Donald Trump

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2016 3:00pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Right now the republican controlled Congress doesnt even allow any studies into the effects of gun violence.

how could congress stop a government department from conducting such a study given the separation of powers?

InTheTrees · 10-08-2016 3:07pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how could congress stop a government department from conducting such a study given the separation of powers?

Republicans control the agenda, the congressional committee's and the budgets.

K-9 · 10-08-2016 3:11pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Right now the republican controlled Congress doesnt even allow any studies into the effects of gun violence.

Congress hasn't passed a gun law since 1993!

A Little Pony · 10-08-2016 3:18pm

seamus wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Hillary does want to erode the 2nd Amendment. The American people would be entitled to defend themselves against a tyrannical President. It has happened before in American history.

This is where the gun lobby gets ridiculous.

A president who would remove or otherwise amend the 2nd Amendment would not be a tyrannical one. That's democracy.

You know what is tyrannical? Using violence to prevent a democractically-elected government from legally changing the constitution.

Considering the number of votes and hoops that would have to be jumped through to do anything to the second amendment, if it was to be changed, it would be the will of the people. Anyone who would oppose that using violence, is a terrorist.

[font=arial, sans-serif]The tree of liberty[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The American people should not allow her and her tyrannical regime to destroy the 2nd Amendment. That is just my opinion. They should defend the Constitution. [/font]

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

War between the States.

I do not think any historian has accused Lincoln of being Tyrannical, nor did the 2nd amendment have much to do with it as the confederate constitution was the constitution they operated under, in 1861 they formed the confederate volunteer army after they created their own constitution.

Plenty have actually.

Christy42 · 10-08-2016 3:25pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

[font=arial, sans-serif]The tree of liberty[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The American people should not allow her and her tyrannical regime to destroy the 2nd Amendment. That is just my opinion. They should defend the Constitution. [/font]

Plenty have actually.

Let no one accuse Republican supporters of being overly democratic. Seriously why is the constitution exactly correct for all time? Shouldn't you argue in congress as to why parts should and shouldn't be kept? Also if republicans got it so wrong about Obama taking away their guns why do you think republicans are right about Hillary?

Should you not have a bit more evidence before talking about a civil war?

And people talk about Hillary being the warmonger at least she isn't starting a war in the United States (granted I think all your talk of blood of patriots and tyrants is about as likely all the talk of Texas going independent when Obama ran for president).

Exeggcute · 10-08-2016 3:26pm

Lol the polls

Funny how the polls don't reflect the numbers attending each candidates rallies.

Trump is getting thousands while Clinton is getting paltry attendance.

Both of them are horrible candidates but I'd be very, very wary of trusting the polls in this election.

This is Brexit style politics, throw out the rulebooks. Couple this with the DNC leaks showing heavy collusion between the media and Clinton and the constant tweaking of polling methodology every time Trump rises or Clinton falters and I would say that the polls are heavily suspect to date.

I also think the media and establishment histrionics are suggestive of the race being far, far closer in reality. They are seriously worried and that says far, far more about the true state of the race to me than any poll.

BoatMad · 10-08-2016 3:26pm

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The American people should not allow her and her tyrannical regime to destroy the 2nd Amendment. That is just my opinion. They should defend the Constitution.

A statement worthy of ISIS

BoatMad · 10-08-2016 3:28pm

Exeggcute wrote: »

Lol the polls

Funny how the polls don't reflect the numbers attending each candidates rallies.

Trump is getting thousands while Clinton is getting paltry attendance.

Both of them are horrible candidates but I'd be very, very wary of trusting the polls in this election.

This is Brexit style politics, throw out the rulebooks. Couple this with the DNC leaks showing heavy collusion between the media and Clinton and the constant tweaking of polling methodology every time Trump rises or Clinton falters and I would say that the polls are heavily suspect to date.

I also think the media and establishment histrionics are suggestive of the race being far, far closer in reality. They are seriously worried and that says far, far more about the true state of the race to me than any poll.

em ...the polls in the Brexit referendum consistently showed the gap narrowing , this is not the case with the US election

K-9 · 10-08-2016 3:30pm

Exeggcute wrote: »

Lol the polls

Funny how the polls don't reflect the numbers attending each candidates rallies.

Trump is getting thousands while Clinton is getting paltry attendance.

Both of them are horrible candidates but I'd be very, very wary of trusting the polls in this election.

This is Brexit style politics, throw out the rulebooks. Couple this with the DNC leaks showing heavy collusion between the media and Clinton and the constant tweaking of polling methodology every time Trump rises or Clinton falters and I would say that the polls are heavily suspect to date.

I also think the media and establishment histrionics are suggestive of the race being far, far closer in reality. They are seriously worried and that says far, far more about the true state of the race to me than any poll.

So the polls were wrong when they kept calling a Trump landslide in the primaries?

InTheTrees · 10-08-2016 3:31pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

[font=arial, sans-serif] The American people should not allow her and her tyrannical regime to destroy the 2nd Amendment. That is just my opinion. They should defend the Constitution. [/font]

Nobodies going to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Butters1979 · 10-08-2016 3:31pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Let no one accuse Republican supporters of being overly democratic. Seriously why is the constitution exactly correct for all time? Shouldn't you argue in congress as to why parts should and shouldn't be kept? Also if republicans got it so wrong about Obama taking away their guns why do you think republicans are right about Hillary?

Should you not have a bit more evidence before talking about a civil war?

And people talk about Hillary being the warmonger at least she isn't starting a war in the United States (granted I think all your talk of blood of patriots and tyrants is about as likely all the talk of Texas going independent when Obama ran for president).

He's quoting Thomas Jeffeson. I think to show the founding fathers thinking at the time of creating the constitution.

Basically if the people don't have the means to rise up, and exercise that means from time to time, then Liberty slowly gets eroded. It's an interesting idea. And probably true.

The questions is do we want bloodshed for more freedom?

Butters1979 · 10-08-2016 3:33pm

BoatMad wrote: »

A statement worthy of ISIS

Actually no, ISIS are very authoritarian. It's the opposite of their beliefs.

Exeggcute · 10-08-2016 3:38pm

K-9 wrote: »

So the polls were wrong when they kept calling a Trump landslide in the primaries?

The primaries are a very different ballgame.

If Clinton is truly so far ahead then why the massive onslaught of organised media histrionics?

I can't stand Trump and even I can see the incredible distorted reporting against him.

Something doesn't add up.

I always judge things by actions, not what people say. Trump is getting massive turnouts at his rallies. Clinton's in contrast are actually quite pathetic. That has got be be worrying. Trumps supporters are hugely energised, I don't see any evidence of that with Clinton.

If it reflects voter turnout on election day, Clinton is ****ed.

robinph · 10-08-2016 3:40pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Nobodies going to destroy the 2nd amendment.

It might be amended though.

BoatMad · 10-08-2016 3:40pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

Actually no, ISIS are very authoritarian. It's the opposite of their beliefs.

the expose violence in the furtherance of their aims, which is similar to the insane rant that is

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The American people should not allow her and her tyrannical regime to destroy the 2nd Amendment. That is just my opinion. They should defend the Constitution

as if " her " was some external force and not in effect the democratic will of the people expressed in the polling booths

so called defenders of the Constitution are of course nothing of the sort, its merely so, when their views align with the current interpretation of the Constitution and they wish to see in then frozen to their beliefs. They are the opposite of patriots

ohnonotgmail · 10-08-2016 3:40pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Let no one accuse Republican supporters of being overly democratic. Seriously why is the constitution exactly correct for all time? Shouldn't you argue in congress as to why parts should and shouldn't be kept? Also if republicans got it so wrong about Obama taking away their guns why do you think republicans are right about Hillary?

Should you not have a bit more evidence before talking about a civil war?

And people talk about Hillary being the warmonger at least she isn't starting a war in the United States (granted I think all your talk of blood of patriots and tyrants is about as likely all the talk of Texas going independent when Obama ran for president).

No. that is the function of the supreme court.

Christy42 · 10-08-2016 3:42pm

Exeggcute wrote: »

The primaries are a very different ballgame.

If Clinton is truly so far ahead then why the massive onslaught of organised media histrionics?

I can't stand Trump and even I can see the incredible distorted reporting against him.

Something doesn't add up.

I always judge things by actions, not what people say. Trump is getting massive turnouts at his rallies. Clinton's in contrast are actually quite pathetic. That has got be be worrying. Trumps supporters are hugely energised, I don't see any evidence of that with Clinton.

If it reflects voter turnout on election day, Clinton is ****ed.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever aside from blind hope that rally turnout links with voter turnout?

The man has called for a foreign nation to attack the other major parties server and has also suggested that Hillary should be assassinated if she wins. He has called for banning people from the US on the basis of religion. I am curious as to how you want the media to react to all this?

When asked who they will vote for people are saying Hillary.

Billy86 · 10-08-2016 3:45pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

He's quoting Thomas Jeffeson. I think to show the founding fathers thinking at the time of creating the constitution.

Basically if the people don't have the means to rise up, and exercise that means from time to time, then Liberty slowly gets eroded. It's an interesting idea. And probably true.

The questions is do we want bloodshed for more freedom?

What would 'more freedom' be? Some want even more access to guns, some want less, and some want it left as is. If one group use violence to quell the others, then the others by default have less freedoms. It's a cop out without having a majority, and if it has a majority it would not require violence due to the democratic process.

But while we are on the subject of Jefferson quotes, what would his view on Trumps "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" be?
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Mind you, what would his views on the Republican Party in general be?
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

InTheTrees · 10-08-2016 3:45pm

robinph wrote: »

It might be amended though.

I dont think it needs to be.

There's already gun control. Despite what the gun nuts are saying. There's all kinds of military grade arms that the public arent allowed to possess.

Butters1979 · 10-08-2016 3:50pm

BoatMad wrote: »

the expose violence in the furtherance of their aims, which is similar to the insane rant that is

Or, you've seen someone with different views to you and did the old 'facist', 'ISIS', 'racist' or whatever label of your choosing to tarnish that person instead of discussing the point. That and you failed to either recognise or understand the meaning of the quote.

Trent Houseboat · 10-08-2016 3:53pm

Exeggcute wrote:

If Clinton is truly so far ahead then why the massive onslaught of organised media histrionics?

I can't stand Trump and even I can see the incredible distorted reporting against him.

Do you have examples of massive organised media histrionics or distorted reporting?

Exeggcute wrote:

The primaries are a very different ballgame.

This is true; you can win a primary with a plurality, you need a majority to win the general.

BoatMad · 10-08-2016 3:53pm

Butters1979 wrote: »

Or, you've seen someone with different views to you and did the old 'facist', 'ISIS', 'racist' or whatever label of your choosing to tarnish that person instead of discussing the point. That and you failed to either recognise or understand the meaning of the quote.

I fully understand the quote and its origins

the world is full of bellicose warmongering statements that are typical used by people to justify violent intervention in whatever conflict that they feel the need to enter into. The US believes its right , ISIS believes it right , God is invoked on all sides etc

My comment was that the nature of introducing such a statement into this debate is not to add clarity or even commentary , but to suggest that violence is a solution , ( rather like Trumps recent statement re clinton and 2A)

K-9 · 10-08-2016 3:56pm

Exeggcute wrote: »

The primaries are a very different ballgame.

If Clinton is truly so far ahead then why the massive onslaught of organised media histrionics?

I can't stand Trump and even I can see the incredible distorted reporting against him.

Something doesn't add up.

I always judge things by actions, not what people say. Trump is getting massive turnouts at his rallies. Clinton's in contrast are actually quite pathetic. That has got be be worrying. Trumps supporters are hugely energised, I don't see any evidence of that with Clinton.

If it reflects voter turnout on election day, Clinton is ****ed.

I think you are looking for things to disprove the polls. I'm not surprised Trump has a fanatic base at all, though it seems even some at his rally yesterday were genuinely shocked at his comments last night. If the polls showed him at 10% I'd wonder, but he is getting 40% and over.

Not sure about Hillary, if there are loads and loads of empty seats I'd wonder.

The other thing is while some really, really love Trump, a hell of a lot of people really, really hate him! And it looks this election is about who people hate the least.

K-9 · 10-08-2016 3:58pm

robinph wrote: »

It might be amended though.

Which the NRA will portray as rescinded or an attack on gun rights. I've given up applying logic to the gun debate.

Butters1979 · 10-08-2016 3:59pm

BoatMad wrote: »

I fully understand the quote and its origins

the world is full of bellicose warmongering statements that are typical used by people to justify violent intervention in whatever conflict that they feel the need to enter into. The US believes its right , ISIS believes it right , God is invoked on all sides etc

My comment was that the nature of introducing such a statement into this debate is not to add clarity or even commentary , but to suggest that violence is a solution , ( rather like Trumps recent statement re clinton and 2A)

If it wasn't for violent intervention, there would be no freedom. The question for all of is which is preferred?

lee_baby_simms · 10-08-2016 4:01pm

Exeggcute wrote: »

The primaries are a very different ballgame.

With respect to poll accuracy they're not.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/

Polls aside...Clinton received almost 17 million votes in the primaries while Sanders got 13 million and much bigger crowds.

Trump got 14 million votes btw.

BoatMad · 10-08-2016 4:02pm

K-9 wrote: »

I think you are looking for things to disprove the polls. I'm not surprised Trump has a fanatic base at all, though it seems even some at his rally yesterday were genuinely shocked at his comments last night. If the polls showed him at 10% I'd wonder, but he is getting 40% and over.

Not sure about Hillary, if there are loads and loads of empty seats I'd wonder.

The other thing is while some really, really love Trump, a hell of a lot of people really, really hate him! And it looks this election is about who people hate the least.

It is the nature of someone like Trump, a showman, unpredictable , etc , that he is likely to attract large attendances , he is appealing to the fanatic , he will have those that are merely their for the show etc .

what counts is the greater majority of ordinary Americans, who do not seem to be taken in by the Trump "campaign" of empty promises , gaffs and flip flop statements.

Exeggcute · 10-08-2016 4:05pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence whatsoever aside from blind hope that rally turnout links with voter turnout?

The man has called for a foreign nation to attack the other major parties server and has also suggested that Hillary should be assassinated if she wins. He has called for banning people from the US on the basis of religion. I am curious as to how you want the media to react to all this?

When asked who they will vote for people are saying Hillary.

Blind hope?

I said that was my reading of the situation. There was no element of "hope" to it so why accuse as such? How many times do I need to state that I have no love for Donald Trump?

As for the rest of your points.

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

True.

With some level of objectivity and less histrionics and distortion. Trump is an abysmal candidate so the media shouldn't have to resort to such petty tactics in order to discredit him. But they are, and glaringly so.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Do you have examples of massive organised media histrionics or distorted reporting?

The Trump as Russian puppet candidate calling for state hacking of Clinton for one. And today, the assassination nonsense.

Neither hold up to any level of objective scrutiny.

It is quite pathetic. The man is the worst candidate in living memory and the media resort to this kind of nonsense to discredit him. Christ, he practically discredits himself, there is no need for it and yet the overwhelming media bias plays straight into his hands.

Samaris · 10-08-2016 4:06pm

Is it just me, or is most of this election people looking at each other in disbelief and going "Did he really just say that?"

Mardy Bum · 10-08-2016 4:09pm

I think it is time to call a spade a spade; the people supporting Trump (not the anyone but Hillary supporters) are largely uneducated, socially and economically deprived, hive minded, probably remarkably unintelligent (EDL in America types) and have sat in front of the television for the past 30 years eating up fox news and like to blame everyone but themselves for their ills. The type of people who wouldn't know where China is on a map or even Asia probably.

That is not to say Hillary is some saviour. She to is up to her neck in dodgy dealings. It is the lesser of two evils to vote for her though.

Donald Trump

Comments