Trump: 'Second Amendment people' could deal with Clinton

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If Hillary respects gun rights LIKE SHE SAYS SHE DOES then there's nothing to worry about.

So if she doesn't it's open season?

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Nice I can quote too, however it's a straightforward question, are you calling for people to kill hillary for any reason? How about you use your own words this time?

Still waiting Bart.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Was Trump genuinely suggesting that someone murder Clinton. I dunno, probably not, although It's a jokey sort of statement, the sort of tasteless, tacky thing that assholes like him love to say to each other.

But he doesn't realize the implications of the reach that his comments have now. Trump is trying to dogwhistle criminal behavior (Russia spying on the US), among his supporters, but trying to make it sound like a joke to his detractors.

The normalization of violent rhetoric inevitably leads to violence.

 

[fskimospy]

Parliament in 1775 was "duly elected" was it not? And the colonists were all British subjects were they not? And they overthrew their own government. Hopefully we won't need to do it again but if we do need to do so and we don't have the means then we're screwed.

Was Trump genuinely suggesting that someone murder Clinton. I dunno, probably not, although It's a jokey sort of statement, the sort of tasteless, tacky thing that assholes like him love to say to each other.

But he doesn't realize the implications of the reach that his comments have now. Trump is trying to dogwhistle criminal behavior (Russia spying on the US), among his supporters, but trying to make it sound like a joke to his detractors.

The normalization of violent rhetoric inevitably leads to violence.

Yes, in case it wasn't mentioned in this thread Garry Kasparov has come out against Trump for this specifically due to the experience in Russia where Putin supporters would regularly joke about people being murdered. They laughed off accusations that this was an incitement... and then those people get murdered.

http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/08/...nd-amendment-people-remarks-all-too-familiar/

 

[retrospooty]

Yep, this is what the NRA said about Obama in 2008:

Literally none of those things happened, yet here the NRA is again making the exact same insane claims. Do people seriously not figure out that they are being lied to?

You are right, but understating it. Its not just that none of those things happened, it's that they weren't even attempted. Obama did literally nothing about guns. Just like he said he wouldn't. I am not saying he was a great president, I am not jumping on hte liberal bandwagon, I am just tired of hearing the right cry about Obama taking our guns for over 8 years now. It's not going to happen and never was.

 

[VRAMdemon]

He may have meant it. Not jokingly. but delivered with plausible deniability. At this point, he knows there is a good chance that he's going to lose. And like a five year old, he is doing the election equivalent of flipping over the checkers table when he knows he is going to lose. With this comment and the election rigging suggestions, he is hoping to foment anger and violence after the election. If he can't win, then he is going to tear everything down with him.

He wanted free press, and I think there's also the secondary benefit of intimidating people he sees as his opponents. At minimum, Trump absolutely intended to use it to bully and threaten a perceived nemesis. That's how he has been operating his whole campaign, and based on all of the recent anecdotes that have come to light, that seems to be how he operates in civilian life.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are right, but understating it. Its not just that none of those things happened, it's that they weren't even attempted. Obama did literally nothing about guns. Just like he said he wouldn't. I am not saying he was a great president, I am not jumping on hte liberal bandwagon, I am just tired of hearing the right cry about Obama taking our guns for over 8 years now. It's not going to happen and never was.

Well, yeh, but that's not what they believe because it's not what they want to believe. Facts don't matter- they never do.

http://wonkette.com/602564/trickste...s-guns-away-by-not-taking-old-farts-guns-away

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Interesting. Now that the LA Times is proposing a coup just in case Trump wins the election I wonder what you folks think about overthrowing your 'duly elected' government. Because it's your side of the political spectrum proposing the idea now.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/

 

[bozack]

Which has nothing to do with what Trump said but it strokes your fear & resentment being able to say it, right?

Its association, the liberals are the ones at the state level pushing the gun control agenda further, last I checked Hillary was a democrat, with a staunch anti gun vice presidential pick...so sure they can go on about saying nothing will be done to the second amendment, but most know that they will see far more restrictive policies that punish law abiding gun owners should she get into office.

 

[bozack]

Interesting. Now that the LA Times is proposing a coup just in case Trump wins the election I wonder what you folks think about overthrowing your 'duly elected' government. Because it's your side of the political spectrum proposing the idea now.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/

I am sure with them this will be perfectly fine.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting. Now that the LA Times is proposing a coup just in case Trump wins the election I wonder what you folks think about overthrowing your 'duly elected' government. Because it's your side of the political spectrum proposing the idea now.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/

Where exactly is the LA Times proposing a coup? That seems pretty impossible from what you linked considering what you linked is the op-ed page, which by definition is not the opinion of the LA Times.

 

[ivwshane]

Interesting. Now that the LA Times is proposing a coup just in case Trump wins the election I wonder what you folks think about overthrowing your 'duly elected' government. Because it's your side of the political spectrum proposing the idea now.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/

Try again.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Let's just pretend Hillary said:
"Pro Immigration people' could deal with Trump"

I could easily see Trump using this as an excuse to avoid the debates, whine about how Dangerous Hillary is to a lock her up chorus from the crow

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Seems the Secret Service has had a couple of conversations with the Trump campaign about his comments.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/index.html

 

[sandorski]

Let's just pretend Hillary said:
"Pro Immigration people' could deal with Trump"

I could easily see Trump using this as an excuse to avoid the debates, whine about how Dangerous Hillary is to a lock her up chorus from the crow

Let's just pretend Hillary said:
"Pro Immigration people' could deal with Trump"

I could easily see Trump using this as an excuse to avoid the debates, whine about how Dangerous Hillary is to a lock her up chorus from the crow

Not sure what that could Imply though.

 

[Jhhnn]

Seems the Secret Service has had a couple of conversations with the Trump campaign about his comments.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/index.html

Maybe the SS broke it to them gently, something like "listen up you stupid mother fuckers..."

 

[Vic]

I am sure with them this will be perfectly fine.

Because some random person's opinion carries just as much weight as that of a Presidential candidate's statements, right?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Or, 'hey if by some miracle your guy wins, will we still get our hookers?'

Maybe the SS broke it to them gently, something like "listen up you stupid mother fuckers..."

 

[jackstar7]

Interesting. Now that the LA Times is proposing a coup just in case Trump wins the election I wonder what you folks think about overthrowing your 'duly elected' government. Because it's your side of the political spectrum proposing the idea now.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/

My word. You are so goddamn dumb you don't know how op-eds work.

 

[Commodus]

Was Trump genuinely suggesting that someone murder Clinton. I dunno, probably not, although It's a jokey sort of statement, the sort of tasteless, tacky thing that assholes like him love to say to each other.

But he doesn't realize the implications of the reach that his comments have now. Trump is trying to dogwhistle criminal behavior (Russia spying on the US), among his supporters, but trying to make it sound like a joke to his detractors.

The normalization of violent rhetoric inevitably leads to violence.

I'm with this. No, Trump probably wasn't serious, but that's the whole problem -- he's joking about assassinating a president simply because she would pick judges that disagree with his views. You just don't do that if you're hoping to become the de facto leader of the free world.

As I read recently: even if Trump loses, he's already damaged the US by lowering the level of political discourse below an already dismal level. To him, it's okay to not only fling childish and outright dangerous insults at opponents, but then lie about being taken out of context or having said something in the first place.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It's clear he was talking about using guns, and it's also pretty clear he was just joking... The thing is you cant joke about things like that and you have to know that. It's like joking about a bomb on a plane will get you kicked off the flight - everyone knows that. This man is essentially on a year+ long job interview for the most important job in the world and he keeps putting his foot in his mouth. I know if any of us stuck their foot in their mouth dozens and dozens of times on an interview we would not get the job. Can you imagine how bad he would be as president? It would be an absolute laugh-fest at our countries expense. He has zero credibility, zero honor, zero restraint, just... Zero.

Exactly. It's telling that the Trump camp has had two distinct responses to the outrage over this comment. Giuliani has said that the comment was not meant to refer to violence toward the President or the USSC. Corey Lewandowski (no longer a member of the Trump campaign but still a loyal supporter) has said it was merely a joke.

To me the comment makes no sense as anything other than an implication that Second Amendment advocates might assassinate a President Clinton and/or her Supreme Court nominees or appointees, since the entire situation (in which Second Amendment advocates might be able to "do something" about a Clinton nomination) would arise only after she was elected and made a nomination. At that point, as Trump said, it would no longer be possible to change her ability to make judicial appointments in the voting booth.

I agree he was probably joking, but a man running for President can't publicly joke about the assassination of a rival, or foreign powers spying on his rival for political purposes, or any number of other things he has "joked" about, without repercussions. Regardless of what Trump intended, someone (whether mentally ill or otherwise - think John Hinckley or Jared Loughner) might take his joke seriously, and might change American history in the process. These "jokes" are the height of irresponsibility.

This latest gaffe is yet another reason I am so puzzled by why the Paul Ryans of the world continue to support Trump despite his endlessly crude, ignorant, idiotic behavior. He is quite likely the least-viable Presidential candidate in history, yet they are choosing to tie their own fates to his rambling wreck of a campaign. It really beggars belief.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

My word. You are so goddamn dumb you don't know how op-eds work.

The LA Times has control over what goes on their opinion pages. Don't believe me? Print off a copy and sell it to someone and see how fast their lawyers tell you that it's protected content and exclusive property of the LAT.

 

[UberNeuman]

lol. okay, sport...

 

[Mai72]

Paul Ryan continues to support Trump because he doesn't have a backbone.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Still waiting Bart.

Like I said, if Hillary respects gun rights like she says she does then what's to worry about? You believe her when she says she's not going to take away anyone's guns, don't you? So why worry about it?

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Paul Ryan continues to support Trump because he doesn't have a backbone.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Trump lacks a spinal column? This is new.