Presidential candidate discussion for 2016

Im not disagreeing with all of what you say and you are responding to me as if I am a Trump supporter which I am not.
Give me specific quotes from Trump where he has used violence as a talking point or statement please. Rage even...
I see aggression but I am fine with that.
What I find remarkable is that these voters who are disrupting Trump rallies through use of violence dont get that people disliked Obama on a far greater level but never resorted to violence to get him to shut up. It seems those against Obama were far better behaved than those against Trump.
The Violence of Donald Trump
Donald Trump’s false comments connecting Mexican immigrants and crime

[video=youtube;CMg407gaFro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMg407gaFro[/video]
[video=youtube;IdOceoZfHuw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdOceoZfHuw[/video]

Obama never used violent rhetoric to incite violence.
Those are just a few links. You can google it. I'm surprised you haven't heard any of this.

If he is elected, he will be the most divisive president in history. He is incendiary. Like I said before, that's his campaign strategy.
 
Last edited:
The Violence of Donald Trump

[video=youtube;CMg407gaFro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMg407gaFro[/video]
[video=youtube;L_LjFIU87ss]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_LjFIU87ss[/video]

Obama never used violent rhetoric to incite violence.
Those are just a few links. You can google it. I'm surprised you haven't heard any of this.

If he is elected, he will be the most divisive president in history.

Doubt it. Obama is a tough act to follow on that account.
In any case I cant watch videos all the time as I am on my phone for Internet access most of the time.
 
Doubt it. Obama is a tough act to follow on that account.
In any case I cant watch videos all the time as I am on my phone for Internet access most of the time.
Turn on a TV or radio, then. A newspaper, or a magazine.. Even Fox News is reporting these things.
 
Turn on a TV or radio, then. A newspaper, or a magazine.. Even Fox News is reporting these things.

I did some looking and all of the articles I read where Trump apparently said we need to kill ISIS families he never said kill.


“We’re fighting a very politically correct war,” Trump observed. “And the other thing with the terrorists — you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families! They care about their lives, don’t kid yourselves. They say they don’t care about their lives. But you have to take out their families.”
 
Last edited:
I did some looking and all of the articles I read where Trump apparently said we need to kill ISIS families be never said kill.


“We’re fighting a very politically correct war,” Trump observed. “And the other thing with the terrorists — you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families! They care about their lives, don’t kid yourselves. They say they don’t care about their lives. But you have to take out their families.”

I guess this means take them out for ice cream?
 
I guess this means take them out for ice cream?

It could mean a number of of things. It could mean that when an ISIS member is in his home, hes not safe and he cant expect to be safe because no one will give a thought to who else is there. It could mean finding their families, dragging them into the street and executing them gangster style. It could mean detaining them indefinitely.
I was noting that people are saying he used words he did not actually use.
Now, those against Trump will fill in the blanks as they choose, those for him will do the same. At the end of the day though, he has only said what he has actually said.
Trump doesn't answer questions with detail but I dont think for a second thats because he is ignorant. I think he knows exactly what he is doing and being vauge like this is an intent.
 
It could mean a number of of things. It could mean that when an ISIS member is in his home, hes not safe and he cant expect to be safe because no one will give a thought to who else is there. It could mean finding their families, dragging them into the street and executing them gangster style. It could mean detaining them indefinitely.
I was noting that people are saying he used words he did not actually use.
Now, those against Trump will fill in the blanks as they choose, those for him will do the same. At the end of the day though, he has only said what he has actually said.
Trump doesn't answer questions with detail but I dont think for a second thats because he is ignorant. I think he knows exactly what he is doing and being vauge like this is an intent.

What do you think it means?
 
Which candidate is not only the lesser of two evils- but is not evil at all?
 
Rice did not have dual accounts, those that are now marked "confidential" were sent to private accounts from her gov acct.
Somehow I think if she ran against Trump and Clinton she would probably help Trump

She has admitted to having confidential emails sent to a private account. This is not denial. There are huge variances to these tales. Seriously. I do know how closely you have been following it but the differences dont place this even close to the same league at all.
Im confident enough to want to see Rice run. She would make an actual President. Not some side show freak fest like we have now.


It certainly was just as big of a deal if not even bigger- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_W...il_controversy
Oh, how quickly history repeats itself…and then tries to change it not but a few years after it happened.



In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[SUP][5][/SUP]


Gimme a break.
 
It certainly was just as big of a deal if not even bigger- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_W...il_controversy
Oh, how quickly history repeats itself…and then tries to change it not but a few years after it happened.



In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[SUP][5][/SUP]


Gimme a break.

I will read through the link but will also remind you that Wikipedia is hardly considered a definitive resource concerning factual information.
 
Rice did not have dual accounts, those that are now marked "confidential" were sent to private accounts from her gov acct.
Somehow I think if she ran against Trump and Clinton she would probably help Trump

I will read through the link but will also remind you that Wikipedia is hardly considered a definitive resource concerning factual information.

It’s always an issue of source when it comes to something you can’t contest…that is a pattern of yours, perhaps you weren’t aware.
There are uber amounts of links besides Wikipedia that contain very factual information…I mean this was just a few years ago, it’s not like it’s been 25 years or something.
This wasn’t a fabricated scenario like “13 Hours”…we have pretty solid factual data and records of this.
 
It’s always an issue of source when it comes to something you can’t contest…that is a pattern of yours, perhaps you weren’t aware.
There are uber amounts of links besides Wikipedia that contain very factual information…I mean this was just a few years ago, it’s not like it’s been 25 years or something.
This wasn’t a fabricated scenario like “13 Hours”…we have pretty solid factual data and records of this.

No one would allow you to cite Wikipedia as a source for definitively factual information when it matters. If you contest that then this discussion was over before it started. I dont have a pattern, you want me to have a pattern to fit into your preconceptulzed version of what you want to be the truth. If you didn't already realize. Of course your truth most of the time has little to do with reality. Again, if you did not realize.
Also the email issue of the previous administration is apples and oranges to what Hillary has done. If you do not know that already theres no use in my trying to convince you.
 
Last edited:
Ive been holding out hope things would calm down and sanity would prevail. Unfortunately its not. My main intention has been to keep America on track with what was originally intended. That is not and never has been socialism. So, I have thought I would vote for Trump if he ends up being the Republican nominee because its better than having a socialist in office again.
But damn it.... Trump is completely off the deep end. I have decided I cannot knowingly in good conscious ever vote for him.
Crazy world, CRAZY world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
At this point the Republican party just needs to set Trump down and walk away slowly while hes not looking. Really the only thing they have to gain by not doing so is potentially saying "Oh look a person running on the Republican ticket won. The people want a Republican as President. " Thats it, thats the only gain.
Set him down and let him run on his own ticket. Yes that will likely put a socialist in office but at least thr Republicans will not have to try to cover up the stain that is Trump in the future.
 
Are you kidding, they have buckets and buckets of white out....If he wins, and that is a big if, you will see the GOP establishment embrace him.
 
I guess this means take them out for ice cream?

Stop trying to give me information that is different than what I already believe.
 
[video=youtube;WOMMRwJ24mE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOMMRwJ24mE[/video]

I sincerely hope Trump gets killed. I will celebrate his death without a doubt and I didn't celebrate over Osama's death.
 
Ive been holding out hope things would calm down and sanity would prevail. Unfortunately its not. My main intention has been to keep America on track with what was originally intended. That is not and never has been socialism. So, I have thought I would vote for Trump if he ends up being the Republican nominee because its better than having a socialist in office again.
But damn it.... Trump is completely off the deep end. I have decided I cannot knowingly in good conscious ever vote for him.
Crazy world, CRAZY world.
Pure malarky!
and again I will say it, Trump would be better than any GOP candidate.


Communication, transportation and mutual defense provide only the most obvious examples of the Founding Father's interests in socialized institutions. ......

the Founding Fathers demanded socialism. Section 8 of Article I, for example, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads." That same Section also authorizes Congress "To raise and support Armies," and even "To provide and maintain a Navy." Although the text does not preclude privatization of these public institutions — indeed, they continue to include entrepreneurial elements to this day — the Framers understood that they would certainly have public, social elements as well. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams — among others — all signed this document. They agreed that the new national government would facilitate communication and defense through taxation. They agreed that these essential services would not have to be purchased on the open market. They agreed that these services would not be limited to those who could pay fair market value....

Perhaps the greatest of all of America's socialized institutions, the Nation's modern highway system, was begun in 1806 by then-President Jefferson's authorization of the Cumberland (National) Road. Transportation, too, was deemed to be one of the Nation's essential services that could not be relegated to private industry. .... The founding generation recognized early on that the national government needed the power regulate interstate commerce—this was written into Article I of the 1787 Constitution—and waterways provided the most important channel of commerce. The national government, using this authority, opened America's internal waterways to commerce. These immense "social" highways proved a boon to entrepreneurial activities (and perhaps saved the Nation).
http://jurist.org/forum/2009/10/our-socialist-founding-fathers.php
 
Just for you who have said other candidates or Presidents have not used violent rhetoric before.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." - Obama
 
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." - Obama


He indeed said it at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, but the quote may not "sound like Obama" because it was first uttered by Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" — a 1987 movie about Eliot Ness, a federal agent in Chicago who was credited with bringing down mobster Al Capone
Chozick, June 13, 2008: He [Obama] warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’ ” he said. A donor yelled out a deep accented “Don’t give in!”
“I won’t but that sounded pretty scary. You’re a tough guy,” Obama said.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”
omg!
 
Back
Top