Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Did Trump endanger Clinton with comment?


OverSword

Recommended Posts

Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

Where is there an amendment that deals directly with healthcare reform? 

Where did I say a constitutional amendment for healthcare reform?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Like I said, most Americans believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment. That doesn't mean we think terrorists or crazy people should have them. 

And I keep repeating...our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. People came here to escape persecution over their religion. Now you support a candidate who wants to persecute people over their religion. Literally, who wants to bar them from the country over it. 

He also wants to torture people and commit war crimes.

Right, Christian religion our country was founded upon Christianity. Why not go tell your story to the people you see fighting to remove God from everything. You're wasting your time with me about the America we are fighting to hold on to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

You're being manipulative in  trying to utilize our constitution against us.

Educating US citizens about their own Constitution is hardly "using our Constitution against us".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

Now you support a candidate who wants to persecute people over their religion.

A lie.  He wants to protect this country from religious islamist persecution.  Nothing he has said has ever lead any honest person to believe that he's specifically out to persecute anyone.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Where did I say a constitutional amendment for healthcare reform?

You didn't, but you compared the President's power and influence with healthcare reform to gun control, although only one of those has an amendment directly addressing it.  Obama or Hillary could wield their influence concerning gun control in exactly the same way as they did to get healthcare reform passed and you would still have the obstacle of the 2nd amendment to overcome which doesn't apply to healthcare, so this comparison overlooks that.  I don't disagree with you that the President obviously has a lot of influence over legislation, but if he has a lot of influence over 3/4 of the states that's on the people not him/her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Educating US citizens about their own Constitution is hardly "using our Constitution against us".

wow, lmao, someone who never been here thinks he can educate people that live here about their laws,  that is cute,

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. I thought he was just hinting that people would revolt or you'd see major protests within the entire country, if Hillary was to try and suppress 2nd amendment rights. Not assassinations, that's a far reach. I think the media really did over spin that one.

 

But that's the media for you, always making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Edited by Purifier
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aztek said:

wow, lmao, someone who never been here thinks he can educate people that live here about their laws,  that is cute,

Where did I say I was speaking about myself? My suggestion of the "educator" in my reply to Ella was obviously directed at who she was arguing with - ChaosRose, who is American judging by what she writes.

And how do you know I've "never been there" (America)? I have.

Please try much harder next time you try to troll me, aztek. That was a feeble effort - nul points!

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

 

Please try much harder next time you try to troll me, aztek. That was a feeble effort - nul points!

lol, troll you? you do it yourself better than anyone could,

ok i may be misunderstood your post, my bad. see i can do something you never will be able to, admit when wrong. you've been told that by few posters here, your arrogance and severe case of Dunning–Kruger effect wont allow it, so that alone makes you way bigger troll than me.

based on your previous posts , i do not  believe for a second you've been here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

A lie.  He wants to protect this country from religious islamist persecution.  Nothing he has said has ever lead any honest person to believe that he's specifically out to persecute anyone.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Actual quote. Doesn't matter if they're US citizens who happen to be traveling abroad at the time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

Right, Christian religion our country was founded upon Christianity. Why not go tell your story to the people you see fighting to remove God from everything. You're wasting your time with me about the America we are fighting to hold on to.

Freedom of religion. Our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. 

Are you trying to say that no one else except Christians have any rights here? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

only liberals can interpret it like that, it is pretty clear he was talking about sea of refugees like in Europe, not every single Muslim including us citizens, even thou looking how it were Muslims us citizens and permanent resident that shot up clubs, and other public places recently it may not be such a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Freedom of religion. Our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. 

 

absolutely, freedom, not having courts to make one religion brake its rules to accommodate other religion

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aztek said:

absolutely, freedom, not having courts to make one religion brake its rules to accommodate other religion

Maybe you could clarify that. Are you talking about gay marriage? No churches or ministers/pastors/priests are required to marry gay people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aztek said:

only liberals can interpret it like that, it is pretty clear he was talking about sea of refugees like in Europe, not every single Muslim including us citizens, even thou looking how it were Muslims us citizens and permanent resident that shot up clubs, and other public places recently it may not be such a bad idea.

Again...people trying to pretend he didn't say what he said. He called for a complete shutdown on all Muslims entering the country. He also called for all Muslims in the country to register. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aztek said:

based on your previous posts , i do not  believe for a second you've been here.

The terrible argument that just won't die....  What specifically has Leo said that relies on him actually having been here?  All the info I've seen him post on this thread is available through reading, not experiencing.  This just looks like an ad hominem to me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Remember...we're in a post election scenario where Hillary is picking her judges. There is no vote at this point. The voting is over. 

Why specifically mention the "2nd Amendment people" in reference to stopping her post election?

Those that respect and honor the 2nd Amendment know without a doubt who the 2nd Amendment people are. They are the NRA and other organizations that lobby and fight to keep the government from overstepping their bounds in regards to the 2nd Amendment as they have been doing for decades. For those too dense to understand, the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st Amendment and all of the other Amendments to the Constitution. If you let the government take away one then there is no stopping them from restricting the others.

Edited by Buzz_Light_Year
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Actual quote. Doesn't matter if they're US citizens who happen to be traveling abroad at the time. 

Jimmy Carter did this to Iranians and even had those in country deported. So your argument is what? Let me see...baseless. The present administration is letting in so called refugees with little or no vetting. This lack of vetting is the problem especially since most countries they are coming from have little or no database of their populations to draw upon.

Now let's see.... If you're a European Caucasian the immigration process for coming to the U.S. is very arduous. Two of the criteria are that you either have to have the means to support yourself or be sponsored by let's say a company or corporation.

Edited by Buzz_Light_Year
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Those that respect and honor the 2nd Amendment know without a doubt who the 2nd Amendment people are. They are the NRA and other organizations that lobby and fight to keep the government from overstepping their bounds in regards to the 2nd Amendment. As they have been doing for decades. For those too dense to understand, the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st Amendment and all of the other Amendments to the Constitution. If you let the government take away one then there is no stopping them from restricting the others.

Again...we're talking about a post election scenario. Voting is over. 

How might "2nd Amendment people" (translation: gun owners) be able to do something to stop Clinton if she was already elected president and choosing Supreme Court justices? 

I can't believe people are actually trying to argue that he meant anything other than a veiled threat of violence against Clinton and/or her selected judges if she were to be elected. It's absolutely ridiculous. You can look at the couple behind him and how they reacted. It's clear what he said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Jimmy Carter did this to Iranians and even had those in country deported. So your argument is what? Let me see...baseless. The present administration is letting in so called refugees with little or no vetting. This lack of vetting is the problem especially since most countries they are coming from have little or no database of their populations to draw upon.

That it was sanctions against Iranians, and not blanket sanctions against Muslims.

Again...where do people get this idea that there is little or no vetting? There's an almost 2 year process. If your life is in danger now, you're not gonna make it 2 years. This is a non-issue. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Trump endanger Clinton with comment?

No.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Again...we're talking about a post election scenario. Voting is over. 

How might "2nd Amendment people" (translation: gun owners) be able to do something to stop Clinton if she was already elected president and choosing Supreme Court justices? 

I can't believe people are actually trying to argue that he meant anything other than a veiled threat of violence against Clinton and/or her selected judges if she were to be elected. It's absolutely ridiculous. You can look at the couple behind him and how they reacted. It's clear what he said.

I can't believe people are actually trying to argue that he meant a "veiled threat of violence against Clinton and/or her selected judges if she were to be elected."  That's absolutely ridiculous... 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aftermath said:

I can't believe people are actually trying to argue that he meant a "veiled threat of violence against Clinton and/or her selected judges if she were to be elected."  That's absolutely ridiculous... 

 

His own words indicate that this was a post-election scenario. Everyone is doing an extravagant dance trying to claim that it was about getting out the vote. The vote is over in a post-election scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Again...we're talking about a post election scenario. Voting is over. 

How might "2nd Amendment people" (translation: gun owners) be able to do something to stop Clinton if she was already elected president and choosing Supreme Court justices? 

I can't believe people are actually trying to argue that he meant anything other than a veiled threat of violence against Clinton and/or her selected judges if she were to be elected. It's absolutely ridiculous. You can look at the couple behind him and how they reacted. It's clear what he said.

I addressed it as such. Please pay attention.

Are you really that clueless to the lobbying power of the NRA?? Really??

And no.... the translation isn't just "gun owners" it also includes those organizations that will lobby and fight to protect all our Amendments and our Constitution.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.