2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

BorneTobyWilde

Ivanka will beat Hilary in 4 years if Trump loses .

Black Swan

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Ivanka will beat Hilary in 4 years if Trump loses .

Highly doubtful, but just think how many Made in China and Made in Vietnam dresses and accessories she could sell from her Collection during the primaries and presidential election cycle 2020 (like the pink dress she wore during July 2016 RNC and sold out the next day). She has over 800 Made in China and Made in Vietnam items for sale. She obviously doesn't care about Made in America.

frostyjacks

For those trying to place Hillary on some moral high ground looking down on big bad Trump, here she is discussing Lenny Kravitz's genitals with the morally bankrupt Jewish 'comidienne' Lena Dunham.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tOOc-toJkdE

Disgusting. Is that what runs through her brain whenever she looks at men? I thought women settled down at her age.

aloyisious

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Ivanka will beat Hilary in 4 years if Trump loses .

What'll she use?

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

For those trying to place Hillary on some moral high ground looking down on big bad Trump, here she is discussing Lenny Kravitz's genitals with the morally bankrupt Jewish 'comidienne' Lena Dunham.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tOOc-toJkdE

Disgusting. Is that what runs through her brain whenever she looks at men? I thought women settled down at her age.

And that bit's relevant...how?

oscarBravo

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You might 'dunno'...

But I do. That is as close to prima facie example of sexual assault and possibly rape as one can come across. Lets not indulge rape and molestation apologists for the sake of 'debate'.

For the avoidance of doubt, "I dunno" was intended to convey "I don't know how to get my head around the idea that grabbing someone's genitals non-consensually could possibly be considered 'hitting on' them". I could have been clearer.

frostyjacks wrote: »

For those trying to place Hillary on some moral high ground looking down on big bad Trump, here she is discussing Lenny Kravitz's genitals with the morally bankrupt Jewish 'comidienne' Lena Dunham.

Wait a minute, she talked to a JEW??!!

Oh my sainted aunt. Why haven't the lamestream media made a big song and dance about this?!!

Disgusting. Is that what runs through her brain whenever she looks at men? I thought women settled down at her age.

You're right. Call off the election. The idea that a woman would want to see a YouTube clip of a male wardrobe malfunction is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more disturbing than the idea of a man sticking his hand up a stranger's skirt in a nightclub.

And then talking to a JEW about it??!?!

Overheal

Here's the thing: Hillary has no real moral high ground.

What she has is an opponent in a very deep moral trench.

It's like comparing the elevation of Death Valley to the Challenger Deep.

BorneTobyWilde

Overheal wrote: »

I believe in this context they prefer the term employees

Also I don't see this I just see is live stump speech

Can't rewind '' live ''

PopePalpatine

Is he going to order his supporters to find another accuser's Facebook page? :rolleyes:

BorneTobyWilde

Crowd screaming USA USA USA

''Under Skirt Assault ''

USA USA USA

Whole crowd is yelling it to him.

BorneTobyWilde

He just kicked out his own teleprompter ,
''get it outa here ''

Quin_Dub

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Crowd screaming USA USA USA

''Under Skirt Assault ''

USA USA USA

Whole crowd is yelling it to him.

I have to say - I really don't get the whole "rally" thing at all..

Here we have the Trump guys shouting USA-USA-USA and whooping and hollering etc..

I watch a bit of Obama at a Clinton rally getting them all to chant HILL-A-RY over and over..

I just fail to understand the entire concept..

I mean I'm interesting in politics , I read a lot about it etc. etc. but the idea of even attending a speech in person just doesn't appeal to me in the slightest , let alone this kind of stage managed theatre..

Just don't get it...

BorneTobyWilde

It's about local people getting to see their candidate , they hear him speak.

Overheal

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's about local people getting to see their candidate , they hear him speak.

Just the supporters of course.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-supporter-shoves-protester-puts-him-in-headlock-during-rally/

ECO_Mental

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I have to say - I really don't get the whole "rally" thing at all..

Here we have the Trump guys shouting USA-USA-USA and whooping and hollering etc..

I watch a bit of Obama at a Clinton rally getting them all to chant HILL-A-RY over and over..

I just fail to understand the entire concept..

I mean I'm interesting in politics , I read a lot about it etc. etc. but the idea of even attending a speech in person just doesn't appeal to me in the slightest , let alone this kind of stage managed theatre..

Just don't get it...

En-da. En-da En-da

We need more of that over here, motivate the base. Whatever the base is!?

Overheal

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Can't rewind '' live ''

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-brings-women-for-trump-on-stage-at-campaign-event-amid-accusations/

I like the pandering "y'all" that took place.

But the whole thing is Donald just continuing to react to this entire thing. I doubt it will acheieve a result for him

RobertKK

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

Who knows what isn't true and what is, when the Democrats trivialised sexual abuse last May.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Who knows what isn't true and what is, when the Democrats trivialised sexual abuse last May.

Are the craigslist ad claims false though. Dirty politics don't get me wrong, but given the email thread everything negative in the ad was vetted.

K-9

Black Swan wrote: »

It appears that the New York times is daring Donald Trump to sue them, expecting him to lose big time in court if he does. If Trump sues, the Times could counter-sue for legal expenses, and perhaps punitive damages for attempting to discredit the Times reputation. NYT Vice President and Assistant General Counsel David McCraw on 13 October 2016 sent a letter essentially saying this to Donald Trump’s legal team in response to a retraction request about Times’s article "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately."

If Trump files a case against NYT, under discovery the Times legal team could request that all past videos, transcripts, and related records going back decades be released when preparing their defense, including a discovery filing for all 11 seasons of when Donald Trump hosted Celebrity Apprentice, both on air and hot mic behind scenes, where it's been claimed by former Celebrity Apprentice producer Bill Pruitt that there were more lewd hot mic recordings that were worse than last Friday's Trump groping tape. Methinks that Trump is just being Trump, blustering about suing, but will not want a legal discovery of his archives revealed.

That's a great point. The Apprentice producers will not release any tape footage because of legal considerations so last Trump will want is anybody near the NY times getting near it.

Billy86

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I have to say - I really don't get the whole "rally" thing at all..

Here we have the Trump guys shouting USA-USA-USA and whooping and hollering etc..

I watch a bit of Obama at a Clinton rally getting them all to chant HILL-A-RY over and over..

I just fail to understand the entire concept..

I mean I'm interesting in politics , I read a lot about it etc. etc. but the idea of even attending a speech in person just doesn't appeal to me in the slightest , let alone this kind of stage managed theatre..

Just don't get it...

It's becoming a bit more of a thing here (in the UK at least!), but something to do with the two party system has made them confused politics for sports.

That's not a joke.

meepins

aloyisious wrote: »

Ah, he's blaming the Mexicans again, a major stockholder of the NY Times is a Mexican Billionaire and is responsible for what's happening.

Why would Carlos Slim be interested in doing what he could to stop Trump becoming president? Remittances from America replaced oil as the number one source of foreign income for Mexico last year and I believe senor Slim may have some interest in that remaining the case. (His business empire accounts for 40% of the listings on the Mexican stock exchange). Pure coincidence that the paper he owns is doing a full out attack on the candidate that wants to put an end to all that.

ECO_Mental

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Who knows what isn't true and what is, when the Democrats trivialised sexual abuse last May.

Come on Robert you really are grabbing at straws here... you are getting like one trumps propaganda officers like yer wan Pierson. I'm slow to actually spend the energy responding to you at this stage with the desperation you have to find(and the rest of his followers) something to defend the Donald.

Can you not hear yourself actually trying to spin a very obvious piss take ad about a job for Trump "applicant's must be hot" I think was one of the criteria and make it about sexual abuse. I think back in May people didn't know that he actually does go around groping women anyway.

Seriously its a good job no one knows your real name on boards, because the people that are defending him on TV their careers are ruined. Look at Pierson on Tv, Trumps position is so weak they actually came up with a story about the type of armrests on the plane and wether they could lift up or not!!!!!!

Pathetic

Akrasia

Meanwhile, wikileaks is still dripping out hacked Clinton related Emails, thousands of them.

I don't think it will make any difference, to the result of the election, but only because Trump us such a clown of a candidate, the kinds of revelations that would normally sink a candidate are totally overshadowed by revelations about his sociopathic character. The media are going for the low hanging fruit by focusing on Trumps sexually predatory past, but they should still be doing their job and covering these emails that show the character of the next president of the United States.

The leaked emails show how utterly disingenuous she and her campaign are and how the democratic party are democratic in name only. The primary was nothing more than a coronation of Hillary Clinton, Sanders didn't stand a chance.

aloyisious

Apparently these photos on F/B are genuine, the mind boggles....

Wanderer78

aloyisious wrote:

Apparently these photos on F/B are genuine, the mind boggles....

Some strange people in the Americas

InTheTrees

Akrasia wrote: »

The leaked emails show how utterly disingenuous she and her campaign are and how the democratic party are democratic in name only. The primary was nothing more than a coronation of Hillary Clinton, Sanders didn't stand a chance.

Sanders is not a member of the democratic party. He's an independent who decided he'd like to try for the democratic parties nomination.

Is it any wonder sanders' appearance in the race didn't attract democratic party leaderships joy?

aloyisious

meepins wrote: »

Why would Carlos Slim be interested in doing what he could to stop Trump becoming president? Remittances from America replaced oil as the number one source of foreign income for Mexico last year and I believe senor Slim may have some interest in that remaining the case. (His business empire accounts for 40% of the listings on the Mexican stock exchange). Pure coincidence that the paper he owns is doing a full out attack on the candidate that wants to put an end to all that.

Ta for that. I was wondering why Don wasn't going after the Washington Post.

Akrasia

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sanders is not a member of the democratic party. He's an independent who decided he'd like to try for the democratic parties nomination.

Is it any wonder sanders' appearance in the race didn't attract democratic party leaderships joy?

It doesn't matter if he fell out of the sky, he ran for nomination and under the party rules, they are supposed to be impartial and not support one candidate over another in the primaries.

aloyisious

Cartoons sometimes get the point across when debate fails.

Pro Hoc Vice

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Some strange people in the Americas

And funny thing is Hilary got **** for calling them what they are Deplorables and proving it.

alastair

Akrasia wrote: »

The leaked emails show how utterly disingenuous she and her campaign are and how the democratic party are democratic in name only. The primary was nothing more than a coronation of Hillary Clinton, Sanders didn't stand a chance.

Not so. The DNC chair rules require impartiality, which clearly wasn't the case, but the nomination process remained as democratic as it is in any other year. Bernie was beaten in a democratic vote. Clinton's campaign was no more disingenuous than Bernie's. They were both out to win.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

And funny thing is Hilary got **** for calling them what they are Deplorables and proving it.

In fairness, she could have called some of her own the same. This election reflects really badly back on the US.
Hillary will win but will start her presidency in the gutter, and will have the potential to be the most controversial presidency ever, the same could be said for Trump but he won't win.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Not so. The DNC chair rules require impartiality, which clearly wasn't the case, but the nomination process remained as democratic as it is in any other year. Bernie was beaten in a democratic vote. Clinton's campaign was no more disingenuous than Bernie's. They were both out to win.

The problem is the DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign for what she did and allowed, which was looking to spread lies about Sanders to help Clinton.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

In fairness, she could have called some of her own the same. This election reflects really badly back on the US.
Hillary will win but will start her presidency in the gutter, and will have the potential to be the most controversial presidency ever, the same could be said for Trump but he won't win.

The conduct (and teeshirt etiquette) of the Hillary base has been far away from that of Trump's base. Let's not pretend there's an equivalence. There's a genuine dynamic of knuckle draggers latching onto the Trump bandwagon.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is the DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign for what she did and allowed, which was looking to spread lies about Sanders to help Clinton.

She resigned, but there's nothing to suggest she had to resign, and there's nothing to suggest that anything she did undermined the democratic basis for the nomination.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

In fairness, she could have called some of her own the same. This election reflects really badly back on the US.
Hillary will win but will start her presidency in the gutter, and will have the potential to be the most controversial presidency ever, the same could be said for Trump but he won't win.

Can you show pictures of Hilary supporters with a tee shirt calling on her husband or her self to grab the pussy. Or anything in the same vein!

RobertKK

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Come on Robert you really are grabbing at straws here... you are getting like one trumps propaganda officers like yer wan Pierson. I'm slow to actually spend the energy responding to you at this stage with the desperation you have to find(and the rest of his followers) something to defend the Donald.

Can you not hear yourself actually trying to spin a very obvious piss take ad about a job for Trump "applicant's must be hot" I think was one of the criteria and make it about sexual abuse. I think back in May people didn't know that he actually does go around groping women anyway.

Seriously its a good job no one knows your real name on boards, because the people that are defending him on TV their careers are ruined. Look at Pierson on Tv, Trumps position is so weak they actually came up with a story about the type of armrests on the plane and wether they could lift up or not!!!!!!

Pathetic

My career would not be ruined as I am not defending anyone. People around me don't judge me for pointing out how awful both candidates are.
I would be ashamed if I was enthusiastic for either candidate.
I was just posting what Wikileaks posted which shows the only thing pathetic about what I posted is the Democrat party in this particular instance.

I do find the airplane story a bit weird, it suggests one could grope and try to kiss in first class which is more open and if unwanted advances were made no one would see or hear the person complain.
One would think the person had some disability and could not move or talk, she was under no obligation to Trump, that particular story one has to make up their own mind if they believe it or not.
It was a public space in an airplane, I don't know, if other passengers who were there came forward who saw it happen it would have more credibility and so far it is a she says/he says and no one else who was there saying anything.

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

Meanwhile, wikileaks is still dripping out hacked Clinton related Emails, thousands of them.

I don't think it will make any difference, to the result of the election, but only because Trump us such a clown of a candidate, the kinds of revelations that would normally sink a candidate are totally overshadowed by revelations about his sociopathic character. The media are going for the low hanging fruit by focusing on Trumps sexually predatory past, but they should still be doing their job and covering these emails that show the character of the next president of the United States.

The leaked emails show how utterly disingenuous she and her campaign are and how the democratic party are democratic in name only. The primary was nothing more than a coronation of Hillary Clinton, Sanders didn't stand a chance.

When all your policies are nonsense and you are significantly less popular than your only opponent then you generally don't stand a chance.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Can you show pictures of Hilary supporters with a tee shirt calling on her husband or her self to grab the pussy. Or anything in the same vein!

Well the wikileaks showed an email which said "the less Bill the better" due to his "sex life".
Hillary plays Tammy Wynette as she stands by her man.
She has been accused by other women of being an enabler of sexual abuse that her husband is accused of.
Her supporters are really supporting death and destruction and are intellectually challenged if they cannot see what a disaster she was as Secretary of State.
Then her hypocrisy and that of the Clintons, accepting money from Saudi Arabia for their foundation, despite in an email saying Saudi Arabia are the most responsible for the spread of extremist ideology in the world.
Then two years ago saying Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS, while her husband accepts $1 million from Qatar.
The morals of Trump and the Clintons are the morals most people would not accept.
These people are an absolute disgrace and I think both Trump and Clinton want the job for the money it brings, the influence and neither should be anywhere near the Irish designed and built White House.
Their supporters are deluded on both sides.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Well the wikileaks showed an email which said "the less Bill the better" due to his "sex life".
Hillary plays Tammy Wynette as she stands by her man.
She has been accused by other women of being an enabler of sexual abuse that her husband is accused of.
Her supporters are really supporting death and destruction and are intellectually challenged if they cannot see what a disaster she was as Secretary of State.
Then her hypocrisy and that of the Clintons, accepting money from Saudi Arabia for their foundation, despite in an email saying Saudi Arabia are the most responsible for the spread of extremist ideology in the world.
Then two years ago saying Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS, while her husband accepts $1 million from Qatar.
The morals of Trump and the Clintons are the morals most people would not accept.
These people are an absolute disgrace and I think both Trump and Clinton want the job for the money it brings, the influence and neither should be anywhere near the Irish designed and built White House.
Their supporters are deluded on both sides.

So... That's a "no" then. Not an equivalence.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

So... That's a "no" then. Not an equivalence.

If one wears rose tinted Clinton glasses it is a no.
I think the supporters of both the main candidates are seriously deluded if they cannot see how bad each of the respective candidates are.
Problem is some people are afraid to say both choices are really awful.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

If one wears rose tinted Clinton glasses it is a no.
I think the supporters of both the main candidates are seriously deluded if they cannot see how bad each of the respective candidates are.
Problem is some people are afraid to say both choices are really awful.

It's an objective "no". You were asked to demonstrate that there was the same behaviour on the Hillary base's side, and you can't. No rose tinted glasses required to see the reality of the situation.

A litany of erroneous distraction doesn't really substitute for acknowledging the answer is a simple no.

One choice is clearly idiotic. The other is uninspiring. Hillary is far from the cartoon you paint, but Trump does his damnedest to live up to the cartoon portrayal he's earned - as do his supporters at every rally he attends.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

If one wears rose tinted Clinton glasses it is a no.
I think the supporters of both the main candidates are seriously deluded if they cannot see how bad each of the respective candidates are.
Problem is some people are afraid to say both choices are really awful.

No it is a no because you do a trump you ignore the question go on about the same discredited rubbish and hope nobody gets that you just tried very badly to deflect. If you think no one can see through your agenda you are sadly mistaken.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

It's an objective "no". You were asked to demonstrate that there was the same behaviour on the Hillary base's side, and you can't. No rose tinted glasses required to see the reality of the situation.

A litany of erroneous distraction doesn't really substitute for acknowledging the answer is a simple no.

One choice is clearly idiotic. The other is uninspiring. Hillary is far from the cartoon you paint, but Trump does his damnedest to live up to the cartoon portrayal he's earned - as do his supporters at every rally he attends.

I will tell you next week when I am in the US if her base are saintly.

Hillary is far from cartoon, Wikileaks show what she said in private, her emails and I do question people who accept donations from countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, when you say they are pro-women and against ISIS. When these said countries are then accused by the same person as spreading extremist ideology and funding ISIS. Then they get called allies, when their own country is fighting ISIS.
Something very strange about it all.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No it is a no because you do a trump you ignore the question go on about the same discredited rubbish and hope nobody gets that you just tried very badly to deflect. If you think no one can see through your agenda you are sadly mistaken.

Trump is not going to win.
He is going to lose, he is no threat unless something massive happens to Hillary.

The only agenda I see is people are focused on the loser and seem to think the biggest policy issues in the US is sexual policy, when the country has far bigger issues that affect real people, like the spiralling cost of healthcare for example.
Foreign policy, one can decide who is far more hawkish.

The biggest deflection in this election is the focus on non policy issues by both sides and the media.

Suryavarman

I haven't been posting as much the last couple of days so I haven't had a chance to comment on the sexual assault allegations against Trump yet.

I'm genuinely shocked that posters that attacked Hillary for attacking people that claimed Bill raped them aren't attacking Trump and his surrogates for the same. It's almost as if it wasn't Hillary's actions that people disagreed with but the fact that she did them. It's almost as if their hatred of her is irrational. Perhaps the prospect of a female POTUS scares them.

Now that there's new stories of Trump sexually assaulting women coming out everyday, can we start speculating about his links to NAMBLA again? There's a greater chance of him donating to NAMBLA than there is of him winning the Presidential race at this stage after all.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

I will tell you next week when I am in the US if her base are saintly.

Hillary is far from cartoon, Wikileaks show what she said in private, her emails and I do question people who accept donations from countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, when you say they are pro-women and against ISIS. When these said countries are then accused by the same person as spreading extremist ideology and funding ISIS. Then they get called allies, when their own country is fighting ISIS.
Something very strange about it all.

Did anyone claim the Hillary base were saints? The issue is whether they're as offensive as those Trump supporters that are easily found at his rally's. They're not. No need for you to report back on your findings from your holiday, they're obvious enough already.

Hillary is unarguably opposed to ISIS, and has policies that are clearly far more pro-women than any other presidential candidate in my recollection. No amount of slapdash guff about her 'friends' the Wahhabists (or is it the Muslim Brotherhood - it seems to change?) changes those facts.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

I haven't been posting as much the last couple of days so I haven't had a chance to comment on the sexual assault allegations against Trump yet.

I'm genuinely shocked that posters that attacked Hillary for attacking people that claimed Bill raped them aren't attacking Trump and his surrogates for the same. It's almost as if it wasn't Hillary's actions that people disagreed with but the fact that she did them. It's almost as if their hatred of her is irrational. Perhaps the prospect of a female POTUS scares them.

Now that there's new stories of Trump sexually assaulting women coming out everyday, can we start speculating about his links to NAMBLA again? There's a greater chance of him donating to NAMBLA than there is of him winning the Presidential race at this stage after all.

I think they are all a disgrace and only bring shame to the US.

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

I think they are all a disgrace and only bring shame to the US.

But you have posted primarily and mostly complaining about Hillary Clinton. Your comments about Trump are, comparatively, quite limited and really appear to be limited to saying "oh he's awful" when it's pointed out to you that he is guilty of a load of if not most of what you accuse Hillary Clinton of.

From that, I can only conclude that you thoroughly dislike Hillary Clinton and it disappoints you that you have to admit the alternative is actually significantly worse.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Did anyone claim the Hillary base were saints? The issue is whether they're as offensive as those Trump supporters that are easily found at his rally's. They're not. No need for you to report back on your findings from your holiday, they're obvious enough already.

Hillary is unarguably opposed to ISIS, and has policies that are clearly far more pro-women than any other presidential candidate in my recollection. No amount of slapdash guff about her 'friends' the Wahhabists (or is it the Muslim Brotherhood - it seems to change?) changes those facts.

Hillary handed Libya to terrorists including ISIS and didn't bother getting her allies who she talked to in the UK, France and Middle East to do anything to stop it when Gaddafi was removed.
A bomb first then ignore the vacuum left, somehow thousands and thousands of ISIS members replaced Gaddafi.
I will call her pro-woman when she is not a hypocrite on the matter.
The facts have not changed, I would be accused of repeating everything every time if I had to post all the facts all of the time.

I do think the basket of deplorables and these people being irredeemable was a huge mistake by Hillary, while lying at the same time she will be a president for all of the people.
The irredeemable comment was possibly worse than deplorable.
I find people who attends her rallies just as offensive as those who attend Trump's rallies.
One would have to be stupid enough to care that much for the respective candidate and it would say you are a pawn in their chess game, as both only care about themselves and not the people.
The people are just a means to an end goal.