Anyone here that still thinks Trump should be President of the States?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by dahldrin, Jul 31, 2016.

  1. You've been making a lot of generalities with zero specifics.

    I am very adamant about everything being fact-based.

    What factual thing have I asserted that you believe is incorrect?
  2. In other words he is a demagogue. Absolutely.
  3. Right after the Republican convention Trump was neck-and-neck, with most polls showing him slightly ahead.

    Since the Democratic convention Clinton not only pulled ahead, she's been crushing him in the polls and has remained there.
  4. Nothing you say is fact based. Feel free to post something that is.
  5. Certainly. On page 7, in response to 426 Hemi citing a man named Gary Byrne's "tell all" book slandering the Clinton's - where he claimed to be a Secret Service insider: I pointed out that Gary Burn's claims have been refuted by the Secret Service itself as well as by the non-partisan Association of Former Agents of the United States Secret Service, who stated that - not only are his claims false, some of his claims are impossible, and in fact Gary Burne himself was only a *uniformed* security guard and as such would never be let near the president or the presidential family.

    Your turn. Give me an example of a factual statement that I made that is false.
  6. None of that is factual. Your argument is premised on 100% transparency and honesty in government. Since you cannot prove the SS is being honest or not, the claim falls under the category of propaganda. Same goes for that Burne guy.
  7. What we know for sure about her at this point is that she has a penchant for being involved in scandals.
  8. Actually, his entire previous post is factual, because none of it concerns the actual truth of Gary Burne's claims: only the statements made with respect to Gary Burne's claims. The fact that the statements were made is completely separable from the facts the statements concern. If you two want to be pedantic dickheads, there's about 8 more notches either of you can go.

    This my jam.
  9. Oh please, I was trying to salvage this anus of a thread.

    The whole thing amounts to propaganda, don't be naive.
  10. Reading is fundamental. I said the Secret Service and the FAUSSA refuted Gary Burne's claims, and they did. That is a factually true statement.

    Now, if you disbelieve them based on some unsubstantiated window licker conspiracy theory that is a separate matter altogether. But my statement was factually true.

    I'm still waiting and I'm growing a beard here. Name something I said that is factually inaccurate.
  11. I'd like to respond to this: I don't know about American culture from experience (though wmds come to mind), but government institutes informing the great public here (in the Netherlands, but also every other country I'm familiar with in Europe) tend to give truth a spin, ranging from immigration policies to peace missions. For this reason, especially as they've been caught trapped in their bs pretty often, their statements are generally received with scepticism and cynism.
    Tree Fitty and SEABEE like this.
  12. To give one example... When the passenger plane MH17 got shot out of sky above the Ukrainian skies, the official statement during investigation was that Russia, Ukraine and USA did not hand us (australia, malaysia, netherlands) radar material. Which is not a lie, but the whole truth is that the investigation task force never asked for this material. Though Russia offered theirs, but no no, it wasn't necessary.

    The great public would think now, based by this statement, that we're being handicapped by foreign obstruction during these investigations, while reality is that the dutch govt is actively trying to cover it up (with Ukraine being an aspiring EU member, there is interest to keep Ukraine innocent).
  13. An object the size of 9Msomething missile (about 5,5m long) would have been illuminated quite clearly by any search radar on both sides shortly after launch. At least someone should know within reasonable accuracy the location where the missile was fired from.
  14. Yeah, that story got a twist in conflict with the Geneva treaty (a fighter jet it was aimed for sought shelter near that passenger plane, being the bigger object, you can imagine how that ended). John Kerry stated (without showing the footage) that he could see the trajectory and that it was a BUK rocket. Well, that much we already knew.
  15. hes been fucking up hard. attacking the parents of a muslim soldier KIA
    comments that insinuated that 2nd amendment(right to bear arms) people could 'do something' about hillary if she tried to ban weapons or something.
    if you are an white middle or low class citizen without a college degree you might just eat that shit up, but that doesnt play that well in the general election
    ETB4U likes this.
  16. Yes, this is how it is here.
    You accept the official explanation if it corresponds with your preconceived notions, and reject cynically if it does not.
    MooSquad likes this.
  17. If the fan has been shat on, there's usually a mysterious silence about said topic for a little while, haha. Actual news gets preceded by topics such as the weather, the birth of a rhinoceros in a zoo, ways to deal with smog in China.. oh and by the way, no radar material was given.

    But yeah, seriously, I think that's human too, to stick to websites where (if not the news itself, at least the commentary) is kind of likeminded. About problems in rapefugee camps there's somehow almost nothing in the news. Except for that we should accept more.
  18. #243 DIGGS, Aug 18, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2016
    All this being said. Clinton would continue to hide this. And it'd be business as usual.
    Trump would probably say that the Mexicans did it. And tell everybody else they are idiots.
    Again either way you Americans are gonna die from a Mexican/Russian co-nuclear strike
  19. Russia wouldn't nuke the USA, they just want the USA to let them mind their own business for once, for like decades already.
  20. Should be about baby hippos instead. Hippo babies are cuter and rhinos are huge pussies:

    ETB4U and MooSquad like this.
  21. Russia most likely wouldn't be the one to initiate a strategic first strike against the US in today's environment, given their current disadvantage in satellite reconnaissance/early warning/delivery systems. However, in a conflict with US/ NATO, Russia is the more likely combatant out of the two to start using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
    MooSquad likes this.
  22. No. You're right. But after Mexico goes in and rapes and murders all of them. Then takes over their country. They won't have a choice. Mexico will use their nukes to do the job.
  23. I have a hard time believing he's as much in-your-face as he portrays himself. He has been a sleazy businessman his entire life. He's made millions and millions of dollars making people trust what he says, whether it is true or not. We really have no idea what he will be like as president.

    Now, from a domestic standpoint, I'd prefer a fiscally conservative president, but Trump is a huge gamble, while Hillary is a very safe bet. The whole of the American political system has shifted to the right anyway, Hillary is basically a republican from the 70s.
  24. You said I was a neo-con.

    Back to freedomizing Canadia, bye.
  25. I'm for Trump, yeah. Cool guy.

    Change things up for once instead of electing the same lying mediocre pieces of shit all the time. Trump has said some stupid things to win over the votes of the stupid... so what? He's not a career politician, he might actually get around to doing something according to an idea rather than taking the easiest side on whatever hot topic comes up. You don't want to end up like Canada where it's all become about aboriginese, BLM, gender-neutral bullshit because that's all that matters to the electorate youth.

Share This Page