How Trump Incites Followers To Violence

[the_mother_thing]

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.

No. Different because ... we have weak borders, even weaker resources to protect them, and very strong drug cartels trafficking in their product to our citizens who have created demand for it to escape their oh so harsh reality called LIFE. And that product demands guns to protect/defend it (e.g., the bad guys).

Different because ... we don't punish criminals who DO commit gun crimes harshly enough to drive the point home not only to them (to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders) but to set an example for others considering a similar life of crime or committing the same acts.

Different because ... our idea of "punishment" for crime is 3 hots and a cot, a free education, free healthcare, and another opportunity to be in a gang when instead it SHOULD be hard labor, less 'chances', and no 'benefits' that we can't even provide veterans or homeless.

Different because ... we have a far worse mental health problem in this country that constantly gets brushed under the rug, and we're too worried about hurting Jane & John Doe's feelings than facing the harsh truths and facts that some of these people should probably be 'watched' to some degree so they DON'T go shooting up a church, a school, or a government office.

Different because ... we're the melting pot where everyone wants to live and be free (so long as it conforms to THEIR way of life without regard for our founding principles), and we want EVERYONE to be a 'special snowflake', so we don't adequately mitigate risks with immigrants who *may* very well wish to destroy us (again, can't hurt their 'wittle feewings').

Different because ... we've passed "gun reform" and it didn't stop Newtown, San Bernadino or South Carolina from happening.

And lastly, we're different because IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THREATS (as well as our government if/when it decides to go off the rails) since our government can't get its head out of its ass to do it for the nation.

And until those threats are eliminated, you're darn right "I'll cling to my guns" ... every last one of them! How many of these "other countries" that are doing soooo well with regard to their "gun violence" face those same problems day in & out?

 

[Laila619]

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.

No. Different because ... we have weak borders, even weaker resources to protect them, and very strong drug cartels trafficking in their product to our citizens who have created demand for it to escape their oh so harsh reality called LIFE. And that product demands guns to protect/defend it (e.g., the bad guys).

Different because ... we don't punish criminals who DO commit gun crimes harshly enough to drive the point home not only to them (to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders) but to set an example for others considering a similar life of crime or committing the same acts.

Different because ... our idea of "punishment" for crime is 3 hots and a cot, a free education, free healthcare, and another opportunity to be in a gang when instead it SHOULD be hard labor, less 'chances', and no 'benefits' that we can't even provide veterans or homeless.

Different because ... we have a far worse mental health problem in this country that constantly gets brushed under the rug, and we're too worried about hurting Jane & John Doe's feelings than facing the harsh truths and facts that some of these people should probably be 'watched' to some degree so they DON'T go shooting up a church, a school, or a government office.

Different because ... we're the melting pot where everyone wants to live and be free (so long as it conforms to THEIR way of life without regard for our founding principles), and we want EVERYONE to be a 'special snowflake', so we don't adequately mitigate risks with immigrants who *may* very well wish to destroy us (again, can't hurt their 'wittle feewings').

Different because ... we've passed "gun reform" and it didn't stop Newtown, San Bernadino or South Carolina from happening.

And lastly, we're different because IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THREATS (as well as our government if/when it decides to go off the rails) since our government can't get its head out of its a$$ to do it for the nation.

And until those threats are eliminated, you're darn right "I'll cling to my guns" ... every last one of them! How many of these "other countries" that are doing soooo well with regard to their "gun violence" face those same problems day in & out?

I agree with all of this. That is to say, our country is going to hell in a handbasket. Canada, Sweden, England, and Australia are looking better and better!

 

[Niel]

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.

No. Different because ... we have weak borders, even weaker resources to protect them, and very strong drug cartels trafficking in their product to our citizens who have created demand for it to escape their oh so harsh reality called LIFE. And that product demands guns to protect/defend it (e.g., the bad guys).

drug dealers aren't shooting up schools, movie theatres, malls. They are not the threat gun reform could actually help

Different because ... we don't punish criminals who DO commit gun crimes harshly enough to drive the point home not only to them (to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders) but to set an example for others considering a similar life of crime or committing the same acts.

I'm fine with this, and I'm sure would pair nicely with gun reform


Different because ... our idea of "punishment" for crime is 3 hots and a cot, a free education, free healthcare, and another opportunity to be in a gang when instead it SHOULD be hard labor, less 'chances', and no 'benefits' that we can't even provide veterans or homeless.

I guess we fundamentally disagree in the potential of human beings

Different because ... we have a far worse mental health problem in this country that constantly gets brushed under the rug, and we're too worried about hurting Jane & John Doe's feelings than facing the harsh truths and facts that some of these people should probably be 'watched' to some degree so they DON'T go shooting up a church, a school, or a government office

also sounds like it would pair well with gun reform

Different because ... we're the melting pot where everyone wants to live and be free (so long as it conforms to THEIR way of life without regard for our founding principles), and we want EVERYONE to be a 'special snowflake', so we don't adequately mitigate risks with immigrants who *may* very well wish to destroy us (again, can't hurt their 'wittle feewings').

white men are committing quite a lot of these crimes. They're immigrating from where?

Different because ... we've passed "gun reform" and it didn't stop Newtown, San Bernadino or South Carolina from happening.
the fact that previous reform has failed or hasn't gone far enough is no reason to abandon the idea.


And lastly, we're different because IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THREATS (as well as our government if/when it decides to go off the rails) since our government can't get its head out of its a$$ to do it for the nation.

yes you have the right to own guns, but exactly how far does that right extend. Gun control isn't immune to regulation, just like all other rights outlined in the Constitution.

And until those threats are eliminated, you're darn right "I'll cling to my guns" ... every last one of them! How many of these "other countries" that are doing soooo well with regard to their "gun violence" face those same problems day in & out?

 

[the_mother_thing]

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.

No. Different because ... we have weak borders, even weaker resources to protect them, and very strong drug cartels trafficking in their product to our citizens who have created demand for it to escape their oh so harsh reality called LIFE. And that product demands guns to protect/defend it (e.g., the bad guys).

drug dealers aren't shooting up schools, movie theatres, malls. They are not the threat gun reform could actually help
No, they're just shooting up street corners, random drive-bys & businesses for initiation, etc. and helping to redistribute other illegally acquired guns - usually from other drug dealers/cartels - to commit more crimes. But I guess those are okay?

Different because ... we don't punish criminals who DO commit gun crimes harshly enough to drive the point home not only to them (to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders) but to set an example for others considering a similar life of crime or committing the same acts.

I'm fine with this, and I'm sure would pair nicely with gun reform
You can't kill two Tyrannosaurus Rex with one pebble. Deal with the CRIME factor first, and you very likely may see a sharp decline in the need for further "gun control".

Different because ... our idea of "punishment" for crime is 3 hots and a cot, a free education, free healthcare, and another opportunity to be in a gang when instead it SHOULD be hard labor, less 'chances', and no 'benefits' that we can't even provide veterans or homeless.

I guess we fundamentally disagree in the potential of human beings
I question the "potential" of someone with a clear & DEMONSTRATED disregard for the law and others to be productive, contributing members of society who adhere to the laws in place. And I believe that ANY person who straps on boots to defend our freedom or is unable to make choices for themselves due to disability is more deserving of help than someone who straps on a stolen semi-auto to commit a crime. I also believe that victims deserve more compassion and care than the criminals who made them victims. Criminal Carl MADE the choice to commit a crime; Victim Vicky did NOT get to choose to be a victim.

Different because ... we have a far worse mental health problem in this country that constantly gets brushed under the rug, and we're too worried about hurting Jane & John Doe's feelings than facing the harsh truths and facts that some of these people should probably be 'watched' to some degree so they DON'T go shooting up a church, a school, or a government office

also sounds like it would pair well with gun reform
See above Tyrannosaurus Rex comment.

Different because ... we're the melting pot where everyone wants to live and be free (so long as it conforms to THEIR way of life without regard for our founding principles), and we want EVERYONE to be a 'special snowflake', so we don't adequately mitigate risks with immigrants who *may* very well wish to destroy us (again, can't hurt their 'wittle feewings').

white men are committing quite a lot of these crimes. They're immigrating from where?
"white men" aren't the predominant source of trafficking guns across our border. SB shooter was of MidEast descent and born here but wifey-poo was a ME-mail order bride, it seems, who didn't get screened all that well. The "white men" shooting up schools and whatnot (to my knowledge) have all been found to have mental disorders, IIRC, so refer back to reforming mental health and again, fix THAT first before infringing on INNOCENT law abiding citizens' rights). And let's face it, it really takes SOME level of mental impairment to be able to take the life of another without "just cause" (e.g., self defense, national security, etc.) - I don't care WHAT color/ethnicity you are.

Different because ... we've passed "gun reform" and it didn't stop Newtown, San Bernadino or South Carolina from happening.
the fact that previous reform has failed or hasn't gone far enough is no reason to abandon the idea.


And lastly, we're different because IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THREATS (as well as our government if/when it decides to go off the rails) since our government can't get its head out of its a$$ to do it for the nation.

yes you have the right to own guns, but exactly how far does that right extend. Gun control isn't immune to regulation, just like all other rights outlined in the Constitution.

How far does that 'right' extend? Well, the constitution says "shall not be infringed" ... it doesn't say "so long as those who oppose guns are okie doke with your choices," or "so long as you have only guns you can carry in a 3x5" holster" or "with no more than a 3 round capacity". It says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". I already HAVE to register some of my firearms; I already HAVE to undergo a background check (well, not really because I have a CCH); I already HAVE a limit on the types of firearms I can buy (nope, no fully autos in my safe). To say I should only own two, and never have more than 100 rounds of ammo or some nonsense is just that - nonsense. I don't tell *you* how many kids you can have (some of which might turn into thugs), what kind of car you can drive (which might end up taking me out if you drive recklessly), or what sort of medicine you may take (because if you decide to abuse it, you may commit a violent crime against me or sell it to my kids for cash). Those all pose potential/hypothetical threats to ME, and far more likely to result in harm than a law abiding citizen is to create with their legally owned & obtained firearm, yet we don't have "reproductive reform", "car buying reform", or "prescription drug verification reform". We don't judge someone as 'likely to commit a crime' because of their skin color, religion (regardless of what Kenny says), or whether they come from a normal or "broken" home. How about we start affording the same courtesy to those who DON'T break the law and just want to legally protect their family and home?

And until those threats are eliminated, you're darn right "I'll cling to my guns" ... every last one of them! How many of these "other countries" that are doing soooo well with regard to their "gun violence" face those same problems day in & out?

And there you have it.

 

[momhappy]

I support fixing the Constitution and removing ALL guns from every American, except for the military and law enforcement.

Other countries have pulled their heads out of their @sses.
We can too.

We are not "other countries" so making the comparison is apples to oranges.

Well, that's not really true.

It's comparing country to country.. So, comparing two like things.

No two countries are alike, so no, its not like comparing two like things (outside of the obvious, which is that they are both countries).

yes america is a special flower

Nope, not special, just different and when it comes to firearms, we have our own unique set of challenges.

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.

Yes, gun reform is part of it, but that's just a small piece of the puzzle. There are any number of threads on here that have hashed over the gun debate over and over and over again.... but since this thread was about Trump, I didn't care to go into any more detail than what I've already posted.

 

[AGBF]

I do know people who think Hillary is as bad as Trump

...​

I wouldn't trust either of them and I sure as heck wouldn't vote for them either and I know lots of people who feel that way.

I wasn't discussing whether Secretary Clinton was "as bad" as Mr. Trump. I wasn't discussing whether some people thought she was as bad as Mr. Trump. I wasn't discussing whether people would or should vote for her. I was only discussing freedom of speech and nothing else at this point in this thread.

My point was that Mr. Trump's speech is vile, but that it should be protected by The First Amendment unless it ever rises to the level of actually ordering criminal actions or otherwise breaking the law.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Unfortunately, I know a lot of folks who think Hillary is a pig who spews poison, so again, some of what this comes down to is the media. Is trump a pig? Absolutely, but the media has certainly helped to mold this election into what it has become.

If you have actually heard Trump call his followers to throw out protesters with a smirk and ask, "are we having fun?" as violence ensues and you think anything Hillary Clinton says from the platform is equivalent, I doubt you know one single person who thinks she is a pig of Trump's caliber. The media didn't make Mr. Trump a million times worse than Secretary Clinton. He did that. She sounds reasonable. He sounds like a ranting fascist. (As I said, I would protect his right to rant under the US Constitution, but I can speak out about it.)

Secretary Clinton was a Senator and a Secretary of State. Mr. Trump bankrupted casinos in Atlantic City.

Whom covered up the truth about Benghazi..

 

[the_mother_thing]

Whom covered up the truth about Benghazi..

But it's okay now because no lives were lost in Benghazi.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/15/hillary-clinton-drops-gaffes-in-late-push-to-woo-p/

Defending her leading role advocating for U.S. intervention to help topple Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, she said the outcome was much better than the bloody turmoil in Syria.

“Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn’t lose a single person. We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” Mrs. Clinton said Monday at a town hall hosted by MSNBC.

 

[Coralfish]

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.

e B shooter was of MidEast descent and born here but wifey-poo was a ME-mail order bride, it seems, who didn't get screened all that well. The "white men" shooting up schools and whatnot (to my knowledge) have all been found to have mental disorders, IIRC, so refer back to reforming mental health and again, fix THAT first before infringing on INNOCENT law abiding citizens' rights). And let's face it, it really takes SOME level of men to their "gun violence" face those same problems day in & out?

And there you have it.

OMG

Them forriners are made bad but white men only commit crime when mentally ill
And they're mentally ill cos they're driven to it by all the forriners they gotta put up with

I think you might be a figment of my imagination. Do you actually exist? I feel like you might be a cartoon character that's been forcibly strapped to a chair in front of Fox News for the past decade with tom'n'jerry-like matchsticks forcing your eyes to stay open. Never having once set foot in the real world or streamed any other news source. Then again, maybe you are just regurgitating the rhetoric of you parents. Yes, that sort of thing would surprise me less

 

[Niel]

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.

No. Different because ... we have weak borders, even weaker resources to protect them, and very strong drug cartels trafficking in their product to our citizens who have created demand for it to escape their oh so harsh reality called LIFE. And that product demands guns to protect/defend it (e.g., the bad guys).

drug dealers aren't shooting up schools, movie theatres, malls. They are not the threat gun reform could actually help
No, they're just shooting up street corners, random drive-bys & businesses for initiation, etc. and helping to redistribute other illegally acquired guns - usually from other drug dealers/cartels - to commit more crimes. But I guess those are okay?

Different because ... we don't punish criminals who DO commit gun crimes harshly enough to drive the point home not only to them (to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders) but to set an example for others considering a similar life of crime or committing the same acts.

I'm fine with this, and I'm sure would pair nicely with gun reform
You can't kill two Tyrannosaurus Rex with one pebble. Deal with the CRIME factor first, and you very likely may see a sharp decline in the need for further "gun control".

Different because ... our idea of "punishment" for crime is 3 hots and a cot, a free education, free healthcare, and another opportunity to be in a gang when instead it SHOULD be hard labor, less 'chances', and no 'benefits' that we can't even provide veterans or homeless.

I guess we fundamentally disagree in the potential of human beings
I question the "potential" of someone with a clear & DEMONSTRATED disregard for the law and others to be productive, contributing members of society who adhere to the laws in place. And I believe that ANY person who straps on boots to defend our freedom or is unable to make choices for themselves due to disability is more deserving of help than someone who straps on a stolen semi-auto to commit a crime. I also believe that victims deserve more compassion and care than the criminals who made them victims. Criminal Carl MADE the choice to commit a crime; Victim Vicky did NOT get to choose to be a victim.

Different because ... we have a far worse mental health problem in this country that constantly gets brushed under the rug, and we're too worried about hurting Jane & John Doe's feelings than facing the harsh truths and facts that some of these people should probably be 'watched' to some degree so they DON'T go shooting up a church, a school, or a government office

also sounds like it would pair well with gun reform
See above Tyrannosaurus Rex comment.

Different because ... we're the melting pot where everyone wants to live and be free (so long as it conforms to THEIR way of life without regard for our founding principles), and we want EVERYONE to be a 'special snowflake', so we don't adequately mitigate risks with immigrants who *may* very well wish to destroy us (again, can't hurt their 'wittle feewings').

white men are committing quite a lot of these crimes. They're immigrating from where?
"white men" aren't the predominant source of trafficking guns across our border. SB shooter was of MidEast descent and born here but wifey-poo was a ME-mail order bride, it seems, who didn't get screened all that well. The "white men" shooting up schools and whatnot (to my knowledge) have all been found to have mental disorders, IIRC, so refer back to reforming mental health and again, fix THAT first before infringing on INNOCENT law abiding citizens' rights). And let's face it, it really takes SOME level of mental impairment to be able to take the life of another without "just cause" (e.g., self defense, national security, etc.) - I don't care WHAT color/ethnicity you are.

Different because ... we've passed "gun reform" and it didn't stop Newtown, San Bernadino or South Carolina from happening.
the fact that previous reform has failed or hasn't gone far enough is no reason to abandon the idea.


And lastly, we're different because IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THREATS (as well as our government if/when it decides to go off the rails) since our government can't get its head out of its a$$ to do it for the nation.

yes you have the right to own guns, but exactly how far does that right extend. Gun control isn't immune to regulation, just like all other rights outlined in the Constitution.

How far does that 'right' extend? Well, the constitution says "shall not be infringed" ... it doesn't say "so long as those who oppose guns are okie doke with your choices," or "so long as you have only guns you can carry in a 3x5" holster" or "with no more than a 3 round capacity". It says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". I already HAVE to register some of my firearms; I already HAVE to undergo a background check (well, not really because I have a CCH); I already HAVE a limit on the types of firearms I can buy (nope, no fully autos in my safe). To say I should only own two, and never have more than 100 rounds of ammo or some nonsense is just that - nonsense. I don't tell *you* how many kids you can have (some of which might turn into thugs), what kind of car you can drive (which might end up taking me out if you drive recklessly), or what sort of medicine you may take (because if you decide to abuse it, you may commit a violent crime against me or sell it to my kids for cash). Those all pose potential/hypothetical threats to ME, and far more likely to result in harm than a law abiding citizen is to create with their legally owned & obtained firearm, yet we don't have "reproductive reform", "car buying reform", or "prescription drug verification reform". We don't judge someone as 'likely to commit a crime' because of their skin color, religion (regardless of what Kenny says), or whether they come from a normal or "broken" home. How about we start affording the same courtesy to those who DON'T break the law and just want to legally protect their family and home?

And until those threats are eliminated, you're darn right "I'll cling to my guns" ... every last one of them! How many of these "other countries" that are doing soooo well with regard to their "gun violence" face those same problems day in & out?

And there you have it.

haha if you say so

 

[momhappy]

I do know people who think Hillary is as bad as Trump

...​

I wouldn't trust either of them and I sure as heck wouldn't vote for them either and I know lots of people who feel that way.

I wasn't discussing whether Secretary Clinton was "as bad" as Mr. Trump. I wasn't discussing whether some people thought she was as bad as Mr. Trump. I wasn't discussing whether people would or should vote for her. I was only discussing freedom of speech and nothing else at this point in this thread.

My point was that Mr. Trump's speech is vile, but that it should be protected by The First Amendment unless it ever rises to the level of actually ordering criminal actions or otherwise breaking the law.

Well then maybe I misunderstood your post where you said this: "If you have actually heard Trump call his followers to throw out protesters with a smirk and ask, "are we having fun?" as violence ensues and you think anything Hillary Clinton says from the platform is equivalent, I doubt you know one single person who thinks she is a pig of Trump's caliber. The media didn't make Mr. Trump a million times worse than Secretary Clinton. He did that. She sounds reasonable. He sounds like a ranting fascist. (As I said, I would protect his right to rant under the US Constitution, but I can speak out about it.)"

You doubted whether or not I actually knew anyone who thought she was as big of a pig as Trump - and I actually do. Since they are both presidential candidates, they are both subject to public scrutiny, so it's not like I'm singling out Hilary....I don't care for either of them (equally) and will stay home and sit on my couch if those are my two choices. I used my voice to vote in my primary election and that's probably about all I can do.

 

[the_mother_thing]

OMG

Them forriners are made bad but white men only commit crime when mentally ill
And they're mentally ill cos they're driven to it by all the forriners they gotta put up with

I think you might be a figment of my imagination. Do you actually exist? I feel like you might be a cartoon character that's been forcibly strapped to a chair in front of Fox News for the past decade with tom'n'jerry-like matchsticks forcing your eyes to stay open. Never having once set foot in the real world or streamed any other news source. Then again, maybe you are just regurgitating the rhetoric of you parents. Yes, that sort of thing would surprise me less

You have quite an assumptive mentality! Coming from someone who writes like my daughter when she was a pre-teen "txt"-happy little cherub, I think you'd agree it probably more polite to leave my parents (whose political views I actually do not agree with) out of your comments; making things personal like that only makes you appear ignorant and uneducated.

You may instead thank your friends at CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/27/us/mass-shootings/) for their research on the matter.

And yes, I accept your apology.

 

[the_mother_thing]

haha if you say so

I hope you know, Niel, how much I sincerely respect you and your positions, and I think we both can agree that - on this stuff - we'll probably always disagree, but I appreciate yours & others ability to do so respectfully.

In other news ... I got my catalogs in the mail from Rick yesterday.

 

[partgypsy]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11218948/trump-rubio-violence-rally

This is long, and I don't agree with Rubio on his platform, or much of anything, but I do agree with his assessment of Trump. It is worth watching. Essentially Trump is using people's hate, and fanning that hate to turn up his fan base to attack other (minority) groups. While a leader would look at the people's hate or fears, to determine what the underlying causes of the problem, in order to propose real solutions to help the citizens. And no, building a wall around Mexico is not a "solution".
What Trump is doing is dangerous, dangerous for this country.

Oh, and I have heard of more than one account of, people attending his rallies, having Bernie or other non-trump shirts or signs, but standing peacefully (no obscenities or anything like that). And even chatting with the people around them. But at some point they are targeted out, security comes to escort them, even if people around them said, they didn't do anything. As they are being escorted out Trump makes commentary and the audience gets ugly, yelling at them and threats. It is part of his events.

 

[Niel]

haha if you say so

I hope you know, Niel, how much I sincerely respect you and your positions, and I think we both can agree that - on this stuff - we'll probably always disagree, but I appreciate yours & others ability to do so respectfully.

In other news ... I got my catalogs in the mail from Rick yesterday.

I hope you know though I get worked up about your positions I feel the same. In kind of a rude millennial sometimes ha-ha. This is why I didn't see a need for political discourse on my jewelry forum.

And I'm jealous I got a quote from him too and it seemed very fair!! I should ask for a catalog!

 

[the_mother_thing]

I don't agree with what Trump is doing with his rhetoric, and I don't condone the following 'rationalization' for why it may be happening (two wrongs don't make a right), but I do believe that - like with many things - the precedent was set quite recently by this BLM movement, and people who support Trump are using that albeit 'unannouncingly' as a basis for why what THEY feel, think, etc, and what Trump is saying, etc., is 'okay'. And all of that - too - was in a way approved by society under the auspices of "free speech".

BLM didn't like what they were seeing, experiencing, being subjected to, etc. So they spoke up, they protested, they FORCED America to hear them (even if some didn't agree), and I feel they also incited hate and violence with ignorant chants like "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon", outright calling for dead cops, and such.

Removing the emotion of what your political beliefs are, what you think of ANY candidate, when people see one group do something, and get away with it, it paves the way for them to do it as well. It's like the opposite of legal precedent; it's "civil unrest precedent" or something like that. And it's all done and defended by 'free speech'. I feel like this is why we as a society need to be very careful in what we condone as acceptable because there will ALWAYS be consequences for that 'acceptance'.

Just pondering here ... no facts, stats, or sources to back it up.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And I'm jealous I got a quote from him too and it seemed very fair!! I should ask for a catalog!

He sent me a stack ... they're small, pamphlet-like but nice, and really show his work better (I think) than the site. Definitely ask him to send them. I've already got little flags on several to talk about my project with him as examples, etc. And I'm thinking I'll probably do a test drive piece with him first; something simple to see his work in person before I send off my other project stones.

 

[Coralfish]

The level of paranoia, hatred and rationalisation via warped narrative. I've never seen the like. Still don't quite believe it can be real

 

[AGBF]

I do know people who think Hillary is as bad as Trump

...​

I wouldn't trust either of them and I sure as heck wouldn't vote for them either and I know lots of people who feel that way.

I wasn't discussing whether Secretary Clinton was "as bad" as Mr. Trump. I wasn't discussing whether some people thought she was as bad as Mr. Trump. I wasn't discussing whether people would or should vote for her. I was only discussing freedom of speech and nothing else at this point in this thread.

My point was that Mr. Trump's speech is vile, but that it should be protected by The First Amendment unless it ever rises to the level of actually ordering criminal actions or otherwise breaking the law.

Well then maybe I misunderstood your post where you said this: "If you have actually heard Trump call his followers to throw out protesters with a smirk and ask, "are we having fun?" as violence ensues and you think anything Hillary Clinton says from the platform is equivalent, I doubt you know one single person who thinks she is a pig of Trump's caliber... "

You doubted whether or not I actually knew anyone who thought she was as big of a pig as Trump - and I actually do.

You are right, momhappy. The way I worded it did not reflect what was in my head.

What I meant (and didn't write) was that no one who heard both Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump speak could accuse her of being mad as a hatter and/or a raving lunatic the way everyone who heard him might accuse him of being.

He comes across as a salivating fascist when he speaks. People may hate her, but not because she speaks poorly.

 

[Coralfish]

I'm not even referring to the political candidates, by the way, with my last comment, lest that be ambiguous. More, 'inspired' by the filter-revealing gem at 15:11

 

[AGBF]

I'm not even referring to the political candidates, by the way, with my last comment, lest that be ambiguous. More, 'inspired' by the filter-revealing gem at 15:11

I believe you are referring to xenophobia and racism.

 

[Coralfish]

Those are the words I was not brave enough to say.

Perhaps it's more complicated than that though. Or less.

It's just, blaming that behaviour on the Black Lives Matter Movement takes a worldview so breathtakingly narrow, brief and distorted I am having trouble fully comprehending it

It seems to have proved sufficiently rational to not only have arrived at this deduction, but post it as if it's a normal, healthy, valuable contribution to a debate... Along with the verbiage I quoted in my first post on this thread...

It seems so far off being proportionate... Then we're back to chumming about goldsmiths... a surreal veneer

 

[Dancing Fire]

I support fixing the Constitution and removing ALL guns from every American, except for the military and law enforcement.

Other countries have pulled their heads out of their @sses.
We can too.

Figure out how to keep the criminals from getting them first, then get back to me.


Sorry Kenny, guns aren't going anywhere in this country; not in our lifetime anyway.

Exactly!..

 

[kenny]

Now BBC reports "Trump predicts 'riots' if Republicans deny him the nomination"

Stating this supporters 'would' riot is not-too-hard-to-decipher code for telling his supporters you 'should' riot.

Lovely guy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35825484

 

[Dancing Fire]

I support fixing the Constitution and removing ALL guns from every American, except for the military and law enforcement.

Other countries have pulled their heads out of their @sses.
We can too.

We are not "other countries" so making the comparison is apples to oranges.

Well, that's not really true.

It's comparing country to country.. So, comparing two like things.

but other countries don't have millions of illegal guns on the streets.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Niel|

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.[/quote]


Do you really think the criminals on the street give a S**T about any gun reform law? like voluntarily turn in their guns...

 

[liaerfbv]

[quote="Niel|

Right, different because we won't pass gun reform.

Do you really think the criminals on the street give a S**T about any gun reform law? like voluntarily turn in their guns... [/quote]

I find it hilarious when Repubs tout trickle down economics but deny the plausibility of "trickle down" gun reform.

ETA my double negative

 

[the_mother_thing]

I believe you are referring to xenophobia and racism.

Those are the words I was not brave enough to say.

Perhaps it's more complicated than that though. Or less.

It's just, blaming that behaviour on the Black Lives Matter Movement takes a worldview so breathtakingly narrow, brief and distorted I am having trouble fully comprehending it

It seems to have proved sufficiently rational to not only have arrived at this deduction, but post it as if it's a normal, healthy, valuable contribution to a debate... Along with the verbiage I quoted in my first post on this thread...

It seems so far off being proportionate... Then we're back to chumming about goldsmiths... a surreal veneer

I assure you, I personally suffer from neither. And I was clear in my condemnation for both "groups" behavior; perhaps you glazed over that in your haste to search for more labels. But just like the GOP is taking a page out of liberals' playbook with denying the SCOTUS nomination, just like Baltimore too erupted in riots & destruction when faced with the same allegations of police brutality as Ferguson, when one group sees the actions of another sanctioned by the turning of blind eyes vs being met with condemnation, they too may reasonably deduce "approval" in like behaviors. It's what I meant by the term "precedent". I didn't say I approved of it.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it. I personally don't condone ANYONE calling for harm or the death of another who is not found guilty per our legal process regardless of their social calling of the moment. But if you support BLM doing so - and there IS evidence of that behavior widely available to reference - that's your burden to carry. But I KNOW that the families of LEOs are not concerned with whether it's perceived by you as "proportionate" or rational when it comes to threats against their family.

And if you object to my "changing gears" with Niel in the course of the thread for two moments, then I eagerly await your calling out every other thread jack offender on PS. It's the "hangout" for crying out loud. It's not a courtroom.

 

[packrat]

Coralfish, do you not disagree w/your friends or people you talk to on a regular basis? And if you do, do you then decide you can't be friends w/them or chummy w/them? That's kinda part of being an adult isn't it, being able to talk about things, hash shit out, and still remain on a friendly basis, even if you don't agree on things? Or am I wrong? Part of being a productive member of an online society is being able to behave in a rational manner, I would think. Not so much a case of "You don't agree w/me so therefore I can not talk to you about things we have in common or any other mutual interests" It's actually a nice way to relieve the tension that comes from talking about these issues, to remind ourselves that we *are* adults and we *are* capable of behaving as such. I've never found it surreal, I find it to be civilized behavior.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I find it hilarious when Repubs tout trickle down economics but deny the plausibility of "trickle down" gun reform.

I don't personally see it as "trickle down gun reform". Rather, it's like replacing a faucet gasket when your house is being flooded by a cracked water main. You have to look at the root cause of the incidents. Guns do not just "go off". It takes an action that it requires someone making a concerted effort and decision to pull that trigger. The effect could be the same (harm of another) regardless of the tool used. So, you don't look at the tool, you have to look at the "why" or the cause. Was it self defense? Was it retaliatory (e.g., drug or gang violence), or was it because of mental illness? Then you approach THOSE problems individually and appropriately because there is NO one size fits all solution that can really apply to them all equally. That's why the gun control measures that HAVE been put in place have failed. The government has changed too many faucet gaskets while allowing the cause of the flood to continue.