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.
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.
Well, sure I didn't say the hateful nutters were the majority. But here we are, with a unqualified fear mongering bigot carrying the flag for the GOP. So the hateful bigot minority in the big tent is a lot larger than was previously surmised. What your party needs is to split, and the far right crazies can follow Cruz into the Tea Party wilderness and fringe lunatic politics, and the sane, right of centre voters can vote for someone they can actually, in good conscience, support.
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.'”
Go back and look at his very next sentence. "It will be a very bad day". How would it be a bad day if the NRA/gun lobby defended the 2nd amendment? He was not referring to them. He was clearly making a very bad joke about Clinton being killed. Watch the video and the reactions of the people behind him. They didn't seem to have any trouble getting it.
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.
There is something immensely wrong with stoking american exceptionalism in 2016.
America is not great because it is good. It is great because of entirely objective factors, many of which would not be considered "good" by the vast majority of the world.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
skyth wrote: 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...
No it is nothing like donating to a local church. The Saudi family/monarchy spends millions of dollars deliberately spreading Wahhabism and Salafism, building madrassas that preach it and funding the support network that creates and perpetuates Islamic terrorism around the world. It's not members of the general populace tossing a couple of bucks into the collection plate on Sundays. This is an established fact. The evidence is in the 9/11 Comission Report, it's in the background of the known terrorist leaders and clerics, we know where they're from, the schools they attended the mosques they go to, we know who paid to build the mosques and schools who pays the clerics and let's them preach openly for a fundamentalist sect that encourages violence and terrorism. It's the same system that created Osama bin Laden. Look at the leaders of the Islamic terrorist groups in North Africa, Somalia, Indonesia and the Middle East and you'll find that they're wahhabistsband Salafists who received their religious indoctrination from the schools, mosques and clerics funded by the Saudis. The monarchy is knowingly and willing funding the spread of a fundamentalist sect of Islam whose purpose is creating zealots that are violently opposed to any other form of Islam or religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists but the zealous fundamentalist ones that are, those are the Wahabbists and Salafists, that sect and terrorism are inseparable and the Saudi monarchy has been supporting them since their inception.
Go back and look at his very next sentence. "It will be a very bad day". How would it be a bad day if the NRA/gun lobby defended the 2nd amendment? He was not referring to them. He was clearly making a very bad joke about Clinton being killed. Watch the video and the reactions of the people behind him. They didn't seem to have any trouble getting it.
Yanno... go with that interpretation.
"It will be a very bad day" I took as referring to clinton choosing more justices.
TRUMP: <garble> <garble><vague><vague>, ya know? CRITICS: OMG, HE JUST DOG-WHISTLED FOR CLINTON'S ASSASSINATION!!!
Me: :roll eyes:, c'mon dude... there are better things to call out Trump... like his Russian connections... for cripes sake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: The statement was made in the context of a dystopian future where Clinton is appointing liberal judges, and the good people are powerless--
Yeah some vague "“If she gets to pick her judges nothing you can do, folks... although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Translate to armed resistance?
Take a step back and realize that this is nothing more than hyperventilation over some vague statement.
fething hit Trump where it hurts on his real problems... otherwise, this is simply feeding into his persecution complex that'll only energize his supports.
Meh...what's the point? Kind of tired of arguing about how bad this dude's vomit stinks.
Hillary secured the Presidency the day Trump was nominated.
Just let's just Calvinball this gak... shall we?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/09 22:50:53
On another subject, I saw a clip of Gary Johnson on the Bill Mayer show. He's a stoner. I don't judge people for that, but have a Safety First attitude and I think the POTUS is a critical job.
For his part, Johnson said he would not use marijuana during the campaign or if in office.
Source (relevant comments start at 6:57):
Spoiler:
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/09 22:59:27
whembly wrote: there are better things to call out Trump... like his Russian connections... for cripes sake.
To borrow a line from Ouze... no Lucy, we're not going to take a run at that ball just so that in a couple of posts you can go "but it's not really that bad, something-something-Clinton-charity-group-really-conspiracy-money-for-them-something".
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
It's always amazing how the people that argue on this very forum that the reason we have the 2nd is to stop tyrants are now able to argue that "there is a way to stop an elected president from appointing liberal judges, the 2nd" doesn't mean what they have been arguing.
d-usa wrote: It's always amazing how the people that argue on this very forum that the reason we have the 2nd is to stop tyrants are now able to argue that "there is a way to stop an elected president from appointing liberal judges, the 2nd" doesn't mean what they have been arguing.
Remember, openly talking about killing politicians you don't like gets you in trouble with the police. You have to be polite and classy and only offer the vaguest hints about the subject, it's just crude and tasteless to hint too strongly about what that survival bunker full of AR-15s is meant to be used for. It's the difference between a light flirty kiss* and dropping your pants in public and yelling "COME AND GET IT".
*With your AR-15 if you want, we won't judge.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
skyth wrote: 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...
No it is nothing like donating to a local church. The Saudi family/monarchy spends millions of dollars deliberately spreading Wahhabism and Salafism, building madrassas that preach it and funding the support network that creates and perpetuates Islamic terrorism around the world. It's not members of the general populace tossing a couple of bucks into the collection plate on Sundays. This is an established fact. The evidence is in the 9/11 Comission Report, it's in the background of the known terrorist leaders and clerics, we know where they're from, the schools they attended the mosques they go to, we know who paid to build the mosques and schools who pays the clerics and let's them preach openly for a fundamentalist sect that encourages violence and terrorism. It's the same system that created Osama bin Laden. Look at the leaders of the Islamic terrorist groups in North Africa, Somalia, Indonesia and the Middle East and you'll find that they're wahhabistsband Salafists who received their religious indoctrination from the schools, mosques and clerics funded by the Saudis. The monarchy is knowingly and willing funding the spread of a fundamentalist sect of Islam whose purpose is creating zealots that are violently opposed to any other form of Islam or religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists but the zealous fundamentalist ones that are, those are the Wahabbists and Salafists, that sect and terrorism are inseparable and the Saudi monarchy has been supporting them since their inception.
So totally ignore what I said and keep on regurgitating the same irrelevant thing that doesn't even address my point.
Besides, this is like complaining that Chik-fil-a donated money to Trump and they support Christian groups in Africa trying to kill homosexuals, so Trump is trying to kill homosexuals. There is no real connection between supporting terrorists and supporting Clinton. All this is is a continuation of overblown stories with little basis in reality that certain people have been trying to smear Clinton with for the last 20 some years.
Chongara wrote: For example trump had strong public Ku Klux Klan endorsements, they love the guy! However I wouldn't go and say that his popularity with the KKK means much more than he's popular with the kind of person who joins the KKK.
As long as we're going to indict people based on who supports them...
I see you believe in the North Korean doctrine of familial guilt for crimes, and carry it farther.
Chain of reasoning:
This bloke's son murdered a lot of people therefore this bloke is VERY BAD. This bloke went to a Clinton rally therefore Clinton is VERY BAD.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 23:49:54
There's nothing at all wrong with a candidate saying that 2nd Amendment supporters can turn out in droves to elect someone.
But there's something that doesn't sit well with a lot of people if a candidate says that once an elected president selects pro-gun control supreme court judges, generally the fight is lost, except that second amendment supporters might have a remedy. The actual quote is:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know."
So anyways, free speech and all. Yeah, people can mostly say whatever brand of stupid they want. But if someone's applying to be the President of the United States, they must realize that for 4 or 8 years, every word they say will be put under the microscope; that markets will rise and fall, and the future of lives and nations hangs on what the President says. During the election, therefore, they should be more careful in articulating their thoughts, so as not to be ambiguous or misconstrued.
Putting all that aside, nobody is talking about Trump's economic plan anymore, partly because of this. It's off-message, and terrible campaigning. He can bash the media or the political system or whatever he wants, but you gotta work in the world you live in, and in the 24 hour news cycle, you're either a winner or a loser in the messaging game, and if you can't win at that, you can't win the Presidency. As virtually every poll is showing.
Generally, people forget things pretty quickly, and the news moves on, allowing for a "campaign reset". This is also the reason why everyone says that 90+ days is a lifetime in politics. But there is also a cumulative effect: every time a candidate is off-message, it adds another chip on the scales that makes it harder to reset. Is it possible for Trump to hit the reset button? Sure, but there will be fewer people who are receptive to it. Really, his last, best chance will be the debates, and the way that he can maximize the number of persuadable people will be to NOT be controversial in the meantime.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/09 23:51:14
d-usa wrote: I think the comment also is even more disturbing after he spend the last week telling everybody that the election will be rigged.
So good thing we can kill Hillary after she rigs the election to appoint justices?
And the funniest part is the absurdity of it all. Gun Rights have won nearly every major and minor Supreme Court challenge of the last 20 years, and its a lot harder to overturn precedent than it is to make it. If the last 30+ years of a generally conservative appointed majority court wasn't enough to overturn the much bashed Roe v Wade decisions, how exactly is Clinton appointing one or two justices going to overturn Heller or McDonald? (or Obama for that matter cause that's been said too).
I remember someone saying that there really weren't any Hillary supporters posting in this thread yet it seems many people are posting exclusively anti-Trump posts. Except for myself, Whembly, and one or two others, it is rare to see an anti-Hillary post.
I know a great many people love dog piling on Whembly but can we have some discussion about qualifications and failings of some other candidate in the race that isn't Trump? Just for a couple of pages or so?
I think the franky reality is that for most people, any concerns about Hillary Clinton have been completely overridden by the alternative option being sheer insanity. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I've seen little pro-Hillary, just a metric bulk ton of anti-Trump divided into "vote for Hillay" and "vote for Johnson."
Besides, with Trump's chances dwindling almost daily, I'm sure we'll be in store for a solid 4 years of of people making anti-Hillary posts, and talking about her qualifications and failings, so really were just kind of saving it for next week than ignoring it
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 00:28:01
LordofHats wrote: ... how exactly is Clinton appointing one or two justices going to overturn Heller or McDonald?
One judge would swing 5-4 into the liberal's favor. Two would make it 6-3. This would allow the court to return to judicial activism such as the Warren and Burger years but given partisanship in today's society, the activism might be intensified. Remember that the Roberts court is considered one of the least activist in modern times. It recognized gun rights as individual rights but it also recognized gay marriage. I hesitate to hope a liberal court would be even that even handed.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote:“Any society that relies on nine unelected judges to resolve the most serious issues of the day is not a functioning democracy,”
Yep. That pretty much describes the modern American political process.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 00:32:51
On the other hand when you have the Secret Service sending out a tweet today that said "The Secret Service is aware of the comments made earlier this afternoon", talking about Clinton seems kinda boring, no?
One judge would swing 5-4 into the liberal's favor. Two would make it 6-3.
It's not that easy to overturn precedent, and that presumes that Justices only make decisions based on whether or not they liked the previous one. They don't, evident by Caetano v Massachusetts, where the Justices who dissented with Heller and McDonald fell in with the majority, citing those same two cases when overturning a woman's conviction for carrying a stun gun. And even with Scalia on the bench, when handed a perfect opportunity to overturn a major "activist" decision, the court upheld Roe v Wade 6-3 and told the State of Missouri that it couldn't regulate Abortion out of existence solely to regulate it out of existence.a
Breotan wrote: I remember someone saying that there really weren't any Hillary supporters posting in this thread yet it seems many people are posting exclusively anti-Trump posts. Except for myself, Whembly, and one or two others, it is rare to see an anti-Hillary post.
I know a great many people love dog piling on Whembly but can we have some discussion about qualifications and failings of some other candidate in the race that isn't Trump? Just for a couple of pages or so?
I'm asking for too much, aren't I?
You are making the classic mistake of confusing calling out Trump with supporting Hillary.
whembly wrote: there are better things to call out Trump... like his Russian connections... for cripes sake.
To borrow a line from Ouze... no Lucy, we're not going to take a run at that ball just so that in a couple of posts you can go "but it's not really that bad, something-something-Clinton-charity-group-really-conspiracy-money-for-them-something".
Breotan wrote: I remember someone saying that there really weren't any Hillary supporters posting in this thread yet it seems many people are posting exclusively anti-Trump posts. Except for myself, Whembly, and one or two others, it is rare to see an anti-Hillary post.
I know a great many people love dog piling on Whembly but can we have some discussion about qualifications and failings of some other candidate in the race that isn't Trump? Just for a couple of pages or so?
I'm asking for too much, aren't I?
You are making the classic mistake of confusing calling out Trump with supporting Hillary.
No, I'm just saying we've developed a bit of an imbalance regarding who we throw our poop at. I know Trump is low hanging fruit and I'm not suggesting we stop holding him accountable for every dumb thing that leaves his mouth, but I'd like to see someone not on the "right wing" holding Hillary to account for her stuff. I mean even the Libertarian stuff is a relief but it's still pretty lean pickings.
skyth wrote: 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...
No it is nothing like donating to a local church. The Saudi family/monarchy spends millions of dollars deliberately spreading Wahhabism and Salafism, building madrassas that preach it and funding the support network that creates and perpetuates Islamic terrorism around the world. It's not members of the general populace tossing a couple of bucks into the collection plate on Sundays. This is an established fact. The evidence is in the 9/11 Comission Report, it's in the background of the known terrorist leaders and clerics, we know where they're from, the schools they attended the mosques they go to, we know who paid to build the mosques and schools who pays the clerics and let's them preach openly for a fundamentalist sect that encourages violence and terrorism. It's the same system that created Osama bin Laden. Look at the leaders of the Islamic terrorist groups in North Africa, Somalia, Indonesia and the Middle East and you'll find that they're wahhabistsband Salafists who received their religious indoctrination from the schools, mosques and clerics funded by the Saudis. The monarchy is knowingly and willing funding the spread of a fundamentalist sect of Islam whose purpose is creating zealots that are violently opposed to any other form of Islam or religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists but the zealous fundamentalist ones that are, those are the Wahabbists and Salafists, that sect and terrorism are inseparable and the Saudi monarchy has been supporting them since their inception.
So totally ignore what I said and keep on regurgitating the same irrelevant thing that doesn't even address my point.
Besides, this is like complaining that Chik-fil-a donated money to Trump and they support Christian groups in Africa trying to kill homosexuals, so Trump is trying to kill homosexuals. There is no real connection between supporting terrorists and supporting Clinton. All this is is a continuation of overblown stories with little basis in reality that certain people have been trying to smear Clinton with for the last 20 some years.
No this is you choosing to ignore the fact that the Clintons are willing to take money from a monarchy that funds terrorists and their support network that creates more terrorists and terrorism. You know that terrorists are created by clerics and fundamentalists that go to areas with impoverished and disillusioned young people and radicalize them. Those clerics and the madrassas and mosques they build are funded by the Saudi monarchy. The Saudis are not people our leaders should be getting in bed with. There is already documented evidence of Hillary using her SecState position to help the Saudis after taking millions of dollars from them and evidence of Clinton staffers getting big money contracts for their businesses from the Saudis. There is more evidence and stronger evidence of the Clintons being tied to the Saudis than there is of Trump being tied to Putin.
This is not conspiracy theories or partisan smear campaigns this is factual provable connections. The same dangerous corrupting relationship that the Bushes started with the Saudis was picked up and continued by the Clintons then Bush again then Obama and now we'll have Clinton again. This is what makes Clinton a bad candidate. She's more of the same old bad politics. Clinton gives us more partisanship more polarization more obstructionism in congress more short sighted alliances more pandering more platitudes hiding problems more evasive answers and more solutions that are just spin doctoring. Clinton is more status quo with all of our current problems continuing to snowball and be ignored for the sake of political gamesmanship.
But hey she's better than a narcissistic self promoting lying bigot so we should all just ignore her glaring flaws hold our noses and vote for her because we should totally keep doing what we've been doing while expecting to get a radically different result.
Breotan wrote: I remember someone saying that there really weren't any Hillary supporters posting in this thread yet it seems many people are posting exclusively anti-Trump posts. Except for myself, Whembly, and one or two others, it is rare to see an anti-Hillary post.
I know a great many people love dog piling on Whembly but can we have some discussion about qualifications and failings of some other candidate in the race that isn't Trump? Just for a couple of pages or so?
whembly wrote: Is it because you automatically assme the '2nd Amendment people' are violent?
No, it's because neither of those things were at all comparable. The Obama statement was entirely metaphorical, it's about countering political attacks, not actual guns or knives. The Clinton statement pointed out that disasters can happen to "sure" winners, it didn't advocate killing anyone or suggest that Obama's death would be a good thing. Trump's goes way beyond those into actually suggesting that people killing politicians they disagree with is a good thing.
1) Not going to win the election.
2) Not going to win the election.
3) Not going to win the election.
4) Not going to win the election.
5) Not going to win the election.
6) Not going to win the election.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 01:33:31
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
1) Not going to win the election.
2) Not going to win the election.
3) Not going to win the election.
4) Not going to win the election.
5) Not going to win the election.
6) Not going to win the election.
Aye...
But, the benefit is that he can drive out conservative voters to vote for him and then vote conservative down ticket.
