I might not know much, but I know this: if those miners want to do what's right by the environment and by America then they will do the right thing and vote for Hillary by gawd Clinton.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
That's the part that I have tried to explain at length to all of you about leadership. Trump sets the direction for all those people to follow which makes the whole point of a candidate knowing in excruciating detail the finest points of policy to be utterly useless. You need a President that identifies what is important to get done and then convinces the American people to follow you. That is what we need in a President and that's what Trump is LIGHT YEARS better than anyone else in this campaign cycle.
If you can't get the American people to follow you, if you can't set the agenda, then you can have all the talent in the world and it goes nowhere. See Barack Obama for case in point. Trump has set the agenda for the entire campaign. What more can he possibly display in his readiness for the position?
We don't need a nice guy you want to drink a beer with. We don't need a polite kid you'd be happy for your daughter to marry. We need a rude, crude, conniving, relentless version of Winston Churchill that believes the end justifies the means to get us out of the mess as we indeed as a country are circling the drain and if you think a guy like Kasich has the nuts to get us out of it them you are probably one of the prime reasons why we're there to begin with.
All of Europe is quaking in its boots over a possible Trump presidency. Mexico, China... Hillary indeed with have most of the globe endorse her because the globalists want Trump sunk because what Trump is arguing at its most essential, at its rawest most distilled form... is American sovereignty.
BTW, in case you are wondering what my brilliant general election strategy will be, I plan on casting Trump as Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. You heard it here first and I know... damn. I am good.
It is. And if the convention saves the republicans then what happens? Do the people just bend over and take it?
Your sarcasm would make a good point if we weren't surrounding politicians with crooks. Obama hand picking Goldman Sach thieves is a perfect example of what not to do. Bush picking Dick Cheney and promptly going for Iraq's oil was the best we could do there. I was young during bill clinton regime but I know al gore, and your sarcasm is looking worse!
Bush Sr. pockin Dan Quayle is the bases loaded home run to send you packing your sarcastic ass back to your hole though!
Christ! Some people have a knack for being so technical they can't stop themselves from retardation.
Bush Sr. pockin Dan Quayle is the bases loaded home run to send you packing your sarcastic ass back to your hole though!
Christ! Some people have a knack for being so technical they can't stop themselves from retardation.
Provide me with unprotected speech going on in these mosques. Trump said we will have to close them down, unequivocally. That must mean he knows of incitement to violence going on there. Do you have evidence of any other form of unprotected speech going on in these unnamed mosques? Please, show your work.
Also please illustrate how the time, manner, and place restrictions you mentioned early apply. It seems as though you are just using broad terms which are in anyway related to recognized restrictions on free speech, regardless of whether or not you understand them. Only abandoning them after they are proven irrelevant and hoping it won't be mentioned again as your argument moves closer and closer to something resembling, "NUH HUH TRUMP WOULDNT DO THAT COZ HE SAID SO"
He actually did say he wanted to loosen libel laws so that he could win cases more easily. That's exactly what he said. Whether he would actually file a suit while in office is a "best guess", but it's not a guess at all that he wants to change the meaning of the first amendment as it relates to civil suits.
I'm the one bringing case law and you're the one incorrectly sighting time, manner, and place and speaking in generalities. No surprise which one of us is the Trump supporter
Transy, you keep doing this and it is disingenuous and you know it. All Trump would do as President is call in his Attorney General, say "There's bad shit going on at these mosques... what can we do about it?" then the AG takes it from there by providing the president with legal options for carrying out what he wants done. Same with the internet stuff. You can block certain regions from access to certain places, but all Trump as President would do is state what he wants to do by his staff then they provide options and advise him legally. None of your concerns are valid in the context of what Trump would actually do as president and many of your concerns are just part of Trump transitioning from private citizen to political candidate. His remarks about the military doing what he tells them to do were idiotic, but harmless non-the-less because he will be advised and then adjust to making his decisions accordingly but more importantly, in the direction he wants to take us which is to protect, defend, and RESTORE our sovereignty.
Hey, random cloud guy, you are a bloated academic whose gushing flatulence has about as much relevance to the real world as your afternoon pot luck has to world cuisine. Thank you for coming down from Transylvania's Ivory Tower to give us your childish 101 freshman lecture on horseshit you have no real idea about.
That better?
That better?
TRUMP CAN'T MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE HE WANTS TO CLOSE THE INTERNET AND BOARD UP MOSQUES! THAT"S AGAINST THE LAW!
What a cop-out douchbag naive moronic sophomoric take that is. I bet the freshman girls at Transylvania eat that shit up as he glances up their skirts and swirls his spoon in his coffee cup.
What a cop-out douchbag naive moronic sophomoric take that is. I bet the freshman girls at Transylvania eat that shit up as he glances up their skirts and swirls his spoon in his coffee cup.
No, it's not better. I should have said, "Please don't reply to anyone and burn your computer."
Sorry for the confusion
Sorry for the confusion
Sweater vest. Feet on desk. Flipping an orange up in the air and catching it. Then looking over at the 18 year old girl in the first row as you posted that?
I understand what you're saying. Doesn't change the fact that there is a path to victory. Doesn't change the fact that the media is avoiding this discussion and painting Hills as a lock. Just this morning I watched 4 analysts on cnn literally laugh in the face of a Bernie strategist who suggested they could still win. And they presented your same argument. The odds aren't in his favor, but there is a chance if things play out like they hope. Im just saying the media is trying to control the thoughts of the people, influence the votes, and it's not working as efficiently as they would like. My hope is that Bernie finds a way to win and Trump holds on to the republican nomination. Not because I'm a fan of either one, but because I want to see the chaos that will ensue.
This is exactly the post I was expecting. Bravo for fulfilling my meager expectations of you. Retardation? Technical (a word you love to throw around here, I see)? Your point, your literal point, was that Trump wants to surround himself with the best, and the clear implication is that others do not. That is utter nonsense. Do you think Obama looks at the guys he picked from Goldman Sachs and was like, "yeah, thieves, that's who I want." Or maybe he's looking at them as the best available candidates? Are you so myopic that everyone who doesn't do what you would do - vague and bumper sticker as it is - is deliberately sabotaging their presidency by selecting idiots? Or utterly corrupt thieves? Differences of opinion, and there are many when it comes to, you know, the entire executive branch of the United States ****ing government, are not solely attributable to malice, gross incompetence, or even being "technical" or "retard[ed]."
VP - I'll give you that. That's a political office chosen during election season. Congrats on pointing out some weaker VP nods. You missed Palin and a host of others, too. But aren't you stumping for John "Carry Ohio" Kasich for Trump's VP? You sure he's the best guy, or is he the one who brings in the crucial swing state? And even if you consciously believe that Kasich is literally the best VP candidate for Trump, isn't your thinking clouded on some level by the narrative (that's inescapable) that Kasich can help deliver Ohio to Rs?
Whoops, I've become technical and retarded again, better go to my "hole." What a crock of bumper sticker level garbage.
Does Z think I'm a professor? That's flattering and frightening.
Don't answer, Z. I won't respond
Don't answer, Z. I won't respond
If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded mosque, with no fire, its still not protected speech even though it goes on inside a mosque. You cant threaten to kill or assault someone either. Illegal whether in a mosque or not.
Easy.
In his personal capacity. Not as President, as you alluded.
Well, oh intelligent one, you may want to use the correct word (citing) before you bask in your intellectual glory.
Maybe I read different media, but I see a consistent theme with Clinton/Sanders since Super Tuesday - Clinton is likely to win without a huge turnaround in results, but here's what Bernie needs to do to win. Bernie needs to rack up big wins, and soon. Maybe that fatalism affects later primaries. But I don't see the stuff on CNN - the only news I watch on TV is local in the morning (for commute and weather) when my wife has it on. So I'm not disputing what you said.
Bernie and Trump are two sides of the same coin. Voters hate the establishment and what it has become. Fine (and they're probably right). But I just don't see either as a viable solution. Trump because of who he is (side note - Z loves big balls, apparently, trolling aside), and Sanders because of his positions. My friends and family that are Trump or Sanders supporters fall into those categories, and don't even really like either.
- You are again resorting to irrelevant hypotheticals. I asked for specific unprotected speech going on. Not specific examples of what *could* be unprotected. Trump said he *WILL* close mosques, but didn't provide any examples of non-protected speech at these unnamed mosques. You've successfully named the 4 reasons speech can be restricted (which I never contested, I contested the reasons you gave for restricting it like time, manner, and place), but didn't provide evidence that it is occurring at specific mosques or the ones Trump wants to close down. So, congrats on building a strawman. MAYBE ONE GUY AT A MOSQUE SAID FIRE AND IT WASNT A FIRE NO FREE SPEECH FOR HIM CHECKMATE!!!!
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
- In his personal capacity, it will still change the current interpretation of the 1A. I explained that to you. Being a private citizens does not change your free speech rights, with the exception of (in some cases only) maliciously false material. You seem to not understand this.
- I used a homophone while typing a message board post. Minus 1 for me. You keep getting destroyed on first amendment case law and keep coming back with the same base level argument. Minus 1,000,000,000 for you
Also, you used "its" instead of "it's". The lead grows by 1
Last edited:
It's called painting a picture. I am fleshing you out for the voters. Aloof. Academic. Probably a pervert that preys on young girls. Prone to academic flights of fancy. All designed to ruin your credibility, of course.
I wasn't specifically talking to you.
However, now that you've tried to differentiate between super delegates choosing a DNC candidate vs super delegates choosing a GOP candidate at a brokered convention I feel like I need to reply.
There is no difference if the GOP has a brokered convention. It will be the GOP super delegates voting for "Not Trump"
DNC delegates had no issues not handing the nomination to Hillary in 2008. Hell, take away the super delegates in this election and Hillary would still be leading and the favorite to win the primary.
Your comparison is thus invalid.
You're comparing yelling 'FIRE' in a mosque to shutting down mosques because of the religion worshiped within?
If I'm wrong maybe you can help me better understand the logic.
Weren't you the one trying to rationalize Trump using eminent domain to purchase private property less than sale price was like Calipari recruiting players that potentially could leave after their freshman year? If not, apologies.
Last edited:
Wow. I didn't know we could tell posters this on here. I'm gonna start doing this.
Mime, do you have a link to where Trump proposed "shutting down mosques because of the religion worshiped within?"
Especially the emboldened part. Thanks.
If you are planning, coordinating, funding, orchestrating terrorist attacks and using mosques as a cover, we will have have blown them up (although not on US soil obviously) but that would not nor should not deter us from shutting one down and prosecuting vigorously any such incidents. Religion has not saved anyone in the US from prosecution that I am aware of.
Also, as a side note, the terrorists themselves are attacking mosques in droves overseas in places like Saudi Arabia.
Prob a different speech than the one(s) in which he called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration. Can't have too much prejudice in one stump speech (even the Donald)
Because you claim just being in a mosque alone is enough to protect speech. It isnt. I dont know whats being said in these Mosques. Neither do you. But if its criminal conduct outside of the Mosque, its criminal conduct inside the Mosque.
I agreed with you noone can just bulldoze Mosques for being Mosques.
The point being, you were bathing in what you thought was the glory of your intellect.....while misspelling a word. Otherwise, I wouldnt have brought it up.
Youre not destroying me with anything. You have pieces of knowledge about the 1st amendment, with no clue how it works. Otherwise youd stop 1) making dumb arguments, and 2) moving the goalposts in order to make up more dumb arguments.
Read above. Should make it more clear.
Yes. Which has no application in this particular issue. The point being, one can use the rules available even if you dont agree with them.
That's not racist it is common sense. Matter of fact I proposed it before Trump did it. I also proposed killing the families of terrorists before Trump did. All those are sound tactical decisions that have been used throughout history to win wars. Only now we're too PC p**&5y to do what is necessary to win. You think Patton would stand by while thousands of middle eastern immigrants poured into the country without being vetted?
How is that working out for Germany and France?
The "ivory tower" crowd hates when reality descends upon them as it is most unkind:
The most powerful leader in Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, made a colossal blunder this year when she said Germany would waive normal border protocols and accept 800,000 refugees this year, in response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria.
Inevitably, this unleashed a wave of humanity, mostly not from Syria.
The shock waves from the influx is causing a widespread perception in Europe that the Muslim world is exporting its problems, creating huge welfare costs, social tensions and importing Muslim extremism.
The most celebrated novel published in France this year, Submission, by Michel Houellebacq, portrays a France where high immigration and high birth-rates among Muslims enables Muslims to take political power and begin to replace French laws with sharia law, a change accepted by a docile French population.
Germany has since rescinded Merkel's open-door policy, but the influx has continued largely unabated. Hundreds of arson attacks against refugee housing are reported to have taken place in Germany this year.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-i...ill-be-felt-in-australia-20151018-gkc0gt.html
The most powerful leader in Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, made a colossal blunder this year when she said Germany would waive normal border protocols and accept 800,000 refugees this year, in response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria.
Inevitably, this unleashed a wave of humanity, mostly not from Syria.
The shock waves from the influx is causing a widespread perception in Europe that the Muslim world is exporting its problems, creating huge welfare costs, social tensions and importing Muslim extremism.
The most celebrated novel published in France this year, Submission, by Michel Houellebacq, portrays a France where high immigration and high birth-rates among Muslims enables Muslims to take political power and begin to replace French laws with sharia law, a change accepted by a docile French population.
Germany has since rescinded Merkel's open-door policy, but the influx has continued largely unabated. Hundreds of arson attacks against refugee housing are reported to have taken place in Germany this year.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-i...ill-be-felt-in-australia-20151018-gkc0gt.html
Unfortunately for our discussion on mosque bombings I did a Google search and now the NSA is screwing up my laptop with their clumsy assed attempts and snooping to see what I am up to.
This is priceless....a bunch of cowardly racist bullies want to protect the cowardly racist bullies just in case a situation arises where they don't outnumber the innocent people they want to assault 10 on one (because then they'd piss themselves without 20 guns or backup)......some people are so pathetic.
And, yes, to those few here who'd be all for this.......i'm guessing you can sign up when it restarts
Kitty, it isn't Trumps people that are raising hell.
The Protesters in Chicago are the ones that started the nonsense there, it isn't Trump supporters who are out to create chaos.
I'm not sure why that is hard to see, unless of course you don't want too.
The Protesters in Chicago are the ones that started the nonsense there, it isn't Trump supporters who are out to create chaos.
I'm not sure why that is hard to see, unless of course you don't want too.
I'm going to summarize the debate one last time to see if you understand. If not, then don't even reply and you can go on
- I said Donald Trump was going to destroy the 1A by changing libel laws and closing mosques without evidence. The second part is based on his own words. He did not say we are going to close down mosques where illegal activity is going on. So that means Trump has intel on mosques where illegal speech is taking place or he just means we're going to close mosques. Based on the rest of his speech the onus is you to provide evidence that he meant the former and not the latter.
- You said not all speech in mosques is protected. I never questioned that. You provided examples of unprotected speech, which is even unprotected in mosques. I never questioned that. I simply questioned where was there evidence that this was taking place, as Trump never put those conditions on his comment about closing mosques. In your post at 12:09 today you quote me where I specifically ask how it would be possible to close a mosque IF THEY WERE SIMPLY ESPOUSING PROTECTED SPEECH. You are the one creating this hypothetical situation where an imam yells fire in a crowded mosque. I never said that wasn't illegal. Trump is the one who never said he had any evidence of illegal speech or said that he would only target mosques that espoused illegal speech.
- The libel part: I said changing libel laws to protect people from "negative" (Trump's own word) speech would be counter to the 1A. You said that since it isn't the government bringing charges against you, it wouldn't violate the 1A. I posted two Supreme Court cases which explicitly uphold the 1A as the foundation for protection for all speech from legal action from private or government entities, except libel, true threat, incitement, perjury, and fighting words. You still have not provided any evidence for your assertion.
You have provided nothing but hypothetical scenarios (that I never challenged) that were neither presented by Trump or argued by me.
KittyKat - less posting, more sandwiches, TIA
Kitty,
What is it about these protesters that makes you think people should be afraid of them?
What is it about these protesters that makes you think people should be afraid of them?
Bill, protests are a normal part of political theater. When the head puppet master is encouraging violence against those protesters it will only bring on more protesters...every damn time. I stated weeks ago, before the real hell raising began that Trump's rhetoric, his "I'd like to punch him in the face" comments would escalate into violence sooner or later. I'm just surprised it took as long as it did to do so.
When there is a fire it doesn't really matter who lit the match if you continue to throw gas on the flame. Regardless of whoever is elected POTUS, they will face protests. What does Trump's reaction to those protesting him tell us about how he will handle descent as POTUS?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
What channel is UL vs. Notre Dame? Can't find it.
- Latest: StubbornPenny
-
-
