An Open Letter to Donald Trump...

[ArmedProgrammer]

Yes, the second amendment matters more than people.

The second amendment is what protects all of our other rights, it's the fire extinguisher to put out an out of control government. Without it, the government has nothing to fear if they step over the line with the general public. Handguns are not going to be enough to stop an out of control government.

Our forefathers valued the ideals and principles of liberty far more than human life.

I think that we may agree more than you think. I don't see any of our core liberties (think Bill of Rights here) as being more or less important than each other.

1) The day we round people up because they own guns/bear arms is the day that liberty dies. (and Kut - I totally believe that the Witch can and will)
2) The day we brand people based on their religion is the day that liberty dies as well (Kut - I agree with you in this case) Trump HAS proven that he will run his mouth and go there. If he _meant_ immigration (to Tombs' point) then he needs to be VERY clear and be DAMN sure that is how it's taken. Any rational person could see it another way, and it's WAY too close to the edge to be unclear. He was given several opportunities to clarify his position and did not choose to do so. Some argue "lack of skill on Trump's part". I'm not buying. That kind of "run your mouth populism" is EXTREMELY dangerous.


The day EITHER of the above (1A or 2A) become verboten, then I will be a criminal. So I'm not inclined to vote for either one. We can do better.

 

[Tombs]

I think that we may agree more than you think. I don't see any of our core liberties (think Bill of Rights here) as being more or less important than each other.

1) The day we round people up because they own guns/bear arms is the day that liberty dies. (and Kut - I totally believe that the Witch can and will)
2) The day we brand people based on their religion is the day that liberty dies as well (Kut - I agree with you in this case) Trump HAS proven that he will run his mouth and go there. If he _meant_ immigration (to Tombs' point) then he needs to be VERY clear and be DAMN sure that is how it's taken. Any rational person could see it another way, and it's WAY too close to the edge to be unclear. He was given several opportunities to clarify his position and did not choose to do so. Some argue "lack of skill on Trump's part". I'm not buying. That kind of "run your mouth populism" is EXTREMELY dangerous.


The day EITHER of the above (1A or 2A) become verboten, then I will be a criminal. So I'm not inclined to vote for either one. We can do better.

Instead of going through the time and effort of going through thousands of sources and hunting down every little statement away from the clutter of media spin, I'm going to give you 2 videos that does all of this on their own. It's a long watch, but if you want to have the issues with Trump settled once and for all, everything sourced, cited, and backed up, this is the best that's possible.

[video=youtube;Gw8c2Cq-vpg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8c2Cq-vpg[/video]

[video=youtube;qwJZGlC5lXM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwJZGlC5lXM[/video]

I would highly recommend BBI specifically goes through them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I would highly recommend BBI specifically goes through them.

Do you believe he failed to disavow white supremacists due to a bad connection?

 

[Tombs]

Do you believe he failed to disavow white supremacists due to a bad connection?

Do you believe disavowing 11 times is enough?

I don't care about beliefs, I care about facts, the fact is he disavowed. If you don't know this, give the videos a watch, it includes the statements and the count.

This covers that specifically:

[video=youtube;45ggeJSrvd0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ggeJSrvd0[/video]

 

[BugI02]

Trump carries? When? I'm finding it difficult to lock down if it's sometimes, or all the time. But he doesn't seem to know either. Though at least I know he carries to be "unpredictable." If this guy is elected, I'm going to have a lot of fun at the expense of those simple-minded enough to vote for him.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If he carried once since the new year began, it's more than all his competition has done. So rather than acknowledge that, we descend into a discussion of how much carry is enough. So how much is enough? How much will get him his Kutscout merit badge for concealed carry, pray tell?

 

[Lowe0]

I find it distasteful(Putting it lightly...) that you'd rather soapbox than keep us from losing the supreme court to a bunch of radical leftist anti-gun judges that we will have to put up with for the rest of our lives.

This isn't 4 years you're talking about, it's a lifetime.

Vote to save the supreme court. If you think you'll be registered for your beliefs, you've been listening to too much liberal media. Trump was pushing registration and databases for Syrian refugees, which we already have and apparently he didn't know about.

He wanted to stop IMMIGRATION of muslims into the US, IMMIGRATION, which is a executive power the president has in the constitution.

Wait a sec... so thinking that the government is going to round up people is media-induced paranoia, but thinking that the government is going to round up guns is not? Can I get a little consistency here?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Do you believe disavowing 11 times is enough?

I don't care about beliefs, I care about facts, the fact is he disavowed. If you don't know this, give the videos a watch, it includes the statements and the count.

This covers that specifically:

[video=youtube;45ggeJSrvd0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ggeJSrvd0[/video]

That wasn't my question. Do you believe his excuse that it was caused by a faulty ear piece? Simple question.

 

[Tombs]

That wasn't my question. Do you believe his excuse that it was caused by a faulty ear piece? Simple question.

And that wasn't my question, I asked you is disavowing 11 times enough?

Keep in mind, you're insinuating that someone who hires countless minorities and operates businesses around the world is somehow a stark raving mad racist who wants to round up minorities and put them in databases.

 

[Tombs]

Wait a sec... so thinking that the government is going to round up people is media-induced paranoia, but thinking that the government is going to round up guns is not? Can I get a little consistency here?

Government has already stated, if they could get the votes they would.

 

[BugI02]

As much as you guys like to imagine some silent majority that's going to overwhelm the polls and sweep in the magical era of Trump, I don't regret informing you that most people aren't Trumpers. There is a ceiling.

Thus far Trump's managed to keep a fairly solid 1/3 support of the Republican voters plus or minus a few nuts and bolts from the Democrats. That's nowhere near a majority. Not that I rely on the majority for much of anything, but a wise man once told me, if you think you're the only sane person around, you might want to seek the opinion of a professional to confirm. It seems this concept scales pretty well. Say, up to a third or so. The rest of us think much less highly of Trump.

I have to say that the past several days have me rethinking my plan to hold my nose, close my eyes, cross my fingers, and vote for not-Hillary in the general election. I've had to vote for not-Obama twice. Surely I can muster the gumption to vote for not-Hillary. But each day not-Hillary (Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Kasich) says or does something really stupid that makes me wonder how I could ever vote for any of them. But especially Trump. I'm sorry, the koolaid just doesn't seem to have the same intoxicating effect on me that it has on y'all.

When you think you are right, you certainly should stand your ground. Are not we entitled to the same consideration. Is it not just a tiny bit conceited to credit yourself with hawklike clarity of sight and attribute the failure of others to agree with you to their vision being clouded with the koolaid they are drinking?

 

[beclende]

A vote for neither Trump nor Clinton is a vote for Clinton. As distasteful as some of us (or our Dads) may find the concept, sometimes you have to vote against someone rather than for someone.

I hope we all start warming up a bit to this line of thinking before it's too late.

This is the exact line of thinking that nourishes the republican establishment.

 

[Tombs]

This is the exact line of thinking that nourishes the republican establishment.

So you're supposing if republicans stay home, we won't get hillary in the whitehouse?

 

[BugI02]

... I vastly prefer a person of principle. I intend to find one and vote for one this year.

Good luck with that.View attachment 45975

 

[beclende]

So you're supposing if republicans stay home, we won't get hillary in the whitehouse?

We most certainly will, and if that is what it takes to completely break this party so that it becomes an accurate representation of the conservative movement then so be it. I will pledge allegiance to my country, to my flag, to my constitution, but not to a man or a party.

 

[Tombs]

We most certainly will, and if that is what it takes to completely break this party so that it becomes an accurate representation of the conservative movement then so be it. I will pledge allegiance to my country, to my flag, to my constitution, but not to a man or a party.

And then when we're stuck with a radical leftist supreme court who announces the constitution is a living document and redefines every amendment to fit the radical progressive narrative, it won't matter what party or who's in the whitehouse for the rest of our lifetime.

 

[voidsherpa]

This is the exact line of thinking that nourishes the republican establishment.

I'm a Rand Paul guy (I realize a libertarian-esque candidate does not have national appeal currently) whom wouldn't even mind a true conservative candidate. I am just stick of the same rhino's the republicans keep churning out. Therefore I enjoy seeing how this disruption plays out.

 

[Lowe0]

Government has already stated, if they could get the votes they would.

And if I thought they could actually pull it off, I'd be concerned.

 

[Tombs]

And if I thought they could actually pull it off, I'd be concerned.

I assume you weren't old enough to be dealing with firearms from 1994 to 2004. It might as well of been a total ban.

 

[beclende]

And then when we're stuck with a radical leftist supreme court who announces the constitution is a living document and redefines every amendment to fit the radical progressive narrative, it won't matter what party or who's in the whitehouse for the rest of our lifetime.

Thjngs could definitely pan out that way, still way too much voting left to declare Trump the winner though. I'm just saying that allowing your vote to be held hostage by a party that doesn't represent its elecorate is a type of lukewarm patriotism that I'm not willing to support.

 

[Tombs]

Thjngs could definitely pan out that way, still way too much voting left to declare Trump the winner though. I'm just saying that allowing your vote to be held hostage by a party that doesn't represent its elecorate is a type of lukewarm patriotism that I'm not willing to support.

I voted for Gary Johnson last election.

I'm putting aside my personal views to save the supreme court this year regardless who the republican nomination is. Of course if Trump gets it, I'm getting my cake and getting to eat it too.