Trump suggests "second amendment people" can deal with Clinton...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/d...index.html

(08-09-2016 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump suggests "second amendment people" can deal with Clinton...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/d...index.html

Ignore the crappy source, this is just a post to a video: http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/09...gon/212278

Go to 0:44. I think Michael Hayden said it well, specifically this line:

Quote:HAYDEN: I used to tell my seniors at the CIA, you get to a certain point in this business, you’re not just responsible for what you say, you are responsible for what people hear.

(08-09-2016 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump suggests "second amendment people" can deal with Clinton...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/d...index.html

Ignore the crappy source, this is just a post to a video: http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/09...gon/212278

Go to 0:44. I think Michael Hayden said it well, specifically this line:

Quote:HAYDEN: I used to tell my seniors at the CIA, you get to a certain point in this business, you’re not just responsible for what you say, you are responsible for what people hear.

Hayden also said he and the others specifically would NOT be voting for Hillary Clinton.

And wasn't a certain Bush involved at a high level with the CIA at one time? I wonder how much hurt there is over Jeb, the pre-campaign anointed one with the massive war-chest, having gotten beaten so badly in the primaries that he had to drop out before it was over.

Trump is definitely upsetting the entrenched powers that be on both sides of the aisle. That is part of his appeal to the voters--they are tired of the Hillary's and they are tired of the Bushes. They are especially tired of and want to take down the Washington establishment. Why wouldn't those people feel threatened and retaliate. As for Trump's comments? He's been an expert at using the media against itself to bait them and get attention. I think hes' crazy like a fox on this stuff and the media and the left are only too stupid to fall for it.

(08-09-2016 06:14 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-09-2016 03:57 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump suggests "second amendment people" can deal with Clinton...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/d...index.html

Ignore the crappy source, this is just a post to a video: http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/09...gon/212278

Go to 0:44. I think Michael Hayden said it well, specifically this line:

Quote:HAYDEN: I used to tell my seniors at the CIA, you get to a certain point in this business, you’re not just responsible for what you say, you are responsible for what people hear.

Hayden also said he and the others specifically would NOT be voting for Hillary Clinton.

And wasn't a certain Bush involved at a high level with the CIA at one time? I wonder how much hurt there is over Jeb, the pre-campaign anointed one with the massive war-chest, having gotten beaten so badly in the primaries that he had to drop out before it was over.

Trump is definitely upsetting the entrenched powers that be on both sides of the aisle. That is part of his appeal to the voters--they are tired of the Hillary's and they are tired of the Bushes. They are especially tired of and want to take down the Washington establishment. Why wouldn't those people feel threatened and retaliate. As for Trump's comments? He's been an expert at using the media against itself to bait them and get attention. I think hes' crazy like a fox on this stuff and the media and the left are only too stupid to fall for it.

While his comments get plenty of media play, his numbers are showing that attention does not appear to correlate towards support. His numbers keep dropping as he keeps saying more and more asinine things.

Regardless, what's the point with Hayden not voting for Clinton? That's not him saying he would vote for Trump, in fact in the letter he wrote he explicitly stated that he and the other 49 signers would not be voting for Trump. How was that relevant to the comment he made above?

(08-10-2016 07:10 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Earlier today, CNN reported that the secret service had had multiple discussions with the Trump campaign about Trumps 2nd amendment statement yesterday.

As reported by Reuters, that was a lie (by CNN). Reuters went straight to the secret service and the secret service denied having any formal discussion with the Trump campaign at all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...SKCN10L29W

(08-10-2016 07:42 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The Secret Service of the United States of America just said CNN is reporting misinformation. From the link:

Quote:Pushing back against a CNN report that the law enforcement agency had had "more than one" exchange with the Trump camp about the remark, an official familiar with the matter told Reuters there had been no formal conversations with the campaign regarding the comment made to supporters the day before.

(08-10-2016 07:50 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Pretty bad when Reuters calls you out lying about Trump.

Wow. Anyone who denies the leftist bias and favoritism of the mainstream media might want to reconsider.

I think this is one big reason Trump is saying what he says and doing what he does. He appears to be using social media and outreach to reach the overlooked majority of voters who are fed up with the media and their coddling of the Democratic elites. He seems to be having fun provoking and exposing the media frenzy for its almost complete lack of journalistic integrity. Crazy like a fox. The debates should be fun.

(08-11-2016 01:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 07:10 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Earlier today, CNN reported that the secret service had had multiple discussions with the Trump campaign about Trumps 2nd amendment statement yesterday.

As reported by Reuters, that was a lie (by CNN). Reuters went straight to the secret service and the secret service denied having any formal discussion with the Trump campaign at all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...SKCN10L29W

(08-10-2016 07:42 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The Secret Service of the United States of America just said CNN is reporting misinformation. From the link:

Quote:Pushing back against a CNN report that the law enforcement agency had had "more than one" exchange with the Trump camp about the remark, an official familiar with the matter told Reuters there had been no formal conversations with the campaign regarding the comment made to supporters the day before.

(08-10-2016 07:50 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Pretty bad when Reuters calls you out lying about Trump.

Wow. Anyone who denies the leftist bias and favoritism of the mainstream media might want to reconsider.

I think this is one big reason Trump is saying what he says and doing what he does. He appears to be using social media and outreach to reach the overlooked majority of voters who are fed up with the media and their coddling of the Democratic elites. He seems to be having fun provoking and exposing the media frenzy for its almost complete lack of journalistic integrity. Crazy like a fox. The debates should be fun.

I'm wondering if this is a situation of two ships passing in the night.

Reuters says there were no FORMAL conversations that happened.

Per the CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/t...endment/):

Quote: A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.

"There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, the official told CNN. But it's unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred.

Could this be a situation where there was in fact no formal sit down between campaign officials and the the USSS, but USSS agents on their own had discussions informally with member(s) of the campaign?

I wag my finger at CNN for not providing more details, but it's not a significant jump in logic to think that this is how the situation unfolded. I have to imagine there is a reason Reuters the officially specifically used the adjective formal, rather than not using it.

(08-11-2016 03:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Could this be a situation where there was in fact no formal sit down between campaign officials and the the USSS, but USSS agents on their own had discussions informally with member(s) of the campaign?

No, clearly the Tri-Lateral Commission is using its puppets at CNN in their plot to undermine Trump and steal our precious bodily fluids.

(08-11-2016 03:51 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Could this be a situation where there was in fact no formal sit down between campaign officials and the the USSS, but USSS agents on their own had discussions informally with member(s) of the campaign?

No, clearly the Tri-Lateral Commission is using its puppets at CNN in their plot to undermine Trump and steal our precious bodily fluids.

(08-11-2016 03:51 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Could this be a situation where there was in fact no formal sit down between campaign officials and the the USSS, but USSS agents on their own had discussions informally with member(s) of the campaign?

No, clearly the Tri-Lateral Commission is using its puppets at CNN in their plot to undermine Trump and steal our precious bodily fluids.

Maybe it is my bias against the giant talking Cheetoh, but I feel like my explanation requires less mental gymnastics than Trump's explanation about the comments in question.

(08-11-2016 03:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 01:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 07:10 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Earlier today, CNN reported that the secret service had had multiple discussions with the Trump campaign about Trumps 2nd amendment statement yesterday.

As reported by Reuters, that was a lie (by CNN). Reuters went straight to the secret service and the secret service denied having any formal discussion with the Trump campaign at all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...SKCN10L29W

(08-10-2016 07:42 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The Secret Service of the United States of America just said CNN is reporting misinformation. From the link:

Quote:Pushing back against a CNN report that the law enforcement agency had had "more than one" exchange with the Trump camp about the remark, an official familiar with the matter told Reuters there had been no formal conversations with the campaign regarding the comment made to supporters the day before.

(08-10-2016 07:50 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Pretty bad when Reuters calls you out lying about Trump.

Wow. Anyone who denies the leftist bias and favoritism of the mainstream media might want to reconsider.

I think this is one big reason Trump is saying what he says and doing what he does. He appears to be using social media and outreach to reach the overlooked majority of voters who are fed up with the media and their coddling of the Democratic elites. He seems to be having fun provoking and exposing the media frenzy for its almost complete lack of journalistic integrity. Crazy like a fox. The debates should be fun.

I'm wondering if this is a situation of two ships passing in the night.

Reuters says there were no FORMAL conversations that happened.

Per the CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/t...endment/):

Quote: A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.

"There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, the official told CNN. But it's unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred.

Could this be a situation where there was in fact no formal sit down between campaign officials and the the USSS, but USSS agents on their own had discussions informally with member(s) of the campaign?

I wag my finger at CNN for not providing more details, but it's not a significant jump in logic to think that this is how the situation unfolded. I have to imagine there is a reason Reuters the officially specifically used the adjective formal, rather than not using it.

Me, I always believe government agencies when they deny things.

It is the SECRET Service, after all...

(08-11-2016 04:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:51 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  No, clearly the Tri-Lateral Commission is using its puppets at CNN in their plot to undermine Trump and steal our precious bodily fluids.

Maybe it is my bias against the giant talking Cheetoh, but I feel like my explanation requires less mental gymnastics than Trump's explanation about the comments in question.

And I feel like Trump has been playing the media and both sides for fools. He's not a newcomer to television, and he's been on an entertainment "reality' show which, like all "reality" shows, was heavily scripted and edited to pump up the drama and viewer interest. He is aware that provoking strong reactions in people, either positive or negative, drives interest. Granted, the landscape is slightly different here, but not as different as many people want to pretend.

First, running for president is interesting and entertaining to Trump himself. If it wasn't, I doubt he'd have troubled himself. Second, he has continually over a long course of his career (more than 30 years) expressed almost the very same disdain for our nation's leadership, on both sides, that he is expressing and capitalizing on now, so that's nothing new. Third, he is more interested in breaking the country free from entrenched interests on both sides than either Hillary and the democratic establishment and their Republican establishment counterparts. Hence, he p. o. ed the Bushes and their clan and cronies.

he's far prom perfect as a politician, and many people don't want a normal by the book career politician. Bernie tapped into the exact same feeling on the far left, however Bernie proved to be a sell-out in the end, he was more a part of the problem and establishment than the solution, and he didn't in the end recognize that the movement he created was more about a general dissatisfaction with the status quo, and the Democratic machinery status quo than about him.

Trump gets these things. Is it enough to win? Well, how much will the entrenched establishment on BOTH sides, which generally cares nothing about the people, help Hiliary win? Bushes seem more interested in the establishment and themselves than freedom or the will of the American people. I guess we'll see. I think one of the things that drives establishment and political media people into a frenzy is that Trump doesn't himself NEED to win to legitimize his own self esteem. That is not true for Hiliary, wasn't true for Jeb Bush or Romney or Obama, or Cruz, etc... A person as independent as Trump actually is, who has done business with both sides in order to get things done, goes against the narrative that it is one side or the other, and that is dangerous to the territories staked out over the last 20 years by those in power.

If anyone here thinks the original American Revolutionaries had most of the country in the palm of their hands united in thinking the original American Revolution was a great and obvious idea, they need to go back and read real history, not what is taught in the government schools. Over a third of the colonies population were adamantly against Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the Revoltionaries, and labeled them as "nuts, insane, unbalanced, etc..." trump is getting back to the original ethos that founded this country, and he's tapping into the same anger and dissatisfaction with the ruling class as they did back then. And remember, many of the original revolutionary leaders were among the wealthiest of the colonies. So nothing new there either.

Trump is messy, reckless, infuriating, etc... So were Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, Thomas Paine, and many other leaders of the American Revolution in their day.

I forget - who was Jefferson's ghost writer on the Declaration of Independence?

(08-12-2016 06:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I forget - who was Jefferson's ghost writer on the Declaration of Independence?

It must have been those damn liberal history books that removed the part about Jefferson openly antagonizing disabled people and advocating for a foreign power we are at odds with to release damaging evidence against his political opponents...

I get that Trump's status as a political outsider is appealing, that makes sense. But the adjectives political outsider and brash, egotistical, thin-skinned reactionary do not have to be correlated. Trump knows how to get media coverage, but that skill does not mean he is necessarily fit to run the US, and IMO, the tactics he has used to garner the media attention suggest he is not.

I'll also quibble with Bernie assertion. I don't think he sold out so much as understood politics and believed it was more important to concede defeat and actually change things by influencing the party platform than sulk back home with nothing to show for it in the end. I am happy he did not become the Tea Party of the left because politics, like life, requires compromise.

Oddly enough, even though Trump is an outsider and that is what a lot of people like about him, the main strike against him is that he doesn't act like an insider. he doesn't choose his words carefully. he says what he thinks, without thinking ahead to how it will play. He might not do things the same old predictable way and that seems dangerous.

I can't vote for or support Hillary. If lying into the ears of grieving parents and carefully arranging things to absolve herself from blame in every action is the hallmark of a President, then I choose not to honor those things with my vote. That doesn't mean that I have to support Trump, but it sure narrows down the options.

It isn't that he doesn't act like an insider.
It's that he doesn't act like a decent principled person, insider or outsider.

(08-12-2016 09:49 AM)JSA Wrote:  It isn't that he doesn't act like an insider.
It's that he doesn't act like a decent principled person, insider or outsider.

Ding, ding, ding.

Sorry, but a lot of the damning evidence from Clinton is not as clear cut as many would like to believe, even the mentioned comment about lying to Benghazi families (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...le-who-/).

With Trump, I at least know he is a human being that seems incapable of being a decent person to those who are handicapped, disagree with him, and on, and on, and on.

Both are despicable people for their own special reasons.

(08-12-2016 10:27 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Both are despicable people for their own special reasons.

Hard to argue with that statement.

(08-12-2016 06:15 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I forget - who was Jefferson's ghost writer on the Declaration of Independence?

Jefferson's duplicities are well-documented. The man was in many ways great for our nation, but he was certainly far from a saint, especially in his more private habits.

Ben Franklin actually wrote the first draft of the Declaration Of Independence. The Continental Congress did not accept Franklin's version, and so Jefferson rewrote it, but Franklin's was his source. Furthermore, the wording and ideas used in the Declaration of Independence came in large part from the ideas of British Philosopher John Lock. Franklin had his own proclivities and again, while a great man for our nation, was also no saint.

Trump has been more openly faultful (if that is a word). He shatters the illusion we all want to have of our leaders, but he is who he is without pretending not to be. Hiliary does nothing but pretend to be something she is not, and has made an entire career of her charade. As bad as Trump can be at times, what Hiliary is is infinitely worse. It is certainly hard to watch at times, but Trump has been effective to get where he is, and where Bernie failed, Trump has shown he can succeed, a fact that still seems lost on many.