Donald Trump

tomwaterford

Sand wrote: »

Not popular, just better than Trump. And the quote is really desperate reaching. The Guards are not called everytime someone in Ireland says in exasperation that they are going to kill someone.

Its true though Trump wouldn't drone Assange. He would target Assange's ex-wife and son instead.

Tbf....given Americas record at killing people in drone strikes (under Obama especially)....

.she deos have questions to answer here

seamus

Trump has gone on today to call vets with PTSD, "not strong".

You don't badmouth the vets. Especially when you've never served. This guy is toast.

If he can't keep control of his mouth this close to the poll, the only way is down.

PopePalpatine

What do you expect from a guy with a stunning track record such as insulting John McCain for being a POW?

RobertKK

Sand wrote: »

Not popular, just better than Trump. And the quote is really desperate reaching. The Guards are not called everytime someone in Ireland says in exasperation that they are going to kill someone.

Its true though Trump wouldn't drone Assange. He would target Assange's ex-wife and son instead.

So you are saying Trump would continue an Obama policy with the double tap strikes which human right groups said killed 98% innocent people, but cuddly Obama can do this, because the media lets him off and most of the population are too ignorant to know the truth.

InTheTrees

seamus wrote: »

Trump has gone on today to call vets with PTSD, "not strong".

You don't badmouth the vets. Especially when you've never served. This guy is toast.

If he can't keep control of his mouth this close to the poll, the only way is down.

What?

Seriously? Do you have a link?

Military veterans are comitting suicide at a rate of ten a day. I can't believe he'd say something like that. Even an insensitive moron like trump.

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

And Trump thrice in one day asked about nuking China... what's your point?

I guess it must have been fun being a fly on the wall for you when Trump did that.

I think both are awful candidates, Hillary is more dangerous as she is cold, dead behind the eyes.

Is your point, you would accept a drone strike on Assange and the 'collateral damage'?

Itssoeasy

This whole Donald trump thing seems like a case of the GOP leadership thinking that he'd never get very far and one of the establishment GOP candidates would win the primaries. As its gone along it's become a lot more obvious he was going to do well and the GOP Leaders collectively went "OH ****" and have reluctantly backed him even though he seems to not care.

Also the presidential nominee isn't just running for the presidency he/she is also helping their party win seats up for grabs in congress and trump seems to be doing a bad job of that.

PopePalpatine

Here's the article, he implies PTSD is due to sufferers being "unable to handle [...] the horror of combat" and doesn't explicitly say it's because they're "not strong".

Itssoeasy

seamus wrote: »

Trump has gone on today to call vets with PTSD, "not strong".

You don't badmouth the vets. Especially when you've never served. This guy is toast.

If he can't keep control of his mouth this close to the poll, the only way is down.

Well he's got this far saying stupid and offensive things so it's obviously not hurting his poll numbers.

Itssoeasy

What I find interesting is that Fox News (outside of that clown Sean hannity) isn't hitching their wagon to trump. I've seen a few of the presenters not exactly say he is perfect. It's interesting as normally Fox News drink the GOP cool aid willingly.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

I guess it must have been fun being a fly on the wall for you when Trump did that.

I think both are awful candidates, Hillary is more dangerous as she is cold, dead behind the eyes.

Is your point, you would accept a drone strike on Assange and the 'collateral damage'?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html


no - my point is both are awful candidates, on that we agree. my point is he is a worse and definitely a more likely candidate to cause massive international incidents

Arturo Bandini

Sand wrote: »

Not popular, just better than Trump. And the quote is really desperate reaching. The Guards are not called everytime someone in Ireland says in exasperation that they are going to kill someone.

Its true though Trump wouldn't drone Assange. He would target Assange's ex-wife and son instead.

Desperate reaching? The potential POTUS talks about wanting to kill someone who wants to expose her, yet it's reaching in your mind. Can you honestly say with a straight face that the reaction in here would be the same if Trump said that?

Billy86

As of last Friday, the lawsuit against Donald Trump for repeatedly raping and threatening to murder a child has been filed again:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/03/rape-lawsuit-refiled-against-donald-trump/

I wonder how appalled his supporters will be about this?


Now if the media really are as biased against Trump and 'big meanies' as his supporters love to claim, they will be all over this non stop until election day. Let's see if they're as mean to him as he and his fans like to claim.

Samaris

Billy86 wrote: »

As of last Friday, the lawsuit against Donald Trump for repeatedly raping and threatening to murder a child has been filed again:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/03/rape-lawsuit-refiled-against-donald-trump/

I wonder how appalled his supporters will be about this?


Now if the media really are as biased against Trump and 'big meanies' as his supporters love to claim, they will be all over this non stop until election day. Let's see if they're as mean to him as he and his fans like to claim.

To be honest now, I've read a bit about that case and it really doesn't seem like there's anything in it. The person in question also filed against another big name, claiming she was held prisoner and, well, quite a lot of fairly depraved stuff. Both of her suits ran out because they were improperly filed and no evidence was ever collected.

The problem with those sorts of accusations is that they are very hard to prove, and I'd honestly feel all sorts of an ass if I accused someone who wasn't of lying about something so horrific, but what I read did not make me feel confident in the accuser's state of mind. In the interests of fairness to Donald Trump (what a painful statement to make :P), I would be fairly disgusted if the media went all out on these accusations, because they do seem deeply fishy. And child rape is perhaps the most heinous accusation that can be levelled at someone.

(Btw, I know you weren't saying that the media should, nor did you say that you believed/disbelieved the accusations, but if the media doesn't jump on this, it's not because of bias, it may well be because there are some depths to which even most media won't stoop - mostly.)

As for the rest...I think that Clinton does get treated more harshly for individual things. Trump's are just so constantly bombarding that the media barely get the chance to report on any of them before the next one is out! But the paedophilia accusations? I'd stick that in with the Clinton Body Count; any media that pretends to be committing journalism reporting on that load of ****e isn't worth the airspace it uses! Although if I am proved incorrect in the future, a mortified apology for the accuser will be forthcoming. Not that she'll ever read it, but I'd still feel the need to say it.

Billy86

That's probably all true, but if the media are as 'out to get' Trump as him and his fans believe, they'll be all over it. So let's see if they're just paranoid and can't take any criticism of the demagogue or not.

Although they latch on to conspiracy theories so hard, they'll SURELY be very upset with The_Donald over this, right? Right!? They won't just pretend it doesn't exist will they?

Samaris

Billy86 wrote: »

That's probably all true, but if the media are as 'out to get' Trump as him and his fans believe, they'll be all over it. So let's see if they're just paranoid and can't take any criticism of the demagogue or not.

Although they latch on to conspiracy theories so hard, they'll SURELY be very upset with The_Donald over this, right? Right!? They won't just pretend it doesn't exist will they?

Touche. :P

Bazzo

Trump's charity has been ordered to stop soliciting donations in New York after a series of accusations of improprieties.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ny-attorney-general-orders-trump-foundation-stop-soliciting-171904778.html

humanji

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

Desperate reaching? The potential POTUS talks about wanting to kill someone who wants to expose her, yet it's reaching in your mind. Can you honestly say with a straight face that the reaction in here would be the same if Trump said that?

You mean if Trump joked about assassinating Clinton? You know, like he did? At least now both candidates have joked about assassinating someone, so we know neither have a pleasant sense of humour or propriety.

Hande hoche!

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What I find interesting is that Fox News (outside of that clown Sean hannity) isn't hitching their wagon to trump. I've seen a few of the presenters not exactly say he is perfect. It's interesting as normally Fox News drink the GOP cool aid willingly.

Think they were hoping for someone along the lines of Marco Rubio.

Itssoeasy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Think they were hoping for someone along the lines of Marco Rubio.

Yeah they were looking to back a different horse but the horse is a NR.

Samaris

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah they were looking to back a different horse but the horse is a NR.

Somehow, they ended up with a spavined ass instead.

Sand

RobertKK wrote: »

So you are saying Trump would continue an Obama policy with the double tap strikes which human right groups said killed 98% innocent people, but cuddly Obama can do this, because the media lets him off and most of the population are too ignorant to know the truth.

I'm saying Trump is not the candidate to back if drone strikes shock you. We are talking about a man who gets so wound up that he jumps on twitter at 3am in the morning to go on a rant. You want to give him the keys to the US drone strike program so he can start implementing his stated aim to deliberately target civilians? Are you going to act surprised when that happens when he becomes President and starts ordering strikes because hes had a bad day and wants to lash out?

I get you dont like Obama or Clinton. But Trump is definitely worse.

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

Desperate reaching? The potential POTUS talks about wanting to kill someone who wants to expose her, yet it's reaching in your mind. Can you honestly say with a straight face that the reaction in here would be the same if Trump said that?

Ah please, its obviously reaching. Its clear from the context and the laughter that greeted it that it was not meant seriously, not taken seriously and not acted on seriously. Bias is getting the best of people if they think the police should be called to investigate Clintons plan to 'kill someone who wants to expose her'.

I think if Trump said it, it wouldn't even be the most outrageous thing he said that day. He threatens to murder civilians for revenge and people are still on this thread supporting Trump and trying desperately to find something, anything to rationalise their support of Trump, even to themselves.

Giacomo McGubbin

Sand wrote: »

I get you dont like Obama or Clinton. But Trump is definitely worse.

Agreed, and a lot of Americans know this, but they are so sick of Obama and Clinton types and their empty bullshyte, that even though it doesn't make logical sense they are going to go with Trump.

Sand

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Agreed, and a lot of Americans know this, but they are so sick of Obama and Clinton types and their empty bullshyte, that even though it doesn't make logical sense they are going to go with Trump.

Its amazing they can tolerate Trump then. I watched his performance in the debate and all his little tics - the limited, repetitive vocabulary, the constant circling back to repeat himself 2-3 times, the faces he makes, the little hand motions, the way he so clearly is unable to demonstrate any competence or knowledge beyond his slogans - at this point they have the same effect on me as nails on blackboard. He is so plainly a boring fool with a serious personality disorder.

I could totally understand if his supporters were backing someone *better* than Clinton - but this guy? People like Trump are the reason those warnings not to eat household detergent are put on the packaging - warnings Trump has clearly ignored.

The same stuff day in day out.

"Drone Assange".. Who cares.
"Vets are weak".. Not even what he said but it's the most important piece of news of the day.

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The same stuff day in day out.

"Drone Assange".. Who cares.
"Vets are weak".. Not even what he said but it's the most important piece of news of the day.

Shoot Hillary. Drone strike a terrorists kids.

And I am curious as to what you think he said.

jooksavage

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The same stuff day in day out.

"Drone Assange".. Who cares.
"Vets are weak".. Not even what he said but it's the most important piece of news of the day.

With everything he's said and done so far, I can't believe headlines like that matter one jot to you. For anyone on Trump's side to complain about the media is just wrong - do you honestly think he'd even be on the ballot if it wasn't for the blanket coverage of his primary campaign? While we're on media bias - what about Breibert and certain Fox News presenters? Maybe somewhere in this thread you've taken Hannity to task, I'll have a look.

Mike Litoris

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What I find interesting is that Fox News (outside of that clown Sean hannity) isn't hitching their wagon to trump. I've seen a few of the presenters not exactly say he is perfect. It's interesting as normally Fox News drink the GOP cool aid willingly.

I was in the US for the debate. CNN and MSNBC had constant coverage for at least 24 hours with a panel for a number of hours after the event. Interestingly, every time I switched to FOX there was regular news or sports and feck all about the debate!

The following morning Fox had a small panel with all claiming a Trump victory. This was also after all the polls were released showing the beating he got. They seemed only focussed on attacking Clinton and claiming the polls as irrelevant.

Samaris

jooksavage wrote: »

With everything he's said and done so far, I can't believe headlines like that matter one jot to you. For anyone on Trump's side to complain about the media is just wrong - do you honestly think he'd even be on the ballot if it wasn't for the blanket coverage of his primary campaign? While we're on media bias - what about Breibert and certain Fox News presenters? Maybe somewhere in this thread you've taken Hannity to task, I'll have a look.

There is that. The main "media bias" has been the very natural bias to entertainment, and god knows, that lunatic has given plenty of it. Clinton may be the serious contender of the two, but Trump is the noisy one. He was the breakout star of the Republican convention cast (which had plenty of crazy contenders of its own) and the media focussed on him with something between adoration at the constant feed and growing shock that anyone could be this fruitful in terms of news stories.

Breitbart is a rather sad story in some ways. Its owner and founder, Andrew Breitbart, would by all accounts be devastated at what the media that bears his name is up to these days. He himself was nothing like what the Breitbart brand has been made into.

Billy86

Mike Litoris wrote: »

I was in the US for the debate. CNN and MSNBC had constant coverage for at least 24 hours with a panel for a number of hours after the event. Interestingly, every time I switched to FOX there was regular news or sports and feck all about the debate!

The following morning Fox had a small panel with all claiming a Trump victory. This was also after all the polls were released showing the beating he got. They seemed only focussed on attacking Clinton and claiming the polls as irrelevant.

Pretty ridiculous that FOX, of all networks, get to host the third debate. That could be... Interesting!