Trump hints that Clinton should be assassinated!

[tres borrachos]

Yeah, because we all know if you support the 2nd Amendment you're a gun nut just chomping at the bit to assassinate Hillary. :roll:

Well, apparently that's what Trump thinks.

 

[Crosscheck]

The back pedaling by the Trump camp is pathetic. The next line he says that is often dropped in some clips of this is "that would be a horrible day". That is not suggesting voters getting out to vote at all. That is suggesting someone shoot her and that would be a horrible day but a good day for him.

 

[haymarket]

Absolutely correct.

I listened to his comments over and over last night, and I can only come to one conclusion. He was joking about the 2A people assassinating her or her SCOTUS picks, and that isn't even debatable. He went too far. And his campaign is trying to blame the reactions on Clinton's people, proving once again how arrogant this jerk is, and how stupid he thinks the rest of us are. You only have to have a partially functioning brain to know what he said was "Haha, you 2nd Amendment people can either shoot her so she doesn't nominate judges who will grab your guns or shoot her nominees, I don't know....".

He offended any 2nd Amendment supporter by suggesting we are assassins. He blew the dog whistle to incite his rabid and ignorant supporters. He is under Secret Service protection himself and he knows it isn't a laughing matter. He offended people who love this country and know that assassinations of anyone are no laughing matter. He demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that he has absolutely no business being the leader of the free world. He is so arrogant and self-absorbed, and so disdainful of his supporters, that he not only joked about it, then he and his ignorant staff members try to pretend he was talking about 2A rights, and try to pin the public reaction on the Clinton camp.

What a heinous, horrible, disgusting man. He is the most divisive candidate I have ever seen, in any party, in any election, in my 54 years. I can not believe anyone is supporting this dangerous, despicable man.

I like a point you brought up that I had not yet considered: he is insulting and demeaning actual Second Amendment supporters suggesting they could be convinced to commit murder for their cause. You saw beyond the mere outrage of the buffoon shooting off his mouth. Well done.

One other thing connecting some dots - if Trump wants to make this election about the Second Amendment and he loses big in November - what damage has he done to the cause he professes to believe in?

 

[Mithros]

You are not responding to my point. The Court most certainly could effectively overrule Heller simply by adopting the position Justice Stevens took in his dissenting opinion. According to that interpretation of the Second Amendment, it does not guarantee any individual right to keep and bear arms. Any government restriction on the right would be constitutional, according to Stevens et al., provided only that it did not threaten the existence of the militia.

Heller broke 200 years of precidence. Before Heller the court had always sided against an individual's right to bear arms. Yet somehow the ability to get a gun has remained unchanged.

No one is taking anyone's guns. The only debate is better enforcement of laws that are on the books now. Ie should we actually check to see if someone is allowed to buy a gun first, or should we not bother.

 

[tres borrachos]

I like a point you brought up that I had not yet considered: he is insulting and demeaning actual Second Amendment supporters suggesting they could be convinced to commit murder for their cause. You saw beyond the mere outrage of the buffoon shooting off his mouth. Well done.

One other thing connecting some dots - if Trump wants to make this election about the Second Amendment and he loses big in November - what damage has he done to the cause he professes to believe in?

He absolutely insulted the 2A people. A smart man (in other words, not Trump) who is trying to win an election would never even jokingly make that kind of implication, particularly in light of what happened in Sandy Hook and Orlando and Charleston and so on, situations in which the 2A supporters and gun owners took an absolute beating even though they were not responsible for the deaths of all of those people. The impression gun owners need to project, the message they have been delivering for the last however many years, is that "We do NOT support indiscriminate murder of anyone." So for him to make a joke about it is just beyond the pale. And to watch his supporters and his campaign and Republican lawmakers and even the NRA itself for ****'s sake trying to justify or dismiss his words as anything but horrific, insulting, and dangerous has been so painful to watch.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Over the past couple of decades Con AM radio talking heads, people on Fox, Fox and friends, the Limbaughs, Levins, Hannitys, etc. have said worse, and the GOP has almost never distanced itself from this kind of vicious, bordering on violent, scare mongering rhetoric.

Trump is taking it to a new level.

If you lay down with dogs, you'll get up with fleas. And the GOP has been laying down with dogs for many years. Now with Trump they got a flea infestation.

 

[Ikari]

I'm beginning to think Trump is just trolling the whole world; if not then he really is dangerous. Now he has suggested that the '2nd amendment' is an option to stop Clinton picking supreme court judges.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat. This is a worrying new low in US politics: A presidential nominee suggesting the assassination of his opponent.

And Trump supporters will defend him... again.

I hate Trump as much as the next, but I don't think he meant anything like assassination. I think he was trying to rally the pro-second amendment folk around his base and solidify their votes for him.

But it does highlight one of Trumps biggest problems, he always puts his foot in his mouth. Even if what he means isn't bad, he can't help but phrase it exceedingly poorly. This would be our Head of State? He'd start a war just by running his mouth.

Also, this is the level of "debate" we'll have in this race. Hillary supports islamic terroristism because the Orlando Shooter's dad was standing near her. Oh, Trump is calling for the assassination of Hillary. Blah blah blah. Because both candidates are empty-headed tripe with absolutely nothing but scandal and incompetence surrounding them, this is what this election cycle is going to turn into. A bunch of childish bickering, insults, and finger pointing.

God, I'm sick of it already.

 

[Crosscheck]

I hate Trump as much as the next, but I don't think he meant anything like assassination. I think he was trying to rally the pro-second amendment folk around his base and solidify their votes for him.

Then why does he say that would be a horrible day? Do you think he meant it would be a horrible day that pro-second amendment folk would vote for him or do you think he meant it would be a horrible day that someone killed Clinton?

He needs for the first time in his life to own up to what he said and enough of the Trump arse kissers stop backpedaling for him.

Grow a couple Trump.

 

[Fishking]

I have to disagree with the match-up between example and principle. They haven't stopped saying that Obama wants to take our guns and in fact, have also started to say that Hillary will take our guns. Which is untrue - nobody suggested not including a grandfather clause in any proposed legislation - and particularly laughable given that every time he opened his mouth about guns, the only practical effect was people buying a bunch more guns.

Fear of government taking people's guns seems to be one of the most enduring fear-based motivation they've managed to come up with, second to terrorism if to anything.

A grandfather clause isn't really the point.

 

[Fishking]

No it couldn't. That's not how it works. The Supreme Court can't rule the Second Amendment unconstitutional. Can you guess why?

You don't know how the SCOTUS works.

 

[joG]

I'm beginning to think Trump is just trolling the whole world; if not then he really is dangerous. Now he has suggested that the '2nd amendment' is an option to stop Clinton picking supreme court judges.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat. This is a worrying new low in US politics: A presidential nominee suggesting the assassination of his opponent.

And Trump supporters will defend him... again.

It does throw a spotlight on a question that has been nagging in the background for some time, large segments of the population have increasingly felt that the Constitution was being broken in many ways and the courts were protecting the breeches and persons breaking Amendments.

When the governing group discards the protection the Constitution affords citizens
and continuously or systematically breaks the contract between the citizens and their government
and there is no redress possible
what is the citizen to do?

This is a question that is not easily discussed, as the answer is violent and violence is shunned and proscribed. This is in spite of the fact, that it was for just such a situation in which the existing government became illigitimate that our forefathers stood up in arms. The problem with the topic is that immediately the call for silence is ushered and accusations of incitement appear.

But the question is totally legitimate.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You do realize it's an ammendment?

It is?!? Oh my god!

 

[Ikari]

Then why does he say that would be a horrible day? Do you think he meant it would be a horrible day that pro-second amendment folk would vote for him or do you think he meant it would be a horrible day that someone killed Clinton?

He needs for the first time in his life to own up to what he said and enough of the Trump arse kissers stop backpedaling for him.

Grow a couple Trump.

"But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."
Donald Trump: Gun advocates could deal with Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

He was talking about getting her picks for SCOTUS into office.

Duh.

There's plenty to attack Trump on, there's never a lack for that. From his empty "platform" to his complete lack of tact and diplomacy (which is on display here), there are many many faults of Trump. We don't need to invent them just because it's all we got this election cycle.

I mean, we're going to, and this will be on both camps as well. It's going to be an ugly, childish, embarrassing election cycle with Clinton and Trump. Neither have anything of substance or intelligence. But still, in this case Trump was talking about Hillary being elected, getting to choose SCOTUS judges and the affect that could have on second amendment rights. He was not claiming to have her assassinated, though he couldn't have expressed that statement without putting his foot in his mouth. Trump is an idiot and absolute **** as a communicator. Which is why we can't actually have him as Head of State.

 

[Conservative]

I'm beginning to think Trump is just trolling the whole world; if not then he really is dangerous. Now he has suggested that the '2nd amendment' is an option to stop Clinton picking supreme court judges.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat. This is a worrying new low in US politics: A presidential nominee suggesting the assassination of his opponent.

And Trump supporters will defend him... again.

Do you people ever think for yourself or always buy the media spin? This is going to be one of the dirtiest elections in history but what the hell does anyone expect with the Clinton's. I really feel sorry for so many here who have been duped by the media and the left into believing the lies and the rhetoric. Substance never exists with the left and that is rather sad.

Keep promoting the habitual liar and incompetent Hillary. Liberalism is definitely dying hard.

 

[Zyphlin]

Will continue to say, the best thing for Trump and the thing that will keep him in this race is the knee jerk over reaction and idiocy to everything he says that is so overblown and ridiculous that it causes ACTUAL neutral individuals who don't like Trump but aren't die hard in the Democratic camp to actually feel like they need to speak up to defend him against the idiocy regardless of their distaste for the man, his policies, or his principles.

The ENTIRE basis for this to actually be an issue is to come towards it in an already biased position that leads one to believe that somehow the most simple and obvious connotation here MUST be Trump suggesting armed insurrection rather than anything else. This is no more harmful or legitimately calling for violence than Obama's "Bring a gun" comment, and is idiotic that it's even being mildly treated as some kind of threat or call for violence on the part of Trump.

**** like this will do nothing but ultimately help keep him relevant in this election.

 

[Ikari]

**** like this will do nothing but ultimately help keep him relevant in this election.

Maybe it's designed to keep him relevant, let him limp along in the election well enough to ensure not too many people end up supporting Johnson. That way, they can keep Johnson out of the debates "legitimately", and even though Hillary will win, they will have avoided allowing third parties to claim some exposure.

Whoooooooo, conspiracy theories. I'm going to promote this one as real.

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm sure some people thought the Titanic wouldn't nose-dive to the bottom of the sea either. The Trump ship is sinking. Grab a life boat while there are still some left.

I have no need for a lifeboat.

Trump's campaign will do what Trump's campaign will do, and the electorate will do what it will do.

I have purposefully not emotionally invested in any of this, as in the end, it matter very little of what I do on the outcome.

 

[Enlighten Me]

The NRA should present Donald Trump with a gun so he can start shooting himself in the foot so he can't put it in his mouth.

Regarding the latest going off script gaff by Donald regarding the real or implied threat to Hillary Clinton's life. It reflects AGAIN what is going on inside his head. The REAL Donald Trump. And it disturbs a lot of voters.

AS USUAL, his campaign staff has to go around behind him and clean up the mess he made. Saying essentially, "He didn't really mean that, he meant this instead. While Donald Refuses to retract what he said or even apologize for the obviously inappropriate remark. If Donald Trump is elected, who can go around behind the President of the United States and say, Our President really did mean that when he said it. He meant this instead. It CAN"T HAPPEN when you are President.

I feel compelled to point out that the President only nominates the Supreme Court Justices. It is the Senate that actually appoints them.
Donald and the bulk of the posters here seemed to be unaware of that.

Donald repeatedly states he has no faith in the institutions of our government. The FBI, Justice Dept, The Rigged Election, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. He does not believe in the checks and balances of power designed by the Founding Fathers. That is somewhat worrisome given the term "Dictator" being associated with his name in the media not to mention, the "I alone can fix it" statement.

 

[countryboy]

I have no need for a lifeboat.

Trump's campaign will do what Trump's campaign will do, and the electorate will do what it will do.

I have purposefully not emotionally invested in any of this, as in the end, it matter very little of what I do on the outcome.

Yep, I'm with you. I had been fretting about this for a while, then watched a very good sermon by an old pastor of mine. Eased my mind greatly. Basically in a nut shell, for decades, Conservatives have been trying to assemble voting blocks to elect POTUSes (POTAI? lol) who would appoint Supreme Court justices who would be true to the Constitution. It hasn't worked. Trust in God.

 

[Fishking]

It always amuses me when it's said that the left doesn't want to take guns away. They just want "common sense" gun control laws. Then they go on to site a bunch of stuff that already exists. The only thing on the list that doesn't already exist is an "assault weapon" ban, which would be a gun ban, in and of itself. Then they claim they don't want to ban guns.

That aside, we already have background checks and there are no gun show loopholes. So we take a way "assault weapons" and we find out what everyone already knows, they only make up a very small % of gun deaths. This will obviously mean that it won't stop with assault weapons.

Yes, the only reason why the left isn't actually taking away guns right now is that it would be political suicide, not due to lack of intent. They will just continue to push the death by a thousand cuts restrictions as each small step will seem reasonable and it gains more public acceptance.

 

[Crosscheck]

"But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."
Donald Trump: Gun advocates could deal with Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

He was talking about getting her picks for SCOTUS into office.

Duh.

There's plenty to attack Trump on, there's never a lack for that. From his empty "platform" to his complete lack of tact and diplomacy (which is on display here), there are many many faults of Trump. We don't need to invent them just because it's all we got this election cycle.

I mean, we're going to, and this will be on both camps as well. It's going to be an ugly, childish, embarrassing election cycle with Clinton and Trump. Neither have anything of substance or intelligence. But still, in this case Trump was talking about Hillary being elected, getting to choose SCOTUS judges and the affect that could have on second amendment rights. He was not claiming to have her assassinated, though he couldn't have expressed that statement without putting his foot in his mouth. Trump is an idiot and absolute **** as a communicator. Which is why we can't actually have him as Head of State.

I stand corrected then. I was wrong .

Either way this is not the person to lead this country. As terrible as he is this does not make Clinton a shining star.

Am still voting for Johnson this Nov.

 

[Threegoofs]

Big deal (from what little I saw of the OP).

I think Trump is a buffoon, but what he said was no big deal.

He simply suggested that if she puts the wrong judges in the SCOTUS (for his taste) then she might get shot and that it would be 'a terrible day' if she was...and he is probably right.

Some gun lovers can get EXTREMELY fanatical about their guns...they might shoot her if they think they might lose them.

He did not say he hopes they would, he just said they might.

Nothing much wrong with that...other then it was not a very PC thing to say.


And please save the 'he encourages violence by suggesting it might happen'. Utter nonsense. People don't shoot POTUS's because someone they don't even know said they could...they do it because they want to (and they are probably nuts).

And apparently, you're OK with having a Presidential candidate implicitly encourage those nuts with statements like these.

There are insane people who think Hillary wants to 'grab guns', and it's completely irresponsible for anyone to hint that the way to prevent that is to shoot her.

 

[Josie]

I hate Trump as much as the next, but I don't think he meant anything like assassination. I think he was trying to rally the pro-second amendment folk around his base and solidify their votes for him.

But it does highlight one of Trumps biggest problems, he always puts his foot in his mouth. Even if what he means isn't bad, he can't help but phrase it exceedingly poorly. This would be our Head of State? He'd start a war just by running his mouth.

Also, this is the level of "debate" we'll have in this race. Hillary supports islamic terroristism because the Orlando Shooter's dad was standing near her. Oh, Trump is calling for the assassination of Hillary. Blah blah blah. Because both candidates are empty-headed tripe with absolutely nothing but scandal and incompetence surrounding them, this is what this election cycle is going to turn into. A bunch of childish bickering, insults, and finger pointing.

God, I'm sick of it already.

This. All of it.

 

[Anthony60]

I think the important point is that it would be a disaster for our personal liberties if Clinton was allowed to make SC appointments. Can you imagine a country where there are 6 or 7 Justices on the court that ignore the Constitution and our freedoms that it protects?

Ironically, one of the first things they would do is neuter the second amendment. That is how a tyrannical leader/government operates, they need to disarm the people. Because, eventually, years later, all but the elite will be under the government's thumb. It doesn't happen overnight, folks. Your liberty will die among cheering crowds.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Just a wry remark for audience amusement - like "Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!"

Of course, Trump....and his minions....demanding she be indicted....were just being "sarcastic", they were not serious. It was a joke. Ha-ha.