Things in Florida have been crazy the last week. Almost every commercial is a political ad and most, if not all, are negative.
There have been unofficial polls taken in almost every class. There were more Trump supporters than I would of thought. Nothing beats hearing pro Trump supporters speaking in Spanish. lol

At 3/14/16 06:50 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: 1. Free speech doesn't cover threats of harm. Never has, never will. Donald Trump is not protected by free speech rights when he advocates violence against protesters at his rally (and he has). Nor are those who make threats against him or his family protected by free speech. Both of them are wrong.

You're wrong here. Threats are actually protected in the vast majority of cases. On a personal (not emotional, rather a face to face between threat maker and threat reciver) there must be immediacy and intent to cause apprehension of an imminent physical harm. If I were to walk up to you randomly and say "I'm going to fucking kill you," I would not only not be breaking the law, but I'd be protected by the 1st Amendment.

In a political context and in a non-personal setting (not face to face with target) there has to be specific intet that the threatened act will be carried out. ANY other excuse no matter how minimal makes it not a legal threat, but fiery language. So when someone says "I want to harm Trump's children," unless it can be proven the language was meant to be a plan and not fiery language meant to convey frystration, it's no crime. When Trump says "Get the out of here. Punch them!" He isn't committing a crime if he claims his motive is not to beat up the protestor, but to look tough and rile up his protestors (what I, personally, believe his motive is), it isn't a crime. The fact that Joe Q. Hick punches the protestor does not after the fact make the speech a crime.

I can guarantee you that Trump's well paid attorneys will never admit the Trump meant to have the protestors assaulted.

After the recent violence among protesters and Trump supporters I decided to log into Newgrounds and see how the Trump thread has responded. Since I made the thread, any post to this thread is noted in my Notifications. Behold 29 Notifications. The only two speaking any form of sense without hyperbole have been @aviewaskewed and @Camarohusky. The rest of you are glorifying one side over another.

At 3/15/16 01:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

If I were to walk up to you randomly and say "I'm going to fucking kill you," I would not only not be breaking the law, but I'd be protected by the 1st Amendment.

Yet if you say that about the president, even in a blog post or comment on a story, the Secret Service busts down your door. Bit of a double standard here.

At 3/15/16 01:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You're wrong here. Threats are actually protected in the vast majority of cases. On a personal (not emotional, rather a face to face between threat maker and threat reciver) there must be immediacy and intent to cause apprehension of an imminent physical harm. If I were to walk up to you randomly and say "I'm going to fucking kill you," I would not only not be breaking the law, but I'd be protected by the 1st Amendment.

Really? See, I assumed it was similar to our rules here about discouraging that. Because a threat of bodily, physical harm fell under the "terroristic threats" or what have you umbrella.

In a political context and in a non-personal setting (not face to face with target) there has to be specific intet that the threatened act will be carried out. ANY other excuse no matter how minimal makes it not a legal threat, but fiery language. So when someone says "I want to harm Trump's children," unless it can be proven the language was meant to be a plan and not fiery language meant to convey frystration, it's no crime. When Trump says "Get the out of here. Punch them!" He isn't committing a crime if he claims his motive is not to beat up the protestor, but to look tough and rile up his protestors (what I, personally, believe his motive is), it isn't a crime. The fact that Joe Q. Hick punches the protestor does not after the fact make the speech a crime.

I see. Still, even if you can't say Mr. Trump committed a crime, I stand behind the fact that Mr. Trump's encouragement to his supporters to behave badly is an issue. Mr. Trump should be above that sort of thing and say "no, I do not want any kind of violence here". I'm not suggesting he can control either the protestors or his supporters if they DO engage in violent confrontation, but he can sure as hell stay above the fray and not encourage it.

I can guarantee you that Trump's well paid attorneys will never admit the Trump meant to have the protestors assaulted.

Nor do I expect them to. That would just be insane. But as I said, he has some responsibility to behave better by not encouraging this shit or giving it approval then throwing up his hands and going "hey, not my problem, people gonna be people"

Does anybody live in Ohio? Would enjoy hearing about that state going crazy over politics.

Did you know that Marco Rubio has the worst attendance record of any senator? The show that commercial every thirty minutes for the last week.

The anti-Trump try to make him look like a clown. They should of used more facts instead of personal insults IMO.

At 3/15/16 12:35 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Anyways, @the-great-one, I'll resort to hyperbole to make a point from time to time; but, I'm not speaking in hyperbole when I say that Drumpf is a fascist. I also very much intended to draw a parallel between the rage of Drumpf supporters and the common citizens in Watchmen. Read that novel and you can see a lot of parallels between the way those people talk about societal problems and the way trump supporters talk about societal problems. Its implied in the book that the doomsday clock is for nuclear warfare, but the subtext of the novel is actually that the clock is a countdown on humanity actually causing itself major harm.

Nothing wrong with speaking in hyperbole to make a point. I do it myself. Also love that you're a fan of Last Week Tonight! However as you and X-Gary-Gigax-X were going back and forth, it was getting a bit messy on both of your parts. That's what I was referring to.

As for Trump being a big threat as President... I don't see it. We have a Congress and a Supreme Court to stop him. The only thing is if he gets crazy with Executive Orders. The radicals are making waves to form a hurricane and Trump is surfing it. If he deviates at all, then the hurricane will destroy him. He's set himself up. Also... no he is not a fascist. If you look at all the stances he has held in the past and the favors he has done you can see he has flip flopped positions multiple times.

There is no way he believes anything he is saying most of the time. He's not a fascist, he's merely playing one on TV. Does that mean I support the guy? Fuck no. I'm pretty much voting Democrat at this point no matter who the candidate is, even if it ends up being Hillary. I've heard of lesser of two evils, but Trump here has broken the fucking scale.

At 3/15/16 01:51 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: The anti-Trump try to make him look like a clown. They should of used more facts instead of personal insults IMO.

You guys don't respond to facts. How do I know? Because myself and others have been throwing them at you for the entirety of his candidacy. So have others. You ignore them, call them lies, or shrug it off. You seem to believe anything Trump tells you, any spin, any lie, etc. That's what's so problematic about fighting him, you can't beat him on his level of insults and bullying, but you can't beat him with the high road of facts, proving he's lying, and etc. Because in the end it's about what he says and how that resonates with people vs. the truthfulness of it or his ability to execute the things he says he will.

Maybe, yes, no, I'll pay, I won't pay, I uh....I uh....

Seriously, how the fuck is this guy not starting to tumble with horrible, shaky, bullshit statements like this?

Donald Trump has won Florida. Marco Rubio's negative ads had no effect. Rubio just ended his race. We are now down to three.

At 3/15/16 07:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Maybe, yes, no, I'll pay, I won't pay, I uh....I uh....

Seriously, how the fuck is this guy not starting to tumble with horrible, shaky, bullshit statements like this?

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Trump is being buffered by the blue-collar Republican crowds and to a lesser extent the DINOs (Democrats in name only) for being a political outsider, along with the fact that he's not one for doublespeak or to backpedal his positions like so many politicians are known to do for better or worse.

I am not a fan of his bloviating style myself, but I can see where the average joe can be supportive to what he says on some level, particularly with those who feel like every other candidate is either too connected to the Beltway and/or corporations, or are fringe candidates who people think is the second coming of the Pied Piper. If nothing else, Trump and Bernie has energized the presidential landscape, though it's a double edged sword to say the least.

At 3/15/16 09:10 PM, orangebomb wrote: If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Trump is being buffered by the blue-collar Republican crowds and to a lesser extent the DINOs (Democrats in name only) for being a political outsider, along with the fact that he's not one for doublespeak or to backpedal his positions like so many politicians are known to do for better or worse.

Up until very recently, this would be an analysis I would 100% agree with. But he IS backpedaling. This article is only the most recent example of him being caught up saying things when the nomination looked less secure that charged up his coalition but now that it looks like he's the candidate and he needs to broaden it....he has no idea how to get out of having said it, while simultaneously needing to have not said it or denounce it to not screw with his brand. So you get these awful situations where he DOES double speak and lie and trip over himself and yet the only people who seem able to see this are the people who weren't fans from the start. Supporters seem to find ways to deny this evidence.

If nothing else, Trump and Bernie has energized the presidential landscape, though it's a double edged sword to say the least.

Without question. I think it's great the electorate cares and is energized, and I'd love to see that energy continue even into mid-terms (where a lot of our worst political situations are created due to voter apathy allowing bad candidates to manipulate and screw with the system to get elected over and over), the downside is the quality of some of the people and their ideas who have been energized to show up is severely in question. This is the sort of nightmare that political parties were invented to prevent, some of these candidates (not just Trump) the sort of nightmare ideas the Founders hoped to keep out of the process.

Are we really unironically using "Drumpf" during a serious discussion? Is this really where we're at right now/?

At 3/16/16 06:44 PM, Feoric wrote: Are we really unironically using "Drumpf" during a serious discussion? Is this really where we're at right now/?

We? No. One or two people? Well....

It's funny and all, but yeah, it again is the sort of stone chucking that Trump has already proven he's the king of. You don't beat this guy by playing on his level, Rubio is now out of this race, a lame duck senator, and at a cross roads in his politcal future for having tried that. I think the only way to beat him is to galvanize yourself as everything he's not and rally the voters who feel the same.

At 3/16/16 07:56 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I have John Oliver's app installed on chrome, so when I edit an existing post (because NG is programmed poorly) the text is replaced even if I type it correctly. I didn't type Drumpf intentionally, but also, who cares? I refuse to take Trump seriously as a person, though I take the threat of his presidency seriously.

The problem with not taking him seriously is he's the front runner, he's basically the only guy who can mathematically win the nomination before the convention barring a miracle run by Cruz or Kasich. To a serious, rational person, he's a joke, he's not a real candidate. But what he says and what he inspires needs to be taken seriously because it's dangerous. It's demagoguery, it's someone who has a selective interpretation of the Constitution (as does Cruz, and oddly enough to me it's ignoring and twisting different parts of the same Amendment). I also tend to agree with Bill Maher that should he be the nominee, and we get a serious terror attack before November? Hello President Trump. The time for funny to me is long over, time to start seeing him for the threat he is.

Gotta laugh, or I'm gonna go insane :o

To each their own I guess :)

At 3/15/16 12:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I see. Still, even if you can't say Mr. Trump committed a crime, I stand behind the fact that Mr. Trump's encouragement to his supporters to behave badly is an issue.

I agree. The court of public opinion is not beholden to the same laws and principles a court of law is.

At 2/24/16 12:29 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/24/16 11:21 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: If this is an insult free zone to discuss Donald Trump, I will be happy to be here.

Donald Trump smells like piss. Fuck him.

Hail God King Trump! That headline is beautiful!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/potential-running-mates-donald-trump/story?id=37760265

Here are some running mates that Donald Trump could pick. If he picks a woman, would that hurt Hillary's advantage of taking the entire female vote?

At 3/19/16 12:09 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Here are some running mates that Donald Trump could pick. If he picks a woman, would that hurt Hillary's advantage of taking the entire female vote?

No, because John McCain tried it in '08 with Sarah Palin and Obama still beat him. Yes, I understand there were other factors at play. But in terms of asking "if a Republican picks a woman as a running mate does it guarantee the female vote?" the answer is no because this was tried and it failed.

At 3/19/16 07:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: No, because John McCain tried it in '08 with Sarah Palin and Obama still beat him. Yes, I understand there were other factors at play. But in terms of asking "if a Republican picks a woman as a running mate does it guarantee the female vote?" the answer is no because this was tried and it failed.

It was tried twice. The first time was with Regan vs. Mondale. Geraldine Ferraro was the V.P. pick for the Democratic Party. However they lost. So no matter what party it is, you're not guaranteed the female vote just because you're a female.

At 3/19/16 06:59 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I think so. Some people are dumb enough to vote for a candidate based on their loins, and women fall under the purvey of "people".

It could be a stunt to make Donald Trump seem more pro-Women.

At 3/20/16 12:16 AM, The-Great-One wrote: It was tried twice. The first time was with Regan vs. Mondale. Geraldine Ferraro was the V.P. pick for the Democratic Party. However they lost. So no matter what party it is, you're not guaranteed the female vote just because you're a female.

I just read a book where that came up not too long ago. Should have remembered that. A tip of the cap sir.

As far as what Doc said....I think the time for stunts is basically over for Trump, now he needs to start pivoting away from the shock and awe stuff and start proving he's a serious candidate. That's why I expect his VP is going to have to be someone who has actual experience in government to balance out his inexperience (Obama did much the same thing by picking Biden). I can't see him picking another novice like Carson, or grabbing a woman for the sake of grabbing a woman. Nicki Haley I would say is a good option, but I could see her turning it down based on I don't think the Trump campaign is going to be strong and the party is probably going to wind up blacklisting anyone involved in it (especially if it's a loser in November). I think Trump's options here will be slim indeed.

At 3/20/16 05:46 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Nicki Haley I would say is a good option, but I could see her turning it down based on I don't think the Trump campaign is going to be strong and the party is probably going to wind up blacklisting anyone involved in it (especially if it's a loser in November). I think Trump's options here will be slim indeed.

I'm from South Carolina, Nicki Haley is not a good choice. Besides she wouldn't accept it anyways because she doesn't like Trump. She endorsed Marco Rubio during his campaign. Whoever decides to be Trump's running mate will be heavily blacklisted in terms of politicians.

Those politicians who are endorsing Trump are simply riding the wave to pick up votes to keep their seats. Afterwards they'll drop him like the shiny object that he is.

At 3/20/16 06:33 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I'm from South Carolina, Nicki Haley is not a good choice. Besides she wouldn't accept it anyways because she doesn't like Trump. She endorsed Marco Rubio during his campaign. Whoever decides to be Trump's running mate will be heavily blacklisted in terms of politicians.

I'm not questioning your direct experience, merely pointing out the national mood. Nicki Haley nationally is seen as a rising star in the party. I'll take your word for it that she isn't great. At one point John Corzine was a star for the other side, but he was a DREADFUL Governor here (he was so bad it was a big reason Christie won the first time), and eventually that caught up. Maybe it will with her too. But right now her brand is looking very good so I don't see her sullying it with Trump.

Those politicians who are endorsing Trump are simply riding the wave to pick up votes to keep their seats. Afterwards they'll drop him like the shiny object that he is.

No no, again, respectfully, I think you aren't looking too deeply into the people you're talking about. Christie is on his last term and his fall has been magnificent (I don't use that word for any personal satisfaction, voted for the guy both times, just using it as a way to point out how far and how fast he fell here), he went from being a supremely popular Republican governor in a solidly Blue state, so much so in fact that in his second election the Dems gave up, ran a very token challenger in an unknown state legislator, abandoned her campaign, and just let him roll on through....to some of the worst approval numbers I've ever seen in the state. Contrast that out nationally, you've got a guy that was BEGGED to run in 2012 to someone who barely placed this time out. Christie is DONE in politics unless he hitches his wagon to Trump and Trump wins and can somehow manage to become the new mainstream. He's in a desperate situation. Carson is the same. Sessions is starting to get more scrutiny as well and the whole Tea Party thing I think is an an ebb now that we have places like Kansas to show us what happens when you fully turn a government over to them. The desperate and the politically done are backing Trump. Anyone with a future is staying away and I think they'll continue to do so.

the mans a coward, all he does is make empty promises and throw people out of his rallies without even challenging their issues. and the idea that the specializations of a business man meet the expectations of a president is completely idiotic.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35867356

US Election 2016: Donald Trump names foreign policy advisers. What does everybody think about his choices?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/donald-trump-ted-cruz-john-kasich-arizona-utah/82123356/

Donald Trump just won the Arizona Republican primary. His idea of banning Isis must be what the people want, especially after the latest terrorist attacks in Brussels.

At 3/23/16 10:17 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: "Ban Isis' sounds like a horrible strategy. lol. How does that work?

Funny seeing as Trump supporters say "Banning Guns won't stop crime". Which they're right. Banning ISIS won't stop terrorism.

At 3/23/16 10:17 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: given that people were voting on the same day of the attack it's hard to say that the two are strongly tied together. Most trump supporters care more about immigration than terrorism. And, Trump was projected to win Arizona long before the terrorist attack.

Terrorism is a major concern of most voters. Trump was projected to win and he did. The more states he wins the better since he is facing so much opposition.

At 3/23/16 12:32 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Terrorism is a major concern of most voters. Trump was projected to win and he did. The more states he wins the better since he is facing so much opposition.

I don't know if you're trolling or if you are seriously that blind as to why Trump has so much opposition.