Trump calls out Soros + in New Ad

a reply to: MystikMushroom

In my head I like to think he made it himself and that he thinks it's "baller" his imaginary words, not mine.

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: yuppa

You're right, but those who refuse to take the shades off their faces and understand that, will argue until hell freezes over.

Youre right. trying to educate them is just a waste of time.

Larry David got 1000 bucks for yelling 'Trump is a Racist' on SNL, the Ferguson scumbags got 500 bucks for rioting, I wonder what these Soros scumbags are getting now ?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: yuppa

You're right, but those who refuse to take the shades off their faces and understand that, will argue until hell freezes over.

Youre right. trying to educate them is just a waste of time.

Ah. So, confronted with the facts of the law you misunderstood, you're now going to sidestep and imply that it's pointless to "educate" me?

What a joke. You're mistaken in every claim you've made toward me, and I've proven that by citing the actual law at hand.

"Educate" indeed. Pffft.

As it lacks the standard "I'm _________ and I approve this message" at the end, it seems more likely to be an unofficial video from a supporter. There's nothing suggesting that this is an actual ad, save the unrelated site title.

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Willtell

Why, you're beginning to sound just like a Soros fan. ew.

Not really just want to rile up the Trump fans

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Willtell

Why, you're beginning to sound just like a Soros fan. ew.

Not really just want to rile up the Trump fans

Isn't that the definition of trolling and against the T&C?

a reply to: awareness10

Do people not know Trump and Soros have a history together, both business and personal?

This is Trump we're talking about here, he's a liar and a showmen and that's exactly what this is. Yet Trumk supporters will continue to eat up his BS and ingest as truth, as they always do. There really is no help for them, they are lost.

a reply to: Swills

I mentioned this before, Trump does business he's a business man. Soros has 'Donated lots of $ to the other parties, Trump has not taken $ from anyone including Soros, only for business endeavors you know his hotels etc etc.

I'm looking at all sides here, and from what i've seen Trump is the only one calling them out. What else can i say?

People can say what they want and that's fine, but remember the Other Candidates.

You say "There really is no help for them, they are lost." What then are you? and everyone else? are they Found?

a reply to: manuelram16

According to this Sheriff ...

www.liveleak.com...

Sheriff Clarke identifies the disrupters that are targeting Donald Trump as
riot starters who show up for the express purpose of creating chaos. He says,
“This is a threat to ordered liberty in the United States of America. Look,
these presidential candidates and their supporters have every right to
participate in this process in our democratic state here in the United States
of America.”

“And for that to be thwarted by these bullies, these goons, is downright
wrong.” Clarke says, “Look, the Chicago police, the officers were
under-resourced last night. Shame on the Chicago Police administrators for not
putting their line officers in a position to be able to accomplish their
mission, which was to have this rally go on.”

He says, “This rally was cancelled in the name of public safety? Why don’t we
cancel these rebellions in the name of public safety? These people had their
civil rights violated, who showed up at this rally and wanted to participate,
as the Constitution allows, in our presidential election politics. Donald
Trump’s First Amendment rights were squashed last night because of the
cancellation of this rally.”

originally posted by: Swills

Do people not know Trump and Soros have a history together, both business and personal?

I think they had a "falling out" after the 2008 crash.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: yuppa

You're right, but those who refuse to take the shades off their faces and understand that, will argue until hell freezes over.

Youre right. trying to educate them is just a waste of time.

Ah. So, confronted with the facts of the law you misunderstood, you're now going to sidestep and imply that it's pointless to "educate" me?

What a joke. You're mistaken in every claim you've made toward me, and I've proven that by citing the actual law at hand.

"Educate" indeed. Pffft.

Nope. i interpreted it correctly. youre spinning it to mena something you want it to mean.

a reply to: yuppa


* - H.R. 347 was a bill that was signed by Obama that updated 18 USC 1752 - Restricted building or grounds, which was enacted in 1971.

The old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter restricted buildings or grounds, now the law only specifies that one must "knowingly" enter such a space to be in violation of the law.

The updated version specifically defines the phrase "restricted buildings or grounds" to include "the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds."

* - Bryan vs. United States - defined "knowingly" and "willfully".

The updated bill, HR 347, only updated the existing law to include:

"the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds."

Essentially a Federal Trespassing law as Federal law enforcement cannot enforce state laws (in general). It does not prevent protesting. At the same time its not protesting when you violate the law. When you are inside of a privately owned structure you can be removed if your behavior disrupts others. Just as when you are protesting and you block a public right of way (roads / sidewalks / etc) or entrance / exit to a business, those actions are not protesting and violates the constitutional rights of the people who dont share the protesters point of view.

The moment your rights interfere with the rights of others a balance must be struck, and that balance comes down to who is violating the law.
If you don't believe me walk into to your local McDonald's and protest their menu inside the restaurant and watch what happens. Do it out on a public sidewalk and see what happens.

a reply to: AudioOne Thos were not peaceful protestors, they were rioters end prohibited freedom of speech. WHAT WERE THEY DOING INSIDE ?

a reply to: Xcathdra It also becomes a federal crime to interrupt and speech if the secret service is providing security for the speaker. I cant wait to see those useless scumbags go to jail for acting worse than wild animals.

originally posted by: Medicator
a reply to: Xcathdra It also becomes a federal crime to interrupt and speech if the secret service is providing security for the speaker. I cant wait to see those useless scumbags go to jail for acting worse than wild animals.

Actually its illegal whether secret service are present or not and what they are doing is not protesting. People seem to confuse how the first amendment works and are apparently completely lost on what protesting is. The law in question has been around since the early 70's and the changes made recently only defines the stuff for the president and vice president.

I find it confusing people are trying to say this law does something that it doesn't.

What an absolutely wonderful video. Well done Trump for having that made. Sums up beautifully what is actually going on.

a reply to: AudioOne

Cry me a river. WTF is a silent protest anyway, and is it ever even appropriate? How about you go silent protest gang run turf on the south side of Chicago and see how that goes. The right to assemble was written into the first amendment to allow citizens to assemble against the government, not against other citizens trying to run for an office. If you don't support someone's political campaign then show your support by not showing up rather than stirring up a disturbance.

The same trump that took a 150 million dollar loan from soros?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yes, back in 2004, before their relationship soured. That happens you know in business.