Hillary looks to divide the country

[BmorePat87]

(02-25-2017, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The old two wrongs make a right fallacy.

At least Matt addressed the actual comments. Given he took quite the forgiving approach to them.

Neither was a "wrong", and that's the point of my post. Whether it is Boehner saying he wants to "kill" the Obama agenda or Hillary saying to "resist" it, neither is anywhere close to treason. Short of calling for an insurrection, you're allowed to oppose the policies of the government. It's one of those earlier amendments, I think. 

You can't get upset that the majority of responses to your thread aren't serious when you're suggesting someone is committing treason for telling people to oppose political policy. This is the equivalent of starting a thread with "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump can be impeached for what he said about journalists". 

Food for thought. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-25-2017, 01:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Seriously, What do you consider a high powered Political figure telling half the Country to resist its current rule? 

Boehner, Ryan, McConnel; take your pick. 

[GMDino]

(02-25-2017, 08:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I call it a broadly worded call to action to take back political power. Trump said that his taking office puts power back in the hands of the people, yet he lost the vote of the people. Taking back that power, resistance, takes many forms. It can mean working to change Congress, working at state levels to counter the rollback of civil rights protections and environmental protections, continuing to protest and to question authority.

Your bias leads you to the extreme, but she said none of that. She broadly said resist, and so with that broad message there are many routes to take, a lot of them are constitutionally protected.

He sure doesn't defend Trump by going after Clinton.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-25-2017, 12:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Neither was a "wrong", and that's the point of my post. Whether it is Boehner saying he wants to "kill" the Obama agenda or Hillary saying to "resist" it, neither is anywhere close to treason. Short of calling for an insurrection, you're allowed to oppose the policies of the government. It's one of those earlier amendments, I think. 

You can't get upset that the majority of responses to your thread aren't serious when you're suggesting someone is committing treason for telling people to oppose political policy. This is the equivalent of starting a thread with "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump can be impeached for what he said about journalists". 

Food for thought. 

Bfine already filled up at the Mar A Lago breakfast buffet. He sends his compliments to the Chef. 

[GMDino]

(02-25-2017, 12:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Neither was a "wrong", and that's the point of my post. Whether it is Boehner saying he wants to "kill" the Obama agenda or Hillary saying to "resist" it, neither is anywhere close to treason. Short of calling for an insurrection, you're allowed to oppose the policies of the government. It's one of those earlier amendments, I think. 

You can't get upset that the majority of responses to your thread aren't serious when you're suggesting someone is committing treason for telling people to oppose political policy. This is the equivalent of starting a thread with "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump can be impeached for what he said about journalists". 

Food for thought. 

Get ready for "This was just to show you all how stupid your calls for impeachment were!!1!!11!!"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-25-2017, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. i'll keep you "broadly worded" view on statements in mind. I assume when her VP pick told folks to fight in the streets you viewed that as "broadly worded".

I would say your bais leads you to viewe these things as "broadly worded', but what would it matter?

Bfine sure is unbiased. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-25-2017, 12:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is the equivalent of starting a thread with "Trump is Hitler" or "Trump can be impeached for what he said about journalists". 

Food for thought. 

aaahhh....now we're learning. Trump just "broadly words" some things.

[*bfine32*]

(02-25-2017, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Get ready for "This was just to show you all how stupid your calls for impeachment were!!1!!11!!"

I think Pat already did that. But reaction is better than no action.

[*bfine32*]

(02-25-2017, 12:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: He sure doesn't defend Trump by going after Clinton.

Hell, I simply tried to start a thread not about Trump (or as you classify it "defending"). You'll never guess what happened to it.....It wound up being about Trump. Only one person commented on the broadly worded OP.

[BengalHawk62]

This sure is dumb.

[GMDino]

(02-25-2017, 01:00 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: This sure is dumb.

He sure did get people to talk about Trump though.

[Dill]

(02-25-2017, 01:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Seriously, What do you consider a high powered Political figure telling half the Country to resist its current rule? 

I consider it opposition to the party in power of the sort found in all liberal democracies.

Such calls would be treason under any dictatorship, though, where the leader's will is identified with law and the state, and opposition is by definition treason.

And "rule" appears to be your term. Clinton speaks of persistence in resisting an agenda, as all opposition parties do, not a call to take arms against the government or defy rule of law.

And as far as Kaine's comments about fighting in Congress, in the courts, online, at the ballet box, and in the streets, a charitable, context-sensitive reading might assume he not calling for violence but the usual political activism at all levels. Interpretation of a Trump tweet calling for a march on Washington to UNDO the travesty of an Obama election is much less clear.

To put this another way, you are mistaking a figural claim for a literal--and not the first time today.

This is Trumpster Muddle of the highest order.  You could have started a thread about the Trump campaign's links to Russia and campaign hacking if really worried about TREASON, but instead you decided that Democrat leaders have been advocating violence. Your proof is words like "resistance" and "fighting."  And everyone must explain to you why opposing a president's policies is not, in itself, treason.

[*bfine32*]

Dill Wrote:I consider it pposition to the party in power of the sort found in all liberal democracies.

Such calls would be treason under any dictatorship, though, where the leader's will is identified with law and the state, and opposition is by definition treason.

And "rule" appears to be your term. Clinton speaks of persistence in resisting an agenda, as all opposition parties do, not a call to take arms against the government or defy rule of law.

And as far as Kaine's comments about fighting in Congress, in the courts, online, at the ballet box, and in the streets, a charitable, context-sensitive reading might assume he not calling for violence but the usual political activism at all levels.  Interpretation of a Trump tweet calling for a march on Washington to UNDO the travesty of an Obama election is much less clear.

To put this another way, you are mistaking a figural claim for a literal--and not the first time today.

This is Trumpster Muddle of the highest order.  You could have started a thread about the Trump campaign's links to Russia and campaign hacking if really worried about TREASON, but instead you decided that Democrat leaders have been advocating violence. Your proof is words like "resistance" and "fighting."  And everyone must explain to you why opposing a president's policies is not, in itself, treason.

So a synopsis of your unbiased view on the matter is Hill's and Kaine's speech was just (I'm assuming you meant figurative) and not to be taken literal. Did you take the same unbiased approach to Trump talking to another dude on a private bus or did you take that literal?

I guarantee if Trump said/says we must resist the court's decision on his immigration ban you wouldn't find that to be figurative.

I have watched this forum flooded with misspoken phrases, exaggerations, ect... called lies. However when Hills of Kaine instructs folks to fight in the street or resist their government then it is "broad words"' figural" "context-sensitive".......... 

[Belsnickel]

(02-25-2017, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. i'll keep you "broadly worded" view on statements in mind. I assume when her VP pick told folks to fight in the streets you viewed that as "broadly worded".

I would say your bais leads you to viewe these things as "broadly worded', but what would it matter?

I think it was inappropriate to use the word fight, and told his staffer as much when I called his office. But fight carries violent/aggressive connotations. Resistance has a much broader meaning.

But hey, my biased self may just be too forgiving towards someone exercising their constitutionally protected liberty of free speech.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-25-2017, 07:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So a synopsis of your unbiased view on the matter is Hill's and Kaine's speech was just (I'm assuming you meant figurative) and not to be taken literal. Did you take the same unbiased approach to Trump talking to another dude on a private bus or did you take that literal?

I guarantee if Trump said/says we must resist the court's decision on his immigration ban you wouldn't find that to be figurative.

I have watched this forum flooded with misspoken phrases, exaggerations, ect... called lies. However when Hills of Kaine instructs folks to fight in the street or resist their government then it is "broad words"' figural" "context-sensitive".......... 

It is context sensitive for your pleasure. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-25-2017, 07:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guarantee if Trump said/says we must resist the court's decision on his immigration ban you wouldn't find that to be figurative. 

You do realize that what Trump did say was going to happen in response to the court rulings on the EO would be considered resistance, right? Continuing to fight the decisions is resistance, just like filing the briefs against the EO itself is resistance.

[*bfine32*]

(02-25-2017, 11:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You do realize that what Trump did say was going to happen in response to the court rulings on the EO would be considered resistance, right? Continuing to fight the decisions is resistance, just like filing the briefs against the EO itself is resistance.

I do and I biasedly spoke out against his actions after the ruling(s). However, as I mentioned in Pat's similarly faulty comparison: This is much different than telling the American Citizens to resist.

I suppose I read some folks on here wrong if they have no issues with a government official telling the American people to resist the policies of their Government.

Madonna saying she thought about blowing up the White House is one thing, while a former SoS telling the American People and more specifically the non-deplorable population that supports her to resist (actively or passively does not matter) their Government is quite another. Hills can resist all she wants.  

[Rotobeast]

(02-25-2017, 06:22 PM)Dill Wrote: I consider it pposition to the party in power of the sort found in all liberal democracies.

Such calls would be treason under any dictatorship, though, where the leader's will is identified with law and the state, and opposition is by definition treason.

[Belsnickel]

(02-25-2017, 11:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do and I biasedly spoke out against his actions after the ruling(s). However, as I mentioned in Pat's similarly faulty comparison: This is much different than telling the American Citizens to resist.

I suppose I read some folks on here wrong if they have no issues with a government official telling the American people to resist the policies of their Government.

Madonna saying she thought about blowing up the White House is one thing, while a former SoS telling the American People and more specifically the non-deplorable population that supports her to resist (actively or passively does not matter) their Government is quite another. Hills can resist all she wants.  

I just don't understand, when there are many legal, procedural, political, civil ways to resist the policies of the administration, why it is such an issue for you.

[*bfine32*]

(02-25-2017, 11:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just don't understand, when there are many legal, procedural, political, civil ways to resist the policies of the administration, why it is such an issue for you.

Websters defines resist as: to exert force in opposition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resist

Given the numerous illegal actions that have taken place in opposition of Trump's presidency, I think it is unconscionable for a political figure of Hillary's status to demand "her people" resist and do not stop. Given I have more respect for the institution than most. As much as I disagreed with Obama's policies in 8 years I never came close to the disrespect I've seen here and Nationally to a sitting President in only 1 month.