Donald Trump

suicide_circus

bodice ripper wrote: »

Dude, I work in tattoo parlours, some of them in red light districts, and I haven't heard **** like that.

I'd say your workplace is a cauldron of right on liberals in fairness.

tigger123

What a classy, sophisticated and, dare I say it, Presidential guy Trump really is!!!

Let's Make America Grab Pussy Again!

K-9

jooksavage wrote: »

The bit where he insinuated that Ghazala Khan "wasn't allowed" speak at the Democratic convention? That was all over the news. The Republicans went into meltdown over it and, up to last night, it was as close as he's come to being abandoned enmasse by his own party.

In that interview, anyone else, anyone with a shred if compassion or human decency (or common sense) would have thanked the Khans for the sacrifice and left it at that. But not Trump. His ego couldn't take it so he slandered the mother of a dead soldier while his creepy little hit-man Roger Stone took to Twitter to spread vile and wholly untrue facts about her husband and her dead son.

It's only a few weeks ago. How are you not familiar with this?

Mocked John McCain as well.

That should have been enough for people. But some people will defend anything he does or says.

Anyway, barring something explosive coming out about Hillary, the race is over.

Calina

Calina wrote: »

It's very clear that your values and mine are not aligned. All people deserve respect and families who provide service to the country via the military and who lose family members to military service are very clearly making a sacrifice.

Arguing that someone whose service to the US has been billion dollar losses enabling him to avoid federal taxes for over 15 years who also avoided military service at a time when most young men could not is in the same league is a value call. You're very clearly biased in favour of Trump.

The retarded nature of everyone just listening to the media and attacking him on the tiniest blown up thing makes me play devil's advocate, look into things and defend him.

As for respect for soldiers, I think that solider would be bitterly disappointed that his parents used his death as a political attack.


Anyways, the reason I'm in here today and getting more and more pissed off is that Hillary's Wall St. speeches have been leaked.. It isn't being talked about anywhere on boards.ie as far as I can tell.
What Trump said in 2005 is more important than Clinton saying last year in her speeches that she was going to run for president, which is a federal crime because she can't be accepting money like that. And no one will do a thing about it. Or even think she did anything wrong. Because what Trump says is more important than what Hillary does.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Has Khan sacrificed more than Trump? I don't see how.

So what has Trump sacrificed anyway?

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

I just don't see how that means that the father can say he made a sacrifice and Trump has never made one. It doesn't make sense. If I die in a retarded war, that doesn't mean my parents deserve respect or that they made a sacrifice. If I don't die in a war, it means I or my parents have never made a sacrifice? Khan used terrible wording in his attack.. Deliberately terrible so as to cause a reaction.

And since when did everyone turn so American in their values and start thinking that getting out of service is a bad thing? It was the Vietnam war.. We respect the people who didn't fight, except if it's Trump?

Ah here, the reason Khan was at the Democratic convention was because of Trump's words about Muslims.

You see this is the problem with Trump's trolling, it has consequences.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

So what had Trump sacrificed anyway?

It's probably not quantifiable but I'm sure he's felt like he's sacrificed a lot of time and got a lot of stress.

I've "sacrificed" thousands of hours of my free time over the last few years working on a personal project.. I hate it. If you get on stage and tell the world I've never sacrificed a thing, my mind will go to all the time I've spent pulling my hair out trying to get this thing finished. And if I tried to explain myself, I'd sound stupid.



Do you really think he's sacrificed nothing? Have you sacrificed more? Should anybody be called out by a dead soldier's father and be accused of never sacrificing anything? How's that fair?

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Ah here, the reason Khan was at the Democratic convention was because of Trump's words about Muslims.

You see this is the problem with Trump's trolling, it has consequences.

You mean Khan was there because Trump's comments about Muslims gave the Democrats a perfect way to attack Trump.. So they went and found Khan and turned his dead son into a political attack.

Think of the planning that went into it.

Calina

Deleted User wrote: »

I've "sacrificed" thousands of hours of my free time over the last few years working on a personal project.. I hate it. If you get on stage and tell the world I've never sacrificed a thing, my mind will go to all the time I've spent pulling my hair out trying to get this thing finished. And if I tried to explain myself, I'd sound stupid.

I've sacrificed thousands of hours of my free time to personal projects. I've never hated them though.

But I draw the line at assuming sacrificing thousands of hours is a sacrifice within the same framework as someone being killed is.

gosplan

Torpedo_ wrote: »

Clinton and Trump are both a pair of clowns, what I find amusing is how crude language 11 years ago is a bigger deal than the illegal activities of Hillary Clinton.

It's a bigger deal because he's a loudmouth clown with no foresight.

She's cunning and prepared. Keep all your dirty sh1t in one place away from everyone and then press delete/smash with hammer.

I'm not saying one approach is better but one is definitely more suited to politics.

As regards the Khans, yeah it seems a bit harsh but because Trump is looking to appeal to the right wing military type, it was a huge misstep from him.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The retarded nature of everyone just listening to the media and attacking him on the tiniest blown up thing makes me play devil's advocate, look into things and defend him.
...
Anyways, the reason I'm in here today and getting more and more pissed off...

Saying that you are only defending him because he is being attacked and you are pissed off with that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. And taking a position only by way of reaction to criticism of him is far from the application of the rational thought you referred to earlier. Plus it's a little disingenuous, you supported him months back, you still do, that's your prerogative and good luck with that.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean Khan was there because Trump's comments about Muslims gave the Democrats a perfect way to attack Trump.. So they went and found Khan and turned his dead son into a political attack.

Think of the planning that went into it.

Is there anything you won't defend Trump for?

Calina

Calina wrote: »

I've sacrificed thousands of hours of my free time to personal projects. I've never hated them though.

But I draw the line at assuming sacrificing thousands of hours is a sacrifice within the same framework as someone being killed is.

I didn't say it was the same. I said my mind would go there.. And the last I checked, I'm a person. And so is Trump.

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying that you are only defending him because he is being attacked and you are pissed off with that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. And taking a position only by way of reaction to criticism of him is far from the application of the rational thought you referred to earlier. Plus it's a little disingenuous, you supported him months back, you still do, that's your prerogative and good luck with that.

If I were American, I'd reluctantly end up voting for Clinton. As a non-American, I'm happy for her to crash and burn and if that means Trump, so be it. What she has done in the past is far worse so I don't want her to win. If they both pulled out due to medical reasons or something, I'd join the celebrations.

Hande hoche!

Deleted User wrote: »

Paul Ryan revoking the invite is a strong rebuke. He surely has decided that any association with this car crash will damage his own ambitions in 2020. He must be tired of walking that fine line between being seen to betray his party's candidate while objecting to the grotesque.

Yeah, could imagine him going gray by the end of this election cycle.

Dick phelan

Seems the stock response from Trump supporters to any criticism of him is "well Hillary did x y and z" How about you actually address what Trump has done instead of trying to deflect things back to Clinton, Trump is on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women and your first thought is to bring up Bill Clinton, i'v some people dismiss Trumps comments as "banter" idk what your idea of banter is but mine is certainly not talking about forcing yourself on women and grabbing their pussy, yet another disgusting vile comment from Trump about women, He's a creepy sleazy lunatic remember his weird comments about his own daughter the man's a scumbag and anybody who would vote for him isn't someone i'd ever want to associate with hopefully this will be the final nail in the Trump coffin and hopefully the Republican party in future will pick someone who's actually electable what they've done is actually quite special, to make Hillary Clinton the far more likable and electable president is some feat.

alchemist33

People seem to be mixing up sacrifice with hard work. If Trump thinks giving up some of his grab-pussy time so he can make more money for himself is a sacrifice, he doesn't know the meaning of the word. Every thing Trump does is for Trump. Putting your life on the line for the sake of your country (while getting paid a fraction of what Trump gets) is not remotely similar to whatever Trump thinks he's given up to further his own ambitiins and finances.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Is there anything you won't defend Trump for?

Is there anything you won't attack him for? Do you look up the legitimacy of what the media is spinning? Didn't the veterans thing a few days ago show just how bad the media is when it comes to this stuff?

I wouldn't defend him over plenty of things.. But the sensational BS that gets talked about here is easy to defend against because it's overblown crap and it's all you guys talk about.

Samaris

Good gods, what on earth happened since yesterday?

Billy86 wrote: »

For Trump fans trying to downplay his treatment of disabled people and promotion of violence - http://europe.newsweek.com/epileptogenic-pepe-video-507417?rm=eu

See, I didn't think this thread would get more disgusting than this - it was a cowardly attack on a many using his epilepsy against him. Even more cowardly as he could send it anonymously. I don't blame -Trump- directly for the actions of his sycophants, but this guy, whatever sad creep he is, deserves criminal prosecution.

Parachutes wrote: »

I did say the negative coverage of Trump is mostly fair. The political spin in the subtext of most articles about Trump is fairly obvious and certain outlets (The Atlantic, New York Times) have come out and endorsed Clinton. They're bias is fairly blatant.

Even if you take the first debate for example, Lester Holt asked Trump 15 individual questions and demanded follow ups, whereas he asked Clinton a grand total of two.

I'm not defending Trump, but to say there is no double standard or coverage gap when compared to Clinton is just wrong.

The Atlantic don't tend to endorse people. They waited until they felt that silence was implicit support, or at least implicit not thinking there was much of a difference. It should say something where an outlet that deliberately refrains from endorsing people comes out and ...not so much endorses Clinton as says that Trump is beyond the pale.

Also, you'd need to pin Trump to a wall and repeatedly ask him questions to get ..well, several versions of what he thinks will play well. Sometimes you might actually get the accidental truth ("That makes me smart"). That's not so much bias as a desperate attempt to not have the whole thing be a farce.

Parachutes wrote: »

Also, Trump has a sex drive? Big shocker. If you are a man you have talked like this in the past and if you claim you haven't you are a liar. This will get a lot of spin in the media and no doubt the Clinton campaign will get some great mileage out of it.

20Cent wrote: »

No he's describing his actions with women without their consent.

"You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful – I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

Trump has a sex drive. That's what you're getting out of that. A couple of years ago, I had the misfortune to meet - alone on a dark road - someone who thought that they had the right to - how did Trump put it - "grab 'em by the pussy". I wouldn't vote for the asshat that sexually assaulted me, and I wouldn't vote for someone who thinks its okay to either.

Narcissistic asshole. Everything he says comes across as Trump comes first, second, third, and anyone else comes right down the bottom. He actually has no concept of other people; if he wants something, he has the right to have it. While one can accept that some people are just sick, it's meeting their advocates that is somehow more upsetting. These apparently normal, sane people who are probably kind to fluffy animals and do normal, sane things, can actually think that it's okay. That's just goddam disturbing.

Although it does make me a bit more inclined to see this sleazy piece of **** get owned by a woman, given his apparent contempt of them as human beings with the right not be assaulted or felt up by some disgusting object with a dead ferret on his head.

Parachutes wrote: »

His father has also been dead since 1999.

Trump got help from his father, big deal. Most people do get some help from their parents, Atlantic city may not have been Trump's greatest outing but if you read The Art of The Deal his thinking was flawless. He took the risk, employed thousands building his casinos and running them. Fair play to him.

It doesn't change the fact the majority of his empire is self made.

It doesn't change the facts at all, no. It definitely doesn't change the fact that he managed to run Atlantic City casinos into the ground by attempting to build one from cannibalising the rest and made such a hames of it that it required an -actually illegal- buyout from his father to prevent bankruptcy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine, you're right. My entire circle of friends is made up of sick individuals because it doesn't go against my politics to admit that some of them make lewd comments.

I certainly get the impression that your friends are young immature tosspots from that, but I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that a minority of them are okay with saying **** like that to big themselves up while drinking in a small group of like-minded individuals who will get that it is (I sincerely hope) just a joke.

This man was caught on camera saying it to someone who does not appear to be a particularly close mate, in a very different context, and while being old enough to have a bit of common sense, maturity and basic decency. Apparently, he possesses none of these, not least since his idea of explaining himself is the classic non-apology. "I apologise if you were offended." That is a man that deserves a weasel shoved down his pants.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not an American.. I don't have unconditional respect for soldiers, alive or dead. He was doing a job and getting paid to kill people. His parents didn't sacrifice anything, unless we've changed the definition of the word "sacrifice". The dead soldier sacrificed his life for a monthly salary and that's about it.

That is not the culture of the United States. It does help to consider things in context, and in the US, the military is just about sacred, and serving in the military is considered a great honour. It may seem strange to -you-, but I would assume that you are not steeped in American tradition.

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a lot of rules on how Muslim women should behave in public. They were up there because they're Muslim and she didn't say anything.
What's the actual answer anyways? Was she allowed to? If not, didn't Trump highlight sexism?

Can't be arsed with the rest of your quote, but just to be helpful, the actual answer was that Ghazala Khan felt that she couldn't speak in public about her beloved son in front of a massive picture of him because it hurt too much and she was afraid she'd break down.

Deleted User wrote: »

On the other hand, when I say that Clinton was vile and disgusting talking and joking about getting a child rapist off the hook, people explain at away by saying it was her job.
When i say it wasn't her job to go on radio and actually be proud of it and laugh about it, I get ignored. It's amazing what political leanings do to rational thought.

It really, really is.

But just to correct your misconceptions once more, Clinton did not have a choice about defending the man and was deeply uncomfortable with doing so. The case was given to her, and she raised that she wasn't comfortable with doing it, and was informed that she couldn't professionally refuse to do it.

This was in 1975, forty years ago, when she was still a relatively young lawyer with little experience in criminal litigation as the defendant felt that the jury would be more sympathetic to a man accused of rape defended by a female lawyer. There weren't a -huge- amount of them available in 1975 and Rodham (as she was then) was pretty much just the unfortunate pick. She worked hard at it, as was her duty, having raised that she didn't really want it.

The prosecuting attorney backed up her comments about this long before the presidential election (and again in 2014).

The tape that talks about her laughing about it does indeed have moments in which she chuckles, but not about the case itself. Rather one example is that she chuckled when saying that the defendant had passed a polygraph "forever destroying my faith" in that form of technological defense.

The rest is either absolutely unproven and unprovable or so categorically deniable by actually doing some research as to make any media outlet trying to make it a story just plain dumb as well as deeply ethically dubious.

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there anything you won't attack him for?

Yes.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you look up the legitimacy of what the media is spinning?

Very much so. Do you?

Pro Hoc Vice

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is there anything you won't attack him for? Do you look up the legitimacy of what the media is spinning? Didn't the veterans thing a few days ago show just how bad the media is when it comes to this stuff?

I wouldn't defend him over plenty of things.. But the sensational BS that gets talked about here is easy to defend against because it's overblown crap and it's all you guys talk about.

If you think that why then get involved with the chat?

First Up

I don't usually watch Fox News but their efforts to salvage something from the Trump wreckage is quite hilarious to see.

captbarnacles

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there anything you won't attack him for? Do you look up the legitimacy of what the media is spinning? Didn't the veterans thing a few days ago show just how bad the media is when it comes to this stuff?

I wouldn't defend him over plenty of things.. But the sensational BS that gets talked about here is easy to defend against because it's overblown crap and it's all you guys talk about.

But you have provided no successful defence for any it??? unless you consider "well me and my friends do it" absolves him.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say it was the same. I said my mind would go there.. And the last I checked, I'm a person. And so is Trump.




If I were American, I'd reluctantly end up voting for Clinton. As a non-American, I'm happy for her to crash and burn and if that means Trump, so be it. What she has done in the past is far worse so I don't want her to win. If they both pulled out due to medical reasons or something, I'd join the celebrations.

One major thing in Clintons favour is that she realises that Americas nuclear arsenal is used as a deterrent and not as a tactical option to blow up a country that has annoyed the US president.

I'm not sure Trump actually grasps that concept.

American politics has now become so polarised, I doubt much legislation can be enacted using cross party support but I can see some hope of Clinton achieving a consensus whereas I doubt Trump is capable of persuading opponents of supporting anything he would wish to achieve if the Republican party hasn't a majority.

A Little Pony

Trump just has no discipline. Even I am starting to question if he can win which is looking unlikely purely down to him not staying on message, a complete clusterf*ck.

captbarnacles

captbarnacles wrote: »

But you have provided no successful defence for any it??? unless you consider "well me and my friends do it" absolves him.

You just took something I said that was a 1 on the scale, lied, and then turned it into a 10.

But people can't believe the media would do the same.. When it can happen within two pages in this thread.

Wanderer78

Buford T. Justice V wrote:

One major thing in Clintons favour is that she realises that Americas nuclear arsenal is used as a deterrent and not as a tactical option to blow up a country that has annoyed the US president.

More like, the first act of aggression!

Can we do a control alt delete on this campaign now! It's disturbing to watch

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there anything you won't attack him for? Do you look up the legitimacy of what the media is spinning? Didn't the veterans thing a few days ago show just how bad the media is when it comes to this stuff?

I wouldn't defend him over plenty of things.. But the sensational BS that gets talked about here is easy to defend against because it's overblown crap and it's all you guys talk about.

There has been a couple of things that were over blown, but the vast majority of stuff is just reporting what Trump says and does.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Wanderer78 wrote: »

More like, the first act of aggression!

Can we do a control alt delete on this campaign now! It's disturbing to watch

There is no reset button, I'm afraid.

Samaris

K-9 wrote: »

There has been a couple of things that were over blown, but the vast majority of stuff is just reporting what Trump says and does.

Yeah, there have been, but there's an element of it just being random dirty politics and a lack of fact-checking. Trump child-rape is one (although the media has pretty much ignored that, and rightfully so). Another one is the "Clinton defending a child rapist and laughing about it", which again, the semi-sane media also mostly ignored. The internet is a bit of an echo chamber though, and fact checking is anything but enforced.

I think a lot of it around Trump though is "is he actually saying this ****? I mean, really?"

Dr Jakub

So what, are we supposed to believe that women weren't throwing themselves at a man with high levels of power, wealth and status?

I'm pretty sure that's how it works in reality.

K-9

Dr Jakub wrote: »

So what, are we supposed to believe that women weren't throwing themselves at a man with high levels of power, wealth and status?

I'm pretty sure that's how it works in reality.

That has nothing to do with the tape.