• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

I'm confident that this recent Trump scandal will be the nail in the coffin for his campaign, so many fellow Republicans are pulling support from him, his supporters are a bit worried (those who actually find fault with his comments), and since this is a hot button issue now it's going to be brought up multiple times during the Debate/Town Hall tomorrow evening, and he's going to be railed on it through and through by the audience.
 
If you know Trump supporters (NOT the reluctant ones- actual ones), you would know they LOVE Trump. They are very optimistic about his chances.

Now many of them are not confident at all and do not believe he has a chance. That is really saying something.
 
America likes to lead by example. Well, we are setting a horrible example with these two choices for president. Bring on 2020.
 
Yes, the choice is clear in Hillary Clinton. That doesn't automatically make her a saint though.
 
Trump was rattled, inarticulate, delusional, lost, and ill-prepared for the debate. Even more so than the last debate. His body language said it all. He was anxiously and aggressively pacing and failed to connect with audience members. Despite my many criticisms of Clinton, her rhetoric has been redirected to include the voices of progressives. At this juncture, Trump's campaign status is so tenuous she has a real ability to turn more and more to the left and contrast her vision of progress to a greater extent against Trump's jingoist, racist, xenophobic, sexist, anti-muslim, and hetero-normative sentiments that have truly exposed a core of our constituency. If the GOP is to go forward, they WILL have to move their platform significantly.

Trump truly embodies a true and representative core of American attitudes and in many ways is allowing us to get behind the mask of the neoconservatism fascism. That's not to excuse or ignore common prejudices that have existed among democrats for decades as well.

Pence seems to have jumped ship. Many Republicans, especially women have jumped ship. By far the most cringe-worthy political performance concerning the modern presidency. I almost felt bad for Trump.
.
.
.
.
Almost.
 
Donald Trump is running for dictator ("You'd be in jail", a special prosecutor- he's promising to do the kind of stuff Richard Nixon had to resign for) and has no clue how the political system works ("Why didn't you pass a law about carried interest?" "Because George Bush had a presidential veto." "Blah blah veto schmeto"). Yes, he did better than expected- he didn't pee his trousers on stage, punch a member of the audience or attempt to assault any woman on stage. But I'm not sure this is the kind of president any country needs:

About his sexual assault tapes: "It's locker room talk and one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS."

Trump, on health care: "We are going to have plans that are so good"
Moderator: "What does that mean?"
Trump: "We- we are going to have plans that are so good. So good. There is going to be so much competition."

About the economy: "If China has a GDP of 70% that is a national disaster. We are down to 1%" (if someone can tell me what the hell this means, I'd appreciate it).

About world conflicts: "Russia is new in terms of nuclear".

This guy has no clue about anything, he can't acknowledge mistakes, he can't say coherent sentences. And he still has the unflinching support of 40% of the US population. That is terrifying.
 
Last edited:
Trump did better than I thought he would in all honesty, but in the end Clinton was the clear winner if you ask me - not that I'm surprised. Her tendency to go well over her time kind of annoyed me, but much less so than Trump's inability to actually answer questions.

He went back to the same two/three issues over and over - never actually explaining how he'd fix anything - when asked about a topic he didn't have an answer for whilst Clinton had an answer for just about everything - and more often than not, good ones.

Her attitude was also far more becoming of a presidential candidate/future president.

Kudos to the guy who asked the last question by the way, that was hilarious.
 
This guy has no clue about anything, he can't acknowledge mistakes, he can't say coherent sentences. And he still has the unflinching support of 40% of the US population. That is terrifying.

That's because he's indicative of a much bigger problem. People simply do not trust the political system. They see someone like Clinton who, quite frankly, could get away with murder. Who also never takes any real responsibility for her actions and who has for each of her growing list of scandals a plethora of excuses and pre-written blanket answers and they see the face of the system they feel has destroyed their country. For all his bumbling and bizarre statements, they still see Trump as "one of the guys", normal and flawed and in their eyes "saying things how they are". Trump does well because he doesn't have a constant, professional spin on everything and because the mainstream American media outlets (who often give free passes to political interests) rip him to shreds constantly. It strengthens their idea he's an outsider who cares about the average Joe and who the elite are worried will split their little club up. In some ways he rides the same waves of disenfranchisement that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have benefited so much from. The biggest difference there is that Sanders and Corbyn have well thought out, presented plans and ideals whereas Trump is just firing off whatever he can to stay relevant.
 
Last edited:
In a way you could say Trump did win. Not because he was more accurate or articulate, but because he got his supporters fired up and made it more difficult for other Republicans to move away from him (and face the wrath of his supporters on election day). But that's about the only way you might argue he won. I don't think anyone jumped onto the S. S. Trump who didn't already have a ticket in hand.

Pretty amazed though at how he pulled the rug from under Pence. Ouch. Could he even leave the ticket so close to the election and be replaced with a new VP nominee?

That's because he's indicative of a much bigger problem. People simply do not trust the political system. They see someone like Clinton who, quite frankly, could get away with murder. Who also never takes any real responsibility for her actions and who has for each of her growing list of scandals a plethora of excuses and pre-written blanket answers and they see the face of the system they feel has destroyed their country. For all his bumbling and bizarre statements, they still see Trump as "one of the guys", normal and flawed and in their eyes "saying things how they are". Trump does well because he doesn't have a constant, professional spin on everything and because the mainstream American media outlets (who often give free passes to political interests) rip him to shreds constantly. It strengthens their idea he's an outsider who cares about the average Joe and who the elite are worried will split their little club up. In some ways he rides the same waves of disenfranchisement that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn have benefited so much from. The biggest difference there is that Sanders and Corbyn have well thought out, presented plans and ideals whereas Trump is just firing off whatever he can to stay relevant.

I mean, this seems like a spot on explanation for the support Trump still has, but what I can't understand is how "outsider" seems to translate to "cares about the average Joe" in their eyes. Is it because they see anyone who isn't a politician as automatically caring about Joe more in the sense that anything greater than zero is an improvement however small, or is it something else I'm not seeing?
 
These polls tell a very interesting story, if you remember what happened exactly on the 7th:

[PokeCommunity.com] 2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]


The Teflon candidate: he can say and do anything he wants without being punished... until he is.

[PokeCommunity.com] 2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]
 
Trump fared a little better than the previous debate I think, Clinton fared a little worse, but mostly their relationship to one another remain the same. Trump has cemented himself as a petulant man. Before you even get to the content of his answers, he introduces them in such a disruptive, disorderly way.

I think Ivysaur said it best - Trump is running for dictator, not President.
 
In a way you could say Trump did win. Not because he was more accurate or articulate, but because he got his supporters fired up and made it more difficult for other Republicans to move away from him (and face the wrath of his supporters on election day). But that's about the only way you might argue he won. I don't think anyone jumped onto the S. S. Trump who didn't already have a ticket in hand.

Pretty amazed though at how he pulled the rug from under Pence. Ouch. Could he even leave the ticket so close to the election and be replaced with a new VP nominee?



I mean, this seems like a spot on explanation for the support Trump still has, but what I can't understand is how "outsider" seems to translate to "cares about the average Joe" in their eyes. Is it because they see anyone who isn't a politician as automatically caring about Joe more in the sense that anything greater than zero is an improvement however small, or is it something else I'm not seeing?

It's because he isn't a standard career politician I think. Clinton, like most politicians, has an excuse or deflection for everything, even if the excuses are terrible and completely unbelievable, but she's never accountable for her past or her words or her actions. People don't like that. Trump on the other hand never really gets a free pass and has on a fair few occasions now apologised (even if the apologies are laboured) and admitted he was wrong. I think that in itself has kept a lot of people following him, the idea that he isn't above apologising. His "I'm sorry, I'm ashamed of what I said, but it was 2005, that isnt me now" stuff helps him immensely because he, whether earnestly or not, accepts responsibility for it. With Clinton (and many, many others) we hear "I misspoke!" or "no comment" more than we ever hear "sorry, i messed up". That goes a long way with blue collar workers I think because they're so used to seeing their high up bosses just shrug responsibility whenever they mess up. To them, Clinton is like the kind of person who costs the company $6mil and causes mass redundancies whilst keeping their job and bonus, and Trump's like the supervisor who says sorry for his part to all the workers even though he wasn't that involved. The analogy doesn't reflect the reality of the race, but that's how a lot of working class Americans I know feel.

They also see media support as a bad thing and will go against it regardless of how it actually effects them (see: Brexit) Trump is hated by the political mainstream and as such, the disenfranchised see him as a stalwart. The alt right and ultra conservatives see him as saying things the way they are, notable elements of the anarchistic side of the left see him in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" light.
 
It's because he isn't a standard career politician I think. Clinton, like most politicians, has an excuse or deflection for everything, even if the excuses are terrible and completely unbelievable, but she's never accountable for her past or her words or her actions. People don't like that. Trump on the other hand never really gets a free pass and has on a fair few occasions now apologised (even if the apologies are laboured) and admitted he was wrong. I think that in itself has kept a lot of people following him, the idea that he isn't above apologising. His "I'm sorry, I'm ashamed of what I said, but it was 2005, that isnt me now" stuff helps him immensely because he, whether earnestly or not, accepts responsibility for it.

Huh? She's dogged by things she's done, and Trump's lied about quite a few things she didn't do, claiming she did on top of those. The difference is that there's simply nothing scandalous about Clinton's past beyond the few obvious things that are direct lines of attack, while Trump is near constantly lying about himself, historical events or other people- It's not that Clinton is "better at getting away with things" It's that Trump is just constantly bumbling his way through scandals and easily fact-check-able lies and has a very shady past to boot. He's apologised a grand total of... what, once? Despite lying and insulting a vast variety of people around him, and deflects any admittance of guilt into attacks on his opponents. Beyond one iteration of this apology for the current scandal it's always "I'm sorry if YOU were offended, but also hillary...." like a child apologizing because they know they have to, rather than out of any sense of needing to morally

With Clinton (and many, many others) we hear "I misspoke!" or "no comment" more than we ever hear "sorry, i messed up". That goes a long way with blue collar workers I think because they're so used to seeing their high up bosses just shrug responsibility whenever they mess up. To them, Clinton is like the kind of person who costs the company $6mil and causes mass redundancies whilst keeping their job and bonus, and Trump's like the supervisor who says sorry for his part to all the workers even though he wasn't that involved. The analogy doesn't reflect the reality of the race, but that's how a lot of working class Americans I know feel.

What hasn't Clinton apologized for/taken the blame for? She has for the email thing, and there's really nothing else i can think of that's not just random propoganda gossip that she even could take the blame for.

Honestly a better analogy is Clinton being a higherup prepared to make jobs redundant to increase efficiency and profits regardless of the status of the workers, while Trump is the Boss' spoilt son who has no vocational training and only got the job due to who he is, who keeps making bad investments, plummeting the company into debt and blaming other people but is kept on because the boss refuses to fire his golden child.

They also see media support as a bad thing and will go against it regardless of how it actually effects them (see: Brexit) Trump is hated by the political mainstream and as such, the disenfranchised see him as a stalwart. The alt right and ultra conservatives see him as saying things the way they are, notable elements of the anarchistic side of the left see him in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" light.

Honestly the narrative that mainstream media "hates him" or is "bias" is the biggest piece of garbage peddled by him and his followers. When your campaign is built upon lies, and you're getting into a new indefensible scandal with women or minority groups every week, the media reporting on these negative things isn't bias, it's because this is a bloated orange peel going around lying and being bigoted and trying to use that to get him elected.

He has no policy to report on, nothing postive to mention, just scandal after scandal after awful comment. If it's bias to report what's going on, just because it reflects badly on someone, then i'd hate to see what politically neutral reporting is because it sounds a lot like repressing freedom of the press.
 
Huh? She's dogged by things she's done, and Trump's lied about quite a few things she didn't do, claiming she did on top of those. The difference is that there's simply nothing scandalous about Clinton's past beyond the few obvious things that are direct lines of attack, while Trump is near constantly lying about himself, historical events or other people- It's not that Clinton is "better at getting away with things" It's that Trump is just constantly bumbling his way through scandals and easily fact-check-able lies and has a very shady past to boot. He's apologised a grand total of... what, once? Despite lying and insulting a vast variety of people around him, and deflects any admittance of guilt into attacks on his opponents. Beyond one iteration of this apology for the current scandal it's always "I'm sorry if YOU were offended, but also hillary...." like a child apologizing because they know they have to, rather than out of any sense of needing to morally



What hasn't Clinton apologized for/taken the blame for? She has for the email thing, and there's really nothing else i can think of that's not just random propoganda gossip that she even could take the blame for.

Honestly a better analogy is Clinton being a higherup prepared to make jobs redundant to increase efficiency and profits regardless of the status of the workers, while Trump is the Boss' spoilt son who has no vocational training and only got the job due to who he is, who keeps making bad investments, plummeting the company into debt and blaming other people but is kept on because the boss refuses to fire his golden child.



Honestly the narrative that mainstream media "hates him" or is "bias" is the biggest piece of garbage peddled by him and his followers. When your campaign is built upon lies, and you're getting into a new indefensible scandal with women or minority groups every week, the media reporting on these negative things isn't bias, it's because this is a bloated orange peel going around lying and being bigoted and trying to use that to get him elected.

He has no policy to report on, nothing postive to mention, just scandal after scandal after awful comment. If it's bias to report what's going on, just because it reflects badly on someone, then i'd hate to see what politically neutral reporting is because it sounds a lot like repressing freedom of the press.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=h...=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke

She doesn't apologise, she just comes out with "i misspoke". She hasn't apologised for the wall street scandal, she hasn't apologised for the hundreds of kids who died via her droning campaign, she hasn't apologised to the 12 year old who's rapist she got off with a measly 1 year sentence etc. Hell, she nearly, NEARLY, apologised for the Super Predator gaffe but came short of actually saying sorry and instead started spinning again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...inton-heckled-by-black-lives-matter-activist/

As for "the media arent bias against Trump", from last week's "incident" alone:

https://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/dr...-tells-veterans-with-ptsd-cant-handle-combat/
https://heavy.com/news/2016/10/watch-donald-trump-says-veterans-who-commit-suicide-cant-handle-it/
https://perezhilton.com/2016-10-03-donald-trump-veterans-soldiers-ptsd-not-strong
https://theslot.jezebel.com/trump-implies-veterans-with-ptsd-just-cant-handle-it-1787365665
https://www.nbcnews.com/card/trump-implies-vets-suffering-ptsd-cant-handle-war-n658706
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-angers-suggestion-vets-ptsd-weak-42543371
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco...gle.co.uk/&referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/


There are more, but I think you get the gist. Trump never suggested people who had PTSD were weak, or that them killing themselves made them weak, but lets look at those headlines. This is just one of a score of incidents where they've wildly altered or reframed what he's said.

https://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-didnt-say-vets-with-ptsd-are-weak/

Elements of the mainstream media are definitely bias against him, more than happy to just wildly stretch the truth of what was and wasn't said. You don't have to lie or alter things to make Trump seem idiotic or awful, but they still do it, and his supporters (who people constantly berate and write off as idiots) see that happening.

I;m not saying his apologies are sincere (in fact I said that it's irrelevant to his audience if they are earnest or not) but the fact remains, he says the word "sorry" and to a lot of people, that's what they want. Clinton rarely says the word, she usually provides an excuse or deflection, but rarely uses the word. It seems arbitrary but it does make a difference to how an awful lot of people perceive a statement.
 
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=h...=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke

She doesn't apologise, she just comes out with "i misspoke". She hasn't apologised for the wall street scandal, she hasn't apologised for the hundreds of kids who died via her droning campaign, she hasn't apologised to the 12 year old who's rapist she got off with a measly 1 year sentence etc. Hell, she nearly, NEARLY, apologised for the Super Predator gaffe but came short of actually saying sorry and instead started spinning again.

She quite literally apologised for something during the debate. I think she even used the words "I apologize".

Also, can someone please explain the child rapist thing to me? I know nothing of that issue but it's obviously a contentious one.
 
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=h...=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=hillary+clinton+i+misspoke

She doesn't apologise, she just comes out with "i misspoke". She hasn't apologised for the wall street scandal, she hasn't apologised for the hundreds of kids who died via her droning campaign, she hasn't apologised to the 12 year old who's rapist she got off with a measly 1 year sentence etc. Hell, she nearly, NEARLY, apologised for the Super Predator gaffe but came short of actually saying sorry and instead started spinning again.

Sooooooo.... Once in 2008, once in august and once in July she said she misspoke? That's the result you've given me from that google search.

On from that, there is no wallstreet scandal as none of the wikileak documents actually show anything scandalous, I have no idea what you mean with "her droning campaign" as far as i'm aware she neither started nor was ever in control of drone strikes and the rapist thing is a straight up lie, sadly even being peddled by the victim themself.

As I posted to you earlier in this thread, the accused pled guilty and Clinton agreed to a plea deal for her client that net him 5 years jail time. This was reduced by the judge, not by her intervention. From there, it was the victim's own mother who wanted the deal to be done, and pushed for it rather than dragging on the case. Clinton did nothing but her job, and tried to get herself removed from the case as she didn't even want to do it.

https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...inton-heckled-by-black-lives-matter-activist/

As for "the media arent bias against Trump", from last week's "incident" alone:

There are more, but I think you get the gist. Trump never suggested people who had PTSD were weak, or that them killing themselves made them weak, but lets look at those headlines. This is just one of a score of incidents where they've wildly altered or reframed what he's said.

What he said could easily be misconstrued as saying veterans were weak, as the ones not suffering from ptsd in the room were told they were strong, unlike others. This was a poorly worded statement that, frankly, would not be out of character for him to actually have said- this is not an example of bias as much as it's an example of the media thinking there's a story where there probably isn't one. There are not scores of incidents though, you cannot provide "scores" and I doubt you could find any more than this, even.


Elements of the mainstream media are definitely bias against him, more than happy to just wildly stretch the truth of what was and wasn't said. You don't have to lie or alter things to make Trump seem idiotic or awful, but they still do it, and his supporters (who people constantly berate and write off as idiots) see that happening.

Not at all, you've noted yourself that you don't need to stretch the truth and you're right, you've provided a single example of something that could very easily be taken to mean something when heard out of context of the whole exchange (And even if you had it wouldn't be hard to see it). Again though I challenge you to find more examples of this "truth stretching" widespread in the media


I;m not saying his apologies are sincere (in fact I said that it's irrelevant to his audience if they are earnest or not) but the fact remains, he says the word "sorry" and to a lot of people, that's what they want. Clinton rarely says the word, she usually provides an excuse or deflection, but rarely uses the word. It seems arbitrary but it does make a difference to how an awful lot of people perceive a statement.

But, again, he doesn't apologize? He doesn't apologize when he claims a judge was sentencing him harshly because of the judge's ethnic background, he doesn't apologize for repeatedly insulting a gold star family, he doesn't apologize for insulting random people and random women, he doesn't apologize for his comments about the former miss universe he errendiously claimed had a sex tape.

He has apologized for this one thing so far, and as far as I can tell (And others who have researched more extensively can tell) he has literally never apologized for anything else during his entire political campaign, neither publically or privately. He's apologized for two things ever on the public record outside of the pre-mentioned example from the other day. Once to a councillor fired for voting against Trump's gold resort, and once to his current wife for offending her while she was his fiancé.
 
Back
Top