Donald Trump suggests 2nd Amendment Folks do something about Hillary

Status
Not open for further replies.
Durden77 said:
Someone was just detained for rushing the stage as Hillary spoke. On CNN right now.
Click to expand...

Not seeing anything on the CNN front page. But if this is true then shit, things are going to get crazy.

EDIT: Spoke too soon. Though an Animal Rights Activist doing it is just as crazy.
 
JayB1920 said:
I haven't been following this thread but to be honest the first thing I thought of when I read the quote was that he telling 2nd Amendment supporters to get out and vote. You can argue context or whatever but Trump is not the best speaker and it still seems a bit like grasping at straws to me. I don't like Trump and will be voting for Hillary but honestly this seems like the media going out of its way and trying too hard. The entire baby thing last week was a joke in poor taste as well. The mother even said it was said as she was nearing the exits.
Click to expand...

You should watch the video (linked in the OP) instead of just reading it. It's really obvious what he's saying when you hear him say it.
 
Cyan said:
You should watch the video (linked in the OP) instead of just reading it. It's really obvious what he's saying when you hear him say it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is absolutely no other way to take this. His context was assuming that Hillary has already won. So voting is not an applicable explanation.

I am stunned. But at the same time, unsurprised (which is horrible). I am glad this is getting world wide media coverage.

I'm looking forward to listening to conservative radio hosts losing their mind trying to defend this. Rush nearly blew a gasket today lol
 
tedrotheredro said:
Then he would have said the sentence in a more optimistic tone. Instead, he says the second amendment sentence exactly like someone joking about shooting someone would say it. Then he says that would be horrible day.....it'd be a horrible day if his 2nd amendment supporters voted for him? There's only one line of thought the entire time, until he tries to retract the comment by saying "if....if the judges..."
Click to expand...

Ill have to watch and see then.
 
jiji said:
The thing that keeps getting to me about this is that Hillary Clinton's policy on gun control has nothing to do with even touching the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Realistically closing gun show and private sale loopholes and the mental health/domestic violence offender ones are things that could well impact a significant chunk of the population.

For the 10-year aggregate period 2003–12, domestic violence
accounted for 21% of all violent victimizations.
Click to expand...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf

So if you put even a chunk of those people on a no-ownership list, and close the private sales loopholes, it would affect a significant amount of people in some of the strongholds of second amendment support and gun ownership like rural southern states.
 
AndyD said:
Realistically closing gun show and private sale loopholes and the mental health/domestic violence offender ones are things that could well impact a significant chunk of the population.


http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf

So if you put even a chunk of those people on a no-ownership list, and close the private sales loopholes, it would affect a significant amount of people in some of the strongholds of second amendment support and gun ownership like rural southern states.
Click to expand...

So basically "I want to beat my wife and own a gun whilst I'm at it!"

Not exactly feeling much sympathy here.
 
ToastiestPlum said:
So basically "I want to beat my wife and own a gun whilst I'm at it!"

Not exactly feeling much sympathy here.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree on the sympathy. I just meant it will have a very very wide impact. Moreso than many realize because of the prevalence of domestic violence, even if not gun related.
 
ShironRedshift said:
It's definitely not the same situation at all, but in the 2008 primary, when it was clear that Clinton wasn't going to win and she was asked why she was continuing to fight, she did make a reference to what happened to Robert Kennedy as to why, someone who was assassinated during his run for the Presidency, clearly implying that something similar could happen to her opponent, then-Senator Obama. She was immediately heavily criticized for that at the time and apologized for them. But there's clearly a huge difference between what she said back then (which she apologized for, something Donald Trump very likely won't do at all), implying that unthinkable events like that can and do happen, and a much more direct call-to-action, like what Donald Trump's comments suggest.
Click to expand...

Let's not rewrite history. People were up in arms over her comments. Pretty sure the Secret Service were also informed.

sss.png
Click to expand...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11301490#post11301490

She took a lot of flak for that and deservedly so. I understand not wanting to give an inch to Trumpers or Bernistans but no need to circle the wagons.

mrmyth said:
You're right, of course, but I find it a good barometer of who I'm dealing with. Only a certain kind of person uses Democrat instead of Democratic. It's a Republican talking point that has spread to the masses.
Click to expand...

da fuq? Maybe you should check my post history before instituting an ideological purity test.
 
I don't know that I'd say that assassination is the only valid inference of Trump's comments. There's an entire range of illegal extra-democratic options available to "second amendment people" should they care to engage in armed opposition to the law. Everything from intimidation through threats of violence to armed standoffs against federal police is on the table.

Trump wouldn't be saying this shit if it didn't appeal to somebody. It's honestly a mercy that he's so bad at politics that he doesn't realize that he already has this portion of his base locked up tight.

I think more significant than the fact that Trump has crossed yet another rhetorical line that he should not have is just how openly this reveals his campaign as pursuing popular support through appeals to fascism. People have been trying to make that label stick to Trump for a while, for decent reasons as well as really silly ones. This makes it pretty damn explicit, though. What else do you call the idea that weapons are a fallback position to defend your social order against the "tyranny" of the normal democratic result of electing people to established political offices?
 
Jackpot said:
da fuq? Maybe you should check my post history before instituting an ideological purity test.
Click to expand...

I did check. I had a much saltier post before the edit. I'm not attacking you in particular, but in my experience meeting someone who calls us the Democrat party instead of Democratic party you kinda know what you're in for. It's on of those petty little things like when hey always say Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
 
Zefah said:
"You can argue the context or whatever."

Love how context is equivalent to "whatever" as if it shouldn't be considered at all.
Click to expand...

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-sick-and-tired-mainstream-media-always-tryin-53375

JayB1920 said:
Like I said he's not the best speaker
Click to expand...

Then this should disqualify him from being voted for in voters' minds. As the president you have to be extremely clear. Not being clear can start wars and/or conflicts all over, especially once you have to translate statements. I can't find the link right now, but there was an article written by a translator that said that it would be nearly impossible to translate trump's statements and keep his statement intact. Because he has so many caveats and "somebody told me" and backpedaling and "it was a joke" moments.
 
mrmyth said:
I did check. I had a much saltier post before the edit. I'm not attacking you in particular, but in my experience meeting someone who calls us the Democrat party instead of Democratic party you kinda know what you're in for. It's on of those petty little things like when hey always say Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
Click to expand...

The conflation is much more widespread and unmalicious.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1260915&page=7
Members are called Democrats, ergo it gets referred to as the Democrat party.
 
Jackpot said:
The conflation is much more widespread and unmalicious.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1260915&page=7
Members are called Democrats, ergo it gets referred to as the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

Democrats, Democratic Party
Republicans, Republican Party

"Democrat Party" is a sort of silly Drumpf-esque pejorative, IIRC started by Reagan because "Democratic" sounded too, well, democratic. It's been used off and on ever since by Republicans, notably by W, basically just to be annoying.

"Democratic Party" is the correct term and should generally be used unless you're wanting to be mildly irritating for whatever reason. But it's also perfectly understandable to get this wrong, especially given how much Republicans use the other version.
 
Lo_Fi said:
http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-sick-and-tired-mainstream-media-always-tryin-53375



Then this should disqualify him from being voted for in voters' minds. As the president you have to be extremely clear. Not being clear can start wars and/or conflicts all over, especially once you have to translate statements. I can't find the link right now, but there was an article written by a translator that said that it would be nearly impossible to translate trump's statements and keep his statement intact. Because he has so many caveats and "somebody told me" and backpedaling and "it was a joke" moments.
Click to expand...

Yeah he is not a good candidate at all. Not sure how he has such a following.
 
Cyan said:
Democrats, Democratic Party
Republicans, Republican Party

"Democrat Party" is a sort of silly Drumpf-esque pejorative, IIRC started by Reagan because "Democratic" sounded too, well, democratic. It's been used off and on ever since by Republicans, notably by W, basically just to be annoying.

"Democratic Party" is the correct term and should generally be used unless you're wanting to be mildly irritating for whatever reason. But it's also perfectly understandable to get this wrong, especially given how much Republicans use the other version.
Click to expand...

European gaffer here and I always wrote Democrat Party just because it sounded better somehow. Not going to repeat that thought now that I know better.
 
South PArk as right. Earth is just a reality show and 2016 is literally just sweeps week. It's the only explanation for Trump.

They should have cancelled us years ago.
 
tedrotheredro said:
Then he would have said the sentence in a more optimistic tone. Instead, he says the second amendment sentence exactly like someone joking about shooting someone would say it. Then he says that would be horrible day.....it'd be a horrible day if his 2nd amendment supporters voted for him? There's only one line of thought the entire time, until he tries to retract the comment by saying "if....if the judges..."
Click to expand...

JayB1920 said:
Ill have to watch and see then.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this piece has been mentioned but Trump has a history of invoking violence in his speeches. He was doing the same in his "2nd ammendment" comment.


http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

Maybe he should have been roughed up,” Mr. Trump said last November of a protester at one of his rallies. “Because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
Click to expand...

In February, he told a crowd, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously.” He also promised to pay the legal fees for anyone who followed his advice.
Click to expand...
 
paradox121 said:
Like, why even bother at a certain point.
Click to expand...

He's either a pathological liar that just CAN'T stop lying
or he thought it'd be a secret to say the secret service talked to him about his comments.

Pretty sure he doesn't care about keeping secrets (except when they'll get him in real trouble, ie, his tax returns) so my guess is it's the former. He can't stop lying.
 
Trump will try to defend his character to the hilt while what actually needs defending here is Hillary's life. Neither he nor anyone on his campaign has any shred of human decency.
 
jett said:
Man, this guy. It's getting hard to dismiss the plant conspiracies now, lol. This is probably the worst thing he has said so far. Actively encouraging people to kill a presidential nominee or eventual US president.



It has been pretty clear ever since his campaign started that he is causing potentially irreparable damage to the American psyche.
Click to expand...

Trump's not the problem here. It's how we've gotten to the point where 40% of the population would vote for someone like him - that's the crux of it. America was already damaged.

We're at a time of shifting demographics and local economies where one large group of people are feeling the effects of being displaced by new jobs and new peoples.

It's been a long time coming. Trump didn't create the America that is voting for him. America was already getting nutty before him.
 
jerry113 said:
Trump's not the problem here. It's how we've gotten to the point where 40% of the population would vote for someone like him - that's the crux of it. America was already damaged.

We're at a time of shifting demographics and local economies where one large group of people are feeling the effects of being displaced by new jobs and new peoples.

It's been a long time coming. Trump didn't create the America that is voting for him. America was already getting nutty before him.
Click to expand...

Ignorant bigots are the main issue, and that includes Trump.
 
Forgive me for asking, but does anyone know what would happen if, god forbid, one of his insane supporters killed Clinton before the election? Would her VP then run for president or would the DNC have to field another candidate?
 
system11 said:
Insulting people with concerns you don't share always works well, just like it did for the Brexit Remain campaign. Oh....
Click to expand...

You're suggesting bigotry aren't a huge part of Trump's continued support AND campaign platform? Or that anti-immigration sentiment did play a huge part in Brexit? You call a spade a spade, it's real simple.
 
Jackpot said:
Let's not rewrite history. People were up in arms over her comments. Pretty sure the Secret Service were also informed.



http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11301490#post11301490

She took a lot of flak for that and deservedly so. I understand not wanting to give an inch to Trumpers or Bernistans but no need to circle the wagons.



da fuq? Maybe you should check my post history before instituting an ideological purity test.
Click to expand...

Of course the Trumpers and talking heads will continue to spew "HILLARY GOT AWAY WITH IT, WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS?" just like some of the posters here try to argue about.
 
Cyan said:
Democrats, Democratic Party
Republicans, Republican Party

"Democrat Party" is a sort of silly Drumpf-esque pejorative, IIRC started by Reagan because "Democratic" sounded too, well, democratic. It's been used off and on ever since by Republicans, notably by W, basically just to be annoying.

"Democratic Party" is the correct term and should generally be used unless you're wanting to be mildly irritating for whatever reason. But it's also perfectly understandable to get this wrong, especially given how much Republicans use the other version.
Click to expand...
Democrats and Republicats awww yeah
 
shinra-bansho said:
There concerns were misplaced and/or stupid and racist too. What should one do instead? Congratulate them on their stupid bigotry?
Click to expand...

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that you've decided there can be no valid concerns among the many factors that made people want to vote to leave the EU, because anyone who doesn't agree with you is logically racist or stupid, and everything they say must be vilified or buried.

Going back to the Trump issue, this is why just being abusive to people doesn't work:

1) "I think Trump is wrong about negative impacts of immigration and globalisation because..."

2) "You are wrong, and a stupid racist bigot."

Which of these gives you potential opportunity (however slim) to understand someone else and have them understand you?

Which one immediately attacks someone putting them on the defensive, doubling their resolve and reinforcing the claims that you don't care at all about them, burning the bridge forever?

The propensity of the liberal elite in governments, the press, and the vocal left on social media to go with option 2 is one of the reasons Trump is able to thrive, and while it continues there can be no rational debate.
 
system11 said:
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that you've decided there can be no valid concerns among the many factors that made people want to vote to leave the EU, because anyone who doesn't agree with you is logically racist or stupid, and everything they say must be vilified or buried.

Going back to the Trump issue, this is why just being abusive to people doesn't work:

1) "I think Trump is wrong about negative impacts of immigration and globalisation because..."

2) "You are wrong, and a stupid racist bigot."

Which of these gives you potential opportunity (however slim) to understand someone else and have them understand you?

Which one immediately attacks someone putting them on the defensive, doubling their resolve and reinforcing the claims that you don't care at all about them, burning the bridge forever?

The propensity of the liberal elite in governments, the press, and the vocal left on social media to go with option 2 is one of the reasons Trump is able to thrive, and while it continues there can be no rational debate.
Click to expand...

I tried option 1 with Trump supporters. It does not work because they live in a "reality" where every publication, journalist, statistician, historian and scientist who does not fall in line with Tea Party rhetoric is part of a global liberal conspiracy. You can spend hours laying down facts and citing credible sources but none of it will stick.

It's like the old Colbert joke, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". You cannot reason with these people.
 
xtrasauce said:
I tried option 1 with Trump supporters. It does not work because they live in a "reality" where every publication, journalist, poller and historian who is not in line with Tea Party rhetoric is part of a global liberal conspiracy. You can spend hours laying down facts and citing credible sources but none of it will stick.

It's like the old Colbert joke, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". You cannot reason with these people.
Click to expand...

At that point having tried, option 2 is still bad because you may turn someone who potentially would be too lazy to vote, into someone who definitely will.

There's no world in which option 2 can help in this situation.
 
jerry113 said:
Trump's not the problem here. It's how we've gotten to the point where 40% of the population would vote for someone like him - that's the crux of it. America was already damaged.
Click to expand...

While it's true that ~40% of the vote is almost guaranteed (not 40% of the population, by the way, it equates to about 1/6th of the population), we live in a time where so many people are "automatic" voters that it doesn't necessarily follow that they completely agree with the candidate. Trump being as awful as he is actually creates an opportunity to chip away at that 40%, maybe knock it down a bit. Republicans are distancing themselves, mostly because he's now losing, but some of them might be because of the actual terrible things he says. If one in 10 "automatic" Republican voters actually stop for a moment of self-reflection and question their party allegiance, that could be a big win for all of us.


pxleyes said:
3qCvvGo.jpg
.
Click to expand...

Awesome. I'll bet they can!
 
dan2026 said:
Does America not have laws against making death threats against people?
Click to expand...

Yes, when they are ruled objectively explicit. Trump is a cowardly huckster who always leaves himself a hyperbole/figurative language loophole. One would think that someone who communicates in such a fashion would be automatically deemed unfit to lead a superpower, but unfortunately the "best country in the world" is so bigoted that a large portion of it (that also makes up Trump's consituency) gives not even one sliver of a fuck about that little detail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Should Bethesda or Microsoft do something about NateTheHate ?
27
416
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
456
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