Political Roundtable Part X

[Ruzious]

I just want fair treatment from the media. Trump has said some outrageous things that deserve condemnation. This was not one of them. If Trump's statement was meant to encourage assassination, then Clinton's sure as hell was too. Clinton actually named an example of a nominee who got assassinated as a reason for her to stay in the race!

The double standard here is mind blowing.

What Hilary said back then was not OK. Was it as bad as what Trump said? Absolutely not. Clinton didn't actively tell any of her contingencies to utilize weapons. Catering to the 2nd amendment crowd =guns...

Hilary may have been hoping she had a reason to stay in the race (although hoping someone dies ain't ok) but Trump was pretty much telling people to go kill his opponent... definitely not ok.

The difference between the two statements is that Hillary's statement could not be interpreted in any way other than that she was either hoping for, or advocating for Obama's assassination.

Trump's statement had many possible interpretations, most of which had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with assassination. I honestly think his statement was that 2nd amendment nuts can protect themselves from government confiscation of guns by violence if necessary. Furthermore, Trump's remark was an off-the-cuff remark, more of a joke that came out unclearly enough to be misinterpreted. It wasn't a prepared statement like Clinton's.

LOL.

If Trump went up to Hillary and shot her 10 times in the head, you would come up with a justification and insist Hillary did worse. You might already have that post at the ready. Unfortunately, it might come in handy sooner than later the way Trump's rhetoric is going and given the intelligence level of his followers.

[JWizmentality]

I remember Clinton was dragged through the coals for that comment.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[gtn130]

I just want fair treatment from the media. Trump has said some outrageous things that deserve condemnation. This was not one of them. If Trump's statement was meant to encourage assassination, then Clinton's sure as hell was too. Clinton actually named an example of a nominee who got assassinated as a reason for her to stay in the race!

The double standard here is mind blowing.

What Hilary said back then was not OK. Was it as bad as what Trump said? Absolutely not. Clinton didn't actively tell any of her contingencies to utilize weapons. Catering to the 2nd amendment crowd =guns...

Hilary may have been hoping she had a reason to stay in the race (although hoping someone dies ain't ok) but Trump was pretty much telling people to go kill his opponent... definitely not ok.

The difference between the two statements is that Hillary's statement could not be interpreted in any way other than that she was either hoping for, or advocating for Obama's assassination.

Trump's statement had many possible interpretations, most of which had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with assassination. I honestly think his statement was that 2nd amendment nuts can protect themselves from government confiscation of guns by violence if necessary. Furthermore, Trump's remark was an off-the-cuff remark, more of a joke that came out unclearly enough to be misinterpreted. It wasn't a prepared statement like Clinton's.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Nate, just stop, man. Nobody believes this stuff but you and your fellow Breitbart cultists and Trump acolytes. You gotta control your biases, bro

[montestewart]

I remember Clinton was dragged through the coals for that comment.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Yep, and a Google search shows the same. She tried to limit damage by immediately expressing regret for the comment when called on it, but the damage was done, and some press outlets started calling for her to drop out of the race. For Trump to not drop out of the race now, and not even express any regret for the comment, represents a mind boggling double standard.

[nate33]

What Hilary said back then was not OK. Was it as bad as what Trump said? Absolutely not. Clinton didn't actively tell any of her contingencies to utilize weapons. Catering to the 2nd amendment crowd =guns...

Hilary may have been hoping she had a reason to stay in the race (although hoping someone dies ain't ok) but Trump was pretty much telling people to go kill his opponent... definitely not ok.

The difference between the two statements is that Hillary's statement could not be interpreted in any way other than that she was either hoping for, or advocating for Obama's assassination.

Trump's statement had many possible interpretations, most of which had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with assassination. I honestly think his statement was that 2nd amendment nuts can protect themselves from government confiscation of guns by violence if necessary. Furthermore, Trump's remark was an off-the-cuff remark, more of a joke that came out unclearly enough to be misinterpreted. It wasn't a prepared statement like Clinton's.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Nate, just stop, man. Nobody believes this stuff but you and your fellow Breitbart cultists and Trump acolytes. You gotta control your biases, bro

Okay, bro. Do you really believe that Donald Trump is actually instructing his people to assassinate Hillary Clinton? You don't feel that there's any bias in that belief?

But because you put an extra dozen "O's" in that LOL, it just proves that I'm out of control.

[montestewart]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/wikileaks-assange-hints-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-email-leaker-offers-20k-reward-info

I posted about this 3 weeks ago! ANON boards have been claiming he was the likely source ever since he was killed.

Clinton's have bought off Seth Rich's family

SENSATIONAL BLOCKBUSTER STORY

[BigA]

My theory of the election has changed, prompted by recent events.

My assumption up until now has been that the payments to Trump by the Clintons were structured around major milestones. Say, 33% of the total amount they agreed to pay Trump was transferred when he entered the race in June 2015, 33% was transferred when he won the Republican nomination, and the rest will be paid once Hillary is elected.

Now I'm thinking that there must be a provision where Trump has to say something crazy whenever he gets within 5 points of Hillary in the polls, and that he gets bonus payments for those statements (or maybe for the subsequent decline in his polling numbers).

I fully expect to be proven correct when Julian Assange releases all the emails detailing this arrangement.

[gtn130]

The difference between the two statements is that Hillary's statement could not be interpreted in any way other than that she was either hoping for, or advocating for Obama's assassination.

Trump's statement had many possible interpretations, most of which had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with assassination. I honestly think his statement was that 2nd amendment nuts can protect themselves from government confiscation of guns by violence if necessary. Furthermore, Trump's remark was an off-the-cuff remark, more of a joke that came out unclearly enough to be misinterpreted. It wasn't a prepared statement like Clinton's.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Nate, just stop, man. Nobody believes this stuff but you and your fellow Breitbart cultists and Trump acolytes. You gotta control your biases, bro

Okay, bro. Do you really believe that Donald Trump is actually instructing his people to assassinate Hillary Clinton? You don't feel that there's any bias in that belief?

But because you put an extra dozen "O's" in that LOL, it just proves that I'm out of control.

Yes, he was implying that gun owners can take action with their guns.

Trump's strategy since Day 1 has been to take the most pandering line possible toward his base but make it bolder and more extreme and more controversial. He's doing what Tea Party Republicans have been doing for the past decade but simply pushing the boundaries.

Trump himself doesn't believe most of what he says, so it's probably not a serious call to action in his mind. The problem is that his base of mouth-breathing illiterates could conceivably be a little bit confused and think it's their moral obligation as an American Patriot to "enjoy" their 2nd Amendment rights and go murder some SOCIALISTS.

[nate33]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Nate, just stop, man. Nobody believes this stuff but you and your fellow Breitbart cultists and Trump acolytes. You gotta control your biases, bro

Okay, bro. Do you really believe that Donald Trump is actually instructing his people to assassinate Hillary Clinton? You don't feel that there's any bias in that belief?

But because you put an extra dozen "O's" in that LOL, it just proves that I'm out of control.

Yes, he was implying that gun owners can take action with their guns.

Trump's strategy since Day 1 has been to take the most pandering line possible toward his base but make it bolder and more extreme and more controversial. He's doing what Tea Party Republicans have been doing for the past decade but simply pushing the boundaries.

Trump himself doesn't believe most of what he says, so it's probably not a serious call to action in his mind. The problem is that his base of mouth-breathing illiterates could conceivably be a little bit confused and think it's their moral obligation as an American Patriot to "enjoy" their 2nd Amendment rights and go murder some SOCIALISTS.

What in the world would make you think that NRA types are unhinged and ready to start shooting socialists? This has always been fascinating to me. Liberals like to sit around and concoct stories about what conservatives might to, or what the most fringe elements among them might say. They never apply the same scrutiny to what liberals actually ARE doing.

A wacko liberal actually rushed Trump on stage with the intent to do him harm. No equivalent thing has done by Trump supporters.

Wacko liberals actually murdered several cops in cold blood, no equivalent thing has been done by conservatives against liberal authority figures.

Wacko liberals routinely congregate around Trump rallies, screaming at Trump supporters, spitting on them,throwing objects at them, blocking traffic, or setting fire to flags. No equivalent thing is done by conservatives against Hillary supporters.

Wacko liberals walked the streets of New York saying "What do we want? Dead cops!" There has been no equivalent outrageous chants from the conservative side.

Wacko liberals actually play "the knockout game" where blacks walk around and try to punch out completely innocent white people specifically because they are white. This happens all the time and there are literally dozens of these events caught on video (meaning hundreds are taking place off video). There has been no equivalent white on black attacks in recent memory except for the one wacko Dylan Roof - and we ret-conned the Confederate flag out of existence as compensation.

Liberals apply totalitarian tactics against free speech by ostracism, banning, and getting people fired. There have been countless conservatives fired from their positions due to these coordinated "no-platform" attacks by liberals. Twitter and Facebook (run by liberals) also do the same thing - with one-sided application of rules to silence conservatives. Heck, people on this board have tried to silence me for posting well-researched, referenced, statistical facts about race. There are no equivalent "no platform" attacks by conservatives on liberals. We are not afraid of what you will say. We are comfortable arguing the points openly.

[Ruzious]

The difference between the two statements is that Hillary's statement could not be interpreted in any way other than that she was either hoping for, or advocating for Obama's assassination.

Trump's statement had many possible interpretations, most of which had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with assassination. I honestly think his statement was that 2nd amendment nuts can protect themselves from government confiscation of guns by violence if necessary. Furthermore, Trump's remark was an off-the-cuff remark, more of a joke that came out unclearly enough to be misinterpreted. It wasn't a prepared statement like Clinton's.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Nate, just stop, man. Nobody believes this stuff but you and your fellow Breitbart cultists and Trump acolytes. You gotta control your biases, bro

Okay, bro. Do you really believe that Donald Trump is actually instructing his people to assassinate Hillary Clinton? You don't feel that there's any bias in that belief?

But because you put an extra dozen "O's" in that LOL, it just proves that I'm out of control.

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

Okay, bro. Do you really believe that Donald Trump is actually instructing his people to assassinate Hillary Clinton? You don't feel that there's any bias in that belief?

But because you put an extra dozen "O's" in that LOL, it just proves that I'm out of control.

Yes, he was implying that gun owners can take action with their guns.

Trump's strategy since Day 1 has been to take the most pandering line possible toward his base but make it bolder and more extreme and more controversial. He's doing what Tea Party Republicans have been doing for the past decade but simply pushing the boundaries.

Trump himself doesn't believe most of what he says, so it's probably not a serious call to action in his mind. The problem is that his base of mouth-breathing illiterates could conceivably be a little bit confused and think it's their moral obligation as an American Patriot to "enjoy" their 2nd Amendment rights and go murder some SOCIALISTS.

What in the world would make you think that NRA types are unhinged and ready to start shooting socialists? This has always been fascinating to me. Liberals like to sit around and concoct stories about what conservatives might to, or what the most fringe elements among them might say. They never apply the same scrutiny to what liberals actually ARE doing.

A wacko liberal actually rushed Trump on stage with the intent to do him harm. No equivalent thing has done by Trump supporters.

Wacko liberals actually murdered several cops in cold blood, no equivalent thing has been done by conservatives against liberal authority figures.

Wacko liberals routinely congregate around Trump rallies, screaming at Trump supporters, spitting on them,throwing objects at them, blocking traffic, or setting fire to flags. No equivalent thing is done by conservatives against Hillary supporters.

Wacko liberals walked the streets of New York saying "What do we want? Dead cops!" There has been no equivalent outrageous chants from the conservative side.

Wacko liberals actually play "the knockout game" where blacks walk around and try to punch out completely innocent white people specifically because they are white. This happens all the time and there are literally dozens of these events caught on video (meaning hundreds are taking place off video). There has been no equivalent white on black attacks in recent memory except for the one wacko Dylan Roof - and we ret-conned the Confederate flag out of existence as compensation.

Liberals apply totalitarian tactics against free speech by ostracism, banning, and getting people fired. There have been countless conservatives fired from their positions due to these coordinated "no-platform" attacks by liberals. Twitter and Facebook (run by liberals) also do the same thing - with one-sided application of rules to silence conservatives. Heck, people on this board have tried to silence me for posting well-researched, referenced, statistical facts about race. There are no equivalent "no platform" attacks by conservatives on liberals. We are not afraid of what you will say. We are comfortable arguing the points openly.

What does any of this have to do with Trump? The issue at hand is that the Republican nominee for president is making offhand comments about assassinating judges, which is bad. It's bad because it can incite violence.

It's also bad because it makes it seem as if Trump is an incompetent moron, as he is unaware of how inappropriate it is for someone in his position to say something like that.

None of that has anything to do with the track record of wacko liberals. It has to do with the track record of Donald J Trump, the candidate for president.

[DCZards]

What in the world would make you think that NRA types are unhinged and ready to start shooting socialists? This has always been fascinating to me. Liberals like to sit around and concoct stories about what conservatives might to, or what the most fringe elements among them might say. They never apply the same scrutiny to what liberals actually ARE doing.

A wacko liberal actually rushed Trump on stage with the intent to do him harm. No equivalent thing has done by Trump supporters.

Wacko liberals actually murdered several cops in cold blood, no equivalent thing has been done by conservatives against liberal authority figures.

Wacko liberals routinely congregate around Trump rallies, screaming at Trump supporters, spitting on them,throwing objects at them, blocking traffic, or setting fire to flags. No equivalent thing is done by conservatives against Hillary supporters.

Wacko liberals walked the streets of New York saying "What do we want? Dead cops!" There has been no equivalent outrageous chants from the conservative side.

Wacko liberals actually play "the knockout game" where blacks walk around and try to punch out completely innocent white people specifically because they are white. This happens all the time and there are literally dozens of these events caught on video (meaning hundreds are taking place off video). There has been no equivalent white on black attacks in recent memory except for the one wacko Dylan Roof - and we ret-conned the Confederate flag out of existence as compensation.

Liberals apply totalitarian tactics against free speech by ostracism, banning, and getting people fired. There have been countless conservatives fired from their positions due to these coordinated "no-platform" attacks by liberals. Twitter and Facebook (run by liberals) also do the same thing - with one-sided application of rules to silence conservatives. Heck, people on this board have tried to silence me for posting well-researched, referenced, statistical facts about race. There are no equivalent "no platform" attacks by conservatives on liberals. We are not afraid of what you will say. We are comfortable arguing the points openly.

Nate, I'm not sure how you (or anyone else) would know the political bent of the people you describe as "wacko liberals." What are the grounds for labeling these people "liberals"? Do you really know where they stand on the political spectrum? Aren't you guilty of concocting the same kind of stereotypes you accuse liberals of doing to conservatives?

[gtn130]

And Nate, is the logical conclusion of your argument that conservatives don't kill people, liberals do, so it's fine?

[JWizmentality]

Okay, bro. Do you really believe that Donald Trump is actually instructing his people to assassinate Hillary Clinton? You don't feel that there's any bias in that belief?

But because you put an extra dozen "O's" in that LOL, it just proves that I'm out of control.

Yes, he was implying that gun owners can take action with their guns.

Trump's strategy since Day 1 has been to take the most pandering line possible toward his base but make it bolder and more extreme and more controversial. He's doing what Tea Party Republicans have been doing for the past decade but simply pushing the boundaries.

Trump himself doesn't believe most of what he says, so it's probably not a serious call to action in his mind. The problem is that his base of mouth-breathing illiterates could conceivably be a little bit confused and think it's their moral obligation as an American Patriot to "enjoy" their 2nd Amendment rights and go murder some SOCIALISTS.

What in the world would make you think that NRA types are unhinged and ready to start shooting socialists? This has always been fascinating to me. Liberals like to sit around and concoct stories about what conservatives might to, or what the most fringe elements among them might say. They never apply the same scrutiny to what liberals actually ARE doing.

A wacko liberal actually rushed Trump on stage with the intent to do him harm. No equivalent thing has done by Trump supporters.

Wacko liberals actually murdered several cops in cold blood, no equivalent thing has been done by conservatives against liberal authority figures.

Wacko liberals routinely congregate around Trump rallies, screaming at Trump supporters, spitting on them,throwing objects at them, blocking traffic, or setting fire to flags. No equivalent thing is done by conservatives against Hillary supporters.

Wacko liberals walked the streets of New York saying "What do we want? Dead cops!" There has been no equivalent outrageous chants from the conservative side.

Wacko liberals actually play "the knockout game" where blacks walk around and try to punch out completely innocent white people specifically because they are white. This happens all the time and there are literally dozens of these events caught on video (meaning hundreds are taking place off video). There has been no equivalent white on black attacks in recent memory except for the one wacko Dylan Roof - and we ret-conned the Confederate flag out of existence as compensation.

Liberals apply totalitarian tactics against free speech by ostracism, banning, and getting people fired. There have been countless conservatives fired from their positions due to these coordinated "no-platform" attacks by liberals. Twitter and Facebook (run by liberals) also do the same thing - with one-sided application of rules to silence conservatives. Heck, people on this board have tried to silence me for posting well-researched, referenced, statistical facts about race. There are no equivalent "no platform" attacks by conservatives on liberals. We are not afraid of what you will say. We are comfortable arguing the points openly.

And this is where you live in a bubble. In your mind conservatives are blameless and victims. And nobody here is going to play your little game of tit for tat. Like your idol said, he could walk down the street and shot someone in face and wouldn't lose any votes, and you would be here defending him.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[JWizmentality]

What in the world would make you think that NRA types are unhinged and ready to start shooting socialists? This has always been fascinating to me. Liberals like to sit around and concoct stories about what conservatives might to, or what the most fringe elements among them might say. They never apply the same scrutiny to what liberals actually ARE doing.

A wacko liberal actually rushed Trump on stage with the intent to do him harm. No equivalent thing has done by Trump supporters.

Wacko liberals actually murdered several cops in cold blood, no equivalent thing has been done by conservatives against liberal authority figures.

Wacko liberals routinely congregate around Trump rallies, screaming at Trump supporters, spitting on them,throwing objects at them, blocking traffic, or setting fire to flags. No equivalent thing is done by conservatives against Hillary supporters.

Wacko liberals walked the streets of New York saying "What do we want? Dead cops!" There has been no equivalent outrageous chants from the conservative side.

Wacko liberals actually play "the knockout game" where blacks walk around and try to punch out completely innocent white people specifically because they are white. This happens all the time and there are literally dozens of these events caught on video (meaning hundreds are taking place off video). There has been no equivalent white on black attacks in recent memory except for the one wacko Dylan Roof - and we ret-conned the Confederate flag out of existence as compensation.

Liberals apply totalitarian tactics against free speech by ostracism, banning, and getting people fired. There have been countless conservatives fired from their positions due to these coordinated "no-platform" attacks by liberals. Twitter and Facebook (run by liberals) also do the same thing - with one-sided application of rules to silence conservatives. Heck, people on this board have tried to silence me for posting well-researched, referenced, statistical facts about race. There are no equivalent "no platform" attacks by conservatives on liberals. We are not afraid of what you will say. We are comfortable arguing the points openly.

Nate, I'm not sure how you (or anyone else) would know the political bent of the people you describe as "wacko liberals." What are the grounds for labeling these people "liberals"? Do you really know where they stand on the political spectrum? Aren't you guilty of concocting the same kind of stereotypes you accuse liberals of doing to conservatives?

Indeed

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[nate33]

Nate, I'm not sure how you (or anyone else) would know the political bent of the people you describe as "wacko liberals." What are the grounds for labeling these people "liberals"? Do you really know where they stand on the political spectrum? Aren't you guilty of concocting the same kind of stereotypes you accuse liberals of doing to conservatives?

Indeed

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

I dunno. I'm applying the same logic that people used to label Dylan Roof a conservative Republican.

I think the huge number of Bernie signs amongst the anti-Trump protestors is pretty good evidence too. And there's also the fact that blacks vote Democrat 94% of the time (with most of the exceptions being former vets). And blacks in some inner cities like Philly (where the knockout game is more prevalent) vote Democrat 100% of the time.

[tontoz]

A candidate for President needs to have a filter when speaking publicly and Trump just doesn't seem to have one. If he did there is a reasonable chance that he could win but as it stands now I just don't see it. He says too much crazy chit.

[nate33]

A candidate for President needs to have a filter when speaking publicly and Trump just doesn't seem to have one. If he did there is a reasonable chance that he could win but as it stands now I just don't see it. He says too much crazy chit.

I don't have a problem with this sentiment. Trump certainly isn't "presidential" as we have come to know the term over the past 50 years or so. If his overall crassness is a bridge too far for some voters, I can respect that. I'd prefer a guy who thought things through more before opening his mouth.

I just think it's ridiculous to accuse him of advocating assassination.

[Ruzious]

A candidate for President needs to have a filter when speaking publicly and Trump just doesn't seem to have one. If he did there is a reasonable chance that he could win but as it stands now I just don't see it. He says too much crazy chit.

I don't have a problem with this sentiment. Trump certainly isn't "presidential" as we have come to know the term over the past 50 years or so. If his overall crassness is a bridge too far for some voters, I can respect that. I'd prefer a guy who thought things through more before opening his mouth.

I just think it's ridiculous to accuse him of advocating assassination.

I think your ideal candidate would be your avatar. Not kidding.

[nuposse04]

A candidate for President needs to have a filter when speaking publicly and Trump just doesn't seem to have one. If he did there is a reasonable chance that he could win but as it stands now I just don't see it. He says too much crazy chit.

I don't have a problem with this sentiment. Trump certainly isn't "presidential" as we have come to know the term over the past 50 years or so. If his overall crassness is a bridge too far for some voters, I can respect that. I'd prefer a guy who thought things through more before opening his mouth.

I just think it's ridiculous to accuse him of advocating assassination.

I think your ideal candidate would be your avatar. Not kidding.

The parallels between Cartman and Trump are kind of amazing actually.