Maybe The 19th Amendment People can do something about Donald Trump

[Cigar]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpwXg4kVUAAVbwW.jpg

[Ravens Fan]

Why do you advocate assassination?

[Cigar]

Why do you advocate assassination?

Efficiency :grin:

[Ravens Fan]

Efficiency :grin:

Sounds more like fear and desperation from here...

[maineman]

that's funny. I can honestly say that I have not been this sure of a democratic presidential victory since LBJ-AuH2O.

[Subdermal]

Well that's pathetic and unoriginal.

[maineman]

unoriginal? how so, señor? I simply stated my opinion. I have been watching presidential elections since 1956, when my Dad's good friend and former colleague got his ass kicked a second time by Ike. JFK was a nail biter.... but LBJ-Goldwater was an absolute blowout. I never had any doubt.... the only other time I felt anywhere near that comfortable was Clinton-Dole. I felt Obama would win both times, but I never felt like either of them would be a blowout. THIS one will be a blowout.

[del]

Sounds more like fear and desperation from here...

http://www.beltonehearingtest.com/us/

[maineman]

Well that's pathetic and unoriginal.
Subdermal....it just occurred to me... you must have thought that the AuH2O was unoriginal! That's funny, señor! You probably weren't naturalized, or probably even born in 1964, but for those of us who were alive and born English speaking American citizens, that was a very common way to refer to the GOP's nominee in 1964. He even had bumperstickers that had only that on them. I certainly don't want you to think for a moment that I made that up, because I didn't. Oro Agua is probably how they referred to him in whatever God-forsaken barrio you grew up in, but in America, the little chemical play on words was fairly common. So you learned something new about your adopted country today, so that's a good thing, eh?

[Subdermal]

@Subdermal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1758)....it just occurred to me... you must have thought that the AuH2O was unoriginal! That's funny, señor! You probably weren't naturalized, or probably even born in 1964, but for those of us who were alive and born English speaking American citizens, that was a very common way to refer to the GOP's nominee in 1964. He even had bumperstickers that had only that on them. I certainly don't want you to think for a moment that I made that up, because I didn't. Oro Agua is probably how they referred to him in whatever God-forsaken barrio you grew up in, but in America, the little chemical play on words was fairly common. So you learned something new about your adopted country today, so that's a good thing, eh?

I wasn't born in 1964. I was born in Puerto Rico - to two American citizens - and grew up in Wisconsin.

Thanks for caring.

[Crepitus]

Why do you advocate assassination?
Can't you tell he's talking about voting?

LOF'nL

[Subdermal]

unoriginal? how so, señor? I simply stated my opinion. I have been watching presidential elections since 1956, when my Dad's good friend and former colleague got his ass kicked a second time by Ike. JFK was a nail biter.... but LBJ-Goldwater was an absolute blowout. I never had any doubt.... the only other time I felt anywhere near that comfortable was Clinton-Dole. I felt Obama would win both times, but I never felt like either of them would be a blowout. THIS one will be a blowout.

The OP's mimic/play on Trump's statement is pathetic and unoriginal.

[Crepitus]

The OP's mimic/play on Trump's statement is pathetic and unoriginal.
Nope, That's funny as shit.

[maineman]

The OP's mimic/play on Trump's statement is pathetic and unoriginal.

well... you're not a woman, so it probably doesn't mean that much to you.

I remember at my church in Maine, I had two female parishioners who were born before the passage of the 19th Amendment. Both whip-smart and quite opinionated. They have both passed away, thankfully, before the rise of the misogynist republican asshole who now runs for the highest office, but were they alive today, they would be rallying the women in our church to vote against him en masse. I am sure that other women there will take up that torch and run with it.

[maineman]

I wasn't born in 1964. I was born in Puerto Rico - to two American citizens - and grew up in Wisconsin.

Thanks for caring.

do you know that there are more Puerto Ricans in New York City than there are in San Juan?

another cool fact for ya, señor!

[Subdermal]

well... you're not a woman, so it probably doesn't mean that much to you.

I remember at my church in Maine, I had two female parishioners who were born before the passage of the 19th Amendment. Both whip-smart and quite opinionated. They have both passed away, thankfully, before the rise of the misogynist republican $#@! who now runs for the highest office, but were they alive today, they would be rallying the women in our church to vote against him en masse. I am sure that other women there will take up that torch and run with it.

The claim is unoriginal. The claim is stupid, as Trump clearly wants every vote he can get, and is obviously not a misogynist.

Further explanation is fruitless. You are old.

[maineman]

The claim is unoriginal. The claim is stupid, as Trump clearly wants every vote he can get.

Further explanation is fruitless. You are old.

why would a misogynist like Trump with a long list of offensive documentable and quotable comments about women expect to get the women's vote?

Further explanation is fruitless. You are a Puerto Rican.

[Crepitus]

The claim is unoriginal. The claim is stupid, as Trump clearly wants every vote he can get, and is obviously not a misogynist.

Further explanation is fruitless. You are old.
Is that your idea of an insult?

[Don]

that's funny. I can honestly say that I have not been this sure of a democratic presidential victory since LBJ-AuH2O.

That is funny. And ironic. The wrong guy "won" that election too.

[zelmo1234]

that's funny. I can honestly say that I have not been this sure of a democratic presidential victory since LBJ-AuH2O.

I think that you are correct I have been saying it is an up hill battle.

And I am glad that you said a Democrat victory, because it was not a victory for the country.

There is not a candidate in the race that would be a victory for the USA

[Hal Jordan]

Is that your idea of an insult?

You've survived longer than others. Ha! Take that!

[Ravens Fan]

Can't you tell he's talking about voting?

LOF'nL

Hey, isn't your position that the words he used means he wants an assassination? If you are being consistent, then that is exactly what Cigar was doing and you should probably be lecturing him or calling the FBI or something...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bethere]

The claim is unoriginal. The claim is stupid, as Trump clearly wants every vote he can get, and is obviously not a misogynist.

Further explanation is fruitless. You are old.
Puerto Rico? Home of the international terrorist group FALN? The same Puerto Ricans who threatened reagan? The same Puerto Ricans who shot up the capital?

Wow.

It sounds like the kind of sketchy principality that we'd have to consider isolating until trump knows more about terrorist threats.

Candidates for extreme vetting.

Sure you are a 'citizen,' wink wink, but trump can't take the risk. I like west side Story as much as the next guy, but this is about freedom.

[Truth Detector]

that's funny. I can honestly say that I have not been this sure of a democratic presidential victory since LBJ-AuH2O.

:rofl:

[Subdermal]

Is that your idea of an insult?

Is it yours?

[Subdermal]

Puerto Rico? Home of the international terrorist group FALN? The same Puerto Ricans who threatened reagan? The same Puerto Ricans who shot up the capital?

Wow.

It sounds like the kind of sketchy principality that we'd have to consider isolating until trump knows more about terrorist threats.

Candidates for extreme vetting.

Sure you are a 'citizen,' wink wink, but trump can't take the risk. I like west side Story as much as the next guy, but this is about freedom.

You should demonstrate your overt racism on this forum. Better to keep it subtle, so we can pick you apart instead.

[maineman]

Hey, isn't your position that the words he used means he wants an assassination? If you are being consistent, then that is exactly what Cigar was doing and you should probably be lecturing him or calling the FBI or something...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose if one forgot about what the various amendments were actually about, you might have a point. The second amendment isn't ABOUT voting, it's about guns. The nineteen amendment isn't about guns, it's ABOUT voting.


One would think that a moron with the IQ that enabled him to tie his own shoes could make that simple connection. I guess not.

[maineman]

Puerto Rico? Home of the international terrorist group FALN? The same Puerto Ricans who threatened reagan? The same Puerto Ricans who shot up the capital?

Wow.

It sounds like the kind of sketchy principality that we'd have to consider isolating until trump knows more about terrorist threats.

Candidates for extreme vetting.

Sure you are a 'citizen,' wink wink, but trump can't take the risk. I like west side Story as much as the next guy, but this is about freedom.

and you know... when Puerto Rico sends their people to America, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

[Ravens Fan]

I suppose if one forgot about what the various amendments were actually about, you might have a point. The second amendment isn't ABOUT voting, it's about guns. The nineteen amendment isn't about guns, it's ABOUT voting.


One would think that a moron with the IQ that enabled him to tie his own shoes could make that simple connection. I guess not.

And yet without ever mentioning guns, but rather a group of people, you guys were able to draw that conclusion. What is the difference here? Are those women not as capable of protecting their own rights as those who support the 2nd amendment? You can split hairs all you like, but this was a very valid comparison.

We can also do without your constant condescending attitude also. Insults do not make you appear smart at all. I have known many Naval Academy graduates in my life and you sir, are the most ignorant by far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maineman]

We can also do without your constant condescending attitude also. Insults do not make you appear smart at all. I have known many Naval Academy graduates in my life and you sir, are the most ignorant by far.



..he said with a wee touch of condescension. And look how fucking SMART it made him appear!!!! lol

[maineman]

And yet without ever mentioning guns, but rather a group of people, you guys were able to draw that conclusion.

I could say "folks who hang out at Wrigley Field for home games" and never once say "Cubs fans", but folks would know what I was talking about.

[birddog]

that's funny. I can honestly say that I have not been this sure of a democratic presidential victory since LBJ-AuH2O.

It'd going to REALLY hurt for you then! Wanna bet?

[Crepitus]

Hey, isn't your position that the words he used means he wants an assassination? If you are being consistent, then that is exactly what Cigar was doing and you should probably be lecturing him or calling the FBI or something...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A. I was being "snarky".

B. Don't you know the difference between the 2nd and 19th amendments?

Let me explain, see the 2nd amendment is all about guns and who can own them where as the 19th amendment is all about voting rights. Has nothing to do with guns. So mentioning that the 2nd amendment people might be able to do something about someone you dislike is somewhat more ominous than saying the 19th amendment people could do something. It's because the 2nd amendment people are associated with guns, while the 19th amendment people are generally not. When you mention the 2nd amendment these days most people think of things like this:

http://thegops.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gun-Nut-600x356.jpg

or this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gQAyLSEiS-g/U7m7rehxcMI/AAAAAAAAA1g/7Mnu_hkYAfk/s1600/open+carry.jpg

where as if anyone even knows what it is when you mention it the 19th evokes images like this:

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/41/590x/Suffragettes-572904.jpg

I hope that helps you understand the difference.

[Crepitus]

Is it yours?
Are you going to answer the question?

[maineman]

It'd going to REALLY hurt for you then! Wanna bet?

do I want to bet on this election with you? sure. Name the amount you propose.

[OGIS]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpwXg4kVUAAVbwW.jpg

Oh, that's good. I like it. Sorta takes a triple-take to get all the subtle....

[OGIS]

that's funny. I can honestly say that I have not been this sure of a democratic presidential victory since LBJ-AuH2O.

Was that actually a sure thing for the weinerwagger before Daisy?

[OGIS]

@Subdermal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1758)....it just occurred to me... you must have thought that the AuH2O was unoriginal! That's funny, señor! You probably weren't naturalized, or probably even born in 1964, but for those of us who were alive and born English speaking American citizens, that was a very common way to refer to the GOP's nominee in 1964. He even had bumperstickers that had only that on them. I certainly don't want you to think for a moment that I made that up, because I didn't. Oro Agua is probably how they referred to him in whatever God-forsaken barrio you grew up in, but in America, the little chemical play on words was fairly common. So you learned something new about your adopted country today, so that's a good thing, eh?

Damn! I remember that! My dad had the bottom row 2nd from the left one on our Ford Country Squire.

15866

[OGIS]

why would a misogynist like Trump with a long list of offensive documentable and quotable comments about women expect to get the women's vote?

Further explanation is fruitless. You are a Puerto Rican.

So... Sub "Puerto Rican" Dermal. Sorta like a gang moniker?

What's the etiquette in gangland? spaces before the and after the quotes?

Sub "Puerto Rican" Dermal. I like it.

[OGIS]

Is that your idea of an insult?

My fourteen year old daughter once said that to me.

[OGIS]

We can also do without your constant condescending attitude also. Insults do not make you appear smart at all.

May I quote you on this, in the future? (Just being polite, I will whether you like it or not.)

[Crepitus]

My fourteen year old daughter once said that to me.
My 14 year old son says it all the time. LOL

[OGIS]

..he said with a wee touch of condescension. And look how $#@!ing SMART it made him appear!!!! lol

Hey now, I'm impressed. Really.

[OGIS]

A. I was being "snarky".

B. Don't you know the difference between the 2nd and 19th amendments?

Let me explain, see the 2nd amendment is all about guns and who can own them where as the 19th amendment is all about voting rights. Has nothing to do with guns. So mentioning that the 2nd amendment people might be able to do something about someone you dislike is somewhat more ominous than saying the 19th amendment people could do something. It's because the 2nd amendment people are associated with guns, while the 19th amendment people are generally not. When you mention the 2nd amendment these days most people think of things like this:

http://thegops.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gun-Nut-600x356.jpg

or this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gQAyLSEiS-g/U7m7rehxcMI/AAAAAAAAA1g/7Mnu_hkYAfk/s1600/open+carry.jpg

where as if anyone even knows what it is when you mention it the 19th evokes images like this:

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/41/590x/Suffragettes-572904.jpg

I hope that helps you understand the difference.

Nothing else really needs to be said at this point. You have beautifully summarized it. It is arguable against only if you are certifiably delusional.

[OGIS]

and you know... when Puerto Rico sends their people to America, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

I saw a documentary about that once. I think it was called West Side Story. 'Bout a buncha ship-wrecked Mexicans with knives, chains, slicked back hair, and fancy foot moves.

[maineman]

Was that actually a sure thing for the weinerwagger before Daisy?

you mean that ad? It was a REALLY powerful political ad, that's for sure!

[Ravens Fan]

I could say "folks who hang out at Wrigley Field for home games" and never once say "Cubs fans", but folks would know what I was talking about.

Apples and oranges...

[maineman]

Apples and oranges...

how is that? it's apples and apples, and you just don't have the grace to admit it. I don't need to be a fucking swami to figure out that 2nd Amendment folks are gun toters anymore than you need to know that Wrigley Field folks are Cubs fans.

and.....

19th amendment folks are WOMEN VOTERS, not gun toters.... dipshit.

[Ravens Fan]

A. I was being "snarky".

As was I.


B. Don't you know the difference between the 2nd and 19th amendments?

Of course I do. You also know that Trump did not say anything at all about assassination, but yet you will argue that he did. It is as absurd as if I actually thought that was what Cigar really meant.

[Ravens Fan]

May I quote you on this, in the future? (Just being polite, I will whether you like it or not.)

Whatever floats your boat, dude.

[Ravens Fan]

how is that? it's apples and apples, and you just don't have the grace to admit it. I don't need to be a fucking swami to figure out that 2nd Amendment folks are gun toters anymore than you need to know that Wrigley Field folks are Cubs fans.

"2nd Amendment people" to me, means anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment. That could be anybody, including many Democrats. That can also mean the NRA. He was not very specific when he made those remarks, yet you guys were ready to turn "do something" into "Kill Hillary" before he was even done the speech. There is plenty that could be done to protect the 2nd Amendment from Hillary that does not involve killing anybody.


and.....

19th amendment folks are WOMEN VOTERS, not gun toters.... dipshit.
I know. My accusation was almost as absurd as those leveled against Trump....

[maineman]

"2nd Amendment people" to me, means anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment. That could be anybody, including many Democrats. That can also mean the NRA. He was not very specific when he made those remarks, yet you guys were ready to turn "do something" into "Kill Hillary" before he was even done the speech. There is plenty that could be done to protect the 2nd Amendment from Hillary that does not involve killing anybody.


I know. My accusation was almost as absurd as those leveled against Trump....

So.... after Hillary is elected, and nominates judges.... what "remedies" (plural) are available to "second amendment folks"? What do you honestly think he was implying?

I dunno why I asked that last question... I really don't expect honesty in your reply.

[Ravens Fan]

So.... after Hillary is elected, and nominates judges.... what "remedies" (plural) are available to "second amendment folks"? What do you honestly think he was implying?

Maybe he was talking about the lobbyists? Maybe he was talking about individual citizens calling their representatives in Congress? I can't say for sure... and neither can you.


I dunno why I asked that last question... I really don't expect honesty in your reply.

So the fact that I disagree with your assumptions makes me dishonest? Lol, you crack me up!

[maineman]

Maybe he was talking about the lobbyists? Maybe he was talking about individual citizens calling their representatives in Congress? I can't say for sure... and neither can you.



So the fact that I disagree with your assumptions makes me dishonest? Lol, you crack me up!

I guess one could look at his words and see that, at best, they were inappropriate and easily misinterpreted, and rightly castigate him for such inarticulate speech that could very well be taken by some as a call for violence... and especially taken as a call for violence by folks who are passionate about their guns.... or one could carry his water and bury their nose deep up his ass and refuse to acknowledge the irresponsible inflammatory nature of the remark. I put you in the latter category.

[Ravens Fan]

I guess one could look at his words and see that, at best, they were inappropriate and easily misinterpreted, and rightly castigate him for such inarticulate speech that could very well be taken by some as a call for violence... and especially taken as a call for violence by folks who are passionate about their guns.... or one could carry his water and bury their nose deep up his ass and refuse to acknowledge the irresponsible inflammatory nature of the remark. I put you in the latter category.
I am not carrying anybody's water. I see something that is absurd and I speak out about it. If people were accusing Hillary of saying something that she clearly did not say, I would defend her too.

[maineman]

I am not carrying anybody's water. I see something that is absurd and I speak out about it. If people were accusing Hillary of saying something that she clearly did not say, I would defend her too.

but, in this case, it clearly was not "clearly". It was imprecise, and inarticulate, and irresponsible.... but you could give a shit, because you ARE carrying his water... or your Hillary hate is so powerful that you are unaware of how much you will forgive from Trump.

[Ravens Fan]

but, in this case, it clearly was not "clearly". It was imprecise, and inarticulate, and irresponsible.... but you could give a shit, because you ARE carrying his water... or your Hillary hate is so powerful that you are unaware of how much you will forgive from Trump.

Your argument is subjective, in that one must make the same assumptions that you do in order to believe it. You have no hard proof that he meant anything nefarious with his statement. Yet anyone who does not make those assumptions are stupid, or carrying his water, or just don't care.

Yet when there is hard proof on Hillary's lies, corruption and negligence, you conveniently assume that she meant no harm. And anyone who disagrees is stupid, hates Hillary etc, etc...

Methinks maybe it is you who's Trump hate is so powerful that you are unaware of how much you will forgive Hillary for. (Not to mention how much you will pull out of thin air just to damage Trump, facts be damned.)

[Subdermal]

but, in this case, it clearly was not "clearly". It was imprecise, and inarticulate, and irresponsible.... but you could give a $#@!, because you ARE carrying his water... or your Hillary hate is so powerful that you are unaware of how much you will forgive from Trump.

The key is the petty shtheads who take something "imprecise" and attempt to pile on.

These are the same clowns who tortured small animals as kids, stomped ants and pulled wings off flies.

[del]

The key is the petty shtheads who take something "imprecise" and attempt to pile on.

These are the same clowns who tortured small animals as kids, stomped ants and pulled wings off flies.

you must be glad to see them again.

did you get over that enuresis problem you had?

[maineman]

The key is the petty shtheads who take something "imprecise" and attempt to pile on.

These are the same clowns who tortured small animals as kids, stomped ants and pulled wings off flies.

so you are suggesting that any reading of Trump's remarks that were anything other than completely benign were totally off-base?

[Hal Jordan]

so you are suggesting that any reading of Trump's remarks that were anything other than completely benign were totally off-base?

They're understandable, because of his strange way of speaking, but they are wrong.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't know why people think they need to attack Trump for things he didnt say? Just be patient. He'll give people something legit to complain about.

[Hal Jordan]

I don't know why people think they need to attack Trump for things he didnt say? Just be patient. He'll give people something legit to complain about.

Exactly. Attack him for what he does say. Don't push for extra shit. That only hurts your cause.

[maineman]

They're understandable, because of his strange way of speaking, but they are wrong.

and you KNOW this, how? Because he SAID so????

[Common]

I don't know why people think they need to attack Trump for things he didnt say? Just be patient. He'll give people something legit to complain about.

Its all part of the plan to denigrate trump. I knew this would happen as soon as he won the primary. Ive also said from the start he would not win the election. Hes got everything against him.

Cable news is cutting people off the air that say something about hillary they dont like or when someone brings up a point about trump. The media has come to the point that they know the public doesnt care if they lie as long as the lie is something they want to hear.

Trump is a flawed enough candidate you would think they wouldnt have to lie

[Hal Jordan]

and you KNOW this, how? Because he SAID so????

I know this because I understand the way he speaks. I knew it long before he said so.

[maineman]

I know this because I understand the way he speaks. I knew it long before he said so.

wow. how do you force yourself to converse with mere mortals, oh supremely prescient one?

:rofl:

[Hal Jordan]

wow. how do you force yourself to converse with mere mortals, oh supremely prescient one?

:rofl:

Wow. Did I say or even imply that understanding his way of speaking made me better than anyone else?

[nathanbforrest45]

@Subdermal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1758)....it just occurred to me... you must have thought that the AuH2O was unoriginal! That's funny, señor! You probably weren't naturalized, or probably even born in 1964, but for those of us who were alive and born English speaking American citizens, that was a very common way to refer to the GOP's nominee in 1964. He even had bumperstickers that had only that on them. I certainly don't want you to think for a moment that I made that up, because I didn't. Oro Agua is probably how they referred to him in whatever God-forsaken barrio you grew up in, but in America, the little chemical play on words was fairly common. So you learned something new about your adopted country today, so that's a good thing, eh?


I was 20 in 1964 and I don't remember that.

[maineman]

Wow. Did I say or even imply that understanding his way of speaking made me better than anyone else?

no.... just the mere idea that you believe you could "understand" what Donald Trump actually meant by ANYTHING he said is pretty fucking presumptuous. The fact that you can't see that only increases my belief as to your delusions of grandeur.

[maineman]

I was 20 in 1964 and I don't remember that.

you don't remember AuH2O? seriously?

here's one of about a thousand images from Google on it:

http://theothermccain.com/2011/05/14/whatever-happened-to-auh2o/

[maineman]

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=721&q=AuH2O&oq=AuH2O&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24k1l9.1853.6198.0.8265.7.5.2.0.0. 0.140.676.0j5.5.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.7.681.7ol jAucrthQ

[Hal Jordan]

no.... just the mere idea that you believe you could "understand" what Donald Trump actually meant by ANYTHING he said is pretty fucking presumptuous. The fact that you can't see that only increases my belief as to your delusions of grandeur.

So, acknowledging that I understand a style of speaking is presumptuous? It's not like he's speaking a foreign language.

[maineman]

So, acknowledging that I understand a style of speaking is presumptuous? It's not like he's speaking a foreign language.

claiming to understand what Mr. Trump actually "meant" by his @nd Amendment folks comment is presumptuous. Yes indeed it is, oh prescient one!

[MisterVeritis]

So, acknowledging that I understand a style of speaking is presumptuous? It's not like he's speaking a foreign language.
It is foreign to freedom hating Progressives.

[Hal Jordan]

claiming to understand what Mr. Trump actually "meant" by his @nd Amendment folks comment is presumptuous. Yes indeed it is, oh prescient one!

Tell that to those that think it was advocating assassination, then.

[kcvet]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpwXg4kVUAAVbwW.jpg

where's the good looking babe with the car??

[maineman]

Tell that to those that think it was advocating assassination, then.

I am not suggesting that Trump meant his comment one way or another. I AM saying that it easily can be construed in more than one way (obviously)... and failing to speak with precision when one of the possible interpretations that someone - especially someone who is all wrapped around the 2A axle - might infer is to kill people, is not the sort of behavior I want from the President of the United States.

[Hal Jordan]

I am not suggesting that Trump meant his comment one way or another. I AM saying that it easily can be construed in more than one way (obviously)... and failing to speak with precision when one of the possible interpretations that someone - especially someone who is all wrapped around the 2A axle - might infer is to kill people, is not the sort of behavior I want from the President of the United States.

I'm not saying his way of speaking isn't a failing. Yes, it can be construed in more than one way (though I say the assassination interpretation is a stretch). The big two choices in this election are horrendous, and I would really rather the parties go back and do it over. It's a bit late for that now.

[maineman]

I would further suggest that the ambiguity that spawns multiple interpretations is not an accident. And there are many people - many of whom claim to be nearly as prescient as you claim to be - that don't think a violent interpretation of his comments are a stretch at all.... which, I imagine, is exactly how he wanted it to play out.... plausible deniability while sending the dogwhistle suggestion to the gun nuts. easy peasy. Hey.... it was just sarcasm! Bang. Oops.

[Hal Jordan]

I would further suggest that the ambiguity that spawns multiple interpretations is not an accident. And there are many people - many of whom claim to be nearly as prescient as you claim to be - that don't think a violent interpretation of his comments are a stretch at all.... which, I imagine, is exactly how he wanted it to play out.... plausible deniability while sending the dogwhistle suggestion to the gun nuts. easy peasy. Hey.... it was just sarcasm! Bang. Oops.

If so, it's been an extremely long con to get to that statement, since he has always talked like that.

[maineman]

If so, it's been an extremely long con to get to that statement, since he has always talked like that.

I think ambiguity is his way of speaking... he can hide all sorts of dogwhistles into all sorts of sentences.... and when called to account for them, he either denies them or claims they were sarcasm. But I'm sure a prescient guy like you who truly understands the way Trump speaks had figured that out long ago, eh Hal?

[Hal Jordan]

I think ambiguity is his way of speaking... he can hide all sorts of dogwhistles into all sorts of sentences.... and when called to account for them, he either denies them or claims they were sarcasm. But I'm sure a prescient guy like you who truly understands the way Trump speaks had figured that out long ago, eh Hal?

Man, you're talking up Trump here. What you're talking about here requires a lot of foresight and planning, especially to make it come off the way it does. Sorry, but no. The ambiguity comes from the fact that he doesn't plan what he's going to say, which causes it to be disjointed, jumping all over the place. His mind snaps from one thing to another, and his speech reflects the back and forth in his mind.

[Ravens Fan]

claiming to understand what Mr. Trump actually "meant" by his @nd Amendment folks comment is presumptuous. Yes indeed it is, oh prescient one!

Aren't you doing the same exact thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OGIS]

I am not suggesting that Trump meant his comment one way or another. I AM saying that it easily can be construed in more than one way (obviously)... and failing to speak with precision when one of the possible interpretations that someone - especially someone who is all wrapped around the 2A axle - might infer is to kill people, is not the sort of behavior I want from the President of the United States.

It is irresponsible. There are far too many suggestible wingnuts ON BOTH SIDES (Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski) to risk one of them acting out "to please Trump" or because the voices in his head told him that Trump was speaking directly to him and his collection of 96 guns and 10,000 rounds of ammo.

The assertion that ambiguous suggestions of this nature are irresponsible and dangerous is easily proven in a way that conservatives can (hopefully) understand: reverse the situation. What if Al Sharpton had come to the podium at a Clinton rally and stated that "Black 2nd Amendment practitioners should find solutions to White racism"?

I am pretty sure that many many right wing types would (rightly) condemn that as irresponsible, inflammatory, dangerous, and a threat.

It is exactly the same with Trump. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[OGIS]

I think ambiguity is his way of speaking... he can hide all sorts of dogwhistles into all sorts of sentences.... and when called to account for them, he either denies them or claims they were sarcasm. But I'm sure a prescient guy like you who truly understands the way Trump speaks had figured that out long ago, eh Hal?

Trump is actually a very intelligent guy. Ambiguous statements of this sort are trolling. And I think Trump loves trolling, since it generates controversy and therefore publicity.

[OGIS]

Wow. Crickets. I guess the usual suspects have no valid response to my last two posts.

[Subdermal]

Wow. Crickets. I guess the usual suspects have no valid response to my last two posts.

Every liberal in here is causing the rest of us to want to engage you less and less. Your points are stupid.

Like your attempt to compare 2nd amendment supporters "perhaps doing something" about their 2nd Amendment rights being attacked - ya know: the actual topic about which these same targets would have to react - with blacks complaining about racism, and goading them to use the 2nd amendment to "do something about it". Ya know: by clearly implying that the gun become the focus of a response, instead of a right to own a gun.

:facepalm: :loco:

That's about as asinine a comparative hypothetical as anyone has seen in this forum. You claiming your bullsht is legitimate layers the laughs atop.

[OGIS]

Every liberal in here is causing the rest of us to want to engage you less and less. Your points are stupid.

Like your attempt to compare 2nd amendment supporters "perhaps doing something" about their 2nd Amendment rights being attacked - ya know: the actual topic about which these same targets would have to react - with blacks complaining about racism, and goading them to use the 2nd amendment to "do something about it". Ya know: by clearly implying that the gun become the focus of a response, instead of a right to own a gun.

:facepalm: :loco:

That's about as asinine a comparative hypothetical as anyone has seen in this forum. You claiming your bullsht is legitimate layers the laughs atop.

And all you have in response is deflection, potty mouth, and name calling.

Sad, really.

You're a sad little man....

[OGIS]

Every liberal in here is causing the rest of us to want to engage you less and less.

Seriously, do you have any idea how refreshing this would be? No more potty mouth? No more insults? Wow. Please feel free to engage thinking, rational, educated, adult people less and less until you simply don't engage them at all.

[Subdermal]

And all you have in response is deflection, potty mouth, and name calling.

Sad, really.

You're a sad little man....

How did I deflect again? That's when you don't address the core of your points.

Like you just did.

I, on the other hand, pointed out exactly why your post was asinine - a rebuke which you couldn't address at all, and - instead - did exactly what it is that supposedly bothers you.

That, tubby, is hypocrisy.

[Subdermal]

Seriously, do you have any idea how refreshing this would be? Please feel free to engage thinking, rational, educated people less and less until you simply don't engage them at all.

We all know you really think that. Of course, real examples of that can defend their points.

You, on the other hand, are in full blown tantrum mode, because you don't have the gravitas to defend your stupidity.

Try. Please tell us how it's a legit comparison you offered. Please tell us how you think it is an apt comparison to equate the hypothetical "blacks who think whites are racist should legitimately use their "2nd Amendment rights" to respond" to "maybe 2nd Amendment people can do something about Hillary's attack on the 2nd Amendment".

Or not.

[OGIS]

.....tubby.....

Sigh. More name calling. LOL, you're really a Class Act, son.

[Hal Jordan]

Wow. Crickets. I guess the usual suspects have no valid response to my last two posts.

I personally didn't see anything worth responding to. Was it irresponsible? Of course. The responsible thing, when going for a position of this magnitude, would be to plan what you were going to say beforehand. Of course, crazy people can read anything into anything. With your Al Sharpton example, first, I would want clarification. Second, Al Sharpton has never had the style of speaking that Trump has.

As to your second post, something like this goes way beyond trolling. Trolling is a simple art, while what you're suggesting would take a lot of planning and foresight, as I mentioned before. It would take much more to make it appear as it does, which is completely unplanned and not self-aware. I'm sorry, but this is far beyond Trump's abilities. I'll grant that he may be more intelligent than the average person, but he's no supergenius.

[Truth Detector]

Seriously, do you have any idea how refreshing this would be? No more potty mouth? No more insults? Wow. Please feel free to engage thinking, rational, educated, adult people less and less until you simply don't engage them at all.

Yep, in Liberal hypocrite land, Liberals seldom if ever engage in ad homs and insults. Good lord, buy a mirror already. Nothing dumber than watching LibTards whine about the crap they hurl on a daily basis in here.