Welcome to the 2016 Battle for POTUS, where choosing between Billary and Drumph is the equivalent of choosing between the Wooden Horse or the Judas Cradle. Yay for us.
Well, I reckon national security should be foremost in one's mind. In which case I might resort to a Valuum prescription 8)
I don't either. The liberals will cry a lot, but they hate guns and would never actually use any in a civil war.
I think they would. The newer, younger, more regressive left has already decided that speech should only be free to properly validated opinions. I think, if left unchallenged, they are only a short amount of time from (en masse) deciding that violence is justified for certain cross sectional identities. Once they see the kind of power violence can get them, just you wait to see how they'll justify their own use of guns. Alternatively, they'll simply gain enough political control to subject a monopoly on force in the hands of government, and project that force onto the rest of the nation without needing to sully their own hands.
Being jaded is possibly the reason Trump is doing so well. The trouble with Hillary is that she pretty much personifies just about everything that's wrong with Washington. Possibly, but I sincerely hope not.
We had a similar emotional situation in 2002, a controversial politician causing lots of turmoil, nevertheless in a straight line on his way to become PM. And then a couple of days before the election he was shot. The perpetrator acted out of patriotism to protect his country. Statistically USA has a 19 times more chance (320M vs 17M) that will happen to Trump. When Fortuyn was killed a group of people out of pure emotion stormed the government building to take revenge on the politicians who constantly had demonized Fortuyn in the media. They hardly could be stopped by the police. Fortunately they didn't have guns, we have a law against it. But if they had....
I don't think either, it's too far fetched. But USA and its citizens are special in comparison to the rest of the western oriented democratic world regarding political patriotism. I hear the standard phrases about every 4 year: #1. We will lead the world, again. #2. We are the greatest nation on earth. #3. We will make America great again. #4. Yes, we can. It creates (has created) a kind of superiority feeling among many americans including politicians. We (America) rule this world and you better listen to us. In this climate (sentiment) with its cocktail of politics mixed with patriotism mixed with the right to own guns to protect oneself against the government it's not unlikely serious riots are going to happen in order to save America from Trump and make it great again. Also when some left wing nutty decides to play hero and save America by killing Trump. It's what the Fortuyn killer did, saving Holland. Since 2014 he is a free man and hasn't shown any remorse.
No matter how we may feel about Hillary Clinton, we all better just get used to the idea that she will be our next President. For whatever reason, America wants to be more liberal and socialist. Sanders is probably too much too soon. Hillary will fill the bill for now. I just don't see Trump winning it. If he does, it honestly would shock the hell out of me. And if he does, I see some unrest from liberals, but not outright "civil war." They just don't have the stomach for that.
Don't be so sure about Trump. He'll get not just the 'vote for Trump' vote, but the 'vote against Hillary' vote. But I mean, you can vote for Hillary who hates America, Sanders who hates Americans, or Trump who would love to be a tyrant. I should run for President.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots -- or tyrants." ~~ TJ I'm not opposed to a good civil war.
I guess the issue is did Trump make the quote? Is it fair comment that a US citizen, federal judge, of Mexican decent should recuse himself in the case(s) at hand, because Trump wants to build a wall?
Depends how strong the individual's ties are to Mexico and whether the case against Trump is more political than class-action. Also depends on the strength of the evidence against trump, and what the actual ruling says, which I haven't seen anywhere. I'd rather look through those than rely on Vox. Without knowing anything about the case, I seriously doubt Trump has a leg to stand on. I'm sure there are historical situations where the same objection has been brought up, e.g. a black judge presiding over a trial of KKK members, or a Jewish judge presiding over a trial of anti-semites, etc.
I only linked the Vox for the quote. I can't get access to the Wall Street Journal where the original is, so please spare the guilt by association or whatever. As far as I can see there is no ruling yet. It's essentially a fraud case.
As I was saying: Without knowing anything about the case, I seriously doubt Trump has a leg to stand on. I'm sure there are historical situations where the same objection has been brought up, e.g. a black judge presiding over a trial of KKK members, or a Jewish judge presiding over a trial of anti-semites, etc. As an aside I'm not sure where you've gotten the 'guilt by association' thing from, I simply don't trust Vox. For example: Vox - "He's been insinuating for months that Curiel should recuse himself from the case because he's Hispanic. On Friday, at a rally in San Diego — where Curiel presides — he spent 12 minutes going after the judge: claiming that Curiel is "Mexican" (he is a US citizen), calling Curiel's court "a rigged system," and hinting, darkly, that "they ought to look into Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace." And on Monday — Memorial Day — Trump continued his attacks on Curiel via Twitter." WSJ - "In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said. The New York businessman also alleged the judge was a former colleague and friend of one of the Trump University plaintiffs’ lawyers. The judge and the lawyer once worked together as federal prosecutors, but the lawyer, Jason Forge, in an interview said he had never seen the judge socially." What's more interesting to me is the claimed connection between the judge and one of the plaintiffs in the case.