Donald Trump suggests Hillary Clinton be shot to death for picking Supreme Court judges

Not sure I derailed (though little ol’ ADD me is no angel). I thought I was discussing a statement you made? Trump was the one who brought up the 2nd amendment. Which I am still completely baffled about. It defies belief that a politician could say such a thing and get away with it. I believed for some time that a Trump victory was a very real danger. I am starting to believe that it is certain he will kamikaze well before November.

Re: the gun debate, I really don’t have much to say about it aside from what I did. I don’t follow that particular issue much or have many opinions about it, other than it shouldn’t be impossible for one side to even discuss change without going from 0-60 on the hyperbole scale instantaeously.


Based on the little I’ve read about Jesús Gil, I’d suggest a comparison with Trump is apt.


“statistically predictable but individually unpredictable”… bullshit. Sure “terrorist acts will happen” is a “statistical” prediction. It’s like the stock market though… “transactions will happen”. Terrorism is not predictable in any meaningful sense. “a blogger” said a dumb thing that’s not worth repeating.

OMG. Yep. Yep, it is.

No, I derailed. You helped :slight_smile: Just, getting into guns is off topic, but I don’t care that much.

People have predicted his collapse since he entered the race. Jeb Bush would clinch it for sure. Trump’s got a bad habit of doing better than everybody says he should.

Re: guns. I agree. I see both sides. I am aware that the laws (on everything) have progressed in a single direction, though. Not everybody thinks machine guns are a “no go”, whatever that means. It’s like weed. Knowing the law and liking the law are not the same.

A capital idea! But it turns out the government doesn’t actually track that kind of thing very well. Even FiveThirtyEight had an article explaining why they couldn’t even make an educated guess.

Hopefully that will change soon.


Yet they consistently shitcan their destiny by voting for a party that has made betrayal of their most basic human interests it’s one and only consistent objective. They want to control their own destiny?, get aware and educated and involved, instead of harboring the delusion they could overthrow the United States government if they just had bigger guns.


Who’s “they”? Are you saying the Venn diagram of gun owners and Republicans forms a perfect circle? Everyone who believes in the second amendment is an anarchist actively seeking the overthrow of the government? That’s an… unsubtle opinion.

1 Like

That, i think, is from whence our issue arises. I read your original statement as a logical consequence, not as an observation of evidence.

Strawman. I was refering to the type of gun advocates who are unwilling to even discuss changes in gun policy. That is what I thought we were discussing: how much wiggle room we have between ‘sensible gun policy’ and ‘repeal 2nd amendment’. But really, I shouldn’t be arguing this. I am not fully formed on this, I am coming from a reactionary place on this issue. So I bow out.

1 Like

OIH MY GOD! A historic moment! Did I just win an argument on the internet? Man you’re cool to give that up. You’re the real hero here. That took guts.

(I got less ironic as the post proceeded - seriously, kudos for saying that)

You mean back when women and minorities didn’t have full human and civil rights? (Wait, that includes our current situation. I guess I meant “had even fewer” of those rights.)

You’ll notice my statement indicated the death toll for African-Americans was “ongoing”. Do we really need to have n+1 blacks killed by LEOs every single year, where n=number killed on one specific day in a coordinated attack in multiple cities, in order for it to be considered a serious enough problem to fix?


And how’s that* workin’ out for you, thus far?

*Hint: tactics like that don’t generally help advance a conversation. Instead they tend to make it appear as if you are trying to manipulate it.

Just fyi.


I have one more for you!


Is that a Kevin Spacey/Donald Trump face smash? That is my final answer. I don’t get the reference.

Edit: some Italian asshole. Still orange.

That’s not how higher levels of debate work. You know this.


Silvio Berlusconi, former Prime Minister and Chief Slimeball of Italy.


It’s Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian PM.


And as a democrat. Which rather loses you the consistency argument even further.