Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
skyth wrote: So the money isn't intended to support terrorism.
This seems to be a bit of a red herring and a bit of a dishonest argument.
And you keep on saying 'give money to the Clintons'. This could mean several things, including donating to the Clinton Foundation with the intent of supporting their charitable works and having nothing to do with the Clintons themselves or supporting the Presidential campaign.
Um... the Clinton Foundation makes a mockery of being labeled as a 'charitable' organization. It's a slush fund for the Clintons and their cronies.
The parents of two Americans killed in a 2012 attack in the Libyan city of Benghazi have sued Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, filed a lawsuit against Mrs Clinton for wrongful death and defamation.
The suit claims the former secretary of state's use of a private email server contributed to their sons' death.
The parents also accuse her of defaming them in statements to the media.
Islamic militants attacked a US diplomatic compound in 2012 and killed four Americans, including ambassador Chris Stevens, while Mrs Clinton was secretary of state.
Though a House Republicans committee cleared Mrs Clinton of any wrongdoing earlier this year, the issue has dogged her presidential campaign.
The suit was filed on behalf of the parents by the conservative group Freedom Watch.
The parents, who have both spoken out against Mrs Clinton, argue her "'extreme carelessness' in handling confidential and classified information" on her private server may have revealed the location of State Department employees in Libya.
Those details, the suit argued, could have been obtained by "hostile adversaries" who may have hacked her server and ultimately led to their sons's deaths.
FBI director James Comey announced last month that it was "possible that hostile actors gained access" to Mrs Clinton's email server, but added the agency did not find conclusive evidence that it was hacked.
Chris Stevens, the sister of ambassador Stevens, told The New Yorker earlier this year that she did not blame Mrs Clinton, saying it was "inappropriate" to make the Benghazi attacks as a political issue.
"The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that," she said. "It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself."
The suit also claims Mrs Clinton made "false and defamatory statements negligently, recklessly and purposefully and/or intentionally with malice" in public statements.
The parents said Mrs Clinton blamed the attack on a controversial YouTube video mocking the Islamic prophet Muhammad, but later denied making those statements.
Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said in response to the suit: "While no one can imagine the pain of the families of the brave Americans we lost at Benghazi, there have been nine different investigations into this attack and none found any evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton."
getting a wee bit desperate now then eh ?
...
.. they've seen her birth certificate before right ?
*meh*
Even I think this is frivolous.
About the only thing that MIGHT stick is defamation... but, even then, it's a hella high bar to win such a case.
Frazzled wrote: He's a Taliban supporter and father of a mass killer. He's worse thatn David Duke, who is also a nobody and who's greatest claim to fame has been on Geraldo. He didn't raise a murderer.
So when are you going to ask her to disavow a Taliban supporter? After all it fits with her campaign/Obama administration of freeing Gitmo detainees.
Ostensibly when the father decides to try and run for public office as a Democrat the way David Duke is running for public office as a Republican.
Every time somebody raises a ruckus over who's endorsing a given political candidate I am reminded of Reagan's response when he was criticized for being endorsed by the John Birch Society, "I'm not endorsing them, they're endorsing me. I have nothing to do with them." I hold politicians, and people in general, responsible for words they choose to say and the actions they choose to take. It's ridiculously silly and illogical to hold a politician accountable for the beliefs and actions of every person/group that endorses them. Politicians don't control who endorses them.
99% of the time I will fully agree with this statement. But there are those rare few times when such a thing should be addressed. Random vile person endorsing a candidate? Piffle, I say. Especially loathsome groups like the KKK and NAMBLA (not the Marlon Brando look alikes)? That should warrant a comment.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Frazzled wrote: He's a Taliban supporter and father of a mass killer. He's worse thatn David Duke, who is also a nobody and who's greatest claim to fame has been on Geraldo. He didn't raise a murderer.
So when are you going to ask her to disavow a Taliban supporter? After all it fits with her campaign/Obama administration of freeing Gitmo detainees.
Ostensibly when the father decides to try and run for public office as a Democrat the way David Duke is running for public office as a Republican.
Every time somebody raises a ruckus over who's endorsing a given political candidate I am reminded of Reagan's response when he was criticized for being endorsed by the John Birch Society, "I'm not endorsing them, they're endorsing me. I have nothing to do with them." I hold politicians, and people in general, responsible for words they choose to say and the actions they choose to take. It's ridiculously silly and illogical to hold a politician accountable for the beliefs and actions of every person/group that endorses them. Politicians don't control who endorses them.
99% of the time I will fully agree with this statement. But there are those rare few times when such a thing should be addressed. Random vile person endorsing a candidate? Piffle, I say. Especially loathsome groups like the KKK and NAMBLA (not the Marlon Brando look alikes)? That should warrant a comment.
There's a difference in some donkey-cave endorsing a candidate vs. some donkey-cave sitting in a VIP section of a rally...
Typically, the campaign would vet and place honorees in the VIP section behind the candidate, because they know they'll be in TV shots and whatnot. Maybe the campaign staffers didn't know who was that guy, and thought "he'd be great for some diversity shots!".
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
skyth wrote: Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that they are in ANY way comparable?!?!?!? Are you so slaved to the idea that Clinton is evil that you have to dishonestly make stuff like this up?
1. I don't think Clinton is evil. I just am not voting for her. Thats your statement, not mine.
2. Its not dishonest. A Taliban supporter and father of a mass murderer has pledged his support. I am just looking to see if she is going to disavow it, just as Trump was asked to disavow Duke (which he did). They are both supporters of evil. Evidently Clinton gets a pass. yep, no mdeia bias.
Here's where I would normally say that if you called me dishonest to my face you'd not live to see the end of the day, but hey I'm just a mellow dude and will only respond with
Frazzled wrote: He's a Taliban supporter and father of a mass killer. He's worse thatn David Duke, who is also a nobody and who's greatest claim to fame has been on Geraldo. He didn't raise a murderer.
So when are you going to ask her to disavow a Taliban supporter? After all it fits with her campaign/Obama administration of freeing Gitmo detainees.
Ostensibly when the father decides to try and run for public office as a Democrat the way David Duke is running for public office as a Republican.
Every time somebody raises a ruckus over who's endorsing a given political candidate I am reminded of Reagan's response when he was criticized for being endorsed by the John Birch Society, "I'm not endorsing them, they're endorsing me. I have nothing to do with them." I hold politicians, and people in general, responsible for words they choose to say and the actions they choose to take. It's ridiculously silly and illogical to hold a politician accountable for the beliefs and actions of every person/group that endorses them. Politicians don't control who endorses them.
Agreed. Unless its the National Association of Cat Lovers in which case, sorry but you're going against the wall when the revolution comes.
"If you would call me dishonest I would kill you, but lol internet" Jesus christ frazz
skyth wrote: Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that they are in ANY way comparable?!?!?!? Are you so slaved to the idea that Clinton is evil that you have to dishonestly make stuff like this up?
1. I don't think Clinton is evil. I just am not voting for her. Thats your statement, not mine. 2. Its not dishonest. A Taliban supporter and father of a mass murderer has pledged his support. I am just looking to see if she is going to disavow it, just as Trump was asked to disavow Duke (which he did). They are both supporters of evil. Evidently Clinton gets a pass. yep, no mdeia bias.
Here's where I would normally say that if you called me dishonest to my face you'd not live to see the end of the day, but hey I'm just a mellow dude and will only respond with
Frazzled wrote: He's a Taliban supporter and father of a mass killer. He's worse thatn David Duke, who is also a nobody and who's greatest claim to fame has been on Geraldo. He didn't raise a murderer.
So when are you going to ask her to disavow a Taliban supporter? After all it fits with her campaign/Obama administration of freeing Gitmo detainees.
Ostensibly when the father decides to try and run for public office as a Democrat the way David Duke is running for public office as a Republican.
Every time somebody raises a ruckus over who's endorsing a given political candidate I am reminded of Reagan's response when he was criticized for being endorsed by the John Birch Society, "I'm not endorsing them, they're endorsing me. I have nothing to do with them." I hold politicians, and people in general, responsible for words they choose to say and the actions they choose to take. It's ridiculously silly and illogical to hold a politician accountable for the beliefs and actions of every person/group that endorses them. Politicians don't control who endorses them.
Agreed. Unless its the National Association of Cat Lovers in which case, sorry but you're going against the wall when the revolution comes.
"If you would call me dishonest I would kill you, but lol internet" Jesus christ frazz
As I said.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 20:10:30
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
was really meant to look cartoonishly authoritarian or if the tastes of someone who would without irony say "America is great because America is good" just naturally lean fascist?
skyth wrote: Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that they are in ANY way comparable?!?!?!? Are you so slaved to the idea that Clinton is evil that you have to dishonestly make stuff like this up?
1. I don't think Clinton is evil. I just am not voting for her. Thats your statement, not mine.
2. Its not dishonest. A Taliban supporter and father of a mass murderer has pledged his support. I am just looking to see if she is going to disavow it, just as Trump was asked to disavow Duke (which he did). They are both supporters of evil. Evidently Clinton gets a pass. yep, no mdeia bias.
Here's where I would normally say that if you called me dishonest to my face you'd not live to see the end of the day, but hey I'm just a mellow dude and will only respond with
Frazzled wrote: He's a Taliban supporter and father of a mass killer. He's worse thatn David Duke, who is also a nobody and who's greatest claim to fame has been on Geraldo. He didn't raise a murderer.
So when are you going to ask her to disavow a Taliban supporter? After all it fits with her campaign/Obama administration of freeing Gitmo detainees.
Ostensibly when the father decides to try and run for public office as a Democrat the way David Duke is running for public office as a Republican.
Every time somebody raises a ruckus over who's endorsing a given political candidate I am reminded of Reagan's response when he was criticized for being endorsed by the John Birch Society, "I'm not endorsing them, they're endorsing me. I have nothing to do with them." I hold politicians, and people in general, responsible for words they choose to say and the actions they choose to take. It's ridiculously silly and illogical to hold a politician accountable for the beliefs and actions of every person/group that endorses them. Politicians don't control who endorses them.
Agreed. Unless its the National Association of Cat Lovers in which case, sorry but you're going against the wall when the revolution comes.
"If you would call me dishonest I would kill you, but lol internet" Jesus christ frazz
As I said.
Even with sarcasm it is fething stupid as hell to threaten to kill someone, you should know better
I'm really not seeing at all how it is authoritarian, Rosebuddy? I read that as saying that the greatness of America comes from the overall goodness of its people, which is not an authoritarian statement at all. In fact I would say that basing your perception of the greatness of your nation on how kind and good your people are is probably one of the best starting points to actually building a great place to live.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/09 20:22:06
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
skyth wrote: Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that they are in ANY way comparable?!?!?!? Are you so slaved to the idea that Clinton is evil that you have to dishonestly make stuff like this up?
1. I don't think Clinton is evil. I just am not voting for her. Thats your statement, not mine.
2. Its not dishonest. A Taliban supporter and father of a mass murderer has pledged his support. I am just looking to see if she is going to disavow it, just as Trump was asked to disavow Duke (which he did). They are both supporters of evil. Evidently Clinton gets a pass. yep, no mdeia bias.
Here's where I would normally say that if you called me dishonest to my face you'd not live to see the end of the day, but hey I'm just a mellow dude and will only respond with
Frazzled wrote: He's a Taliban supporter and father of a mass killer. He's worse thatn David Duke, who is also a nobody and who's greatest claim to fame has been on Geraldo. He didn't raise a murderer.
So when are you going to ask her to disavow a Taliban supporter? After all it fits with her campaign/Obama administration of freeing Gitmo detainees.
Ostensibly when the father decides to try and run for public office as a Democrat the way David Duke is running for public office as a Republican.
Every time somebody raises a ruckus over who's endorsing a given political candidate I am reminded of Reagan's response when he was criticized for being endorsed by the John Birch Society, "I'm not endorsing them, they're endorsing me. I have nothing to do with them." I hold politicians, and people in general, responsible for words they choose to say and the actions they choose to take. It's ridiculously silly and illogical to hold a politician accountable for the beliefs and actions of every person/group that endorses them. Politicians don't control who endorses them.
Agreed. Unless its the National Association of Cat Lovers in which case, sorry but you're going against the wall when the revolution comes.
"If you would call me dishonest I would kill you, but lol internet" Jesus christ frazz
As I said.
Even with sarcasm it is fething stupid as hell to threaten to kill someone, you should know better
I've never made a threat against a noncat person in my life. If youa re a cat person, well it can't be helped that you're hollow inside. This is clearly not the same as you who seem fine with calling apparent strangers over the internet liars, without knowing them. So again and get back on topic.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Rosebuddy wrote: I think we should take a moment to wonder if this
was really meant to look cartoonishly authoritarian or if the tastes of someone who would without irony say "America is great because America is good" just naturally lean fascist?
You might want to look up the name Alexis de Tocqueville, or go back a page or two in this thread when he was quoted.
The great leader looking grimly into the distance. It's hardly a friendly sort of picture.
I disagree. In my opinion she is not looking grimly but determinedly. And being determined to lead your country as well as you can and to ensure that it remains a good country is not authoritarian.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 20:31:14
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Wilmington, North Carolina (CNN)Donald Trump said Tuesday that if Hillary Clinton gets to pick Supreme Court justices, there's "nothing you can do, folks ... although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."
Trump's ambiguous comments alarmed some political observers as to whether he was threatening her life or calling for increased political activity.
Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, issued a one-sentence statement in response to Trump.
"This is simple -- what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to the be president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way," he said.
But Jason Miller, Trump's senior communications adviser, said Trump was merely talking about Second Amendment supporters large influence as a group.
"It's called the power of unification -- 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won't be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump," he said.
The GOP nominee sought to rally voters Tuesday highlighting the next president's role in selecting Supreme Court justices and his commitment to the Second Amendment.
"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Trump said before pausing and adding: "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. "
Trump has repeatedly suggested that Clinton will "abolish" the Second Amendment.
The former secretary of state has never called for the abolition of gun rights, but has called for additional gun regulations and safety checks to reduce the number of deadly gun shootings in the US.
Trump has vowed not to further restrict gun purchases in the US and earned the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, the pro-gun lobby
It's been a little over a year now. It's been a year of spectacle and showmanship, fury and farce, demagoguery and disaster. A year in which Donald Trump's con game tricked about 35% of Republicans into voting for him, before Vichy Republican leaders meekly bowed to his will.
The single worst major party nominee in modern history — a man who has no political core, lies practically every time he speaks and is patently unstable — reached this point because every leader and institution in my party, the Republican Party, has failed again and again to grapple with the grim realities of Trump's impact on the election, the conservative movement and the character of our nation.
And so, now, here we are: As revealed by poll after poll, Americans feel worn down by the dirty, ugly character of the dirty, ugly candidate at the top of the GOP ticket.
It's not just that, in the wake of the Democratic Convention, Hillary Clinton has surged ahead in national polls by seven, nine, 15 points.
Trump ‘afraid the election’s going to be rigged’ She is far ahead in every state poll that matters. A Friday poll put her up slightly in Georgia, which has been reliable Republican territory in the last five elections.
Trump's entire path to victory has been predicated on winning white men, particularly less educated white men, in droves. Yet he is right now underperforming Mitt Romney's 2012 showing among whites, men, white evangelicals and whites without a college degree, while hemorrhaging every other demographic.
A growing number of Americans are coming to the realization that Trump is more than just a political train wreck; he's a real threat to the nation, what with the fear of nuclear weapons and the sweeping power of the federal government in his tiny paws.
Those of us who believe, who know, that Trump is dangerous can't just settle for him being beaten in November. We need to ensure that he is on the business end of a decisive, humiliating defeat — so that the terribly divisive forces he has unleashed are delivered a death blow.
Melania got marriage green card 4 years before wedding Trump The first reason the loss at the polls needs to be total: to snuff out the corrosive fiction that the system is rigged. Trump hasn't just leveled this charge, ridiculously, about the Republican primary, which he won despite the elites trying to stop him, and somewhat less ridiculously about the Democratic one. He's now complaining before the fact that the November election will be fixed.
You heard that this week first from Donald Trump's eminence beige Roger Stone, then from Trump's minions and sycophants, then from the wigged whiner himself.
The complaint is code for the fact that Trump, somewhere in his hindbrain, knows that he lacks the power, money, skills and the discipline to win this race. When the polls were breaking his way, our republic was perfect; the voters had spoken and he was "doing very, very well." Now that the worm is turned, the evil elites will do anything to stop him.
As though his demagoguery hasn't been poisonous enough already, now he needs his minions to believe that if and when he loses, it was because some nefarious conspiracy of state officials was sitting in dark rooms literally switching votes from Trump to Clinton.
It is, as President Obama pointed out Thursday, a ridiculous notion, one that's literally impossible given the way elections work in this country.
But it means that, if there's a loss by a slim margin in the popular vote or electoral college, millions of already embittered Americans, worked into a frenzy by a shameless leader who will surely refuse to accept the returns, will start the next four years convinced that the United States of America is little more than a banana republic — and the presidency of Hillary Clinton is irretrievably illegitimate.
That will be awful for the country.
The second reason Trump needs to fall hard in November is that the Party of Lincoln needs a complete, top-to-bottom reset — one that completely purges the Trumpkins who believe racial animus is a governing philosophy and that their ignorant and angry primal screams can ever build a Republican majority.
After a pretty decisive loss to Obama in 2012, the Republican Party produced an exhaustive, detailed post-mortem pointing the way forward, focused largely on how to better connect with the growing Latino vote.
None of the lessons were actually learned. All the recommendations about fixing the posture of the party have been treated as though they had been printed on toilet paper.
My Southern grandmother often used a phrase that a lot of folks south of the Mason-Dixon line of a certain age will remember. It was always delivered in a low, calm voice: "Go outside get a switch." You knew at that point that whatever childhood misbehavior you were engaged in was about to come to a halt, painfully.
Well, Trump voters, it's your turn. Go get a switch. I'm not going to coddle you and say you're really smart and good people and this is just a misunderstanding. That's just what the PC crowd does on the left.
Trumpkins don't deserve a participation trophy for wrecking the party and saddling the nation with Hillary. They made the crazy the enemy of the good, and centered an entire campaign on rage, fear and an eternally shrinking spiral of cult-worship and fanaticism.
They dragged one of America's great political parties from the back of a truck.
To begin to repair the damage done, they need to see not that their way almost succeeded, if only one or two states had broken differently. They must absorb the painful reality that their way cannot, will not, ever work again.
So when it's over, Trumpkins, remember: You're not purging us. We're purging you.
No more hate and reckless group blame. No more fact-free fearmongering. No more feeding the obese ego of a man who's transparently unfit for the job.
And after the party gets this philosophical poison out of its system, it needs to re-professionalize the way it wins elections. You'll see at the end of this race dozens of articles on how Hillary Clinton's team took the amazing data science and voter contact architecture created by Obama and enhanced it.
This wasn't rocket science; it's basic, professional campaigning. While Donald Trump was retweeting "White Genocide 1488 Ovenmaster," Clinton's campaign was building data files and contacting swing voters. While Trump was tweeting about "Crooked Hillary," she was having precisely targeted television ads aimed at swing voters in the suburbs of key cities in battleground states appearing at just the right moments. While Trump was depending on red hats and WWE rallies, her people have been going door-to-door by the thousands, knocking, talking, winning hearts and winning votes.
I know Trump fans think of professionalized campaigning like this: "We don't need you fancy smart people with experience and your campaign discipline and your writers and polls and your computers and your TV ads. All we need are hats and Trump's Twitter account. Hold muh beer while I build a wall and make Mexico pay for it."
They're wrong — but only a resounding defeat will get it through their thick skulls.
The next necessary lesson that will only be learned if the defeat is painful relates to the right-wing media.
Both the conservative movement and the country need a vibrant center-right media culture that challenges the predicates of the left, educates America on our beliefs and fights for a national political culture centered on personal liberty, economic freedom and constitutional values.
This year, with some notable exceptions, those journalists and media outlets sold themselves out for a ride on the Trump infotainment train. In previous years, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Matt Drudge and Fox News and the rest would have ripped Trump's record apart.
They would have called him too liberal. Too dirty. Too tied to the Clintons.
While they've screamed at the top of their lungs for decades now about ideological purity, about the need for great candidates in the mold of Ronald Reagan and for a party that can sell its message to America, this year they objectively and overtly sold themselves for ratings and clicks when Trump came on the scene. I hope he left a nice tip on the nightstand.
The financial temptation to repeat this kind of mistake is so powerful, only profound embarrassment will prevent it from repeating.
Perhaps the most important reason Trump needs to suffer an epic loss is to destroy the aura around Donald himself.
Donald Trump and the revolting personality cult he has built around himself are an affront to the Party of Lincoln, to constitutional conservatism and to the fundamental beliefs of the American republic.
That sounds sweeping and condemnatory, and it should. This isn't a normal political candidate in a normal political year. Only the short, sharp shock of a jarring defeat at the hands of the worst Democratic nominee possible will break us out of the direction Trump and Trumpism would take this nation.
We can't have four or eight or 12 or 16 years with an irresponsible almost-President gleefully undermining everything the next two or three Presidents and Congresses try to accomplish — while selling socks made in Vietnam branded with his logo, and probably reverse mortgages to boot.
He needs to be put as far into exile as is humanly possible so that the country can heal from the deep wounds he's inflicted upon it.
I want to be clear here. As a principled conservative, I loathe the high likelihood that Hillary Clinton will — barring a bear attack or some other unforeseen externality — win this election.
She'll nominate liberal Supreme Court justices. We'll lose religious liberty. We'll have our Second Amendment freedoms compromised. Chuck Schumer's immigration bill is going to be so bad it will make many of us beg for the Gang of Eight.
However, Trump would be far worse. He'd be more dangerous to our safety and our republic. And since I know his loss is coming, I pray to God that it is total. You should, too.
Wilmington, North Carolina (CNN)Donald Trump said Tuesday that if Hillary Clinton gets to pick Supreme Court justices, there's "nothing you can do, folks ... although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is." Trump's ambiguous comments alarmed some political observers as to whether he was threatening her life or calling for increased political activity.
Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, issued a one-sentence statement in response to Trump. "This is simple -- what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to the be president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way," he said. But Jason Miller, Trump's senior communications adviser, said Trump was merely talking about Second Amendment supporters large influence as a group. "It's called the power of unification -- 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won't be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump," he said. The GOP nominee sought to rally voters Tuesday highlighting the next president's role in selecting Supreme Court justices and his commitment to the Second Amendment. "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Trump said before pausing and adding: "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. " Trump has repeatedly suggested that Clinton will "abolish" the Second Amendment. The former secretary of state has never called for the abolition of gun rights, but has called for additional gun regulations and safety checks to reduce the number of deadly gun shootings in the US. Trump has vowed not to further restrict gun purchases in the US and earned the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, the pro-gun lobby
Not sure I see the fuss...
The 2nd amendment supporters generally can have an impact on the elections. See Colorado in 2013. However, I severely DOUBT that's enough to encourage these voters to vote for Drumpf.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/09 20:42:52
The great leader looking grimly into the distance. It's hardly a friendly sort of picture.
I disagree. In my opinion she is not looking grimly but determinedly. And being determined to lead your country as well as you can and to ensure that it remains a good country is not authoritarian.
Because anything that is not wholly leftist anarchist is fascist, obviously. It's pretty much the same as this:
skyth wrote: So the money isn't intended to support terrorism.
This seems to be a bit of a red herring and a bit of a dishonest argument.
And you keep on saying 'give money to the Clintons'. This could mean several things, including donating to the Clinton Foundation with the intent of supporting their charitable works and having nothing to do with the Clintons themselves or supporting the Presidential campaign.
It's not dishonest. Hillary Clinton gladly took money from the Saudi royal family and the Saudi royal family gladly support Wahhabism and Salafism which is the religious sect that operates the majority of Islamic terrorist groups around the world. That's all true.
Whembly, he fails to notice that what Trump has done is just raise the bar a little bit higher than previous Republicans.
They were massively far from being the party of Lincoln way before Trump. He attacks the cult of personality around Trump but not around Reagan, for example.
Until the GOP moves away from an anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-evidence platform it will never return to being the party of people like Lincoln and Eisenhower.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 20:50:37
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
So you continue to ignore my point that there is no proof that the money is intended to support terrorism?
Could it be that donating to the local churchs is so ingrained in the culture that they do that and if they didn't they would face a revolution with a worse outcome?
The whole 'funding terrorists' is a dishonest argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And quite frankly, terrirists would be supporting a Trump presidency. Predident Trump would be one of the best recruiting tools they could ask for...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 20:58:04
A Town Called Malus wrote: Whembly, he fails to notice that what Trump has done is just raise the bar a little bit higher than previous Republicans.
They were massively far from being the party of Lincoln way before Trump. He attacks the cult of personality around Trump but not around Reagan, for example.
Until the GOP moves away from an anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-evidence platform it will never return to being the party of people like Lincoln and Eisenhower.
Nah... he's right about the outcome of Trump, but for the wrong reasons...
The fundamental problem with the GOP establishment (which Rick Wilson is part of...) vs their constituents is the fact that they're not listening...
Trump is more of a "FETH YOU!" to the establishment candidate, than the voters really liking what Trump represents.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Whembly, he fails to notice that what Trump has done is just raise the bar a little bit higher than previous Republicans.
They were massively far from being the party of Lincoln way before Trump. He attacks the cult of personality around Trump but not around Reagan, for example.
Until the GOP moves away from an anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-evidence platform it will never return to being the party of people like Lincoln and Eisenhower.
Nah... he's right about the outcome of Trump, but for the wrong reasons...
The fundamental problem with the GOP establishment (which Rick Wilson is part of...) vs their constituents is the fact that they're not listening...
Trump is more of a "FETH YOU!" to the establishment candidate, than the voters really liking what Trump represents.
Porque no los dos?
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Whembly, he fails to notice that what Trump has done is just raise the bar a little bit higher than previous Republicans.
They were massively far from being the party of Lincoln way before Trump. He attacks the cult of personality around Trump but not around Reagan, for example.
Until the GOP moves away from an anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-evidence platform it will never return to being the party of people like Lincoln and Eisenhower.
Nah... he's right about the outcome of Trump, but for the wrong reasons...
The fundamental problem with the GOP establishment (which Rick Wilson is part of...) vs their constituents is the fact that they're not listening...
Trump is more of a "FETH YOU!" to the establishment candidate, than the voters really liking what Trump represents.
Trump is more of a "FETH YOU!" to the establishment candidate, than the voters really liking what Trump represents.
That's wishful thinking whemb.... your "big tent" GOP holds hateful bigots as well as 2A fans and small gov types. Turns out there's a lot more hateful bigots than you thought.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Trump is more of a "FETH YOU!" to the establishment candidate, than the voters really liking what Trump represents.
That's wishful thinking whemb.... your "big tent" GOP holds hateful bigots as well as 2A fans and small gov types. Turns out there's a lot more hateful bigots than you thought.
The majority of the primary voters did NOT vote for Trump.
whembly wrote: The 2nd amendment supporters generally can have an impact on the elections. See Colorado in 2013. However, I severely DOUBT that's enough to encourage these voters to vote for Drumpf.
Come on, dude. That entire part of the speech was dog whistling for fething days. I mean good Lord, people talk about the idea that the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution so Americans could take down their government if it became "tyrannical" on this very forum constantly. For someone on the hashtagNeverTrump bandwagon, you seem to be defending the moronic gak that spills out of his word hole a lot more often these days.
Trump Supporter: "I love Trump because he says exactly what he means!"
Person: "He just said that only 'Second Amendment people' could stop Clinton's Supreme Court nominations, heavily implying the use of violence."
Trump Supporter: "He didn't mean that."
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
whembly wrote: The 2nd amendment supporters generally can have an impact on the elections. See Colorado in 2013. However, I severely DOUBT that's enough to encourage these voters to vote for Drumpf.
Come on, dude. That entire part of the speech was dog whistling for fething days. I mean good Lord, people talk about the idea that the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution so Americans could take down their government if it became "tyrannical" on this very forum constantly. For someone on the hashtagNeverTrump bandwagon, you seem to be defending the moronic gak that spills out of his word hole a lot more often these days.
Trump Supporter: "I love Trump because he says exactly what he means!" Person: "He just said that only 'Second Amendment people' could stop Clinton's Supreme Court nominations, heavily implying the use of violence." Trump Supporter: "He didn't mean that."
However, in this case, "those 2nd Amendment people"... is who exactly? The NRA? It's obvious that he's talking about the pro-2nd voters. That's why I referenced in my previous post that this group could impact an election... and yet, I don't believe he can rally these people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 22:39:12
jasper76 wrote: So Ginger Hitler is know cracking jokes about assassinating Clinton.
Are we still playing the game that Clinton is just as bad as Trump?
Nope. But just remember guys, its not binary. There are four national candidates, plus the Wiener Dog Party says every write in for Ghost Tbone is a write in for...FREEDOM.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jasper76 wrote: So Ginger Hitler is know cracking jokes about assassinating Clinton.
Are we still playing the game that Clinton is just as bad as Trump?
Nope. But just remember guys, its not binary. There are four national candidates, plus the Wiener Dog Party says every write in for Ghost Tbone is a write in for...FREEDOM.
Sorry, my vote with the DNC, the Democratic National Corgis
This is clearly not the same as you who seem fine with calling apparent strangers over the internet liars, without knowing them. So again 
3000
4000 
~4100
~1660