trump

[jbombelli]

So you pick and choose which parts of the Constitution your ok with candidates ignoring?

Priorities, Kut. Just because the 2nd outranks the others to someone, that doesn't mean he or she, or they, is suddenly okay with ignoring the others.

 

[Fizzerpilot]

Priorities, Kut. Just because the 2nd outranks the others to someone, that doesn't mean he or she, or they, is suddenly okay with ignoring the others.

Exactly. It appears that the 2nd is the only right that it is socially acceptable to curtail. Dare I say, trendy...? It's as if defending the 2nd, makes you some sort of cave man/person.

A store owner cannot post a sign saying no blacks, Jews, Christians etc allowed... But he can post a sign stating that you cannot exercise your 2A right. That's is ok. That is acceptable. But why? What makes one right non negotiable, and another subject to each individual's opinion?

I really wish I could understand it.

 

[bwframe]

Uh Facts?

Is "I don't want black people counting my money a racist" statement?

Source? Links to proof of these "Uh Facts?"

 

[Tombs]

Exactly. It appears that the 2nd is the only right that it is socially acceptable to curtail. Dare I say, trendy...? It's as if defending the 2nd, makes you some sort of cave man/person.

A store owner cannot post a sign saying no blacks, Jews, Christians etc allowed... But he can post a sign stating that you cannot exercise your 2A right. That's is ok. That is acceptable. But why? What makes one right non negotiable, and another subject to each individual's opinion?

I really wish I could understand it.

Because we've capitulated and thought it was reasonable to tolerate a restriction on our rights.

But to be fair, almost the entire bill of rights has been completely burned at this point. The only one I don't think that has been violated on a federally imposed level has been the 3rd.

People keep forgetting to fight for the 2A the correct way, which is to the fullest possible extent, tolerating no restriction of any kind. If you get yourself into trouble with WMDs, there's other issues surrounding that, that makes them problematic.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Because I can think of a long list of places where burning that would absolutely get me a beatdown or worse. It's not meant to elicit a response with the exception of assessing the breadth of your support for the idea that flag burning =/= incitement

I know of places in Alabama that if you walk down the street with "Roll Tide" shirt, you're taking your life in your own hands. No one said one shouldn't consider their safety when employing speech, but regardless speech should not inspire one to commit violence.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Source? Links to proof of these "Uh Facts?"

Are you saying that if he said such, you would admit the comment is racist? If not, what's the point in providing a link, because it won't be proof to you one way or the other.... and hence pointless to do so.

 

[T.Lex]

Just so I'm clear on this, you're now saying that you were incorect and that your daughter doesn't support beating up Trump supporters.

Well, I wasn't incorrect, I fictionalized my daughter's opinion on the subject to test people's position. We'd never talked about the beatdown part. (The Trump candidacy we've talked about alot.)

The ugly reality is that you don't just walk up to violent crazy people and say hey stop doing that, the country is more important than this. They'll bloody you up and continue their subversion campaign.

My issue is who you lump into the category of "violent crazy people." Saying mean, offensive things is not inherently violent nor crazy - and I include Trump in that description. He says mean, offensive things, but he is neither violent (himself) or crazy. Some percentage of the people supporting him are violent, crazy people, and probably a similar percentage of those anti-Trump people, both probably an equivalent percentage to the population at large.

The solutions to this needed to be made back when voting rights were altered, back when it would have been considerably less disruptive to implement.

You've seriously got me curious what changes you'd make. Care to elaborate?

But now people are going to whine and scream if you outlaw speech against the founding principles and rights this nation is based on. I don't believe you can have freedom to subversion and allow everyone to vote at the same time, but that's just my opinion. I'm not against freedom of speech at all, I'm just saying you can't have both at once and expect to survive for ever as a nation.

If you know of a solution, I'm all ears. (And by solution, I don't mean shrugging)

See, I don't think you can consider yourself a constitutionalist and say that we can't have universal suffrage and free speech. We HAVE to have free speech to protect free elections. Subversion (different than treason) is free speech. If enough people wanted to turn the US into a monarchy, that is allowed under the constitution. They can use free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to free assembly to try to get people to agree with them. The whole, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to my death your right to say it." That is a foundational principle of our republic. Freedom is freedom.

I see no reason whatsoever to abandon it.

How quickly some forget that Trump and his supporters have been the victim, not the instigators, of antagonism and violence.

Depends on how you count. Trump, as I recall, was the first to advocate punching the guy in the face and paying the legal bills for the person who did it. Trump supporters got physical with protestors in the rallies before the more recent counter-protester violence began.

But, the "he started it" bit is sorta irrelevant, right? It really comes down to whether you believe "fighting words" can be considered "instigating."

How quickly some forget the documented evidence of agents provocateur busted for posing as Trump supporters while trying to start trouble.

Welcome to grown-up politics.

It is Trump supporters who are continually harassed, antagonized, and assaulted.

C'mon, man. You know that's not solely true. Trump supporters harass, antagonize, and assault Trump protesters, too.

[qutoe]I will not fault victims of such continual behavior for defending themselves, or for using the occasional, excessive rhetoric (e.g. "I want to punch him in the face") in response to the criminal behavior to which they are subjected.[/quote]
And yet, you do fault victims who are anti-Trump? That seems like a double standard.

Not surprising. I would fully expect a child of yours to have been taught, and expected, to think for herself.

Thanks. She does that, in spades. We're working a bit on empathy for people who disagree - that they can still be principled. She'll figure it out.

I won't get started on what she thinks of Bernie supporters - including her peers.

 

[jamil]

Source? Links to proof of these "Uh Facts?"

Are you saying that if he said such, you would admit the comment is racist? If not, what's the point in providing a link, because it won't be proof to you one way or the other.... and hence pointless to do so.

I think there are plenty of links if people are curious about the character of their nominee.

 

[indiucky]

Why do you need clarification for that particular image?

"Oh Mr. Kotter!!!! I know! I know!!! Pick me Mr. Kotter!!!!!! Pick me!!!! I know!!!!!!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Alright this is actually sort of funny. Not sure I've seen any actual politicians press the fake-indian thing.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741301954324910080

2004 VIDEO:
Pocahontas describing Crooked Hillary Clinton as a Corporate Donor Puppet. Time for change! #Trump2016 (video link)

 

[jamil]

Well, I wasn't incorrect, I fictionalized my daughter's opinion on the subject to test people's position.

"Fictionalized". So that's what we're calling it these days.

 

[T.Lex]

"Fictionalized". So that's what we're calling it these days.

Or rhetorical device.

But, does it matter? There certainly are people (even INGOers) who have no trouble justifying violence based on the victim's conduct. Whether my daughter does or not isn't important.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"Fictionalized". So that's what we're calling it these days.

Hey, I get all kinds of grief when I don't use such euphemisms.

 

[T.Lex]

Its kinda like when rhino says he cut himself again. There's no way it is really true - no one can have THAT bad of luck - but we accept it and look for the deeper meaning he's trying to convey.

Like that.

 

[jamil]

Or rhetorical device.

But, does it matter? There certainly are people (even INGOers) who have no trouble justifying violence based on the victim's conduct. Whether my daughter does or not isn't important.

I've pretty much stayed out of that conversation. What's going on is frustrating. A person has a right to meet violence with violence, and the Trumpers have a right to defend themselves. But the conversation seemed to go beyond just self defense. The answer to what's going on at Trump rallies isn't initiating violence. The press isn't covering the anti-trump violence. But they'd surely cover Trumpers doing violence in retaliation.

Its kinda like when rhino says he cut himself again. There's no way it is really true - no one can have THAT bad of luck - but we accept it and look for the deeper meaning he's trying to convey.

Like that.

Does that man have ANY blood left in his body?

 

[printcraft]

Does that man have ANY blood left in his body?

The Red Cross talked about setting up a blood drive tent in his front yard
.... There could be a connection.

 

[T.Lex]

I've pretty much stayed out of that conversation.

Similarly (I think), I don't follow the media coverage of the "violence." (Honestly, some of it seems more like posturing and chest bumping like you see in pickup basketball games.) IMHO, it actually helps Trump's aura of strength.

What's going on is frustrating. A person has a right to meet violence with violence, and the Trumpers have a right to defend themselves.

Totally agree on both counts.

But the conversation seemed to go beyond just self defense. The answer to what's going on at Trump rallies isn't initiating violence. The press isn't covering the anti-trump violence. But they'd surely cover Trumpers doing violence in retaliation.

Like I said, I'm not really following it. It doesn't really change my perception of Trump or the schisms being revealed within USian society.

Does that man have ANY blood left in his body?

Reported for demeaning the erythrocytically impaired.

 

[bwframe]

Are you saying that if he said such, you would admit the comment is racist? If not, what's the point in providing a link, because it won't be proof to you one way or the other.... and hence pointless to do so.

So as suspected, you cannot substantiate your claimed "uh facts"?

Why would one waist time contemplating liberal made up inflammatory talking points?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So as suspected, you cannot substantiate your claimed "uh facts"?

Why would one waist time contemplating liberal made up inflammatory talking points?

No, I'm just not going to post it because unlike most people, who ask for information, you don't wish to be informed, you just want to see if it exists. I'm ok if you think I can't substantiate the claim, especially in this instance, because the reference is well known, easy to find, and the fact you don't look yourself, kinda paints you lazy.

Kut (always looks, to find it himself, first)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I’m voting for Donald Trump, so I went to see him speak. Protesters broke my nose. - Juan Hernandez