Author Topic: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.  (Read 78884 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10571
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2016, 08:56:25 PM »
Fair enough dude. I just think such vitriol and hatred does nothing good and only pushes us further down a dark path.

If she had just one redeeming quality i think I could get past some things with her. But in my eyes she doesn't.

When Obama gave his acceptance speech when he won the first time i called my friend who loved him and said that I was on board, he's my President now and Ill hope he leads our country well. It didn't take long to realize that he wasn't an actual leader and 8 years later i think there's strong evidence he's one of the worst Presidents in history.

When Hillary is inaugurate I'll hope for the same....but have a sneaking suspicion she'll live up to the standard obama has set and maintained.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2016, 03:53:28 AM »
We're starting to see Trump go full retard. I think the polls have him spooked. That 2nd amendment comment was a really, really stupid and fucked up thing to say. Sure, you can make the argument that he was telling those who support the second amendment that they need to go out and vote, but c'mon, we all know that's 100% bullshit. As far as voter turnout goes, I'd be willing to bet that republicans who support the second amendment are at the top of the list as far as showing up to the polls. Shouldn't he have called on all republicans and everyone on the fence? Why single out the second amendment?

This was a strategically laid out comment giving him just enough wiggle room for some plausible deniability, and to take the focus off his tax returns for a few days.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2016, 06:26:29 AM by Chino »

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16621
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is not for all men, only those who seek it.
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2016, 05:07:40 AM »
Fair enough dude. I just think such vitriol and hatred does nothing good and only pushes us further down a dark path.

It's not hatred. It's the frustration from her supporters acting like she can do no wrong and casting a blind eye to everything she does while hanging on to Trump's every last word. If you want to see people stretching someone's actions, just look at the anti-Trump crowd. You're a smart guy. I'm sure you can't just call these mysterious deaths a coincidence, especially if you start to look into the past of the Clintons.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2016, 06:57:32 AM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.


AND

Not that it matters but Trump lost my vote today. I'll vote 3rd party. I despise Hillary more than words can describe but would NEVER subscribe to or advocate someone seeking her out to shoot her. Which Trump did, his team can try to spin it however they'd like.

I could tolerate most of his antics in order for Hillary not to win....didn't mind the 'wall' or Muslim talk at all because the only thing wrong with those ideas are the way HE delivers and communicates them. But implying Second Ammemdment owners could 'do' something about Hillarys SCOTUS appointees is where I personally draw the line. I like the spin his team tried to put on it....sounds good and all....but we all know what he meant.


Not a Trump supporter, and not voting for him, but can we be at least a LITTLE fair?   Nowhere in there did he call for her assassination.  That someone interprets it that way is on them.  Sloppy language?   Inelegant?  SURE THING!  But I read the quote multiple times.  He was talking specifically about her nomination of Supreme Court Justices that would presumably be against a more broad reading of the Second Amendment.   And it could JUST as easily (in fact, it is far more likely given the NRA's almost obsessive need to lobby, and the general recognition that the gun lobby is one of if not THE most powerful lobby in the US today) be that he meant that the "Second Amendment people" could "do something" like organize and lobby Congress to stonewall any nominee she might put forth.   The "horrible day" is simply his reference to the day that her nominees get to the bench.  His speech is chock full of non sequitors and abrupt shifts.  It's part of his vernacular at this point.

The only reference to "assassination" was in the three Tweets from Twitter Twats that were quoted by Ben Kamisar.

C'mon, guys, you are better than that.    It's like we're watching the latest dating escapade from the Kardashians unfold.   

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16621
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is not for all men, only those who seek it.
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2016, 07:01:35 AM »
I'm not making excuses for him anymore. He's sloppy enough to imply something like that and play it off as a joke. However, like I said above, the Clintons are no strangers to death. Supporters in each corner are hypocritical to turn this into a ploy for trashing Trump further.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10571
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2016, 07:48:37 AM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.


AND

Not that it matters but Trump lost my vote today. I'll vote 3rd party. I despise Hillary more than words can describe but would NEVER subscribe to or advocate someone seeking her out to shoot her. Which Trump did, his team can try to spin it however they'd like.

I could tolerate most of his antics in order for Hillary not to win....didn't mind the 'wall' or Muslim talk at all because the only thing wrong with those ideas are the way HE delivers and communicates them. But implying Second Ammemdment owners could 'do' something about Hillarys SCOTUS appointees is where I personally draw the line. I like the spin his team tried to put on it....sounds good and all....but we all know what he meant.


Not a Trump supporter, and not voting for him, but can we be at least a LITTLE fair?   Nowhere in there did he call for her assassination.  That someone interprets it that way is on them.  Sloppy language?   Inelegant?  SURE THING!  But I read the quote multiple times.  He was talking specifically about her nomination of Supreme Court Justices that would presumably be against a more broad reading of the Second Amendment.   And it could JUST as easily (in fact, it is far more likely given the NRA's almost obsessive need to lobby, and the general recognition that the gun lobby is one of if not THE most powerful lobby in the US today) be that he meant that the "Second Amendment people" could "do something" like organize and lobby Congress to stonewall any nominee she might put forth.   The "horrible day" is simply his reference to the day that her nominees get to the bench.  His speech is chock full of non sequitors and abrupt shifts.  It's part of his vernacular at this point.

The only reference to "assassination" was in the three Tweets from Twitter Twats that were quoted by Ben Kamisar.

C'mon, guys, you are better than that.    It's like we're watching the latest dating escapade from the Kardashians unfold.   

I totally get what you're saying but he absolutely meant for that to have the double interpretation behind it. It's exactly what Chino mentioned...plausible deniability. He can play the card he's playing now. If he were a serious Presidential candidate he'd have stated it with the clarity that he has while defending it....with the meaning that the 2nd amendment people are strongly united and blah blah blah....he could have said it like that the first time but he chose the contested path again.

As I've said repeatedly...I can't stand Hillary and would love nothing more than for her to be defeated in November....and Trump unfortunately is the only chance of that happening. I could tolerate some of the things he's said because I think the media and Clintons supporters are making them out worse than what they actually are...but he's demonstrating that he actually has no intention of wanting to win. He can't...or he wouldn't be saying and doing the things he's doing. Even an idiot knows better....
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2016, 07:56:26 AM »
“By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day."

Joking, misinterpreted, poor word choice... however you want to try and defend that statement, it doesn't make up for the fact that that is about as unpresidential as you can possibly get.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2016, 08:06:02 AM by Chino »

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10571
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #42 on: August 10, 2016, 08:04:00 AM »
that is about as unpresidential as you can possibly get.

I do love the allure of having a "non politician" in office but there is a point to where that person must still be able to act like a professional adult. I had hoped that the majority of what I was witnessing with Trump was just a 'show' and an effort to rattle the system....but with every line that he crosses without any real push back from his supporters he just takes it up a notch.

I don't know....maybe he's figured out that his only real shot.....just like obama figured out....is a certain demographic and he's just pandering to them and them only? obama won twice with that style of campaign.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4433
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #43 on: August 10, 2016, 08:23:24 AM »
Not a Trump supporter, and not voting for him, but can we be at least a LITTLE fair?   Nowhere in there did he call for her assassination.  That someone interprets it that way is on them.  Sloppy language?   Inelegant?  SURE THING!  But I read the quote multiple times.  He was talking specifically about her nomination of Supreme Court Justices that would presumably be against a more broad reading of the Second Amendment.   And it could JUST as easily (in fact, it is far more likely given the NRA's almost obsessive need to lobby, and the general recognition that the gun lobby is one of if not THE most powerful lobby in the US today) be that he meant that the "Second Amendment people" could "do something" like organize and lobby Congress to stonewall any nominee she might put forth.   The "horrible day" is simply his reference to the day that her nominees get to the bench.  His speech is chock full of non sequitors and abrupt shifts.  It's part of his vernacular at this point.

The only reference to "assassination" was in the three Tweets from Twitter Twats that were quoted by Ben Kamisar.

C'mon, guys, you are better than that.    It's like we're watching the latest dating escapade from the Kardashians unfold.   

The only reason Trump didn't say assassination is because the word has more than 2 syllables. In any case, the man has made far too many dodgy comments for me to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore. He consistently uses the rhetoric of fascists.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40285
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #44 on: August 10, 2016, 08:36:39 AM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.

This happened at the college I attend.
You go to UNC Beach?  Cool!

My point is, hate Hillary all you want (which for some of you is a huge amount) but to say she has actually ordered people's execution is a bit much. To then say that it's painfully obvious that she did it and imply that anyone who doesn't see it isn't terribly intelligent is taking things a bit far.
This for sure.  People often connect dots that aren't really there.  And it is pretty tiresome.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #45 on: August 10, 2016, 08:37:22 AM »
“By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day."

Joking, misinterpreted, poor word choice... however you want to try and defend that statement, it doesn't make up for the fact that that is about as unpresidential as you can possibly get.

Don't disagree.  But the media handling of this is not at all fair.   Listen to the tape again; his sentence DOESN'T end at "that will be a horrible day".    He continues to say "if, if Hillary gets to put her judges...". 

it's one thing to reject a guy for being unpresidential, for being off on policy.  It's another thing entirely to insinuate - dishonestly - that he would be advocating the killing of his opponent.   I think that reflects more on the interpreters than Trump, to be honest.   

Ironically, him referring to the strength of the gun lobby is probably one of the few statements he's made in the last two weeks that shows he might actually know what the fuck is going on at the Congressional level.   


Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3280
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #46 on: August 10, 2016, 09:02:02 AM »
Going in, I had the impression that Trump felt the media was his ace in the hole.  All of his previous experience, celebrity, brand, etc made me feel like he thought he could use the media to his advantage moe than any other candidate.  I find it pretty funny that the media has turned on him, and think this might be one of the most frustrating aspects to him,  Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #47 on: August 10, 2016, 10:14:53 AM »
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5553
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #48 on: August 10, 2016, 10:27:39 AM »
Following

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10571
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #49 on: August 10, 2016, 10:49:00 AM »
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 

That doesn't mean that 'we' like what he says....I think the point is it's refreshing to have a non PC Politician calling it like he/she sees it. Whether you like what he/she says...that's a different story but it's different from the scripted...cardboard political personalities that parade in front of the media and news day in and day out year after year.

I think Trump should re-name his call sign for hillary from 'crooked hillary' to 'free pass hillary'. not a word about her questionable economic claims from her stump the other day....nothing. Trump gets fact checked in real time....her words are treated like she heard them from God.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #50 on: August 10, 2016, 10:49:09 AM »
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 


It's a good point, but it's a lazy point.    HE says what he means, but the problem is the way OTHERS interpret it.   I think he actually DID mean to say it will be a horrible day if Hillary's justices get confirmed.  I think he actually DID mean to say that the Second Amendment advocates should be gearing up for a fight.   I think he actually DID mean to say that "there's nothing you can do"; the nomination of justices is one of those things that doesn't go to referendum, and the people can only be heard by their choice of President.     SOMEONE ELSE thought he meant "kill Hillary" and I don't think that is what he meant.  He didn't SAY "kill Hillary" and now he's backing away from that.   

I don't like Trump; I think it's a case of "why are we even at this point?" but still, fair is fair.   The media has to do a better job of sorting out the pure fact from the Twitter-friendly innuendo.   In my view, it's journalistic negligence for Ben Kamisar to have quoted anonymous Twitter posts as some sort of justification for the idea that he, Trump, advocated for the assassination of a Presidential candidate.   

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #51 on: August 10, 2016, 10:53:11 AM »
That's why he purposely leaves these types of things expressly open to interpretation.  So everyone can interpret it in the most negative light, then when someone says "You're an idiot", he can say "No no no, I meant it this way."

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2016, 10:56:56 AM »
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 


It's a good point, but it's a lazy point.    HE says what he means, but the problem is the way OTHERS interpret it.   I think he actually DID mean to say it will be a horrible day if Hillary's justices get confirmed.  I think he actually DID mean to say that the Second Amendment advocates should be gearing up for a fight.   I think he actually DID mean to say that "there's nothing you can do"; the nomination of justices is one of those things that doesn't go to referendum, and the people can only be heard by their choice of President.     SOMEONE ELSE thought he meant "kill Hillary" and I don't think that is what he meant.  He didn't SAY "kill Hillary" and now he's backing away from that.   

I don't like Trump; I think it's a case of "why are we even at this point?" but still, fair is fair.   The media has to do a better job of sorting out the pure fact from the Twitter-friendly innuendo.   In my view, it's journalistic negligence for Ben Kamisar to have quoted anonymous Twitter posts as some sort of justification for the idea that he, Trump, advocated for the assassination of a Presidential candidate.

I don't think he meant to get any kind of point across at all. He worded it in such a way that he knew exactly how the press was going to respond. He wants to be the victim. That was his only objective.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2016, 11:02:32 AM by Chino »

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40285
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2016, 11:06:30 AM »
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 


It's a good point, but it's a lazy point.    HE says what he means, but the problem is the way OTHERS interpret it.   I think he actually DID mean to say it will be a horrible day if Hillary's justices get confirmed.  I think he actually DID mean to say that the Second Amendment advocates should be gearing up for a fight.   I think he actually DID mean to say that "there's nothing you can do"; the nomination of justices is one of those things that doesn't go to referendum, and the people can only be heard by their choice of President.     SOMEONE ELSE thought he meant "kill Hillary" and I don't think that is what he meant.  He didn't SAY "kill Hillary" and now he's backing away from that.   

I don't like Trump; I think it's a case of "why are we even at this point?" but still, fair is fair.   The media has to do a better job of sorting out the pure fact from the Twitter-friendly innuendo.   In my view, it's journalistic negligence for Ben Kamisar to have quoted anonymous Twitter posts as some sort of justification for the idea that he, Trump, advocated for the assassination of a Presidential candidate.
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #54 on: August 10, 2016, 12:30:02 PM »
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.

I can understand that comment.   You may be right, but it's not out of any love for Trump, its to make the point that all opinions should be welcome, and statements calling out the hypocrisy of Trump SupportersTM based on the opinion of a few sloppy journalists is being overly generous the other way.  That's all.   I'm sort of tired of being looked at like some irrational boob or, worse, blind Trump acolyte simply because I didn't infer the same dark meaning as some - not all - others. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #55 on: August 10, 2016, 12:47:19 PM »
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.

I can understand that comment.   You may be right, but it's not out of any love for Trump, its to make the point that all opinions should be welcome, and statements calling out the hypocrisy of Trump SupportersTM based on the opinion of a few sloppy journalists is being overly generous the other way.  That's all.   I'm sort of tired of being looked at like some irrational boob or, worse, blind Trump acolyte simply because I didn't infer the same dark meaning as some - not all - others.

I think you could have silenced every reporter/journalist in the world and those in the general public not planning to vote for Trump would have come to the exact same interpretation of that quote.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #56 on: August 11, 2016, 07:18:41 AM »
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.

I can understand that comment.   You may be right, but it's not out of any love for Trump, its to make the point that all opinions should be welcome, and statements calling out the hypocrisy of Trump SupportersTM based on the opinion of a few sloppy journalists is being overly generous the other way.  That's all.   I'm sort of tired of being looked at like some irrational boob or, worse, blind Trump acolyte simply because I didn't infer the same dark meaning as some - not all - others.

I think you could have silenced every reporter/journalist in the world and those in the general public not planning to vote for Trump would have come to the exact same interpretation of that quote.

Perhaps, but that doesn't say anything about Trump and everything about the people "not planning to vote for Trump". 

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5458
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #57 on: August 11, 2016, 08:14:22 AM »
I don't think so. Trump's words don't exist inside a vacuum. It also has just as much to do with colloquialisms and the culture. It's not just anti-Trump people. If anyone said that, a vast majority of people would believe it was implying that someone go out and shoot someone whether it was a joke or not. That's just how people speak and interpret speech.

Whether Trump intended that reaction can be debated, but I personally don't think he's that stupid.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3280
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #58 on: August 11, 2016, 08:14:56 AM »
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.

I can understand that comment.   You may be right, but it's not out of any love for Trump, its to make the point that all opinions should be welcome, and statements calling out the hypocrisy of Trump SupportersTM based on the opinion of a few sloppy journalists is being overly generous the other way.  That's all.   I'm sort of tired of being looked at like some irrational boob or, worse, blind Trump acolyte simply because I didn't infer the same dark meaning as some - not all - others.

I think you could have silenced every reporter/journalist in the world and those in the general public not planning to vote for Trump would have come to the exact same interpretation of that quote.

Perhaps, but that doesn't say anything about Trump and everything about the people "not planning to vote for Trump".

No, it says a lot about both
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #59 on: August 11, 2016, 08:56:27 AM »
Gabby Giffords says:

Quote
"Donald Trump might astound Americans on a routine basis, but we must draw a bright red line between political speech and suggestions of violence. Responsible, stable individuals won’t take Trump’s rhetoric to its literal end, but his words may provide a magnet for those seeking infamy. They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed." “What political leaders say matters to their followers. When candidates descend into coarseness and insult, our politics follow suit. When they affirm violence, we should fear that violence will follow." “It must be the responsibility of all Americans – from Donald Trump himself, to his supporters, to those who remain silent or oppose him – to unambiguously condemn these remarks and the violence they insinuate. The integrity of our democracy and the decency of our nation is at stake."

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #60 on: August 11, 2016, 09:27:56 AM »
Also:


Offline Mister Gold

  • The Makers of Our Own Destiny
  • Posts: 1919
  • Gender: Male
  • Human
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #61 on: August 11, 2016, 09:53:56 AM »
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.

This happened at the college I attend.
You go to UNC Beach?  Cool!

My point is, hate Hillary all you want (which for some of you is a huge amount) but to say she has actually ordered people's execution is a bit much. To then say that it's painfully obvious that she did it and imply that anyone who doesn't see it isn't terribly intelligent is taking things a bit far.
This for sure.  People often connect dots that aren't really there.  And it is pretty tiresome.

Yeah, I'm a Film Studies major over at UNC Wilmington. Trump's rally was at Trask Coliseum.

I don't think so. Trump's words don't exist inside a vacuum. It also has just as much to do with colloquialisms and the culture. It's not just anti-Trump people. If anyone said that, a vast majority of people would believe it was implying that someone go out and shoot someone whether it was a joke or not. That's just how people speak and interpret speech.

Whether Trump intended that reaction can be debated, but I personally don't think he's that stupid.

Yep. The best thing Trump could do here is just own up that he made a mistake saying that line and condemn any violence towards Hillary or any person she might pick for the Supreme Court if/when she beats him in the election.
Beyond the limits of the mortal frame
To the farthest boundary of eternity
Where I, the Cosmic Sea
Watch the little ego floating in me.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40285
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #62 on: August 11, 2016, 10:14:04 AM »
You go to UNC Beach?  Cool!

Yeah, I'm a Film Studies major over at UNC Wilmington.
Sweet!  We have visited Wilmington/Carolina Beach several times. 
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #63 on: August 11, 2016, 10:22:15 AM »

Yep. The best thing Trump could do here is just own up that he made a mistake saying that line and condemn any violence towards Hillary or any person she might pick for the Supreme Court if/when she beats him in the election.

It might sound like a quibble, but I think Trump needs to take a little different tack; he can, if he's careful, have his cake and eat it too.   He's in the same quandary as Bernie; he has to rouse the troops but has to do it in a way that is not alienating.   This would be true for any candidate of any party.  He doesn't even have to disavow the "violence" side of things (though I would, but that's me).  He just needs to take away the context under which the media and those on the witch hunt are twisting his words.    Start giving speeches where he calls for aggressive political lobbying.  Start giving speeches where he calls for peaceful boycotts.  Start giving speeches where the "action" is clearly peaceful and in keeping with the use of intellectual tools, not mechanical ones.  You can still incite the masses.  Politicians since Roman times have done it, and he can too (he himself did it early in the campaign when he had 16 other candidates to keep him in check).   

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 2009
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #64 on: August 11, 2016, 11:16:26 AM »
I'm not voting for Trump but the way the onesided media has acted post convention has been sickening. CNN has turned into MSNBC and are now third in the ratings behind Fox and MSNBC.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40285
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #65 on: August 11, 2016, 12:53:38 PM »
Gary Johnson is interesting.  I hope he continues what momentum he has and gets included in the debates.  If he can actually get an audience to hear him, things may get interesting.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19407
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #66 on: August 11, 2016, 01:03:57 PM »
Gary Johnson is interesting.  I hope he continues what momentum he has and gets included in the debates.  If he can actually get an audience to hear him, things may get interesting.

I want him in there for no other reason than to break up the childish verbal diarrhea fight we're in for. A debate with only Trump and Clinton is going to be nothing but hate and shame speech being thrown back and forth. Johnson has no need to participate in any of that crap and will likely talk more policy than the other two candidates combined. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10222
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #67 on: August 11, 2016, 01:35:32 PM »
If Hillary debates Trump more than once (and even that is just to say she did) then she's a fucking idiot.  And if there is anything that Hillary is NOT, it's a fucking idiot.    The debates are a way of keeping Trump in line, and that's the last thing Hillary wants.  Let him run off full cocked and say stupid shit.   Don't actually get on stage and try to reign him in.   That's dumb. 

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16425
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #68 on: August 11, 2016, 01:41:57 PM »
I kind of don't want Johnson in just to see those two go at it, it'll be great TV.  But in reality, yea, I'd like to have him in as well because I want to hear what he has to say and say compared to the other two.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 4214
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #69 on: August 11, 2016, 01:45:58 PM »
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?