I was actually worried last week that Donald Trump’s handlers would be able to successfully sit on him for two full weeks during the Olympics, and that Trump’s “gaffes” would be phased out and people would forget that he’s an unhinged lunatic. Well, I was wrong to be concerned… about that. As many suspected, Trump can’t stand the fact that Olympians are getting all of the attention. He’s been a gaffe machine for days, but on Tuesday afternoon, Trump crossed over a line. He crossed the line that no presidential candidate is supposed to cross. He told an audience:
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
You can see the words come out of his orange, fascist mouth around the 30-second mark.
WATCH: Donald Trump comments on Hillary Clinton and the Second Amendment. #GunControl #SCOTUShttps://t.co/mCkqN78k7C
— CSPAN (@cspan) August 9, 2016
So… tell me again how this was a “joke”? That’s what some in the Trump campaign are saying, that it was a joke. Others are saying Trump merely meant that the “second amendment people” should get out and vote, although IN CONTEXT, the quote is about what the second amendment people should do when Hillary Clinton is in office. This is a very obvious threat, and a very obvious appeal being made by Trump that hopefully, maybe, some “second amendment people” will assassinate Hillary Clinton. There was a follow-up from the Secret Service, which is currently tasked with protecting the Obamas, the Bidens, the Clintons and yes, the Trumps.
The Secret Service is aware of the comments made earlier this afternoon.
— U.S. Secret Service (@SecretService) August 9, 2016
Ugh. The only nice thing I can say is that even hardcore Republicans are appalled for the most part. The condemnation from nearly everyone has been great to see. Elizabeth Warren summed it up perfectly:
.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.
— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) August 9, 2016
Unfortunately, Paul Ryan, the highest ranked Republican in office, didn’t even bother to watch a 40-second clip, and dismisses the whole thing as a “joke gone bad.”
"It sounds like just a joke gone bad… I didn't actually hear the comments…"
Speaker Paul Ryan is a coward. pic.twitter.com/iNFTd1zokg
— Alan Kestrel (@AlanKestrel750) August 10, 2016
Yeah… so, a new, historic low for Donald Trump and his campaign. Well, a “low” if you haven’t been paying attention to anything Trump has been saying for years now.
And if you want something a little bit silly this morning, try this.
I think that Trump called for Clinton's assassination to draw the focus away from his much-discussed support of NAMBLA. #TrumpNAMBLA
— Gavin Fritton (@gavinesq) August 9, 2016
Everyone is saying @realDonaldTrump donated to NAMBLA; I'm hearing it from many people. Why no denial? #trumpnambla
— Max Landis (@Uptomyknees) August 9, 2016
This is my new favorite story https://t.co/dCC5QkZMIG
— Kaiser@Celebitchy (@KaiseratCB) August 9, 2016
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Vile scumbag.
Though I’m only slightly less disturbed by the fact that the Secret Service tweets?!?
–TheRealPinky
Ryan is also a vile scumbag. How can he live with himself?
He won his primary last night. He has the support of other vile scumbags. I doubt it will happen but I really hope the GOP loses the House and that vile scumbag gets his comeuppance.
Agreed about Ryan. I’ve always thought he was an evil tool but this election cycle has revealed him to be far worse than I thought.
@lilacflowers, I’m hoping he brings down the entire Republican Party. It’s been out of control since the tea baggers were inspired by Sarah Palin.
Yeah in certain ways I find those politicians that know better and are sane worse than Trump. It’s despicable that they give him cover.
If anyone wants to call Ryan’s office, you’ll get an earful of what Ryan thinks are priorities for America. It staggers the mind that he was up against a candidate who was even MORE right-wing. How could that be possible?
Ryan is a piece of garbage. There are so many moments in the last week alone that he could have stood up and denounced this mad man and his run for the highest office in the land. Total piece of garbage.
I agree, what a wimp, he is only thinking of himself with statements like that, he is afraid of Trump if you ask me.
Exactly. Trump is a disgusting scumbag but it’s even more disgusting that the GOP powers that be continue to support him and enable this kind of awful behavior. Can you imagine the 24 hour heart attack Fox News would have if anyone “on the other side” ever said something like this? The Dixie Chicks just said they were ashamed to be Texans like Dubya and they got death threats and nonstop hate from the conservative media. Trump and the powers that still support him are disgusting.
Everyone tweets now. It’s still odd that politics happens in social media form. I mean half the time anyone is arguing with Trump, it’s through tweets.
If you don’t tweet, facebook or instagram, you do not exist on planet Earth, so, of course, they tweet.
I am non-existent then.
Nonexistent as well. I like to think of myself as the female Ron Swanson. I like being mysterious and off the grid.
Nonexistent. No facebook, twitter, snapchat or instagram. Nothing!
Wow, really? Should tell my family and friends that I don’t exist?
Also non-existent. Yay!
I am also non existent, apart from coming on Celebitchy to snark about celebrities and Donald Trump.
Does it count it I have a twitter account, but never tweet? I just eavesdrop on other people. 🙂
I am also raising my non-existent hand. WooHoo!
@bluehare same here. I tweet though, to about 12 twitterbots i believe. None of whom bother to bot enough to like or retweet any of my tweets. Ugh.
The CIA also tweets. And their tweets are often as vague. Though they did have a series of inspired cat pic tweets in honor of their first twitterversary.
I find tweeting so childish, so I’m equally surprised to see that The Secret Service tweets. Also, I wish Elizabeth Warren had not tweeted what she did, which also sounded childish…it lowers her to Trump’s level. She’s got too much class for that.
Donald Trump doesn’t understand nuanced arguments or put downs.
Sometimes you need to use the same language as the enemy so they understand what you are saying.
Calling DT any number of sophisticated, heck normal and polite words, is water off a duck’s back. Call him a girl because frankly that is the level he understands, and it hits home.
On the one gand we shouldn’t encourage misogyny from anyone, but frankly, the only thing guaranteed to make DT lose his marbles is that level of humour and in doing so reveal himself.
Look at the ongoing reaction to his tiny gands being pointed out vs the non reaction to Drumpf meme which is a muvh more damaging meme to his brand and rhetoric than one about his tiny hands.
Sinking to his level?
I disagree completely. I think Warren was very succinct and accurate in her assessment of Trump. I’m really proud of her for not backing down, particularly given how many times Trump has singled her out. Remember that Warren is a fighter–this is what she does. It’s just the way that she’s wired.
I read a lot of angry neocons making comments similar to yours and to me it really reeked of misogyny. Because as a woman, she should be polite and sweet and most of all, quiet. Eff that. This dude deserves all the sh*t that Warren and others can throw at him.
ETA: I wasn’t accusing you of being misogynistic, just saying.
I’m fine with what Elizabeth Warren tweeted, too. It’s not like she’s calling for his assassination – which would just be a joke, you know.
I do think she’s baiting him a little. She’s been taking one for the team and I love it.
I think Elizabeth Warren is throughly enjoying her take down of Trump. She really gets under his (hideously orange) skin.
The words ‘tweeting’ and Twitter themselves are cartoonish but that’s the nature of the modern Internet, to use these kinds of words. Seems childish from the outside because of the cartoon words and the brevity, but it’s an accepted form of social communication now.
It’s a short-form, individualized Internet-based broadcast tool (um, “platform”). So we could call it, “IBT” or something more 60s-80s tech/telecom but it would be the same thing. Tech entrepreneurs learned how to brand their products differently the past couple of decades.
At some point there’ll be something else, but for now, this is our public square.
Also Warren is calling a spade a spade. It’s refreshing.
Trump has been hurling sexist and racist slurs at Warren for months, with full encouragement from his “advisor” Senator Centerfold Brown, who is still bitter and angry that the people of Massachusetts, with a strong majority o f the women of Massachusetts, fired his lazy sexist, racist butt after he swore to protect us womenfolk. I love that Warren is calmly and brilliantly shredding them.
I love Warren and the way she calls out Trump. She is spectacular at it!! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Someone needs to call him on his bluff, and she does it richly. I think warrens takedoiwns are surgical and tactical. She’s the designated heckler because he cant handle women questioning him, and his reaction exposes his weakness and thin skin every and stupidity every time. That’s how to stand up to a bully.
How is what she said childish? I thought she hit the nail on the head in one simple sentence….a sentence the Cheeto understands.
I thought it was interesting to hear (on NPR’s Fresh Air) that the use of Warren in this way has been deliberate. The Clinton campaign is studying the way Trump attacked his opponents in the primary and found that his nicknames–Lyin’ Ted, Little Marco, Low Energy Jeb Bush–were really effective with male rivals. But people did not like it when he went after Carly Fiorina, for example. So, they’ve concluded that it needs to be a woman who is used as the attack surrogate. (Of course, there’s also the fact that Warren seems to particularly get under his skin and that she’s good at this.)
I just liked hearing that the Clinton camp is finding strength in a societal double standard. Also, the irony that they are able to use what is typically thought of as a stereotype that hurts women–she’s too moody and irrational and emotional to have the nuclear codes–against Trump. I think it’s amazing that Clinton is seen as the steady one who is able to think under pressure.
@Tillie, the use of Warren in this manner is especially brilliant in that Trump is using Scott Brown as an advisor and is clearly following his advice. Centerfold Scott thinks he can “handle” Warren, because he did so well when he lost an election to her, and thus, we get Trump’s slurs about Pocahontas, straight from Scott.
You have to understand the background here. Trump has been tweeting obnoxious name-calling and outright lies for a long time, aimed at anybody who disagrees with him. Warren is pretty forthright and quick-witted and decided to engage. Trump in response not only ranted that she was lying about a small amount of Native American in her ancestry (she’s actually from an area where that is quite common, too far back to have documentation) and started calling her Pocahontas on Twitter and in speeches to insult her — he falsely accused her of claiming to be Native American to get special preference in academia. It was easily proven that she never did that, but he has continued to rant on about it to this day and continues to call her Pocahontas (I think she embraced it and set up a web site with that name? Which really infuriated him). He tries to shut people up by screaming lies and insults, it’s how he tries to control the conversation. So people have been enjoying the way she needles him just by calmly tweeting truths such as in this case (I also believe Trump can’t stand that he is being outpolled by “a girl”). Of course, she’s having a lot of fun doing it! Tweets are a kind of art form. I was glad she wasn’t wasted as the VP candidate, she’s so effective happily baiting The Donald on Twitter. She’s quite civil compared to the Trumpster. I imagine Hillary was thinking of this little Twitter war when she said something about a President who could be easily baited by a tweet.
Have read all the responses and get it. I do LOVE Elizabeth Warren, was cheering the first time she took Trump down, but didn’t like seeing her responding to him on his own terms on Twitter. However, had forgotten the Pocahontas jab from Trump. I do watch CNN nearly non-stop all day, so I’m up-to-date on all that has transpired. I also realize that Trump would never “get” a nuanced message and would only get hit by lightning by reading his own brand of attack tactics. So, I’ll do a mea culpa and agree.
I am also very disappointed in her tweet. She is an intelligent woman who can deliver a pointed critique and refutations very effectively. For her to go from a Harvard prof to basically reducing the issue against this twat to “a girl is beating a boy” is galling. Is that the essence of the past three months? weeks? days? That this has been a primary school playground spat? Because it has seemed to me far more serious and of the moment than that.
Warren has no class (neither does Trump). She claimed Native American ancestry to advance her career, and was exposed as a liar. She’s one of the original cultural appropriators, and she did so in a particularly offensive fashion. She should have zero credibility.
I adore Warren tweets! Forthright and honest.
I think the Secret Service doesn’t want to tweet, but they set up a Twitter account to make sure no one else got the “@Secret Service” handle and either posed as them or tried to make them pay millions for it.
I’m sure they were getting bombarded about this (rightly so), so a simple tweet to say “Yes, we’re aware” without any further details was the right move.
Every time we think he’s gone as low as he can go he out does himself.
This is treason. He is a sick loser.
A lot of Trump-bots are pointing to Hillary’s 2008 statement about not dropping out and RFK’s assassination. Not the same thing at all but they are great at deflection.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0
True. At this point, I don’t even question or am shocked by what comes out of his mouth. Who I do question, at this point, are the people who support him: either by advocating what he says, or those who look away..
Why hasn’t he been arrested yet? First asking Russia to hack the US Gov, now this?
But they were “jokes” Snazzy. Rudy Giuliani said so. What? You didn’t think it was funny? Well that’s your problem.
This morning when I sat down to eat my breakfast, Rudy Giuliani was on the news making all the excuses. You weren’t there. It was a joke. It was taken out of context. The media is out to get him. hillary Clinton is out to get him. EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET HIM. I honestly wanted to punch Giuliani in the face more than I wanted to punch Trump at that moment. Now I just have a headache from all of it.
First of all, it wasn’t a joke. Secondly, even if it was a joke, a real presidential candidate knows that their words hold a great deal of power. So they need to be able to think before they speak. Not just spout off at the mouth.
Yep, Rachel, I saw Rudy G this morning as well. He needs to take all the seats, for all the excuses. He made zero sense.
Can we imagine if HC made those kinds of jokes?
You think he can’t get worse, or stupider, and then….
I know, right?!
That comment was completely uncalled for.
Even the audience sat kind of in stunned silence or boo’d. Perhaps, like live TV he has producers standing on the sides directing people in the audience should react and even the producers were unsure what to do. It’s craziness. Praying he doesn’t become president!
Do you think Pence’s new theme song is “If I Could Turn Back Time”?
I’m going to imagine Pence in Cher’s outfit from that video and picture him straddling the big gun from now on. Thank you
I’m probably more of a free speech advocate even than most Americans.
But that’s not free speech: that’s incitement. Actual incitement. And surely a crime in any jurisdiction.
I’m hoping his Secret Service detail roughed him up after he got off stage.
That’s the thing though. They won’t. They wouldn’t. They’re professionals. And by fomenting rage and inciting violence, he’s not just putting Hillary’s life at risk: he’s putting the lives of those sworn to protect her at risk. But yeah, he’s the law and order candidate.
I’m sure they didn’t touch him. But I also suspect that the leader of his detail let him know he was out of line.
Ok. I can definitely support a nice, verbal rough-uppage.
At this point they’re probably all rethinking some life choices and are too busy contemplating career changes to find the energy to slap him down. I would be so filled with self-loathing if I had to protect this orange hate machine.
“orange hate machine”- did you just come up with that? nicely done.
Exactly. When you listen to most Presidents speak freely, they use a kind of slow, measured cadence. This is because they are *carefully* weighing their words, knowing the powerful impact they can have and wanting to ensure there can be no misinterpretation.
Donald Trump has no filter. He says exactly what comes into his head at all times unless he is reading line by line off a prompter. This is not the kind of person who should be able to hold public office at any level!
Since we know that all he does is read from a teleprompter or flashcards, that means it was written beforehand. Invisible speech writer firing coming in 3, 2, 1……
Actually, when he reads from a prompter or notes, you can really tell… it’s very slow and dull – he uses a completely different voice, even. He did this all day on Monday.
But when he makes these kind of insane comments, he’s working from talking points and is completely ad libbing. Believe me, no one in his campaign wants him saying things like this.
This 100%! I’m gonna get flack for this but here goes….I don’t think Trump was inciting violence. I think he was saying he was relying on the 2nd amendment people to vote for him. However, he worded it unclear and in a way that was easily misinterpreted and THAT is why he can’t be a leader. His speeches should be planned precisely and never veered away from. He isn’t capable of staying on task – the man digresses on every subject. He can’t stop himself from letting his emotions influence his speech. Sorry, I’m not seeing actual maliciousness, but the stupidity is just as dangerous. This is how I see him being unhinged – incapable of self-control even for a speech….any speech.
Jennifer- if you look at the whole passage, it’s clearly a scenario AFTER the election (voting is done) when President Clinton appoints a Supreme Court justice. He starts out saying that when that happens, you (his audience) can’t do anything about it. Then he used the code word “second amendment” in the context of well, maybe you can do something. In our context, that means grabbing a gun and taking action. Then he says something obligatory about that being a horrible day, which clinched the idea of shooting Hillary or the justice or both and gives lip service to the idea that violence is horrible (not something he would say if talking about peaceful influence on the process).
He uses some of his other typical deflecting phrases for good measure (someone elsewhere referred to this speaking style as multiple choice, so different people can take different things from it). So he can deny it as a joke or as an observation of possible future events rather than himself inciting any deranged armed Trumppet to pick off the President of the United States or a Supreme Court nominee (only takes one armed Trumppet). Judges are being shot at here in the US, that’s no joke either.
Anyway, his language is fuzzy as usual but the reaction of the people in back of him supports my interpretation. If he were just talking about something mundane like voting in the next election or contacting Senators, they wouldn’t have blinked. They knew what he was really saying, whether or not they decided to take it as a joke after the initial shock.
It really is. I get why his unhinged supporters and the GOP are bending over backwards to defend and rationalize his s%^t but I don’t get why law enforcement isn’t taking him more seriously. I’m more convinced than ever that Trump could literally murder someone and still they’d find an excuse and/or blame Hillary.
I’m more concerned that one of his unhinged, gun-happy disciples is actually going to take him literally and try something. If this should happen, God forbid, Trump would still say he was joking. He’s scum and the Republican Party deserves him. They are all so self-serving and spineless, no integrity whatsoever. Since when is inciting violence overlooked???
Lisa, my thoughts exactly – one of his disciples is going to take this statement to heart and try something – even before the election. If I were HRC, I’d be beefing up my security.
@Lisa & swak,
This so much. I’ve already seen the “when SHE win and it’s civil war, at least WE’LL already have the guns and you’ll have nothing” comments on Facebook in the super conservative area I grew up in. There are people out there already advocating violence in the wake of this election and Trump just validated their views.
There’s lacking a filter and there’s opening your mouth and committing a crime, you know? I agree with Esmom. Incitement is against the law. I honestly think that’s a prosecutable thing to say.
And, like I say, I’m usually arguing for free speech to the extent that I upset people whose good opinion I value. I think people should be free to say hateful things but I don’t think people should be free to incite others to commit violent crime.
Controlling case law, Brandenburg v Ohio, is that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Brandenburg was a KKK leader. I do think Trump’s statement meets the standard. It is not the first time his campaign has advocated violence against Clinton. And Trump, a presidential candidate in 2016, has the ability to incite a good deal more people than a KKK leader did in 1964 during a single television station broadcast of a speech.
The standards for incitement are quite high under the law. For Trump’s comment to be criminal, prosecutors would need to show intent, likelihood and, imminence of violence.
Ooh, thank you. Less stringent here.
If not open and shut, definitely arguable in court, right?
@Sixer No, this comment would not be arguable in court because it does not meet the legal definition of incitement. The standards are lower for hate speech, but this does not fall into that category.
Megan – like I say, I’m on the wrong side of the Pond to be fully aware of the standard of proof stateside, but the UK has seen convictions on similar. Lilac is a US lawyer and she seems to think it’s arguable – so who knows? Perhaps testable? Or, as others point out below, at least in line for an uncomfortable conversation with law enforcement?
As a general how-Sixer-thinks-things-should-be: I don’t think standards for hate speech should be lower. I don’t believe in criminalising hate speech or, for example, Holocaust denial, at all. That’s where I fall out with many people I usually agree with on almost everything else. I think we have laws criminalising libel, slander and incitement and these are sufficient provided they are energetically pursued. Everything else should come under free speech. That’s my general position.
There’s no way to prove he meant it that way – maliciously. They’re saying he was misunderstood and since his words were vague and unclear, they will win on this one.
@Sixer to give you a sense of the burden of proof in America, Ted Nuggent, who is a board member of the NRA, posted on You Tube a “parody” video of Hillary being shot (amazingly, it has not been taken down). Last year he called on gun owners to grab their guns and “cleanse” America of liberals. He was not charged with incitement in either case, nor for his many other calls for violence against anyone who supports gun control.
Thanks, Megan. I do extend my knowledge on this site!
Yes, such things actually are illegal. For some reason people get really touchy about calls for assassinating Presidents and Presidential candidates, which have both happened within my own memory (I was in my early to late teens when they happened, first President John Kennedy and then later his brother Robert Kennedy). President Reagan came close to being killed also when he was shot, but he recovered.
I also vividly remember watching Vice President Lyndon Johnson taking the oath of office for the Presidency on Air Force One once JFK was confirmed dead. I was 14 at the time, it was a horrible few days between the shooting and the funeral. So I also am acutely aware that the vice presidential candidate may need to become President with no prior notice and am extremely ticked that the Republicans even considered that know-nothing Sarah Palin for the job. The VP candidate isn’t just window dressing.
I posted this last night during a FB discussion on Drumpf’s latest atrocity: During my tenure as the Exec. Asst./Speech Writer for Sargent Shriver, I shared an office with my immediate supervisor, Jeannie Main. She had been his secretary for 23 years the day I landed on their “doorstep,” and, as she was born the day after my mother, she had been there for a lot of tragedy, well before my time. She started working for the family first for Sen. RFK as his secretary in ’64, I believe. She traveled with them during the ’68 campaign, and was upstairs at the Ambassador Hotel, packing the Senator’s bags for their next campaign stop when he was assassinated. And his 15-year-old son, David, was in the next room watching his father shot on live t.v. (he never recovered and died of an overdose in Palm Beach in ’84). In ’94, a horrifying excuse for a wanna-be-leader, in the form of Rick Santorum, was challenging the Honorable Harris Wofford for his PA Senate seat. So, one morning, I come into my office and hear Jeannie on the phone with a Santorum staffer, reading the riot act in a manner that no one could ignore. She gets off the phone and shows me his latest attack ad on Wofford: it was a photo of the Senator in the center of a target. She informed Santorum’s staff of what it was like being but a few floors above her bosses’ assassination back in ’68, and that the target ad was beyond tasteless, etc. I’ll never forget the tone in her voice, the resolute manner in which she let them know, in NO uncertain terms, that they were beyond classless for their actions. I saw then, first hand, how violent acts follow those who witness it forever. She was in a state of agitation that only a past trauma could resurrect. I’ll never forget her ghost-like appearance. So, Donald, please, I beg of you, just stop. Please, just stop this.
@honeybee – Your story gave me chills.
I strongly second your call to Donald Trump.
This is just beyond too much.
@honeybee, thanks for telling your story.
I don’t think it’s quite incitement. More of a Richard II moment. (“Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” *someone does* “You weren’t supposed to take me seriously you freaking idiots!!!”)
Richard’s eventual penance was to walk barefoot and clad in sack-cloth through the streets of Canterbury while 80 monks flogged him with branches. If the US laws don’t outline a specific punishment, I think we could definitely update that to fit modern American sensibilities. Perhaps walking barefoot down 5th Avenue, clad in Kanye couture, while 80 registered Democrats flog him with branches?
Well, some variant of sackcloth and ashes would be nice, right?
But I disagree. I think clear incitement – if not to an actual act, at least incitement to threaten. And, presumably, a clear threat to murder is also a crime in the US as it is here in the UK?
At least take away his Twitter privileges for a few weeks.
@Sixer Trump’s comment does not meet the legal definition of incitement.
Some of Trump’s supporters are more unhinged and more hate filled than even he is. That was clear incitement to them. Will it take an actual attempt on Hillary’s life to convince some? Remember the rabid “Lock her up” screams? TheY HATE her.
I disagree. This isn’t Shakespeare…and most other people running for office are somehow able to keep those thoughts to themselves, if they even think them at all.
It’s actually Henry 2 who is alleged to have said those words about Thomas Beckett NOT Richard 2.
Esmom: whilst that quote was made famous by Shakespeare, historical chroniclers claim to be true words of King Henry 2 of England in his ongoing dispute with Thomas Beckett, his Archbishop.
Whether he meant them or not, 4 knights took him at his word and travelled to Canterbury and murdered Thomas Beckett.
And the King did penance as @Lucrezia describes.
For 4 centuries afterwards, there was a shrine to Beckett at Canterbury which did a roaring trade in Beckett related miracles and penances until Henry 8 tore it down in his dissolution of the monestries.
As much as Shakespeare embellished some plays, this particular tale is lifted straight from history.
edit – I defer to LAK’s (much better than my) history lesson.
But I don’t think this is the case here, in Henry II’s case he was expressing frustration and someone took him seriously. In Drumpf’s case, its not too much of a stretch to say he’s actively inciting gun owners to take action against Hillary. I agree with @lilacflowers that this is incitement to violence.
We might be reading it differently sixer. I’m not sure how well I’m going to explain.
I’m hearing it as “Second amendment, people!” Which is no basically different to what I’ve seen a zillion American gun-nuts say: “the second amendment means we should bear arms to overthrow a tyrannical government! Rah Rah! Guns!” (That’s not the actual purpose of the 2nd amendment, but lots of gun-nuts seem to believe the myth.) That’s not incitement because it’s too far vague.
I might agree it was incitement if I were taking it as the CB headline suggests – a suggestion directed at a bunch he’s calling “second amendment people”. But to me, that makes no sense as a phrase. If you read it THAT way, he’s “othering” those that should actually be part of his group. As a gun-grabber, I might lump the other side together and say “those second amendment people”, but I wouldn’t say “those gun-grabbers” … I’d say “we” or something that didn’t separate me from “my” group. Does that make any sense? I just don’t buy the idea that Trump (who’s pro 2nd amendment rights) stood up at a political rally and called pro-gun types “second amendment people”.
Woodstock_Schulz: exactly. After the murder, Henry protested to all and sundry that he was merely mouthing off his frustration and had never intended to be taken at his word.
I wonder if DT would use the same defence if some idjit takes him at his word and harms Clinton.
I disagree- no matter how carelessly this was done, it was incitement.
The real danger here is the repeated attempts to portray Hilary Clinton as a traitor and plant suspicion about the election results will delegitimize Clinton. This may empower people to act out against her in a violent manner.
When I heard the latest comments I immediately thought of Rabin and how he was portrayed in Israel prior to his assassination.
Sunny, you make a good point about Rabin – assassinated by a right-wing Israeli.
It’s very disturbing. And now Trump has coalesced his followers into a new tribe, “Second Amendment People,” basically forming his own militia.
Lucrezia – yes, I see what you’re saying. What I’m saying is that he’s used a deliberate double entendre, one “entendre” of which is incitement. KWIM?
It may be, as Megan says, that the US standard of proof is too high to secure a conviction. Or it may be, as Lilac says, it’s arguable in court that the standard by precedent has been met.
@Lucrezia
I am refusing to listen to the speech, so I can’t really have an informed opinion on whether he said “second amendment people” or “second amendment, people”, BUT, stylistically, I don’t think saying “second amendment people” necessarily has a separating quality to it and that it makes no sense for that reason. People say “my people” all the time, for example. So, I can see him meaning it in a “MY second amendment people”, with “my” understood and omitted because everyone knows all too well he’s tapping into that support base.
@ LAK: Oops! You’re completely right, it was Henry II. (I even checked a website for the details of the penance, and somehow didn’t notice I had his name wrong.) Apologies for any confusion!
@Sixer: It’s a little odd that I’m on this side in this particular argument, since I’m really not a big believer in free speech. In Oz, some of the anti-muslim and anti-mexican stuff he’s said would’ve got him done for racial vilification/hate-speech, and I’d be down with that. I just don’t think this specific statement crosses any kind of legal line (it’s waaay beyond proper behaviour from a statesman, but he crossed that line ages ago.) I don’t see a real threat, I see a hot-head talking shit and not paying much attention to the actual real-world consequences of running off big fat mouth. (Which is why I’m sticking to the King Henry II comparison.)
I my hesitation here is actually coming from my uni “ethics in psychology classes”. Take the worst possible interpretation, remove the 3rd party altogether and made it a direct statement: “if Hilary becomes president and elects liberal judges, I’d use a second amendment solution” … that wouldn’t be considered a “real threat”, not enough to get you put under a psych hold. (The target isn’t clear, there are no details, no specific time-frame.) Ethically, I think that is the right approach, because the alternative is criminalising thought-crime. And on a purely practical level, if you lock-up everyone who said something vaguely threatening, you’d have to lock up half the internet. I do think there is a place for laws against incitement, but I wouldn’t draw the line here.
One point for the other side (just to confuse things): even after everything I just typed, I do see that it’s particularly dangerous in this case because Trump has a rabid fan-base. I recognise that – I’m dithering over whether I think it’s “fair” to treat Trump differently because of that fact. On one hand, I believe in the same rules for everyone: if this is illegal, then so is every similarly vague threat made by hot-headed idiots on the internet. On the other hand, it *IS* different when the nonsense comes from a position of power/fame. I’m not sure where I stand on that part of it.
Lucrezia – is funny, really, cos you and I usually agree about most things and here we are on different positions vis a vis both hate speech and incitement. I wonder if I use the latter as a proxy for the former?
Re: hot-headed fools on the internet: have you read about the Twitter Joke Trial we had here? We have some terrible post-9/11 anti-terrorist thought crime laws here now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
Trump is calling rabid gun nuts “second amendment people” because it makes them sound more mainstream and reasonable. Just like he will call people who endorse his right to call on Russia to spy on Americans “first amendment people.”
@Timbuktu: That was only part of the reasoning behind my interpretation. Tone, cadence all come into it. But it’s irrelevant really, since I lean “not incitement” whichever way you interpret it. (Technically I mean “should not be incitement”, since I’m not a lawyer and I’m not intending to say what the law actually *is*, just where I think the line *should* be.)
@ Sixer: I totally agree, but it’d be both of us who are blurring the two issues, not just you. I have no moral qualms about saying “you can’t say that”, so it’s easier for me to look at this and say “not something he should say, but not what I’d call a real threat”. If you think people should be able to say anything – as long as it doesn’t risk harm someone, you have to take a fairly strict position on “risk”.
I’m thinking of a see-saw. Individual rights go up, social rights go down. We both want a similar balance between the two (neither of us are hard-core anarchists or hard-core communists), but we’re starting with different moral weights on the “individual rights” side … so of course we’re going to put different balancing weights on the “social rights” side.
Here’s the thing – He’s very smart in his stupid kind of way. He spoke in vague terms and not specifics. How do you press charges against half-sentences and hints?
Exactly!
Here’s why I feel it is incitement.
These are not words uttered in a sterile environment. This wasn’t in a one-on-one interview or even a small gathering of press or his staff.
His words and the vague implication/interpretation have to be placed in the context of where he said this – at one of his political rallies.
We have seen/heard the footage of some of his supporters screaming things like “hang her”, “k*ll the b&tch” when Donald Trump mentions Hilary Clinton’s name.
He is there and has heard these things – or at the very least seen the same footage we have. He had to know that for some in the crowd, a comment like this is like throwing gasoline on a fire.
He is despicable. He is reckless. He is shameless. He is dangerous.
I agree wholeheartedly, but proving he knew and meant to incite violence is the problem.
miagirl, completely agree.
I think Trump’s words may meet the level of the crime of solicitation (different from soliciting a prostitute) especially taken in the context of the conversation that is occurring with the crowd (hang her). It all has to be taken into account. The crime of solicitation is not often used though.
OK, I just read this and it is actually proof of what I was explaining in my earlier comment in terms of Trump knowing how that statement could play out among some in the crowd.
Rudy Giuliani defending Trump this morning:
“If Donald Trump was going to say something like that, he’d say something like that.” In the interview with George Stephanopoulos, Guiliani said, “You know how speeches go. He was talking about how they [gun-rights advocates] have the power to keep her out of office. That’s what he was talking about. With a crowd like that, if that’s what they thought he’d meant, they’d have gone wild.”
He is admitting that the “crowd like that” at Trump rallies would cheer outright if Trump called for the assassination of HRC. Disgusting.
It is indefensible because they know the supporters who are in attendance and clearly Trump’s comment was 100% a dog-whistle to some in that crowd.
mia girl, I agree with you that his comment was a dog-whistle, just like his comments that the election will probably be rigged. He is setting up his followers to believe that, if he loses, it’s because HRC stole the election.
Yeah, when you have to go through all kinds of semantic gymnastics to convince yourself that the candidate you are campaigning for *probably* didn’t call for an assassination bid, that’s when you have to take a long, hard look at your campaign :/
What he said was meant to encourage violence. He flat out asked for someone to assassinate her. He belongs in prison.
The same thing happened with the deadly attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic — remember way way back when this campaign started and Carly Fiorina said despicable things about falsified videos?
I agree.
In my majorly sleep deprived eyes, I truly read the sign as Trump Peen for one hot second.
So not okay.
With hands as small as his, you couldn’t see Trump Peen. I feel that this level of discourse is acceptable given the fact that he’s advocating for assassination. HFS. What is happening?
I think he is looking for a way out before the debates. They’ll figure out some way to push him out, he can blame it all on the establishment and then play persecuted victim while keeping his tough, smart businessman reputation alive.
On a side note, I’ve noticed lately how big he is. Nobody talks about it because he’s not Chris Christie, but is Donald Trump fat?
I think his tiny, fragile ego honestly cannot take losing, even just in polls, on so public a scale and this is him short circuiting.
Trump definitely has put on quite a bit of weight compared to even a few years ago. Maybe he’s taking some medication that promotes weight gain or just not getting much exercise or his habit of not sleeping much is catching up to him (sleep deprivation can lead to easy weight gain). He has a naturally big frame but he always seemed in decent shape before.
@Neelyo: Yes. He is fat. He’s not the fattest thing alive, but he’s too fat to be criticizing other people’s bodies. And you know he does.
He drags Christie along so people won’t notice how big he is himself.
Kinda like drag queens always drinking from the biggest goblets to make their hands look more delicate.
I think he is despararely looking for a way out of the debates. His monstrous ego can’t handle the idea of being bested in a debate, much less by a woman.
As for his weight, eating all that KFC can’t be good for his waistline.
It’s all the Mexican food he loves, and you know…which means he loves Mexicans. Such a moron!!!
Vile. He is just vile. The NAMBLA thing may be a joke, but Trump IS currently being sued for raping a 13 year old, so it’s not far off the mark. I can’t believe that actual story doesn’t get more coverage.
I know! I’ve seen it pop up on my facebook page, but I haven’t seen it in any of the larger news outlets. Why aren’t people talking about this?
Additionally, Bill Clinton was known to run the same party circuit as Trump and the ring leader. Hillary will not put a spot light on this issue.
The main reason not to believe it is since when does Trump actually donate money…to any cause?
Ha ok. I didn’t think a comment on this story (that I am MASSIVELY UPSET ABOUT) would make me laugh. But this is a solid point.
Sorry, I was referring to the rape charges. Why aren’t people talking about that?
The rape allegations are part of a civil lawsuit. There was no police report filed and, until the court accepts or dismisses the case, there is no way of knowing if the suit is legit or frivolous. If the case is legit, I would expect a speedy settlement with an iron clad non-disclosure.
A paraphrased comment I read on another board that I am ripping off (cause I can’t remember the person’s screen name!): is Trump a “tells-it-like-it-is straight shooter” or is he always just joking?
Remember back in ’92 when Republicans lost their marbles because Bill Clinton played the saxophone on late-night TV, because it wasn’t conduct befitting a presidential candidate?
This the way his supporters talk, in fact I think it’s mild. His voters are the same guys that threaten women with rape and murder online everyday, and who make vile racist comments with no shame. It’s the GOP leaders I can’t understand. When will enough be enough for Paul Ryan?
Ryan just won his primary so he knows people in his district support him and his support for gun violence and his well documented hatred of women.
That’s assuming Paul Ryan has a conscience.
These people will only double down now, Trump and Ryan both.
Problem is Trump keeps getting away with this crap. Somebody needs to do something to show him how bad his comment was. It was no joke he threatened Hillary and that is a criminal offence so just go arrest him or something official that tells him he is way over the line. If one of his “followers” who aren’t that bright if they are still wanting him for President could well try something. Then what would he do? He is losing he knows it and he can’t cope. I expect to see a lot of b.s in the debate too which he might go too. And has everyone forgetten he still HASN’T shown his tax returns? Or does he get a pass on that?
Oh, he knows how bad it is. That’s why he said it. He just doesn’t care. And it’s going to get worse. He will escalate because No One Is Stopping Him.
I do hope Paul Ryan’s staff enjoys the email and voice mail messages I left for him this morning at both his Washington and Janesville offices. If you didn’t hear the statement, keep your vile gun-violence-loving trap shut about it instead of insisting that you are sure it was just a joke. It wasn’t a joke. And it wasn’t the first time the Trump campaign has tried to incite violence against Hillary Clinton.
Well done you. I hope more people took action as well.
I love the way you lobby, Lilac. I do this on my side of the Pond! Never a waste of time, even if it does feel like shouting into the wind sometimes.
I also write actual letters and mail them. They have to keep a log of them. They’re supposed to log emails and phone calls too but I find many Congressional members infuriatingly lax on this. Some congressional representatives , like Ryan, have the email system set up to only accept emails from their districts. In those cases, I used the address of their district offices. I have explained to Ryan’s staff that as Speaker of the House, he must answer to all of us, not just those in a part of Wisconsin. If he doesn’t want to listen, then he should resign as Speaker.
Me too! Our representatives have to reply by law, do yours? I get such a load of guff back, you wouldn’t believe it.
I pride myself on this – to the preening extent that Mr Sixer and the Sixlets mock me remorselessly: for the preening, not the lobbying- – none of that clicktivist passing on other people’s stuff. It’s all my own work!
They must respond within 48 hours to constituents even if just to say “we have assigned your inquiry to Intern H for further review.” When you call, the receptionist should take name, address, and number and assign you to a staffer assigned to the particular issue. They don’t have to respond to non-constituents but some do. We here in Massachusetts were spoiled by Ted Kennedy who was considered to have the best constituents services. There are strict laws against using constituent lists for political purposes but some violate those freely, I say as I hang up the phone for the third time this morning on somebody asking me to donate to Kelly Ayotte’s Senate campaign and be sure to vote for her in November. I don’t even live in the same state. Our former Senator Scott Brown gave his constituents service list to Kelly’s fundraising people.
All the Republican staffers I’ve called have not asked for details. Sometimes I doubt they’re even taking notes.
I’m a NC voter but they may discount me because I live in Canada, however I’m still a NC voter and it’s a swing state and I let them know that.
Also, describe yourself a patriotic. No one party owns that word.
Great, I’ve started doing this too. Also people, you can post Find Your Representative and Find Your Senator page links on your own social media forums, inspire others and make it easier for them to act. There’s something every day or so to react to right now, and you’re not limited to contacting only your own local/state people. There are committee heads, party chiefs and more. Jot down one or two talking points and have at it. Feels good!
lilacflowers, good for you, keep it going.
Cheers to Lilac. More people need to do the same.
I think it needs a comma in the full sentence and if you listen closely, I think you can hear it: “Second Amendment, people.” Which makes it even clearer that he’s saying let your guns stop President Hillary Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court justice. The only ambiguous part is whether he meant shoot Hillary or shoot the Justice or both.
I think an ex-CIA guy said if anybody had said that elsewhere, they would be sitting in a police car having a chat with Secret Service.
Yes and yes. WTF?
How long are they going to pussy-foot around him because he’s a political candidate? The problem is that he IS a political candidate and people listen. It shouldn’t be protection – he’s using it as cover for vile and illegal communication.
I’m listening to republicans try to spin this. It’s horrible.
How can they support this? Hillary is flawed but Trump is unfit. A president cannot say this stuff. What is going on?
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
I read this book back under the Bush regime and it explains so much of the Republican mindset. The author (a Canadian libertarian) has been studying the authoritarian mindset for over forty years, and has come to some truly terrifying conclusions about US Republican leadership. The formatting could be better and the text may be a little dense (at least, some of my friends thought this- to be fair I’m a huge geek who’ll read textbooks for fun), but this is such an intelligent group of posters that I’m hoping that won’t put you off.
For pop-psych purposes, the social dominator and double high personalities could loosely translate as successful sociopaths.
(I’m not saying all Republicans fit these molds, but you can certainly recognize many.)
I have this fantasy that we’ll see Donald Trump jailed today. Not gonna happen, but…
Yes, but that would probably make him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters. Especially the ‘government wants to take your guns away’ crowd.
He’d be a martyr for the cause.
I have a fantasy that we will see him jailed, too, but in my fantasy it is for employing illegal immigrants to build his hotels.
Yeah, but at least he’d be a martyr in jail. What leader could possibly rise in his stead? Who could possibly get this kind of attention? Would MELANIA carry on in his place?
I’m lost for words. How can people support him? How can a candidate running for presidency make such a remark and people still find ways to apologize it? The US has sad history of presidents being shot or attempted to kill.
Trump is always doing this: implying something without saying it directly. Often he ends his sentences then with “I don’t know, you tell me”. Everyone knows exactly what he wanted to say here. Even the older gentleman with the white hair and beard in the red shirt knows what Trump meant with his words. He is laughing about it, but he knows Trump was not talking about the “2nd Amendment people” going out to vote for him.
Or he starts his crap with “I heard …” or “”Everybody says …”. Deniability, deniability.
Exactly.
Usually he is the only one who “heard it”.
I checked my son when he started sentences with “I heard,” as a child. Specifics, not ambiguity. I also drilled into his head to never assume anything. Always, always check your facts before you speak. Articulation and enunciation were right up there too. The Donald could benefit from all these lessons.
I am so angry that Trump is stirring the violent, uneducated, rage-filled bigots in this country into a frenzy.
I have a child to think of! This isn’t a joke, this is our country and our safety! Excuse my paranoia but I’ll be stocking my home up and staying inside during the election and the day or two after because I truly feel, at this point, that there will be violence in the streets when he loses.
I went on his Facebook page last night. Big mistake. Those people are living in a different universe and my god are they angry. There wasn’t a solid fact to be found, just soooo much anger and yelling about how Hillary wants to take guns away (which isn’t even TRUE at ALL she’s just calling for better regulation).
I wish with all my heart he would be arrested. This is not our country, this is not what I want to raise my sweet innocent child in the midst of. Anyone else feel like something bad is coming because of Trump and his unhinged, angry supporters?
I feel this way too. Genuinely scared about the future of this world that I’m raising my little boys in. Not just disheartened or skeptical but fearful. He is inciting a mob.
Trump really doesn’t seem to know much about Presidential powers. A President can’t repeal the Second Amendment. It’s in the Constitution (Mr. Khan might really have to loan Trump a copy). Besides, that really has to do with the right of states to create militias, gun regulations are generally left up to the individual jurisdictions. Anything at the federal level would go through Congress, the President would just sign it or veto it. If vetoed, it goes back to Congress and they can override the veto. Checks and balances, Mr. Trump.
The fact-free universe that the right wing has demanded of their media is a many headed hydra.
I don’t have kids and I’m not American, but otherwise I feel the same. I believe that a thin skinned, hot headed, psychopathic narcissist is starting a fire in the US.
Even if he never thought he would get this far, because this whole campaign might have just been a game for him, he doesn’t want to lose against Hillary. His hate for her might be the only thing in his campaign that’s real. Trump just can’t quit. If the Republicans finally have enough and take him out of the race, he will keep spinning stories about political establishment against the will of the people. If they keep letting him run and he ends up losing against Hillary, he will claim the election was manipulated. Maybe he will even go so far as calling people for riot against Hillary’s presidency. Whatever happens he will not take it well and blame other people.
I’m very afraid it will get ugly. If he should win the election, it will get very ugly.
I had the same reaction. My family also lives near DC, so we’re are actually a little concerned for what will happen in November if Trump loses: will deranged armed men descend upon DC? I honestly wouldn’t put it past them. And with all the hate I see towards DC in general (like we’re all here living like Senators and having a direct say in American politics), with MULTIPLE calls for “just nuking the damn city”, I am really not sure they will not just turn to slaughtering anyone who – I don’t know – doesn’t have a Trump poster on their lawn?
Patricia, I agree its awful to think there is so much hate being generated because of this man, he is deplorable, but gets away with it, who knows what will happen next, its getting crazy.
I know what you mean in regards to your kids. I have teens and never before have they been exposed to so much hatred and bigotry. Especially coming from someone who’s running for POTUS. To them Trump was a joke, a reality show buffoon…and I kept assuring them there was no way he would ever be the nominee. It’s a shock to them and has us all having to re-evaluate what we thought we know about society. Seriously.
They can spin it, but he is an inappropriate man. Of course he said it. Sure, it was mean to be snarky, funny he thought, but he has many unhinged supporters. So what does he do? He gets them riled up, thinking their precious guns are going to be taken away by the evil witch.
Oh, no danger there. What an idiot. The guy is not sane.
And what about the 50 GOP national security experts that banded together and wrote an open letter denouncing Trump as the Republican nominee, calling him unfit to be POTUS. For them to be that afraid of Trump in office and to do that letter against the nominee of their own party was huge. That tells you that Donald really is a threat to our country if he gets elected.
Read that open letter if you haven’t read it, and signed by all 50. It eviscerates Trump.
Here’s a little bit about it, which goes hand-in-hand with his latest blunder as a Presidential nominee regarding Clinton.
“Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”
Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”
The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”
Drumpf said those fifty people were just loser has-beens who did a terrible job. He didn’t want their help anyways!
I’m sure Ivanka knows all about national security.
He said they were jealous as well. Trump is an immature windbag.
@FingerBinger, spot on What kind of presidential candidate responds back they they’re “jealous”? He is an immature, orange man-baby, and he has a very limited vocabulary.
Where was that letter during the primary? I really wish these people had spoken up sooner.
Well to be fair, they might not have known how bad he would get. Did anyone see this coming?
I’m done.
I truly believe that regardless of who wins in November, we have finally crossed a line there is no going back from, when so many people are racing to justify his words, to defend them and worse, to NOT try justify them-those who actually applaud what he said and hope he wasn’t being misquoted because they LOVE the idea of storming the White House and gunning down the “enemy”. Even if Hillary wins, she and everyone around her, will have a huge target on their backs AND PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH THIS. Not sane people, but that doesn’t matter. At this point, she’d be safer governing from the middle of Afghanistan.
And still, STILL-people don’t feel compelled to vote or insist that voting third party is harmless.
The US is done as a democratic republic and we have now veered head first into sci fi move territory.
Vote for whoever you want but it’s so unfair to use this to make an equivocation between the candidates. Only one candidate is making veiled death threats. Only one candidate is using rhetoric to exclude Americans based on their ethnically, gender and religion. Only one candidate is mentally unstable and has hinted they want to use nuclear weapons. If you are comfortable with Trump being president so that the Green Party gets two more percentage points than good for you.
Um, I think grabbyhands was negative about third-party voting. Read it again!
Oh jeez I’m sorry that’s what I get for posting without coffee.
No worries. 🙂
And I am negative about it in the respect that bringing it about, which I fully support, requires hard work. But I feel like we as voters all still need to put in more effort with EVERY voting cycle, not just the presidential ones, to bring this about.
“The US is done as a democratic republic and we have now veered head first into sci fi move territory.”
How so? I agree this is starting to feel like a bad sci-fI/horror movie but I wouldn’t say its dissolving us as a democratic republic.
It does feel bad and it sounds like a banana republic from the outside. But 2008 and 2012 federal elections were fairly well attended thanks to a good GOTV effort and obviously people care. Elections still happen, but we have a combination of terrible candidates and terrible gerrymandering.
In the respect that I feel like I am looking at the type of worlds in which we elect celebrities as world leaders and our tolerance for complete ugly absurdity grows by the day. Or our resistance to it has been hammered so many times that it is starting to feel like an inevitability.
Racist gerrymandering is a serious issue in my state. I’m happy that Planned Parenthood is registering people to vote. In my opinion, all social service entities should focus on registering voters in addition to the services they provide. Also, prisoners need to be allowed to vote and voting should only require proof of residency within the US for an established period of time, not proof of permanent citizenship until immigration reform catches up with reality.
Donald Trump is a classic narcissist. In fact, he is such a good example of mental illness that Ivy League college professors are documenting his campaign and video footage of him to use in further studies of personality disorders and their lectures. I have been in a relationship with a narcissist and it was exactly like this but on mini scale. The bizarre, childish tirades, the gaslighting, the punishing and mercilessly offensive stance, making accusations that are true of themselves and not the other person, projection, rage, shameless smearing, inappropriately dramatic reactions to small events, lying, manipulation on every level, seething contempt for everyone and everything beneath a patina of competency. Word for word, facial expressions, fear tactics, everything. This man was popular and well liked. It can happen to anyone. Anyone with experience with a true Cluster B personality can see the parallels in Donald Trump.
It’s scary that he’s so close to the White House but it’s reassuring he won’t get there.
Also, I’m not saying it’s true but very smart and important people are saying that Donald Trump donated to NAMBLA and that’s why he won’t release his tax returns, I mean, look, I’m not saying it’s true but you just hear things….
I saw a video close up of the supporters behind him as he said this, and you can tell by their faces that they are shocked by it at first. I saw his speech broadcasted and he rambles on and on and makes hardly any sense, and then says his talking points- Hillary’s emails (lock her up), we’re going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it (lock her up). He was going on and on about the walls built between neighborhoods and highways and how they are such a waste of money because those people knew they were buying houses by the highway and probably got them for cheap because of it, but were being selfish. He said those resources could be better used to build his wall. I was thinking, hey dummy while you are living in your penthouse a lot of your supporters live in these houses by the highway. His supporters have it in their twisted minds that Hillary is so evil and a corrupt, lying murderer (that is what they tell you at every chance) that they do mental gymnastics to support this idiot. Of course he wasn’t just kidding.
Ivanka is furiously posing her family for some Instagram distraction I’m sure.
Isn’t that hysterical about Ivanka always posting her family photos now ad nauseum to offset Trump’s image and as a way for her to connect to all those moms out there voting? She’s suddenly around her kids a lot more than before. I thought she worked 16-hour days.
You can do a lot with those daily forty five minutes she spends with her kids. She absolutely will not compromise on that time!
Right, the kids the nanny brings to visit her early because it’s “important” for the children to see their mother. Ya think?
Perhaps I have selective amnesia (kinda like how I have successfully blocked out my two c sections), but was Trump always this angry and vile? I vaguely recall watching the Apprentice (before it became CELEBRITY) and hearing him on Howard Stern and various media outlets over the years. Mind you, he was never a saint or someone I particularly LIKED but he wasn’t so….angry and vile and offensive and SCARY. Now he’s truly FRIGHTENING. Maybe i viewed him as mostly harmless since he wasn’t in the running for public office. I definitely don’t think he was as hostile and offensive as he is now. Anyone else feel that way or is my memory paying the price for all the drinking I did in my 2os and 3os?
He was angry and vindictive against those who he felt slighted him. We only saw glimpses of that, like when Rosie made fun of him and he went after her calling her horrible names like fat pig, etc. I’m sure most of his vile behavior was behind the scenes, when he would feel slighted and go after people. From what I’ve read is he’s a total narcissist who needed his ego fed at all times. The orange man-baby is what we see when he doesn’t get his way or feels attacked. He’s thin-skinned. I used to think he was very offensive the way he went after Obama years ago stoking the “birther” attacks from the nutcases in the base.
Now seeing him for extended periods of time and lots of speeches and tweets we see the real Donald in full force. And I swear he is so inarticulate and talks in circles and repeats himself over and over with little to no substance to what he is saying..
Everything out of his mouth is word soup. It’s surprising people glean anything from him at all.
He’s always had anger and hatred for anyone who opposes him in business, his personal life, etc. but we’re seeing his strategy to sucker the haters in this country. He’s pandering to the ignorant racists and hatred and violence is what they relate to, so……
FFS… It is only August. What will this vile orange nut bag being doing by November??
Way to go, Republicans. 😔
What are we thinking he’ll do to get out of the debates? I’m guessing he will fake a heart attack on the first. Of course he will deny it after the fact and claim he’s as healthy as a hot twenty year old.
He just won’t agree to show up and will blame her somehow. He is laying the groundwork now
Latest is he has to look at the “conditions.” It’s probably all about not being interviewed by Megyn Kelly and getting someone like Sean Hannity instead.
He has no idea of what it means to play by the rules; in his world there are only HIS rules.
I think that’s fine, actually, if they play by his rules. Bring that on. Hillary will wipe the floor with him no matter what terms he can desperately try to weasel himself an advantage.
The thing I don’t understand about Donald Trump supporters is: if DT speaks English WHY is It his people are running around, bending backwards on TV. to tell us what we has just heard. Why can’t a English speaking man, Donald Trump just say what he has to say without an interpreter? Do they believe we are fools. Yesterday Rudolph Giuliani, former Mayor, NYC was twisting himself into at pretzel to tell the viewers what DT had said, and it was all a lie. It was totally different from what DT had said. The same thing with Peter King, Republican , Long Island congress man. This morning he was trying to explain what most people had heard, it was so sad to witness. These people are selling their soul for a party. There was another republican last night he was saying DT is not an English Professor therefore he is inartulicate and cannot explain himself. I go so exhausted listening to these people lie for a man who could not give them the time of day if they asked. The only one DT cares about is himself. These people are trying to save him and he is not worth saving.
Because he’s thin-skinned and reactionary and they know it.
They do believe we are fools. We don’t see what we see. We don’t hear what we hear.
The republicans are trying to backpedal Trump’s statement, saying that he was talking about people organizing and voting, If that’s true, why did he finish with ” that would be a horrible day”? So then the NRA people getting together and voting would be horrible?!?
He said after Hillary was elected and choosing the supreme justices, not before, so it had nothing to do with them voting. He was clearly inciting for them to go out and shoot her, anybody with a brain can see this.
I don’t know what appalls me more, that he said or that people are actually trying to spin and justify his comment.
There’s a mad circus in town led by this dangerous clown and it seems it’s here to stay.
Dan Rather posted a comment and it’s good:
“When he suggested that ‘The Second Amendment People’ can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential,” Rather wrote in his post Tuesday night. “By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?”
I don’t know where you see the condemnation from “nearly everyone”. 🙁 I did a quick tour of FB comments under the story yesterday, and Trump supporters were screaming their little heads of claiming that he was misunderstood, that anyone who sees incitement is stupid and braindead, and that “Killary” actually killed Americans, and we don’t care, yet Trump makes a joke and we go after him.
If anything, I was, once again, disheartened.
Well…they are Trump supporters, someone had to find something appealing about this man and his behavior for him to make it as the final Republican nominee.
Look people, it’s a joke. Like when the President pushes “the button” and sends a dozen fake nukes over to Russia and the cockroaches have a big laugh about it later.
Get a sense of humor! This is prime stuff!
No, it’s not. We don’t joke about crazies shooting people they disagree with because this happens ALL THE TIME. It’s not funny.
Weak is how I would describe this defense. Un-American is another word.
The more I watch him, the more I realize he talks like a person with an impairment, but without the benefit of having said impairment. My Grand Uncle had a stroke a few years back and now he has no filter. His words come out very much “stream of consciousness as he thinks them” style. And that is what Trump sounds like. The problem is that Gran-uncle actually did have a stroke and now has limited control over his filter (it’s also worth mentioning that Gran-uncle does not say racist or vile things because he is not a racist or vile person). But that’s how Trump sounds all the time. It’s very uncanny.
Glad that your Gran-uncle seems to be doing better at least!
A presidential candidate is making jokes about assassinating another presidential candidate. Is this real life?
Wow. I only saw part of the comment out of context and thought it was just a call to voters, but that is just horrifying if that was his real intent. The longer he’s in this race, the more he really does come across as a sociopath.
I am so tired of looking at his face.
I live in a beach town, and once a year we have an air show. The noise is incredible, imagine the Blue Angels buzzing your house for three days in a row. I love the Blue Angels, and love to hear them, but there are people who do not love it. Some years ago, my daughter’s then-husband, always very good at mouthing off, told some people he worked with that he hated the noise the planes made. Within hours, he was paid a visit by some men wearing suits and carrying badges, who told him that if anything happened to one of those planes, they would be coming back to see him immediately. What he said, hating the noise and wishing the planes were not flying, was not nearly as threatening as the things Trump says to people. Before the Second Amendment suggestion, there was him wanting to punch the Democrats in their faces for the things they said about him at their convention. This man is clearly unhinged and dangerous. And the Secret Service should be concerned, since it’s one or more of their ranks who will be expected to take the bullet if one of Trump’s deranged minions decides to follow through on his suggestion.
This man is obviously unhinged and a lunatic, but he doesn’t scare me as much as the people who back him. This whole situation is beyond comprehension. May heaven have mercy on us if this man is elected.
All I can do is SMH at this irresponsible POS.
I am not saying I like either candidate but everyone should see “Clinton Cash ” on YouTube.
@leah- The handful of Trump supporters that I know all swear by youtube and view it as a legitimate news source. Obviously, by it’s very nature, it is not. I’m curious if this documentary would be considered reputable (ie, is it carried by other venues besides youtube)? Who financed and produced it? Has it been critically reviewed? You have to really do your research before you start endorsing (or believing) youtube videos; usually this process is so time consuming that I skip it and get my information from reliable sources (proven news agencies that can be sued, and thus have a vested interest in accuracy). I don’t know if you get a lot of your information from youtube, but just in case you do, I hope you reconsider.
This was originally a book that was on the New York Times best seller list. It was then made into a documentary. It was released in five major cities in the U.S. and then released on Youtube. The New York Post, Fox News and The Washington Post were granted exclusive agreements with the books author to pursue storylines found in the book. After the release the Clinton Foundation admitted that they made MISTAKES in disclosing some of its contributions, as well as financial reporting and foreign donations.
Thank you for that. I’m sorry if my response came off as condescending; I tried to explain in my first sentence why I reacted to your comment the way I did. Full disclosure, I also raised my eyebrows a bit when I noticed you posted the same comment on two different threads. (Interesting though, that two of the three news outlets granted agreements to investigate were Murdoch owned. I don’t really follow the New York Times bestseller list anymore because of repeated manipulations, ex Palin’s books.)
Republican politicians never do that. Heavens no.
This is the kinda of vile rhetoric you expect from a politician of a banana republic !
How this man went this far in this race is beyond comprehension to me.
He is a disgusting person and I cannot wait for this election to be over.
The way you perceive his comments depends on the opinion you hold of pro-2nd amendment people.
So Trump wants someone to assassinate Hillary so he won’t have to debate her? Now there’s a man I’d vote in as President (not)! Of course, you know, that if Hillary (God forbid) is shot, Trump will take absolutely no responsibility. That’s a given, right?
He did not say that.. I guess you need to be spoon fed too. I know this will not be posted however I will feel better saying it, Hillary’s go to quote,’ at this point, WHY DOES IT MATTER!!’ I guess America has spun around for the worse. Everyone wanting everything without working and sacrificing for the betterment of their own lives. There are only so many working folks out there that can continue to supplement other people’s way of life….what are these people going to do when we working folks quit trying?? Man/woman up and be productive! Quit waiting on me to provide a life style for you.. It is even more apparent to me that Obama care is tanking, job education and placement is at an all time low and social issues are the least concern for the White House. ?????
He did not say what? You went off on an angry rant and never circled back to your starter sentence.
He was not implying assassination
You idiot.
As far as the debate about whether or not Trump can be convicted in court of incitement is concerned- it really doesn’t matter if his statement meets the very high bar for legal action. In the ordinary language sense of the term, it was incitement to violence. He was encouraging violence in the same way he did during the primaries, when at his rallies he clearly encouraged violence against protesters and even offered to pay legal fees for anyone who decided to punch or kick them. There is no way to interpret his statements then except as incitement to violence. He wanted them carried out on stretchers as his remembrance of the good old days.
The best evidence for this interpretation, besides all the reactions by credible people whose business is political words, is simply that the Secret Service had several talks with people in his campaign after his statement. Not just one little chat, but several. They are taking this seriously because it is serious. They are the ones who will be trying to take the bullet if even just one disturbed individual decides that their hero Trump will love them more if they do the patriotic thing and shoot Hillary Clinton. It doesn’t matter how many people assume it’s a joke because they can’t imagine a Presidential candidate being stupid enough or evil enough to say such a thing otherwise. You have to worry about the people who will see it as the green light to get their gun and kill the assigned target. That’s why we tell people not to say such things even in jest, Donald. Especially when they are talking to millions of people, greatly increasing the odds that someone will act on it.
I personally think The Donald has very mixed motivations for what he said. He might have been semi-joking, although quite frankly I think he lacks a sense of humor so he would just be imitating humor. His body language is humorless, he smiles at the wrong times. But he is a very angry man and he is especially angry that his opponent 1) is a girl (yes, Warren was right on the mark), 2) worse, she is a girl who is not a 10, 3) she says “mean things” about him such as that he doesn’t know more about ISIS than the generals even though YES HE DOES!!! SO THERE, YOU LOSERS! and 4) the meanie girl is winning in the polls. So my feeling is the the semi in semi-joking is mostly not joking. He would feel much more comfortable in a world where Hillary Clinton does not exist. Since he lacks a filter, the thought popped out in mangled words.
Please delete, I was trying to respond to a troll.