trump

[PaulF]

This election, the constitution loses.

With the landscape of the electoral college, a victory for Republicans is already an uphill climb. But Trump...he wears "Republican" like a costume, ready to toss aside as soon as the occasion no longer suits.

Clinton is an enemy to gun ownership, that is a fact...but she is a visible enemy, a known one. If elected, our "side" will have a potent symbol to remain vigilant.

But Trump is also an enemy to gun ownership...the kind of guy that will make assurances far and wide that our rights are secure even as he signs them away in the dark.

A vote for Trump doesn't save our republic...instead of a few years of predictable, deflectable lunacy, we get a wild card with just as many underground political ties and skeletons as the Clintons.

Yay.

 

[PaulF]

Is Trump really racist or just not the politically correct politician (deathly afraid of being called racist,) that we have been trained that we must have?

Is Trump really racist? I don't know what lives in another man's heart.

Does Trump use rhetoric that appeals to rasicts? Definitely, yes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Who is more racist, Obama or Trump?

 

[bwframe]

Is Trump's "might be racism" popularity the result of Obama's actions and divisive rhetoric of the last 8 years?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Is Trump's "might be racism" popularity the result of Obama's actions and divisive rhetoric of the last 8 years?

What level of divisive rhetoric are we talking about here? The black-and-white "for us or against us" type... or something closer to "bring a gun to a knife fight"?

I mean, there are so many levels to it.

 

[bwframe]

Easy for you to say, since LE will undoubtedly be exempt from any new firearm bans or restrictions...

Well there is that. ^^^

Kut (Won't be losing any gun rights, regardless of who wins the election.)

 

[PaulF]

Is Trump's "might be racism" popularity the result of Obama's actions and divisive rhetoric of the last 8 years?

I don't think so.

I think Trump is trying to appeal to a certain demographic, and is tone-deaf to how the parts of the message sound to other demographics. This tactic has worked very well for him in the Republican primary, but the General election is a different story.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Easy for you to say, since LE will undoubtedly be exempt from any new firearm bans or restrictions. And if you are the cowardly type, burying your guns while your rights are voted away, nobody needs your counsel or arms anyway. I don't recall George Washington burying his guns.

Lol, cowardly type? I'd love to see your response if Indiana had laws similar to California or Illinois. Don't con me with your fake internet crusade big talk. You do nothing now, you do as much after.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wait. Are you saying that being non-racist is a politically correct decision? I mean, it sounds like you're position is that saying racist things is ok because it is not politically correct.

Is there some way to be non-racist while saying racist things? Going back to my degrees-of-racism concept, I think someone can reveal biases without being a bad person.

I think the point he is making is that some people are in the racists in the sense of harboring animus based on genetic dissimilarity in and of itself, as opposed to people who are willing to call it as they see it. Case in point, members of all but one demographic routinely make every issue this side of bad weather about race and the remaining one demographic is expected to either make believe that there is no distinction or else have a guilt complex over things that the majority of them aren't old enough to remember much less have done. One might ask some of these people (Jesse, Al, Barrack, yes, I am looking at you clowns) if they really want to be equal, and it seems pretty obvious that an equal race-irrelevant society is most definitely NOT their goal, and there is no shortage of people who are philosophically not racist who get sick and tired of it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well there is that. ^^^

Kut (Won't be losing any gun rights, regardless of who wins the election.)

Nope, I won't... hit the magic number a while back. But has there ever been any indication that I don't support the rights, any right, of others?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think the point he is making is that some people are in the racists in the sense of harboring animus based on genetic dissimilarity in and of itself, as opposed to people who are willing to call it as they see it. Case in point, members of all but one demographic routinely make every issue this side of bad weather about race and the remaining one demographic is expected to either make believe that there is no distinction or else have a guilt complex over things that the majority of them aren't old enough to remember much less have done. One might ask some of these people (Jesse, Al, Barrack, yes, I am looking at you clowns) if they really want to be equal, and it seems pretty obvious that an equal race-irrelevant society is most definitely NOT their goal, and there is no shortage of people who are philosophically not racist who get sick and tired of it.

You're being cryptic or PC.... Say who you're talking about. You won't offend me, and I doubt anyone else.

 

[bwframe]

Easy for you to say, since LE will undoubtedly be exempt from any new firearm bans or restrictions...

Well there is that. ^^^

Kut (Won't be losing any gun rights, regardless of who wins the election.)

Nope, I won't... hit the magic number a while back. But has there ever been any indication that I don't support the rights, any right, of others?

Not in you own opinion, I'm sure.

As far as others are concerned, they can always check out your post history (including those in this thread,) to make their determination of whether you support gun rights of citizens or not.

 

[T.Lex]

I think the point he is making is that some people are in the racists in the sense of harboring animus based on genetic dissimilarity in and of itself, as opposed to people who are willing to call it as they see it. Case in point, members of all but one demographic routinely make every issue this side of bad weather about race and the remaining one demographic is expected to either make believe that there is no distinction or else have a guilt complex over things that the majority of them aren't old enough to remember much less have done. One might ask some of these people (Jesse, Al, Barrack, yes, I am looking at you clowns) if they really want to be equal, and it seems pretty obvious that an equal race-irrelevant society is most definitely NOT their goal, and there is no shortage of people who are philosophically not racist who get sick and tired of it.

"Philosophically not racist" is a new one on me. Can you define that somehow? It sounds like there's some way to be practically racist, but not philosophically racist.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not in you own opinion, I'm sure.

As far as others are concerned, they can always check out your post history (including those in this thread,) to make their determination of whether you support gun rights of citizens or not.

So wait, you take two other people's opinions and somehow make them mine? So if I think you're a bigot, then that automatically makes you a bigot, even if I have no posts to back that up? What type logic is that? Oh, nevermind, it's bad logic.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Funny coincidence... The entire "star of david" tweet debacle did a great job of keeping Clinton's FBI interview from being a bigger weekend campaign story.

I'll go back to my question months ago:

If Trump wasn't trying to help Clinton win this election, what would he be doing differently?

I've got a crisp $5 bill that says Trump is going to call Clinton a ****, or tweet something crypto-racist today to pull the news away from Clinton.

 

[JS1911]

What level of divisive rhetoric are we talking about here? The black-and-white "for us or against us" type... or something closer to "bring a gun to a knife fight"?

Yes.

Lol, cowardly type? I'd love to see your response if Indiana had laws similar to California or Illinois. Don't con me with your fake internet crusade big talk. You do nothing now, you do as much after.

Yawn, more Internet Tough Guy BS from a doughnut-scarfing fascist.

Nope, I won't... hit the magic number a while back. But has there ever been any indication that I don't support the rights, any right, of others?

I would say that the lack of evidence of you supporting the gun rights of your fellow non-LEO citizens speaks volumes. You are willing to bury to your guns in the yard rather than support the one candidate who WON'T take us even farther down the road to complete disarmament than we have already gone.

 

[T.Lex]

I would say that the lack of evidence of you supporting the gun rights of your fellow non-LEO citizens speaks volumes. You are willing to bury to your guns in the yard rather than support the one candidate who WON'T take us even farther down the road to complete disarmament than we have already gone.

Actually, I'm curious where you get this notion that Kut doesn't support gun rights for non-LEOs. Links?

Plus, some of us non-LEOs aren't exactly convinced Trump will protect the 2A any better than HRC would. He says he would. But, he's said alot of things over the years.

 

[printcraft]

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes.

Yawn, more Internet Tough Guy BS from a doughnut-scarfing fascist.

I would say that the lack of evidence of you supporting the gun rights of your fellow non-LEO citizens speaks volumes. You are willing to bury to your guns in the yard rather than support the one candidate who WON'T take us even farther down the road to complete disarmament than we have already gone.

A donut scarfing fascist? I have you know, I take my time and savor each bite! Yep, I'd rather bury my guys in the yard... or would you rather I "lose them in a boating accident" rather than support a guy who targets certain segments of our population.

And "tough guy?" I come off as a tough guy? Woot, woot! I'd blush if I could.

 

[PaulF]

Hey...

Lets not insult each other, that's how we get banned.