This long list (taken from The Atlantic) is a collection of prominent Republicans who have endorsed Donald Trump for president. That they’ve done so already speaks poorly of their character.
Bob Dole
John Boehner
Trent Lott
Dick Cheney
Newt Gingrich
Reince Priebus
Rick Perry
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
Eric Cantor
Ben Carson
Rick Santorum
Herman Cain
Paul Ryan
Kevin McCarthy
Steve Scalise
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Raul Labrador
Mitch McConnell
Jeff Sessions
John McCain
Kelly Ayotte
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Rob Portman
Richard Burr
Roy Blunt
Ron Johnson
Pat Toomey
Tom Cotton
Bob Corker
Orrin Hatch
Tim Scott
John Cornyn
Chris Christie
Paul LePage
Nikki Haley
Pete Ricketts
Mike Pence
Pat McCrory
Scott Walker
Donald Rumsfeld
Ann Coulter
Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannity
Matt Drudge
Sarah Palin
Rush Limbaugh
Rupert Murdoch
Michael Reagan
Hugh Hewitt
Sheldon Adelson
Peter Thiel
Stanly Hubbard
T. Boone Pickens
Foster Friess
Woody Johnson
Mel Sembler
Jerry Falwell
Ralph Reed
James Dobson
Richard Land
Given Trump’s latest outrage — suggesting that assassination would be a possible way to prevent Hillary Clinton from appointing judges who would restrict gun ownership — it’s time for these people to do the right thing and renounce the man.
Not that I expect they will.
His behavior is beyond the pale. A demagogue has now broached the idea of murdering his democratic opponent to a mob of dangerous loons.
These loons.
I call that incitement to violence.
see also the Rolling Stone article, calling this an act of stochastic terrorism:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trumps-assassination-dog-whistle-was-scarier-than-you-think-w433615
Has the thing that lives on Trump’s head infiltrated his brain & taken it over? it could be an alien life-form that intends to take over the planet. It just has to disrupt human civilization, to achieve that end. It looks like it’s on course. If Trump wins the Presidency, we’re* screwed.
* Not just Americans, all of us.
It is a threat of violence. No dog whistle.
A clear incitement to violence against a political opponent made by a Presidential candidate – truly a dark day for democracy. Doubly so given that we know, from the tragic example of Jo Cox, that deliberately inflamed political obsession can easily result in murder, even in a country like the UK with vastly tighter gun controls than the US.
I shudder to think what the world might look like if Trump gains power.
kayden wrote:
More of an incitement rather than threat, but it’s still is a dog whistle. It’s left vague enough that others can claim he was merely suggesting they vote, even though if he meant that, he could’ve easily said just that rather than leaving it so open ended.
This incitement to violence doesn’t just extend to Hillary Clinton, but to any politician or any judge deemed insufficiently friendly to free gun ownership.
I listened carefully to what he said and I don’t think he was calling for the assassination of Clinton. I think he was calling for armed insurrection against the US government in the event that Clinton gets elected, packs the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges, they revoke the 2nd Amendment, and then start going door to door to confiscate everyone’s firearms.
He did mention that when that happened it “would be a horrible day.”
In the like four hours of coverage I watched, only once did CNN point out that Trump specifically said the incitement to violence after establishing a scenario where Hillary has already won, defeating the argument from his defenders that “Trump just meant for gun owners to vote for him.”
More of that bullshit “we don’t fact check, we just let both sides say their piece and act like they’re both equally valid” drivel.
When people talk about using the 2nd Amendment to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, they seem to imagine themselves as Patrick Henry standing side by side with a bunch of other guys in tricorner hats. Really, though, the face of that sort of rebellion today is the face of Micah Xavier Johnson, who gunned down the police in Dallas.
I’m not defending his actions — I’m saying if your argument to keep your guns is that we need them to protect ourselves from the government, then YOU are the one who is defending him. It is logically impossible to justify gun ownership in this way, and simultaneously condemn people who shoot at the police. Police ARE the government for most people — if you say that blue lives matter, then widespread gun ownership should be an anathema to you. You CANNOT be pro-police and pro-gun at the same time and have an ounce of integrity.
You don’t need guns and armed militias to get rid of an oppressive government. That is just a fantasy.
1. We in the USA already have a way to get rid of bad governments. It’s called voting. Obama said it right, paraphrasing, “If you don’t like my rule, then go out and win an election.” He did win two terms as President.
2. In the event that democracy isn’t happening, you still don’t need hordes with guns. Proof.
The old USSR. Remember them? The Commies, the Evil empire.
Egypt and Mubarak
Iran and the Shah.
If enough people get out into the streets long enough, with popular support, one third of all the world’s nukes isn’t enough to keep you in power.
Like most, I’m just stunned by this.
In my life, I’ve seen a fair amout of political violence in the USA. A partial list.
John F. Kennedy
George Wallace
Ronald Reagan
Jerry Ford (IIRC twice attempted)
Obama (A xian now in prison)
Gabrielle Giffords.
I’m sure it will happen again to someone, somewhere.
And, can Trump top this for sheer scariness? Hard to imagine but there are three months left to go.
Why does Trump think that he is not a potential target?
Calling your opponent an existential threat or inherently illegitimate is a dog whistle, ala the language many Republicans used towards Obama (and some Democrats towards Trump). This was a naked threat of political violence directed towards a group that has long reveled in such threats (“from my cold dead hands”)
I was also reminded of what happened to Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.
Qwints @ 12: The “some Democrats towards Trump” smacks of false equivalence; Trump is a man who has wondered out loud about using thermonuclear weapons tactically, and he is currently vying for the ability to make those kinds of decisions when there are precisely zero (zilch, zip, nada, none) protocols in place to prevent him from doing so, were he to win. If that is not an existential threat, and if it cannot be named as such, then I’m not sure how we’re supposed to talk about an insane carnival barker in a way you think is legitimate.
Actually Dick Cheney is not supporting him anymore it seems:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-republicans-paul-ryan/index.html
I hope this becomes a list of shame for years and years to come.
I completely agree that what Trump said was beyond the pale morally/politically. And yes I completely the GOP needs to stand up.
And while what he said was morally/broadly incitement to violence I’m not sure it is specific/direct enough to qualify as incitement legally, especially in light of the extraordinary leeway candidates/political speech should be given.
A bit like his treasonous (but not quite treason) comments about Russia hacking Clinton’s email this doesn’t quite fit the legal standard.
you know… those thinking this way might have tried reading the Rolling Stone article about Stochastic Terrorism that was linked by Cuttlefish in the very first comment.
the courts are often slow to respond to new things. that doesn’t make them any less real, or any less of a threat. just ask the 9 people who died at the planned parenthood clinic last year.
Anyone know the address of “Grassy Knoll” landscaping company so I can get some shares.
We have to do all we can to keep him in the race, so that when he loses, he loses by a massive fucking landslide and breaks the GOP base over his knee like cheap kindling on the way out.
I am told the Republicans are planning some sort of intervention and trying to replace him. That will ALSO break the base, especially if he decides to run as an independent, and it would actually prove some of his paranoid rantings about the system being rigged true.
Still I’d rather see him ride this to the end and go down in a landslide defeat. Especially if it makes him commit suicide, and double-especially if it’s a very long, slow, miserable suicide by alcohol abuse. This shitstain is bringing us to the brink of destruction as a nation.
@18
I read that article. I’m in agreement this should be seen as incitement morally and treated as such by voters and elected officials in their politico role (at the very least) I absolutely agree it’s dangerous and ought to be dealt with as such.
I’m, however, saying that as the standards are currently set up I’m not sure this should count as incitement.
I’m forwarding this argument to not excuse Trump’s statement–it’s indefensible–but to worry that the legal standard’s may be too narrow.
I literally have no idea how you misread me in that you thought I didn’t think this was dangerous. I flat out called it incitement to violence in the most important sense. And completely agreed with Professor Myers’ main points up front.
Yeah, that’s incitement, the only question is, incitement to assassinate a duly elected POTUS or incitement of insurrection. Either way, it’s a felony.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
No: as Vivec@7 points out, the comment was specific about the context – that Clinton has already won:
So whether or not it’s specific enough to be incitement to assassination, it’s certainly incitement to violence if the Supreme Court makes decisions gun-fondlers dislike, following Clinton’s appointment of justices. (Although since the Senate has to approve the President’s nominees, this assumes she will be able to get her choices through the Senate.)
Which is one reason it is so important to NOT mark your ballet for any
republicanthug for any position. The entire House and one-third of the Senate are up for election (not to mention numerous state and local crooks), and there is simply no reason at all any of them should be held by a thug.On a more practical level — realizing there will, unfortunately, be thugs (re-)elected to both the House and the Senate — taking control of the Senate away from the thugs is numerically easier than the House. I’m too lazy to check the precise figures, but it’s something similar to a minimum of c.4 seats need to go from thug to rational in the Senate, but about an order-of-magnitude more thug-to-rational is needed for the House.
A Senate not-controlled by thugs (and hence more likely to be rational) should be much less of a problem with Supreme Court and numerous other thug-blocked / -backlogged appointments.
(Of course, the entire House is up for election, so there is the theoretical possibly of a thug-wipeout there (few-to-no thugs at all).)
Mike Smith, #21
You’re using the word should here instead of would.
How would he need to modify his statement for you to say it should count as incitement?
I think the statement he made is open to several different interpretations. He’s not a sophisticated rhetorician, and I can believe that he might have meant it as something other than an incitement to violence. For what it’s worth, my initial reading of the statement was “vote for me, because I’m the only one who can stop things getting so out of hand that the gun people start assassinating politicians or doing armed insurrections”. That is a threat, and calculated to make people fearful, but I don’t think it’s the same as an endorsement of violence.
It doesn’t matter very much what his intentions were though, or if he has plausible deniability. That his statement could be interpreted as an incitement to violence makes him at the very least reckless in saying it, and speaks volumes about the man’s lack of scruples.
Forgive me for saying so, but it sounds like the idea of tossing the election to Trump so he can “burn it all down” might be worryingly literal.
Thomas Friedman in The New York Times has pointed out that this is the sort of rhetoric that incited the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Friedman ends his piece thus
I’m going to send emails to some of the legislators on the OP list and encourage them to join the 50 Republican security officials who recently renounced Donald Trump. I don’t know if it will do any good, but I figure it is worth a try.
lotharloo@15,
You’re misreading that. It’s not Cheney who signed the letter, it’s his former national security advisor. As for Cheney, from the Atlantic article:
@23
1) I don’t have to power to change the standards. I’m not in a position to accept or reject them as such.
2) I went on to say that they may be too narrow. So I’m explicitly not in agreement with them legally.
3) third time now I 100% agree this is incitement morally so I am not using the legal standards for the main question.
Excuse me for not being lawyer but understanding enough of the complexity involved to doubt lay judgments in regards to the law.
There is no actual disagreement in this thread amongst me and anybody else.
I think t hat the think that is important to remember is that Trump’s positions (such as they are) are no different than those of at least the republicans who were also running for the republican nomination.
In other words the “hero” republicans who do not support Trump are really only complaining about his tone and brashness. They really have no problems with his policies. Fore instance, the heroic Senator Collins from Maine also voted again the ACA.
So what you are doing is giving these republicans cover by praising them when they say they won’t support Trump. They pursue policies that are just as vile as his are. If anything the ones who are still supporting him are a little more honest than the others.
@26 Saad
First if you are going lean on heavily on a would/should distinction, in spite of the broader context of my post, I hereby retract ‘ should’ in that sentence and edit it too ‘would.’ In context it’s clear that’s what I meant.
Second, to answer your question, the statement in context reads to me as Trump saying that the second amendment people could do something about the problem, it and while that’s horrible they could change it. *wink* in the subtext and the largest context possible it’s clear that he is saying is gun nuts ought to take route.
But it’s not in the text. I think it’s vague enough that a skillful lawyer would be able to claim that Trump didn’t recommend violence but was noting or predicting that method.
This is not the first time he has clearly incited violence morally without quite doing it legally. When he predicted riots if he was denied the nomination that too was incitement to violence in the moral sense but not quite what would count under the current legal standards.
What’s particularly sad about some of the names on that list — such as Dole and McCain — is that there’s no grown-up in the room anymore. McCain was decent enough to talk back to people screaming Muslim at his rallies, but eight years of trying to illegitimize a half-white man from Columbia and Harvard have made him and Dole just as reckless and hypocritical as the rest. The ghost of Ronald Reagan could show up to scold them, and he’d be shouted down as a Shar’ia jihadist. And I get it that some of these guys (except for the occasional Bachmann or Ernst, yeah, guys) are defending their right flank against crazier and crazier primary opponents who could win over a crazier and crazier base. But Bob Dole? What the fuck does he have to lose by saying “oh grow up, you tantrum-throwing two-year-olds!” I guess having his ass handed to him by the future president’s husband was too much for the erectilely-dysfunctional asshole.
This provides an excellent example of something I’ve observed–Trumps inability to construct a simple sentence in English actually works to his advantage when he ultimately has to eat his word salad. The absence of a verb allow him to say that he was just misunderstood, and, oh, no, he’d never advocate violence.
@22, On the legal question, it’s definitely not incitement under Brandenburg, in fact it’s quite close to the line from the KKK that the Court held was protected (“it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”) I feel like we’ve had this discussion before.
Seth @14, Sorry, I was trying to distinguish the ordinary ‘incitement’ that occurs at the edges of American political discourse (the other side are bad, evil people who are trying to destroy our country and need to be stopped) from the explicit threat Trump made.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
Based on the sentence structure and the way rambling works (especially with him), I think the “It will be a horrible day” is a wraparound back to talking about the day that Hillary chooses the Supreme Court judges (if you interpret the second amendment sentence as a parenthetical diversion). So that makes it even worse – he’s emphasizing that Hillary getting to pick judges is an awful thing that has to be stopped, but there’s “nothing you can do” about it other than something something involving the 2nd amendment.
…and the “horrible day” itself doesn’t refer to Hillary getting shot at all, because it’s horrible if she gets to pick the judges but not if she gets somehow “stopped” from doing so.
Mike Smith:
Not trying to criticize here very much, since I don’t know what you really think. Just trying to pinpoint some places where the confusion or miscommunication might be….
Same here, yet I would’ve also used “would” instead of “should,” meaning that I don’t know how this will actually play out given the political/legal environment we’re currently in. If I think something like this should be a certain way, I say “should,” whatever power I do or don’t have as an individual. (If it’s something unlike this, where the question is about a proposed action of mine that I can’t actually do, then should implies can and I’d understand where this sort of reply is coming from.)
Well, you explicitly may not be in agreement, which could simply mean you don’t know how narrow they are. Or you are fairly sure about that but not about how narrow they should be.
Legal and political questions aren’t independent of moral ones. But let’s be a little more explicit about this. What the law should say about a particular case is one thing, and what the law (as it currently stands) does say is another — because laws can be wrong or they can be improved. What they would say if counterfactually the laws were written differently is something else again. What you predict they “would say” according to those who can interpret/enforce our written laws (who might do their jobs badly, for all you know) is yet another.
You gave us a formulation that seems to mix these things up into one statement, or one which doesn’t distinguish them clearly: “as the standards are currently set up I’m not sure this should count as incitement.” Not knowing much else about you, it reads to me like you’re saying that if you were the one who was interpreting/enforcing the law, you’re not sure you would decide that this does count as incitement, even though you think it’s morally wrong, because you appear to think you would have some misgivings about doing so as a practical legal/political matter.
It isn’t very clear what issues you might have, but you do offer this:
So, I guess your reading of the first amendment is part of it, as well as how specific/direct you think it ought to be so that it should (according to you) legally qualify as incitement. The fact that you say you have some kind of nebulous moral problem with it doesn’t actually contradict that, since you might think that morally there shouldn’t be legal consequences in a case like this for the reasons you cited (or maybe for reasons you didn’t cite). So this is at least looks like a reasonable and charitable interpretation of your comments, even if it isn’t exactly what you meant.
Mike Smith:
Didn’t refresh. Some of my last comment was addressed.
I think a skillful judge/jury can handle a skillful lawyer.
When she wins and she does pick a justice who isn’t a gun-fondler, nothing you can do … oh, but I take that back: you gun-fondlers could start shooting people. I don’t know if anybody will, but please?? Because it would be horrible if she picked a justice who wasn’t a gun-fondler, so horrible that it’s the only option you’ll have left.
Clean it up to sound even more arrogant/belligerent, and you’ve got literally the same fucking statement. So it’s pretty fucking clear to me what that asshole was recommending.
What I like is that the Trump proxy they had on CNN to defend him earlier had to insult Trump in order to defend him, by pointing out his speeches are a rambling incoherent mess and that the “assassinate Hillary” interpretation is only one of many valid ones.
It’s funny when you get to the point that “My Candidate is too stupid and incoherent to do something as explicit as a call for assassination” is a valid defense.
*shrug*
It’s just tribalism, pure and simple. That’s all that clowns like these care about, Us v. Them. Why is anybody surprised?
That WHOOSHING sound not heard is the point flying extremely high overhead.
This is a followup to Raven’s comment #10. Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.
Congresswoman Giffords and Captain Kelly responded to Trump’s remarks:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/08/07/discuss-moments-of-political-madness-5/#ixzz4GwvxMXud
Several of Trump’s surrogates and advisors have also called for Hillary Clinton to be shot. Trump’s comments should be seen in that context, as well as in an historical context that includes assassination of Presidents and of presidential candidates in the USA.
Remember Al Baldasaro, one of Trump’s advisors who called for Hillary Clinton to be shot? See comment 121 in the previous chapter of the Moments of Political Madness thread for the details on that despicable moment.
Well, New Hampshire state Rep. Al Baldasaro (R), the co-chair of Trump’s state veterans coalition, is back in the news. This time it is because Trump heaped praise on him. “Al has been so great,” Trump said. “Where’s Al? Where’s my vet?” That was [two days ago].
Baldasaro went on to call Hillary Clinton a “piece of garbage.”
At one point, the Trump campaign, through various spokespeople, tried to distance themselves from Baldasaro, but as we can see, no action was taken to get rid of Baldasaro. No action was taken to get him to stop suggesting that we put Hillary Clinton in front of a firing squad. Obviously, Trump likes Baldasaro the way he is, obnoxious and ignorant.
As Trump’s veteran’s adviser, Baldasaro has also been a loud voice in the campaign to heap disrespect and lies on Khizr Khan and his wife. He posted bogus articles claiming that Khizr Khan was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (not true).
In the past, Baldasaro approved of the audience at one of the Republican debates booing a gay marine.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-adviser-endorses-violence-against-hillary-clinton
Other threats of violence against Hillary Clinton (all from Republicans who support Trump):
Delegate Michael Folk tweeted Friday that Hillary Clinton “should be tried for treason, murder, and crimes against the US Constitution… then hung on the Mall in Washington, DC.”
Duane Flowers of New Jersey said in a public meeting, “Hillary, she should be hanging from a tree.”
Newark Advocate link
A Republican, former Senator Gordon Humphrey, says that it is “unmistakeable” that Trump was calling for gun violence against Hillary Clinton. Chris Hayes interviewed Humphrey on “All In.”
Link
Steve Kornacki reported on Trump’s suggestion that 2nd Amendment supporters could prevent President Hillary Clinton from selecting Supreme Court justices.
Link to 8:36-minute video
This video presentation includes a summary of coverage from other sources, as well as a presentation of Trump’s unedited comments in full.
Here is the extended version of Trump’s exact statement:
The first sentence is utterly false. Trump has been repeating for weeks now that Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment. She does not, and has said so several times. There’s no basis for Trump’s claim.
The reference to Scalia is, in part, a dog whistle to the conspiracy theorists who think that Obama or Clinton had Scalia killed.
That’s an appalling statement!
It’s ‘hanged’, not ‘hung’. He should hang his head in shame…
/joke
(I know, it’s so borderline I feel I have to state that.)
It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways: Either Drumpf is calling for violence against the other party’s nominee or against the republic or he is so incompetent that he cannot utter a simple sentiment in plain English without giving rise to serious and dangerous misunderstanding. If the former, then he is clearly too deranged to be President. If the latter…well, is this really someone we want negotiating with leaders on nuclear armed states?
I’m not surprised with Trump’s statement. He has shown repeatedly he really hasn’t stopped being a school-yard bully. If he really wants to be POTUS, he will learn to avoid that part of his personality. Otherwise, the margin of victory for Hillary Clinton will get larger with every lying and bullying misstep like this one.
Clinton is not for repealing the second amendment, and said so on national TV during her acceptance speech. Therein shows the deliberate lies and paranoia by Trump.
Nerd,
I wish I were as confident of Trump losing as you are. That Clinton is up only a few points while her opponent is self-destructing is worrying. There is a hard core–including lots of Bernie Boys–who will never vote for Clinton, no matter the cost to the country.
Nerd @53 is right. Trump lies about all things all the time.
In 2007 Trump testified in court as part of a lawsuit he had filed against author Timothy O’Brien. O’Brien reported Trump’s wealth at the time to be less than a billion dollars. Trump claimed he was a multi-billionaire. Trump lost. Example of how Trump lied in a characteristically trumpish way during a lawsuit, and a lawyer demonstrated the truth:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/
No, Mr. Doofus Trump, you do not get to count the employees of your subcontractors as your employees.
Trump was caught in a lie thirty times during that deposition. He misstated sales at his condo buildings, as another example.
Here’s Trump’s explanation concerning lying in public about his properties and his wealth:
Dan Rather responded to Trump’s “Second Amendment” comments:
Facebook link.
The unelected US gun lobby are a pretty nasty lot (we keep getting Neil McCabe on UK TV news programmes).
Oh – the despicable Trump supports and is supported by the gun lobby? Well, I never.
A free suggestion to the MSM. Run a weekly “Trump lies” segment. Put the video out on YouTube.
Nothing like seeing Trump say “Hillary wants to take away your guns”, to be refuted from her acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention (transcript) or 49:20 into her downloaded speech (Washington Post video).
Hardly someone who will be rounding up your guns. I have noticed nobody having their guns confiscated during Obama’s terms either.
Claiming Clinton and Obana don’t want to repeal the 2nd is pretty weak. They want gun control (and so do I). If you think that violates the 2nd, then you think she wants to overturn the 2nd.
Personally I don’t care about the constitutional language, I just want to gather up all your guns and have a jolly bonfire.
Care to quote either one saying they want to repeal the second amendment?
Personally, I want the understanding to be that it only holds if there is a “well regulated militia”. Since that died a century ago, there is no need for a personal right to bear arms. But I see no need to take away weapons used solely for hunting food, having lived in a rural area with some subsistence peoples, both indigenous and immigrant.
Evidently the Secret Service didn’t find Trump’s words acceptable:
Link
You were just claiming that, Nerd, and numerobis said that is the weak sauce, which isn’t in fact a claim that Clinton and Obama want to repeal it.
We don’t need to be apologists for them, for only wanting some tepid bullshit, which doesn’t accomplish half of what ought to happen. When gun-fondlers whine about whatever paranoid fantasies they have, let them whine — that works for me, anyway, because I’m just not in the mood for appeasing them right now. But if you’re genuinely happy that they’re a bunch of do-nothings on guns just like the Republicans are, then go ahead and comfort the fondlers with that fact. I’m not, so I don’t see the purpose in using it disingenuously as some kind of a selling point.
I see no reason why people need to own guns for that. There is plenty of food around. What gets in the way of everybody having the food they require are just some people who can’t stomach the idea of taking care of each other — as much of a political roadblock as that may be, it’s definitely not a fucking need. And if it’s that or random people being shot in the streets because you have your heart set on creating gigantic loopholes, then I know which one I’ll pick.
Surely they can hunt for food with the knives and baseball bats I hear are just as effective as guns at killing.
Yes, and it requires cash if you mean grocery stores. Cash they don’t have. A poached deer will feed a large family for week or more. The DNR tended to look the other way in known cases.
Or the pride of taking care of yourself, which is often the case. They don’t want welfare. They want to be left alone. They see a socialist state as evil, the work of Satan.
“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick…
If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.”
The pathological lying narcissist says he was talking about the voting power of the gun lobby (on 8 November or sooner). No he was not. He was talking about an elected President Clinton who had then picked some judges. And how the gun lobby might be able to stop her, or stop them. The man is despicable. And a dangerous incoherent hateful buffoon.
I guess you don’t understand what “taking care of each other” means.
Well then. Hail Satan, I guess. Some might learn to be proud of living in a society which actually gives a fuck about them. Sounds very evil, I know.
But I don’t think I get this — you’re saying gun victims all over the country are less important than somebody’s pride, their preference for being left alone, or their weird superstitions about what sort of political or economic work that a magical being does? Why should anybody believe that crap is more important? Is this only true when they might be interested in shooting an animal, or is this nonsense supposed to be more general than that? If somebody doesn’t want a secular state, because that’s also supposedly the work of Satan, then what would you say to such a person? “Too fucking bad” perhaps? “Too late”? “You can’t be serious”? I probably can’t imagine what sage advice you’ll offer, so lay it on me, Nerd. Do you think I’m ready to hear it?
There is only one interpretation of his quote: it’s the incitement to murder. It’s perfectly clear from the sentence structure:
He’s saying if she gets to pick her judges, maybe there is something gun owners can do about it.
The “if she gets to pick her judges” makes it clear that she has already been elected president and has chosen a judge. At that point, the Second Amendment people doing something about it means one thing and one thing only.
@Saad, well, it seems that the Secret Service stopped by and had a talk at Trump and his campaign over that very statement.
My understanding is, such conversations are not very friendly or relaxing in any manner. After all, that kind of talk is in regards to the assassination of the POTUS and is most assuredly not protected free speech.
Should he attempt to double down, as he’s done in the past, he’d likely finish his campaign from inside of a jail cell.
numerobis @ 59:
But I think there might be a significant distinction between “wants to” and “gets the political reality and accepts it”.
I, personally, have no idea if Clinton wants to repeal the 2nd. I am damn sure she’s not going to try, or do anything close to trying.
The Grauniad has been publishing a weekly written version on its websites since(and during) the thugs’s orgy, usually entitled (from memory) The Lies Trump Told This Week.
Now the lying lunatic Trump is saying that Obama founded ISIS/daesh. Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq. US planes are bombing ISIS positions.
Facts don’t matter to this demagogue. They never mattered.
Did President Obama start daesh before or after trying to nuke South Carolina?
The whole Trumpf campaign is full of bullies. A North Carolina state director of Trump campaign pulled a gun and pointed it at a subordinate. No action taken by the national campaign.
Link.
Trumpetista: We love Trump because he speaks his mind and says what he means without being all politically correct!
Rational person: So, he just called for the assassination of his political rival to the US presidency?
Trumpetista: That’s not what he meant! [insert really, REALLY stupid mental/linguistic gymnastics here]
Oh I see. I gather Trump is blaming Obama because he withdrew the US military from the ground in Iraq (though er not from Syria since they were never there) and presumably because he did not have a reliable crystal ball to infallibly forecast the future of the Middle East. How silly of me for not understanding this and for not realising what wonder insight Donald J Trump has.
Erm, old news, the core far right’s been calling that bullshit true for a few years now, before ISIL was really a thing, but predicted by by multiple intelligence agencies and stink tanks.
The Secret Service was reported (my observation time was 03:00 – 03:30 Central Time), to have interviewed “the Trump Campaign”. Knowing from reading a number of reports, let’s suffice it to say, it *did* involve tRump.
And essentially the majority of his aides, as the Secret Service talked *at* them, conversation doesn’t occur in that situation.
At any potential threat to any POTUS, past, current or potentially future, the response is the same – maximal.
In short, a long reading on a short subject, a reading from the book of threats.
Smith Act, Alien and Subversion Act, a tail of the Dick Act (not really, but a real act, as all of the rest of them are). Serious prison time for any violation.
Ronald Reagan’s daughter, Patti Reagan, had a go at Trump about it on her Facebook:
“Strategist explains that Trump is causing an ‘extinction event’ for the GOP” http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/this-shts-not-funny-strategist-explains-that-trump-is-causing-an-extinction-event-for-the-gop/