Trump rushed off stage by Secret Service at Nevada rally
178 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51318365]Jesus McChrist, you have issues, dude.[/QUOTE]
I am but a pragmatist and someone who cares that democracy is preserved. If that mean one candidate has to die, so be it.
... obviously I wasn't entirely being serious. You have to admit, however, that we wouldn't be here in this situation if Sanders was the nominee. A man can dream though.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51318230]This is what grasping at straws looks like.[/QUOTE]
Their entire base of argument is based off an assumed Facebook profile. Quality investigating.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51318381]Their entire base of argument is based off an assumed Facebook profile. Quality investigating.[/QUOTE]
It's not like /pol/acks aren't known to set up false profiles for anyone and everything they disagree with, with "incriminating" evidence in hopes that "MSM!!!!!" picks up on it. Nope. Totally not a thing that collection of basement dwellers have done before.
Remind me again why the fuck people are first of all reading /pol/, and secondly taking /pol/ posts at face value? It's a board of neonazis and losers. They stopped being ironic a long time ago.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51318219]The difference is that Hillary Clinton has denounced political violence at rallies but Trump has encouraged it.
Also voter fraud is a myth spread by people who have a vested interest in preventing people who aren't WASPy enough from voting.[/QUOTE]
Trump hasn't exactly said "go out and do harm" either.
He may be subtle, but in the end neither candidate is really responsible for what their non-campaign-associated supporters do to others.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51317419]Here's what the folks over at the Weaponized Autism division of /pol/ have found so far:
[t]https://i.imgur.com/tYAD3gV.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Covalent;51318186]The_Donald did a lot of digging;
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/8b8XiCb.jpg[/img_thumb]
[/QUOTE]
So first of all, the difference in name on registration and Facebook doesn't really show anything. People use names that are different than their legal name all the time. So that doesn't give us much.
Next, that woman who voted and is apparently dead: There's nothing to prove that she's dead, so that's pretty much meaningless (People are marked dead all the time even though they aren't. Also, I don't know where those records are from, but if it's a party's internal system, it happens all the time there. It just takes one misclick to mark somebody dead). We don't have any information on who she is, and there's no reason to get all suspicious with nothing to back it up (And we don't know if they are related or not, there's literally no evidence for anything).
Third, that Austyn guy is registered as a Republican, so that backs his version of events up.
And finally, it states that his brother has been voting multiple times. Uh, actually, there's nothing to prove that. What is proven is he voted in Nevada up to 2014, and is currently voting in California (according to Facebook). Congrats, they proved somebody moved and now votes somewhere else?
I'm not exactly sure how the voting history records work there, but in Illinois, if you voted in the primaries, that's already reflected in your voting history. That may not be how it works in Nevada, but the presented "evidence" would lead me to believe he didn't vote in the primaries, and isn't voting in multiple places.
So overall, this image proves nothing other than /pol/ and the_donald being masters of grasping at straws.
[QUOTE=Octavius;51318574]:text:[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the image opens with "This is the guy that rushed the stage in reno". That is nothing like what happened. That alone should tell you the rest is likely just as bullshit.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51318623][B]Your election is so sensitive to fraud[/B] yet [B](democrats?) block any kind of central registration[/B]?[/QUOTE]
Can I get a source on both those claims.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51318573]Trump hasn't exactly said "go out and do harm" either.
He may be subtle, but in the end neither candidate is really responsible for what their non-campaign-associated supporters do to others.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html[/url]
"I'd like to punch him in the face"
"Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously."
"Part of the problem, and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt eachother anymore"
"Try not to hurt him. If you do I'll defend you in court."
[video=youtube;RVAhW4ToLFI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVAhW4ToLFI[/video]
[QUOTE=Xubs;51315893]I think he's trying to say that the overwhelming opposition to the point that those opposed to him would attempt to kill him is just proof that people are scared of Trump's truth. People wouldn't be scared if he wasn't right, right?
it's fanatical[/QUOTE]
In basics, grasping at the straws.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51317252]Shit did matt damon switch careers[/QUOTE]
That's clearly Bourne.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51315597]I don't quite understand how this would make him a martyr in the slightest.
And what him being a "martyr" would even possibly incite to happen.[/QUOTE]
The martyrdom argument is just a convenience argument people like to throw around at any opportunity these days to try and dissuade any action from being taken, whether it's concerning terrible political leaders or literal terrorists in the Middle East. "You can't kill them because then they'll become a martyr, their cause will grow, and things will be even more terrible."
It doesn't actually work this way of course, especially when you have movements like Trump's. Historically, what he's got going on is a lot like what Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin had going on for them: a cult of personality. They are the figurehead to the movement, they're the heart and soul of it. Their rhetoric and their image is what keeps it going. If/when they die, their movement (more often than not) fractures and collapses in on itself because they were the ones who were keeping it together.
Somebody was arguing about this the other day in that David Duke thread saying how terrible it would be if he died, and I mentioned George Lincoln Rockwell and his American Nazi Party. Basically that's what happened: he was assassinated by a disgruntled member, the movement suffered dramatically because his rhetoric and his image was the best thing it had going for it, and ideological divisions started cropping up so it just kind of withered and imploded out of existence. He didn't become a martyr, not to anybody important; he just became another dead guy most people have probably never heard of before.
It would be very interesting if he was killed considering the tough guy persona he's tried cultivating. You reap what you sow, especially in politics. Threatening entire groups of people with deportation, violence, general civil rights infringements, and trying to pretend you're such a machismo is naturally going to increase the odds of that happening.
If he were killed, the GOP would return to normal.
However, when he loses the election the GOP will also return to normal - without the bloodshed.
I find it morally better to always take the least bloody road.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51318219]The difference is that Hillary Clinton has denounced political violence at rallies but Trump has encouraged it.
Also voter fraud is a myth spread by people who have a vested interest in preventing people who aren't WASPy enough from voting.[/QUOTE]
Publicly denounced, but she and the DNC quietly supported it. The DNC leak even showed that they were sending people to cause riots at Trump speeches and blame it on Bernie.
[QUOTE=Ridge;51318722]Publicly denounced, but she and the DNC quietly supported it. The DNC leak even showed that they were sending people to cause riots at Trump speeches and blame it on Bernie.[/QUOTE]
I'd tell you to link to a source but it's not even worth the effort because I know already that your source will be shit and you don't care.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51318632]Can I get a source on both those claims.[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that Democrats are not against voter ID requirements?
[editline]6th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51318727]I'd tell you to link to a source but it's not even worth the effort because I know already that your source will be shit and you don't care.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-emails-show-dnc-officials-planned-anti-trump-protests/[/url]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/10/left-planned-stage-violence-embarrass-trump/[/url]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51318716]If he were killed, the GOP would return to normal.
However, when he loses the election the GOP will also return to normal - without the bloodshed.
I find it morally better to always take the least bloody road.[/QUOTE]
His followers are out of the woodwork now and are in the mainstream political community. He's given them a voice and their beliefs more legitimacy than before. They're not going to disappear if he dies, they'll still be out there with their views. The GOP returning to "normal" after all this has gone on is highly questionable at this point in time.
But I think it would end like the ANP did: you'd have all these people with basically similar beliefs fracturing themselves down into smaller groups against one another over ideological disagreements. That, and ideological disagreements aside, you've also got a classic case of where a bunch of them would want to be chiefs and not brave little Indians; power struggles with groups trying to shout over each other to become stronger than their opponents, maybe a few would put aside their differences to merge here and there, etc.
There's no way to know for certain. This is all hypotheticals. The only way to know what would happen would be for it to actually happen in the first place.
[QUOTE=Ridge;51318733]Are you suggesting that Democrats are not against voter ID requirements?[/QUOTE]
He's not suggesting anything, he's asking him to provide sources.
Did you quote the wrong post?
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51318752]He's not suggesting anything, he's asking him to provide sources.
Did you quote the wrong post?[/QUOTE]
Apparently I did. I meant to quote this post
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1540557&p=51318632&viewfull=1#post51318632[/url]
[QUOTE=Ridge;51318733]Are you suggesting that Democrats are not against voter ID requirements?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet[/url]
Until a solution presents itself where Americans will not be barred from casting their ballot on the basis of an ID or lack thereof, there's nothing wrong with not requiring an ID to vote. If anything this will disenfranchise the poorest Americans, who won't even have their right to vote available to them because they cannot obtain the narrow range of IDs accepted as valid to vote. Voting is a right, not a privilege, on top of which the so-called voter ID fraud occurs in such limited quantum that it doesn't threaten to destroy the concept of a free and fair election at all.
[QUOTE=Ridge;51318733]
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-emails-show-dnc-officials-planned-anti-trump-protests/[/url]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/10/left-planned-stage-violence-embarrass-trump/[/url][/QUOTE]
Do you have so little self awareness that you don't realize that you did exactly what I said you'd do, or do you just not care (like I said)?
[QUOTE=Ridge;51318733]Are you suggesting that Democrats are not against voter ID requirements?
[editline]6th November 2016[/editline]
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-emails-show-dnc-officials-planned-anti-trump-protests/[/url]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/10/left-planned-stage-violence-embarrass-trump/[/url][/QUOTE]
and again, rubbish sources that only contain a one sided narrative. Either provide a neutral source that isn't right wing, or don't embarrass yourself any further in the process.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51318777]Do you have so little self awareness that you don't realize that you did exactly what I said you'd do, or do you just not care (like I said)?[/QUOTE]
Do you realize that you choose to ignore any source I post because you don't like the content, or are you going to be the same person you called me earlier in another thread?
Also, your posts are being starred at a shockingly fast rate.
[editline]6th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51318789]and again, rubbish sources that only contain a one sided narrative. Either provide a neutral source that isn't right wing, or don't embarrass yourself any further in the process.[/QUOTE]
What fucking narrative is there?! Do you bother to read through the quotes in the articles?
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51318789]and again, rubbish sources that only contain a one sided narrative. Either provide a neutral source that isn't right wing, or don't embarrass yourself any further in the process.[/QUOTE]
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if he linked to a right-leaning source as long as that source wasn't COMPLETE garbage.
Even the shitposters on /r/politics agree that the Daily Caller article is trustworthy. Maybe you should just accept it?
[QUOTE=Ridge;51318792]What fucking narrative is there?! Do you bother to read through the quotes in the articles?[/QUOTE]
Because it's not like taking things out of context is a thing these sites are known for doing.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51318721]There's no voter ID. I could fly over tomorrow, vote, go to another state, vote again, and fly back.
Obama even says it's okay for me to do this!
In the Netherlands, we get voter cards sent to us by mail. Take that and any legal government ID to the polling station (drivers license counts) and they'll take the card and give you a ballot. If you're not able to do this, you can make a photocopy of your ID and give the card to a friend/relative and they'll be able to vote for you. It's really not that hard.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how it works in other states, but when I go into vote, I get a voter number tagged to me and I have to sign a book (which has my signature of when I registered [I]right[/I] next to it to compare immediately) and then I go to the machine, wait for the voter machine operator to accept my voter number and I go vote.
In theory, if my signature was clearly, most definitely not my name then they can find whatever number vote I was and void it.
On top of that, I have to go to my specific polling ward as they're the only one with my name in their book. If I go to another and they don't find my name, then I don't vote.
It's not the same as a Voter ID card, but it's most definitely not a "anyone can come in and vote" deal.
I mean you literally linked to Breitbart, they're a completely untrustworthy source.
Not sure what to think of the Daily Caller other than it's trying to be the answer to the Huffington Post - and since the Huffington Post is trash, I'm going to assume a website emulating it is trash too.
[QUOTE=Ridge;51318808]Even the shitposters on /r/politics agree that the Daily Caller article is trustworthy. Maybe you should just accept it?[/QUOTE]
yeah and guess what, the Daily Caller article doesn't ONCE mention what you claimed here:
[quote]The DNC leak even showed that they were sending people to cause riots at Trump speeches and blame it on Bernie.[/quote]
Do you not understand the point of sourcing something is to actually back up what you're saying? Did YOU actually read the articles you're linking to?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51318716]If he were killed, the GOP would return to normal.
However, when he loses the election the GOP will also return to normal - without the bloodshed.
I find it morally better to always take the least bloody road.[/QUOTE]
Nah, neither trump nor his followers are going anywhere. The GOP elite created this monster, they're going to have to live with it for a while Clinton does the important work.
[QUOTE=Govna;51318745]His followers are out of the woodwork now and are in the mainstream political community. He's given them a voice and their beliefs more legitimacy than before. They're not going to disappear if he dies, they'll still be out there with their views. The GOP returning to "normal" after all this has gone on is highly questionable at this point in time.
But I think it would end like the ANP did: you'd have all these people with basically similar beliefs fracturing themselves down into smaller groups against one another over ideological disagreements. That, and ideological disagreements aside, you've also got a classic case of where a bunch of them would want to be chiefs and not brave little Indians; power struggles with groups trying to shout over each other to become stronger than their opponents, maybe a few would put aside their differences to merge here and there, etc.
There's no way to know for certain. This is all hypotheticals. The only way to know what would happen would be for it to actually happen in the first place.[/QUOTE]
The GOP is organized by party bigwigs, like most political parties anywhere. At times they may [I]bend[/I] to a large voter block, such as the Tea Party, but they by and far are not a public organization for anyone to go in and say "this is how things are done now". If that were a case, there would not be so much division and trouble in the GOP now as Trump won the primaries.
And when he loses, he won't be in political office. He'll just be another asshole not in Washington crying about the government, no more than any other celebrity. There's no political office to rally his support behind and it's doubtful he'll run again, let alone successfully, in 4 years.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.