How many of you understand the USA just elected a (potentially) brutal dictator?

thoughtomator said:
Anyone who looks to some third party to save them from tyranny betrays that they were never a libertarian to begin with.

Just as I had called out, appropriately, and in a timely manner.
Click to expand...

Was that before you went full, screeching melt down mode? Or after?
 
Thanks to Obama and his supporters

The Intercept describes this well, thanks to Obama and his supporters:

“[Trump will] control an unaccountable drone program, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay. His FBI, including a network of 15,000 paid informants, already has a record of spying on mosques and activists, and his NSA’s surveillance empire is ubiquitous and governed by arcane rules, most of which remain secret. He will inherit bombing campaigns in seven Muslim countries, the de facto ability to declare war unilaterally, and a massive nuclear arsenal …

Democrats who defended these powers under President Obama may suddenly be having second thoughts as the White House gets handed over …

The Democrats went silent on executive overreach when Obama was elected …

When the New York Times revealed Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2005, 60 percent of registered Democrats thought the program was “unacceptable.” But after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a dramatically larger surveillance apparatus in 2013, a 61 percent of Democrats said the opposite …

To make matters worse, the Obama administration has convinced courts that citizens cannot challenge the legality of NSA programs until they can prove they are under surveillance. … [G]overnment secrecy makes that generally impossible …

The Obama administration has also convinced courts that they have no role to play in reviewing the legality of drone strikes – even when it involves killing a U.S. citizen. …

Obama has continued the Presidential tradition of going to war without Congress …

Trump will inherit a Justice Department that has waged an unprecedented war on press freedom. Rather than shut down the Bush-era office that prosecuted leaks to the press, Obama made it his own, and has prosecuted more than twice as many people under the Espionage Act … than all of his predecessors combined. …

President Obama has spent much of his time as commander in chief expanding his own military power, while convincing courts not to limit his detention, surveillance, and assassination capabilities. …"​

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/11...ump-will-have-terrifying-powers-thanks-obama/

They are not against dictatorial powers. They have expanded dictatorial powers far beyond even Bush II's era, and that was horrendous enough. They just want “our guy” to have them. When your system depends upon having the “right” person(s) in power, you have a failed system.

15036507_10210757904724451_8975047183300967351_n.jpg
 
DamianTV said:
Every tool has the potential for misuse and abuse.

The Office of the President of the United States is a tool. Not the person, but the power that the position offers. What determines if that tool will be misused is the person that wields that power.
Click to expand...

"In vain do you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing, the Thing itself is the Abuse!"
-- Edmund Burke
 
tod evans said:
Lookie sweet-pea I'm not the one getting my knickers in a twist over a politician runnin' his mouth..

How about you take your "irrational" and shove it right up your ass...

My postings about Obama are still here and unedited, go have a read, he was afforded the same wait-n-see attitude I'm giving Trump....

Rational behavior isn't getting ones self all aflutter over hyperbole, take a breath, calm down and then try really hard to sound logical when you post an opinion...Or live up to "superfluous" in the emotional department.

Even if Trump is Hitler incarnate what could you..............Or I, actually do?

I'll be the first to condemn actions that I disagree with, but the guy isn't even in office yet.
Click to expand...

So that's a yes. You really did give Obama that same irrational benefit of the doubt.

I wonder if it's possible to search the archives that far back and see if that's the case. I'll take your word for it, but I'm skeptical.

And while that kind of credulity of politicians may be your M.O. it's not mine. I think the best way to treat them is as guilty until proven innocent.
 
It's like if you had 1000 prisons & 1 million inmates & Trump is only advocating enhanced stuff with a dozen of them in 1 prison. That's not the civil rights issue.
 
Superfluous Man said:
So that's a yes. You really did give Obama that same irrational benefit of the doubt.

I wonder if it's possible to search the archives that far back and see if that's the case. I'll take your word for it, but I'm skeptical.

And while that kind of credulity of politicians may be your M.O. it's not mine. I think the best way to treat them is as guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd be so kind as to point to the credulity you claim I have exhibited?

I'll wait........

Just like I wait to see what a politician does instead of getting all wound up over what he says...

Feel free to stuff that second "irrational" right beside the first Mr. Sane-n-Sensible.:rolleyes:
 
When the New York Times revealed Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2005, 60 percent of registered Democrats thought the program was “unacceptable.” But after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a dramatically larger surveillance apparatus in 2013, a 61 percent of Democrats said the opposite …
Click to expand...

And this is why we can't have nice things.
 
When the New York Times revealed Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2005, 60 percent of registered Democrats thought the program was “unacceptable.” But after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a dramatically larger surveillance apparatus in 2013, a 61 percent of Democrats said the opposite …
Click to expand...

And this is why we can't have nice things.
 
Superfluous Man said:
You know Trump is ardently anti-2nd Amendment. Right?
Click to expand...

“ardently anti 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment”

Not at all from his platform and specific written policy positions on the Second Amendment. It’s actually very good.

Campaign platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/constitution-and-second-amendment

  • Defend the Second Amendment of our Constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
  • Nominate United States Supreme Court justices that will abide by the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States that includes upholding the Second Amendment.
  • Empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement does a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time.
  • Defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners:
    • Military bases and recruiting centers - to have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves
    • National right to carry – should be legal in all 50 states
    • Background checks - we need to fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.
    • Gun and magazine bans - the government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own

From his written policy position on the Second Amendment: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Second_Amendment_Rights.pdf

“The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple. It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. …

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. … Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. …

GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. … Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. … “​
 
AZJoe said:
“ardently anti 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment”

Not at all from his platform and specific written policy positions on the Second Amendment. It’s actually very good.
Click to expand...

Did you neglect to copy the part about banning guns for anyone on the no-fly list? Or is it Trump who neglected to admit it on his website?

What about the stop and frisk part, where according to Trump's own words this very campaign, he wants the police literally to take guns from people.

And what's this about a national concealed carry permit? Sounds like a good way for him to keep track of gun owners in a national database, which seems like just the kind of thing Trump would love. I'm guessing that a gun registry would be included. Notice how something that's not mentioned anywhere in what you say is "actually very good" is anything repudiating gun registration.

Another thing that's missing is any mention of the so-called gun show loophole. That's strange. That's the biggest 2nd-Amendment issue out there right now. That's the top of the gun grabbers' agendas. Is Trump for closing that loophole like they want? Or is he against doing that? And if he is against it, then why in the world wouldn't he want to say so when he's listing off the reasons gun rights supporters should like him? The truth is, you and I and everyone here already knows the answer. The answer is yes, he does want to close the loophole. He wants to make it impossible for a gun to change hands without that information being passed on to the federal government so that they can keep a careful and exhaustive record of who owns what. That kind of surveillance-state mentality is at the very center of everything Trump means when he talks about America being great.

"Actually very good?" Hardly.

And then there's this:
Background checks - we need to fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.
Click to expand...
Just what does he want there when he says "work as intended"? And why is he so afraid to say whatever it is?

So thanks for helping prove the case that yes, he is ardently anti-2nd Amendment.

In fact, I predict that because of how he pretends to support the 2nd Amendment (take a second to look at his history on this issue to see how ridiculous that is), and because he has the support of the NRA and so many naive gun right's supporters, he will be able to succeed where Obama failed at getting more restrictive gun laws passed, especially when it comes to laws involving federal collection of information on gun owners and the weapons they own.
 
Last edited:
Superfluous Man said:
Did you neglect to copy the part about banning guns for anyone on the no-fly list? Or is it Trump who neglected to admit it on his website?

What about the stop and frisk part, where according to Trump's own words this very campaign, he wants the police literally to take guns from people.

And what's this about a national concealed carry permit? Sounds like a good way for him to keep track of gun owners in a national database, which seems like just the kind of thing Trump would love. I'm guessing that a gun registry would be included. Notice how something that's not mentioned anywhere in what you say is "actually very good" is anything repudiating gun registration.

Another thing that's missing is any mention of the so-called gun show loophole. That's strange. That's the biggest 2nd-Amendment issue out there right now. That's the top of the gun grabbers' agendas. Is Trump for closing that loophole like they want? Or is he against doing that? And if he is against it, then why in the world wouldn't he want to say so when he's listing off the reasons gun rights supporters should like him?

"Actually very good?" Hardly.

And then there's this:

Just what does he want there when he says "work as intended"? And why is he so afraid to say whatever it is?

So thanks for helping prove the case that yes, he is ardently anti-2nd Amendment.

In fact, I predict that because of how he pretends to support the 2nd Amendment (take a second to look at his history on this issue to see how ridiculous that is), and because he has the support of the NRA and so many naive gun right's supporters, he will be able to succeed where Obama failed at getting more restrictive gun laws passed, especially when it comes to laws involving federal collection of information on gun owners and the weapons they own.
Click to expand...

You don't think the 2nd amendment is for revolution against the government when it becomes too tyrannical, do you? Do you think propaganda agents would also be lined up and shot by rebels? Or do you think they would stop at loyalist soldiers only?
 
I keep noticing more things in that 2nd Amendment position summary. Notice this part:

AZJoe said:
The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.
Click to expand...

Interesting that he includes the qualifiers "good, honest." Let me guess who gets to decide who counts as good and honest. You, Donald?

Yeah. And if you decide we're not good and honest, you'll just put us on that list, with no due process, and voila, no guns for us.
 
[MENTION=64691]AZJoe[/MENTION], just what were you talking about when you said that stuff was actually very good?

I'm not seeing whatever it was you were seeing.

All I see is the anti-gun screed of somebody who is ardently anti-2nd Amendment, dressed up in NRA fluff.
 
Superfluous Man said:
Did you neglect to copy the part about banning guns for anyone on the no-fly list? ... What about the stop and frisk part,

And what's this about a national concealed carry permit?
Click to expand...


Here is the second amendment platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/constitution-and-second-amendment
And the rest of the platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/constitution-and-second-amendment

Superfluous neglected to quote from the parts of the platform he "refers" to. Maybe because it isn't in there.

Yes in Trump's speaking comments he has been bad about no fly and stop and frisk. That is an issue with interpretation of due process however, not an interpretation of the Second Amendment. Due process issues overlap all rights (speech, travel, etc.). His off the cuff commentary has been very bad on due process no doubt.

Superfluous also makes up a false issue of "national concealed carry permit". That is not part of the platform. The platform refers to full faith and credit reciprocity recognition of state concealed carry permits just like driver's licenses. There is nothing about a "national concealed carry permit.

There are valid criticism to focus on with Trump, but superfluously making things up does not serve them. Trump's platform is not "ardently anti-Second Amendment" in the least. It beats all the democrats and all but a select handful of republicrats on capital hill.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The Venezuela Military Deployment Is about Cronyism, Not National Security
Replies
3
Views
66
Snowball
Snowball
PAF
US Hypocrisy on Supposed Iranian Meddling in the US Election
Replies
0
Views
471
PAF
PAF
PAF
How Billionaires Who Sell to the U.S. Government Control the U.S. Government
Replies
1
Views
72
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The Great Retreat: How Trump and Harris Are Looking Backward
Replies
2
Views
3K
CCTelander
C
PAF
A Big Spender’s League All of His Own
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top