Donald Trump

Renegade Mechanic

Foxtrol wrote: »

Trump wants Saudi Arabia to have nukes FFS!

But yeah, the Clinton charity accepting money from the bad guys is way worse than giving the bad guys nukes... :rolleyes:

I find that hard to believe, given trump all but directly implied Saudi Arabia's role in the 9/11 attacks. Ignoring who else might have had a hand, he is anything but a freind of Saud.

Foxtrol

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ohhhhh words, so hurtful!!! Jesus mate. Let me tell you what's disgusting. Because you people have lost sight of the word's meaning, clearly.

Obama rubbing something under his eye to help him "cry" for the few kids killed in gun violence in the states. I don't recall him being that teary eyes over the considerably higher number of kiddies getting the good news from his drones...
That's disgusting.

A country - Saudi Arabia - being part of the UN human rights council, with a record so atrocious, they had to change the criteria for rankings, putting them above countries like Russia, Portugal, Latvia and others. When they were previously worse than Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein.
That's disgusting.

Funding campaigns across the middle east to depose regimes and foster chaos in the vacum.
Case in point, Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood are "elected" and amidst the outcry and protest of the laws they were bringing in, the Egyptian military stepped in and ousted them.
Obama/Clinton response? Immediate freezing of all aid to Egypt. You'd imagine removing the Brotherhood from power would be welcomed...
That's disgusting.

Head of Nestlé genuinely believing that water is not a human right, and that corporations should own the rain.
That's disgusting.

"But they still didn't *SAY* anything mean or offensive whereas Trump DID".


That's the extent of your argument.

Someone brings up Trumps comments and you throw out Obama, a country Trump wants to give nukes to, the middle east **** show, a head of of a multinational company that donates more money to republicans.

The Trump art of diversionary tactics is strong in you.

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

Big populations mean big electoral votes, that's pretty much how the system is set up. I'm sure that'll be the next thing to whine about coming out of the Trump camp.

So Trump isnt polling ahead in any of the states where Obama won in 2012, where he crushed Romney.

Also, are you aware that even if Trump won both Ohio and PA, he wouldnt be anywhere close to winning the election?

Yes, Trump could win enough swing states but you have provided zero evidence to prove this.

Ohio is seen as a barometer/bellweather state and it shows Trump could win that state which Obama won.
He can win New Hampshire which Obama won.
He can win Pennsylvania which Obama won.
He can win Colorado which Obama won.
He can win Michigan which Obama won.
He can win Virginia which Obama won.

It is not clear cut as you would like to make out for Hillary.

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

Trump wants Saudi Arabia to have nukes FFS!

But yeah, the Clinton charity accepting money from the bad guys is way worse than giving the bad guys nukes... :rolleyes:

They already have nuclear weapons.

darkpagandeath

All what 7 ?

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

Ohio is seen as a barometer/bellweather state and it shows Trump could win that state which Obama won.
He can win New Hampshire which Obama won.
He can win Pennsylvania which Obama won.
He can win Colorado which Obama won.
He can win Michigan which Obama won.
He can win Virginia which Obama won.

It is not clear cut as you would like to make out for Hillary.

He can admit that he is bald and get rid of the terrible comb over
He can forgive the guy from vanity fair who made fun of his tiny little hands 25 years ago
He can come up with a sensible foreign policy
He can stop making racist statements
He can climb back out of the pocket of the NRA (think he lasted a day out of it last week)

Like what you've posted I see little evidence of any of them happening.

BTW I'm not saying Clinton is guaranteed but with Trump's negatives only getting worse and his campaign set up a farce (see earlier post) I think he'll be praying (or pretending he knows how to pray) for something massive to happen to the Clinton campaign.

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

He can admit that he is bald and get rid of the terrible comb over
He can forgive the guy from vanity fair who made fun of his tiny little hands 25 years ago
He can come up with a sensible foreign policy
He can stop making racist statements
He can climb back out of the pocket of the NRA (think he lasted a day out of it last week)

Like what you've posted I see little evidence of any of them happening.

BTW I'm not saying Clinton is guaranteed but with Trump's negatives only getting worse and his campaign set up a farce (see earlier post) I think he'll be praying (or pretending he knows how to pray) for something massive to happen to the Clinton campaign.

He fired Corey Lewandowski, which one of his staff tweeted the witch is dead, and they joined Lewandowski off the campaign.

The campaign is only getting going proper now, we will see how the trends go, but Clinton has so much baggage she would need a campaign fund to pay for her baggage if she was flying on a commercial airliner.
This is far from clear cut and Gary Johnson is likely to take more votes from Clinton than Trump.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

They already have nuclear weapons.

Any proof of this? The closest I've read is unsubstantiated talk of an agreement with Pakistan for them to buy nukes if the area destabalised.

Please no tinfoil hat sites

RobertKK

darkpagandeath wrote: »

All what 7 ?

There are a handful of states that matter, the rest as you know are nailed on red or blue.

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

Any proof of this? The closest I've read is unsubstantiated talk of an agreement with Pakistan for them to buy nukes if the area destabalised.

Please no tinfoil hat sites

The Pakistani nuclear program was largely financed by Saudi Arabia, and the pay back for the Saudis is the nuclear weapons they have access to.
A Saudi Official on Saudi TV earlier this year said they have nuclear weapons.
A retired CIA officer said Saudi Arabia have nuclear weapons.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

He fired Corey Lewandowski, which one of his staff tweeted the witch is dead, and they joined Lewandowski off the campaign.

The campaign is only getting going proper now, we will see how the trends go, but Clinton has so much baggage she would need a campaign fund to pay for her baggage if she was flying on a commercial airliner.
This is far from clear cut and Gary Johnson is likely to take more votes from Clinton than Trump.

His kids had to force Trump to fire him. It's obvious Trump is setting the tone for the campaign.

If he's only starting his campaign now then he's starting a massive distance behind, in money, staff, structure, party support

I admit Clinton has baggage but you seem totally blinded by the amount Trump has, and more is going to surface as the election goes on

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

The Pakistani nuclear program was largely financed by Saudi Arabia, and the pay back for the Saudis is the nuclear weapons they have access to.
A Saudi Official on Saudi TV earlier this year said they have nuclear weapons.
A retired CIA officer said Saudi Arabia have nuclear weapons.

I asked nicely for no tinfoil hat sites and you gave me a youtube link from SuperStation95 FM Radio with subtitles that clearly were added later

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

I asked nicely for no tinfoil hat sites and you gave me a youtube link from SuperStation95 FM Radio with subtitles that clearly were added later

It would all be tinfoil hat stuff for you.

Do you honestly think the Saudis gave billions to Pakistan for it's nuclear program and for no return on investment?

Here is another tinfoil site known as the BBC as reported in 2013:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."

It also says

It was around the same time, following the US invasion of Iraq, that serious strains in the US/Saudi relationship began to show themselves, says Gary Samore.
The Saudis resented the removal of Saddam Hussein, had long been unhappy about US policy on Israel, and were growing increasingly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.
In the years that followed, diplomatic chatter about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation began to increase.
In 2007, the US mission in Riyadh noted they were being asked questions by Pakistani diplomats about US knowledge of "Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation".
The unnamed Pakistanis opined that "it is logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical 'protector'" of the Arab world by seeking nuclear weapons, according to one of the State Department cables posted by Wikileaks.
By the end of that decade Saudi princes and officials were giving explicit warnings of their intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran did.
Having warned the Americans in private for years, last year Saudi officials in Riyadh escalated it to a public warning, telling a journalist from the Times "it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom".
But were these statements bluster, aimed at forcing a stronger US line on Iran, or were they evidence of a deliberate, long-term plan for a Saudi bomb? Both, is the answer I have received from former key officials.
One senior Pakistani, speaking on background terms, confirmed the broad nature of the deal - probably unwritten - his country had reached with the kingdom and asked rhetorically "what did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn't charity."
Another, a one-time intelligence officer from the same country, said he believed "the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred."

The tinfoil hat position is to believe Saudi Arabia does not have nuclear weapons.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

It would all be tinfoil hat stuff for you.

Do you honestly think the Saudis gave billions to Pakistan for it's nuclear program and for no return on investment?

Here is another tinfoil site known as the BBC as reported in 2013:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

It also says

The tinfoil hat position is to believe Saudi Arabia does not have nuclear weapons.

Which is what I originally posted

Foxtrol wrote: »

The closest I've read is unsubstantiated talk of an agreement with Pakistan for them to buy nukes if the area destabalised.

So there is no proof that Saudi Arabia currently has nukes. Trump's policy to either publicly allow them to have nukes and/or leave them fend for themselves makes the situation much more likely that nukes will come into play

Renegade Mechanic

Foxtrol wrote: »

Which is what I originally posted



So there is no proof that Saudi Arabia currently has nukes. Trump's policy to either publicly allow them to have nukes and/or leave them fend for themselves makes the situation much more likely that nukes will come into play

So you believe Saudi Arabia spent billions on helping to develop nukes but doesn't have any. And you accuse us of mental gymnastics... Bear in mind these weapons aren't just the world destroying "second sun" jobs that we see in those interesting documentaries. They can get unbelievably small.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--X8xDgLeu--/susfdqwipgwlhweldayr.jpg
A weapon that size ^ Particularly as a neutron bomb can kill hundreds, or even thousands of people, without actually destroying valuable buildings or enemy equipment. An absolutely woeful way to go, because you receive way higher radiation than a conventional nuke.

They're supposed to be banned, but lets be honest, so are cluster munitions and white phosphorus....

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

Which is what I originally posted



So there is no proof that Saudi Arabia currently has nukes. Trump's policy to either publicly allow them to have nukes and/or leave them fend for themselves makes the situation much more likely that nukes will come into play

Yes no proof, we can dismiss the former head of Israel's military intelligence who said "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring." he also said "unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent."

As I said you would not believe and here we are, having a debate because a source like the BBC is not good enough.
It is like you cannot do your own research, a retired CIA officer said on US TV that the Saudis have nuclear weapons.
You must believe the funding of Pakistan's nuclear program by Saudi Arabia was charity.

Foxtrol

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

So you believe Saudi Arabia spent billions on helping to develop nukes but doesn't have any. And you accuse us of mental gymnastics... Bear in mind these weapons aren't just the world destroying "second sun" jobs that we see in those interesting documentaries. They can get unbelievably small.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--X8xDgLeu--/susfdqwipgwlhweldayr.jpg
A weapon that size ^ Particularly as a neutron bomb can kill hundreds, or even thousands of people, without actually destroying valuable buildings or enemy equipment. An absolutely woeful way to go, because you receive way higher radiation than a conventional nuke.

They're supposed to be banned, but lets be honest, so are cluster munitions and white phosphorus....

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes no proof, we can dismiss the former head of Israel's military intelligence who said "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring." he also said "unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent."

As I said you would not believe and here we are, having a debate because a source like the BBC is not good enough.
It is like you cannot do your own research, a retired CIA officer said on US TV that the Saudis have nuclear weapons.
You must believe the funding of Pakistan's nuclear program by Saudi Arabia was charity.

We clearly have a different understanding of someones theory and actual proof.

Lads/Ladies, can you try any harder to go off topic to deflect away from what a terrible general election campaign and ridiculous foreign policy statements Trump has put together to date?

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

We clearly have a different understanding of someones theory and actual proof.

Lads/Ladies, can you try any harder to go off topic to deflect away from what a terrible general election campaign and ridiculous foreign policy statements Trump has put together to date?

You brought up nuclear weapons and Saudi Arabia. You believe the Saudis gave billions to the Pakistan nuclear program for no return. You dismiss the people the BBC spoke to who said the Saudis have access to nuclear weapons.
It all makes your Donald Trump's argument about Saudi Arabia and nuclear weapons irrelevant.
You prefer a candidate who as part of the Clinton foundation received $25 million from Saudi Arabia. That is like buying someone given they are a political figure. Is it any wonder she was all for what Saudi wanted when secretary of state.
Saudis wanted Gaddafi removed, she supported air strikes.
Saudis supported Bahrain government as people looked for democracy, well it was silence from Hillary.
Syria was being overrun by terrorists, well the Saudis wanted Assad removed, Hillary wanted to not take on the terrorists but instead bomb Assad.
Hillary Clinton is the Saudi candidate for the US presidency. The Saudi crown prince has claimed they have funded 20% of Hillary's campaign.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

You brought up nuclear weapons and Saudi Arabia.

I brought up a Trump quote about wanting them to have nuclear weapons after you and your otherhalf spent several posts pointing to how her relationship with Saudi is a problem for Clinton

You believe the Saudis gave billions to the Pakistan nuclear program for no return.

Strawman #1 - Never said this

You dismiss the people the BBC spoke to who said the Saudis have access to nuclear weapons.

Strawman #2 - Never dismissed, I just don't see any statements from a few individuals (many with skin in the game) as proof, hence my unsubstantiated comment when I first brought up the possible arrangement with Pakistan

It all makes your Donald Trump's argument about Saudi Arabia and nuclear weapons irrelevant.

It doesn't, having possible access to a nuke in secret while pushing the removal of nuclear arms from the middle east is very different to being forced into having one in public.

You prefer a candidate who as part of the Clinton foundation received $25 million from Saudi Arabia. That is like buying someone given they are a political figure. Is it any wonder she was all for what Saudi wanted when secretary of state.

They gave money to a charity, I'd rather that than a businessman who has financial assets all around the world which he'll look to protect (including assets in Saudi Arabia that he doesnt bring up).

Saudis wanted Gaddafi removed, she supported air strikes.
Saudis supported Bahrain government as people looked for democracy, well it was silence from Hillary.
Syria was being overrun by terrorists, well the Saudis wanted Assad removed, Hillary wanted to not take on the terrorists but instead bomb Assad.
Hillary Clinton is the Saudi candidate for the US presidency. The Saudi crown prince has claimed they have funded 20% of Hillary's campaign.

Tinfoil hat, tinfoil hat, tinfoil hat.

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

I brought up a Trump quote about wanting them to have nuclear weapons after you and your otherhalf spent several posts pointing to how her relationship with Saudi is a problem for Clinton



Strawman #1 - Never said this



Strawman #2 - Never dismissed, I just don't see any statements from a few individuals (many with skin in the game) as proof, hence my unsubstantiated comment when I first brought up the possible arrangement with Pakistan



It doesn't, having possible access to a nuke in secret while pushing the removal of nuclear arms from the middle east is very different to being forced into having one in public.



They gave money to a charity, I'd rather that than a businessman who has financial assets all around the world which he'll look to protect (including assets in Saudi Arabia that he doesnt bring up).



Tinfoil hat, tinfoil hat, tinfoil hat.

The tinfoil hat is on you, you don't do enough research.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

The tinfoil hat is on you, you don't do enough research.

If what you call 'research' is your conspiracy theory, conjecture, and unsubstantiated quotes, then I agree that I don't do enough of your type of 'research'.

No wonder you support Trump, he quotes the national enquirer as a reliable source of information, you'd fit in well together.

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

If what you call 'research' is your conspiracy theory, conjecture, and unsubstantiated quotes, then I agree that I don't do enough of your type of 'research'.

No wonder you support Trump, he quotes the national enquirer as a reliable source of information, you'd fit in well together.

So the BBC is into doing newsnight as a conspiracy theory, with the former head of the Israeli military intelligence saying theyy have them is a conspiracy theory.
When a senior official tells the BBC that Saudi Arabia has access to nuclear weapons it is a conspiracy theory.

I am not a huge fan of Trump, I just dislike Hillary Clinton.
I would have loved Paul Ryan to have run and be the candidate. Hillary Clinton is a warmonger.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

So the BBC is into doing newsnight as a conspiracy theory, with the former head of the Israeli military intelligence saying theyy have them is a conspiracy theory.
When a senior official tells the BBC that Saudi Arabia has access to nuclear weapons it is a conspiracy theory.

I am not a huge fan of Trump, I just dislike Hillary Clinton.
I would have loved Paul Ryan to have run and be the candidate. Hillary Clinton is a warmonger.

No, the BBC article is full of unsubstantiated quotes, none of which even state that Saudi Arabia currently has a nuke (which is what you claimed).

The article even states that the Israelis had a reason to overplay the situation, as they wanted to put pressure on the US to deal with the Iran nuclear threat (which was in Saudi Arabia's interest too).

Do you not understand what proof is?

Take this lawsuit filed against Trump yesterday.

He attended these Epstein parties, was/is friends with Epstein (who pleaded guilty of soliciting a minor along with many other allegations), Trump has repeated instances of objectifying women, there is allegedly a witness on top of the victim's claim. You could say all the pieces fit into a nice little narrative (like yours) but if I said that their unsubstantiated quotes are proof I'd be rightly laughed out of the forum.

A theory with quotes is not proof.

Billy86

Just while we are on the subject of Trump, Clinton, Muslims and money...

http://qz.com/568178/donald-trump-owes-much-of-his-fortune-to-wea/

Foxtrol

Billy86 wrote: »

Just while we are on the subject of Trump, Clinton, Muslims and money...

http://qz.com/568178/donald-trump-owes-much-of-his-fortune-to-wea/

Jeff Sessions, Trump's key adviser and tied bookies favourite to be his VP pick, was speaking about which countries that would be banned due to the Trump terrorist ban and he glaringly left out Saudi Arabia, and other wealthy Muslim nations. Watch Trump now pivot away from damaging his business relationships in that region.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/20/saudi-arabia-trumps-travel-ban-providing-15-19-911-hijackers.html

Hande hoche!

Foxtrol wrote: »

No, the BBC article is full of unsubstantiated quotes, none of which even state that Saudi Arabia currently has a nuke (which is what you claimed).

The article even states that the Israelis had a reason to overplay the situation, as they wanted to put pressure on the US to deal with the Iran nuclear threat (which was in Saudi Arabia's interest too).

Do you not understand what proof is?

Take this lawsuit filed against Trump yesterday.

He attended these Epstein parties, was/is friends with Epstein (who pleaded guilty of soliciting a minor along with many other allegations), Trump has repeated instances of objectifying women, there is allegedly a witness on top of the victim's claim. You could say all the pieces fit into a nice little narrative (like yours) but if I said that their unsubstantiated quotes are proof I'd be rightly laughed out of the forum.

A theory with quotes is not proof.

Same Epstein that Bill Clinton was linked to. Small world...

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

No, the BBC article is full of unsubstantiated quotes, none of which even state that Saudi Arabia currently has a nuke (which is what you claimed).

The article even states that the Israelis had a reason to overplay the situation, as they wanted to put pressure on the US to deal with the Iran nuclear threat (which was in Saudi Arabia's interest too).

Do you not understand what proof is?

Take this lawsuit filed against Trump yesterday.

He attended these Epstein parties, was/is friends with Epstein (who pleaded guilty of soliciting a minor along with many other allegations), Trump has repeated instances of objectifying women, there is allegedly a witness on top of the victim's claim. You could say all the pieces fit into a nice little narrative (like yours) but if I said that their unsubstantiated quotes are proof I'd be rightly laughed out of the forum.

A theory with quotes is not proof.

The article is based on a Newsnight program.

You claimed the BBC are involved in conspiracy theories. You have claimed a former head of military intelligence in Israel who said they access to nuclear weapons as being theory. He gave a definite answer but you know more.
You know more than the NATO people who spoke to the BBC.

What did Saudi get from investing many billion of dollars into the Pakistani nuclear program that gave Pakistan the nuclear bomb?
You dismiss people who are experts with nothing to back up your claims.

Foxtrol

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Same Epstein that Bill Clinton was linked to. Small world...

They seem to have a lot in common but I doubt being president will be one

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/745304333483393024

Hillary took money and did favors for regimes that enslave women and murder gays.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

The article is based on a Newsnight program.

You claimed the BBC are involved in conspiracy theories. You have claimed a former head of military intelligence in Israel who said they access to nuclear weapons as being theory. He gave a definite answer but you know more.
You know more than the NATO people who spoke to the BBC.

What did Saudi get from investing many billion of dollars into the Pakistani nuclear program that gave Pakistan the nuclear bomb?
You dismiss people who are experts with nothing to back up your claims.

Do you ever get tired of strawmen? I never claimed BBC are involved in conspiracy theories, I stated that your research must involve conspiracy theories if it resulted in this post

RobertKK wrote: »

Saudis wanted Gaddafi removed, she supported air strikes.
Saudis supported Bahrain government as people looked for democracy, well it was silence from Hillary.
Syria was being overrun by terrorists, well the Saudis wanted Assad removed, Hillary wanted to not take on the terrorists but instead bomb Assad.
Hillary Clinton is the Saudi candidate for the US presidency. The Saudi crown prince has claimed they have funded 20% of Hillary's campaign.

BBC were in involved in unsubstantiated quoting (unless you want to show where the quotes were substantiated). Again, the article even admits that many of the people quoted could have other motivations for raising this issue at that time (including the Saudis giving out false information).

I'm not dismissing anything, it's a plausible narrative but I'm stating that there is simply no proof. Do you know what else was a very plausible narrative, WMDs in Iraq and we know how that ended up (and they had a lot more likely solid hard evidence than you provided). Note: I'm not responding to any conspiracy theory raised about the Iraq WMDs, one rabbit hole is enough

Once again, the article doesnt even back up your claim that Saudi Arabia currently has nuclear weapons, it only states that they have an agreement to.