Donald Trump

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

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



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.

Israel denies it has nuclear weapons.

Everyone who says they have nuclear weapons are wearing tinfoil hats right?

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

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

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

'Self-Funding' - Trump's term for taking donor money and lining his own pockets.

In May, 1 out of every 6 dollars Trump's campaign paid out was to Trump, his family, or his business interests.

Nice of him to make himself a decent profit out of the idiots that donated to his campaign.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-campaign-spent-dollars-businesses/story?id=40021286

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

'Self-Funding' - Trump's term for taking donor money and lining his own pockets.

In May, 1 out of every 6 dollars Trump's campaign paid out was to Trump, his family, or his business interests.

Nice of him to make himself a decent profit out of the idiots that donated to his campaign.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-campaign-spent-dollars-businesses/story?id=40021286

As the crown Prince of Saudi Arabia claimed they are paying 20% of Hillary's campaign.
The claim by the crown prince was screen grabbed before it was deleted, as he was probably made aware that foreign funding of a political campaign
in the US is illegal.
Imagine the idiots donating to the Saudi campaign for Hillary.

Personally I would never donate to a political campaign.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

Israel denies it has nuclear weapons.

Everyone who says they have nuclear weapons are wearing tinfoil hats right?

If you're going to throw a red herring in at least get their stance right, they neither confirm nor deny having nuclear weapons.

There is plenty of evidence that they do, including evidence of testing, scientists, kidnapping, released government documents (note: not quotes from unnamed sources) and many questionable issues with their nuclear plants.

What you have are quotes and money given from Saudi to Pakistan, which, one more time, dont even state what you claimed.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

As the crown Prince of Saudi Arabia claimed they are paying 20% of Hillary's campaign.
The claim by the crown prince was screen grabbed before it was deleted, as he was probably made aware that foreign funding of a political campaign
in the US is illegal.
Imagine the idiots donating to the Saudi campaign for Hillary.

Personally I would never donate to a political campaign.

Oh, they screen grabbed... there's your smoking gun.

Is 1/6th of that going into Clinton's pocket too?

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you're going to throw a red herring in at least get their stance right, they neither confirm nor deny having nuclear weapons.

There is plenty of evidence that they do, including evidence of testing, scientists, kidnapping, released government documents (note: not quotes from unnamed sources) and many questionable issues with their nuclear plants.

What you have are quotes and money given from Saudi to Pakistan, which, one more time, dont even state what you claimed.

That is the argument you are making. Israel has no nuclear weapons. Experts say they have nuclear weapons - you dismiss experts, and Israel has not confirmed they have nuclear weapons.
You can replace Israel with Saudi Arabia and that is your argument, even though it was aid on Saudi TV that they do have nuclear weapons...

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

Oh, they screen grabbed... there's your smoking gun.

Is 1/6th of that going into Clinton's pocket too?

Hillary Clinton's campaign refused to respond when asked to reply to what the Saudi crown prince had posted.
She has not held a press conference in over 7 months now.

They already got $25 million into the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea foundation from Saudi Arabia.
A foundation that is being questioned. It is accused of being used to get access to power and influence with the Clintons.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/02/economist-explains-4
http://theweek.com/articles/562566/clintons-controversial-foundation

the Clintons leveraged Hillary's government position — and possible future presidency — to coax donors into making huge contributions to the foundation. At the same time, Bill has personally received at least $26 million in speaking fees from donors to the foundation. "They created an apparatus that allowed them to get around prohibitions on foreign entities influencing our political process," Schweizer says. Meanwhile, people and governments who donated to the foundation often saw good things happen to their own interests. Such as?
In 2005, for example, Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra joined Bill Clinton on a trip to Kazakhstan. There, Giustra and Clinton dined with the country's dictatorial president, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Within days, Giustra acquired uranium interests in Kazakhstan that he later turned into a financial bonanza. The next year, he donated $31 million to the foundation. Eventually, Giustra sold off his uranium company to Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom. The sale included some American uranium mines, which meant Hillary Clinton, by then secretary of state, was one of the people who had to sign off on the deal.
What about foreign governments?
The Clinton Foundation boasts a lengthy list of foreign donors. Under an ethics agreement Hillary Clinton made with the Obama administration, that cash flow was allowed to continue while she served as secretary of state, as long as donations were properly reported — a condition that was not met. One gift not reported was a $500,000 donation from Algeria. Shortly thereafter, the Algerians won a 70 percent boost in military export authorizations for items including chemical and biological agents.
Did other countries get similar boosts?
Yes. Overall, Hillary Clinton oversaw the approval of $316 billion in arms sales to 20 donor countries — a more than 100 percent increase in sales to those nations over the levels they received during the Bush years.

Donate to the Clintons get favours done for you, and some speaking events for Bill from same donors and millions to the Clintons...

The Clintons leave the Trumps in the halpenny place when it comes to taking money. Have money and you can buy the Clintons.

SEPT 23 1989

How can some people be so naive when it comes to Clinton 2

This person and her backers will drag us into some very dark places once the honeymoon after the election is over

Can't wait for the excuses

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

That is the argument you are making. Israel has no nuclear weapons. Experts say they have nuclear weapons - you dismiss experts, and Israel has not confirmed they have nuclear weapons.
You can replace Israel with Saudi Arabia and that is your argument, even though it was aid on Saudi TV that they do have nuclear weapons...

Ok, I'll leave it after this, unless you want to talk about the actual topic of the thread (given how often you try to turn the thread into conspiracy theories, it's clearly not a topic you can stand over).

There's a key difference:

For Israel there the views of experts, including many high profile figures throughout the world, and also other evidence that points to them having nuclear weapons, weapons testing, scientists (their own and kidnapping), Israeli spy infiltration, released government documents, pictures and details released by former scientists, independent research institutes claiming they do (eg Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), many questionable issues with their nuclear plants.

For Saudi Arabia there are views of experts, mostly unnamed sources and people they admit could have other motives, and that Saudi Arabia have funded the Pakistani defense/nuclear budget.

If you can't see the difference in the amount of evidence then good luck to you.

And one final time, that article doesnt even support what you claimed:

RobertKK wrote: »

They already have nuclear weapons.

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Nowhere in that single article, that you refer to more than a priest does a bible, does it claim they have nuclear weapons.

InTheTrees

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How can some people be so naive when it comes to Clinton 2

This person and her backers will drag us into some very dark places once the honeymoon after the election is over

Can't wait for the excuses

Because its been going on for over twenty years.

Endless republican rumours. Endless unsubstantiated stories.

They've hated Hillary since Bill put her in charge of healthcare reform in the early 90's. And they loathe Bill for surviving their completely unwarranted impeachment witch hunt. And for being one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century.

Can you try and describe what you think she will do?

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary Clinton's campaign refused to respond when asked to reply to what the Saudi crown prince had posted.
She has not held a press conference in over 7 months now.

They already got $25 million into the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea foundation from Saudi Arabia.
A foundation that is being questioned. It is accused of being used to get access to power and influence with the Clintons.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/02/economist-explains-4
http://theweek.com/articles/562566/clintons-controversial-foundation

Donate to the Clintons get favours done for you, and some speaking events for Bill from same donors and millions to the Clintons...

The Clintons leave the Trumps in the halpenny place when it comes to taking money. Have money and you can buy the Clintons.

Donate to a charity and get favours for you, donate to Trump's campaign and he pockets it himself.

Neither are ideal but I'd choose the former than try to prop up a 'billionaire' that is afraid to release his tax returns for fear of what we'll find out about his shell game of a business.

Billy86

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How can some people be so naive when it comes to Clinton 2

This person and her backers will drag us into some very dark places once the honeymoon after the election is over

Can't wait for the excuses

Yeah, 1993-1999 was a pretty horrible time in this world. Now let us never think of that dark, dark time in humanity's existence ever again.

InTheTrees

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.

You can look at any one of those states and see a complete lack of organisation. He doesnt have the cash or more importantly infrastructure in place to compete.

Not only that but he's expected to fund raise for the republican party as well and he's not doing that which means house and senate races are being under funded. That's not endearing him to the people who's support he needs.

Fascinating stuff. Historic too. This election will certainly be studied and written about for a long time.

InTheTrees

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How can some people be so naive when it comes to Clinton 2

This person and her backers will drag us into some very dark places once the honeymoon after the election is over

Can't wait for the excuses

Refunding Planned Parenthood would be such a dark thing would it? Protecting womens access to healthcare in those backward red states would be bad would it?

Talking about gun control would be a dark thing? You dont like campaign finance reform either?

Renegade Mechanic

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, 1993-1999 was a pretty horrible time in this world. Now let us never think of that dark, dark time in humanity's existence ever again.

*cough*Yugoslavia*cough*....

Renegade Mechanic

InTheTrees wrote: »

Refunding Planned Parenthood would be such a dark thing would it? Protecting womens access to healthcare in those backward red states would be bad would it?

Talking about gun control would be a dark thing? You dont like campaign finance reform either?

I don't get it... I really don't. Ye reckon Trump is appealing to "unintelligent retards", yet Hillary is "for the people". Ye genuinely believe she cares about women... She's a woman. She's got a huge advantage in scoring the women's vote - particularly with Trumps unpalatable comments on some women - but ye think she actually cares. Like genuinely..

Billy86

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

*cough*Yugoslavia*cough*....

Yeah, that Bill Clinton really shouldn't have gone around murdering all those Muslims.

Using that standard, name me a good US president. Ever.

InTheTrees

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ye genuinely believe she cares about women...

Yes?

For instance; She will appoint a liberal judge to fill (conservative) justice scalias seat on the supreme court.

That will finally end the challenges to Roe Vs Wade. It will also change the courts position on campaign finance and gun control.

Save

Renegade Mechanic

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, that Bill Clinton really shouldn't have gone around murdering all those Muslims.

Using that standard, name me a good US president. Ever.

There were a handful, before the "Federal Reserve" got their roots fully down..
Only one since then, and when he decided to move the right to issue currency from the Federal Reserve ((which is neither private, as Obama himself does not have authority, nor is it a reserve, printing money as it does out of thin air, then simply loaning it to governments at interest)) to the United States Treasury Department, his wife got a much clearer view of what was going on in his head during a parade...

In short, you are not going to get a truly good leader now. But I can't ignore the fact that most of these people openly dislike Trump, have refused to back him moreso than he's refused their money during the primaries and have backed Hillary instead.

Come on, you think billionaire bankers dislike Trump because he said mean things about the people they'll be repossessing houses and cars from? :rolleyes:

RobertKK

InTheTrees wrote: »

You can look at any one of those states and see a complete lack of organisation. He doesnt have the cash or more importantly infrastructure in place to compete.

Not only that but he's expected to fund raise for the republican party as well and he's not doing that which means house and senate races are being under funded. That's not endearing him to the people who's support he needs.

Fascinating stuff. Historic too. This election will certainly be studied and written about for a long time.

Shows how bad Hillary is doing that he is tied or leading in most of those states.

Outlaw Pete

God I can't stand Hillary Clinton.

Anyone ever see that clip of her on the radio show hosted by black people and they ask her what she always carries with her and she replies "Hot sauce".

She's fcuking shameless.

RobertKK

Latest CNN polls

On the economy
Trump 51%
Clinton 43%

On gun policy
Trump 50%
Clinton 43%

On terrorism
Trump 48%
Clinton 45%

On immigration
Trump 45%
Clinton 50%

On foreign policy
Trump 36%
Clinton 57%

On the supreme court
Trump 39%
Clinton 53%

On women's rights
Trump 23%
Clinton 70%

Most honest and trustworthy
Trump 45%
Clinton 37%

Who do you think is going to win
Trump 38%
Clinton 55%

Renegade Mechanic

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes?

For instance; She will appoint a liberal judge to fill (conservative) justice scalias seat on the supreme court.

That will finally end the challenges to Roe Vs Wade. It will also change the courts position on campaign finance and gun control.

Save

She will appoint a few liberal judges.
A liberal judge. That is honestly something I dread more than WW3. At least WW3 is still somewhat unlikely.
But a liberal judge is just guaranteed to jail you for "being offensive"...

It genuinely amazes me that you actually want the kind of judges Hillary would appoint. Actually I think it dissolves any real point in arguing.

Campaign finance.. Jesus Christ lads just look up at how her campaign has been financed. Look up where her money has come from. She is quite literally one of the faces of the system that throws you out of your house, sells it to a freind of theirs for **** all and drags you through the courts for the remainder, killing your ability to rent more decent accommodation.
Change campaign finance...

As for her opinion on women.
You should probably look into her time as a lawyer, then her time as Bill Clintons first lady.

Foxtrol

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

In short, you are not going to get a truly good leader now. But I can't ignore the fact that most of these people openly dislike Trump, have refused to back him moreso than he's refused their money during the primaries and have backed Hillary instead.

Come on, you think billionaire bankers dislike Trump because he said mean things about the people they'll be repossessing houses and cars from? :rolleyes:

They don't want to support him because he has massive negatives, 7 out of 10 voters, and that he's an absolute liability with them having no idea what his next ridiculous statement is going to be. His comments are so bad that companies are now distancing themselves from the republican party, Apple, HP, Microsoft all refusing to continue their sponsorship of the convention.

That and the fact he is putting donors money straight into his own wallet.

If Trump Steaks were still around I'd say it would be the only food the campaign would be allowed to eat.

InTheTrees

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

She will appoint a few liberal judges.
A liberal judge. That is honestly something I dread more than WW3. At least WW3 is still somewhat unlikely.
But a liberal judge is just guaranteed to jail you for "being offensive"...

Umm. Sure, whatever. Well its going to happen if she gets elected.

Not only that but Justice Thomas has hinted he may retire too and he's a conservative judge so being replaced by a liberal would mean a 6/3 split.

It would be decades before the ring wingers could hope for a majority again.

meepins

RobertKK wrote: »

Clinton's radical policies include wanting to bomb Syrian president Assad, which Obama has said he is proud he didn't do.
Clinton as the secretary of state basically did the bidding of Saudi Arabia in the middle east

You misspelled Israel there.

InTheTrees

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

S
As for her opinion on women.
You should probably look into her time as a lawyer, then her time as Bill Clintons first lady.

Uh huh. Thanks but I can look at the state of Texas that has one clinic left capable of performing abortions.

Renegade Mechanic

meepins wrote: »

You misspelled Israel there.

http://www.relatably.com/m/img/why-not-both-meme-gif/82733-why-not-both-meme-5LvD.jpeg

Its dead Jim

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

She will appoint a few liberal judges.
A liberal judge. That is honestly something I dread more than WW3. At least WW3 is still somewhat unlikely.
But a liberal judge is just guaranteed to jail you for "being offensive"...

It genuinely amazes me that you actually want the kind of judges Hillary would appoint. Actually I think it dissolves any real point in arguing.

Campaign finance.. Jesus Christ lads just look up at how her campaign has been financed. Look up where her money has come from. She is quite literally one of the faces of the system that throws you out of your house, sells it to a freind of theirs for **** all and drags you through the courts for the remainder, killing your ability to rent more decent accommodation.
Change campaign finance...

As for her opinion on women.
You should probably look into her time as a lawyer, then her time as Bill Clintons first lady.

While with Trumps judges a person will get sent to jail for being gay.

Renegade Mechanic

InTheTrees wrote: »

Umm. Sure, whatever. Well its going to happen if she gets elected.

Not only that but Justice Thomas has hinted he may retire too and he's a conservative judge so being replaced by a liberal would mean a 6/3 split.

It would be decades before the ring wingers could hope for a majority again.

A world hardly worth living in, tbh. You just don't see that yet.