I wish we could all meet up and watch the trainwr... I mean debates.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
This stuff about a vague reference to Clinton's bodyguards carrying guns and pointing out that CNN is biased in Clinton's favor... who cares.
Language, as we know is important. One's choice of language cannot just be flippant as it carries a lot of baggage. Especially if one is a Presidential candidate. Remember when Iranian President, Ahmadinejad suggested that "Israel should be wiped off the map"? That is an outrageous comment for anybody to say let alone the leader of a country who controls the army. Trump has proved time and time again to say shockingly awful and disgusting things. A Presidential candidate making these comments not only lacks tact, class and professionalism. But, he is provoking and suggesting violence. Where does it stop? Also, we should demand more from our leaders. What have we descended to as a nation when we give this type of behavior and language a pass (going back to his debates, his bullying social media comments, his personal insults)?
We are much better than this. Conservatives and Liberals once coexisted together and worked together in DC. Instead as a nation we as a populace have grown more divided by the day, angrier, less respect on one another and more and more un-United. Congress has shown a nasty side to the White House. Trump's shooting from the hip style of speaking without thinking, talking like a middle schooler and downright repulsive behavior embodies and magnifies this division. Yet, he then makes footnotes that he is a "great unifier".
You say that Trump has proven time and time again to say shockingly awful and disgusting things-- I don't agree with that at all. I think he has gotten carried away with the rhetoric at times for sure. He has been rough on competing countries, ISIS, the media, and his political opponents. However, he has been consistently supportive of American citizens of ALL types. I can roll with that.
He has a New Yorker style. You ever talk with a New Yorker? They're mostly blunt and direct. It's just how they talk. Personally I kind of like it. People get offended too damn easily these days. Just tell things like they are, I'm an adult, and I can handle it.
Yeah, he has taken things too far before. I get that. Neither of these candidates are great. I'll take a candidate that sometimes puts his foot in his mouth and says mean things over the lies, corruption, hawkishness, and frankly incompetence of his opponent.
You say that Trump has proven time and time again to say shockingly awful and disgusting things-- I don't agree with that at all. I think he has gotten carried away with the rhetoric at times for sure. He has been rough on competing countries, ISIS, the media, and his political opponents. However, he has been consistently supportive of American citizens of ALL types. I can roll with that.
He has a New Yorker style. You ever talk with a New Yorker? They're mostly blunt and direct. It's just how they talk. Personally I kind of like it. People get offended too damn easily these days. Just tell things like they are, I'm an adult, and I can handle it.
Yeah, he has taken things too far before. I get that. Neither of these candidates are great. I'll take a candidate that sometimes puts his foot in his mouth and says mean things over the lies, corruption, hawkishness, and frankly incompetence of his opponent.
Yep, I lived in New York for two years before moving to London. Never met anybody in that time who was as rude nor as spiteful as Trump. Especially not an adult.
You keep pointing out Clinton as a liar (I am not disagreeing, btw). Yet, it has been proven time and time again by the media that a lot of what Trump says is an exaggeration of the truth or, at worst, a bold faced lie. So, to accuse her as a liar and endorse another isn't productive it is a contradiction.
Again, I think a Presidential candidate should be held to a higher standard than the average middle school kid on the playground. We shouldn't give them a pass as "oh, he is from NY they are brash and a bit rude". No, an intelligent person who runs as leader uses their brain and thinks about the language they use before they say it. Thing is...I don't think Trump is that intelligent. At least he has not shown much evidence that he is.
And Haus, as somebody who does stand on the left of politics...I may disagree with your politics but, I totally respect your approach and thoughtful replies. That is how America should be. We may have differing opinions, lives, beliefs, religions, skin color, sexual preference etc. but, respect should always be there. That is what makes us the UNITED States.
Thanks PDX. I think the same about you. I remember one of your posts in the last thread I think, where you mentioned that one of the next president's biggest hurdles will be in uniting the people of our country. It is a huge task for sure.
In fact, I'm a little skeptical on how he/she will be able to do it given that the policies and ideology of each side is growing more and more apart. As more and more people get stuck in their TV and online 'echo chambers', we fail to understand the points of view of the other side. Look, I'm not going to vote for Hillary, but if she gets elected then I'll go about my life and be a productive and responsible citizen. I would pull for her to do well.
In this case, I don't see the big deal about Trump's remarks. Many conservatives feel really, really, really strongly about guns. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the reality, and the whole idea of protecting oneself against an aggressor is a point they feel strongly about. One of our fellow dawgs, FBO, told us about his experiences of anti-Trump protesters brazenly attacking Trump supporters, unprovoked, at rallies in California and Arizona.
Granted, we are talking about civilians and not the candidate himself, but a lot of people sympathize with that. Maybe read this blog post by Scott Adams, I don't agree with everything (some of the assumptions up front are debatable and a bit startling) but maybe it will give some insight on why people take offense to the idea of Hillary having top notch protective detail with bodyguards and the Secret Service while wanting stricter gun control for the ordinary citizen.
Gary Johnson on 11 key issues: Where does Libertarian presidential candidate stand?
on August 17, 2016 at 6:24 AM, updated August 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Voters are so disenchanted with major-party presidential candidates that many are taking a serious look at Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
Johnson, 63, was twice elected governor of New Mexico as a Republican, serving from 1995 to 2003. He boasts that he cut taxes 14 times, balanced the state's budget and left office with a billion-dollar surplus. The Libertarian Cato Institute gave him a fiscal policy grade of "B" in 2002.
Johnson ran for president in 2012 as a Republican with a libertarian-flavored platform focused on limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, tax reform and opposition to the war on drugs. After being "marginalized in a Republican primary that seeks rigidity and ideological purity,'' Johnson jumped to the Libertarian Party. He and running mate James P. Gray received 1.27 million votes, about 1 percent of votes cast.
In 2016, Johnson's running mate is William Weld, 71, the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts.
Libertarians believe in liberty, enterprise and personal responsibility. "Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud,'' the party's website says.
Here's where he and Weld stand on 11 key issues:
TAXES Johnson would eliminate loopholes and deductions for special interests; get rid of "double taxation'' on small businesses; and, eventually, replace taxes on income with a tax on consumption. The Libertarian Party platform calls for the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service.
JOBS/ECONOMY Johnson and Weld both tout their economic records as governors. They would cut over-regulation that they say is stifling entrepreneurs and small businesses.
CIVIL LIBERTIES Johnson opposes government surveillance of private communications and financial transactions and favors an unregulated internet. He was an early supporter of gay marriage. Johnson also supports a woman's right to have an abortion. He opposes restricting gun ownership, except with respect to the mentally ill, and thinks Americans would be safer if more people carried guns. "Responsible adults should be free to marry whom they want, arm themselves if they want, and lead their personal lives as they see fit — as long as they aren't harming anyone else in doing so," his website says.
FOREIGN POLICY/MILITARY The role of the military and foreign policy in a Johnson administration would be to "protect Americans from harm and allow us to exercise our freedoms.'' Johnson would stop using the military for "nation building'' and "policing the world," which he says has created new enemies and kept the country in a state of "perpetual war.''
IMMIGRATION Johnson says his background as the former governor of a border state informs his understanding of immigration policy. He is critical of Trump's plan to build a wall. Johnson would make it easier for immigrants, after a background check, to get a work visa and a Social Security card so they could pay taxes.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE Johnson believes "tough on crime'' laws have criminalized aspects of our personal lives that should not be the concern of the state. He cites the war on drugs as an example, and calls it a failure. Johnson also is critical of mandatory minimum sentences that prevent judges from using their discretion.
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION As president, Johnson would take marijuana off the federal government's list of controlled substances, allowing states to legalize its recreational and medicinal use. He favors taxing and regulating the marijuana business. "We need to treat drug abuse as a health issue, not a crime,'' he says.
EDUCATION Johnson would abolish the federal Department of Education and eliminate the Common Core curriculum. He favors school choice and competition to foster innovation.
ENVIRONMENT The Libertarian candidates would focus the Environmental Protection Agency on its core mission of protecting the environment. He and Weld say the climate "probably'' is changing and that humans "probably'' have something to do with it, but they question whether government's efforts to combat it are working, or worth the expense.
DEFICIT/BUDGET Johnson says he would balance the federal budget by cutting military spending and reforming entitlement programs. He hasn't provided specifics on what he would cut; the National Review estimates he would have to cut the budget by 43 percent to balance it.
HEALTH CARE Johnson says he supports a free-market health care system that lowers cost through competition. Johnson opposes the Affordable Care Act. When asked at the June 22, 2016 town hall on CNN whether he would replace Obamacare or modify it, he was noncommittal. "I'm going to assume that Republican proposals accomplish that. If the proposals don't accomplish that, then I'm not on board,'' he said.
If anything, the inference was a bit more suggestive on that occasion and I didn't even think it was a big deal back then. Just words being taken out of context. I would say that the suggestions that Hillary wants to essentially abolish the second amendment and take American's guns away are not really true. If that was the issue, that he was exaggerating that claim, I'd agree with that.
Miami (CNN)Donald Trump on Friday wondered aloud what would happen to Hillary Clinton should her Secret Service detail disarm.
"I think her bodyguards should drop all weapons. Disarm immediately," Trump said. "Take their guns away, let's see what happens to her." "Take their guns away, OK? It'll be very dangerous," he added.
Trump's comment, which came as he criticized Clinton over gun rights, is not the first time he has called for Clinton's Secret Service detail to "disarm." But it is the first time he has wondered aloud what would happen to her should she suddenly be deprived of armed protection. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said Trump's remarks "should be out of bounds for a presidential candidate." "Whether this is done to provoke protesters at a rally or casually or even as a joke, it is an unacceptable quality in anyone seeking the job of commander in chief," Mook said in a statement, adding, "He is unfit to be President and it is time Republican leaders stand up to denounce this disturbing behavior in their nominee."
The Secret Service declined to comment on Trump's remark, spokeswoman Catherine Milhoan said. Several federal law enforcement officials told CNN there is concern Trump's rhetoric could lead to a Secret Service or law enforcement officer getting shot or killed. They feel the consequences could be borne by people who protect Clinton and are first in line if someone makes an attempt on her life. Trump argued Friday that he would be a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and said that Clinton would "destroy" the right to bear arms. Clinton has called for tightening access to guns, including instating universal background checks, but has never suggested she would seek to do away with the Second Amendment. Trump made a similar comment after he accepted the National Rifle Association's endorsement last spring. "They should immediately disarm and let's see how good they do. Let's see how they feel walking around without their guns or their body guards," Trump said of Clinton and her Secret Service detail during his speech to the gun lobby conference in May.
Trump doesn't allow guns at his rallies and his properties don't allow open carrying of guns. Friday's remark comes just more than a month after Trump made comments that were interpreted by many as a threat of violence against Clinton. "Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said during a rally in North Carolina in August. The Trump campaign defended those comments as a call for increased political activity, but the Clinton campaign said unequivocally that Trump's comments were "dangerous" and irresponsible for a presidential candidate to make.
Last edited by Haus; 09/18/1611:05 AM. Reason: formatting is all screwed up
Seeing as the only people who want to kill Hillary in this country would probably be trump supporters, his intended message is probably lost on most.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Yes, I supported President Bush and I think I was leaning towards Jeb in the beginning of the Primaries.
When I finally got a chance to vote, I voted Cruz. Like most Republicans I thought Trump would fade. Trump however turned out to be a winner, against it all he prevailed, what thinking person can't respect that?
I know many life long Democrats and people who never voted before who can't wait to vote for Trump. He represents the hope of change to a corrupt government and a fading Society.
Seeing as the only people who want to kill Hillary in this country would probably be trump supporters, his intended message is probably lost on most.
I think the proper response to his comments, the response that most logical people would relate to the most, would be that presidential candidates are high-risk targets that need the extra protection. Their risk profile is different than the average civilian. That explanation may not go over well with some, but I bet it would go over better than making his comments sound mean or dangerous. just an idea anyway.
Again, nobody 'made' it sound mean. He did it all on his own.
At some point, your boy needs to stop saying stupid things.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Again, nobody 'made' it sound mean. He did it all on his own.
At some point, your boy needs to stop saying stupid things.
Keep in mind that Trump's tough talk was directed at Hillary. In the past, on a number of occasions, it has been directed at illegal immigrants, competing countries, the media, and his former political opponents.
Hillary's tough talk was aimed at tens of millions of American citizens. Let that sink in for a little bit.
You mean like we he said that the black community is poor as hell with no jobs?
I guess you don't count them as Americans, huh?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You mean like we he said that the black community is poor as hell with no jobs?
I guess you don't count them as Americans, huh?
Of course they are Americans. Why would Trump say such a thing? After 8 years of having a Black President the Black community is doing just fine today.
We still have a lot of progress that needs to take place. Sort of like your own community and being hooked on herion, amongst other problems.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You mean like we he said that the black community is poor as hell with no jobs?
I guess you don't count them as Americans, huh?
Umm, isn't that kind of along the lines of what you, Lurker, and Clem regularly talk about on here? That is that poverty and lack of jobs makes it tough to escape the cycle of being poor.
Seriously, provide some context for that, lest I think you are taking his comments out of context. I thought that whole thing was about providing an equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of color, gender, or class. That was one of the overriding points of his visit to that Church in Detroit, the coverage of which was suspiciously absent in mainstream media.
Never once has any of us implied that every single black person is broken.
Ever.
Also, look at your own conservative media coverage. My 'liberal' media coverage absolutely covered it.
Broaden your horizons.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You didn't see his speech to a bunch non blacks about black people?
We already had a discussion on it. Go find it, or watch the video.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
No I didn't see it, and I don't know which speech you are talking about.
From what I've seen and heard, he has been consistently supportive of American citizens of all races and ethnicities. If I missed something, hopefully somebody else will point me in the right direction.
It's pretty condescending and insulting. Also, I was wrong on the Michigan audience. I thought he said it in Flint but, it wasn't. It was actually a predominately white audience when he made this insulting pitch.
Just stupid. All blacks aren't poor, or in poverty.
However, I do find it funny how people who don't like labels and generalizations have no problem with trump labeling and generalizing.
What's the standard?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
At least you did not disappoint. Not telling why we should vote for Hillary, but insulting the other candidate.
Well done!!!
Actually, it is none of anybody's business who I vote for. However, for the record, I have posted in here at least twice, possibly more, why I am voting the way I am. So, clearly you have not read them or you just prefer to stick with your same 'ol agenda and insult folks.
I guess I'd need to see the video of Trump talking to mostly white people when he said "what do you have to lose?"
Didn't he say that in Detroit? In downtown Detroit? At a black church?
And I agree with you. All blacks aren't poor, or in poverty. In fact, I would guess most AREN'T........which leads me to question why the ones that are seem to get all of the media play.
I dont have any problems with what trump said. He doesnt really sugar coat things and tell you what you want to hear like Hillary does. But I understand the liberal lemmings enjoy being told life will be a utopia if you only vote for Dems.
