Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[DiracPool]

Hillary is the status quo. Trump is change. Easy choice.

What's wrong with the status quo? You've got a laptop and can post opinionated messages to PF of your own free will and spirit. Sounds good to me. One hard lesson I've learned in life is that, no matter how bad things seem to be at the time, they can actually get far far worse. Abraham Lincoln said, "Most folks are as happy as they make their minds up to be." In my experience I've found that is true as long as you have a roof over your head and food on the plate. Today, I'm pretty much as happy as I make up my mind to be. At the end of the George W. Bush administration, my business folded due to the economic collapse. Many of my friends and vendors businesses also collapsed and went out of business so I couldn't look to them for help. I got evicted from my apartment. The house I bought my mom in 2006 halved in value. It was bad times. So is that the easy choice for change you're thinking of when you encourage us to vote for Trump? Change is a two-way street, it can change up or change down. During the Clinton and Obama presidencies I worried about what I was doing and how I could make my life and situation better. I didn't worry much about what the government was doing. During the George W. Bush administration, I was worried about they were doing; mushroom clouds, "patriot" acts intruding on my privacy, and, by the end of that term, how I was going to feed myself.

 

[phinds]

Let me say this simply. Most Americans don't like the way things are going. Hillary is the status quo. Trump is change. Easy choice.

That point of view totally ignores my main point, which is that he lives in a fantasy world of his own creation. As I said, I DO understand how people can dislike Hillary and yes, I think we all recognize that people are fed up with our gridlocked congress and bankers than crash the economy and walk away with bonuses instead of jail sentences, and other serious issues, but again that does not make Trump a reasonably alternative. Fact checkers have said over and over that something like 75% of everything he says is completely divorced from reality.

 

[phinds]

I don't know think that was Salvador's message. I think he is basically warning us not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the sense that, if you're anti-Trump, then it's your job to drop your guard and hug every Muslims in order to prove that. We don't want to be a paranoid, racist country, but we also don't want to be a stupid and naive country.

I don't get the bolded part at all.

 

[Salvador]

I think he meant that if you are pro Trump then you definitely dislike immigrants and Muslims in general and liberalism is a curse word in your house.
But if you are anti Trump and pro Hillary or independent and most probably liberal along the way you shouldn't simply "go with the flow" and don't be concerned with the whole globalism issue and different cultures clashing problem.
P.S. When I think about it, it's impossible to be pro Trump or anti Trump , simply because Trump himself can give you 180 degrees out of phase opinions about the same question in a matter of 10 minutes all you have to do is reword the question and ask it from a slightly different perspective.
It's like he has some sort of a Trump's special relativity thing going on ,only in this case all observers agree on him no matter their point of reference.

 

[Dotini]

What's wrong with the status quo?

For me, the status quo is good. I'm old, rich and far past any personal worries. So usually I vote my conscience and go Libertarian. This political season we have a rare prairie fire where there is strong chance to upset the applecart, bring down an old, fossilized party or two and pit the greatest issues of the day to a national vote. I only wish I had invested in popcorn futures.

 

[Dotini]

That point of view totally ignores my main point, which is that he lives in a fantasy world of his own creation. As I said, I DO understand how people can dislike Hillary and yes, I think we all recognize that people are fed up with our gridlocked congress and bankers than crash the economy and walk away with bonuses instead of jail sentences, and other serious issues, but again that does not make Trump a reasonably alternative. Fact checkers have said over and over that something like 75% of everything he says is completely divorced from reality.

Doesn't matter that Trump is divorced from "reality" - whatever that is. What matters is the reality voters are confronted with, and their corresponding urge to change things. This is not about Trump, an opportunist of a high order, but about the people. The reality is that they are angry.

 

[phinds]

Doesn't matter that Trump is divorced from "reality" - whatever that is. What matters is the reality voters are confronted with, and their corresponding urge to change things. This is not about Trump, an opportunist of a high order, but about the people. The reality is that they are angry.

No argument there.

 

[DiracPool]

I don't get the bolded part at all.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, I just thought you interpreted his post as being pro-Trump, which I didn't read it as. As far as the bolded phrase, it's just saying that be careful of being too reactionary to your opponents policies. Trump's blanket ban on all Muslims entering the country "until we can figure out what's going on" (whatever that means) is overly vigilant, but to react to that radical policy by being "underly" vigilant is equally un-wise.

Oh, and to add, dotani's comment:

Let me say this simply. Most Americans don't like the way things are going.

Let me say this simply, most Americans never like the way things are going; that's why we have elections every 4 years and why the party leadership in the country continually oscillates from republican to democrat every 8 years with few exceptions. My point is that the fact that most Americans don't like the way things are going doesn't really mean anything, at all. And I mean this sincerely. Again, as I stated above there are exceptions, as when your standing in a food line in 1931 in NYC and living in a "Hooverville." Ok, then I'll agree with you. But since then, the dissatisfaction of Americans with the status quo is not about that, it's about being the first go to hype-rhetoric that any challenger of the incumbent office uses as a springboard for their campaign. The trained eye will recognize this and not take it too seriously. The problem with Trump is that, at least from my vantage point, he is so unsophisticated at exploiting this springboard that it's almost comical. He simply calls everything a "disaster." C'mon, can't you be a little more creative here. The military is a disaster. The economy is a disaster. Obama is a disaster. I mean, really? You know what a disaster is? A disaster is a Japanese sub sinking the Indianapolis and suddenly you find yourself swimming with the sharks, That's a disaster. Not the current state of our military.

So the point I'm making is to be careful buying into clearly hyperbolic sentiments such as the disaster's Trump like to paint. These are red flags about a person's character and intentions for the future of our country (IMHO), not reasons to rally behind him (or her).

 

[phinds]

I wasn't talking about you specifically, I just thought you interpreted his post as being pro-Trump, which I didn't read it as. As far as the bolded phrase, it's just saying that be careful of being too reactionary to your opponents policies. Trump's blanket ban on all Muslims entering the country "until we can figure out what's going on" (whatever that means) is overly vigilant, but to react to that radical policy by being "underly" vigilant is equally un-wise.

I completely agree.

 

[phinds]

So the point I'm making is to be careful buying into clearly hyperbolic sentiments such as the disaster's Trump like to paint. These are red flags about a person's character and intentions for the future of our country (IMHO), not reasons to rally behind him (or her).

So I'm guessing that you don't buy his argument that his having worked hard and built buildings is a "sacrifice" equal to that of the Khans who lost a son who was fighting for our country.

 

[Salvador]

Actually some 30% if not more of Americans really think the military is a disaster and everything that has happened is a disaster , it's not like Trump entirely makes this up.He has some backing , the fundamental reason for this is that there is this sort of "new" America and old one , the old one being those who hold classically conservative views , like Christian based society , classic capitalism , were each pays and earns his own life and death , hence all the fuss on Republicans about Obamacare or any other social welfare for the less lucky , and that the country has been a disaster lately , Trump simply amplifies and bites into this rhetoric.
Many conservatives dislike all these rather new liberal wins , like same sex marriage , etc , I think they genuinely feel the US is not what it once was and to a degree they are correct , indeed things have changed.
I find it funny that Trump lately has said in his speeches that he will defend the L G B T Q (I'm typing the way he would pronounce the word) community which comes rather funny given his earlier and the republican overall policy on the matter , I guess he too feels that he might not get enough voters behind him.

Some of you already voiced this concern here , I just want to say that a country or empire or any other man made form of government is only as strong as the people of that country.
A democracy is a fragile mechanism that requires constant looking after and care , constant vigilance on part of everyone not just the FBI.
I don't want to sound like the bell ringer for apocalypse but in human history we have seen the demise of many once great nations and civilizations and quite frankly the US has many of the signs and symptoms of a superpower going out of steam.And I'm not saying this in a Trump's "it's a disaster , oh by the way a YUGE one" point of view , I'm saying this from a rather deep and fundamental point of view , I've been watching politics and elections and tendencies of society and economy for years and many many red flags stick out.It would be too long to writethem all down here but they are there.

The very fact that people like Trump have gotten so far is one of those red flags for some deeper inner problem , I don't think he is just a voice for some otherwise happy but spoiled Americans who simply want to kick the can around a bit for their own amusement.

Some of the nominees that Trump surpassed were actually much wiser and seemed more intelligent than Trump and yet they never ever even picked up steam along the way.More about what I just said I have thought about Europe too in this light and I think that all modern and open societies experience a turning point sometime after they have advanced enough and lived long enough in a developed society.
For example after WW2 or any other time in human history in hard times or after disasters people first think about what to eat , how to work and how to do the basic stuff in life , in such conditions it is easier to solidify society and move in a certain direction , but in our modern times when in the western world most of us have what we need to survive we turn our sights to less fundamental issues like woman's rights and gay rights and immigration etc.But we have to be careful because these more advanced things can make us less unified and as we become less unified we risk making the wrong choices and as we do so we risk the very fundamental values and pillars on which the very culture and society is built.
I'm not entirely against liberalism but one has to be careful while working on a standing structures fundaments as they hold the very structure.
It's a sort of like a Trojan horse thing.Seems modern liberalism at first but can turn out a WW3 at worst.

If you think the WW3 part was too much look at history and how the previous two world wars started.
A small flame can't do much in the wrong place or in moist surface , but in the right conditions any lucky tiny spark can ignite an inferno.

P.S. Hope you understand what I meant with this.

 

[DiracPool]

So I'm guessing that you don't buy his argument that his having worked hard and built buildings is a "sacrifice" equal to that of the Khans who lost a son who was fighting for our country.

Exactly. And the purple heart thing was disgusting, in fact, a "disaster." A real disaster. You'd rather get a purple heart from someone giving it to you than by earning it? I just don't get that. I personally would not accept a purple heart from someone willing to give me one simply out of respect for the medal. I didn't earn it and I don't deserve it, period. Both of my grandfathers served in WW2. On my dad's side, my grandpa received a purple heart from having his side ripped open by the shrapnel from a grenade in the European theater (France I think). I remember as a kid seeing it on the wall in his house and asking him about it. It was a fascinating conversation piece and although neither of my grandpa's liked to talk about the war much, I remember him telling me his story behind his purple heart.

Can you imagine this Christmas when the Trump family sit's around the fireplace and Ivanka asks daddy how he received his purple heart? That's going to be a special moment

 

[Salvador]

With all due respect Dirac i don't think a man giving a purple heart to someone is in itself wrong , after all he earned it and if he loves someone or respects someone so much and wants to make it a personal gift I say let it be , a gift is a gift.You don't question it.
I think it's rather Trump's character and his absurd public profile that makes us mad when he receives some honor otherwise meant for people who sacrificed themselves for a higher goal.

If someone so wanted to thank me as to give me his honors and medals I would accept them out of respect for that persons intentions , I would simply not brag about that later and keep it to myself.At some point I even think that maybe Trump is more sincere than Hillary and really wants to be a great president but I think his Ego is so large beyond any measurable reference that it simple overshadows any slightest seed of intelligent thought that he might have and it definitely makes him unable to properly respond to any accusation or even the slightest criticism.
Putin knows this so no wonder he says only good things and verbal appreciations towards Trump because he knows that due to his absurd Ego he doesn't need no money to bribe Trump , all he needs is a few good words to make the POTUS candidate his ally.
Imagine how easy is that.
The Russians spend their money carefully , they won't just pay someone whom their not sure will make the job done so i think as of now Trump has received the help in two forms , one is compliments and the other is DNC hacking with the help of the KGB (modern FSB)
But the hacking is probably done not just because to boost Trump but to destabilize the election in general , I bet the people making world affairs in Kremlin are far smarter than any of us trying to figure this out here.
So whatever they do it probably is well thought out.
On the other hand I doubt of what many democrats are implying that Trump campaign is the "Manchurian candidate" in terms of Moscow being directly involved as such direct sponsorship and intelligence backing would be far too suspicious and they would risk a high chance of blowing their cover.
Especially with a man like Trump , he would probably make a terrible agent.
Imagine someone saying to him that he is not fit for clandestine information and then he would just blow off steam by revealing that he is so clandestine and yugely secret that Russia made him their spy only to say Oops at the end of this sentence... :D

 

[phinds]

What I would have done would have been to bring that man up on the stage, thank him deeply for the honor and then pin it back on his chest, telling him he earned it and I didn't and thank him for his service and ask the audience to give him a round of applause.

 

[Salvador]

You have a good sense of how to earn peoples love there phinds , maybe you should go for the 2020 election ? :D:D

I bet many such great ideas of managing your PR have been given to Trump yet he is the way he is.Surely it's much better if you understand that yourself because you have a feeling for respect and love towards those who have fought the battles of life.

Edit: Off topic and outdated material removed by moderator.

 

[DiracPool]

If someone so wanted to thank me as to give me his honors and medals I would accept them out of respect for that persons intentions , I would simply not brag about that later and keep it to myself.

In all due respect, I disagree with that sentiment. The whole idea of a medal of valor or sacrifice is that it is identified with the individual who made that sacrifice or demonstrated that valor. By definition it doesn't belong to anyone else other than the individual that earned it. That said, as you alluded to I would certainly accept the medal(s) of someone only under certain circumstances and only in the capacity or role as being a protector or guarantor of those medals. I wouldn't say something like thanks, "I always wanted a purple heart, this was much easier." I mean, really?

I encourage you, everyone to watch the 150 or so short videos on this you-tube channel of US congressional medal of honor recipients:

https://www.youtube.com/user/MedalOfHonorBook

I am in general (no pun intended) a military history buff, but especially a WW2 buff. These are great short war stories.

To add to my sentiment above, the one thing that is remarkable about these stories is the consistency behind them. I've watched every one of them. Some more than once, and each one is truly inspiring. But the theme behind essentially all of them is a sort of guilt on the behalf of the recipients that they were just there doing their job, they didn't feel of themselves as being a hero, and that anyone of the platoon at the time of the incident could have received the medal equally as valid. And again, they basically say that they only accepted the medal in the spirit to honor those equally brave soldiers who died or whose valor was simply not witnessed, as those who receive the medal do so by being nominated from fellow soldiers that were there during the said incident.

So, to get back to your initial statement, I don't think that these medals of valor or sacrifice are "transferable," as they say.

 

[Salvador]

On most parts you are morally right , I would agree , I simply said my viewpoint because I have had people who want to share their honor with someone they themselves honor and love , like my relatives or close friends. But as I said I keep that to myself , it;'s personal.

In the end of the day it's not about medals or honors or money , it's about sacrifice and true sacrifice shows true love and respect.We could do well without the medals and gold but we surely can't do without a society willing to sacrifice for the better for a better tomorrow whatever form it may take in whatever obstacles.
Sadly so much of how our world works is built around fake sacrifices and fake honor and respect.
This election is no different.

P.S. Check out my last post :)

 

[phinds]

You have a good sense of how to earn peoples love there phinds

Ha! I take it you have not read many of my posts I'm the cranky old guy

But seriously, thanks for the kind words.

This is one area where I'm a bit more sensitive than my normal cranky self because my dad won his purple heart in WWII and was buried with full military honors at Arlington a couple of years back.

 

[Salvador]

Oh no phinds , I do have kept your replies here at PF in my memory actually and I do remember you being a bit like what your posted picture seems. :DEdit by mod: Off topic remarks removed. This isn't the Politics forum anymore, This is Current News Events, the new rules are posted at the top of this forum.

 

[DiracPool]

Ha! I take it you have not read many of my posts I'm the cranky old guy

That's right, Salvador, and I'm the (somewhat) younger "misunderstood" guy..

So we should get that straight so you know who your dealing with here

 

[Salvador]

that's a very blurry picture of what I think looks like Jim Morrison , the lead singer of The Doors.At least was.
I like their songs. Although Jim's persona was no less shocking at his time than Trump's is now...
The only difference is that many of the things Jim did on stage can be attributed to drug use and artistic personality while Trumps circus is known to be substance free and until this point hasn't produced any artistic value.

 

[Astronuc]

The United States presidential election of 2016, scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2016, will be the 58th quadrennial U.S. presidential election.

89.5 more days. Arrrggghh! This is cruel and unusual punishment.Meanwhile - Dan Rather, Joe Scarborough join chorus condemning Donald Trump’s ‘2nd Amendment’ remarks
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rather-scarborough-trump-second-amendment-000000700.html

Donald Trump Suggests ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Act Against Hillary Clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

and despite some media reports that the Secret Service has talked to Trump about his remarks (some say contacted his campaign)

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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-secretservice-idUSKCN10L29W
And some climber was caught at the 21st floor of Trump Tower.

The daredevil climber who attempted to scale Trump Tower Wednesday is a 20-year-old man who traveled to Manhattan from Virginia and staged his stunt in the hopes of winning a meeting with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, police said.

 

[Salvador]

Of all the things bias of opinion is probably the biggest enemy of truth , just a small example would be that in a "Current news events" thread it's rather impossible to talk something "currently' happening with one of the candidates if we fully ignore that candidates past up until the very last months he or she started in the race.
Then all we can say is mere small facts of no value like , Trump walked down the stairs while Hillary took the elevator.

Please don't take down this remark.And while Trump has made like half of his adult life while in the presidential race , Hillary is actually quite harder to judge simply by looking at her while she has been in the race.If anyone seriously wanted to talk Hillary here he would more or less have to look back through the years of her public service and her outside office activities,
after all if someone is like one way in real life he probably won't turn the completely other in office.

But hey , I understand you folks and actually agree with you , I understand why ranting about Trump is more allowed than about Hillary , and even more welcomed. After all your hands are tied this time and so is your choice , it's literally no choice at all.Like I said I think this election is already done , unless all the crazy folks come together somehow and literally push Trump across the line.

To be quite honest sometimes it feels like Hillary has made a secret pact with Trump to get her elected , as if Trump really wants to be POTUS , then why is he cutting the very tree on which he sits , like who in their right mind would do that.

 

[Salvador]

@Astronuc the thing is , Trump is actually right when he says that they will "love him" no matter what he says or does as long as he says it's for a better America.
The problem for him is that those true followers or disciples of him are not enough to get him to POTUS.The same thing goes for Hillary , her hardcore fans are not enough to get her to office , so each of them has to have their fanatic core base + some and by some I mean quite a lot of independents or opponent's supporters by their side , and this is the problem for Trump, he is so less likely to take any Hillary's supporters or Bernie ones by his side or even independents.

I think he must know this and understand this , so then the question is , what kind of game is he actually playing ? I don't think he is so dumb and downright foolish to not realize this , so it's either he can't get over his big ego or there is something else at play.
I know this is speculation but admit it , you have thought about it too , maybe he realizes he can't beat Hillary after all and be POTUS so he plays a game of stirring up the whole country and trying to divide it , again who benefits ?
And let's remember Trump apart from his strive for fame is also a man who loves money and to brag about it.Maybe this whole election thing get's him money even if it doesn't land him into the White House

 

[Dotini]

@Astronuc the thing is , Trump is actually right when he says that they will "love him" no matter what he says or does as long as he says it's for a better America.
The problem for him is that those true followers or disciples of him are not enough to get him to POTUS.The same thing goes for Hillary , her hardcore fans are not enough to get her to office , so each of them has to have their fanatic core base + some and by some I mean quite a lot of independents or opponent's supporters by their side , and this is the problem for Trump, he is so less likely to take any Hillary's supporters or Bernie ones by his side or even independents.

I think he must know this and understand this , so then the question is , what kind of game is he actually playing ? I don't think he is so dumb and downright foolish to not realize this , so it's either he can't get over his big ego or there is something else at play.
I know this is speculation but admit it , you have thought about it too , maybe he realizes he can't beat Hillary after all and be POTUS so he plays a game of stirring up the whole country and trying to divide it , again who benefits ?
And let's remember Trump apart from his strive for fame is also a man who loves money and to brag about it.Maybe this whole election thing get's him money even if it doesn't land him into the White House

Everyone knows Trump is an imperfect vessel to carry the hopes and fears of the American people. But carry them he does. Surely he will lose if only because of a lack of tact, an essential part of every politicians armory. But did you notice how he handily crushed the massive field of Republican hopefuls, smugly said to be the greatest field of Republicans ever assembled in the history of the Republic? That means the Republican party is smashed and must be remade by new personalities , all modeled after Trump but more tactful, more suited to high office. After eight years of circular firing squad, the GOP its revolutionized the hard way - by destroying it. Kudos to Donald Trump for doing this. His fame and legacy are already assured. A populist moment has arrived. It will die down only after achieving its will, or it could be bought off with enough good jobs and money, money, money, the good old fashioned bottom line.

 

[CalcNerd]

Donald's method of operation has always been to shock and awe, so to speak. Any PR is good PR as long as the final end game gets him in position to exploit the circumstances. Remember the Megan Kelly debacle. Well, he actually turned it around and overshadowed the missed debate by his absence.
.
So, he can be as controversial as possible, sling mud where ever he can, be the same obnoxious debater he has been and at the last moment (two weeks before) of the election, suddenly transform into a reasonable and sane candidate. American's don't seem to have a long memory (two weeks anyone?). He can lay out a simple budget and other straight forward ideas (none to deep, remember it needs to be simple and defendable on the surface for two weeks!). And then throw a heaping pile of dung at Hillary (sadly, most of it could be true), and then ride the elephant into the election day for a big win. As an unconventional candidate, he has broken all sorts of unwritten rules and still survived (even thrived! I might add).
.
As for his veiled 2nd amendment reference, the networks have actually read that correctly, but as far as I am concerned it is something that everyone and especially every politician should be aware of. If big brother (or sister, in Hillary's case) ever become to big of burden on the American public, we do have the recourse of resorting to the unlawful act of treason, because our founding father's felt that any government could evolve into a monstrous body of authority. That second amendment isn't about hunting, although that is often alluded to by the liberal lefties (my side of the aisle). That we have crazies with guns is certainly a concern, but as long as our governing bodies know that they serve a well armed citizenry, there are lines they dare not cross! (and it is a good argument for our government to fund more aid for mental health )
.
So, am I a member of the NRA, no. I don't even have a slingshot at home. However, I fear the day when the ratio of gun owners falls below some level that our governing bodies feel secure in any of their decisions and not have to worry about their next re-election no matter how blatantly they dis-enfranchise the American citizenry. So, yes, I do feel appalled at all of the senseless gun violence, but I also adhere to one of the wise founding fathers, Ben Franklin who said,"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
.
Does the above argument mean I have changed my opinion of Donald? Not in the least, I will still be voting for the hag on a broom, only because I am aware of all of Donald's many accomplishments and deeds (and I am VERY aware of who Hillary is too!). Both are poor choices, but Hillary will bring in some competent help (admittedly cronies and other nefarious political animals) vs Donald may very likely run his circus by himself with a bunch of butt kissing toadies (remember, he does like to fire people that don't share his genius intellect, though Hillary's bunch will only be a smudge better). I readily admit, he will shake up the apple cart (and it is full of rotten apples). But Donald may not save a single apple.

 

[Salvador]

Well , I tried to bring in some form of Clinton's past in this thread , but that got edited out my the mods with the excuse of not being on topic.Since I don't want to start a fire for something I have no control of I just say let it be.
Although if one wants to see the real side of Hillary , the famed woman's rights activist and social guru , one simply needs to follow the money and to follow the money one needs to look no further than her family foundation and things around it.
But hey I get it , vote Hillary or face the real threat of the destruction of the US or at best an impeachment.And let's not overlook the dangers of a man who is often too sure about himself in his decisions.
look no further than Cameron's Brexit. I think his face in the pictures taken after the referendum show a man scared and in disbelief of what his idea brought to his own country an idea he used I believe only to gather more voters behind him.
Although it's still an ongoing story so the real consequences whether good or bad we will see only with time.I too am slow to judge this one.As for the NRA , @CalcNerd I understand your position but you also need to remember one thing , back in the 18th century the government had essentially what the citizens had , maybe a few cannons more, we now live in the 21st century, the government has everything from fighter jets to tanks to anti aircraft missiles to nuclear warheads mounted on submarines, airplanes and missiles and they have units of armed men with laser pointers night vision heavy armor and tactical assault weapons , now think about this for a second , do you really think a bunch of rednecks and others with guns are a real threat to the government if it ever decided to turn into this giant monster that suddenly turns to it's own citizens ? First are we thinking we will now somehow stop a corrupted public figure by firing him from office with guns ?
We have laws for that or otherwise it might easily descend into chaos.

So basically on daily basis the only real reasons for ordinary folks to own military style weapons is for some their big ego, for others some mental disability for some pure fun and for some a great tool to wage Jihad on a country which allows everyone to have a dangerous toy in his house.

Don't take this personally it's not meant to but I simply don't see the "good guy with a gun" saving the day law at work anywhere in the US anytime in the last decades.
Maybe some few isolated cases and that's it , the major statistics show quite the opposite , it shows that much more people would be alive if the US would do as some old and advanced European democracies do, without guns.
I live in a country which cannot be considered an old democracy and we can't have anything more than a hand gun or a hunting rifle etc.And we have literally no gun related deaths at all , maybe a few over the year and they are usually related to hardcore criminals.

 

[Evo]

In case people did not see it. THIS IS NOT POLITICS! This forum is CURRENT NEWS EVENTS. Going forward, the rules need to be followed or posts will be deleted if they do not meet the rules. There are PLENTY of Current News Events surrounding the candidates every day. And as we have seen, some of these new articles discuss past events, in that case it is ok to post these.

 

[mheslep]

...
Meanwhile - Dan Rather, Joe Scarborough join chorus condemning Donald Trump’s ‘2nd Ame...

I doubt the pronouncements of Dan 'phony documents' Rather qualifies as a Current Event, nor as a member a chorus. Self important noise perhaps.

And the opinion piece from Waldman, didn't Evo just delete references to opinion pieces?

 

[Evo]

And the opinion piece from Waldman, didn't Evo just delete references to opinion pieces?

I fixed it, but there is a whole lot that needs fixing, but I am letting it go, but I placed notice in the thread and will be enforcing going forward.

 

[StevieTNZ]

A potential President acting in this manner? No thank you.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11692049

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who yesterday accused President Barack Obama of establishing Isis (Islamic State), has been asked to watch what he says by the United States Secret Service.

Disgraceful.

 

[mheslep]

No official SS contact on the subject, yesterday:

Reuters

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...

 

[Evo]

No official SS contact on the subject, yesterday:

Reuters

Depends what they mean when they say they did not "formally" talk. They did not deny talking.

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/

Honestly it doesn't matter if the SS spoke to his campain or him formally or informally.

We've moved on to Trump claiming Obama & Hillary formed and head ISIS.

Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Thursday that he meant exactly what he said when he called President Barack Obama the "founder of ISIS" and objected when a conservative radio show host tried to clarify the GOP nominee's position.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
Trump objected.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/

 

[Astronuc]

We've moved on to Trump claiming Obama & Hillary formed and head ISIS.

So, Trump is a crackpot. No surprise there.

 

[Astronuc]

Max Boot is a lifelong Republican and consultant to a number of presidential candidates. He's been neverTrump since the beginning.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-obama-founder-isis-000000523.html

According to Max Boot, senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trump’s incendiary rhetoric is undercutting what could be an effective critique of the Obama administration’s record on terror.

“I think Donald Trump is basically delegitimizing all legitimate criticism of President Obama or his track record in office,” Boot told Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric on Thursday afternoon. “I am somebody who has been critical of what President Obama has done in Iraq and Syria. He has left a vacuum of power that has allowed ISIS and Hezbollah and other radical groups to flourish.

“That is a legitimate criticism,” Boot continued. “What Trump is saying is not a legitimate criticism. What he is saying is just plain nuts.”