Donald Trump

"

Jennik wrote:

<T-shirt image>

I guess when you run out of insane conspiracy theories about pedophile pizzas and Hillary bathing in blood, you fantasize about getting to lynch people who say things that make you mad.

Make America Hate Again.

One edgy T-shirt vs 74 civilians, including 25 children killed in the past 24 hours in Hillary's War


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/civilians-killed-rebel-fire-west-aleppo-monitor-161106061327127.html

I've heard some estimates that upwards of six hundred thousand people have been killed so far, all because Hillary and the greedy corrupt pack of thugs she runs with think they can tinker with the world for their own financial gain.

#HillarysWar needs to come to an end.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

it feels to me as if the website's sole function is to somehow paint Trump as a far worse liar than the woman who says she hit her head so hard she forgot all her security briefings.

This seems to be a pretty bad case of feels > reals.

Hillary did not say what you claim she said. She had a concussion. That's a fact. She said she couldn't recall many things. That's also a fact, and to be expected since she has a fallible human memory (just like Donald "I don't remember" Trump). However, she didn't say there was a causal link.

Also, unlike Trump, Hillary never said she has one of the best memories in the world. To Trump's credit, he also says he's the best at literally everything in the world, since he's a fucking delusional wack job. My favorite was when he said he was the best baseball player in New York. Seriously, the guy's a delusional idiot. Shame on anyone voting for this buffoon.

Saying "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" is not a bad thing. It's what you're supposed to do if you don't perfectly remember events with 100% accuracy. If you say what you think happened even when you're unsure, and it turns out you're wrong, you're fucked. There's a reason Hillary, Trump, Reagan, and tons of people with competent lawyers end up saying they don't recall various things when under oath.

Politifact definitely adds some spin at times, but not nearly enough to account for Trump's 70% false rating. Trump lies so often that it's obvious the truth isn't even relevant to him. He just crafts his preferred reality as he goes. His constant lies about Obama yelling at a protester the past couple of days are a good example of this. He knows that isn't true, the media reports constantly that Trump's lying about it, and he still won't stop.

He even lies about the most obvious and trivial things that everyone knows or can easily verify, like what he said in a previous debate or tweeted two days earlier. He lies more than any two politicians combined. He doesn't even have a fleeting relationship with honesty. The man is a pathological liar, and, like his messiah complex, that problem's not going away once he gets into the White House.

Luckily, thanks in large part to Hillary's Get Out the Vote campaign and Donald's lack of one, it looks like Trump won't be defiling the White House with his presence. I'm especially thankful to Hispanics, as they're turning out in record numbers and are overwhelmingly on the light side. Apparently they don't take kindly to all the rhetoric about Mexican immigrants being murderers and rapists. Who would have guessed?

Looks like Donald fatally injured his campaign on day fucking one and we just didn't know it yet. He'll finally finish bleeding out on Tuesday, and all I can say is good riddance. Now we have to work on reeducating all the roaches he brought out of the shadows, bred, and radicalized. Some of your fellow Trumpers in this thread are so far down the rabbit hole it's legitimately frightening, and I weep for the future of America if we're not able to pull people like them back out.

"

ladish wrote:

I find that t-shirt a bit scary. Maybe if it was intended "ironically" but these are trump supporters we are talking about.

It's no more scary than a Duke Nukem T-shirt. So far, the Hillary supporters have physically assaulted far more people than any Trump supporters have.

The difference between the two that is real, is that Trump's supporters are more enthusiastic.

"Journalists" have betrayed us all. If they had been honest and diligent, the voting public would have decent information on both sides to make their decision with.

Future elections are only going to be worse. More bias, more partisanship, more corruption and even less accuracy of information.

Why? Because people are becoming too lazy to check things out for themselves.

Spoon Fed info isn't enough - they want predigested pap - in the latest fad flavour.

"Help I've fallen and I didn't get a push notification from NPR telling me how to stand up again."

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Spoiler

"

Jennik wrote:

Wow, that's insane. This should have been a big opportunity for the GoP to present conservative ideals that represent a forward looking inclusive party via kasich or rubio and instead we have a nominee that caters to these kinds of people. /sigh

What are the chances that any candidate is going to be able to (or try to) screen the attire of thousands of rally attendees?

What are the chances that journalists' obvious bias over the last 8+ years has offended people before Trump?

What are the odds we could find lots of polls saying that the public's opinion of the media
has been very low for a long time?

Kasich and Ben Carson would certainly have more civil campaigns. Rubio seems to have more self-interest, so who knows what he might have devolved into.

Consider this - where would the BLM movement be if the media tried to hide it as much as they tried to hide Wikileaks?

We need honest journalism as much as we need good leaders. The first amendment isn't listed first as a matter of convenience. It is the most important amendment. Without it, the rest of the Constitution would surely die a slow death.

The only reason people aren't realizing this is because they have been brainwashed by:

1) A piss poor educational system that isn't willing to accept criticism and make the effort to improve.

2) Journalists who somehow learned and retaught others that the importance of the fourth estate is in controlling minds, instead of freeing minds from disinformation.

In #1 above, I am saying the SYSTEM is poor, not the people involved in teaching, who are usually dedicated to doing their best, often with inadequate resources. The system needs an overhaul. Not a knee jerk - fix things this way now - overhaul, but one with lots of research, consultation, input, testing and reevaluation. The same way farming was improved and set on the right track in America long ago.

For those who may be new to the thread, or to some of the actors involved ...

"

Jennik wrote:

1) Facts are facts whether you like them or not.

From http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/pathological-lying-symptom-or-disease

"Pathological lying (PL) is characterized by a long history (maybe lifelong) of frequent and repeated lying for which no apparent psychological motive or external benefit can be discerned. While ordinary lies are goal-directed and are told to obtain external benefit or to avoid punishment, pathological lies often appear purposeless. In some cases, they might be self-incriminating or damaging, which makes the behavior even more incomprehensible"

Do Trump's "lies" appear purposeless, or otherwise fit the description above?

No. Which means that it is a FACT that Trump is not a pathological liar.

"

Jennik wrote:

2) Ivana's description of the time Donald raped her is absolutely horrific

From the very page that Jennik linked above, in Ivana's own words is her sworn statement:



How does her statement square with Jennik's assessment?

What does this tell us?

I think my favorite Trump story recently has been about Trump getting his Twitter access taken away. I just saw Obama's remarks about it, and he was on point as usual. Trump is such a joke.

It's pretty weird to check Trump's Twitter feed and only see the promotional posts from his aides. I miss reading about how terrible Kristen Stewart is, how disgusting Barney Frank and his nipples are, and all the other insanity. I guess the shackles didn't stay off after all.

I mean, clearly this man can't be trusted to handle the incredible responsibility that comes with a Twitter account, but the presidency and the nuclear codes? No problem!

And since this is all nearly over, here's one of my favorite Trump videos of the election: Tearing Down Trump's Wall. This is an especially good watch for those delusional fellows who keep crying about all the violent liberals causing all the trouble at Trump rallies.

"

Jennik wrote:

Tearing Down Trump's Wall. This is an especially good watch for those delusional fellows who keep crying about all the violent liberals causing all the trouble at Trump rallies.

The truth there is that it takes two to tango.

What happened first was: Violence occurred and was apparently encouraged at some early Trump rallies.

Second: The Clinton Machine saw a weakness and organized its dirty tricks department to birddog at Trump rallies. I'm surprised I haven't seen more criticism from the Left that birddogging, while intended to incite violence, didn't initiate violence; in fact, the entire strategy revolved around saying dumb shit to Trump supporters until they lost their tempers. I'm sure Scott Foval saw himself as doing MLK or Ghandi's work, while simultaneously reveling in how "diabolical" it all was.

Third: Violence escalated as it became more of an expected occurrence.

Put another way: the Trump campaign allowed the seed to remain on its soil; the DNC, through its proxies, applied fertilizer.

In this way, I see that video as a bipartisan effort. Allowing things to get to such a ridiculous extent is something that either side could have prevented, but didn't. It's more of a general indictment of our current political culture than anything else.

----

I also find that one part, after "our president has divided this country so bad," to be pretty ironic. Imagine if Jay-Z was standing there and said those words. Would that be better? And hey, I love me some cuss words, so I'm not saying that'd be bad. But generally, politicians have said such language is universally unacceptable... up until a recent Clinton concert. How is it not racist and divisive that freedom of speech applies differently based on skin color?

"

Jennik wrote:

I think my favorite Trump story recently has been about Trump getting his Twitter access taken away.

I hadn't gotten to look at that yet - figured it should be entertaining.

Bah- When a co-worker was mentioning it to me earlier, I thought Trump had lost access to his Twitter in some sort of emergency after he flipped his lid after hearing Comey's announcement. If that had been the case, Trump might have made quotes that would be used for movie villains for years.

Learning that it was taken away a few days ago makes more sense. The campaign needs to focus on presenting a more dignified Donald Trump. They should have been doing this a long time ago of course, and there is little chance that the average voter is going to buy the new routine.

"

Jennik wrote:

I mean, clearly this man can't be trusted to handle the incredible responsibility that comes with a Twitter account, but the presidency and the nuclear codes? No problem!

If he reacted to everything the same way, I would agree with you. Having worked with a fair number of these power types before, they don't all fall into the same behavioral pattern. Some thrash about harming everyone and everything they imagine is against them. Some take personal affronts seriously, but handle actual crises with aplomb.

In lieu of details I'm not allowed to give out, here's a breakdown of the thinking:

The greatest threat to success is bad information. You can fix problems and you can fix mistakes. You can't fix things that you don't know about or have bad information about.

It's all about trust. As a leader, you will never in a million years, be able to handle all the important stuff yourself. You need people you can trust. You and the people you work with are free to hold each other accountable - so long as you are entirely honest. The only reason for dishonesty is betrayal. When you start getting people you can't trust, the structure begins to fall apart. People don't have to be infallible, but they do need to be infallibly trustworthy.

As competitive as the game may be, it has legal rules. When one side is allowed to break those rules, it is no longer a game, but a matter of survival and things will devolve very quickly.

I'm not saying that these are necessarily great decision making patterns. What I am saying is that a lot of leaders have them. If you can't make decisions based off of limited information, you can't be an effective leader. Even when you do have a plethora of information, being able to make important decisions in a timely manner is a critical factor for success.

Bin Laden might still be at large if we had waited for Obama to deliberate all the options carefully.

Not all decisions need to be made in a hurry, of course, or even most of them. The basic decision making process a leader uses (and most of them use the same type) is based off of their personality.

It takes a lot of confidence, even when that confidence isn't justified. There's a lot of intuition. When that intuition is in a great sound mind and has a relevant base of experience (what's relevant isn't always what you would think it would be) the decisions usually play out well in the long run.

Hillary is a slightly more deliberative model, though she does use a fair amount of intuition. She does have relevant experience to use her intuition, and even when she makes a bad decision, it isn't usually the root of her decision that is so bad. (I am excluding possibilities of corruption for this). If Hillary relied on her instincts and experience more, and let her staff work out more details afterward, I think she could be very successful in having workable plans.

She's going to have to find a way to empathize with and honestly socialize with opposing leaders if she actually wants to be effective. If she has any sense, she would let Bill vet her advisers and have a final veto on any of them.

"

Jennik wrote:

And since this is all nearly over, here's one of my favorite Trump videos of the election: Tearing Down Trump's Wall. This is an especially good watch for those delusional fellows who keep crying about all the violent liberals causing all the trouble at Trump rallies.

The gas station attack @6:07 is pretty disgusting, if true. (not saying it isn't, it's just the first I have seen of it). I'm not sure how many of the rally ones are bird dogging, and which ones might just be Pro Trump thugs that need to be prosecuted.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Heh, that shirt is of course in bad taste but then we got some new leaks today which show that CNN is directly colluding with the DNC, like literal Clinton News Network tier where the DNC is drafting articles and interview questions (toward republican candidates!) for CNN. But it's all a vast right wing conspiracy amirite?

Proof 1: https://i.sli.mg/KT4dsE.gif

Proof 2: https://i.sli.mg/IrVn6E.jpg

/pol/ is always right.

CNN's Kobayashi Maru:

A) Fire Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer (and be seen by the public as untrustworthy for decades)

B) Get sued for racism and sexism for firing Donna Brazile (who did the same thing and was fired for it) and be portrayed as racist and sexist for decades.