Trump Will Win In 2020 #DT2020

[Guest]

I don't think it's about her looks. It's the passion and anger in the face.

You have made it about looks because of the buttload girl   

Have a cold shower.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Guest

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Tom, you really do have to stop doing the maroon T-shirt girl one, that is not suitable anywhere.  It is a bit silly to beat up on someone for their looks.  Just saying...

She's a well known, popular meme for someone throwing a crazy temper tantrum outrage.  Just do a Google image search for "triggered".

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

43 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

She's a well known, popular meme for someone throwing a crazy temper tantrum outrage.  Just do a Google image search for "triggered".

Just because there are the immature out there posting peoples' pictures and going "Hee!  Hee! " does not mean that mature, adult persons should join in. 

[SERWIN + 749]

On 9/14/2019 at 8:56 PM, CanadianCrude1 said:

MLK never blocked roadways? The drivers in Selma and Montgomery may disagree with that one..

How dare you even compare anything BLM did with anything Martin Luther King did, disgusting! I am assuming you are referring to the march to the capitol to protest the Jim Crow laws and segregation and voter reform that had been put in place and defended, at any cost, by the Democrats that were in power at the time all across the south, and if so, which one? The first was met by state troopers and there was a confrontation that left a few battered innocent people that was given up on that day, the second didn't get quite that far and the violence broke out, state troopers beat a woman nearly to death, there are pics of her laying on the bridge bloody and broken, and the third (successful) march was protected by national guardsman that were sent by Lyndon B Johnson to protect the marchers on their journey. These were legal marches, the third was helped by the president of our country to ensure its success. BLM is nothing but a bunch of punks that really don't have any right to be blocking interstate freeways, they are there illegally, and they also commit acts of violence when they do congregate. So to compare what MLK did to what BLM does is actually sacrilege to the cause of freedoms that have been fought for so vehemently in our country. For every American today there were sacrifices made for our freedoms. We kicked the British out once and then again in 1812 and sent them back home with their tails between their legs like the dogs they were(at that time). We fought in two world wars to defend from anarchy and hundreds of thousands of us died for those two wars to stop tyranny in its tracks. We could have very easily ignored Europe and what was happening there and just fought our war against Japan. Many Americans have died for our rights and groups like BLM just undermine anything positive ever happening for themselves. They are the epitome of what socialism will show you, lazy and ignorant people with no drive to better themselves. They just want a handout, to be able to get high and sit on the street corner BS'ing their lives away. Discontent with low wage, low skill jobs. Every person in this country has the opportunity to better themselves now. The problem is that they don't want to better themselves, they just want someone to hand them what they want. Until that day all they will do is whine like the losers they are and claim they are being "held back" by the color of their skin.You try it, walk into an interview and speak in Ebonics and swear and curse, see how far that gets you if you refuse to speak English with a reasonable scope of proficiency, how far do you assume you will get. Go there with no discernible skills and see how far you will get. If you don't like your place in our society you have every opportunity to do better, there is a way, and whining like a B*^ch isn't it. I'm sorry sir, but you insult me, and all of America with your comments about anything MLK did for our country....

[CanadianCrude1 + 6]

8 hours ago, SERWIN said:

How dare you even compare anything BLM did with anything Martin Luther King did, disgusting! 

Serwin, you amuse me. I never compared anything; merely corrected you on a fact. MLK was an amazing man for sure. 

Who actually compares the BLM movement to MLK? MLK Junior does.... (again, not my words...) https://www.newsweek.com/martin-luther-king-jr-martin-luther-king-iii-black-lives-matter-march-our-870247

 

[Otis11 + 551]

On 9/11/2019 at 8:05 PM, DayTrader said:

Jeez, Americans and their guns. There are about 50 quotes I could use here from this thread. 

Well I see a mass shooting on your news every few weeks. I don't see people dying from tripping over on your news? Certainly not 50 people at once. So to say the risk of a lunatic killing people is miniscule is clearly BS. I'm sure the families of the deceased don't agree with you either. Maybe when you're personally affected by it you will change your view on this. 

That's one way of putting it I guess. 

So how protected are you deep down with your gun when you have police with these things?

This is due to worrying about your government or fellow citizens? Also, I thought the chance of anything bad happening was 'miniscule' ?

                                                                                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Guys, if you want guns, I couldn't care less. I just wish people would say 'I like having a gun', 'I feel safer with a gun' etc. I have a lot of respect for many people and their views here and genuinely don't want another blazing argument about your gun laws. 

Your 2nd amendment is about citizens protecting themselves from their own government. Ok, fine, not gonna argue with that. It's very wise. 

However, I may be wrong, but I don't think even once in this thread have guns been mentioned, certainly not anecdote wise, in terms of protecting yourselves from your own government. They are used to protect yourselves from yourselves, precisely because you all have guns. It seems to be even defended here that the mentally deranged should be allowed a gun, because 'how do you determine who can have one?'  To be honest, that's not my problem, and I could argue you've had 250 years to sort that law out, and have not. 

Listed in this thread are various people saying about what certain gun they have and enjoy, there is a guy saying he would have happily blown away 3 guys despite being in a built up area (and the only reason he didn't was because he was in a built up area?), and so this quote '' I believe in my fellow American's willingness to help each other'' clearly doesn't apply to this guy Otis. There is funnily enough not one reference to owning a gun because you're worried about Trump. There is a reference to 'tell that to people in Afghanistan' as if we are talking about war scenarios.

We are not. We are talking about mentally ill Americans killing other Americans, and it is defended in terms of 'it's my right to have a gun'. Yes it is, I agree, but can we please cut the shit that ANY of you currently have a gun OUT OF FEAR OF YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT. You all have guns because you all have guns. 

 

Again, you've had years to sort this out. Don't draw a line then, defend it in terms of the 2nd amendment. When you have another lunatic killing the innocent in a few weeks we can chat again. And they won't be killing out of ''fear of their government'', they'll be killing because they're nuts, and your 2nd amendment is their handy excuse. 

 

PS - Otis, nothing personal man, you just directly quoted me. There are so many quotes I could take from this thread it's unreal. And as I say, they are all pro gun. Fine, I genuinely have no problem with that. It's the law, it's your right, and I totally get it's like part of your culture and in your blood. I just wish people would cut the shit about why they have a gun, in 2019. 

As a sidenote I assume when written it was about defending your land etc. It certainly wasn't about guns that can kill 100 people within a minute or whatever. 

Again, to clarify, I'm not saying 99.99% of the population should be penalised because of the 0.01% that are nuts. If you want guns, crack on. I just think you should do what you can to stop maniacs having a gun. It is very odd to me that this opinion is even argued. ''Well where do you draw the line?'' , ''How do you define nuts?'' etc. Not my problem. It's an American problem you've created for yourselves. Maybe when your child or parent is killed by a lunatic you will change your view, sometimes here it sounds like that's what it would take.

Anyway, peace x

 

Hi DayTrader,

Sorry I wasn't able to respond to this earlier, I've been out of the country. And this won't be as thorough as I'd like, however here's the gist:

The truth is, mass shootings are just not that common - they get a lot of publicity when they do happen (skewing perception), and their incidence has been going up in the past few years (and getting deadlier) - however that's not because the weapons are getting better, but rather the attackers are being more effective. These weapons were not hard to get 30 years ago, and aren't terribly hard to get now. (And if you want one, it's pretty easy to get one illegally or even to make one yourself - I do now people who have their FFA and make homemade rifles because they enjoy it as a hobby or just want certain customization, etc) - hence, my reasoning becomes, why are these becoming more common though guns aren't more prevalent? I personally believe that ties back to the reasons I cited earlier.

For the numbers: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over one million Americans suffer a slip, trip, and fall injury and over 17,000 people die in the U.S. annually because of these injuries. The Washington Post records 163 mass shootings in the United States between 1967 and June 2019. 1,207 killed. Mass shootings accounted for less than two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of all homicides in the United States between 2000 and 2016

Of course you can get some slightly different numbers depending on how you define things, but the Washington Post definitely isn't 'pro firearm'. I'd classify their coverage as 'fair, but anti gun'. 

Gangs and Criminals don't need guns to be dangerous: https://www.foxnews.com/us/minneapolis-robberies-police-chief-unacceptable

(And even if we take away guns from law abiding citizens, that doesn't keep it out of the hands of the gangs. We can't stop drugs from crossing the borders, why would we be able to stop guns?)

And I don't take the actions I do to protect myself from shooters. I also don't do it because I think any case requiring or benefiting from my actions as likely - just like I have life insurance to take care of my family - even though at my age and health, that is a long-shot. I do it because i am trained an capable of taking care of those around me in the extremely unlikely case that something were to happen. I have interjected myself into bad situations before to de-escalate the situations, and fortunately, I've never had to draw my side arm. (Every time I carry I always pray it's never necessary, but if it is, that I have the awareness, speed, and accuracy to react as required to assure the safety of myself, my family, and my fellow human beings). 

Personally, I understand the motivation here, and I even support taking action where we can to reign this in, however people citing 'common sense' steps are often overlooking the consequences of what they are advocating. I haven't found a good solution. Honestly, the best solution I'm aware of is to fix the other underlying issues I've noted before. Because of the implications on the second amendment here (who's purpose is to allow us to overthrow a tyrannical government - not hunting, nor even self defense, but the purpose is to ENABLE REVOLUTION), I advocate proceeding with extreme caution.

'Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither' - Benjamin Franklin

Disclaimer: I have not been able to keep up with the rest of this thread - but wanted to respond to this issue. I will catch up as time allows, however this thread may be long abandoned by then.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

but wanted to respond to this issue.

Hey Otis, all good man. We are all kinda 'gunned out' as it were now haha, but really appreciate your reply. 

You kidding about thread being abandoned? It's got Trump in the title. Plenty of TDS to come yet. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 hours ago, DayTrader said:

You kidding about thread being abandoned? It's got Trump in the title. Plenty of TDS to come yet. 

A leftist meme that I stumbled upon.  Apparently it is supposed to insult Trump and his supporters.  I thought it was funny, though.  Try harder...

[SERWIN + 749]

On 9/16/2019 at 4:50 AM, Randy Mott said:

Trump has more money, better organization and a strong economic recovery this time around. The Democrats have a huge majority - over 70% - wanting a radical candidate. Their positions on key issues are opposed by 60-70% of the general electorate. Trump is polling much better among blacks and Hispanics than he did in 2016. The Democrats have done nothing to get back blue collar voters nd their radical candidates don't poll well with white blue collar voters. Current polls often over-state the Dem-Rep split and are often all registered voter samples which overstate Democrat votes on election day. The Trump base is totally fired up and his go-vote organization is far ahead of the Democrats now, using social media to fuel it. I may not even be close.

And O'Rourke put his foot up every Democrat candidates ass so far it came out of their mouths when he said he was going to take away our guns. That town meeting was hysterical with that lady challenging him to "come and get em". The opinion now is starting to turn to the idea that EVERY Democrat wants to take away our guns. The Democrats on stage should have been screaming at him to shut his mouth, but they came out the day after or two days and said they do not feel that way. Too little too late y'all. I'm lovin' it.... Love to say that Trump has done more for our economy in just over two years than the last idiot did in two terms, and the opposition HATES that fact, but I'm lovin' it. I do cringe when I hear about the latest tweet, I just wish he would put that phone down and leave it alone. But still, I'm lovin' it.... Just more proof that they want to be our LEADERS, not our Representatives

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, SERWIN said:

they want to be our LEADERS, not our Representatives

That, unfortunately, exactly sums up the mental set of the Democratic Party. 

You have to wonder where that stems from.  Is it the natural outflow from John Kennedy?  Or is it the arrogance that flows from Bill Clinton?  IT is hard to pin that down, even more so the philosophical foundations of that mental set.  When you look back at say Jimmie Carter, he was with the idea that he was "the Peoples' Servant," more than "the Peoples' Overseer."  Now the idea of Overseer is entrenched, with the politicians of the Democratic Party taking the position that the People are unable to think for themselves, thus Party orthodoxy shall be trotted out and everyone else "shall be in compliance."

I don't have a very high opinion of ideas of "compliance." 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 9/17/2019 at 1:31 PM, SERWIN said:

We could have very easily ignored Europe and what was happening there and just fought our war against Japan.

OK, I am not going to get into the merits of your discourse.  I would, however, gently correct one little misconception, that Americans could have, as you put it,"easily ignored Europe."   That was not America's choice to make.

After the Japanese Navy bombed Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt went before Congress and asked for a declaration of war against Japan.  The issue of Germany was not discussed, at least not in that context.  The Senate passed a Resolution, interestingly not unanimously, that "A state of War now exists between Japan and the United States of America."  There were 48 States at that time, thus 96 Senators, and the vote was 95-1.   

Moving along, two days after that,  Adolf Hitler then declared war on the United States.  That was a unilateral declaration; the USA did not, and apparently did not intend, to declare a state of war as against Germany.  It was Hitler's arrogance and utter stupidity that did that.  Hitler thought that his U-boats could defeat the US Navy, which in any event was largely sunk at Pearl Harbor.  He had not anticipated how rapidly the US would salvage, re-float, and repair those battleships. He also had not anticipated that the US would, with its industrial might, build those vast fleets of aircraft and tanks, and the ships to carry them to England.  The US did.  The result was that the divisions that Hitler needed to defeat the Russians (which he would have defeated, had he the manpower) was tied down in Norway and Holland and France, on the Atlantic Wall.  And that led to the collapse of the Eastern Front. 

The US could not ignore Europe because Hitler would not let them.  There you have it. 

[WiscoBusiness + 5]

On 9/7/2019 at 10:12 AM, Charles Voegeli said:

"Everyone won’t admit that they will support Trump, but they will, especially all business folks."

I'm a business person who doesn't support Trump. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by WiscoBusiness

[WiscoBusiness + 5]

There are many business people are are not Trump supporters.

Edited September 24, 2019 by WiscoBusiness

[SERWIN + 749]

On 9/16/2019 at 4:50 AM, Randy Mott said:

 

So I just read the released transcript of Trump's conversation with the New Ukrainian President and I did not see any mention of him threatening to take away monies at all, let alone for the returned favor of busting Biden's son for his sketchy plays. The democrats have announced that they era seeking impeachment for what happened on that phone call, and their reason is that "someone told someone and that person is now a whistle blower". You can't get a conviction for a traffic ticket based on hear say evidence. My bad, hear say is not evidence. Meanwhile, I don't see any legislation being worked on for gun issues anymore. I think they have hit an impasse on that subject and are trying to divert attention away from the total lack of progress, and the dumb ones will soon forget about that old subject and be watching the dog & pony show being put on for the morons to watch.

[SERWIN + 749]

On 9/24/2019 at 8:34 AM, WiscoBusiness said:

There are many business people are are not Trump supporters.

I am very sure that there are some businesses that do not support Trump. Do you do your manufacturing in China, or get your wares from China? I think that's great that Trump finally put a spider in those businesses pockets so we can watch them squirm now. LMFAO at those that chose now..... Slave labor and or inhumane labor practices, unfair business practices, EPA nightmares on our environment and such. Those that chose can pay the price now for their indiscretions in the past.

[Abdkreem + 4]

This thread did not age well.....

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Abdkreem said:

This thread did not age well.....

The wise sage has Spoken........

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Abdkreem said:

This thread did not age well.....

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Abdkreem said:

This thread did not age well.....

Luckily when he wins it can be shut down. Not long to go ...

Edited September 26, 2019 by Guest

[El Nikko + 2,145]

Here's the allegations from Viktor Shokin about Biden and Son, actual documents rather than the filtered MSM

https://www.scribd.com/user/259237201/JohnSolomon/uploads

[El Nikko + 2,145]

Oh and here's Victoria Nuland's leaked phone call about them basically chosing who would run the Ukrainian government following the coup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k

So there were some very shady things going on back then

[Guest]

On 9/21/2019 at 12:47 AM, Jan van Eck said:

I don't have a very high opinion of ideas of "compliance." 

I would have put money on that