Analysis: Trump 'rigged' vote claim may leave lasting damage

[Pimay1]

9 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

Look at the body language, they all know it´s over.

Please provide a link to this photo.

 

[Skywalker69]

22 minutes ago, Pimay1 said:

Please provide a link to this photo.

 

I will try to   find it again.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Skywalker69

[Skywalker69]

23 minutes ago, Pimay1 said:

Please provide a link to this photo.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/20/240-years-of-democracy-v-trump-how-he-lit-his-last-chance-on-fire.html

[Pimay1]

1 hour ago, Skywalker69 said:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/20/240-years-of-democracy-v-trump-how-he-lit-his-last-chance-on-fire.html

Thank you.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, MiKT said:

 

I don’t wish to dispute too much with you gentlemen about the US Constitution, but in the case of the Second Amendment I do have a little knowledge from previous jousts with the TV pro-gun lobby.

  So, in (I think the latest ruling made on this issue, but please correct me if this is not the case) -  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he 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.

This seems quite straightforward, but for the life of me I cannot see how traditionally lawful purposes can be construed as a justification for insurrection.

Really? Look at the context when it was written. They could not rule out that an insurrection would be necessary ( given that they had just done so themselves ) if in the future a government became the same as the one they had just rebelled against.

IMO traditionally lawful purposes would indeed be to prevent an unconstitutional government coming to power in the US, as that government would itself be unlawful, and the tradition the US was built on was rebellion against a government that does not represent the people.

I have read a few of the Clintonites ranting that Trump is going to send out the gun nuts to take over the US, but if they actually believe that they have been reading too much of their own propaganda.

Edited October 21, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/20/240-years-of-democracy-v-trump-how-he-lit-his-last-chance-on-fire.html

Expecting CNBC to write anything remotely factual about Trump is like expecting Trump to write Clinton a well done letter for winning.

CNBC is one of the cabal of anti Trump media campaigning for her against Trump. Rigged indeed.

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Really? Look at the context when it was written. They could not rule out that an insurrection would be necessary ( given that they had just done so themselves ) if in the future a government became the same as the one they had just rebelled against.

IMO traditionally lawful purposes would indeed be to prevent an unconstitutional government coming to power in the US, as that government would itself be unlawful, and the tradition the US was built on was rebellion against a government that does not represent the people.

I have read a few of the Clintonites ranting that Trump is going to send out the gun nuts to take over the US, but if they actually believe that they have been reading too much of their own propaganda.

Except if you actually had read the amendment you would know that it says that "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."  They actually gave the reason for putting in that amendment. Not a word about it being necessary for  future insurrections.

[MiKT]

10 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

Declaration of Independence is a founding document. It was agreed in Congress, unanimously by the thirteen original States. They called themselves the united, States of America. the U coming a decade or so later.

 

It was produced to say to anyone interested (or literate) what, why, how come, to what purposes and goals; the factors that impelled/compelled the founders to declare their independence of Great Britain, and on what basis, code, moral and legal authority.

 

The Dominionists you reference, led by Justice Clarence Thomas argue each state can officially establish an official state religion based on the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment via the legal doctrine of Incorporation. The Declaration is their inspiration, the Constitution is their instrument (obstacle).

 

Scotus in 1919 cited the Constitution (while ignoring the Declaration) in the case of the anarchist Schenck v United States, in identifying Mr. Schenck as a "clear and present danger" because he'd piled weapons in front of a city hall and talked about insurrection. Scotus said nothing about the Second Amendment at all, much less it protecting the anarchist Schenck in his campaign to protect himself against the evil and wicked government he wanted to destroy.

 

The 2nd Amendment is silent in respect of the lunatic hollering of the fringe right that it guarantees citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves against the evil government - or against "a really bad one," as wrongly presented by another poster. So if the Trump Troopers might show up at polling stations on election day, or whenever, nothing in the Constitution or in any founding document, to present laws, would allow them to interpose themselves in the elections process and those implementing it.

 

While a right of insurrection is not to be found in any legal instrument to include the Constitution, it is enshrined in a founding document, i.e., the Declaration of Independence.  Dominionists have a (crackpot) agenda. I have a point and nothing more.

 

I'm not encouraging insurrection at this time for the reason I'd stated in a post. I am in fact discouraging it, not because insurrection is necessarily wrong or forbidden, but because the wrong set of people are considering it if not actively trying to initiate it. 

 

More clarification please.

 

As the second Amendment states "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". So, taking the point I have made in post 254, together with your information about Mr. Schenck above, it would seem to me that the only LEGAL way you could have an insurrection (as apposed to some peaceful way of changing the government) would be to form a Militia to attack government institutions.

 

If my supposition is correct, we could look forward to seeing countless brigades of "Trumps Own Guard", armed to the teeth by the Russians, storming the ballot boxes on the night of the election.

 

Scary.

 

 

 

 

[Berkshire]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Expecting CNBC to write anything remotely factual about Trump is like expecting Trump to write Clinton a well done letter for winning.

CNBC is one of the cabal of anti Trump media campaigning for her against Trump. Rigged indeed.

 

You don't trust any media outlet that speaks badly (read truthfully) about Trump.  So which media provider do you trust? 

[Morch]

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Expecting CNBC to write anything remotely factual about Trump is like expecting Trump to write Clinton a well done letter for winning.

CNBC is one of the cabal of anti Trump media campaigning for her against Trump. Rigged indeed.

 

So basically, any media outlet not bashing HRC is part of her campaign?

The link was to picture, which seems to convey Trump and his family's mood at the end of the third debate.

 

[ilostmypassword]

26 minutes ago, MiKT said:

 

More clarification please.

 

As the second Amendment states "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". So, taking the point I have made in post 254, together with your information about Mr. Schenck above, it would seem to me that the only LEGAL way you could have an insurrection (as apposed to some peaceful way of changing the government) would be to form a Militia to attack government institutions.

 

If my supposition is correct, we could look forward to seeing countless brigades of "Trumps Own Guard", armed to the teeth by the Russians, storming the ballot boxes on the night of the election.

 

Scary.

 

 

 

 

Private citizens can't form a militia.  They can call it a militia but it isn't one unless its under the aegis of the State.

[Publicus]

6 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

Please provide a link to this photo.

 

 

I think it's at a funeral parlor next to Trump Tower.

 

They appear to be waiting for the deceased to arrive -- the 2016 Republican Party.

 

Trump Train is barreling to its Great Republican Train Wreck of 2016. 

 

They also just saw initial projected 2017 financial losses of Trump Inc.

 

Grim for sure. Looks like a January fire sale of the Republican Party followed in December by a fire sale of Trump Inc. Couldn't be worse. 

 

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch either.

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, MiKT said:

 

More clarification please.

 

As the second Amendment states "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". So, taking the point I have made in post 254, together with your information about Mr. Schenck above, it would seem to me that the only LEGAL way you could have an insurrection (as apposed to some peaceful way of changing the government) would be to form a Militia to attack government institutions.

 

If my supposition is correct, we could look forward to seeing countless brigades of "Trumps Own Guard", armed to the teeth by the Russians, storming the ballot boxes on the night of the election.

 

Scary.

 

 

 

 

 

Scary is the speculation and imaginings of the post.

 

Only a state government can incorporate or charter a militia -- its own. Each state's elected governor commands the state's militia. The governor appoints senior militia commanders starting with a two-star general as the commanding general.

 

Anything else in a given state that takes the name of "militia" is informal, not chartered, not incorporated, not legal in the state (or anywhere else). Neither the state nor the feds much bother with the numerous jerkoff militias in the 50 states unless something specific about 'em calls a particular attention to 'em.

 

Since the Dick Act of 1903 the state's militia is also the federal National Guard. All members of the state's National Guard force are qualified members of the armed forces of the United States. The Dick Act authorised Potus as CinC to federalise a state's militia into the regular armed forces for the purposes of the national defense. 

 

Numerous state National Guard units have been 'federalised' to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, many of 'em for more than one tour of duty. The Dick Act requires employers public and private to reinstall in his/her employment position the activated National Guard personnel on their release from active duty by Potus. 

 

National Guard are the turn of the 20th century militia-citizen-soldier of the USA to the present and going forward. Captain Kahn was killed in action in Iraq while in command of his company level unit on federalised service from the Commonwealth of Virginia National Guard.

 

Vladimir Putin would love to see governors of USA states have to call out their National Guard due to election disorder, chaos, perhaps violence, to show that democracy in the USA is false, or invalid, or expired. That no people of the world should want or respect democracy, in the USA first and foremost.

 

Which is yet another objection I have to the Trump-Putin-Republican Party of 2016. It is time to end this radical Party. The best way to facilitate its end is to inflict on it a crushing defeat at the hands of the general electorate in November.

 

Give the suckers the Bum's Rush.

[MiKT]

6 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Scary is the speculation and imaginings of the post.

 

Only a state government can incorporate or charter a militia -- its own. Each state's elected governor commands the state's militia. The governor appoints senior militia commanders starting with a two-star general as the commanding general.

 

Anything else in a given state that takes the name of "militia" is informal, not chartered, not incorporated, not legal in the state (or anywhere else). Neither the state nor the feds much bother with the numerous jerkoff militias in the 50 states unless something specific about 'em calls a particular attention to 'em.

 

Since the Dick Act of 1903 the state's militia is also the federal National Guard. All members of the state's National Guard force are qualified members of the armed forces of the United States. The Dick Act authorised Potus as CinC to federalise a state's militia into the regular armed forces for the purposes of the national defense. 

 

Numerous state National Guard units have been 'federalised' to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, many of 'em for more than one tour of duty. The Dick Act requires employers public and private to reinstall in his/her employment position the activated National Guard personnel on their release from active duty by Potus. 

 

National Guard are the turn of the 20th century militia-citizen-soldier of the USA to the present and going forward. Captain Kahn was killed in action in Iraq while in command of his company level unit on federalised service from the Commonwealth of Virginia National Guard.

 

Vladimir Putin would love to see governors of USA states have to call out their National Guard due to election disorder, chaos, perhaps violence, to show that democracy in the USA is false, or invalid, or expired. That no people of the world should want or respect democracy, in the USA first and foremost.

 

Which is yet another objection I have to the Trump-Putin-Republican Party of 2016. It is time to end this radical Party. The best way to facilitate its end is to inflict on it a crushing defeat at the hands of the general electorate in November.

 

Give the suckers the Bum's Rush.

 

Very Interesting thank you, nice ending to the story, but it does seem to prove the point that although the right of insurrection is enshrined in your DoE, there does not seem to be any legal way for an insurgent to actually insurge without breaking the law.

 If there is, please elaborate?

 NB it’s even more scary to think that Trump Militiamen (no women allowed) would probably be carrying their ammunition in fanny packs.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

 

You don't trust any media outlet that speaks badly (read truthfully) about Trump.  So which media provider do you trust? 

None. I do prefer the channels which don't have ads every 5 minutes though, so that's not leaving much except Al Jazira. However, U Tube is here to save us all from the bias.

I try to go by what they actually say, which avoids being fooled by statements such as Trump calls ( all ) Mexicans rapists and murderers.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So basically, any media outlet not bashing HRC is part of her campaign?

The link was to picture, which seems to convey Trump and his family's mood at the end of the third debate.

 

A picture is worth a thousand words by opinion writers. Yes, I had already said that Trump had probably lost, and they do appear despondent.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So basically, any media outlet not bashing HRC is part of her campaign?

The link was to picture, which seems to convey Trump and his family's mood at the end of the third debate.

 

Any outlet only giving one side is biased, as is any channel that spends more time bashing Trump than reporting the news.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Any outlet only giving one side is biased, as is any channel that spends more time bashing Trump than reporting the news.

The only way for an outlet not to bash Trump would be not to quote him.  Instead those evil SOBs gave him about 3 billion dollars worth of free advertsing.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

The only way for an outlet not to bash Trump would be not to quote him.  Instead those evil SOBs gave him about 3 billion dollars worth of free advertsing.

That's right, and he is laughing like a drain about it. Every time it quietens down he just throws something controversial out there, like he might not accept the vote and the lemmings give him a few more million worth of free air time, and bash him a lot which only makes him more popular with his base.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

31 minutes ago, MiKT said:

 

Very Interesting thank you, nice ending to the story, but it does seem to prove the point that although the right of insurrection is enshrined in your DoE, there does not seem to be any legal way for an insurgent to actually insurge without breaking the law.

 If there is, please elaborate?

 NB it’s even more scary to think that Trump Militiamen (no women allowed) would probably be carrying their ammunition in fanny packs.

You would appear to be correct. After all the first US militias were illegal, but they still called themselves militias though they were just rebels.

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's right, and he is laughing like a drain about it. Every time it quietens down he just throws something controversial out there, like he might not accept the vote and the lemmings give him a few more million worth of free air time, and bash him a lot which only makes him more popular with his base.

 

That's a brilliant strategy. Keep on preaching to the converted.

[Skywalker69]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Expecting CNBC to write anything remotely factual about Trump is like expecting Trump to write Clinton a well done letter for winning.

CNBC is one of the cabal of anti Trump media campaigning for her against Trump. Rigged indeed.

Pimay1 asked for a link to the photo that I posted and that is what I posted. I understand that you must be a Fox News guy, right?

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, MiKT said:

 

Very Interesting thank you, nice ending to the story, but it does seem to prove the point that although the right of insurrection is enshrined in your DoE, there does not seem to be any legal way for an insurgent to actually insurge without breaking the law.

 If there is, please elaborate?

 NB it’s even more scary to think that Trump Militiamen (no women allowed) would probably be carrying their ammunition in fanny packs.

 

Good job I'd say to keep me honest, although I myself spend all my time at it, always and forever. 

 

Article One of the Constitution, powers of congress, Section Eight, specify:  

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

Article Two, the Presidency, Section Two: 

 

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

 

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/04/regarding-pesky-“well-regulated-militia”-2nd-amendment-what-exactly-did-it-mean

 

 

Had to look it up I did to refresh myself from my dayze of reports as if doing a report to a poly sci class in uni).

 

Trump knows what he is saying and means when he calls for election day poll "watchers." In context, "watchers" derives from British law to mean militia. 

 

What militia?

 

A select militia.

 

a select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, most often politicized.

 

'Vigilantes' might be a good one word identifier. 'Watchers' is definitely a good one from its legal and colloquial use in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Political thugs and goons reciting their false and dangerous 2nd Amendment mantra is another good way to express it.

 

Outlaws.

 

The Trump Select Militia of Watchers of polling stations on election day, Tuesday, November 8th Goons.

 

 

(Only perhaps France has founding documents from its revolution that would be the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence in recognising the Rights of Man in respect of the individual in relation to the state, or in the right to rebel. Regardless, each modern republican France and USA share the Enlightenment as their primary inspiration.)

[iReason]

Read it and weep.

 

[Credo]

If anyone is interested in a rather long, detailed analysis of everything Trump is about, here it is:

 

http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/

[pattayalover]

one day USA will be full of isis. and Americans will have to live in Mexico.
vote Trump.

[Ahab]

So let me get this straight.

 

When Trump says that the election could be rigged by Democrats (as described in emails, and actual undercover videos of Democratic operatives) it is bad for the country, and could negatively affect future elections.

 

When Hillary says that the election is being rigged by the Russians (because they hacked and released emails that the general US public was not supposed to see showing the Democrats are trying to rig an election) it is bad for the country because the Russians are undermining the US election  by showing just how corrupt the Democrats actually are.  This is bad for the country because the Russians apparently support Trump, not because the emails are providing damaging insight into just how corrupt Hillary Clinton actually is.

 

You cannot make this stuff up, no one would believe you.

 

 

[AYJAYDEE]

43 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So let me get this straight.

 

When Trump says that the election could be rigged by Democrats (as described in emails, and actual undercover videos of Democratic operatives) it is bad for the country, and could negatively affect future elections.

 

When Hillary says that the election is being rigged by the Russians (because they hacked and released emails that the general US public was not supposed to see showing the Democrats are trying to rig an election) it is bad for the country because the Russians are undermining the US election  by showing just how corrupt the Democrats actually are.  This is bad for the country because the Russians apparently support Trump, not because the emails are providing damaging insight into just how corrupt Hillary Clinton actually is.

 

You cannot make this stuff up, no one would believe you.

 

 

 

thats not what they said, you didnt get it straight

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

thats not what they said, you didnt get it straight

For some it is difficult to decipher sarcasm and humor, so would you care to enlighten me as to what exactly they did say, and how it is different from what I posted?

 

I think my paraphrasing is pretty close, although purposely not stating exactly what was said word for word.

 

Mahalo (thanks)

[Ulysses G.]

50 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

thats not what they said, you didnt get it straight

 

 

It is pretty darn close.