Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Cyberowl]

Because convenience is far more important than safety, surely.

Arming nutjobs is an American value, silly goose!

[Cthulhu 2020]

Stock crash before elections seems quite likely really. Which resulted in non-incumbent party winning in absolute majority of cases. And Clinton is basically "avatar of no change" - which works badly if things turn out worse then they appeared.

There's been a lot of explanations for how Trump could suddenly pull out of a nose dive, even people pointing to examples. Examples of course are very much the exception and not the rule. And the more stupid things Trump says, the further and further away we get from the possibility that this election turns out like those, since they all involved extraordinary circumstances. Clinton would have to kill someone in broad daylight for all to see to kill her campaign.

(In before "but she has killed someone!" *insert conspiracies*)

Lots of ways for Clinton to sabotage her own election too.

Plus, people who support Trump are motivated to vote. People who say "probably Clinton because she is not Trump"? Not so much.

Clinton just has to keep running her campaign as-is, smile for the camera and keep going. Trump is doing a good enough job sending his election up in flames.



You know what any other nominee would have done in response to the Khan incident? Gone to the grave of the son and put an American flag and flowers on it. That would have kicked all of the Trump nay sayers in the nuts right there. Instead he just proved them right, that he's a jackass with no control.

[PC2]

Because convenience is far more important than safety, surely.

Yes ideas like the first and second amendment are worth far more than safety. Living in a free society with hundreds of millions of people means that occasionally a small amount of people get hurt.

[GennGreymane]

SO Trump is advocating more killing of people now?

[Cyberowl]

Yes ideas like the first and second amendment are worth far more than safety. Living in a free society with hundreds of millions of people means that occasionally a small amount of people get hurt.

You sure don't seem to give a crap about the first amendment though.

[Shalcker]

What implication do you hear in that statement then? This ought to be good.

Are you saying that Second Amendment is about killing people and nothing else? Wiki seems to also mention some kind of "resistance to oppression".

Maybe "I don't know" is translated as "I urge you to murder them then!!!" too?

[Zan15]

This, also I doubt this will matter but it was clear Trump meant that the NRA could probably get its way politically.

And campaign confirms.

lol power of unification after she has won?
how the hell is that going to stop her?

come on even they are stretching the attempt to bail him out of his stupid mouth

[Edge-]

Yes ideas like the first and second amendment are worth far more than safety.

The restrictions placed on certain types of speech that promotes violence as well as the on/off regulations about various types of weapons disagree with you.

Living in a free society with hundreds of millions of people means that occasionally a small amount of people get hurt.

This is true, but that doesn't mean that there can be no limitations or restrictions placed on, for example, First or Second Amendment protections. Because as I said, there are already and there absolutely should be.

[PC2]

SO Trump is advocating more killing of people now?

Take him to court if you have specific proof

[Cyberowl]

Are you saying that Second Amendment is about killing people and nothing else? Wiki seems to also mention some kind of "resistance to oppression".

Maybe "I don't know" is translated as "I urge you to murder them then!!!" too?

When was defending Trump because he is bff with Putin now added to your job description?

[mvaliz]

SO Trump is advocating more killing of people now?

Methinks that his idea of ending wars with other nations was to simply start a civil war in America. ;P

[Edge-]

When was defending Trump because he is bff with Putin now added to your job description?

Wait, is he BFF with Putin again? Or has he never met him and he doesn't know him. I can't keep track of which version of reality Trump exists in on a day to day basis.

[Wulfey]

Wait, is he BFF with Putin again? Or has he never met him and he doesn't know him. I can't keep track of which version of reality Trump exists in on a day to day basis.

You will like this.

"Roger Stone Confirms That He's In Communication With Julian Assange"

ROGER STONE: Well, it could be any number of things. I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there's no telling what the October surprise may be.

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/...assange/212261

[PC2]

This is true, but that doesn't mean that there can be no limitations or restrictions placed on, for example, First or Second Amendment protections. Because as I said, there are already and there absolutely should be.

Those restriction already exist. Mainly there are 2. For the first amendment you cannot advocate direct and specific violence. The second, you cant buy anything above a certain caliber, as it would not be consistent with the personal right to bear arms.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Wait, is he BFF with Putin again? Or has he never met him and he doesn't know him. I can't keep track of which version of reality Trump exists in on a day to day basis.

They seem to be internet buddies and keep dropping thumbs ups at each other.

I bet they're cyber sexing in WoW. Putin is a Tauren male and Trump is the gnome female.

[PC2]

You sure don't seem to give a crap about the first amendment though.

I am a fierce protector of free expression. Yet if someone directly and specifically used speech violently, they should be put on trial.

[Cyberowl]

I am a fierce protector of free expression. Yet if someone directly and specifically used speech violently, they should by trialled.

There is more to it than free expression and your boy sure has his issues with that part when it's against his interests.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I am a fierce protector of free expression. Yet if someone directly and specifically used speech violently, they should by trialled.

"I guess Trump only technically said that second amendment people could do something about Clinton appointing a SCOTUS judge, so it's teeeeeeeeeeeechnically not inciting violence, even though it pretty much is. After all, he didn't say "You guys should go shoot Clinton in the fucking face!""

[PC2]

"I guess Trump only technically said that second amendment people could do something about Clinton appointing a SCOTUS judge, so it's teeeeeeeeeeeechnically not inciting violence, even though it pretty much is. After all, he didn't say "You guys should go shoot Clinton in the fucking face!""

The law is massively technical. It exists for when there is proof and evidence, not for when somebody hurt your feelings through vague suggestion.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The law is massively technical. It exists for when there is proof and evidence, not for when somebody hurt your feelings through vague suggestion.

Of course, Trump didn't tell people to go kill Hillary, he merely suggested they could kill her to stop her from appointing a liberal supreme court judge because he knows he's losing a lot of down ticket seats for Republicans and a nomination will make it through a Democrat controlled senate easily.

Thumbs up good buddy!