Donald Trump suggests 2nd Amendment Folks do something about Hillary

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chie Satonaka said:
So that's it, then.

I mean, I'm was already clear on what he was implying, but as other people have said, he left himself just enough wiggle room. "I'm not actually advocating for that at all! Look at the media and how unfairly they treat me!"

His supporters will eat up that narrative. The rest of the country, not so much.

Admittedly, I was one of those Teflon Don people you guys are calling out earlier, and it's good to see him taking heat in the polls, but I'm still not underestimating him. It's not over until it's over, and I won't be relieved until it's over.

...

Or when he has a temper tantrum during the debates and calls her a bitch. That would probably be enough for me to let down my guard again.
Click to expand...

Why did the people at his rally on camera either laugh at his statement or look shocked? Do they think the power of like-minded people voting together is funny or apalling?
 
This is going to be one of those years that, when our kids are reading about it in a history book, they'll have a million questions we won't be able to answer because "yeah, we didn't understand any of it even as it happened. Sometimes shit just gets really out of hand, and it never stopped"
 
Jackpot said:
Because it's not a direct call for murder. There's enough vagueness there to muddy the waters and blame it on "PC gone mad".
Click to expand...

Again if they vagueness of the implication isn't enough to have them running scared they're pretty much ok with whatever Trump is saying.
They're his base, not "floating voters".
That's going to matter to independents on the fence, not Trump voters
We've already established the latters aren't the brightest bunch
 
Bull shit, don't let him off. His statement implied 2nd Amendment people may do something AFTER Hillary become President, not before
 
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
In retrospect, I think he indeed did mean that '2nd Amendment people' doing something about it meant that the NRA should in effect defy the will of the people and interfere in our government. Still, it could easily be interpreted by the fools that listen to him as a call to violence. In any case, it's still one of his greatest hits.
Click to expand...

When your presidential candidate isn't very clear in articulating what he/she really means, leaves too much room for interpretation.
 
EmCeeGramr said:
So in these week we've gone from "the polls are skewed" to "well imagine polls don't exist" to "Hillary will be struck down by disease" to "maybe the Second Amendment folks will 'do something' once she's President."

What wonders will next week bring
Click to expand...

My guesses I workshopped out

-Sean Hannity, via a Trump surrogate, via some alt-right Twitter account or subreddit, suggests that the real Hillary Clinton vanished years ago and this one is an imposter
-Trump says that Bill Clinton caused the 1983 Beirut embassy bombing
-When asked about the Trail of Tears, Trump responds "Well there are a lot of questions about that that people are asking, whether it happened, but it was horrible, very bad, but there are questions"
-Trump makes it through a scripted speech reiterating GOP talking points on some policy, whatever, CNN says he's back in the race
-Five minutes later Trump says a 9/11 first responder isn't a real New Yorker like him
 
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
In retrospect, I think he indeed did mean that '2nd Amendment people' doing something about it meant that the NRA should in effect defy the will of the people and interfere in our government. Still, it could easily be interpreted by the fools that listen to him as a call to violence. In any case, it's still one of his greatest hits.
Click to expand...

He was certainly joking, but he was joking about murder. Unless you can link me to a nuanced joke he has made previously.
 
Punchy4486 said:
Why did the people at his rally on camera either laugh at his statement or look shocked? Do they think the power of like-minded people voting together is funny or apalling?
Click to expand...

Because they understood what he was saying just like we do here.

Everybody knows what he meant. The issue is how he's explaining it away.

It's fucking disgusting, but this is the game he's been playing this entire time. Anyone else would have been disqualified from being president well before they were nominated for some of the more "minor" stuff he's said, but he just keeps on getting the pass. He'll likely get the pass on this, too. "The mainstream media is against us!" has been working out very well for him and the right in general.
 
Typical liberal bias, misconstruing his words. Surely, the statement, made by a master orator, was so clear and unambiguous that all of his perfectly sane and reasonable supporters will interpret it correctly.
 
He immediately followed with "and that would be a terrible day..." so I don't know how anyone could entertain the idea that he meant anything but somebody actually gunning down HRC.
 
Daniel Lin ‏@DLin71 2h2 hours ago

PAUL RYAN: What do I have to defend this time?
AIDE: He suggested that people should assassinate Clinton
PAUL RYAN:

CpcacxZXEAAn716.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Moofers said:
He immediately followed with "and that would be a terrible day..." so I don't know how anyone could entertain the idea that he meant anything but somebody actually gunning down HRC.
Click to expand...
This is the first I've heard that. That pretty well seals this up then. Not much room for interpretation now.
 
Maybe he meant 2nd amendment voters or NRA can do something or maybe he was joking about something being done to assassinate political opponents. Either way, if you're leader of your country, poorly phrased or indiscreet words can cause market meltdowns or international incidents. Hes not going to change, nobody around him is going to make him change or keep him in line. Don't let him in the White House people. Don't be complacent, get out there and vote.
 
All of Trump's various explanations hinge on Trump having said "Second Amendment people", as in "people who are all about the Second Amendment", and thus MAYBE he was actually referencing the famous voting habit of the Second Amendment people as the way to stop this (and really this is still ridiculous since invoking "Second Amendment people" still sounds like a threat to mob violence, and he was clearly speaking in a hypothetical after the election was over). But to my ear, and knowing Trump's habits of speech, I heard "Second Amendment, people", as in he was invoking the Second Amendment and addressing it to the crowd, "people". In that case there's no other reading other than an incitement to violence, since he's directly invoking the right to bear arms itself as the solution, not any sort of group of "Second Amendment people".
 
Whenever I get worried that he'll keep his mouth shut and not say something stupid as shit, I remember it's Trump. It's impossible to keep him from saying stupid shit; this one was an even larger gap than inbetween the last two (Curiel and Kahn).

In any other year this would last for months, in this one it's gonna be quieted by the dumb ass shit he says later.
 
Garlador said:
How are they supposed stop her if Trump was saying this in the context of AFTER she wins, not BEFORE she wins?

... I know the answer. It's a spin, but it's the only one they have.
Click to expand...

We can only hope that people actually have the entire quote to realize that this comment was most definitely not about voting.

I hope the MSM actually reports that "uhhh, this wasn't about voting, y'all..."

Tuffty said:
Maybe he meant 2nd amendment voters or NRA can do something or maybe he was joking about something being done to assassinate political opponents. Either way, if you're leader of your country, poorly phrased or indiscreet words can cause market meltdowns or international incidents. Hes not going to change, nobody around him is going to make him change or keep him in line. Don't let him in the White House people. Don't be complacent, get out there and vote.
Click to expand...

He said AFTER she is elected, only 2nd amendment folks could do something about it
 
Chie Satonaka said:
Because they understood what he was saying just like we do here.

Everybody knows what he meant. The issue is how he's explaining it away.

It's fucking disgusting, but this is the game he's been playing this entire time. Anyone else would have been disqualified from being president well before they were nominated for some of the more "minor" stuff he's said, but he just keeps on getting the pass. He'll likely get the pass on this, too. "The mainstream media is against us!" has been working out very well for him and the right in general.
Click to expand...

I mean, he isn't really getting the pass. He's down like 8 points in polling aggregates.
 
rokkerkory said:
When your presidential candidate isn't very clear in articulating what he/she really means, leaves too much room for interpretation.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. He's irresponsible and has been running an irresponsible campaign.

Stinkles said:
He was certainly joking, but he was joking about murder. Unless you can link me to a nuanced joke he has made previously.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced he is. I think he's just callously blurting out that the NRA is a formidable special interest group and hopes they will stop any movement on gun control.

He's deflecting two different interpretations at once by spinning it as a call out to a voting bloc. He realizes it's a mistake to promote interference by a special interest group (which I believe was the intent) or especially to encourage violence.

Moofers said:
He immediately followed with "and that would be a terrible day..." so I don't know how anyone could entertain the idea that he meant anything but somebody actually gunning down HRC.
Click to expand...

Does he tell it like it is or what. What a buffoon... he can't say anything direct and without room for interpretation, can he. This could easily be referring to the assassination, or the day that Democrats succeed in 'abolishing the 2nd Amendment'.
 
itschris said:
More from that interview:

B0Togx0.jpg


https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/763141462951399424
Click to expand...

He is full ot it, and I can prove it.

Here is the full statement:

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially, the Second Amendment. By the way, 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 dunno.
Click to expand...
Right there, he says that if she picks the judges, "nothing you can do". It's not about votes in that sentence.
THEN, he adds but stops himself the comment about "2nd amendment folks".

Some (including Ms Pearson in the first version of her interpretation) have said he was talking about the NRA and their lobbying power.
Nope, because he mentions the NRA specifically right after, not talking about "2nd Amendment folks" there.

But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we’re tied. You see what’s going on. We’re tied ‘cause Scalia, this was not supposed to happen. Justice Scalia was going to be around for ten more years, at least, and this is what happened. That was a horrible thing, So now look at it. So Hillary essentially wants to abolish the second amendment.

Now speaking to the NRA folks, who are great: when you, when you, and I tell you, so they endorsed me. They endorsed me very early. My sons are members. I’m a member. If you, we can add, I think the National Rifle Association, we can add the Second Amendment to the justices, they almost go, in a certain way, hand and hand. Now the justices are going to do things that are so important. And we have such great justices. You saw my list of eleven that have been vetted and respected and have gotten great, and they, a little bit, equate.
Click to expand...

He did mention very vaguely using your vote and making it count, but much later in the same speech, and in an obviously different way. It is painfully obvious that he was joking about someone taking "NRA Justice" into their own hands and assassinating Hillary Clinton, stopping just short of actually saying it when he realized what he was about to say.

But if you don’t do what’s the right thing, you’re not going to have - either you’re not going to have a Second Amendment or you’re not going to have much of it left. And you’re not going to be able to protect yourselves, which you need. Which you need! When the bad guys burst into your hours, they’re not looking about Second Amendments and ‘do I have the right to do this.’ The bad guys aren’t going to be giving up their weapons. But the good people will say, ‘oh, well, that’s the law.’ No, no. Not going to happen. We can’t let it happen. We can’t let it happen.
Click to expand...

He is riling up the crazy, and playing with fire.
 
when republicans are moving to cover these stupid Trump statements, what are they really thinking? Do you they agree with it? Do they disagree with it?
I honestly don't understand the spin anymore. Politics is hard.
 
At the VERY least he was implying that people dissatisfied with Hillary's picks should take up arms, either to kill Hillary or stage a rebellion. He's been walking the fine line of treason for a while.
 
Republicans have been saying this kind of stuff for years. Buckley once argued genocide of black people would make the country better but then said "but we can't do that" or somesuch.

Remember the Obama gun targets?

There's your pivot. Trump is talking like a typical Republican.
 
Besides, how is a lobby group being able to stop the Supreme Court of the United States from functioning a good idea?


Why is that stupid-ass spin in any way acceptable, either?
 
Man, I was just watching this spot-on Zizek critique of Trump's rhetoric.

He makes this really interesting observation that violent, bombastic rhetoric used to be a leftist rebellion against the more sober right. But these days, right-wing politicians in the US and Europe are abandoning formality and arguably tradition.

In a lot of ways, Trump's GOP isn't conservative in the usual sense. They're revolutionaries who want to reform American society by re-instituting open white supremacy, and don't only oppose "PC culture" but basic human decency.
 
Box of Kittens said:
I mean, he isn't really getting the pass. He's down like 8 points in polling aggregates.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm not referring to the general public. I'm referring to the media (who will more than likely drop it after today) and more importantly, establishment republicans and leadership.

I don't fucking care if you've nominated him formally and I don't fucking care that he "explained it". There should be strong statements from EVERYONE in that party saying that it's unacceptable.

Edit:

hawk2025 said:
Besides, how is a lobby group being able to stop the Supreme Court of the United States from functioning a good idea?

Why is that stupid-ass spin in any way acceptable, either?
Click to expand...

You'd think it wouldn't be, and yet...
 
It has already hit every single big dutch news headlines.

'Trump alludes to shooting Clinton' - ANP.nl

'Trump alludes to using firearms against Clinton' - Nu.nl

'Trump faces heavy criticism after alleged death threat towards Clinton' - AD.nl
 
how royally fucked is it that the secret service has to say that they are aware of the comments made by a fucking presidential candidate
 
Iksenpets said:
All of Trump's various explanations hinge on Trump having said "Second Amendment people", as in "people who are all about the Second Amendment", and thus MAYBE he was actually referencing the famous voting habit of the Second Amendment people as the way to stop this (and really this is still ridiculous since invoking "Second Amendment people" still sounds like a threat to mob violence, and he was clearly speaking in a hypothetical after the election was over). But to my ear, and knowing Trump's habits of speech, I heard "Second Amendment, people", as in he was invoking the Second Amendment and addressing it to the crowd, "people". In that case there's no other reading other than an incitement to violence, since he's directly invoking the right to bear arms itself as the solution, not any sort of group of "Second Amendment people".
Click to expand...

That's how I interpret it too. Second Amendment People sounds like how a 6 year old might describe guns rights groups. I also don't really know what he could be suggesting they do, since he is clearly speaking on their ability to do something once she is elected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Should Bethesda or Microsoft do something about NateTheHate ?
27
521
MMaRsu replied
  • Locked
what do you think of the new banger 'Trump Gaza'?
39
2K
EviLore replied
Something odd happened today, want your take on if it's something or nothing
2
50
689
YCoCg replied
Berserk fans...what do you think about this question?
20
1K
EviLore replied
THE SURFER | Official Trailer | Nicolas Cage | In theaters May 2nd
23
1K
DKehoe replied
Top Bottom