"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said.Trump blurted that out, in his typical style. An idea occurred to him, so he said it.
Now, there's so much talk about it that I'm concerned about all the unbalanced people out there. I wish everyone would just stop talking about it, but winning the election is put above the more nebulous concern that some distorted, delusional person will decide to act.
Trump has also been on the receiving end of suggestions of assassination. For example, here's a cartoon that appeared in The New Yorker recently:
“I know we strictly bust ghosts, but I feel this is a shot we need to take.”
And here's Scott Adams, writing last March:
[W]e see the media priming the public to try to kill Trump, or at least create some photogenic mayhem at a public event. Again, no one is sitting in a room plotting Trump’s death, but – let’s be honest – at least half of the media believes Trump is the next Hitler, and a Hitler assassination would be morally justified. Also great for ratings. The media would not be charged with any crime for triggering some nut to act. There would be no smoking gun. No guilt. No repercussions. Just better ratings and bonuses all around.
पोस्ट्स
१५० टिप्पण्या:
IMO it is clear that The Donald did not suggest to anyone that they shoot Hillary after she has appointed Second Amendment rewrite Justices.That would be too late anyway. He suggested that they shoot her new Justices.
" He suggested that they shoot her new Justices."
Ohhhh, is that all?
2nd amendment, 2nd amendment, 2nd amendment....
Is everyone really, really frightened now??
Nothing to see here folks, please disperse.
What is revealing is the liberal Democrat idea that the only thing that "Second Amendment people could do" would be violent. This is classic liberal Democrat thinking about gun owners and explains much of their hostility. Liberals seem unaware that Second Amendment people can organize and put pressure on their Senators to reject anti-gun judges during the confirmation process.
Hillary Clinton thinks that the Heller Supreme Court case was wrongly decided. Note that the Heller ruling struck down DC's ban on keeping any gun - handgun or long gun - in your own home loaded for self-defense. And the four liberals on the court voted to uphold that effective ban on self-defense. Why does Hillary Clinton want to ban the use of guns for self-defense in the home?
The lower federal circuits have been generally hostile to the Second Amendment. They have already rubberstamped as permissible:
* New York City's $340 permit fee for keeping a handgun in your own home.
* Discriminatory gun carry permitting in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California and Hawaii, where only those who are wealthy and connected are allowed to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
* Bans on firearms based upon cosmetic appearance. This is the most troubling because the bogus legal reasoning behind these bans leaves the door wide open to wide bans on entire classes of firearms, not just the so-called "assault weapons".
Expect a Hillary Supreme Court to uphold all of these laws and more, including neutering the law that prevents bankrupting gun makers by frivolous lawsuit.
Heartiest congratulations for turning a veiled threat of assassination by Trump against Hillary into yet another false equivalence charge against liberals. Well done, Madame Althouse!
This is nothing more than the slavish, passive-aggressive gambit of weaponizing potential victimhood through the expression of "fear". College deans are tearing their hair out trying to deal with the same thing at a more pedestrian level.
The "Second Amendment people" are just that: a lobby fiercely dedicated to the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment.
Imagine if there were a specifically enumerated constitutional right for a woman to control her vagina and that there were a parallel lobby just as fiercely dedicated to preserving those rights.
Hillary makes a speech warning that, if Trump is elected, women can kiss those V rights goodbye, "nothing you can do, folks. Although the V Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know,".
It's pretty obvious that Hillary Clinton just threatened to violently sit on Donald Trump's face.
“This is simple—what Clinton is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.”
Least of all death by face-sitting.
Well you certainly can't expect Hillary to stand on a stage and debate with a man who has called for her to be shot.
Yeah, sure, you can parse Trump, and Adams to the rescue, etc. etc. But if the media meme is that you are crazy and unstable, a little skill and self-awareness might prevent a non-amateur from reinforcing it.
Democrats conflate abortion rites and Constitutional rights. The Tell-Tale Heart beats ever louder.
And that's before social justice adventurism and progressive wars commit mass abortion and create global humanitarian disasters.
I'm sure Clinton will relish making a fool of Trump at the debates, even more now.
Meanwhile, one of these candidates has already been the target of an assassination attempt by the other side, but no one on the left gets the vapors about that.
"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said."
Is it that hard to see that the next sentence could be "VOTE"?
Some doubts have no benefit.
I am Laslo.
Perfessor: "I wish everyone would just stop talking about it, but winning the election is put above the more nebulous concern that some distorted, delusional person will decide to act."
But it does make for great blogging, eh?
Oh this is precious. The same liberals who were chortling over Obama "If they bring a knife we bring a gun" rhetoric on the campaign trail, suddenly gets the vapors and need a fainting couch when whenever Trump talks about the 2nd amendment. Puh-lease stop. You are embarrassing yourselves at this point. You are like the euro soccer players that flop just to draw a penalty. What else you got?
Laslo, really? YOU think these are voting times?
It was nice knowing you.
"...suddenly gets the vapors..."
The last refuge of a scandal.
Second Amendment people are not assassins.
The hysterics flunk analogies.
Perhaps Mr. Trump has heard that Second Amendment people have a slogan: molṑn labé. That's not a threat to initiate violence, it's a dare.
I'm old enough to remember when the Left regarded the practice of civil disobedience to vindicate civil rights as heroic.
This teapot definitely has a tempest brewing in it.
While the left/Dems/MSM have been using all kinds of eliminationist rhetoric regarding Trump, already triggering one inept but sincere attempt on his life, Hillary herself has not gone there. Yet. That I am aware.
Trump really needs to watch his mouth and leave the shady sh*t to surrogates, like Clinton does.
Who is this fuckin' Scott Adams i keep hearing about?!?!
What I wanna know is what does Charles fuckin' Schultz think about it?
Trump advises people to speak truth to power about Second Amendment rights (e.g. self-defense) and Democrats tell them to sit down and shut up. Perhaps if their cause was to commit mass abortion and harvest wholly innocent human lives in a final solution then the Left would enthusiastically support their rights.
Has Andy Williams offered his opinion on the matter yet?
My opinion, we're on the verge of a societal nervous breakdown. The left-tilted media has decided to remove the last vestige of objectivity and is now in full destroy Trump mode. I've often wondered how people slide into great evil -- like Stalin, like Hitler -- and I'm more convinced than ever that it happens when the conscience is nullified by a warped sense of righteousness. The left bristles with self-righteous at every turn. It is destroying them.
I don't know...I rather enjoy watching the liberal MSM get the vapors like the clueless morons they are. If voters are dumb enough to be influenced by their disingenuous mock-shock, then they probably deserve what they get.
Does anybody seriously doubt what Trump had in mind with this comment?
This is such a perfect lose-lose-lose equation for the Trump campaign.
First, Trump blurts out this bad-Vegas-comic line, which all serious persons would understand as, "If you try to take their guns away, they might use them on you..." So in the first instance, Trump takes the hit for that advocacy of violence. (It also serves as a chance for media wags to remind everyone that Mrs. Clinton has never advocated anything like abolition of the Second Amendment, and that legal scholars understand that while the Heller and McDonald decisions were very important, neither one is a pure Second Amendment case. So Trump loses that level of the debate.
Second, Trump's surrogates have to go out to a hostile press and make claims like the ones that poured out all day long today; that Trump was simply referring to the political power of a unified NRA membership, and the power of NRA lobbying. Yeeiiipes. No serious defender of gun rights (and Trump has never been a serious defender of gun rights prior to about 14 months ago) would ever rest on "NRA lobbying power" as a substantive defense of gun rights.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/video/trump-adviser-trump-referring-nra-204500661.html
Another "lose" for Trump.
Third, there is the tone of Trump himself in this instance. And this is really the point I like best. Trump sounds like one of those Manhattan liberals, talking about gun owners as "others." Trump -- no matter whether you like him or not, and whether you believe him or not -- is talking about gun owners as if they were some foreign, unknown, unpredictable entity. Ya never know what those people might do! This is the one that is so uncontrovertibly a loser for Trump. A net loser, that is. Because let's face it; there are some people out there who would have heard Trump in precisely the way that Trump defenders are denying; that is, they are happy that Trump would suggest that gun owners would respond to a Democratic legislation, or a Democrat president's executive actions on gun rights, by defending their turf by force of arms. There are surely some Trump supporters who like that idea. But now there are the Trump supporters denying that Trump ever meant such a thing. Who are we supposed to believe? Trump's base gets even stronger, and even narrower; a recipe for a general election disaster.
Lose, lose, lose, lose.
Trump has also been on the receiving end of suggestions of assassination. For example, here's a cartoon...
I have higher standards for the president's public statements than I have for fictional dialogue in a cartoon.
Perfect move by Trump.
First, witness Chuck freaking out.
Second, reminding folks who are passionate about the 2nd Amendment in a way highlighting they have the power to Stop Hillary and here plan to turn America in to Chicago is why they NRA endorsed Trump.
Finally, showing he is not afraid to let people know Hillary will take your guns by rules and regulations, which is something no other GOPer would do as they would be afraid of the Chuck's of the world, unlike Trump.
Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
Damn! That Scott Adams is so good. He hypnotized all sorts of people. Even smart people.
So..there have been plenty of speeches and appearances by the two candidates at this point.
It might be illustrative to get a current tally of violent incidents associated with each.
Talking about self-defense rights is now equivalent to planning or committing abortion. I wonder how many "good" Americans support this wild narrative. It's really been a progressive slope since liberal judges invented a Constitutional right to commit elective abortion of wholly innocent human lives, and abortion activists conflated their rites with human rights.
So the liberals want to instigate a bloody civil war on the order of the Russian Civil War(1917-1922), left millions dead.
the gun lobby, the NRA, aka "the second amendment people." Trump was talking about the senate confirmation battle after an appointment by president clinton of an anti-2A nominee. that is, that the second amendment rights of americans would turn upon the lobbying efforts of the second amendment people against such a nominee.
assuming he wasn't calling for the assassination of his victorious opponent, then the interpretation presented here is the most natural and logical and is what i thought he meant while i was listening to him.
surely there is a legal protocol/practice for interpreting language in judicial opinions that gives weight to the natural, logical interpretation of text over the shocking and sensational. such a protocol would be helpfully applied here.
donald bialystok jumps the shark...
Unknown said...
Damn! That Scott Adams is so good. He hypnotized all sorts of people. Even smart people.
It takes a uniquely dumb individual to go after Scott Adams. It's like attacking Albert Einstein.
Did you know that when you get nabbed with a gun, it will take 3 or 4 days for them to check all over the country to see if the gun was ever used? And all that time, you're sitting in the cell with "Tiny" and "LaShawn" wondering if that damn gun you bought off that meth head in that bar in Seattle was used for some kind of despicable murder shit.
That's hell.
Fuck that "Other People"crap that French shit head philosopher quipped about. He didn't know shit about Hell.
Tiny was't that bad of a dude... once you got to know him.
At the Scott Adams hypnosis session: Look into my eyes, you are getting sleepy, you will think you have been appointed the official translator for Donald Trump. No one will know what Trump really means without your brilliant translations. Trump is the one who will save the nation, after he burns it down. It is your job to make the process appealing to all the weak minded dupes, make them see him with your loving eyes.
I should clarify, not just associated violence..but the who resorted to it.
Trump uses slightly fucked up language and it's an outrage.
Trump supporters get physically fucked up and it's just politics.
Well, walter, that's because the Left is exercising their Moral Superiority, their Manifest Destiny, if you will. It is their sacred duty to destroy Trump and his supporters.
Lock him up, lock him up lock him up! Just kidding, don't get mad and shoot me.
18 U.S. Code § 879 - Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon—
(1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President;
(2) a member of the immediate family of the President, the President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect;
(3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or
(4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056(a)(6);
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) As used in this section—
(1) the term “immediate family” means—
(A) with respect to subsection (a)(1) of this section, the wife of a former President during his lifetime, the widow of a former President until her death or remarriage, and minor children of a former President until they reach sixteen years of age; and
(B) with respect to subsection (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, a person to whom the President, President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect, or major candidate for the office of President or Vice President—
(i) is related by blood, marriage, or adoption; or
(ii) stands in loco parentis;
(2) the term “major candidate for the office of President or Vice President” means a candidate referred to in subsection (a)(7) of section 3056 of this title; and
(3) the terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” have the meanings given those terms in section 871(b) of this title.
(Added Pub. L. 97–297, § 1(a), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1317; amended Pub. L. 98–587, § 3(a), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3111; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 106–544, § 2(a), (b)(1), Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2715.)
If somebody whacked the felonious traitor I for one ain't gonna bust out crying. The 4 liberal judges ruling in Heller is enough to know that Hillary would nominate judges that would eviscerate the 2nd amendment in all but name. I don't a gun, never have owned a gun and have no interest in owning a gun but I firmly support the right guaranteed in the Constitution. One one enumerate right goes the rest are sure to follow.
>
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
Well you certainly can't expect Hillary to stand on a stage and debate with a man who has called for her to be shot.
8/9/16, 9:17 PM<
yea well hillarity : rfk '68 baracky in '08 pussy
"Does anybody seriously doubt...?"
"Serious."
He said... "serious"
Heh heh.
All this vapor-taking is aimed at women.
>18 U.S. Code § 879 - Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons<
the "rule of law" is dead you dumb motherfuckers! works for the gangsters.
"Serious"
It's serious as seen by a woman. Women don't get it.
Among guys it's just guy talk.
Unknown said...
I'm sure Clinton will relish making a fool of Trump at the debates, even more now.
8/9/16, 9:23 PM
Yeah, I'm sure he'd like to, but Bill's not a candidate.
This poor fellow in NJ was beaten with a crowbar for wearing a Trump T-shirt.
http://q13fox.com/2016/08/09/police-man-beaten-with-crowbar-for-wearing-trump-shirt/
When Obama told his supporters to bring guns to the knife fight, was he inciting murder? When he told his acolytes to Get in people's faces, was he promoting violence?
Blogger Unknown said...
Lock him up, lock him up lock him up! Just kidding, don't get mad and shoot me.
18 U.S. Code § 879 - Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon—
So it fails the first test. You are kind of a dumb bunny, "Unknown".
mock turtle's link
If this issue supposed to rally/vapor women, there were women Trumpsters beat up also.
This seems like a perfect post to use your civility b*llsh*t tag on. On the other hand, I wonder if it really does any good to call out the left on their hypocrisy.
If camp Trump were nimble, they'd find a way to use that imagery of 1st amendment punished folk.
But then, Obama was on video promising to skyrocket electricity and no one pounded him with that...twice.
Civility bullshit indeed.
It's the Left that is full of hate.
Has Trump called out Hil on having the father of one of the most proficient mass murderers sitting behind her as she decried violence?
She of well known controlled presentation demands?
WTF?
Someone "short circuited" the background vetting of the coveted ass end of the peanut gallery.
"You are like the euro soccer players that flop just to draw a penalty. What else you got?"
70 million votes.
It was an inconsequential joke, but what a dumb fucker.
Hey.."new" commenter in town..
Floppers never prosper CachorroQuente. Your outrage meter is already smoking, you will have nothing left by October and will stroke out like Hillary.
Alex said...
It's like attacking Albert Einstein.
Einstein advocated a global socialist government, the worst idea anyone ever had about anything, relatively speaking, and I bet I coulda taken him in a cage match.
@walter Has Trump called out Hil on having the father of one of the most proficient mass murderers sitting behind her as she decried violence?
She of well known controlled presentation demands?
WTF?
Someone "short circuited" the background vetting of the coveted ass end of the peanut gallery.
When he was interviewed after the rally, Mateen said he was 'invited by the Democratic Party'. The DNC denies this but that's what he said but I saw the interview and so did the WaPo. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/09/orlando-shooters-father-spotted-at-clinton-rally/
"Your outrage meter is already smoking, you will have nothing left by October and will stroke out like Hillary."
Yeah, we'll see.
The fun hasn't even started yet.
Scott Adams says that I am "already hypnotized" if I begin a post with "LOL."
Dang.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sean-hannitys-veneration-of-ignorance-1470698528
Einstein advocated a global socialist government, the worst idea anyone ever had about anything, relatively speaking, and I bet I coulda taken him in a cage match.
Politics wasn't Einstein's strong suit.
Chuck opined,
all serious persons would understand as, "If you try to take their guns away, they might use them on you..."
If we take your interpretation at face value, is that advocacy?
The only cause that people on the right approach with the same intensity and velocity as left wingers do with their causes is 2nd amendment rights. I thought that that was what Trump was referring to. A gun owner refused his permit would act like a gay couple who had been denied a marriage license. Not all threats are threats of violence.
People always claim that if they could go back in time and kill Hitler, then they would do it. But there's no need for such violence. Why not go back in time and stuff the ballot boxes or use CGI techniques to produce newsreels hat show Hitler pissing on disabled veterans. Who wouldn't want to engage in voter fraud or malicious libel to keep someone like Hitler form holding office.
"No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that "The Second Amendment People" can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. 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?
Candidate Trump will undoubtably issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.
To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.
This cannot be treated as just another outrageous moment in the campaign. We will see whether major newscasts explain how grave and unprecedented this is and whether the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers do it justice. We will soon know whether anyone who has publicly supported Trump explains how they can continue to do.
We are a democratic republic governed by the rule of law. We are an honest, fair and decent people. In trying to come to terms with today's discouraging development the best I can do is to summon our greatest political poet Abraham Lincoln for perspective:
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Lincoln used these stirring words to end his First Inaugural Address. It was the eve of the Civil War and sadly his call for sanity, cohesion and peace was met with horrific violence that almost left our precious Union asunder. We cannot let that happen again.
~ Dan Rather
@William - You might want to read this.
"When he was interviewed after the rally, Mateen said he was 'invited by the Democratic Party'."
Pretty sure that what he said was, because he is a registered Democrat, he got what amounted to a "Dear Democratic Party Voter" form letter from the DNC, letting him know the candidate was going to be holding an event in his state. He denied that anyone from the campaign or the party ever contacted him personally to invite him because of who he is (other than a Democrat within an X mile radius of where the event was being held)...as did both the campaign and the party.
Not even much smoke, let alone any fire...
"By any objective analysis,"
Ah..that phrase often precedes the most subjective interpretations..and the invocation/abuse of Lincoln is often akin to that of Hitler...I'd Rather not.
W James Casper said...
So they put all comers behind the candidate?
That's refreshing.
The sad thing is there will a lot of people who take the Democrats' interpretation seriously, or at least pretend to. That is why professional politicians confine themselves to platitudes and empty phrases and seldom display humor in public.
So they put all comers behind the candidate?
That's refreshing.
I'm surprised 'clock boy' wasn't there, too. With his clock.
People need to remember that abortion rites were not guaranteed by the Constitution, but pulled by liberal judges from the twilight zone. The only people concerned about Second Amendment rights are advocates of abortion rites who have a nervous feeling they will one day be brought to an abortion chamber and trapped by Planned Parenthood in a web of their own creation. In any case, the Second Amendment does not recognize the right of people to commit abortion for trivial causes included social justice adventurism.
It may be remembered that Truman once threatened a music critic with physical violence for panning his daughter's singing efforts.
n.n.
Even for you..s t r e t c h i n g.
When is the last time a 2nd amendment supporter assassinated a left-wing politician? Or a judge, for that matter?
I think it says far more about the left than it does about the right, given how the left jumps to the insane conclusion that Trump was advocating assassination. And given how violence-prone lefties seem to be, having gone out of their way to physically assault Trump supporters while they peacefully waited in line to get into a Trump rally.
Historically, have 2nd amendment supporters resorted to political assassinations? Or have they donated to the NRA, voted in elections, and sent emails, letters, and faxes to their representatives to vote down legislation, or block a nominee for a judgeship?
If they historically do the latter, and have done so effectively, what is it that's in your own nature to assume they'd do the former?
chuck said...
The sad thing is there will a lot of people who take the Democrats' interpretation seriously, or at least pretend to. That is why professional politicians confine themselves to platitudes and empty phrases and seldom display humor in public.
So is that the takeaway here, lower-c chuck? That Trump was "joking"?
(I happen to think that you are right; that Trump was indeed joking. It was a cringe-inducing joke. A badly conceived and poorly delivered joke. A really, really, tragically bad joke. Yet another joke where Trump turns out to be the butt of same. And he lets Hillay off the hook for another week while Trump's sanity and competence are debated.)
Do you, lower-c chuck, want to be the guy who has to break it to the Trumpkin gun-nuts, that Mr. Trump was only joking?
Can't speak to seating... Was only responding to the interviews that were being discussed...
(But if party or campaign seated him there knowing who he was, it was Trump campaign-level incompetence, for sure...and yes, they should've known...)
Kinda suspect they saw a guy who had Muslim features, thought it'd help the rainbow of faces, and didn't bother to check further.
The job of our press now is to take anything said by an enemy of a leading Democrat and misquote, misconstrue, strawman-ize it into some idea they can attack and attach to that enemy. Anything said will do. All will be Akin-ized if needed.
Even not saying anything will not save you as they will just make it up out of whole cloth. Who's to know except the people who were right there when it was said? And who'd trust them or give them the megaphone to shout the truth over the media lie?
This they have done and continue to do. What else do they have? It is not however working as well as before. Too many other sources now compete. Many of them offering not a mediated, massaged, managed version of truth but footage, with video and audio recorded in realtime and not edited. And not just one but many such so that what one missed another caught.
This is what Trump is doing, catering to with his large unscripted rallies. Thousands see what was said in person and video it, send it around, witnessing, testifying to what happened and exposing those who would try to rearrange reality to fit their narrative. A strange dance of the truth and the lie, which will win out? My money has to be on truth as the other winning is a horror.
From a 1967 paper by Hannah Arendt “Truth and Politics”.
" It has frequently been noticed that the surest long-term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism — an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established. In other words, the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world — and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end — is being destroyed.
And for this trouble there is no remedy. It is but the other side of the disturbing contingency of all factual reality. Since everything that has actually happened in the realm of human affairs could just as well have been otherwise, the possibilities for lying are boundless, and this boundlessness makes for self-defeat. Only the occasional liar will find it possible to stick to a particular falsehood with unwavering consistency; those who adjust images and stories to ever-changing circumstances will find themselves floating on the wide-open horizon of potentiality, drifting from one possibility to the next, unable to hold on to any one of their own fabrications. Far from achieving an adequate substitute for reality and factuality, they have transformed facts and events back into the potentiality out of which they originally appeared. And the surest sign of the factuality of facts and events is precisely this stubborn thereness, whose inherent contingency ultimately defies all attempts at conclusive explanation. "
Lies transform the past from a rock into a bog upon which anything built will need constant attention to keep it above water. When the past becomes as contingent, as potential, as the future then it is no longer possible to make any predictions and so uncertainty rules all.
Oh bullshit, geoffb.
Donald Trump is the greatest beneficiary of free media in all of modern politics. And his problems don't stem from a cheating media that is twisting his words. Everybody sees Trump live, or nearly live, on video. I haven't made a single judgment about Trump based on what somebody said about Trump. I have judged Trump based on witching him myself, more or less live. Trump's own words are his own worst enemy. Period. The greatest purveyor of unforced errors of our time.
"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said. Trump blurted that out, in his typical style. An idea occurred to him, so he said it."
"Second Amendment" people have been quite successfully agitating to protect their rights for a long time now, and have managed to shoot remarkably few judges in the process.
Why would anyone even pretend that the Left ever expresses sincere concerns? Willful misrepresentation is their stock in trade.
Love the Dan Rather quote about being "an objective and fair journalist". Self- awareness has ever been a weakness of the Left.
Call me old-fashioned for saying so, but isn’t it critical for a leader to know the effect his words will have on people and to deploy them accordingly?
3 more months of this? Agghhh! Why can't the campaigns force these two to spend the rest of August on a golf course or beach?
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
Call me old-fashioned for saying so, but isn’t it critical for a leader to know the effect his words will have on people and to deploy them accordingly?
I think that is what Trump is doing.
Usual disclaimer -- I will not vote for Trump (though I have donated money to his campaign) because he is not a conservative. Hillary would be, in my opinion, a much worse president than Trump because she has the record of an incompetent ideologue.
So . . .
Trump is in a pickle. He has these GOP guys telling him that to run a winning campaign, he has to not be Trump. Trump is aware that the advice of these guys has produced a popular vote winner in just two out of the last seven elections.
mockturtle said...
I'm surprised 'clock boy' wasn't there, too. With his clock.
I think that clock boy ought to take one his 'home made' clocks and rush the stage when Hillary is speaking. He should push his way past the SS and thrust his 'home made' clock into her arms!
So the Democrats could show how much they did not fear dark skinned Muslims by not shooting him.
I'm thinking for Trump this is what comes of 70 years of surrounding yourself with retainers who always know to laugh at the things you say.
And for Hillary, with her epically bad rally backdrop, it comes of almost 70 years of putting fealty above plain competence.
I hope the left keeps running with this.
1. It is obviously being misconstrued.
2. If it is not being misconstrued so what? The 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the government and amoral power crazed politicians like Hillary Clinton. The United States from it's inception sought to make sure the government did not abuse it's monopoly on force. If the government ignores the 2nd amendment and tries to forcibly disarm us they are treading on god given rights and deserve no moral protection.
Hillary Clinton has caused the deaths of people much better than her. Many people. If I did what she did with her emails I would be in jail for life. It is hilarious watching you lefty douchebags attack Trump supporters at rallies then bleat about a statement that is far tamer than several things Obama has said.
Blogger Michael The Magnificent said...
When is the last time a 2nd amendment supporter assassinated a left-wing politician? Or a judge, for that matter?
John F. Kennedy was killed by a commie, Lee Harvey Oswald, who didn't like the way Kennedy treated Castro. His brother, Robert F. Kennedy, was killed by a Palastinian nationalist named Sirhan Sirhan because he thought that Bobby was too pro-Israel.
Yet there are millions of Boomers -- some of them well-educated -- who blame the Right for the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.
Obama calls for ignoring election results if Trump wins:
And had they won, I would have been disappointed, but I would have said to all Americans they are -- this is our President, and I know they’re going to abide by certain norms and rules and common sense, will observe basic decency, will have enough knowledge about economic policy and foreign policy and our constitutional traditions and rule of law that our government will work, and then we’ll compete four years from now to try to win an election.
But that’s not the situation here.
See ... two can play at this game if integrity is left off the table.
Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/08/02/read-obama-calls-trump-unfit/yqjtDEDodrJNMxPRxycR0J/story.html
Do you, lower-c chuck, want to be the guy who has to break it to the Trumpkin gun-nuts, that Mr. Trump was only joking?
Oh. I think they get it. On average their IQ's are greater than yours.
Why would anyone even pretend that the Left ever expresses sincere concerns? Willful misrepresentation is their stock in trade.
I think they're signaling their concern that there are too many firearms in the hands of private citizens. Firearms that make it difficult to fully rule over us.
Just a joke in poor taste, which is more an insult to "Second Amendment People" than anything else (portrays them as crazy violent types) and of course the Clintonites will hyperventilate and overreact to it, making their people think he's an anti-democratic anarchist and making his people think they're a bunch of oversensitive ninnies. This pattern is getting so repetitive I wonder if it can continue another three months.
The Clintons ought to keep in mind that there is no assassin who will actually wait around until Trump makes a comment like this to actually try and kill her. No one will say (when questioned by the police after the fact) "I was perfectly fine until Trump told me to shoot her and I thought, 'great idea!'" And Trump ought to keep in mind that if some nut does try and take a shot at any politician for any reason--which is possible--the media will easily blame him. And if you think the Clintons are sneaky, try to imagine them staging a phony assassination attempt on her just to feed the narrative.
We came! We Saw! He Died! Lol chuckle snort! - Hillary Clinton.
It's a short video, you really should watch it if you are a fan of Hillary. Here is your shameless leader in her glory!
"(I happen to think that you are right; that Trump was indeed joking. It was a cringe-inducing joke. A badly conceived and poorly delivered joke. A really, really, tragically bad joke. Yet another joke where Trump turns out to be the butt of same. And he lets Hillay off the hook for another week while Trump's sanity and competence are debated.)"
A joke, or just the usual stream of consciousness without thought. But while these episodes give Trump fans plenty to cheer--look at the Left losing its shit!--consider what is NOT getting play this week:
1) Hillary with the Mateen father at her rally; what does she think of this?
2) Hillary campaigning for Debbie Wasserman Shultz (not a popular person among Democrats)
3) Trump releasing an economic program that supposedly would appeal to swing voters (we got maybe a half day coverage of that)
4) Hillary's misleading statements about her FBI investigation
5) Hillary supported by the neocon establishment, not exactly a popular group among the doves of the Left
I'm told this is a different sort of campaign. That it is. Either there's a hidden genius here, or we're watching a flailing of historical proportions.
"Who is this fuckin' Scott Adams i keep hearing about?!?!
What I wanna know is what does Charles fuckin' Schultz think about it?"
I think it's time the writer of "Mark Trail" weighs in.
"Trump campaign-level incompetence, for sure...and yes, they should've known...)"
Convict Trump of all Obama and Hillary's many many many crimes, that really drives the right-wingers nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look, see how many exclamation points I am using!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Y'all done kept driving me nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You must be so proud of everything you've accomplished!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So new definition for the next few hours or days or until the lie is no longer needed: winning the nomination is an example of mind-blowing ineptitude and incompetence. The worst campaign ever that just happened to get more GOP primary votes than any other candidate in history.
Hey, I kinda wanna fuck any imbecile that believes that too, so I understand the lie's attraction. Kill the weak-minded spirit with all but kindness.
Don't stop at 35-50 million though, then Hitler might still supersede your goals even if surpassed slightly.
Go for a billion!
You will be God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_Z-C-okb68
How soon we forget. Of course if she'd said it about a Republican instead of Obama it would have been no big deal.
...why would it be a "horrible day" for 2a folks to exercise their political clout?
like the quitta from wasilla, the defenses of donald bialystok's ridiculous statements in here are very entertaining.
thank you.
Looking at the polling breakdown, where Trump's strength is among blue collar white men, I wonder if he might have had more success running as a Democrat with similar appeals. He would have won back a key demographic that the Dems used to count on, and as a Democrat he wouldn't have had to pretend to be pro-gun or pro-life, and would have probably maintained the female voter edge and the black voter edge. With some tweaking of his anti-illegal immigrant stance, he probably would even maintain the Hispanic voter edge at least somewhat.
the defenses of donald bialystok's ridiculous statements in here are very entertaining.
As are your defenses of the warmongering kleptocrat Hillary. Look at this explanation in the New York Times to day of Hillary's selling power for money schemes:
"Arkansas was a small state with overlapping circles of the politically and economically powerful — and many of the Clintons’ contemporaries were getting rich. “The smart guys who were politically active would make that interesting investment that would push them from the ranks of the upper middle class into the wealthy and powerful,” said William K. Black, a former financial regulator and professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. " - New York Times
Poor little Hillary, not getting rich! The shame!
Remember when Julian Assange was a hero to liberals? Now that he says that a murdered DNC staffer was the source of the leak, he is an untrustworthy liar. In fact he has been an untrustworthy liar ever since the DNC leaks, hasn't he? He was a good guy when he was against the Iraq war, but a bad guy when he is against the Libyan and Syrian wars, Hillary's wars.
It is morbidly entertaining to see you guys fall in line behind the war monger while Assange keeps his principles. Do you wish you still had your principles? Naah!
Speaking of guns. This is unbelievable. Most cops shouldn't have guns either.
AReasonableMan said...
Speaking of guns. This is unbelievable. Most cops shouldn't have guns either.
Most? Or just some? After all when you've managed to confiscate all the guns in private hands these are the people you'll be relying on to keep you safe.
"I have higher standards for the president's public statements than I have for fictional dialogue in a cartoon."
If that's true then you must be voting third party, but I'm pretty sure you failed to consider that standard for the Democrat running. No President, SoS, or candidate has ever lied about so much, so many, or so often as this singular person, leaving her with clearly the lowest standard of public statements in history, including accusing private citizens of serious crimes to protect herself and her husband from their own failures. She is the champion of low standards, even compared to Trump.
Ann took a lot of behavior around the WI Capitol a few years back as threatening.
Looking through that perspective, it is amazing to see the knots she has put herself in defending Trump.
Well said bagoh20. Only thought I had after he made the remark about the second amendment folks, I am a member of the NRA, was that we would continue our efforts to deal constructively with the anti-gun crowd. Keep up the good work.
it is amazing to see the knots she has put herself in defending Trump.
I think it's more along the lines of pointing out the hypocrisy in the people clutching pearls about Trump's comments (which I haven't heard) and blithely ignoring, for example, the New Yorker cartoon.
Trump is doing a great job in providing fodder for the Media that is trying to get Hillary elected. That is the single unfortunate part of this.
"We begin bombing in five minutes" Was this a productive joke or not? The present-day kerfuffle reminds me of it.
Are the Dems and the media really fooling anyone with this concern trolling? Nothing of substance is ever covered with any energy, but trivia about words is an endless epic battle. When it's over, none of this or much else that has been covered breathlessly will matter one bit. That is until next time when we drudge it up for the battle of the trivia. In the end, we chose poorly because of this crap. Even Romney, who was pretty careful in his speech was brought down mostly by insignificant words made into one tempest after another, leaving the substance unexplored and the merits unmeasured.
Daniel Greenfield over@frontpagemag.com writes a great article summing up all those who have advocated killing Republicans (think Sarah Palin, for one) and of course GWBush EVEN WHILE IN OFFICE by the likes of no less than people like John Kerry--not to mention the movie that was made showing Bush II when President being assassinated while walking out of a restaurant. But it's all all-in-good-fun funny ha ha when the left does it, "No harm no foul!" right? And these were comments that were EXPLICIT, on-the-record statements that left NO ROOM for ambiguity. But it's all one big joke when the left does it. But the right? Even a hint of violence--even as an obvious joke that any "normal" person would recognize from the context of the setting from which it was issued--or any statement of any kind that is ambiguous or can be misconstrued as advocating violence by the right is jumped on by the MSM as prima facia evidence that the individual or group is a threat to society and disqualified to ever run for or hold office. Of course by those standards if applied to the left John Kerry should have stepped down long ago, but who's counting when we're having fun, right?
Interesting logic: A major party candidate for President makes a speech at a public event in which he states that his opponent wants to abolish the 2nd amendment (I must have missed when she said that), and then suggests that "2nd amendment people" can stop this. However, if any unhinged person acts on this it's going to be the fault of the journalists and pundits who reported and commented on this public speech, and his opponent for reminding voters that he said this.
As to Trump's "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," one comment asks "Is it that hard to see that the next sentence could be 'VOTE'?" Apparently it is hard, even for pro-Trumpites here, since I see many of them taking the meaning in all kinds of other ways. As to other, more intelligent comments, I like the one that notes how Trump's language positions him OUTSIDE the "2nd Amendment people," who in fact he has never before had the slightest respect for.
And why should he have when we get this sort of thing from some of them.
"The 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the government and amoral power crazed politicians like Hillary Clinton. The United States from it's inception sought to make sure the government did not abuse it's monopoly on force."
The United States from its inception sought to ensure a "well-regulated militia." Now I also agree the right it protected was seen as prior to that, but this nonsense about a people rising up angry and using guns to thwart a tyrannical government is silly even for those times - after all it was fears about Shays uprising that moved many of the founders to get their little fannies down to Philly and STRENGTHEN that federal government. But to mouth such nonsense in an age of tanks and drones and rockets and lasers and grenade launchers and shoulder held rocket launchers, etc., is truly insane. Stick to the video arcades if you long for the age of armed uprising against the state. Please. Otherwise, you might hurt yourselves.
Our media is as corrupt as the Democrat party. The Clinton Crime Family tops it all.
Of course, Hillary explicitly suggesting Obama might be assassinated in 2008 was just fine and dandy.
Hillary doesn't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
How Trump's statement ever got twisted to "assassination" shows how in the tank the media is for Hillary. If Hillary's campaign hints at it it must be true. By the way Judicial Watch released e-mails yesterday showing a direct connection between the Clinton State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Try to find that in the WaPo.
It is difficult to keep from being discouraged by the constant onslaught of the pro-Clinton press and the treacherous Republicans who, like rats, are deserting the ship. It is certainly a test of Trump's willingness to fight.
"This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to the be president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."
LOL!
I forget, who that oratory genius that famously said (as well as his administration):
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama told the audience. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans."
"I know they [the special interests and lobbyists] are gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: so am I."
"If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard."
These are the same folks that coddled the OWS people while they attacked, robbed, and raped their own.
These are the same folks that embrace BLM while BLM calls for the assassination of police.
These are the same folks that supported communities being ransacked and burned to the ground as part of the "hands up, don't shoot" lie.
The liberals/dems get a pass on all of their actual eliminationist rhetoric while any hint from anyone even remotely connected to the right is highlighted.
They can all go screw themselves.
Trump has also been on the receiving end of suggestions of assassination
Trump has been on the receiving end of at least one known assassination attempt.
Chuck said... Trump blurts out this bad-Vegas-comic line, which all serious persons would understand as, "If you try to take their guns away, they might use them on you..." So in the first instance, Trump takes the hit for that advocacy of violence.
Hey Chuck, do you know what the word "advocacy" means? From your own sentence it sure seems like you don't.
And if you think the Clintons are sneaky, try to imagine them staging a phony assassination attempt on her just to feed the narrative.
No need to imagine anything. She's already made up a phony assassination attempt.
I took it to mean that they could vote a given way.
You know, like we talk about any group of single issue voters.
Jon Burack: Now I also agree the right it protected was seen as prior to that, but this nonsense about a people rising up angry and using guns to thwart a tyrannical government is silly even for those times - after all it was fears about Shays uprising that moved many of the founders to get their little fannies down to Philly and STRENGTHEN that federal government.
Though there was that incident a few years earlier where the founders were rather more supportive of armed uprisings against tyrannical governments.
But to mouth such nonsense in an age of tanks and drones and rockets and lasers and grenade launchers and shoulder held rocket launchers, etc., is truly insane.
Yet for all that, people all over the world still get up in arms and have a go at what they consider to be tyrannical governments. Crazy world out there. When push comes to shove rebel groups do seem to be able to avail themselves of hardware beyond their hunting rifles.
Jus' sayin'. If I really thought that the hotheads among my fellow citizens were in the mood for armed rebellion, I'm pretty sure that "in an age of tanks and drones and rockets and lasers and grenade launchers and shoulder held rocket launchers" (and lions and tigers an bears oh my), they could plan and purchase their armories at least up to the level of any other insurgents running around now. Give them some credit, Jon.
And stop being such a ninny. You should be a hell of a lot more worried about how badly imprudent, overreaching government can and is fucking things up so badly it is destabilizing society, than about "gun nuts".
Hillary doesn't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
Leaked Audio: Clinton Says Supreme Court Is ‘Wrong’ on Second Amendment
Lexington and Concord happened because the British sent troops out to confiscate the colonists weapons. Now, I think that even the Democrats still consider the Revolutionary war a good thing, though if they are all in on being subjects to the Queen of England, it wouldn't surprise me.
Were the colonists wrong to fight back at Lexington and Concord? Yes or no? And since Hillary and the left are bound and determined to enslave the populace and take away their rights ( you leftists do realize that Hillary has come out against the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments, at the very least, right?), why shouldn't people talk about resisting the oppressive government?
Heck, just read the Declaration of Independence and substitute "Obama" for "King George" and you'll be astonished at up to date and accurately it describes us today.
--Vance
But to mouth such nonsense in an age of tanks and drones and rockets and lasers and grenade launchers and shoulder held rocket launchers, etc., is truly insane.
Total US Military Personnel (2014): 1,381,250
Total US Big Game Hunters (2011): 11,570,00
For the edification of a liberal friend who scoffed at the idea of an armed uprising, I once added up all the military personnel of all of the countries of the world, except for China, and there were STILL more big game hunters (high powered scoped rifles) in the United States. And that doesn't count the millions of Americans with high powered rifles that never hunt.
"No need to imagine anything. She's already made up a phony assassination attempt."
You'll never go broke betting in favor of the sneakiness of the Clintons. I'm just wondering what sort of things will emerge decades from now that they have going on under cover.
Back in the Spring of 2008, HRC was asked why she didn't drop out as it was obvious Obama would soon clinch the nomination. Part of her response was that anything can happen, look how Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June (1968).
With the media it's never what you say, it's who you are that determines the way they play it.
@MtM - I don't think it would ever be our military versus our civilians. Too many things standing in the way, including laws like Posse Comitatus, the UCMJ, 200+ years of history, the trained fighters in the military having been recruited primarily from those segments of our population most sympathetic to the 2nd Amdt, etc. That is why, I think, that the Obama Administration has been reducing the number in our military, while increasing the number of armed federal agents and employees - supposedly now outnumbering the number of Marines - because the left/Dems don't trust our military to disarm the American citizenry. So, we are probably talking the 200k armed federal agents and employees, and not the 1300k active military. And, of course, the job would be impossible, with probably more guns than people in this country. Figure that if they tried, each armed federal agent or employee would have to seize roughly 1,500 firearms in order to completely disarm the American people. Sure, it might not be that bad in the deep blue parts of the country where they might get help from law enforcement and the National Guard, but for the rest of the country, they aren't going to help. And, I seriously doubt that very many of these armed federal agents and employees could seize anywhere near their quota of 1,500 firearms without getting shot.
Michael The Magnificent said...
But to mouth such nonsense in an age of tanks and drones and rockets and lasers and grenade launchers and shoulder held rocket launchers, etc., is truly insane.
Total US Military Personnel (2014): 1,381,250
Total US Big Game Hunters (2011): 11,570,00
For the edification of a liberal friend who scoffed at the idea of an armed uprising, I once added up all the military personnel of all of the countries of the world, except for China, and there were STILL more big game hunters (high powered scoped rifles) in the United States. And that doesn't count the millions of Americans with high powered rifles that never hunt.
100 million gun owners possess 300 million firearms.
I would really like to hear the plan.
@MtM - I don't think it would ever be our military versus our civilians.
No, I agree. The context of the conversation, which occurred after a school shooting, went something like this.
He: "This is crazy! The second amendment was never intended to cover civilians, only the militia, who are now the National Guard. We should confiscate all of the privately held guns."
Me: "Who are you thinking will perform the confiscation? You, and which army? And by the way, I AM a member of the militia, so where is my M1A1 Abrams tank, counselor?*"
That's when I laid out the numbers he was up against, and that if he was going to initiate a war against me and my fellow patriots that I was quite prepared (well regulated) to return the favor.
* I call him "counselor" because he's a lawyer, and is currently employed by the WI DOJ. I've told him on more than one occasion that he should file a civil suit to recover his tuition from Marquette University Law School, given how often he's been schooled on the law by an engineer (moi).
Thus far the only candidate who has been actually threatened with assassination is Trump.
That may be true, Anthony BUT let us not forget that Hillary already had her "brush with death" when she was taking all of that sniper fire in Bosnia!
So there, take that and I will raise you a 3:00AM phone call - oh wait, the results of that call was at least 4 dead in Benghazi, never mind...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/03/17/on-benghazi-hillary-clinton-lied-and-four-americans-died/
Look away, liberals! Look away!
From: If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.
"Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to."
From: Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel called for WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to be assassinated #DNCLeak
"The guy aught to be, and I'm not for the death penalty, so if I'm not for the death penalty, there is only one way to do it, illegally shoot the son of a bitch."
Well, if you didn't look away, commence with your vapors!
"Well, if you didn't look away, commence with your vapors!"
Recorded back in 2010 when Beckel was still with Fox News.
What does this tell us about anything other than that Beckel has "issues."
Remember when Republican Neocons were the enemy and Assange was the hero who opposed the Iraq War? Now the 50 Neocons support Hillary and Assange is the enemy! But Hillary is no Goldwater Girl, no oh oh.
Liberals, you know how you can tell if a Clinton is lying to you? Their lips move! I know, you think they only lie to us, but what they want is power, pure and simple. They will use you, use us, whatever, to get it.
Interestingly, in a discussion on banks & credit card companies on CNBC this morning, there were several panelists who expressed that they didn't take seriously Hillary's rhetoric about taking the big banks to task. While they liked Trump's lower tax rates for corporations and the repatriation plans, they seemed to favor Hillary overall, as more predictable and more favorable.
mockturtle said...
they seemed to favor Hillary overall, as more predictable and more favorable.
8/10/16, 3:48 PM
Well sure as anything that they see coming down the pipe that they don't like can be "taken care of" with the right donation to the foundation and the right speaking engagement for Bill. The ultimate "pay for play" game. To paraphrase the old mob "Nice business you got there, how much are you willing to 'donate' to keep it?"
Nice parallel, Todd. The Clintons have more in common with the Mafia than we probably want to know.
After hearing thereaction to Trump's statement I'm starting to wonder if the issue is really Trump at all. It could n
Be that the real problem is that those responding to Trumps statement do not know how to process language. Or have no sense of humor. Or can't accept that there might be an alternate meaning to his phrases than the one they concocted in their own brain.
The same exact thing occurred only a few weeks ago.
My aunt called my mom and told her to turn on CNN because trump hasd supposedly said he was going to punch Bloomberg. So I turned on CNN expecting to see a story where Trump threatened to punch Bloomberg. And instead he talked about how he would
Hit some people so hard who had hit him hard the night before, The context of course is that he meant rhetorically.
But those condemning Trump couldn't help but take his statement literally. And then attack him for his statement that they just took out of context.
That is completely disingenuous. You are allowed to clarify your statement if people are insistent on attacking you for it.
Pif it happens this many times there is something wrong with those listening to Trump. They can't consistently misunderstand this regularly . I agree that many are deliberately misstating his meaning for political purposes ,but there are a lot of people that simply are impervious to hearing things correctly. Even if trump clarifies they will still cling to the idea that he threatened Hillary.
Of course when Hillary says "gun control" she means sending the police to collect guns from millions of Americans who have committed no crime. If they do not comply, then the police will be authorized to use violence, against millions of Americans, who will not agree with her radical judges reinterpretation of the Constitution.
So, is it better that she hides the violence implicit in the words 'gun control' behind the words 'gun control'? Better for her, yes.
See, in her mind there is good violence, the kind of the left against anyone. There is bad violence, the kind of anyone against the left.
One wonders, how many of the 50 security mandarins took a public position against Obama paying 400 million dollar ransom to Iran, and giving away the US claims (and those of private parties) against Iran?
Yes, I thought that was the number.
Claiming that second amendment people are violent is a slander. The NRA and other gun organization have an equivalent history of violence, litigation, and "get out the vote" efforts as the ACLU. Insert "first amendment people" into the speech and if it's materially different to people, consider that the media has painted a picture of people to you that's just not true.
When the Secret Service was concerned about Hillary's safety recently, it was neither the ACLU nor the NRA that was protesting and interrupting her speech.
Suppose, hypothetically, that Trump was really alluding to assassination. It's certainly possible, though Trumps' stream-of-brain-fart style of speaking makes it very hard to know what he was actually thinking. (Assuming the thought process was even involved.)
This tells us less about actual Second Amendment supporters than about Trump. But then we knew that already.
What is more interesting is what it tells us about Trump. It tells us that Ben Shapiro was right; Trump really is a stranger to conservatism. Trump really believes what the Left has been saying about conservatives all along.
The worst mistake of this is the declaration "This is simple". As people legitimately or ridiculously parse this, I wonder if NAMI appreciates the suggestion that a politician's casual utterance is a call to murder of the mentally ill.
And if you go there..restricting/condemning speech because a mentally ill person might find it somehow validates or elicits their desire to murder, wheer in that context can you truly draw that line? If they are irrational, mentally ill etc., imposing some "neuro typical" standard seems irrational itself. By that standard, ban every movie that portrays violence.
This is just another twisted offshoot of politically correct BS...actually worse.
And yet Will Smith suggests Trump voters should be "cleansed" to media crickets.
Well..imagine if Trump used some of Obama's err.."suggestive" language.
Get in their face, bring gun to a knife fight etc.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा