First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Trump: 'Second Amendment people' could deal with Clinton
37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 8/10/16 , edited 8/10/16

Tormenterxz wrote:


Dubnoman wrote:

Ah, I changed my post.

I reread the text from the article in the OP. I reread it multiple times. Maybe Trump really was talking about gun rights enthusiasts making a difference with voting, but I doubt it because it also can be interpreted as "You can always shoot her!". That, and I doubt it because it is Trump and he says outrageous stuff on the regular.

Thing is, Donald Trump is lousy at speaking at the podium. He can not say things intelligently. So maybe he was talking about "second amendment people" or maybe he was saying "But hey, there is the second amendment, people, if you know what I mean *wink*"



You see the entire issue with this is people will interpret what he said in whatever way fits there agenda. The thing I would like to continue to point out is Hilary did the same sort of thing back in '08 towards Obama in reference to the Bobby Kennedy assassination. While she was criticized heavily at the time. It seems now Trump is the worst kind of person for ever saying such a thing when she herself did the same exact thing. While both candidates definitely have flaws and a lot of them. Let's not get too hypocritical.





You can't say it is the exact same thing. Hillary said she was still running in case Obama was killed, which a lot of people wondered would happen or not since Obama was poised (at that time) to be the first black president. In contrast, if Trump was actually making the comment many think he was, he was saying "She'll get to pick liberal judges and there is nothing right wing Americans can do about it. Or is there? There's the second amendment, if you know what I mean!".

They are not equivalent to each other.
32077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

Jophar_Vorin wrote:

People see what they wanna see.


True in sense some people choose to see facts and others do not.
8054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

bensonc120 wrote:

Trump was insinuating assassination. He was most likely joking but to say he was referring to having 2A people exercise their voting rights is asinine. Read his quote- he referred to the 2A people fixing the problem AFTER Clinton is President and after Clinton appointed Supreme Court Justices. He made an inappropriate joke. I don't believe he meant it seriously but it was still inappropriate, and if one of us made that type of joke, we would be in trouble with the law.


Where is this word "After" that you threw into his quote. One word I particularly picked up on was "If". “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” There is no "After" in that at all.

626 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/10/16
The problem isn't whether he meant it one way or another to be honest. It's whether the mentally unstable people out there might interpret it in a dangerous way or not.
37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

bensonc120 wrote:


Dubnoman

Yeah, I think he was making the inappropriate comment many think he was. But at the same time, he can not speak intelligently, and he has problems being coherent when expressing thoughts and ideas, so possibly he was talking about gun rights enthusiasts making a difference come voting time.


So on one hand, it could be 'Donald saying bad shit again', or on the other hand, it is 'Donald can't speak for shit again', so...neither work in his favor.


So, according to you, Trump was possibly talking about gun rights enthusiasts making a difference with voting... after Hilary becomes President and has appointed liberal judges?? Is that what you are suggesting? Think hard about what you suggest. If Trump was referring to voting, wouldn't he reference the 2A crowd to act BEFORE Hilary is elected, not AFTER?




No, I agree with you. I reread the text in the article and I see both sides of the argument. I do think he was saying the inappropriate comment many think he said. Leave it to Trump to say such a thing. But considering both sides of the argument and rereading the quoted text...I have a bit of doubt, but only because Trump really is an idiot who doesn't know how to express thoughts and ideas well.


Like I said, either on one hand, it is Trump saying something awful again, or on the other hand, it is just another example that Trump is quite the idiot.
626 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

Tormenterxz wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

Trump was insinuating assassination. He was most likely joking but to say he was referring to having 2A people exercise their voting rights is asinine. Read his quote- he referred to the 2A people fixing the problem AFTER Clinton is President and after Clinton appointed Supreme Court Justices. He made an inappropriate joke. I don't believe he meant it seriously but it was still inappropriate, and if one of us made that type of joke, we would be in trouble with the law.


Where is this word "After" that you threw into his quote. One word I particularly picked up on was "If". “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” There is no "After" in that at all.



"After" is implied because he is saying if she gets to pick her judges, which only would occur after she gets presidency, there is nothing anyone, except gun rights advocates, can do.
8054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

bensonc120 wrote:


Tormenterxz wrote:


Dubnoman wrote:

Ah, I changed my post.

I reread the text from the article in the OP. I reread it multiple times. Maybe Trump really was talking about gun rights enthusiasts making a difference with voting, but I doubt it because it also can be interpreted as "You can always shoot her!". That, and I doubt it because it is Trump and he says outrageous stuff on the regular.

Thing is, Donald Trump is lousy at speaking at the podium. He can not say things intelligently. So maybe he was talking about "second amendment people" or maybe he was saying "But hey, there is the second amendment, people, if you know what I mean *wink*"



You see the entire issue with this is people will interpret what he said in whatever way fits there agenda. The thing I would like to continue to point out is Hilary did the same sort of thing back in '08 towards Obama in reference to the Bobby Kennedy assassination. While she was criticized heavily at the time. It seems now Trump is the worst kind of person for ever saying such a thing when she herself did the same exact thing. While both candidates definitely have flaws and a lot of them. Let's not get too hypocritical.





There is a huge difference between what Clinton said in '08 and what Trump suggested yesterday. Clinton did not suggest anyone assassinate Obama, she was asked the reason why she stayed in the campaign when it appeared she has all but lost and cited a historical incident which the winning candidate was assassinated. It was an obtuse statement, but she did not once suggest or even insinuate that any of her supporters should kill Obama. Trump suggested that once Hilary became president and appointed her liberal judges that the 2A crowd fix the problem.


Oh really, cause according to this article right here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0
People did take it the wrong way, and posed it as a threat. So you can't say that there is a huge difference in either event cause they are the exact same thing. People interpreting what someone has said as a threat and criticized them for it.
37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

Tormenterxz wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

Trump was insinuating assassination. He was most likely joking but to say he was referring to having 2A people exercise their voting rights is asinine. Read his quote- he referred to the 2A people fixing the problem AFTER Clinton is President and after Clinton appointed Supreme Court Justices. He made an inappropriate joke. I don't believe he meant it seriously but it was still inappropriate, and if one of us made that type of joke, we would be in trouble with the law.


Where is this word "After" that you threw into his quote. One word I particularly picked up on was "If". “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” There is no "After" in that at all.




Yeah, but in the context of what he was saying...if she was picking judges, that means she would be the president. What he says is very open to being interpreted to mean "kill her".

He said "If she gets to pick liberal judges, there is nothing you can do. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is ".

The Italicized text is the exact wording, so...

It can be understood as "If she gets to pick liberal judges, there is nothing you can do. Although there is the second amendment, people, so maybe there is".
8054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

EichiXIII wrote:


Tormenterxz wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

Trump was insinuating assassination. He was most likely joking but to say he was referring to having 2A people exercise their voting rights is asinine. Read his quote- he referred to the 2A people fixing the problem AFTER Clinton is President and after Clinton appointed Supreme Court Justices. He made an inappropriate joke. I don't believe he meant it seriously but it was still inappropriate, and if one of us made that type of joke, we would be in trouble with the law.


Where is this word "After" that you threw into his quote. One word I particularly picked up on was "If". “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” There is no "After" in that at all.



"After" is implied because he is saying if she gets to pick her judges, which only would occur after she gets presidency, there is nothing anyone, except gun rights advocates, can do.


Or it could be implied that, If she gets elected, if she chooses those judges. There is nothing we can do. So how about we stop that from happening by getting all the 2A supporters and vote against her. You can interpret it either way. People assume he is saying "Oh, after all this happens, let's assassinate her" cause he is talking to gun right advocates and people put guns and assassination together. Which is not at all correct.
4042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

Tormenterxz wrote:


EichiXIII wrote:


Tormenterxz wrote:


bensonc120 wrote:

Trump was insinuating assassination. He was most likely joking but to say he was referring to having 2A people exercise their voting rights is asinine. Read his quote- he referred to the 2A people fixing the problem AFTER Clinton is President and after Clinton appointed Supreme Court Justices. He made an inappropriate joke. I don't believe he meant it seriously but it was still inappropriate, and if one of us made that type of joke, we would be in trouble with the law.


Where is this word "After" that you threw into his quote. One word I particularly picked up on was "If". “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” There is no "After" in that at all.



"After" is implied because he is saying if she gets to pick her judges, which only would occur after she gets presidency, there is nothing anyone, except gun rights advocates, can do.


Or it could be implied that, If she gets elected, if she chooses those judges. There is nothing we can do. So how about we stop that from happening by getting all the 2A supporters and vote against her. You can interpret it either way. People assume he is saying "Oh, after all this happens, let's assassinate her" cause he is talking to gun right advocates and people put guns and assassination together. Which is not at all correct.


That's not why people are making the assumption. People are making this assumption because Trump has used violence as a control measure in his rallies, and has promoted violence against his political rivals since the beginning of his campaign. It's not far-fetched to believe he would enjoy seeing a political rival get shot.

Insisting that this interpretation is because the poor second amendment advocates are being bullied is just playing the victim card. Yes, these people are associated with violence, but that's because they are stereo-typically aggressive when they are challenged on second amendment issues (I.E. the whole "If I'm going to die, it will be in a hail of bullets because I watched Die Hard yesterday" crowd)
8054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/10/16 , edited 8/10/16

Ohasis
That's not why people are making the assumption. People are making this assumption because Trump has used violence as a control measure in his rallies, and has promoted violence against his political rivals since the beginning of his campaign. It's not far-fetched to believe he would enjoy seeing a political rival get shot.

Insisting that this interpretation is because the poor second amendment advocates are being bullied is just playing the victim card. Yes, these people are associated with violence, but that's because they are stereo-typically aggressive when they are challenged on second amendment issues (I.E. the whole "If I'm going to die, it will be in a hail of bullets because I watched Die Hard yesterday" crowd)



What you are implying is, that just cause someone supports physical violence to a person that is disrupting there rally/social function. Is prone to support killing people. Which is like saying anyone who has ever been in a fist fight is not to far off the trail from starting to murder people.

What did I say that made you think I was trying to use 2A supporters as victims. It's true that in America a good amount of people put violence and guns in the same basket. I would hope everyone is aggressive on there points of view when there rights are challenged. That is how America has evolved since our country was born. As far as the last thing you said " (I.E. the whole "If I'm going to die, it will be in a hail of bullets because I watched Die Hard yesterday" crowd)' What are you even talking about.
85275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Louisville, KY
Online
Posted 8/10/16
The first President of the United States of America was a General of the Revolutionary War. He and several other leaders incited violence to turn the country into what they felt was best for the people. If they try to remove the 2nd amendment, then the 2nd amendment basically says the citizens have a RIGHT to take up arms to prevent the government from taking too much power from the citizens.
1129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

Tormenterxz wrote:

What you are implying is, that just cause someone supports physical violence to a person that is disrupting there rally/social function. Is prone to support killing people. Which is like saying anyone who has ever been in a fist fight is not to far off the trail from starting to murder people.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/harrow-school-boy-died-from-single-punch-after-telling-club-promoter-youll-work-for-me-one-day-a6991941.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-36301671

http://nbc4i.com/2016/05/17/man-killed-after-one-punch-suspect-faces-manslaughter-charges

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/10/14-year-old-boy-killed-man-with-one-punch-after-giving-him-directions

So, like, uh, yeah I guess?
8054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

RebRebel wrote:


Tormenterxz wrote:

What you are implying is, that just cause someone supports physical violence to a person that is disrupting there rally/social function. Is prone to support killing people. Which is like saying anyone who has ever been in a fist fight is not to far off the trail from starting to murder people.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/harrow-school-boy-died-from-single-punch-after-telling-club-promoter-youll-work-for-me-one-day-a6991941.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-36301671

http://nbc4i.com/2016/05/17/man-killed-after-one-punch-suspect-faces-manslaughter-charges

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/10/14-year-old-boy-killed-man-with-one-punch-after-giving-him-directions

So, like, uh, yeah I guess?


Yes, people have died from fighting. I am not saying it doesn't happen. What I am saying is, from what he implied about Trump, that anyone who has ever been in a fist fight or physical altercation is messed up in the head and would support murder in the future to deal with any problems they have.
1129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/10/16

Tormenterxz wrote:


RebRebel wrote:


Tormenterxz wrote:

What you are implying is, that just cause someone supports physical violence to a person that is disrupting there rally/social function. Is prone to support killing people. Which is like saying anyone who has ever been in a fist fight is not to far off the trail from starting to murder people.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/harrow-school-boy-died-from-single-punch-after-telling-club-promoter-youll-work-for-me-one-day-a6991941.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-36301671

http://nbc4i.com/2016/05/17/man-killed-after-one-punch-suspect-faces-manslaughter-charges

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/10/14-year-old-boy-killed-man-with-one-punch-after-giving-him-directions

So, like, uh, yeah I guess?


Yes, people have died from fighting. I am not saying it doesn't happen. What I am saying is, from what he implied about Trump, that anyone who has ever been in a fist fight or physical altercation is messed up in the head and would support murder in the future to deal with any problems they have.


Ah, you see you're almost proving the point you are arguing against. I highlighted your words earlier. It's easy to pick up on the wording you used and show as I did that people in fist fights are not far from murder. Of course I'm being picky and overly specific with your wording, of course your explanation of your point is how you intended it to be taken in the first place.

My point is it doesn't matter if your words are misunderstood and you or I have to clarify, but if you are going to potentially be the leader of the free world I think it's fair to assume that your specific wording in speeches is chosen for a reason and that any ambiguity is there because you meant it to be. If we have to debate what we think he meant then it's obviously ambiguous, no? So either he meant it to be ambiguous in order to incite the nut jobs or he didn't and it was terrible choice of wording highlighting Trumps lack of experience and ability. Neither of those choices seems very appealing.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.