2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Peist2007

TheDoctor wrote: »

Just 25 more days

Just 25 more days

And then you get to reply for eternity to understandable queries as to why you willingly cheerleaded for the instigator of World War 3. Enjoy the time left.

Overheal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Trump is an alpha-male. A strong, heterosexual white man. It's no surprise that the liberal/feminist mob, backed by the mass media and Hollywood have took turns to fire shots at him. Yet still he stands. He will come through this grotesque mudslinging from the Clinton camp stronger than ever.

I doubt stronger than ever. he will keep the #NeverHer votes no matter what. Unsurprisingly the Daily Show showed up at a rally to find Trump supporters, most of whom are in this thing till the end - there is nothing he could say or do to lose the die-hard vote. Shoot someone on 5th Avenue, nothing. Marry a Muslim woman maybe? Pray at a Mosque?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/so-what-if-he-wants-to-grab-pussy-the-daily-show-talks-to-trump-supporters/

alastair

frostyjacks wrote: »

Trump is an alpha-male. A strong, heterosexual white man. It's no surprise that the liberal/feminist mob, backed by the mass media and Hollywood have took turns to fire shots at him. Yet still he stands. He will come through this grotesque mudslinging from the Clinton camp stronger than ever.

Oh dear. He's just ensured that his tacky properties been further ascribed with the 'lots of hot air, but no substance' brand values. On top of which he's confirming his 'loser' status, once again, with this failed venture. Not so much an alpha male white man as an unconvincing Oompa Loompa, put down by a dislikable older lady.

Overheal

Peist2007 wrote: »

And then you get to reply for eternity to understandable queries as to why you willingly cheerleaded for the instigator of World War 3. Enjoy the time left.

What's funny about that is you won't find many Hillary cheerleaders on the thread; its boiled down to Trump being completely unfit to run the country.

And no, bookmark this post: Hillary Clinton will not start WW3.

alastair

Peist2007 wrote: »

And then you get to reply for eternity to understandable queries as to why you willingly cheerleaded for the instigator of World War 3. Enjoy the time left.

I've read this pamphlet. I'm not going to subscribe.

Chips Lovell

Some good reading in the New Yorker today on how Trump has slipped back to his core vote over the past week, concluding that even he now thinks the election is lost and the priority is finding someone to blame:

This is reality. You know it, they know it, and pretty much the whole world knows it. The establishment and their media neighbors wield control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, rapist, xenophobe, and morally deformed. They will attack you. They will slander you. They will seek to destroy your career and your family. They will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again they will do worse than that.

Peist2007

Overheal wrote: »

What's funny about that is you won't find many Hillary cheerleaders on the thread; its boiled down to Trump being completely unfit to run the country.

And no, bookmark this post: Hillary Clinton will not start WW3.

You are one of the biggest on this thread. The media will tell you who starts WW3 and that will be good enough for you.

Peist2007

alastair wrote: »

I've read this pamphlet. I'm not going to subscribe.

Looks about your level alright.

TheDoctor

On a change of subject, who is this McMullin and why is he polling 20% in Utah?

Chips Lovell

TheDoctor wrote: »

On a change of subject, who is this McMullin and why is he polling 20% in Utah?

Anti-Trump Republican. Backed by this crowd.

Calina

frostyjacks wrote: »

Nor have I, nor has Trump. He was simply stating that he will be a dating a 20 year old woman at a certain point in the future. For some people to twist that into something it's clearly not says a lot more about his detractors than it does about Trump.

Based on what that 20 year old was like at the age of 10.

I really don't know about you but a man who looks at a 10 year old with a view to what it might be like to date her when she's 20 is a bit disgusting and not really alpha at all.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Trump is an alpha-male. A strong, heterosexual white man. It's no surprise that the liberal/feminist mob, backed by the mass media and Hollywood have took turns to fire shots at him. Yet still he stands. He will come through this grotesque mudslinging from the Clinton camp stronger than ever.

IMO Trump is not an alpha male. He's a privileged man who got 14 million dollars to play from his dad. He would be nowhere without the family background. He got himself out of the draft and he dares to criticise people who have served for their country and paid hefty prices for that service, cf John McCain.

Calina

TheDoctor wrote: »

On a change of subject, who is this McMullin and why is he polling 20% in Utah?

The senior Repubs in Utah disavowed Trump before most of the others. They really don't like him there.

Overheal

TheDoctor wrote: »

On a change of subject, who is this McMullin and why is he polling 20% in Utah?

Seems to be an independent, Utah native candidate who is statistically tied with Clinton and Trump.

I love this. Unfortunately Utah is winner take all - all the electoral votes will go to the winner. He COULD surge in Utah and take the 6 electoral votes though, and that would be a significant win of protest against the 2 party system. I welcome it.

TheDoctor

McMullin for Utah!

Overheal

TheDoctor wrote: »

McMullin for Utah!

"You're name is McMullin? NICE!"

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

Nor have I, nor has Trump. He was simply stating that he will be a dating a 20 year old woman at a certain point in the future. For some people to twist that into something it's clearly not says a lot more about his detractors than it does about Trump.

Trump is an alpha-male. A strong, heterosexual white man. It's no surprise that the liberal/feminist mob, backed by the mass media and Hollywood have took turns to fire shots at him. Yet still he stands. He will come through this grotesque mudslinging from the Clinton camp stronger than ever.

Nothing says "alpha male" more than permanent Dorito-coloured fake tan, a combover and obesity. All he needs now is a trilby and a scraggly beard.

Christy42

frostyjacks wrote: »

Nor have I, nor has Trump. He was simply stating that he will be a dating a 20 year old woman at a certain point in the future. For some people to twist that into something it's clearly not says a lot more about his detractors than it does about Trump.

Trump is an alpha-male. A strong, heterosexual white man. It's no surprise that the liberal/feminist mob, backed by the mass media and Hollywood have took turns to fire shots at him. Yet still he stands. He will come through this grotesque mudslinging from the Clinton camp stronger than ever.

No he was stating he would dating a specific woman based on how she looks as a 10 year old.

Pretty sure an alpha male shouldn't go into full meltdown over someone sagging his hand size, or losing, or someone mentioning his bank balance.

Dude is not still standing. The competition is dead. Clinton's first presidential speech was part of the first debate when she assured the world the US would stick by its international obligations. She was winning before that point but that debate was when she and most people figured Trump had nothing to him and the election was won.

A year ago his name meant success. Now it means a joke.

130Kph

TheDoctor wrote: »

On a change of subject, who is this McMullin and why is he polling 20% in Utah?

It’s interesting to note that the last 3rd party candidate to get any significant electoral college votes was George Wallace in 1968 with 46 e.c. votes.

It’s grim to see he was a notorious segregationist though.

oscarBravo

oik wrote: »

He said 25 not 16, so what's your point?

Trump on Howard Stern in 1999:

“I have a deal with her. She’s 17 and doing great — Ivanka. She made me promise, swear to her that I would never date a girl younger than her. So as she grows older, the field is getting very limited.”

“The nerve of her. Now you can’t go out with 16-year-olds,” replied Stern...

There's a certain amount of mask-slipping going on with all this talk of alpha males. Which is all the more amusing, considering the man who coined the term (in the context of wolf packs) has utterly repudiated it.

Quin_Dub

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Some good reading in the New Yorker today on how Trump has slipped back to his core vote over the past week, concluding that even he now thinks the election is lost and the priority is finding someone to blame:

Agreed - I think at this point he is whipping up his core voters with a view to his post-election business plans..

The Election is lost , he knows it - All his efforts now are focused not on trying to win , but on trying to ensure that he personally can consider himself blameless and remain a "winner" in his eyes..

He won't have lost - It will have been "Stolen from him" "Rigged by the Liberal elite" etc. etc. etc.

Absolutely guarantee that Trump will launch a media empirel (Breitbart TV ??) after the election that will just be a home for full on Right-wing stuff..

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

Seems to be an independent, Utah native candidate who is statistically tied with Clinton and Trump.

I love this. Unfortunately Utah is winner take all - all the electoral votes will go to the winner. He COULD surge in Utah and take the 6 electoral votes though, and that would be a significant win of protest against the 2 party system. I welcome it.

He could and that hurts Trump WAY more than it hurts Clinton..

Based on current polling she can happily let Utah go and still have multiple pathways to 270..

Trump however does not , losing Utah would be an utter disaster for him..

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

Imagine if a tape comes out where Trump is supportive of taking out Gaddafi and letting the moderate rebels in to replace him?

What, you mean like this?

"Now, we should go in, we should stop this guy which would be very easy and very very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives. This is absolute nuts! We don't want to get involved and you're going to end up with something like you've never seen before. Now, ultimately the people will appreciate it, they're going to end up taking over the country eventually, but the people will appreciate it and they should pay us back."

frostyjacks

Christy42 wrote: »

No he was stating he would dating a specific woman based on how she looks as a 10 year old.

That's pure conjecture. He said he'd be dating her when she's 20 i.e. when she's a grown woman, nothing dirty or sinister about that, unless you think people should only date others the same as themselves. Didn't mention anything about her looks, unless you have another video none of us have seen. Girl could have been overweight and he would still have made the same comment.

oscarBravo

frostyjacks wrote: »

Girl could have been overweight and he would still have made the same comment.

Because of his long track record of saying nice things to and about overweight women?

Overheal

Billy86 wrote: »

Peist2007 wrote: »

Imagine if a tape comes out where Trump is supportive of taking out Gaddafi and letting the moderate rebels in to replace him? Or what about if a tape surfaces showing Trump admitting to taking €25m from Saudi Arabia thereby ruining his "pro-women" stance?

What, you mean like this?

"Now, we should go in, we should stop this guy which would be very easy and very very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives. This is absolute nuts! We don't want to get involved and you're going to end up with something like you've never seen before. Now, ultimately the people will appreciate it, they're going to end up taking over the country eventually, but the people will appreciate it and they should pay us back."

No, like this:

Alwaleed, a Riyadh-based investor whose net worth Forbes estimates at $24.8 billion, is no stranger to Trump. As the International Business Times pointed out this week, investors tied to a firm controlled by Alwaleed purchased New York City's Plaza Hotel from Trump in 1995, in what the website called "a bailout valued at $325 million."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/saudi-prince-bailed-donald-trump-210941740.html?ref=gs

Chips Lovell

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely guarantee that Trump will launch a media empirel (Breitbart TV ??) after the election that will just be a home for full on Right-wing stuff..

I'm not sure. I think he may be the kind of guy who loses interest completely and gets absorbed in something else instead.

Quin_Dub

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'm not sure. I think he may be the kind of guy who loses interest completely and gets absorbed in something else instead.

Long-term I agree , but for at least the next year or two his narcissism will force him to vent and rail against all those that "sinned" him.. He'll need an outlet for that - He's in the process of burning all his bridges with the existing media so he'll have to create it himself..

The immediate aftermath of the Election will be lots and lots of Media discussion on "Trump the loser" (as he'll hear it) and that will be a red rag to his Narcissistic bull and just as he has spent undue time lashing out at those that dare to suggest that he's anything less than the most perfect entity on Earth so far (The Khans , Machado etc.) he'll have years worth of scores to settle after this one...

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

What, you mean like this?

"Now, we should go in, we should stop this guy which would be very easy and very very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives. This is absolute nuts! We don't want to get involved and you're going to end up with something like you've never seen before. Now, ultimately the people will appreciate it, they're going to end up taking over the country eventually, but the people will appreciate it and they should pay us back."

Very different saying that when he did not have the full details of what was going on in Libya we now know a hell of lot more. Hillary judged the faulty intelligence on Iraq to be correct course of action. She is more responsible for war crimes than Trump. Hillary broke international law and she knows all about law. The nations that opposed the Iraq war were France, Germany, Russia, Syria and Mexico whereas with Libya the British and French along with other NATO nations backed that conflict so the situation is different. Hillary is complicit in Iraq. We don't know how Trump would perform in a similar situation.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

What, you mean like this?

"Now, we should go in, we should stop this guy which would be very easy and very very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives. This is absolute nuts! We don't want to get involved and you're going to end up with something like you've never seen before. Now, ultimately the people will appreciate it, they're going to end up taking over the country eventually, but the people will appreciate it and they should pay us back."

And none of what you quoted refers to allowing foreign mercenaries in to Libya to carve up and destroy the country; terrorists that we are told are our enemies being funded and given free reign. The above quote could be taken directly from news reports at the time. All lies from the White House of which your beloved was Secretary of State.

Peist2007

Overheal wrote: »

No, like this:

Alwaleed, a Riyadh-based investor whose net worth Forbes estimates at $24.8 billion, is no stranger to Trump. As the International Business Times pointed out this week, investors tied to a firm controlled by Alwaleed purchased New York City's Plaza Hotel from Trump in 1995, in what the website called "a bailout valued at $325 million."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/saudi-prince-bailed-donald-trump-210941740.html?ref=gs

Hilarious. The above shows you haven't a clue.

As you have faithfully quoted, the above deal involves an asset going one way and money / consideration going the other way. Both sides benefit, hence the deal.

So, when the Saudis donate $25million to the Clinton Foundation, i see the money/consideration going one way alright. What goes the other way though?

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Very different saying that when he did not have the full details of what was going on in Libya we now know a hell of lot more. Hillary judged the faulty intelligence on Iraq to be correct course of action. She is more responsible for war crimes than Trump. Hillary broke international law and she knows all about law. The nations that opposed the Iraq war were France, Germany, Russia, Syria and Mexico whereas with Libya the British and French along with other NATO nations backed that conflict so the situation is different. Hillary is complicit in Iraq. We don't know how Trump would perform in a similar situation.

This defense amounts to "well, in 20/20 hindsight..."

A president doesn't get that luxury.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

And none of what you quoted refers to allowing foreign mercenaries in to Libya to carve up and destroy the country; terrorists that we are told are our enemies being funded and given free reign. The above quote could be taken directly from news reports at the time. All lies from the White House of which your beloved was Secretary of State.

Just a quick reminder for you and those goalposts. You said:

Peist2007 wrote: »

Imagine if a tape comes out where Trump is supportive of taking out Gaddafi and letting the moderate rebels in to replace him?

Trump said:

Donald Trump wrote: »

"Now, we should go in, we should stop this guy which would be very easy and very very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives. This is absolute nuts! We don't want to get involved and you're going to end up with something like you've never seen before. Now, ultimately the people will appreciate it, they're going to end up taking over the country eventually, but the people will appreciate it and they should pay us back."

I even put it in red, underlined text immediately below the video for you, because I had a feeling you would have a response along those lines. And "the above quote" is not taken from any news report, it is taken directly from the mouth of Donald Trump in the same video directly above it.

Now please do us all a favour and give the ad hominem attacks a rest, using them doesn't make you any less wrong and frankly were you paying attention to the thread you would know I'm no big fan of Clinton's.

alastair

Peist2007 wrote: »

Hilarious. The above shows you haven't a clue.

As you have faithfully quoted, the above deal involves an asset going one way and money / consideration going the other way. Both sides benefit, hence the deal.

So, when the Saudis donate $25million to the Clinton Foundation, i see the money/consideration going one way alright. What goes the other way though?

What do you get when you put money in the Concern box? The Clinton Foundation is a charity, and the charity's activities and expenditure are a matter of public record. Trump is indebted to Saudi money. Can you say the same for Hillary?

Overheal

Peist2007 wrote: »

[personal abuse]

As you have faithfully quoted, the above deal involves an asset going one way and money / consideration going the other way. Both sides benefit, hence the deal.

So, when the Saudis donate $25million to the Clinton Foundation, i see the money/consideration going one way alright. What goes the other way though?

So the goalposts have changed again?

Peist2007 wrote:

[...] thereby ruining his "pro-women" stance?

I didn't realize that doing business with countries like Dubai and Saudi Arabia didn't count. Why doesn't it?

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

Just a quick reminder for you and those goalposts. You said:


Trump said:


I even put it in red, underlined text immediately below the video for you, because I had a feeling you would have a response along those lines. And "the above quote" is not taken from any news report, it is taken directly from the mouth of Donald Trump in the same video directly above it.

Now please do us all a favour and give the ad hominem attacks a rest, using them doesn't make you any less wrong and frankly were you paying attention to the thread you would know I'm no big fan of Clinton's.

You mean a logical response? I took your red-outlined pieces and dealt with them specifically in my previous post. Another non-fan of Clinton? You and Overheal are the most rabid non-fans i have come across, kudos!

Peist2007

alastair wrote: »

What do you get when you put money in the Concern box? The Clinton Foundation is a charity, and the charity's activities and expenditure are a matter of public record. Trump is indebted to Saudi money. Can you say the same for Hillary?

Utterly deluded. In any event, really looking forward to you squirming in future. You supported and cheerleaded for what is about to come.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

You mean a logical response? I took your red-outlined pieces and dealt with them specifically in my previous post. Another non-fan of Clinton? You and Overheal are the most rabid non-fans i have come across, kudos!

Again with the ad hominem attacks, whatever makes you happy I guess. The fact is you attempted to move the goalposts by going from 'moderate rebels' to 'foreign mercenaries' - quite a leap by any standards.

The fact is Trump directly said what you were pondering about, and I have posted the video and quote to show that. That's all there is to it.

Peist2007

Overheal wrote: »

So the goalposts have changed again?

I didn't realize that doing business with countries like Dubai and Saudi Arabia didn't count. Why doesn't it?

Doing business vs acceptance of unfettered donations. Even understanding the literal meaning of the words should give you an inkling. If not, then all becomes more understandable.

alastair

Peist2007 wrote: »

Utterly deluded. In any event, really looking forward to you squirming in future. You supported and cheerleaded for what is about to come.

"Unfettered "charitable contributions? Oh noes!

Overheal

Peist2007 wrote: »

Doing business vs acceptance of unfettered donations. Even understanding the literal meaning of the words should give you an inkling. If not, then all becomes more understandable.

It's a simple question: how do you pretend to support women, with any sort of moral authority, when you have golf resorts and one country and businesses dealings with another, both of whom are rife with womens rights abuses.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

Again with the ad hominem attacks, whatever makes you happy I guess. The fact is you attempted to move the goalposts by going from 'moderate rebels' to 'foreign mercenaries' - quite a leap by any standards.

The fact is Trump directly said what you were pondering about, and I have posted the video and quote to show that. That's all there is to it.

The word "ad-hominem" must be requisite learning material for every Boards wannabe. I guess you're still working on "Jesus wept" etc. Small steps.

I saw Trump outline the official state line, as you very kindly outlined in red. That line was a lie propagated by the State which included at the time your favourite candidate, in a very prominent high position no doubt. But i guess the Guardian told you 50 times that Clinton is competent so now you believe it. Pretty sad, actually.

Peist2007

alastair wrote: »

"Unfettered "charitable contributions? Oh noes!

Buying influence. Which they clearly have given none of our media seems to know where Yemen is never mind what "western" arms have been used for by the Saudis. The guys that gavce the Clinton Foundation millions. Wont even let their women drive. The whole thing is a nasty unfunny joke.

ECO_Mental

Another woman coming (wash post)out that Trump assaulted her in a nightclub in the 90s. He grabbed her by the P***y, his usual chat up procedure.... apparently also she told a few of her friends at the time so its not someone out of the blue.

Despicable the trump campaign are trashing her for looking for publicly.

alastair

Peist2007 wrote: »

Buying influence. Which they clearly have given none of our media seems to know where Yemen is never mind what "western" arms have been used for by the Saudis. The guys that gavce the Clinton Foundation millions. Wont even let their women drive. The whole thing is a nasty unfunny joke.

The really funny joke is how you manage to ignore the equally chummy relationship the Republicans have with the Saudis, and they're not even putting the Saudi's money to good use like the Clinton Foundation has been.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

The word "ad-hominem" must be requisite learning material for every Boards wannabe. I guess you're still working on "Jesus wept" etc. Small steps.

No actually, it's a personal attack aimed at having a go at the poster rather than the content of their post.

"Boards wannabe" would be a pretty good example.

I saw Trump outline the official state line, as you very kindly outlined in red. That line was a lie propagated by the State which included at the time your favourite candidate, in a very prominent high position no doubt. But i guess the Guardian told you 50 times that Clinton is competent so now you believe it. Pretty sad, actually.

See, there's another one with the Guardian reference,. I's not very mature now, is it?

Again, I will refer to your initial post - because all you're trying to do is shift the goalposts now that exactly what you 'imagined' was shown to you.

Peist2007 wrote: »

Imagine if a tape comes out where Trump is supportive of taking out Gaddafi and letting the moderate rebels in to replace him?

Overheal

Peist2007 wrote: »

Buying influence. Which they clearly have given none of our media seems to know where Yemen is never mind what "western" arms have been used for by the Saudis. The guys that gavce the Clinton Foundation millions. Wont even let their women drive. The whole thing is a nasty unfunny joke.

Given that: why would a President Trump not show a country like Dubai favor or a 'blind eye' to that, when he has a multi million dollar golf course there?

Peist2007

Overheal wrote: »

It's a simple question: how do you pretend to support women, with any sort of moral authority, when you have golf resorts and one country and businesses dealings with another, both of whom are rife with womens rights abuses.

Has Trump made "supporting women" a tenet of his campaign? As far as i can see only one candidate is milking the gender card in this election. The same candidate who accepts huge amounts of money from the same regimes you speak of. Utterly hypocritical and a bit amateurish on your part to bring up such an argument.

gosplan

Yes it's all about the Saudi's.

That's the issue.

ECO_Mental

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Another woman coming (wash post)out that Trump assaulted her in a nightclub in the 90s. He grabbed her by the P***y, his usual chat up procedure.... apparently also she told a few of her friends at the time so its not someone out of the blue.

Despicable the trump campaign are trashing her for looking for publicly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-says-trump-reached-under-her-skirt-and-groped-her-in-early-1990s/2016/10/14/67e8ff5e-917d-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Here is the link

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

No actually, it's a personal attack aimed at having a go at the poster rather than the content of their post.

"Boards wannabe" would be a pretty good example.

[qupte]I saw Trump outline the official state line, as you very kindly outlined in red. That line was a lie propagated by the State which included at the time your favourite candidate, in a very prominent high position no doubt. But i guess the Guardian told you 50 times that Clinton is competent so now you believe it. Pretty sad, actually.

See, there's another one with the Guardian reference,. I's not very mature now, is it?

Again, I will refer to your initial post - because all you're trying to do is shift the goalposts now that exactly what you 'imagined' was shown to you.[/QUOTE]

You think you have latched onto something and it really is a waste of time on your part. I responded to your comments a number of posts ago and you have since stuck your fingers in your ears and refused to listen.

"We came, we saw, he died" was said by one person in this election race. Gloating over one of the biggest foreign policy fk-ups ever shows just how incompetent your beloved is.