2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

walshyn93

alastair wrote: »

Indeed, but one you introduced, and not anything I claimed.

You said the parties hadn't changed, only the GOP. This would imply that other parties have stayed the same. Are you walking this back now?

walshyn93

rossie1977 wrote: »

Sanders got more people to his rallies than either trump or clinton and Clinton still ended up beating him by more than 3 million votes in the primaries. I see those comparison pics on twitter all the time but fact is most of these rallies are in small venues



Not just jail..the death penalty!

The fact that in 2016 in the usa, supporters of one candidate are calling for the imprisonment of their political opponents tells you everything you need to know.

Sanders lost because he didn't have name recognition and people weren't sure he would beat Trump.

walshyn93

Clinton once again having a go at Trumps supporters, i.e. half the country.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=544677445737437&id=424741777731005

I'm curious to know if Trump has ever had a go at your average Clinton supporter, not her donors or operatives.

alastair

walshyn93 wrote: »

Clinton once again having a go at Trumps supporters, i.e. half the country.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=544677445737437&id=424741777731005

I'm curious to know if Trump has ever had a go at your average Clinton supporter, not her donors or operatives.

Not to worry - Trump has previously identified the Hillary base, and given us a clear description:

"Her supporters have very little enthusiasm. The only people enthusiastic about her campaign are Hollywood celebrities — in many cases celebrities that aren’t very hot anymore — and Wall Street donors, special interests, lobbyists, etcetera that want to control government, not to the benefit of our country, but to the benefit of their wallet.”

walshyn93

What's with the poorly written code in podestas emails? There's no way this is not describing something illicit.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30613

Miss you Herb. Happy Holidays and see you in 2016.

On Thursday, December 24, 2015, Sandler, Herbert <hms@sandlerfoundation.org>
wrote:

> Mary and John
>
> I think you should give notice when changing strategies which have been
> long in place. I immediately realized something was different by the shape
> of the box and I contemplated who would be sending me something in the
> square shaped box. Lo and behold, instead of pasta and wonderful sauces, it
> was a lovely, tempting assortment of cheeses, Yummy. I am awaiting the
> return of my children and grandchildren from their holiday travels so that
> we can demolish them.
>
> Thank you so much. I hope you and your gang are well.
>
> I miss you both
>
> Best wishes fro a merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> Ps. Do you think I’ll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pasta?

walshyn93

alastair wrote: »

Not to worry - Trump has previously identified the Hillary base, and given us a clear description:

Yeah so has he attacked average Joe's who are supporting her or just the celebrities and special interests?

Blatter

I suppose the key to this election and Trump's chances is if he can get more working class white male voters to turn out in bigger number than they usually do. If he gets any sort of a sizable increase he can win.

Not easy to predict at all. This election has been so weird and 'out there' that it could spark an unusually high turnout. Or maybe it will be a similar turnout to previous elections!

Christy42

walshyn93 wrote: »

Clinton once again having a go at Trumps supporters, i.e. half the country.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=544677445737437&id=424741777731005

I'm curious to know if Trump has ever had a go at your average Clinton supporter, not her donors or operatives.

Trump has insulted women (more than 50% of the population), muslims, veterans, Mexican's and men (by saying all men talk like that )

He has literally insulted everyone in the world.

alastair

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yeah so has he attacked average Joe's who are supporting her or just the celebrities and special interests?

Seemingly Hillary doesn't have any 'ordinary Joe' supporters - just celebs who aren't hot any more.

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump has insulted women (more than 50% of the population), muslims, veterans, Mexican's and men (by saying all men talk like that )

He has literally insulted everyone in the world.

Only in SJW land where an attack on one is an attack on all.

Christy42

walshyn93 wrote: »

Only in SJW land where an attack on one is an attack on all.

If you insult a woman for being a woman then logic dictates that this insult could be applied to all women. Therefore you are insulting them.

Equally insulting someone for being a Trump supporter insults all Trump supporters.

Omy

Christy42 wrote: »

If you insult a woman for being a woman then logic dictates that this insult could be applied to all women. Therefore you are insulting them.

Equally insulting someone for being a Trump supporter insults all Trump supporters.

So if I say the KKK endorsement of trump is the support of racist evil and dangerous people, I therefore insult all Trump surporters? Interesting logic!

Christy42

Omy wrote: »

So if I say the KKK endorsement of trump is the support of racist evil and dangerous people, I therefore insult all Trump surporters? Interesting logic!

No. You have twisted my logic beyond belief. If you say the KKK are evil because they support Trump then yes you are calling all Trump support evil.

If you call the KKK evil because they are racists (which is what you do in your example) then you insult the KKK and other racists and not other Trump supporters.

If you insult someone for having a trait then you can expect anyone who shares that trait to take offense. Whether you care about this is another thing, for instance I will happily insult someone for being a racist and not really care that other racists might take offense (as I would repeat the insult to them as well).

If you insult a women saying she can't have proper judgement if she is on her period like Trump did then surely the same logic applies to any woman on her period.

BoJack Horseman

A former head of the UK armed forces echoing some boardsie sentiment that Clinton's Russia war push should be avoided:

“Unless she’s prepared to do this properly and go to war with Russia, she shouldn’t talk about no-fly zones and nor should we. We would have to shoot down Russian aircraft in order to impose it. Do we really want to go to a shooting war over Aleppo?

“We want the humanitarian horror of Aleppo to come to a rapid halt. The best and quickest way of doing that is to encourage the opposition groups to leave.

“The alternative is for the West to declare a no-fly zone and that means you’ve got to be prepared to go to war with Russia ultimately.

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

If you insult a woman for being a woman then logic dictates that this insult could be applied to all women. Therefore you are insulting them.

Equally insulting someone for being a Trump supporter insults all Trump supporters.

When's the last time someone was insulted purely because they're a woman?

Are you sure it has nothing to do with the woman herself?

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

If you insult a women saying she can't have proper judgement if she is on her period like Trump did then surely the same logic applies to any woman on her period.

When did anyone say that? Are you sure you're not taking liberties with your interpretation?

If you're talking about Megyn Kelly. How was that a question of judgement? Are you just making things up as you go along based on half remembered soundbites?

20Cent

walshyn93 wrote: »

Clinton once again having a go at Trumps supporters, i.e. half the country.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=544677445737437&id=424741777731005

I'm curious to know if Trump has ever had a go at your average Clinton supporter, not her donors or operatives.

I saw the full part of that clip. Clinton had someone screaming abuse at her from the crowd. That bit was cut from the clip. It is edited to in order to make Clinton sound deranged, cropped to take away the context. Whoever edited it thinks his/her audience is digitally illiterate or just dumb. He/she is right.

walshyn93

20Cent wrote: »

I saw the full part of that clip. Clinton had someone screaming abuse at her from the crowd. That bit was cut from the clip. It is edited to in order to make Clinton sound deranged, cropped to take away the context. Whoever edited it thinks his/her audience is digitally illiterate or just dumb. He/she is right.

How is that an excuse to go on a tirade about Trump supporters as a whole?

How does digital literacy come into this? I tried asking my minder who I dictate these posts to and she has no idea what you're on about either.

Why don't you post the full clip since I'm so digitally illiterate and need you to find it, and we'll see if the context makes it any better, smartypants.

alastair

walshyn93 wrote: »

How is that an excuse to go on a tirade about Trump supporters as a whole?

"As a whole"?

Perhaps you can post up the bit where she specifies that this description applies to every Trump supporter? Because I must have missed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W9oxStBtHE

Christy42

walshyn93 wrote: »

When's the last time someone was insulted purely because they're a woman?

Are you sure it has nothing to do with the woman herself?

He didn't say anything to do with the woman specifically. He said it was because of her period. How else am I meant to interpret that?

walshyn93

alastair wrote: »

"As a whole"?

Perhaps you can post up the bit where she specifies that this description applies to every Trump supporter? Because I must have missed it.

"People who support Donald Trump"

alastair

walshyn93 wrote: »

"People who support Donald Trump"

And? Anything that suggests that's a universal description?

walshyn93

alastair wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W9oxStBtHE

Where is the "abuse" that was shouted?

When someone does that at a Trump rally he says "get em out." She goes on a rant about Trump supporters and their dark divisive beliefs.

alastair

walshyn93 wrote: »

Where is the "abuse" that was shouted?

When someone does that at a Trump rally he says "get em out." She goes on a rant about Trump supporters and their dark divisive beliefs.

"Bill Clinton is a rapist". Sounds pretty abusive to me.

Helpfully this info is typed out in a big panel in the video. Not too sure how you managed to miss both hearing and reading said abusive heckler.

walshyn93

alastair wrote: »

And? Anything that suggests that's a universal description?

She attacks not just their behaviour which is confined to people who act out but she also condemns their "vision" which is a clear attack on anyone who supports Trumps vision for America.

She's sick and tired of people thinking a certain way.

And this tirade was unprovoked and unhinged. Someone saying Bills a rapist is not a segue into muh dark vision.

walshyn93

alastair wrote: »

"Bill Clinton is a rapist". Sounds pretty abusive to me.

Helpfully this info is typed out in a big panel in the video. Not too sure how you managed to miss both hearing and reading said abusive heckler.

That's not what I would consider shouting abuse.

Unless you're prepared to accept that hecklers at Trump rallies are also abusive.

alastair

walshyn93 wrote: »

She attacks not just their behaviour which is confined to people who act out but she also condemns their "vision" which is a clear attack on anyone who supports Trumps vision for America.

You do realise that this makes not one iota of sense?

walshyn93

alastair wrote: »

You do realise that this makes not one iota of sense?

alastair

walshyn93 wrote: »

That's not what I would consider shouting abuse.

Best of luck with that. It is, however, an abusive heckle.

20Cent

walshyn93 wrote: »

How is that an excuse to go on a tirade about Trump supporters as a whole?

How does digital literacy come into this? I tried asking my minder who I dictate these posts to and she has no idea what you're on about either.

Why don't you post the full clip since I'm so digitally illiterate and need you to find it, and we'll see if the context makes it any better, smartypants.

She doesn't go on about Trump supporters as a whole.

In future if you see a video that is cropped strangely, slowed down/speeded up, starts in the middle of something or that doesn't provide any context. Be sure that someone somewhere is sitting back looking at their vid go viral laughing at all the people sharing it.

ancapailldorcha

Walshyn93 banned for one week.

Hank Scorpio

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928

Democrats prepared fake grope under the meeting craigslist ad.

Missed this one when it came out, more conniving attempts on Trump.

20Cent

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928

Democrats prepared fake grope under the meeting craigslist ad.

Missed this one when it came out, more conniving attempts on Trump.

You can tell thats a joke right?

Hank Scorpio

20Cent wrote: »

You can tell thats a joke right?

The end part of the email chain yes, the rest not. Wikileaks posted it after all.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The end part of the email chain yes, the rest not. Wikileaks posted it after all.

The entire thing is a joke. The only non joke element of the email is the signing off on the joke. I'm not sure what you're suggesting is serious? It's not a joke because Wikileaks posted it?

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

The entire thing is a joke. The only non joke element of the email is the signing off on the joke. I'm not sure what you're suggesting is serious? It's not a joke because Wikileaks posted it?

There's already been leaks of the democrats plotting to create violence and disturbances at Trump rallies, sorry not going down that road.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There's already been leaks of the democrats plotting to create violence and disturbances at Trump rallies, sorry not going down that road.

No there has not. And you're still not explaining why this whole thing is not a joke. It's patently obvious it's a joke.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

No there has not. And you're still not explaining why this whole thing is not a joke. It's patently obvious it's a joke.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/25/trump-campaign-video-shows-clinton-coordinated-with-liberal-group-to-incite-crowds.html

?

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/25/trump-campaign-video-shows-clinton-coordinated-with-liberal-group-to-incite-crowds.html

?

Does it really need to be pointed out that this doesn't actually support your claim? An allegation from the Trump camp isn't any sort of evidence of the Democrats plotting to provoke violence.

Still not prepared to clarify where the obvious joke, is not actually a joke?

Hank Scorpio

I guess we just see things differently.

Polo_Mint

Why dont the Republicans run both Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as P and VP nominees in elections?

aloyisious

Has anyone a link to show where a Republican Party elected front or middle ranker of any substance has been at a Trump rally to support him in the past two weeks? I'm looking at Bernie standing up for Hillary at her NC rally yesterday, and he was her major in-party opponent for office.

Edit: I know that by now, Don is standing almost as a populist "Mr Smith goes to Washington" person going to clean up the set there, as they've (all parties) betrayed the public and that can't make any of them happy as he's casting a giant shadow on them, so to speak.

Timberrrrrrrr

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There's already been leaks of the democrats plotting to create violence and disturbances at Trump rallies, sorry not going down that road.

Not something the Reps would partake in of course

BorneTobyWilde

aloyisious wrote: »

Has anyone a link to show where a Republican Party elected front or middle ranker of any substance has been at a Trump rally to support him in the past two weeks? I'm looking at Bernie standing up for Hillary at her NC rally yesterday, and he was her major in-party opponent for office.

Edit: I know that by now, Don is standing almost as a populist "Mr Smith goes to Washington" person going to clean up the set there, as they've (all parties) betrayed the public and that can't make any of them happy as he's casting a giant shadow on them, so to speak.

Ted Cruz voted for and rallied for Trump this week.

nc6000

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Ted Cruz voted for and rallied for Trump this week.

Without once mentioning Trump's name.

BorneTobyWilde

nc6000 wrote: »

Without once mentioning Trump's name.

Kinda funny to be voting for him, going to rallies for him and for you to think he is not endorsing him.
See I never mentioned his name either. No big deal.

lee_baby_simms

I think when you have both the FBI and Wikileaks doing everything possible to get Trump elected then you have to accept that its looking like death by a thousand cuts for Hilary.

With so many undecided voters looking to be pushed either way its very easy for the FBI and Wikileaks to come in and muddy the waters sufficiently to swing it in Trumps favour.

Last Fridays announcement being a prime example. No actual proof of wrong doing on Clintons part was required in order to deliver huge damage.

Dohnjoe

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There's already been leaks of the democrats plotting to create violence and disturbances at Trump rallies, sorry not going down that road.

You do understand this is not true

Likewise, if Trump wins (and he might), suddenly all the "rigged voting" conspiracies will disappear into thin air - why? because they aren't true

His supporters will also instantly forget and forgive all these theories - and he knows that. It's a win-win for him, so why shouldn't he use these tactics if he can get away with it.

It's pretty grim viewing for everyone who can see through all of this though.

alastair

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's the usual bottom of the barrel stuff. Assange lost any shred of objectivity a long time ago, the man is on a mission to do as much damage to the US political establishment as he can.

Assange a few weeks ago: "I will not reveal the exact date but I can promise you this, I will bring Hillary down before the debate stage on September 26th."

Assange now: “My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

Who exactly did Assange think was going to beat Trump, if not Hillary? Gary Johnson?

TheDoctor

Assange is so full of **** its embarrassing to listen to at this stage.

Hopefully he will just disappear again next Wed.