The (Semi) Official Trump Election/Inauguration thread...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,019
    113
    Fort Wayne
    This is the very sentiment that helped Trump win. When your side wins, you can't assume that the other side, which disagrees with you, no longer matters. The basket of deplorables rose up and defeated democrats because they were sick and tired of being "plowed under" by the left.

    Obama has led the democrats in doing that his whole presidency. Republicans, now, should not make the same mistake. This isn't a dictatorship where winning means you can eliminate your opposition. The opposition has not been, nor can be, eliminated in our system, other than their ideologies fading away through social evolution. Winning an election is not a meaningful mandate signifying the end of the left. They can't be plowed under any more than you were. The left thought that the right was effectively plowed under.

    This is just an admonition to right leaning people not to be foolish as the left was. There is another side, and that side as a voice. You can't take their voice away and still have a free republic.



    I like that emoji. Sith be kickin ass.


    I entirely agree. The issue isn't on what divides us, it is on what we agree upon. There are NO reasonable people who "want" crime, but reasonable people DO differ on how to fight it.

    The gun is an easy target. It draws attention to itself. It goes "BOOM" and everyone hears it. It makes killing easy. So some people kneejerk to "let's get rid of guns." Of course, they weren't born that way, they are only responding to the easy target. The reality is most inner city folks wouldn't give two (2) :poop:'s about guns if all the violence went away.

    Ahh, but making all the violence and crime go away is a hard thing to do. That takes real work and I don't believe there is a society in the world that has done away with crime and the violence that surrounds it.

    On the other side of thinking is keeping the guns but, "lock the bastages up forever (or kill 'em!)" That also doesn't work. It is expensive and unproductive, because again it doesn't address the root cause of the issue. Both of these proposed solutions are like giving pain medication to a patient but not really going in and solving the problem that is causing the pain.

    Each solution feels really good to say but never really works.

    Then our leaders, congressmen and senators, get pushed by the loudmouths back home to go a certain direction. With the improved efficiency of gerrymandering all a liberal needs to do in California is pay attention to their liberal constituency and they will always be elected. The same goes for a conservative in Kentucky. There is actually pressure to NOT come together as the purists on each side demand rigidness without compromise. Yet compromise is exactly what is needed around the edges to make the solutions fit the problems. (CAVEAT: I am not talking about compromising core philosophical beliefs, only in mechanisms and nuances.)

    As far as I am concerned we all want the same thing, basically. Where we disagree is on which route to take to get there. Most folks simply want to live their lives in peace, have a meaningful job, raise their children in a safe environment, and retire content. They want to be able to afford most things they want to do. They want the same and better for their kids. But how we get there depends upon our mindset and how we think.

    This is why I think Jamil's post is so important. Trying to ignore the "other side" puts us in the same mine field that they were in on election day. And that is someplace we do not want to be.

    Regards and Happy New Year,

    Doug
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    95   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    39,205
    113
    Btown Rural
    The Trump Administration and Republican majorities in congress need to politely say STFU to the progressive/lib/neverTrumpers/etc. and be done with it.

    No arguing, no fussing, no fooling around. There is work to be done, no time for their BS. If the losers think they have anything to say RIGHT NOW about this transition and beginning of the Trump term in office, they are mistaken.

    They can come see us in a year, when they have actually had some time to evaluate. Naysayers might be surprised by how inclusive the administration has been to the election losers, while not forgetting who elected them and why.

    The progressive/lib/neverTrumpers/etc. opinion will be a consideration in the Trump administration at the discretion of the Trump administration, not because they loud-mouthed their "entitled" way in. :twocents:

    ;)



    Today's Tweet:Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!


    :rockwoot:
     
    Last edited:

    indiucky

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    I get by on very little sleep, always have. I only need about 4 hours.

    Five hours here and my Latina bride thinks I'm crazy...I've always been that way...Stopped drinking soft drinks thinking that would maybe add an hour or two but no change...It's weird...My brother is the same way...

    Funny thing is all three of us are descended from rural southern share croppers...Maybe it's just in our DNA....:)

    "Can't sleep...Gotta get the crops in!!!!!" LOL.....
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,137
    113
    This is the very sentiment that helped Trump win. When your side wins, you can't assume that the other side, which disagrees with you, no longer matters. The basket of deplorables rose up and defeated democrats because they were sick and tired of being "plowed under" by the left.

    Obama has led the democrats in doing that his whole presidency...

    I can only buy this explanation to a very limited extent. Note the highlighted section: Obama thumbed his nose at a large portion of America, and voters returned him to office every chance they could. If his name were legally allowed to be on the ballot in 2016, he would be preparing for another inauguration right now. He might not be able to govern, but he would be the one deciding the composition of the Federal bench and Supreme Court. Even if you can't pass new laws, being able to decide what the existing ones mean is the next best (and sometimes better) thing. Despite his divisiveness, the electorate would still be rewarding him with that power today, if the Constitution weren't limiting him out.

    ...With the improved efficiency of gerrymandering all a liberal needs to do in California is pay attention to their liberal constituency and they will always be elected. The same goes for a conservative in Kentucky...

    Doug provides yet another example of the limitations of Jamil's point. Ruling majorities in many states (Half of them? Indiana is one...) are able to "plow under" people with opposing viewpoints at will, with no ill effects upon their popularity or electability.
     
    Last edited:

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,570
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Well, there is a similar lesson we've learned from Obama's rudder work. He went hard left with only half the nation's permission. Respect Overton's window. As far right as I'd like to turn this *****, there are still a **** ton of people who like left rudder. In fact, IIRC, ~20% of Trump voters thought we should stay left or go lefter. If we go full right, it should be through making a convincing argument for right policies and not just imposing it on everyone else because we won an election, like Obama did.


    Thank you.

    I agree that we are vulnerable to the same mistake the Dems made [Although I can't see us announcing that the day Trump was inaugurated was the day the oceans stopped rising or anything] but I really feel that, post Obama, we can be 'right full rudder, all ahead full' for years just to come back around to a middle of the road course

    I don't expect the average Trump voter (myself included) to put away the pitchforks and torches anytime soon, given how little faith and trust so many Repubs are deserving of. I will be interested to see how it plays out the first time they cross Trump. I don't think we'll have long to wait. The Sam Johnson plan could be the first fight on the card if Ryan doesn't finesse it
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    26,349
    113
    NWI
    Democrats say the the exact opposite. I guess it depend on one's perspective.

    George Bush called in 4 top dems at the very beginning of his administration and had them draft bipartisan billswhich he readily signed this included No child left behind crafted by Ted Kennedy.

    Barack Hussein Obama said you lost we win.

    You claim to be too smart tp play the equivalent card.
     

    OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    Five hours here and my Latina bride thinks I'm crazy...I've always been that way...Stopped drinking soft drinks thinking that would maybe add an hour or two but no change...It's weird...My brother is the same way...

    Funny thing is all three of us are descended from rural southern share croppers...Maybe it's just in our DNA....:)

    "Can't sleep...Gotta get the crops in!!!!!" LOL.....
    Two Percent Of People Are Superhumans Who Don't Need More Than A Few Hours Of Sleep - Business Insider
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    11,103
    113
    Avon
    Hacking govt and private entities. As far as Assange, the child raping embassy hermit; there's a few ways to look at it. Russia could have covered their tracks and made him think it's from the DNC. Russia could have given it to him directly. The makes no since in either case, for the source to make themselves known. It makes no sense for the Russians to say "Hey Julian, here's some info we hacked," with the possibility of him exposing them (if not working in conjunction). If given directly, there's no reason for Assange to dime out the Russians, give that future info would be critiqued with concerns over motivation, and confirmation that he's a shill. It makes perfect sense for him to point the finger elsewhere.

    Where is the evidence that "hacking" took place (n.b. "phishing" != "hacking")? Where is the evidence that Russian state agents engaged in said "hacking"?

    John Podesta stupidly subjecting himself to a phishing scam by clicking a link in an email, and entering his credentials in a fake site, thereby giving a Russia-based email-credential gathering website his email credentials, does not constitute "hacking" by Russian state agents.

    It seems that people don't know how these things work. There are myriad phishing sites, many of which originate in Russia. They operate on social engineering (clicking through email links, clicking on Facebook links, etc. - which lead to fake sites that trick people into entering their login credentials), in order to gather large numbers (tens of thousands) of email credentials. They then sell those email credential lists - in bulk - to the highest bidder. Someone bought such a list, starting using the credentials, and discovered that one of the email accounts was John Podesta's.

    None of that has anything to do with Russian state agents. None of that involves "hacking". None of that constitutes evidence that the state of Russia engaged in criminal acts.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    11,103
    113
    Avon
    Putin is a megalomaniac dictator. Anyone remember when he first got into office?
    But, he's learned to make himself look better to the media.
    A chain mail glove cloaked in velvet, is still a chain mail glove. It just "looks" nicer.


    And funny how NOW President Obama is ticked off and doing something about Russia. Not like he had +7 years to do that.

    Obama is simply making use of his additional "flexibility" in dealing with Russia, that he promised Putin that he would have, following the 2012 election.

    [video=youtube;XsFR8DbSRQE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE[/video]
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    11,103
    113
    Avon
    Trump said he had no plan to change the law on gay mariage.
    That's probably one of the best thing Obama did that Trump will want to keep.

    What "law" on gay marriage? There is no law on gay marriage; there is only a SCOTUS decision - something that no president can counteract unilaterally or directly.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    26,181
    149
    Where is the evidence that "hacking" took place (n.b. "phishing" != "hacking")? Where is the evidence that Russian state agents engaged in said "hacking"?

    John Podesta stupidly subjecting himself to a phishing scam by clicking a link in an email, and entering his credentials in a fake site, thereby giving a Russia-based email-credential gathering website his email credentials, does not constitute "hacking" by Russian state agents.

    It seems that people don't know how these things work. There are myriad phishing sites, many of which originate in Russia. They operate on social engineering (clicking through email links, clicking on Facebook links, etc. - which lead to fake sites that trick people into entering their login credentials), in order to gather large numbers (tens of thousands) of email credentials. They then sell those email credential lists - in bulk - to the highest bidder. Someone bought such a list, starting using the credentials, and discovered that one of the email accounts was John Podesta's.

    None of that has anything to do with Russian state agents. None of that involves "hacking". None of that constitutes evidence that the state of Russia engaged in criminal acts.
    Hmmm...I wonder who else was careless with email accounts and private servers? Seems to me if anyone is concerned about being "hacked" they would'nt be so haphazard.
     

    hopper68

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Nov 15, 2011
    4,660
    113
    Pike County
    What criminal action of a foreign power?

    (Remember: Julian Assange has maintained that the source of DNC emails is a leak within the DNC, and not a foreign power, Russia or otherwise.)

    A Bernie supporter fed up with the way they shafted Bernie helping the DNC with the transparency they claimed to have?
     

    Brad69

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 16, 2016
    5,602
    77
    Perry county
    I have no desire to hold a seance to contact him.
    Its perfectly normal to get shot in the back and have your wallet,cell phone,watch still on your person during a "robbery".
    He was a computer expert that was being promoted to the HRC campaign from the DNC.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,570
    149
    Columbus, OH
    What will be the fallout if the source was from inside the DNC?

    Fake evidence will be developed that that source was a Russian plant and that the hack was an inside job by the FSB and/or GRU. MSM will immediately jump on board with fake news written in conjunction with BHO/DNC
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom