world

Trump suggests Clinton's Secret Service agents disarm

68 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2016 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

68 Comments
Login to comment

More fact-free, toxic trash talk from Trump off the teleprompter.

Whoop!

7 ( +14 / -7 )

This guy is an extremely disturbed individual.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Oh good grief, what Trump is saying is Hillary wants to take away citizens' guns while she is surrounded by gun-toting Secret Service agents.

And this is interesting: "Ari Fleischer: Obama's economy inspiring 'change' election" ( Fox News )

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

Oh good grief, what Trump is saying is Hillary wants to take away citizens' guns while she is surrounded by gun-toting Secret Service agents.

OK. Are you just repeating the headline?

And this is interesting: "Ari Fleischer: Obama's economy inspiring 'change' election" ( Fox News )

And then handing out your bubble information?

FYI the link goes to a Hannity segment from Fox News. Mostly it's information for low information voters to latch on to.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

A deplorable footnote.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Trump is a bigot. Trump is a liar. Trump is okay with violence being used to silence people who disagree with him. All of these are documented facts.

So the question is, if you are okay with overlooking all these attributes in order to support Trump, why shouldn't anyone think those attributes also apply to you?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I think Trump supporters should drop all government benefits. His southern supporters should renounce their SNAP benefits. His Kansas supporters should renounce their farm supports. His business supporters should renounce their subsidies. His gun manufacturer supporters should repay to states the hundreds of millions they received to relocate there. And Trump should immediately return the $150G in post-9/11 state funds for "small businesses" - meant for lower-Manhattan shops damaged by the Towers' collapse - that he received so that he could redecorate the Trump Building. Otherwise, they are all hypocrites and crooks.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

" Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump raised the threat of violence against his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton again on Friday, suggesting her Secret Service guards voluntarily disarm and “see what happens to her. "

What an idiotic press spin. Obviously he was talking about gun-control, but the DNC-controlled press turns this into another Trump bashing talking point. (Someone should also point out the contrast between Clintons open border talk and the massive barbed wire wall around her house... how applying her policy to herself?)

But apparently, a lot of the deplorable populace does not buy the spin any more.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I cannot stand Hillary, but Trump is an idiot.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

"What an idiotic press spin. Obviously he was talking about gun-control"

Obvious to whom? The whoopers in the Trump audience are not the most sophisticated types.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

No, Trump is just reminding the ordinary people that there will not be a way of having self protection if Clinton takes power. She is ready to take away the rights of others but not suffer the same! That is hypocritical! A do as I say, not do as I do type........

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Oh good grief, what Trump is saying is Hillary wants to take away citizens' guns while she is surrounded by gun-toting Secret Service agents.

He went a step beyond that with the words "see what happens to her". An obvious reference to assault or assassination, and not his first.

But have it your way - that all he did was point out a double standard. It's a very weak argument he's making. Very.

Any American, by running as a party's chosen candidate, puts themselves in harm's way, and that's why they're given Secret Service protection. It is always armed protection. In some other countries, armed protection is not considered necessary during electoral campaigning, but campaigns are far shorter (restricted by law to 3 weeks for a UK general election), very few people own guns, and most of the weapon types available to an American gun owner are simply banned outright. In addition, there is (almost) no history of political assassination - that is true, for example, of France, the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, etc etc etc.

And while in some countries, the PM or President may not have armed protection, in others they take no chances, even if the citizens don't own guns to any great degree.

So there's no double standard in a presidential candidate or a president advocating gun control (i.e., the types of weapons an American may own, and the circumstances under which they may own them) and that same candidate or president being protected by men with guns, bullets, training, and an itchy trigger finger. That the Secret Service is armed doesn't mean that your drunk, drugged, or mentally disturbed neighbour should be, and America has an oversupply of those.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

kurisupisuSEP. 17, 2016 - 06:50PM JST No, Trump is just reminding the ordinary people that there will not be a way of having self protection if Clinton takes power. She is ready to take away the rights of others but not suffer the same! That is hypocritical! A do as I say, not do as I do type........

So he's lying then, because Clinton has not ever called for a policy to take away all guns. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/despite-new-adverb-trumps-claim-about-clinton-want/

Unfortunately, that's never stopped the politically dishonest from just declaring that any politician they dislike is out to take away everyone's guns.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

In addition, there is (almost) no history of political assassination - the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, etc etc etc.

Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn both slaughtered in the Netherlands come immediately to mind. But since their politics were closer to Trump's than Clinton's, so I suppose they don't count.

Trump in no way threatened Clinton, and was using a simple rhetorical device - which apparently is over the head of the left's brainwashed minions.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

kurisupisuSEP. 17, 2016 - 06:50PM JST No, Trump is just reminding the ordinary people that there will not be a way of having self protection if Clinton takes power. She is ready to take away the rights of others

Is there any evidence to support this or is it just another insane Bubble talking point ?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I thought they didn't allow guns in hospitals (Hillary). And where is criminal/felon like Hillary even allowed to get a gun or be around guns = there are laws for these felons not to have guns or even have access to guns.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Is there any evidence to support this or is it just another insane Bubble talking point ?

Basic reading/listening comprehension. Trump says that Clinton is against gun rights but is happy to have armed bodyguards. Pointing out this apparent hypocrisy suddenly means he wants someone to assassinate Clinton according to the press. It's disturbing how such a common talking point about hypocrisy can be twisted by the biased media.

It literally follows the same format as everything else:

x supports bringing in refugees. But would they house them in their own home?

x supports taking away guns. But would they disarm their own bodyguards?

and so on.

You can argue about the logic or fairness of this line of attack, but implying (never-mind explicitly stating, like this article does) that it's a threat of violence is asinine. With the election just two months away, its never been more obvious that the press is willing to outright lie in order to push a narrative.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

So he's lying then, because Clinton has not ever called for a policy to take away all guns

She doesn't have to, if she becomes president, she would go after the sellers, I have no doubt about it whatsoever! She's not dumb, sneaky, but not dumb.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

And Hillary has another coughing fit, Trump makes a valid point, health care cost this year reaches 32 year high, and yet the die hard PC crowd demand to remain infantile crying nonsensical comments about racism, connecting dots that aren't there, in complete denial that there is some MAJOR PROBLEMS with monopolized media.

But please don't wake up to quickly! It's quite humorous reading your frail attempts to support a loser as well as watch get triggered when logic is applied!

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Isn't it great that Mr. Trump knows exactly what is best for everyone else? Oh ... Ms. Clinton knows what we need too.

Great.

Vote: NONE OF THE ABOVE!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Trump in no way threatened Clinton, and was using a simple rhetorical device - which apparently is over the head of the left's brainwashed minions."

They aren't the danger. It's the less-than-thoughtful gun fetishists in Trump's audience who hear him saying Hillary will take away their guns. They go from whooping to snarling very quickly.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@thefu

Ha! Spoken like a true millenial! Do nothing‥……

That's how we got into this mess to begin with.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

What an idiotic press spin. Obviously he was talking about gun-control, but the DNC-controlled press turns this into another Trump bashing talking point.

He intentionally lied to the crowd when he gave a false statement about Clinton's position on guns. Saying that he got treated unfairly by the press while doing it rings a bit hollow.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Nice to see a pro-gunner (Trump) speaking the truth. If only we could get the populace armed against thugs in Liberal hell-holes and sanctuary cities like Chicago.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

theFu wrote: VOTE: NUN OF THE ABOVE (I took the liberty of correcting the typo.) ... Right on! Sister Mary Boom Boom, Ordo Indulgentiae Perpetuae, has thrown her coif in the ring! Sanity and Truth comes to Campaign 2016...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

He intentionally lied to the crowd when he gave a false statement about Clinton's position on guns.

Hardly a false statement. Everyone knows that one of the long-term goal of American 'progressives' is elimination of the 2nd amendment. Would you seriously argue that not to be the case?

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

IllyasSEP. 17, 2016 - 09:47PM JST Hardly a false statement. Everyone knows that one of the long-term goal of American 'progressives' is elimination of the 2nd amendment.

Wow, what an embarrassing typo. You wrote "everyone" when what you meant to write was "paranoid delusionals whose only contact with progressives is the voices in their head."

6 ( +8 / -2 )

"She doesn't have to, if she becomes president, she would go after the sellers, I have no doubt about it whatsoever!"

To be fair, you are emotionally attached to your guns. You said you loved them. I respect your hard-headed, non-partisan thinking, but on this one I fear the heart could be leading the head.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Trump, again, shows an upgrade on his intelligence level.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@presto - Don't you mean, Once again shows the need for an upgrade on his intelligence level" ?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@presto - Don't you mean, Once again shows the need for an upgrade on his intelligence level" ?

No. It's meant to be ironic. He operates on a different scale of intelligence.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Illyas at Sep. 17, 2016 - 08:00PM JST Basic reading/listening comprehension.

Well I'm still waiting for kirisupu back up his / her claims that Hillary Clinton is running on a platform of banning guns.

Perhaps you could pick up the baton. Otherwise I'll go with my original conclusion that it's nothing but another Trump fan's unhinged accusations...

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I think Hillary should keep Trump around as Entertainer in Chief.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So he's lying then, because Clinton has not ever called for a policy to take away all guns.

So you are saying that Hillary does not want to decrease legal gun ownership? Of course she does.

Trump makes an obvious point that the elites are not willing to abide by the same rules as everyone else. Of course he does not want the elite to go unguarded. But the fact is Hillary is willing to limit the rights of "the deplorables" while she is unwilling to voluntarily submit herself to the same risk.

It's the usual double standard from the Left. We send our kids to private schools while limiting the deplorables access to better educational opportunities. She wants the deplorables to limit their 'carbon footprint' while she jets around the world in gas guzzling executive jets and encouraging the deplorable to turn off the air conditioning and biking to work in the rain. The class divide she is promoting and the crass hatred of people unlike herself is frankly, un-American.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Guns are still available, but how about bullets. They are in short supply.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahh, it sounds like you're finally coming out as a Trump supporter, Wolf. I knew I could count on you. As far as I'm aware you were the last Independent Republican hanging out ;)

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It's the truth if no one else can have guns to protect themselves and she feel this way Trump has a point why should she have body guards protecting her with them they too should disarm it's no different than her carrying a gun.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I like Bill Maher's approach: If you want to tell me that Clinton is going to take your guns, your first have to admit that you were wrong about Obama taking your guns. Then we can start the conversation.

Illyas: Hardly a false statement.

It's a false statement about Clinton's position, of course. And he intentionally did it to feed into the paranoia of low information conservatives who believe a US president can wave his or her pen and take them away.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Meanwhile the TSA has enough ammo to kill the entire US population thrice over- this new paradigm was conceived under Obama!.The population of the US needs the 2nd amendment to protect itself from those in power and Trump focuses on that whereas Clinton doesn't.

Trump will be President in under 50 days and the US will thank him for it!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I think many Americans find Trump's brand of politics...

deplorable.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

JefferyDomer Sep. 17, 2016 - 08:27PM JST @thefu

Ha! Spoken like a true millenial! Do nothing‥……

That's how we got into this mess to begin with.

I'm quite a bit older than any millennial or 2 prior "named" generations.

The two choices for Pres suck equally in different ways. Wish there were someone I could actually VOTE FOR, instead of voting against. Mr. Trump's and Ms. Clinton's economic policies have been reviewed by experts. If enacted, both would destroy the US economy and harm the world's. I'm concentrating on things I can control, since it appears the 2 main candidates are equally bad for the country. On paper, Ms. Clinton seems like the better candidate - years of govt service, but as a former DoD contractor, I just can't get passed her violation of laws AND the belief that she isn't responsible for this. Her liberal policies scare me even more. Mr. Trump is a loudmouthed boob and an embarrassment to the USA. I'd rather he not need to dissolve 3 counties before he finally learns to get it right.

IMHO.

Regardless, I hope that Ms. Clinton feels better. Being ill isn't fun for anyone. Her people all need to be fired for lying about pneumonia and sending her to events when she should have been resting. We all get sick and need to take care of ourselves. This shows poor judgment from her inner circle, IMHO. There are lots and lots of examples of her poor judgment, sadly.

Time to try to make both of these candidate impotent once either gets into office.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

kurisupisu at Sep. 18, 2016 - 12:38AM JST Meanwhile the TSA has enough ammo to kill the entire US population thrice over- this new paradigm was conceived under Obama!.

Agreed. Obama is about to declare marshal law and cancel the election. Then he's going to declare Kenya the 51st state, turn into a lizardman live on CNN and come straight for your guns.

Oh wait, I thought it was Hillary. Dang, there just isn't enough tinfoil to go round...

6 ( +6 / -0 )

If you want to tell me that Clinton is going to take your guns, your first have to admit that you were wrong about Obama taking your guns

He still has 125 days left!!!!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Words cannot describe how much this man is just a complete and utter idiotic nincompoop.

My retort to Trump should by some twist of apocalyptic demonic force get him elected to POTUS make sure his SS is disarmed and see how trustful he is being without bodyguards.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Madverts

Ahh, it sounds like you're finally coming out as a Trump supporter, Wolf. I knew I could count on you. As far as I'm aware you were the last Independent Republican hanging out ;)

Please, I am not a Republican. I cannot associate myself with a party that pretends to be conservative at election time but governs like Democrats. Bush, Obama, and Democrats in Congress didn't run up $20 trillion in debt without a good bit of help from Republicans. It has taken me awhile to come around to the conclusion that I may have to either vote against Clinton (ie. for Trump) or not vote at all. Trump will also be a disaster as president. Neither he or Clinton can unite the country after all of the divisiveness of the last two presidents.

Right now I am leaning towards the buffoon over the crook for a few reasons. Firstly, the fact that Clinton so clearly broke the law - and repeatedly lied about it on camera - and was given a pass by the FBI really disgusts me. Both Trump and Clinton are wealthy elitists who have worked the levers of government for their personal financial advantage. Both cannot tell the truth about much of anything. Both are a little bit racist. Trump has not yet been in power to enact racist laws like Clinton has but he has proposed some that are borderline racially discriminatory. Hillary is an unabashed Socialist while Trump is somewhat less so but still supports expanding fiscally irresponsible and economy killing entitlements. And yes, Hillary is against the individual right to bear arms that is written in the Constitution. The evidence is clear on that fact. You can't just ignore the Constitution - try to change it but do not undermine it.

Finally the racial divineness that is going on in America in recent years is really getting to me. The use of political correctness to push for discriminatory policies at universities, in government, and in private businesses is killing America. The explosion of divisive ideas such as safe spaces, white privilege, nonsensical gender ideology, Black Lives Matter, etc. is insane. I even had a longtime non-white friend of mine who is from a wealthy family and who lives in one of the wealthiest zip codes in America foist the white privilege BS on me not that long ago. The nation is going in a direction where it will be impossible to bring people together. When the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happens I don't think the nation will be capable of coming together again.

No, I'm not for Trump. But I am against Hillary and 4 more years of the damage Obama has done to America. The sooner America can get past Obama's presidency and this next one the better off America will be. Can it possibly get worse?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

One day, in the future, if you want to type a comment, the keyboard (or whatever) will be able to read not only your IQ level, but also your "emotional value". So, get your cheap shots in now, attack Trump while supporting a total warmonger, because in the future, you will be "moderated" as an undesirable.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

attack Trump while supporting a total warmonger

Hillary is a warmonger sometimes, when she intends to be. Trump would be a warmonger by accident, because he can't keep his trap shut.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Whatever Wolf. I knew you'd come out of the Trump closet. He's your party leader after all. The leader of all you Independent Republicans...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ Madverts

Sounds like you have your finger on the pulse....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wolfpack: and was given a pass by the FBI

Like, they didn't do their jobs properly? Or they were influenced? Or compromised?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

He intentionally lied to the crowd when he gave a false statement about Clinton's position on guns.

So you're saying that Hillary would protect our gun rights and NEVER, EVER take our guns away? She would be an advocate for gun rights? Wow!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

He intentionally lied to the crowd when he gave a false statement about Clinton's position on guns.

So you're saying that Hillary would protect our gun rights and NEVER, EVER take our guns away?

No, he's saying, as it clearly stated, that he intentionally lied to the crowd when he gave a false statement about Clinton's position on guns.

Did you not read the comment?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn both slaughtered in the Netherlands come immediately to mind. But since their politics were closer to Trump's than Clinton's, so I suppose they don't count.

Theo Van Gogh was a film director, not a politician. Pim Fortuyn was the first politician assassinated in the Netherlands since (WWII excepted) the 17th century. But I did say "almost" no history of political assassination, and 1 politician in over 300 years meets that description quite well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, he's saying, as it clearly stated, that he intentionally lied to the crowd when he gave a false statement about Clinton's position on guns.

Yeah, but as a gun owner and knowing Hillary, I seriously doubt, she would do everything to uphold the secondd amendment. I think she would do everything within her power INDIRECTLY to circumvent and bypass the laws to stop people from owning guns.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

bass: Yeah, but as a gun owner and knowing Hillary, I seriously doubt

OK. Well I'm glad we got to help you find your point. It's kind of like watching Plinko on The Price is Right.

Wolfpack: Yeah, that sounds about right.

What sounds about right?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In any other developed country, Trump would be a laughing stock. The fact that he has so much support from Americans is frightening.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Her SS should put away their guns and see what happens. She enjoys the protection of her bodyguards and secret service that do carry a firearm, so what makes her special as a woman who doesn't support the 2nd amendment.

This is the biggest logical fallacy ever on the right.

Guns should be illegal. Guns are legal. People who don't want to get shot have guns, and/or bodyguards. Wanting to create an environment where one doesn't need guns and/or bodyguards doesn't mean someone should be stupid enough to imagine they don't need guns and/or bodyguards in the existing situation.

It's the very fact that she needs the bodyguards that is a driving force to want to get to a point where she doesn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolpack: Maybe it will make more sense to you if I told you that I do not "identify" as a Republican.

Donald Trump is a disgraceful individual. You'll be voting for him with a peg on your nose, but that doesn't help your partisan identity crisis.

Kurisupisu,

All I asked was you to back up your pertinently false statement on Hillary comin' for ya guns. And you failed...

Illyas?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Theo Van Gogh was a film director, not a politician.

You said "political assassination," not politician. And van Gogh's assassination was clearly political.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She's been clear on her stance on this issue, and Trump lied directly as to what she has stated.

Yes, she's been clear, but we're talking about Hillary and given her history as far as the truth is concerned, I would say in all honesty, people should be afraid with good reason.

It's the very fact that she needs the bodyguards that is a driving force to want to get to a point where she doesn't.

Ok, that's your opinion, but I believe and I am very happy that guns are legal and who is Hillary or any other Democrat or liberal to tell anyone what we can or cannot buy. I have news for you, you think Haare Reid would ever give his guns up or Pat Leahy? Absolutely not, especially Reid needs his and with good reason. I'm glad Trump is hammering this issue and he should.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You said "political assassination," not politician. And van Gogh's assassination was clearly political.

It was religiously motivated, not politically.

Yes, she's been clear, but we're talking about Hillary and given her history as far as the truth is concerned, I would say in all honesty, people should be afraid with good reason.

'Trump was lying, but Hillary lies, so it's ok that Trump lied, because he may have been right about what Hillary may have been lying about'.

Seems legit.

who is Hillary or any other Democrat or liberal to tell anyone what we can or cannot buy.

People exercising their first amendment right, that's who they are.

you think Haare Reid would ever give his guns up or Pat Leahy?

I think the vast majority of people want to be in compliance with the law, and if the law changes to restrict gun ownership, they will go with the law, even if they grumble like mad while doing so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln, nor any signers of the Constitution had an AK47, just so you know, and saying that wanting to control those weapons somehow trashes the 2nd amendment is ... deplorable. I want to see those kinds of weapons, at the very least, restricted to sane people with no criminal record, and I am not alone. And yes, I know that if we don't all have nukes, only criminals will have nukes and all that...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass: I would say in all honesty, people should be afraid with good reason

There really isn't much of anything a US president can unilaterally change on guns. Plus her position has always been about tighter background checks, not banning guns. Add the two together and I don't see much to be afraid about unless you are imagining some kind of secret plan.

As for going after sellers, did that have to do with the ruling on abortion clinics?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There really isn't much of anything a US president can unilaterally change on guns.

Obama showed that. He did everything he could to have something done after Sandy Hook. And even the tiny step he tried to take was shot down.

Right-wingers worried about Hillary taking their guns are putting up much ado about nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@commanteer

You said "political assassination," not politician.

That's right. I said it in the context of my comment that dealt exclusively with the protection of politicians. Which is in a thread below a news story dealing with the protection of politicians.

It wasn't intended to be confusing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was religiously motivated, not politically.

Religion and politics are inseparable in this case.

@wipeout - You will see more assassinations in Europe, and they have only been relatively rare since WW2 - as in the US. I don't know where you got the idea that they are less likely there than in the US. The first world was was started by a political assassination in Europe - the US has nothing that comes close to that.

In any case, there is no reason that an average citizen shouldn't be entitled to the same security given to the elite (at that average persons expense, no less). Sure, running for president raises a person's risk. So does living in a bad neighborhood.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sure, running for president raises a person's risk. So does living in a bad neighborhood.

This is an excellent point. The Left complains about people leaving inner cities for safer towns in the suburbs leaving behind crime ridden communities. The heavy regulation on firearms can make it nearly impossible for people to obtain the facility to protect themselves and contributes to the desire of fearful residents to flee the horrendous crime ridden places like Detroit and Chicago.

The Federal government rightfully provides armed protection for government officials like President Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is important that all officials are protected and as a result violence against them are rare. The average citizen is not asking for the government to provide 24 hour protection like Hillary has. However they would like to have the right to protect themselves in crime ridden communities like Obama's hometown of Chicago. Obama and Hillary continually want to make that harder. The disarming of law abiding citizens simply make things easier for those who are not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The first world was was started by a political assassination in Europe - the US has nothing that comes close to that.

"Started" by, but not caused by. I think you'll find it's generally accepted that the First World War was fought for other more important (or at least less avoidable) reasons, and came about because of preexisting conditions that made it possible, and in the years preceding 1914, increasingly likely.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites