2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

Conas wrote: »

Well I checked the link to this forum, and the layout looks like an utter mess. It's not much of a forum, as there seems to be banners linking to sexual content on it. I wouldn't believe Trump, and his team would pull an image from this messy forum, that looks like it's been hacked. Spam is everywhere. I couldn't make sense of it.

However I don't believe Trump is anti-semitic. He's very Pro-Israel, spoke at AIPAC, and has a lot of Jewish friends in business.

That's how the forum is laid out, and it is gull of antisemitic nonsense. Do you see lots of antisemitic content all from many different people on it?

Clinton was also very good friends with and donor of Bill and Hillary Clinton, don't you forget. By your logic, he would never attack Hilary Clinton either, but look where we are. He wanted to paint her a certain way, and got called on it. But hey, soft messaging achieved all the same.

Conas

Billy86 wrote: »

That's how the forum is laid out, and it is gull of antisemitic nonsense. Do you see lots of antisemitic content all from many different people on it?

Clinton was also very good friends with and donor of Bill and Hillary Clinton, don't you forget. By your logic, he would never attack Hilary Clinton either, but look where we are. He wanted to paint her a certain way, and got called on it. But hey, soft messaging achieved all the same.

I didn't spend much time on it, when I seen banners linking to sexual content, it has zero credibility in my eyes. There was different people, but all seemed to have 'anonymous' as their username.

Yes, he was a donor to the Clinton's, and yes he would attack Hillary Clinton, I never anything to the contrary. Also remember he was a supporter, and very much Pro-Romney in 2012, but went on the attack against him this year, or late last year I can't really remember.

He's just trying to portray her as 'Crooked'. I'm sure many in America would agree that she is, and others like yourself wouldn't. It's the nature of the game. You saw something in this image that I didn't, and I hope you'll elaborate on what it is, that you think Trump was trying to 'softly message' to people.

Billy86

Conas wrote: »

I didn't spend much time on it, when I seen banners linking to sexual content, it has zero credibility in my eyes. There was different people, but all seemed to have 'anonymous' as their username.

It's completely relevant because unless they clarify otherwise, it is where Trump and co got the image from that was on his personal, official twitter account.

Yes, he was a donor to the Clinton's, and yes he would attack Hillary Clinton, I never anything to the contrary. Also remember he was a supporter, and very much Pro-Romney in 2012, but went on the attack against him this year, or late last year I can't really remember.

Exactly. He will attack who he wants, when he wants, go suit his own needs. Be that politicians, judges, entire nations and full religions as he has and will continue to do so. And this is no different, pandering to racists yet again.

All part and parcel of a power obsessed narcissist with zero morals.

He's just trying to portray her as 'Crooked'.

As crooked as Shylock yea, exactly actually.

I'm sure many in America would agree that she is, and others like yourself wouldn't. It's the nature of the game. You saw something in this image that I didn't, and I hope you'll elaborate on what it is, that you think Trump was trying to 'softly message' to people.

I have repeatedly said Clinton is no angel on this very thread, thank you very much.

What I saw was what everyone else saw... The star of David. Please stop pretending to not notice this, because you're making yourself look very silly at this point.

What he was soft messaging I already pointed out, that she is "crooked as shylock" which certain people in the US will absolutely lap up. Meanwhile his other fans, as evidenced, will just do all they can to convince themselves that this never happened despite it being right there in front of their faces. Win-win... Until he needs the moderate vote, that is.

It was picked off a forum that likes to insult entire religions and their followers and make racist comments, and was used by a politician who likes to insult entire religions and their followers and make racist comments. There is no arguing this.

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That's a lot of allegations against Trump a Republican who won hands down the GOP nomination beating 15 opponents. The same guy who is loved in large parts of America many of whom were former Blue Dog Democrats and Independents. If Trump is seen as a Saint than Clinton is the sinner for her campaign. She has a comfortable majority and yet still remains a centrist not changing any of her policies. Don't see her convincing the heartland of the country. Strangely if Clinton stepped down tomorrow the Democrats favorability would rocket.

Remaining centrist will probably win her the election (with some Sanders ideas) if Trump keeps alienating women and Hispanics. 30% of the male vote will win her the election going on demographics.

The point isn't if Clinton is unpopular, we know she is, the point is Trump has even higher unfavourable ratings.

I agree with your post but it still doesn't make it less likely Clinton won't win! Again it's a comment on how poor the 2 choices are.

Black Swan

K-9 wrote: »

Again it's a comment on how poor the 2 choices are.

Wiser words have never been spoken K-9. In a nation of 318 million people, and the world's leader in GDP and military, you would think that they could produce better candidates for their nation's highest office than the 15 or so in the past Republican primary, or the 5 or so Democrats in their past primary? Now I hear people in this thread, as well as in coffeeshops across the pond trying to justify their vote on a "lesser of evils" rationalisation, a very sad commentary on the American political system.

Conas

Billy86 wrote: »

What I saw was what everyone else saw... The star of David. Please stop pretending to not notice this, because you're making yourself look very silly at this point.

What he was soft messaging I already pointed out, that she is "crooked as shylock" which certain people in the US will absolutely lap up. Meanwhile his other fans, as evidenced, will just do all they can to convince themselves that this never happened despite it being right there in front of their faces. Win-win... Until he needs the moderate vote, that is.

It was picked off a forum that likes to insult entire religions and their followers and make racist comments, and was used by a politician who likes to insult entire religions and their followers and make racist comments. There is no arguing this.

You are making stuff up as you go a long. He never said she was as crooked as Shylock, you are the one saying that. Being called 'crooked' doesn't mean you are automatically comparing someone to the fictional Shakespearean Jewish moneylender called Shylock. No more than posting a red star can automatically be referred to as the 'star of David'.

If this makes me look silly as you say, then so be it. Coincidentally as Shakespeare himself once wrote, I think all this is 'much ado about nothing'. It'll be something else next week, and the week after.

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

... and the world's leader in GDP and military....

To be honest, and sadly, I think answered your own question/summarised a big part of the problem right here.

Billy86

Conas wrote: »

You are making stuff up as you go a long. He never said she was as crooked as Shylock,

That is the point of the soft messaging. Have you been reading my posts or not?

Being called 'crooked' doesn't mean you are automatically comparing someone to the fictional Shakespearean Jewish moneylender called Shylock.

Being called crooked while using a star of David and image from an antisemitic website. You keep purposefully forgetting the important details. Why is this?

No more than posting a red star can automatically be referred to as the 'star of David'.

So you do think blackface in the USA and on the likes of Stormfront are simply referring Dutch Christmas chimney elves"?

Again ever so eager to avoid the fact it came from an website with racist tendencies, and was repeated by a politician with racist tendencies.

Why the eagerness to avoid talking about where it came from? Because you know it is intended as a star of David. As do we all.

If this makes me look silly as you say, then so be it. Coincidentally as Shakespeare himself once wrote, I think all this is 'much ado about nothing'. It'll be something else next week, and the week after.

What is making you look silly is your desperation to avoid the facts and context, which is typical almost any time someone has tried to defend Trump in this thread. It's tiresome, but entirely expected.

Sand

Black Swan wrote: »

Wiser words have never been spoken K-9. In a nation of 318 million people, and the world's leader in GDP and military, you would think that they could produce better candidates for their nation's highest office than the 15 or so in the past Republican primary, or the 5 or so Democrats in their past primary? Now I hear people in this thread, as well as in coffeeshops across the pond trying to justify their vote on a "lesser of evils" rationalisation, a very sad commentary on the American political system.

The funny thing is if the Republicans could have found any candidate that registered as human, seemed vaguely competent and didn't insult most of the people voting then they'd be trouncing Clinton.

They really, really, really need to look at their primary process because the crazies who voted for Donald will be voting for another crank the next time out.

Billy86

Sand wrote: »

The funny thing is if the Republicans could have found any candidate that registered as human, seemed vaguely competent and didn't insult most of the people voting then they'd be trouncing Clinton.

They really, really, really need to look at their primary process because the crazies who voted for Donald will be voting for another crank the next time out.

It's far from just the primary process, there for some time has been an open celebration of ignoring the facts even if it is easier to notice them, and of renouncing knowledge and education as "elitist" in favour of "my guy tells me..." polítics. Just look at interviews with the brexit leave campaigns marketing guys as to why.

And it's got a whole lot worse since that black guy got in the white house and the tea party movement began to blow up.

Conas

Billy86 wrote: »

Being called crooked while using a star of David and image from an antisemitic website. You keep purposefully forgetting the important details. Why is this?

So you do think blackface in the USA and on the likes of Stormfront are simply referring Dutch Christmas chimney elves"?

Again ever so eager to avoid the fact it came from an website with racist tendencies, and was repeated by a politician with racist tendencies.

Why the eagerness to avoid talking about where it came from? Because you know it is intended as a star of David. As do we all.

What is making you look silly is your desperation to avoid the facts and context, which is typical almost any time someone has tried to defend Trump in this thread. It's tiresome, but entirely expected.

But it's not the 'star of David', that's what I've been trying to tell you all along. I've reiterated this position countless times in this thread already, and it still hasn't registered with you. Look at the 'Star of David' on the flag of Israel, it's a blue hexagram, Trump used a filled in Red Star. He also referred to Hillary Clinton as 'Crooked' many times, before this image ever came out anyway.

I never once heard the phrase as 'Crooked as shylock', being used by Trump. In my opinion those are your words, and your words alone. In my opinion such talk comes across as paranoia.
You keep bringing up Stormfront, and seem infatuated with the place. If you have issue with 'blackface' being mentioned over there, then take issue with it over there.

Billy86

Conas wrote: »

But it's not the 'star of David', that's what I've been trying to tell you all along. I've reiterated this position countless times in this thread already, and it still hasn't registered with you. Look at the 'Star of David' on the flag of Israel, it's a blue hexagram, Trump used a filled in Red Star. He also referred to Hillary Clinton as 'Crooked' many times, before this image ever came out anyway.

I never once heard the phrase as 'Crooked as shylock', being used by Trump. In my opinion those are your words, and your words alone. In my opinion such talk comes across as paranoia.
You keep bringing up Stormfront, and seem infatuated with the place. If you have issue with 'blackface' being mentioned over there, then take issue with it over there.

Stop trying to misunderstand my point in Stormfront, again you're not even fooling yourself on that. If a racist image came from there it would not get the benefit of the doubt, and where this came from is exactly the same.

The soft messaging is to conflate Hillary with money and wall Street, and the "corrupt jews" who run it - as certain people in the US feel. Hence as crooked as Shylock, because he was a ln iconic figure of "money grubbing jew" propaganda for centuries Trump doesn't care if it offends Jewish people, so long as it suits his ends. Some as that. Just like with the Mexicans, black people, Muslims and so on. I look forward to you trying to misinterpret this also,as you undoubtedly will attempt.

Classy of you to claim that these people are not wearing Stars of David, by the way.

Conas

Billy86 wrote: »

Stop trying to misunderstand my point in Stormfront, again you're not even fooling yourself on that. If a racist image came from there it would not get the benefit of the doubt, and where this came from is exactly the same.

The soft messaging is to conflate Hillary with money and wall Street, and the "corrupt jews" who run it - as certain people in the US feel. Hence as crooked as Shylock, because he was a ln iconic figure of "money grubbing jew" propaganda for centuries Trump doesn't care if it offends Jewish people, so long as it suits his ends. Some as that. Just like with the Mexicans, black people, Muslims and so on. I look forward to you trying to misinterpret this also,as you undoubtedly will attempt.

It's not that I'm misunderstanding you, I just think you are obsessed with these sites, since you are bringing them up. If they have zero credibility then I don't know why you are getting so uneasy and agitated, by what's posted there. As I said, it has banners to sexual content, if you take what was written or posted on such a place then you are very naive.
Everything that you are saying about Shylock, Wall Street, 'money gubbing Jews', are YOUR words, as far as I'm concerned they have no basis in fact, because Trump is pro-Israel, spoke at AIPAC, and has a lot of Jewish Business associates. You are trying to put 2+2 together and you keep getting 5. Do you not thing your are over-magnifying this, and at the same time, seeing and believing things that aren't true?

Conas

Billy86 wrote: »

.
Classy of you to claim that these people are not wearing Stars of David, by the way.

Care to show me where I said such a thing?

Black Swan

Sand wrote: »

The funny thing is if the Republicans could have found any candidate that registered as human, seemed vaguely competent and didn't insult most of the people voting then they'd be trouncing Clinton.

Billy86 wrote: »

It's far from just the primary process, there for some time has been an open celebration of ignoring the facts even if it is easier to notice them, and of renouncing knowledge and education as "elitist" in favour of "my guy tells me..." polítics. Just look at interviews with the brexit leave campaigns marketing guys as to why.

Does anyone remember "Joe the Plumber" as the Republican "base" representative during the 2008 McCain-Palin Republican candidacy (especially identified with Palin), whom, if you checked on the real person that they referred to by this nickname, was someone who was very dodgy and suspect as a taxpayer? Just add "angry," and you have today's "Joe the Plumber" as a representative of Donald Trump's base.

The thing that is disturbing about "Angry Joe the Plumber" today is that such persons cheer for whatever comes out of Trump's MOUTH, especially if it's non-PC "outrageous" and "sensationalist" (per his 1987 Deal's playbook), and even more so if it is degrading about someone who is profiled like an out-group member, and not looking like in-group Trump (i.e., out-group different by demographic minority status either by colour or religion or ethnicity or national origin, or persons in minority power status like women). Such "outrageous" statements are labeled "Tell it like it is" by Angry Joe the Plumbers, even more so if it's profane, crude, un-presidential, and bullies out-group persons in minority status, and all proclaimed as grand reaffirmations of so-called freedom of speech.

Where the real inexplicable craic exists is how Angry Joe the Plumbers can identify with poor little rich kid Donald Trump, who when born and still in the crib had more inherited money and investments than any Angry Joe the Plumber could hope to have in several lifetimes. Unlike Angry Joe the Plumber, Donald Trump was, and continues to be pampered as a member of the obscenely elitist rich class in American society (representing a fraction of the highest top one-percent in wealth), who never had to live from paycheck-to-paycheck, or clip out discount coupons, or wait for Taco Tuesdays to eat discounted fast food. Donald Trump now woos his Angry Joe the Plumber base with lottery ticket-like claims that he made lots of money, and now will make lots of money for Angry Joe the Plumbers in exchange for their votes. Such claims and promises sounding very similar to the get rich quick (alleged) "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" charges against him in the current Trump University US District Court case in California, and the (alleged) fraud charges against Donald Trump in the current Trump University case in New York.

Black Swan

Days ago there were official complaints filed with the Federal Election Commission resulting from the Trump campaign spamming foreign MPs in several countries soliciting campaign donations, with soliciting or receiving funds from foreigners both violating Federal Election Commission laws. Has Donald Trump replied to these official FEC complaints, or the several news media inquires regarding this (alleged) violation of FEC laws?

Now it has been suggested that the Trump campaign may have shared the email list used to contact these foreign government MPs with Crippled America PAC, a pro-Trump Super PAC, because one or more of the same MPs have been contacted also by Crippled America PAC. If so, this would be yet another breach of Federal Election Commission laws, as the Trump campaign and PACs are supposed to be independent of each other.

Suryavarman

At this stage if Donald Trump tweeted the Swastika there'd be plenty of people pointing out its historic use by Buddhists and that Trump obviously wasn't making any reference to Nazis.

Igotadose

Black Swan wrote: »

Does anyone remember "Joe the Plumber" as the Republican "base" representative during the 2008 McCain-Palin Republican candidacy (especially identified with Palin), whom, if you checked on the real person that they referred to by this nickname, was someone who was very dodgy and suspect as a taxpayer? Just add "angry," and you have today's "Joe the Plumber" as a representative of Donald Trump's base.

The thing that is disturbing about "Angry Joe the Plumber" today is that such persons cheer for whatever comes out of Trump's MOUTH, especially if it's non-PC "outrageous" and "sensationalist" (per his 1987 Deal's playbook), and even more so if it is degrading about someone who is profiled like an out-group member, and not looking like in-group Trump (i.e., out-group different by demographic minority status either by colour or religion or ethnicity or national origin, or persons in minority power status like women). Such "outrageous" statements are labeled "Tell it like it is" by Angry Joe the Plumbers, even more so if it's profane, crude, un-presidential, and bullies out-group persons in minority status, and all proclaimed as grand reaffirmations of so-called freedom of speech.

Where the real inexplicable craic exists is how Angry Joe the Plumbers can identify with poor little rich kid Donald Trump, who when born and still in the crib had more inherited money and investments than any Angry Joe the Plumber could hope to have in several lifetimes. Unlike Angry Joe the Plumber, Donald Trump was, and continues to be pampered as a member of the obscenely elitist rich class in American society (representing a fraction of the highest top one-percent in wealth), who never had to live from paycheck-to-paycheck, or clip out discount coupons, or wait for Taco Tuesdays to eat discounted fast food. Donald Trump now woos his Angry Joe the Plumber base with lottery ticket-like claims that he made lots of money, and now will make lots of money for Angry Joe the Plumbers in exchange for their votes. Such claims and promises sounding very similar to the get rich quick (alleged) "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" charges against him in the current Trump University US District Court case in California, and the (alleged) fraud charges against Donald Trump in the current Trump University case in New York.

The US media can't get enough of Trump. He's good for clickbait, the more outrageous, the better. Boring stuff like 'his tax plans a farce and here's why' 'he's yet to yield up his tax returns for scrutiny' 'he had long-standing relationships with the Mafia when he was in construction in NYC' barely gets a mention. Let alone any interesting policy discussions - HRC gets the questions on policy and plans... Trump does, and then goes and tweets something offensive, redirecting the media to that. His foreign policy and economic speeches are jawdroppingly bad.

Democrats really have this election being served to them on silver platter. The Republican candidate is dumb, lazy, has a terribly run nearly-bankrupt campaign that's constantly in turmoil (saw a quote the other day - Trump's hired someone to run his campaign in Colorado now. According to some Republican officials, this is the first hire - imagine, he doesn't have campaign managers in all 50 states yet? Amazing.). Can't raise much money and is now running begging to the same old same old wealthy republican backers, who are skeptical (to say the least) of him. Goes to Scotland during the campaign to hawk his golf courses.

Democrats need to hammer on issues and policy , not twitter outrage. Hammer hammer hammer, and let it rain down on the Republican Senate and House candidates, tie every one of 'em to Trump.

Next time I see one of those little special offer cards stuck to something in a small shop I'm definitely going to tell the owner they're being anti-semitic.

I mean there's a whole load to give out about when it comes to Trump but this is really really grasping.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

Next time I see one of those little special offer cards stuck to something in a small shop I'm definitely going to tell the owner they're being anti-semitic.

I wouldn't bother. Those stars are usually five pointed. Their customer base probably wouldn't have a large group of anti-semites that would be receptive to such thing either.

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

I wouldn't bother. Those stars are usually five pointed. Their customer base probably wouldn't have a large group of anti-semites that would be receptive to such thing either.

Really? As with diamond roadsigns it's all about usable space and there's a lot less on a 5-pointed star. Then again I suppose that would be evidence of Satanic conspiracy.


My image editting skills are awful so the 5-pointed one attached actually has larger dimensions that the 6-pointed one, yet look at the difference in usable space.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? As with diamond roadsigns it's all about usable space and there's a lot less on a 5-pointed star. Then again I suppose that would be evidence of Satanic conspiracy.

As I've pointed out already on this thread, the five pointed star is the standard star shape and has a huge amount of uses. The six pointed star has very few uses.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? As with diamond roadsigns it's all about usable space and there's a lot less on a 5-pointed star.

Which is why special offer stickers tend to have a lot more than six points.

But, sure: an image taken from an anti-semitic website with a six-pointed star on it was probably about special offers. Or sheriffs. Certainly couldn't be anything to do with Judaism, that's the only explanation that doesn't make sense.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is why special offer stickers tend to have a lot more than six points.

But, sure: an image taken from an anti-semitic website with a six-pointed star on it was probably about special offers. Or sheriffs. Certainly couldn't be anything to do with Judaism, that's the only explanation that doesn't make sense.

Do you think Trump had anything to do with sourcing the image?

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Trump had anything to do with sourcing the image?

It was probably someone in his campaign staff. Although it say a lot about the man that he would hire people that frequent anti-semitic websites.

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Trump had anything to do with sourcing the image?

Trump personally, no.

But his staff yes, but its worrying that they can & will search sites like this for stuff they can use.

But the Trump twitter account seems to be operated by Trump himself, some of the rubbish he posts and some of it so extreme it has to be later taken down (and sometimes edited and reposted).

I don't think he meant to be anti-semitic with the Hillary Star post, he just gave this opposition a big target to hit him with and they hit him hard.

Nobody to blame but himself for posting it.

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

It was probably someone in his campaign staff. Although it say a lot about the man that he would hire people that frequent anti-semitic websites.

Wow that's a flimsy argument. Most people who have ever done anything wrong have had a job at some stage, what's it say about their employers?

20Cent

Hillary Clintons emails been leaked onto wikileaks. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=iraq%7Cbaghdad%7Cbasra%7Cmosoul&mfrom&mto&title&notitle&date_from&date_to&nofrom&noto&count=50&sort=0#searchresult

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow that's a flimsy argument. Most people who have ever done anything wrong have had a job at some stage, what's it say about their employers?

Most people don't work for a presidential candidate. There's a bit more vetting required to propose social media material to a US Presidential candidate for one of the major parties than there is to work in your local McDonald's. Considering his image one would think that Trump would encourage employees not to source material from racist or anti-semitic websites. That clearly hasn't been done.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Trump had anything to do with sourcing the image?

Hang on, are we backing down from the assertion that it wasn't an anti-semitic image?