Problem is those professions DO have clear criteria, being a "great" president or a leader on the other hand does NOT, that is FINAL! 

You are right that WE as CITIZENS do have an obligation but that does NOT mean we have or share a COMMON GOAL! 

If you know what democracy doesn't guarantee then why fucking fight about it when your at the mercy at the decision of millions of other people ? 

Again, that's their decision to make and you should hold higher standards for every voter out there BECAUSE THEIR THE ONES WHO'S GOING TO FUCK SHIT UP DAMNIT IF THEY DEMAND IT! 

No you DO have something against legitimate Trump supporters if you think they're "TOO GOD DAMN STUPID" to be angry at but real life isn't quite as noble or rosy as you even remotely make it out to be since there are people out there other than Trump who ACTUALLY think like that and ignoring a problem is just stupid when you see tens of millions of them which isn't going away for a long time and quite frankly the president being better than the common man is a load of BULL-FUCKING-SHIT when the guy that you put in the office is only reflects what the citizens their BEST WISHES. The ONLY way your concerns will ever be put to rest is if you start by directly IMPROVING THE COMMON MAN and not just you but that goes for EVERY one of Trump's detractors otherwise you will get something like #Brexit which was also based on hate or fears ... 

EVERYONE IS ALWAYS AT THE MERCY OF HOPE FROM OTHERS IN A DEMOCRACY ... 

As it is if you don't want to face the problem at hand then just hope that they don't vote Trump much like how the others do hope that they do vote for him as if this is a NEVER ENDING CYCLE ... 

Well, there are a few major differences.

First off, he's referring to "second ammendment people", which is a group defined by gun ownership.  And he's not suggesting they protest.  He said "if Hillary gets her justices, there's nothing you can do."  There's nothing you can do implies that protesting isn't going to be effective.  Then he suggested that a "maybe" there's something that people identified by gun ownership could do "he doesn't know". 

If he meant protest, he could have said, protest.  Why the awkwardly vague phrasing of "maybe they could do something about it"?  And why did he immediately distance himself by saying "I don't know"?  He was being clear enough to get the message across but just ambiguous enough to deny it.

But, I might give him the benefit of the doubt if he doesn't have a history of this.  Hillary said something kind of sketchy (not as much so) about Obama 8 years ago.  When she was losing, she was asked about the outlook, and she pointed out how elections could change.  Among other examples, she mentioned the Bobbie Kennedy assassination. 

Now, that's definitely a really terrible way to phrase it.  But, considered in the context of what Hillary says, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that it was just bad phrasing.  However, Drumpf has said lots of things specifically to incite anger or violence.  He recently said that Barack Obama "founded" ISIS.  When asked if he meant in a metaphorical manner, he insisted it was literal.  That's a dangerous thing for a candidate to say, not to mention obviously false.  He suggested the his supporters should "knock the crap out of" a protestor, and offered to pay the legal bills of anyone who did so. He encouraged Russia to hack into American servers.  He said of one of the Democratic speakers (presumably Bloomberg) " I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy, I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn't know what the hell happened."  He said of a protestor in Nevada, "I'd like to punch him in the face".  He also said he could shoot someone on fifth a avenue and he wouldn't lose any support.

Again, if this was a one-off slip, I'd probably excuse it.  But it's part of a pattern of increasingly violent suggestions that would be very concerning to anyone, even if they weren't in the running for a position that comes with a nuclear arsenal.  At a certain point, we have to stop taking it as a joke.

My issue with the statement is that it is dangerous, and careless. He made not have been intending to incite violence, but he may have accidentally done that anyways.

There are many difference ways to write the speech that doesn't give that impression. So he either intended it to have that impression, or was careless in the construction of the speech.

When speaking to many people you need to be careful of what you are saying, and try to be careful about what they are hearing. If there is a chance that a large amount people could misinterperate what you are saying - then it is your duty to change it.

YES!!! YES WE SHOULD! YES YOU ARE RIGHT! Because the "only difference" of being a presidential candidate is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE!  I expect my team's quarterback to be better at throwing a ball then me.  I expect my surgeon to be better at surgery than me.  I expect my mechanic to know more about cars than me.  And I expect my presidential candidates to be better than me at making informed decisions, knowing about foreign policy, and not engendering hatred and violence.  THEY WILL HAVE THE POWER TO END THE FUCKING WORLD AND THAT IS NOT A FUCKING EXAGGERATION!  THEY WILL LITERALLY HAVE THE FUCKING POWER TO END THE WORLD! THEY WILL LITERALLY HAVE THE FUCKING POWER TO END THE WORLD!  I KNOW I'M REPEATING THAT BECAUSE IT'S REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT!

They don't have any obligation to be anything.  YOU'RE THE ONE WITH THE FUCKING OBLIGATION.  YOU have the obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A CANDIDATE SAYS HE WOULD FORCE THE ARMED SERVICE TO INTENTIONALLY MURDER CIVILIANS.  YOU have the obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A CANDIDATE SAYS WE SHOULD CONSIDER A DATABASE FOR MEMBERS OF A CERTAIN RELIGION.  YOU have an obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOESN'T KNOW A GOD DAMN THING ABOUT FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  YOU have an obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SAYS THAT MOST MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE ARE RAPISTS AND DRUG DEALERS.  YOU have and obligation to TAKE IT SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDAT INCITES RACIAL HATRED BY TWEETING IMAGES THAT SAY 81% OF WHITE HOMOCIDE VICTIMS ARE KILLED BY BLACK PEOPLE.  YOU have the obligation to TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN SOMEONE WILL NOT DENOUNCE THE FORMER GRAND WIZARD OF THE KLU KLUX KLAN AND PRETENDS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHO HE IS DESPITE HAVING SPOKEN ABOUT HIM IN PAST INTERVIEWS.  And this is not demonizing.  Trump has said all of these things point blank. 

I know that democracy doesn't guarantee the best candidate or a particularly good one.  I know that because about 90% of my family was killed by a democratically elected leader, and it's simply dumb luck that my family got kicked out of Germany before shit went down, or else I wouldn't be here right now.  And you know how leaders like that get into power?

WHEN PEOPLE DON'T HOLD THEIR CANDIDATES TO HIGHER FUCKING STANDARDS THAN RANDOM FUCKERS ON A GOD DAMN VIDEO GAME MESSAGE BOARD AND ARE WILLING TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY WHEN CANDIDATES OPENLY SUGGEST VIOLENCE, INCITE RACISM, ADVOCATE WAR CRIMES, AND GENERALLY SHOW THEMSELVES TO BE IGNORANT DERANGED FUCKTARDS.

God damn it.  I don't even have anything against  the legitimate Trump supporters.  If you're the kind of person who is ignorant enough to actually support that shit, then you're too god damn stupid to even be angry at.  It's like getting angry at a dog for rubbing its ass on the carpet.  What pisses me off, frankly, is people like you.  I'm fairly sure that you're smart enough to realize how dangerous the shit Trump is saying is, and I'm fairly sure you're decent enough to not support it.  But for whatever reason, you refuse to actually hold Trump accountable for any of it.  I mean, to be more upset about liberals being uncivil to Trump than Trump advocating this shit... What the fuck.  If you honestly don't expect more from YOUR choice for president than you expect out of some fucker like me on the internet, then you're part of the problem.

Narcissistic liar and egomaniac, yes. Sociopath? Can't really say for sure. Sociopath implies he has some sort of strategy or thought behind his actions.

Problem is those professions DO have clear criteria, being a "great" president or a leader on the other hand does NOT, that is FINAL! 

You are right that WE as CITIZENS do have an obligation but that does NOT mean we have or share a COMMON GOAL! 

If you know what democracy doesn't guarantee then why fucking fight about it when your at the mercy at the decision of millions of other people ? 

Again, that's their decision to make and you should hold higher standards for every voter out there BECAUSE THEIR THE ONES WHO'S GOING TO FUCK SHIT UP DAMNIT IF THEY DEMAND IT! 

No you DO have something against legitimate Drumpf supporters if you think they're "TOO GOD DAMN STUPID" to be angry at but real life isn't quite as noble or rosy as you even remotely make it out to be since there are people out there other than Drumpf who ACTUALLY think like that and ignoring a problem is just stupid when you see tens of millions of them which isn't going away for a long time and quite frankly the president being better than the common man is a load of BULL-FUCKING-SHIT when the guy that you put in the office is only reflects what the citizens their BEST WISHES. The ONLY way your concerns will ever be put to rest is if you start by directly IMPROVING THE COMMON MAN and not just you but that goes for EVERY one of Drumpf's detractors otherwise you will get something like #Brexit which was also based on hate or fears ... 

EVERYONE IS ALWAYS AT THE MERCY OF HOPE FROM OTHERS IN A DEMOCRACY ... 

As it is if you don't want to face the problem at hand then just hope that they don't vote Drumpf much like how the others do hope that they do vote for him as if this is a NEVER ENDING CYCLE ... 

By "if hillary gets her justices", he meant you need to stand with him so Hillary doesn't get elected. Rousing up that base of voters to take a stronger side. He's pointing to her and SC justice decisions as the reason why 2nd amendment rights would be limited or banned. I take it as "rally behind me, because you'll be out of options with her".

It was very silly, but goes along with his adlib speeches at these things. I believe that he just kinda makes things up as he goes and just freestyles it. Brash is how he's always done it.

This is the most biting satire that I have ever witnessed. Your post truly encapsulates the stereotypical uncritical media-swallowing liberal voter and their willingness to buy into the narrative; even when common sense clearly suggests that a quote was taken out of context and exaggerated to drive the point home. The arrogance in display is particularly convincing.

Kudos.

SpokenTruth said:
Sociopath is not an official medical diagnosis. The actual term is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Of which, Donald Drumpf is a textbook case.

Many of his supporters can also be diagnosed with denial and minimization.

both trump and hillary are sociopath
ww3 will happen this year or early 2017
if one of these 2 idiots get elected
and obama is crazy 2
they only good leader these days is putin