Trump says 2nd amendment people might be able to stop Hillary from appointing judges - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857702]"I am just going to ad-hominem out the ass instead of debating."[/QUOTE] you're the one advocating for someone to get murdered be cause you're [I]totes[/I] sure she accidentally got 4 people killed. If you have no evidence for what you're saying I don't need evidence to call you a stupid asshole.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50857724]Name a single time it has.[/QUOTE] Benghazi [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mining Bill;50857732]you're the one advocating for someone to get murdered be cause you're [I]totes[/I] sure she accidentally got 4 people killed. If you have no evidence for what you're saying I don't need evidence to call you a stupid asshole.[/QUOTE] If you get 4 people killed accidentally, you should be charged for Manslaughter.

doesn't america have a thing called innocent before guilty idk what it means but i guess it applies to hillary when we're talking about extrajudically executing her for treason?

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857711]I am not saying for doing that, I don't believe Hillary should be shot, I do believe she should be convicted. I am talking about a corrupt Court Justice who wishes to tear at a few certain amendments.[/QUOTE] Well guess fucking what friendo, we're not talking about you we're talking about a candidate for president telling his supporters that if his opponent wins there should be a bloody revolution

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857740]Benghazi [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] If you get 4 people killed accidentally, you should be charged for Manslaughter.[/QUOTE] in which she was cleared of any wrongdoing, several times so once again, any proof at all of her being corrupt

[QUOTE=Snapster;50856100]Does this apply? [url=http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/41/879]18 U.S.C. § 879[/url] : US Code - Section 879: Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons[/QUOTE] I am not a lawyer, but after doing some investigating it does not seem like this, or any other law, was violated. Trump did not make an explicit threat, or even really an implied threat. He said that "people" could do "something". For all that can be legally proven, he was suggesting gun owners buy Hillary a really nice cake to try to make friends. And because he was merely stating that actions were possible, he could actually have gotten much closer without breaking any laws. I think (again, not a lawyer) he could have gotten away with something as blatant as "I hope somebody shoots her", although that would clearly be a PR disaster to dwarf even his current PR disasters. This particular law you cited was further non-violated because Trump was not personally threatening anything. You can't read it in any reasonable way to conclude that he was personally going to harm Clinton. He was telling other people that they could use violence, or so the logical reading of it goes, but he was not in any way saying that he was going to. All that having been said, there is a big difference between "not illegal" and "not unethical". This kind of speech is clearly against every principle of American democracy, and it's downright evil as far as I'm concerned.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857740] If you get 4 people killed accidentally, you should be charged for Manslaughter.[/QUOTE] and yet 7 times did a republican led investigation find her innocent

[QUOTE=Streecer;50857751]in which she was cleared of any wrongdoing, several times so once again, any proof at all of her being corrupt[/QUOTE] Have you even read any of the DNC leaks? She is the embodiment of corruption. [url]https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/[/url] [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mining Bill;50857764]and yet 7 times did a republican led investigation find her innocent[/QUOTE] "OJ Simpson was found innocent, he didn't kill anyone"

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857770]Have you even read any of the DNC leaks? She is the embodiment of corruption. [url]https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/[/url][/QUOTE] I don't imagine you did either, nothing in those e-mails is the earth shaking content people like you seem to think it is. Just to take this further, cite something specific or screw off, I'm not informing myself for the sake of your terrible argument.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857483]People aren't too outraged when Hillary's stupidity has literally gotten people killed, but when Trump says something "mean" or "stupid" its 10x worse than the shit she has done. Give me a fucking break lmao.[/QUOTE] You can't compare what she did with Benghazi to her being a murder supporter who loves seeing Americans get killed.

I really don't think the OJ case and Hillary's case is anywhere comparable.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857770]"OJ Simpson was found innocent, he didn't kill anyone"[/QUOTE] but he's innocent? isn't it obvious?

[QUOTE=Streecer;50857778]I don't imagine you did either, nothing in those e-mails is the earth shaking content people like you seem to think it is. Just to take this further, cite something specific or screw off, I'm not informing myself for the sake of your terrible argument.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4g4noe/facts_around_hillarys_30000_deleted_personal/[/url] When you are literally destroyed thousands of emails because you know it will get you in trouble, there is likely something going on.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857770]Have you even read any of the DNC leaks? She is the embodiment of corruption. [url]https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/[/url][/QUOTE] Wikileaks, the bastion of truth and impartialty: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jPr1URr.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=axelord157;50857794]I really don't think the OJ case and Hillary's case is anywhere comparable.[/QUOTE] I am just saying sometimes the Courts aren't always right.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857813][url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/[/url] [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4g4noe/facts_around_hillarys_30000_deleted_personal/[/url] When you are literally destroyed thousands of emails because you know it will get you in trouble, there is likely something going on.[/QUOTE] those aren't even the same damn e-mails, get your fucking story straight secondly, the FBI investigation found no intent to conduct a cover up; and I honestly trust them over the media

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50857818]Wikileaks, the bastion of truth and impartialty: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jPr1URr.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] That makes no fucking sense, what does Wikileaks making fun of SJWs have to do with releasing emails?

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857770]Have you even read any of the DNC leaks? She is the embodiment of corruption. [url]https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/[/url] [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] "OJ Simpson was found innocent, he didn't kill anyone"[/QUOTE] listen oj simpson wasn't found not guilty seven times in a row by people who would love to see him prosecuted hillary was

[QUOTE=Streecer;50857829]those aren't even the same damn e-mails, get your fucking story straight secondly, the FBI investigation found no intent to conduct a cover up; and I honestly trust them over the media[/QUOTE] "no intent" yeah totally 30,000 emails gone, no biggie.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857834]That makes no fucking sense, what does Wikileaks making fun of SJWs have to do with releasing emails?[/QUOTE] the triple brackets are an established piece of neo-nazi behaviour oh wait, you're just being purposefully ignorant aren't you [QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857843]"no intent" yeah totally 30,000 emails gone, no biggie.[/QUOTE] intent is important, no matter how you try to spin it, no intent no crime

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857834]That makes no fucking sense, what does Wikileaks making fun of SJWs have to do with releasing emails?[/QUOTE] Someone having (((three brackets))) around their name is a neo-nazi Jew alarm, basically. Wikileaks is using them to describe their critics. It's not hard to see why that's problematic.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857843]"no intent" yeah totally 30,000 emails gone, no biggie.[/QUOTE] even if she did do that, I'd much rather have a corrupt politician in office then have a braindead fuckwit in office

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857834]That makes no fucking sense, what does Wikileaks making fun of SJWs have to do with releasing emails?[/QUOTE] It hints they might not be as poltically neutral and truth-seeking as they label themselves as.

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50857849]What I'm saying is that Wikileaks isn't as impartial as they(?) like to make you think they are.[/QUOTE] No organization is impartial. Literally every single org in the world has some sort of bias, I do agree Wikileaks has a bias against Hillary, if they were for Hillary, they wouldn't release 30,000 fucking emails. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Streecer;50857847]the triple brackets are an established piece of neo-nazi behaviour oh wait, you're just being purposefully ignorant aren't you intent is important, no matter how you try to spin it, no intent no crime[/QUOTE] Gross Negligence is a thing too.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857770]Have you even read any of the DNC leaks? She is the embodiment of corruption. [url]https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/[/url] [/QUOTE] Yeah guys read the DNC leaks *links to entirely different and unrelated Clinton private server releases* You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, but I think everyone got that as soon as you started calling for the blood of tyrants and in the same breath defend tyranny.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857869]No organization is impartial. Literally every single org in the world has some sort of bias, I do agree Wikileaks has a bias against Hillary, if they were for Hillary, they wouldn't release 30,000 fucking emails. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] Gross Negligence is a thing too.[/QUOTE] deleting e-mails is gross negligence how exactly

I think at this time it is pointless to debate any further, I don't think I am going to change my view by arguing with you guys, and I don't think you guys will change yours. And that is completely okay, we all have our opinions, and we all are probably going to stick by them. I still love you guys tho even if we disagree on a few things. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50857881]Yeah guys read the DNC leaks *links to entirely different and unrelated Clinton private server releases* You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, but I think everyone got that as soon as you started calling for the blood of tyrants and in the same breath defend tyranny.[/QUOTE] It seems I have contradicted myself, I don't think I know what I am talking about. Definitely going to do some research and see where the fuck I stand because honestly I have no idea what is true and what isn't. Who the fuck do I trust? The FBI, the Media, it's all so confusing.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50857902]I think at this time it is pointless to debate any further, I don't think I am going to change my view by arguing with you guys, and I don't think you guys will change yours. And that is completely okay, we all have our opinions, and we all are probably going to stick by them.[/QUOTE] "I have a completely unsustainable opinion and everyone is pointing out how baseless it is so we're all friends and we can agree to disagree right guys?"

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50858184]"I have a completely unsustainable opinion and everyone is pointing out how baseless it is so we're all friends and we can agree to disagree right guys?"[/QUOTE] oh okay sorry I should've been an asshole about it. I don't understand why you have a problem with trying to be friendly. This is why the world will never get along, its impossible for someone to agree to disagree, you gotta be an asshole about it.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;50858407]oh okay sorry I should've been an asshole about it. I don't understand why you have a problem with trying to be friendly. This is why the world will never get along, its impossible for someone to agree to disagree, you gotta be an asshole about it.[/QUOTE] you're right, we should have acted like decent, respectable gentlemen and threatened you with violent retribution