU just ASSUMED the accusers are telling the truth. How about YOU stop it.

He said he did something, and then other people verified he did it, and at least one of the claims is backed up by five people who say they were told the story when it happened. Furthermore, it is reflected in a pattern of entitlement and disdain for women that Trump has had publicly for years.

Do you really expect me to believe that if a tape came out of Clinton saying "Sometimes I punch men in the nuts for funsies" came out and then 11 guys said "Yeah, she punched me in the nuts once", you would be like "WELL YOU DON'T KNOW IF SHE DID IT!" Get real.

[Breccia]

Not saying that is factual or even true, but barring an actual court with proof, evidence and due process that's all that has been given on Trump.

Multiple sources have taken the time to point out that Trump's attempt to sue his accusers would almost certainly backfire. His accusers, as defendants, would almost certainly call for disclosure of evidence, such as the currently un-aired Access Hollywood tapes. Meanwhile, Trump would need to prove, beyond a majority of doubt, that the women are lying. Citing lack of evidence, won't work.

There will be no court case that finds a result in either direction. The women in question would have the same uphill battle if they tried suing.

By the way, the child rape case is still on.

[The Penguin]

Bill was found guilty of something other than having relations with Monica Lewinsky? Would you recommend he sue his accusers too?

Dunno, why not ask him? You got proof that Trump did this other than one Access Hollywood tape that was leaked under the same circumstances (illegal) as Wikileaks? Because if X is going to be illegal, Y needs to be accepted as Illegal too.

Multiple sources have taken the time to point out that Trump's attempt to sue his accusers would almost certainly backfire. His accusers, as defendants, would almost certainly call for disclosure of evidence, such as the currently un-aired Access Hollywood tapes. Meanwhile, Trump would need to prove, beyond a majority of doubt, that the women are lying. Citing lack of evidence, won't work.

There will be no court case that finds a result in either direction. The women in question would have the same uphill battle if they tried suing.

By the way, the child rape case is still on.

Ah so then this is just a PSA, like the grandfather of a Twitter Slander job. Thanks for clarifying.

By the way, we also have proof Trump is an adulterer. He left at least one of his wives for his mistress. This isn't exactly a secret.

Divorce isn't last I checked, proof of adultery.

I would love to hear the rationale for the Access Hollywood leak being illegal.

Apparently you don't know what Non-disclosure contracts entail.