2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Megyn Kelly is basically a watered down Ann Coulter. And not even ballsy.

War on Christmas, radical Islam, personal responsibility, identity politics... She's just as bad as Hannity, but everyone is afraid of being labeled a sexist, so precious few ever call her out on it, late night comics aside.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Megyn Kelly is basically a watered down Ann Coulter. And not even ballsy.

War on Christmas, radical Islam, personal responsibility, identity politics... She's just as bad as Hannity, but everyone is afraid of being labeled a sexist, so precious few ever call her out on it, late night comics aside.
Click to expand...

:lol: Don't know if you remember when she was insistent that Santa and Jesus were both white and how it was greatly held fact for her.
 
:lol: Yeah Megyn is a twat, of that there is no doubt, but the few months that she was having her massive arguments with Drumpf, she was actually ok. I could watch her show and think compared to most Fox shows, it was actually bearable. It was like you could chill for a bit before Hannity came on and it all went batshit again. I'm purposely going to avoid Fox for a while now, especially Hannity and Megyn because this constant harping on about just saying the words Radical Islamic Terrorism annoys me so much. What do they think will happen if Obama actually says those words? Will everything suddenly be ok?

Just because Obama isn't a racist feckwit, and yesterday saw that not only did he not have all the facts and information to hand, but the attacks were complicated. It was a Muslim man attacking a Gay club. First and foremost it was a homophobic attack. Yes, religious based, but there was nothing to suggest that it was a Radical Terrorist attack. Unfortunately, as it turns out, it could have been, but then again ISIS could just be taking credit for it because it benefits them to do so, and the attacker could just have phoned the Police and said he was linked to ISIS to kind of justify his attacks. There haven't been any other links proven so far.

These dumbasses on Fox cannot see the difference between anything and any attack with a Muslim involved suddenly becomes Radical Islamic Terrorism, simply because that's the only way their small, racist brains can cope. They have to give it a label and blame something they cant and wont ever understand. Fecking bigoted morons. The Santa and Jesus being white argument proves my point here. They cannot comprehend any differences at all. Morons.
 
langster said:
Just because Obama isn't a racist feckwit, and yesterday saw that not only did he not have all the facts and information to hand, but the attacks were complicated. It was a Muslim man attacking a Gay club. First and foremost it was a homophobic attack. Yes, religious based, but there was nothing to suggest that it was a Radical Terrorist attack. Unfortunately, as it turns out, it could have been, but then again ISIS could just be taking credit for it because it benefits them to do so, and the attacker could just have phoned the Police and said he was linked to ISIS to kind of justify his attacks. There haven't been any other links proven so far.
Click to expand...

It requires explanation that in 8 years of his presidency Obama has never acknowledged that Islamic terrorism is Islamic. He may well be the only person in the Western hemisphere unaware of that fact.

Games like that are very Clintonian, and unbecoming a President of the US, who's expected to have an honest relationship with the American people on matters of national importance, rather than condescending to them as gullible fools to be manipulated. It's understandable if Obama doesn't choose to put America at odds with the entire Islamic world, but repeated denial of a clear truth makes him look disingenuous and untrustworthy.

This has a strong whiff of political correctness as statecraft, with Obama seeing rejection of 'Islamophobia' as more important than his duty to the American people, however heavily or lightly the latter normally weighs in his calculations.
 
Will Absolute said:
It requires explanation that in 8 years of his presidency Obama has never acknowledged that Islamic terrorism is Islamic. He may well be the only person in the Western hemisphere unaware of that fact.

Games like that are very Clintonian, and unbecoming a President of the US, who's expected to have an honest relationship with the American people on matters of national importance, rather than condescending to them as gullible fools to be manipulated. It's understandable if Obama doesn't choose to put America at odds with the entire Islamic world, but repeated denial of a clear truth makes him look disingenuous and untrustworthy.

This has a strong whiff of political correctness as statecraft, with Obama seeing rejection of 'Islamophobia' as more important than his duty to the American people, however heavily or lightly the latter normally weighs in his calculations.
Click to expand...
I definitely doesn't help silence the "Obama is a closet Muslim" crowd.

And yes, Clintonian is apt considering the whole not calling genocide genocide ordeal with Rwanda.
 
Carolina Red said:
I definitely doesn't help silence the "Obama is a closet Muslim" crowd.
Click to expand...

That crowd or rather a bunch of morons aren't going to change their mind on Obama being a closet Muslim no matter what he says.

In any case does anyone genuinely think American security is under threat because Obama does not call the terrorism Islamic? It's still going to happen and I imagine the security forces are still going to do their job.
 
His live speech in New Hampshire.

Just scary that this guy is potentially going to be president of the United States of America.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
That crowd or rather a bunch of morons aren't going to change their mind on Obama being a closet Muslim no matter what he says.

In any case does anyone genuinely think American security is under threat because Obama does not call the terrorism Islamic? It's still going to happen and I imagine the security forces are still going to do their job.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I think so.. and the description you used in the 1st sentence describes them to a T.
 
Trump live now , muslims know those guys are bad but they don't collaborate with us
 
Blodssvik said:
Imagine if everyone in the club had guns. People would lose track of who the original shooter was. It would be like something from a Tarantino movie.
Click to expand...

Shhh. You're talking too much sense. I've tried to talk to people on the far right this very point, but it falls on irrational ears. I mention CQB (or CQC) which people just can't seem to grasp that drawing a weapon in a dimly light/dark place, during pandemonium, and without knowing your target isn't exactly foolproof.
 
Trump's odds up now, another Islamist attack or hints of a slowdown and he's in.
 
Unbelievable it sounds, I can see Trump winning the election, his fear mongering tactics and the raise of these terrorist attacks will only strengthen his argument despite how illogical it sounds. Clinton is right that America need to ban assault rifle rather than ban Muslim. However, I am not a fan of Clinton either despite her argument being more accurate. I think her vp pick will be a game changer because at the moment, she has high unfavorable rating and she would need something to balance that out.
 
I still rate Trump's chances at 15% at best. There are too many women and ethnic voters for Trump to overcome. It's all about the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and a few other small states and Trump can't win them all. Florida alone looks out of reach. For fun I'll give him Ohio but no chance in Virginia, little chance in North Carolina (both of which have larger than average college educated populations) and there are way too many Mexican-Americans in Colorado.

We won't get good state-by-state polling until after both candidates have settled down from their convention "bounce" in early August, but the polling I'm seeing now suggests that Trump's climb is much steeper than Hillary's.

One state where there's fresh poll numbers is Utah, a very red state (but highly educated). It's bad news for Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-utah-poll-is-amazingly-bad-for-donald-trump/

Sure, Utah is an outlier as it's a heavily Mormon state. Whatever one thinks about Mormons their intense loathing of Trump speaks well of them. It's still a good bet that Trump will dig out the win in this state, but the fact that he even has to worry about Utah is trouble for Trump. Another state where Trump is potentially in trouble is Georgia, another reliably red states, but where they're in a statistical dead heat.

This actually could go landslide for Hillary, if Donald is stupid enough to actually accept the nomination of his moronic Republicans.
 
@Spock nice post, please keep posting like that, it will help me sleep better at night (I say that posting at fecking 6:36am and having not slept again)

Seriously, it helps have some facts like that because all I am reading all over the internet it Trumps growing support. I don't know if the far right and NRA crew were out in force today, but all my usual outlets, Twitter and youtube follows are being slammed by pro gun nuts and right wing loons.

I just worry that more attacks like Orlando could push the vote towards Trump. It disgusts me that he (and many other right wingers) are jumping on the bandwagon. It was only last week Trump was mocking the Bathroom law and deriding it for him to come out yesterday in support of the LGBT community. He is also yet again slamming Muslims when the shooter was born in New York, the same place as Trump, so what, is Trump going to ban New Yorkers now? He's also saying he's siding with one minority community while at the same time persecuting another one, it's pathetic and disgusting. I just hope people see through it.
 
Will Absolute said:
It requires explanation that in 8 years of his presidency Obama has never acknowledged that Islamic terrorism is Islamic. He may well be the only person in the Western hemisphere unaware of that fact.

Games like that are very Clintonian, and unbecoming a President of the US, who's expected to have an honest relationship with the American people on matters of national importance, rather than condescending to them as gullible fools to be manipulated. It's understandable if Obama doesn't choose to put America at odds with the entire Islamic world, but repeated denial of a clear truth makes him look disingenuous and untrustworthy.

This has a strong whiff of political correctness as statecraft, with Obama seeing rejection of 'Islamophobia' as more important than his duty to the American people, however heavily or lightly the latter normally weighs in his calculations.
Click to expand...

You can put Islamophobia in quotation marks, it won't stop being real. And none of the extremists really care what they are being called. Just exactly what will start to happen if we call them as radical Islamists or whatever, as opposed to what we do now (by names they give themselves, ISIL or IS etc)? A lot of the names by which we call them is by definition has the word Islamic in it. Tangibly just explain what happens? Will they magically turn into dust if we start saying Islamic?

Do we insist on calling the westboro baptist church a radical christian group? Or the KKK? Or do we just call them by the names they choose for themselves?

Saying that we live in a politically correct world when it comes to Islam is an empirically false assertion. Yet, weirdly persistent. Islam is the most dissected, talked about and negatively thought of faith now in the Western world and for some it isn't enough. So bizarre. And there's this demand for more, every time an attack happens, a condemnathon from Muslim communities happens and many say its not enough because for them the narrative that we don't do enough (we as in all Muslims) is beyond logic and reason, its a narrative they've adopted and won't change.

Obama explained his reasons here
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/16/9745334/obama-radical-islam-isis
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-fareed-zakaria-gps-cnn-exclusive/

But I think fixating on terminology is largely meaningless. There's this real racist assertion that Obama's that Trump is happy to imply/peddle that he's doing it because he's a Muslim, others see it as "political correctness", he sees it as the right thing to do (politically and morally). Who cares. Defeat them first, naming them a certain way won't change a single thing in terms of doing that. They really really don't care what you call them.

What we should do however is challenge the ideologies that exist in societies that leads to their sympathizers (Wahabism, Salafism) and especially some of our allies who promote these ideologies and we have to find political leverage to stop them from doing so.
 
Wolverine said:
Saying that we live in a politically correct world when it comes to Islam is an empirically false assertion. Yet, weirdly persistent. Islam is the most dissected, talked about and negatively thought of faith now in the Western world and for some it isn't enough.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
Wolverine said:
1. Do we insist on calling the westboro baptist church a radical christian group? Or the KKK? Or do we just call them by the names they choose for themselves?

2. Saying that we live in a politically correct world when it comes to Islam is an empirically false assertion. Yet, weirdly persistent. Islam is the most dissected, talked about and negatively thought of faith now in the Western world and for some it isn't enough.

3. What we should do however is challenge the ideologies that exist in societies that leads to their sympathizers (Wahabism, Salafism) and especially some of our allies who promote these ideologies and we have to find political leverage to stop them from doing so.
Click to expand...

1. I think I see things like westbro refereed to more as a hate speak group or an anti XYZ group... thats certainly my recollection of it and branding them as a Christain organisation is probably as offensive to most Christians as calling ISIS an Islamic organisation - that said I'm not Christian or Islamic and infact not religious at all and I do think that as religion is such a personal thing it can really skew how people see faiths represented. But AQ, ISIS, even going back to the Mujaheddin as far as I remember tended to be refereed to by their group name rather than by religion (though just like with the crusaders you can argue that the religious connotations are implicit)

2. I sort of agree - but actually I am not sure many people actually understand enough about Islam to actually dissect and discuss it - its more just a re-hashing of tropes based on grabbing headlines over the years.

3. Absolutely - until the debate moves on from being about "Islam" and onto more specific ideologies and what drives them, then all rhetoric is essentially self serving politics - ultimately workable solutions are rarely imposed - especially if there is such a narrow rhetoric fulled debate driving the search for solutions but certainly in a visible manner I see very little evidence of a joined up approach between governments worldwide to understanding and addressing the issues (of course it may be going on behind the scenes but again I see nothing to imply this is the case)

We almost seem to be looking to blame somebody / something because clearly there is something wrong and I cant help but think of my experience of no blame accident investigations (basically what came in from the airline industry) - find out what went wrong not in order to apportion blame but to fix it and find a way to prevent it happening in the future.
 
Adisa said:
Is it true Trump implied Obama is in bed with terrorists?
Click to expand...

He has been doing that for years, ever since Obama was first running for President with the Birth Certificate scandal. What he is saying now is no different. He does it on an almost daily basis. The man is mentally ill, yesterday he actually took credit for forcing NATO to make a new department/division and for changing their policies on ISIS and other terrorist networks (that he doesn't know the name of)

As I and many others here and everywhere else have been saying for months, the man is dangerous, a moron and hasn't got the first clue of what he is talking about. However, now he is reading carefully written speeches off teleprompters so his mistakes will be minimal. The only chance for him slipping up now is his appearances on TV shows like yesterday when he was on every major network and on which he repeated the "Obama is up to something" and "it's not right, but he doesn't know what" lines on each. He actually had the fecking nerve to call Obama thick on one station. He's on Hannity tonight, Hannity will feed his ego and stroke his balls whilst interviewing him, we can only hope he gets so excited about being publicly wanked off that he starts blabbing and putting his foot in it again.

He is so lucky because last week he was in ruins, on a massive downward trajectory, especially with his comments about the Mexican Judge, he now seems reinvigorated and more arrogant that before. His hypocrisy also knows no bounds, as it was only last week he was not only slamming the Transgender bathroom laws, only now to be the self appointed lover of the LGBT community and of course (as he put it) "nobody does more for or loves the gays and minority communities as much as he does" that he says while slamming the American (and world) Muslim population. Also last week Fox news were SCUM! This week though, they are his favourite station that he has always loved.

He is even more loathsome, if that was ever possible.
 
Didnt trump double down on his ban rhetoric yesterday?

I didnt see the speech so perhaps somebody who did can confirm / deny but did he say he would look to put a travel ban on all countries who have a terrorist / radical muslim problem?

And hasn't he already said that the Uk has a Muslim problem - we even apparently have no go areas.

So are we going to be banned from going over there?
 
If there are any more terror attacks leading up to the elections, will they help Trumps chances of winning? or does it not matter?
 
prateik said:
If there are any more terror attacks leading up to the elections, will they help Trumps chances of winning? or does it not matter?
Click to expand...

I'd wait for new polls to come out before making any assumptions. It's true his numbers went up after Paris and San Bernardino with the Republican electorate, but his favourability took a dive with the electorate at large, during the same period.

Clinton also matched him with regards to terrorism in most polls. Some went his way, some went her. I don't think national security is where he can move in for the kill. Personally, I'm more concerned with the economy. Only 38,000 jobs added last months, lowest in 7 years.
 
prateik said:
If there are any more terror attacks leading up to the elections, will they help Trumps chances of winning? or does it not matter?
Click to expand...


Unless that attacks are carried out by some shady guys who live in Obama's basement don't think it will matter much. Those who support Trump will go "Aha! See we told you so." Those who don't support him won't be moved to support him by something that has nothing to do with Hillary at all. Perhaps I am wrong and my opinion too strongly shaped by where I live in the US, but attacks like the one in Orlando won't be the issue that sways those who are undecided.
 
Has any candidate seeking office ever implied that the sitting president committed treason? I'm quite lazy to dig it out but if there is I reckon you'd have to go back all the way to the 19th century.
 
sun_tzu said:
Didnt trump double down on his ban rhetoric yesterday?

I didnt see the speech so perhaps somebody who did can confirm / deny but did he say he would look to put a travel ban on all countries who have a terrorist / radical muslim problem?

And hasn't he already said that the Uk has a Muslim problem - we even apparently have no go areas.

So are we going to be banned from going over there?
Click to expand...


Double down? He tripled ad quadrupled down on it. He was worse than ever, although his speech was carefully scripted so he was adding words like "temporary" and "only from countries with terrorist ties" but the way he delivered it, everyone knew exactly what he meant. The trouble is, the guy who did the most recent shootings was American, something Trump then moved away from and said his family shouldn't have been let in. Thing is, his family came to the USA in 1985 under Regan's watch, and came from Afghanistan as refugees from the war, so Trump again proved he knows feck all about what he is saying and he's just pulling ideas out of his ass.

A good reply to him on Twitter yesterday from someone who called himself, Big Chief Little Hands and said "I agree we should never have allowed any immigrants in to the USA" :lol: I thought it was quality.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Has any candidate seeking office ever implied that the sitting president committed treason? I'm quite lazy to dig it out but if there is I reckon you'd have to go back all the way to the 19th century.
Click to expand...

I can´t believe Reagan was able to get away with selling missiles to arch enemy Iran behind the government´s back, a short few years after they had taken so many US citizens hostage and humiliated the United States like few nations have. If that isn´t treason, I don´t know what is. One of the Democratic candidates in the 1988 primary elections must´ve been uttering the T word.
 
Trump knows he can get away with doubling down on Muslims as much as he likes. He'll carry on talking about that and be quiet on Latinos as an example (obviously the wall will be a big talking point for him still).

People will still claim that Muslims get off scott free mind.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Trump knows he can get away with doubling down on Muslims as much as he likes. He'll carry on talking about that and be quiet on Latinos as an example (obviously the wall will be a big talking point for him still).

People will still claim that Muslims get off scott free mind.
Click to expand...
Isn't the Muslim population in the states around the 1% mark?
Certainly makes more sense electorally to focus his bile there rather than revisit his build a wall message
 
prateik said:
If there are any more terror attacks leading up to the elections, will they help Trumps chances of winning? or does it not matter?
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that there aren´t some group of half way intelligent sworn enemies of the US who are sitting there going over the genius of the Bin Ladin plan to really stick it to the USA - Strike a massive terrorist blow to the United States, thus assuring a right wing American backlash that will install a Republican government for eight years to come, with the mild compliance of the citizenry. You can then be sure that these greedy little militant right wing bigots will have a free hand to get themselves stuck in ill begotten wars, bankrupting the US both financially and morally, dividing the nation, their greed and folly will crash the economy, their anti environmentalism will poison the nation, they will bully the liberal voices . . . and by the time the nation has regained the sense to vote these people out, they will obstruct any meaningful change, divide and conquer with their bigotry and sneaky, anti democratic voting tactics, until by hook ´n crook (and Donald Trump) they can get themselves installed once again to finish the job of destroying the US by themselves.

I mean, looking at is this way and watching the post 9/11 Bush years followed by Obama, it almost makes Osama bin Ladin appear to be a genius tactician.
 
Nobby style said:
I can´t believe Reagan was able to get away with selling missiles to arch enemy Iran behind the government´s back, a short few years after they had taken so many US citizens hostage and humiliated the United States like few nations have. If that isn´t treason, I don´t know what is. One of the Democratic candidates in the 1988 primary elections must´ve been uttering the T word.
Click to expand...
aye - we are selling missiles to Iraq but Iran want them as well...
I know lets get Israel to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for Iran pressuring Hezbollah to release prisoners, we can give Israel replacement weapons and then use the money from the sales to fund anti-communists fighting in Nicaragua
 
Status
Not open for further replies.