Donald Trump suggests 2nd Amendment Folks do something about Hillary

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course; but they'll support him for the same reason they ignore his endless lying. They are a bunch of lying and intellectually dishonest assholes. He is their king; the king of being a lying intellectually dishonest asshole.

I hope and believe the statement will help sway even more "on the fence" types but I'm not sure claiming "he said after" is actually effective against on the fence types.
Click to expand...

Three months is a long ways off. I'm afraid that people won't vote, confidant in their assumption that Trump will lose in November.
 
crackhead_bob said:
Is it Trump's deeply held beliefs, or is he just dog whistling to his neanderthal base? I'm not trolling, but I remember his remark back in March about how he believes that women who get abortions should be punished. I personally don't think he has a personal interest in the issue other than to inflame his base. And the reason why I make this comparison is because he was able to dispel that controversy by claiming that his words were being taken out of context. To his way of thinking, he could claim plausible deniability by virtue of him not actually wanting Hillary to be assassinated, all the while stoking his base. It's enough nuance that he can slither out of this one as well.
Click to expand...

In a case like this, it doesn't matter. You don't have to actually want to assassinate the President. Joking about it or insinuating someone should do it can get you in loads of shit with the SS (think saying joking about bombing an airplane, or yelling 'fire' in a theater, you could be joking, but it doesn't matter) . Of course, he won't for a variety of reasons, but people have been put behind bars for similar comments.
 
If all the Republican Senators who have distanced themselves from Trump (and his poor judgment) would show some spine and let Merrick Garland's nomination come to a vote (as it should have months ago), we might be able to have a conversation about the Supreme Court and our legal system that was in the present tense and didn't involve implied violence.
 
As Obama likes to say, " don't boo, i dunno."

People now have to put words into Trump's mouth to make this not a joke about second amendment people doing something to stop Hillary that isn't just voting. This reminds me of Sharon Angle's "second amendment remedies" comment, i'm sure that's been brought up already.
 
RC0101 said:
And she came out hours later and apologized for the remark. Trump doubled down and continued to lie about what he meant.
Click to expand...

This is the true difference between trump and any rational human being. At least come out and say you were joking. Saying outlandish things for the lulz

Don't act like America is stupid and spin what you said into something else entirely. Smart people make mistakes and they own up to them. Idiots double down on their mistakes and pretend they don't exist
 
RC0101 said:
You can't. I'm literally in the same boat with a life long friend and it's impossible for him to change his mind. I highly doubt that anything Trump could say or do would change his mind.
Click to expand...

Some friends-of-friends on FB were basically single-issue voting on abortion. Their logic was "Clinton will pack supreme court justices full of pro-choice people. Trump will not. Therefore vote Trump".

People will cherry pick whatever reason they want to pick to vote for the single most hateful candidate in US history who constantly spouts the most appalling and bigoted language on a constant basis. At best it makes them complicit with this mentality, considering they're willing to support a candidate who regularly says this shit simply because he also tangentially supports something they agree with.
 
soxxx said:
Explain how it was a joke.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
Click to expand...

Dude, are you really going with the "What about what she said 8 years ago?" on this? Why?? Does it somehow make what he said better? Spoiler: It doesn't.
 
He doesn't have any. Whatever he says at any moment, he believes at that moment. Forgetting all about it a few minutes later when it's convenient to believe something else.
Click to expand...

And that's what I'm wondering. He said this probably knowing that his celebrity status would insulate him from investigation, because what celebrity would ever advocate the assassination of a public figure? That seems like his m.o. with the latest controversy. And why should he? He has the GOP nomination, and by proxy their balls. More and more within the GOP are calling him out, but short of having his nomination revoked, he has no incentive to pare down on his rhetoric.

In the history of the republican party, has a presidential nominee ever been ousted?
 
Apologies if people have already made this point, but honestly, isn't this the logical end result of all this 2nd amendment fetishization? If eliminating the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional - as conservatives constantly claim - then logically, conservatives have the right to kill anyone who tries to do such a thing. I mean, they say all the time that the Founders put in the 2nd amendment as a check on government, so this would necessarily mean that it would not only be lawful to kill government officials but in fact, encouraged even!
 
Oblivion said:
Apologies if people have already made this point, but honestly, isn't this the logical end result of all this 2nd amendment fetishization? If eliminating the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional - as conservatives constantly claim - then logically, conservatives have the right to kill anyone who tries to do such a thing. I mean, they say all the time that the Founders put in the 2nd amendment as a check on government, so this would necessarily mean that it would not only be lawful to kill government officials but in fact, encouraged even!
Click to expand...

it is

however it's unwise when your behind in the polls during and election
 
Let's say GOP have balls (
they obviously do not
) to revoke his nomination. How would they proceed? Is there any precedent to this? How would they remain on the ballot come November?
 
Trump doesn't disgust me, Trump doesn't even shock me. There's assholes like this all over the world, and they very routinely become dictators, and presidents of countries.

What actually disgusts me is how easy it is to do it. The general population in any country is consisted of low information individuals easily manipulated and easily duped. It's sad but that's the truth. Most people just don't have the time, the care, or the capacity to know or research anything.

I used to think that these long election processes were awful, and that we should adopt ones like Canada and England but no we cannot. Considering how tone deaf people are here we need long elections to make sure people truly know what the hell/who the hell they are voting for.

The longer this goes the more batshit psychotic Trump gets. It's for the good of the people.
 
Out 1 said:
Let's say GOP have balls (
they obviously do not
) to revoke his nomination. How would they proceed? Is there any precedent to this? How would they remain on the ballot come November?
Click to expand...
If they're going to do it, it has to be by the end of the month.

In most states, that's the deadline to finalize the name that will appear on the ballot.
 
Oblivion said:
Apologies if people have already made this point, but honestly, isn't this the logical end result of all this 2nd amendment fetishization? If eliminating the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional - as conservatives constantly claim - then logically, conservatives have the right to kill anyone who tries to do such a thing. I mean, they say all the time that the Founders put in the 2nd amendment as a check on government, so this would necessarily mean that it would not only be lawful to kill government officials but in fact, encouraged even!
Click to expand...

We'll see how it plays out with Trumps' Rebellion of 2017.
 
crackhead_bob said:
Is it Trump's deeply held beliefs, or is he just dog whistling to his neanderthal base?
Click to expand...

A story about Trump from 1989:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...k-five-donald-trump-jogger-rape-case-new-york

In 1989 five young black men were wrongfully convicted of raping a woman jogging in New York City. Leading the charge against them was a real estate mogul whose divisive rhetoric can be found in his presidential campaign today
Click to expand...

Quote from the ad he paid ten's of thousands to run in 4 papers, including the New York TImes, nearly 30 years ago:

Image of ad

Yes, Mayor Koch. I want to hate these murderers and I always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them..... I recently watched a newscast trying to explain "anger in these young men". I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to be afraid.
Click to expand...

He describes the Police as being shackled by the "constant chant of 'police brutality' which every petty criminal hurls immediately at an officer."

Trump's response to helping lead the racially tinged charge against five black teenagers (12-16) wrongfully convicted of a rape that they were exonerated for 11 years later?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/325982969040879620?ref_src=twsrc^tfw


@realDonaldTrump
@CoachClintSwan Tell me, what were they doing in the Park, playing checkers?
Click to expand...
 
echoshifting said:
Trump supporters wrote off Joe Scarborough a long time ago. He's preaching to the choir at this point.
Click to expand...

Luckily, Trump supporters make up, at most, 40% of the electorate. Moderate republicans and independent's listen to Scarborough, which is what matters.

Out 1 said:
Let's say GOP have balls (
they obviously do not
) to revoke his nomination. How would they proceed? Is there any precedent to this? How would they remain on the ballot come November?
Click to expand...

They wouldn't. But it would help their downballot candidates, and help them in 2020. Given as Trump's likely to loose anyhow, unendorsing may be the best idea.
 
echoshifting said:
Trump supporters wrote off Joe Scarborough a long time ago. He's preaching to the choir at this point.
Click to expand...

Once again, it's not about trying to court Trump's most hardcore supporters. It's about trying to make an appeal to his most reluctant supporters. The supporters Trump has who are voting for him on a single issue or out of party loyalty, but are nonetheless dismayed by everything ugly Donald Trump represents. Those voters leaning Trump, but whose support hangs by a thread. There might be a good number of those Trump supporters out there.
 
Leona Lewis said:
If they're going to do it, it has to be by the end of the month.

In most states, that's the deadline to finalize the name that will appear on the ballot.
Click to expand...

Or they can take their beating and not nominate anyone for the top of the ticket, get blown out (which looks likely to happen anyway), eject Trump and his toxic/racist supporters, and retool themselves into a party that can actually be relevant going into the future.

Truly a Taylor Swift sized mess.
 
Out 1 said:
Let's say GOP have balls (
they obviously do not
) to revoke his nomination. How would they proceed? Is there any precedent to this? How would they remain on the ballot come November?
Click to expand...

They can't. He has to voluntarily exit the race or otherwise be incapable of running.

If he did leave, Republican officials from each state and territory would gather and select a new nominee. (Something like 3 per state/territory, a total of 168 people.) As for how that person gets on the ballots nationwide, I have no idea, but I suspect they could get it done with enough lead-time, hard deadlines or not.
 
Oblivion said:
Apologies if people have already made this point, but honestly, isn't this the logical end result of all this 2nd amendment fetishization? If eliminating the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional - as conservatives constantly claim - then logically, conservatives have the right to kill anyone who tries to do such a thing. I mean, they say all the time that the Founders put in the 2nd amendment as a check on government, so this would necessarily mean that it would not only be lawful to kill government officials but in fact, encouraged even!
Click to expand...

Well they are wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

The states have the right to raise a militia specifically to enforce the law. To put down rebellions. The idea that the founders wanted people killing government officials (I.e. them) is pure redneck fantasy.
 
CSmlDv0.png

Dealing with my family...
 
The word "whataboutism" should become more common on the internet. From Putin to Trump to anyone who knows they are fucking up in the world, but just don't care, the answer is always "but what about this other person who, like me, is fucking up the world, weirdly making me innocent?"
 
I don't think the "dishonest media" thing works in a 2016 general election when everything has video on youtube to show the whole context or a digital trail.

It worked with the luddites in the primary, but they're not electing a president with 30% of the Republican primary voting base.
 
Deterring a tyrannical government is what the second amendment was partially designed for, I guess. If everyone can agree that this is a unjustifiable, then that's one less reason to keep that amendment around.
 
The trump statement reminds me of duterte who also encouraged his supporters to kill people. I hear there are corpses lying around at the streets. No fair trial, no evidence just death
 
I wonder if the Republicans will implement some sort of system like super delegates for their future campaigns so they can prevent people like Trump winning the nomination.
 
soxxx said:
Trump said for the 2nd amendment supporters to do something about it, well what can they do about it?

Well they can all vote against her and prevent her from putting in a liberal supreme court justice in. Based on what he said you cannot conclude that Trump suggested an assassination.
Click to expand...

He said "If she wins, she gets to choose the supreme court justi- .Nothing you can do about it. Well, aside from the 2nd amendment people, they might be able to do something about it".

Do people who like the 2nd amendment get more voting power than other people?
 
Lo_Fi said:
He said "If she wins, she gets to choose the supreme court justi- .Nothing you can do about it. Well, aside from the 2nd amendment people, they might be able to do something about it".

Do people who like the 2nd amendment get more voting power than other people?
Click to expand...


Apparently they get magic after the fact powers because Trump had already put forth that she was elected and made the appointment.
 
Lo_Fi said:
He said "well, aside from the 2nd amendment people, they might be able to do something about it".

Do people who like the 2nd amendment get more voting power than other people?
Click to expand...

What I love about the statement is, is that there is no other way to interpret it. He meant kill clinton
 
Future said:
This is the true difference between trump and any rational human being. At least come out and say you were joking. Saying outlandish things for the lulz

Don't act like America is stupid and spin what you said into something else entirely. Smart people make mistakes and they own up to them. Idiots double down on their mistakes and pretend they don't exist
Click to expand...

...bu bu but my free speech! Political correctness gone mad!
 
BlastProcessing said:
Tell me more about this "tyrannical government".
Click to expand...

The militia was supposed to be a check against the standing army. Many of our founders were extremely pessimistic towards the army and thought it could be a tool to be used to create a tyrannical government by a monarchist president since the army is dependent on the government for its salary and position.

So yea, if the president uses the military to create a tyrannical state and somehow (lol) the militia overcomes that then the 2nd amendment is doing its job. If some people claim that the second amendment gives them the right to overthrow the government or kill someone in response to a legitimately passed law or government appointment then they are just delusional, ignorant and/or insane.
 
Earthpainting said:
Deterring a tyrannical government is what the second amendment was partially designed for, I guess. If everyone can agree that this is a unjustifiable, then that's one less reason to keep that amendment around.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the right wing has, in a typically partisan fashion, lowered the bar for what is considered tyrannical to such an extent that it's basically lost all meaning at this point.
 
sillymonkey321 said:
As Obama likes to say, " don't boo, i dunno."

People now have to put words into Trump's mouth to make this not a joke about second amendment people doing something to stop Hillary that isn't just voting. This reminds me of Sharon Angle's "second amendment remedies" comment, i'm sure that's been brought up already.
Click to expand...

No health care? Second Amendment Remedies, apply directly to temple!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Should Bethesda or Microsoft do something about NateTheHate ?
27
435
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
532
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