Trump hints that Clinton should be assassinated!

[Phys251]

I know that. It would seem the limit is many thousands of characters beyond the capacity of some to provide. Similar limitations are found with those who can't read anything that doesn't contain pictures.

That's the fault of the reader, not the author. A picture really is worth a thousand words. Pictures are great, because many people on this forum are not yet willing or able to have a serious conversation.

 

[ocean515]

That's the fault of the reader, not the author. A picture really is worth a thousand words. Pictures are great, because many people on this forum are not yet willing or able to have a serious conversation.

I have yet to read a more ironic statement today.

 

[calamity]

Your assertion that "The issue is that health insurance mandates are not an example of tyranny" doesn't even make sense as an issue. The issue would be "Does the Constitution give the federal government the power to force people to purchase health care?" Obviously, it does not.

boo hoo

 

[Goshin]

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.

Oh this is so full of ****.



Are we really at the point where if Trump said "Tide laundry detergent gets your whites whiter!" it would be spun in the media as a racist statement?? Seems...

 

[calamity]

So the whole 'clamoring for a deportation force' thing...that's not really a thing then...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is if Trump's intent is to follow through on his promise to deport all the illegals. That will require a "deportation force," i.e. a police state, like this country has never seen before. Probably a million new government workers dedicated to do nothing but throw them out and keep them out. If it's not his intent to deport all the illegals and build that 50-foot wall, then you all got suckered by a con man. Either way, you lose.

 

[Absentglare]

Oh this is so full of ****.



Are we really at the point where if Trump said "Tide laundry detergent gets your whites whiter!" it would be spun in the media as a racist statement?? Seems...

You think that's a fair comparison ? I don't.

Trump was saying that IF Hillary gets elected and stacks the court (first, assume that has already happened), then there's nothing that anyone can do. Except the second amendment folks might be able to do something. The election is already over, so what can they do ??

What is unique to "Second Amendment people" ? Firearms. The obvious implication is that they would use them.

Please, share with me your alternative interpretation. I cannot find any credible alternative.

 

[Opopanax]

That's a poor analogy. There are already safeguards against the Tiger getting to anyone. Here's one that's a much better fit.

What if they said they were going to start removing barriers between the people and the Tigers? You good with that? So, it's 50 miles away, you don't care if the Tiger gets out. Fast forward a few years. They built a few zoos much closer. Since you approve, maybe they'll put a zoo 2 miles from your house, and you already gave your approval to the lack of barriers. Ooops, you want your safe guards back. Sorry, now it's to late, you've got no say.

No, it's a perfect analogy. There's something that's potentially threatening, but in reality you'd have to be paranoid to the point of inpatient commitment to think it's actually going to happen.

The government isn't interested in you. You're no threat to the federal government unless you get arrested for a crime under federal law. So not only is unfounded paranoia a problem, so is grandiosity. Both in the idea that the government gives a wit to bother you and that if we woke tomorrow under the heel of a Stalinistic boot that there's anything you would be able to do about it. A squad of Army infantry would finish you off in about five minutes and then they'd take your house if they didn't just bother to call in a strike via artillery or missile of some variety.

And one more thing; I'm a gun owner too (Mossberg 930 + an old .357 I've had forever). And if someone of your ilk actually did start an insurrection and started shooting in my neighborhood, I'd be a big problem for that person. So don't think that everyone with a gun is some 2nd Amendment fetishist and thinks like you do.

 

[Visbek]

So you admit your original statement that Hillary doesn't want to take away Americans' guns is false then, correct? She wants to take away "only" ten to fifteen percent of them?

Good grief

I was responding to the false claim, made by Trump and others, that she wants to remove the 2nd Amendment, that she wants to take away all your guns, and that if she appoints another justice to the SCOTUS that all gun rights will be obliterated.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Threegoofs]

It is if Trump's intent is to follow through on his promise to deport all the illegals. That will require a "deportation force," i.e. a police state, like this country has never seen before. Probably a million new government workers dedicated to do nothing but throw them out and keep them out. If it's not his intent to deport all the illegals and build that 50-foot wall, then you all got suckered by a con man. Either way, you lose.

Well, I think we can all agree he might give a pass to the hot female European illegals.

 

[Chillfolks]

Please, share with me your alternative interpretation. I cannot find any credible alternative.

You have already made up your mind as to how you interpret Trump's statement. You dismiss any other views off the bat as not being credible. If you truly want to see an alternative explanation you first must be willing to not jump to the conclusion of Trump calling for an assasintaion as the only valid interpitation as you currently do.


Like I said earlier. I don't see it as an assasintaion comment, but I can see how his poor word choice could allow some people, espiscally if the are more for Hillary than Trump, to come to that conclusion. Even if I think they came to the wrong conclusion.

 

[Absentglare]

You have already made up your mind as to how you interpret Trump's statement.

False, i am explicitly asking for an alternative explanation.

You dismiss any other views off the bat as not being credible.

False, i consider a great many competing views, i simply summarily dismiss those that i consider not credible.

If you truly want to see an alternative explanation you first must be willing to not jump to the conclusion of Trump calling for an assasintaion as the only valid interpitation as you currently do.

I am willing to do so, it is simply that nobody has been able to give me that opportunity.

Like I said earlier. I don't see it as an assasintaion comment, but I can see how his poor word choice could allow some people, espiscally if the are more for Hillary than Trump, to come to that conclusion. Even if I think they came to the wrong conclusion.

Then you think it was a poor choice of words ? Perhaps.

If so, what was he intending to say with his poor choice of words ?

What can "Second Amendment people" do about Hillary stacking the court ...?

 

[j-mac]

Really? Then why would it be “a horrible day”, as he put it, after it happened? I mean, if it were about rallying single issue voters to vote then it would be a good day, no?

Go back and listen to the full part of the speech in context...

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Chillfolks]

Then you think it was a poor choice of words ? Perhaps.

If so, what was he intending to say with his poor choice of words ?

What can "Second Amendment people" do about Hillary stacking the court ...?

It has been explained to you before. I see no need to beat that dead horse when you already have shown you will outright dismiss an opposing view.

 

[Absentglare]

It has been explained to you before. I see no need to beat that dead horse when you already have shown you will outright dismiss an opposing view.

You have now spent more time concluding that i won't accept your view than it would likely take to simply articulate your view.

I'm inclined to agree with you in a sense, there is no hope that you will convince me, because you are unable and/or unwilling to so much as attempt to convince me.

 

[Chillfolks]

You have now spent more time concluding that i won't accept your view than it would likely take to simply articulate your view.

I'm inclined to agree with you in a sense, there is no hope that you will convince me, because you are unable and/or unwilling to so much as attempt to convince me.

I doubt this rational explanation will sastify but the Olympics are little slow so
First Trump states that Hillary wants to cut out the second. Then he says if she gets to pick the judges its too late. Insert poorly worded phrase as a call for support amongst 2nders. Ending with a comment about the day her judges cut the 2nd as a horrible day in an inappropriate spot.



He should of said something like:

My opponent has gone on record wanting to restrict law abiding citizens free choice in the arms the feel protect their loved ones the best. If she is elected she will make this a reality by choosing judges who choose politics over law for the supreme court. I am asking those who value the freedoms granted by the 2nd support me. If my opponent is successful in her tyranical desire to infrindge upon our Constituinal rights that will be a horrible day.


As a life long suffer of ADD. Trumps speeches sound like he has it. The thoughts bounce around and back again at a dizzying rate normal folks can't understand.

 

[Anthony60]

boo hoo

Don't cry.

 

[Ganesh]

You have already made up your mind as to how you interpret Trump's statement. You dismiss any other views off the bat as not being credible. If you truly want to see an alternative explanation you first must be willing to not jump to the conclusion of Trump calling for an assasintaion as the only valid interpitation as you currently do.


Like I said earlier. I don't see it as an assasintaion comment, but I can see how his poor word choice could allow some people, espiscally if the are more for Hillary than Trump, to come to that conclusion. Even if I think they came to the wrong conclusion.

Trump is damned any way you look at it. Either he really was advocating violence (it wouldn't be the first time), or he was just pandering for votes from the gun crowd, and irresponsibly willing to risk violence to gain them, or he simply came out with a potentially disastrous proposition because he is too foolish to be able to express himself in an intelligent fashion, or (as you allude to later) he has some psychological issues that produce this sort of dysfunctional communication. Pick any one, or combination, and it indicates he is one of the last people in the country one would want in the top position.

 

[Absentglare]

I doubt this rational explanation will sastify but the Olympics are little slow so
First Trump states that Hillary wants to cut out the second. Then he says if she gets to pick the judges its too late. Insert poorly worded phrase as a call for support amongst 2nders. Ending with a comment about the day her judges cut the 2nd as a horrible day in an inappropriate spot.



He should of said something like:

My opponent has gone on record wanting to restrict law abiding citizens free choice in the arms the feel protect their loved ones the best. If she is elected she will make this a reality by choosing judges who choose politics over law for the supreme court. I am asking those who value the freedoms granted by the 2nd support me. If my opponent is successful in her tyranical desire to infrindge upon our Constituinal rights that will be a horrible day.


As a life long suffer of ADD. Trumps speeches sound like he has it. The thoughts bounce around and back again at a dizzying rate normal folks can't understand.

You are not explaining what Trump said, you are making your own statement.

Trump specifically cited a hypothetical where Hillary already won and stacked the court- in such a scenario, Trump said nothing can be done except maybe the Second Amendment people can do something.

Now, what is the "something" they could do ? Notice that it is too late for political support to have any impact because the election was already over in the hypothetical.

 

[Chillfolks]

You are not explaining what Trump said, you are making your own statement.

Trump specifically cited a hypothetical where Hillary already won and stacked the court- in such a scenario, Trump said nothing can be done except maybe the Second Amendment people can do something.

Now, what is the "something" they could do ? Notice that it is too late for political support to have any impact because the election was already over in the hypothetical.

It's already been explained to you. You just prefer your narrative case closed.

 

[Threegoofs]

It's already been explained to you. You just prefer your narrative case closed.

No, you didn't explain it.

 

[Absentglare]

It's already been explained to you. You just prefer your narrative case closed.

Please address my question: what did Trump mean when he suggested that "Second Amendment people" could "maybe" do something to fix something that he clearly considered otherwise hopeless ?

If you cannot answer this question, i must defer to my prior explanation.

 

[Chillfolks]

He was talking about how if they vote for trump maybe there is something they can do to stop Hillary and her pick of judges.

 

[Crosscheck]

Now, what is the "something" they could do ? Notice that it is too late for political support to have any impact because the election was already over in the hypothetical.

That explains it better than anyone has.

As he says, “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is"


Once elected there is little you can do from stopping her in picking judges, well except the second amendment people might have a way of stopping her.

 

[bluesmoke]

The decryption/meaning of what Trump says doesn't matter. He only says what he does to gain attention, and nothing else. If in that day or the day before, something grabs the headlines, he has to do something to bring public attention back to him. However bombastic or seemingly insane he must say. Whatever get's peoples' attention at that moment going forward until...

 

[rhinefire]

Hey monitors the op title is bull****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!