2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

Hang on, didn't CLinton raise multiple of what Trump did? So your theory is therefore that she would owe many more favours if she'd gotten in? To, for example, Saudi decapitation fetishists etc?

I don't see emails from Clinton's campaign and family asking foreign politicians to illegally donate to her campaign, nor have I seen video of Clinton's campaign team telling foreign powers they will be able to "whisper in her ear" if they donate. Have you? I mean we have access to just about every email she has ever sent, after all.

And I don't know how to tell you this but the election is over. It was nearly 3 weeks ago. Trump won. Meaning he is going to be president as of January. "BUT BUT BUT... BUT HILLARY!" isn't relevant as an excuse anymore. So what's your take on the fact that his campaign illegally solicited donations and whored themselves out for months on end from foreign politicians and the likes in exchange for access and favours during his time in office? Surely you agree that it's definitely not in America's best interests to have the president illegally indebted to foreign politicians, giving them access to whisper demands in his ear?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't see emails from Clinton's campaign and family asking foreign politicians to illegally donate to her campaign, nor have I seen video of Clinton's campaign team telling foreign powers they will be able to "whisper in her ear" if they donate. Have you? I mean we have access to just about every email she has ever sent, after all.

Do we? Show us them.
And hard luck but I never said Trump was great. It'd suit your agenda but you can embarrass yourself trying to find where I said so if you like. Knock yourself out. Still better than Clinton but yet another metric that you can't even begin to refute.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

Do we? Show us them.

If the hackers that got access to all of her emails found something, they would have released it. But they didn't because they didn't. As mentioned, she is irrelevant to Trump's presidency, so back to the matter at hand.

Why are you deflecting away from answering how you feel about Trump's campaign and family offering to whore themselves out and allow foreign powers and politicians access to "whisper in his ear" in exchange for illegal donations, repeatedly over the course of months?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

If the hackers that got access to all of her emails found something, they would have released it.

You just told me we could see all her e-mails. Now you've changed your story to something would have happened if something something.
So basically we can't see the e-mails as you had originally told us? Right.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

You just told me we could see all her e-mails. Now you've changed your story to something would have happened if something something.
So basically we can't see the e-mails as you had originally told us? Right.

Nope, from the start I was talking about Trump's campaign whoring themselves out to foreign politicians and powers, exchanging illegal donations for the access to "whisper in the President's ear". Your eagerness to make this about Clinton doesn't change that one bit and is entirely irrelevant since she lost the election. But it does say an awful lot about your inability to defend the sheer dodginess of Trump's campaign and the fact that he was willing to sell out US decision making before even getting into office.

I'll ask again though, what are your thoughts on Trump's campaign and family whoring themselves to foreign politicians illegally in exchange for holding sway in the White House?

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

Do we? Show us them.

Do you need to be shown them? Didnt wikileaks ( and several agregator sites that sprung up around them) publish them in excruciating detail?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

I'll ask again though, what are your thoughts on Trump's campaign and family whoring themselves to foreign politicians illegally in exchange for holding sway in the White House?

My thoughts are it's better than the Clintons whoring themselves out to multiples of the same value to Wahhabi headchopper cultists. In a heartbeat.
Why, do you prefer more corruption to less yourself?

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

My thoughts are it's better than the Clintons whoring themselves out to multiples of the same value to Wahhabi headchopper cultists. In a heartbeat.
Why, do you prefer more corruption to less yourself?

Ah see, completely and utterly unable to answer without bringing up Clinton. Despite the election being finished nearly three weeks ago and thus the other candidate irrelevant. Otherwise we can almost whitewash every problem about every president ever by pointing to someone else who ran for their party's candidacy, or as a third party/independent. I'm guessing you already knew that, but yet still seem eager to not discuss Trump's dodginess by any means necessary.

And by the way, Trump is indebted to the Saudi's, before even mentioning the fact that he set up 8 different businesses there during the campaign trail, though hardly surprising from a man who has been bailed out more than once by the House of Saud and Saudi princes - or as you prefer to call them, "Wahhabi headchopper cultists" - in the past and has gone on record saying the US "has to protect" the Saudi kingdom. What are your thoughts on that?

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Do you need to be shown them?

So you tell me these e-mails prove something. I ask to see them. You say we can't see them.
Well that's sooo convincing isn't it?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

Ah see, completely and utterly unable to answer without bringing up Clinton.

Did you at any stage notice that there was a man called "Trump" and a woman called "Clinton" running in the 2016 US Presidential elections? The choice was between the two of them. Who said I thought Trump was great? Did you have fun looking for anywhere I said he was great? Aw, you didn't.
Maybe he did take donations from X, Y and Z. From Russia. So? This is better than the alternative, an oil spiv terrorist cultist lover.

And before you start, this is a thread about the election (had you noticed?), not Trump himself, so comparisons are 100% valid.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

Did you at any stage notice that there was a man called "Trump" and a woman called "Clinton" running in the 2016 US Presidential elections? The choice was between the two of them. Who said I thought Trump was great? Did you have fun looking for anywhere I said he was great? Aw, you didn't.
Maybe he did take donations from X, Y and Z. From Russia. So? This is better than the alternative, an oil spiv terrorist cultist lover.

And before you start, this is a thread about the election (had you noticed?), not Trump himself, so comparisons are 100% valid.

An election that happened almost three weeks ago, with Trump winning. Hence he is relevant, Clinton is not. You'll need to come up with a new deflection tactic. And like I said, using your logic you can whitewash just about every criticism of every president ever by pointing to someone else who ran for president during the same cycle as them. But that's not how it works - the winner gets to be President, and the losers become irrelevant.

I never said you thought Trump was great, did I? I said you seem utterly incapable of looking at Trump's multiple very dodgy dealings, and instead are just happy to whitewash them because "BUT HILLARY!" - which is no longer relevant with the election long over and Trump being the next US President.


Funny, you conveniently ignored this so I'll ask again...

And by the way, Trump is indebted to the Saudi's, before even mentioning the fact that he set up 8 different businesses there during the campaign trail, though hardly surprising from a man who has been bailed out more than once by the House of Saud and Saudi princes - or as you prefer to call them, "Wahhabi headchopper cultists" - in the past and has gone on record saying the US "has to protect" the Saudi kingdom. What are your thoughts on that?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

An election that happened almost three weeks ago, with Trump winning. Hence he is relevant, Clinton is not. You'll need to come up with a new deflection tactic.

Look, we can all see the title of this thread. If you think it's called "Donald Trump" or "President Trump" then you need a new laptop or new glasses. Alternatively you can start a new thread on the topic you are imagining is under discussion here if it's more suitable for your bizarre agenda.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

Look, we can all see the title of this thread. If you think it's called "Donald Trump" or "President Trump" then you need a new laptop or new glasses. Alternatively you can start a new thread on the topic you are imagining is under discussion here if it's more suitable for your bizarre agenda.

There you go again, doing all you can to avoid answering the question. Kind of... interesting.

Trump is indebted to the Saudi's, before even mentioning the fact that he set up 8 different businesses there during the campaign trail, though hardly surprising from a man who has been bailed out more than once by the House of Saud and Saudi princes - or as you prefer to call them, "Wahhabi headchopper cultists" - in the past and has gone on record saying the US "has to protect" the Saudi kingdom. What are your thoughts on that?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

There you go again, doing all you can to avoid answering the question. Kind of... interesting.

You find it "interesting" that I'm discussing the topic of this thread which you have repeatedly steadfastly refused to do? So do I TBH.
So, did you find yourself a thread about Donald Trump more suitable for your soapboxing?

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

So you tell me these e-mails prove something.

No. I did not. I merely pointed to their existence.

I ask to see them. You say we can't see them.

No. I said no such thing. You can of course see them. Google "Podesta emails wikileaks"

Well that's sooo convincing isn't it?

Its convincing me that you are willing to derail a thread at the slightest opportunity.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

You find it "interesting" that I'm discussing the topic of this thread which you have repeatedly steadfastly refused to do? So do I TBH.
So, did you find yourself a thread about Donald Trump more suitable for your soapboxing?

I've actually been discussing President Elect Donald Trump's election campaign and it's repeated dodgy and illegal whoring out of itself to foreign politicians and powers of which there is indisputable proof, despite your best efforts to change the subject.

So in summary, while you're willing to overlook anything and everything about Trump because of Clinton's ties to Saudi Arabia, you point blank completely refuse to in any way comment on Trump's more substantial links to them, including being twice bailed out by the House of Saud and substantially expanding his business dealings with them during the campaign to the point of basically sticking your fingers in your ear and shouting "la la la, I can't hear you, la la la!"

Unless of course you're willing to answer what your opinion on Trump's links to Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud are...

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No. I did not. I merely pointed to their existence.

You point to the existence of something which you then cannot produce for inspection. Pretty much the definition of worthless.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No. I said no such thing. You can of course see them. Google "Podesta emails wikileaks"

The claim was "we have access to all of Clintons's e-mail"s. I see the claim now is "we have access to Podesta's e-mails". Hmmm. There's something different about those two claims... difficult to spot to the untrained eye...

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Its convincing me that you are willing to derail a thread at the slightest opportunity.

Derail the thread by talking about the topic. Just to make sure there isn't chocolate or something on your screen: can you please repeat to us what the topic of this thread is? If it is "Donald Trump" or "President Trump" or somesuch then yeah, you got me and I shouldn't be comparing Trump to Clinton.
Otherwise jog on. Not a whiff for you here.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

I've actually been discussing President Elect Donald Trump's election campaign and it's repeated dodgy and illegal whoring out of itself to foreign politicians and powers of which there is indisputable proof, despite your best efforts to change the subject.

So in summary, while you're willing to overlook anything and everything about Trump because of Clinton's ties to Saudi Arabia, you point blank completely refuse to in any way comment on Trump's more substantial links to them, including being twice bailed out by the House of Saud and substantially expanding his business dealings with them during the campaign to the point of basically sticking your fingers in your ear and shouting "la la la, I can't hear you, la la la!"

Unless of course you're willing to answer what your opinion on Trump's links to Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud are...

Hard luck again. This thread isn't called "Trump's election campaign" or anything else you're like to imagine or hallucinate it's called. There was an election to pick one of these two people to be president so they can only be taken in isolation by those who are soapboxing.
Sorry about that. I'll stick to the topic if it's all the same with your stumbling efforts to pretend the topic has changed. Fooling nobody.

K-9

Mod:
As per the mod warning this morning, either debate the points and answer questions or don't bother replying at all.
"Jog on" doesn't meet the standard we expect.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

Hard luck again. This thread isn't called "Trump's election campaign" or anything else you're like to imagine or hallucinate it's called. There was an election to pick one of these two people to be president so they can only be taken in isolation by those who are soapboxing.
Sorry about that. I'll stick to the topic if it's all the same with your stumbling efforts to pretend the topic has changed. Fooling nobody.

I love how you're trying to claim that election campaign funding has nothing to do with an election - it would be cute if it weren't so transparent, just like your refusal to answer questions about Trump's many links to and bailing out from the House of Saud.

Still not willing to comment on Trump expanding his business dealings in Saudi Arabia significantly, whose leaders have bailed him out on more than one occasion before? I mean connections to the Saudis are apparently the reason you are willing to ignore anything and everything else about Trump, so surely this is highly troubling to you, no?

And before you mention it, it was you who brought up Saudi Arabia, so don't try that one.

osmiumartist

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:
As per the mod warning this morning, either debate the points and answer questions or don't bother replying at all.
"Jog on" doesn't meet the standard we expect.

For clarity, can you repeat for us the topic of this thread? Nobody here seems to be interested.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

I love how you're trying to claim that election campaign funding has nothing to do with an election - it would be cute if it weren't so transparent, just like your refusal to answer questions about Trump's many links to and bailing out from the House of Saud.

You know what you can do with your "cute".
Must as you wriggle and writhe, this thread is about the election. The choice was Trump or Clinton. By the definitions presented here, Clinton was far more corrupted than Trump, as she owed more favours with her donation pot being far larger than Trump's.
So this is easy. Trump owes far less to anybody and is therefore a better candidate.
Now try and twist that to say "good" candidate. Go on.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

I love how you're trying to claim that election campaign funding has nothing to do with an election - it would be cute if it weren't so transparent, just like your refusal to answer questions about Trump's many links to and bailing out from the House of Saud.

He sold stuff to the House of Saud. Selling things is being "bailed out" now?

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

including being twice bailed out by the House of Saud

Do you have any proof of these "bailouts" or will you just predictably pretend selling stuff to somebody is a "bailout"?

K-9

osmiumartist wrote: »

For clarity, can you repeat for us the topic of this thread? Nobody here seems to be interested.

Err, the US Presidential race which mmm, Trump won!

Seriously, if you don't want to answer a question or debate a subject, that's fine. Nobody is forcing anybody to reply on here.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

He sold stuff to the House of Saud. Selling things is being "bailed out" now?

Nope.



And setting up businesses there too, during the campaign at that. So what is your opinion on Trump being bailed out and funded by the House of Saud? Clinton having financial connections to Saudi Arabia are the reason you're giving for ignoring the negative stuff about Trump like whoring himself out to foreign politicians and powers illegally and repeatedly for months in exchange for the right for them to "whisper in his ear" what they want, so are you actually going to answer this or just continue to deflect?

osmiumartist

K-9 wrote: »

Err, the US Presidential race which mmm, Trump won!

Seriously, if you don't want to answer a question or debate a subject, that's fine. Nobody is forcing anybody to reply on here.

"Which he won"? Oh, you added that bit I see. Want to change the topic to say that since you think we shouldn't be discussing the election itself anymore? If it's about what the title says then we have to compare Trump and Clinton. If it's about just whoever won the election now then please change the thread title.
Seriously.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

Nope.

They bought some property and a boat off him.
How many times have you bailed out your local Spar buying bread and milk?
And Trump's a business man. Of course he has "dealings" with Saudi Arabia. What's Clinton doing having business deals with them (as you admit) if she's supposed to be in office?

johnnyskeleton

osmiumartist wrote: »

"Which he won"? Oh, you added that bit I see. Want to change the topic to say that since you think we shouldn't be discussing the election itself anymore? If it's about what the title says then we have to compare Trump and Clinton. If it's about just whoever won the election now then please change the thread title.
Seriously.

Mod note:

Please stop the backseat moderation/arguing with moderators.

Please also post more constructively and be civil to other posters.

I think plenty warnings have been given at this stage.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

They bought some property and a boat off him.
How many times have you bailed out your local Spar buying bread and milk?
And Trump's a business man. Of course he has "dealings" with Saudi Arabia. What's Clinton doing having business deals with them (as you admit) if she's supposed to be in office?

Do you have proof he was not bailed out?

And even ignoring that, you've basically just said that Trump's dealings and Clinton's dealing with the Saudi's are no different - both do business there. So why do you consider Clinton doing it reason enough to ignore issues like Trump's campaign and family whoring themselves out to foreign politicians and powers illegally and repeatedly for months in exchange for the right for them to "whisper in his ear" what they want, yet point blank refuse to comment on Trump doing the same, except to now apparently defend his doing business there as irrelevant?

K-9

osmiumartist wrote: »

"Which he won"? Oh, you added that bit I see. Want to change the topic to say that since you think we shouldn't be discussing the election itself anymore? If it's about what the title says then we have to compare Trump and Clinton. If it's about just whoever won the election now then please change the thread title.
Seriously.

I don't see why anybody would need a change of title to cover the obvious fact Trump won. I trust our posters with some intelligence and cop on, because they showed that throughout the 2 long threads we had on the election (by and large).

Of course you can bring up Hillary if you think Trump was the better option. But if somebody brings up talking points about Trump it is best to debate or answer them, which you did after the mod warning.

If others don't like your answers, well that's their problem, not yours.

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

Ah lads. Is this the level of debate?

I think you have brought it to this point. The saudi prince himself leveling the charge at Trump is pretty damning evidence. I think you need to start looking for evidence that he was not bailed out.

Speaking of baling out - you know his family have ALREADY had to bail out Donald? Twice. His second visit to the family trough involved him giving up large chunks of his portfolio. To this day, most buildings with the Trump name are not owned by the Don, but simply pay him a small license fee to use his name.

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I think you have brought it to this point.

It's my fault now that I'm being asked to prove a negative? I think a more straightforward conclusion would be the person asking me to prove a negative has got us here?

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I think you have brought it to this point. The saudi prince himself leveling the charge at Trump is pretty damning evidence. I think you need to start looking for evidence that he was not bailed out.

Er, no I don't. I'm not claiming anything, therefore I don't have to prove anything. He sold a boat and property to the Saudis. You're claiming a tweet from a dictator is "damning" evidence?
This is simple: do you bail out McDonald's when you buy a burger?

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

It's my fault now that I'm being asked to prove a negative? I think a more straightforward conclusion would be the person asking me to prove a negative has got us here?

Yes, it is. If you simply dealt with points directly, these gymnastics would not occur.

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

Er, no I don't. I'm not claiming anything, therefore I don't have to prove anything. He sold a boat and property to the Saudis. You're claiming a tweet from a dictator is "damning" evidence?
This is simple: do you bail out McDonald's when you buy a burger?

McDonalds dont need my business. Trump needed the Saudis.

And yes, it is pretty damning. Unless the Don refutes it. Which he hasnt.

Additionally, Donald asking his family for bailouts in the past demonstrates that he is not above such requests.

You could counter with an example from Trumps business past where he resolutely stood his ground, without assistance, and won through on grim determination.

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

McDonalds dont need my business. Trump needed the Saudis.

And yes, it is pretty damning. Unless the Don refutes it. Which he hasnt.

Additionally, Donald asking his family for bailouts in the past demonstrates that he is not above such requests.

You could counter with an example from Trumps business past where he resolutely stood his ground, without assistance, and won through on grim determination.

This isn't even close to an argument.
You have a tweet from a Clinton loving headchopper supporting tinpot dictator which you keep insisting is "damning". Why? What could be less damning than that as a matter of interest? We know he sold the Saudis a yacht and property with no evidence whatsoever that it wasn't at the going rate. So I'm afraid yes, this is you saying you're bailing out McDonalds. (they do need customer money BTW, it's just that that's called a business transaction, not a "bailing out")
And then we're back to proving a negative nonsense asking for some sort of character witness evidence on behalf of Trump? Is anybody supposed to take this line of questioning seriously?

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Yes, it is. If you simply dealt with points directly, these gymnastics would not occur.

So it's my fault that other people introduce laughable logical fallacies... yeah, why don't you go prove that I'm not wrong?

ancapailldorcha

osmiumartist wrote: »

yeah, why don't you go prove that I'm not wrong?

That isn't how this forum works. You've had plenty of warnings now. This is the last one.

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

This isn't even close to an argument.

You are right. Everything that followed your above comment wasnt even close to an argument.

But I think "Former trump loving headchopper tinpot dictator" would be equally valid.

Point is: Trump fails. He puts his hand out. Rinse and repeat.

Hank Scorpio

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664

He went there. :pac:

I wonder what information he has. No doubt it will rub some people wrong.

marienbad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664

He went there. :pac:

I wonder what information he has. No doubt it will rub some people wrong.

Do you really believe this ?

osmiumartist

26000 Elephants wrote: »

But I think "Former trump loving headchopper tinpot dictator" would be equally valid.

So you love everybody who you have purchased anything from? That's your "argument"?
He bought a boat and property off Trump. Agenda away but that's a simple sale.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

Do you have proof he was not bailed out?

Indulge me. Tell me how this would be possible to do.

Hank Scorpio

marienbad wrote: »

Do you really believe this ?

There was reports of this, if they're true or not, I don't know, it really wouldn't surprise me. You get kind of numb to scandals and vote rigging, e.g. Bernie Sanders.

26000 Elephants

osmiumartist wrote: »

So you love everybody who you have purchased anything from? That's your "argument"?
He bought a boat and property off Trump. Agenda away but that's a simple sale.

Its not when he says "I bailed you out..."

That sounds like he knows more about the transaction than you do.

Billy86

osmiumartist wrote: »

Indulge me. Tell me how this would be possible to do.

Any decent evidence that it was not true? Maybe even just a denial from Trump? It's not like he's quiet on Twitter or anything. Did Trump deny that he was bailed out by the House of Saud?

marienbad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

There was reports of this, if they're true or not, I don't know, it really wouldn't surprise me. You get kind of numb to scandals and vote rigging, e.g. Bernie Sanders.

The notion of millions voting illegally has been investigated time and again and there is simply no credence to that idea .

Look , (unless those recounts throw up something) Trump won fair and square with the system as it is . Entertaining ideas like vote rigging is just raising doubts about your own candidates legitimacy .

Hank Scorpio

marienbad wrote: »

The notion of millions voting illegally has been investigated time and again and there is simply no credence to that idea .

Look , (unless those recounts throw up something) Trump won fair and square with the system as it is . Entertaining ideas like vote rigging is just raising doubts about your own candidates legitimacy .

By whom?

If you want to talk about legitimacy, Obama shouldn't be encouraging illegals to vote in the first place.

osmiumartist

Billy86 wrote: »

Any decent evidence that it was not true?

One tweet from one Clinton loving terrorist dictator is the sum of your "evidence"? Every source you'll find calls the boat and property "sales". He wasn't even in or running for office at the time, unlike the Clintons, so what favours are you going to tell us the Saudis were expecting in return?
So, yet again, do you call every sale a "bailout"?