Jump to content
southsider2k5

2016 Democratic Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 03:43 PM)
While I would like it, what can they do at this point? Take back the nomination?

 

The only thing they can do is what they're doing - anyone with a future in the GOP is running away from him, loudly and publicly. He's going to go down in a sinking ship with very few people onboard.

They could certainly be running away faster and louder. Literally every single one of them should be running away loudly. The party could pull all the money (maybe they've done that already, I don't know). Officially pull their endorsements, as a party. At least lose with dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 03:52 PM)
That's not true. Only those true blue state senators like Kirk have not endorsed (and Rauner), but Paul Ryan won't actively not endorse him. Marco Rubio is still endorsing him. Mitch McConnell is endorsing him. Kelly Ayotte endorses him.

 

So you have Kirk and Collins.

 

We'll see if that lasts. They've all publicly spoken out against he dumb things he's said too. Ryan's endorsement always felt forced, as did Rubio's (doesn't excuse them, however).

 

In addition to the "young" guys, few well-established Republicans are endorsing him. It's basically the Newt Gingrich/Gulianni's of the world - people who want to continue talking into a camera for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude just suggested that people assassinate Hillary Clinton if she wins the election. What the f***?

 

The campaign's spin team is saying that he was referring to gun owners rallying to vote for Trump. Uh, except the comment was about what to do about Hillary if she wins, so that's kinda impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually dont think he meant that Clinton should be shot. He is just a poor speaker so his phrasing comes across awkward. I think that he meant that the 2nd amendment people could fight it if she tried to abolish the 2nd amendment through the supreme court.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you watch the video there is no way you can claim that's not what he was insinuating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 02:34 PM)
I actually dont think he meant that Clinton should be shot. He is just a poor speaker so his phrasing comes across awkward. I think that he meant that the 2nd amendment people could fight it if she tried to abolish the 2nd amendment through the supreme court.

 

He says that AFTER she picks her judges "there is nothing you can do". And immediately after that he says that 2nd amendment folks on the other hand can do something. I think it's quite clear what he's hinting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 10:34 PM)
I actually dont think he meant that Clinton should be shot. He is just a poor speaker so his phrasing comes across awkward. I think that he meant that the 2nd amendment people could fight it if she tried to abolish the 2nd amendment through the supreme court.

 

Why would opposing Clinton politically be limited to "2nd amendment people" (gun owners)? He said if she starts picking judges, there's nothing anyone can do...except maybe people with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to delete my last post as I can't find it actually corroborated in print but was from a journalist on Twitter. If it turns out to have been true I'll add it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a really poor public speaker. His timing and phrasing is horrific. I think that it is a leap and opportunism to suggest that phrase "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know" is insinuating an assassination. Maybe it is, but again, not really what I think the intention was.

 

The reason why he would say "2nd amendment people" is that the entire passage was about the 2nd amendment. So why would someone who was Anti-Clinton but not care about the 2nd amendment be referenced.

 

/shrugs

 

There are more reasons than I can count why Trump shouldnt be the next President, so I would rather stick to those issues, instead of going after him because he can barely put a sentence together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 10:12 PM)
The reason why he would say "2nd amendment people" is that the entire passage was about the 2nd amendment. So why would someone who was Anti-Clinton but not care about the 2nd amendment be referenced.

 

Not buying it. If the entire context is about 2nd Amendment supporters, there'd be no reason to say there was nothing folks could do to stop Clinton. He singled out gun owners for a reason. It's not like the idea that people will need to use guns to stop an oppressive government is unheard of in conservative politics.

 

His rallies regularly have supporters calling for the imprisonment and death of Hillary Clinton. He's fueling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post I deleted was false. Sorry for not checking it out before. Very uncharitable reading of what she said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 11:16 PM)
chlesea isn't going for president in 2024. Please get with it, Greg.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 09:16 PM)
Trump wasn't calling for Hillary's assassination. Please get with it, people.

That is what he implied, and I don't really see how one can read the words he said or watch video of it and come to any other conclusion.

 

Did he mean it? I'd guess not, but Trump routinely says something one day, and then walks it back the next. We really can't have that in our President.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Aug 10, 2016 -> 07:52 AM)
That is what he implied, and I don't really see how one can read the words he said or watch video of it and come to any other conclusion.

 

Did he mean it? I'd guess not, but Trump routinely says something one day, and then walks it back the next. We really can't have that in our President.

Yeah, I think that implication was there. He clearly was NOT speaking about mobilizing voters, as his official campaign spin stated. He was talking about her appointment of judges, which obviously happens after the election.

Edited by PlaySumFnJurny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 10, 2016 -> 11:21 AM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJtZcFmUtvo

 

Julian Assange essentially admits that Seth Rich was the DNC leak source.

 

I have trouble taking Assange at face value and I'm going with Occam's Razor on Rich's murder until something of more substance comes along.

 

Also the only admission there was a barely noticeable nod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 9, 2016 -> 11:16 PM)
Trump wasn't calling for Hillary's assassination. Please get with it, people.

Many people are saying that he did.

 

 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 10, 2016 -> 11:43 AM)
I am not really into the red vs. blue, republican vs. democrat way of American thinking so I can take it at face value. Assange essentially admitted it without admitting it. It would go against his journalistic integrity to straight up say it. They can't divulge sources but he also never denied that Rich was the informant and sidestepped every question the reporter asked him. If you watch the interview objectively it's pretty obvious what he is insinuating. Not to mention they immediately put up a reward for any info on Rich's murder right after the fact.

 

Assange has journalistic integrity now? Just about every time WikiLeaks does a reckless dump that gives out private info says otherwise.

 

He's a political player with agendas of his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be that wikileaks received emails from Rich, who then covered up for him by getting russian located hackers to hack DNC at same time. Or, could be that Wikileaks, for some reason uncomfortable that people have called out their role as russian shills, imply the leak was from a dead person who can't deny it.

 

Considering their journalistic integrity included no qualms about releasing financial information of Americans who donated to DNC, I'm sure they wont' mind providing proof this dead man was their leak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot the part about how the DNC, who are so clearly powerful and organized, find out it was Rich and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz secretly orders his murder as retribution for this mildly, short-lived "Scandal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Aug 10, 2016 -> 10:55 AM)
Assange has journalistic integrity now? Just about every time WikiLeaks does a reckless dump that gives out private info says otherwise.

 

He's a political player with agendas of his own.

 

It has been entertaining to see the opinions on him flip since the topic moved from the Iraq War to Hillary and the DNC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×