The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[HoughMade]

6802300[/URL]]Nope. When you're in the public eye, regardless of who's side you happen to be on, this sort of thing is unacceptable. There's some nut job out there who just needs that little nudge from someone in power or influence to push him over the edge into "justified" violence. If the comment had been from a Black Lives Matter spokesman, etc. I think the reaction would be quite different.

While Eric Trump may be in the public eye, he's not in power of any kind. Are we that concerned for David Duke's life based upon a radio interview?

I know, I know, everything any Trump says is horrible and incites violence.

C'mon, there's enough to not like about Trump without making stuff up and getting all whiny about non-issues.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

While Eric Trump may be in the public eye, he's not in power of any kind. Are we that concerned for David Duke's life based upon a radio interview?

I know, I know, everything any Trump says is horrible and incites violence.

C'mon, there's enough to not like about Trump without making stuff up and getting all whiny about non-issues.

I'm not blaming Trump for his son's comment, however we both know if anyone in the Obama household said someone deserved a bullet what INGO's response would be. Wasn't there plenty of folks blaming Obama for ambush killings of police due to his comments about Black Lives Matter? That's the double standard. I stand by my comment. When you're in the public eye, casual calls or justifications for violence aren't acceptable, regardless of where on the political spectrum you are.

 

[PaulF]

Here's something to consider. If Clinton is elected, you can be sure that people would fight her tooth and nail if she tried to attacked the 2nd. If Trump is elected, it's hard to say that he isn't a mandate from the right. If he decides to attack the 2nd, democrats will all on-board, as well as certain weak-minded republicans, who would be too afraid to go against a president, who has the biggest stage in the world, to absolutely vilify them. The simple question is this. "Who if the opposed the 2nd Amendment, if elected, could actually be successful in their attempt? I, personally, don't believe Clinton has a snowball's chance. She'd be following behind a president that would be light years more popular than her, and he couldn't do it. So I think Clinton has even less of a chance.

I agree with you, to a point.

Gun owners and enthusiasts are not the only people that have strong opinions about guns. Some voters are motivated by a single issue, and in any given group of people for whom gun ownership is that single issue a non-zero number will be voting against individual gun rights. Clinton is smart. She's the only one out there really coming from the left on guns. Based on what I've seen on facebook and tumblr, there are millions of people out there who are holding their noses and voting for her simply because of her anti-gun rhetoric.

...but here the thing: she's a panderer. She says what she thinks her mark wants to hear in order to manipulate them to suit her. Once she has what she want from those anti-gun voters (the election), I don't think its unreasonable to consider the possibility that she might leave those very voters out dry and back off of her anti-gun rhetoric in order to better deal with the political realities that come attached to that agenda...realities that might interfere with her real agenda: keeping the gravy train rolling.

Guns have been the "third rail" of DC politics for some time now. If she hopes to succeed with her more "mainstream" agenda points she may well back off her most contentious ones.

As for Trump...Who knows, really? I think it is fair to point out that he has not really been very good at making friends anywhere else in the "election-minded" set. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that both sides of the isle are prepared to treat Trump the way Republicans have treated Obama for the last 7+ years.

Let's hope, anyway.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut, you are welcome to draw your conclusion. Whatever logic works for you is fine I guess.
As for me, I'll pin my decision on what the candidates have said they will do.

Here's a quick headline: Donald Trump in Colorado: ‘We’re Going to Protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms’
And an easily located HRC quote: "If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations."

Side note: She also seems to be saying that our freedom of religion, speech, and more are "subject to reasonable regulations." I am sure that there will be some people who desire that for this Constitutional Repulic.

Trump once said (2000):

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,”

The question, is do you think it's more likely that he, as a 70 year old man outgrew his wayward, young man of 54 belief, or is he playing the "I know what they want to hear" card? I think Trump is telling people what he wants them to hear.

 

[Greyson]

Trump once said (2000):

The question, is do you think it's more likely that he, as a 70 year old man outgrew his wayward, young man of 54 belief, or is he playing the "I know what they want to hear" card? I think Trump is telling people what he wants them to hear.

And the post just above says that Hilary is telling her people what they want to hear.
My moral compass has not budged.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And the post just above says that Hilary is telling her people what they want to hear.
My moral compass has not budged.

I'm missing your point? What does Clinton have to do with Trump's believability?

 

[Ericpwp]

...but here the thing: she's a panderer. She says what she thinks her mark wants to hear in order to manipulate them to suit her. Once she has what she want from those anti-gun voters (the election), I don't think its unreasonable to consider the possibility that she might leave those very voters out dry and back off of her anti-gun rhetoric in order to better deal with the political realities that come attached to that agenda...realities that might interfere with her real agenda: keeping the gravy train rolling.

I doubt any SCOTUS pick would rule favorably.

Trump once said (2000):
The question, is do you think it's more likely that he, as a 70 year old man outgrew his wayward, young man of 54 belief, or is he playing the "I know what they want to hear" card? I think Trump is telling people what he wants them to hear.

How many people's opinions about guns have changed since 2000? I know I was not a gun owner in 2000. Heck, people were just happy to get a 30 round mag back then, from what I know.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Annnnnd the wheels continue to fall off the Johnson/Weld campaign.

UPDATE: Johnson Campaign Cancels Weld Event After Party Withdrawl

I think Hillary is the only one that really wants to win this stupid thing...and if we're lucky, the FBI will throw her in jail before the election.

 

[Greyson]

Kut, Sorry for any confusion.
One post indicates Clinton is saying what her people want to hear. The other indicates Trump says what his people want to hear. So, let's look at the facts...

In 2004, she voted against the "Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill", and has other gun control-ish votes in her baggage. Methinks we gun owners should all believe her at her word. This does not seem to be a trivial issue (passing fad) to her.

Personally, I accept the Clinton quote as being believable. I also find it abhorrent, coning from one who has sworn an oath to the Constitution.

Further, I accept the Trump quote (above) as being believable, yet inconsequential. The Constitution forbids the government from tinkering with rights.

Does that clear it up?

 

[Greyson]

Thanks for making me do that research.... one of her other votes was "Nay" on the "Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment".

WoHoo! Yah, that Trump guy... He's the one thats a threat.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

WoHoo! Yah, that Trump guy... He's the one thats a threat.

Politics is never black-and-white. It's possible for both of these people to be absolutely awful for all of us.

 

[Alpo]

I can say with absolute certainty that you are underestimating the probability.

 

[Greyson]

Politics is never black-and-white. It's possible for both of these people to be absolutely awful for all of us.

I agree. (Cool by-line too!)
I also find that one man's medicine is another man's poison.
Taoism also points out that we all have good and evil within. (I am a Tai Chi instructor and student)

G'nite all

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This kid probably thinks he's a hero. It's not what he's doing that irks me... it's how smug he looks doing it.

Millennials are the worst.

 

[jamil]

I'm not blaming Trump for his son's comment, however we both know if anyone in the Obama household said someone deserved a bullet what INGO's response would be. Wasn't there plenty of folks blaming Obama for ambush killings of police due to his comments about Black Lives Matter? That's the double standard. I stand by my comment. When you're in the public eye, casual calls or justifications for violence aren't acceptable, regardless of where on the political spectrum you are.

I only disagree with you in this sense. Trump has pretty much been in the public eye for the last 30 years. If he or anyone in his family would have said stuff like that prior to last year, no one would have thought anything of it. An extremely rare nutball indeed would take the word of a real estate/reality TV star and go put a bullet in someone just over such hyperbole. It's more than just being in the public eye.

As the Republican nominee for POTUS, Trump is now in a position where he has 10s of millions of who WANT to give him the power of the presidency, many of whom are extremely loyal. THAT's the kind of public persona who really needs to watch what he and his representatives say.

Trump and his family speak like most people. Hyperbole is a part of everyday, colloquial speech. Now that Trump is vying for public office, someone needs to set him aside and explain why he must understand that as a candidate, his words now carry authority. This is one of the things that infuriate me about Obama. He often speaks as if he thinks he's a standup comedian. But this is an inherent problem when we think to elect amateurs.

I agree with you, to a point.

Gun owners and enthusiasts are not the only people that have strong opinions about guns. Some voters are motivated by a single issue, and in any given group of people for whom gun ownership is that single issue a non-zero number will be voting against individual gun rights. Clinton is smart. She's the only one out there really coming from the left on guns. Based on what I've seen on facebook and tumblr, there are millions of people out there who are holding their noses and voting for her simply because of her anti-gun rhetoric.

...but here the thing: she's a panderer. She says what she thinks her mark wants to hear in order to manipulate them to suit her. Once she has what she want from those anti-gun voters (the election), I don't think its unreasonable to consider the possibility that she might leave those very voters out dry and back off of her anti-gun rhetoric in order to better deal with the political realities that come attached to that agenda...realities that might interfere with her real agenda: keeping the gravy train rolling.

Guns have been the "third rail" of DC politics for some time now. If she hopes to succeed with her more "mainstream" agenda points she may well back off her most contentious ones.

As for Trump...Who knows, really? I think it is fair to point out that he has not really been very good at making friends anywhere else in the "election-minded" set. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that both sides of the isle are prepared to treat Trump the way Republicans have treated Obama for the last 7+ years.

Let's hope, anyway.

No, I think Clinton is serious about this. She was pissed back when the AWB wasn't renewed.

I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them. We’ve got to go after this.

And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get. I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA and we’re going to do whatever we can. The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable.

It's my sense that those words are sincere as a vendetta. Any left leaning gun owners need to consider that before checking the Clinton box on their ballots. She will go after guns. Don't assume that if elected, she wouldn't pursue it, or couldn't get it done. She absolutely will go after it, and she absolutely will nominate another cackling nutter like Ruth Ginsburg, who is the most anti-gun activist on the court. And it was a Clinton who nominated her.

 

[jamil]

Kut, Sorry for any confusion.
One post indicates Clinton is saying what her people want to hear. The other indicates Trump says what his people want to hear. So, let's look at the facts...

In 2004, she voted against the "Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill", and has other gun control-ish votes in her baggage. Methinks we gun owners should all believe her at her word. This does not seem to be a trivial issue (passing fad) to her.

Personally, I accept the Clinton quote as being believable. I also find it abhorrent, coning from one who has sworn an oath to the Constitution.

Further, I accept the Trump quote (above) as being believable, yet inconsequential. The Constitution forbids the government from tinkering with rights.

Does that clear it up?

Clinton has a very anti-gun record, but if that's the bill I'm thinking of it had a poison pill attached, which would make the AWB permanent.

Also, ask the average politician behind closed doors if they think the constitution forbids the government from tinkering with rights. Look at the successful infringements against the 2A that we have now and tell me the constitution has protected us against government tinkering with our rights.

 

[2A_Tom]

Politics is never black-and-white. It's possible for both of these people to be absolutely awful for all of us.

It is also possible that a man of Trump's experience, with his stated agenda, who surrounds himself with the RIGHT people could be good for what ails America.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It is also possible that a man of Trump's experience...

... both good and bad, with regards to how he has run his business...

with his stated agenda,

...which may conflict with his stated beliefs...

who surrounds himself with the RIGHT people

... which we've yet to see...

could be good for what ails America.

I'm skeptical.

 

[jamil]

It is also possible that a man of Trump's experience, with his stated agenda, who surrounds himself with the RIGHT people could be good for what ails America.

I've yet to see that. It took him until late in the campaign to get a competent campaign staff, and that was largely because of the RNC. Trump doesn't seem to like listening. He likes demanding. So I'm dubious that he will surround himself with the right people. I'm more confident he will surround himself with the "yes" people.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

FBI Looking At Fake Documents Targeting Clinton Campaign | RedState