It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Trump advocate Clinton assassination?

page: 17
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation," Clinton said. "


A RIGHT IS A RIGHT.

Vote your conscience people, and keep defending the indefensible.




posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Elizabeth Warren Verified account 
‏@elizabethforma
.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.


twitter.com...

lol!



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll



Elizabeth Warren Verified account 
‏@elizabethforma
.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.


twitter.com...

lol!



Typical lib strawman argument. Argue against things that weren't said and fill in blanks that don't exist. No wonder they are the party of thoughtcrime.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Gabrielle Giffords ‏@GabbyGiffords · 2h2 hours ago


.@realDonaldTrump might astound Americans on a routine basis, but we must draw a line between political speech & suggestions of violence.


Yes. We must draw a line.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I posted that just for you. I thought you might get a kick out of it.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Trump did not use the word assassination and only biased haters are convinced he did something wrong in their fevered imaginations.

Trump has absolutley nothing to apologize for.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
Gabrielle Giffords ‏@GabbyGiffords · 2h2 hours ago


.@realDonaldTrump might astound Americans on a routine basis, but we must draw a line between political speech & suggestions of violence.


Yes. We must draw a line.



Yes, we must draw a line. Words mean nothing. Actions do.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Let this be another lesson to all. Regulation does not equal abolishment. Saying you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the abolishment of Free Speech. Gun regulations are not the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment.

Let's try to keep these arguments within the inconvenient realm of REALITY.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Trump has said many, many, many things that were insensitive and/or inappropriate. It'd be nice if he would admit to it once or twice.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: stinkelbaum

Oh, geez.

Remember when Hillary "advocated" for Obama's assassination, in 2008?



“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” she (Hillary Clinton) said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, which has refrained from engaging Mrs. Clinton in recent days, said her statement “was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”

Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark.

Concerns about Mr. Obama’s safety led the Secret Service to give him protection last May, before it was afforded to any other presidential candidate, although Mrs. Clinton had protection, too, in her capacity as a former first lady. Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, voiced concerns about his safety before he was elected to the Senate, and some black voters have even said such fears weighed on their decision of whether to vote for him.

It was against that backdrop that Mrs. Clinton’s mentioning the Kennedy assassination in the same breath as her own political fate struck some as going too far. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate, said through a spokeswoman that the comments were “beyond the pale.”


Link to NYT


Maybe she shouldn't have set the bar so low?

*heavy snark*


Why am I more surprised that TRUMP would hint at assassinating his opponent, than I am about HILLARY hinting at assassinating her former opponent, Barack Obama?

Why has there not been a thread entitled, "Hillary Clinton Hints at Assassinating Her Opponents!" started??? It would certainly be true. Doesn't matter when she said it. In fact, Hillary's brain is more mixed-up and diabolical now, than it was in 2008.



There may have been such a thread in 2008. Obama was 'Teh' Chosen One...and everyone cried foul when Hillary made her RFK comment.

It should not go without a reminder.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I'm guessing some of you are having trouble with this. I'll do my best to help.

Infringe

Synonyms of Infringe



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

I saw Trump's mean sadistic heart last Winter, when he yelled about taking the coat of the protester and throwing him out in the cold. I think this time he again exposed his sadistic heart with his statement. I think he's a smart bully, but like any bully that knows either he can't/won't take action, he eggs people on.

Did he "really" mean it?.... I think this time he just couldn't help blurt out another sadistic "funny" thought in his head, but I don't think even he understands just how bad that sounded. No, I don't think it was a directive to assassinate or revolt in an armed uprising, but a sadistic joke.

And that inability to filter what he says may have been part of his success in the private sector, but it is not a good thing, it is a dangerous thing, when attempting to govern. Especially bad for the leader of a powerful nation.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Here's a LESSON for Trump critics.

READ.



Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.




Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.




Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.



Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.




Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.




Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.




Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


www.archives.gov...



AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.archives.gov...

Read before speaking.

Because every single one of those are in play.

Every single one of those are being VIOLATED with GUN CONTROL.

Do I need to FED EX people a copy?



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: neo96

Let this be another lesson to all. Regulation does not equal abolishment. Saying you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the abolishment of Free Speech. Gun regulations are not the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment.

Let's try to keep these arguments within the inconvenient realm of REALITY.



But they *ARE* an infringement.




posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
All I know for certain is that it is a sad day when people need to defend a ludicrous candidate in Trump against an equally ridiculous candidate in Hillary. Why defend either.. they are both completely unfit to be POTUS.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
This is just another example of people twisting things and putting words in Trump's mouth. They will use any excuse to slander him.

He did not in any way encourage violence.

He said that "second amendment people" could do something about it. In other words, don't vote for Hillary.

Sheesh. I think the special snowflakes out there are more abundant than I ever realized.
So if she is selecting supreme court nominations she is already the president, no? What would Second Rights advocates have as recourse to her selecting these people? Tell me. Either he was calling for violence, or he is too stupid to understand proper syntax in forming sentences.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
It is because he did not take the bait with the Muslim dad whose son committed the second worse Islamic terror attack on US soil. He did not bite so they have to take 30 seconds of a speech and turn it into Kill Hillary.

Desperate. When you have a sitting POTUS campaigning for you in foreign countries, you are spending millions in ads and you have to manipulate Data with Reuters to lead polls you should just quit.

She could barely beat Bernie Sanders and we are supposed to believe she can win?


Yes, because Sanders is a decent human being Trump is not, and neither is she, but at least she doesn't have the most persistent case of foot in mouth syndrome of anyone I've ever seen in my life.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
2 quotes

If the original 2nd amendment was so clear to its meaning, why did the NRA need to clarify it to their views and have the supreme court (Scalia) make it law?



Richard Nixon Supreme Court appointee Warren Burger said after his retirement in 1991 that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
www.slate.com...





In a few short decades the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment became the law of the land. By 2008, writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Antonin Scalia enshrined this view for first time that: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” www.slate.com...



edit on 9-8-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

And if I remember, Gabby (along with other elected officials) had been featured in one of Palin's ads with a cross hairs over her name.

I love Liz Warren! She gets it.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You say each one is being violated? Prove it. Outline how each is being violated.

It says right there in the text, well regulated.


The fact is you are unable to find any evidence to back up your claim so you attempt to move the goal posts.




top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join