[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Because you aren't allied with Russia. Everyone tries to piss Russia off a little because they aren't allied. It's incredibly satisfying to poke the Russians.

 

Showing support for remain was not trying to strong-arm into staying. Trump voiced public support for brexit - Does that mean he tried to strong arm the UK as well? Practically every major leader in the world voiced an opinion on Brexit and made some kind of implied threat. It really means nothing if Hillary did it too.

 

Of all the reasons to call the woman crooked, not pissing off an ally is not one of them.

 

Supporting Obama with the England would go to the back of the bus? Yeah that's strong arming. We shouldn't have SA as our ally, and we def shouldn't be taking their blood money

[Aerion Brightflame]

Can we just admire that in one speech (Mostly in a 30s segment) Trump managed to do the following things:

 

1) Tell a completely blagrant lie about Hilary's intentions in relation to the 2nd Amendment. Such a blatant lie that it is not legally possible for her to do what he is implying. 

 

2) Implies that Hilary had Scalia assassinated. 

 

3) Then uses language that would very much serve to justify some loonie attempting to kill Hilary or her SC nominees if she wound up in that position without really stretching the language he used. 

 

All (Mostly, the Scalia implication is later on but I can't find it) in one glorious 30s clip: :

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

 

I know this is the media misreading things - But given he's talking about Hilary being in the position to appoint judges (I.E. she won) and thus the 2A voting block has no real power to oppose it, the meaning of 'Go and shoot her' isn't too hard to infer. And it's language no possible leading figure should use because it is in it's own way promoting violence. (And that's not a threat, this kind of language has gotten politicians shot before. It's the same kind of language (A little more direct even) that got Joe Cox shot in Britain. And Palin had an ad campaign that got a US politician shot using similar ideas))

 

I really don't know how Trump manages to say more and more insane things. It would be hilarious if he wasn't a candidate for one of the leading positions in global politics. 

[Goose]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-has-nearly-caught-up-to-trump-in-media-coverage/

 

This is big.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Media has a 6% approval rating. It might even be lower than congress. Not a single damn person doesn't know who Trump is. The media will always spout libel and slander against Trump. Let Hillary ruin herself. Trump got the foot in the door he needed. He's gonna win (if he does) through his movement. Not Clinton News Network mentioning him an extra time

 

@Barty...woman says she wants to look into Aussie's gun confiscation program...woman would appoint the most liberal court in history by a large margin...woman directly said Obama might get assassinated in 2008...lets ignore all that, and punish Trump for telling his voters to get out. Jesus H. Christ, your horse in this race is showing my boy

 

Anyone who was at the speech realizes that Trump paused right after saying second amendment. Before saying people, there is something you can do.

 

Guess we should throw him in jail and invalidate him because he didn't say the word vote...

 

But if you wanna get into conspiracy theories in some sort of sad attempt to twist swing voters, wikileaks apparent source was murdered after the DNC leak...that Clinton Cash is tinted in more than just money from "irrelevant" gays in SA it also has American blood on it. Good job advocating for a generic mob boss.

 

It's not Trump's bloody fault if some lunatic decides to shoot someone. That's not what he said at all, and nobody should be leading credence to the matter

 

Have no idea what happened to Scalia, but pt 1 and 3 are sheet

[Wizarus]

That's a real nice cover up, but most people are not going to see it that way. But it doesn't really matter now. If you support Trump, you don't really care what he says, and if you don't, all this does is validate your opinion of him. At this point it's Hillary's race to lose. Those Khan comments were far more devastating than this; people would have moved on from the DNC if it were for Trump going after them, and it just snowballed from there. He is behind in pretty much every poll, and Republican leaders are starting to already distance themselves from Trump.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's a real nice cover up, but most people are not going to see it that way. But it doesn't really matter now. If you support Trump, you don't really care what he says, and if you don't, all this does is validate your opinion of him. At this point it's Hillary's race to lose. Those Khan comments were far more devastating than this; people would have moved on from the DNC if it were for Trump going after them, and it just snowballed from there. He is behind in pretty much every poll, and Republican leaders are starting to already distance themselves from Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

 

I never accept to being a Trump supporter in public. There are a lot of us who feel as he does, but don't want to tell people that we do in fear of retribution. We don't answer polls, don't tell we support him in public. If asked we either deny supporting him, or say we know people who will support him. If I go to rallies, I try not to get photographed.

 

Silent Majority mate

 

I'm not gonna say he won't lose, cause he really messed up the last couple of weeks (Mishandled Khan, sexual assault etc)

 

But don't count him out yet

[Aerion Brightflame]

Jesus Christ Winter, I already said it was media bullshit. I know that wasn't Trump's intention, even though you should at least acknowledge that in the context Trump was speaking his comments could have had that meaning. 

 

I have no idea why you are trying to guilt me out for being 'pro-hillary' by posting anti Trump ads  - The thing is, Hilary being scum doesn't make Trump an angel either. He says a lot of bullshit, and a lot of things that people should question as insane. And yet you defend these comments because you assume any anti-Trump media piece is biased bollocks. (Don't say 'oh I don't believe Trump is perfect. I'm not saying you do, I'm saying specifically in this context you take any comment that writes about Trump's character or a controversy as being truthful'). It's not libel if it's taking the words from his mouth and including his sides defence Winter. 

 

And if someone shoots Hilary or one of the judges, and says 'Trump told me too' you can look back at the wording on this speech and you can see 'Oh s***, this is where he got the idea from. This gun-scaring bollocks designed to make people angry'.  And when it comes from a man who at one stage in the electorial cycle advocated for his supporters to be violent, you can understand why people who hear the comment might doubt the altruistic meaning. Especially since he's talking about a context where the political power of the 2A group has no meaning. 

 

Thank you, thank for you for bringing up Hillary's comment about hitting Obama - 'We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California' . That is as vague a comment as Trump's here in terms of calling for a hit - And yet somehow Trump's comment wasn't calling for a hit but Hillary was? Is it just because Hillary happened to say this one hmm? 

 

How about that CNN story earlier, where Trump blatantly says that Hillary isn't allowed to make mistakes but Mike Pence his second is? How about all of the the s*** Trump, the apparently transparent candidate has said, that his supporters have had to go 'Well he didn't mean that, he meant X'. How about Hillary being the bought and paid for candidate when Trump's advisers are in the majority cronies whom he is beholden too? You've still not provided any shred of proof as to the 'political assassination' and yet you call me out on posting conspiracies? 

 

This is debates, it's meant to be about discussion. You insist on trying to make it personal instead (In my post, every last one of my comments is about Trump. In yours you insist on trying to associate me with Hillary to discredit me). Please don't. I have already expressed a dislike for both candidates, I have posted damming articles about both candidates. Right now most of the negative s*** is about Trump, not Hillary. When I see negative s*** about Hillary that I think warrants discussion, I will post it. It is as simple as that. 

 

Please stop making this s*** personal. It's just irritating. If you really want my personal opinion on it - Every candidate in the election is absolutely awful now that Bernie is out. Hillary represents everything wrong with establishment politics. Johnson is a Libertarian and hence supports insane policies in my mind. Greens are fiscally insane. Trump is just insane, flat out nuts. A narcissistic billionaire madman who managed to successfully trick most of a nation into think he's a populist, when in reality he'll just use to office to make the rich richer and gut life for the poor. But I refrain from talking about that and I focus on the articles as much as I can, because this is the sort of sheet that doesn't belong in a discussion in my mind. 

[Goose]

Media has a 6% approval rating. It might even be lower than congress. Not a single damn person doesn't know who Trump is. The media will always spout libel and slander against Trump. Let Hillary ruin herself. Trump got the foot in the door he needed. He's gonna win (if he does) through his movement. Not Clinton News Network mentioning him an extra time

 

@Barty...woman says she wants to look into Aussie's gun confiscation program...woman would appoint the most liberal court in history by a large margin...woman directly said Obama might get assassinated in 2008...lets ignore all that, and punish Trump for telling his voters to get out. Jesus H. Christ, your horse in this race is showing my boy

 

Anyone who was at the speech realizes that Trump paused right after saying second amendment. Before saying people, there is something you can do.

 

Guess we should throw him in jail and invalidate him because he didn't say the word vote...

 

But if you wanna get into conspiracy theories in some sort of sad attempt to twist swing voters, wikileaks apparent source was murdered after the DNC leak...that Clinton Cash is tinted in more than just money from "irrelevant" gays in SA it also has American blood on it. Good job advocating for a generic mob boss.

 

It's not Trump's bloody fault if some lunatic decides to shoot someone. That's not what he said at all, and nobody should be leading credence to the matter

 

Have no idea what happened to Scalia, but pt 1 and 3 are sheet

 

Media approval ratings are as useless as congressional approval ratings.  Everyone hates "media" or "congress" but is okay with the sources or congressperson they themselves use/have so on the whole nothing changes and the approval ratings are useless.

[Agro]

Silent Majority mate

sheet bro really?

[cr47t]

About the second amendment people comments; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/10/the-defenses-of-donald-trumps-second-amendment-comment-dont-make-sense-heres-why/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

[Raine]

I don't believe that it would be entirely impossible that this election is one of the by-products of our own greed and intolerance of other people. It's the only explanation. Any scenario where a sizable number of people are remotely tolerant of each would bring this to an entirely different result. It's not the fault of two-party systems, because the primaries have aloud a great number to compete with the exception of the democratic primaries, which is the by-product of other factors. It's not the fault of the world we live in today, because it's difficult to argue without a doubt that they world day is worse than 4, 8, 12, 4n, years ago. You can't even blame information because the internet's been a powerful factor in the last 3, maybe even 4 elections. The only reason I can see is that people are increasingly intolerant of other people, not along racial, creed, or political lines but just of everyone outside their niche they make for themselves. That's why I think a good number of people are going to die soon, there is a lot of hate in the world among everyone and everything from the Bre-exit to the Election to the Immigrant Crisis to the South China Sea reflects that. I wasn't alive so I can't say if it's more hate, but it's certainly more vocal. Maybe the next world will be better than this one. We should have never gave people power, that was clearly a bad move in hindsight. 

 

So vote for Trump, he'll expedite things a bit faster. 

 

So I'll be converting my assets into something more useful for the coming winter, and only Agro's invited to my cabin. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

About the second amendment people comments; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/10/the-defenses-of-donald-trumps-second-amendment-comment-dont-make-sense-heres-why/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

 

If Hillary wins, there's nothing we can do. She'd put Aussie type gun confiscation measures on us

 

But the 2nd ammendment people can do something before she wins

 

Also he paused before saying "people"...must be nice dropping Commas when convenient

 

Nice try mate

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2599032

 

Nice

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I find it interesting when people point out gun restrictions as a negative since, personally, I don't care if guns get banned in general.

 

Also I'm of the opinion that every candidate has to be more responsible with their words. The fact that so much Trump says has to be explained later on shows he's not good at this stuff.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I find it interesting when people point out gun restrictions as a negative since, personally, I don't care if guns get banned in general.

 

Also I'm of the opinion that every candidate has to be more responsible with their words. The fact that so much Trump says has to be explained later on shows he's not good at this stuff.

 

The issue some people take isn't with gun restrictions themselves it's with the level of gun restrictions because some people hold the 2nd Amendment in a very high position among other amendments. People fear that the likes of Hilary and Obama would take all there guns away immediately. 

 

Well some people have issue with any kind of gun restriction, but that's a different issue. 

[Jord200]

I just don't want to have to go to class with the fear in the back of my head my parents will have to go the the morgue to identify my corpse.

 

Plus its right to bear ARMS.

 

 

There are plenty of other types od weapons than guns. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I find it interesting when people point out gun restrictions as a negative since, personally, I don't care if guns get banned in general.

 

Also I'm of the opinion that every candidate has to be more responsible with their words. The fact that so much Trump says has to be explained later on shows he's not good at this stuff.

Shrugs, I'm all for more background checks, closing the Charleston loophole, I'll even go a step further and support fingerprinting and requiring training for guns...cause the vast majority of gun owns like me just like to occasionally take a shot at a range or go hunting...we're not the type the shoots up gay bars

 

When Hillary calmly says we should look into Aussie, that terrifies responsible gun owners like me

 

Polling:

 

Strangely enough, Trump is getting 35% of Hispanics in a fair number of polls, which is above Romney and McCain. English Speaking Hispanics support him significantly more than those who can only speak Spanish. Suggesting an differential based on integration

 

Why is he doing so shitty in national polls? Well it could just be the man is gonna get swamped, or it could be something to do that Hillary has 89% of the democrats behind her, while Trump only has 76% of republicans...or it could be polls sampling 15% more dems

[Aerion Brightflame]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291060-trump-obama-founded-isis

 

I know that this is personally directed, but please - Go ahead and try to spin this bollocks. 

 

I know the context that Trump talks about in relation to the middle east and saying that the US (Not Obama specifically, things were going wrong far before that) made things worse is a legitimate criticism. Actually his comment in the wrong because he talks about pulling out rapidly being the issue, but that's a different kettle of fish. But to actually utter the words 'Obama founded ISIS' and that 'ISIS is honouring President Obama' in a non joking context is slander. 

 

If he wanted to criticise Obama's policy there he could have done it in a far more sane and measured manner than this, as a f***ing presidential candidate should. Even for him, this is pushing it. It's tryi)ng to tie the president to an awful lot of death and destruction, and trying to perpetuate the bollocks that Obama is a Muslim (A line I'm pretty sure Trump has been pushing elsewhere in this campaign? I may be wrong on that). 

 

Hell the fact he calls Obama and not Bush/Cheney this is absurd - There are far more to blame than Obama was. He even talks about 'we are laughed at over the world' when Obama repaired a lot of the US foriegn relations since Bush, and the thing that most of the world is laughing at right now about your nation is him. 

 

It's, it's just absurd. Really really absurd. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Obama's 3 huge strategic blunders. 1. Against the advice of generals, Obama withdrew the stabilizing force from Iraq. Agree with it or not, the war was won. Obama has been forced to put troops back there because it was a mistake. 2. The Arab Spring. Dictators friendly to the U.S., such as Mubarak in Egypt, kept the regional security tight. Yes, they're dictators, but they helped U.S. national security. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood, which has turned Egypt into a more violent toilet than before and spread ISIS. 3. Obama let Assad use chemical weapons on his own people and did nothing. The Syrian vacuum allowed Russia in. Obama is a very poor strategist. Either he should have supporter Assad or tried to mediate a peace. Instead he went all passive agressive and did nothing

 

But sure, Bush is absolutely at fault for Saddam, but you didn't see Daesh big in 2005 did you?

 

I wonder what wars Hillary can get going?

[Dad]

Yeah, I'm real confident that Trump allying with Putin will have such a great affect on Syria, Turkey, and the UK.  Cuz, you know, that'll play out well.  Oh and Clinton and China?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  She's more likely to be blamed for another tragedy than she is to bring jobs back or put China in their place.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah, I'm real confident that Trump allying with Putin will have such a great affect on Syria, Turkey, and the UK.  Cuz, you know, that'll play out well.  Oh and Clinton and China?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  She's more likely to be blamed for another tragedy than she is to bring jobs back or put China in their place.

It will actually. Having another friend in the ME (Syria) might be helpful to keep Israel safe. Putin has enough clout with Assad to make it happen. 

 

The UK needs the US now thanks to Brexit. We can offer them a trade deal that the EU is too stuck up to offer. A new world order is rising 

[Dad]

Syria and Russia working together?  Are they still cool with the invasion or. . . .?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Syria and Russia working together?  Are they still cool with the invasion or. . . .?

Invasion? Like Crimea? But yeah. Assad and Putin are allies

[Aerion Brightflame]

But that doesn't justify Trump's comments. It justifies criticism of Obama sure, but not calling Obama the founder of funking ISIS and that they are holding homage to him. If we want to be specific ISIS has existed in some form since 1999. We've actually been in direct opposition to them (As in fighting them) since 2006 when they declared the formation of ISI. In fact in 2006, Daesh and Al-Queada were closely allied. 

 

Besides, there's nothing Obama could have done in those cases: Arab Spring was thought to have been caused by the fact that the dictators in the regions had treated them like sheet for too long. That it was essentially inevitable unless we made the dictator's nicer people, which in part would defeat the whole 'suppression of the region kept things stable' that you are talking about. 

 

Assad's use of chemical weapons was the UN's business, not the US's. Because it's violates a lot of UN treaties designed to oppose chemical weapons. So it was not Obama's fault for 'letting' Assad use the weapons. And the thing about 'allowing Russia in because of the vacuum' - Russia has been close allies with Syria since the 40's. Leading up to the crisis Syria was Russia's closest ally in the middle east. Obama didn't let the Russians in, the russians were already in. They'd been in Truman. 

 

The Withdrawal of troops from Iraq began in 2007. Obama completed the process. In fact, Bush in 2008 signed a treaty with the Iraq, that declared that US forces would pull out of Iraqi cities by 2009, and pull out of Iraq entirely by December 31st 2011. Obama met this deadline. Mistake or no, Obama did the only thing he could do. The only thing Obama has brought back to Iraq is air support, which essentially the Russians are doing to. See the treaty for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement 

 

So... yeah, the comments Trump made are still absurd. Just completely absurd and trying to continue this false narrative about Obama. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Democrats often blame President George W. Bush for the creation of ISIS, because al-Qaida flourished after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

 

But you could also argue Obama’s decision to leave Iraq after 2011 contributed to the security vacuum that gave Daesh the chance to put down roots and regroup. The Trump campaign sent us links to articles about how the Obama administration handled the situation in the Middle East that influenced the rise of Daesh. As for Clinton, Trump’s campaign has previously pointed to her vote as a senator to authorize force in Iraq in 2002. She later said she regretted that vote.

 

While Clinton does bear some responsibility for the Iraq war that gave Daesh an opening, she isn’t solely responsible: The vast majority of senators — from both parties — joined her in supporting the intervention advocated by Bush. "So yes, Hillary's vote for President Bush's misguided policy to build democracy in Iraq directly assisted the Republican decision that opened the door to the radicalization of Iraq and destabilization of the Levant," said Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma told us in July when Trump attacked Clinton. "Bush's destruction of the Iraq Army and state is the single-most important decision that led to the expansion of al-Qaida into the region and later emergence of Daesh"

 

Republicans have blamed Obama for not keeping 10,000 troops in place in Iraq, which they say could have deterred the opening for Daesh. However, Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from Bush, and that did not include an agreement to leave a large force behind. Trump’s campaign has also pointed to Clinton’s positions on Syria and Libya as evidence for allowing Daesh to grow. As secretary of state in 2011, she echoed Obama’s support for regime change in Syria and said Assad needed to "get out of the way." "Clinton's enthusiasm for regime change in Libya in 2011, which Obama endorsed, resulted in the collapse of order there, which ISIS and others have exploited," Christopher Preble, a defense expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, previously told PolitiFact. "That is a fair criticism, in my opinion."

 

In recent years, the United States has targeted ISIS militarily, with some signs of progress and some setbacks. After an Daesh terrorist attack in Brussels, Obama said that destroying the group is his "top priority." (For what it’s worth, Clinton herself was in favor of supporting Syrian rebels but was overruled by Obama. She also advocated for maintaining a moderate troop presence in Iraq after 2011.)

 

As Hewitt suggested in the interview, it’s possible to argue that the administration’s withdrawing from Iraq, its lack of support to anti-Assad rebels in Syria and its decision to intervene in Libya contributed to the power of Daesh. These concerns track those we’ve heard from foreign-policy experts. However, this more limited and defensible critique of Clinton’s record is what Hewitt offered Trump on his radio show, and the candidate forcefully rejected it out of hand — twice.

 

All in all, Trump isn't right here. Obama contributed to making Daesh the virus it is now, but he didn't create it. Hewitt is correct, and Trump is not. What can be said, is that the world would have been a much better place if both Bush and Obama hadn't stuck their heads where it didn't belong

 

 

 

That being said, enjoy some nice Victim Blaming and media corruption

 

Both candidates are quite flawed this election, but the greater evil being Hillary is pretty clear

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291188-top-hillary-state-aide-helped-clinton-foundation

 

Conflict of Interest

[Aerion Brightflame]

I would personally disagree with blaming Obama for pulling out as being the founding cause of ISIS because it does overlook the fact that Obama had a distinct timeline that required the removal of all personnel from Iraq. You can argue more could have been done before he pulled out to ensure the stability of Iraq, but the action of pulling out is essentially blameless. Or the blame goes to Bush. 

 

And yes Hilary has been very glib when it comes to foreign powers being overthrown. There's the record on Gaddifi's death where she just laughed about it. 

 

It's unfortunate that both candidates are so flawed, and that Hilary is so worryingly war mongering. But hey, that's US politics this year.