a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016

Who do you vote into the office of USA President?

  • Total voters
    48
Shakey

Shakey

Gruebeard said:
But didn't Obama have to provide proof of eligibility to some sort of electoral committee before ever being placed on a ballot? Or at least before taking office?

Or is your system so fucked up that I actually could become President of the United States of America? (Oh man, if so, singing Megadeth's Peace Sells will be just a little more fun since I won't feel compelled to mutter that line because I feel silly saying it)
Click to expand...
He did, and it was released to the public, but it wasn't enough. It needed to be the long form, and backed up by newspaper announcements, which were released,but it wasn't enough. It will never be enough for people these people, because they don't really want proof.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Don't you remember Trump said he was going to shock the world with what they found out about Obama's birth certificate? What ever happened with that? Oh yeah. It was more bullshit that Trump couldn't back up. Just like everything else. It's an expensive suit, but it's an empty one.
 
strawman

strawman

Tress said:
I think it's important for all candidates to disclose their sources of income, as they might indicate conflicts of interest. Is that not a valid reason?
Click to expand...
It's a good thing they should do, and I hope people don't conflate my posts to be suggesting that he shouldn't, or that the birthers had any validity to their argument. I'm simply arguing that comparing the two is silly. One is a constitutional requirement, the other is something the public demands, but isn't necessary in the least bit.

Furthermore, it's quite easy to sanitize your tax returns - even past tax returns - by filing amendments as needed, and forming corporations, trusts, and so forth to essentially hide income, benefits, and property to the degree where a tax return isn't as useful as the public currently might think it is.[DOUBLEPOST=1470160450,1470160367][/DOUBLEPOST]Besides, a tax return says little to nothing about where the money comes from. "Clinton Foundation", if that's what's on Hillary's tax return, is useless in terms of determining conflicts of interest.
 
Null

Null

Tress said:
I think it's important for all candidates to disclose their sources of income, as they might indicate conflicts of interest. Is that not a valid reason?
Click to expand...
Isn't that literally the reason why they do it? To show transparency to the American public? It's not legally required but the vast majority of candidates do release their tax returns. This was an issue with Mittens in 2012 as well.

Trump won't release his tax returns because his net worth is nowhere near what he says it is - he even testified in court, in a lawsuit he filed against an author who claimed that Trump is worth far less than $1 billion, much less the $10 billion he claims, that "my net worth fluctuates on a daily basis, depending on how I feel." Trump, by the way, lost that lawsuit.

Trump is running on the basis that his business acumen qualifies him to lead the nation. Since his net worth is unverified, and he has an extensive history of fraud, bankruptcy, and not paying for things, having an objective look at his finances is necessary to prove that quality.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
For the lazy:

“Don’t worry about that baby. I love babies," Drumpf said after hearing the baby crying during an aside about the trade imbalance. "Don’t worry about it. I love babies. I hear that baby crying, I like it. What a baby. What a beautiful baby. Don’t worry, don’t worry. The mom’s running around like—don’t worry about it, you know. It’s young and beautiful and healthy and that’s what we want.”

Drumpf then returned to his non-baby-related remarks, only to hear the baby make more noise.

“They have ripped us to shreds, ripped us absolutely to shreds," Drumpf said of China, before turning back to the woman with the child.

“Actually, I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here," the Republican nominee said to laughter and applause. "That’s all right. Don’t worry. I, I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking. That’s OK. People don’t understand. That’s OK."
Click to expand...
 
Null

Null

I mean, at least he didn't have the baby brought forward to be thrown into a fire pit.


He's saving that for his second term.

 
Null

Null

And now Trump's "military advisor" and smear campaign maestro Roger Stone Jr is using twitter to spread a conspiracy theory from an anti-Muslim website that the bereaved Khans are terrorists, members of the Muslim Brotherhood who have infiltrated the United States to spread Shiara Law.
 
Cajungal

Cajungal

Staff member
Contrast with all the adorable pictures of Obama with kids and babies out there...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 
Cajungal

Cajungal

Staff member
P'hahaha, well you're gonna get those too...with anyone. But at least they're not kicking it or trying to eat it for crying.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 
Null

Null

And now there's this: http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08...manager-for-being-on-russian-payroll-details/

On Monday, the New York Times exposed the history of Paul Manafort, top Trump adviser and campaign manager. Manafort was installed late in the primary season and made one of his first marks the assertion that Trump’s wildly divisive campaign rhetoric was only a show, one which the candidate would soon conclude.
Trump, of course, continues to ride racism and bigotry to the polls in November, having never stopped his rhetoric, only adding to the increasingly worrisome nonsense he spews and standing by what he has said in the past. He isn’t looking at a good chance of a win, with his hatred for everyone who isn’t a rich white Republican having driven the GOP and its poll numbers into the ground.
According to the Times, Manafort was an instrumental figure in the inner circle of recently ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
While Manafort worked as a political consultant for Yanukovych, the Ukranian people rose up in protest against Yanukovych’s government, and he fled the country in fear. He found refuge in Russia, a nation which he — and Manafort –– had long been allied with.
The day after he fled the Ukraine marks the beginning of the war carried out by Russian forces against the nation, a war resulting in the Russians claiming to have annexed the Crimean peninsula, adding it to the Russian territory.
During all of these events, leading to untold numbers of violent deaths among noncombatant Ukrainian civilians, Manafort continued to work on behalf of the pro-Russia and pro-Putin forces inside the Ukraine. He helped lead the efforts to oppose the government that arose in place of Yanukovych, a government aligned with the United States and against Russia.
Click to expand...
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

Null said:
And now there's this: http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08...manager-for-being-on-russian-payroll-details/
On Monday, the New York Times exposed . . .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So. Back on Canada Day, I was reading an article on alternet. A couple years ago, somebody told me it was a good source for the truth they ain't telling us. I checked it out, but didn't see what he told me I'd see. Every once in a while I get bored, so I check it out to see if I can find that truth they ain't telling us.

Like I was doing back on Canada Day. There was an article that interested me, about Canada accepting Syrian refugees. It started out much like the one above. "The New York Times investigated . . ." or some such opening. It went on to talk about the stories of a couple refugees, as reported by the New York Times. It gave the words of our Immigration Minister, as quoted in the New York Times. And it dawned on me.

Why the fuck don't I just read the New York Times?
 
Null

Null

Gruebeard said:
So. Back on Canada Day, I was reading an article on alternet. A couple years ago, somebody told me it was a good source for the truth they ain't telling us. I checked it out, but didn't see what he told me I'd see. Every once in a while I get bored, so I check it out to see if I can find that truth they ain't telling us.

Like I was doing back on Canada Day. There was an article that interested me, about Canada accepting Syrian refugees. It started out much like the one above. "The New York Times investigated . . ." or some such opening. It went on to talk about the stories of a couple refugees, as reported by the New York Times. It gave the words of our Immigration Minister, as quoted in the New York Times. And it dawned on me.

Why the fuck don't I just read the New York Times?
Click to expand...
Well, if you're not a subscriber, they don't let you read most of their articles, especially backdated, so getting the information from another site is often a more viable option.
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
At this point, I'm not sure all of us would consider it to be a bad thing if the capitol burned to the ground. Preferably with as many congressmen and senators still inside as possible.
Click to expand...
there's a lot going on in this thread, but please don't include me even indirectly when you fantasize about murdering everyone in the federal legislature. People have gotten FBI calls and files opened on them for less than this. what the fuck is wrong with you?
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Charlie Don't Surf said:
there's a lot going on in this thread, but please don't include me even indirectly when you fantasize about murdering everyone in the federal legislature. People have gotten FBI calls and files opened on them for less than this. what the fuck is wrong with you?
Click to expand...
Your willingness to misinterpret others in order to fit your narrative is symptomatic of your unchecked American privilege. Please fix that.

Also, here are your crayons:

 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Charlie Don't Surf said:
there's a lot going on in this thread, but please don't include me even indirectly when you fantasize about murdering everyone in the federal legislature. People have gotten FBI calls and files opened on them for less than this. what the fuck is wrong with you?
Click to expand...
I don't see where I even obliquely referenced you in this regard. Everything's not about you, shitlord.
 
Tress

Tress

GasBandit said:
I don't see where I even obliquely referenced you in this regard. Everything's not about you, shitlord.
Click to expand...
He's implying that you have put every single person on this forum in danger by merely joking that would like to see DC burn to the ground. Because federal law enforcement doesn't have enough to do at the moment, so the troll forums with conparatively small communities to bust anyone making obviously joking or satirical comments.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Tress said:
He's implying that you have put every single person on this forum in danger by merely joking that would like to see DC burn to the ground. Because federal law enforcement doesn't have enough to do at the moment, so the troll forums with conparatively small communities to bust anyone making obviously joking or satirical comments.
Click to expand...
Charlie is the ringleader of my terrorist cell, Mr. Comey!
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

I so want to create an alt, but I'm too lazy.

But yeah, I'd have the alt ramble on and on about Mars and the International Space Station, but get details oh so wrong, all while asking probing questions about Gassy's relationship with Chuck. And that sneaky Spaniard looking to commit voter fraud.
 
Null

Null

I was going to post a link to a story from MSNBC's Morning Joe, in which Joe Scarborough relates a story where he was meeting with a carefully unnamed foreign policy expert who had been hired to brief Drumpf on foreign policy. Joe said that this expert was asked by Drumpf, three times in an hour briefing, "If the United States has nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?"

While I absolutely believe that's possible, there's no real source or verification here. And that's not journalism, that's just rumor-mongering. It's the same as Fox News' bullshit "Some people say..." preface to a baldfaced lie.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

Null said:
"If the United States has nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?"
Click to expand...
Well, see, we could use them, but the system that launches them, that case we carry around for you, we call it a football. And you're Tony Romo.

That is, when the shit's really on the line, if we give you the ball we're just fucking ourselves over.





Paid for by the committee to elect (a young) Tom Brady
 
Null

Null

Gruebeard said:
Well, see, we could use them, but the system that launches them, that case we carry around for you, we call it a football. And you're Tony Romo.

That is, when the shit's really on the line, if we give you the ball we're just fucking ourselves over.





Paid for by the committee to elect (a young) Tom Brady
Click to expand...
You know Tom Brady's a Trump supporter, right?
 
Covar

Covar

Null said:
I was going to post a link to a story from MSNBC's Morning Joe, in which Joe Scarborough relates a story where he was meeting with a carefully unnamed foreign policy expert who had been hired to brief Drumpf on foreign policy. Joe said that this expert was asked by Drumpf, three times in an hour briefing, "If the United States has nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?"

While I absolutely believe that's possible, there's no real source or verification here. And that's not journalism, that's just rumor-mongering. It's the same as Fox News' bullshit "Some people say..." preface to a baldfaced lie.
Click to expand...
So why are you rumor-mongering this yourself?
 
Null

Null

Covar said:
So why are you rumor-mongering this yourself?
Click to expand...
Because I was using the story to make a point about the sorry state of journalism in this election cycle, and to point out that while it is entirely in-character with Drumpf's behavior, there's no verification so you shouldn't automatically believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top