ForumGarden

AnneBoleyn;1499631 wrote: Is it possible that Trump is becoming senile? He is 70 & I'm definitely not being ageist in asking the question.


A legitimate question. Regarding all that I have read about him, this is consistent behaviour.

So Eastwood backs Trump?

Is it an actor thing? Remember when Heston went all silly with the NRA?

I think its time that old white men hung up their shoes and follow in Canadas' footsteps.

spot;1499633 wrote: 1. So is Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton is a lot slower thinking on the fly than Mr Trump. Distressingly so, it's been said.

2. eta: 16 months separates them, now I've been and checked. You think senility distinguishes a period of 16 months? I'd be surprised if it's a statistically significant gap.

3. If Hillary Clinton becomes President she'll be the oldest to take office in the 228 years the Presidency has existed, with the single exception of Ronald Reagan. Were it me I'd quietly take senility off the agenda.


1. Slower thinking? Examples please, not it's been said. It's been said by whom? Also, what about the quality & cogency of thought? That counts for nothing to you?

2. Age is not my point. Not every older person becomes senile. Most don't. It has nothing to do with her age compared to his.

3. I'm not you. I was merely speculating senility in Donald Trump. Others are speculating worse, like "Is Donald Trump just plain crazy?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

It is interesting that they do an extensive psychological exam for everyone that works at the missile silos and the chain of command above them, except for the one person who can make the decision and initiate a launch.

There have been many articles comparing Trump's behavior to various psychological conditions defined in DSM.

I wonder what would happen if, when the Surgeon General does his annual exam of the president, the doctors declared a sitting president as psychologically unfit for the job.

AnneBoleyn;1499665 wrote: 1. Slower thinking? Examples please, not it's been said. It's been said by whom? Also, what about the quality & cogency of thought? That counts for nothing to you


I was merely reminding the thread of what had already been brought up in the context of visibly slower thinking:Clinton - I don't see any strength in her - I really feel she's not mentally healthy.

She speaks too slow - hell I want to fill in the blanks for her. I don't connect with her at all. - post 61, by Patsy.

Given that she's already overseen the total destruction of previously-thriving Libya I doubt the "quality & cogency" of her thinking entirely. Did she anticipate the result? Then she's amoral. Did she fail to anticipate the result? Then she's incompetent, anyone with even the vaguest notion of what happens when America intervenes abroad could have accurately anticipated the result and some of us did right here on ForumGarden.

spot;1499668 wrote: 1. I was merely reminding the thread of what had already been brought up in the context of visibly slower thinking:Clinton - I don't see any strength in her - I really feel she's not mentally healthy.

She speaks too slow - hell I want to fill in the blanks for her. I don't connect with her at all. - post 61, by Patsy.

2. Given that she's already overseen the total destruction of previously-thriving Libya I doubt the "quality & cogency" of her thinking entirely. Did she anticipate the result? Then she's amoral. Did she fail to anticipate the result? Then she's incompetent, anyone with even the vaguest notion of what happens when America intervenes abroad could have accurately anticipated the result and some of us did right here on ForumGarden.


1. You'll note I didn't answer Patsy, but don't take that as agreement with her statement. I do not agree with her statement and for you to take one person's statement as general truth is a mistake on your part----you are overreaching by miles and being disingenuous.

2. Personally, I found no reasons for the USA to invade any part of the Middle East & overthrow any of those people, be it the Bush Administration or Obama Administration. She did not have any final say, she was not the elected official here, she did nothing without the Obama Administration's acceptance. I don't go along with that.

In short, in comparing Clinton v. Trump, there is no comparison. In every way she leaves him in the dust. In every way she is superior. If you trust Trump more, as he has never been involved in world politics, think again. If you are assuming that means he won't disappoint you, you will find yourself mistaken. He's a loose cannon.

"9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons"

9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons | ThinkProgress

You're ignoring her track record. Saying the Secretary of State has no influence on foreign policy is to completely negate the law laid down at Nuremberg by (among others) Americans. Just because she was ordered to do these things doesn't absolve her of responsibility for the consequent slaughter. Hillary Clinton already has a mountain of innocent blood on her hands while Mr Trump, by contrast and in all objective truth, does not. I would not say this if I didn't believe it or find it important enough to hammer home continually.

"We came, we saw, he died" is not an expression fit to hear from a potential President of the USA, it's a very vivid alarm call.

To ignore her track record would be to ignore the United States & the path it's been on since WWII, which is boss & bully of the "free" world while Russia, the Soviet Union, China does the same with different populations. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm exasperated. You may think Trump right now has no blood on his hands, but if elected, he will, they all do the same. The Democrats, the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, I have told you this over & over again. The Democrats are here to keep a lid on insurgency. I told you that over and over again, too. They both serve the same system.

I have to live here. I want the public good I can get from the Democrats. Like Donald Trump all you want, you don't vote here, you don't live here. Keep your grudge against Hillary, fine, no argument. You will be complaining the same or more with Trump, and to think he wants to change anything that matters to you is naive. Period.

Perhaps you've not recognized the Mr Trump is neither a Democrat nor a Republican and as such he may stop the military under his control from actually killing people. Let them sit back, have a cigar, take in a view of the Mid-West for a few years and stop bugging the peons out in the real world whose sole ambition is to stay alive a while longer.

If Hillary Clinton had wanted the likes of me to like her she should have refused to run death squads when they invited her on board.

spot;1499685 wrote: Perhaps you've not recognized the Mr Trump is neither a Democrat nor a Republican and as such he may stop the military under his control from actually killing people. Let them sit back, have a cigar, take in a view of the Mid-West for a few years and stop bugging the peons out in the real world whose sole ambition is to stay alive a while longer.

If Hillary Clinton had wanted the likes of me to like her she should have refused to run death squads when they invited her on board.


Listen carefully. I have known of Donald Trump since I was 16 years old & in high school. Trump Village, located behind the school was one of his first projects working for his father. Both visited school assembly to talk.

It is you who do not know Donald Trump. While neither of us knows him personally, I have heard him live for over 20 years talking with Howard Stern, I have seen and read of his antics throughout my life. I never hated him, don't hate him now. I don't hate the peons of the world & wish all well. Like you, there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump don't give a whit about whether you like them. They don't care about your self-importance as you are not important. You just like to think you are. To those who love you, you are, but that's where it ends. You're their pawn, just like everyone else.

I wish there were people in power who thought more like you. There are not. For you to deny reality and blame me of all people is just childish. Now go wipe your ass, I'm sure it's dirty.

In looking over my last paragraph which begins "I wish there were people in power who thought more like you." I do believe Bernie Sanders fits that description. But, being the Jew Commie that he is, he never would have won the General, Never, even against a dog like Trump. I think Bernie is the best the USA had to offer the world & if Trump has your approval over him, I give up, there's just no hope for you. Did he? Would he have had?

I'd have been delighted to see Mr Sanders become the next President. I'd have enjoyed watching Ralph Nader in the same position too but the system in the US makes it genuinely a two-party rather than a multi-party state. My own view is that multi-party states like the UK are healthier.

spot;1499697 wrote: I'd have been delighted to see Mr Sanders become the next President. I'd have enjoyed watching Ralph Nader in the same position toobut the system in the US makes it genuinely a two-party rather than a multi-party state. My own view is that multi-party states like the UK are healthier.


Delighted to hear of your delight. However, both men have been in public service forever. Both men operate from a desire to help and protect.

Trump has advisers. Not many, as not too many wish to join him, but those he does have are the epitome of all you despise. A President does not have the power you seem to think. He has already allowed Heritage Foundation, an ultra right-wing group, to pick his potential nominees for Supreme Court.

Trump has been a Democrat for the majority of his adult life. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, I am not katsung. However, what if The Donald is a Dem plant to ensure a democratic victory or disrupt the Republican party to it's core? He is taking their "values" to the max. He did decide to run after a phone call from Bill Clinton suggesting he do so. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former aid to Colin Power, makes a similar suggestion. I can't link you up for much as I found his quotes mostly on video, which you are not hooked up for.

As for, "we came we saw he died", a revolting quote, Wilkerson evenly distributes distrust:

"On the other hand, Donald Trump, who is now saying he's against, was against, the invasion of Libya and the overthrow of Gaddafi--I should say, the bombing of Libya by NATO forces led by the United States, and the subsequent overthrow of Gaddafi--in fact, Donald Trump was not against the overthrow of Gaddafi. In fact, Donald Trump called for American troops to go into Libya to overthrow Gaddafi"

Wilkerson: The Danger of a Clinton or Trump Presidency

In your zeal against Hillary (on the world stage, understandable; on the home stage a different story), don't be so quick to swallow Trump whole. You will gag, you can be assured of that. For every thing he has ever claimed, he has also claimed the opposite.

spot;1499697 wrote: I'd have been delighted to see Mr Sanders become the next President. I'd have enjoyed watching Ralph Nader in the same position too but the system in the US makes it genuinely a two-party rather than a multi-party state. My own view is that multi-party states like the UK are healthier.


Multi party? The uk won't be multi party until we have proportional representation until then we will continue to have governments most people don't want. The brexit vote was a two fingers up to the establishment most people I have talked to that voted to leave are only now beginning to consider the consequences.

posted by anne boleyn

In your zeal against Hillary (on the world stage, understandable; on the home stage a different story), don't be so quick to swallow Trump whole. You will gag, you can be assured of that. For every thing he has ever claimed, he has also claimed the opposite.


How likely in your oopinion is trump to win and if he loses how likely is he to claim the election was rigged?

Donald Trump Already Thinks The Election Will Be Rigged : NPR

"I'm telling you, Nov. 8, we'd better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged," Trump told Fox News earlier this week. "And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it's going to be taken away from us."

His former adviser and longtime associate Roger Stone elaborated later in the week that the campaign should encourage supporters to challenge any unfavorable results.

"I think he's gotta put them on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical, and when I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath," he said. "The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in. No, we will not stand for it. We will not stand for it."

Rationality and supporting the US constitution don't seem to enter in to this at times.

gmc;1499765 wrote: Multi party? The uk won't be multi party until we have proportional representation until then we will continue to have governments most people don't want.Multi-party doesn't mean having governments most people want, it means having more than two parties represented in the legislature - in our case, the Westminster parliament.

Current State of the Parties - UK Parliament



What's that - nine parties with more than one representative? That's multi-party. Proportional representation has nothing to do with it and if PR's ever implemented with Party Lists it will no longer be a democracy because nobody can eject the big players at an election.

America is, by contrast, a two-party system.

https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-d ... -breakdown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... s_Senators

There is no Binary in Politics. I, for instance, am a fully paid up member of the Labour Party. However, I do not agree with their official stance on remaining in the E.U. I voted Leave & would do again. My new job with a U.K. Energy Provider (Utilita) has stated that they are in a better position now as they don't have problems with artificially subsidised European Providers.

During the campaigning, the official stance of both Tories & Labour was that of Remain. There was very little representation, apart from those backbenchers that rebelled, of those that wanted to Leave. Ever since the E.U. M.E.P. elections it has been patently obvious of the country's dissatisfaction with the E.U. as was demonstrated by UKIP's landslide victory, as its campaign policy was based on the single issue of getting the U.K. out of the E.U. Then, despite the massive propaganda campaign, at the taxpayer's expense by both sides of the House to Remain, the majority of the public still voted to Leave. Logically there should have been a proportionate representation of both policies in the House, but there wasn't. UKIP have only a single Member, which accounts for 6.5% of the seats, yet they got 12.7% of the votes, whereas the SNP only got 4.7% of the vote but got 56 seats. Even the Lib Dems only got 7.9% of the vote but managed 8 seats. Logic would tell us that the proportion of the number of Members should equate to the percentage of the vote, but this clearly isn't the case. The Tories got in with 36.8%, which means that 63.2% didn't want them. Of course, it doesn't mean that all those who voted for other parties were at odds with all their policies either, but at least with PR they wouldn't be able to get unacceptable policies through simply because they happen to have a majority, so that no matter if all the opposition parties vote against them it makes no odds & ends up as a dictatorship. With PR any controlling party would have to be more reasonable with its policies in order to get overall approval.

Take an extreme situation. Given that both the Republican & Democrat candidates in a Binary situation were to campaign on Pro-Slavery, but you wanted to vote against slavery, what option would you have? Perhaps if the EU Referendum had been conditional on a 3rd option - If an agreement to return Border Control be agreed, then Remain, I wonder what the result would have been, as this was, beyond doubt, a major factor. Numerically a Binary system can work on single issues, but Politics is a melting pot of issues.

posted by four part

Logically there should have been a proportionate representation of both policies in the House, but there wasn't. UKIP have only a single Member, which accounts for 6.5% of the seats, yet they got 12.7% of the votes, whereas the SNP only got 4.7% of the vote but got 56 seats.


What you forget is that scotland is not just another region of england but a seperate nation that's why we have so many seats it was part of the act of union. Despite scotland rejecting the tories overwhelmingly we are stuck with their policies. Cameron kept the devo max option off the referendum question and one of the main planks of the no campaign was that scotland would not be able to remain in the EU if it voted for indpendence. Scotland voted to remain now we face being taken out against our will as well as being stuck with trident.

The Tories got in with 36.8%, which means that 63.2% didn't want them. Of course, it doesn't mean that all those who voted for other parties were at odds with all their policies either, but at least with PR they wouldn't be able to get unacceptable policies through simply because they happen to have a majority, so that no matter if all the opposition parties vote against them it makes no odds & ends up as a dictatorship. With PR any controlling party would have to be more reasonable with its policies in order to get overall approval.




I confess every time a ukip supporter talks about taking back control of our democracy from the eu I am tempted to ask why they think westminstyer will actrually be any better. It's not.

posted by spot

What's that - nine parties with more than one representative? That's multi-party. Proportional representation has nothing to do with it and if PR's ever implemented with Party Lists it will no longer be a democracy because nobody can eject the big players at an election.


Bollocks.

FourPart;1499772 wrote: There is no Binary in Politics. I, for instance, am a fully paid up member of the Labour Party. However, I do not agree with their official stance on remaining in the E.U. I voted Leave & would do again. My new job with a U.K. Energy Provider (Utilita) has stated that they are in a better position now as they don't have problems with artificially subsidised European Providers.

During the campaigning, the official stance of both Tories & Labour was that of Remain. There was very little representation, apart from those backbenchers that rebelled, of those that wanted to Leave. Ever since the E.U. M.E.P. elections it has been patently obvious of the country's dissatisfaction with the E.U. as was demonstrated by UKIP's landslide victory, as its campaign policy was based on the single issue of getting the U.K. out of the E.U. Then, despite the massive propaganda campaign, at the taxpayer's expense by both sides of the House to Remain, the majority of the public still voted to Leave. Logically there should have been a proportionate representation of both policies in the House, but there wasn't. UKIP have only a single Member, which accounts for 6.5% of the seats, yet they got 12.7% of the votes, whereas the SNP only got 4.7% of the vote but got 56 seats. Even the Lib Dems only got 7.9% of the vote but managed 8 seats. Logic would tell us that the proportion of the number of Members should equate to the percentage of the vote, but this clearly isn't the case. The Tories got in with 36.8%, which means that 63.2% didn't want them. Of course, it doesn't mean that all those who voted for other parties were at odds with all their policies either, but at least with PR they wouldn't be able to get unacceptable policies through simply because they happen to have a majority, so that no matter if all the opposition parties vote against them it makes no odds & ends up as a dictatorship. With PR any controlling party would have to be more reasonable with its policies in order to get overall approval.

Take an extreme situation. Given that both the Republican & Democrat candidates in a Binary situation were to campaign on Pro-Slavery, but you wanted to vote against slavery, what option would you have? Perhaps if the EU Referendum had been conditional on a 3rd option - If an agreement to return Border Control be agreed, then Remain, I wonder what the result would have been, as this was, beyond doubt, a major factor. Numerically a Binary system can work on single issues, but Politics is a melting pot of issues.


I agree. I'm pretty much the same way, I support some of my party's policies and differ in others.

Is the Labour Party primarily left or right-leaning?

Saint_;1499824 wrote: Is the Labour Party primarily left or right-leaning?Their roots were left-wing. Their current leader is left-wing. The parliamentary party is overwhelmingly right-wing "New Labour", the grass-roots are overwhelmingly left-wing. The split in the party is a consequence of the 1990s New Labour movement under Tony Blair, when the left wing credentials were thrown out in favour of running the country.

Interesting - or maybe uninteresting - that the thread has wandered so far away from Trump, who continues to self-destruct day after day.

Mark Aspam;1499827 wrote: Interesting - or maybe uninteresting - that the thread has wandered so far away from Trump, who continues to self-destruct day after day.


The press makes that claim but then, they would, wouldn't they. November's not that far off, all we need do is wait and see what actually happens. Either he takes it or he doesn't, this isn't a tale with no ending. What's actually happening now will be demonstrated numerically before the end of the year.

Unless there is too many hanging chads, then he might prompt a riot or two ?......with guns.

I don't think it will take that long before things turn violent, I think it will get that way before polling happens.

Bruv;1499829 wrote: Unless there is too many hanging chads, then he might prompt a riot or two ?......with guns.


Funny you should say that...........

"Donald Trump faced a swift backlash on Tuesday after he suggested that gun enthusiasts would be able to stop Hillary Clinton from taking away their Second Amendment rights.

“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the Second Amendment, the Republican nominee said at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., on Tuesday afternoon. “And if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do.

Trump added: “But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. "



https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-2nd-am ... 00517.html

Hahahaha...He's SUCH a jerk! I really am having trouble taking him seriously. I wonder if there were Germans that thought, "A guy that's that much of an idiot and mean-spirited jerk could never take power..."

I could punch him.......and I am not like that ever.

Smug bugger

AnneBoleyn;1499840 wrote: Funny you should say that...........

"Donald Trump faced a swift backlash on Tuesday after he suggested that gun enthusiasts would be able to stop Hillary Clinton from taking away their Second Amendment rights.

“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the Second Amendment, the Republican nominee said at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., on Tuesday afternoon. “And if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do.

Trump added: “But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. "



https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-2nd-am ... 00517.html


To be sure a stupid thing to say. It allows those who hate the right to bear arms to slander those of us who value our natural and Constitutional Rights as a violent group of people citizens.

A couple of weeks back, when Trump started his bull about the election being rigged, one of his surrogates said "If we don't will at the ballot box, we'll win at the bullet box."

I liked his campaign better when it was pure comedy. The switch to horror is a bit unsettling.

Wandrin;1499848 wrote: A couple of weeks back, when Trump started his bull about the election being rigged, one of his surrogates said "If we don't will(sic) at the ballot box, we'll win at the bullet box."Can you verify that? Name a name? I'm not doubting you, but it sounds like something that might have been misquoted or simply made up.

Now, prior to your post there was this:

It allows those who hate the right to bear arms to slander those of us who value our natural and Constitutional Rights as a violent group of people citizens.

Run that by me again?? I'm not sure that "a violent group of people citizens" (as opposed to, I guess, a violent group of animal citizens) are protected by the 2nd amendment.

I hear all kinds of nitwits ranting about the how the 2nd amendment's purpose is somehow to protect us from government. The exact opposite is true, the purpose of the 2nd is to protect the government AND its citizens (which would include the "well-regulated militia"), from insurrections by nut groups and outright traitors. Are there any of those in Kansas? I dunno, I haven't been there for awhile.

tude dog;1499846 wrote: To be sure a stupid thing to say. It allows those who hate the right to bear arms to slander those of us who value our natural and Constitutional Rights as a violent group of people citizens.


Nowhere can you find Hillary Clinton trying to end the 2nd Amendment. No one is slandering you. So sensitive, don't worry, you will be keeping your guns. If you have military style machine guns, well, I for one hope that's a different story.

Mark Aspam;1499858 wrote: Can you verify that? Name a name? I'm not doubting you, but it sounds like something that might have been misquoted or simply made up.




The person saying that was Larry Pratt, former executive director of Gun Owners of America. Here's the exact quote.

And we may have to reassert that proper constitutional balance, and it may not be pretty. So, I’d much rather have an election where we solve this matter at the ballot box than have to resort to the bullet box.
Here is one of many sources ‘The Bullet Box’ Is an Option If the Ballot Box Fails, Says Gun-Rights Advocate

I just can't see the part to bear arms as a "Natural" right

Wandrin;1499862 wrote: The person saying that was Larry Pratt, former executive director of Gun Owners of America. Here's the exact quote.

Here is one of many sources ‘The Bullet Box’ Is an Option If the Ballot Box Fails, Says Gun-Rights AdvocateWell, that is a SIMILAR but DIFFERENT quote, and I thank you for the reference. But, like poster Anne above, I don't see the relevance. (ADDED LATER: Co-incidentally, the circus is currently in town and I don't see THEIR elephants either!)

I am not aware of ANY candidate, presidential or otherwise, advocating the banning of guns.

The second amendment specifies gun ownership to a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Not to nut cases and mass murderers.

Regarding hunters, collectors, home protection etc., that would, I think, be up to the appropriate legal authority, local, county, state, etc.

I dont understand whats going on with the interpretation of Trumps words.

That crying baby thing....he was accused of insulting the baby and the woman . Everytime is was reported here the foootage is cut off.....you dont see or hear what the media says what his words actually were.

With the gun issue . I didnt here him say anything about assasination or violence directed toward anything

Sorry about above post....(stupid auto correct)

As i was saying after seeing the footage over and over again ,i didnt hear or see any incitement to violence.

I dont like the man, and i hope he never makes president but i think he's right about rigging. The media is doing a good job of propaganda .

AnneBoleyn;1499861 wrote: Nowhere can you find Hillary Clinton trying to end the 2nd Amendment.


I know. Another stupid thing said by Trump.

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

Not the Supreme Court, but lower courts have allowed infringements on that right.

AnneBoleyn;1499861 wrote: No one is slandering you. So sensitive, don't worry, you will be keeping your guns. If you have military style machine guns, well, I for one hope that's a different story.


I didn't say anybody slandered me or my fellow gun owners.

It allows those who hate the right to bear arms to slander


"This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement.

And Sen. Chris Murphy, D-CT, responded on Twitter: "Don't treat this as a political misstep. It's an assassination threat, seriously upping the possibility of a national tragedy & crisis."

As far as machine guns go, my Dear Friend, I haven't touched one since I was in the Army. Not only are they really expensive but heavily regulated by the Federal Government.

Mark Aspam;1499858 wrote: I hear all kinds of nitwits ranting about the how the 2nd amendment's purpose is somehow to protect us from government. The exact opposite is true, the purpose of the 2nd is to protect the government AND its citizens (which would include the "well-regulated militia"), from insurrections by nut groups and outright traitors. Are there any of those in Kansas? I dunno, I haven't been there for awhile.


Do your own search on LEXINGTON AND CONCORD

insurrections by nut groups and outright traitors




I can't speak of Kansas, but if a homegrown revolution were to start no better place than the actual geographical center of the country?

tude dog;1499885 wrote: I can't speak of Kansas, but if a homegrown revolution were to start no better place than the actual geographical center of the country?I cannot imagine what the result of such a revolution would be other than a bunch of dead or imprisoned revolutionaries. Wasn't there such a thing recently in Oregon? Ranchers who decided that they shouldn't have to pay taxes? Fortunately for them, only one was killed, the others, as far as I know, are in prison, as they should be.

tude dog;1499885 wrote: I can't speak of Kansas, but if a homegrown revolution were to start no better place than the actual geographical center of the country?


I find the majority of Americans revolting........:sneaky:

Tude, please don't use NRA as a link, as I won't believe a word they say. Can you find some other link for that claim? If not, I disregard it. I don't mean another right-wing site either.

T said: "I didn't say anybody slandered me or my fellow gun owners."

Excuse me? What's this?:

"It allows those who hate the right to bear arms to slander those of us who value our natural and Constitutional Rights as a violent group of people citizens."

I think reading Momus has driven me crazy. I'm seeing "things" that are there and not there all at the same time.

Bruv;1499888 wrote: I find the majority of Americans revolting........:sneaky:


Gosh, me too.

Mark Aspam;1499887 wrote: I cannot imagine what the result of such a revolution would be other than a bunch of dead or imprisoned revolutionaries. Wasn't there such a thing recently in Oregon? Ranchers who decided that they shouldn't have to pay taxes? Fortunately for them, only one was killed, the others, as far as I know, are in prison, as they should be.


Yup, and in 1775 King George said the same thing. A lot of Patriots did die then.

I am not now advocating open violent revolution. We should just keep that in our back pockets as an option.

IT IS OUR NATURAL RIGHT

AnneBoleyn;1499894 wrote: Tude, please don't use NRA as a link, as I won't believe a word they say. Can you find some other link for that claim? If not, I disregard it. I don't mean another right-wing site either.


Hillary Clinton Says A National Gun Buyback Program Is ‘Worth Considering’

AnneBoleyn;1499894 wrote: T said: "I didn't say anybody slandered me or my fellow gun owners."



Excuse me? What's this?:

"It allows those who hate the right to bear arms to slander those of us who value our natural and Constitutional Rights as a violent group of people citizens."


Trump accused of threatening violence against Clinton with gun-rights remarks



AnneBoleyn;1499894 wrote: I think reading Momus has driven me crazy. I'm seeing "things" that are there and not there all at the same time.

tude dog;1499899 wrote: Yup, and in 1775 King George said the same thing. A lot of Patriots did die then.

I am not now advocating open violent revolution. We should just keep that in our back pockets as an option.

IT IS OUR NATURAL RIGHTWell, King George was half a world away. The issue was taxation without representation.

Washington DC is a lot closer. Any Americans who don't like the way their country works can run for office on a reform ticket, it happens all the time. And of course there's always the option of leaving.

A VERY good friend of mine, best man at my wedding, (and, by the way, not a draft-dodger), was so disgusted with the USA owing to its support of the tinhorn dictator of South Vietnam, and the sending of American boys to die there, that he moved to Canada and never came back. He loves it there! A much better choice than starting an insurrection.

You might try it yourself. I don't doubt that a country like, say, Pakistan, would welcome you with open arms. There you could insurrect to your heart's content!

Mark Aspam;1499902 wrote: Well, King George was half a world away. The issue was taxation without representation.

Washington DC is a lot closer. Any Americans who don't like the way their country works can run for office on a reform ticket, it happens all the time. And of course there's always the option of leaving.

A VERY good friend of mine, best man at my wedding, (and, by the way, not a draft-dodger), was so disgusted with the USA owing to its support of the tinhorn dictator of South Vietnam, and the sending of American boys to die there, that he moved to Canada and never came back. He loves it there! A much better choice than starting an insurrection.

You might try it yourself. I don't doubt that a country like, say, Pakistan, would welcome you with open arms. There you could insurrect to your heart's content!


We have a communications problem. I never advocated violent revolution at this time.

This is my country and ain't going anywhere. I am happy your friend likes it in Canada. I suspect best for all of us.



The Declaration of Independence:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

That is a principle of America which I embrace.

When Trump's lunacy first began to really come to the public eye I was chastised for stating that I wouldn't be surprised, with America's record for Gunplay & Presidents if something nasty were to happen to him (not that I was condoning any such potential action). Now he seems to be openly making veiled threats / requests for Hilary's assassination.

tude dog;1499905 wrote: We have a communications problem. I never advocated violent revolution at this time..I understand that - if you had so advocated, it's very possible that you would have caused yourself some trouble. But comparing the American revolution against England to a modern-day (or future) bunch of trigger-happy malcontents and nuts is quite a leap.

And in any case, it has very little to do with the subject of the thread, which is Trump's electability, or lack thereof.

Maybe the First Amendment Right should be taken away from Trump.:wah:

Patsy

AnneBoleyn;1499861 wrote: If you have military style machine guns, well, I for one hope that's a different story.


That's the page I'm on too. We don't let people have missile launchers and grenades, do we? Why on Earth would we condone military assault rifles?

How about this: A tax of $1,000 per bullet.

Saint_;1499915 wrote: How about this: A tax of $1,000 per bullet.


I wonder how big a militia Trump could afford to fund ?