The debate "Trump's latest comment may be the worst thing he's said yet" was started by
August 9, 2016, 5:19 pm.
By the way, historybuff is disagreeing with this statement.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
historybuff posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, dalton7532 posted 6 arguments, PsychDave posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 13 arguments, historybuff posted 9 arguments to the disagreers part.
dalton7532, moneybagboyz, Rakesh, Nemiroff, PsychDave, Bman192837465, thereal and 3 visitors agree.
Iyah, historybuff, blakelovesjesus, famouslorie, Yanksxx21 and 7 visitors disagree.
I misspoke. She said rob was assassinated in June. Bill won in June. Therefore she would wait to see what would happen in her race against Obama.
They were two separate examples of long running primaries. You misunderstood or were mislead about their connection.
Thats what she said.
lol that one made me laugh. Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968. bill clinton was elected president in 1993.
you want to explain how you thought those two events were related?
You may want to look up when those two events happened. Or just get a very basic, cursory understanding about the subject you are talking about.
She justified staying in by saying robert kennedies assassination put Bill in office. Then followed up by saying she would see what happened I feel that deserves criticism if you criticize trump.
And that means Clinton was staying in the race in case Obama was assisted how? Primaries some times run long and she mentioned two examples. Do you have any thing more relevant than the fact that she mentioned Kennedy's assassination?
[Q] ?One group that probably ultimately wouldn?t want it to go on too long is the Democratic Party itself. Can you envision a point at which ? if the race stays this close ? and with the difficulties that everyone has analyzed in accumulating enough delegates to get any distance ahead where party elders would step in and say ?Senators Clinton and Obama, this is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall. We need to figure this out.?
[A] ?No I really can?t. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn?t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months.?
Want the tanscript?
Clinton has lied less than Trump from what I have seen, heard and read. Does that mean you don't believe a word he says as well?
That is a fun fact. Did you make it up or read it online?
Fun fact, Hillary stayed in the race in case Obama was assassinated.
That report has 0 confirmation. The reporter wasnt even there
"I am more inclined to believe the people who haven't been proven to have repeatedly lied to the public."
same with me. that's why I don't believe a word hillary says. she is the queen of lying the public.
That he will be a bully? The fact that he has bullied political rivals, journalists and the parents of dead war heroes.
That he will resort to force, and extreme force, if challenged? The fact that he asked 3 times why nuclear weapons couldn't be used. Trump's representative has denied it, but I am more inclined to believe the people who haven't been proven to have repeatedly lied to the public.
what about trumps past behavior suggests that?
he is also known to retaliate against anyone who slights or criticizes him. imagine him in charge of the cia, fbi, and every enforcement agency! are you looking forward to secret police?
In a way it does. He wants to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. That means he will be negotiating and dealing with other world leaders, activists, the media as well as other important people. If he cannot do so without being belligerent and insulting, the entire nation will suffer. He tries to bully people into doing what he wants, and on the international level that has severe long term effects.
Further complicating things is the use of military force. Trump seems more likely to resort to warfare to get his way even in horrible ways, such as by suggesting using nuclear weapons.
He insults people, sometimes too far, that doesn't mean he can't run a country
He did not show any temperment issues when he discussed the parents of the soldier. Why would it disqualify him?
same if I say anyone who jeopardizes national security because of convenience cant be president.
I didn't day you would defend it. I said you would make excuses for it. if I told you that any man who openly mocks the grieving parents of a war hero does not have the temperament to be President, the excuses will come pretty quickly.
I'll admit bad things he does. the time he insulted the parents of the dead US muslem soldier was bad, and I won't defend it.
alex I never for a moment thought you would actually take this seriously. you will make excuses for anything he says or does no matter how terrible it is.
He was making a joke out of it.
it's a fact the people in favor of guns have political power. that's no joke.
He joking about a potential fact.
no, it was a fact, not a joke
He meant it as a joke and that was pretty clear.
it wasn't a joke, it was a fact. 2nd ammendment guys have tremendous political power and will use that to try to keep the 2nd ammendment if hillary is elected.
I said it was a bad joke meaning I figured it was about an overthrow or assassination.
liberal media changes "2nd ammendment people can do something" (obviously in terms of political power) into "TRUMP is calling for the ASSIONATION of HILLARY"
it is the worst thing the media has done so far, beats the baby thing.
is it okay when Obama says "take out opponents 'Chicago style'"?
dalton still refusing to weight in on the "that'll be a dark day" part of trumps second ammendment people reaction speech.
is voting or lobbying dark?
Also she opposes the current standings on the 2nd. I believe that better fits the proper writings of the constitution and its amendments. Reversing it would destroy the amendment.
We're supposed to be gridlocked! Understand we have so many steps for that one reason, and have divided our government further than nations like the uk for a reason!
Well, that is what people feel, whatever was special with the second amendment would be tooken away by this proposed legislation. She proposed and idea for people to only use guns with a finger print trigger that is a pistol. I would consider that essential. It is what they feel by Hillary's proposals, so it is not a lie. Trump always says or usually says essentially, so it would clear up any inconsistencies. Sometimes he forgets.
so he is openly lying to people to get the to hate the Democrats? she has never said she is against the second amendment. he is telling people she is. that is creating division. he is polarizing American politics worse than it was before and you already are insanely polarized. to the point you can't get anything done.
he is bad for America is many ways.
he also said essentially on the second amendment subject. i just wanted to point that out
ill be on my way out of this thread
She's never said it, but I wouldnt discount it. And Hillary is divisive as well. She attacks every other influential group existing outside of the government. She victimizes blacks, women, the poor, the elderly in order to make them further dependent since they already are (the poor and elderly atleast). She dominated them into voting, and that is ok?
What is wrong with making a distinction between policy ideas?
in that same speech he told them Hilary is going to take away their second amendment rights. that is divisive. she has never said that. he is trying to make people hate her so much theu don't realize how truly terrible a president he would be.
He is not divisive. He has given numerous speeches outlining plans for minorities to succeed. He has held many diversity meeting to discuss the threat of racism. He has praised people for supporting LGBT rights and you say divisive? Lol, give me a break. You outright lie!
his policy platform is to preach division and hatred. it is to ignore the racism, hatred and calls to violence of his supporters. it is to make jokes about violence to an already potentially violent group. he is going to get people killed.
You totally forget the liberal protest that ensued outside a Trump rally? Setting stuff on fire, jumping and flipping cars, and egging people... What about that time a Trump supporter got hit with a bag with a rock in it? What about the time a dude got sucker punched and never got up. He was just laying there. What about that girl who was trapped in a corner and got egged? What about all those violent protest in name of BLM? What about the Bernie supporter who charged Trump's podium? What about the animal rights people who charged Hillary's stage? What group is really violent. What actions have Trump supporters done so far besides yell? I thought so. Maybe defend himself against a violent protester? Give me a break.
And none of that is his policy platform.
If you wish to convict him for nothing he has done, what would sway you?
his audience calls for her to be killed, for Muslims to be killed, for illegal immigrants to be killed. they have attacked peaceful protesters at those rallies. his audience is often angry and violent. he doesn't speak out about this. he doesn't try to channel their anger to be peaceful. he wants them to be angry and doesn't care if they hurt people.
he is a scheming douche bag who had crossed line after line that no one who wants to be President should cross. he is completely unfit to be President.
And i agree with you for agreeing with me
Did Catcher in the Rye have literature that would kill John?
He hasn't said that! Plain and clear. Kill them all? Lock her up? How is lock her up treasonous? He isnt doing anything you accuse him of, and he clarified.
yeah i agree with dalton.
I agree treason is not a joke, but in no way was he advocating for treason. It was clear to me for that, and I do not think this situation hardly disqualifies him for president.
dalton just said it was a joke. calling for violence against the president or the government is treason.
treason a joke? who said that to you?
treason is not a joke. it is a very serious matter. especially when you regularly speak to crowds of angry people screaming about violence. ex kill her, "build a wall kill them all".
if that is your audience then you can't afford to be unclear. he still hasn't come out against violence. he only said he meant something else. people who want to use violence are still going to see this as a call to violence.
if he meant something else then he is still reckless and going to get people killed. he has no business being President if he can't control himself, and he clearly can't.
He meant no acts of violence. I assure you that. It was a bad joke. He is no more treasonous than Thomas Jefferson.
He openly said he meant a political opposition. Regardless, you are making complete assumptions. I came to a different conclusion. How is he therefore implying violence? Because you choose to believe he is? Inference is not of the control of the speaker.
worst case he is intentionally firing up his followers to commit acts of violence. this means he is a traitor and a criminal. and is obviously unfit to be President.
you're right. it doesn't matter. either way he is unfit to be President.
best case he is so incompetent that he is giving statements that sound like he is calling for violence against the government. I haven't heard of any public statement to his supporters telling them that violence is not acceptable. in fact he routinely allows people to chant and scream about locking her up, killing her, calling her whore, bitch, "build a wall, kill them all". his followers are already screaming about violence and he doesn't say a word about it. now he sounds like he is openly calling for it and still isn't strongly condemning violence.
Or he was referring to lobbying against the scotus which would be intense. Like i said, we dont know, and frankly it doesnt matter.
His speech was in regards to a time in which we can do nothing which implies an new scotus in existence.
He wasnt. He said there is nothing we can do about a particular SCOTUS. If they take rights away, the NRA/guns are in existence. Beyond that, we are suspect to assumption which is unprovable.
we know he's talking about SCOTUS. he's talking about using violence to stop Hilary from picking a new SCOTUS judge after she's elected. which is blatant treason.
That isnt true. Hes talking about scotus since we have no control of where it goes.
so how do you understand the "it'll be a dark day when they do" part of his speech? you seem to be unwilling to address that.
and does someone literally have to spell out "I want you to kill her" before you are able to get the message?
so best case he's reckless and dumb and will get people killed. worst case he is willing to do anything to get power and will get people killed.
no matter what he meant he has no business leading a country.
even if I accepted that is what he means, which I don't because it doesn't make sense, he would still be unfit to be President because of this.
he made a statement that is very easily interpreted as a call to violence. there are alot of angry people out there. trump is doing everything he can to make them angrier. and then he goes and makes a statement like this. alot of people are going to think he meant this the way it sounds. people are going to die for Trump's carelessness. and if you are right and that's what he meant, then it was careless and incredibly stupid.
If you want to say he never said anything about voting, well he did not say anything about killing either.
My point was met with a "when", making the timeline being when I get the dog, but I have not got the dog yet that might bite me. This makes it the same scenerio as Trump's.
I thought it was pretty clear what he meant when he said unless.
yes he said it will be an ugly day, it was within a sentence of that statement, possibly even in the same sentence
except he didn't start talking about before her election. he said if she gets to pick judges there is nothing you can do. although the the second amendment, people, maybe there is.
he didn't say anything about voting. he didn't say anything that would lead you to believe he meant action before her election. he specified after her election. so your example is not the same thing. because he didn't say that. this is just a new low over a campaign of new lows.
Well, I can say "If I get this dog, it will bite me unless I do something about it." I am now talking about if I got the dog and when I have it. I could do something that will prevent me from getting bit such as not getting the dog. If I am mentioning if and when I get the dog, am I not allowed to offer the solution maybe I shouldn't get the damn dog so it won't bite me?
except he was specifically talking about after she was president. Trump's spin team jumped on top of this fast. but their spin explanation does not make sense. that obviously isn't what he was talking about. his team are just smart enough to know that what he said is pretty much treason. and that crosses a whole new line.
It was a vague statement. You can take it either way. People have mixed thoughts on what he meant and Trump later said what he meant out of that, by voting.
I did not get that impression while watching what he said the first time, I honestly thought he meant by gun rights people fighting for what they believe in by voting so she would never get into office. "Unless" made it pretty clear to me. If he said and/or then I would know he meant killing.
he was talking about after she is elected. how would voting prevent her exercising her right and responsibility to pick a judge after her election?
Did he really say it would be an ugly day?
his statement was at best vague, and your assertion that it CLEARLY meant something is laughable.
also if you listen carefully he was talking about what they could do AFTER she is already elected.
if she elected and pickers her judges there is nothing you can do about it, well second ammendment people can do something.
he seems to be CLEARLY talking about after the fact.
and then he added
THAT WILL BE AN UGLY DAY
what is ugly about voting or peaceful protest which you claim he is CLEARLY talking about?!?
The supreme court is a pinnacle reason to vote for Trump, so liberal justices will not get appointed, for the primary reason of gun rights. That is why he said it like that. He has stated many other groups will stop her, not just gun rights people. I honestly think this was blown out of proportion.
why didn't he say Republicans would protest? do the rest of Republicans typically agree with her picks? why does he think only 2nd ammendment people would be able to stop him?
Donald Trump said the second amendment people, not to use the second amendment to stop Hillary. If you want to blatantly lie, then that is ok, but if you want me to accept your blatant lies, forget it. The second amendment people will stop her by voting, not killing her. The 2nd amendment people who advocate gun rights are a pretty big group that can determin an outcome of an election, and the recent surge of gun purchases show how big they are and what candidate they do not want it in office.
(paraphrasing) "I could shoot a man in the middle of the street and I wouldn't lose a single vote" -trump
the second amendment says you have the right to bear arms. if you want to lie to yourself that he meant voting then I can't stop you. but you're deluding yourself.
he was specifically referring to after she had won the Presidency. how else would she be the one nominating the judges? therefore voting doesn't make any sense if she is already elected.
the second amendment is about owning guns. it isn't about voting. how would you use the second amendment to vote? and even if you could how would that apply to a sitting president?
he obviously meant using weapons protected by the second amendment to prevent her from nominating a judge. whether that is by overthrowing an elected government or assassinating a sitting president it is still treason.
No he did not, and Quit lying. He said second amendment people, meaning by voting and not killing.
he said that the way stop her was with the second amendment. so he is telling supporters that their guns can stop her from appointing a judge. that is an extremely lame explanation. that is not what he said.
asking russians to FIND hillarys 30000 missing emails is not the same as hacking the us govt. why do those emails exist in the first place? people who committed the same crime had to resign from their jobs so why hasnt she?
He did not encourage any assassination among anyone. I watched the whole speech and did not think anything bad of what he said. He meant that gun rights people will not allow her to do anything with guns by voting, not killing. This was blown totally out of proportion again.
I tried to copy the quote and couldn't.
trump is encouraging the American people to either assassinate or overthrow a US president (since he was talking about after she is elected). he has moved past disturbing to border line treasonous.
combine this with asking the Russian government to try to hack the American government, he is a complete disgrace.