Jump to content

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


cr47t

Recommended Posts

Stop making minimodding. You're creating a secondary, unneeded problem. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but let me handle it.

No offense but then please, do so. I gave my perspective because of how long it's gone on.

Like damn I almost thought that was the topic of this thread at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No offense but then please, do so. I gave my perspective because of how long it's gone on.

Like damn I almost thought that was the topic of this thread at that point.

 

It's a long process.  Each decision I make is going to be scrutinized and questioned and I have to make a lot of choices.  It's not as simple as "just handling it".  By November 9th/10th, everything will be taken care of.  Be patient.

 

 

 

 

This is amazing

 

:')

 

It's pretty interesting to see the varying opinions of peoples around the world (from Russia and Japan to Europe and Africa).  You don't hear sheet about Clinton tho cuz her ass would've been locked up if she was a politician anywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a long process.  Each decision I make is going to be scrutinized and questioned and I have to make a lot of choices.  It's not as simple as "just handling it".  By November 9th/10th, everything will be taken care of.  Be patient.

What will you do when Trump loses and we get 20 pages of awful "proof" that the whole thing was rigged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will you do when Trump loses and we get 20 pages of awful "proof" that the whole thing was rigged?

 

I think I mentioned it, but after the results of the election, the day after, this thread will be locked.  A new thread will be started for the current President.  We'll discuss it then.

 

What will we do when Hillary loses and every liberal here starts asking how to escape the neo-gestapo that they think is coming after them?

 

Idk who 'we' is.  But I know if the drama escalates in my neighborhood because of a Trump Presidency, I'm grabbin' my musket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry pops you do you.

I apologize for my post, I let my frustrations get the best of me. Sorry Dad, sorry Winter, no harm meant.

 

Now that it was brought up. What was Trump's response to that "call to riot" thing anyway?

If he's smart he'll not touch it and realize that if HRC steals this it'll happen with or without him prodding 

 

Only half of Republican voters would accept Hillary Clinton as US president. If the Democratic nominee wins the election on 8 November, nearly 70 per cent said they believed it would be because of illegal voting or vote rigging, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

 

There's enough of us around

 

Edit:

 

No harm taken mate

 

Edit:

 

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-10-27-JEC-to-McCabe-FBI-Alleged-Conflict-of-Interest-due-11-10.pdf

 

Woah

 

Edit:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37813564

 

and another country has a populist wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Democratic nominee wins the election on 8 November, nearly 70 per cent said they believed it would be because of illegal voting or vote rigging, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

 

The problem with this thinking, though, is that you can't just say the voting is rigged based on the winner alone; there needs to be proper evidence that voter fraud took place. I mean, the idea of "If Hillary wins, then it was rigged" rides off the assumption that the majority of the votes should have otherwise gone to Trump. Not to say that this will or will not happen, but it's impossible right now to know that the majority of votes will go to Trump if the election is perfectly fair and working properly. You can predict how it will go, of course, but you can't guarantee the results.

 

Whether the election really ends up being rigged, I don't know; but voters can't say it was rigged or not just because of the result; there needs to be evidence in the system itself, and the result alone isn't enough. Evidence is what makes the difference between a legitimate charge and people being sore losers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this thinking, though, is that you can't just say the voting is rigged based on the winner alone; there needs to be proper evidence that voter fraud took place. I mean, the idea of "If Hillary wins, then it was rigged" rides off the assumption that the majority of the votes should have otherwise gone to Trump. Not to say that this will or will not happen, but it's impossible right now to know that the majority of votes will go to Trump if the election is perfectly fair and working properly. You can predict how it will go, of course, but you can't guarantee the results.

 

Whether the election really ends up being rigged, I don't know; but voters can't say it was rigged or not just because of the result; there needs to be evidence in the system itself, and the result alone isn't enough. Evidence is what makes the difference between a legitimate charge and people being sore losers.

Dude, have you seen what debbie wasserman schultz is doing in boward county? The election commissioner there met with HRC personally a few days back. And surprise surprise that's Trump's worse counties in FL, he's even doing better in typically dem counties like Miami-Dade

 

Mark my words, the fact that Trump has tied her in Pittsburgh is not beyond HRC, she'll get the smoke machine running in Philly to hand her PA

 

She's been doing shady sheet, that's why we don't trust her

 

Edit:

 

Not really worried about FL.

 

GOP:DEM:Other:IND early voting

543,936 582,449 32,579 234,329

Absentee

 

 

786,643 724,738 47,124 306,236

 

Trump 1) Leads with Independents by double digits in FL  2) has a 14 pt adv with people who will vote on election day

 

My worry states are PA, WI/MI, and maybe NC

 

But it honestly looks like RedHeart might happen this year, which I'll happily take

 

http://presidential-election-issues.insidegov.com/l/12/Drug-Laws

 

Pretty good site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perjury, she said she turned over all relevant information. Worse case she's involved in espionage and treason, best case she lied to congress and the FBI 

 

The DoJ has no right hide this information from the US public.

 

They gave one detail, tens of thousands of emails. That's massive. Also Kim.Dot ('fugitive' hacker) recently revealed how to access the 33k deleted emails so expect that too

 

Except there is no proof as to whether these are new emails. 

 

There's no proof of anything, you are assuming these are new emails, but it's never been stated that they are. Simply that they found thousands of emails on Weiner's computer and that they appeared to be pertinent. In fact you can see as much in Comey's statement:

 

[spoiler=Statement]

161028221834-james-comey-letter-exlarge-

 

 

 

It may in fact turn out once they have been looked through that they are simply the emails that Clinton has already turned over, in which case all Comey has done is damaged Clinton's rep within two weeks of the election needlessly. He even says as much at the end there, that the significance is not known. So why are you jumping to conclusions over this lack of details unless the announcement itself casts needless shade? 

 

It's not massive, because we know funk all details. Neither does the Clinton camp. In fact, nobody knows any details outside of the investigation. It appears massive because it reinforces the idea that Clinton is shady, but we don't know if anything there actually proves she is. As of yet, I've not seen any emails that are beyond what I'd expect from a politician or political staff. So why drop the announcement (Against protocol) now if there isn't any proof unless you are trying to influence politics?

 

Also: If you are trying to make a point Winter (RE: the argument with Jessie about the graph) actually describe what you are trying to prove. We can't read your mind, we may take different things from what you post. There is no reason for you to not provide clarity to your own posts, because what is self-evident or obvious to you is not to us. So please, for all our sakes be a little more clear than you usually are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If HRC is "innocent" and the emails are all duplicates, have hums tell the public what was on them.

 

Still not good enough even if duplicates though. Since even one classified email falling into the hands of somone without clearance due negligence on HRC's part is a violation of the espionage act

 

Comey knows what he's doing, it's either big or he wouldn't bring it up. Trump closed 10 pts even before this dropped and HRC was collapsing. Ironic that Dems praising him now say he's a stooge.

 

If you actually responded to everything that the pro-trump side put out in this thread I doubt you'd see what HRC has done as normal.

 

I talked about the WaPO poll a ton, idk why it was hard to string context clues together

 

Edit: new polls

 

WaPO down to Clinton +1 LAT Trump +2 IMB Clinton +2 down from Clinton's +5 yesterday

 

Dems fleeing, younger millenials and republicans behind trump

 

Karma is coming for the treasonist jabroni, with that folks, GN

 

MAGA

 

How big is that announcement? Investigative reporter Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, said the FBI would not reopen the case unless its new evidence was "a real bombshell."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody outside of the FBI knows whats on those emails. I doubt the FBI has had time enough to look through all of the emails yet, so they probably don't know all that's on there. Nobody can claim 'innocence' or 'guilt' until all the emails are looked through, because the possibility exists there are emails there that HRC didn't send before. 

 

The espionage act requires gross negligence. I argued that Hillary had violated it during the first time-frame of her emails being investigated, but there was nothing there to prove gross negligence. Well, either that or intent to leak the information. Clinton has neither of those. We've been over it all before, she's not innocent but she's not committed a crime to the extent she can be charged with anything either.

 

And Hillary had the primaries rigged against Sanders, but we had proof of that before the emails. Nothing the emails alone have proved is more shady than what I'd expect from any career politician. I would never argue she is completely clean, simply that the emails have proven little of relevance when put in the context of politics. 

 

No offence; You talk about different polls every few days trying to make different statements from them each time. Usually it seems to be a different poll that suits whatever narrative you are trying to pedal. You not being precise about what you mean when you post an image and us reading something different into it is not on us. You have a burden to make your posts as clear as possible because you are the one writing them. Please do so. If someone reads a different thing into it, the blame is not on them unless they explicitly did not seem to read something you stated. In this case you did not state what you meant, you just showed a snap from some graph without any source that showed them within two and gave it no context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my name is not spelled with an i

 

I'm not really expecting the new email bullshit to amount to anything but 1. It's literally not perjury and 2. Comey is either clueless or a partisan hack so it's probably nothing but it's already done the damage it needed to so whatever

 

No offence; You talk about different polls every few days trying to make different statements from them each time. Usually it seems to be a different poll that suits whatever narrative you are trying to pedal.

He won't stop ignoring reality just because someone other than his sworn enemies point it out, but I appreciate the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, have you seen what debbie wasserman schultz is doing in boward county? The election commissioner there met with HRC personally a few days back. And surprise surprise that's Trump's worse counties in FL, he's even doing better in typically dem counties like Miami-Dade

 

Mark my words, the fact that Trump has tied her in Pittsburgh is not beyond HRC, she'll get the smoke machine running in Philly to hand her PA

 

She's been doing shady s***, that's why we don't trust her

 

Edit:

 

Not really worried about FL.

 

GOP:DEM:Other:IND early voting

543,936 582,449 32,579 234,329

Absentee

 

 

786,643 724,738 47,124 306,236

 

Trump 1) Leads with Independents by double digits in FL  2) has a 14 pt adv with people who will vote on election day

 

My worry states are PA, WI/MI, and maybe NC

 

But it honestly looks like RedHeart might happen this year, which I'll happily take

 

http://presidential-election-issues.insidegov.com/l/12/Drug-Laws

 

Pretty good site

 

I'm not saying that Hillary is innocent of shady crap; frick I know she's awful (both your candidates are and I do not envy your election). The problem is, though, that suspicion isn't evidence. Is it within Clinton's character to cheat the election? Yeah, I can see it being possible; just as it's possible that the election goes fairly as well. I'm not saying it's impossible for it to be rigged, just that there needs to be more evidence than "But she's shady!" and "Trump didn't win!" to really point a finger at if it's rigged or not. Like I said: evidence is what makes the difference between a legitimate charge and people being sore losers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that Hillary is innocent of shady crap; frick I know she's awful (both your candidates are and I do not envy your election). The problem is, though, that suspicion isn't evidence. Is it within Clinton's character to cheat the election? Yeah, I can see it being possible; just as it's possible that the election goes fairly as well. I'm not saying it's impossible for it to be rigged, just that there needs to be more evidence than "But she's shady!" and "Trump didn't win!" to really point a finger at if it's rigged or not. Like I said: evidence is what makes the difference between a legitimate charge and people being sore losers.

If Trump loses by 5, I won't go crazy, if Trump loses because margins in Philly look shady, then I'll be irritated

 

CwB3PgFVYAAI3Aq.jpg

 

Jesus, what a tool

CwB68UYVYAAyWDc.jpg

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26948

 

Anyone wanna talk about these leaks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Where does that show the rally photos comparing the original and the poor Photoshop job that is being attributed to Clinton's supposed graphic designer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/09/politics-sites-mismatched-clinton-rally-image-goes-viral/

 

The photo thing was bullshit, but that's just par for the course at this point. They have done dumb sheet like this before.

 

Meanwhile I am finding absolutely nothing about his image, other than being posted on some Chinese site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/09/politics-sites-mismatched-clinton-rally-image-goes-viral/The photo thing was bullshit, but that's just par for the course at this point. They have done dumb sheet like this before.

Meanwhile I am finding absolutely nothing about his image, other than being posted on some Chinese site.

Mate the problem is HRC supporters posting it on Twitter thinking it was real

Also snoops did not have that pic

 

 

MAGA

You won't see me parroting Trump slogans (or something along those lines)

Really dude. Of all the things to discuss that's your best thing one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really dude. Of all the things to discuss that's your best thing one?

Well, you have a point, I could have discussed something else too. I just didn't know what exactly to say and left it to the others.

 

My point was, though, that you seem to flip-flop a lot just to defend your candidate so you can support him or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny you guys pick up on me saying "MAGA" now but don't care when I said it before or when people say I'm with her.

 

There's a difference between a campaign slogan and parroting Hillary talking points. I've said lock her up a couple times. That doesn't upset You?

 

You being on my case for this is fair, but when Clinton is put under a second FBI investigation and Wikileaks drops its most damning bunch, and we spent a page debating a funny pic and my "flip flops"

 

Dad was right to lock this thread. Your excuse to why didn't address anything is a perfect example

why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...