[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[FoolKiller]

After suggesting "2nd Amendment people" could do something about a Clinton presidency, Drumpf's got some unwanted attention.

That sounds like a polite way of saying, "We know. Stop tweeting us already."

 

[ryzno]

"tapestry" -- an area where a diverse group would be seated to reflect wide-ranging support for the candidate.

Which means, the people were screened to sit in a area behind/near her, so it looks good for the cameras.
Someone screwed up and didn't recognize him, or someone planted him. Either way, I don't think it was a good move on her/her teams part. Just like the other guy with his constitution, he has a 10 year business history with her.

Hilarious.

I try

You know what I hate though, is Trump going off script and trying to be funny. Saying comments that can easily be twisted, when he should be destroying her for her stupid choices.

I guess the votes down to who's stupider.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sediqque Mateen didn't say homosexuality is none of his business, Sediqque Mateen said "God will punish those involved in homosexuality," saying it's, "not an issue that humans should deal with.". A bit of a difference don't you think?

Err... no. Did you read your sources?

On the topic of being hamjensbazi, punishment and the things that they do, God will give the punishment. This is not the issue for a follower of God

That doesn't even say that God will punish them, most people would read that in completia as saying that God will judge. As @huskeR32 has pointed out, unless Mateen considers himself non-human then it's clear he doesn't think it's his business. That would be a line consistent with many religious people of many faiths on many issues. Funny, that.

The point of the Clinton video is not that Trump is less anti Muslim, the point is that Clinton is portrayed in the media as the candidate that is pro Muslim, yet everyone seems to forget her past decisions which indirectly caused the death of thousands of Muslim people...

In wars that Trump also supported but which, mercifully, he had no political power over at the time.

...or that she said that she would obliterate Iran.

Your facts are twistier than a Breitbart read. She said that the US could obliterate Iran in the event of them launching nukes. Do you believe every snazzy headline you read or do you ever drill for facts yourself?

 

[huskeR32]

Oh that's precious, looked over the part that said 'god will punish homosexuals anyway' no?

So now he thinks he's God?

 

[sumbrownkid]

Oh look more Hillary emails.

Oh look more Trump making himself look like a dumb 🤬.

Honestly at this point, I doubt anymore email revelations is gonna derail Hillary's campaign. Besides it helps to have Trump say something vague constantly and then have the media be all over it.

That Omar Mateen's father at her rally? Being overshadowed by Trump's latest controversy.

I'm not sure how unpopular my opinion on this would be, but repeal term limits, vote Obama for 3rd term. And I'm sure he would win in a landslide again.

 

[mister dog]

So now he thinks he's God?

You and @TenEightyOne don't get the point, or you don't want to get it? You think it's normal that someone says 'god hands out the punishment for gay people'? Normal that the word 'punishment' be associated with gay people in the first place, especially in the context of his son just having shot up a gay club?

 

[huskeR32]

You and @TenEightyOne don't get the point, or you don't want to get it?

I think we do.

You think it's normal that someone says 'god hands out the punishment for gay people'?

If by "normal," you mean it is something that's commonly heard, then yes. It happens all the time. Perhaps you're not familiar with religious discourse in the US?

Normal that the word 'punishment' be associated with gay people in the first place, especially in the context of his son just having shot up a gay club?

Again, yes. See above.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You and @TenEightyOne don't get the point, or you don't want to get it? You think it's normal that someone says 'god hands out the punishment for gay people'?

Yes, of course. Perhaps you didn't grow up around religion but I recall that one of the things my very devout grandmother would often say was "it's for God to judge, not me".

You think it's normal that someone says 'god hands out the punishment for gay people'?

Yes, very normal. Clearly you don't... imo you've either had some odd experiences or you're following your pre-determination.

Normal that the word 'punishment' be associated with gay people in the first place, especially in the context of his son just having shot up a gay club?

Not only normal but expectable and understandable. The son had perpetrated an act of "justice", the father exclaimed that it's for God to judge/punish, therefore not for man. How hard is that to understand, really?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I don't know where to begin to find a source but, the people who sit behind her and Trump are VIP or invited, you should know that... Of course with her dementia she probably didn't even know...

And on top of that, Secret Service personally screens those people for security reasons. You can't get close to a presidential candidate without undergoing more scrutiny than usual, and you can't just buy a ticket to sit there either.

EDIT:

@TenEightyOne You have to remember that the "god" that Mr. Mateen is referring to is Allah, which is not the same thing as the Christian god. Why do you think he said that it was not the issue for a follower of god [Allah]? It is because Muslims as a whole don't practice homosexuality, and if you are caught doing it, it is a death sentence. Just take a look at what ISIS is doing to gays there, or have you forgotten?

 

[mustafur]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cation-home-and-the-internet-cries-hypocrisy/

Do as I say, not as I do.

Given his salary and how long he has worked, I don't really see how this is Contradictory.

But coming from Washington post you shouldn't expect them to work out basic maths.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, of course. Perhaps you didn't grow up around religion but I recall that one of the things my very devout grandmother would often say was "it's for God to judge, not me".

Of course, "it's for God to judge" and "God hands out the punishment for gay people" mean exactly the same thing right?

Yes, very normal. Clearly you don't... imo you've either had some odd experiences or you're following your pre-determination.

If by normal you mean normal among religious extremists, I agree.

Not only normal but expectable and understandable. The son had perpetrated an act of "justice", the father exclaimed that it's for God to judge/punish, therefore not for man. How hard is that to understand, really?

Convenient how "judge" turns into "judge/punish" with just a few keystrokes isn't it? He didn't say for God to "judge" though did he, he said "punish". In other words, it's a foregone conclusion that homosexuals have already been judged by his god and they will be punished.

 

[mustafur]

Using a picture from the Omaha Rally for Clinton posted in this thread earlier, this is the ''tapestry''

Plenty of these people are not even from the area they will be in, most will be made up of Clinton staffers, Democrat members and hand picked people. The real crowd consists of what is not circled.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Sweet so the crowds behind her are computer generated then. Hope it doesn't get leaked in an email.

Meanwhile, at Trump rallies: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/donald-trump-supporters.html?_r=0

Nice folks.

 

[mustafur]

Sweet so the crowds behind her are computer generated then. Hope it doesn't get leaked in an email.

?

The real Crowd I am referring to are the ones not obligated to come, as in normal everyday people/supporters.

 

[Sanji Himura]

?

The real Crowd I am referring to are the ones not obligated to come, as in normal everyday people/supporters.

In other words, not paid from Daddy Soros' pocket, right?

 

[mustafur]

In other words, not paid from Daddy Soros' pocket, ri'ght?

I mean to be fair, it's something that has been used in rallies for awhile now by Establishment Politicians.

 

[huskeR32]

Of course, "it's for God to judge" and "God hands out the punishment for gay people" mean exactly the same thing right?
If by normal you mean normal among religious extremists, I agree.
Convenient how "judge" turns into "judge/punish" with just a few keystrokes isn't it? He didn't say for God to "judge" though did he, he said "punish". In other words, it's a foregone conclusion that homosexuals have already been judged by his god and they will be punished.

You're right, there is a difference between judging and punishing. Let's refresh our memories about what the man actually said about punishment:

Sediqque Mateen said "God will punish those involved in homosexuality," saying it's, "not an issue that humans should deal with."

He's quite clearly saying that God will take care of any punishment, and that it will happen outside of any human actions.

Portraying Mr. Mateen's words as a condoning of his son's actions is nothing more than a transparent effort to find something to smear Hillary with.

--

You have to remember that the "god" that Mr. Mateen is referring to is Allah, which is not the same thing as the Christian god.

Yes it is.

 

[mister dog]

Portraying Mr. Mateen's words as a condoning of his son's actions is nothing more than a transparent effort to find something to smear Hillary with.

He's not condoning his son's actions literally, but he is saying junior should had left the punishment for gay people up onto god. Like @Johnnypenso points out, punishment usually follows when one is found guilty, so basically he is comparing homosexuality to a crime.

Mr. Mateen must have had a very progressive influence on his son, the mass murderer, so it is only right he represents Hillary in her campaign..

 

[huskeR32]

He's not condoning his son's actions literally, but he is saying junior should had left the punishment for gay people up onto god. Like @Johnnypenso points out, punishment usually follows when one is found guilty, so basically he is comparing homosexuality to a crime.

And again, maybe this is because you're unfamiliar with religious discourse here, but that's fairly typical of many religious folks. And it's certainly not limited to Muslims.

This is a non-story, no matter how much you'd like it to be one, and how much you try and twist it into one.

 

[mister dog]

I wouldn't call the father of someone who massacred 50 young people just 2 months ago attending a Clinton rally and standing right behind her; a 'non story'. Especially if he's know for dubious statements and his sympathy for the Taliban.

 

[huskeR32]

I wouldn't call the father of someone who massacred 50 young people just 2 months ago attending a Clinton rally and standing right behind her; a 'non story'.

This brings me back to my original question, which you dodged repeatedly:

Are you suggesting that political campaigns should start to pick and choose who is allowed to attend their rallies?

 

[Johnnypenso]

You're right, there is a difference between judging and punishing. Let's refresh our memories about what the man actually said about punishment:



He's quite clearly saying that God will take care of any punishment, and that it will happen outside of any human actions.

Portraying Mr. Mateen's words as a condoning of his son's actions is nothing more than a transparent effort to find something to smear Hillary with.

--



Yes it is.

Cool. Doesn't address my point but cool story anyway.

 

[mister dog]

This brings me back to my original question, which you dodged repeatedly:

In the interest of a presidential candidate that is exceptionally vulnerable to a smear campaign from 'the opposition' at any given moment, it would be wise to do so yes. I wonder how liberals would have reacted if Fred Phelps would have been standing in Trumps crowd.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Of course, "it's for God to judge" and "God hands out the punishment for gay people" mean exactly the same thing right?

I don't know how Canadians use English... but I'd say they mean differing things. The second means that it has been decided (judged) that a punishment is due. Mateen's father said "it is for God to punish", you'll note the lack of assumption that a punishment is due. @mister dog is trying to tell us that somehow feeling God is responsible for any punishment in a given matter is "hatred".

Convenient how "judge" turns into "judge/punish" with just a few keystrokes isn't it? He didn't say for God to "judge" though did he, he said "punish".

That's why there's the nuance of presumption to be considered, see the above. It isn't convenient, it's just to do with how words mean things really.

If by normal you mean normal among religious extremists, I agree.

Again, you're deliberately (or innocently) mis-using language. It's normal for people to think that some things are none of their business, that's what "It's for God to judge" means. To normal people.

@TenEightyOne You have to remember that the "god" that Mr. Mateen is referring to is Allah, which is not the same thing as the Christian god.

Same Abrahamic root in spirituality, arguably the same concept.

It is because Muslims as a whole don't practice homosexuality

Utterly incorrect.

and if you are caught doing it, it is a death sentence.

Also incorrect, unless you want to make the same true of all Christians, remember? In practice there are very few places where that's a reality, just like in Christian countries.

Just take a look at what ISIS is doing to gays there, or have you forgotten?

ISIS does not equal all Muslims, they're killing a lot of them, no?. They're certainly a million miles from any of my muslim friends or colleagues including the gay ones who live in a normal society far removed from the Internet-Land idea of Islam . You can do better than that comparison.

 

[ryzno]

What happened to the Hillary dropped medical post. Wanted to finish reading it.

 

[sumbrownkid]

What happened to the Hillary dropped medical post. Wanted to finish reading it.

Russians hacked it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't know how Canadians use English... but I'd say they mean differing things. The second means that it has been decided (judged) that a punishment is due. Mateen's father said "it is for God to punish", you'll note the lack of assumption that a punishment is due. @mister dog is trying to tell us that somehow feeling God is responsible for any punishment in a given matter is "hatred".

Lack of assumption that punishment is due? Saying God will judge someone means the jury is out. Saying God will punish someone means is implying that you're guilty already. When you go to court you get a trial and you are judged. Only after you are found guilty are you punished. Slight distinction.

That's why there's the nuance of presumption to be considered, see the above. It isn't convenient, it's just to do with how words mean things really.

I see. When you add words that aren't there it's "nuance of presumption". Gotcha.

Again, you're deliberately (or innocently) mis-using language. It's normal for people to think that some things are none of their business, that's what "It's for God to judge" means. To normal people.

Would be a cool story if I was talking about God judging, but I was referring to the "god hands out the punishment for gay people" thing which has a different meaning.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Saying God will judge someone means the jury is out. Saying God will punish someone means is implying that you're guilty already.

I agree absolutely. You're significantly changing that quote for your own ends though.

When you add words that aren't there it's "nuance of presumption". Gotcha.

Given that you're the one adding words to the quote (and altering it in other ways) should I take that as a retraction?

On what planet does saying "God will give the punishment, it's not for the followers of God" mean "God will punish"? To give a punishment to somebody is first to judge. It's really not that difficult to understand.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Same Abrahamic root in spirituality, arguably the same concept.

No sir. Allah had no son in mythology, only three daughters. If you had said that they had the same Abrahamic root on this earth, then I might have agreed with you since Ishmael and Issac were both his sons. That is something that wasn't disputed in the Bible. But religiously? No.

Utterly incorrect.

It was a generalization and wasn't intended to be taken seriously.

Also incorrect, unless you want to make the same true of all Christians, remember? In practice there are very few places where that's a reality, just like in Christian countries.

Unless you want to call 72 countries liars (they have laws on the books against homosexuality), be my guest. Source

ISIS does not equal all Muslims, they're killing a lot of them, no?. They're certainly a million miles from any of my muslim friends or colleagues including the gay ones who live in a normal society far removed from the Internet-Land idea of Islam . You can do better than that comparison.

They are the most blatant about it, which is the point. As I have linked earlier in this post, 72 countries have laws on the books against homosexuality, and most of them in Muslim countries. Try again.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Unless you want to call 72 countries liars (they have laws on the books against homosexuality), be my guest. Source

Having a law on the books doesn't make it (to quote myself) "reality". Up until the 70s we had a law on our books saying that all London taxis had to carry a bale of hay. How often do you think prosecutions drew on that in the 20th century? Failing to alter elderly statutes is not enaction. I also note that many of those countries aren't majority-Muslim as you suggested they were.

If you had said that they had the same Abrahamic root on this earth, then I might have agreed with you since Ishmael and Issac were both his sons.

Huh? Where the bloody hell else would we be talking about? Mars? Heaven?