Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[PACOX]

Trump said that he is now free (because much of the GOP and his own staff has abandoned him) and he has attacks against Clinton coming (more if the same bullshit that even Republicans are tired of playing dumb to go with it)

So his inexperience and temperament that's "better than his opponents" is showing. All Trump's problems have been his own and he is now throwing a hissy fit about it. Turns out he was serious about winning the presidentcy and is now throwing a 70 year old tantrum because "people aren't being fair", except fair in Trump's word means that you lose and he wins. His own antics cause his opponents to become speechless, not because Trump is clever, but because no one expects someone to be that stupid, insecure, ridiculous.

He runs a campaign that seems to have a 24 hour attention span. You Clinton was right that when confronting Trump you end up wasting valuable time because you have to sit there is correct all his lies and hyperbole before you can even get to actual policy. His best thing about him are his kids which is waning. His sons look like your standard Wall Street blowhards who have nothing in common with the average citizen. Tiffany is like that blonde lady on CNN that would defend Trump is he said the sky was purple at high noon. Ivanka is obviously not a Republican and is going to need a lot of therapy after see the hearing all the comments her dad made about her and the Howard Stern clip.

You ever laugh so hard that your stomach started to hurt then you began to resent whatever made you laugh because it was then causing you pain? That's how I feel about this election. The joke is over, let's just be over with it. Early and mail in voting has or is starting in a lot of states, let's just get this divorce done and over with.

[Saucexorzski]

Why is trump a rapist if he's never been convicted of the crime? Or does his penis give him such privilege?

[Merkava]

Again, what do you mean by context?

They are talking about women, and Trump describes how he has kissed women in the past without consent - "he doesn't even ask". The entire conversation is about women and how Trump "moves" on them.

That's not context. That's content. That's what so many people on here don't understand.

Here's a post I made earlier showing how Trump's statement can be put into a different context without changing it's content.

He said he had consent. He said they let him. Listen, here's all he has to say. "I was talking about how I like to start amorous activities with a woman once we go to dinner, maybe a show, and get back to my place. If she says she wan't to spend the night and gives me the signals that she wants to get physical, then I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. And once they say they want to have sex with me, I don't like to mess around too much with foreplay, I just grab them by the pussy."

You see, that's context. Those are his exact words put into a context that doesn't point to him admitting to committing sexual assault.

Now you can easily, maybe even more easily, put them into a context where he is admitting to committing sexual assault, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. You seem to be accusing him of confessing to sexual assault, which is to say, that you're accusing him of committing sexual assault. That's a pretty high burden of proof, and it requires some solid evidence. You don't have that, not from what he said on this tape.
.

- - - Updated - - -

The audio is "fact". Those are things Trump actually said. Are you disputing this? Or will you retract your claim that "there are no facts"?

Once you acknowledge that the tape exists, and is Trump speaking (which not even Trump denies), you've got A> facts, and B> context. Despite your wild claims otherwise.

I've never disputed the content, only the context. Context does not automatically follow content. Shirely Sherrod should have taught you guys that.

[Endus]

That's not context. That's content. That's what so many people on here don't understand.

Here's a post I made earlier showing how Trump's statement can be put into a different context without changing it's content.

And again, that post was a lie, since A> you were explicitly changing its content, through adding more material, and B> changing the statement itself.

Again, it's no different than if you were a lawyer for a confessed killer, trying to convince a jury "No, when my client said 'I did it, I killed her', he mean 'In my dream I did it. I killed in my dream."

Except that's not what his client said, and making up complete bullshit like that is so wildly unethical that said lawyer would be disbarred for trying that nonsense.

There's no ameliorating context that we're excluding. We have the whole context. You don't want to admit that, because it would be an admission that you've been doing nothing but astroturfing this for no reason.

[Merkava]

I think he's saying that there is no such thing as context, that people just open their mouths and have words fallout and that anyone who tries to attribute meaning to such word soup is crazy.

No that's not what I'm saying.

[cubby]

That's not context. That's content. That's what so many people on here don't understand.

Here's a post I made earlier showing how Trump's statement can be put into a different context without changing it's content.

I've never disputed the content, only the context. Context does not automatically follow content. Shirely Sherrod should have taught you guys that.

Oh, ok - you're adding words to his statement to show they could have meant something else. But in this case there isn't any ambiguity, nor missing pieces - it's all one conversation. You're misunderstanding that context isn't always an uncertainty - in this case Trump gave it to us. Adding words to a conversation isn't giving it context - you're just saying that given other circumstances it could have meant something different.

[Orbitus]

The echochamber has decreed this will be the scandal that destroys Trump's campaign, you must comply.

It already has. He has went from being close in the race and winning a couple swings states, to losing them all now. He was up in Ohio by like 4 points before this, now he is down 4 points.

[Merkava]

And again, that post was a lie, since A> you were explicitly changing its content, through adding more material, and B> changing the statement itself.

Again, it's no different than if you were a lawyer for a confessed killer, trying to convince a jury "No, when my client said 'I did it, I killed her', he mean 'In my dream I did it. I killed in my dream."

Except that's not what his client said, and making up complete bullshit like that is so wildly unethical that said lawyer would be disbarred for trying that nonsense.

I was not changing context, I was providing context in the face of accusers who had insisted that context existed where none did.

I've asked you several times for the context that you think Trump created, and all you do is point to the content. Try again.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, ok - you're adding words to his statement to show they could have meant something else. But in this case there isn't any ambiguity, nor missing pieces - it's all one conversation. You're misunderstanding that context isn't always an uncertainty - in this case Trump gave it to us. Adding words to a conversation isn't giving it context - you're just saying that given other circumstances it could have meant something different.

See my reply to Endus. I'm showing you how easy it is to defend, because there was no context given.

You guys should all read this. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...xt-and-content

[Orbitus]

Why is trump a rapist if he's never been convicted of the crime? Or does his penis give him such privilege?

Funnily enough, I don't think ANYONE has mentioned that Trump is a rapist anywhere in this thread. Should he be convicted of sexual assault based on his words if he did what he said he did? Yes. Considering the person that he said he was assaulting confirmed the story, then yes, he should be convicted of sexual assault.

But yet, you and all the Trump supporters and Trump have all claimed that Bill Clinton is a rapist, even though he was never charged.

[Blur4stuff]

If you honestly believe groping a woman's vagina against her will isn't sexual assault then I have to wonder how you manage to function in everyday society.

[Endus]

I was not changing context, I was providing context in the face of accusers who had insisted that context existed where none did.

When you add stuff to the statements, you're obviously changing context.

Your two arguments thus far have been;

1> "The rest of the video doesn't exist so you can't use that context to understand what Trump's words meant, in that context that I don't want to admit exists", and

2> "If you completely change what was said, the new statement isn't necessarily bad", which is pointless since it applies to literally ANY words.

I've asked you several times for the context that you think Trump created, and all you do is point to the content. Try again.

At this point, I'm going to ask you to define "context", since you're using it in a non-English sense, apparently.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context

Full Definition of context1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : environment, setting <the historical context of the war>

We have the context, because we have the whole video, including the discussion leading up to the remarks in question. What you're falsely trying to distinguish as "content" is context. You're making a false distinction.

[Endus]

You guys should all read this. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...xt-and-content

Linking sources that blatantly contradict the non-argument you've failed to make isn't really helping your case.

That link conclusively argues against your attempted claims.

Context is the setting in which a phrase or word is used (from Latin contextilis "woven together". Content is the words or ideas that make up a piece (from Latin contensum "held together", "contained"). One might infer the content of a piece from its context, but not vice versa. The similarity of the words is accidental; they are not cognates. Also, even an individual word may have a context, but only a larger group of words would be said to have content (notice no indefinite article is used here).

"Grab them by the pussy" is the "content". The rest of the audio is context for that. You're disputing that, and even your own source is explaining why that's just definitively wrong.

[Merkava]

Then what you're saying is you don't understand context when you hear it. It's one of the two because it's incredibly obvious to everyone else. Hell, even Trump doesn't deny the comments are about sexual assault. .

No that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying should be clear to you by now.

Are you saying that Trump admitted the comments were about sexual assualt?

[Valkaneer]

yea....no that's because he and his team are stupid and not because of evil lefties.

He was winning in the polls (which for some reason he doesn't like the polls anymore) which I doubt takes into account 12M democrats overall since they aren't the ''likely'' voters normally.

I don't think you understand what i'm talking about 12 million Democrats voted for Trump in the Republican Primaries. Close to 4 times more than Republicans, Which means Democrats elected the Republican Candidate.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/creins...can-primaries/

[Merkava]

Linking sources that blatantly contradict the non-argument you've failed to make isn't really helping your case.

That link conclusively argues against your attempted claims.

No, that link shows you the difference between content and context. You talked about the audio being a "fact". You talked about denying the existence of that tape That is content. That's not context. I've asked you several times now, show the the quote in the tape that establishes the context that make Trump's statement an admission of sexual assault.

[Daerio]

>Woman claims Trump sexually harassed her during business dealings with her and her husband.
>Woman claims to hate Trump's advances but wants his money anyway.
>Woman claims Trump raped her.
>Woman divorces husband and starts dating Trump. (after claiming she was raped by him)
>Woman stops dating Trump and sues for sexual harassment.

Unlike any rape story I've heard before, and I've heard a few of them.

But look, what Trump is saying is essentially correct, and the "rape victim's" story confirms it. He's rich, and women let him grope them because he's rich. And even though they think he's repulsive and arrogant and probably a shitty lay, they still want that money. There's a word for that, we call them whores; not rape victims.

If he's wrong about women letting him grope them because they want his money, prove it. If you think he's a shitty human being because of it, I don't give a shit. I DO think he's a terrible human being, and so are the money grubbing whores accusing him of "rape."

[Merkava]

The contex I've heard such comments was from a 15 year old boy shit talking his ego up to his school mates.

If you say so.

[Endus]

No, that link shows you the difference between content and context. You talked about the audio being a "fact". You talked about denying the existence of that tape That is content. That's not context.

False. Your own link says that's false.

The parrot is dead. Insisting that it's just sleeping isn't funny any more. We've seen how you nailed its feet to the perch.

I've asked you several times now, show the the quote in the tape that establishes the context that make Trump's statement an admission of sexual assault

The quote in the tape that was referring to sexual assault were the two quotes "I just kiss them" and "grab them by the pussy". The context that makes this clear this was talking about sexual assault is all the other words around that content. Which are the context in which those words sit.

As per your own link.

[Merkava]

>Woman claims Trump sexually harassed her during business dealings with her and her husband.
>Woman claims to hate Trump's advances but wants his money anyway.
>Woman claims Trump raped her.
>Woman divorces husband and starts dating Trump.
>Woman stops dating Trump and sues for sexual harassment.

Unlike any rape story I've heard before.

But look, what Trump is saying is essentially correct, and the "rape victim's" story confirms it. He's rich, and women let him grope them because he's rich. And even though they think he's repulsive and arrogant and probably a shitty lay, they still want that money. There's a word for that, we call them whores; not rape victims.

If he's wrong about women letting him grope them because they want his money, prove it. If you think he's a shitty human being because of it, I don't give a shit.

I'm not saying that was directed at me, but that's not my position.

- - - Updated - - -

False. Your own link says that's false.

The parrot is dead. Insisting that it's just sleeping isn't funny any more. We've seen how you nailed its feet to the perch.

That's all you have to say when I ask you to prove your point? If that's the case, then why even bother replying?

[Endus]

That's all you have to say when I ask you to prove your point? If that's the case, then why even bother replying?

That post doesn't stand alone. I've made plenty of other responses to you on this. Choosing to not repeat myself every post is a favor I do for those reading the thread.