2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: Rigondeaux, it turns out the Clintons did something as bad, worse,.
Lets just pick one, Travelgate. In 1993 Hillary
fired all 7 employees of the White House Travel Office
on bogus charges and replaced them all with
cronies of Bill's and her. When news of this
underhanded debacle got out, the crap hit the
fan:
"Heavy media attention forced the White House to reinstate most of the employees in other jobs and remove the Clinton associates from the travel role."
So Hillary then charged the head of the office
with embezzlement, and he was found not
guilty. It wasn't till later that it came out Travelgate
was totally a Hillary hit job from top to bottom.
There were so many scandals in the 8 years she
was there that Travelgate has been forgotten.
It's Hillary at her finest, dirty dealing, lying,
getting people fired to get what she wants.
She's like a big ugly spider, always plotting,
always conniving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy
Quote: ams288Quote: SanchoPanzaHere are links on the subject with not even one from a conservative group.
“She is the furthest thing from a Rove-like strategic genius (Mark Penn inhabits that role for Hillary). . .” huffpost
Referring to Penn, the Atlantic reported,
“He also called Obama "unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun," and wrote, "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots.”
Penn was intent on spreading the impression that Obama was not in any way completely American:
“It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.
“Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].” Bloomberg
“Steve Heilemann, author of the insider account of the 2008 election Game Change, said it was the case that Clinton spread the rumors. “It was the case,” he said. “I’m affirming the Scarborough-Brzezinski assertion.” Mediate
The Clinton machine took its sweet time in taking action against the anti-Obama rumores, according to the beloved but hardly impartial Politifact:
“On Dec. 5, 2007, the online magazine Politico posted the text of an email that had been forwarded by Judy Rose, the volunteer chair of the Clinton campaign in Jones County Iowa on Nov. 21, 2007. The email was a quintessential smear that offered a distorted biography of Obama’s early years. . . .
“Rose, sent this to eight of her fellow Democrats. One of them was Clinton campaign staffer Ryan Callanan who replied to the email on the same day in November. . .
“The public airing of the email brought a quick reaction from the Clinton campaign. On Dec. 6, 2007, the Associated Press reported that Rose had resigned as chair of her county committee. . . .
“A few days later, a second volunteer in a different county stepped down when it was learned that she had forwarded a similar email in October.”
And not least of all is Clinton’s most loyal confidant, Sid Blumenthal, whose role in the birther episode surely figured in the White House’s banning him from the State Department:
“Former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.
“During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,” Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage." mcclatchy
Too long, didn't read.
Could you do me a favor and just highlight the ones where the Hillary Clinton (not Sid Blumenthal, not Mark Penn) pushed the birther theory? I'll wait.
Maybe you didn't read the original article because you didn't like the source. Yet you complained about it.Quote: ams288Too long, didn't read.
Don't bother waiting. Your trap means that a complaint of cherrypicking would ensue.Quote: ams288Could you do me a favor and just highlight the ones where the Hillary Clinton (not Sid Blumenthal, not Mark Penn) pushed the birther theory? I'll wait.
Quote: ams288So... if this were true... which it's not.... shouldn't the righties be celebrating her?
When did she attack him on religious and racial grounds?? (Hint: never).
Maybe you were a kid during that primary. Just from memory,
Constantly emphasizing his middle name, "Hussein," which he obviously has in common with a middle eastern, Muslim dictator. I know that's just a coincidence. She did it to Bernie and Trump too, right? Oh wait, I don't even know their middle names. (Trump's begins with a J. But I don't know what it is.)
Releasing and circulating a picture of him in a turban.
"Hard working white people."
etc.
Quote: SanchoPanzaDon't bother waiting. Your trap means that a complaint of cherrypicking would ensue.
And your evasion means I am correct and such an example doesn't exist. Hillary was never a birther.
The end. Move on to the next blatant lie.
That's not accurate. I don't recall either Bill or Hillary Clinton ever mocking POWs for getting captured, mocking the disabled, mocking the ineptitude of military leadership, or mocking a fallen soldier's parents.Quote: RigondeauxIt's almost a comedy at this point. For every disgusting thing Trump does, it turns out the Clintons did something as bad, worse, or almost as bad in the same area.
It is a hallmark of Trump's campaign to return fire upon any critic with derision and mockery. Though his critics have often been factually correct, he doesn't admit or apologize for his mistakes. You certainly would admit that Trump has erred during his campaign -- and been provably, factually incorrect. He has never admitted as much.
If you had an employee who behaved like that, you'd fire him; if your boss acted like that, you'd quit. Why, then, is it appropriate to elevate to the Presidency someone for whom mockery is their primary form of conflict resolution, and for whom admitting mistakes is a fatal sign of weakness? Is that who you'll trust to negotiate a peace treaty in the Middle East or a trade agreement with China? Here's how Trump spoke about the Chinese at a campaign rally last year:
Quote: Donald TrumpWhen these people walk in the room, they don’t say, "Oh, hello! How’s the weather? It’s so beautiful outside. Isn’t it lovely? How are the Yankees doing? Oh they’re doing wonderful. Great." They say, "We want deal!"
Do you really think that's going to make for a successful foreign policy?
If someone is unable to read the one-paragraph excerpts that were posted, then there is little hope for anything approaching an intelligent dialogue. Keep the BS blather.Quote: ams288And your evasion means I am correct and such an example doesn't exist. Hillary was never a birther. The end. Move on to the next blatant lie.
I mean, for example, being involved with a corrupt, private university.
That probably encapsulates why I hate the Clintons as well as anything. We have a crisis in higher education. A man we elected president and bestowed almost unlmited wealth fame and power upon looks at that and sees... dollar signs. A way to screw us just a little more.
I know the past wasn't perfect, but it is really hard to imagine someone like Ike or Carter using their post-presidential lives to do something like accepting millions of dollars to promote a scam university. We're in an era of very deep, dangerous levels of corruption, where people now see that as normal. There is no noblesse oblige whatsoever, which that leads to bad things. And nobody did more to bring it about than The Clintons.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIf someone is unable to read the one-paragraph excerpts that were posted, then there is little hope for anything approaching an intelligent dialogue. Keep the BS blather.
Still no examples of Hillary's (non-existent) birther-ism. Only thinly veiled insults. Sad!
Quote: SteverinosThe biggest con artist of our time pulling the biggest con of our time.
I'm really tempted to get a look-a-like TRUMP campaign sign, with your words in small print just below Trump. Then jam the thing in my yard.
(Face don't count that by mistake)
In March 2008, as she was vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton was asked by “60 Minutes” Steve Kroft whether she believed Obama was a Muslim. Clinton initially answered in the negative, but seemed to pull back at the end.
“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked.
“Of course not. I mean, that’s, you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she answered.
“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim?” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on,” Clinton said, adding, “As far as I know.
Quote: ams288It actually might persuade people...
If pneumonia turns out to be pneumonia+, I think you can drop that "might" and call this race over.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's not accurate. I don't recall either Bill or Hillary Clinton ever mocking POWs for getting captured, mocking the disabled, mocking the ineptitude of military leadership, or mocking a fallen soldier's parents.
It is a hallmark of Trump's campaign to return fire upon any critic with derision and mockery. Though his critics have often been factually correct, he doesn't admit or apologize for his mistakes. You certainly would admit that Trump has erred during his campaign -- and been provably, factually incorrect. He has never admitted as much.
I know someone already posted something to this effect, but it bears repeating... this HAS to be a farce, right?
It all plays too much like he entered with a "plan" to lose, just in case he made it this far. I mean, whichever type you think he is, he IS a businessman. Wouldn't you (or he) think that all of the inflamatory s#$% he spews would hurt him personally? Lefties here, any of you dying to visit his facilities? How about you middles?
It IS like he's trying to throw it and just underestimated how bloody pissed off everyone was. It does seem like it's double down after double down, and nothing is working the way it's supposed to.
Ugh. I hate that I'm starting to get interested in this ><
Quote: ams288Hillary was never a birther.
Assuming Hillary is a birther on such weak evidence, one has to conclude the evidence against Trump of various offenses, is even higher order. Most evidence of offenses is often more direct (from the horses mouth so to speak).
If only they hadn't picked the country's number 1 birther as their nominee!!
The Philly police dept is endorsing Trump because
he did nothing but cooperate with them, and
Hillary did nothing except blow them off. She's
an elitist, nose in the air. When she's not falling
face first to the floor in a seizure, that is.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/09/19/philly-fop-chief-on-presidential-endorsment-clinton-blew-the-police-off/
He's mixed race, half and half, like I put in my Black Russians.
My drink isn't 'Black' either.
Now we need a women president apparently, just to prove how progressive we are.
Half and half.
I'm calling BS again!
That should have been the first and last clue anyone needed.
(*which is not the same as occasionally having your name put on something, or being picked as a recognized philanthropist/ benefactor to have something named in your honor, or following an honored tradition, where some generals or presidents get a battleship named after them)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/10/dozens-lawsuits-accuse-trump-not-paying-his-bills-reports-claim.html
or this?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/donald-trump-and-the-central-park-five
or this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html
or this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/
or this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-retooled-his-charity-to-spend-other-peoples-money/2016/09/10/da8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html
or this?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-worst-offense-mocking-disabled-reporter-poll-finds-n627736
or this?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gold-star-families-attack-trump-over-comments-about-ghazala-khan-n620671
or this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/
I'll save you some time. There is no comparison.
That was me (among others), and I agree, I can't imagine he expected so many people to be such willing apologists for his ass-hattery. I mean, he flails his arms around and speaks with a thickly-sarcastic voice:Quote: FaceI know someone already posted something to this effect, but it bears repeating... this HAS to be a farce, right?
It all plays too much like he entered with a "plan" to lose, just in case he made it this far. I mean, whichever type you think he is, he IS a businessman. Wouldn't you (or he) think that all of the inflamatory s#$% he spews would hurt him personally? Lefties here, any of you dying to visit his facilities? How about you middles?
It IS like he's trying to throw it and just underestimated how bloody pissed off everyone was. It does seem like it's double down after double down, and nothing is working the way it's supposed to.
Ugh. I hate that I'm starting to get interested in this ><
and then so many people jump to his defense saying he wasn't mocking anyone's disability. Or when he suggests a judge can't be impartial because of his heritage, and his apologists say that's not racist. Or when he says he knows more about ISIS than the generals, and his apologists say "yeah, of course you do." Or when he says America is in the toilet and "only I can fix it," and his apologists cheer in agreement. Or when he's interviewed numerous times and quoted saying terribly sexist things about women, like "you gotta treat 'em like shit," and his apologists cheer and wear buttons that say "Life's a bitch, don't vote for one!"
I don't think *anyone* saw that coming. It's sad, and not in the way that Trump means when he concludes a tweet with that word. It's truly sad that so many people are so filled with anger against their fellow citizens, and sadder still that the outcome of this election -- whatever it is -- won't change that.
Ship jobs overseas to help corporations save on labor costs, devastating cities like Detroit. Turning working class families into poor ones, and all that comes with that.
You are correct, there is no comparison. Although that might be just because Trump has never had the power they have.
electoral votes, according to Rueters/Ipsos.
Quote: RigondeauxVote to murder a million people so corporations could have more oil, destabilizing an entire region and giving birth to Isis.
Ship jobs overseas to help corporations save on labor costs, devastating cities like Detroit. Turning working class families into poor ones, and all that comes with that.
You are correct, there is no comparison. Although that might be just because Trump has never had the power they have.
Okay per your last line, there is little evidence Trump has been following any high or even a medium level moral code up to this point in the private business world..
Why does anyone think he's going to start?
NAFTA is a mixed bag of results:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster
Quote: SteverinosIf you watch Hillary's speech on the Iraq vote, it was HARDLY a ringing endorsement of war. But at least she admits that it was a mistake. Trump wont' even acknowledge he supported it.
NAFTA is a mixed bag of results:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster
Has she?
It wasn't a "mistake." She knowingly voted for an unjust war because it suited her. Her, and her crew of Kissinger, Albright, etc. simply don't care about the death and misery they inflict.
Nafta was a mixed bag. It's good for corporations, bad for average Joes. In your article, estimated job loss is 500,000. (Seems like a magic number!)
Anyway, when Trump starves 500,000 children to death (which I think he very well could be willing to do), shoot me a text. I already dislike him and won't support him, but then I'll dislike him even more. Yay!
Quote: FaceWhen guys like RonC and ME post bannable offenses, I can only assume it is me and not they who has things wrong. Consider this thread an experiment.
When the mods decide to ignore the continuous litany of absolute horse crap postings from one member, there seems to be little reason to sit back and take it without a reaction.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Okay, Trump hasn't had the ability to vote for war yet. But he has sent jobs overseas to help his own corporation save on labor costs. He's stiffed contractors in Atlantic City, though I can't blame him alone for the terrible economy there. He defrauded would-be real estate investors with a sham seminar business whose content he ripped off from someone else's website. So let's not pretend for a second that he's some forthright, honest businessman.Quote: RigondeauxVote to murder a million people so corporations could have more oil, destabilizing an entire region and giving birth to Isis.
Ship jobs overseas to help corporations save on labor costs, devastating cities like Detroit. Turning working class families into poor ones, and all that comes with that.
You are correct, there is no comparison. Although that might be just because Trump has never had the power they have.
Regarding war, the question isn't whether Trump hasn't voted for war, but whether you think he'll be more likely than Hillary to press for another one in the Middle East. On that front, it was Trump -- not Clinton -- who said "I'm gonna bomb the shit out of ISIS."
And that language has consequences. He made that statement last November, about 10 months ago. In 10 months since he spoke those words, radicalized ISIS followers have attacked on US soil three times, including yesterday, killing 63 and injuring more than 100. In contrast, during the 10 months preceding Trump's "bomb the shit out of ISIS" comment, ISIS adherents were responsible for exactly zero (0) deaths and one (1) injury in the United States.
Trump's anti-Islamic rhetoric is making the United States less safe by providing precisely the environment ISIS needs to radicalize disaffected American youth. Trump is the perfect ISIS mouthpiece -- he is spreading far more terror at his campaign rallies and press conferences than any anonymous radical Islamist terrorist ever could.
This is the man that many want as their next President. If you think we're going to avoid war with President Trump, think again.
Also, let's not forget that Trump is on the record as wanting to curtail First Amendment rights to free expression and speech. It's illegal in Thailand to criticize the king under that country's ridiculous lese majeste laws. Trump wants to "open up" libel laws in the United States so he can sue the press for defamation. Notice any similarities?
Quote: RonCThe margins have tightened according to Five Thirty Eight...they have it at 59/41 and 287/250 right now...with Trump closing since the widest gap in early August.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
So.... still a victory for Hillary.
Apparently taking a week off the campaign trail after collapsing into a van will hurt your poll numbers. Go figure!
Quote: SteverinosI posted this before but it's worth repeating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e63cwYxZAxk
That was funny
Thanks
As if on cue, Trump's anti-Constitution crusade continues. He just gave a speech decrying how the criminal suspect in the New Jersey and New York bombings will receive due process as granted under the Fifth Amendment, including the right to counsel and a fair trial. Rahami is currently accused of *attempted* murder (of the police officers he shot at). There are actual murders every day in the United States. What would become of those actual murderers if attempted murder deserves rendition? Summary execution?Quote: MathExtremistAlso, let's not forget that Trump is on the record as wanting to curtail First Amendment rights to free expression and speech. It's illegal in Thailand to criticize the king under that country's ridiculous lese majeste laws. Trump wants to "open up" libel laws in the United States so he can sue the press for defamation. Notice any similarities?
If you vote for a President who speaks as though he wants to take away your Constitutional rights, don't be surprised if you elect him and he does.
Quote: MathExtremist
If you vote for a President who speaks as though he wants to take away your Constitutional rights, don't be surprised if you elect him and he does.
What I keep trying to tell people here about Hillary and guns all the time!
In the vein of "what else can I try to throw this election":Quote: FaceIt IS like he's trying to throw it and just underestimated how bloody pissed off everyone was. It does seem like it's double down after double down, and nothing is working the way it's supposed to.
Quote: Matt Borges, chairman of the Ohio GOP...Borges, who is both loyal to Kasich and trying to help the Republican nominee carry the state, said he did not understand why Priebus and Trump are making an issue of [the campaign pledge] now.
“I think the governor is pretty clear about where he is at this point in time. I don’t see that changing,” Borges said. “John Kasich is the most popular elected official in Ohio. To go out and pick a fight with the guy with just 50 days to go just makes no sense.”
If you wanted to throw the election, pissing off the GOP voters in a major swing state would be a good step in the right direction...
The right to own a gun is a trivial thing in comparison to the right to free speech or due process. In the next 100 years, guns will become obsolete. Free speech or due process won't be.Quote: AZDuffmanWhat I keep trying to tell people here about Hillary and guns all the time!
Quote: MathExtremistAs if on cue, Trump's anti-Constitution crusade continues. He just gave a speech decrying how the criminal suspect in the New Jersey and New York bombings will receive due process as granted under the Fifth Amendment, including the right to counsel and a fair trial. Rahami is currently accused of *attempted* murder (of the police officers he shot at). There are actual murders every day in the United States. What would become of those actual murderers if attempted murder deserves rendition? Summary execution?Quote: MathExtremistAlso, let's not forget that Trump is on the record as wanting to curtail First Amendment rights to free expression and speech. It's illegal in Thailand to criticize the king under that country's ridiculous lese majeste laws. Trump wants to "open up" libel laws in the United States so he can sue the press for defamation. Notice any similarities?
If you vote for a President who speaks as though he wants to take away your Constitutional rights, don't be surprised if you elect him and he does.
This is similar to requests made earlier to treat them as "enemy combatants" instead of through the normal processes. Of course, we've been releasing the "enemy combatants" at Gitmo and they have been re-engaging with their fellow terrorists, so not sure what that would really change with this President or Hillary. They are attacking the country, not just bombing some people. It is a totally different type of crime that, thankfully, has not been as prevalent or violent here as it has in other countries. I know some blame the rise on Trump; really, it has been inching up around the world since before his run for office.
Quote: FaceIt's score 18 to 2 up here. Just finally saw my second Hil sign not a mile from home today. I'll even call it the second and give credit to the first, even though it was tucked on a porch behind a swing on a dead end road with but 7 houses. If I decide to do my brakes today and run through town, there'll be about 7 more for Trump by the end of that ride.
It is weird though to see the complete lack of participation by both sides. I mean, to put those numbers in perspective, I saw FORTY SEVEN (47!) signs just TODAY to repeal the SAFEAct, a wholly unConstitutional bill jammed into reality some 4+ years ago.
Bless my neighbors. They still have their priorities straight =D
Lawn signs have been declining a few cycles now. Back in 2000 some Hillary fans stole my lawn signs twice. Add in that they are not always free like they used to be, more and more HOAs that are not into personal freedom, other items, and there you go.
Still, by most any observation there is less energy on Hillary's side and she has less energy herself. The results of the debate probably will go like this. Hillary will be careful, cautious, and try to look like she knows more that Trump. Trump will be bold, personable, and not shaken if he stumbles. The media will rush to say "she won" on the basis of school style debate performance. But Trump will come off as more likable, it what will be the same result as Carter/Reagan in 1980 when the hall audience gave it to Carter but the home audience to Reagan.
To deny it is anything but even now is really to deny reality. Hillary is used to having things given to her and not used to being challenged or worse yet trying to come from behind. She has now lost a week straight of news cycles while Trump energy builds. The rest of September will be interesting.
Quote: MathExtremistThe right to own a gun is a trivial thing in comparison to the right to free speech or due process. In the next 100 years, guns will become obsolete. Free speech or due process won't be.
For an obviously brilliant person, this is a short-sighted view. I understand your view on this defendant's rights and I am stating a position; not my position, I am not sure where I stand on the "enemy combatant" thing at this point. I also understand that the more rights we cede to the government, the more they will take.
Perhaps the government has more firepower, but 200 or 300 million pissed off people can bring a lot of firepower right back at them if they would get out of hand. The Second Amendment is still important. Besides, it isn't like all the people with tanks and stuff would stand by a government taking all of their rights away. The people in the military who have the firepower also have families...
Quote: MathExtremistThe right to own a gun is a trivial thing in comparison to the right to free speech or due process. In the next 100 years, guns will become obsolete. Free speech or due process won't be.
Really? Where are you living? Have you not seen the attempts to regulate political speech? How about all the speed/red light cameras or places that have taken and not returned cars when a person is pulled over for a DUI? Heck, how about DUI and other check points?
Yet people keep begging for their rights to be taken away! "MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!" "IT SAVES LIVES!"
Free speech still here in 100 years! We will be lucky if it lasts 50.
Hillary Clinton Now Gives Press Conferences While Donald Trump Avoids Them
In the last two weeks, Clinton has taken informal and formal questions from traveling reporters on at least eight occasions, while Trump has not taken questions at formal press conference for more than 50 days.
http://time.com/4500027/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-press-conferences/
Quote: terapinedInteresting development
Hillary Clinton Now Gives Press Conferences While Donald Trump Avoids Them
In the last two weeks, Clinton has taken informal and formal questions from traveling reporters on at least eight occasions, while Trump has not taken questions at formal press conference for more than 50 days.
http://time.com/4500027/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-press-conferences/
Hopefully the concerned righties will now get on Trump's case about press conferences. But I won't hold my breath.
Trump only does Fox News interviews now. Wonder why?
Quote: MathExtremistAs if on cue, Trump's anti-Constitution crusade continues. He just gave a speech decrying how the criminal suspect in the New Jersey and New York bombings will receive due process as granted under the Fifth Amendment, including the right to counsel and a fair trial. Rahami is currently accused of *attempted* murder (of the police officers he shot at). There are actual murders every day in the United States. What would become of those actual murderers if attempted murder deserves rendition? Summary execution?Quote: MathExtremistAlso, let's not forget that Trump is on the record as wanting to curtail First Amendment rights to free expression and speech. It's illegal in Thailand to criticize the king under that country's ridiculous lese majeste laws. Trump wants to "open up" libel laws in the United States so he can sue the press for defamation. Notice any similarities?
If you vote for a President who speaks as though he wants to take away your Constitutional rights, don't be surprised if you elect him and he does.
I no longer am concerned with Trump. He's a lying, mean-spirited piece of filth, and nothing's going to change that. What worries me is the large, festering population of Trumpers. This clown's behavior should make any decent, reasonable person sick, and it should certainly keep anyone from voting for him! Yet, he has millions of loyal Storm Troopers. He may yet win the election. What does that say about our country, when racism, bigotry and hatred get over forty percent of the vote?
On the contrary, I'm espousing the long view, not a short one. I'm a technologist and somewhat of a futurist, so when I say "guns will be obsolete" I mean that firearms (projectile weapons powered by small explosions) will not be the dominant form of anti-personnel weapon. You already cannot own a grenade launcher or a rail gun, and you *certainly* can't own a radiological weapon. It is exceedingly likely that EM weaponry of some form will become more prevalent than firearms in the next century, and you can bet you won't be able to legally own one of those. Directed energy weapons are already well past prototype stage, especially in the microwave band (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System) and it's only a matter of time before science develops a directed energy weapon that causes unconsciousness. The Framers could never have conceived of a weapon. The Second Amendment is a right to own a thing, but if that thing becomes obsolete, so does the right.Quote: RonCFor an obviously brilliant person, this is a short-sighted view. I understand your view on this defendant's rights and I am stating a position; not my position, I am not sure where I stand on the "enemy combatant" thing at this point. I also understand that the more rights we cede to the government, the more they will take.
Perhaps the government has more firepower, but 200 or 300 million pissed off people can bring a lot of firepower right back at them if they would get out of hand. The Second Amendment is still important. Besides, it isn't like all the people with tanks and stuff would stand by a government taking all of their rights away. The people in the military who have the firepower also have families...
On the contrary, the First and Fifth Amendments convey intangible, societal rights. The right to assemble, to express your thoughts and your faith. The right to a speedy but fair hearing in an impartial judicial system. Those rights are inviolable. It doesn't matter whether we're laying railroad track by hand or flying around in a 20th-generation auto-piloted Tesla, those rights are integral to our society.
Put simply, America without the Second Amendment would still be America. America without the First and Fifth Amendments would not.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikQuote: RSWhat're the odds Hillary will be well enough (or rather, not deathly sick enough) to make it to inauguration (if, somehow, she were to win)? How long until she has a giant seizure (or whatever it's technically called) while speaking at a press conference rally only for her to say she had a small muscle spasm or something stupid like that? If you're voting for HRC, you're really voting for Tim Kaine.
Are you such a Trumper that you're fastening on the "Hillary health" issue to the exclusion of everything else? What are the odds that Hillary will be well enough? Pretty good actually. a 68-year-old woman who's been roaring around the country for months is probably in better shape than you or I. So she caught a cold and had to rest for a few days. What of it?
And in order for her to have a "giant seizure," there has to be a giant nearby to grab her. As long as she stays away from huge people, no giant seizures.
This is like the EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS "issue." There really isn't all that much to criticize Hillary about, so Trumpers have been fastening on this latest so-called controversy like dogs chewing on an old bone. It also helps to deflect criticism of their tin god. Imagine if Hillary had recommended that Donald Trump be assassinated! Imagine if Hillary accused Trump of starting the birther movement! Oh, wait...
Are you serious? She doesn't "just have a cold". Her health is seriously deteriorating.
small room. She had to be supported to get up
the podium stairs. She's old and confused and fragile,
you know.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/hillary-holds-small-rally-temple-university-helped-stairs/
Except that's the last thing the pro-Trump crowd would want. Trump might be able to beat Hillary. He won't be able to beat her replacement, who will either be Tim Kaine (with a new VP pick), or someone like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden. Trump would lose in a landslide. The worst thing for the GOP at this moment would be for Hillary to drop out for health reasons.Quote: RSAre you serious? She doesn't "just have a cold". Her health is seriously deteriorating.
Quote: MathExtremistOn the contrary, I'm espousing the long view, not a short one. I'm a technologist and somewhat of a futurist, so when I say "guns will be obsolete" I mean that firearms (projectile weapons powered by small explosions) will not be the dominant form of anti-personnel weapon.
I think the US government already developed the anti-second amendment weapon in the early 1960s. It was the neutron bomb.
If we're assuming that the government is going to act ruthlessly anyway. It would certainly "cleanse" the land of rebels before they even saw anyone coming to get them.
By now, such a weapon would surely be perfected in perhaps ways not anticipated had they kept active development.
Too indiscriminate, and too likely to arouse (traditional) nuclear reprisals. We've already developed a handheld laser weapon that blinds enemy combatants, but then we signed a UN treaty outlawing the use of blinding laser weapons (go figure). Naturally, it's called the PHaSR:Quote: rxwineI think the US government already developed the anti-second amendment weapon in the early 1960s. It was the neutron bomb.
If we're assuming that the government is going to act ruthlessly anyway. It would certainly "cleanse" the land of rebels before they even saw anyone coming to get them.
By now, such a weapon would surely be perfected in perhaps ways not anticipated had they kept active development.
Point is, don't think active military development of this stuff isn't going on right now. It's just classified.
Quote: MathExtremistPoint is, don't think active military development of this stuff isn't going on right now. It's just classified.
With the potential for any of our adversaries to keep working on banned weapons, it's probably one of our biggest open secrets that we continue to work on them also regardless of any official positions. It's hard to imagine someone concluding otherwise.
Which is kind of my point about the Second Amendment. It's all well and good that someone has a cabinet full of guns in their home, but if an airborne drone can aim a debilitating heat ray at your house and cause you to pass out, (or a microwave ray at your house and cause you to go blind) then your firearms don't matter at all. Whatever the purpose of the Second Amendment was (and I recognize that's a matter of historical debate), it wasn't ever to enable an individual citizen to resist that kind of advanced force projection. That's just impossible.Quote: rxwineWith the potential for any of our adversaries to keep working on banned weapons, it's probably one of our biggest open secrets that we continue to work on them also regardless of any official positions. It's hard to imagine someone concluding otherwise.
You were given more than a handful of specific examples. You say you refused to read any of them. Even the one-sentence or one-paragraph examples. That shouts out the loudest of all for all to see. And not for the first time, either.Quote: ams288Still no examples of Hillary's (non-existent) birther-ism. Only thinly veiled insults. Sad!
