Donald Trump for President Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
MartyMcFly said:
I've noticed this about you. You act exasperated to try and indicate what I say is ludicrous. It's not exactly a very constructive debating technique.

In general police chose not to proceed with a prosecution all the time even if they think the person is guilty.

Is she had been indicted and found innocent in court then fair enough but she hasn't.
Click to expand...

If the FBI chose not to prosecute they must have felt there was not enough evidence to do so.

You are making the assumption that they thought she was guilty.
 

Trump knows he has a sizable amount of batshit racist homophobic backing from a large sect of Americans who own a ton of guns. Him ALREADY "questioning" the results is bordering on sedition.
 
ilikecheese said:
You can't compare them. Gore conceded the election, then retracted it once the vote became so close.
Click to expand...
What about all the talk of hanging chads and it was the supreme court that stopped the recount not Gore conceding.

There was even talk about voter intimidation. That blacks had been unfairly disenfranchised etc

Don't talk rot. It's exactly the same.
 

riddick said:
Trump knows he has a sizable amount of batshit racist homophobic backing from a large sect of Americans who own a ton of guns. Him ALREADY "questioning" the results is bordering on sedition.
Click to expand...
I could just as easily argue that he is supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

America isn't a country that is based on a ruling elite controlling the people and the people are mere serfs that have to toe the line but rather the constitution is the elites guidelines. The laws that govern them. Once they begin to break the constitution they are fair game. That's why the 2nd amendment is so important.
 
riddick said:
Trump knows he has a sizable amount of batshit racist homophobic backing from a large sect of Americans who own a ton of guns. Him ALREADY "questioning" the results is bordering on sedition.
Click to expand...

It's actually a carbon copy of the American Civil War. The wrong guy won in the eyes of the south on a single issue of slavery, and they seceded as a result.

Incredibly reckless of Trump.
 
Tubey said:
It's actually a carbon copy of the American Civil War. The wrong guy won in the eyes of the south on a single issue of slavery, and they seceded as a result.

Incredibly reckless of Trump.
Click to expand...
You aren't too far off where this may be heading. Here's what a black pastor (who supports Trump has to say)
http://mychal-massie.com/premium/the-laws-of-unintended-consequences/

This is what he said about identity politics something that political correctness has pushed out of the topics it's OK to talk about.

"Obama foments racial unrest and a racial divide to further his neo-Leninist agenda. Sharpton foments racial unrest for personal gain. The New Black Panther Party foments racial hostilities and the demonization of whites in the foolish belief they can bring about a Western version of apartheid where blacks rule."

That's essentially the point. Democrats think that minorities and in particular blacks will be able to outvote whites and essentially take their money through taxation but all it will do is create terrible racial problems. Problems we are slowly beginning to see more of.
 
MartyMcFly said:
What about all the talk of hanging chads and it was the supreme court that stopped the recount not Gore conceding.

There was even talk about voter intimidation. That blacks had been unfairly disenfranchised etc

Don't talk rot. It's exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Gore conceded the night (early morning hours to be accurate) of the election. He called Bush and congratulated him.

Later as the vote became so close he retracted the concession. Because the vote was so close, a mandatory (by machine) recount was required, and in this process Gore gain several votes and the difference separating them was less than 300 votes. He then asked to have a hand count done in four counties which was allowed by Florida law.

It was at that point the Supreme Court stepped in and put and end to the recount.

Gore then conceded a second time.

It is not exactly the same...calling a vote rigged before a single vote is counted is not at all the same thing.

You are trying to alter history.
 

MartyMcFly said:
You are right. Trump just said he would have to wait and see at the time.

Gore actually questioned the process and dragged it all the way to the supreme court.
Click to expand...
It wasn't Gore, by Florida state law the vote was so close the Secretary of State for Florida has a mandatory obligation to ask for a recount, which she did. Eventually Bush won by about 900 votes.
 
ilikecheese said:
Gore conceded the night (early morning hours to be accurate) of the election. He called Bush and congratulated him.

Later as the vote became so close he retracted the concession. Because the vote was so close, a mandatory (by machine) recount was required, and in this process Gore gain several votes and the difference separating them was less than 300 votes. He then asked to have a hand count done in four counties which was allowed by Florida law.

It was at that point the Supreme Court stepped in and put and end to the recount.

Gore then conceded a second time.

It is not exactly the same...calling a vote rigged before a single vote is counted is not at all the same thing.

You are trying to alter history.
Click to expand...
Ok it's not exactly the same. But here's some more times democrats talked about rigged elections.

1. 2000: Al Gore and the Florida recount. Yes, Gore eventually accepted the result — but only after withdrawing his concession, trying to have the vote recounted only in Democrat-heavy Florida counties, and suing to stop ballots from being recounted. Even after a consortium of media outlets concluded that George W. Bush had indeed won more votes in Florida, Democrats continued to claim the election had been “stolen” by the Supreme Court and Bush was an illegitimate president.

2. 2004: John Kerry and “rigged” machines. While Kerry conceded the election, he and his running mate continued to believe afterwards that the election had been stolen from them, possibly by voting machines. Elizabeth Edwards said in 2007 that she had been “very disappointed” in Kerry’s decision to concede the election. And last year the New Yorker reported that Kerry believed “proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines” in Ohio, and that he may in fact have won the election.

3. 2008: John Podesta and Obama’s voter fraud. As the Wall Street Journalpointed out recently, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have suggested that voter ID laws are a way of rigging elections against black people. And while they downplay fears of voter fraud, Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta reported internally (via Wikileaks) in 2015 that Clinton operatives believed that “the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters” to win the primary.


4. 2014: Congress and a “rigged” district system. Thanks to the Tea Party wave election in 2010 in response to Obamacare, Republicans were left in charge of many state legislatures as they redrew congressional district boundaries. Except in a few states — such as Illinois, where Democrats drew several Republicans out of their seats — that meant Republicans held the advantage in the House. As a result, Democrats complained bitterlythat congressional elections were “rigged” against them.

5. 2016: Bernie Sanders and a “rigged” primary. Sanders uses the word “rigged” often to describe the economic system. But in 2016, the Democratic Party primary was rigged against him in a political sense — both openly, in the party’s anti-democratic super delegate system, and secretly, through collusion between party officials and the Clinton campaign. Sanders supporters protested at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia against what they called a “rigged” election.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...times-democrats-claimed-u-s-elections-rigged/
 
in terms of who won the debates what's interesting is that the only candidate in living memory to come close to Hillary's debate-ratings is John Kerry who roundly trounced GW Bush in 2004.

Despite polls saying otherwise, Bush won the actual election comfortably.
 
MartyMcFly said:
You aren't too far off where this may be heading. Here's what a black pastor (who supports Trump has to say)
http://mychal-massie.com/premium/the-laws-of-unintended-consequences/

This is what he said about identity politics something that political correctness has pushed out of the topics it's OK to talk about.

"Obama foments racial unrest and a racial divide to further his neo-Leninist agenda. Sharpton foments racial unrest for personal gain. The New Black Panther Party foments racial hostilities and the demonization of whites in the foolish belief they can bring about a Western version of apartheid where blacks rule."

That's essentially the point. Democrats think that minorities and in particular blacks will be able to outvote whites and essentially take their money through taxation but all it will do is create terrible racial problems. Problems we are slowly beginning to see more of.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top