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

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What defense?

 

Breaking: No Fortune 100 CEO gave to Trump's campaign through August, while 11 donated to Clinton

 

He's built of people like me giving him small dollar donations

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-fortune-100-ceos-back-republican-donald-trump-1474671842/

And idea to fix crushing student loan that won't put us 30 Trillion in debt

 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-congress-should-force-colleges-to-reduce-tuition-costs/article/2602681#.V-V-CvPAR_w.twitter

Would you like a few more till you accept he's fighting for us, or is him using 1/10th of what he put in for a venture a problem?

 

Actually I'm kinda sick of your bullshit Tom, Trump is the guy who paid off a woman's 400 k mortgage on her farm after banks robbed her...because he could

 

He's a person who's given, given and given again, just to have the media malign him, and sheep bleat that bullshit back at people who realize what a hero he is

[Dad]

He's fighting for us? The man still hadn't addressed the 18% of his voter base that miraculously showed up overnight. And telling me "I'm gonna create jobs" or "I know what to do" doesn't tell me sheet. He's like a dog in hat. You can tell him to stop funking around, but he's already got his paws on the next person he wants to screw.

 

So no, I'm not funking convinced that a man who has little to no history with my people or my problems is fighting for me. He's playing politics and fighting for his own interests, like Hilary. No I'm not convinced that a man afraid of fact checking gives a sheet about the state of this country.

 

And when numerous economic heads come out and accurately refute this saving of trillions of dollars, I'm not inclined to believe the man who can barely manage his own wallet.

 

I don't care how much he spends on his campaign or how much he donates to invisible charities. I care that he has no experience, no common sense, and lacks the mental fortitude to see that photo ops, reality shows, and "speaking your mind" don't qualify you to be president.

 

I care that he refuses to be transparent, but then has the gall to call out his opponent for the same thing. I care that he has the support of as many extremists as Hillary does. I care that he is held to be this irrefutable god who can't do wrong, just because "he's not pc". I care that he has support from Russia, but a majority of the world is laughing at us, because this was the best we had to offer.

 

And the fact that hillary is not even 5% better is embarrassing. But what I can say for her is, I know where she comes from, I know her history, and I can see through her bullshit. She handles money better (clearly) and she's a jabroni. And I'd rather a sneaky jabroni than an incompetent ignoramus.

[Sunshine Jesse]

What defense?

 

Breaking: No Fortune 100 CEO gave to Trump's campaign through August, while 11 donated to Clinton

 

He's built of people like me giving him small dollar donations

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-fortune-100-ceos-back-republican-donald-trump-1474671842/

 

And idea to fix crushing student loan that won't put us 30 Trillion in debt

 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-congress-should-force-colleges-to-reduce-tuition-costs/article/2602681#.V-V-CvPAR_w.twitter

 

Would you like a few more till you accept he's fighting for us, or is him using 1/10th of what he put in for a venture a problem?

 

Actually I'm kinda sick of your bullshit Tom, Trump is the guy who paid off a woman's 400 k mortgage on her farm after banks robbed her...because he could

 

He's a person who's given, given and given again, just to have the media malign him, and sheep bleat that bullshit back at people who realize what a hero he is

...A hero?

 

I could understand you being a Trump supporter by virtue of Hillary being a horrible candidate. Sure, this requires a level of cognitive dissonance or outright hypocrisy that really says a lot about you as a person, but...

 

A hero?

 

A hero?

 

 

Have

you

seen

half

of

the

things

said

about or by

him or his supporters

in

the

past

week

alone?

 

 

(there may be some overlap in the subjects of the articles but they're at least 80%~ different)

The dude's not only corrupt, but he isn't even smart enough to properly hide it. He's guilty of literally all the things you claim Hillary did, and more! And he doesn't even have the political tact or experience to make a case for being president in spite of all this!

 

Too bad you don't need to make a case to be elected president. But oh well, that's democracy for you.

 

Trump was the poster child of corporate greed until this election, and the fact that he's managed to spin it so that people see Hillary as that is just...

 

Well, honestly, it's brilliant. His campaign has done several things that I can't really call anything other than brilliant. If they were working for any other candidate they would've ensured that they'd be president. But no, they're behind the single most disgraceful candidate I've ever seen in my life.

 

The best part is that you'll either ignore all of this, criticize the source, or deflect it, because you're just another one of the people who have fallen for the cult of personality that was weaved by him. Or rather, his campaign, as he's really far too much of a troglodyte to accomplish anything like this on his own. But that's all it is and ever has been:

 

A cult.

 

A horrifyingly large cult, but a cult nonetheless.

 

Praise Jim Jones President Trump, I guess.

[Aerion Brightflame]

What bullshit? I can prove all of the things I have claimed in regards to Trump being a tight bastard:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/ - A list of 300 charities that Trump has some tie to. Guess what, the majority of them either no commented or said no they got no donation. A lot of these include charities that Trump is a chair on, which means he can't even be bothered to give to charities he has a hand in running. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=7751474381637324&tid=ss_tw - Here's the proof he used his charity to pay off legal fees, and it details how he stopped giving to his own charitable foundation in 2009 (But has still used it to pay fees since). It also details him trying to cheat a man out of a prize he was organising. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation- Wikipedia actually details what the Trump foundation uses money for, whilst yes it has given a lot of money to various sources, we both have the proof that almost none of it is Trumps money, we also know that the foundation runs no charitable programs, and a lot of money is going on essentially political donations. Including $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009. If you want a bit more reading scroll down the the extensive section on legal problems. Including him shorting Veterans on money raised. He uses it like almost every member of the 1% uses a charitable foundation - Moving money around tax free. Except he even forgets to do the charity part of charitable foundation. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/- Let's see we have around 60 known cases of him not paying contractors, 24 different violations of the Fair Labour act, and another 200 mechanic's leins claiming they were still owed. This includes at least 253 individuals on just one of Trumps projects (The Taj Mahal in Atlantic city where he either didn't pay fully or paid late). Cases like this are infact on-going right now as he runs for presidency - He is refusing to pay overtime to 48 workers who worked at one of his private events (And he actually choose not to settle, instead counter suing a contractor to try and get them to pay). Hell the man has sued his own funking lawyers at one point after they complained he hasn't paid them. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(lawyer)- Trump's special council on the campaign and his personal lawyer of many years (Also the guy who made the claim of 'irresponsible intent' for the New York Times lawsuit which would never actually work in a court of law) is a graduate of the Thomas M Cooley Law School in West Virgina, which is generally considered one of the worst law schools in the country with a 22.9% employment score and the loosest admission criteria in the nation. In fact the class of 2015 is generally considered the worst class of law students in American history. He's a billionaire allegedly, he should be able to higher a better lawyer than this. The only reason you'd hire a graduate from this law school is because of cost. There are probably hundreds or thousands of better law schools to take people from. 

 

So what bullshit did I claim when I talked about him being cheap? You have one example of him being generous (Which you have not sourced but I assume is fairly modern), and I have hundreds of cases of him not being generous for no good reason stretching decades. My argument paints a much more convincing picture of the man than yours because mine is grounded in more (And arguably stronger) evidence

 

Finally, whilst nobody can talk about the media exactly being of high quality this cycle, I wish to highlight something before you attempt to dismiss these sources due to bias - The media has no obligation to be fair. It does not have to entertain Trump and Hillary equally. What the media should aim to be is objective. And that means that if Trump has done a lot of shady sheet, it reporting on that is not bias. It is the job of the media. 

 

Or at least it's the job of the media until Trump rips apart the first Amendment and changes the libel laws. But of course he's the transparent candidate, he'd never want to silence the media's freedom to criticise now would he? That would be nontransparent surely? 

[Phantom Roxas]

Good funking riddens though, it'll be wonderful to destroy two globalist dynasties that took turn raping America this november

They are actively undermining our nation's sovereignty and economy. They're devaluing their currency to boost the Mexican economy at the expense of the US one. That's not our freind. They're doing everything they can do to kill the US's chance of being self reliant. They profited off NAFTA while we got raped. It's about time that Mexico realizes they can't funk us blind and get away it it.

Considering your rape metaphors, have you heard that Trump had raped a thirteen year-old girl?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Considering your rape metaphors, have you heard that Trump had raped a thirteen year-old girl?

The postponement of the pre-trial conference from its original date of September 9 has been noted on PacerMonitor. The website says the plaintiff “has not yet filed affidavits of service confirming that Defendants have been served with copies of the summons and complaint. In order to allow Plaintiff the full amount of time authorized by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to serve Defendants and to allow Defendants the full amount of time authorized by Rule 12(a) to respond to the complaint in advance of the initial pretrial conference, the conference shall be adjourned until October 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

 

allegations in the lawsuit, which were dismissed by a Los Angeles Federal Court judge last month,

 

Also plaintiff is anon...so no I don't care

 

 

...A hero?

 

I could understand you being a Trump supporter by virtue of Hillary being a horrible candidate. Sure, this requires a level of cognitive dissonance or outright hypocrisy that really says a lot about you as a person, but...

 

A hero?

 

A hero?

 

 

Have 

you

seen

half

of

the

things

said

about or by

him or his supporters

in

the

past

week

alone?

 

 

(there may be some overlap in the subjects of the articles but they're at least 80%~ different)

The dude's not only corrupt, but he isn't even smart enough to properly hide it. He's guilty of literally all the things you claim Hillary did, and more! And he doesn't even have the political tact or experience to make a case for being president in spite of all this!

 

Too bad you don't need to make a case to be elected president. But oh well, that's democracy for you.

 

Trump was the poster child of corporate greed until this election, and the fact that he's managed to spin it so that people see Hillary as that is just...

 

Well, honestly, it's brilliant. His campaign has done several things that I can't really call anything other than brilliant. If they were working for any other candidate they would've ensured that they'd be president. But no, they're behind the single most disgraceful candidate I've ever seen in my life.

 

The best part is that you'll either ignore all of this, criticize the source, or deflect it, because you're just another one of the people who have fallen for the cult of personality that was weaved by him. Or rather, his campaign, as he's really far too much of a troglodyte to accomplish anything like this on his own. But that's all it is and ever has been:

 

A cult.

 

A horrifyingly large cult, but a cult nonetheless.

 

Praise Jim Jones President Trump, I guess.

The only cult I've been is with the democrats who owned my vote because of my brown skin and my sexuality. But I'm pleased to say I've broken those sick chains and moved on. So let's get into the meat of the matter here

 

If I wanted it, I would have gotten it, look at the amount of money Trump put into trying to get that casino, it's pitiful, ofc he didn't get it, and he's repeatedly said he has been able to buy off people like HRC and Jeb!...so not sure what the story there is....you know what is a story though? Kurt has repeatedly gotten in trouble for libel and stander against Trump

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-reporter-tweets-his-way-into-trouble-with-a-claim-about-trump-that-lacked-evidence/2016/09/14/f8bd2a54-7a95-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html

 

Oh joy

 

So has Obama though...you don't keep generals that are ineffective....but nice misleading title

 

He upped the rent on his building, and if you consider that taking back money, he took by 8 million? After giving close to 60 to his campaign? Seems like he's taking back some of his own money if that

 

Only 5 Trillion now? I was under the impression that the moodys give a 19 trillion debt addition last time they tried to analyze Trump's tax plan. It's good to see they're slowly becoming less deluded, you might wanna take a page out of their book

 

 

 

“[generals] have been reduced to rubble … to a point where it’s embarrassing for our country.” Once he took charge, Trump continued, “they’ll probably be different generals”

 

You do realize that every admin does to a degree right?

 

You're accusing me of not trusting sources right, well I have a reason for that

 

 

Poltifact pulls this kinda sheet a lot

 

But let's get into he's done everything HRC has done and more. Care to point out where Trump went into public office and then started selling ambassador positions? Or where he lied under oath repeatedly? Or where he let American citizens die? Or where in the 90's he was bashing gays and lesbians?

 

 

I have made a case for him, over and over actually. Almost everything he says is sound. But all you guys can do it point out the silver in Trump's eye while ignoring the plank in Hillary's

 

I'm sorry I don't trust an "unbais" source that drops this under every piece they write

 

"Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S."

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3449920/That-time-Donald-Trump-saved-family-farm-Widow-s-daughter-campaign-rally-recall-Donald-paid-mom-s-300-000-mortgage-father-committed-suicide.html

 

This is the type of thing I've seen Mr. Trump do. All these people like Sharpton and Jackson bashing him now were praising him right up till he ran for president. So no, I've broken the chains that seem to keep you blind.

 

 

What bullshit? I can prove all of the things I have claimed in regards to Trump being a tight bastard:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/ - A list of 300 charities that Trump has some tie to. Guess what, the majority of them either no commented or said no they got no donation. A lot of these include charities that Trump is a chair on, which means he can't even be bothered to give to charities he has a hand in running. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=7751474381637324&tid=ss_tw - Here's the proof he used his charity to pay off legal fees, and it details how he stopped giving to his own charitable foundation in 2009 (But has still used it to pay fees since). It also details him trying to cheat a man out of a prize he was organising. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation- Wikipedia actually details what the Trump foundation uses money for, whilst yes it has given a lot of money to various sources, we both have the proof that almost none of it is Trumps money, we also know that the foundation runs no charitable programs, and a lot of money is going on essentially political donations. Including $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009. If you want a bit more reading scroll down the the extensive section on legal problems. Including him shorting Veterans on money raised. He uses it like almost every member of the 1% uses a charitable foundation - Moving money around tax free. Except he even forgets to do the charity part of charitable foundation. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/- Let's see we have around 60 known cases of him not paying contractors, 24 different violations of the Fair Labour act, and another 200 mechanic's leins claiming they were still owed. This includes at least 253 individuals on just one of Trumps projects (The Taj Mahal in Atlantic city where he either didn't pay fully or paid late). Cases like this are infact on-going right now as he runs for presidency - He is refusing to pay overtime to 48 workers who worked at one of his private events (And he actually choose not to settle, instead counter suing a contractor to try and get them to pay). Hell the man has sued his own funking lawyers at one point after they complained he hasn't paid them. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(lawyer)- Trump's special council on the campaign and his personal lawyer of many years (Also the guy who made the claim of 'irresponsible intent' for the New York Times lawsuit which would never actually work in a court of law) is a graduate of the Thomas M Cooley Law School in West Virgina, which is generally considered one of the worst law schools in the country with a 22.9% employment score and the loosest admission criteria in the nation. In fact the class of 2015 is generally considered the worst class of law students in American history. He's a billionaire allegedly, he should be able to higher a better lawyer than this. The only reason you'd hire a graduate from this law school is because of cost. There are probably hundreds or thousands of better law schools to take people from. 

 

So what bullshit did I claim when I talked about him being cheap? You have one example of him being generous (Which you have not sourced but I assume is fairly modern), and I have hundreds of cases of him not being generous for no good reason stretching decades. My argument paints a much more convincing picture of the man than yours because mine is grounded in more (And arguably stronger) evidence

 

Finally, whilst nobody can talk about the media exactly being of high quality this cycle, I wish to highlight something before you attempt to dismiss these sources due to bias - The media has no obligation to be fair. It does not have to entertain Trump and Hillary equally. What the media should aim to be is objective. And that means that if Trump has done a lot of shady sheet, it reporting on that is not bias. It is the job of the media. 

 

Or at least it's the job of the media until Trump rips apart the first Amendment and changes the libel laws. But of course he's the transparent candidate, he'd never want to silence the media's freedom to criticise now would he? That would be nontransparent surely? 

I linked one thing

 

What bullshit? I can prove all of the things I have claimed in regards to Trump being a tight bastard:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/ - A list of 300 charities that Trump has some tie to. Guess what, the majority of them either no commented or said no they got no donation. A lot of these include charities that Trump is a chair on, which means he can't even be bothered to give to charities he has a hand in running. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=7751474381637324&tid=ss_tw - Here's the proof he used his charity to pay off legal fees, and it details how he stopped giving to his own charitable foundation in 2009 (But has still used it to pay fees since). It also details him trying to cheat a man out of a prize he was organising. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation- Wikipedia actually details what the Trump foundation uses money for, whilst yes it has given a lot of money to various sources, we both have the proof that almost none of it is Trumps money, we also know that the foundation runs no charitable programs, and a lot of money is going on essentially political donations. Including $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009. If you want a bit more reading scroll down the the extensive section on legal problems. Including him shorting Veterans on money raised. He uses it like almost every member of the 1% uses a charitable foundation - Moving money around tax free. Except he even forgets to do the charity part of charitable foundation. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/- Let's see we have around 60 known cases of him not paying contractors, 24 different violations of the Fair Labour act, and another 200 mechanic's leins claiming they were still owed. This includes at least 253 individuals on just one of Trumps projects (The Taj Mahal in Atlantic city where he either didn't pay fully or paid late). Cases like this are infact on-going right now as he runs for presidency - He is refusing to pay overtime to 48 workers who worked at one of his private events (And he actually choose not to settle, instead counter suing a contractor to try and get them to pay). Hell the man has sued his own funking lawyers at one point after they complained he hasn't paid them. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(lawyer)- Trump's special council on the campaign and his personal lawyer of many years (Also the guy who made the claim of 'irresponsible intent' for the New York Times lawsuit which would never actually work in a court of law) is a graduate of the Thomas M Cooley Law School in West Virgina, which is generally considered one of the worst law schools in the country with a 22.9% employment score and the loosest admission criteria in the nation. In fact the class of 2015 is generally considered the worst class of law students in American history. He's a billionaire allegedly, he should be able to higher a better lawyer than this. The only reason you'd hire a graduate from this law school is because of cost. There are probably hundreds or thousands of better law schools to take people from. 

 

So what bullshit did I claim when I talked about him being cheap? You have one example of him being generous (Which you have not sourced but I assume is fairly modern), and I have hundreds of cases of him not being generous for no good reason stretching decades. My argument paints a much more convincing picture of the man than yours because mine is grounded in more (And arguably stronger) evidence

 

Finally, whilst nobody can talk about the media exactly being of high quality this cycle, I wish to highlight something before you attempt to dismiss these sources due to bias - The media has no obligation to be fair. It does not have to entertain Trump and Hillary equally. What the media should aim to be is objective. And that means that if Trump has done a lot of shady sheet, it reporting on that is not bias. It is the job of the media. 

 

Or at least it's the job of the media until Trump rips apart the first Amendment and changes the libel laws. But of course he's the transparent candidate, he'd never want to silence the media's freedom to criticise now would he? That would be nontransparent surely? 

You're telling me he's basically been fraudulent with his foundation based on this reporter. IRS has been auditing him every year for the, if he was really engaging in FEC violations (which some of this apparent laundering scheme would entail) why has he not been hammered on it yet?

 

I agree, they need to be objective, not fair. Which is why it concerns me when reporters from news sources say they cannot be objective this election. They don't even meet the standards you put up Tom. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/politics/hillary-clinton-media-david-brock.html

 

Like take a good look at that sheet, that's what most of our media looks like. Did you even bother to read the damn DNC leaks? Media sources run their damn papers by the HRC campaign before publishing them. Is that the America you think is "objective"

 

 

 

 

What bullshit? I can prove all of the things I have claimed in regards to Trump being a tight bastard:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/ - A list of 300 charities that Trump has some tie to. Guess what, the majority of them either no commented or said no they got no donation. A lot of these include charities that Trump is a chair on, which means he can't even be bothered to give to charities he has a hand in running. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=7751474381637324&tid=ss_tw - Here's the proof he used his charity to pay off legal fees, and it details how he stopped giving to his own charitable foundation in 2009 (But has still used it to pay fees since). It also details him trying to cheat a man out of a prize he was organising. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation- Wikipedia actually details what the Trump foundation uses money for, whilst yes it has given a lot of money to various sources, we both have the proof that almost none of it is Trumps money, we also know that the foundation runs no charitable programs, and a lot of money is going on essentially political donations. Including $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009. If you want a bit more reading scroll down the the extensive section on legal problems. Including him shorting Veterans on money raised. He uses it like almost every member of the 1% uses a charitable foundation - Moving money around tax free. Except he even forgets to do the charity part of charitable foundation. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/- Let's see we have around 60 known cases of him not paying contractors, 24 different violations of the Fair Labour act, and another 200 mechanic's leins claiming they were still owed. This includes at least 253 individuals on just one of Trumps projects (The Taj Mahal in Atlantic city where he either didn't pay fully or paid late). Cases like this are infact on-going right now as he runs for presidency - He is refusing to pay overtime to 48 workers who worked at one of his private events (And he actually choose not to settle, instead counter suing a contractor to try and get them to pay). Hell the man has sued his own funking lawyers at one point after they complained he hasn't paid them. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(lawyer)- Trump's special council on the campaign and his personal lawyer of many years (Also the guy who made the claim of 'irresponsible intent' for the New York Times lawsuit which would never actually work in a court of law) is a graduate of the Thomas M Cooley Law School in West Virgina, which is generally considered one of the worst law schools in the country with a 22.9% employment score and the loosest admission criteria in the nation. In fact the class of 2015 is generally considered the worst class of law students in American history. He's a billionaire allegedly, he should be able to higher a better lawyer than this. The only reason you'd hire a graduate from this law school is because of cost. There are probably hundreds or thousands of better law schools to take people from. 

 

So what bullshit did I claim when I talked about him being cheap? You have one example of him being generous (Which you have not sourced but I assume is fairly modern), and I have hundreds of cases of him not being generous for no good reason stretching decades. My argument paints a much more convincing picture of the man than yours because mine is grounded in more (And arguably stronger) evidence

 

Finally, whilst nobody can talk about the media exactly being of high quality this cycle, I wish to highlight something before you attempt to dismiss these sources due to bias - The media has no obligation to be fair. It does not have to entertain Trump and Hillary equally. What the media should aim to be is objective. And that means that if Trump has done a lot of shady sheet, it reporting on that is not bias. It is the job of the media. 

 

Or at least it's the job of the media until Trump rips apart the first Amendment and changes the libel laws. But of course he's the transparent candidate, he'd never want to silence the media's freedom to criticise now would he? That would be nontransparent surely? 

I linked one thing

 

What bullshit? I can prove all of the things I have claimed in regards to Trump being a tight bastard:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/ - A list of 300 charities that Trump has some tie to. Guess what, the majority of them either no commented or said no they got no donation. A lot of these include charities that Trump is a chair on, which means he can't even be bothered to give to charities he has a hand in running. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?postshare=7751474381637324&tid=ss_tw - Here's the proof he used his charity to pay off legal fees, and it details how he stopped giving to his own charitable foundation in 2009 (But has still used it to pay fees since). It also details him trying to cheat a man out of a prize he was organising. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation- Wikipedia actually details what the Trump foundation uses money for, whilst yes it has given a lot of money to various sources, we both have the proof that almost none of it is Trumps money, we also know that the foundation runs no charitable programs, and a lot of money is going on essentially political donations. Including $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009. If you want a bit more reading scroll down the the extensive section on legal problems. Including him shorting Veterans on money raised. He uses it like almost every member of the 1% uses a charitable foundation - Moving money around tax free. Except he even forgets to do the charity part of charitable foundation. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/- Let's see we have around 60 known cases of him not paying contractors, 24 different violations of the Fair Labour act, and another 200 mechanic's leins claiming they were still owed. This includes at least 253 individuals on just one of Trumps projects (The Taj Mahal in Atlantic city where he either didn't pay fully or paid late). Cases like this are infact on-going right now as he runs for presidency - He is refusing to pay overtime to 48 workers who worked at one of his private events (And he actually choose not to settle, instead counter suing a contractor to try and get them to pay). Hell the man has sued his own funking lawyers at one point after they complained he hasn't paid them. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Cohen_(lawyer)- Trump's special council on the campaign and his personal lawyer of many years (Also the guy who made the claim of 'irresponsible intent' for the New York Times lawsuit which would never actually work in a court of law) is a graduate of the Thomas M Cooley Law School in West Virgina, which is generally considered one of the worst law schools in the country with a 22.9% employment score and the loosest admission criteria in the nation. In fact the class of 2015 is generally considered the worst class of law students in American history. He's a billionaire allegedly, he should be able to higher a better lawyer than this. The only reason you'd hire a graduate from this law school is because of cost. There are probably hundreds or thousands of better law schools to take people from. 

 

So what bullshit did I claim when I talked about him being cheap? You have one example of him being generous (Which you have not sourced but I assume is fairly modern), and I have hundreds of cases of him not being generous for no good reason stretching decades. My argument paints a much more convincing picture of the man than yours because mine is grounded in more (And arguably stronger) evidence

 

Finally, whilst nobody can talk about the media exactly being of high quality this cycle, I wish to highlight something before you attempt to dismiss these sources due to bias - The media has no obligation to be fair. It does not have to entertain Trump and Hillary equally. What the media should aim to be is objective. And that means that if Trump has done a lot of shady sheet, it reporting on that is not bias. It is the job of the media. 

 

Or at least it's the job of the media until Trump rips apart the first Amendment and changes the libel laws. But of course he's the transparent candidate, he'd never want to silence the media's freedom to criticise now would he? That would be nontransparent surely? 

You're telling me he's basically been fraudulent with his foundation based on this reporter. IRS has been auditing him every year for the, if he was really engaging in FEC violations (which some of this apparent laundering scheme would entail) why has he not been hammered on it yet?

 

I agree, they need to be objective, not fair. Which is why it concerns me when reporters from news sources say they cannot be objective this election. They don't even meet the standards you put up Tom. 

 

 

 

 

 

He's fighting for us? The man still hadn't addressed the 18% of his voter base that miraculously showed up overnight. And telling me "I'm gonna create jobs" or "I know what to do" doesn't tell me sheet. He's like a dog in hat. You can tell him to stop funking around, but he's already got his paws on the next person he wants to screw.

 

So no, I'm not funking convinced that a man who has little to no history with my people or my problems is fighting for me. He's playing politics and fighting for his own interests, like Hilary. No I'm not convinced that a man afraid of fact checking gives a sheet about the state of this country.

 

And when numerous economic heads come out and accurately refute this saving of trillions of dollars, I'm not inclined to believe the man who can barely manage his own wallet.

 

I don't care how much he spends on his campaign or how much he donates to invisible charities. I care that he has no experience, no common sense, and lacks the mental fortitude to see that photo ops, reality shows, and "speaking your mind" don't qualify you to be president.

 

I care that he refuses to be transparent, but then has the gall to call out his opponent for the same thing. I care that he has the support of as many extremists as Hillary does. I care that he is held to be this irrefutable god who can't do wrong, just because "he's not pc". I care that he has support from Russia, but a majority of the world is laughing at us, because this was the best we had to offer.

 

And the fact that hillary is not even 5% better is embarrassing. But what I can say for her is, I know where she comes from, I know her history, and I can see through her bullshit. She handles money better (clearly) and she's a jabroni. And I'd rather a sneaky jabroni than an incompetent ignoramus.

1) What 18% ??? I mean he is planning to create jobs. Low skill jobs that don't require you to go to a 4 year college....you know, jobs that the currently unemployed population can take advantage of

 

2) Look at the politifact thing above, that's the double standard he has to deal with so, not sure why him being "afraid" of "fact-checking" is an issue

 

3) These are the same people that said a pro-brexit vote (not A50, just the ref) would tank the UK. But sure, let's ignore that, they've been consistently downing their estimates of the damage that Trump would cause, because there's realistically nothing there. But, since you're so sure, can you find me an estimate of the us untapped energy reserves that don't number in the trillions?

 

4) Dude....he's not playing golf in martha's vineyard or going to bills marriage. He brought 100k worth of supplies, and then spent the next day telling every media source to focus on Louisiana. Even the democratic gov came out saying Trump had helped.....pot kettle black much? He's not the one who tried to get a NC photo-op before the debates and had to BTFO

 

5) Well, you must know something the WH doesn't. Because nobody has been able to prove support from Russia. Obama has flat out refused to confirm it. He's in the media spotlight like 24/7...so not sure where the transparency is lacking...are you talking about bumping up Libel laws? Well yeh, if a guy like Kurt can start accusing you of being admitted to a metal hospital and still retain his job as a major reporter, something needs to be fixed about them laws. The world isn't laughing, they're finally scared that we're done taking bullshit from them.

 

6) No you don't. Just today we found out Obama was using fake names to communicate to HRC on a server both he and she said he didn't know about. Just yesterday we found out her super-pac run by david brock has been involved in a money embezzling scheme. Just last week we found out that under her, there was a clear sell out of US positions. Two days ago we found out her campaign is been cheating it's donors by default setting the donation value to higher values. You don't know her, and neither do I. 

 

 

http://noscomunicamos.com/index.php/2016/09/24/hillarys-campaign-knew-it-was-voter-fraud-but-they-didnt-know-the-cameras-were-on/

 

Actual video of HRC people breaking federal law

[Sunshine Jesse]

Blind? You're calling me blind? No. I'm not blind. I read up on all the shady sheet that goes on in politics. I hate every candidate this election. If anything, I can see through it better than you ever could. I'm not the one jumping through hoops trying to justify what my candidate does or says. Hillary is a piece of sheet, but she's a piece of sheet who has objective qualifications for the position she's running for, and her voting record aligns with my own political views enough that I'm confident that she'll accomplish some of the things I want regardless of her corruption.

 

And that's what matters in the end- policy. That's when I'd be willing to vote for Trump: When his policies actually align with my own.

 

So tell me, Winter; which positions of Trump do you actually agree with outside of his views on immigration? I'm legitimately curious. Source them, too. Don't say "he said them in a speech" without providing the exact moment in which he did.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Blind? You're calling me blind? No. I'm not blind. I read up on all the shady sheet that goes on in politics. I hate every candidate this election. If anything, I can see through it better than you ever could. I'm not the one jumping through hoops trying to justify what my candidate does or says. Hillary is a piece of sheet, but she's a piece of sheet who has objective qualifications for the position she's running for, and her voting record aligns with my own political views enough that I'm confident that she'll accomplish some of the things I want regardless of her corruption.

 

And that's what matters in the end- policy. That's when I'd be willing to vote for Trump: When his policies actually align with my own.

 

So tell me, Winter; which positions of Trump do you actually agree with outside of his views on immigration? I'm legitimately curious. Source them, too. Don't say "he said them in a speech" without providing the exact moment in which he did.

http://time.com/4370009/donald-trump-gun-control-watch-list-nra/

 

Common sense gun reform

 

http://www.law360.com/articles/828387/trump-speech-outlines-immigrant-screenings-regional-bans

 

Regional Ban (like say Syria) over Religion ban

 

http://hightimes.com/news/politics/pot-matters-trump-on-marijuana/

 

100% medical marijuana, working on legalization

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/20/heres-where-the-2016-candidates-stand-on-nuclear-power/

 

Pro Nuclear energy

 

Abortion

 

 

Don't agree with him on Death Penalty or Felon Voting rights notably, but oh well, HRC isn't magically better on those regards

[Sunshine Jesse]

ok

 

I just wanted to make sure you were more pro-Trump than anti-Hillary.

[mido9]

Blind? You're calling me blind? No. I'm not blind. I read up on all the shady s*** that goes on in politics. I hate every candidate this election. If anything, I can see through it better than you ever could. I'm not the one jumping through hoops trying to justify what my candidate does or says. Hillary is a piece of s***, but she's a piece of s*** who has objective qualifications for the position she's running for, and her voting record aligns with my own political views enough that I'm confident that she'll accomplish some of the things I want regardless of her corruption.

 

And that's what matters in the end- policy. That's when I'd be willing to vote for Trump: When his policies actually align with my own.

 

So tell me, Winter; which positions of Trump do you actually agree with outside of his views on immigration? I'm legitimately curious. Source them, too. Don't say "he said them in a speech" without providing the exact moment in which he did.

Sure I can list a few:

 

He's an advocate for school choice, which is a huge deal since it improves education in general and makes parents more able to decide which school is better instead of being stuck with the same shitty options: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-school-choice-fight-1474235999

He's called for things like reducing taxes, reducing regulation on electricity and nuclear, reducing regulations on businesses in general, and etc: http://time.com/4495507/donald-trump-economy-speech-transcript/

He's called for the minimum wage to get changed to state-level only instead of federal level: http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-trump-wages-idUSL1N10V0ID20150820

He's called for the student loan system to be reprivatized which helps the USA at least stop growing its awful, huge student debt bubble that will end badly for both students and everyone else: http://college.usatoday.com/2016/06/22/this-is-trumps-stance-on-student-loans-and-it-could-hurt-poor-students/

He's friends with russia and with putin which helps avoid aggressive/nondefensive actions against russia, especially since actually going to war on russia other than defending would be extremely damaging.

etc

 

 

Really, when you get down to it and peel away the wall and anti-immigration things he's basically the same as every other republican like carson or kasich whining about taxes, regulations, debt and more school/health reform.

[Phantom Roxas]

The postponement of the pre-trial conference from its original date of September 9 has been noted on PacerMonitor. The website says the plaintiff “has not yet filed affidavits of service confirming that Defendants have been served with copies of the summons and complaint. In order to allow Plaintiff the full amount of time authorized by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to serve Defendants and to allow Defendants the full amount of time authorized by Rule 12(a) to respond to the complaint in advance of the initial pretrial conference, the conference shall be adjourned until October 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

 

allegations in the lawsuit, which were dismissed by a Los Angeles Federal Court judge last month,

 

Also plaintiff is anon...so no I don't care

The conference being postponed does not detract from a 

 

I would prefer if you provided a link to the PacerMonitor article you're referring to. Randomly saying "allegations in the lawsuit, which were dismissed by a Los Angeles Federal Court judge last month" makes me suspect that you might be taking a line out of context. You're leaving out that it was a voluntary dismissal, so the judge's dismissal seems to be a compliance with the plaintiff and her attorney's wishes.

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/09/19/rape-lawsuit-against-donald-trump-voluntarily-dismissed/

 

I don't see how the plaintiff being anonymous would prevent you from caring. It might be better if you considered why the plaintiff is anonymous.

 

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/22/trump-rape-accuser-to-refile-suit-in-new-york.htm

 

"The Jane Doe plaintiff claims Trump ignored her loud pleas to stop, struck her with an open hand and threatened to harm, if not kill her and her entire family if she ever revealed details of the assault."

 

The complaint asserts that because the litigation involves highly sensitive matters of very personal nature, identification of the anonymous plaintiff "would pose a risk of retaliatory physical harm to her and to others."

 

It's safe to assume that this lawsuit is about Donald Trump raping a thirteen year-old girl, and then threatening her, making it harder for her to step up. Maintaining anonymity is the best way for her to pursue her case without allowing Trump to deliver on his threats.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The conference being postponed does not detract from a 

 

I would prefer if you provided a link to the PacerMonitor article you're referring to. Randomly saying "allegations in the lawsuit, which were dismissed by a Los Angeles Federal Court judge last month" makes me suspect that you might be taking a line out of context. You're leaving out that it was a voluntary dismissal, so the judge's dismissal seems to be a compliance with the plaintiff and her attorney's wishes.

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/09/19/rape-lawsuit-against-donald-trump-voluntarily-dismissed/

 

I don't see how the plaintiff being anonymous would prevent you from caring. It might be better if you considered why the plaintiff is anonymous.

 

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/22/trump-rape-accuser-to-refile-suit-in-new-york.htm

 

"The Jane Doe plaintiff claims Trump ignored her loud pleas to stop, struck her with an open hand and threatened to harm, if not kill her and her entire family if she ever revealed details of the assault."

 

The complaint asserts that because the litigation involves highly sensitive matters of very personal nature, identification of the anonymous plaintiff "would pose a risk of retaliatory physical harm to her and to others."

 

It's safe to assume that this lawsuit is about Donald Trump raping a thirteen year-old girl, and then threatening her, making it harder for her to step up. Maintaining anonymity is the best way for her to pursue her case without allowing Trump to deliver on his threats.

Innocent until proven guilty. So let me get this straight. We don't have any DNA proof, where are statement from her close family? All we have on top of her claim is that that someone who claims to have pimped her brought her there?

 

Also statute of limitations ran out a while back, looks a bit shifty doesn't it man, man looking like he might win, anon rape victim and her anon pimp show up and testify.

 

But tell you what, find me a source that's not piss bottom, like say WSJ, or WaPo and I'll take is more seriously. Like I could run a rape case against you, with the absence of any other information it really doesn't look trustworthy. They're running stories that he's Putin's bedfellow, you really think the dirt machine wouldn't go with a rape case if they had one

 

Get real

 

People with a solid case don't run

 

What we do have on tape is HRC mocking a 12 year old rape victim (allegedly) and confirming that she knew her guy did it. So sure, tell me who you're gonna be the moral sjw for. 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/27-things-we-learned-from-hillary-clintons-latest-fbi-files/article/2602776

 

Clinton deleted nearly 1,000 emails with Petraeus

In Aug. 2015, the Pentagon called the State Department and informed an unnamed official there that "CENTCOM records showed approximately 1,000 work-related emails between Clinton's personal email and General David Petraeus."

The FBI noted that "[m]ost of those 1,000 emails were not believed to be included in the 30,000 emails" that Clinton turned over to the State Department in Dec. 2014.

 

Officials felt 'pressure' not to classify any Benghazi email

This comes after Obama was implicated about lying about the email server. Old barry was using fake names to talk to HRC :')

[Phantom Roxas]

Innocent until proven guilty. So let me get this straight. We don't have any DNA proof, where are statement from her close family? All we have on top of her claim is that that someone who claims to have pimped her brought her there?

 

Also statute of limitations ran out a while back, looks a bit shifty doesn't it man, man looking like he might win, anon rape victim and her anon pimp show up and testify.

 

But tell you what, find me a source that's not piss bottom, like say WSJ, or WaPo and I'll take is more seriously. Like I could run a rape case against you, with the absence of any other information it really doesn't look trustworthy. They're running stories that he's Putin's bedfellow, you really think the dirt machine wouldn't go with a rape case if they had one

 

Get real

 

People with a solid case don't run

 

What we do have on tape is HRC mocking a 12 year old rape victim (allegedly) and confirming that she knew her guy did it. So sure, tell me who you're gonna be the moral sjw for. 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/27-things-we-learned-from-hillary-clintons-latest-fbi-files/article/2602776

 

Clinton deleted nearly 1,000 emails with Petraeus

In Aug. 2015, the Pentagon called the State Department and informed an unnamed official there that "CENTCOM records showed approximately 1,000 work-related emails between Clinton's personal email and General David Petraeus."

The FBI noted that "[m]ost of those 1,000 emails were not believed to be included in the 30,000 emails" that Clinton turned over to the State Department in Dec. 2014.

 

Officials felt 'pressure' not to classify any Benghazi email

This comes after Obama was implicated about lying about the email server. Old barry was using fake names to talk to HRC :')

Did you miss that she was threatened if news of this got out? I imagine that discouraged them from making statements.

 

The statute of limitations expiring didn't prevent Billy Cosby from being a subject of scrutiny for when he committed rape.

 

Does The Guardian meet your criteria for a source?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

 

What about the quality of the sources compels you to refute the claim Trump committed rape? The possibility of you filing a rape case against me personally does not seem relevant to the issue.

 

People can have a solid case and run, because if Trump threatened her, and I do believe he did, then that would make her afraid to bring her case. Besides, she's making the case, so she's not completely running from this.

 

Don't distract from the issue by turning this so it's about Hillary. I don't like her, so if you think I'm doing this out of any loyalty to her, I'm not. I'm discussing the rape case against Trump, so how about we just focus on that?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Did you miss that she was threatened if news of this got out? I imagine that discouraged them from making statements.

 

The statute of limitations expiring didn't prevent Billy Cosby from being a subject of scrutiny for when he committed rape.

 

Does The Guardian meet your criteria for a source?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

 

What about the quality of the sources compels you to refute the claim Trump committed rape? The possibility of you filing a rape case against me personally does not seem relevant to the issue.

 

People can have a solid case and run, because if Trump threatened her, and I do believe he did, then that would make her afraid to bring her case. Besides, she's making the case, so she's not completely running from this.

 

Don't distract from the issue by turning this so it's about Hillary. I don't like her, so if you think I'm doing this out of any loyalty to her, I'm not. I'm discussing the rape case against Trump, so how about we just focus on that?

Read the first line

 

"Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities"

 

or maybe a bit more of it

 

"A publicist using the pseudonym “Al Taylor” is acting as a representative for Johnson, and has been shopping around to media outlets a video of a woman who wears a disguise while recounting the allegations against Trump. “Taylor” said in telephone calls last month that he was seeking $1m for the tape. Jezebel has published a segment of the video along with a detailed account of how the allegations against Trump were being pushed to reporters. A telephone number and an email address used by “Taylor” have also been used by Lubow, according to three sources who have worked with them. A longtime associate of Lubow also told the Guardian that Lubow used the identity “Al Taylor”. Who supports Donald Trump? The new Republican center of gravity Read more “Taylor” told the Guardian that he helped the alleged victim Johnson put together her first lawsuit against Trump, which was filed in California earlier this year. “She is a friend of mine,” he said, declining to make her available for interview."

 

 

Edit:

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/360391-obama-surveillance-stasi-snowden/#.V-dJetUbuMI.twitter

 

Known liberal not happy with Obama's vetting, how do you guys feel about 550% more syrians under someone planning to be more lax than even ol' Barry

 

http://axiomstrategies.com/abc/washoe/

 

Trump +17 in a battleground district that Romney polled -1 in and placed -5 in

 

Good news all over

[Phantom Roxas]

http://fusion.net/story/328522/donald-trump-accused-rape-sexual-assault/
 
"'According to legal docs, Doe says she attended parties with Trump and his friend Jeffrey Epstein—a registered sex offender known in the media as the 'billionaire pedophile.'"
 
The Washington Post reiterates that Jeffrey Epstein is a registered sex offender.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/05/the-prince-and-the-sex-offender-prince-andrew-and-jeffrey-epsteins-mysterious-relationship/

 

How about The New York Times?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?_r=0

 

I'd highly recommend reading through it, since it does chart his "growth" over the years.

 

Take your comments about Syrians, keep them largely the same with the sole exception of replacing the use of "Syrians" with "Jews", and try to tell me how that doesn't sound like Nazi rhetoric.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://fusion.net/story/328522/donald-trump-accused-rape-sexual-assault/

 

"'According to legal docs, Doe says she attended parties with Trump and his friend Jeffrey Epstein—a registered sex offender known in the media as the 'billionaire pedophile.'"

 

The Washington Post reiterates that Jeffrey Epstein is a registered sex offender.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/05/the-prince-and-the-sex-offender-prince-andrew-and-jeffrey-epsteins-mysterious-relationship/

 

How about The New York Times?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?_r=0

 

I'd highly recommend reading through it, since it does chart his "growth" over the years.

 

Take your comments about Syrians, keep them largely the same with the sole exception of replacing the use of "Syrians" with "Jews", and try to tell me how that doesn't sound like Nazi rhetoric.

Zion wasn't filling immigrant Jews with death cults hell bent on killing Germans mostly

 

New York times story was discredited when Ms. Lane came out the next day and explained how they took everything she said and spun it.

 

Super, Epstein is disgusting trash, never refuted it, just denying that you can pin this on Trump /yet/. Even funking fusion notes

 

"and it should be noted anyone can file a civil complaint in court, and a complaint is by no means proof of allegations"

 

Update

WaPo poll samples +10 dems (23 R, 33 D, 36 I) and only gets a tie vote between Trump and HRC, Millennials, tied

 

Though to be fair, that's more HRC dropping from Obama's crazy number rather than Trump drastically improving romney's

[Aerion Brightflame]

I'm aware that the media hasn't been objective this cycle (I was pointing it out back when Sanders was being marginalised by sources that aren't reddit), that's been the case since the start in essentially all the primaries. However the point I am making is that this idea of the media being 'objective' minimises the argument that any piece against Trump loses value. There has been a lot of bullshit stories run about Trump this cycle, taking words out of context for headlines being the most common. But there have also been a lot of very good pieces of journalism that haven't gotten the run time they should (The guy who wrote his autobiography, the charity story given it's supported by hard evidence namely a receipt showing a Trump foundation donation and the comments by people in charge saying Trump himself never gave a dime). Hell in their rush to bash Trump they never even picked the easy story of just showing every time he's changed his mind. 

 

Personally I'd blame the fact they are run for profit. It makes sensationalism (And yellow journalism) preferable to Hard News and that's bollocks. The bias of the media would matter much much less if they actually forced themselves to report only on quality stories that have grounding in reality. Because there would be far far less of them, and they would actually be stories worth being in the media. But I digress. 

 

Also you talked about fact-checking: You know what Trump could do instead of making vague comments about how his supporters will harass out anyone who tries to fact check him. He could do it himself, and provide his own sources. He's arguing to be a transparent candidate right? So if that's the case, why not after every debate, every public appearance, every speech, he tweets out a list of sources he used to cite these facts and figures. 

 

It means for one the media can't call him out for making sheet up, they have to resort to saying 'He used a biased/wrong source instead'. It dismisses claims he's an idiot unless he uses frankly terrible sources (Which should terrify you anyway) because it shows he's willing to be intellectual. And it gives him another thing to try and nail Clinton on (That distracts from his tax returns). Finally, it might also raise the standards in electoral cycles that he has done so much to sink, because we will have a slight return to the realm of facts. 

 

He only has something to fear from fact checking if he's inaccurate. If he's got his own sources, he can just dismiss the criticism and score easy points. 

[Dad]

https://m.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4sv46y/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/?utm_source=mweb_redirect&compact=true

 

 

I'll let you go through these yourself since I'm still on mobile. Have fun.

[Phantom Roxas]

Zion wasn't filling immigrant Jews with death cults hell bent on killing Germans mostly

 

New York times story was discredited when Ms. Lane came out the next day and explained how they took everything she said and spun it.

 

Super, Epstein is disgusting trash, never refuted it, just denying that you can pin this on Trump /yet/. Even funking fusion notes

 

"and it should be noted anyone can file a civil complaint in court, and a complaint is by no means proof of allegations"

 

Update

WaPo poll samples +10 dems (23 R, 33 D, 36 I) and only gets a tie vote between Trump and HRC, Millennials, tied

 

Though to be fair, that's more HRC dropping from Obama's crazy number rather than Trump drastically improving romney's

Sunshine Jesse was right about this.

 

The best part is that you'll either ignore all of this, criticize the source, or deflect it

I doubt that you're truly concerned with the credibility of all these websites. My suspicion is that, since all these websites reported about the allegation, you're looking for weak reasons to, as Jesse pointed out, criticize the source, possibly because it will somehow discredit the accusation that Trump is a rapist.

 

The part you quoted is immediately followed by "That being said, the first and most famous accusation comes from Trump’s ex-wife Ivana Trump."

 

Look up another piece from the writer, Taryn Hillin.

 

http://fusion.net/story/347950/how-women-can-stop-trump/

 

"Not only that, the jumpsuits will contain “patches” that feature a selection of Trump’s derogatory, sexist, and misogynist language against people with vaginas, as a way to remind both the wearer and anyone she encounters why he is a dangerous choice for President. In case you’ve missed the headlines, Trump has referred to women as dogs, degenerates, slobs, and bimbos, as well as said things like, “A person who is flat-chested is very hard to be a 10” and “I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”"

If Trump wasn't so offensive to women, then there wouldn't be that many comments to use for patches, but it seems that there are. And yes, he did make a comment about dating his own daughter.

 

http://www.today.com/id/11714379/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/trump-jokes-hed-date-daughter/#.V-fqo5MrKis

 

Even nine years ago, we have Trump making a uncomfortable statement, and then someone else had to clarify in his stead that it was just a "joke". Hasn't a big defense for Trump been that he "says what he means"? If that was true, then why does he need someone else to make a statement on his behalf that he was really just joking, and such a statement only comes after he's been called out on it?

 

Oh, and I can pin Epstein's actions on Trump, since Trump associates himself with anti-LGBT politicians.

 

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/09/22/santorum-gets-top-billing-trumps-catholic-advisory-group/

 

If he really cared about the LGBT community, he wouldn't have made his "No good" comment at the Republican National Convention, nor would he have enlisted Rick Santorum's help. Interestingly, the LGBT community now vastly prefers Clinton over Trump.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/poll-lgbt-voters-support-clinton-over-trump-n653491

 

Mike Pence himself is also anti-LGBT.

 

http://www.dailydot.com/irl/mike-pence-homophobic-articles-indiana-policy-review/

 

If Trump is going to keep this kind of company, then I'm absolutely going to criticize Trump himself.

[Dad]

ToTrump's credit, he changed his views on the LGBT community, as did Clinton.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'll get to your 3 guys points in a bit, but this is fascinating 

 

[vla1ne]

well, the debates ar going on, and while trump's not failing, he's not doing what he needs to be doing the most. i have to say he's doing a strong job of pointing out her own mistakes, but he's not putting his own plans where his mouth is. he looks like he's answering, but he's not detailing his plans, and he's doubling down instead of downplaying his points (which will cut him hard if any of it backfires) he's just saying what he'll do (we already know what he wants to do, but he's not going in depth enough for many of his points and trailing off into tangents). he's not elaborating his own plans, he's pointing out the flaws in hillary's. it looks far closer to scenario 2 of my prior post. he's not controlling his words, he's dodging incredibly simple questions, leaving himself open to hard counters (which hilllary has used multiple times), and he's not pointing himself in the right direction. he's not gonna change any Clinton minds, and he'll have quite a bit of trouble winning independents if he doesn't change it.

 

(oh funk, that "maybe he didn't do a good job" line is gonna bite him in the ass.)

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah, not the best night for Trump. He was destroying her in the start, but he got defensive

I'd say it was a draw, but Trump really didn't hit the layup points...the guy destroyed Cruz and Rubio

 

I'm disappointed mostly because Hillary didn't collapse like I hoped, but I put the odds of that at only 30% anyway. Another half hour it might have happened.

 

Anywho - The stronger character on stage was clearly Donald. Not only did he control the pace, the moderator, and Hillary, but he also BTFO the critics that claim he never elaborates on policy. Meanwhile Hillary's answers were all typical political talk to dodge the question. Right out the gate she dodges the very first question in a two-minute spiel about nothing.

 

Contrasting to Trump that actually explained where the problem lies and how to fix it. As far as the moderation goes - Lester tried to stump Donald but realized he's too spineless to actually do it. Notice the few times Lester tried to stop the discussion but Donald kept talking and Lester caved. But the last question about Hillary being a woman was beyond stupid. It was unnecessary and really highlights how weak her campaign is - she is a woman so give her votes.

 

Its pathetic. Overall, I think Trump could have hammered her harder on a few things, but he did well. Hillary's bought audience made me cringe multiple times

 

Edit: Most unscientific polls say Trump won, not by much 48-52 margin is the usual ratio, which isn't great but w/e

 

I personally say it was a tie, because the Trump that destroyed Cruz and Rubio wasn't here today

[vla1ne]

Yeah, not the best night for Trump. He was destroying her in the start, but he got defensive

 

 

 

I'd say it was a draw, but Trump really didn't hit the layup points

he was evasive as all hell mate. had he solidified his points, i could honestly say he'd have stomped her. but instead, he went vague, and hillary took each of those evades and sniped him. he wasn't wrong in his points, but he took too many potshots, and didn't take much, if any time, to actually make points that would have won anybody over. he held the debate in the beginning, but he then just went full trump. seriously, during this entire election, the main people who've shot hillary and trump in the polls, are themselves. he didn't do much on foreign policy sadly, when he could have nailed her on her stance on war, and he completely dropped one of his strongest angles far too early. she has held power for years, if not decades, as have many states that remain democratic, with ample opportunity to plan and enact the policies that she's throwing out now, but she never has. he dropped that line too early, with far too little prelude, and no plans of his own to back it. he had bombs throughout the debate, and yet he rarely used them to hit the right marks.

 

hillary, on the other hand, made a ton of s*** snipes. she targeted trump on his parents origin and his use of their origin to elevate himself (building off of your parents success is what kids should DO), and his business practices (when his actions are literally standard steps to make it in business). her health was fairly well in the debate, but she got lucky on trump not pressing here there, alongside the complete absence of mentions of the clinton foundation. she got one hell of a pass here, and she did not waste it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

he was evasive as all hell mate. had he solidified his points, i could honestly say he'd have stomped her. but instead, he went vague, and hillary took each of those evades and sniped him. he wasn't wrong in his points, but he took too many potshots, and didn't take much, if any time, to actually make points that would have won anybody over. he held the debate in the beginning, but he then just went full trump. seriously, during this entire election, the main people who've shot hillary and trump in the polls, are themselves. he didn't do much on foreign policy sadly, when he could have nailer her on her stance on war, and he completely dropped one of his strongest angles far too early. she has held power for years, if not decades, as have many states that remain democratic, with ample opportunity to plan and enact the policies that she's throwing out now, but she never has. he dropped that line too early, with far too little prelude, and no plans of his own to back it. he had bombs throughout the debate, and yet he rarely used them to hit the right marks.

 

hillary, on the other hand, made a ton of s*** snipes. she targeted trump on his parents origin and his use of their origin to elevate himself (building off of your parents success is what kids should DO), and his business practices (when his actions are literally standard steps to make it in business). her health was fairly well in the debate, but she got lucky on trump not pressing here there, alongside the complete absence of mentions of the clinton foundation. she got one hell of a pass here, and she did not waste it.

He needed to hit on the latest drop that people the email literally called it a Clinton Cover up mesure and were asking Reddit on how to bleach the emails

 

He needs to swallow his pride and accept he was wrong about Obama

 

Best Line From Trump was the 30 years attack, Best from HRC was preparing to be president.

 

Hillary Clinton accusing Donald Trump of having secrets was the most ironic thing I think I've heard so far in my entire life.

 

Independents liked Trump more than HRC today. We'll have to see if either of them hit the target white college educated demographic today.

 

HRC nailing him on the supposed story of the Hispanic woman is devastating. No mention of Bhengazi or the Clinton Foundation

 

A lot of missed opportunities on the Trump side