Donald Trump

gosplan

oik wrote: »

Yes I'm accusing her of breaking the law. No I will not go into detail on this a 20th time. The information is accessible to anyone who wishes to form their own conclusions.

Hey Oik, this was a pretty good run down of the various allegations made against her

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

Still can't find anything about her profiting by hundreds of millions.

Give us a hand, would you?

ebbsy

everlast75 wrote: »

ebbsy wrote: »

These women coming out now are a pestilence of lying money grabbing trollops, nothing more.

like the women who came out and disclosed what Saville had done to them?


are you some sort of WUM or do actually know all these women and they've told you they are lying? cause it has to be one or the other...

No I just know a lying gold digger when I see one.

Penn

Specialun wrote: »

Even though i dont like trump, or clinton, i do however think that there is a media campaign to damage trumps rep. The security issues which clinton has had such as the emails had less exposure than trumps woman comments. Clintons lack of security knowledge and lies to cover it up is alot more damaging to usa

The problem is, that's already been dealt with. That's old news. There was an investigation into it and right or wrong, it's over.

The media can't keep going on about it unless something new comes out about it. Trump's repeated controversies are new news. So that's what gets aired.

A Little Pony

Trump is the best thing to have happened to politics in America for decades. Normally celebrities don't care about politics but now they are being wheeled out by hollywood to speak out or they won't get any work. It is entertainment baby.

gosplan

So do people thing Trump is just the L.Ron Hubbard of politics or is he an actual scientologist?

Capt'n Midnight

oik wrote: »

It doesn't necessarily because it spends 4% of its GDP on the military. But if more countries in NATO spent more then America could spend less without weakening NATO.

That might have made some kind of sense during the Cold War when the Iron curtain split Europe.

Of course since then East Germany reunited with West Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland , Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia ,Croatia and Albania all joined NATO changing the balance of power somewhat.

NATO has 3.585 Million Active personnel of which only 1.369 are from the US all to defend against 0.845 from the Russian Federation. With a 4:1 numerical advantage NATO is spending $919 Bn to against Russia's $66.4Bn.

The US spends more than twice what the others spend per personnel. I would not be surprised that most of the excess spending is pork-barrelling.

BorneTobyWilde

K-9 wrote: »

Ah here, the polls called Trump correctly.

The problem was the analsts, including Nate Silver ignored them.

But no, that reply is stretching it.

I remember it clearly, watching on CNN. They had Cruz winning. Every night right up to the end they would roll out their map and say Trumps path was small very small, Cruz would win a single state here and there and they would say Trump had no path. I recall it clearly.
IN the end it was very clear, but they gave him no chance for as long as they could.

Billy86

arayess wrote: »

of course trump is an imbecile...:rolleyes:
how lucky we are that after all these years in the public eye , it was you that finally showed us the light.

You are right, First Up didn't show us a f***ing thing, that was all the doing of The_Donald himself.

gosplan

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I remember it clearly, watching on CNN. They had Cruz winning. Every night right up to the end they would roll out their map and say Trumps path was small very small, Cruz would win a single state here and there and they would say Trump had no path. I recall it clearly.
IN the end it was very clear, but they gave him no chance for as long as they could.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/03/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll-cnn-orc/index.html

Pro Hoc Vice

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I remember it clearly, watching on CNN. They had Cruz winning. Every night right up to the end they would roll out their map and say Trumps path was small very small, Cruz would win a single state here and there and they would say Trump had no path. I recall it clearly.
IN the end it was very clear, but they gave him no chance for as long as they could.

Do ye ever fact check your own statements

(CNN)-
Donald Trump continues to be the top choice of Republican voters in the race for their party's nomination, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

So either you misremembered or you are misleading you decide.

Billy86

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

They gave Trump no chance against Cruz, polls had him way behind and his path to victory was small. He walked it and polls were wrong.
This race is tight still.

You really are bordering on lying about this at this point, given I have pointed this out to you over and over and over again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2016_presidential_primaries

From November 11 all the way to the end of the primaries there were about 160 polls conducted. All but 1 (which had him in second, just 2% off first) had Trump winning.

Pro Hoc Vice

Billy86 wrote: »

You really are bordering on lying about this at this point, given I have pointed this out to you over and over and over again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2016_presidential_primaries

From November 11 all the way to the end of the primaries there were about 160 polls conducted. All but 1 (which had him in second, just 2% off first) had Trump winning.

Hence why you can take nothing he says at face value. If he claimed Trump was human at this stage I would not believe him.

gosplan

gosplan wrote: »

I've looked and looked and I haven't seen anything that's convinced me, and unlike many in here, I have an open mind on this stuff.

Back in 2006 i looked into the Jimmy Savile and like MI5 found nothing. Look how that turned out.

Smoke - Fire

Billy86

Specialun wrote: »

Even though i dont like trump, or clinton, i do however think that there is a media campaign to damage trumps rep. The security issues which clinton has had such as the emails had less exposure than trumps woman comments. Clintons lack of security knowledge and lies to cover it up is alot more damaging to usa

That's not the case though, Clinton's emails have still got more coverage than any other single part of this election cycle. The thing is, they've been getting coverage since way, way back early enough in the primary cycle. The thing is, they've been covered so much at this point that they're old hat. Nobody wants to hear about them.

It would be the same if Trump's sexual abuse scandals had broke 7-8 months ago, only with the difference that it would quite possibly have cost him the Republican nomination.

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

...Normally celebrities don't care about politics...

HellSquirrel

Yes I'm accusing her of breaking the law. No I will not go into detail on this a 20th time. The information is accessible to anyone who wishes to form their own conclusions.

Yeah, breitbart is available to anyone wishing to form their own conclusions. People who actually want to have some accurate information can get it in a raft of other places.

You don't have proof, you aren't willing to link your sources, and the onus is on you as making the accusations to follow them up.


Specialun

Even though i dont like trump, or clinton, i do however think that there is a media campaign to damage trumps rep. The security issues which clinton has had such as the emails had less exposure than trumps woman comments. Clintons lack of security knowledge and lies to cover it up is alot more damaging to usa

Now there is. Thing is, there wasn't until he provided such a lot of evidence to show that it needs to be talked about. People need to know who they're voting for. And the people who keep looking into it, and are present at the rallies and reporting on them are so disgusted with the man that they'll use their power (as journalists) to try convince people not to vote for this oik. Because he is a disgusting human being.

Before, back when Trump was just the funny nutter candidate, the news descended on him because he was the most interesting candidate. He was a new thing, he provided a lot of entertainment and the media covered his moronic comments.

The Clinton side is a lot more political, since it stems from actual politics rather than from her being a lunatic. The email thing was foolish, but it wasn't without precedent and it wasn't illegal. It was certainly strongly advised against, mostly in retrospect, and I don't think anyone will do it in the future. But Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and a host of others who have been named in this thread did the same thing or very close to, and no-one gives a damn. Certainly not the people acting like she was selling information to the Russians.

Benghazi was a tragedy. And there was more the US government could have done to prevent it, but at the time, they did not think it necessary. Hindsight is 20:20. Again, eight congressional hearings by people who were personal enemies of Clinton could not legitimately find anything she did -wrong-. Again, it was a hard lesson for people in that role in the future, but pointless to try make laws to punish people in the past.

The Clinton Foundation really does not appear to have anything behind it. There has been no evidence of wrong-doing, or at least none that the right-wing news is actually trumpeting. Looking at the Clinton Foundation and then looking at the Trump Foundation is like looking at day and night. There is actual, concrete evidence that the TF was a bag of very stinking fish. There is only rumours around the CF which no-one seems to be able to back up.

In short, Clinton has almost certainly done some shady things; she's been in politics for over thirty years and American politics does seem to have its moments of being particularly childish and devious. But nothing has come out that would be, looking at it absolutely objectively, that awful. That's why the media are focussed on Trump. It would be just downright hypocritical to scream about the Clinton Foundation while the Trump Foundation is spectacularly worse. It IS downright hypocritical to scream about the emails when the previous few Secretaries of State did -the same thing-.

Moo Moo Land

Trump will be a laughing stock long after he loses this election.

Bazzo

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Do ye ever fact check your own statements

(CNN)-
Donald Trump continues to be the top choice of Republican voters in the race for their party's nomination, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

So either you misremembered or you are misleading you decide.

More like purposely peddling what he knows to be hore****e in order to try to throw some credence behind his untenable stance. A common theme in here and a cue Trump fanboys take directly from their glorious leader.

I know some very small children who will tell bare faced lies and expect to get away with it but I'd have expected better of anyone over the edge of 12 tbh, this whole thread has made me revise that.

First Up

HellSquirrel wrote:

In short, Clinton has almost certainly done some shady things; she's been in politics for over thirty years and American politics does seem to have its moments of being particularly childish and devious. But nothing has come out that would be, looking at it absolutely objectively, that awful. That's why the media are focussed on Trump. It would be just downright hypocritical to scream about the Clinton Foundation while the Trump Foundation is spectacularly worse. It IS downright hypocritical to scream about the emails when the previous few Secretaries of State did -the same thing-.

The Clinton Foundation has been audited and scrutinised to death and has an A rating. All income is spent on its projects; the Clintons take nothing out.

Of course they have leveraged the Clinton name for corporate donations and of course donors have used various tax avoidance mechanisms by donating. That's how the philantropy business works.

And of course Clinton has her links to the worlds of finance and big business. That's how America works.

take everything

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oguvSPdtHQ8

An interesting update from Trump.

take everything

take everything wrote: »

I love this guy.
More and more, i'm finding myself hoping he becomes president.
The stuff he says goes against all my political views but still i 'd love to see him beat Hillary.

I'm reasoning first off that he doesn't mean any of the stuff he says (the wall etc). It's all just to get in.
And I actually do believe he gives a **** about America.
I also feel deep down he's a decent enough guy just playing the political system and having a fcuking great time. And he's hilarious.
Can't stump the trump videos on YouTube are brilliant BTW.

Just wanted to get an idea what ye think about The Donald.

I've never been so ashamed of one of my posts.

Pro Hoc Vice

take everything wrote: »

I've never been so ashamed of one of my posts.

You are discovering the internet never forgets. But fair play you accept you made a error of judgement like us all to err is human etc.

captbarnacles

If you read his latest tweets there is going to be violence on election day. His is unsubtly stirring up his base to believe the election is being rigged and that they need to fight back.

alchemist33

take everything wrote: »

I've never been so ashamed of one of my posts.

Fair dues, man. Fair dues.

alchemist33

captbarnacles wrote: »

If you read his latest tweets there is going to be violence on election day. His is unsubtly stirring up his base to believe the election is being rigged and that they need to fight back.

Which is about two steps removed from staging a coup. I wonder would Hillary then appoint a special prosecutor to investigate him...

captbarnacles

captbarnacles wrote: »

If you read his latest tweets there is going to be violence on election day. His is unsubtly stirring up his base to believe the election is being rigged and that they need to fight back.

I'm not surprised Agent Orange isn't above a little street-fighting by proxy -only by proxy though, like a coward.

Interfering with the democratic process is what dictators do.

irish coldplayer

Eerily close to reality
A Turd Sandwich Vs a Giant Douche

K-9

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I remember it clearly, watching on CNN. They had Cruz winning. Every night right up to the end they would roll out their map and say Trumps path was small very small, Cruz would win a single state here and there and they would say Trump had no path. I recall it clearly.
IN the end it was very clear, but they gave him no chance for as long as they could.

Well you should be able to find newspaper articles saying this then.

I think there was a short period people thought support from candidates like Bush and Rubio would go behind Cruz, but that didn't last long.

B_Wayne

ebbsy wrote: »

No I just know a lying gold digger when I see one.

That's a deeply misogynistic viewpoint to take on the issue of sexual assaults.

oik

B_Wayne wrote: »

That's a deeply misogynistic viewpoint to take on the issue of sexual assaults.

The woman who appeared with Gloria Alred is the least credible of all. She was the only one who was in tears which to me is a big red flag. Another red flag is that she was reading a script prepared by GLORIA ALRED of all people.