News political alert! Do you approve of trumps doings while in office

Who would you have voted for in the last stretch of the election

  • Total voters
    49
Status
Not open for further replies.
stainsoftime said:
You're saying the people marching with Nazis weren't Nazis. He was just there because of he really, really loves statues. Of racists.
Politifact is nonpartisan. It's showing what the facts say vs what people say. So how about you check the sources, mkay?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see proof of that. You cannot play the KKK card when he openly disowned them. While Hilary had direct ties to KKK leaders.

Just because Trump isn't the best person to be president doesn't mean people believing that he CAN, in fact, do a change. A good change at that. Various points according to that have been made in this thread that was in TRUMP's favor instead of Hillary's. So how about you provide good points before you begin to judge a whole group of people instead pointing out single things before looking back in the thread to see if they were or were not answered.

It's easy to call someone an Ignorant person but it's hypocritical to do call someone something you are yourself.
 
MarinesThePsychoticReaper said:
I'd like to see proof of that. You cannot play the KKK card when he openly disowned them. While Hilary had direct ties to KKK leaders.

Just because Trump isn't the best person to be president doesn't mean people believing that he CAN, in fact, do a change. A good change at that. Various points according to that have been made in this thread that was in TRUMP's favor instead of Hillary's. So how about you provide good points before you begin to judge a whole group of people instead pointing out single things before looking back in the thread to see if they were or were not answered.

It's easy to call someone an Ignorant person but it's hypocritical to do call someone something you are yourself.
Click to expand...

None of those claims are supported by evidence. Trump didn't disavow the KKK/Nazis, he said "both sides are bad" to try to dodge.
 
MarinesThePsychoticReaper said:
This still doesn't mean he supports any of them. The same Card could be played on Hillary when she would be in the same situation as him. You'd still believe her over Trump.
Click to expand...
False equivalence. Clinton didn't pander to the KKK/Nazis and wasn't supported by them.
And Trump has a documented history of being a serial liar who will never admit to being wrong.
58 Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories (And Counting!): The Definitive Trump Conspiracy Guide | Right Wing Watch
Donald Trump's file
Do you have an allergy to facts? Because you're just putting out the same garbage that's been refuted thousands of times. Citation needed, citation needed, citation needed. The UN is denouncing Trump's refusal to distance himself from the Nazis. United Nations Panel Assails Trump's Refusal To Explicitly Condemn Neo-Nazis | HuffPost
Again, I'm the only one providing actual evidence. A video of clips isn't worth anything, especially when they aren't what you claim.
 
stainsoftime said:
False equivalence. Clinton didn't pander to the KKK/Nazis and wasn't supported by them.
And Trump has a documented history of being a serial liar who will never admit to being wrong.
58 Donald Trump Conspiracy Theories (And Counting!): The Definitive Trump Conspiracy Guide | Right Wing Watch
Donald Trump's file
Do you have an allergy to facts? Because you're just putting out the same garbage that's been refuted thousands of times. Citation needed, citation needed, citation needed. The UN is denouncing Trump's refusal to distance himself from the Nazis. United Nations Panel Assails Trump's Refusal To Explicitly Condemn Neo-Nazis | HuffPost
Again, I'm the only one providing actual evidence. A video of clips isn't worth anything, especially when they aren't what you claim.
Click to expand...

Alright let's talk about Your perfect goddess of not doing anything wrong at all.

How will you explain Hillary's suspicous E-mails, Sudden support of SJW agenda and the fact that she wanted to go to war with fucking Russia. Which unless you have a deathwish. You wouldn't even think about.

(Sure. Trump might go into war with North Korea which has been getting stronger through out years while we laughed at it. It was a very real threat to anyone back then. It is a threat even now but it still something that can be done anything about.)
(Also If you watched the video you'd see that the press does not want to pick up on the good things trump did or said. So Any press posts could be falsified for the leftist needs. )
 
"But her emails" the plaintive cry of somebody who can't defend what Trump's done and is trying to dredge up the complete nothing of a "scandal" that wasn't. Also Trump's cabinet are using unsecured servers BTW. "SJW" is a meaningless buzzword, so yeah BS, and NO WAR WITH RUSSIA. Again, you refuse to provide a shred of evidence for your claims and then try to lie your way out of addressing what I've proven beyond a shred of doubt. Lie, lie, lie.
 
stainsoftime said:
"But her emails" the plaintive cry of somebody who can't defend what Trump's done and is trying to dredge up the complete nothing of a "scandal" that wasn't. Also Trump's cabinet are using unsecured servers BTW. "SJW" is a meaningless buzzword, so yeah BS, and NO WAR WITH RUSSIA. Again, you refuse to provide a shred of evidence for your claims and then try to lie your way out of addressing what I've proven beyond a shred of doubt. Lie, lie, lie.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? You know yourself how fucking important E-mails are when you are the secretary of the state. A leak of any information to unauthorized is a serious legal offense. Don't play it off like it's nothing at all. The fact that it happened while she was getting a major support from many corporations at the time was very fishy. Also about the war with Russia. Here's this.

(Remember that youtube in terms of anything politicly related is very neutral. Even more than most of the Major news stations in the US. So don't you dare play the "It's the no proof in my eyes." card. We both know the political status of Media in the US. So what we read could be easily played to be set against trump. So your so called proof could also be invalid. There is a lot of stuff media stations don't take into account on purpose for their own agenda.)

Also, I'd like to see why the Trump is new Hitler. Did he accept something that has ruined your life already? Because I don't think so. Nobody's life is left in shambles. I hear a lot of Maybes and possibilities but I don't see anything Actually happening.
 
Last edited:
No YouTube videos. Reliable sources only. And Donald Trump's war on the media is yet another blow against him. Accurate reporting makes him look bad, so he's conditioned his supporters to believe him over the facts. So yeah, you're lying AGAIN.
The damage he's done can't be fully calculated, but here's a tiny fraction of it: Every Terrifying Thing That Donald Trump Did Lately
This isn't Oceania, 2+2 = 4 no matter how many times you say it = 5. How fascist is Donald Trump? There’s actually a formula for that.
 
Alright You want reasons why to not trust Hillary? Alright here you go.
Hillary takes money (Illegaly) from foreign govorments to support her "Clinton fundation" while serving as the secretary of the state:Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State
Hillary defending a Child Rapist:Exclusive: 'Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says
Went MIA on porpouse resulting in a death of 4 Americans.Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton missed ‘3 a.m. phone call’ on Benghazi
Hillary refused to brand boko haram a terrorist organization:Hillary Clinton's State Department refused over and over to brand girl-kidnap group Boko Haram as 'terrorists' | Daily Mail Online
Was part of the bengazi controversy with the infromation that the terrorist attacks Would happen.New Documents Blow Lid Off Obama/Clinton Benghazi Scandal - Breitbart
The influence in executing the Muammar Gaddafi. Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention | Foreign Policy Journal
Which was confirmed by the E-mail leak.

Do you need anything more?
 
1. Not illegal. You didn't read the article.
2. That's what a lawyer does. Appeal to emotion.
3. Debunked. You searched for benghazi | Snopes.com
4. Daily Mail is fake news and that claim is false.
5. See #3
6. You're lying again.
7. See above.
You keep lying because if you actually looked at the evidence you'd see you're wrong. Now address the evidence about Trump, because your attempt at deflection is pathetic and dishonest.
 
stainsoftime said:
1. Not illegal. You didn't read the article.
2. That's what a lawyer does. Appeal to emotion.
3. Debunked. You searched for Benghazi | Snopes.com
4. Daily Mail is fake news and that claim is false.
5. See #3
6. You're lying again.
7. See above.
You keep lying because if you actually looked at the evidence you'd see you're wrong. Now address the evidence about Trump, because your attempt at deflection is pathetic and dishonest.
Click to expand...
I can also tell you that You lied in every sentence but that ain't mature now is it? Alright, let's start off. You come in here buddy and call US. Ignorant and bad.
Hillary lied a ton. Nobody cared about her lies. Sure Trump isn't perfect but compared to Hillary he is cleaner. Remember that Hillary likes to lie a lot with a cover up evidence. Sure you can look at the statistics with your little site but that doesn't reflect how things really are. Hillary has mounted a hill of lies and fuck-ups nobody can see. Also if Hillary is really so perfect then why didn't she win? Good question right? Because every leftist person can brush off concerning evidence against Hillary but I cannot brush off evidence against trump which could faulty or even specifically manipulated to be played against him.

If you consider Trump Hitler right now then Hillary is Satan.
(In any case, it's your own fault Trump won by the bullshitery of BLM, ANTIFA, and other organizations while media stuck to extremist feminist ideology. We won't sit around and wait as the left does what it wants. People will stand up if something is being shoved down their throats.)
 
You just keep lying. You're spewing the same regurgitated BS and it's just plain wrong. Also Trump LOST by over 3 MILLION votes, and the only reason he 'won' is because of the Electoral College adn most people stayed home. You have zero facts on your side, you just keep refusing to acknowledge reality.
Just stop, you're not fooling anyone who wasn't already swallowing that garbage. Trump White House senior staff have private email accounts: report
 
stainsoftime said:
You just keep lying. You're spewing the same regurgitated BS and it's just plain wrong. Also Trump LOST by over 3 MILLION votes, and the only reason he 'won' is because of the Electoral College adn most people stayed home. You have zero facts on your side, you just keep refusing to acknowledge reality.
Just stop, you're not fooling anyone who wasn't already swallowing that garbage. Trump White House senior staff have private email accounts: report
Click to expand...

You tell me BLM, ANTIFA, and other Domestic terrorist organizations aren't a thing because of your own incompetence to accept the facts as they are? Cmon now. I may be spewing BS but you don't fall far off yourself. I accept the reality as it is. Trump isn't as bad as you make him out to be. Sure, Call him a Racist. But the word racist lost its meaning. Call him a bigot even though there are worse organizations that did a lot more evil than he ever did. Call him a white supremacist, but you call anyone that so that too lost its meaning. You can post all the evidence all you want. It doesn't change anyones ideology and if you think you can forcibly change anyones ideology by calling them a racist and a bigot because they like trump think again buddy. I don't want to continue this sensless debate with you. As everyone said Both sides were bad. You ever took the bullet or the poison. You just gotta live with things like they are.
 
stainsoftime said:
Nope.
1. Those aren't terrorist groups. You're lying again.
2. They haven't lost meaning. I've provided overwhelming evidence, you've engaged in the Gish Gallop - RationalWiki
You're a teenage denialist suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Click to expand...
What? You are telling me that The fucking Antifa isn't a DOMESTIC terrorist group? Cmon man. You are living in a fucking dream of Communism. If beating people openly on the streets and striking fear into citizens of towns and cities to the point that everyone is afraid to leave their own homes, Isn't domestic terrorism then KKK are a bunch of saints.

Get real buddy. I don't know what kind of dream you are living where Hillary is an honest candidate and people who follow her aren't as dangerous as Right wing ones.
 
Hello everyone.

I'd like to remind you all that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and that this discussion needs to stay civil. Political discussions are allowed, but when they get out of hand we have to take action.
 
Sano Sauro said:
Alright.
FIRST OF ALL
[Citation Needed] Where he specifically panders to the KKK/Nazis. Not where you *perceived* he pandered to the KKK/Nazis because he said that there was someone else at fault as well in the rally, when there is video evidence to demonstrate that this is the case. I would prefer something more like where he is, in legal writing, making an exception to the KKK/Nazis (Self-described; not labeled) and pandering to them. If you *cannot* provide that, you need to admit that you were wrong.
In addition, you were proven false on a point where you said Donald Trump never disavowed the kKK. Someone made a supercut of Trump disavowing the KKK multiple times, and you not only failed to acknowledge it, you failed to even change your argument to compliment the new evidence. You are showing poor debate skills so far.
Third. Hillary Clinton was sponsored by the same people (the title says nations; it's officials in said nations) that have funded Islamic State. Therefore, while Trump has been backed by the KKK and the neo-Nazis, who have caused one death that was NOT supported by either organization (and since they're not supportive of it, they don't support terrorism on their side, and so they're not terrorist organizations), Clinton was supported by multiple people who directly supported the Islamic State, whose death count goes a little bit higher.
[CITATION]
Clinton Foundation ‘funded by same money as Isis’, says Julian Assange
Let me lay out a similar hypothetical scenario for you with regards to the KKK endorsement.
In a run for class president, Steve has accumulated the "outcast vote." While his backing is viewed as inferior (See basket of deplorables), it's actually winning. Then he gets Spencer's vote.
Spencer is an ultra-nerd. He's rejected by all his peers in every way, even other nerds. They don't think he has anything to offer, and as a result, any candidate voted by him is seen as weird, nerdy, lazy, or even stupid.
Steve can't do anything about that. Steve's not in control of who votes for him. He can't silence Spencer, since that's against the rules, so he does the next best thing: [Yes this is bullying in this situation]. He disavows Spencer, saying he isn't friends with him, he doesn't agree anything that he says, and in general says he is not a Spencer fan.
It is unfair to base a candidate's ability to run a nation, or even their political views, entirely on their endorsers. They have no control over who endorses them and who doesn't. If Hillary wasn't running a campaign supported by people who have often said that all white people are racist and don't deserve their belongings, their lives, etc.
[Citations]

'Go Back To Europe': UC Irvine Students Protest Milo - Breitbart



Black Lives Matter co founder tweets about killing men and white folks [BLM co-founder]
Then maybe a white supremacist group would have gone for her. As it stands, when a white supremacist group sees that many people are racist against white people and that is acceptable, they'll naturally side with the opposing viewpoint. Even if said opposing viewpoint doesn't line up directly with their own.

Donald Trump, however, as seen in the video so helpfully provided above, has denounced the KKK numerous times on camera. Hillary Clinton has yet to denounce the racism from her own campaign supporters [Even fueling the fire with her basket of deplorables comment], much less the backers she has that also back ISIS.

A lot of those conspiracy theories were (a) twisted, (b) were reinforced by misinformation, or (c) actually true.
"But they have citations!"
I randomly clicked 5 of the citations linked in the article. 1 led to politifact. 4 led to other articles on the same website. They are reinforcing their opinions by citing themselves.

And then you cited Politifact as well. So I was curious if they had any bias.
Wikipedia has spoken.
Both liberal and conservative bias have been alleged at different points, and criticisms have been made that PolitiFact attempts to fact-check statements that cannot be truly "fact-checked".
PolitiFact - Wikipedia. Over half the article is dedicated to bias.
There is more in-depth analyses of their potential bias at the following links.
Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives
PolitiFact Bias
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...inds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

And you, sir, are being hypocritical.
Let's look into that article, shall we...
But before we do that, we must also draw attention to the fact that the very same committee that wanted the U.S. also demanded the temporary redaction of the First Amendment. Yes. No sugar coating it by saying don't tolerate hate speech, no micro aggressions, just straight up temporarily terminate the First Amendment for individuals. Giving the power to restrict individuals because their ideas aren't welcome happens in North Korea to a more extreme extent.
After Charlottesville, UN Demands U.S. Quash First Amendment
United Nations Urges U.S. to Give Up Free Expression to Combat Racism | LifeZette
http://totalconservative.com/united-nations-wants-u-s-repeal-first-amendment/

"Trump received widespread condemnation for claiming there was violence “on many sides” in Charlottesville, without explicitly condemning the white supremacist groups that included Ku Klux Klan members and neo-Nazis that precipitated the violence."
First of all, ANTIFA has had a very long history of violence and acts that qualify as terrorism.

They have, almost universally, been the aggressors and the villains.
Second of all, both sides came prepared for violence, and both sides engaged in it.
Most of the footage that is seen in Charlottesville is during the violence, not at the start of it. Aside from a minor confrontation that is actually in my video library above where ANTIFA grabbed a flag (and started it) and started beating up the lead individual, prompting others to try to help rescue him. There is no footage that shows that white supremacists actually started the violence; only witness statements. And most of those witnesses were left-winged and would not have reported objectively.

In a fiery press conference, he reiterated that “both sides” were to blame and claimed that some of the violent protesters were “very fine people.”

Huffington Post fails to highlight any violent individuals that also fell under the fine people category, and therefore, makes the blanket statement that (a) all the protestors were violent and (b) some of those violent protestors are fine people, neglecting to address those engaging in violence in the form of self-defense.

The U.N. committee also urged U.S. leaders to “identify and take concrete measures to address the root causes of the proliferation of such racist manifestations, and thoroughly investigate the phenomenon of racial discrimination targeting in particular against people of African descent, ethnic or ethno-religious minorities, and migrants.”

Two problems; it gives great power to silence entire groups of people, and it places more emphasis on the racial discrimination targeting minorities than any sort of racism targeting majorities. That is, of course, unfair and unequal, since both problems should be addressed.

You have provided a website compiling a list of statements and calling all of them false when a few are true, many are somewhat truthful, and almost all have evidence for the claims that is largely from the website itself.
You have provided a PolitiFact score, a website that is often criticized for bias that has been looked into thoroughly and has been seen as often biased. While generally credible, the fact that it sees Hillary as one of the most honest candidates in the running is a poor showing, at best.
And you have provided an article that has provided, at best, a poor analysis of Trump's statements and the result of them.
Meanwhile, saying "A video of clips isn't worth anything, especially when they aren't what you claim." is a blatant lie, since video evidence, unless tampered with, doesn't lie.
The claim made was that Donald Trump has disavowed the KKK numerous times. There is then numerous examples given of times when Donald Trump has disavowed and renounced the KKK. It is relevant, and it is definitely worth being cited as evidence.
Click to expand...

Even as someone on the left I will say this.

DON'T TRUST THE LIBERAL MEDIA.
 
Sano Sauro said:
And as someone from the right;


YOUTUBE VIDEOS ON SOMETHING RELEVANT CAN QUALIFY AS A RESOURCE.
IF A YOUTUBE VIDEO DEPICTS UNPROVOKED KKK VIOLENCE ON ANTIFA, IT'S EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM.
IF A YOUTUBE VIDEO DEPICTS UNPROVOKED ANTIFA VIOLENCE ON KKK, IT'S EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM.
Click to expand...
Youtube isn't a good source xdxdxdxdxdxdxdxdxd STOP PROVING MY OPINIONS WRONG YOU'RE OFFENDING ME.

-Every alt-right or sjw I've talked to.
 
Sano Sauro said:
Gilzar Gilzar
Does this count as just being inflammatory? There wasn't any evidence brought to the table, the resulting posts were somewhat hostile one side and nonproductive and semi-inflammatory on the other, and even though it was fun to point out the obviously flawed points, they did just call numerous users on this side ignorant or morally abhorrent people and said it was fact. And by saying it this way, they discouraged any further debate with them, since they could refer back to their OP and say that anyone on the other side was ignorant/morally abhorrent.
I just wanted to clarify.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with trump he has done some things that qualify him being a good person
>Disagreed with the Iraq war
>Donated to several charities
>Pro-LGBT in the early 2000's when everyone hated LGBT

Sure he might word himself badly but I honestly think that was to just get votes.
 
All you're doing is making the same refuted claims. Sources I've already provided refuted them. I'm done with this because you refuse to be honest or even step outside your bubble.
It's rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon, I made all the right moves, but then you knock the pieces over, crap on the board, and then act like you've won.
I'm guessing you'll try to act smug about BSing me out of this, but no, you haven't won anything. You've just ensured you'll continue to be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Keroko
Other How long do you think you'd survive in a zombie apocalypse?
Replies
15
Views
234
GammyWamzee
GammyWamzee
Keroko
Other What is something that everyone looks stupid doing?
Replies
8
Views
221
EldrithcAlienGutz69
EldrithcAlienGutz69
cheeseburger90210
News Happy today; happy day! What is the best birthday gift you have ever got?
Replies
2
Views
111
Bill Nye The Octopi
Bill Nye The Octopi
cheeseburger90210
Other Thank you!
Replies
3
Views
168
DragonSlayer57
DragonSlayer57
Keroko
Other What's your dream job
Replies
15
Views
305
Daylight Fantasy
Daylight Fantasy
Back
Top