Donald Trump

B_Wayne

Depp wrote: »

I was commenting on how little coverage some of the negative stories surrounding hillary were getting then all of a sudden a video from ten years ago of trump saying something sexist drops and it spreads like wildfire

Infowars is like David Icke, they're not credible and no news source would classify them as a credible source. This is why credible sources are not reporting conspiracies by the far right.

jooksavage

Depp wrote: »

I was commenting on how little coverage some of the negative stories surrounding hillary were getting then all of a sudden a video from ten years ago of trump saying something sexist drops and it spreads like wildfire

Trump is the first Republican candidate not to have the backing of any major newspapers. Even Gary Johnson has managed to garner a few endorsements. Wondering why a bunch of Midwestern dailies who, in some cases haven't endorsed a Democrat in their 100+ years, are plumping for Clinton in 2016?

It's not because they love Hilary so much. Trump is a bad candidate on every level. If it seems like there's a disproportionate amount of s**t out there about him, it's only because he put it there himself.

Depp

so whats your take on the dnc leaks and what wikileaks has released? do you think because that isnt on cnn its all bollocks? is how hillary being let off by the fbi and the subsequen endictment of the fbi by congress all irrelevant because cnn ignore it? as ive said, im not a trump fan, I just think him not being as polished with what he says is being overplayed by a biased media

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/09/14/heres-a-poll-to-trust-americans-trust-of-media-now-at-all-time-low/?utm_term=.c872db92745a

is this a co-incidence? is this happening because of alex jones?

B_Wayne

Depp wrote: »

so whats your take on the dnc leaks and what wikileaks has released? do you think because that isnt on cnn its all bollocks? is how hillary being let off by the fbi and the subsequen endictment of the fbi by congress all irrelevant because cnn ignore it? as ive said, im not a trump fan, I just think him not being as polished with what he says is being overplayed by a biased media

Wikileaks etc has been on cnn and other news channels. Their latest leaks have been extraordinarily boring admittedly.... So you admit, your previous claims were nonsense?

Billy86

Depp wrote: »

I never claimed I had sources, and if you read the post I actually made I never explicitly accused hillary of anything I was saying there are an awful lot stories following her of late.

So what was this post about? You have yet to provide a single link to back this up...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101292531&postcount=3896
"the stuff thats coming out about libya at the minute for one and the whole clinton foundation thing is pretty disgusting too."

And do you not know how an online forum works? All it takes it clicking the search function at the top of the page and putting in 'Trump' for keyword and 'Depp' for poster.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99988150&postcount=908
"no way in hell trump is more dangerous in that regard than hillary, do some research"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100150709&postcount=3719
"I dunno he seems to be gaining in some areas as people realise how bad Hillary actually is! trumps no angel but shes ten times as dangerous! and they call trump a warmonger! from here on in his campaign is going to be a full on smear campaign and with the dirt thats there on clinton shes a gonner, first time they debate the race is over!"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100155784&postcount=3722
"big trump fan I see , don't really have a horse in the race but I'd honestly take anyone over someone thats as deep in the pockets of big banking and the saudi royal family as hillary is"

Personally I don't think either candidate should even be allowed to visit the whitehouse. My main point was how untrustworthy the msm have become.

FOX News are one of the 'big 3' news networks in the US, and they get to host one of the debates. Clearly they are 'MSM', how come you have no comment on them falling over themselves the last 36 hours to defend Trump bragging about sexual assault?

Is that what you're asking for, for the 'MSM' to ignore anything and everything Trump says because you really, really don't like Clinton? That's not being impartial.

Remember her 'deplorables' comment? That got a LOT of airplay which unquestionably influenced polling a few weeks back. Was that 'unfair'? No, it wasn't, she said something dumb and the media reported on it. The thing is, she's smart enough to not say dumb things on a regular basis whereas Trump feels the need to do so pretty much daily at this point.

And during the primaries, this is what got him the support and traction - such is the cesspool that is the GOP primary process. It played well to a base who've been given dog whistle signals over race, gender and religious identity politics for a decade if not more, and has given him $4bn in free media time, if I recall (it was $2bn as of March at the very least - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html ) . But that approach was always going to backfire as while a chunk of the GOP base love hearing how inherently terrible black people, brown people, Mexicans, Muslims and women are... that sh*t doesn't fly in the general. It's why his polling numbers have shot up whenever he has managed to keep a lid on it since the convention, and plummeted whenever he felt the need to go on a(nother) biggoted tirade.




Also, what is your take on Trump University? How come that has not been in the news all the much? You know, the multiple fraud cases related to it that thousands of Americans have placed against Trump for defrauding them of millions of dollars. If the media are so out to get Trump, how come they haven't reported on it? It's not as if it's some far off, vague and distant thing - the trial is set to commence only about two weeks after the election date. Surely the media, so out to get Trump, would be mentioning that day in, day out, on the hour, every hour, over and over and over again?

Isn't it strange to you how this 'biased media' has barely mentioned that at all in comparison to Hillary Clinton's email scandal that dominated headlines for months on end?

Pro Hoc Vice

Depp wrote: »

I never claimed I had sources, and if you read the post I actually made I never explicitly accused hillary of anything I was saying there are an awful lot stories following her of late. Personally I don't think either candidate should even be allowed to visit the whitehouse. My main point was how untrustworthy the msm have become.

Quote: dwayneshintzy
What new stuff is coming out about Benghazi?????

What aspect of the Clinton Foundation is disgusting to you?


that she sh!tcanned a peace deal that was on the table.

Where did the haiti money go? cause it didnt go to haiti. Also dont think its right how deep its connections go with big banks/saudi arabia

Look like very clear allegations of wrong doing by you as against HRC.

dwayneshintzy

Not forgetting, of course, that Trump's charitable foundation is no longer allowed to fundraise because it was improperly registered, that Trump used proceeds from his charity to settle lawsuits and buy paintings of himself, that contractors were directed to pay the charity rather than Trump's businesses directly, etc....

Samaris

Just because someone releases a tonne of emails does not automatically mean that the person whose privacy was violated did something wrong. And it's far too early to tell if there is something dubious in them that the news will pick up on. If the news doesn't pick up on it, there -probably- isn't anything in there to pick up, else the internet would be screaming at the top of its lungs about it.

I mean, the alternative is the people who reckon this is a cover up -reading- all 2,500 emails, highlighting anything dubious and, y'know, screaming about it until attention is paid to it.

I am noticing more commentry about Trump's lawsuit regarding sex with a young teenager and I am very, very, dubious about the rightness of that being heralded, EVEN taking into account the latest (really pretty gross) uncoverings of the Howard Stern interview and the hot mic grab 'em by the pussy comment. I've read into that rape case and I saw who was involved in it (a man with the pseudonym Al Taylor, currently offering the video of Jane Doe's allegations for $1M) and his history of..heralding dodgy accusations against public figures. Honestly, I think this guy knowingly is using a young woman with some serious problems for attention and money and if that is the case, he deserves to be in prison. Now, I don't have any proof of it, and it is JUST POSSIBLE that this person has ACTUALLY found a legitimate case, but his very involvement with it makes it dubious.

Depp

Billy86 wrote: »

So what was this post about? You have yet to provide a single link to back this up...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101292531&postcount=3896
"the stuff thats coming out about libya at the minute for one and the whole clinton foundation thing is pretty disgusting too."

And do you not know how an online forum works? All it takes it clicking the search function at the top of the page and putting in 'Trump' for keyword and 'Depp' for poster.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99988150&postcount=908
"no way in hell trump is more dangerous in that regard than hillary, do some research"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100150709&postcount=3719
"I dunno he seems to be gaining in some areas as people realise how bad Hillary actually is! trumps no angel but shes ten times as dangerous! and they call trump a warmonger! from here on in his campaign is going to be a full on smear campaign and with the dirt thats there on clinton shes a gonner, first time they debate the race is over!"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100155784&postcount=3722
"big trump fan I see , don't really have a horse in the race but I'd honestly take anyone over someone thats as deep in the pockets of big banking and the saudi royal family as hillary is"


FOX News are one of the 'big 3' news networks in the US, and they get to host one of the debates. Clearly they are 'MSM', how come you have no comment on them falling over themselves the last 36 hours to defend Trump bragging about sexual assault?

Is that what you're asking for, for the 'MSM' to ignore anything and everything Trump says because you really, really don't like Clinton? That's not being impartial.

Remember her 'deplorables' comment? That got a LOT of airplay which unquestionably influenced polling a few weeks back. Was that 'unfair'? No, it wasn't, she said something dumb and the media reported on it. The thing is, she's smart enough to not say dumb things on a regular basis whereas Trump feels the need to do so pretty much daily at this point.

And during the primaries, this is what got him the support and traction - such is the cesspool that is the GOP primary process. It played well to a base who've been given dog whistle signals over race, gender and religious identity politics for a decade if not more, and has given him $4bn in free media time, if I recall (it was $2bn as of March at the very least - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html ) . But that approach was always going to backfire as while a chunk of the GOP base love hearing how inherently terrible black people, brown people, Mexicans, Muslims and women are... that sh*t doesn't fly in the general. It's why his polling numbers have shot up whenever he has managed to keep a lid on it since the convention, and plummeted whenever he felt the need to go on a(nother) biggoted tirade.




Also, what is your take on Trump University? How come that has not been in the news all the much? You know, the multiple fraud cases related to it that thousands of Americans have placed against Trump for defrauding them of millions of dollars. If the media are so out to get Trump, how come they haven't reported on it? It's not as if it's some far off, vague and distant thing - the trial is set to commence only about two weeks after the election date. Surely the media, so out to get Trump, would be mentioning that day in, day out, on the hour, every hour, over and over and over again?

Isn't it strange to you how this 'biased media' has barely mentioned that at all in comparison to Hillary Clinton's email scandal that dominated headlines for months on end?

good job going through my posts, as ive said, in a perfect world, neither should be president, but I'll take a sexist over a female dick cheney any day of the week. Its what I believe and I've been consistent with it. Not a fan of either but I feel trump is the lesser of two evils. re the media, you can trust them if you want and take everything they say as gospel, I however, do not trust them. Thats my personal viewpoint and I dont particularly care if it differs from yours

Bazzo

Depp wrote: »

so whats your take on the dnc leaks and what wikileaks has released? do you think because that isnt on cnn its all bollocks? is how hillary being let off by the fbi and the subsequen endictment of the fbi by congress all irrelevant because cnn ignore it? as ive said, im not a trump fan, I just think him not being as polished with what he says is being overplayed by a biased media

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/09/14/heres-a-poll-to-trust-americans-trust-of-media-now-at-all-time-low/?utm_term=.c872db92745a

is this a co-incidence? is this happening because of alex jones?

What specifically are you talking about? Outline the wikileaks content you are talking about and link to the source. You haven't levelled a single accusation grounded in reality or any factual basis in the last 6 or 7 posts.

captbarnacles

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Clinton Foundation Gets an A rating and submits audited accounts.

The Trump foundation is a slush fund for the Donald.

Bazzo

Depp wrote: »

good job going through my posts, as ive said, in a perfect world, neither should be president, but I'll take a sexist over a female dick cheney any day of the week. Its what I believe and I've been consistent with it. Not a fan of either but I feel trump is the lesser of two evils. re the media, you can trust them if you want and take everything they say as gospel, I however, do not trust them. Thats my personal viewpoint and I dont particularly care if it differs from yours

Right, so we shouldn't trust the media who can verify that their articles are factual but we should trust you when you pull statements out of your ass with no indication that they're based in reality. Got it.

Billy86

Depp wrote: »

good job going through my posts, as ive said, in a perfect world, neither should be president, but I'll take a sexist over a female dick cheney any day of the week. Its what I believe and I've been consistent with it. Not a fan of either but I feel trump is the lesser of two evils. re the media, you can trust them if you want and take everything they say as gospel, I however, do not trust them. Thats my personal viewpoint and I dont particularly care if it differs from yours

That doesn't wash either, he's been repeatedly calling for war and 'bombing the sh*t' out of the middle east and 'taking their oil'. Sound remarkably like Dick Cheney to me.

So no links you your accusations made earlier today about Clinton? It's clear you don't even believe them.

And no answer to their lack of coverage of his multiple rape cases? No answer to their lack of coverage of his upcoming multiple fraud trials against the US public? No answer to their lack of coverage of his using charity money to line his own pockets? No answer to the lack of coverage of him losing over £800mn over the last 12 months? No answer to all the coverage Clinton's dumb 'deplorables' comment got (much like the coverage dumb things Trump says get)? And no answer to the 'MSMs' defending of Trump non-stop on FOX ever since this story broke?

It's also clear you're not even remotely interested in any kind of 'objective' media, that much is very clear.

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

Just because someone releases a tonne of emails does not automatically mean that the person whose privacy was violated did something wrong. And it's far too early to tell if there is something dubious in them that the news will pick up on. If the news doesn't pick up on it, there -probably- isn't anything in there to pick up, else the internet would be screaming at the top of its lungs about it.

I mean, the alternative is the people who reckon this is a cover up -reading- all 2,500 emails, highlighting anything dubious and, y'know, screaming about it until attention is paid to it.

I am noticing more commentry about Trump's lawsuit regarding sex with a young teenager and I am very, very, dubious about the rightness of that being heralded, EVEN taking into account the latest (really pretty gross) uncoverings of the Howard Stern interview and the hot mic grab 'em by the pussy comment. I've read into that rape case and I saw who was involved in it (a man with the pseudonym Al Taylor, currently offering the video of Jane Doe's allegations for $1M) and his history of..heralding dodgy accusations against public figures. Honestly, I think this guy knowingly is using a young woman with some serious problems for attention and money and if that is the case, he deserves to be in prison. Now, I don't have any proof of it, and it is JUST POSSIBLE that this person has ACTUALLY found a legitimate case, but his very involvement with it makes it dubious.

I would be inclined to agree with this, though Trump's bragging about sexual assault and close ties to Epstein who he also said he knows "likes them young" years back, and the fact it has actually got to the point of a hearing are concerning.

Still, it's an interesting exercise with Trump fans and those who love to launch into all of the Clinton conspiracy theories... because if they're willing to take those as gospel, then were to have even a shred of credibility or consistency, they would at the very least treat this matter very seriously. Yet, I have yet to come across a single one even willing to acknowledge it.

Naturally, these are the same people whinging about the 'biased' media merely repeating what Trump has said.

gosplan

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Quote: dwayneshintzy
What new stuff is coming out about Benghazi?????

What aspect of the Clinton Foundation is disgusting to you?


that she sh!tcanned a peace deal that was on the table.

Where did the haiti money go? cause it didnt go to haiti. Also dont think its right how deep its connections go with big banks/saudi arabia

Look like very clear allegations of wrong doing by you as against HRC.

I'm genuinly impartial here.

The Lybia thing is clearly nonsense.

Can you point me in the direction of the Haiti stuff. I can find claims by Trumps people that the foundation fund raised for a hospital but it seems this is wrong.

alchemist33

captbarnacles wrote: »

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Clinton Foundation Gets an A rating and submits audited accounts.

The Trump foundation is a slush fund for the Donald.

Can we get this post stickied??

Billy86

alchemist33 wrote: »

Can we get this post stickied??

:rolleyes:

What you mean the same Charity Watch that is owned by the Clinton's and the MSM both of whom have threatened to use their funding to build gas chambers to use on starving children and kittens if they are rated as anything less than an A?

We're through the looking glass, people...

Christy42

Depp wrote: »

good job going through my posts, as ive said, in a perfect world, neither should be president, but I'll take a sexist over a female dick cheney any day of the week. Its what I believe and I've been consistent with it. Not a fan of either but I feel trump is the lesser of two evils. re the media, you can trust them if you want and take everything they say as gospel, I however, do not trust them. Thats my personal viewpoint and I dont particularly care if it differs from yours

Evidence of Trump being sexist and racist have been supplied in great quantity.

You have supplied a conspiracy theory to show that Hillary is more dangerous.

I wouldn't be surprised that you are being taken less than seriously.

dwayneshintzy

Billy86 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

What you mean the same Charity Watch that is owned by the Clinton's and the MSM both of whom have threatened to use their funding to build gas chambers to use on starving children and kittens if they are rated as anything less than an A?

We're through the looking glass, people...

Exactly! There's a clear bias against Trump in almost all aspects of the MSM, obviously.

Here's a good, unbiased source; http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/07/clinton-foundation-arm-state-department-trump/

gosplan

Right,

All I can see that there is on Clinton is...

1: e-mail servers used to keep public records private

GUILTY

2: used her name and clout and that of her husband to raise a lot of money for charity

GUILTY but unsure whether this is actually a bad thing. I mean we're talking 100s of millions going to people that need it. If it came from big business or Saudi A, does that matter?


That's it as far as I can see.

Is there ANYTHING else?

Christy42

gosplan wrote: »

Right,

All I can see that there is on Clinton is...

1: e-mail servers used to keep public records private

GUILTY

2: used her name and clout and that of her husband to raise a lot of money for charity

GUILTY but unsure whether this is actually a bad thing. I mean we're talking 100s of millions going to people that need it. If it came from big business or Saudi A, does that matter?


That's it as far as I can see.

Is there ANYTHING else?

Wiki leaks keep saying they have something big and there is no way Assange is lying about that. There is also the stuff he has already released but I will only talk about that in a vague manner because if anyone reads it they will find basically nothing interesting theRe.

gosplan

Christy42 wrote: »

Wiki leaks keep saying they have something big and there is no way Assange is lying about that. There is also the stuff he has already released but I will only talk about that in a vague manner because if anyone reads it they will find basically nothing interesting theRe.

Indeed. There is the DNC thing about setting her up for the run but that's more on the DNC than her I think. Plus it's probably standard for political parties.

That's more a thing about American politics though. Sanders scared the democrats because he scared their doners.

gosplan

I'm beginning to think there's a huge subtext of misogyny to all of this.

If Hillary was a man, this would never have been even close.

Equally if she stood up there having had 5 kids from three husbands, it would never have been even close.

A female president is harder for the country to come to terms with than a black male.

It will be a very good thing that she wins.

Billy86

As per 538, if the election happened today Clinton would win by about 368 - 170 EC votes.

The way Trump is going, that gap is probably only going to increase. Keep in mind that 538 called all 50 states correctly last time around, and 49/50 in 2008. On US presidential elections, they literally are 99% accurate.

Trump is not going to get into Walter Mondale territory (1984, only got 13 EC votes vs. Reagan) but it's looking increasingly possible that unless things change quickly, he could dip below 100 votes - considerably worse than McCain did in 2008, or Bob Dole in 1996... this despite running against the unlikable Hillary Clinton.

The mind boggles, makes you wonder what the outcome could be if he were against a 'safe and likable' character like Obama '08 or Bill Clinton during his two runs.

Pro Hoc Vice

gosplan wrote: »

I'm genuinly impartial here.

The Lybia thing is clearly nonsense.

Can you point me in the direction of the Haiti stuff. I can find claims by Trumps people that the foundation fund raised for a hospital but it seems this is wrong.

I have made no claims I just repeated the claims another poster made, to point out that poster had in fact made allegations.

Billy86

gosplan wrote: »

I'm beginning to think there's a huge subtext of misogyny to all of this.

If Hillary was a man, this would never have been even close.

Equally if she stood up there having had 5 kids from three husbands, it would never have been even close.

A female president is harder for the country to come to terms with than a black male.

It will be a very good thing that she wins.

There was a massive opposition to Obama too, to be fair - though 8 years of him seem to have made the crazies crazier again. And Palin being such a dimwit played a major role in McCain losing; had he got a more stable VP candidate like a Paul Ryan or even Romney, I think he could well have won that election by a hair. Easy to forget, but polling only really shifted against McCain strongly around October also - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2008

Thing is, now it's not unusual to see a black guy put forward - in the last two GOP primaries, we've had two prominent black guys (though there was a touch of 'if it worked for the Dems...' to it as both seemed to be lacking in competence, the point does more or less still stand). Cory Booker will be in the running for future Democratic primaries too. It just takes a few years of it as a normalisation process, I reckon.

Thing is, while Trump is worse than Palin was, it's looking like he might lose worse -and a lot worse- than the McCain/Palin ticket did.

Jaysis, the mention of McCain...I'd love to see a candidate with a fraction of his persona and his cv, there was something very engaging about him, a sort of maverick, if a bit of a loose cannon. But what he went through made him worthy of respect. He was always up against it though, and up against a candidate who was inspirational for very different reasons.

Hard to think his party has fallen from him to this circus.

It's getting more hilarious, as if Trump is looking around desperate to find more sections of society to alienate:

Donald Trump: More sexist tapes emerge as presidential hopeful describes own daughter as 'voluptuous' and claims it's 'check-out' time when women hit 35


What a tool.

Robert "Well, I'd like to punch him in the face" de Niro sums up this amadán brilliantly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFpFDyKeqyA

rossie1977

gosplan wrote: »

I'm beginning to think there's a huge subtext of misogyny to all of this.

If Hillary was a man, this would never have been even close.

Equally if she stood up there having had 5 kids from three husbands, it would never have been even close.

A female president is harder for the country to come to terms with than a black male.

It will be a very good thing that she wins.

Its a right vs left thing. Obama had the muslim and birth cert accusations, Bill Clinton had impeachment calls continually during his presidency.

Hillary winning will do little as the right wing media will tear her down daily and government will grind to a halt as congress oppose her at every turn and 4 years from now we will be back to square one when she comes up for re-election.

It didn't matter who the democrats put up there as Murdoch and the Koch brothers will do everything in their power to make their life hell. The 15,000 email scandal and Benghazi is a smoke screen, we know this because the Bush admin lost or deleted 22 million emails and 13 us embassies and consulates were attacked under their watch and there wasn't a huge media blitz on Fox news or talk radio over either