[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51099915][video=youtube;D7d2ayLb2lg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7d2ayLb2lg[/video][/QUOTE]
ah yes, because asking someones bodyguards to disarm in order to show the hypocrisy of allowing the political elite to acquire protection without normal citizens having the same privilege is equal to calling for an assassination
keith olbermann is a blowhard, watching this video was painful
[QUOTE=Arktomys;51099933]Wow! An extremely biased site that endorses Hillary, what a shock.
The media spun what Trump said out of the way, he was talking about voting against the people that want to ban the 2nd amendment. Who the fuck would hint to assassinations while running for presidency?[/QUOTE]
First of all, the New York Times is one of the most well respected and neutral newspapers in the world. Second, they also allow contradicting opinions in their opinion pieces, so they're hardly biased.
Third, that was not media spin. Listen to Trump's quote. He's talking about how 2nd amendment people would need to act when [b]President Clinton was choosing her judges[/b]. At that point, there's no political action left. There is only the violent act of assassination.
Stop trying to say that it was spun when it came from TRUMP'S OWN MOUTH.
[editline]24th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=normandie;51099949]ah yes, because asking someones bodyguards to disarm in order to show the hypocrisy of allowing the political elite to acquire protection without normal citizens having the same privilege is equal to calling for an assassination
keith olbermann is a blowhard, watching this video was painful[/QUOTE]
No, that argument doesn't make sense. That's literally not how it works in any other country in the world. The police in Britain, for example, can be armed but usually ordinary citizens aren't. There's no 'hypocracy' there. And for god's sake, if Hillary Clinton or Trump didn't have armed guards around them - they'd both be assassinated pretty quickly. There are a ton of people who would gleefully put bullets in both of them.
Again, we already had this argument.
[QUOTE=Arktomys;51099933]Wow! An extremely biased site that endorses Hillary, what a shock.
The media spun what Trump said out of the way, he was talking about voting against the people that want to ban the 2nd amendment. Who the fuck would hint to assassinations while running for presidency?[/QUOTE]
Reading what he said, he meant that people who support the second ammendment could do something about her.
What could they do?
They could shoot her. It's literally the only thing he could have implied and it's sad to see even primarily english speaking people fail to see the obvious, and only context he could possibly have implied.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51099964]Reading what he said, he meant that people who support the second ammendment could do something about her.
What could they do?
They could shoot her. It's literally the only thing he could have implied and it's sad to see even primarily english speaking people fail to see the obvious, and only context he could possibly have implied.[/QUOTE]
what? how do you even connect the two? supporting the second amendment suddenly means you're a gun toting maniac whos going to shoot someone? pot, kettle, black.
I don't know why you guys are arguing with him, the second he used the word cuck you should have realized you're probably dealing with a 12 year old trying to get a reaction.
[QUOTE=normandie;51099949]ah yes, because asking someones bodyguards to disarm in order to show the hypocrisy of allowing the political elite to acquire protection without normal citizens having the same privilege is equal to calling for an assassination
keith olbermann is a blowhard, watching this video was painful[/QUOTE]
Listening to your explanation as to why he's wrong is physically painful for me as well because it shows your absolute lack of understanding.
1/3 of US presidents have faced assassination attempts. The Secret Service are given firearms to do their jobs as they are a branch of the military basically in some form. They get guns. They don't need the second ammendment to be allowed to have guns. There is literally no hypocrisy here because that's not how the fucking 2nd Ammendment works and it's fucking hilarious, I, a fucking Canadian know more about this than you do.
Fuck dude you guys are fucking killing me with your excuses for literal murder.
[QUOTE=normandie;51099977]what? how do you even connect the two? supporting the second amendment suddenly means you're a gun toting maniac whos going to shoot someone? pot, kettle, black.[/QUOTE]
Because what [B]other[/B] action are second ammendment supporters going to do in this context? In this suggestive context, [B]what other action do they actually have open to them[/B]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51099980]Listening to your explanation as to why he's wrong is physically painful for me as well because it shows your absolute lack of understanding.
1/3 of US presidents have faced assassination attempts. The Secret Service are given firearms to do their jobs as they are a branch of the military basically in some form. They get guns. They don't need the second ammendment to be allowed to have guns. There is literally no hypocrisy here because that's not how the fucking 2nd Ammendment works and it's fucking hilarious, I, a fucking Canadian know more about this than you do.
Fuck dude you guys are fucking killing me with your excuses for literal murder.[/QUOTE]
you need to calm down, i always see you getting so angry in these threads for absolutely no reason. clouds your judgement a bit.
[editline]24th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51099985]Because what [B]other[/B] action are second ammendment supporters going to do in this context? In this suggestive context, [B]what other action do they actually have open to them[/B][/QUOTE]
voting :)
[QUOTE=normandie;51099977]what? how do you even connect the two? supporting the second amendment suddenly means you're a gun toting maniac whos going to shoot someone? pot, kettle, black.[/QUOTE]
Ok, explain to me what this sentence means if it isn't hinting that someone should shoot Clinton.
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51099964]Reading what he said, he meant that people who support the second ammendment could do something about her.
What could they do?
They could shoot her. It's literally the only thing he could have implied and it's sad to see even primarily english speaking people fail to see the obvious, and only context he could possibly have implied.[/QUOTE]
Are you that dumb that you can't understand basic interpretation? How can Hillary do anything to the second amendment if Trump wins?
Fucking SHOOT her? You liberals are a lost cause, holy shit.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;51099990]Ok, explain to me what this sentence means if it isn't hinting that someone should shoot Clinton.
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”[/QUOTE]
hes saying that if you value your second amendment rights, dont vote for clinton.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51099985]Because what [B]other[/B] action are second ammendment supporters going to do in this context? In this suggestive context, [B]what other action do they actually have open to them[/B][/QUOTE]
VOTE MAYBE???
[QUOTE=normandie;51099987]you need to calm down, i always see you getting so angry in these threads for absolutely no reason. clouds your judgement a bit.
[editline]24th September 2016[/editline]
voting :)[/QUOTE]
It doesn't cloud my judgement. What it does is gives people like you, who are more interested in discussing what kind of person I am, rather than the topic at hand a distraction. So, good, distraction fulfilled. back to the topic at hand.
I am perfectly calm. You are however, saying that calling for a candidate to be disarmed isn't calling for assassination because your bias is showing, not because of any reasonable logic.
So second amendment people have a special form of voting? Why'd he single them out?
[QUOTE=Arktomys;51099992]Are you that dumb that you can't understand basic interpretation? How can Hillary do anything to the second amendment if Trump wins?
Fucking SHOOT her? You liberals are a lost cause, holy shit.[/QUOTE]
[quote=literally my post a few minutes ago][QUOTE=normandie;51099949]ah yes, because asking someones bodyguards to disarm in order to show the hypocrisy of allowing the political elite to acquire protection without normal citizens having the same privilege is equal to calling for an assassination
keith olbermann is a blowhard, watching this video was painful[/QUOTE]
No, that argument doesn't make sense. That's literally not how it works in any other country in the world. The police in Britain, for example, can be armed but usually ordinary citizens aren't. There's no 'hypocracy' there. And for god's sake, if Hillary Clinton or Trump didn't have armed guards around them - they'd both be assassinated pretty quickly. There are a ton of people who would gleefully put bullets in both of them.
Again, we already had this argument.[/quote]
By the way. Using liberal as an insult is great. Thank you for identifying my political leaning. I wear it as a badge of honour.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51099998]It doesn't cloud my judgement. What it does is gives people like you, who are more interested in discussing what kind of person I am, rather than the topic at hand a distraction. So, good, distraction fulfilled. back to the topic at hand.
I am perfectly calm. You are however, saying that calling for a candidate to be disarmed isn't calling for assassination because your bias is showing, not because of any reasonable logic.
So second amendment people have a special form of voting? Why'd he single them out?[/QUOTE]
hes saying vote against hillary clinton, where did i imply they have a special form of voting?
you're reading a bit too much into that
[QUOTE=Arktomys;51099997]VOTE MAYBE???[/QUOTE]
[B]so why does he specifically outline Second Ammendment supporters in the comment that "maybe there's something they can do"[/B]
you guys can say I'm angry all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're all literally choosing to spin a statement to no longer imply what it clearly implies.
[editline]24th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=normandie;51100002]hes saying vote against hillary clinton, where did i imply they have a special form of voting?
you're reading a bit too much into that[/QUOTE]
No I'm actually not. You're not reading at all it seems.
When he specifically(TRUMP) called out second ammendment people to "Maybe they can do something" what does that mean, and why did he single them out for that context? Any citizen can vote so that's [B]clearly not it[/B]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51100003][B]so why does he specifically outline Second Ammendment supporters in the comment that "maybe there's something they can do"[/B]
you guys can say I'm angry all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're all literally choosing to spin a statement to no longer imply what it clearly implies.[/QUOTE]
Because Hillary is threatening the second amendment, that's why he mentions the "second amendment supporters". Again, that's basic interpretation. Can't think for yourself, now can you? Right, gotta eat up everything the media says, obviously.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51100003][B]so why does he specifically outline Second Ammendment supporters in the comment that "maybe there's something they can do"[/B]
you guys can say I'm angry all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you're all literally choosing to spin a statement to no longer imply what it clearly implies.[/QUOTE]
because of the notion that hillary clinton wishes to gut gun ownership laws and restrict the owning of guns, and is going to use the supreme court to do that. so if you value your second amendment rights, vote against her. its not that hard to understand dude
[QUOTE=Arktomys;51100007]Because Hillary is threatening the second amendment, that's why he mentions the "second amendment supporters". Again, that's basic interpretation. Can't think for yourself, now can you? Right, gotta eat up everything the media says, obviously.[/QUOTE]
Actually I came to that conclusion myself but thanks for the insult
She doesn't actually want to destroy the second amendment so you can keep that lie going as long as you want
but it's a lie
You're missing the fact that's he's talking about a situation where Clinton is already the President and is electing her judges.
Which only she has control over.
Which means 2nd Amendment people can't vote in this situation.
Which means they only have one option left.
To kill her. With their guns. Because they're 2nd Amendment people, with guns.
We have. Been over this. If you ignore this post, you are ignoring the facts of what he said, and are living in your own deluded world.
[QUOTE=Arktomys;51099901]cucked[/QUOTE]
Nothing to see here
[QUOTE=normandie;51100009]because of the notion that hillary clinton wishes to gut gun ownership laws and restrict the owning of guns, and is going to use the supreme court to do that. so if you value your second amendment rights, vote against her. its not that hard to understand dude[/QUOTE]
So what you're essentially saying is Trump is fucking retarded because he choose to phrase it in such a questionable, ambigious, and vague way?
Because anyone with any reading sense who doesn't like either candidate(I don't like either at all) can see when a duck is a fucking duck.
HumanAbyss, dude, why are you doing this to yourself?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51100026]So what you're essentially saying is Trump is fucking retarded because he choose to phrase it in such a questionable, ambigious, and vague way?
Because anyone with any reading sense who doesn't like either candidate(I don't like either at all) can see when a duck is a fucking duck.[/QUOTE]
you're too angry to continue this debate, contact me in private when you've had some time to cool off
[QUOTE=Arktomys;51099901]Seriously? When did that happen? Oh right, it never did.
Funny hearing that coming from a Canadian, your country is so [B]cucked[/B] beyond belief so of course you would buy into the bullshit you hear about Trump.[/QUOTE]
You keep using that word.
I don't think it means what you think it means. And you should spend less time on /pol/, it turns you into a gibbering retard.
Still, 'gibbering retard' about sums up every Trump supporter I've ever encountered, so it's no surprise.
[QUOTE=normandie;51100030]you're too angry to continue this debate, contact me in private when you've had some time to cool off[/QUOTE]
I am as calm as I have ever been. It's very telling that you can't actually handle this discussion, calm or not, because the facts just aren't on your side.
In Trumps statement he made the proposition that if Trump lost, there was something second ammendment folks could do to protect their rights, [B]after the vote[/B]. What is that one thing?
It's sometihng that 1/3 of US president have faced.
It's called assassination and there is no [B]other way to read this scenario without rewriting history, and spinning Trumps statements to your own benefit. You are doing this.[/B]
I am done arguing [B]with you[/B] because of your dedication to willful ignorance.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;51100024]Nothing to see here[/QUOTE]
"s-s-s-stop using that word, w-w-what are you, t-twelve??"
Ecks fucking dee, dude.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Really terrible posting" - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;51100029]HumanAbyss, dude, why are you doing this to yourself?[/QUOTE]
I'm incredibly bored today.
[editline]24th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Arktomys;51100036]"s-s-s-stop using that word, w-w-what are you, t-twelve??"
Ecks fucking dee, dude.[/QUOTE]
It's very telling of who you are as a person/poster that you'd rather make this post than any substantial post
oh well
Just HOW are you guys gonna vote at all?
Your candidates are dreadful :/
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51100038]It's very telling of who you are as a person/poster that you'd rather make this post than any substantial post
oh well[/QUOTE]
As if the person I quoted made any substantial post.
"LE POST DISCARDED HE SAID CUCK XD"
Yup, veeeeery substantial.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
