Doing something does not equate to murdering people.
If we're going to extrapolate meaning, the same principle could be applied to what Will Smith says in this video.
One could interpret this to mean Trump supporters should be purged in the literal sense. Fortunately, that's not what Will Smith actually says. He's saying to get the poison of racism etc. excised by way of public discourse, then move forward to a better country.
Trump did not say what people are saying he said. He's a meathead and all sorts of other potentially scary things, but he did not advocate having her killed.Technically true... in that it seemed like he was suggesting killing her judges rather than Hillary herself.
What he said was that once Hillary had appointed her judges there would be no way to stop them from 'taking our guns'... except possibly that the 'second ammendment people' could do... something.
Once the judges are appointed no amount of 'political pressure' means a thing. Ergo, Trump was either NOT talking about political activity (and has thus been lying about it ever since) or his statement was inherently self-contradictory nonsense.
To be fair. Self-contradictory nonsense is a plausible explanation. That said, what he said could easily be misinterpreted, and that is something that trump also has a habit of providing. When you focus on giving vague nonsense statements, the idea that someone might get the wrong idea from them is sort of to be expected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump insists Obama is the literal founder of ISIS.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Or, you know, 2nd amendment people can vote in congressional folks that could block Clinton appointees. But, sure, murder is quicker, I suppose :P
:) Just watch Trump's rope play out. The knots are tying themselves. Too funny.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair. Self-contradictory nonsense is a plausible explanation.
In theory.
In reality, I have no doubt that he meant to say exactly what he actually said (i.e. that only '2nd ammendment people' could stop Hillary's judges after they were appointed) and is just too cowardly to admit it.
|
Or, you know, 2nd amendment people can vote in congressional folks that could block Clinton appointees. But, sure, murder is quicker, I suppose :P
That may have been what he meant to say, but his preface was that Clinton was already able to pick her judges, i.e. after election day. The 2nd amendment people don't exactly have an opportunity to vote at that point. What else could a gun-toting person do after the election was lost?
Regardless of what he meant, what he said was easily understood as inciting violence. If not intentional, it was at least very careless.
LA Times editorial calls for opening up at least the first Presidential debate to other candidates.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's more likely that a 2008 Clinton campaign staffer is the source of the birther theory, since it arose during the 2008 primaries.
I'd like to see this particular bit of misinformation wither and die. Neither Clinton, nor her campaign, nor any staffer associated with her campaign ever advanced - much less started - the birther rumors or movement. Per Politifact:
There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States. A review by our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org reported that no journalist who investigated this ever found a connection to anyone in the Clinton organization.
The earliest record of the rumors appears to have come from a random Clinton supporter (i.e., not someone affiliated with her campaign in any way), but even then it was just a forwarded email.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, you know, 2nd amendment people can vote in congressional folks that could block Clinton appointees. But, sure, murder is quicker, I suppose :PThat may have been what he meant to say, but his preface was that Clinton was already able to pick her judges, i.e. after election day. The 2nd amendment people don't exactly have an opportunity to vote at that point. What else could a gun-toting person do after the election was lost?
...and why ONLY them? If he was really talking about voting then why was there 'nothing you can do' for everyone OTHER than the 2nd ammendment folks? EVERYONE can vote. Not JUST the '2nd ammendment people'. So no... he bloody well was not talking about voting.
He was either saying that 2nd ammendment supporters could engage in violence or words were just randomly coming out of his mouth with no apparent meaning... but there is no logical way that what he actually said can be interpreted to have been talking about voting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, jeez, Scott, there's no record 'cause she deleted the emails, duh! It's like you're just not willing to listen to conspiracy theories because they're not factually true! :P
It's hilarious that you're all hung up on the second amendment stuff while the guy keeps talking crazy talk. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, under most circumstances calling for the murder of anyone by any means is legal, so you're technically correct, if for the wrong reasons.
He has a large crowd full of people that HAVE followed his calls to violence before. This is not most circumstances.
Billing it as calling for LEGAL violence by giving someone a trial THEN hanging them makes for a rock solid defense. Because the system has hit that level of nuts.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Trump brought enough nuance to the table to explain to the SAPs (my new favorite acronym!) that their vote for a congressional candidate is a more effective weapon than the firearm protected by the Second Amendment, or to explain that Daesh gained power in the vacuum left in the middle east by the draw down of forces during the Obama presidency, I wouldn't be flat out scared of him becoming president. I might even reflect that he was acting more presidential than I gave him credit for.
I don't appear to be in any danger of having to make that concession.
It's hilarious that you're all hung up on the second amendment stuff while the guy keeps talking crazy talk. :-)
Saw really good analogy on i think it was the daily show. You step on one nail it hurts. You step on a bed of nails the same height its just prickly. We need a nail higher than the others to really poke through, and calling on your armed and crazy supporters to shoot the other candidate for you is a railroad spike in a bed of 60 penny nails.
Kinda, sorta, BNW; kinda, sorta calling on your armed and crazy supporters to assassinate the other candidate for you.
TBH, I'm much more in TheJeff's camp that Trump speaks without thinking, but that doesn't make an attempt on Clinton's life by a SAP nut job any less likely. I also don't think talking about something 2 days after it happens make me hung up. If, on the other hand, you want to say that I'm "hung up" on the way he Trump felt a need to assure a primary debate audience that his penis was of perfectly adequate size even though everyone says his hands are small, I guess that's fair; I'm still pretty surprised that was the one time he didn't use the word Yuge!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the small town I used to live in, the county DMV office was only open every other Tuesday.
Good luck getting an I.D. with those hours.
In Nashua, for most of the time I've lived here, you had to go to Merrimack (a neighboring town)
Home to the Budweiser plant and the Anklebiter ancestral manse!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the small town I used to live in, the county DMV office was only open every other Tuesday.
Good luck getting an I.D. with those hours.
In Nashua, for most of the time I've lived here, you had to go to Merrimack (a neighboring town)
Home to the Budweiser plant and the Anklebiter ancestral manse!
Those are the same place
Alas, no. We wouldn't keep Clydesdales on the manse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Communist leaflets flutter out to ensnare passersby. :D
This sounds like a neat idea for a bestiary critter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is quite true. And its the biggest cause of the deadlock in congress. The word compromise has been turned into a dirty word. When our entire political system is specifically designed to REQUIRE compromise. It is explicitly designed to not allow people to just strong arm others into their way of thinking.
Particularly when you try so very hard to demonize people instead of simply attacking their policy and ideas. You end up with an impossible task when you actually try to govern. Republicans are not exclusively responsible for this, but they have truly embraced the idea. Compromise is how a society works. You literally cannot have society without compromise. But when you paint the other side as morally wrong, as opposed to just politically so, you cannot then later sit down and negotiate with each other. Which you will have to do. Even if you somehow win a majority in the house, senate and win the white house, there are still mechanisms for your opponents to block you if you don't sit down with them and work things out.
I agree that people on the left certainly do engage in the demonizing tactic, but it tends more towards individuals or fringe groups. There were certainly calls of baby killer and warmonger towards Republicans, but it wasn't included in major speeches at conventions, on the house floor, etc. There's a difference between a guy wearing a boot on his head shouting with a megaphone on a street and a congressperson speaking on the House floor.
The conservative party has made an active and strategic choice to shift the public debate to one of morality. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority is the official beginning of the process IMO. There were rumblings and attempts at marrying morality with politics before that, but it was usually on a more individual level and more to paint themselves in a moral light to attract voters. Falwell's Moral Majority really tried to paint the Republican party as representing Christian Values and as the party of morality.
Initially it really was an attempt at drawing in voters. Fundamentalist Christians had existed outside of the political sphere for a long time. There are a whole host of reasons why they weren't particularly active, especially on the federal level, but suffice to say, they didn't see the political sphere as a place for good Christians. The Moral Majority was a push to bring them back into politics and use their voice to control the government. It's hard to build a coalition of religions together on secular issues though, like taxes, roads, industrial regulation, etc. You have to push moral issues, that's how you get the religion involved and utilize an already existing network of people to your advantage.
On the Left, there certainly groups that approach things from a morality perspective, but groups like PETA have extremely limited influence in the Democratic Party. No one from PETA has served as a political appointee as far as I know. I can find you a list of Christian ministers who've been appointed roles in the federal government though.
And the Left has certainly reacted to the Right's strategy. MSNBC isn't a terribly balanced news organization, but they didn't pop up in a vacuum and are more of a reaction to Fox News. That doesn't excuse or forgive mistakes they make in their zeal, but it does help explain it.
I don't know what the solution is, other than to say "I wish they'd stop doing that." Maybe this election will help push us away from moral absolutes and start talking about solutions. For example, I'm pro-choice, but I'd certainly be willing to listen and engage a discussion about how to reduce the number of abortions. I support a woman's right to choose, but I think as a society we can do a better job at providing support to alternative choices. I'm not looking to start a debate on this, just presenting how on this normally tricky topic, there IS room for a middle-ground.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, you know, 2nd amendment people can vote in congressional folks that could block Clinton appointees. But, sure, murder is quicker, I suppose :P
Just curious, what sort of special voting powers does the 2nd amendment grant people? Because the second amendment portion of the quote follows directly after a statement that if she's elected, she'll nominate anti-gun judges. So at this point in his statement, the assumption is that she's already been elected.
Are "second amendment people" granted special voting rights that I'm unaware of?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cards against Humanity has taken a stance by releasing a Hillary pack and a Trump pack, and "depending on which pack gets more support, we will donate all the money in support of Hillary Clinton’s campaign."
Or, you know, 2nd amendment people can vote in congressional folks that could block Clinton appointees. But, sure, murder is quicker, I suppose :PJust curious, what sort of special voting powers does the 2nd amendment grant people? Because the second amendment portion of the quote follows directly after a statement that if she's elected, she'll nominate anti-gun judges. So at this point in his statement, the assumption is that she's already been elected.
Are "second amendment people" granted special voting rights that I'm unaware of?
They don't have any special powers. What special voting powers to LGBT people have, other than choosing candidates that will make things better for them? None. It's a lobby, like anything else.
So day 1 after election she's going to submit all of her supreme court nominees? This is a false premise. Appointing nominees takes time, perhaps time enough for a senate or house election cycle. Who knows.
What was the point of this question?
Well, he certainly isn't one for decorum, is he?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All that said, parsing Trump's speech that closely is pointless. It's stream of consciousness, not legal text. It's not actionable, though the Secret Service has taken an interest. But it's also laughable to think he's not aware of the implications. He's a blowhard, not an idiot.
I'd imagine the conversation went something like
"you DO realize you just increased the chances of someone trying to shoot her?
"yeah, and?
"And that its mine, and my friends job, to be sure that doesn't happen, with our lives if need be?
"So?
"So you just increased the chances of me and the people i work with dying.
"I don't see how that affects me personally.
"i watch you when you're sleeping and if I thought you had a chance in hell of winning I'd pull the trigger myself, but as it is I'd be more than happy to "miss" a few suspicious people in the crowd or accidentally send everyone to lunch at the same time.
"Alright alright I'll tone it down...
All this "Obama founded ISIS" nonsense is just too ridiculous to properly ridicule. Keeping up with this guy is exhausting.
Obviously he founded isis to take over america.
LOOK! HE's running america! it's WORKING! What more proof could you need!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, you know, 2nd amendment people can vote in congressional folks that could block Clinton appointees. But, sure, murder is quicker, I suppose :PJust curious, what sort of special voting powers does the 2nd amendment grant people? Because the second amendment portion of the quote follows directly after a statement that if she's elected, she'll nominate anti-gun judges. So at this point in his statement, the assumption is that she's already been elected.
Are "second amendment people" granted special voting rights that I'm unaware of?
They don't have any special powers. What special voting powers to LGBT people have, other than choosing candidates that will make things better for them? None. It's a lobby, like anything else.
So day 1 after election she's going to submit all of her supreme court nominees? This is a false premise. Appointing nominees takes time, perhaps time enough for a senate or house election cycle. Who knows.
What was the point of this question?
Again, it's the switch between "nothing you can do, folks" and "the Second Amendment people, maybe there is". That's why we're asking what the second amendment people can do that normal folks can't?
And given the common talk on the right of "second amendment remedies" and the like, it's very hard not to wonder.
All that said, parsing Trump's speech that closely is pointless. It's stream of consciousness, not legal text. It's not actionable, though the Secret Service has taken an interest. But it's also laughable to think he's not aware of the implications. He's a blowhard, not an idiot.
See, I don't disagree with anything you've written here, but I've got a problem when "parsing that closely" means trying to find a coherent narrative. Seriously, the switch between "nothing you can do" and "the Second Amendment people, maybe there is" happened between two consecutive sentences. There isn't even enough space to quote those two sentences out of context. No, he didn't actually tell anyone to assassinate Clinton, but presidential election oratory should be set to a higher bar than not legally actionable as a threat on the opposing party candidate's life.
Trump did not say what people are saying he said. He's a meathead and all sorts of other potentially scary things, but he did not advocate having her killed.Technically true... in that it seemed like he was suggesting killing her judges rather than Hillary herself.
What he said was that once Hillary had appointed her judges there would be no way to stop them from 'taking our guns'... except possibly that the 'second ammendment people' could do... something.
Once the judges are appointed no amount of 'political pressure' means a thing. Ergo, Trump was either NOT talking about political activity (and has thus been lying about it ever since) or his statement was inherently self-contradictory nonsense.
The term is vague enough to not count as evidence of anything. After all "Second Amendment people" can mean almost anything... such as gun owners resisting a government attempt to confiscate guns, which is a popular refrain from the NRA crowd.
All this "Obama founded ISIS" nonsense is just too ridiculous to properly ridicule. Keeping up with this guy is exhausting.
It feeds in with the popular rhetoric that Obama is some sort of Islamic Manchurian Candidate... if you look at his face from certain angles, one might argue that Obama looks kind of like a black Frank Sinatra.
So, let's see what fresh material we have from Trump today! Just lemme hop over to Google News, and... ooh, this one might be fun.
"And once I get in, I will do my thing that I do very well. And I figure it is probably, maybe the only way I'm going to get to heaven. So I better do a good job." - Trump, to evangelical leaders in Orlando
I like how he didn't actually say what it is he does.
And the Left has certainly reacted to the Right's strategy. MSNBC isn't a terribly balanced news organization, but they didn't pop up in a vacuum and are more of a reaction to Fox News. That doesn't excuse or forgive mistakes they make in their zeal, but it does help explain it.
I don't know if you've noticed but MSNBC has been purging the vocably left folks from it's ranks since it started it's reorganisation.