BLM activist turned Missouri lawmaker has still not resigned!

a reply to: Liquesence

A verbal threat to a sitting US President, "Hope and Assassinated", the quintessential element thereof.

No charge, yet, however calls for resignation ensue and most likely political suicide as result, meaning relection is a dead end.

a reply to: Liquesence


So you all applaud Martin Shkrelli being locked up for saying he hopes... "to acquire Clinton's hair" ? Because that isn't a threat either.

Regardless of its legal status, it is unacceptable behavior from a sitting lawmaker. Can you imagine your (and the left's) reaction to a Republican saying he wished for violence against a Dem leader (or if we had done that to Obama?) ??

The left would be even more up in arms than usual.

Heck, remember when Trump half-heartedly hinted at "Second amendment solutions" if the election was stolen from him? You all were on the verge of revolution on that comment alone. Ridiculous double standards and hypocrisy. Come on, we can do better than that.

a reply to: JBurns

Because liberals don't care, as long as its Trump, they will dance the BS tap dance to twist and slander their opinion of him, to include threats.

Pretty much scum covering and defending other scum, considering the dying narrative and failing party, I'm assuming they need to stick together to sustain #persistence.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Grambler

Dontcha love their hubbub tap dance?

Dontcha love it when people see it as a left-right deal instead of a government versus the people type deal?

The R or D beside a politicians name is only an indication of the position you'll get screwed in.

a reply to: Arnie123

A verbal threat to a sitting US President,

It's not legally a threat. Period.

See my previous post.

a reply to: JBurns

So you all applaud Martin Shkrelli being locked up

You all? Where did I applaud that?

Regardless of its legal status, it is unacceptable behavior

Yup. Unacceptable, yes. Illegal, no. BIG difference.

Heck, remember when Trump half-heartedly hinted at "Second amendment solutions" if the election was stolen from him? You all were on the verge of revolution

You all? Careful, your generalization and hyperbole are showing.

a reply to: JBurns

Shkreli is behind bars because of security fraud. His bail was revoked because he soliciting people to assault a person. Because let's remember, Shkreli didn't hope someone would do something. He offered $5,000 for someone to procure him a sample of Clinton's hair. That's a bit different.

a reply to: Arnie123


This, exactly

They will do anything to boost their anti-Trump "progressive" credentials. We even see junior law makers (like Kristen Gillibrand) vying for a WH run that stand a real chance at DNC nomination due to their popularity among their small but rabid base. The popularity of these cult figures among these progressive purists is astonishing to me, given the fact the only thing going for them is their hate of Trump. They have no real policy positions of substance (at least none that are practical/achievable) and really only care about a handful of niche issues. Their success among the far-left sycophants is derived entirely by their hate/opposition of Trump.

Yet, for some reason, we're expected to believe these people are acting with pure motives and good intentions when every last bit of real information points to the opposite.

The echo chambers, the purity tests, the radical far-left movement of the DNC "goal post" among others have lead to an unstable situation. A situation that is only made worse when you get emotional and irresponsible young lawmakers calling for violence. But like I said, when Trump joked/hinted at "second amendment solutions" to election rigging, the Democrats went ballistic. Thumbs moved at miles per second as they pecked away scathing insults at the President. He was branded a "threat to democracy" because he dare refuse to answer whether he'd accept the results of the election as valid. President Obama and Hillary herself lamented about "the peaceful transfer of power being the hallmark of blah blah blah" while Michelle Obama coined the phrase "when they go low, we go high." Remember that?

What happened to that?

a reply to: Xcalibur254


Explain different?

He didn't imply violence. People shed hair constantly. How do you know he wasn't simply referring to this? You don't. At least not that can be proven, which is precisely why the situation is such a great comparison.

A typical double standard, we are used to them though.

The echo chambers, the purity tests, the radical far-left movement of the DNC "goal post" among others have lead to an unstable situation. A situation that is only made worse when you get emotional and irresponsible young lawmakers calling for violence. But like I said, when Trump joked/hinted at "second amendment solutions" to election rigging, the Democrats went ballistic. Thumbs moved at miles per second as they pecked away scathing insults at the President. He was branded a "threat to democracy" because he dare refuse to answer whether he'd accept the results of the election as valid. President Obama and Hillary herself lamented about "the peaceful transfer of power being the hallmark of blah blah blah" while Michelle Obama coined the phrase "when they go low, we go high." Remember that?

What happened to that?

Locker room talk.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Grambler

But if that's what he was implying why would he single out the "Second Amendment people?" The implication is clear.

Because he was discussing her appointing judges to take away their rights, like the 2nd amendment.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

I didnt see the word assassinated there, or any calls for death.

Can you please bold or underline those words?

Thanks.

What do you think he meant? Please be specific.

I think he meant maybe there is something second amendment people can do.

Like what?

Vote, rally, march, demand impeachment.

Tell me, do you also think that all of the people calling to resist trump, many of whom on the left are now discussing arming themselves are also suggesting the assassination of trump?

Yes, as a last resort, they are. It'd be dishonest to believe otherwise. As it would be dishonest to say that Trump meant vote, rally, or march when talking about what the 2nd amendment people could do.

Plenty of people want Trump dead. Plenty of people wanted Obama dead. A whole lot of people still want Hillary dead.

Just be consistent in your outrage. If you choose to be outraged about death threats towards politicians at leats recognize it from both sides.

And gthere you have it,

You believe the resist people, many of who are celebrities, politicans and media people are all calling for the death of trump.

Show me prominent people you felt were calling for obamas death.

a reply to: JBurns

Why should she resign? She hasn't done anything most of her constituents probably aren't in favor of, and she was elected fairly. If she wants to reaign, then OK, but I see no reason she should feel compelled to do so.

The bigger issue here is if she genuinely threatened Preaident Trump's life or called for his assassination, then why hasn't there been any formal action against her? Sure, she shouldn't reaign, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be held accountable. Eject her from her seat with proper due process!

Or perhaps her comments were blown out of perportion in which case such due process will disallow her ejection.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

I didnt see the word assassinated there, or any calls for death.

Can you please bold or underline those words?

Thanks.

What do you think he meant? Please be specific.

I think he meant maybe there is something second amendment people can do.

Like what?

Ummm, like not vote for HRC and instead vote for her opponent. Not hard to figure out, really.

a reply to: Liquesence


Ah, of course. So what about the congress-critters who lost their jobs for sexual harassment? That isn't a crime either, but surely no one will argue they all should've just kept their jobs (a few should've, but most were sickos)

Regardless, even if my above points don't apply directly to you, then still betray the hypocrisy your fellow Dems

Clearly Trump was talking about political advocacy and voting when he said "second amendment people can do something." He means people who want to see the second amendment preserved (not tread on and infringed upon).

In the case of outright proven rigging (like we saw with the primary), he may have also be eluding to force to preserve the Republic. Either way is more than justified. He didn't make any threats our DOI/Constitution doesn't already spell out. The one thing I'm sure of is that he wasn't implying any violence in the event of a fair & square loss.

In any case, he may well be the first POTUS to have such broad support from gun owners.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist


Why should the congress-critters on the other end of MeToo resign, then? After all, a majority of them are not guilty of any crimes and several of the cases had been resolved long ago. Now I'm glad most of these clowns are gone, but you can't deny the startling contrast in how events are handled that can be classed into two categories:

1) Something Trump/a Trump-Republican does
or
2) Something someone else does.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JBurns

Someone erratic, hysterical and so easily influenced/mislead doesn't need to be involved in government in any way, shape or form.

And the irony award for today goes to you for this pro-Trump post.

......what a loser sentence

start thinking a bigger person...we have future to capture

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist


Why should the congress-critters on the other end of MeToo resign, then? After all, a majority of them are not guilty of any crimes and several of the cases had been resolved long ago. Now I'm glad most of these clowns are gone, but you can't deny the startling contrast in how events are handled that can be classed into two categories:

1) Something Trump/a Trump-Republican does
or
2) Something someone else does.

Exactly. Why should they? Leave it up to due process if any disqualifying crimes/terms are genuinely suspected, but should they be compelled to resign?

I'm definitely far from being a liberal leftist SJW. I may be voting Trump next election. But when it is the left who offends, I expect no other treatment or actions than I would a republican or conservatives at large.

And you are correct there is a huge double standard from the left, but it is also sometimes exhibited by the right.

a reply to: JBurns

Please delete post.