Donald Trump

tigger123

Arghus wrote: »

His literal words are "that will be a horrible day if...if Hillary gets to put her judges". He is indeed a plain speaker.

He does NOT say it will be a horrible day if the Second Amendment people do something to Hillary. Seriously: watch the video. He's not referring to what people seem to assume he's referring too.

Both the video I posted AND the transcript you posted bear witness to the same thing: the horrible day he is referring to is clearly that hypothetical day, perhaps never be realised, when Hillary gets to pick those judges. He is most definitely not referring to a time when something is done, horrible or otherwise, to Hillary.

I'm not sure why you thought that transcript was superior to the video. The video is an unedited clip of the thirty or so seconds around the controversial remarks. I don't think there's anything untoward going on there - it's clearly the raw footage. The transcript actually provides less of a surrounding context to his remarks. In any case both are in agreement: the "horrible" day, according to Trump, is the day that Hillary gets to pick her judges. Nowhere in that speech does he condone violence.

You're right in what you're saying, but you're not taking the context into account. If it was the exact same flow of words from Mitt Romney, or McCain in the previous campaigns none of this would be up for debate, but it's Trump; a candidate who continuously pushes the boundary of what's appropriate or acceptable. So when he says something (anything) that's open to interpretation the media will seize upon it.

It's the latest in a long line of f*cking idiotic things to roll out of his mouth. Obama and Hillary are the co-founders of ISIS. FFS.

His campaign will go into freefall between now and the election; all he's doing is alienating more and more people (the electorate, media outlets, political analysts) and he's not winning over anyone else.

A_Sober_Paddy

tigger123 wrote: »

You're right in what you're saying, but you're not taking the context into account. If it was the exact same flow of words from Mitt Romney, or McCain in the previous campaigns none of this would be up for debate, but it's Trump; a candidate who continuously pushes the boundary of what's appropriate or acceptable. So when he says something (anything) that's open to interpretation the media will seize upon it.

It's the latest in a long line of f*cking idiotic things to roll out of his mouth. Obama and Hillary are the co-founders of ISIS. FFS.

His campaign will go into freefall between now and the election; all he's doing is alienating more and more people (the electorate, media outlets, political analysts) and he's not winning over anyone else.

Is he maybe trying to lose, so hillary gets in. Wasn't he a democratic party member not so long ago

tigger123

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Is he maybe trying to lose, so hillary gets in. Wasn't he a democratic party member not so long ago

I honestly think he's trying to lose because he doesn't want to be President. He's an arrogant egotistical d*ck. If he was trying to win he'd see his performance in the poles and want to right the ship's course.

Pro Hoc Vice

skywanderer wrote: »

If ever there was a more dislikable person then it is Hillary Clinton; Trump will prove the world the folly of liberalism and preach the virtues of Conservatism and morals.

A now preaching morals ask his first wife why then did she under oath say trump raped her. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-ex-wife-claim-he-raped-her-resurfaces-in-new-documentary-a6836151.html

seamus

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Is he maybe trying to lose, so hillary gets in. Wasn't he a democratic party member not so long ago

That's a conspiracy theory that's been flying around for a while; that Trump is a democratic plant designed to get Hilary elected.

It's pretty far-fetched and would require that the republicans are hilariously inept, that they would not only fail to spot the democratic plant, but would actually elect him as their candidate.

I would still stick by my original assertions that I made when Trump first appeared; That he was a joke candidate conceived by the GOP in an attempt to drive all of the support towards a more "reasonable" candidate like Ted Cruz. But they underestimated the level of crazy in the GOP party that would actually support Trump's nonsense and they lost control of the ego-train that was Trump's campaign.
When Trump's campaign started, he had no backing. He was paying people to attend his rallies to make himself look good.

He said crazy things, the media latched on him for the craic, and then all the crazies came out in support of him. And it snowballed from there.

Exeggcute

People are making a big mistake in thinking Trump has no support. Just compare his rallies with Clinton's.

She struggles to fill town halls.

Trump is filling stadiums.

This is not a normal election year. I think there is a huge silent vote for Trump.

lawred2

I think Trump is carrying out a very elaborate experiment..

He's trying to establish the bounds of human hysteria

InTheTrees

Exeggcute wrote: »

She struggles to fill town halls.

Trump is filling stadiums.

I dont see that at all. Where did you hear it? Do you have any proof?

tigger123

Exeggcute wrote: »

People are making a big mistake in thinking Trump has no support. Just compare his rallies with Clinton's.

She struggles to fill town halls.

Trump is filling stadiums.

This is not a normal election year. I think there is a huge silent vote for Trump.

Clinton's ahead by 6.3 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Pro Hoc Vice

Exeggcute wrote: »

People are making a big mistake in thinking Trump has no support. Just compare his rallies with Clinton's.

She struggles to fill town halls.

Trump is filling stadiums.

This is not a normal election year. I think there is a huge silent vote for Trump.

Who says Trump has no support according to Polls he is polling between 35 and 45% at a guess that means anywhere from 40-60 million people are going to vote for him. A funny thing about rallies often a person who has made up their mind does not bother going to rallies. In trumps case people want to have the Trump experience and as a very minimum 40 million people are currently going to vote for him and the day out will be fun of course he going to get a lot of people its entertainment, I would go to a trump event if I was in the States, in the hope he would say something funny/stupid/over the top, it would be a story to tell, I was there when Trump said Clinton had a litter of pups.

20Cent

seamus wrote: »

That's a conspiracy theory that's been flying around for a while; that Trump is a democratic plant designed to get Hilary elected.

It's pretty far-fetched and would require that the republicans are hilariously inept, that they would not only fail to spot the democratic plant, but would actually elect him as their candidate.

I would still stick by my original assertions that I made when Trump first appeared; That he was a joke candidate conceived by the GOP in an attempt to drive all of the support towards a more "reasonable" candidate like Ted Cruz. But they underestimated the level of crazy in the GOP party that would actually support Trump's nonsense and they lost control of the ego-train that was Trump's campaign.
When Trump's campaign started, he had no backing. He was paying people to attend his rallies to make himself look good.

He said crazy things, the media latched on him for the craic, and then all the crazies came out in support of him. And it snowballed from there.

Trump did say that he spoke to Bill Clinton about running during a phone conversation. Bill told him to go for it. He must have laughed his ass off after hanging up.

El Horseboxo

There's a lot of people who won't tell pollsters that they will vote for Trump due to how it might influence people's opinions of them. But in the secrecy of the booth in November. Who knows.

Also there's probably a percentage of men who won't vote for a woman. Like how a lot of black or Latino politicians poll well in governor bands etc but on the day there's a number of white votes going the other way despite what was said to pollsters.

It's also difficult to establish Trump's exact voter base. So when omitting votes on polls by people they don't think will actually vote. They could be removing an actual voter for Trump.

I wouldn't trust those polls for any sort of accuracy of how people will vote. Not yet anyways.

Pro Hoc Vice

The ISIS point he now says "After making the suggestion at a rally on Wednesday night, Mr. Trump doubled-down on the assertion on Thursday, insisting in multiple interviews that he really did mean it when he said that the president and Mrs. Clinton were responsible for ISIS. But in an early-morning Twitter post, Mr. Trump said that he was just being sarcastic."

From the New York Times http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/us/politics/donald-trump-obama-isis.html?smid=tw-nytimes&login=email

Billy86

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The ISIS point he now says "After making the suggestion at a rally on Wednesday night, Mr. Trump doubled-down on the assertion on Thursday, insisting in multiple interviews that he really did mean it when he said that the president and Mrs. Clinton were responsible for ISIS. But in an early-morning Twitter post, Mr. Trump said that he was just being sarcastic."

From the New York Times http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/us/politics/donald-trump-obama-isis.html?smid=tw-nytimes&login=email

Another case of damage limitation; I reckon his doubling down means most of said damage has already been done though in terms of the general electorate.

Pro Hoc Vice

Billy86 wrote: »

Another case of damage limitation; I reckon his doubling down means most of said damage has already been done though in terms of the general electorate.

The funny thing is if he took the option in the interview and said Clinton and Obama by their bad decision created the power vacuum that we now have to deal with ISIS, he would not have shot himself in the foot.

everlast75

Exeggcute wrote: »

People are making a big mistake in thinking Trump has no support. Just compare his rallies with Clinton's.

She struggles to fill town halls.

Trump is filling stadiums.

This is not a normal election year. I think there is a huge silent vote for Trump.

maybe he's paying for some of them to attend, you know.. like he did before?

Penn

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The funny thing is if he took the option in the interview and said Clinton and Obama by their bad decision created the power vacuum that we now have to deal with ISIS, he would not have shot himself in the foot.

That would require him to actually think about what he's going to say before he says it and not just presume it'll make sense and be interpreted correctly.

Y'know... like Presidents generally do.

A Little Pony

InTheTrees wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The fact that post got 9 likes shows just how little some people on here know about American history and the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers would be campaigning day and night to make sure Hillary didn't get in to destroy the 2nd Amendment as it is. They believed in the right of the citizens to arm themselves in case a government becomes overbearing.

If you knew anything about the US Constitution you'd know that Clinton cant "destroy" the second amendment.

Erosion of the amendment is her ultimate goal. Every Republican in congress knows it.

A Little Pony

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote:

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

It's worth pointing out that the letter you ised doesn't put any limits on the type f weapon or the people. So it includes criminals, people with a violent record, the mentally ill and those who have used weapons to harm in the past, having arms such as grenades and assault rifles. Do you agree with the groups mentioned above having all the arms imaginable? Serious question.

If you don't agree then how do you decide who should have access to what weapons? If you place any restrictions on people or arms, you in the same broad category of disgrace as Hillary?

Every American should be entitled to arm themselves.

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

Every American should be entitled to arm themselves.

Including Islamic extremists who live there?

tigger123

A Little Pony wrote: »

Every American should be entitled to arm themselves.

It's been so successful thus far.

tigger123

Billy86 wrote: »

Including Islamic extremists who live there?

They're not real Mericans.

A Little Pony

Foxtrol wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The fact that post got 9 likes shows just how little some people on here know about American history and the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers would be campaigning day and night to make sure Hillary didn't get in to destroy the 2nd Amendment as it is. They believed in the right of the citizens to arm themselves in case a government becomes overbearing.

It s laughable if you think a well armed militia could do anything significant against the US military/law enforcement if a government became overbearing.

I ll try to look for it but I remember a general literally laughing when a reporter asked him about 2nd amendment rights and how it currently gives people the power to rebel.

Those who quote that portion of the amendment, in a way to make out that they currently have any sort of power (aside from the power to shoot deer, a burglar, their wife, a school full of kids) , are totally deluding themselves.

Never underestimate the power of the people. Vietnam is proof of what normal citizens can do when they have weaponry. More than enough guns in America to cause a **** storm for the US military.

Renegade Mechanic

Billy86 wrote: »

Including Islamic extremists who live there?

Yes. Because people who sacrifice liberty for security end up with neither. As is being proven time and time again nowadays...

The reason? You think making it against the law to own a weapon is going to stop a law breaker (Islamic extremist) from having one? It's only making life more difficult for law abiding citizens. Nearly all shootings have happened in gun free zones, because - funnily enough - they know they're going to do maximum damage before getting shot themselves.

Every person should be entitled to a weapon. Though I'd like to see it mabye after passing a weapon discipline/maintenance course. Not a problem for enthusiasts, but wouldn't go astray for others...

everlast75

AAnnnnnnyyyhooooo

I find the funniest thing about the Trump supporters at the moment is

1) Trump said Obama created ISIS. People freaked out and so they jumped to his defence, pulling apparent facts and figures out of their collective a**holes to stand over what he said and back it up.

2) Then Trump says a couple of days later - "I was being sarcastic" and they all said "of course he was. It's the media's fault".

seamus

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

The reason? You think making it against the law to own a weapon is going to stop a law breaker (Islamic extremist) from having one? It's only making life more difficult for law abiding citizens.

Ah yes. The old "guns are only a problem in the hands of criminals".

Problem is, how do you think they get there? Oh right.

Vast majority of weapons used in crime in the US are stolen. How do you think a pathetic meth-head gets his hands on a pistol to mug or murder someone? He's not walking into a gun store and handing over 200 bucks. He takes it from a house or buys it for ten bucks from some guy.

Heroin addicts and burglars in Ireland don't go wandering around with weapons because they're not everywhere. They don't have a few hundred euro to get one and the odds of stumbling across one during a robbery are minimal.

"More guns will fix this". No, more guns in the hands of law abiding people means more guns available to criminals.

My name is URL

A Little Pony wrote: »

Erosion of the amendment is her ultimate goal. Every Republican in congress knows it.

Anything to say about what Trump said yesterday regarding using military courts to hear civilian cases? He said he'd be fine with that despite it being in contradiction of the 5th and 6th and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution.

Funny how his blinkered supporters don't seem to care about that one bit, while they foam at the mouth about how Clinton is going to erode other amendments.

The constitution doesn't begin and end with the 2nd Amendment regardless of what the whackjob gun nuts have to say.

Trump has signaled very clearly that he would ignore the constitution in many areas, far more than even Clinton's opponents accuse her of doing.

A Little Pony

My name is URL wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Erosion of the amendment is her ultimate goal. Every Republican in congress knows it.

Anything to say about what Trump said yesterday regarding using military courts to hear civilian cases? He said he'd be fine with that despite it being in contradiction of the 5th and 6th and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution.

Funny how his blinkered supporters don't seem to care about that one bit, while they foam at the mouth about how Clinton is going to erode other amendments.

The constitution doesn't begin and end with the 2nd Amendment regardless of what the whackjob gun nuts have to say.

Trump has signaled very clearly that he would ignore the constitution in many areas, far more than even Clinton's opponents accuse her of doing.

No arguing with you people who think anyone who defends the 2nd Amendment and freedom to own firearms is a gun nut and literally insane. It is such leftist nonsense. Probably why congress won't allow anything to happen to it. No matter how hard Obama has tried.

Foxtrol

A Little Pony wrote: »

Never underestimate the power of the people. Vietnam is proof of what normal citizens can do when they have weaponry. More than enough guns in America to cause a **** storm for the US military.

You’re just proving my point. The regular claim is that guns are there is stop a tyrannical overbearing government but in a case where there was an actual tyrannical overbearing government a ‘**** storm’ wouldn’t stop it.

Anyone who quotes that as a reason to have a gun is living in a fantasy land to make themselves feel like a big boy with their gun.

Renegade Mechanic

seamus wrote: »

Ah yes. The old "guns are only a problem in the hands of criminals".

Well... Obviously. Law abiding citizens aren't going about killing :rolleyes:

seamus wrote: »

Problem is, how do you think they get there? Oh right.

Vast majority of weapons used in crime in the US are stolen. How do you think a pathetic meth-head gets his hands on a pistol to mug or murder someone? He's not walking into a gun store and handing over 200 bucks. He takes it from a house or buys it for ten bucks from some guy.

Heroin addicts and burglars in Ireland don't go wandering around with weapons because they're not everywhere. They don't have a few hundred euro to get one and the odds of stumbling across one during a robbery are minimal.

"They can't steal guns if people don't have them to steal".

Ok, well your, frankly, disgusting idea of making good people's lives harder because it's easier than tackling the bad aside, you realise guns would have to quite literally not exist anywhere in the world - like wizards or unicorns or something - for that to work, right? Rather short sighted post. And it's because banning them in one country won't work because they can still be got and distributed - just like drugs - from other countries. The only reason it's not as easy to get an illegal firearm as easy as it is to get illegal drugs is because the infrastructure for it doesn't need to exist. The second it does, it will...

seamus wrote: »

"More guns will fix this". No, more guns in the hands of law abiding people means more guns available to criminals.

Law abiding citizens should have a safe that a burglar can't get into without ten minutes of hammering and cutting, making the whole burglary rather conspicuous :pac:
Stop attacking law abiding citizens.

And before anyone else tries to argue about a safe being too awkward, you can open one with your 4 digit code on a keypad in the dark in seconds. Contrary to the scaremongering belief that "those seconds count", they don't actually make that much of a difference.

Law abiding citizens should be armed, responsibly.