2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[Astros19]

I'm not including every anti Trump person posting here as some of you see the reality for what it is, but the number of you who are completely disregarding WikiLeaks and anything else negative associated with Hillary is absolutely amazing.
Almost every Trump supporter willingly admits Trump has his faults, Hillary supporters, not so much.
A lot of heads buried in the sand.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[BoxBreaker72]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

Hillary at this point is a much better option than Trump. The guy is a lunatic and should be no where near the white house. Not saying I am a fan of Hillary because I am not, she is untrustworthy and her judgement is poor, but that doesn't mean I am going to vote for someone much worse in Trump. This man only cares about himself and it is laughable at all the people that think Trump speaks for the common man. Nothing he has ever done would indicate he gives a crap about anyone but himself. All the people he has screwed over and not paid throughout his business career. His charity and Trump university are scams. He gets offended anytime someone questions him and lashes out at them on twitter or in the media. Doesn't matter if its a politician, a comedian, a member of the military, the family of a veteran, etc. He has talked about expanding libel laws to make it easier for him to sue people that write negative stories about him. He talks about jailing his political opponent and also about implementing plans which have been deemed unconstitutional. Also he considers himself on expert on everything going on with the world even over people that live and breath it every day. There is clear reason to believe he would never be able to take suggestions from anyone in his cabinet or from anyone that works in the various government agencies given his massive ego. This guy is the closest thing to a dictator the US would ever see if he is elected and he must be stopped now.

You didn't say what you liked about Hillary's policies. All I see is more "Trump is offensive and is a loose cannon" stuff. It's so stale.

He didn't get to where he is in life by being a wild maniac with no self control or brains. You are buying into the media narrative.

Clinton is the extremely thin skinned one. Go read about her meltdown after the Matt Lauer interview. She was cussing everyone out and blacking out from rage. A ton of her secret service people have come out and said she is a horrific person.

Literally everything you said about Trump is the same (and worse) for Clinton, except there are FACTS to prove it about Clinton. Yes, Trump is a loud mouth and he hits back 10x harder to anyone that attacks him. I don't care.

Everyone needs to think about their families at this point and which candidate is going to help them the most. Enough of the " oh no, his finger will be on the button" bs.

Better national security, lower taxes and bringing jobs back to the USA. That is what I firmly believe Trump will do. If he doesn't, vote him out in 4 years. Ill be the first to vote against him if he doesn't come through.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

And ACORN was closed as a result of his video. Would that have been done if the video was false?

And with regard to half truth's and Clinton, as I've stated many times in this thread, even arguing w/ Trump supporters, these emails prove nothing against Clinton. I never said they did. But they do show, without a shadow of a doubt, clear corruption from the left. $1M gift from Qatar to Bill, "journalists" from Politico, NYT, Bloomberg giving stories ahead of time to the DNC and asking for their permission, even asking them if anything should be edited before publication.

Not to mention the simple fact that this new video, which now has 2.5M YouTube views in the first day has not been picked up by any MSM outlet EXCEPT Hannity (10pm Fox) tells you just how corrupt the media and the left have become. Days and weeks spent discussing how Trump is inciting violence at his rallies, and not a peep from CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo etc about the video that exposes people being paid to do it on purpose. Not a single mention ANYWHERE! Imagine if there was a video of the right paying people to punch protesters to "shut them up". You'd see it non-stop on every news channel through the debate.

That's what these leaks expose. Not Clinton specifically, but what she represents. Establishment government.

I understand what you're saying and why you see it that way. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I've just yet to see any PROOF of anything claimed.

You say that these leaks are exposing corruption. You don't have to answer this but just how does:

-$1M gift from Qatar to Bill expose corruption?
-"journalists from politco" expose corruption?
-NYT expose corruption?
-Bloomberg giving stories ahead of time to the DNC and asking for their permission, even asking them if anything should be edited before publication expose corruption?

That's what I'm asking. Every time myself, or someone else just simply asks, we're met with:

-"then you'll never be satisfied w/ the evidence"
-"A lot of heads buried in the sand."

Those are just 2 of the last 5 posts.

All I've asked is someone to use the emails and connect the dots. I forget who did it earlier (I think TKE) but someone posted a long-winded theory about backroom arms dealing in the Middle East as the reason for the alleged cover-up regarding Benghazi. While it's based completely on speculation, at least dots were connected, a story was laid out, and a coherent thought was formulated. That's been rare in this thread, and around the internet.


It doesn't have to be you Chapmans, but I'm asking someone to show me ONE THING, just one, that without a shadow of a doubt "exposes corruption" in those emails. ONE smoking gun. The way some of you have been going on about these Wikileaks dumps being the penultimate in Hillary Clinton's undoing I would have hoped to see at least one substantiated claim come out of these emails, I just haven't seen it yet. Someone connect some dots.

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

I understand what you're saying and why you see it that way. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I've just yet to see any PROOF of anything claimed.

You say that these leaks are exposing corruption. You don't have to answer this but just how does:

-$1M gift from Qatar to Bill expose corruption?
-"journalists from politco" expose corruption?
-NYT expose corruption?
-Bloomberg giving stories ahead of time to the DNC and asking for their permission, even asking them if anything should be edited before publication expose corruption?

That's what I'm asking. Every time myself, or someone else just simply asks, we're met with:

-"then you'll never be satisfied w/ the evidence"
-"A lot of heads buried in the sand."

Those are just 2 of the last 5 posts.

All I've asked is someone to use the emails and connect the dots. I forget who did it earlier (I think TKE) but someone posted a long-winded theory about backroom arms dealing in the Middle East as the reason for the alleged cover-up regarding Benghazi. While it's based completely on speculation, at least dots were connected, a story was laid out, and a coherent thought was formulated. That's been rare in this thread, and around the internet.


It doesn't have to be you Chapmans, but I'm asking someone to show me ONE THING, just one, that without a shadow of a doubt "exposes corruption" in those emails. ONE smoking gun. The way some of you have been going on about these Wikileaks dumps being the penultimate in Hillary Clinton's undoing I would have hoped to see at least one substantiated claim come out of these emails, I just haven't seen it yet. Someone connect some dots.

The WikiLeaks things seem to be benign enough to just confirm whatever preconceived positions one had about her. If you think she's a corrupt, evil, do-anything-to-get-elected demon, you'll find "evidence" of that wherever you look. Conversely, if you think she's just a savvy politician that's willing to compromise in the name of getting things done, you'll find your "evidence" there as well. It's just an issue of which of those preconceived positions is more sound and reality-based.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

And ACORN was closed as a result of his video. Would that have been done if the video was false?

And with regard to half truth's and Clinton, as I've stated many times in this thread, even arguing w/ Trump supporters, these emails prove nothing against Clinton. I never said they did. But they do show, without a shadow of a doubt, clear corruption from the left. $1M gift from Qatar to Bill, "journalists" from Politico, NYT, Bloomberg giving stories ahead of time to the DNC and asking for their permission, even asking them if anything should be edited before publication.

Not to mention the simple fact that this new video, which now has 2.5M YouTube views in the first day has not been picked up by any MSM outlet EXCEPT Hannity (10pm Fox) tells you just how corrupt the media and the left have become. Days and weeks spent discussing how Trump is inciting violence at his rallies, and not a peep from CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo etc about the video that exposes people being paid to do it on purpose. Not a single mention ANYWHERE! Imagine if there was a video of the right paying people to punch protesters to "shut them up". You'd see it non-stop on every news channel through the debate.

That's what these leaks expose. Not Clinton specifically, but what she represents. Establishment government.

woah woah woah here- ACORN got closed because they literally ran out of funds to stay open because of this hatchet job video that WAS 100% false. But by that logic you're using, the fact that O'Keefe and his partner traded the unedited tapes for immunity means they were guilty of something (which, they were).

Don't act like they closed because the video was true- it wasn't. Smaller organizations fold all the time if they get hammered with bad press (even if it's fake).

Think about the Planned Parenthood videos. it is 100% false that they are just selling baby parts willy nilly, but the videos made it look that way and the creators were proven to be misleading/faking things (by republican legislators no less). If PP was smaller, they definitely would have closed down.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_...os_controversy

[RossOK]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Anyone that knows anything about him knows that his stories are always accurate, but his methods questionable. Not a single instance has any of his videos been discredited, but he was arrested for entering a federal building under false pretenses.

Lol, this is completely inaccurate.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by RossOK

Lol, this is completely inaccurate.

perhaps we should do a supercut of Needchapman's posts. same thing O'Keefe does.

I'm sure at some point he's said the words "I", "liberal", "always", "have", "been".


so, "I have always been liberal" is now a direct quote for NC, using the O'Keefe style of reporting.




but, O'Keefe avoided prosecution because he gave up the unedited videos for immunity. that's the truth.

[pac213up]

Both parties are corrupt down to the roots. Not sure why anyone needs wikileaks to understand the sewer that our politicians have created. If you are voting for the GOP or Dems you are continuing to support the corruption. Read the bills that get passed and look at all the junk that gets thrown in. That junk does not get thrown in for free.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by RossOK

Lol, this is completely inaccurate.

OK then, show me something discredited. Anything.

I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears what is said on this video. Segments pieced together yes, edited yes, but the statements are clear, concise and unedited.

[babyfaceposey]

This might make things easier for people.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...?usp=drive_web

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

OK then, show me something discredited. Anything.

I see with my own eyes and hear with my own words what is said on this video. Segments pieced together yes, edited yes, but the statements are clear, concise and unedited.

do i need to hold your hand through his NPR videos where he blatantly spliced things together to make it sound like an NPR exec was laughing about the spread of sharia law in the US while the unedited videos show the exec laughing later in the conversation about something else? This resulted in firings and resignations.

Or when he staged a call with an ally that happened to be a Superintendent in NJ schools to make it sound like they wouldn't fire a tenured teacher over use of the N-Word (no offense had been recorded, this was a hypothetical situation completely cooked up for the video). Convenient, it happened right during the time Christie was battling with the NJ teachers unions...



You can't seriously take one of the ACORN staffer's comments after they asked (edited out) "you're putting me on, right? This is a candid camera situation" and then started laughing and joking later in the conversation (put in the video). Or when the guy was saying he had contacts in TJ, but was collecting info and passed it along to the police when O'Keefe and his PIC tried to act like they were going to be human traffickers. We all know what happened to ACORN despite zero evidence or findings of them misusing government funds or aiding in voter fraud. #@#@#@#@, he said on Fox News that he went into ACORN offices dressed like a gaudy pimp, but was found to have lied about that and dressed like a normal person.


I can't take Michael Moore seriously, but i can take him more seriously than James O'Keefe. That's saying something. O'Keefe is just a hatchet man, pure and simple.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

This might make things easier for people.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...?usp=drive_web

actually- thanks for this. i'll shuffle through it after the kid goes to bed.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

do i need to hold your hand through his NPR videos where he blatantly spliced things together to make it sound like an NPR exec was laughing about the spread of sharia law in the US while the unedited videos show the exec laughing later in the conversation about something else? This resulted in firings and resignations.

Or when he staged a call with an ally that happened to be a Superintendent in NJ schools to make it sound like they wouldn't fire a tenured teacher over use of the N-Word (no offense had been recorded, this was a hypothetical situation completely cooked up for the video). Convenient, it happened right during the time Christie was battling with the NJ teachers unions...



You can't seriously take one of the ACORN staffer's comments after they asked (edited out) "you're putting me on, right? This is a candid camera situation" and then started laughing and joking later in the conversation (put in the video). Or when the guy was saying he had contacts in TJ, but was collecting info and passed it along to the police when O'Keefe and his PIC tried to act like they were going to be human traffickers. We all know what happened to ACORN despite zero evidence or findings of them misusing government funds or aiding in voter fraud. #@#@#@#@, he said on Fox News that he went into ACORN offices dressed like a gaudy pimp, but was found to have lied about that and dressed like a normal person.


I can't take Michael Moore seriously, but i can take him more seriously than James O'Keefe. That's saying something. O'Keefe is just a hatchet man, pure and simple.

Links please, cite your sources on all of this. I don't see any of this, and dare I say I even see the NY Times backing up his story (they admit he likely didn't dress like a pimp, but he sure represented himself as one).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/op...ubed.html?_r=0

Listen, if you don't like the guy because he's been dishonest in the past, cool. I agree, he's been dishonest. But to suggest the video put out yesterday, where every word in the video comes from the accused, and nothing appears cut or edited together are fake in some way just doesn't make sense. Foval was fired yesterday, there are payments shown directly from "Hillary for America" to the people on the video who suggest they shut down Trump rallies, etc.

It's hard to argue against this video in any way, so the only way some have is to discredit the source, not the actual content.

[Nicnac]

Originally Posted by BoxBreaker72

You didn't say what you liked about Hillary's policies. All I see is more "Trump is offensive and is a loose cannon" stuff. It's so stale.

He didn't get to where he is in life by being a wild maniac with no self control or brains. You are buying into the media narrative.

Clinton is the extremely thin skinned one. Go read about her meltdown after the Matt Lauer interview. She was cussing everyone out and blacking out from rage. A ton of her secret service people have come out and said she is a horrific person.

Literally everything you said about Trump is the same (and worse) for Clinton, except there are FACTS to prove it about Clinton. Yes, Trump is a loud mouth and he hits back 10x harder to anyone that attacks him. I don't care.

Everyone needs to think about their families at this point and which candidate is going to help them the most. Enough of the " oh no, his finger will be on the button" bs.

Better national security, lower taxes and bringing jobs back to the USA. That is what I firmly believe Trump will do. If he doesn't, vote him out in 4 years. Ill be the first to vote against him if he doesn't come through.

Trump's wife disagrees with you.

[quackhead]

Originally Posted by pac213up

Both parties are corrupt down to the roots. Not sure why anyone needs wikileaks to understand the sewer that our politicians have created. If you are voting for the GOP or Dems you are continuing to support the corruption. Read the bills that get passed and look at all the junk that gets thrown in. That junk does not get thrown in for free.

Because Trump is running on anti-government and Hillary is a lifetime politician who has helped create the sewer you speak of.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Links please, cite your sources on all of this. I don't see any of this, and dare I say I even see the NY Times backing up his story (they admit he likely didn't dress like a pimp, but he sure represented himself as one).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/op...ubed.html?_r=0

Listen, if you don't like the guy because he's been dishonest in the past, cool. I agree, he's been dishonest. But to suggest the video put out yesterday, where every word in the video comes from the accused, and nothing appears cut or edited together are fake in some way just doesn't make sense. Foval was fired yesterday, there are payments shown directly from "Hillary for America" to the people on the video who suggest they shut down Trump rallies, etc.

It's hard to argue against this video in any way, so the only way some have is to discredit the source, not the actual content.

1.NPR exec laughing about the spread of sharia law. Does Raw Video of NPR Expose Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics? | TheBlaze.com

So after saying that the MEAC website advocates the “acceptance of Sharia,” the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, “Really? That’s what they said?” The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on. The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation.

2. Staging the call to the NJ Superintendent. Hidden video by conservative activist James O'Keefe renews NJEA, Gov. Christie dispute | NJ.com

In the second video, O’Keefe records a call placed to Lawrence E. Everett, assistant superintendent of the Passaic City Schools, from an actor posing as a concerned parent who is concerned that a teacher spoke to his child using derogatory language. Everett responds, saying the incident is "totally unacceptable," but that "I’m not going to say that the teacher would be fired immediately, sir, that’s not usually how it works."

3. dude plays along with them, then gets fired despite calling the cops as soon as they left the office. Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe Ruined Him, and Now He Gets $100,000 - The Atlantic

After making Vera look like an eager would-be sex trafficker, what did Breitbart and O'Keefe do when it was reported that he had in fact called the police? (quoted in the article above where i started quoting here)
What did they do when the California Attorney General investigated the case and affirmed as much? Did they append a correction to the story and apologize? Did they do what they could to give this man back his reputation?

They did not.

Here is somebody from WaPo responding to all reader questions on the topic, this is where the candid-camera comment came from

Latest Developments in ACORN Story



now, i know nothing about the video he posted yesterday (haven't looked at it yet), but you have to understand that when a scientist has been found to fake data repeatedly, their findings end up being weighed with a grain of salt. I would imagine the same would be done for a journalist that has been found to deceptively edit his "stings".

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

1.NPR exec laughing about the spread of sharia law. Does Raw Video of NPR Expose Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics? | TheBlaze.com



2. Staging the call to the NJ Superintendent. Hidden video by conservative activist James O'Keefe renews NJEA, Gov. Christie dispute | NJ.com




3. dude plays along with them, then gets fired despite calling the cops as soon as they left the office. Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe Ruined Him, and Now He Gets $100,000 - The Atlantic



Here is somebody from WaPo responding to all reader questions on the topic, this is where the candid-camera comment came from

Latest Developments in ACORN Story



now, i know nothing about the video he posted yesterday (haven't looked at it yet), but you have to understand that when a scientist has been found to fake data repeatedly, their findings end up being weighed with a grain of salt. I would imagine the same would be done for a journalist that has been found to deceptively edit his "stings".

But nothing you've posted says anything to the fact that his information is discredited. Have you read these links? They simply outline the details of what happened, and asked questions of it's legality or morality. No where does it suggest he's a liar, no where does it suggest he's been discredited. No federal agency or investigation has ever concluded w/ his work being discredited.

And the fact that you haven't even watched the video, and are simply trying to discredit him suggests you don't even care what's on it. You're ready to prove he's not worth your time. Watch it, and then tell me that.

[redsoxx11]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

But nothing you've posted says anything to the fact that his information is discredited. Have you read these links? They simply outline the details of what happened, and asked questions of it's legality or morality. No where does it suggest he's a liar, no where does it suggest he's been discredited. No federal agency or investigation has ever concluded w/ his work being discredited.

And the fact that you haven't even watched the video, and are simply trying to discredit him suggests you don't even care what's on it. You're ready to prove he's not worth your time. Watch it, and then tell me that.

He's just distracting you, New tape should drop or has dropped today.

[noryan34]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

I understand what you're saying and why you see it that way. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I've just yet to see any PROOF of anything claimed.

You say that these leaks are exposing corruption. You don't have to answer this but just how does:

-$1M gift from Qatar to Bill expose corruption?
-"journalists from politco" expose corruption?
-..............

And another where they (Politico) admit that sending full stories has never been and still is not their standard policy.


Politico reporter sent story to Dem committee for pre-publication review | TheHill

[xbignick]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

Is Robby Mook connected to Scott Foval (guy in the video)? You're connecting two completely separate things that are only related by the term "bird-dogging" which doesn't directly mean "cause violence"

Where in the email you posted is there proof of wanting to incite violence? Where is the proof in the email (the complete one from Wikileaks) that Robby Mook or anyone in Hillary's campaign group was paying homeless people?

I'll wait for the proof. You said it was proof of her campaign manager payinghomeless people so please provide it if you'd be so kind.

I won't even get into the James O'Keefe video. It's awful on the surface, but there's no direct connection between Scott Foval or Robert Creamer to Hillary Clinton. If you have it I'd honestly love to see that.

I won't even get into who James O'Keefe is, but anyone who knows anything about him knows that due to his past anything he publishes should be thoroughly vetted as he doesn't have a great track record with "the truth". The most ironic thing regarding this video is that James O'Keefe has built a career on "Bird-dogging" liberals.

https://youtu.be/3uMzYaO2syE?t=17m40s

[NeedChapmans]

New video ... (O'Keefe Part II)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

[swise0121]

Originally Posted by BoxBreaker72

You didn't say what you liked about Hillary's policies. All I see is more "Trump is offensive and is a loose cannon" stuff. It's so stale.

He didn't get to where he is in life by being a wild maniac with no self control or brains. You are buying into the media narrative.

Clinton is the extremely thin skinned one. Go read about her meltdown after the Matt Lauer interview. She was cussing everyone out and blacking out from rage. A ton of her secret service people have come out and said she is a horrific person.

Literally everything you said about Trump is the same (and worse) for Clinton, except there are FACTS to prove it about Clinton. Yes, Trump is a loud mouth and he hits back 10x harder to anyone that attacks him. I don't care.

Everyone needs to think about their families at this point and which candidate is going to help them the most. Enough of the " oh no, his finger will be on the button" bs.

Better national security, lower taxes and bringing jobs back to the USA. That is what I firmly believe Trump will do. If he doesn't, vote him out in 4 years. Ill be the first to vote against him if he doesn't come through.

Ding ding ding. Winner
Hilary supporters are almost as frightening as Clinton herself. They will vote for her because she's a "better" option than Trump. That's a horrible reason to vote for someone.

[Athey49]

Originally Posted by swise0121

They will vote for her because she's a "better" option than Trump. That's a horrible reason to vote for someone.

Isn't that the reason why people are voting for Trump?

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

But nothing you've posted says anything to the fact that his information is discredited. Have you read these links? They simply outline the details of what happened, and asked questions of it's legality or morality. No where does it suggest he's a liar, no where does it suggest he's been discredited. No federal agency or investigation has ever concluded w/ his work being discredited.

And the fact that you haven't even watched the video, and are simply trying to discredit him suggests you don't even care what's on it. You're ready to prove he's not worth your time. Watch it, and then tell me that.

wait. so him splicing his video cut so an exec laughs at a connection to sharia law in the US versus the actual cut of the footage where the exec is laughing later in the conversation about a completely different topic (the confusion with the restaurant and the names on the reservation) isn't lying?

ANd he didn't get ordered to pay that ACORN worker 100k for no reason. He was ordered to pay up because his videos directly led to the dude being fired because the narrative he played was that the guy was playing along and corrupt. Nevermind the fact that the worker called the cops immediately after O'Keefe left the office.

Real stand up guy here.



look, i'm not trying to discredit him before i watch the video. I'll watch it when I have time, but as i said, in the world of science- a scientist that cries wolf without evidence is going to be scrutinized harder next time.

that means that i'll take his future work with a grain of salt since he's been known to deceptively edit his videos. I can't imagine he could do that in the video here since it sounds like it's all direct quotes- but i would be curious to see if some of it is intentionally placed to be taken out of context.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

New video ... (O'Keefe Part II)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

So gross. The underground journalists have uncovered how big of a pile the DNC is and how everyone was right to question their practices. I'm canceling my cable and will let them know its because I'm not paying to have their channels lie to me everyday.