| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
The NRA itself defended the first part of Trump's comment, in which Trump said that Clinton would appoint anti-Second Amendment judges to the Supreme Court. Hey, it's like how they defend only half the second amendment and ignore the part about a well-regulated militia | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Either A: you want to believe that it wasn't a threat, but "misnuanced speech", or "appealing to voters", accidentally sounding like a threat. That's fine. You're an idiot then if you continue to support someone who does this constantly, and stirrs shit up without even being on an international scale yet - which will be all the more fun if he constantly fucks up foreign relationships with his "oopsies". Or B: he actually threatened, or tried to riled up, "2nd amendment people". In quotations because i differ between actual 2nd amendment people and idiotic gun nuts. Which makes you also an idiot if you continue a person like that. Interesting. if nothing else, I guess this can put the #hillaryplant to rest? I'm not hip enough to know what all those twitter hashtags mean. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28747 Posts
 | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 10 2016 06:03 oBlade wrote: I don't know whether I count as reasonable, but it sounds like he was alluding to the "if you want my guns, come try to take them" type of people. It's just the way he talks, like vague banter. He does get headlines but he doesn't have to consciously or deliberately craft a phrase beforehand with that intent, it just happens when he's being himself. I dislike that you worded this in a way where you feel like he can get a free pass because "it's just the way he talks". A lot of what the president does is talking to people, be it to foreign diplomats, the American public, etc. If "the way he talks" is that he can't open his mouth without saying something that someone could take as offensive or dangerous, that IS a strike against his suitability for the job. You can't just write that off. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 10 2016 06:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Pennsylvania is looking pretty far from a swing state at this point. On August 10 2016 06:18 KwarK wrote: There is no way it referred to voting given the context. It was "If Hillary wins and starts to appoint judges then the only way to stop her will be the 2nd amendment folks". They're not going to all use the power of unification and vote for Trump in January 2018. That wasn't the plan he was referring to. He was referring to some other power people with guns have. Plus Trump thinks the election is going to be rigged anyway, so them voting won't make any difference. There's a reason they didn't go with a theme of people cooperating and working together at the RNC. | ||
KwarK
United States43646 Posts
| ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On August 10 2016 06:18 KwarK wrote: There is no way it referred to voting given the context. It was "If Hillary wins and starts to appoint judges then the only way to stop her will be the 2nd amendment folks". They're not going to all use the power of unification and vote for Trump in January 2018. That wasn't the plan he was referring to. He was referring to some other power people with guns have. Yeah the Trump campaign's official statement is that Trump was talking about 2nd amendment people voting. But he clearly was talking about something that would occur after votes were cast. It's interesting that the Trump campaign couldn't come up with a valid excuse. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22122 Posts
On August 10 2016 06:26 Doodsmack wrote: Yeah the Trump campaign's official statement is that Trump was talking about 2nd amendment people voting. But he clearly was talking about something that would occur after votes were cast. It's interesting that the Trump campaign couldn't come up with a valid excuse. I'm reasonably sure the entire Republican PR team had a heart attack after he said that. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
I remember some conservative posters here being surprised about the fact that the Dems looked conservative when they praised the constitution. Is this really so surprising in this context? | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
On August 10 2016 06:31 Nevuk wrote: I really think he's going to try to incite a violent overthrow of the government once he loses at this point. He's paying out feelers ATM trying to see how well that sort of language will be received and unfortunately for us at the point there are enough people who would buy into that sort of language to try something crazy. From watching the clip, I think it's just very very very careless talking from Trump. The kind people do when they blabber without thinking of any consequences. In that sense, I think it's less conspiracy and more extreme negligence. The concern is that some nut is going to take it seriously - which is a big problem. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5919 Posts
On August 10 2016 06:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: Isn't the 'if you want my guns, come try to take them' crowd actually saying that they will murder appointed law officials if they try to confiscate their guns (even though this would be a policy consequence of democratic elections)? Is this really a group Trump should encourage? It's more like a social meme that simplifies the idea that the right to bear arms guarantees itself than a collective promise to murder law enforcement. The Oregon militia people I don't think attacked anyone, it's not a dangerous segment of society. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 10 2016 06:40 oBlade wrote: It's more like a social meme that simplifies the idea that the right to bear arms guarantees itself than a collective promise to murder law enforcement. The Oregon militia people I don't think attacked anyone, it's not a dangerous segment of society. if you don't think the oregon militia people are dangerous, then you are ill-informed on the situation, and how dangerous they are. They are quite dangerous, and willing to shoot/kill. Though with careful handling it's sometimes possible to capture them peacefully. There's plenty of documentation on how dangerous such people are though. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
 | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22122 Posts
On August 10 2016 07:00 ticklishmusic wrote: https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/763130669606309892 I can only facepalm at the stupidity of that tweet... | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45333 Posts
On August 10 2016 07:06 Gorsameth wrote: I can only facepalm at the stupidity of that tweet... In other words, within an hour Trump will have responded with something even dumber? | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10138 Posts
On August 10 2016 07:00 ticklishmusic wrote: https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/763130669606309892 We have a saying here... "De Guatemala, a Guatepeor" ---- "From Guatebad, to Guateworst". | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
WardiTV Winter Champion…
AI Arena Tournament
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
WardiTV Winter Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
