Presidential Race 2016

[phan52]

So, today Trump revoked the press credentials of the Washington Post because it apparently is necessary to abridge the freedom of speech and particularly of the press.

Seriously, wake up people!!

 

[Chilli Dipper]

7 minutes ago, phan52 said:

So, today Trump revoked the press credentials of the Washington Post because it apparently is necessary to abridge the freedom of speech and particularly of the press.

Seriously, wake up people!!

 

Is there any news outlet left that Trump hasn't revoked press credentials to?

[Dave2512]

He has trouble with anything but loving praise. Weird he thinks he's unfairly portrayed considering all of his trouble is 100% initiated by his mouth and actions. His mocking of the disabled guy should have been enough to permanently keep him in the dunk tank. 

[krupa]

11 hours ago, newtogolf said:

At least he knows who the enemy is and isn't afraid to say Radical Islamic Terrorist.  

I don't think he does.  There have been about 1000 mass shootings in the US since Sandy Hook. http://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook

How many of them were because of radical islamic terrorism?  2

Whatever happened with that bloodbath in Ohio?

[Braivo]

12 hours ago, newtogolf said:

At least he knows who the enemy is and isn't afraid to say Radical Islamic Terrorist.  

Yes, this. The only reason the words are uttered is because he entered this race. The only reason we are looking seriously at the issue is because of DT. 

12 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

**** that. The last thing the world needs is another demagogue preaching hate and intolerance. The dude is an absolute shitbag that wants to capititalize on fear for his own advancement. Disgusting. 

***my apologizes. I'm getting a little hot headed about this, but seriously, more guns and more intolerance surely isn't the path. 

Being tolerant of those that want us dead gets us dead. They do not reciprocate this. Thomas Jefferson knew this back in the late 1700s, the USA tried to pay off Muslim pirates only to have them demand more money. It wasn't until we built the world's greatest navy that the threat was neutralized.

10 hours ago, phan52 said:

So, today Trump revoked the press credentials of the Washington Post because it apparently is necessary to abridge the freedom of speech and particularly of the press.

Seriously, wake up people!!

 

He understands that most of the press is corrupt. They work for global corporations that have a vested interest in certain policitcal outcomes. The press is not "independent" right now and he wants to dismantle it. Follow some independent journalists and you'll see the real truth. 

51 minutes ago, krupa said:

I don't think he does.  There have been about 1000 mass shootings in the US since Sandy Hook. http://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook

How many of them were because of radical islamic terrorism?  2

Whatever happened with that bloodbath in Ohio?

So easily we forget 9/11. If one man can (I am still suspicious there was only 1) kill / injure 100 peope imagine what an organized group can do? 

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He understands that most of the press is corrupt. They work for global corporations that have a vested interest in certain policitcal outcomes. The press is not "independent" right now and he wants to dismantle it. Follow some independent journalists and you'll see the real truth. 

You can't. It's called the 1st amendment. His history of wanting to muzzle the press who talk against him shows his lack of knowledge of our basic bill of rights. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The definition of abridge is to lessen the strength of or effects of. Etymologically it means to cut short or to censor. The freedom of speech means they have a right to be impartial. Impartial news has been around since the founding of this country. 

The first amendment doesn't demand we produce independent press. All press is allowed no matter how much it is opinionated BS. 

The history of men who demand censorship are those who are tyrannical in nature. 

[krupa]

10 minutes ago, Braivo said:

So easily we forget 9/11. If one man can (I am still suspicious there was only 1) kill / injure 100 peope imagine what an organized group can do? 

I don't forget 9/11.  I just look at the numbers (a little cold, I admit.)  One common definition of a mass shooting is where 4 or more people are killed and that excludes gang and drug related shootings.  About 3000 people died on 9/11/01.  It was horrific, unthinkable, and it changed the way we view our safety.    Since 2012, 4000 or more people have died in mass shootings and two of the events were perpetrated by radicals.

The standard conservative line is that we have to be afraid of radical terrorists and if we stop them, we'll be safe.  But they ignore all the shootings that have nothing to do with radicalism:  Aurora Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hooke, Virginia Tech, Planned Parenthood, Columbine, Timothy McVeigh...  

Look, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do something about radical islamic terrorists but to frame the story that "the enemy is radical islam" is just a distracting narrative from the fact that the US has a gun violence problem.

[Braivo]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You can't. It's called the 1st amendment. His history of wanting to muzzle the press who talk against him shows his lack of knowledge of our basic bill of rights. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The definition of abridge is to lessen the strength of or effects of. Etymologically it means to cut short or to censor. The freedom of speech means they have a right to be impartial. Impartial news has been around since the founding of this country. 

The first amendment doesn't demand we produce independent press. All press is allowed no matter how much it is opinionated BS. 

The history of men who demand censorship are those who are tyrannical in nature. 

He's not congress and he's not making a law, this is where your analysis is flawed. He is a private citizen right now, he can decide who has access to his campaign and who doesn't. Public figures and policiticians have been doing this since the beginning of journalism. 

Just now, krupa said:

I don't forget 9/11.  I just look at the numbers (a little cold, I admit.)  One common definition of a mass shooting is where 4 or more people are killed and that excludes gang and drug related shootings.  About 3000 people died on 9/11/01.  It was horrific, unthinkable, and it changed the way we view our safety.    Since 2012, 4000 or more people have died in mass shootings and two of the events were perpetrated by radicals.

The standard conservative line is that we have to be afraid of radical terrorists and if we stop them, we'll be safe.  But they ignore all the shootings that have nothing to do with radicalism:  Aurora Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hooke, Virginia Tech, Planned Parenthood, Columbine, Timothy McVeigh...  

Look, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do something about radical islamic terrorists but to frame the story that "the enemy is radical islam" is just a distracting narrative from the fact that the US has a gun violence problem.

In this instance, the Orlando shooting we are talking about, it was radical Islam. 

You don't define "mass shooting" but most gun deaths are inner city blacks killed by other inner city blacks. This is just fact. 

We do not have a gun problem, we have an inner city crime problem. Also, among whites, a suicide problem. 

Taking legal guns away from law-abiding Americans is not going to stem the violence in Detroit, Chicago, and LA. Most of the those guns are unregistered anyway. 

[krupa]

9 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He's not congress and he's not making a law, this is where your analysis is flawed. He is a private citizen right now, he can decide who has access to his campaign and who doesn't. Public figures and policiticians have been doing this since the beginning of journalism. 

In this instance, the Orlando shooting we are talking about, it was radical Islam. 

You don't define "mass shooting" but most gun deaths are inner city blacks killed by other inner city blacks. This is just fact. 

We do not have a gun problem, we have an inner city crime problem. Also, among whites, a suicide problem. 

Taking legal guns away from law-abiding Americans is not going to stem the violence in Detroit, Chicago, and LA. Most of the those guns are unregistered anyway. 

I didn't define mass shooting because it was defined in the link I used as a reference.  So we can take it that you didn't read the link...  Here's their discussion of what constitutes "mass shooting":

Quote

Using one common definition — shootings at a public place in which the shooter murdered four or more people, excluding domestic, gang, and drug violence — they appear to be getting more common, according to an analysis from Harvard School of Public Health researchers.

But not everyone agrees with this definition. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, for example, defines mass shootings more widely, as any shooting in which at least four people were murdered. Under those terms, mass shootings don’t appear to be increasing.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health call the definition Fox uses too broad, since it catches domestic, gang, and drug-related shootings that aren’t usually considered mass shootings in layman’s terms.

 

[Elmer]

14 hours ago, newtogolf said:

At least he knows who the enemy is and isn't afraid to say Radical Islamic Terrorist.  

Except for when he is does not want until all the fact are in and decides to act as a demagogue!

http://nypost.com/2016/06/13/shooter-used-to-visit-orlando-gay-club-use-gay-dating-apps/

[newtogolf]

6 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Except for when he is does not want until all the fact are in and decides to act as a demagogue!

http://nypost.com/2016/06/13/shooter-used-to-visit-orlando-gay-club-use-gay-dating-apps/

 

Doesn't change the fact he pledged allegiance to ISIS during his 911 call and ISIS is taking credit for the shooting.  Let's not jump to conclusions off some questionable reporting.  

[Elmer]

10 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Doesn't change the fact he pledged allegiance to ISIS during his 911 call and ISIS is taking credit for the shooting.  Let's not jump to conclusions off some questionable reporting.  

ISIS will take credit for just about anything that helps their cause, spreads fear and gets them press!

Just because some asshat pledged his allegiance in his last call does not make him an agent. The FBI themselves were unable to verify a link between the 2. Maybe he was just an admirer.

But you dont think that "Radical Islamic Terrorist." Trump's speech is jumping to conclusions?

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, Elmer said:

ISIS will take credit for just about anything that helps their cause, spreads fear and gets them press!

Just because some asshat pledged his allegiance in his last call does not make him an agent. The FBI themselves were unable to verify a link between the 2. Maybe he was just an admirer.

But you dont think that "Radical Islamic Terrorist." Trump's speech is jumping to conclusions?

Do you even read what you write?  He pledges loyalty to ISIS on a 911 call but you want discount that and instead blame it on unverified reports that he was gay.  

You do realize that Sharia law promotes death to homosexuals so even if he had homosexual tendencies or was gay this was his way of making things right with his God. 

[Chilli Dipper]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Do you even read what you write?  He pledges loyalty to ISIS on a 911 call but you want discount that and instead blame it on unverified reports that he was gay.  

You do realize that Sharia law promotes death to homosexuals so even if he had homosexual tendencies or was gay this was his way of making things right with his God. 

At this point, him having direct links to ISIS just because he said he pledged allegiance to them on a phone call is just as speculative as him targeting a gay bar because of self-hatred of his own sexuality. If I wanted to go out in the most sensational way possible, I'd pledge allegiance to ISIS, too. Like a certain short-fingered vulgarian, they seem to trumpet any display of praise delivered their way, no matter who's saying it.

[rehmwa]

4 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

At this point, him having direct links to ISIS just because he said he pledged allegiance to them on a phone call is just as speculative as him targeting a gay bar because of self-hatred of his own sexuality. If I wanted to go out in the most sensational way possible, I'd pledge allegiance to ISIS, too.

The self hatred is starting to show up as a very likely scenario/motivation.  He was pretty disturbed from the beginning and just looking for an excuse - the identification with ISIS was a convenient rationalization for him to go off the deep end.

However, this doesn't remove the point that ISIS is a pretty convenient excuse/rallying point for people that are terribly disturbed and self-isolated - they count on it, in fact.  It also needs to be addressed.  their model and propaganda counts on individuals taking independent action just like this - they don't have to be 'directly linked' or give direction to still encourage these acts.

[Braivo]

40 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Do you even read what you write?  He pledges loyalty to ISIS on a 911 call but you want discount that and instead blame it on unverified reports that he was gay.  

You do realize that Sharia law promotes death to homosexuals so even if he had homosexual tendencies or was gay this was his way of making things right with his God. 

 

27 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

At this point, him having direct links to ISIS just because he said he pledged allegiance to them on a phone call is just as speculative as him targeting a gay bar because of self-hatred of his own sexuality. If I wanted to go out in the most sensational way possible, I'd pledge allegiance to ISIS, too. Like a certain short-fingered vulgarian, they seem to trumpet any display of praise delivered their way, no matter who's saying it.

Perhaps his own hatred of his sexuality was his motive, then it was his radical interpretation of Islam that led him to believe that death was better than homosexuality. Still does not exonerate radical Islam. ISIS propoganda could easily have contributed to his thinking this was his only way out. Radical Islam is not tolerant of gays, period. 

[phan52]

3 hours ago, Braivo said:

 

He understands that most of the press is corrupt. They work for global corporations that have a vested interest in certain policitcal outcomes. The press is not "independent" right now and he wants to dismantle it. Follow some independent journalists and you'll see the real truth. 

 

It appears Trump is not the only person who has no concept of the First Amendment.

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Doesn't change the fact he pledged allegiance to ISIS during his 911 call and ISIS is taking credit for the shooting.  Let's not jump to conclusions off some questionable reporting.  

It is pretty clear that he had zero contact or affiliation with ISIS because, if they knew he was gay, they would never have taken any credit.

Edited June 14, 2016 by phan52

[Aguirre]

There should have been a "none of the above" option in the poll.

I remember saying a year ago when most of us assumed that HRC would cruise to the Democratic nomination that the Republicans would really have to do awful to nominate somebody I wouldn't support in the general election over her.  And they have.  I mean, the party was teetering on the edge for awhile, and has now taken the full plunge into the loony pool.