DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Trump VS Clinton 2016

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/rnc-event-zone-water-guns-banned-real-guns-allowed

Water Guns Banned, Real Guns Allowed on Streets Outside RNC

Strict rules in place during next month’s Republican National Convention ban Coke cans, glass bottles, tennis balls and “any projectile launcher,” specifically BB guns, paintball guns and water guns from a broad swath of downtown Cleveland. But actual guns are allowed in public areas of the restrictive 1.7 square mile event zone.

And at least some people traveling to the convention are expected to seek to exercise their right to bear firearms in full view of the public, as allowed by Ohio law, following violent clashes this year outside Donald Trump rallies in cities across the country.

“You can take my string and you can take my duct tape, but you can’t take my gun – it’s open carry,” says Tim Selaty, director of operations at Citizens for Trump, a coalition of groups including bikers and truckers who support the presumptive GOP nominee.

Citizens for Trump, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, last week won a ruling from a federal judge shrinking a large event zone in which various weapons and everyday items like canned goods and lumber – but not guns – will be banned.

Dan Williams, a spokesman for the city of Cleveland, confirms guns will be allowed within the event zone.

“That’s what we have to abide by: state law, open carry,” he says.

Although nearby protesters will be allowed to pack heat – so long as they don't cool down with a canned soda – guns will not be allowed inside the actual Quicken Loans Arena convention venue, despite pressure from gun advocates.

A Secret Service spokesman said earlier this year federal law "provides the Secret Service authority to preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees," and that only law enforcement "working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site."

Outside of Secret Service-protected sites that host convention-goers, Selaty says there’s reason to believe there will be a need to protect against violence, rattling off the names of controversial groups and individuals who have expressed interest in visiting Cleveland.

“Now you’ve got Westboro Baptist in the mix, the KKK and David Duke, you’ve got anarchist groups showing up, Black Panthers, Black Lives Matter, communist groups showing up – you’re talking about, for lack of better words, ‘The Purge’ here,” he says, referring to a film in which all crime is permitted one night each year.

“Once you’re inside our event area, you’ll be protected,” he says.

The pro-Trump group has a conference call Friday with city officials regarding access to a city park along the Cuyahoga River for a rally. Striking a final arrangement would move settlement of the ACLU lawsuit’s First Amendment claims closer to being submitted to the judge for approval.

The lawsuit settlement, still is being finalized, doesn’t expand the right to carry guns, which never was curtailed by strict rules rolled out in May, but it does beat back other restrictions, allowing area residents including the homeless to carry banned items.

Other goods specifically prohibited for nonresidents include “containers of bodily fluids,” gas masks and umbrellas with metal tips.

The final details of Citizens for Trump’s protest plans and those of a left-wing coalition, Organize Ohio, will be hashed out before the final lawsuit settlement is presented to a federal judge for approval after the Fourth of July holiday, ACLU of Ohio spokesman Steve David says.

The ACLU won a broad, although not comprehensive, victory with its lawsuit, reflected in amended rules approved Wednesday by the Cleveland Board of Control.

The city’s original 3.5 square mile event zone, announced last month, was hemmed to about 1.7 square miles, David says, expanding the number of parks available for rallies.

A single first-come, first-serve “Official Speaker’s Platform” lost its monopoly on speeches within the event zone. People still won’t be allowed to bring soapboxes or milk crates, but they will be permitted to stand on existing items such as park benches.

And a designated parade route was extended. Marches will no longer terminate in an “industrial wasteland” but rather next to downtown, David says.

Cleveland officials, meanwhile, are somewhat tight-lipped about contingency plans for a large number of arrests. Though they claim they regularly arrest a large number of people and therefore can handle an influx efficiently, Philadelphia – an even larger city that will host the Democratic convention – has reopened an abandoned prison turned horror movie set to house protesters.

As part of a lawsuit last year, the ACLU forced the city to refine its mass-arrests protocol to ensure prompt detainee processing.

“It is in the city’s police protocol that they should have those arrangements in place so people can be processed efficiently through the court system, instead of languishing waiting for attorneys and prosecutors,” David says.

A request to interview David Carroll, acting commissioner of Cleveland’s Division of Correction, was denied by Williams, who cited security concerns. Carroll said he could not speak without authorization, but at a May press conference said the city had struck deals with neighboring jurisdictions to take inmates if there are large numbers.

“We’ve done all kinds of stuff to accommodate the numbers we expect and more,” Williams says. “Our expectation really is people are going to come here and behave and do the right thing. But we’re prepared if they choose to do otherwise.”

Water guns don't kill people.

People kill people.

I can see the RNC convention becoming a big cluster......

Not from supporters, but from protestors. All it will take is one knothead.

The protesters will be bussed in by the hundreds. Expect them to raise havoc. San Jose, Dallas, something in between, something worse? Who knows. What I do know: I'm going to stay far away from Cleveland during that time.

No doubt.

However, makes sense to ban water guns.



Do you see how big that is? I've seen Paki children handle RPGs better than that. Could you imagine someone putting pee or something much, much worse than that into one of those things and just letting it off on some poor souls? They're categorizing it as a "projectile" for a reason.

Republican Attire Matters!

Man these folks are idiots.

You have the presumptive nominee coming to town along with notable politicians from virtually everywhere and you don't ban hand guns within the 1.7 square mile convention area.

That's freaking dumb. If I'm a cop, especially after last night in Dallas, I don't want any guns within that zone. If for no other reason that my own safety and the safety of ordinary citizens.

Given the nature of what we saw last night, I'd put snipers on the roofs of ever building surrounding the venues for the RNC.

We live in a screwed up world with screwed up people. I'd not take a chance and you can't convince me otherwise.

There was a jerk that put bleach in a super soaker down at Virginia Beach a few years ago. As it turns out, the guy was just a moron that never considered the damage he could do with bleach other than messing up people's clothes. Luckily, no one was actually injured before he was caught, but now you can't hose down girls in white T-shirts walking down the strip.

Wow. This is coming from one of the most liberal hacks in the business.

NY Times

The Clinton Contamination
Maureen Dowd
Maureen Dowd JULY 9, 2016

WASHINGTON — IT says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted.

If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, “extremely careless” with top-secret information. Instead, she’s on a glide path to a big promotion.

And that’s the corkscrew way things go with the Clintons, who are staying true to their reputation as the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American politics. Their vast carelessness drags down everyone around them, but they persevere, and even thrive.

In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch — and jeopardized the futures of Hillary’s most loyal aides.

It’s quaint, looking back at her appointment as secretary of state, how Obama tried to get Hillary without the shadiness. (Which is what we all want, of course.)

The president and his aides attempted to keep a rein on Clinton’s State Department — refusing to let her bring in her hit man, Sidney Blumenthal.

But in the end, Hillary’s goo got on Obama anyhow. On Tuesday, after Comey managed to make both Democrats and Republicans angry by indicting Clinton politically but not legally, Barry and Hillary flew to Charlotte, N.C., for their first joint campaign appearance.

Obama was left in the awkward position of vouching for Hillary’s “steady judgment” to run an angry, violent, jittery nation on the very day that his F.B.I. director lambasted her errant judgment on circumventing the State Department email system, making it clear that she had been lying to the American public for the last 16 months.

Photo

James Comey, the F.B.I. director, testifying before a House committee on Thursday. Credit J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
Comey, who was then yanked up to Capitol Hill for a hearing on Thursday, revealed that instead of no emails with classified information, as Hillary had insisted, there were 110, of those turned over to the State Department. Instead of Clinton’s assurances that the server in the basement in Chappaqua had never been breached, Comey said it was possible that hostile actors had hacked Clinton’s email account. Among the emails not given to State, he said at least three contained classified information.

Hillary had already compromised the president, who feels he needs her to cement his legacy. Obama angered F.B.I. agents when he was interviewed on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last fall and undermined the bureau’s investigation by exonerating Hillary before the F.B.I. was done with its work, saying pre-emptively, “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


Hillary willfully put herself above the rules — again — and a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her.

Obama aimed to have no shadows, but the Clintons operate in shadows.

After Bill Clinton crossed the tarmac in Phoenix to have a long chat with Lynch, the attorney general confessed that the ill-advised meeting had “cast a shadow” over her department’s investigation into his wife and that she would feel constrained to follow the recommendation of the F.B.I.

“I certainly wouldn’t do it again,” Lynch said, admitting it hit her “painfully” that she had made a mistake dancing with the Arkansas devil in the pale moonlight.

The meeting seemed even more suspect a week later, when The Times reported that Hillary might let Lynch stay on in a new Clinton administration.

The fallout from the email scandal has clouded the futures of longtime Hillary aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, who were also deemed extremely careless by Comey for their handling of classified information. The Times reported that they could face tough questions as they seek security clearances for diplomatic or national security posts. (Not to mention remiss in not pushing back on Clinton about the private server.)

“You’ve got a situation here where the woman who would be in charge of setting national security policy as president has been deemed by the F.B.I. unsuitable to safeguard and handle classified information,” Bill Savarino, a Washington lawyer specializing in security clearances, told the Times.

So many lawyers in this column, so little law.

President Obama is not upset about being pulled into the Clinton Under Toad, to use an old John Irving expression. He thinks Washington is so broken that the next president will need a specific skill set to function, and he thinks Hillary has that.

But what should disturb Obama, who bypassed his own vice president to lay out the red carpet for Hillary, is that the email transgression is not a one off. It’s part of a long pattern of ethical slipping and sliding, obsessive secrecy and paranoia, and collateral damage.

Comey’s verdict that Hillary was “negligent” was met with sighs rather than shock. We know who Hillary and Bill are now. We’ve been held hostage to their predilections and braided intrigues for a long time. (On the Hill, Comey refused to confirm or deny that he’s investigating the Clinton Foundation, with its unseemly tangle of donors and people doing business with State.)

We’re resigned to the Clintons focusing on their viability and disregarding the consequences of their heedless actions on others. They’re always offering a Faustian deal. This year’s election bargain: Put up with our iniquities or get Trump’s short fingers on the nuclear button.

The Clintons work hard but don’t play by the rules. Imagine them in the White House with the benefit of low expectations.

damn.
slam.

Go research the number of O-sponsored budgets that garnered ZERO votes from Congress...ZERO...not even one D voted for them.



Political theater...no compromise there.



One doesn't get the moniker of 'man of compromise' for one time item in a bill with many items in it.



Yes...please keep justifying my point.



Ahhhh...here we go...advanced liberal debate tactic. When you can't refute the opinion of your opponent...attack him.



O has been disrespectful towards the Supreme Court in a variety of ways. Scolded the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address (I told you that already.) "Warned" the Supreme Court prior to it's ruling on Obamacare. Skipped the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. It's NOT about "just a funeral".

Once again...you deflect the debate to "other" Presidents. Why do O supporters continually do that? That said, I would deem it disrespectful for ANY sitting US President to skip the funeral of ANY sitting Supreme Court justice.



Had his back? Is there a bar fight? The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the law of the land. They do their job in spite of the approval/ideology of the POTUS. You know...separation of powers and all.



Once again it is about someone other than O. Do you see how odd it is to connect a SCOTUS decision as deflecting from O's disrespect to them.



Again..deflect from the debate. Liberal debate tactics 101 through Advanced classes:

When confronted by a superior opponent DO NOT address the issues being presented. When forced to engage, first attack the source of info from your opponent and deflect from the issues discussed; Secondly, attack your opponent personally, veiled accusations are allowed and encouraged; lastly, when you know you have lost the debate, say something ridiculously off-topic from the debate in such over-the-top fashion that the debate ends.



Tell me your opinion of Iraq the day O took over versus today.



Again...it's about someone OTHER THAN O. The mission of THAT ship WAS accomplished. He/they were NOT saying the conflict and war was somehow over.



Thank you for your service. You are one of many Iraq/Afghanistan vets I communicate with. You are the ONLY one who does not completely disparage O's leadership of our military.



You are grasping at straws here.



Here it comes...step #3 that I mentioned above.



Who exactly is people Just. Like. Me? People who write out on a message board exactly what they dislike about a President's actions/policies? Poor O...he is President and people don't like his policies or actions. Oh the horror...how did he have the resolve to not simply resign? He should get a Nobel Peace prize for his resiliency.

You've attempted to paint me as a racist in the past and got called out for that. I'll assume for now that was NOT some veiled attempt to accuse me in that manner.



I only care what our allies think around the world and I only want our enemies to fear/respect us. I believe O has botched that on both sides.

I don't care that he is black. I'm not interested in a President who is a "symbol for the planet". I want leadership home and abroad. We haven't gotten that from O.



There it is...step #3...and the debate comes to an end. So...because I disagree with O's actions and policies I am a "hater"? Makes sense...that's exactly the narrative that 'the symbol for the planet' has created.

It's quite obvious in our exchange who is responding in a hateful manner. You can have the last word(s).

j/c:

I wonder if our country ever had two worse presidential candidates running for the presidency? It's almost unfathomable that such a rich and powerful country would have such sleaze-bags as these two running for the highest office in the land.

This country has hundreds of men and women who would make excellent POTUS...they simply don't want to touch such a toxic job...that's why we get who we get. JMO.

Especially after 8 years of a sleaze who promised Hope and Change but is leaving the Nation more divided than ever.

I see this election as a choice between possible Change and the Status Quo.

Most people I know have wanted a POTUS who is not a career politician/insider and who would better represent the nation...whatever that actually means. Lofty, yet admirable goals.

I ask those people the following question:

What do you think that candidate looks like? Not race, sex, religion, etc...but what would such a person be?

I said that I expect such a candidate would likely be unpopular to many and for varying reasons. In my opinion, the #1 reason would be that said candidate just wasn't quite aligned with them as they wanted. In other words, people want a different, non-career politician, outsider who is exactly what THEY want in a candidate.

Not gonna happen.

As always, people should have the common sense to research the candidates. What is their platform? What do they stand for? Who really are they? What is their history? What kind of Supreme Court justice would they nominate? Who will be on their "team (cabinet)?

Then vote.

I've never understood the "I'm so disgusted I'm not going to vote this year" crowd. I find that wildly disrespectful for those who have defended our freedoms and right to vote. Do your homework...listen to what they say and what they want to do. It's not that hard.

I also don't understand what I call the "protest vote". I'm going to write in this guy or vote for some obscure guy to show the world my disdain for the candidates. I again find that wildly disrespectful to our existence as a nation.

Do some homework...read what all candidates are saying...think about how their actions extend to running the country...remember that it's NOT all about ME, ME, ME.

Then vote...simple really.

And here I thought you respected strong leadership.

I do...jamming your agenda down someone's throat is not strong leadership.

Ive been saying that for months now. Glad you are finally on board.

Isn't that exactly what you've been praising Putin for?

I can say I don't really care for either candidate, I'm hoping a 3rd party emerges but its looking less and less likely. Out of the two, I want zero part of Hillary, she should be in prison, Period. Such a gross display of sweeping under the rug i've ever seen. I like Bill and liked serving under Bill, I still love to watch him speak when i can. I never felt we were going to be deployed without exhaustive measures taken to prevent, or intel all considered first. I really feared serving under GWB, though he had great intentions and truly did care about the country/servicemen. I just think he was listening to the wrong people. Hillary isn't qualified at all, she's royally screwed every position. I've always considered myself a democrat, but lately i'm thinking that's not fitting with my personal takes on agenda's. So we have someone who should be in prison, and another who talks out of his ass without any facts to support anything. I think I'll take the latter, as that's just being a good politician..lol, Seriously though, Trump isn't afraid to buck the system and fight the system, which is indeed broken, his VP choice is going to be critical, the worst thing he could do is align with Gingrich. But one thing about Trump, is he'll treat this like a business and surround himself with a strong cabinet and advisors and I think he'll be successful. I don't see any situation where Hillary would be successful. I really wanted a Powell/Rice ticket but that ship has sailed. We can only hope that the latest scandal is detrimental to Hillary's campaign, what's funny is, when she was "leading" the polls, i can't ever remember seeing anyone in support of her. Whether in person, or online/social media. Makes me wonder if there isn't some teeth to the "already in the bag" conspiracy.

I will not be the least bit surprised if Hillary steals this election.

You and me both, and it'll symbolize the gullibility, and perhaps stupidity, of the population of America. Which again, will be of no shock.

Steal? It is being handed to her by your boy Adolf Trump.

And just look at that post^^^ to prove your point.

fixed that for ya...

Trump claims he is the "law and order candidate"

I think he also said he will leave his wallet home while on stage in the debate with Hillary.

The short direct answer is "Oh hell no"

Trump declares himself 'law and order candidate,' calls for anti-police 'hostility' to end

Clinton says white Americans need to 'listen up'

Typical D/R banter. One says A, the other says B.

ftfy

Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary today.

She is the best thing since sliced bread, in spite of what he had said about her in the past.

j/c:

I liked it!

Very well done.

I hope they can get to 15% so they will be included in the debates. Common sense may still have a shot.

Here's the problem, though; most voters are locked into either a D or R, no matter what. Their party could nominate Satan, and they'd still vote for him. I remember hearing that something like 80% of the electorate is locked in to either a D or R.

I also think that if Trump makes a good VP choice, a solid conservative, (and I believe it will be Pence) he will gain more support from the right side of the Republican party. Likewise, if Clinton picks a left leaning choice for VP, she will pick up more support from the Sanders people.

I see little chance that Johnson gets more than 5% of the vote. Right now the RCP average has Johnson at 7.3%. I believe that could drop once the VPs are announced. (depending, of course, on who is selected)

Bernie already pushed the Democrats very far left -- too left if Hillary's opinion matters. I doubt she'll pick a bigger lefty than her for her VP. I know the media loves Sen. Warren, but that's a pipe dream at this point. Well, at least I hope. Sen. Warren is a very good Presidential prospect, I'd hate to see her bogged down by Hillary's neoliberalism.

I agree. I also believe that Hillary will not choose a VP candidate that has a chance to upstage her. Warren certainly has the potential to do that.