Trump's position on Gun Free Zones

[BugI02]

I guess you seem more erudite when your polling agencies program your team of speech writers who in turn program the teleprompter(s)


ETA: Man went to Wharton. Stupid he is not

 

[Thor]

Yeah, put on the Yoda voice: "To play people, learned, he has". Went to Wharton yet speaks in public with a 4th grade vernacular. If that's not the voice he uses in business, or making his deals, why does he use it when he speaks to 'the people' unless to play them as fools.

 

[BugI02]

But 'forgetting' that you're owned by Goldman Sachs somehow isn't 'playing' the electorate

 

[cobber]

Yeah, put on the Yoda voice: "To play people, learned, he has". Went to Wharton yet speaks in public with a 4th grade vernacular. If that's not the voice he uses in business, or making his deals, why does he use it when he speaks to 'the people' unless to play them as fools.

Like when Barry refers to us as "folks"? Yeah. We've had seven years of this cult of personality. Not ready for Round 2 am I.

 

[Thor]

But 'forgetting' that you're owned by Goldman Sachs somehow isn't 'playing' the electorate

The deflection, works does not.

Hmmmm, let's see: bogus hit piece by the NY Times (AKA HRC campaign literature distribution center) vs the 'other' face one shows every day while in public. I'm sure he'll be making some HuhUUUGe deals, but those are not the deals you are looking for. Move along.

 

[Thor]

Like when Barry refers to us as "folks"? Yeah. We've had seven years of this cult of personality. Not ready for Round 2 am I.

He doesn't want to be president...he wants to be the first American Caesar. They already use the Russian version of that word too often, Tsar. His foreign policy spiel is not that of the Republic, it is the beginning of Empire.

 

[BugI02]

So disingenuosness is only a sin when Trump does it. Got it!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Trump tends to go so extreme to one side. Cruz has my vote but the fact is that when you have to bar Muslims from entering the country, you have admitted that you're willing to violate the constitution. If he would've said "middle easterners" no one would have cared. I can't vote for someone who is willingly wishing to violate the constitution in the name of "national security".

The Constitution says that the federal government may not sponsor a state religion and that it may not interfere in the free exercise of religion. It does not say a word about any of this applying to the standards by which we admit foreign nationals.

 

[Thor]

So disingenuosness is only a sin when Trump does it. Got it!

Hey, it's okay to be disingenuous because everybody does it! His history means nothing because I like what he said today! Got it!

 

[Thor]

The Constitution says that the federal government may not sponsor a state religion and that it may not interfere in the free exercise of religion. It does not say a word about any of this applying to the standards by which we admit foreign nationals.

It's back to citizens verses non-citizens. Our Constitution protects OUR citizens. Too many people are buying into this one world poo and thinking it should apply to everyone. It doesn't, even if you're here illegally (or maybe especially).

 

[BugI02]

Bet you put a lot of wear and tear on that broom

 

[BugI02]

Nope, not ok to be disingenuous, provided everyone is judged by the same standards . Nobody gets a pass or everybody does. I though the original complaint was "Trump talks like he's got a 4th grade level of comprehension and maturity" to which I asserted it is unlikely a Wharton graduate is stupid. Then it morphed into he was somehow trying to snow the peons by talking like them ( or perhaps down to them ) and I asserted that that requires as much suspension of disbelief as it would take to believe that Cruz, a Harvard Law grad, simply 'forgot' to include the Goldman Sachs loans in his FEC filings ( coincidently, at a time when he is trying to convince the electorate that he is an outsider ) and I guess that all his campaign managers are incompetent for failing to catch it. Nice fairy tale you're selling.

 

[Thor]

Fairy tales. Every person who gets up in the morning is a felon if someone decides to press it. The NY Times does a hit piece where Cruz didn't report something on this form that he did on others; it's not that he forgot...he didn't fill out the correct triplicate for the NY Times and they think they got him. And that's disqualifying even though the Donald is saying things today that he said diametrically opposing things to yesterday and that's okay because...well...what? If you want to believe what coming out of his pie hole today that's up to you.

Look if you want to support the Donald that's up to you. But don't talk to me about fairy tales.

 

[BugI02]

Understood. All I really wanted to point out was that you were attributing Trumps diction to some ulterior motive when I pointed out that there must be some lower bound on his intelligence because he is a Wharton graduate. I thought you might be forgetting that once you are at the top of your own organization you can pretty much be as crude as you wish ( see Donald Sterling ). So I used a similar overblown analogy by extension to dog Cruz. He is, after all, a Harvard Law grad and there should also be some floor on how stupid you can believe him to be. You are right, I have seen (at least digitally) the actual filing of the loan disclosures from his senate campaign. AFAIK he still has the same core of campaign staffers, so it just seems unlikely that they would 'forget' an important detail like that or that candidate Cruz wouldn't catch it. Not impossible, however. My point was to argue that both candidates should receive either a reasonable amount of slack or none. That if you want to hold all Trumps actions up for rigorous interpretation you should be willing to do the same with Cruz. It is equally dangerous not to do so. You have made good points about some things about Trump that are indeed worrisome. If it makes you feel better you can assume that I am just unaware of them, although I have always said I would prefer Cruz at the head of my ticket. I am, however, verging on downgrading him to 'might' prefer Cruz at the head of the ticket. All I really want is no Clinton or no Socialist in the white house next go and I will make my own determination as to which candidate gives the best chance of the result I want. I am also considering whether that candidate can govern if they do get elected.
But the constant denigration of people who support or are willing to tolerate Trump is winning no one over to your viewpoint, and the decisions that Cruz has made and will make about how to handle establishment money when it becomes available will continue to color my opinion of him. I don't trust any politician, including Rafael Edward Cruz to do what they say they will in an election cycle. When the centerpoint of anyones plan to tackle the debt/deficit involves ammending the constitution to require a balanced budget, that means you're not planning to do all that much. That process, I believe, is either a vote of 2/3 of both the house and senate for a particular ammendment, then ratified by 3/4 of the states, or Constitutional Convention convened by 2/3 of state legislatures and any proposed ammendments again ratified by 3/4 of the states. The most favorable count I can find is 31 states Red and 19 states Blue . 31/50 = 0.62 which is well under the threshold for ratification. It sounds real good on the stump but I don't see him actually getting it done.

 

[Thor]

( see Donald Sterling ).

Maybe it's the name Donald?

 

[BugI02]

lol. And no one named Lebowski is running

 

[bstjohn]

Yes, I understand that it's because it's currently a state issue. States currently dictate their licensing procedure, carry laws, and what other state licensing they honor.

This is one of the rare instances that I'd like to see the Federal Government get involved. It really is a problem that I'm licensed in my home state, and other states don't accept my licensing. With drivers licenses, I'm licensed by my home state, but all other states accept that licensing (as long as I drive according to that states laws) because the .gov forces it. I don't see why the federal .gov should treat firearm licensing any differently.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed at the federal level. It makes sense that they should step in and force states to honor other states licensing.

This is, however, disregarding my opinion that forcing me to gain a license and forcing me to pay money to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right is bogus in the first place.

There are certain instances that I hold a grudge against federal, state, and local gov'ts. One is handgun licensing. It fries my shorts when any form of gov't removes our constitutional rights and sells them back to us in the form of a license. They are our rights to begin with, why should I pay to be able to keep them? It's crap.

Having said that, please don't think I'm anti-gov't, I'm not. I'm retired Army, spent years as a Lieutenant with the Dept of Corrections, and I fully support our gov't and country. Unfortunately like all others, there are issues I just can't agree with; licenses to carry a firearm is one of them.

 

[seedubs1]

Nation wide constitutional carry is what SHOULD be law of the land.

Then let the states decide for themselves what their laws regarding carrying in bars, weight of law regarding "no gun" signs, carry on school property, etc... are.