Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Donald Trump Suggests Hillary Clinton Should Be Assassinated If Elected

"2nd amendment remedies" ala Sharron Angle?

Speaking to a crowd in Wilmington NC, Tuesday [8/9/2016], Trump expressed concern about Hillary Clinton possibly picking Supreme Court justices and other judges. He then said, "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's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Even Scarier Than You Think by David S. Cohen. 8/9/2016 Rolling Stone).

What the hell is it with these 2nd amendment enthusiasts threatening those who disagree with them with DEATH? And, yeah, that IS what Trump was implying. Later Trump said he meant that he was suggesting that 2nd amendment people should vote for him. But he was talking about AFTER Hillary is elected, so that lame-o excuse is BS.

As for why "Trump's assassination dog whistle was even scarier than you think", it's because someone might take his call to do something about it (stop HRC from appointing SCOTUS judges) seriously and literally.

it's really irrelevant what Trump actually meant, because enough people will hear Trump's comments and think he's calling for people to take up arms against Clinton, her judges or both. Though most of the people hearing that call may claim he was joking, given what we know about people taking up arms in this country, there will undoubtedly be some people who think he was serious and consider the possibility.

In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism. This is an obscure and non-legal term that has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half, and it applies with precision here. Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable".

Trump's comments, BTW, made in the context of his fearmongering re "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment". A claim that is utter bullpucky (PolitiFact rates it false).

Video: Remember when Trump said that Megyn Kelly "had blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever"? This is another example of Trump speaking without thinking. We knew then what he meant, even though he didn't spell it out. Just like we know now what he meant, even though he didn't spell it out. (Before: menstruation. Now: assassination)(0:43).

SWTD Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump, Gun Nuttery, Hillary Clinton.

PE: Donald Trump, the GOP Presidential Nominee, Went There Today (8/9/2016).

Disaffected: Trump calls for "Second Amendment People" to assassinate Hillary Clinton (8/9/2016).

RNUSA: GOP Presidential Canmdidate Goes Beyond Overboard (8/10/2016).

DSB #52

28 comments:

  1. Dumb statement by Trump. Extremely stupid in his wording. However his explanation is certainly plausible.

    The 'if Clinton gets to pick her judges' if hypothetical, possible only if she is elected. Trump was, as he said, speaking to 2'nd amendment rights advocates to encourage them ton vote for him as he would select pro firearm conservative judges.

    I very highly doubt Trump was suggesting assassination of Clinton. Trump has demonstrated time and time again his tendency to shoot ftom the hip and think later. A quality we can ill afford in the President of the United States.

    Trump may be wealthy but when it comes to politics and government he ain't to bright.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whether he meant it or not is not the real problem. The problem is that he said it, and "2nd amendment anything" is a dog whistle for a shooting solution.

    What if he , as president, said something stupid like that about using nukes against someone who insulted him, and they decided to strike first?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jerry is right. It was a dog whistle, whether he intended it to be or not. But he absolutely was talking about assassination.

    RN, Trump was addressing what could be done AFTER Hillary is elected (if she is). Then he said nothing could be done, well maybe "something" could be done. The "something" is assassination. If not he would have clarified right then what he was talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bow Wow then I guess. Each to his/her own views.

    His statement will cause no action to occur. Other than more declining support.

    Fine by me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump speaks without thinking. Remember the "bleeding out of her whatever" comment re Megyn Kelly? You knew what he was talking about with this comment (if I remember correctly).

      Delete
    2. Your opinion, not mine. You work your angles to defeat Trump. I'll work my truth to defeat Trump.

      Delete
    3. Correction... MY truth. Your angle.

      Delete
    4. THE truth isn't an angle. Bow wow wow, cock-a-doodle-do, the beat goes on, yakety yak don't talk back.

      Delete
  5. Dervish, I won't even pretend to read Trump's mind. And he can deny what he said all he wants. I don't think it can be explained or defended. 2nd Amendment = guns.
    He definitely doesn't think before he speaks. And yes, what he said about Megyn Kelly, disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trump meant Assassination, of course conservatives who long ago abandoned their so-called values, well spare no effort defending Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gene, like RN said, not all Conservatives are defending Trump and his stupidity.

      I am one of them.

      The Left doesn't like to be boxed in, and neither does the Right. We really need to judge people, individually, on their own merits, not the merits of two political parties that have gone off the rails.

      We need a viable 3rd party. Maybe then those of us who are rational and reasonable can get behind someone with common sense and concern for our country.

      Delete
    2. Pamela,

      I agree. I did notwrite ALL conservatives, I wrote conservatives who abandoned their so-called values. That you feel the need to add the #notallconservatives shows the dismal state of right-wing politics at this time. America needs real conservative values but, RWNJs have hijacked the party and most Republicans can't disavow Trump completely.

      Delete
  7. Correction... some conservatives abandoned their values, not all Grung_e_Gene.

    I know conservative who are NOT defending Trump's stupidity, unfitness for office, or his amazing lack of qualifications. I happen to be one, and a quite vocal one as well. But I guess unless you're all in with the progressive set it don't mean squat eh?

    At any rate the effort goes on to defeat Trump. In many folks cases it will be for the right reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN USA, I didn't type all conservatives, I referred to those who abandoned their so-called values. I believe in conservative ideals, it just so happens that the Republican Party and Right-Wing Nutjobs have hijacked conservatism and the majority of conservatives can't find it in themselves to disassociate.

      Delete
  8. Pamela, we need to get rid of some 3rd parties, IMO. The toxic ones, which would be the Libertarians and Teas. They exist to serve the interest of the Billionaires.

    RN, yes, we need progress. Toward increased democratic socialism. Specifically the Nordic model which has been so successful in that part of the world. Hopefully the Bernie revolution (which continues) will get us there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dervish, the Democratic party is for the Billionaires too. Don't let them fool you. They will "say" they are for the middle-class and poor, but they are laughing all the way to the bank.

      Neither party is for the people anymore. They are for themselves. I've been saying this for almost a decade now. And until we the people hold EVERY public officials' feet to the fire, so to speak, there will be no change and they will just get worse.

      Delete
    2. I'm not fooled. I was responding to your 3rd party comment. Yes, the 2 main parties have been corrupted by big money. The Republicans much more, IMO. But the Democrats too. Bill Clinton's "new democrat" or "3rd way" marked the turning point. It is when the Dems went corporate. We've still got the Progressive caucus however. And I'm hopeful that the Bernie revolution will lead to more change in the Right direction. Once Hillary is elected keeping the fire to her feet will be key. She is not the ideal candidate, however (I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary). Bernie is for the people (and one of the poorest members of Congress).

      Delete
  9. Given our two party system, I'm not sure a viable third party is even possible, at least on a national scale. It occasionally works locally, but even then not very well. I think there is a better chance for responsible conservatives to regain control of the Republican Party that has been stolen from them.

    To be a viable third party, you have to become one of the top two parties, which means you are no longer a third party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jerry, I absolutely agree that we Conservatives need to reclaim our party. The Republican party is off the rails. It's establishment all the way, which is wrong. It should be for the people.

      Delete
  10. Replies
    1. I thought you were a fan of the Founders. You want to do away with the system they designed? I don't know how that would come about. Plan on participating in a revolution, RN? Maybe if Trump is "elected" it will happen.

      Delete
  11. I'd prefer to fix the system the founders gave us, but, I think it may br beyond repair.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One might say, and I am only suggesting, that the system we now have is the system that the founders envisioned. For the most part, they were members of the elite. They excluded women. They considered blacks as only a fraction of whites. For the most part, they wanted power concentrated within their economic class.

      How's that working now?

      Is it really fixable? Half of the people don't vote, and half, if not more, of the voting people support the current system controlled by the elite.

      The fact that someone like Trump can become the presidential candidate of one of the two major political parties shows just how far off the tracks our current system, the system our founders created, has gone.

      Delete
  12. All things IMO should be considered within the context of their time. So, for me, ths also apples to the founders. Suffice to say there was disagreement among the founders on the very items you mentioned. Had the document that created the USA been as drafted as we see things today Jerry there likely would never have been the USA.

    And then along came Lincoln.... and the women's suffrage movement... and the civil rights movement... and the LINT movement... to name a few.

    I doubt the founders would be supporting Trump Jerry were they alive in our time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I also doubt that many, if any, would be supporting Trump, but many would be supporting the "one percent".

    ReplyDelete
  14. Perhaps. But maybe conjecture? There are two certainties. Taxes snd death.

    And, hopefully Trump's likly loss is a certainty as well.

    ReplyDelete

Unfortunately comment moderation is necessary in order to screen out insanity from an idiot calling himself "Luke" of the "Words And Music" (a liar who has made bogus accusations that many others are stealing his posts) as well as homophobic hate from TOM of the blog "Stay A While" (actually the same person).