Donald Trump Says Hillary Clinton’s Bodyguards Should Disarm to ‘See What Happens to Her’
66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Chonch;51063289]I feel pretty certain that a group of 535 people from all across the country tossing around and yelling about an issue for a few years and failing six times and then finally passing a solution is much more likely to produce a solution that represents the whims of all their fellow countrymen than a single decision by an executive voted into office by a relative minority of citizens.[/QUOTE]
then you believe in decisions by committee
I don't. I think informed decisions are far better than ones made by large groups of people with vastly different desires who may or may not even want the very thing they work on to exist.
[editline]16th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;51063287]He's right. The liberal elite is perpetually surrounded by guns, call for diversity and open borders but never live around their cheap imported labor and voting blocs, rarely get prosecuted for anything and don't suffer from things like TPP and foreign wars. The right side of history isn't meant for plebs[/QUOTE]
you fucking kill me
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51063293]then you believe in decisions by committee
I don't. I think informed decisions are far better than ones made by large groups of people with vastly different desires who may or may not even want the very thing they work on to exist.[/QUOTE]
But what if the individual responsible for these decisions is untrustworthy at best and criminal at worst?
[editline]16th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chonch;51063289]
Dude, woah.[/QUOTE]
Im a textual palm reader. I can sense your desire(d intention)
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51063298]But what if the individual responsible for these decisions is untrustworthy at best and criminal at worst?[/QUOTE]
then obviously that's bad
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51063293]then you believe in decisions by committee
I don't. I think informed decisions are far better than ones made by large groups of people with vastly different desires who may or may not even want the very thing they work on to exist.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for you, we make laws in the USA by committee. This is unlikely to change.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51063305]then obviously that's bad[/QUOTE]
Thats what he's trying to get at. Theres reason to distrust someone like Hillary, while Congress might be incompetent, they cant push a singular agenda without a hell of a lot of infighting and change to that agenda, meaning even if we're unhappy, they're also unhappy, and wont settle for it. Allowing an individual to make decisions that big requires massive trust, and thats something you have to earn.
[QUOTE]you fucking kill me[/quote]
The fact the right has become simultaneously a counter culture and (unlike mainstream conservatism) a response to deepening inequality/worsening economic prospects, as well as increasing irrelevance of the nation-state because of our historical trajectory, it all speaks for itself.
Just look at the replies in the NEET thread. You are being left behind.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51063306]Unfortunately for you, we make laws in the USA by committee. This is unlikely to change.[/QUOTE]
Everyone does as far as I'm aware. It's the nature of how these things work out. My father was involved with many committees that made large decisions for a lot of people through his charity work. When those arguments happened, as a successful lawyer, he'd roll his eyes at the entiritey of the process as loud mouths with little information contribute a lot, and those with lots of info are shouted down by the rest.
I don't imagine government is a massive improvement because people are the same everywhere, and they're probably just as likely and liable to shout down information for emotion as we've seen countless times in your nation, and mine.
I guess it's wrong to want to have more effective and informed policy makers.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51063321]The fact the right has become simultaneously a counter culture and (unlike mainstream conservatism) a response to deepening inequality/worsening economic prospects, as well as increasing irrelevance of the nation-state because of our historical trajectory, it all speaks for itself.
Just look at the replies in the NEET thread. You are being left behind.[/QUOTE]
How will the American right (and by extension Trump) fix wealth inequality and make life easier for the American worker?
Please answer this question because I'm tired of catching you in threads, asking this question after you make your claims, and going unenlightened because you speed off to another thread to drop off your verbose thought of the day.
[editline]17th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chonch;51063251]
Off topic, I think you should chill out and maybe cheer up a little. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6s0sJIxIwQ"]Watch this video[/URL], it's really cute.
[/QUOTE]
This video didn't cheer me up at all. It filled me with a hardened resolve as I saw a dog, really a caricature of the Democratic party and the leftists in my country, greedily misappropriate the resources of an innocent man, much like how the statists are trying to take my guns. Molon labe.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51063298]But what if the individual responsible for these decisions is untrustworthy at best and criminal at worst?
[/QUOTE]
Good thing the vast majority of policy decisions require the actions of hundreds if not thousands of lawmakers to see through.
Even if Clinton wanted to literally ban all guns, she'd have to get a constitutional amendment ratified to do so. Such an amendment would require a 2/3rd's majority in both the House and the Senate, as well as 3/4th's of the state legislatures in the union to ratify it themselves before it would come into effect.
Which, of course, if anyone knows the make up of both chambers of Congress, as well as the average makeup of each state's legislature, is completely fucking impossible. A third party will sooner win the presidency than that.
Edit:
Also isn't this supposed to be a thread about Trump retardedly joking about people assassinating Clinton again, and not another stupid gun control debate?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51063285]Still wouldnt necessarily solve the root cause of gun crime, nor would it eliminate the current usage of guns.[/QUOTE]
I'm still pretty sure gun laws as a concept are a red herring, and it's everything else that the left likes (education, healthcare, living wage, et al) that causes gun violence to go down - because people stop shooting each other if they don't have a reason to shoot people anymore, fancy that!
I just feel like I need to point out the ATF thing a lot. That and every time I mention it I keep hoping that someone else will remember that clip and link it for me so I can bookmark it.
[QUOTE=Conscript;51063287]He's right. The liberal elite is perpetually surrounded by guns, they call for diversity and open borders but never live around their cheap imported labor and voting blocs, rarely get prosecuted for anything and don't suffer from things like TPP and foreign wars. The right side of history isn't meant for plebs, it's meant for rich politicians, corporate media, banks, and others with a material interest in globalization[/QUOTE]
TIL that the American west and northeast doesn't have immigrants and that they are the ones demanding immigrants come work on their farm for shit pay.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51063274]Why do people act like they're the ultimate VIP living in a neverending action movie and that half the country is permanently hunting them down on an endless mission to kill them.
Clinton has very real reason to have armed guards protecting her.
[B]You do not. Whether you believe you need your weapon for sport of self-defense, the chance of anyone specifically choosing to assault you is extremely low.[/B][/QUOTE]
No offense but that's kind of blind statement there in reference to the replied post or just anyone reading the thread in general. You have literally no idea about anything regarding the circumstances in which Joe or any other person reading the thread resides within unless he or the reader previously stated said conditions.
Say for example JoeSkyLynx lives in Detroit in anywhere from the shittiest of the shitty parts of town to the rich(er) suburbs. Lets also say for some reason Joe is also not able change his current residence (for financial or otherwise reasons) just so we can eliminate the "then move" or similar response(s). Would you not agree that by living in Detroit (or any other high-crime rate city) he has a very real and significant chance of being assaulted/mugged/attacked? Even if he lived a far less extreme circumstance the chance still exists.
To chuck in a paraphrased/modified version of the fire extinguisher example: You don't just not purchase fire extinguishers because the chance of having a fire in your house/trailer/etc. is somewhat unlikely or because "you can just throw water on it". You buy them because the chance exists and because you never want to live the situation where you wish you had one.
Same applies to parachutes and lifeboats.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51062962]Its almost like you dont need guns to kill someone
[editline]16th September 2016[/editline]
or something[/QUOTE]
If Bush can dodge shoes from a distance it's likely he can also dodge knives.
[QUOTE=bitches;51062968]it's almost like comparing knives to guns in effectiveness of political assassination was a dumb idea[/QUOTE]
Did I say knives? Bombs are a great assassination tool.
[editline]16th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=gk99;51063713]If Bush can dodge shoes from a distance it's likely he can also dodge knives.[/QUOTE]
Why are you guys assuming I'm talking about knives?
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51063642]No offense but that's kind of blind statement there in reference to the replied post or just anyone reading the thread in general. You have literally no idea about anything regarding the circumstances in which Joe or any other person reading the thread resides within unless he or the reader previously stated said conditions.
Say for example JoeSkyLynx lives in Detroit in anywhere from the shittiest of the shitty parts of town to the rich(er) suburbs. Lets also say for some reason Joe is also not able change his current residence (for financial or otherwise reasons) just so we can eliminate the "then move" or similar response(s). Would you not agree that by living in Detroit (or any other high-crime rate city) he has a very real and significant chance of being assaulted/mugged/attacked? Even if he lived a far less extreme circumstance the chance still exists.
To chuck in a paraphrased/modified version of the fire extinguisher example: You don't just not purchase fire extinguishers because the chance of having a fire in your house/trailer/etc. is somewhat unlikely or because "you can just throw water on it". You buy them because the chance exists and because you never want to live the situation where you wish you had one.
Same applies to parachutes and lifeboats.[/QUOTE]
I said you can have it in self-defense, I'm not arguing against gun rights. Don't turn this into that debate.
I'm arguing against Joe's assertion that it's somehow hypocritical for Hillary to want less guns but to have personal guards. The vast majority of Americans don't live in a tenament in Detroit, or have to protect their livestock from animals, or live in areas where the police can't cover them. I don't care about people owning guns, but asserting that she can't have personal body guards because she wants higher gun laws is idiotic.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51062909]This is pretty much something which has been said by gun-rights groups like the Heller Foundation for years now. It's nothing really uppity, just making a very blunt point about how hypocritical it can be to support gun control, while in the same note have guards armed with automatics and the like.[/QUOTE]
Did you know it's possible to have armed security workers and police in a society with restrictive gun laws??! IT'S TRUE!
There is literally nothing hypocritical about it. Clinton has a very, very real need to have armed guards around here. American police have a real need to be armed. The military has a real need to be armed.
You and I? Why do we need to be armed? I can at-least trust my police to protect me, and then don't have usually have guns.
(And I'm well aware my country is different, but I'm frankly appalled someone would use the 'hypocracy' argument, when it's very clear there are people who would gleefully put bullets in both Clinton and Trump have they not proper security).
[QUOTE=Cructo;51062955]If gun control actually worked you would have no need for armed guards.[/QUOTE]
The king of Norway still has armed guards when he travels about the country.
Why? Because there may or may not one day be some crazy person that decides to stab him or some shit.
After all, a figure like the king does gain quite some attention.
Protection for the most important people of the country isn't unusual, even in countries where gun control is in full effect.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51062909]This is pretty much something which has been said by gun-rights groups like the Heller Foundation for years now. It's nothing really uppity, just making a very blunt point about how hypocritical it can be to support gun control, while in the same note have guards armed with automatics and the like.[/QUOTE]
Except it's such a mindblowlingly stupid concept. The ridiculous phrase here is "gun-[I]rights,[/I]" where people have this obscene mindset that owning a firearm is essentially a basic human right, right after freedom of speech.
This exists (in this point in history) only within the realm of civilian guns for civilian purposes. Clinton's guards are not just civilian guns for civilian purposes.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;51064981]Except it's such a mindblowlingly stupid concept. The ridiculous phrase here is "gun-[I]rights,[/I]" where people have this obscene mindset that owning a firearm is essentially a basic human right, right after freedom of speech.
This exists (in this point in history) only within the realm of civilian guns for civilian purposes. Clinton's guards are not just civilian guns for civilian purposes.[/QUOTE]
It might not be a basic [I]human[/I] right, but it is expressed pretty clearly right after the freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=The First Amendment]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Second Amendment]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]
[editline]dsf[/editline]
Actually, according to the Supreme Court, the right to bear arms might actually be a human right.
[QUOTE=United States v. Cruikshank]This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence[/QUOTE]
I think what he was trying to say (This time) is that it's easy for her to want to do away with our weapons when she's under 24/7 armed protection, and has been for many years, and will be for the rest of her life
Not get rid of her armed guards and let the chips fall where they may
[QUOTE=Chonch;51065611]It might not be a basic [I]human[/I] right, but it is expressed pretty clearly right after the freedom of speech.[/QUOTE]
I think he considers "Constitutional rights" and "basic human rights" to be separate categories. For instance, owning a gun is currently a Constitutional right, but Amnesty International and all those other human rights groups aren't going to care if your country doesn't grant you that right.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51062909]This is pretty much something which has been said by gun-rights groups like the Heller Foundation for years now. It's nothing really uppity, just making a very blunt point about how hypocritical it can be to support gun control, while in the same note have guards armed with automatics and the like.[/QUOTE]
Where is the hypocrisy exactly? If the country didn't have a hardcore of lunatics with firearms who would gladly take shots at her given the chance, I'd expect the bodyguards wouldn't be as heavily armed in the first place.
It's a good example of the escalation that occurs in the name of self defence with mass civilian ownership if anything. "oh man these guys I'm mugging might have guns, better get a bigger/ better gun so they shit themselves first", "oh man these muggers might have guns, better/ more concealable get a better gun to defend myself with", and repeat. In this case it's closer to "oh man those lunatics might have some pretty dope rifles, better give my guards the ability to suppress them faster".
[editline]17th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;51063287]He's right. The liberal elite is perpetually surrounded by guns, they call for diversity and open borders but never live around their cheap imported labor and voting blocs, rarely get prosecuted for anything and don't suffer from things like TPP and foreign wars. The right side of history isn't meant for plebs, it's meant for rich politicians, corporate media, banks, and others with a material interest in globalization[/QUOTE]
Hahahahahaha what the fuck. Your posts get more and more nonsensical every time I see them.
Nobody in power, left or right, seems to get prison time for their misdoings. They get sat in front of a committee, told "don't do it again" and then promptly retire and write an autobiography about how fucking stoked they were that they go away with bombing x or y. This has nothing to do with political alignment and everything to do with money. Stop blaming everything on "~~~the left~~~~~~", it's getting kinda sad.
-snip, pointless-
Sure thing Trump, now you do the same and we'll see where that gets you, dumbfuck.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;51066002]Sure thing Trump, now you do the same and we'll see where that gets you, dumbfuck.[/QUOTE]
You obviously didn't understand the context in the way that he said it. He's trying to say you need armed guards. Clinton is contradicting herself by being anti-gun and having armed guards.
[QUOTE=Procrastinate;51066343]You obviously didn't understand the context in the way that he said it. He's trying to say you need armed guards. Clinton is contradicting herself by being anti-gun and having armed guards.[/QUOTE]
considering she's an established war-hawk i think it's safe to say she's always been alright with certain people having guns? and like, shooting terrorists with them? terrorists who might want to kill important political figures, for example. what a hypocrite for not wanting random armed civilians guarding her, instead of people who have had like, exhaustive background checks and military training and the full resources of the Secret Service? is that the point?
[QUOTE=Procrastinate;51066343]You obviously didn't understand the context in the way that he said it. He's trying to say you need armed guards. Clinton is contradicting herself by being anti-gun and having armed guards.[/QUOTE]
No, she's fucking NOT contradicting herself. I'm not even a fucking anti gun person and I can see how head-up-asshole retarded this argument is. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY which does not grant universal gun rights has certain segments of the population who can be armed as part of their fucking CAREER.
Tell me, is it contradictory that Britain has an armed military but doesn't allow its citizens universal access to guns? Oh well, I guess they'd better either disband their military or roll out their own version of the second amendment!
[editline]17th September 2016[/editline]
I'm so fucking sick of people defending trumps fucking two year old tier arguments on gun control, all of which seem to conveniently imply his political opponent should be shot. Grow the fuck up and stop making excuses for this man child.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Cructo;51062955]If gun control actually worked you would have no need for armed guards.[/QUOTE]
The end goal of gun control is not and never will be "take away all the guns". It's simply not feasible on any level.
[QUOTE=MoralSupport;51068019][video=youtube;ZH1ObUcBuV4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH1ObUcBuV4[/video][/QUOTE]
This makes it sound even more ominous. Like the fucking Krays are gonna turn up on Election Day saying its very dangerous to be walkin around ere wearing blue mate
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.