I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump's Presidential bid was meant to be a publicity stunt or a way to feed his ego, but he's simply too far in to back out.

Win or lose he'll probably turn it into a tv show.

I don't know Trump always wants to win!!

He definitely is in it for personal gratification / glorification, but he wouldn't be the first or the last to run for office with that being their primary concern. The concern is are voters naive enough to believe his intentions are anything other than self satisfaction??

Trump's statements are like the Bible; it's all completely true, apart from these dodgy and inconvenient parts, which Christians/Trump supporters will interpret for you.

You do realise that Hillary's support for these wars had nothing to do with their religion though?? Libya was (still is) involved in a civil war where the government were actively murdering civils, Saddam Hussein similarly was a militaristic tyrant who ruled with fear (and the US congress was fed information about WMDs). None of this had anything to do with the fact that these were Muslim dominant countries, or that the citizens were Muslims.

Are people really dumb enough to swallow such garbage??

I've also heard she doesn't like the colour green and it must be because she hates Muslims

Also she prefers full moons over crescent moons ... again must be because she hates Muslims

I could only watch a little bit of that video so I'll give you multiple choice for some of their assumptions:

1. Iraq War - why did she support it? 

a. Hates Muslims
b. Fear of WMD (real or perceived)
c. Money (lots of $$$ in war)
d. Eliminate ongoing threat Saddam Hussein's regime posed to the sovereignty to the USA (and Israel)
e. Upset over the treatment of civilians in Iraq by the government

2. Libya - why did she support it?

a. Hates Muslims
b. government was using military forces on civilians
c. Money
d. Obama (the leader of her party) wanted it
e. wanted to exacerbate the deaths of Muslim refugees trying to escape the ongoing civil war

Yes but she didn't do those actions because they were Muslims.

Her statement in regards to Iran was in retaliation to any nuclear strikes that Iran threatened to carry out on the USA. I would imagine most American's would expect such an answer from any statesman (or woman).

The use of armed forces in Libya by the government led to war criminal charges being laid against their government. The NATO forces were deployed to ensure that civilians were not being systematically murdered by their own troops and bombed by the air force. So yes the whole purpose of organisations such as the UN and NATO are to protect the freedoms of people, and the people should not fear the government (the government should fear the people). It is a very noble reason to go to war, that is to protect the lives of the innocent, rather than the usual power struggles, or monetary gains that many wars are fought over. The problem became that NATO and the US poorly dealt with the aftermath of displacing the Libyan government (pretty much history repeating itself, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan). The conflict began as a civil war that the international community could not ignore because of the human right violations being carried out on civilians (the UN was largely set up to stop this happening again after NAZI Germany).

Syria similarly is at civil war, and international intervention is at a minimal in this war at the moment. The war has largely affected the rest of the world through mass refugee migration and the rise of the Islamic State (which is the most prevalent terrorist organisation at the moment). The Islamic State has openly declared war against many nations with their actions, and thus nations have responded with "war" (just hard to fight an enemy with no borders).

The reason I couldn't watch the video was that it had about educational value as my bowel movements this morning.

Bye ricecrackers.

Who did you ban? And why?

I banned Fact Check because he is a multi of a banned user

Lol so not banned?

-PB

Where did he say to shoot Hillary?

-PB

Yeah I think it has been taken a little out of context (or interpreted too freely). However, I suppose that is the thing with politics ... it is important to be explicit with statements so as to ensure others can't interpret it differently.

Nah banned. Just haven't done it since the upgrade :laugh:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291060-trump-obama-founded-isis

“ISIS is honoring President Obama,” he said during a rally in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “He’s the founder of ISIS. He founded ISIS."

“I would say the co-founder would be ‘Crooked’ Hillary Clinton,” Trump added of Obama’s former secretary of State and his Democratic rival.

What the actual fuck?

I think hes saying Obamas action/inaction helped IS grow, and that they sprung up under his presidency. But fuck knows.

Nope, that's what he said word for word.

"ISIS is honouring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS, he's the founder of ISIS. Okay? He's the founder! He founded ISIS, and I would say the co-founder would be Crooked Hillary Clinton. Co-founder Crooked Hillary Clinton."

He never said anything about Obama's actions creating ISIS, he outright said Obama and Clinton were the founders of ISIS. It's directly pandering to the percentage of his supporters who still hold onto their beliefs that Obama is a gay atheist Muslim anti-Christ. He knew exactly what he was saying.

Are there any betting agencies taking bets on whether or not Donald Trump will snap (again) and use a gendered slur towards one of his opponents before the end of 2016?

You're too young to be on betting sites m8.

-PB

My brother isn't. He could place a bet for me with my money, my dude.

I swear trump  is trying  to say the most insane and stupid shit ever to get out of this. Noone can be that stupid to say what he has been saying 

As much as I thought Dubya Bush was a complete dumbass, I don't think I ever considered his temperament a danger to world security. As in, I never feared that he'd wake up one morning in an angry mood and hit the big red button. Bush was at least smart enough to know how dumb he was, so he just let Dick Cheney and his advisors run the agenda (for good or ill).

The difference with Trump is that he is both stupid AND temperamentally unfit for the job.

Not only is he dumb, he doesn't realise how dumb he is. He doesn't listen to advisors, who have obviously been screaming at him to shut up over the past few weeks while he dug an ever bigger hole for himself. He doesn't realise that ordinary norms and limits of political discourse have existed for a reason. He doesn't realise that when you call for someone to "exercise your 2nd amendment rights", some crazed supporter might do it.

Trump is impulsive, insecure and he does what he wants.

If he was in the White House dealing with China over the south China seas dispute, I would have no confidence that he wouldn't start a war with our largest trading partner. It would only take one nasty personal message from the CCP and we'd have world war three. And what would he do to us if we refused to join him?

Don't worry, if Trump wins it'll just be Mike Pence looking after domestic and foreign policy.

You mean like how Pence has been running the campaign? I don't believe that for a second. Trump will be calling the shots.

That's also illegal lol.

-PB

The problem is like his 2nd amendment talk ... he uses rhetoric rather than explicit statements to make points. To me just underlies his inability to actually articulate an argument (or for that matter to get across a point). Does anyone really want this man to be leading their country?? No wonder he runs his own business, because I doubt no one else would tolerate him running theirs.

Considering ISIS largely gained traction because of the Iraq war, which George W. Bush initiated, it makes it hard to see how Obama can be "blamed". I always thought Obama was too soft on terrorists / Muslims ... so it is a very confusing message. Is it his softness that has allowed ISIS to grow (although the US has actively been leading a war against them, with thousands of casualties mounting in the ISIS ranks and them losing key cities), or is it Obama's aggressive nature (which then sort of counters a lot of Trump's rhetoric about America needing to keep Muslims out and getting tough with terrorists).

Or is Trump just oblivious to the implications he makes and just trying to pander to votes with no idea of what he is or has really said??

Day 1: Trump, in no uncertain terms, calls Obama and Clinton the co-founders of ISIS.
Day 2: Interviewed by a journalist who attempts to give him a way out of the rabbit hole he's trapped in by asking if he meant that Obama's actions caused a vacuum of power which allowed ISIS to be born, doubles down on his comments and says he meant precisely what he said.
Day 3: Claims he was being sarcastic.

What a fucking joke.