Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:As utterly inexcusable as the 2nd amendment shit is, it's not like veiled suggestions to assassinate your opponent haven't happened before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw98fouyfBg

Just as inexcusable then as it is now from someone coming from a space of psychological influence.

I'm not even remotely making excuses for her, but I see a pretty big gap between "I'm sticking around in case he gets shot" versus "if she's elected only people with guns will be able to stop her"

Not that I am, but you can read Hillary's statement as "bad things happen, I'm sticking around in case the worst happens". You can't read Trump's statement as anything except "once Hillary is elected you can't stop her, except for the gun people, maybe, I don't know".

For the record I don't see Trump's statement as solely a call for assassination, it could easily be interpreted as people with guns should overthrow the government. Whether Trump meant "kill her" or he meant "destroy democracy in the US through violence" is only an important distinction to the target of the assassination. As far as these ideas coming out of the mouth of a presidential nominee, both are fucking awful.

Trump pretty clearly both meant to make a mafia like veiled threat that appeals to gun owners and a statement on the power of the pressure of the will of people that appeals to gun owners.

Clinton pretty clearly both meant to make a mafia like veiled threat that appeals to bigots and a statement on shit happens, and I'm here to roll the dice, much like Sanders did, only he never said she might get assassinated. He never even said she might be in jail which is what I assumed he was hanging around for.

Scraper wrote:At this point the Republicans would be smart to confirm Garland, because Clinton could certainly choose someone they would like a whole lot less.

You do that after the election on the way out from the lame duck Congress. Especially for those that won't be back in town in January.

Trump has the best polls, record-breaking polls. Tremendous!

It wasn’t that long ago that Donald Trump liked to boast about his support from black voters. And although Trump had a history of controversy on issues of race, it wasn’t that crazy to think he could at least outperform the GOP’s last two presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, with black voters. After all, McCain and Romney were polling at less than 5 percent among black voters after their conventions, and Trump isn’t facing off against the first black presidential nominee of a major party.

But Trump is polling worse among black voters than almost every single Republican presidential nominee since 1948 in polls taken between the party conventions and Election Day.

Trump is currently in fourth place among black voters. You read that correctly: He’s trailing Hillary Clinton, Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Scraper wrote:At this point the Republicans would be smart to confirm Garland, because Clinton could certainly choose someone they would like a whole lot less.

IIRC, Clinton has stated that Obama's nomination should stand, and she wouldn't ask him to withdraw the nomination if she wins.

You do that after the election on the way out from the lame duck Congress. Especially for those that won't be back in town in January.

Well, Obama could withdraw his nomination right after the election.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Scraper wrote:At this point the Republicans would be smart to confirm Garland, because Clinton could certainly choose someone they would like a whole lot less.

You do that after the election on the way out from the lame duck Congress. Especially for those that won't be back in town in January.

Nope, Obama withdraws the nomination and says, "Sorry, you're late, you made your bed, now lie in it."

Max Peck wrote:Trump has the best polls, record-breaking polls. Tremendous!

It wasn’t that long ago that Donald Trump liked to boast about his support from black voters. And although Trump had a history of controversy on issues of race, it wasn’t that crazy to think he could at least outperform the GOP’s last two presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, with black voters. After all, McCain and Romney were polling at less than 5 percent among black voters after their conventions, and Trump isn’t facing off against the first black presidential nominee of a major party.

But Trump is polling worse among black voters than almost every single Republican presidential nominee since 1948 in polls taken between the party conventions and Election Day.

Trump is currently in fourth place among black voters. You read that correctly: He’s trailing Hillary Clinton, Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

I have faith in Trump - I'm thinking he'll be able to break zero before election day (hell, with the margin or error, maybe he's already there).

Grifman wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

Scraper wrote:At this point the Republicans would be smart to confirm Garland, because Clinton could certainly choose someone they would like a whole lot less.

You do that after the election on the way out from the lame duck Congress. Especially for those that won't be back in town in January.

Nope, Obama withdraws the nomination and says, "Sorry, you're late, you made your bed, now lie in it."

Without regard to the merits of the idea, there's a tiny piece of me that would love to see the nomination withdrawn, Clinton winning, the Senate moving over to the D side, and then Clinton nominating and the Senate confirming the Hon B.H. Obama as the newest justice.

LordMortis wrote: ...and a statement on the power of the pressure of the will of people that appeals to gun owners.

This is simply not true, and you're usually a stickler for what *other* people mean, so I thought you'd see this.

Trump says "IF Hillary is elected and nominates judges, there is nothing you can do. Well, maybe the 2nd amendment people, maybe, I don't know" (or close enough for this discussion).

If Hillary is already elected and in office, there is NOTHING that 2nd amendment people can do to forestall the nominations. Except use those guns unlawfully.

And if he wasn't referring to the guns that second amendment people own, then why refer to second amendment people specifically? Why not "the will of the people" or "the "power of the people"?

The problem with Drumpf's bullshit explanation is that the scenario that he's discussing is post election. You can't say "after the election the powerful gun lobby can politically stop her nominating judges" because that's not true, and even Drumpf understands at least some of the basics of your democracy (representative republic, whatever).

we'll have to disagree on Hillary's "veiled threat".

I think Obama would make a pretty solid SCOTUS judge, assuming he has enough law background to handle the nittygritty. He's a pretty even keeled guy. Not much seems to faze him.

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote: ...and a statement on the power of the pressure of the will of people that appeals to gun owners.

This is simply not true, and you're usually a stickler for what *other* people mean, so I thought you'd see this.

I think the quote was deliberate to both mean both things and to be more overtly about violence stay in the media for another cycle and that's where he differs from Clinton, didn't do it stay in the media.

The problem with Drumpf's bullshit explanation is that the scenario that he's discussing is post election. You can't say "after the election the powerful gun lobby can politically stop her nominating judges" because that's not true, and even Drumpf understands at least some of the basics of your democracy (representative republic, whatever).

Tell that Obama, who rightfully should have picked a Judge months ago.

Although, quite frankly, it's my opinion that Congress has been acting unlawfully for holding up the process.

I feel like I'm being forced to defend a ego-maniacal lech who has no business being where he is, and I don't like it.

GreenGoo wrote:I think Obama would make a pretty solid SCOTUS judge, assuming he has enough law background to handle the nittygritty.

He edited the Harvard Law Review and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, so I think he would do OK on that front.

GreenGoo wrote:I think Obama would make a pretty solid SCOTUS judge, assuming he has enough law background to handle the nittygritty. He's a pretty even keeled guy. Not much seems to faze him.

And who cares about the war powers act, anyway?

Max Peck wrote:Trump has the best polls, record-breaking polls. Tremendous!

It wasn’t that long ago that Donald Trump liked to boast about his support from black voters. And although Trump had a history of controversy on issues of race, it wasn’t that crazy to think he could at least outperform the GOP’s last two presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, with black voters. After all, McCain and Romney were polling at less than 5 percent among black voters after their conventions, and Trump isn’t facing off against the first black presidential nominee of a major party.

But Trump is polling worse among black voters than almost every single Republican presidential nominee since 1948 in polls taken between the party conventions and Election Day.

Trump is currently in fourth place among black voters. You read that correctly: He’s trailing Hillary Clinton, Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

The polls are rigged.

Defiant wrote:

CNN reporter Jim Sciutto tweeted that the Secret Service has had "more than one conversation" with the Trump campaign regarding his comment.

link

Defiant wrote:
And who cares about the war powers act, anyway?

Not me. I don't even know what that is, or how it could influence my opinion of how Obama would do as a member of SCOTUS.

it's not as if I suggested it could happen.

GreenGoo wrote:

Defiant wrote:
And who cares about the war powers act, anyway?

Not me. I don't even know what that is

It..

requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

link

Defiant wrote:

Defiant wrote:

CNN reporter Jim Sciutto tweeted that the Secret Service has had "more than one conversation" with the Trump campaign regarding his comment.

link

LordMortis wrote:
I think the quote was deliberate to both mean both things

This is literally impossible given the context in which he said it. If Hillary becomes president there is nothing you can do. Well, the 2nd amendment people might be able to do something.

What is the unified spirit of 2nd amenders going to do? By the time Hillary is president and appointing Judges, there is no legal way for the average citizen to stop the process. It doesn't matter how many of them are unified and spirited.

You can believe what you want, but it's like saying once the Russians have annexed Crimea there is nothing the US can do. Well, except for the military, maybe. I don't know. And that somehow is supposed to mean that the wonderful spirit of the US military will bring diplomatic sanctions through the power of hard work and unification?

It just annoys me to hear people say "well, maybe he wasn't implying violence" when there is no other reasonable interpretation. Unless he meant the 2nd amendment people could travel back in time to thwart Hillary despite her already being president in our timeline?

Moliere wrote:

Max Peck wrote:Trump has the best polls, record-breaking polls. Tremendous!

It wasn’t that long ago that Donald Trump liked to boast about his support from black voters. And although Trump had a history of controversy on issues of race, it wasn’t that crazy to think he could at least outperform the GOP’s last two presidential nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, with black voters. After all, McCain and Romney were polling at less than 5 percent among black voters after their conventions, and Trump isn’t facing off against the first black presidential nominee of a major party.

But Trump is polling worse among black voters than almost every single Republican presidential nominee since 1948 in polls taken between the party conventions and Election Day.

Trump is currently in fourth place among black voters. You read that correctly: He’s trailing Hillary Clinton, Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

The polls are rigged.

And the media is biased.

At some point we need someone to fact check every fact CNN spews out.

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

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

Following Trump's comment at a rally on Tuesday in which he suggested that gun rights activists could stop Clinton from appointing liberal anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

Earlier CNN had reported that there had been multiple conversations between the campaign and the agency.

I'm pretty sure CNN doesn't just pull things out of it's ass like some do.

tgb wrote:I'm pretty sure CNN doesn't just pull things out of it's ass like some do.

Then who's ass did they pull it out of? It obviously came out of someone's ass because it was nothing but crap.

Rip wrote:

tgb wrote:I'm pretty sure CNN doesn't just pull things out of it's ass like some do.

Then who's ass did they pull it out of? It obviously came out of someone's ass because it was nothing but crap.

Notice what the federal official said, that the Secert Service had not FORMALLY spoken to the Trump campaign. Important qualifier there. I suspect that means there were informal conversations.

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:
I think the quote was deliberate to both mean both things

This is literally impossible given the context in which he said it. If Hillary becomes president there is nothing you can do. Well, the 2nd amendment people might be able to do something.

What is the unified spirit of 2nd amenders going to do? By the time Hillary is president and appointing Judges, there is no legal way for the average citizen to stop the process. It doesn't matter how many of them are unified and spirited.

You can believe what you want, but it's like saying once the Russians have annexed Crimea there is nothing the US can do. Well, except for the military, maybe. I don't know. And that somehow is supposed to mean that the wonderful spirit of the US military will bring diplomatic sanctions through the power of hard work and unification?

It just annoys me to hear people say "well, maybe he wasn't implying violence" when there is no other reasonable interpretation. Unless he meant the 2nd amendment people could travel back in time to thwart Hillary despite her already being president in our timeline?

But between talking about 2nd Amendment fix for the elected gov't and proclaiming that "Obama is the founder of ISIS", who can really claim to know what he's implying?

Rip wrote:At some point we need someone to fact check every fact CNN spews out.

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

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

Following Trump's comment at a rally on Tuesday in which he suggested that gun rights activists could stop Clinton from appointing liberal anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

Earlier CNN had reported that there had been multiple conversations between the campaign and the agency.

Perhaps. CNN has more hours in the day than they know what to do with so I wouldn't be surprised if they had some flawed intel or embellished some facts in order to get a bump in ratings.

Still, it does not change the fact that Trump encouraged violence against Hillary in the first place.

I felt like I was sneaking into a porn theater the last time I went to the gun shop, sunglasses on and covering my face as I rushed to get in the side door. But I was pleasantly surprised by many of the "2nd Amendmenters" I've talked with. They see through the Trump pandering. I thought maybe they'd be ramping up support with his rhetoric but most of them see him for what he is and have jumped off the train.

And this is in a county that just passed an additional $.05 per bullet/$25 per firearm additional sales tax tax on top of everything else it's known for. Even they know Trump is just bullshitting for votes.

It's not really about 2nd amendment or jobs or whatever else he happens to be stammering about. It's about whether someone is stupid and/or easily enough led and/or desperate enough to fall for his hollow bluster. There is nothing else to Trump. Just hollow bluster.

Fine, I'll take the initiative and have a chat with the Secret Service; the contingent actively guarding Trump. I understand drinks at a local strip bar is much to their liking.

Meanwhile, this would be the perfect opportunity for any liberal second-amendment fans (and they do exist) to have a...umm...word with the Trumpster.

Archinerd wrote:

Rip wrote:At some point we need someone to fact check every fact CNN spews out.

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

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

Following Trump's comment at a rally on Tuesday in which he suggested that gun rights activists could stop Clinton from appointing liberal anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

Earlier CNN had reported that there had been multiple conversations between the campaign and the agency.

Perhaps. CNN has more hours in the day than they know what to do with so I wouldn't be surprised if they had some flawed intel or embellished some facts in order to get a bump in ratings.

Still, it does not change the fact that Trump encouraged violence against Hillary in the first place.

Actually it does. It invalidates absolutely everything.

Guys, guys, guys...Trump wasn't saying gun owners should shoot at Hillary. He was saying they should fire warning shots NEAR Hillary. Why the hell the media twists the words to make it sound more dire is beyond me. I fire warning shots at people to get their attention, or to express my disagreement with their views, all the time. It's like exaggerated hand gestures when Italians talk.

tjg_marantz wrote:

Archinerd wrote:

Rip wrote:At some point we need someone to fact check every fact CNN spews out.

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

A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.

Following Trump's comment at a rally on Tuesday in which he suggested that gun rights activists could stop Clinton from appointing liberal anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

Earlier CNN had reported that there had been multiple conversations between the campaign and the agency.

Perhaps. CNN has more hours in the day than they know what to do with so I wouldn't be surprised if they had some flawed intel or embellished some facts in order to get a bump in ratings.

Still, it does not change the fact that Trump encouraged violence against Hillary in the first place.

Actually it does. It invalidates absolutely everything.

Including the universe? This sounds bad.

Is that Galactus from Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer?

hepcat wrote:Is that Galactus from Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer?

It's the Nothing.

Sorry. Dumb nerd joke on my part.

Want a good allegory for Trump? I got Nothing.

So now Fuckface McClown keeps saying Obama created ISIS, and when asked if it was because of the power vacuum in the region, McClown doubles down with no no, he created ISIS. You really have to be a grade A idiot to be voting for this guy.

I do put some blame on the administration for underestimating ISIS, hindsight being 20/20, but Trump is completely tone-deaf when it comes to his own statements. I'm kind of over listening to this clown, though. He's going to get steamrolled in less than three months and we'll hopefully never have to listen to him again except as the occasional Fox News pundit.

He keeps saying "literally". I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.

It's like Trump thinks that if he ever agrees to a statement involving "I made a mistake" that he would immediately cease to be or something. It seems pathological and almost uncontrollable on his part. I really want to test it by having someone say something like "A lot of people are saying that you made a mistake when you committed treason against the United States. Do you think that was a mistake on your part?"

He seems to be dialing down the "rigged election" talk. Perhaps the reported intervention did some good after all. Now he says that if he loses it's no biggee, because he still has his illegal trophy wife, tasteless McMansion, and 10 billion quatloos.

hepcat wrote:He keeps saying "literally". I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.

To be fair, the dictionary seems a bit confused as to what it means, too:

Definition of literally
1: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

link