Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 14:40:21 GMT -5
The "gun show loophole". Serious LOL because I am confident you don't even know what it means and it's one of the most misunderstood liberal arguments made. First of all, I am not even sure I am for "closing the gun show loophole" at all and I tend to be MUCH more right-leaning in my stance on guns. Keep in mind I believe even assault rifles should be sold to those who can pass backround checks and that they should be able to carry them openly like in Texas, so I do NOT support Hilary or most Dems' stance on guns. But tell me IF I am right here: that the gun show loophole is people at gun shows being willing to sell guns to people without doing background checks?? Am I right?? I THINK I am at least partially right. IF I'm right, I'd be for closing up that loophole as I believe in background checks being done to purchase guns so felons don't buy them but I believe that IF you pass a background check you should be able to buy any gun you want, even assault rifles, and carry them openly OR concealed (if you can conceal a gun that big). I DON'T understand why anyone would be against background checks: who wants someone who is a murderer buying a gun?? Sure, he can probably get it on the street, but at least if we see someone has committed assault or been imprisoned for a violent crime in the past or is on the no fly list we can deny them in your average gun shop. I think Hilary is WRONG on here stance there, probably the only thing I'd side with Trump on. People will get guns regardless and the gun laws IMO only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens (I don't think background checks do most of the time, but not being able to buy certain kinds of guns and other laws probably do). I am for comprehensive background checks and people having been convicted of violent crimes in the past or those on the no-fly list not being allowed to buy guns but everyone else being able to buy any gun they want and carry it however they want. I could be wrong, but if I am not mistaken a 10 day hold is required for any transfer or sale of a firearm. I don't believe you can just write up a bill of sale and call it a day. I'm almost positive you cannot. I've bought firearms from friends and we both have to go down to a firearm dealer and do a transfer, during which the purchasers background is ran. They don't ask how much the gun was sold for or anything like that, he could be giving it to me for all they care. But the transfer still has to be done. That being said, I've never been to clear about what the "gun show loophole" is. I've been to gun shows but have never bought anything. And since I live in CA it's pretty strict. I don't know how strict it is elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 14:42:57 GMT -5
The no-gun zone thing is a grey area for me though: I mean if a business doesn't want those with guns entering that should probably be their right, but then you should just be ejected or else someone that works there should hold your gun for you till you leave, you shouldn't be arrested or anything. You can choose not to enter if you want your gun BUT...I guess if there was a serious no gun zone there'd be metal detectors and guards patting you down and all that, making it safer anyway. It would be up to you to try to sneak a gun if you want, but I don't believe that no gun zones keep people safer...it's more of a right of a business to make the decision if they want to tell you you can't enter with a gun, just like certain places don't allow smoking. So I don't think that no gun zones work AT ALL, but whether or not it should be the right of a business to simply deny you entry while you have your gun on you is a different matter. I think overall that it's been shown that areas where concealed carry is allowed are safer, and at some point I plan on probably buying a decent gun myself. I've fired a few before, including an AR-15 which was a lot of fun, and some kind of hand gun (forget what kind) but other than that I know jack shit about guns. I was told though by my friend who let me use his guns (he's a hunter and like some of you guys...real out doorsman) that I was a decent shot for my first time...I was shooting at those flying orange plate-like disks and some cans. I couldn't hit the flying disks, but i was able to hit most of the cans on my first or second shot. It's hard to hit skeet (lil orange disks) with a hand gun in my experience. You have to be pretty good to do that I think. I haven't tried too many times but the times I did try I'm pretty sure I missed by a mile. Give me a shotgun and I've blasted 4 when thrown correctly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 14:46:17 GMT -5
First of all, I am not even sure I am for "closing the gun show loophole" at all and I tend to be MUCH more right-leaning in my stance on guns. Keep in mind I believe even assault rifles should be sold to those who can pass backround checks and that they should be able to carry them openly like in Texas, so I do NOT support Hilary or most Dems' stance on guns. But tell me IF I am right here: that the gun show loophole is people at gun shows being willing to sell guns to people without doing background checks?? Am I right?? I THINK I am at least partially right. IF I'm right, I'd be for closing up that loophole as I believe in background checks being done to purchase guns so felons don't buy them but I believe that IF you pass a background check you should be able to buy any gun you want, even assault rifles, and carry them openly OR concealed (if you can conceal a gun that big). I DON'T understand why anyone would be against background checks: who wants someone who is a murderer buying a gun?? Sure, he can probably get it on the street, but at least if we see someone has committed assault or been imprisoned for a violent crime in the past or is on the no fly list we can deny them in your average gun shop. I think Hilary is WRONG on here stance there, probably the only thing I'd side with Trump on. People will get guns regardless and the gun laws IMO only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens (I don't think background checks do most of the time, but not being able to buy certain kinds of guns and other laws probably do). I am for comprehensive background checks and people having been convicted of violent crimes in the past or those on the no-fly list not being allowed to buy guns but everyone else being able to buy any gun they want and carry it however they want. I could be wrong, but if I am not mistaken a 10 day hold is required for any transfer or sale of a firearm. I don't believe you can just write up a bill of sale and call it a day. I'm almost positive you cannot. I've bought firearms from friends and we both have to go down to a firearm dealer and do a transfer, during which the purchasers background is ran. They don't ask how much the gun was sold for or anything like that, he could be giving it to me for all they care. But the transfer still has to be done. That being said, I've never been to clear about what the "gun show loophole" is. I've been to gun shows but have never bought anything. And since I live in CA it's pretty strict. I don't know how strict it is elsewhere. Yeah, I know most states already do have background checks, so I'm really not sure what Hilary says she wants to do, other than be more strict on guns in SOME way, but I very much doubt I agree on that stance. She also has a retarded stance on weed, saying we need "more research" done before it can be legalized in all 50 states lol. I'm for legalization of ALL drugs. I'd honestly say I am pretty big on legalization of all "objects" of ALMOST any kind, other than like fucking nuclear weapons, bomb making materials, or stocks of the AIDS virus or chemical or biological weapons lol. I believe if you are 18 and pass some cursory examination, you should be able to walk out of a store with 2 assault rifles, some heroin, coke, meth and weed lol. I'm pretty extreme on that end, but seriously, telling people they can't have certain objects is USUALLY dumb. If you want some nuclear arms or some syringes full of HIV I'm saying fuck no, but otherwise, go to town, you will get arrested if you use these things improperly, but if your use of "said object" is not harmful to others, go ahead IMO. Also, just IMAGINE how much less gang violence we'd have with legalized/decriminalized drugs and guns: all these gang bangers make money through both but suddenly they'd have almost zero way of making profits. Suddenly they'd be piss poor without being able to make money on all that shit (AS THEY SHOULD BE) and either have to get jobs or else live on welfare. Citizens would be armed and not have to go to violent neighboorhoods to get drugs either, just go to the local CVS. Prisons would stop being full of non-violent offenders, saving us all money and IMO violent crime all over the U.S. would drop DRAMATICALLY.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 10, 2016 14:52:03 GMT -5
In california we need background checks for any transfer, except gifts between father and son.
At any gun show in the United States, if you are buying from a dealer you need a background check. That's going to be 95% of the sellers at any gun show. In some states, they allow private person to person transactions and you can sell a gun to someone without having to deal with background checks. That's preferable, IMO. It's a small amount of overall sales, but we don't need the government regulating private sales between citizens. If States decide they want to, then fine and let them. California is over the top and does. Other states don't.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 10, 2016 15:31:30 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but if I am not mistaken a 10 day hold is required for any transfer or sale of a firearm. I don't believe you can just write up a bill of sale and call it a day. I'm almost positive you cannot. I've bought firearms from friends and we both have to go down to a firearm dealer and do a transfer, during which the purchasers background is ran. They don't ask how much the gun was sold for or anything like that, he could be giving it to me for all they care. But the transfer still has to be done. That being said, I've never been to clear about what the "gun show loophole" is. I've been to gun shows but have never bought anything. And since I live in CA it's pretty strict. I don't know how strict it is elsewhere. Depends on the state. Here in Missouri if you are selling a firearm from personal ownership to someone else, you don't need to do a background check, you don't even need to report the sale (though yes still have to record the income), no holding period either. There is a background check required though if a gun shop is doing the sale, and still no waiting period. As of January 1st it'll be conceal carry by default here too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 16:34:00 GMT -5
In california we need background checks for any transfer, except gifts between father and son. At any gun show in the United States, if you are buying from a dealer you need a background check. That's going to be 95% of the sellers at any gun show. In some states, they allow private person to person transactions and you can sell a gun to someone without having to deal with background checks. That's preferable, IMO. It's a small amount of overall sales, but we don't need the government regulating private sales between citizens. If States decide they want to, then fine and let them. California is over the top and does. Other states don't. I think Jackel just parrots you. In Virginia you do not need a background check for private sales but most if not all gun shows require sellers to be licensed. Obviously if you are caught selling to a felon as a private sale you are super fucked. Hell, I wouldn't even buy my dad a gun. He had an assault charge from 20 years ago that was supposed to be expunged but apparently never did so he got rejected. He asked me to buy it and I told him no. Maybe a dick move but it is still considered a strawman purchase. There is no real "loophole" at gun shows and I am not sure "cooling off" periods have been shown to be effective. I would have to see more evidence before I supported them.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 10, 2016 16:41:53 GMT -5
In california we need background checks for any transfer, except gifts between father and son. At any gun show in the United States, if you are buying from a dealer you need a background check. That's going to be 95% of the sellers at any gun show. In some states, they allow private person to person transactions and you can sell a gun to someone without having to deal with background checks. That's preferable, IMO. It's a small amount of overall sales, but we don't need the government regulating private sales between citizens. If States decide they want to, then fine and let them. California is over the top and does. Other states don't. I think Jackel just parrots you. In Virginia you do not need a background check for private sales but most if not all gun shows require sellers to be licensed. Obviously if you are caught selling to a felon as a private sale you are super fucked. Hell, I wouldn't even buy my dad a gun. He had an assault charge from 20 years ago that was supposed to be expunged but apparently never did so he got rejected. He asked me to buy it and I told him no. Maybe a dick move but it is still considered a strawman purchase. There is no real "loophole" at gun shows and I am not sure "cooling off" periods have been shown to be effective. I would have to see more evidence before I supported them. The thing is many gun shows don't require you to be a licensed seller, hence the loophole. So as long as the gunshow in a state that doesn't require you to background check a private sale, you can sell to anyone. If you do sell to a felon in a private sale, and you can show that you didn't know for a fact they were an ex-felon, you aren't in trouble.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 19:07:19 GMT -5
So now Paul Ryan is saying he won't back Trump going forward.
This could potentially be bad for Trump and it is most likely because Ryan is afraid of Republicans losing control of the House if people deciding not to vote on Trump might also decide not to vote for Republican house members.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Trump is a pretty polarizing person.
Supposedly more and more republicans are turning their backs on Trump as well and the percentage between him and Hilary is increasing.
Shit is looking bad for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 19:11:24 GMT -5
In california we need background checks for any transfer, except gifts between father and son. At any gun show in the United States, if you are buying from a dealer you need a background check. That's going to be 95% of the sellers at any gun show. In some states, they allow private person to person transactions and you can sell a gun to someone without having to deal with background checks. That's preferable, IMO. It's a small amount of overall sales, but we don't need the government regulating private sales between citizens. If States decide they want to, then fine and let them. California is over the top and does. Other states don't. Why do you think it's preferable for people to be able to do gun sales without a background check? As mentioned, I'm all for people who aren't felons or terrorists being able to buy any gun they want and conceal and carry etc, but I can't see the benefit in not requiring people to go through basic background checks. Maybe there's something I'm missing though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 19:12:22 GMT -5
I think Jackel just parrots you. In Virginia you do not need a background check for private sales but most if not all gun shows require sellers to be licensed. Obviously if you are caught selling to a felon as a private sale you are super fucked. Hell, I wouldn't even buy my dad a gun. He had an assault charge from 20 years ago that was supposed to be expunged but apparently never did so he got rejected. He asked me to buy it and I told him no. Maybe a dick move but it is still considered a strawman purchase. There is no real "loophole" at gun shows and I am not sure "cooling off" periods have been shown to be effective. I would have to see more evidence before I supported them. The thing is many gun shows don't require you to be a licensed seller, hence the loophole. So as long as the gunshow in a state that doesn't require you to background check a private sale, you can sell to anyone. If you do sell to a felon in a private sale, and you can show that you didn't know for a fact they were an ex-felon, you aren't in trouble. Just a modest guestimate would be that a single digit of gun sales are actual from private sellers at gun shows. The vast majority are licensed and many states require that. Plus an additional amount of sales from pricate collection are typically antiques and such. It isn't a real problem, just a nice soundbite along with no fly, no buy...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 19:12:58 GMT -5
In california we need background checks for any transfer, except gifts between father and son. At any gun show in the United States, if you are buying from a dealer you need a background check. That's going to be 95% of the sellers at any gun show. In some states, they allow private person to person transactions and you can sell a gun to someone without having to deal with background checks. That's preferable, IMO. It's a small amount of overall sales, but we don't need the government regulating private sales between citizens. If States decide they want to, then fine and let them. California is over the top and does. Other states don't. I think Jackel just parrots you. In Virginia you do not need a background check for private sales but most if not all gun shows require sellers to be licensed. Obviously if you are caught selling to a felon as a private sale you are super fucked. Hell, I wouldn't even buy my dad a gun. He had an assault charge from 20 years ago that was supposed to be expunged but apparently never did so he got rejected. He asked me to buy it and I told him no. Maybe a dick move but it is still considered a strawman purchase. There is no real "loophole" at gun shows and I am not sure "cooling off" periods have been shown to be effective. I would have to see more evidence before I supported them. What are "cool off periods" and why do you believe their isn't a gun show loophole? As mentioned, I'm more right wing on guns, so I'm just really curious about this.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Oct 10, 2016 19:20:31 GMT -5
So now Paul Ryan is saying he won't back Trump going forward. This could potentially be bad for Trump and it is most likely because Ryan is afraid of Republicans losing control of the House if people deciding not to vote on Trump might also decide not to vote for Republican house members. Can't say I'm surprised. Trump is a pretty polarizing person. Supposedly more and more republicans are turning their backs on Trump as well and the percentage between him and Hilary is increasing. Shit is looking bad for him. I always figured most of the bigger name republicans would end the charade and turn on Trump the second they felt he wasn't going to win even with their support I guess Ryan feels like we're there now
|
|
|
Post by TitoOrtizIsAPunk on Oct 10, 2016 19:20:49 GMT -5
Can we temp ban Toehold for not being able to quote correctly?
I'll donate $20 to the Vale/Angela beatdown
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 10, 2016 19:37:52 GMT -5
In california we need background checks for any transfer, except gifts between father and son. At any gun show in the United States, if you are buying from a dealer you need a background check. That's going to be 95% of the sellers at any gun show. In some states, they allow private person to person transactions and you can sell a gun to someone without having to deal with background checks. That's preferable, IMO. It's a small amount of overall sales, but we don't need the government regulating private sales between citizens. If States decide they want to, then fine and let them. California is over the top and does. Other states don't. Why do you think it's preferable for people to be able to do gun sales without a background check? As mentioned, I'm all for people who aren't felons or terrorists being able to buy any gun they want and conceal and carry etc, but I can't see the benefit in not requiring people to go through basic background checks. Maybe there's something I'm missing though. First, probably 98% of people purchasing a firearm do go through a background check. We are talking about the minuscule percentage that engage in private sales between consenting adults in states that allow it. I don't think it has anything to do with safety but instead a way to make money and allow the government to catalog people, tax people and make decisions outside what we expect from our elected leaders. You can sell a sword, a car, and an airplane in a private sale without the government needing to complete a background check, so I don't believe we need any extra step for the tiny percentage of gun sales happening between private citizens. If a state, like my current state, decides they won't allow private gun sales without background check or some tariff, then that is their right. I'm stuck in a state like that but I don't believe the POTUS should feel they have the authority to create another federal law limiting what private citizens can do within a state. I don't see the upside. Currently, there is no loophole for purchasing a gun from a dealer, a gun across state lines and in many states, any gun purchase even private sales within the state. Let the states maintain what they see fit. BTW - A felon is breaking the law by purchasing a firearm in every state. Nothing is changing that and to pretend that by taking away the opportunity for private sales to occur (at a gun show or at your house) is nonsensical. It's just a feel good reaction after we see gun violence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 19:48:39 GMT -5
I can see what you are saying.
And I agree trying to control gun sales isn't doing much.
I mean I am pretty sure I could get an illegal gun and I'm not even some well connected criminal lol.
People say "well we need to do SOMETHING" when gun violence occurs, but I'd just put more armed security guards and metal detectors around places and suggest people carry their own firearms to protect themselves.
I don't see it usually doing much to make it harder to purchase a gun cause most of those people would probably be law abiding citizens.
I may be on the same page with liberals on most issues, but not this one.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Oct 10, 2016 20:01:00 GMT -5
The repubs are being showered with oil money. Is normal.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 10, 2016 22:17:22 GMT -5
Trump was disheveled, harried, anxious, rattled, and as smooth as concertina wire. He had several slow underhanded pitches thrown his way, and he didn't even notice them This. When Hillary brought up Russia being an adversary, he could have knocked it out of the park by bringing up the fact that the state department ok'd the sale of our Uranium to Russia. Russia is a dangerous enemy? That's interesting. Why did the YOUR state department secure mineral right to a uranium mine in Canada after they donated to YOUR foundation? Is that something we should be looking into since you've just told us Russia is a dangerous enemy?
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 10, 2016 22:21:49 GMT -5
I am positive she had that Trump 2005 tape for a long time and they strategically used it two days before that debate. There's absolutely zero doubt about it. They sit on it until he's through the primaries and then they release it the day early voting goes live. Zero coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Oct 11, 2016 4:13:47 GMT -5
Here in Florida there is absolutely a gun show loophole. Private seller, no paperwork required. But good luck to Leroy or Habib trying to buy from Buford who is allowed to perform the best background check in the world in terms of actually preventing crime, which is to only sell to white people. Private sellers tend to be wary about who they sell to. Dealers cant deny you if you pass the background check. Buford can
|
|
|
Post by rearnakedmolerat on Oct 11, 2016 8:11:53 GMT -5
This is my first debate and I'm really enjoying it. Very aggressive debate. Some killer one-liners. "You'd be in jail" is a legit mic drop moment. Trump claims that the first thing he'd do in office would be to illegally abuse his power, and you celebrate this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 9:08:57 GMT -5
This is my first debate and I'm really enjoying it. Very aggressive debate. Some killer one-liners. "You'd be in jail" is a legit mic drop moment. Trump claims that the first thing he'd do in office would be to illegally abuse his power, and you celebrate this? And exactly HOW is appointing a special prosecutor to investigate possible wrongdoing or incompetence illegal? The president is well within his rights to do exactly that, through the DOJ.
Please impress us with your knowledge of American separation of powers.
Or, were you just trying to pass off the ridiculous notion that President Trump was gonna walk up to Hillary's home in New York in late January, Federal agents in tow, and throw her into lockup without so much as a hearing?...after all, the Toehold crowd may buy it.
Confirmation bias, y'know?
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 11, 2016 9:14:22 GMT -5
This is my first debate and I'm really enjoying it. Very aggressive debate. Some killer one-liners. "You'd be in jail" is a legit mic drop moment. Trump claims that the first thing he'd do in office would be to illegally abuse his power, and you celebrate this? It is questionable to politicize prosecutions but the entire nation IS watching the Attorney General and FBI failing to investigate and prosecute for political reasons. So what is Trump really saying? That he would actually have someone investigate instead of the farce we currently have. It's tit for tat but it's also necessary. Would he actually do it? Who knows. Or maybe he would simply order the Justice Department to uphold their sworn duty to uphold the law and make available evidence that congressional oversight wants. The Justice Department IS obligated and when they refuse, they have to answer to the AG. If the AG is also party to the conspiracy then someone has to do something. The only person that can is the POTUS by ordering a special prosecution. What's the alternative? How is it illegal though? Unethical or an overreach? I can see that argument but not sure about it being illegal.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 11, 2016 10:51:20 GMT -5
He never said he'd personlly throw her in jail. He insinuated that he wouldn't allow the corruption that took place which allowed her to illegally abuse her authority as Secretary of State.or maybe that he'd officially prosecute her on the overwhelming evidence that has been compiled against her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 10:56:24 GMT -5
"Did you watch the debate?" "No. But I think....." "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!" "But the CNN-HuffingtonPost-FoxNews-Drudge poll says..." "Do you think that when you didn't read a book, that the teacher wants to read your book report on a book you didn't read?" "No. But this is all anyone is talking about." "That is true. You can help remedy that problem by not talking about something you didn't bother to watch." Only two people I have heard say Trump didn't come off like a tweaker are you and Cybergod and no offense but you two are not unbiased. What I can say here is that A) You didn't watch it yourself, so your two cents are not worth two cents and B) you must be surrounded by a ton of Hillary supporters, which probably sucks for you.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 11, 2016 10:58:39 GMT -5
This is my first debate and I'm really enjoying it. Very aggressive debate. Some killer one-liners. "You'd be in jail" is a legit mic drop moment. Trump claims that the first thing he'd do in office would be to illegally abuse his power, and you celebrate this? Assign a special prosecutor to look into felony espionage, destruction of evidence under congressional subpoena, and perjury after the suspect's husband privately met with the attorney general just a week before the ruling? There's sleaze all over this deal and anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can see that. This is one of the most clear-cut cases of an abuse of power we've ever seen, and you seem to think someone calling it out is the abusive part? It's fine to dislike Trump. I get it. But you're essentially saying O.J. is innocent right now. This is what you look like, because you're in the throws of political fervor, team Blue, rational brain shutdown, kool-aid mode, engage. If you don't want to know WHY the FBI investigation went down the way it did, why they dropped the ball, why the AG met with Bill during the investigation . . . if you think everything in this hyper-corrupt government is on the up-and-up, and she got the same treatment you'd get if you accidentally deleted 33,000 emails after they were subpoenaed by congress and kept top secret documents on your fucking Blackberry for fucks sake . . . if you think your last name is a valid excuse for a legal double standard . . . then by all means, continue being smug. As for me, yes, I will applaud this to the high heavens, and any such act which brings above-the-law, too-big-to-fail, ruling class shit bags down to their knees. And if Trump obstructs justice and violates federal laws I will applaud whichever savage has the stones to hold him accountable in the same way. I'm not a fucking cheerleader. Full equality under the law matters. I threw an unholy fit when Dick Cheney's daughter got caught with hard drugs and got therapy when you know good and well a street bum or college kid in the same situation gets their life ruined. I don't play sides. I play right and wrong. You should try it. Back-room deals, political power, likely some bribery, is the ONLY reason Hitlary isn't in prison right now. She's a pathological liar who smirks like a snarky, uppity cunt at the laws that us plebes live under. That makes me physically sick to my stomach. My question is when did the left become so morally bankrupt? At least the right is in full-blown mutiny over it's shit bag candidate. The left . . . fucking lock-step zombie army. Absolutely pathetic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 11:03:59 GMT -5
Trump claims that the first thing he'd do in office would be to illegally abuse his power, and you celebrate this? Illegally? How in the world have you come to the conclusion that The President cannot direct the DOJ's course of action? He's not a Prime Minister. Trump absolutely, 100% could have a special prosecutor assigned with the goal of prosecuting Hillary. She'd still get a trial. And it would be a very big deal. All her bullshit would be exposed in a trial that put OJ's to shame. It would be fucking glorious for the American people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 11:29:56 GMT -5
I watched the debate again this morning.
I caught something this time that really raised my eyebrows. It was buried behind the "You'd be in jail" mic-drop moment as well as the "33,000 emails you deleted" moment. In fact, it wasn't even something Trump said. It was Hillary.
She talked about needing a public and private position. And this right here, IMO, is why Americans have come to hold so little trust for our politicians. She basically said that she engages in the kind of tactics parents use with insolent, ignorant children. Tell them one thing to appease them, then disregard everything you said as soon as they are asleep.
This to me, is a bigger issue. It speaks to the mentality of the establishment as I see it. Say what people want to hear, then do whatever the fuck you want.
She uses Lincoln's maneuvering to pass the 13th amendment as her justification for being a two faced cunt. The irony was not lost on me. Here she is using the guy who freed the slaves as her justification to implement globalist policies that in essence, make the workforce slaves.
The further along we go, the more bitching I see from the media about inane crap Trump did (the grab them by the pussy comment- I don't give a shit- I've heard women say worse when they think no one is listening) the more I believe he's the best thing for the middle class of this country.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 11, 2016 11:46:40 GMT -5
If you were legit shocked about Trump, at the height of his billionaire playboy reality TV days, being a sleazeball braggart, then you're probably shocked when the sun comes up in the morning. Give me a break. This is faux outrage propaganda 101.
|
|
|
Post by rearnakedmolerat on Oct 11, 2016 13:09:11 GMT -5
Trump claims that the first thing he'd do in office would be to illegally abuse his power, and you celebrate this? Assign a special prosecutor to look into felony espionage, destruction of evidence under congressional subpoena, and perjury after the suspect's husband privately met with the attorney general just a week before the ruling? There's sleaze all over this deal and anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can see that. This is one of the most clear-cut cases of an abuse of power we've ever seen, and you seem to think someone calling it out is the abusive part? It's fine to dislike Trump. I get it. But you're essentially saying O.J. is innocent right now. This is what you look like, because you're in the throws of political fervor, team Blue, rational brain shutdown, kool-aid mode, engage. If you don't want to know WHY the FBI investigation went down the way it did, why they dropped the ball, why the AG met with Bill during the investigation . . . if you think everything in this hyper-corrupt government is on the up-and-up, and she got the same treatment you'd get if you accidentally deleted 33,000 emails after they were subpoenaed by congress and kept top secret documents on your fucking Blackberry for fucks sake . . . if you think your last name is a valid excuse for a legal double standard . . . then by all means, continue being smug. As for me, yes, I will applaud this to the high heavens, and any such act which brings above-the-law, too-big-to-fail, ruling class shit bags down to their knees. And if Trump obstructs justice and violates federal laws I will applaud whichever savage has the stones to hold him accountable in the same way. I'm not a fucking cheerleader. Full equality under the law matters. I threw an unholy fit when Dick Cheney's daughter got caught with hard drugs and got therapy when you know good and well a street bum or college kid in the same situation gets their life ruined. I don't play sides. I play right and wrong. You should try it. Back-room deals, political power, likely some bribery, is the ONLY reason Hitlary isn't in prison right now. She's a pathological liar who smirks like a snarky, uppity cunt at the laws that us plebes live under. That makes me physically sick to my stomach. My question is when did the left become so morally bankrupt? At least the right is in full-blown mutiny over it's shit bag candidate. The left . . . fucking lock-step zombie army. Absolutely pathetic. I'm not defending Clinton. I know it's hard for you to understand this, but attacking Trump is not an endorsement of her. I don't care if she personally carried out a hit on a baby. It has nothing to do with what she has done. He can't tell the attorney general who to prosecute. That's it. And if you think about it for more than half a fucking second you'd agree that the idea of a president ordering the DOJ to prosecute a political opponent is straight out of the Kremlin. That's not just my opinion, but that of former attorneys general and constitutional lawyers. Here's an example: fortune.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-hillary-clinton/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 13:29:50 GMT -5
Only two people I have heard say Trump didn't come off like a tweaker are you and Cybergod and no offense but you two are not unbiased. What I can say here is that A) You didn't watch it yourself, so your two cents are not worth two cents and B) you must be surrounded by a ton of Hillary supporters, which probably sucks for you. To be fair, I did say I heard and did not make a claim of my own AND I am surrounded by Hillary supporters which does indeed suck donkey balls...
|
|