trump

[Kutnupe14]

Indiucky and Kut say "Apology accepted.."

lol

 

[IndyDave1776]

lol

You would use a different finger?

 

[chipbennett]

I condemn the violence but those Trump people were asking for it. The protestors were whipped up in a frenzy by the evil Trump stuff. So you can't really blame them for reacting the way they do. But really I do condemn the violence but it is all Trump's fault...

Was purple implied?

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.


- Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

**** those fascist rioters. They bear sole responsibility and blame for their rioting and domestic terrorism of law-abiding people.

 

[chipbennett]

Is there even a doubt on what I would say? You attack someone, anyone, unjustly, and if you end up with extra ventilation holes in your chest and head, sorry about ya. Left wing or right wing, there are universal truths about how one should conduct themselves and treat others, veer from that road at your own peril.

See, this is why Kut and I get along so well, even if we disagree about some things. Truth and consistency of principle are more important than scoring political/ideological points.

 

[Tombs]

Kut,

Here is an anti trump protester tackling a Trump supporter at a rally....What do you think about this???

The footage of that protest is all the evidence anyone will ever need for evil black rifles with 30 round magazines.

[video=youtube;dWk4pTQb4JY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWk4pTQb4JY[/video]

 

[Dead Duck]

Ahh Yes-
Watching that crap brings back wonderful memories of living in CA where it's pretty much illegal to defend yourself.

 

[Cygnus]

I have recently come to the conclusion that the Democrats and left are correct. This IS all Trump's fault. He wrote on their brains.........

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Is there even a doubt on what I would say? You attack someone, anyone, unjustly, and if you end up with extra ventilation holes in your chest and head, sorry about ya. Left wing or right wing, there are universal truths about how one should conduct themselves and treat others, veer from that road at your own peril.

Serious question here, Kut: Do you believe that those attacked during this particular incident could have rightfully claimed that they were in fear of their lives and used deadly force to protect themselves? Not talking about this particular picture which appears to have one demonstrator going after one Trump supporter, but I'm talking more about the scenes where multiple protesters were chasing/beating Trump supporters.

And let me widen the question to everyone else here: My gut response is the same as Kut's was: you attack me or mine and you're asking for a lead infusion. But do all violent attacks rise to the level of using deadly force? Or, put another way, does the imminent threat of mob violence justify the use of deadly force for self-protection in the eyes of the law?

 

[Tombs]

Serious question here, Kut: Do you believe that those attacked during this particular incident could have rightfully claimed that they were in fear of their lives and used deadly force to protect themselves? Not talking about this particular picture which appears to have one demonstrator going after one Trump supporter, but I'm talking more about the scenes where multiple protesters were chasing/beating Trump supporters.

And let me widen the question to everyone else here: My gut response is the same as Kut's was: you attack me or mine and you're asking for a lead infusion. But do all violent attacks rise to the level of using deadly force? Or, put another way, does the imminent threat of mob violence justify the use of deadly force for self-protection in the eyes of the law?

Well self defense laws are predicated on the notion that if you are legitimately in fear for your life or well being, you have the right to do what is necessary to stop the threat to your life.

In a riot situation if you started spraying bullets at people charging you, I'm not sure how that would go down in court, but my money would be on it being justified.

If I was in their shoes, the law would be the last thing I'd be concerned with. I'd rather survive in jail than be in a coffin.

 

[chipbennett]

Serious question here, Kut: Do you believe that those attacked during this particular incident could have rightfully claimed that they were in fear of their lives and used deadly force to protect themselves? Not talking about this particular picture which appears to have one demonstrator going after one Trump supporter, but I'm talking more about the scenes where multiple protesters were chasing/beating Trump supporters.

And let me widen the question to everyone else here: My gut response is the same as Kut's was: you attack me or mine and you're asking for a lead infusion. But do all violent attacks rise to the level of using deadly force? Or, put another way, does the imminent threat of mob violence justify the use of deadly force for self-protection in the eyes of the law?

Ability, opportunity, jeopardy. The disparity of force of a violent, rioting mob chasing, surrounding, trapping, and assaulting individuals.

I would have zero issue with someone using deadly force in that exact situation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Serious question here, Kut: Do you believe that those attacked during this particular incident could have rightfully claimed that they were in fear of their lives and used deadly force to protect themselves? Not talking about this particular picture which appears to have one demonstrator going after one Trump supporter, but I'm talking more about the scenes where multiple protesters were chasing/beating Trump supporters.

And let me widen the question to everyone else here: My gut response is the same as Kut's was: you attack me or mine and you're asking for a lead infusion. But do all violent attacks rise to the level of using deadly force? Or, put another way, does the imminent threat of mob violence justify the use of deadly force for self-protection in the eyes of the law?

Yes. There's a sizeable difference between an unruly individual and a unruly mob. People within a mob will do things they otherwise would not, and keep working themselves up into a frenzy, until they reach a point that there is a legitimate concern for whomever or whatever is the target of their rage.

 

[BugI02]

I condemn the violence but those Trump people were asking for it. The protestors were whipped up in a frenzy by the evil Trump stuff. So you can't really blame them for reacting the way they do. But really I do condemn the violence but it is all Trump's fault...

I can loan you some of mine if you're out View attachment 47696

 

[BugI02]

Indiucky and Kut say "Apology accepted.."

I'm not sure I ever remember seeing Sonny wear buckskin

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump. He may not survive it.

 

[pudly]

The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump. They may not survive it.

FTFY

 

[BugI02]

The Press Conference Republican Voters Have Wanted to See for Years - The Rush Limbaugh Show


"Say what you will about Donald Trump -- how many years have people been begging for a Republican to just once take on the media the way Trump did? All the way from the premise, to the details, to the motivation, he took 'em all on. "

Near the end of it a frustrated journalist (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, is it gonna be this way, are you gonna be attacking us after you become president?"


"Yes, it is. Because you are the most dishonest people, political press the most dishonest people I know. You know it and I know it. The press is dishonest, but the political press is especially dishonest."


And then Jim Acosta, I think it was, CNN (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, do you object to scrutiny? You seem like you didn't even like scrutiny, but you're seeking the office of president of the United States, how do you think --"


"I don't mind scrutiny. What I don't like is lies. You can scrutinize me all day long but you set up false premises. You state things about me that are not true. Then you run stories on that. That's why I'm out here trying to correct the record." And then Trump says, "By the way, I've seen you, you're among the worst. You're at ABC, right? You're the worst. You're a sleaze."

...

MAJOR GARRETT: To follow up on that, you keep calling us the dishonest press, the disgusting press.


TRUMP: Generally speaking, that's a hundred percent true. Go ahead.


MAJOR GARRETT: I disagree with that, sir. And if I can ask you this question, it seems as though you're resistant to scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that comes with running for president of the United States.


TRUMP: Excuse me. I've watched you on television. You're a real beauty. When I raise money for the veterans, and it's a massive amount of money, find out how much Hillary Clinton's given to the veterans. Nothing.

...

RUSH: Right. Seriously, how many questions do the Clintons get about the two billion in their Crime Family Foundation and all those donations from foreign investors and whoever they may be? No, no, no, no, no. Do not do that. I'm not defending Trump by saying, "Hey, Trump did it, but why don't you go get the Clintons who did it." That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying these people have two different sets of rules. They've got two different sets of standards for their scrutiny.

And the upshot of it is that the Clintons don't get any. Whatever they say goes on with their foundation, that's what's reported, and whatever they say happens at Clinton Global Initiative, that's what they say and that's what gets reported. But the Clintons aren't under any scrutiny. The Clintons won't believe that. The Clintons believe they're under more scrutiny than anybody's ever been, but because of the way they do things they invite that scrutiny.




Not a big Rush fan but I think he nails it

The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump? Bring it

 

[Jludo]

The Press Conference Republican Voters Have Wanted to See for Years - The Rush Limbaugh Show


"Say what you will about Donald Trump -- how many years have people been begging for a Republican to just once take on the media the way Trump did? All the way from the premise, to the details, to the motivation, he took 'em all on. "

Near the end of it a frustrated journalist (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, is it gonna be this way, are you gonna be attacking us after you become president?"


"Yes, it is. Because you are the most dishonest people, political press the most dishonest people I know. You know it and I know it. The press is dishonest, but the political press is especially dishonest."


And then Jim Acosta, I think it was, CNN (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, do you object to scrutiny? You seem like you didn't even like scrutiny, but you're seeking the office of president of the United States, how do you think --"


"I don't mind scrutiny. What I don't like is lies. You can scrutinize me all day long but you set up false premises. You state things about me that are not true. Then you run stories on that. That's why I'm out here trying to correct the record." And then Trump says, "By the way, I've seen you, you're among the worst. You're at ABC, right? You're the worst. You're a sleaze."

...

MAJOR GARRETT: To follow up on that, you keep calling us the dishonest press, the disgusting press.


TRUMP: Generally speaking, that's a hundred percent true. Go ahead.


MAJOR GARRETT: I disagree with that, sir. And if I can ask you this question, it seems as though you're resistant to scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that comes with running for president of the United States.


TRUMP: Excuse me. I've watched you on television. You're a real beauty. When I raise money for the veterans, and it's a massive amount of money, find out how much Hillary Clinton's given to the veterans. Nothing.

...

RUSH: Right. Seriously, how many questions do the Clintons get about the two billion in their Crime Family Foundation and all those donations from foreign investors and whoever they may be? No, no, no, no, no. Do not do that. I'm not defending Trump by saying, "Hey, Trump did it, but why don't you go get the Clintons who did it." That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying these people have two different sets of rules. They've got two different sets of standards for their scrutiny.

And the upshot of it is that the Clintons don't get any. Whatever they say goes on with their foundation, that's what's reported, and whatever they say happens at Clinton Global Initiative, that's what they say and that's what gets reported. But the Clintons aren't under any scrutiny. The Clintons won't believe that. The Clintons believe they're under more scrutiny than anybody's ever been, but because of the way they do things they invite that scrutiny.




Not a big Rush fan but I think he nails it

The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump? Bring it

The problem with the media has nothing to do with how they treat Donald Trump, he deserves every bit he gets. The problem with the media is the lack of scrutiny they place on Clinton. It's not a zero sum game, they both deserve scrutiny.

 

[jamil]

The problem with the media has nothing to do with how they treat Donald Trump, he deserves every bit he gets. The problem with the media is the lack of scrutiny they place on Clinton. It's not a zero sum game, they both deserve scrutiny.

I think this is correct. Where's the $6 million? What are the facts about Trump university? Given the fact that Trump has no political experience upon which we might judge him worthy of the highest office, what kind of character does the man have? Answers to these questions go towards answering the character question. Sure, I like to see a middle finger raised. But not at just any cost.

I'd also like to see the media press Hillary as hard as they're pressing Trump. I want to see them get in Hillary's face more like they've been with Trump. And I want them in Bernie's face too. I want to see all the press go after Hillary and Bernie as hard as they do Trump. And I'd like to see FOX News go after Trump as hard as they do Hillary and Bernie. I want them to do their ****ing jobs.

 

[BugI02]

The problem with the media has nothing to do with how they treat Donald Trump, he deserves every bit he gets. The problem with the media is the lack of scrutiny they place on Clinton. It's not a zero sum game, they both deserve scrutiny.

Providing the obverse is also granted, that the problem with Trump is not how he treats the media and they deserve every bit they get, then I am in agreement with Jludo! (marking such in red on calendar)

 

[Route 45]

The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald Trump. He may not survive it.