Trump's Little Stormtroopers.... - Page 5

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Infiltrated? I figured they were there right from the start. It is the problem with when someone is calling trump a nazi, you don't know if they are a trump supporter or opponent.

They clearly were and are.

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Did he see what happened to the Oregon Militia?

Hopefully he/they will get to experience same real close up and personal.

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg

Yes, it does: I'm overeducated for the venue.

Most of us here are. The trumpies not so much. Not at all much!!!!!

ZiprHead · 27th October 2016, 03:07 PM

Who is Michael the Black Man at Trump rallies?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...lt-member.html

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg

As mentioned in another thread where it came up "musket" is a dog whistle code word for armed insurgency by civilians, and the AR rifle is called "modern musket" by some people who associate the second amendment freedoms generally with the specific rifle used by troops in any time.

Which needs a special note. As used by the ignorant (not you !!) the rifle used by the current military here is the M-16 which is an assault rifle (it has selective fire including auto fire - required to be an assault rifle). The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle (unless illegally modified with illegally purchasable if used to modify same parts). There is a definite difference which a lot of anti gun persons refuse to acknowledge and a lot of areas try to get around by describing appearance rather than actual function. ARs get beat by troop selective fires pretty successfully.

logger · 27th October 2016, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

So by that argument, Trump is neither a Christian or a Conservative.

Agreed

logger · 27th October 2016, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Just out of interest, (1) when was the last time that Democratic party appointed justices formed the majority in the SCOTUS, and (2) why wasn't it truly over then?

Dave

1- not in my lifetime.

2- because the left has proven they will legislate from the bench.

logger · 27th October 2016, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

He's right though. The current culture war will be over when liberals take over the court. That's the thing about progressiveness vs reaction.

Reactionaries will at that point find another cause to latch on to and declare new culture wars. That's the way towards progress.

They also do not respect our constitution, something about it being a living breathing document.

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by logger

They also do not respect our constitution, something about it being a living breathing document.

Your Fuhrer wants to shred the 1st Amendment to make it easier for him to sue people that say things about him that he doesn't like.

But that's OK because he's a Republican, right?

Jrrarglblarg · 27th October 2016, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by logger

They also do not respect our constitution, something about it being a living breathing document.

Except for the second amendment. That parts not subject to "living, breathing document" changes.

Amiright?

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 03:30 PM

Trump's Little Stormtroopers....

As Spike Jones (the real one, not a rapper) said: "Ve heil, heil right in der fuhrer's face!"

Captain_Swoop · 27th October 2016, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Which needs a special note. As used by the ignorant (not you !!) the rifle used by the current military here is the M-16 which is an assault rifle (it has selective fire including auto fire - required to be an assault rifle). The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle (unless illegally modified with illegally purchasable if used to modify same parts). There is a definite difference which a lot of anti gun persons refuse to acknowledge and a lot of areas try to get around by describing appearance rather than actual function. ARs get beat by troop selective fires pretty successfully.

because the specific type of gun is what's important.

acbytesla · 27th October 2016, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

Your Fuhrer wants to shred the 1st Amendment to make it easier for him to sue people that say things about him that he doesn't like.

But that's OK because he's a Republican, right?

Also the establishment clause of the first ammendment as well as the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Not to mention separation of powers. And while we're at it. Where in the Constitution does it say that a corporation is a citizen?

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

because the specific type of gun is what's important.

Yes, it is. Whatever the field, accuracy is important. I trust you have no problem with this in the real world - I have no memory of you having such problem at any previous time!!

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Also the establishment clause of the first ammendment as well as the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Not to mention separation of powers. And while we're at it. Where in the Constitution does it say that a corporation is a citizen?

The data you seek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Jrrarglblarg · 27th October 2016, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

because the specific type of gun is what's important.

It does when asserting that the Framers Intent was that the citizenry be allowed to carry the same individual issue longarm as the military.

Note: I do not endorse this position.

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 04:17 PM

Note: it does not say a corporation is a citizen, it just makes corporations equivalent to a person for lawsuits and other specified things.

The basic one is the suing. Acts of the corporation that is being sued may result in fines/payments having to be made by the corporation - but does not allow suing individuals absent specific proof they are individually responsible for some act.

fuelair · 27th October 2016, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

because the specific type of gun is what's important.

Separate note: An AR-15 is no more dangerous than any hunting/target rifle available for civilians - and less dangerous than many. Due to auto and burst fire ability, the M-16 is.

acbytesla · 27th October 2016, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

The data you seek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

I was being rhetorical, but thanks. I know that the courts have interpreted it that way, but that is no more a literal translation of the Constitution than Roe v Wade. SO when people get all high and mighty over phrases like living document and original intent, they should bear in mind that there are many phrases in the document that are interpreted quite loosely.

Slowvehicle · 27th October 2016, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by logger

1- not in my lifetime.

2- because the left has proven they will legislate from the bench.

How cute! You are still harping on "the left" without daring define it...so it really IS anyone you just...don't like.

Thanks for settling that...

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

How cute! You are still harping on "the left" without daring define it...so it really IS anyone you just...don't like.

Thanks for settling that...

Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts are probably leftists to him.

logger · 27th October 2016, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

Your Fuhrer wants to shred the 1st Amendment to make it easier for him to sue people that say things about him that he doesn't like.

But that's OK because he's a Republican, right?

How exactly is going to do that? And of course, where is your proof of that or is it just another lie perhaps?

cmikes · 27th October 2016, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I get it. I know a few Republicans taking that position. That's one of the reasons I was shocked. But Trump or Clinton is going to be President and god forbid it will be Trump.

In all honesty, if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to cast a vote for one or the other, I would vote for Hillary. Hillary Clinton is a know quantity, we know exactly what we're going to get with Hillary Clinton as president. More corruption, more criminality, more pay to play with Clinton, Inc. Another doubling or even tripling of the national debt. More power and control flowing to government and less freedom and liberty for the people. The best we can hope for Republicans to hold Congress and at least limit the damage.

All that being said, Trump is worse. A populist demagogue who believes in nothing but his own power and doesn't know the meaning of the words honesty or character. That and being dumb enough to be manipulated by the alt-reich and the other national socialist scumbags that he has as hanger-ons doesn't bode very well for anyone.

But luckily, I don't have to make that Sophie's Choice. Given where I live, my vote for president means exactly jack squat. My view on the whole issue is that if you're trying to decide which candidate is the lesser evil to vote for, you're still voting for evil.

logger · 27th October 2016, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg

Except for the second amendment. That parts not subject to "living, breathing document" changes.

Amiright?

You don't think they'd like to change the 2nd amendment?

Jrrarglblarg · 27th October 2016, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by logger

How exactly is going to do that? And of course, where is your proof of that or is it just another lie perhaps?

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-firs...ea2#.iybrjvtvc

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by logger

How exactly is going to do that? And of course, where is your proof of that or is it just another lie perhaps?

Here is a article discussing it.

But you can go ahead and dismiss it because it is from the liberal rag the National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ot-if-its-true

logger · 27th October 2016, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

How cute! You are still harping on "the left" without daring define it...so it really IS anyone you just...don't like.

Thanks for settling that...

Its quite extraordinary that you haven't a clue on what the definition of a leftists is, which also means you don't know the definition of someone on the right or someone in the middle. I can't have the burden of explaining these simple definitions to you.

logger · 27th October 2016, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts are probably leftists to him.

Actually genius Kennedy is obviously center right and Roberts is just a bit further. Glad to inform you.

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by logger

Actually genius Kennedy is obviously center right and Roberts is just a bit further. Glad to inform you.

Cool you're not totally nuts like a lot of people on your side.

logger · 27th October 2016, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

Here is a article discussing it.

But you can go ahead and dismiss it because it is from the liberal rag the National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ot-if-its-true

Ahh the never Trumpers, again genius, how is he going to do it?

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by logger

Ahh the never Trumpers, again genius, how is he going to do it?

Oh so it is OK for him to be anti first amendment because he probably couldn't achieve his dream of destroying it?

Pathetic.

logger · 27th October 2016, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

Cool you're not totally nuts like a lot of people on your side.

Because I know where the two men stand politically? An interesting response Tony, what does it mean.

Slowvehicle could benefit from our posts, he doesn't know how to define the political sides, perhaps the visual of these two justices would help him?

logger · 27th October 2016, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

Oh so it is OK for him to be anti first amendment because he probably couldn't achieve his dream of destroying it?

Pathetic.

What's so pathetic about it, I don't agree with him on lots of things.

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by logger

Because I know where the two men stand politically? An interesting response Tony, what does it mean.

Slowvehicle could benefit from our posts, he doesn't know how to define the political sides, perhaps the visual of these two justices would help him?

It means that lots of people on your side are totally freaking crazy and think that Roberts and Kennedy are leftists. Good to see you're not one of them.

acbytesla · 27th October 2016, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by cmikes

In all honesty, if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to cast a vote for one or the other, I would vote for Hillary. Hillary Clinton is a know quantity, we know exactly what we're going to get with Hillary Clinton as president. More corruption, more criminality, more pay to play with Clinton, Inc. Another doubling or even tripling of the national debt. More power and control flowing to government and less freedom and liberty for the people. The best we can hope for Republicans to hold Congress and at least limit the damage.

All that being said, Trump is worse. A populist demagogue who believes in nothing but his own power and doesn't know the meaning of the words honesty or character. That and being dumb enough to be manipulated by the alt-reich and the other national socialist scumbags that he has as hanger-ons doesn't bode very well for anyone.

But luckily, I don't have to make that Sophie's Choice. Given where I live, my vote for president means exactly jack squat. My view on the whole issue is that if you're trying to decide which candidate is the lesser evil to vote for, you're still voting for evil.

I find it amusing that you say that under Clinton we can expect a doubling or tripling of the debt. I challenge you to go back and look to see that the only President in the last 50 years who reduced the debt was Bill Clinton.

I think it's nonsense to say Hillary is evil.

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by logger

What's so pathetic about it, I don't agree with him on lots of things.

You're the one whining about liberals supposedly not respecting the Constitution. But when it is your Fuhrer, you don't care.

Slowvehicle · 27th October 2016, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by logger

Its quite extraordinary that you haven't a clue on what the definition of a leftists is, which also means you don't know the definition of someone on the right or someone in the middle. I can't have the burden of explaining these simple definitions to you.

And again, you are demonstrably wrong.

I know very well what constitutes "the left" and "the right"--and the actual definitions do not orthographically map to your epithets at all. At all.

I don't need the actual definitions, as used lexicographically correctly, explained to me; I own the words and use them, accurately. I just sometimes wonder at the ways you, personally, use them.

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I find it amusing that you say that under Clinton we can expect a doubling or tripling of the debt. I challenge you to go back and look to see that the only President in the last 50 years who reduced the debt was Bill Clinton.

Not to mention the fact that any Republican would make it worse than it already would be by giving huge tax cuts to rich people.

logger · 27th October 2016, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I find it amusing that you say that under Clinton we can expect a doubling or tripling of the debt. I challenge you to go back and look to see that the only President in the last 50 years who reduced the debt was Bill Clinton.

the predators presidency sure wasn't headed in that direction, he was forced by the congress, but I do give him credit for working with them, now he'll have that lasting legacy. What will Obama have? He had a pen and a phone and in the end he'll have nothing, because he didn't work with congress!

Tony Stark · 27th October 2016, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by logger

the predators presidency sure wasn't headed in that direction, he was forced by the congress, but I do give him credit for working with them, now he'll have that lasting legacy. What will Obama have? He had a pen and a phone and in the end he'll have nothing, because he didn't work with congress!

It must really piss you people off that Obama will leave office with a good approval rating.

27th October 2016, 02:55 PM	#161
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Infiltrated? I figured they were there right from the start. It is the problem with when someone is calling trump a nazi, you don't know if they are a trump supporter or opponent. They clearly were and are.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

27th October 2016, 02:57 PM	#162
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by jimbob Did he see what happened to the Oregon Militia? Hopefully he/they will get to experience same real close up and personal.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

27th October 2016, 03:00 PM	#163
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg Yes, it does: I'm overeducated for the venue. Most of us here are. The trumpies not so much. Not at all much!!!!!
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

27th October 2016, 03:12 PM	#165
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg As mentioned in another thread where it came up "musket" is a dog whistle code word for armed insurgency by civilians, and the AR rifle is called "modern musket" by some people who associate the second amendment freedoms generally with the specific rifle used by troops in any time. Which needs a special note. As used by the ignorant (not you !!) the rifle used by the current military here is the M-16 which is an assault rifle (it has selective fire including auto fire - required to be an assault rifle). The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle (unless illegally modified with illegally purchasable if used to modify same parts). There is a definite difference which a lot of anti gun persons refuse to acknowledge and a lot of areas try to get around by describing appearance rather than actual function. ARs get beat by troop selective fires pretty successfully.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

27th October 2016, 03:17 PM	#166
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by acbytesla So by that argument, Trump is neither a Christian or a Conservative. Agreed
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 03:07 PM	#164
ZiprHead Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sag-Nasty Posts: 282	Who is Michael the Black Man at Trump rallies? http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...lt-member.html

27th October 2016, 03:18 PM	#167
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Just out of interest, (1) when was the last time that Democratic party appointed justices formed the majority in the SCOTUS, and (2) why wasn't it truly over then? Dave 1- not in my lifetime. 2- because the left has proven they will legislate from the bench.
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 03:19 PM	#168
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by uke2se He's right though. The current culture war will be over when liberals take over the court. That's the thing about progressiveness vs reaction. Reactionaries will at that point find another cause to latch on to and declare new culture wars. That's the way towards progress. They also do not respect our constitution, something about it being a living breathing document.
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 03:26 PM	#169
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by logger They also do not respect our constitution, something about it being a living breathing document. Your Fuhrer wants to shred the 1st Amendment to make it easier for him to sue people that say things about him that he doesn't like. But that's OK because he's a Republican, right?
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626

27th October 2016, 03:29 PM	#170
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by logger They also do not respect our constitution, something about it being a living breathing document. Except for the second amendment. That parts not subject to "living, breathing document" changes. Amiright?
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

27th October 2016, 03:30 PM	#171
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Trump's Little Stormtroopers.... As Spike Jones (the real one, not a rapper) said: "Ve heil, heil right in der fuhrer's face!"
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

27th October 2016, 03:37 PM	#172
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 31,857	Originally Posted by fuelair Which needs a special note. As used by the ignorant (not you !!) the rifle used by the current military here is the M-16 which is an assault rifle (it has selective fire including auto fire - required to be an assault rifle). The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle (unless illegally modified with illegally purchasable if used to modify same parts). There is a definite difference which a lot of anti gun persons refuse to acknowledge and a lot of areas try to get around by describing appearance rather than actual function. ARs get beat by troop selective fires pretty successfully. because the specific type of gun is what's important.

27th October 2016, 04:02 PM	#173
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,207	Originally Posted by Tony Stark Your Fuhrer wants to shred the 1st Amendment to make it easier for him to sue people that say things about him that he doesn't like. But that's OK because he's a Republican, right? Also the establishment clause of the first ammendment as well as the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Not to mention separation of powers. And while we're at it. Where in the Constitution does it say that a corporation is a citizen?
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

27th October 2016, 04:08 PM	#174
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop because the specific type of gun is what's important. Yes, it is. Whatever the field, accuracy is important. I trust you have no problem with this in the real world - I have no memory of you having such problem at any previous time!!
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

27th October 2016, 04:12 PM	#175
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by acbytesla Also the establishment clause of the first ammendment as well as the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Not to mention separation of powers. And while we're at it. Where in the Constitution does it say that a corporation is a citizen? The data you seek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

27th October 2016, 04:16 PM	#176
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop because the specific type of gun is what's important. It does when asserting that the Framers Intent was that the citizenry be allowed to carry the same individual issue longarm as the military. Note: I do not endorse this position.
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

27th October 2016, 04:17 PM	#177
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Note: it does not say a corporation is a citizen, it just makes corporations equivalent to a person for lawsuits and other specified things. The basic one is the suing. Acts of the corporation that is being sued may result in fines/payments having to be made by the corporation - but does not allow suing individuals absent specific proof they are individually responsible for some act.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Last edited by fuelair; 27th October 2016 at 04:18 PM.

27th October 2016, 04:23 PM	#178
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop because the specific type of gun is what's important. Separate note: An AR-15 is no more dangerous than any hunting/target rifle available for civilians - and less dangerous than many. Due to auto and burst fire ability, the M-16 is.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

27th October 2016, 04:46 PM	#179
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,207	Originally Posted by fuelair The data you seek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood I was being rhetorical, but thanks. I know that the courts have interpreted it that way, but that is no more a literal translation of the Constitution than Roe v Wade. SO when people get all high and mighty over phrases like living document and original intent, they should bear in mind that there are many phrases in the document that are interpreted quite loosely.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 27th October 2016 at 04:50 PM.

27th October 2016, 05:43 PM	#180
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by logger 1- not in my lifetime. 2- because the left has proven they will legislate from the bench. How cute! You are still harping on "the left" without daring define it...so it really IS anyone you just...don't like. Thanks for settling that...
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

27th October 2016, 05:44 PM	#181
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle How cute! You are still harping on "the left" without daring define it...so it really IS anyone you just...don't like. Thanks for settling that... Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts are probably leftists to him.
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626

27th October 2016, 07:06 PM	#182
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Tony Stark Your Fuhrer wants to shred the 1st Amendment to make it easier for him to sue people that say things about him that he doesn't like. But that's OK because he's a Republican, right? How exactly is going to do that? And of course, where is your proof of that or is it just another lie perhaps?
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 07:07 PM	#183
cmikes Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 495	Originally Posted by acbytesla I get it. I know a few Republicans taking that position. That's one of the reasons I was shocked. But Trump or Clinton is going to be President and god forbid it will be Trump. In all honesty, if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to cast a vote for one or the other, I would vote for Hillary. Hillary Clinton is a know quantity, we know exactly what we're going to get with Hillary Clinton as president. More corruption, more criminality, more pay to play with Clinton, Inc. Another doubling or even tripling of the national debt. More power and control flowing to government and less freedom and liberty for the people. The best we can hope for Republicans to hold Congress and at least limit the damage. All that being said, Trump is worse. A populist demagogue who believes in nothing but his own power and doesn't know the meaning of the words honesty or character. That and being dumb enough to be manipulated by the alt-reich and the other national socialist scumbags that he has as hanger-ons doesn't bode very well for anyone. But luckily, I don't have to make that Sophie's Choice. Given where I live, my vote for president means exactly jack squat. My view on the whole issue is that if you're trying to decide which candidate is the lesser evil to vote for, you're still voting for evil.
cmikes Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 495

27th October 2016, 07:07 PM	#184
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg Except for the second amendment. That parts not subject to "living, breathing document" changes. Amiright? You don't think they'd like to change the 2nd amendment?
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 07:08 PM	#185
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673	Originally Posted by logger How exactly is going to do that? And of course, where is your proof of that or is it just another lie perhaps? https://thinkprogress.org/trump-firs...ea2#.iybrjvtvc
Jrrarglblarg Guest Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 12,673

27th October 2016, 07:10 PM	#186
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by logger How exactly is going to do that? And of course, where is your proof of that or is it just another lie perhaps? Here is a article discussing it. But you can go ahead and dismiss it because it is from the liberal rag the National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ot-if-its-true
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626

27th October 2016, 07:12 PM	#187
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle How cute! You are still harping on "the left" without daring define it...so it really IS anyone you just...don't like. Thanks for settling that... Its quite extraordinary that you haven't a clue on what the definition of a leftists is, which also means you don't know the definition of someone on the right or someone in the middle. I can't have the burden of explaining these simple definitions to you.
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 07:14 PM	#188
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Tony Stark Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts are probably leftists to him. Actually genius Kennedy is obviously center right and Roberts is just a bit further. Glad to inform you.
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 07:14 PM	#189
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by logger Actually genius Kennedy is obviously center right and Roberts is just a bit further. Glad to inform you. Cool you're not totally nuts like a lot of people on your side.
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626

27th October 2016, 07:16 PM	#190
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Tony Stark Here is a article discussing it. But you can go ahead and dismiss it because it is from the liberal rag the National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ot-if-its-true Ahh the never Trumpers, again genius, how is he going to do it?
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 07:18 PM	#191
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by logger Ahh the never Trumpers, again genius, how is he going to do it? Oh so it is OK for him to be anti first amendment because he probably couldn't achieve his dream of destroying it? Pathetic.
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626

27th October 2016, 07:21 PM	#192
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Tony Stark Cool you're not totally nuts like a lot of people on your side. Because I know where the two men stand politically? An interesting response Tony, what does it mean. Slowvehicle could benefit from our posts, he doesn't know how to define the political sides, perhaps the visual of these two justices would help him?
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 07:22 PM	#193
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145	Originally Posted by Tony Stark Oh so it is OK for him to be anti first amendment because he probably couldn't achieve his dream of destroying it? Pathetic. What's so pathetic about it, I don't agree with him on lots of things.
logger Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 11,145

27th October 2016, 07:23 PM	#194
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626	Originally Posted by logger Because I know where the two men stand politically? An interesting response Tony, what does it mean. Slowvehicle could benefit from our posts, he doesn't know how to define the political sides, perhaps the visual of these two justices would help him? It means that lots of people on your side are totally freaking crazy and think that Roberts and Kennedy are leftists. Good to see you're not one of them.
Tony Stark Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9,626

27th October 2016, 07:23 PM	#195
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,207	Originally Posted by cmikes In all honesty, if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to cast a vote for one or the other, I would vote for Hillary. Hillary Clinton is a know quantity, we know exactly what we're going to get with Hillary Clinton as president. More corruption, more criminality, more pay to play with Clinton, Inc. Another doubling or even tripling of the national debt. More power and control flowing to government and less freedom and liberty for the people. The best we can hope for Republicans to hold Congress and at least limit the damage. All that being said, Trump is worse. A populist demagogue who believes in nothing but his own power and doesn't know the meaning of the words honesty or character. That and being dumb enough to be manipulated by the alt-reich and the other national socialist scumbags that he has as hanger-ons doesn't bode very well for anyone. But luckily, I don't have to make that Sophie's Choice. Given where I live, my vote for president means exactly jack squat. My view on the whole issue is that if you're trying to decide which candidate is the lesser evil to vote for, you're still voting for evil. I find it amusing that you say that under Clinton we can expect a doubling or tripling of the debt. I challenge you to go back and look to see that the only President in the last 50 years who reduced the debt was Bill Clinton. I think it's nonsense to say Hillary is evil.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 27th October 2016 at 07:26 PM.