Trump / Clinton 2nd Presidential Debate

[LeMaquis 10]

My bold=

Eloquent remainers are a rarity, most remainers are at the bitter and twisted stage.

Some remainers have resorted to ageism= http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-the-referendum-the-ugly-scourge-of-ageism/18499#.WArBK-t4WrU

 

Whereas you Brexiters include among your ranks those entirely non-bitter and non-twisted people in the BNP, NF and Britain First as well as Nigel Farage who was recently in the US supporting Donald "Ban all Muslims from entering the USA" Trump.

 

---------- Post added 23-10-2016 at 12:29 ----------

 

Recently he was ahead in the polls until Clinton started her "trump is a rapist" smear campaign.

 

Trump started that campaign with the tape of him admitting to sexually assaulting women. But don't let reality get in the way of your arguments. The sad thing about you is that you really do think that if you post something on Sheffield Forum it changes reality in the USA.

[unbeliever 10]

There are decent, thoughtful and honourable people on both sides of Brexit. There are also people who are nothing of the kind on both sides.

 

It's not a matter of good and evil, black and white, smart and dumb.

That's what has made it such a difficult and traumatic decision to make.

 

Also. This is not the Brexit thread. There are enough Brexit and brexit-dominated threads already.

[petemcewan 27]

Rinzwind,

 

 

 

false allegations of sexual misconduct

.

 

Can you please tell me how you know that for sure ?

[Zamo 10]

you just obviously don't know anything, at all, about American presidential elections. Trump just can't win this election and I'm not saying that because I don't want Trump to win myself. Trump just hasn't got the numbers. He hasn't got the votes. He's going to come up well short. A lot of the people who seem to you to be enthusing for him at his rallies, aren't even going to vote for him, or anyone else, in the election. They're not registered, to vote, and even if they are registered, they won't turn out like say Asian Americans, who will vote 90% for Clinton, will turn out.

 

with black American voters, who comprise 13% of America's 320 million people, and who in the last election turned out to vote more than white people did, only about 1-2% of them will vote for Trump. Whole journalistic crews have gone through city areas where there is a lot of blacks, and they haven't even been able to find one person, that has said that they will vote for Trump, out of hundreds of people that they've asked. There's never been anything like it.

 

With all due respect Blake, you do have a habit of seeing what you want to see. You also thought we'd vote to remain in the EU, that most people didn't can't care about it and the turn out would be less than 50%. You underestimate how angry people are about immigration concerns being ignored and the extent to which that anger is suppressed by political correct pressure... a pressure that largely disappears in a secret ballot.

 

The fact is that most Americans (not just whites either) share Trump's concerns about illegal Mexican immigration and Muslim immigration but, as in this country, many are not comfortable admitting how they feel. Clinton sneers and labels Trump and his supporters as deplorables, bigots and Islamophobes for these concerns but in doing so actually insults the majority of the population... it is a massive error. She once again shows people that she is part of a liberal elite that will simply overrule their concerns and wishes because they know best. People are angry about it, even if political correctness stops it being more widely expressed, and anger is Trump's friend. Anger is why Trump is still in the race and there is time yet for more anger that could just push him over the finishing line first. Another Islamic terrorist attack (especially on US soil) could well give Trump the surge of anger he needs.

 

Clinton was also a lucky choice of candidate from a Trump perspective because she is married to Bill. Any other candidate would have exploited the 'locker room banter' tape to the max and left Trump needing a full on Muslim armada off of New York to swing the race for him. But as unpleasant a human being as Trump is shown to be by the tape, Hilary can't really take the high ground and ask the American public to rule out Trump on moral grounds. The fact is everyone knows she chose to stay married to a man that abused his position of power by, firstly, sticking the presidential penis in the mouth of an intern and then, secondly, telling out and out lies to try and cover it up. Vote for a sex pest who abuses his position of power or vote for the wife of a sex pest who abuses his position of power... bit of a crap choice for those looking to make a morality vote eh? And more dirt yet may emerge to damage Clinton... I think Assange and Wikileaks may be sitting on something and just waiting for the right moment to take their revenge.

 

Where's an anti-establishment democrat with a sensible immigration policy when the world needs one?!? We'd all be able to correctly call the outcome of that election!!

[rinzwind 10]

Rinzwind, ... Can you please tell me how you know that for sure ?

 

If I said that 20 years ago you stole my watch and I don't have any evidence, how seriously would you take me? If he gets convicted in a court then that's one thing but right now it's just slander. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Trump started that campaign with the tape of him admitting to sexually assaulting women.

 

Actually he said "when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything, grab them by the ****, anything." That's not the same as admitting sexually assaulting women. It's actually saying that you can get away with it if you are a celebrity. You probably can.

 

It's very different to actually raping someone like Bill Clinton did several times, or getting a child rapist off the hook by rubbishing the reputation of a 12 year old rape victim like Hillary did and then

How about inciting the actual violence that occurred at Trump's political rallies. That was pretty underhand too (not to mention illegal). As is faking sexist job postings to rubbish your political opponents, that's just out an out lying (and it happened long before the Trump tape surfaced so no, the smear campaign didn't start like that, did it).

 

If Hillary cares so much about the plight of women then why is she accepting money from Saudi Arabia even though she knows they finance ISIS? I wonder what favours she promised those guys if she becomes president. Didn't one of Hillary's companies also pay taxes to ISIS? Don't they kill British soldiers? Isn't that directly financing terrorism?

 

Not that killing soldiers concerns Hillary since she has stated she will impose a "no-fly-zone" over a foreign country and

if elected. I don't think she'll be putting on a uniform and fighting though will she. Probably wouldn't pass the medical exam.

 

Did you know that Julian Assange's mentor just wound up dead today? Just like his lawyer did a few months ago. Wow! How many more people will Hillary have murdered to become president. Incidentally I'd be very interested in seeing a picture of Assange still alive and holding a copy of today's newspaper.

 

And lets not even get started talking about cocaine smuggling out of Mena municipal airport in Arkansas.

 

Sure Trump made an ill advised comment ten years ago. I'm not defending it but I've heard worse myself. Clinton on the other hand is a career gangster who's life's mission is to start world war 3. I'd therefore still rather vote for Trump.

 

But don't let reality get in the way of your arguments. The sad thing about you is that you really do think that if you post something on Sheffield Forum it changes reality in the USA.

 

You're attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message.

 

Did I mention that Hillary broke the law by using a private email server to receive classified state department emails? She then deleted 30,000 of them (in spite of being ordered to hand them over by a US court) in an attempt to cover up her role in the murder of ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi who was facilitating arms smuggling to terrorists?

Edited October 23, 2016 by rinzwind

[Petminder 10]

If I said that 20 years ago you stole my watch and I don't have any evidence, how seriously would you take me? If he gets convicted in a court then that's one thing but right now it's just slander. Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

 

 

20 year after the fact it isn't even possible to mount a defense, eg. I was down the pub with my friends at the same time you are claiming I stole the watch, or I was in a different city and here is my alibi.

[rinzwind 10]

20 year after the fact it isn't even possible to mount a defense, eg. I was down the pub with my friends at the same time you are claiming I stole the watch, or I was in a different city and here is my alibi.

 

Exactly. If it really happened then they should have mentioned it at the time. Not sat on it for 20 years.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Exactly. If it really happened then they should have mentioned it at the time. Not sat on it for 20 years.

 

So all of saviles victims were liars?

[Santo 10]

Exactly. If it really happened then they should have mentioned it at the time. Not sat on it for 20 years.

 

So you don't believe Trump's accusers but are happy to label Bill Clinton a rapist even though he was never charged and convicted of that? That's odd.

[unbeliever 10]

So you don't believe Trump's accusers but are happy to label Bill Clinton a rapist even though he was never charged and convicted of that? That's odd.

 

You've got about as much chance of getting reason and logic out of this conversation as you would have talking to [probably against the rules to mention the banana waving Momentum idiot by name] on the subject of Corbyn.

[Santo 10]

You've got about as much chance of getting reason and logic out of this conversation as you would have talking to [probably against the rules to mention the banana waving Momentum idiot by name] on the subject of Corbyn.

 

I'd like to know how big he thinks the conspiracy to rig the election is. As I'm sure he is aware by definition a conspiracy involves at least 2 people. So one guy has to say to another, 'we must rig the election.' The other guy doesn't then laugh in his face or contact the authorities but agrees. That's lucky! Who are these two people? Let's pretend it goes right to the top. Well Obama can't exactly pop into the Walmart and engage the services of an election software hacker like a character in a Len Deighton novel would; he'd have to use subordinates to arrange it all. How many exactly? And all are sworn to secrecy under threat of murder no doubt?

 

The why and how have been addressed (but I don't believe the how). The who is of interest. How big would this conspiracy need to be and how high up would it go? When you start asking those questions you start to see how absurd it is.

[rinzwind 10]

So you don't believe Trump's accusers but are happy to label Bill Clinton a rapist even though he was never charged and convicted of that? That's odd.

 

Clinton's accusers have been accusing him for years and years. It's well documented. He even settled lawsuits with some of them out of court. Clinton's accusers didn't just conveniently jump out of the woodwork two weeks before an election.

 

How come you only want to talk about a handful of suspiciously timed sex allegations. Isn't all the other stuff I mentioned about certain nuclear war, proof of inciting violence, potential murder, suspected drug dealing and proof of financing terrorism more important to you than kiss and tell stuff? (Number 4)

 

I'd like to know how big he thinks the conspiracy to rig the election is. As I'm sure he is aware by definition a conspiracy involves at least 2 people. So one guy has to say to another, 'we must rig the election.' The other guy doesn't then laugh in his face or contact the authorities but agrees. That's lucky! Who are these two people? Let's pretend it goes right to the top. Well Obama can't exactly pop into the Walmart and engage the services of an election software hacker like a character in a Len Deighton novel would; he'd have to use subordinates to arrange it all. How many exactly? And all are sworn to secrecy under threat of murder no doubt?

 

The why and how have been addressed (but I don't believe the how). The who is of interest. How big would this conspiracy need to be and how high up would it go? When you start asking those questions you start to see how absurd it is.

 

I addressed the how in another thread (and earlier in this thread). It's not a conspiracy theory when you have facts and evidence. (Numbers 1, 3, 5, 9 and 19)

Edited October 23, 2016 by rinzwind