[garygreen]

It'd be stupid a talk down to a politician you actively donate money to in order to support legislation and deals relevant to your company.

Ultimately, this is just the name of the game. You talk good about people you want something from and you talk bad about people you want to defeat. e.g. Bernie said Hillary was unfit to be POTUS and then endorsed her a few months later. Arguing from a stance of "well that's hypocritical" is nonsense. Bernie wanted Hillary to lose and now he wants her to win. It's no different for Trump.

that would matter to me if he didn't endorse so many other mutually exclusive policy proposals and ideologies. 

also:



so, to be clear, trump has no trouble suggesting that the democratically elected president of the united states should be either a) shot, or b) overthrown, for doing her constitutionally prescribed duties.  fuck that, and fuck him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html

“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.”

The Trump campaign released a statement insisting opaquely that Mr. Trump had been referring to the “power of unification.”

“Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” said Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”

what a piece of shit.  i want to hear more about how honest donald trump is.

[Rushy]

so, to be clear, trump has no trouble suggesting that the democratically elected president of the united states should be either a) shot, or b) overthrown, for doing her constitutionally prescribed duties.  fuck that, and fuck him.

The second amendment can and will be protected by the second amendment. If she starts genuinely trying to support the removal of the second amendment or other people who want to remove it, she's going to regret it and so will everyone that agrees with her.

However, she's smart enough to not do any of that, at least not outright. She'll salami tactics the hell out of it.

I consider suppression of any of the first ten amendments a direct attack on my rights, which no man, woman, or hildebeast will be allowed to do unabated.

[Rama Set]

Unless enacted through official amending procedures?  Or are you Alex Jones for realsies?

[Rushy]

Unless enacted through official amending procedures?  Or are you Alex Jones for realsies?

Why would it matter if it was enacted through official procedures? If Congress officially removed the first amendment, would you suddenly stop talking and just nod your head whenever the POTUS speaks?

[George]

Hey guys, remember when the Trump supporters here were so OUTRAGED and HORRIFIED by the idea that Hillary and the media were trying to indirectly associate Trump and therefore get him assassinated?  It starts around here and goes on for a few pages.  Good times.

[garygreen]

so, to be clear, trump has no trouble suggesting that the democratically elected president of the united states should be either a) shot, or b) overthrown, for doing her constitutionally prescribed duties.  fuck that, and fuck him.

The second amendment can and will be protected by the second amendment. If she starts genuinely trying to support the removal of the second amendment or other people who want to remove it, she's going to regret it and so will everyone that agrees with her.

wow.

hey what's that word for when you use violence or the threat of violence to affect political change?  isn't there a word for that?

[Rushy]

[07:18] <Rushy> it's time for war
[07:18] <Rushy> The imperium will fight for the god emperor
[07:18] <George> Another hypocritical swerve from you
[07:18] <Rushy> how so?
[07:21] <George> You were ranting about Hillary and the media supposedly trying to get Trump assassinated a couple of months ago
[07:21] <George> By the (very tortured) logic that comparing someone to Hitler is a special kind of incendiary incitement that goes beyond conventional mudslinging in politics
[07:22] <Rushy> the ideas aren't equivalent because Trump hasn't suggested the removal of rights
[07:23] <Rushy> furthermore, an argument from hypocrisy isn't an argument
[07:23] <George> Oh, is hinting that a rival should be assassinated permissible if they plan to remove our rights?
[07:23] <Rushy> How many times must this be told to you?
[07:23] <Rushy> No, it isn't permissable
[07:24] <Rushy> what Trump did was wrong, but actually assassinating people can be justified for rights removal
[07:24] <Rushy> e.g. if people wanted to assassinate trump because "torture goes against human rights" then that would be justifiable
[07:25] <George> I think it's an appropriate counter-argument to the idea that Trump is going to be a revolutionary figure who'll shake things up and be unlike any politician currently in office
[07:25] <Rushy> but saying "he wants to deport all the mexicans, HITLER!" is not justifiable
[07:25] <Rushy> likewise "hillary will raise my taxes" is not justifiable
[07:25] <Rushy> "hillary wants to suppress the 2nd amendment" is

wow.

hey what's that word for when you use violence or the threat of violence to affect political change?  isn't there a word for that?

Considering the removal of basic human rights a "political change" is a little disingenuous.

[garygreen]

Considering the removal of basic human rights a "political change" is a little disingenuous.

equating the legal nomination of a supreme court justice by a democratically elected president, as per the directive of the constitution itself, and the nominee's subsequent confirmation by a democratically elected senate, to "the removal of basic human rights," is utter nonsense.

that you attached it to a thinly-veiled threat against "anyone who agrees with her" is totally fucked up.  that's how terrorists and fascists deal with shit.

[Rushy]

equating the legal nomination of a supreme court justice by a democratically elected president, as per the directive of the constitution itself, and the nominee's subsequent confirmation by a democratically elected senate, to "the removal of basic human rights," is utter nonsense.

that you attached it to a thinly-veiled threat against "anyone who agrees with her" is totally fucked up.  that's how terrorists and fascists deal with shit.

The Constitution, Supreme Court, etc. is not where my rights come from. It really doesn't matter what they say in the grand scheme of reality.

that's how terrorists and fascists deal with shit.

Fascists use violence to bring about change, not to stop it from occurring. Fascist governments thrive on the ability to violently control their citizenry. This is why a fascist government could never work in modern day America. "Only the government should have guns" is a fascism token.

[George]

Nobody is taking away the Second Amendment.  Very few mainstream politicians want to do it - Hillary certainly doesn't - and even those that do would find it an impossible task.  Even if they could find the legislative support, even if they could find the judicial support, they couldn't put it into practice.  People won't surrender their guns.  The police won't go door to door confiscating their guns.  For better or worse, guns are ingrained into American culture, and they will always be a part of it.  Every politician, no matter their politics, knows this.  And every American should know this just by using their common sense.  Yes, there are a number of policies on guns that liberals and conservatives disagree on, and it's fine to take that into account when voting.  But please don't fall for the age-old lie of "omg dere taking our guns!!!!!"  It will never, never happen.

[Rushy]

Nobody is taking away the Second Amendment.  Very few mainstream politicians want to do it - Hillary certainly doesn't - and even those that do would find it an impossible task.  Even if they could find the legislative support, even if they could find the judicial support, they couldn't put it into practice.  People won't surrender their guns.  The police won't go door to door confiscating their guns.  For better or worse, guns are ingrained into American culture, and they will always be a part of it.  Every politician, no matter their politics, knows this.  And every American should know this just by using their common sense.  Yes, there are a number of policies on guns that liberals and conservatives disagree on, and it's fine to take that into account when voting.  But please don't fall for the age-old lie of "omg dere taking our guns!!!!!"  It will never, never happen.

However, [Hillary is] smart enough to not [remove the second amendment], at least not outright. She'll salami tactics the hell out of it.

New York and California are the salami slices we've already seen. I'd hate to see what's next.

[Rama Set]

Unless enacted through official amending procedures?  Or are you Alex Jones for realsies?

Why would it matter if it was enacted through official procedures? If Congress officially removed the first amendment, would you suddenly stop talking and just nod your head whenever the POTUS speaks?

No, but a reasonable amendment could be reasonable, he said tautologically.

[Roundy]

Rushy, I know you're a staunch Trump supporter.  Do you agree with him that somebody should assassinate Hillary?

[Lord Dave]

Trump very clearly stated to his followers that a Hillary presidency would liberal judges on the court and they would repeal the 2nd amendment.

He has no idea how amendments work.  OR his followers don't.  Or both.  No amount of court appointments would repeal the 2nd amendment.  You can't make an amendment unconstitutional.  Thus, nothing Hillary will do could remove the 2nd amendment.

The ONLY way is to repeal it via congress.  Yet Trump would have you think its easier than it is.

As for the salami slices argument.
Yeah, lets compare Constitutional Amendmemts to state laws.  I'm sure they're the same deep down, right?

[Blanko]

>Trump suggests that 2nd amendment supporters could decide the election
>every liberal immediately thinks of assassination

Have we reached Poe's law yet?

[Lord Dave]

>Trump suggests that 2nd amendment supporters could decide the election
>every liberal immediately thinks of assassination

Have we reached Poe's law yet?

Trump is very direct in his meaning.  And always goes for the fastest solution.
Assassinations would be the quickest and surest way to make sure Hillary loses. 

And had the conversation been reversed where Hillary said something like that, you can bet Trump would be calling it an assassination attempt.

[Pete Svarrior]

Nobody is taking away the Second Amendment.  Very few mainstream politicians want to do it - Hillary certainly doesn't - and even those that do would find it an impossible task.  Even if they could find the legislative support, even if they could find the judicial support, they couldn't put it into practice.  People won't surrender their guns.  The police won't go door to door confiscating their guns.  For better or worse, guns are ingrained into American culture, and they will always be a part of it.  Every politician, no matter their politics, knows this.  And every American should know this just by using their common sense.  Yes, there are a number of policies on guns that liberals and conservatives disagree on, and it's fine to take that into account when voting.  But please don't fall for the age-old lie of "omg dere taking our guns!!!!!"  It will never, never happen.

You're absolutely correct, but it seems like you're dancing around the subject of why it can never happen. "People won't surrender their guns" is a good start, but how exactly would this "not surrendering their guns" look? Trump simply put it into words, and not very direct ones at that. The "Second Amendment people" would "do something". It is a threat, but that's by design of the Amendment itself. And it's not against Clinton, but a hypothetical Clinton administration in the unlikely world where they actually try to take the guns.

[Rama Set]

>Trump suggests that 2nd amendment supporters could decide the election

Considering he was talking about a hypothetical where Clinton won the election this actually requires more tap-dancing. I mean, why not just encourage -all- his supporters to decide the election. What, other than the enthusiasm for bearing arms, makes 2nd amendment supporters worth singling out?

>every liberal immediately thinks of assassination

Because Trump has a history of saying terrible shit.

Have we reached Poe's law yet?

Yes, when Hillary was called Hitler by conservatives and Berners.

[Blanko]

Considering he was talking about a hypothetical where Clinton won the election this actually requires more tap-dancing. I mean, why not just encourage -all- his supporters to decide the election. What, other than the enthusiasm for bearing arms, makes 2nd amendment supporters worth singling out?

He was specifically talking about the second amendment at the time, was he not?

Because Trump has a history of saying terrible shit.

So that means everything he says in the future must be terrible. Sure.

Yes, when Hillary was called Hitler by conservatives and Berners.

It happened first with Trump, but I guess that doesn't count?

[Rama Set]

Considering he was talking about a hypothetical where Clinton won the election this actually requires more tap-dancing. I mean, why not just encourage -all- his supporters to decide the election. What, other than the enthusiasm for bearing arms, makes 2nd amendment supporters worth singling out?

He was specifically talking about the second amendment at the time, was he not?

Yeah, basically he said, "If Hillary wins the election, she will appoint judges to take away the 2nd Amendment and there is nothing you can do to stop her. Well, maybe 2nd amendment supporters can stop her."

Does he explicitly say "assassinate her"? No, but we live in a world where implications are a thing and considering his whole premise is that she has already won the election how should we infer that he is talking about voting against her?  Why should we think he is redundantly appealing to his voter base to vote against her. Why shouldn't we think that Trump has made yet another terrible comment?

Don't get me wrong, this belongs more in a YouTube compilation than as front page news, but it is not an unreasonable inference to make. I don't think he was asking people to assassinate her either, I think he was trying to be funny in a dick head Trump sort of way.

Because Trump has a history of saying terrible shit.

So that means everything he says in the future must be terrible. Sure.

I'm saying we shouldn't be surprised when someone who has said terrible things, goes on to say terrible things. His history makes it more likely that he would say terrible things in the future, than a person who does not have such a history.

Yes, when Hillary was called Hitler by conservatives and Berners.

It happened first with Trump, but I guess that doesn't count?

No, it just means I wasn't aware of it. Point being, it would be surprising if we hadn't already crossed in to Poe's Law territory a loooooong time ago considering the tenor of this election.