Indiucky and Kut say "Apology accepted.."
lol
Indiucky and Kut say "Apology accepted.."
I condemn the violence but those Trump people were asking for it. The protestors were whipped up in a frenzy by the evil Trump stuff. So you can't really blame them for reacting the way they do. But really I do condemn the violence but it is all Trump's fault...
Is there even a doubt on what I would say? You attack someone, anyone, unjustly, and if you end up with extra ventilation holes in your chest and head, sorry about ya. Left wing or right wing, there are universal truths about how one should conduct themselves and treat others, veer from that road at your own peril.
Kut,
Here is an anti trump protester tackling a Trump supporter at a rally....What do you think about this???
Is there even a doubt on what I would say? You attack someone, anyone, unjustly, and if you end up with extra ventilation holes in your chest and head, sorry about ya. Left wing or right wing, there are universal truths about how one should conduct themselves and treat others, veer from that road at your own peril.
Serious question here, Kut: Do you believe that those attacked during this particular incident could have rightfully claimed that they were in fear of their lives and used deadly force to protect themselves? Not talking about this particular picture which appears to have one demonstrator going after one Trump supporter, but I'm talking more about the scenes where multiple protesters were chasing/beating Trump supporters.
And let me widen the question to everyone else here: My gut response is the same as Kut's was: you attack me or mine and you're asking for a lead infusion. But do all violent attacks rise to the level of using deadly force? Or, put another way, does the imminent threat of mob violence justify the use of deadly force for self-protection in the eyes of the law?
Serious question here, Kut: Do you believe that those attacked during this particular incident could have rightfully claimed that they were in fear of their lives and used deadly force to protect themselves? Not talking about this particular picture which appears to have one demonstrator going after one Trump supporter, but I'm talking more about the scenes where multiple protesters were chasing/beating Trump supporters.
And let me widen the question to everyone else here: My gut response is the same as Kut's was: you attack me or mine and you're asking for a lead infusion. But do all violent attacks rise to the level of using deadly force? Or, put another way, does the imminent threat of mob violence justify the use of deadly force for self-protection in the eyes of the law?
Serious question here, Kut: Do you believe that those attacked during this particular incident could have rightfully claimed that they were in fear of their lives and used deadly force to protect themselves? Not talking about this particular picture which appears to have one demonstrator going after one Trump supporter, but I'm talking more about the scenes where multiple protesters were chasing/beating Trump supporters.
And let me widen the question to everyone else here: My gut response is the same as Kut's was: you attack me or mine and you're asking for a lead infusion. But do all violent attacks rise to the level of using deadly force? Or, put another way, does the imminent threat of mob violence justify the use of deadly force for self-protection in the eyes of the law?
I condemn the violence but those Trump people were asking for it. The protestors were whipped up in a frenzy by the evil Trump stuff. So you can't really blame them for reacting the way they do. But really I do condemn the violence but it is all Trump's fault...
Indiucky and Kut say "Apology accepted.."
The Press Conference Republican Voters Have Wanted to See for Years - The Rush Limbaugh Show
"Say what you will about Donald Trump -- how many years have people been begging for a Republican to just once take on the media the way Trump did? All the way from the premise, to the details, to the motivation, he took 'em all on. "
Near the end of it a frustrated journalist (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, is it gonna be this way, are you gonna be attacking us after you become president?"
"Yes, it is. Because you are the most dishonest people, political press the most dishonest people I know. You know it and I know it. The press is dishonest, but the political press is especially dishonest."
And then Jim Acosta, I think it was, CNN (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, do you object to scrutiny? You seem like you didn't even like scrutiny, but you're seeking the office of president of the United States, how do you think --"
"I don't mind scrutiny. What I don't like is lies. You can scrutinize me all day long but you set up false premises. You state things about me that are not true. Then you run stories on that. That's why I'm out here trying to correct the record." And then Trump says, "By the way, I've seen you, you're among the worst. You're at ABC, right? You're the worst. You're a sleaze."
...
MAJOR GARRETT: To follow up on that, you keep calling us the dishonest press, the disgusting press.
TRUMP: Generally speaking, that's a hundred percent true. Go ahead.
MAJOR GARRETT: I disagree with that, sir. And if I can ask you this question, it seems as though you're resistant to scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that comes with running for president of the United States.
TRUMP: Excuse me. I've watched you on television. You're a real beauty. When I raise money for the veterans, and it's a massive amount of money, find out how much Hillary Clinton's given to the veterans. Nothing.
...
RUSH: Right. Seriously, how many questions do the Clintons get about the two billion in their Crime Family Foundation and all those donations from foreign investors and whoever they may be? No, no, no, no, no. Do not do that. I'm not defending Trump by saying, "Hey, Trump did it, but why don't you go get the Clintons who did it." That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying these people have two different sets of rules. They've got two different sets of standards for their scrutiny.
And the upshot of it is that the Clintons don't get any. Whatever they say goes on with their foundation, that's what's reported, and whatever they say happens at Clinton Global Initiative, that's what they say and that's what gets reported. But the Clintons aren't under any scrutiny. The Clintons won't believe that. The Clintons believe they're under more scrutiny than anybody's ever been, but because of the way they do things they invite that scrutiny.
Not a big Rush fan but I think he nails it
The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump? Bring it
The problem with the media has nothing to do with how they treat Donald Trump, he deserves every bit he gets. The problem with the media is the lack of scrutiny they place on Clinton. It's not a zero sum game, they both deserve scrutiny.
The problem with the media has nothing to do with how they treat Donald Trump, he deserves every bit he gets. The problem with the media is the lack of scrutiny they place on Clinton. It's not a zero sum game, they both deserve scrutiny.