Donald Trump

Foxtrol

Exeggcute wrote: »

Hahaha I never said I support Trump. He's a bellend. But his opponents are even worse. A pox on all their houses.

I’m still waiting on someone to explain how Clinton is worse.

She has told some lies over the years while he is running at something like 70% of fact checks on his statements being found to be false.

She made poor decisions in her political roles over the years while he has made poor decisions in his business (running numerous companies into the ground).

She is seen as a hawk while he talks about bombing terrorist's families, removing rules of war, using nuclear weapons.

The Clinton haters would have a case if someone else was running against her but I can’t see one area where Trump isn’t as bad or worse (with many areas he’s definitely much, much worse).

Billy86

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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...

I wasn't talking about making it illegal for anyone to own a gun, rather people deemed a high risk - which would mainly be people with mental health issues. If someone is deemed a potentially high risk to society, I don't see any benefit in them being allowed a weapon that can be used to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes, or even seconds.

I've no issue at all with people who own guns for whatever reasons, so long obviously as those reasons do not include killing people. And for that reason, things like criminal history and mental condition should definitely play a part in determining whether or not someone can or cannot own a gun.

Foxtrol

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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

Yeah, aside from the average of one toddler a week that shot someone in 2015 or the 1,353 people who were accidentally shot so far in 2016… :rolleyes:

My name is URL

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

Can you answer the question I asked?

I'm guessing not, hence the 'leftist' comment. The go-to for Trumplerinas whenever their god emperor is questioned or criticised.

And yes, the people who get so hung up on, or base their existence and place in society on the 2nd Amendment, while at the same time either ignoring or choosing to stay silent about how the likes of Trump says he will ignore other parts of the constitution if in power; are nothing but gun nuts and hicks. Who don't even care about upholding the constitution, which is why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

How is it in any way logical to attack Clinton for wanting to erode constitutional rights when she has said nothing of the sort, and while Trump has clearly and repeatedly stated that he intends to either ignore or change the constitution himself if elected?

If mental gymnastics was an Olympic event you lot would be in for a gold every day of the week.

Samaris

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.

Ah no, don't insult Conservatives by suggesting that the idiocy Trump spews is actually representative of more than a lunatic fringe.

seamus

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.

Except the GOP despise Cruz.

Renegade Mechanic

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yeah, aside from the average of one toddler a week that shot someone in 2015 or the 1,353 people who were accidentally shot so far in 2016… :rolleyes:

So 52 people killed by toddlers. That's irresponsible gun owners, those toddlers hardly stole the weapon or got it from a drug dealer, they got it from an irresponsible parent/adult.
Still, 52 toddlers out of probably 52 million households...

Roughly 2,500 people choke on various things each year, and 25,000 died because they fell.
Your scaremongering is pointless :rolleyes:

As for the 1500 number, are you suggesting that hundreds of millions of people should have the option of weapon ownership removed just because 1500 handicaps can't use one properly?
I harbour an intense dislike towards people who think that way.

seamus

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

So 52 people killed by toddlers. That's irresponsible gun owners

Look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

It's actually hilarious to see you come up with reasons why guns are OK because it's only "other people" who use them wrong.

Renegade Mechanic

seamus wrote: »

Look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

It's actually hilarious to see you come up with reasons why guns are OK because it's only "other people" who use them wrong.

What actually even funnier are the reasons yer latching on to, to have them removed.

K-9

Means Of Escape wrote: »

What are the other options?
Embargoes? Peace talks ? Total withdrawal of all foreign investment ?Conversion?

Nothing has stopped their advance to date bar aerial bombardment of their key
positions and resources .
ISIS are being crippled as they have zero aerial capabilities and crude technology .

No intervention at all as argued by Sanders and the Paul's before that (very different political views). Just keep out of it. Problem is there is loads of self interest both politically and militarily and a big part of US identity is invested in being the world's policeman. It's also going against the grain despite the mounting evidence that intervening often makes things worse.

The problem isn't just Obama or Bush (pick whatever political bad guy you like), it's intrinsic to American politics on both sides.

We know what Clinton is like. Trump? Extremely populist, if he got elected and was low in the polls you can bet your house he'd go to war over something, anything as long as it got a rise in the polls.

K-9

Arghus wrote: »

Not too sure how to interpret the media furore over the last few days. On one hand the media, rightly, lambasts Trump for having some sketchy and highly self serving contextless and subjective views on many, if not most, matters, but yet a headline that screams "Trump says Obama created ISIS" is one that prefers to come to hasty conclusion in the service of clicks, than to provide some sort of context to WHY he said such a thing.

I'm no Trump fan : I think he's an evil and stupid man, but it seems to me that he could reasonably have a case with claims that the media have taken his claims over the last couple of days out of context. Maybe it would be best if he was held to account for saying things - stupid things - which explicitly state something off the wall, rather than everyone jumping to conclusions about his implicit message.

It's everywhere, Brexit and even our own election. Trump can't really complain as this click bait type journalism helped him win the nomination, problem is it has reached a ceiling.

Everybody thought he'd move more to the centre but he isn't able to do it, he can't help himself. This Hillary is evil stuff might go well down in his base but it drives Independents away, and also dissatisfied Democrats.

Instead of winning up for grabs votes he's losing Republican votes on top of that. All the good work in the convention is for nought now. It really is one step forward...

Foxtrol

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

So 52 people killed by toddlers. That's irresponsible gun owners, those toddlers hardly stole the weapon or got it from a drug dealer, they got it from an irresponsible parent/adult.
Still, 52 toddlers out of probably 52 million households...

Roughly 2,500 people choke on various things each year, and 25,000 died because they fell.
Your scaremongering is pointless :rolleyes:

As for the 1500 number, are you suggesting that hundreds of millions of people should have the option of weapon ownership removed just because 1500 handicaps can't use one properly?
I harbour an intense dislike towards people who think that way.

Where did I say millions should be without the option of weapon ownership? My post was only pointing out that your claim that law abiding citizens don’t kill people with guns is clearly untrue.

Do you hold an intense dislike for people having to gain a drivers license in order to drive a car?

TheDoctor

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

The NRA give money to enough members in Congress to prevent anything from happening. Very simple.

K-9

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.

That isn't plain speaking, it's gibberish.

TheDoctor

It will be interesting to see who the Republicans put forward in 2020 to face Clinton. Will they go moderate or stay on the right wing protest party route.

K-9

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.

Cruz wasn't a reasonable candidate, he's hated by the GOP establishment. Jeb failed, Rubio was probably the more sane candidate as the race developed, but it became a race in who could outcrazy each other. Both Cruz and Trump would be Tea Party type candidates so they've become the Republican party as of now and the GOP doesn't know what to do. You see it during the campaign too but you can't house train Trump.

It's interesting to see right wing talk radio hosts trying to talk Trump down, giving him every chance to come back from the precipice but he can't do it. I'm sure his campaign team are telling him what to do but he's too dumb to take advice.

Trump maybe very intelligent in some ways but he is stupid as regards self awareness and critical thought.

K-9

El Horseboxo wrote: »

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.

Yes, Hillary has high unfavourable ratings among men. Problem is, Trump is even more unpopular amongst women. Hell, he's only polling in the 70's amongst Republican women voters whereas McCain and Romney got in the 90's. So for every positive for Trump there are several buts.

Remember these polls called Trump correctly in the primaries.

Christy42

El Horseboxo wrote: »

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.

Interesting story but that is all it is. Trump has a very specific base. We know it very well. They all said the same thing in the primaries and he didn't over perform the polls so people haven't been afraid to say they will vote Trump up to this point.

End result provide evidence as right I am calling complete and utter bull on this post (and I am pretty damn sure it isn't the first time this has been brought up without evidence and swatted down).

Foxtrol

K-9 wrote: »

Cruz wasn't a reasonable candidate, he's hated by the GOP establishment. Jeb failed, Rubio was probably the more sane candidate as the race developed, but it became a race in who could outcrazy each other. Both Cruz and Trump would be Tea Party type candidates so they've become the Republican party as of now and the GOP doesn't know what to do. You see it during the campaign too but you can't house train Trump.

It's interesting to see right wing talk radio hosts trying to talk Trump down, giving him every chance to come back from the precipice but he can't do it. I'm sure his campaign team are telling him what to do but he's too dumb to take advice.

Trump maybe very intelligent in some ways but he is stupid as regards self awareness and critical thought.

Trump likes to pat his own back about beating 16/17 other candidates but that is the main reason why he won the primary. It wasn’t so much an issue of any of the other top candidates (besides Cruz), it was more that their mainstream republican vote was diluted between a number of candidates which allowed Trump to gain momentum by winning delegates with low enough % of the vote. Early in the race they all presumed the last man standing would beat Trump but by the time the field narrowed it was too late, with the last man being Cruz, who is a bullet to the head to the Republican insiders with Trump being poison.

K-9

My name is URL wrote: »

Can you answer the question I asked?

I'm guessing not, hence the 'leftist' comment. The go-to for Trumplerinas whenever their god emperor is questioned or criticised.

And yes, the people who get so hung up on, or base their existence and place in society on the 2nd Amendment, while at the same time either ignoring or choosing to stay silent about how the likes of Trump says he will ignore other parts of the constitution if in power; are nothing but gun nuts and hicks. Who don't even care about upholding the constitution, which is why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

How is it in any way logical to attack Clinton for wanting to erode constitutional rights when she has said nothing of the sort, and while Trump has clearly and repeatedly stated that he intends to either ignore or change the constitution himself if elected?

If mental gymnastics was an Olympic event you lot would be in for a gold every day of the week.

You are trying to bring logic into a gun debate, good luck to you.

Fear wins out, which is why the NRA is so successful. Owning 10 guns equates to freedom in America.

K-9

TheDoctor wrote: »

The NRA give money to enough members in Congress to prevent anything from happening. Very simple.

Fear is more important than money really. The NRA are the best organised lobby group there is. They keep track of voting records of all politicians and opinions and speeches and if an, in anyway, sane politician proposes anything that mentions restrictions they get their bases out to vote and campaign against them.

Ask anybody who is a member of the NRA how they operate.

Samaris

There might be a silent majority. Anything is possible and it cannot be absolutely proven either way until November.

However, I don't believe there is. Most Conservatives are sane, normal people, and honestly, it's sane, normal people who are blinking when Trump says something unbelievably dumb and asking "did he just say that"?

Take the Second Amendment thing. I did like the Trevor Noah comparison to the white/gold or blue/black dress. We're all hearing the same thing, but we're interpreting it differently.

I think he was making an idiotic and irresponsible joke, not calling for the assassination of his political rival (or her Supreme Court Justice nominees). But you can't go on and on and ON about how this person is the devil, is going to destroy the country, is evil, is a warmonger, is coming to take their rights away...and then make a joke about assassination. Not to a fanatical base, not in public.

Whether or not the "that will be a terrible day" referred to the day someone shoots one of the aforementioned, or whether it was referring to the day Clinton manifests as Lucifer himself is actually irrelevant. He's at best an incredibly foolish and incoherent speaker or someone who doesn't understand the power of words. ("I have the best words. I have so many words," as he put it..)

And while it seems unlikely and unreasonable that a stupid, throwaway comment like that might inspire someone to action, it was the same sort of rhetoric that lead to the death of Jo Cox.

Renegade Mechanic

Foxtrol wrote: »

Where did I say millions should be without the option of weapon ownership? My post was only pointing out that your claim that law abiding citizens don’t kill people with guns is clearly untrue.

Do you hold an intense dislike for people having to gain a drivers license in order to drive a car?

Toddlers aren't law abiding citizens as they can't be charged by law. How many toddlers do you see today doing hard time for manslaughter?

And no, I don't. I already reckoned people should pass some kind of responsibility course in order to own one. But it's a cert that should only be refused if they fail to begin with. It shouldn't be used as an arbitrary tool of compliance afterwards - which is where its inevitably going to go.

My problem with car licencing us similar too, without actually endangering lives, you can get it taken off you - that should be the case. Rather just keep fining people instead because
A: It's money for the state coffers, if they're thick enough to keep contributing...
And B: Once their licence is revoked, well they're still people with jobs to go to, mouths to feed and a distinct absence of public transport in most cases... As stupid as those people are, the family is going to come ahead of the state every single time, so they're going to keep driving. Only now with nothing to lose by doing so, they'll drive cars with no insurance, tax, or NCT, denying the revenue made from each. They'll drive cars that are likely far more dangerous than the cars they would have driven with a licence in the sun visor..

InTheTrees

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

When you say congress "won't allow anything to happen to it" I don't think you really understand how the supreme court interprets law do you?

Once Hillary is elected she will appoint a liberal judge to take scalias place.

Then it will only take a legal challenge to a gun law to send that case to the supreme court and then the 2nd amendment could end up being interpreted in a different way.

Congress wouldn't have any power to stop it.

InTheTrees

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

When you say congress "won't allow anything to happen to it" I don't think you really understand how the supreme court interprets law do you?

Once Hillary is elected she will appoint a liberal judge to take scalias place.

Then it will only take a legal challenge to a gun law to send that case to the supreme court and then the 2nd amendment could end up being interpreted in a different way.

Congress wouldn't have any power to stop it.

K-9

AFAIK from listening to an NPR podcast on it Congress hasn't passed a gun law since 1993 so again it is an unfounded fear because well, the NRA have politicians scared of doing anything, they want to get reelected after all.

Individual states look after gun laws.

Foxtrol

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

And no, I don't. I already reckoned people should pass some kind of responsibility course in order to own one. But it's a cert that should only be refused if they fail to begin with. It shouldn't be used as an arbitrary tool of compliance afterwards - which is where its inevitably going to go.

What do you mean by compliance afterwards?

I don’t think we’ll ever see the day of a nationwide course being passed to buy a gun, the NRA is against cooling off periods, background checks, and refusal of sale to those on the no fly list. People can be refused to get on a plane yet they are allowed to buy a gun.

Hillary/Democrats/Liberals aren’t coming for your guns; they simply want sensible gun laws, which the majority of Americans, and even gun owners, are in favour of. Fear mongers in the NRA and their political arm (ie the GOP) stir up that crap that simply isn’t true and paranoid gun owners eat it up (to be fair I’d suggest gun ownership and paranoia likely go hand in hand).

A Little Pony

TheDoctor wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

The NRA give money to enough members in Congress to prevent anything from happening. Very simple.

When money is a good idea in politics. Keep the crooks like Hillary from destroying a vital piece of America.

El_Duderino 09

K-9 wrote:

People said he'll move more to the centre when he is selected.

Be grand they said.

I'll hold my hands up and said I was one of those people. I still think he's going to concentrate on the economy and make a bunch of promises about getting people back working which will cause the gap among Hispanics and Blacks.

My last prediction was shyte but I think the debates will see him close the gap in the polls.

The bottom line is that he's diagnosable as a sociopath with narcissistic characteristics, probably a personality disorder and possibly a nod towards affective disorder. It would take a bit of working out to parse out the actual categories but he shouldn't be anywhere near political office.

He has absolutely zero loyalty to the truth. How much you like or dislike Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with it. He should get zero votes.

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

When money is a good idea in politics. Keep the crooks like Hillary from destroying a vital piece of America.

So making a change to the constitution is 'destroying a vital piece of America'?

Still not sure if you're in favour of letting Islamic extremists in the US to have lots and lots of guns by the way.