At 8/15/16 01:39 AM, The-Great-One wrote: That's why I'm waiting for that first debate.

Assuming he doesn't pull out. Because I think every time he opens his mouth about anything being "rigged" it's an excuse to either pull out of it, or try to protect his brand as a "winner" from the now seemingly inevitable loss. "I didn't lose, it's that Hillary and the media, and anybody else I can think of conspired together and cheated".

At 8/14/16 06:09 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

So what I'm saying is, basically, if they media wanted Trump to lose, they could. Here's how. Ban his name. Any mention of a certain 70 year old man with orange hair, and their mic gets yanked and the 5-second delay is put in. Just a few things, but it could work, if they had cooperation with the late-night hosts like Colbert, who tend to be the literal "final word" of the day before America goes to sleep.

Not to mention, Trump literally wrote the book on "No such thing as bad [publicity]":

they went the other way with it. 24 hour coverage of the words he says, very little reporting on the actual real world damage done by the clintons.

as i see it, they've been trying to destroy him from the moment he started knocking out his opponents.

At 8/15/16 02:39 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: they went the other way with it. 24 hour coverage of the words he says

There's an incredibly simple remedy for this, yet Trump can't seem to figure out what that one weird trick is.

I don't really feel like quoting a specific person so I'll just throw in my input about this media airtime stuff. The thing with this election is that both of these candidates are SO unpopular with some of the highest unfavorability ratings we've ever seen, so in order for one to win they have to make it all about their opponent, not themself. Once one of them starts talking about themself, they're dead. They need to make it all about their opponent and attack the hell out of them to give people incentive to vote for them instead. Hillary has the media on her side so it's going to be a battle for Trump. Unless he can raise and spend some money, which I'm not sure why he hasn't spent anything yet, it's gonna be tough for him to win.

At 8/15/16 07:46 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/15/16 02:39 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: they went the other way with it. 24 hour coverage of the words he says

There's an incredibly simple remedy for this, yet Trump can't seem to figure out what that one weird trick is.

be a democrat?

...i'm being facetious.

At 8/16/16 02:30 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: be a democrat?

"Stop constantly saying stupid shit."

At 8/16/16 03:41 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/16/16 02:30 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: be a democrat?

"Stop constantly saying stupid shit."

the answer was fairly obvious. the guy would come off a lot better if he'd think about stuff for 2 seconds before speaking, that and he'd tone down the over the top joking.

his way of communicating worked well against all the other republicans, liberal media was more than happy to highlight anything they could which would hurt the other republican candidates. now, just hillary and himself, they're far less nice about their coverage and flip shit about every little word.

course, there's a small part of me that believes he's in it for the clintons anyway and he's doing exactly what he's supposed to.

At 8/16/16 11:12 PM, Korriken wrote: Well if he actually wanted to win, he would. Problem is, he doesn't. I'm just wondering how long it's going to be before his own campaign staff abandon him.

I'm personally amazed that the GOP doesn't seem to have a way to revoke his nomination and put someone else out there.

Paul Ryan could have said "Donald Trump is not a Republican and does not represent the values of our party" back in last July when it became clear that he was a fucking lunatic, but welp! At any rate the GOP has about 3 weeks to decide between dumping Trump and being loyal to the democratic process of the primaries - early voting in several key states is a blink away, so if they don't act fast then Trump's name will permanently be on those absentee + early voting ballots.

Calling it now: when the results of those early ballots get proliferated to the media and they all immediately start calling FL, PA, OH, CO, etc, Trump supporters will freak the fuck out and cry fowl about election rigging and media bias.

At 8/17/16 01:29 AM, Feoric wrote: Calling it now: when the results of those early ballots get proliferated to the media and they all immediately start calling FL, PA, OH, CO, etc, Trump supporters will freak the fuck out and cry fowl about election rigging and media bias.

It'll be great to. Best case scenario would be if we can get the Electoral College dumped through this mess.

Seriously? Are we really going to go through this shit again after the last election?

At 8/17/16 07:46 PM, LordJaric wrote: Seriously? Are we really going to go through this shit again after the last election?

I hope this happens. Seriously, fuck Clinton. She's the most under-qualified piece of shit candidate that deserves to be in prison, not about to take the oval office. The fact that people don't care about her 1,000+ scandals and war crimes and will vote for her anyway just because Trump is said to be "racist" by the media makes me angry. It also makes me angry how people think things will actually be better under her without understanding the concept of corporate donors and special interest groups, with buying and selling favors.

Texas has always been a very proud state, and I wouldn't doubt if they really tried to do this.

it blows my mind that anyone can be pro hillary and deny the validity of her faults.

At 8/18/16 03:47 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 8/18/16 03:39 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: it blows my mind that anyone can be pro hillary and deny the validity of her faults.

You had a mind to blow?

class

No srsly, what faults am I denying that you can remotely prove?

none that you would consider valid. we have a different take on just about everything in your previous post. do not wish to argue, it'll get us both nowhere. we'll see how it all goes, i've already accepted that nothing sticks to the clintons.

the funny thing is, honestly, in policy, i kinda think she'd be better than the incumbent.

At 8/18/16 04:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I simply don't respect empty argumentation.

If you don't have the ability to make a persuasive argument on the subject, maybe there's a problem with your view on the matter or with your sources of information.

another example of you making things a personal attack instead of just issue based. people's opinions rarely change, that's the reason for my hesitance in having this conversation. i'll say what i say, you say what you say, clinton skips around with the administration turning a blind eye because of politics over justice.

my issue with benghazi, if we can ignore hillary not upping security, who is responsible for not sending aid to our fellow americans? that's the main thing i'm concerned about. in the time span of the attack, we could have sent them help from a number of locations, even as far away as germany. if it's not her, that's fine, but i would like to see justice and whoever is responsible actually be held accountable. nobody serving this nation should be left to hang as those men were.

Clinton is guilty of maybe 1 thing? Being a moron when it comes to computers. Something everyone over the age of 50 is pretty much guilty of if they didn't help invent the computers themselves. Trump is probably guilty of the same, he's just yet to be in a position of power where it would matter.

i take issue with her reckless use of a personal email. under the statute of the law, it doesn't matter if she was oblivious or extremely careless it's her duty to ensure the information she sends and receives is done in the most secure way possible, which is not on a personal server that lacked security.

if you know anyone with clearances, ask them if they could do 1/10th what she did.

and if you watched any of the comey stuff, he stated that anyone who had done anything similar under his command would be subject to losing their clearances, making her ineligible for the potus position.

it's all screwed, and if the justice system won't do anything about it, why even really bother here?

At 8/18/16 04:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: That's because Hillary is basically a moderate republican from the late 80s who cares about women's rights.

She's running on the most progressive Democratic platform in modern history. Liberals calling Hillary a Republican is the most obnoxious thing ever.

At 8/18/16 05:22 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i take issue with her reckless use of a personal email.

I'm perfectly aware of how flawed Hillary is as a candidate, but, really? People are still acting like her private email server is an actual issue within the context of the rest of the 2016 election?

At 8/18/16 06:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 8/18/16 05:22 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: my issue with benghazi, if we can ignore hillary not upping security, who is responsible for not sending aid to our fellow americans? that's the main thing i'm concerned about. in the time span of the attack, we could have sent them help from a number of locations, even as far away as germany. if it's not her, that's fine, but i would like to see justice and whoever is responsible actually be held accountable. nobody serving this nation should be left to hang as those men were.

Here's where I surprise you. I think those are legitimate concerns. I agree that people shouldn't be abandoned if there is at all help available and they are under attack. I do not have the information available to know why that help was either not available or not made available. I also understand that the way the whole thing went down looked bad and that Hillary's office was playing politics with the messaging when just being frank might have been better; or, waiting for answers before guessing and making statements on the record which is what it looked like to me (people without all of the info).

I guess my problem with saying that she's committed war crimes with bengazi is that I don't see them. I don't see why she would sacrifice americans. There's no benefit to her. There's no reason why she wouldn't have helped them. To me, the explanation seems obvious. Somewhere there was either a break in communication and people didn't know enough that could have done something; or they're holding back on why they couldn't do something because they don't want others to exploit it later. Basically, I'm unwilling to assume malice because I don't see any motive for it.

i've always thought that the lack of added security and the lack of aid sent was in relation to the image the administration wanted to portray, of a smarter type of diplomacy than exhibited in the previous administration. adding troops and aiding that situation would show that you can't just talk with some people and the back seat approach to dealing with that area isn't the right one.

i don't nessisarily like our involvement in the middle east, but imo, we need to be in it if we're going to be there. i don't like the state department arming groups, like they did, because it always turns around to bite us in the ass.

i take issue with her reckless use of a personal email. under the statute of the law, it doesn't matter if she was oblivious or extremely careless it's her duty to ensure the information she sends and receives is done in the most secure way possible, which is not on a personal server that lacked security.

My understanding is that it was a practice that had been used multiple times in the State Dept. (I don't know why, but I know it did happen). Colen Powel also had a personal e-mail server and no one is crying fowl about that (not even me!). Anecdotally the systems were apparently more functional with the private e-mail from what I've heard on other forums.

But you're right that that's not the right way to handle that kind of data. The thing is, I don't expect our leaders to be computer savvy. They aren't. They're old lawyers. And it's all sorts in politics that have broken this rule. Just as a gut check, if Colin Powel ran for office, do you feel that you'd have the same reaction you have right now to Clinton? If you don't, maybe ask yourself why that is... But in the case of Clinton or Powell it just isn't the level of thing that concerns me. Imo, the person who fucked that up was the tech who set up the e-mail server and the people responsible for making sure tech policy is followed. Those people exist and if they'd done what they were supposed to we wouldn't be in this situation.

colin powel used a private email, he did not set up multiple private servers in his home. also, the rules on handling information were made more strict during hillary's tenure, she had to sign documents stating that she would only use government devices for government purposes. many in the state department noticed her violation, i believe even the white house.

aside from the ease of which she was probably hacked, my main issue is that government communication is often part of public record and she had no right to decide what should and shouldn't be turned over.

as for colin powel, i'm not his biggest fan. he was a mouth piece for the iraq war and i'm no down the line republican. what he did with his emails wasn't right, but i do believe he also turned all his over, unlike hillary.

i'm not as strict as a friend i have, who believes any politician not acting solely in the interest of the people is guilty of treason and should be dispatched. but i do believe in many of the laws we have, government employees should be prosecuted for every little violation in government practice, their repercussions should be swift and clear.

but in the end, every portion of this back and forth doesn't matter. the fbi damned her yet cleared her and comey advised to not bring charges, which is absolutely not his job.

this whole situation frustrates me very much. i'll be ticketed for failure to stop at a light, but government employees don't have to follow rules which deal with national security. when it comes to crimes, even the very minor ones, intent doesn't matter.

imo, judging from how the justice department has been working, i think they need to be separated from the executive branch.

At 8/18/16 03:39 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: it blows my mind that anyone can be pro hillary and deny the validity of her faults.

What also blows my mind is how this idiot gumOnShoe was ever a moderator on these forums with an IQ as low as what he has and the amount of insults he felt the need to throw at me for stating facts.

At 8/18/16 09:52 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: So, shut the fuck up. You know nothing.

The fact that you are throwing false statistics at me such as honesty ratings put out by whoever is astonishing. Doing what she did with the email server was one thing, but she openly lied about it which was exposed by various clips of the FBI director Comey saying so. Or how about that time she claimed there were people openly firing rounds at her when she got off the plane to Benghazi, only for video footage to show her peacefully coming off the plane greeting people? Or that time where she claims to be all about the environment but yet takes tons of money from the fossil fuel industry? Or that time that she used to be against gay marriage, but now is opposed to it? Or that time when her and her husband stole $200,000 worth of furniture from the White House when Bill left office?

I can go on, but none of these corrupt, illegal things mean shit to you because all you care about is how Trump may be "racist". Keep believing what you want to believe from the propaganda shoved down your throat.

This was a thread created to talk about Donald Trump's campaign. The past couple of posts have devolved to discussing Hillary Clinton. There is a 2016 Presidential Election Thread here on Newgrounds for that kind of discussion.

I kindly ask that this conversation be moved over there.

At 8/17/16 10:11 PM, mothballs wrote:

At 8/17/16 07:46 PM, LordJaric wrote: Seriously? Are we really going to go through this shit again after the last election?

It also makes me angry how people think things will actually be better under her without understanding the concept of corporate donors and special interest groups, with buying and selling favors.

To her credit she is pro campaign finance reform and any justices she appoints to the supreme court might be as well. The 2016 GOP platform is to eliminate it entirely, Trump has no stated position but might be open to it based on past comments (but with conservative supreme court justices and a conservative senate it wouldn't matter.)

Trump isn't immune from accusations of corruption either:
http://therightscoop.com/we-see-a-lot-of-money-puring-in-from-russia-donald-trump-jr-in-2008/ (also read about Paul Manafort's Russian ties and Trump's refusal to show tax returns)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430266/donald-trump-bribery-politicians-hillary-clinton-robert-menendez-solomon-melgen

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12242170/pam-bondi-trump-rnc-convention

http://www.wcnc.com/news/politics/trump-was-accused-of-destroying-email-evidence-in-2006-lawsuit/284548681

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/deal-sealed-trump-tower-suit-article-1.834028

The point is there are a lot of dishonest things out there about Trump too and I don't really want to link spam too much. I think its also worth considering things like Trump's choices of staff. He picked Mike Pence who is a neocon / "globalist" (not my choice of word, but its what Trump supporters would use) and very controversial and disliked in his state of Indiana, for his finance chairman he picked a Goldman Sachs partner and George Soros employee (not saying there is anything wrong with those things or not, but its not very anti-establishment) and his economics team is handpicked from his top donor billionaires from wall street and all but one of which have any real economic experience.

At 8/19/16 09:43 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Congrats billybob... You're not at the bottom of this food chain! :D

In fact, I dare say I smell a whiff of something.... o'zone? intelligence? Definitely something here.

if you wish to have conversations with people, you may want to learn to not insult them every time you say something. all you do, at least with me, is turn me off and make me dismiss every thing you say.

social conduct 101 : treat others with respect, even if you disagree with them.

At 8/21/16 04:50 PM, Obama2016 wrote: Respect went out the window when Hillary & Friends decided to blame Russia for the leaked rigging of the DNC. Oh look! Another person dies under mysterious circumstances after crossing H & F.

This is your party, democrats? Fucking crooks, liars, cheats and murderers? Where's the respect in that? Where is your justice?

Sounds alpha as fuck to me. Probably why they're winning ATM. Maybe the GOP should stop being beta cucks.

At 8/22/16 09:53 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

all you do, at least with me, is turn me off and make me dismiss every thing you say.

There's an active choice you make when you're insulted to not listen to the things the opposing person is saying. People will likely insult you at least every now and then for the rest of your life. It's a good skill to learn to move beyond that and hear what they're saying and what they believe behind it all.

i'm from a culture where people can disagree but do it respectfully. and i'm of the opinion that if you can't make a point without insulting, your points are weak.

i'm curious, which state are you from?

If I can turn you all into grousing trump supporters who are frothing at the mouth; maybe I've actually won. Maybe I'm a trump supporter who goes around pretending to be a liberal and insulting people to make them more extremely conservative.

i'm not so much a trump supporter, i'm more of a hillary hater.

some words on the internet aren't going to change my personality or my core beliefs.

At 8/22/16 12:00 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

I suppose that's fair. But how do you reconcile that with Trump, who insults people left and right?
- Montage: https://youtu.be/37zvOZ17eSE?t=10s
- How do you reconcile your support this, if you think insults don't belong in dialogue?

i do believe he's a bit of a clown, but most his faults just flow from his mouth. hillary, she's nothing but scandal after scandal and potentially the cause of the end of life for a few.

You are voting for something, though. And what you're voting for is hate. It's anti-american. It's anti-constitutional. He basically doesn't believe the 1st amendment should be part of the constitution.

hillary believes in restricting the 2nd amendment, which would put her in that category as well.

I get it if you want to vote for Garry Johnson. He's a libertarian, a conservative of sorts. He's not Hillary. He's more of a candidate than Trump. Why are you supporting Trump? It can't just be because you hate Hillary.

i don't hate johnson, i'm just not sure he has any chance. interesting though, i hear he is pulling evenly from either side.

and yes, i'd support a giant flaming pile of poop over hillary. this election is the epitome of giant douche vs shit sandwhich.

At 8/22/16 02:40 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

So, you support a ban on Muslims in the united states and/or think its ok to vote for someone who discriminates based on religion?

i do not. what i do support though is a ban or at least higher scrutiny from people of certain areas. as it stands, the president currently has the power to deny the immigration from any nation based on the safety of the american people.

You support a man who said of women: "You have to treat them like shit."

You can't just say "he says shit he doesn't mean" or I'm ok with it because I know about it. It makes you culpable & complicit.

the man says lots of stupid things. some of what he says is meant as humor, much of it are the words of a sheltered rich white man.

the actions of hillary have put our national security in danger and a couple of the controversies around hillary involve people ending up dead. now it seems she was intermingling her personal financial interests with that of the power of the state department.

one is worse than the other, both are bad.

Hillary believes in background checks to make sure people with a violence inducing mental illness or history of extreme violence can't have guns. Why do you disagree with that?

that's not all she believes in.

i do support restrictions on the mentally incompetent and committers of violent crimes. i also support expansion of our mental health system and the removal of unstable people from society.

She's never said once that she wants to take anyone guns away from them or make them illegal.

she has supported far more than that, for one, the brady bill. she also believes that local governments should be free to regulate firearms as they see fit, when questioned about dc's gun laws. her history is full of beliefs infringing on the 2nd amendment.

He doesn't have a chance if you don't vote for him; but, he's the only actually conservative choice in the election. Trump is just a very loud racist; do you want to be the guy who elects the next Hitler to power?

hillary isn't exactly pure on that topic, with her joke on c.p. time and telling black people she can't go anywhere without hot sauce.

hitler is a strong comparison, not one which tends to have me respect the one making the comparison. i've seen the concentration camps, hitler's name is thrown around far too recklessly and freely.

and yes, i'd support a giant flaming pile of poop over hillary. this election is the epitome of giant douche vs shit sandwhich.

I mean, I think you're choosing to eat razor blades covered in flaming shit if you vote for Trump; but ... it's your throat. The problem is, it's my throat too.

as bad as he is, there's no possible way i'm going to believe hillary is the better choice.

do you not see faults in hillary? given those, is she not still your preferred choice?

At 8/22/16 04:02 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i do not. what i do support though is a ban or at least higher scrutiny from people of certain areas.

Then you should be a fan of the Obama administration's current screening process!

At 8/22/16 04:06 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/22/16 04:02 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i do not. what i do support though is a ban or at least higher scrutiny from people of certain areas.

Then you should be a fan of the Obama administration's current screening process!

how long has this been the model? recent? cuz tashfeen malik got into this nation with very minimal lies told. the problem in her situation is that if you're not from a nation with our infrastructure, you can make up anything you want about your background and there's not really a way to check. in her case, i do believe there was evidence in her past that could have been found, but she was stamped through.

when it comes to nations where terrorism exists or anti-american rhetoric is built into the culture, i support building refugee camps which are guarded for their protection and staffed to provide a better life. nations which have heavy amounts of terrorism or support terrorism, i think immigration should pretty much be halted.

At 8/22/16 04:59 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 8/22/16 04:17 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: how long has this been the model? recent? cuz tashfeen malik got into this nation with very minimal lies told.

"Malik traveled to the United States in July 2014 on what's known as a "fiancee visa." Later she became a lawful permanent resident." ~CNN

She wasn't a refugee; which is the screening process that Feoric posted. So, regardless of when it went into affect it wouldn't have applied to her.

you are correct. i also just have a general misstrust in how government does just about everything, so though i was wrong, i'm not really comforted.

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of mass murders in this country are perpetrated by white men who were born here.

white people also make up over 60% of the population, mass murder statistics often fall in line with the nations racial percentages, so i'm not very surprised.

white people are also killed by police more than other racial groups, but then again the portion of white people is the largest portion of the national racial pie.

At 8/22/16 05:14 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: you are correct. i also just have a general misstrust in how government does just about everything, so though i was wrong, i'm not really comforted.

I see you like statistics as a measure of the truth of things. Sohere's an important set of statistics. This argument is not based in reality, it's based in fear, in xenophobia, and making people feel like there's an easy answer to complex issues.

At 8/22/16 06:50 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/22/16 05:14 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: you are correct. i also just have a general misstrust in how government does just about everything, so though i was wrong, i'm not really comforted.

I see you like statistics as a measure of the truth of things. Sohere's an important set of statistics. This argument is not based in reality, it's based in fear, in xenophobia, and making people feel like there's an easy answer to complex issues.

you're far more likely to die from a vast number of things over a shark attack, but it's still a legitimate concern if you're in the ocean and there are things you can do to safeguard yourself when in that situation.