DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Election Thread #11 - The Gloves are off

JC

Remember when Donald Trump once tied a 13 year old girl to a bed and raped her?
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/10/...ump-child-rape/

he really thinks these guys are still guilty?

see, it's his stances on things like this which is why he won't get any minority votes come election day.

I'm not surprised a region that endorsed slavery, and segregation, runs Trump out there. Gotta love the south

I live in NE Ohio where slavery never existed. It's a traditionally Republican community. We have good schools that perform well every year despite spending less than the state average per student. Crime is low and violent crime is virtually non-existent. People are generally upbeat, happy, and friendly. In this extended area I've seen about 50 Trump/Pence signs and exactly 3 Hillary signs.

I live in NE Ohio where slavery never existed. It's a traditionally Republican community. We have good schools that perform well every year despite spending less than the state average per student. Crime is low and violent crime is virtually non-existent. People are generally upbeat, happy, and friendly. In this extended area I've seen about 50 Trump/Pence signs and exactly 3 Hillary signs.

Here is Trumponomics, in a sentence: Create an unnecessary economic downturn by deporting 7 million workers while cutting taxes for the rich and requiring the United States to borrow trillions of dollars from creditors, whom Trump has now threatened to stiff, if he feels like it. It would be the greatest, dumbest recession in American history.

lmao.

just so everyone is aware, we are now basing the level of support based on who has the most yard signs and #'s of people at a rally.

i seen more mitt romney signs in 2012 then i saw obama signs.

remind the board on how that turned out.

And I stated my observation.

I wasn't arguing with you. Cause there's nothing to argue about.

Anyway, it's gonna be interesting how much more stuff gets released.

And whats worse? The Dems don't have to rely on shady foreign hackers to provide the material; Trump himself provides it, since he's been in the public eye for about as long as Hillary has.

So if Trump looks bad round 2, who abandons ship?

His latest debacle was 11 years ago while Hillary is an ongoing debacle.

Trump!

I will be very surprised if Trump comes back from this latest debacle. And he took all the heat of Hillay for the wikileaks release. He really is his own worst enemy.

I just can't believe this is what this country has come to. Which candidate is the least likely to implode from scandals! ANYBODY else and Hillary is done, ANYBODY else and Trump is done... sad sad day in America.

I agree 40, but he's getting hammered nonetheless. I heard it and I know it was bad, but it sounded like guys BSing about their sex lives to me. I've heard that kind of thing a million times in my life.

j/c:

Y'all are unreal!

I agree 40, but he's getting hammered nonetheless. I heard it and I know it was bad, but it sounded like guys BSing about their sex lives to me. I've heard that kind of thing a million times in my life.

Yes, we get it, people take sides and blast away at the other side while being completely oblivious to the faults of their own.

This was actually shaping up to be a pretty decent discussion though.

Trump is fighting an uphill battle now for sure. We'll see what happens.

One thing that bother me a little bit is the fact that this tape was 11 years old. Take what CHS said earlier in the thread about Assange holding onto material and releasing it at the most damaging time. Fine, that's probably true. Well it's true here as well. Somebody had that tape for the last 11 years and probably sold it to the highest bidder.

There are other aspects to think about, like the ramifications about using unpleasant private matters against somebody 11 years later. Many of us have posted some very controversial opinions on this board. Imagine those comments being used against us in the year 2027. How far down that rabbit hole do you go? Can you use somebody's browsing and internet search history against them? I bet quite a few of us go to sites that we wouldn't tell our mothers about. On and on it goes. And again, I am in no way defending what Donald Trump said. I think it is worse than anything he has said during this election season.

No, this is the latest debacle on tape. Do any of you think for one second he's not still like this?

So Trump just tweeted this link about the Clintons: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidenti...g-brutal-rapes/

The debate tonight is going to make us DawgTalkers look civil in comparison.

Heck, she may even be a nice person in real life (I somehow doubt this). Just like with Obama. To me he seems like the type of person you'd like to sit down with and have a beer but she gives off this cold ice attitude and she's not relatable to AT ALL, and I mean AT ALL.

Wikileaks themselves highlighted emails related to the “Uranium One Deal,” where Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, signed away significant amounts, one-fifth, of US Uranium resources to Russia. Following the deal, millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation from individuals directly connected to the deal, including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Clinton declined to publicly disclose this contribution despite an agreement with Obama to publicly identify all Clinton Foundation donors. In a press release of the leaks, Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange provides evidence that Brian Fallon, Clinton campaign spokesman, lied when he told the New York Times that Clinton’s involvement in the deal was “baseless.” This is based on emails between José Fernandez and Podesta which show that Fernandez, who was responsible for the State Department’s role in the deal, was also involved with the Clinton campaign before this statement was made and had been given an “extremely rewarding” position at Podesta’s think thank, the Center for American Progress.

However, the email that will likely cause the most damage to Clinton’s campaign is titled “HRC Paid Speeches.” This email exposes transcript excerpts from her paid speeches which were closed to the public and the press, including those given to Goldman Sachs. They confirm what many have long suspected about Hillary’s real political views. In the transcripts, which you can read here, Clinton expresses that she is both pro-KeystoneXL and pro-TTP (free trade) – positions she has declined publicly. Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street banks will likely be very difficult to “spin”, as she told Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank that Wall Street were held accountable for the 2008 crisis for solely political reasons and to appease the public.

Clinton said that the blame placed on the United States banking system for the crisis “could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened.” She also said that public perception of the rigged system must be controlled in order to maintain public trust. She also said that financial reform “really has to come from the industry itself,” expressing her view that Wall Street should police itself. She also said she “did all I could to make sure [Wall Street] continued to prosper” after 2008 and also said that she depends on Wall Street money for funding.

Most concerning of all to Clinton’s campaign is that she explains away her misrepresentation of her views to public as being born out of the necessity to have “a private and public position on policy.” To quote directly from Clinton’s words: “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.” She said the public/private position dichotomy is “necessary to be successful, politically” and said this was true throughout all of American history. Essentially, Clinton admits that everything she says publicly is done so for political gain and does not reflect her true, “private” views.

Well, you're using a pretty extreme example to prove your point but I do get your point. I guess it would depend on the details. I'm sure many of us visit many sites, or even search things in a devil's advocate sort of way where the goal is to learn new information and not necessarily because that is how we think. But again, it depends on the specifics.

I'm not trying to pick on you but you really should consider the ramifications on this. Think about some of the more incendiary posts you made about the police over the summer. I think you realize you made a mistake and you learned from it, and I wouldn't wish for you to lose out on a job or political office because young Reggie made a couple posts in an emotional time without thinking things through. That's just what I'm getting at. When you start taking someone's worst private conversations from 11 years ago as evidence of how horrible that person is, we're going down a really slippery slope there.