aceluby Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Swordfish said: I'm talking about perceptions. If you think Trump is a credible threat to be planning an assassination of the president based on that quote, then sure. I'm not sure that's the place we are at, but YMMV. It's another dumb, irresponsible thing said by a dumb, irresponsible candidate. But it obviously doesn't rise to the level of a credible threat of assassination. From where I'm sitting it seems pretty clear that he could be brought in on trying to incite a riot; and this wouldn't be the first time, he's just now escalating with the threat of deadly weapons. But I guess until he actually incites a riot and someone actually dies he'll get a pass, because it's not credible until it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Swordfish said: I'm talking about perceptions. If you think Trump is a credible threat to be planning an assassination of the president based on that quote, then sure. I'm not sure that's the place we are at, but YMMV. It's another dumb, irresponsible thing said by a dumb, irresponsible candidate. But it obviously doesn't rise to the level of a credible threat of assassination. I don't think the concern is whether Trump is plotting an assassination himself; I think the concern is whether he is inciting his supporters to plot an assassination. I don't know if a Secret Service investigation could determine if it was a dumb, off-the-cuff remark or if he is actually hoping someone takes him at his word; but its their job to try to figure that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Swordfish said: I'm talking about perceptions. If you think Trump is a credible threat to be planning an assassination of the president based on that quote, then sure. I'm not sure that's the place we are at, but YMMV. He's advocating violence against his opponent, a woman whom he and his party have already spent a lot of time demonizing. He's encouraged violence against protesters at his rallies and his fans followed along. So it's disgustingly irresponsible and vicious to say this kind of shit. Don't try and gaslight this as some kind of bullshit that no one could believe Trump is personally planning an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Swordfish said: I'm talking about perceptions. If you think Trump is a credible threat to be planning an assassination of the president based on that quote, then sure. I'm not sure that's the place we are at, but YMMV. It's another dumb, irresponsible thing said by a dumb, irresponsible candidate. But it obviously doesn't rise to the level of a credible threat of assassination. Sure, but at the very least it earns him a talking to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 9 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: He's advocating violence against his opponent, a woman whom he and his party have already spent a lot of time demonizing. He's encouraged violence against protesters at his rallies and his fans followed along. So it's disgustingly irresponsible and vicious to say this kind of shit. Don't try and gaslight this as some kind of bullshit that no one could believe Trump is personally planning an attack. Well.. Sure. i already said it's dumb and irresponsible. Why you cut that part out of the quote and then went on your tirade is beyond me, since we basically said the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Well.. Sure. i already said it's dumb and irresponsible. Why you cut that part out of the quote and then went on your tirade is beyond me, since we basically said the same thing. Did you add that second paragraph later? I am responding and posting from my phone, and I did not edit the quote in my post. Don't accuse me of misquoting you from some shit you didn't add in until later. It's nice that you acknowledge that Trump is dumb and irresponsible, a couple of posts after trying to poo poo away objections to a presidential candidate's call for assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Even some of the Donald's supporters knew that was out of bounds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Did you add that second paragraph later? I am responding and posting from my phone, and I did not edit the quote in my post. Fair enough.... Quote Don't accuse me of misquoting you from some shit you didn't add in until later. It's nice that you acknowledge that Trump is dumb and irresponsible, a couple of posts after trying to poo poo away objections to a presidential candidate's call for assassination. Oh geez. Now who's in need of a hug? I didn't poo poo the objections, I was specifically asking about secret service involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Even some of the Donald's supporters knew that was out of bounds... I just almost can't even contemplate the reality of having a candidate of a major political party, in the year 2016, making jokes about his supporters murdering the other candidate with a firearm. Whose campaign then just straight up lies about it. And he's still going to get at least 40% of the popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 24 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Even some of the Donald's supporters knew that was out of bounds... And for an actual quote from a Trump and NRA backer who knows this was out of bounds: For some die-hard gun rights backers who had been wary of Trump, his comments were confirmation that he doesn’t really get their movement. When the National Rifle Association endorsed Trump in May, Bob Owens, the editor of BearingArms.com, reasoned that he was the best chance to beat Clinton, who has embraced gun control. On Tuesday, however, Owens refused to buy Trump’s explanation that he was talking about voting. "That was a threat of violence. As a REAL supporter of the #2A it's appalling to me,” Owens tweeted. Bearing Arms had sponsored the May meeting of the NRA’s lobbying arm where the group formally endorsed Trump. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-clinton-second-amendment-judges-guns-226833#ixzz4GsAVvQOp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Why is this shocking? The same "2nd Amendment solution" line has been used a few times before Trump showed up. It is a pretty solid stand-by for the tea party/Libertarian right wing segment of the party. Trump is just speaking in his supporters' language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Trump's comment really makes me worry about what he'll say if he loses the election. I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that he will give any kind of a traditional concession speech unless @Ser Scot A Ellison is right and Trump is just out to destroy the Republican Party rather than win the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, TerraPrime said: Why is this shocking? The same "2nd Amendment solution" line has been used a few times before Trump showed up. It is a pretty solid stand-by for the tea party/Libertarian right wing segment of the party. Trump is just speaking in his supporters' language. The source matters. There's a huge difference between it being said by a few low level actors and by the nominee of one of the two major parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: The source matters. There's a huge difference between it being said by a few low level actors and by the nominee of one of the two major parties. It matters somewhat that it's a Presidential candidate and not, say, a Republican candidate for US Senate -- but this again is a case of Trump simply making Republican subtext into text. He's brought common Republican thinking into undeniable focus for discussion, instead of the usual Republican plausible deniability about whatever shitty thing they dog-whistle out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 So, I mean, Trump is probably fucking around. It probably was a joke. The thing is it doesn't matter. This is how nutjobs get spurred to murder. Particularly after the shooting of Gabby Giffords, this shit is way out of bounds. I have zero tolerance for it and I don't think anyone else should either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: It matters somewhat that it's a Presidential candidate and not, say, a Republican candidate for US Senate -- but this again is a case of Trump simply making Republican subtext into text. He's brought common Republican thinking into undeniable focus for discussion, instead of the usual Republican plausible deniability about whatever shitty thing they dog-whistle out. Well the Drilla from Wasilla got away with it, why not Orange Foolius? http://ontheslowtrain.blogspot.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-and-second-amendment.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 See what I mean? Yes, Trump is the Presidential Candidate and so there is more gravitas to when he says this, but honestly, this is garden-variety right-wing talk. And if the outrage is at the lack of civility or decency of Trump and not the content, then are we not just perhaps a tad hyper-reactive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Well the Drilla from Wasilla got away with it, why not Orange Foolius? http://ontheslowtrain.blogspot.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-and-second-amendment.html Indeed. Particularly: Quote I hope Palin and her Tea Party followers have realized, if they hadn't before, that their opponents are just that—opponents—loyal Americans who disagree with them on many issues, and that they are real people, with real husbands, wives, and children who love them. They aren't enemies or traitors, just as the Republicans aren't my enemies. I just happen to disagree with them. And there are simply too many people in this country who don't understand that hyped political campaign rhetoric is not meant to be taken literally. ETA: The dubious connection between Palin's 'bullseye' ads and the shooting are pretty ridiculous though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Mexal said: Trump campaign's response... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpcXjWiXEAAgmAG.jpg I like how the official statement repeats the phrase '2nd amendment people' as if that phrase is the common terminology for supporters of the second amendment. God this election cannot get over with fast enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Ormond said: And for an actual quote from a Trump and NRA backer who knows this was out of bounds: For some die-hard gun rights backers who had been wary of Trump, his comments were confirmation that he doesn’t really get their movement. When the National Rifle Association endorsed Trump in May, Bob Owens, the editor of BearingArms.com, reasoned that he was the best chance to beat Clinton, who has embraced gun control. On Tuesday, however, Owens refused to buy Trump’s explanation that he was talking about voting. "That was a threat of violence. As a REAL supporter of the #2A it's appalling to me,” Owens tweeted. Bearing Arms had sponsored the May meeting of the NRA’s lobbying arm where the group formally endorsed Trump. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-clinton-second-amendment-judges-guns-226833#ixzz4GsAVvQOp I don't know if that Politico story has been updated since you posted it, but it now says that Owens deleted his initial tweet criticizing Trump and put up a link to a blog post explaining how Trump had been taken out of context, and he's now dutifully pushing the "dishonest media" angle that Trump's overworked ass-coverers supplied. There is no context that excuses Donald Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.