Trump and the “Second Amendment people”
So Donald Trump has done it again—this time he’s handed the opposition ammunition (pun intended) to accuse him of the basest of political dog whistles: encouraging the assassination of Hillary Clinton.
I’m going to get this out of the way first: I think Trump was joking. I don’t think he sat down and thought “I’m going to say something to encourage people to shoot Clinton, and I’ll cloak it in an offhand aside.” I think he just thought he was being cute.
Trump’s tendency to give lengthy extemporaneous speeches (and/or to add many ad-libs to his rarer set speeches) is something he’s been doing all year. And so we’ve gotten used to it, perhaps forgetting what an odd phenomenon it is for a politician in this day and age, when they tend to be tightly scripted and tightly controlled. After all, the MSM is gunning for them (pun intended)—particularly the Republicans, that is—and a politician can’t be too careful.
Trump is the opposite of too careful. That’s one of the things his followers love about him. He’s like a jazz musician, riffing on his favorite themes. He draws energy from the laughter and appreciation of the adoring crowds who regularly turn out for him, and you can see his delight in their delight at an especially bold improv.
So maybe this remark was that. Maybe it was a bad joke about assassination. Or maybe it was actually more innocuous than that. But one thing I do know is that Trump’s method of political address sets him up for such ambiguous, easily misunderstood, poorly-constructed and/or impulsive and controversial statements.
Here’s the actual quote. In it, Trump was talking about what would happen if Hillary Clinton got to choose SCOTUS justices:
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” he said as an aside while smiling. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
The interpretation of what he meant rides on what you think about those last two sentences and what they refer to. “Second Amendment people” is pretty clear; it has to refer to those who support gun rights. “Maybe there is, I don’t know” has to mean that perhaps there’s something those people (gun rights people) can do about Hillary getting to pick her judges—assassination, lobbying or other political pressure from the NRA, voting for Trump as president, what? And the next sentence, “that will be a horrible day,” could certainly be interpreted as referring to the “horrible day” of her assassination by those “Second Amendment people.” Or it could be interpreted as referring to the “horrible day” that Hillary’s hand-picked judges “abolish the Second Amendment” if those “Second Amendment people” don’t elect Trump.
Trump and his aides say he meant the latter. And it’s possible that’s even true:
The Trump campaign rejected the notion that Trump was inciting violence against Clinton or anyone else with his aside at the Wilmington rally. Instead, the campaign said the Manhattan billionaire was simply appealing to the collective political muscle Second Amendment supporters possess.
“It’s called the power of unification ”“ 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” Trump’s senior communications adviser Jason Miller said in a statement emailed to POLITICO. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”
With any other candidate, it would be obvious that he or she didn’t mean assassination, but meant political pressure instead. The MSM would still try to spin it otherwise if it was said by the GOP candidate, whoever it might be. But people probably would be less likely to buy that interpretation than they are with Donald Trump doing the talking. Trouble is, Trump has said so many impulsive and almost reckless things that the accusation becomes far more plausible when it’s about something he says.
His ad-lib speaking style makes Trump popular with a lot of people because it gives him an uncanned and spontaneous quality, which people interpret as telling it like it is. He’s rarely boring. His style guarantees coverage, too, and that’s part of how he won the primaries. But the downside for Trump—and it’s a big one—is that he is impulsive and extreme and also sometimes disjointed in what he says and how he says it, and it makes him especially vulnerable to charges that he’s said something even worse than what he may have actually intended, and we often don’t know what he actually intended. What’s more, his personality is such that people believe the worst of him.
Everyone here knows how much I detest Trump. But I always try to be fair in looking at what he says (or what anyone says, for that matter). I can’t read his mind; I don’t know what he meant. No one else, does, either, and his words were ambiguous. and so Trump (in the words of our current president, writing a while back about himself) “serves as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
[NOTE: Speaking of what our current president said during his campaign, remember bringing the gun to the knife fight? It didn’t matter with Obama, because his surface demeanor is such that people were inclined to give the most benign and metaphoric interpretation to what he said.]
It’s fairly common to hear variants of “bringing a gun to a knife fight”. It would be hard to describe that as a specific threat.
As for me, when I heard Trump’s comments, I assumed he was talking about shooting the judicial nominees.
Just remember, the media is antagonistic toward Trump and will show him in the worst possible light while being obsequious toward Clinton. Every time the media picks up on the latest Trumpism, IMO they appear to have less and less credibility. We will find out in November just how long the American public is willing to allow them to “cry wolf.”
“. . . remember bringing the gun to the knife fight? It didn’t matter with Obama, because his surface demeanor is such that people were inclined to give the most benign and metaphoric interpretation to what he said.”[Neo]
I disagree. Obama was never called to task for the IRS weaponizing, for Fast and Furious, etc., etc. I submit that it had less to do with his demeanor and very very much to do with the same obsequious press willing to cover for him. My local phraseology is (pardon the language) that the press has its collective head so far up Obama’s and Hillary’s ass that the only time they see daylight is when one of them opens their mouth to speak.
On an unrelated note, if anyone doubts why Hillary needs to be denied the oval office–even to the distasteful extent of having Trump in her place (because it will be one or the other), see this bullet point from Instapundit:
First the State Dept is put up for sale, then the country itself. By the time she’s done our enemies will be picking the last of the meat from the bones of our national corpse. IMO (and yes, it is my opinion) there is just no room this election cycle for the displacement activity of voting for a Johnson, Stein, or McMullin.
The Instapundit link is to the NY Post:
http://nypost.com/2016/08/09/emails-reveal-hillarys-shocking-pay-for-play-scheme/
A new day, a new news cycle, and Trump is doing the same thing, “stepping on the rake.” Could have said…., should have said…., what he really meant was… It is the Trump effect.
It is a sad day indeed when the only hope for Trump supporters of all stripes is that a leak, or whatever, comes out that Hillary has done something new that is so utterly monstrous and destructive to the country, that it will outdo whatever Trump has done to himself.
I further recommend today’s post from Thomas Lifson over at American Thinker:
The Link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/trump_successfully_baits_media_into_hysteria_again.html#ixzz4GwbZmAAv
. . . and Ann Althouse’s post on Elizabeth Warren’s Tweet regarding Trump’s statement.
The link (scroll down to 9:01 am):
http://althouse.blogspot.com/
The media will always interpret what he says to his detriment. Unlike Nick, I don’t interpret it that way.
I think you have the right of it neo with one caveat.
I suspect that Trump was also referring to the consequence of a Clinton activist Court managing to effectively eviscerate the 2nd amendment.
That consequence of such a ruling would be to establish that we have no “unalienable rights”, as to be a “right”, they must be irrevocable, as otherwise they are merely revocable privileges. I.E. like a driver’s license…
That ruling would place those who assert that the constitution effectively declares there to be unalienable rights (Bill of Rights) with the only recourse to redress of grievance being either, a new Constitutional amendment or armed rebellion.
Acceptance of their loss means the rule of men and tyranny. A new Constitutional amendment may be achievable but increasingly unlikely as the Left increases its voter rolls. Plus, those parties willing to deny inherent rights will not voluntarily cooperate with any process that might restore those rights.
The argument for armed civil conflict extends from the premise that denial of irrevocable rights is unconstitutional and any attempt to deny our unalienable rights by officials bound by their oaths of office to that very constitution, unarguably amounts to treason and the imposition of tyranny.
“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.” Abraham Lincoln
Consciously or not, Trump is warning America that the election of Hillary Clinton may well lead to civil war.
I remember going to the Saturday afternoon matinee at around age 11. A favorite theme for the movies shown was the cub reporter getting the story that made the front page. Presciently, crooked politicians often were the subject of the story. This morning I read this:
“WOW! BREAKING=> Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich — Who Was MURDERED in DC — Was Wikileaks DNC Source!”
I’m no journalist, but in reading the details at:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/
I see the elements of a great story. Assange is a well-known and credible newsmaker (good source) unsolved murder with no apparent motive -until now. Connection to current Presidential campaign. Expected additional contributors to Wikileaks in danger.
I could go on, but if I am an honest news editor isn’t there enough here for at least a “what’s up with that?” story? Instead, something like this will happen:
‘Oh wait, we’ll have to spike it. Who would have the most likely motive for ordering this “hit”. Wrong team, guys. Just put something together on Assange being crazy, you know the drill. Check the file we have been developing to discredit him if he gets more stuff on Hillary. Too bad. Would have been a great story. If only Rich had snitched on Trump.’
Think I am off the mark? Watch NBC News tonight. Check the NYT. Crickets.
Trump is so, so vague and ambiguous in his speeches he leaves himself open to attack. That’s how he will lose the undecided 20% unless he turns it around quick.
He needs to focus on Hillary’s corruption, terrorism and the economy. That’s it.
Seth Rich was from Omaha. I’ve known his family for 40 years. He was Jewish. He might have been upset at the DNC’s treatment of Bernie. Great family.
For what it’s worth, here’s how I understood the last two sentences: if Hillary gets her way and abolished the Second Amendment, the gun owners could react violently. If they do, that will be a bad day.
I say this as someone who is not a fan of Trump, but who thinks he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt like everyone else.
Unless I am mistaken this is a turning point that blows past my previous whining about the press:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/09/media-justify-anti-trump-bias-claim-hes-too-dangerous-for-normal-rules.html
Whatever Trump says, which typically is imprecise at best and often contradicted or walked back his enablers, allows many to pour their own views and wishes as gloss and polish. An improvement, clarification, whatever. But under it all there is still Trump in his magnificence.
“With any other candidate, it would be obvious that he or she didn’t mean assassination, but meant political pressure instead.”
Any other candidate wouldn’t have said it, or would’ve said it much clearer. The media would’ve tried to make hay of it anyway, but when they have to reach for it, it discredits them more than the candidate.
There is no compromise with the Trump position because what his supporters like, many other people detest. The best you can do is claim that he meant something else, which is impossible to know.
As I said yesterday, this attitude is fostered by the hyperbole and hysterics that THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE! Under that rubric, critics aren’t just wrong, they’re evil.
P.S. When a candidate is running a successful campaign, supporters don’t have to constantly explain “what he really meant,” and they don’t keep offering advice about what he should or ought to do.
Trump is not running a successful campaign.
And when both sides are hoping for Julian Assange to drop his Hillary leak or Trump leak as an October surprise, who is the “winner?” China, Russia, or Iran? You decide.
I don’t expect anybody but the most naive actually believe the MSM’s reporting on what Trump said or meant.
Many know the MSM lies and they know they lie themselves.
But, I suspect, they think it’s a good thing to lie about Trump because someplace out there somebody who talks about being concerned with whatever actually, actually, and really THINKS IT’S TRUE.
Everybody knows the media are shills for the democrats. They are corrupt, dishonest and long ago turned themselves into Pravda for the democrats. No matter what Trump says the media are going to savage him.
I have a little different take. Just like his (mis)statement about women being punished for having abortions, Trump doesn’t say what “Second Amendment people” think, he says what liberals think that gun people think.
IOW, he himself is neither pro-life nor a “Second Amendment” person, he’s just a liberal playing the role of one. Which says to me that he’ll sell out either of these positions without blinking when it comes time for him to “make a great deal” with the congressional Democrats.
My mother is a great example of the media’s influence:
She KNOWS they’re dishonest, but thinks she can weed out the lies…that she can “handle” the propaganda. Because of this belief, she willingly exposes herself to it (NPR in the car, PBS sometimes on TV, Fox News which Dad watches obsessively, etc.). She may even catch most of it.
But she can’t catch all of it, and the most insidious parts seep in around the edges of reason. They color your emotional perceptions and reactions.
Mom is wrong about being able to handle the propaganda, and her belief that she’s better than a lot of “stupid Americans” is mistaken. I assume she’s in the exact same boat as most of them.
This is why I don’t watch most media.
It doesn’t matter what Trump meant, once the larger issue that he, however unintentionally and/or clumsily, exposed.
What will Americans do when they realize that an activist, liberal/leftist SCOTUS has effectively ruled that, Americans no longer have irrevocable rights and henceforth, only revocable privileges? And, when they realize that those privileges are subject to revision and revocation at the whim of the ‘majority’ and the dictates of demagogues?
When they realize that amnesty and “a path to citizenship” has permanently disenfranchised them?
Finally, when they realize that their only choice is whether to fight or learn to live on their knees?
“There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish, than live as slaves.” – Winston Churchill, “The Gathering Storm.”
Some may say that this will never happen in America. That is wishful thinking because if the left wins, it has to happen, as collectivist movements are unsustainable without ever greater control and suppression.
It would be very hard to make a plausible case that Trump is running an effective campaign in terms of the general election. When we look at what he has to run against, we wonder how this could be so hard. All he has to start doing is to make everything about her, not him. At least that’s what it looks like to us, through our filter in receiving our trusted word on what’s happening in the world today. We’re obsessives on the subject, in case you hadn’t noticed.
This is easier said than done. The megaphone, the measuring stick, and the deep state all belong to the Trump opposition. Before he was the nominee, I was also part of the Trump opposition. Voting for Trump will be like eating a bug. Don’t ask me what voting for Hillary would be like.
All that said, don’t forget that America at large gets far more accurate reporting on what happens in sports that it does in politics because it cares a great deal more about it. I’ll be glad when it’s all done. I’m not quite sure of anything else, but of that I am sure.
My aversion to Trump is well known in this space, but I don’t think he was dog-whistling or giving any kind of verbal secret-handshake instructions to his followers. I think he was just doing what he always does, vamping. And I also agree with Matt that he talks often not about his own beliefs but as a liberal who is trying to sound like what he thinks a conservative would say. (the most famous example of this was when he took a few days to disavow the KKK)
Watch a candidate – their mistakes will be the same mistakes they make in office. Trump is WAY to loose with his words. He doesn’t understand the power that a President’s words have. He really needs to work on this. All the more because (as many have pointed out) the press is out to get him.
I think Trump is consumed with hubris, and that’s why he thinks he can say whatever he wants and that’s why he’s not running any ads. He’s running, frankly, a really cr@ppy campaign and if he doesn’t turn it around this thing’s over.
I don’t think he’s going to turn it around. Trump is Trump and he ain’t changing.
My first hope right now is the completely unrealistic dropping out of Trump and replacement by someone else (even Pence). The second is a complete fantasy – I don’t know who originated this but it’s the wish that Trump and HRC drop out, Obama resign, Uncle Joe takes the reigns, and we sleep this off for the next four years.
A *slightly* more realistic scenario that – at this point – I could go for. HRC wins, and makes a real hash out of a lot of things for the next two years, but doesn’t permanently cripple the country. She only nominates one SC justice and is so bad at swaying the masses that she has to put up a compromise nominee. The Republicans (miraculously) actually mount a loyal opposition, sweep the 2018 midterms, and then actually impeach her. Her VP (I forget his name) takes over and gets nicely walloped in 2020. We elect an actual Constitution believing conservative then, who has the side qualities of being a) boring b) competent c) frugal d) boring.
Could happen. . . right?
Trump is inarticulate to the extent that he is hurting any chance of conservatism winning.
This is reminiscent of the kerfuffle over the Sarah Palin bulls eyes on maps, which targeted certain districts for electing GOP representatives. These were blamed for the shooting of Gabby Giffords by a deranged gunman.
For details see here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/palin-staffer-nothing-irrespon.html
If you talk about guns, the Second Amendment, targeting, or anything that can be interpreted the wrong way by the anti-gun people, it will be taken that way by the MSM. This is just more of their continuing efforts to curb free speech. Approved speech is what they say it is, period!
Bringing a gun to a knife fight is okay, if a progressive says it. Period! And, if you are a conservative or a Second Amendment supporter, don’t you forget it!
Kimberley Strassel, a Wall Street Journal writer has written a book that’s just out. Titled “The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech,” it describes the tactics they use by citing many cases where they use intimidation to silence people. This has become a real problem in this country and is nowhere more evident than in the present campaign.
Neo:
Analogy
Trump = Abusive battering husband
Republican Party/USA = battered wife
Threats – Violence at the convention if I’m (Trump)denied
– Violence (System rigged)
– Second Amendment
– Illegal Immigration
And of course the enablers in the “family”
The conflation of abortion rites and human rights is cause for concern. The Second Amendment does not recognize the right of People to commit abortion for trivial causes including social justice adventurism and to terminate unwanted or inconvenient human lives. The abortion chambers and Sanger’s clinics loom over Democrats’ past, present, and future.
The Tell-Tale Hearts beat ever louder.
“one thing I do know is that Trump’s method of political address sets him up for such ambiguous, easily misunderstood, poorly-constructed and/or impulsive and controversial statements” – Neo
trump thrives on ambiguity… one thing he HAS mastered is saying things that can be interpreted many ways. It is very much up to the listener how to take it. It is often how he grabs media attention.
For trump, it does the job he wants, and none of his critics can say he actually said the things they “hear”.
For all the haranguing about how trump “speaks the truth”, the reality is he is not one to mean what he says, and say what he means.
Par for the course on trump, really.
“I suspect that Trump was also referring to the consequence of a Clinton activist Court managing to effectively eviscerate the 2nd amendment. “
Ah, yea right, that’s what trump was referring to with his ambiguous “joke”.
Case in point.
Nailing him down on just what he’s going to do if he were president (the big issue) has the same problem as his “joke”.
trump supporters assume all kinds of things positive (without much evidence, if any) and can see no wrong because…. well, “Hillary!!!” – that’s all one is supposed to need to know.
So, “benefit of the doubt” on trump? If it were one, or a small handful over the course of his 12 month + campaign, sure. How many in a long stream of such examples does it take before one has to think he actively courts these boundaries intentionally?
He may be undisciplined and inarticulate on policy and rationale, but he sure knows how to calibrate comments like this one for his needs. We can give him that.
I see too many people going along with the Democratic Talking Point that this election is all about Trump. Whomever the Republicans put up against Hillary had to end up being [fill in the worst thing that could ever be] and lose. Was this not “baked in the cake” before the Republicans even got started? Well, I think it’s important that you think on this and decide. Wouldn’t Ted Cruz be just as dangerous to the [liberal future of America] at this point in the race? Can you get over the fantasy that you can vote this year for someone you like, respect and admire? If you cannot, the Democrats and the media will certainly give you a rationalization to allow you to let Hillary be elected. Aren’t you better than that? And if you could vote for that likeable, respected candidate, would they or would they not sell you out after the election? That is how I see this election.
“This is reminiscent of the kerfuffle over the Sarah Palin bulls eyes on maps, which targeted certain districts for electing GOP representatives.” – JJ
Palin, during that campaign, didn’t have a history of doing these types of things to the extent anywhere like trump, so there exists miles more latitude in giving her the benefit of the doubt.
The left were very clearly stretching to attach some sort of blame on the GOP for the shooting. The bulls eye image was their conveniently handy solution to that vs a reaction to her campaign publishing that in the first place.
Sounds like a perfect description of Obama’s “blank slate” comment. Is the same game afoot, perhaps?
“The left were very clearly stretching to attach some sort of blame on the GOP . . . .”
They still are stretching only its become much more obvious to everyone now. Did anyone see any such blowback to Will Smith’s comment about cleansing Trump from our country?
“Sounds like a perfect description of Obama’s “blank slate” comment. Is the same game afoot, perhaps?”
The two campaigns are very similar, I think, for the reason you state above. Obama just had a LOT more message discipline and personal discipline than is natural to Trump.
I think I’ve established my anti-Trump bona fides here. Nonetheless when I first read that quote I didn’t get the uproar.
I parsed it as “If Hillary packs the Court with her judges, there’s no stopping her from gutting the Second Amendment. But on second thought organized Second Amendment groups are powerful and might be able to do more than individual citizens.”
Trump’s extemporaneous speaking style leaves much to be desired. To my ears he sounds like a barely third-rate intelligence.
Leaving that aside, the problem is another precious campaign day for Trump to put forth his agenda and hammer Hillary has been lost. Instead the news cycle focuses on whether Trump is covertly suggesting a gun rights supporter might shoot Hillary.
Given his other incautious remarks about shooting someone on 5th Avenue and bailing out Trump supporters who beat up protesters at rallies, it’s easy to put such doubts into the minds of voters.
“Did anyone see any such blowback to Will Smith’s comment about cleansing Trump from our country?”
No, but to be fair, it’s a lot different when the comment comes from a private citizen than when it comes from the nominee for the most powerful office on earth. That’s why message discipline is so needed by the Trump campaign.
Bill,
As most people, I realize the difference between a private citizen and a nominee, but that prompts the comparison with Sarah Palin.
Not only was she savaged for most things she said as a nominee, she was also savaged for most things she said or did as a private citizen. The dividing line exists in the media for the Democrats and the left but anything, even families and children, are fair game when the right or the Republicans are the target; to be fair, that is.
BTW, I’m not arguing against message discipline here. I, for one, believe that it would help exponentially.
A lot of average citizens out there don’t understand the importance of that court. I mean, the death of Scalia saved labor from a terrible decision,” [Dem Senate candidate] Strickland said at the Monday event.
“And I don’t wish anyone ill, but it happened at a good time . . . .”
Media Blowback? Crickets much.
QED
The link:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/290983-dem-candidate-scalias-death-happened-at-a-good-time
T,
The way Palin was treated as a candidate was beyond the pale. certainly. Mainly because the MSM went after her family/children.
Is it news to Trump supporters that the media is terribly biased against Republicans?
Trump supporters go on about how much they hated Romney for not fighting. Well they are getting their wish with Trump. We can now see the pitfalls when a Republican candidate just shoots off his mouth when the media is so obviously hostile to Republicans — however satisfying it might be for the true believers.
I’ll be surprised if Trump doesn’t lose worse than Romney, even though Trump faces Hillary, a far weaker candidate, and Trump has the no-third-term advantage.
This election was for Republicans to lose. Looks like we found the candidate who can manage that job handily.
And now all I’m hearing from Trump supporters is that the most important thing in the world is to beat Hillary.
Instapundit bullet point:
Again, antagonistic vs. obsequious. I think I should stop now.
“I think I should stop now.”
Well, I think pointing out MSM bias can be worthwhile but at the end of the day, complaining about MSM bias is like suggesting that the polls are wrong. It’s what losing campaigns do.
Trump needs to/needed to reach out to people like me (conservatives who he hasn’t sold himself to yet), he needs to/needed to broaden his appeal (something I thought he would do and, frankly, was afraid he would do because while I never bought into Scott Adams’ “5th dimensional chess master persuader schtick, I believe Trump to be a pretty persuasive con-man and his opponent is so weak).
If his campaign is reduced to complaining how the media interprets his gaffes and offenses, he’s already done.
Why isn’t he running any ads, btw?
On another note, early on there was a theory that Bill Clinton had a meeting with Trump and convinced him to run. If this ever proves to be true, and Trump continues down this path to defeat, Bill Clinton will be – by far – *the* political genius of the last 70 years.
Bill,
“The way Palin was treated as a candidate was beyond the pale. certainly. Mainly because the MSM went after her family/children.”
. . . and that is precisely my point. One expects the right to fight the left while obeying the rules of decency; but for the left such rules do not exist. IMO an attitude of ” But we’re better than they are” will not stop Hillary Clinton with the media wind behind her. (see Romney, McCain, Dole)
So the left makes a big deal out of a Trump comment and what does the right do? Why, they criticize Trump, of course.
I hope I’ve made clear that I am not a Trump hagiographer. Having said that, I think the man’s staying power is nothing short of remarkable. Trump is running a campaign against the media, against Hillary and even against many Republicans, and while one may argue about whether he is winning or not, he seems, at least for the moment, to be holding his own. If Walker, Rubio or Jeb Bush had made these same mistakes (or even lesser mistakes), the election would already be over.
I, too, would like to see some sort of breakthrough for the right, though, since I have made clear my belief that Clinton must be stopped at any cost.
If a Dem would have said the exact same thing the press would have said … they meant to get out and VOTE to stop whatever.
This is nothing about nothing BUT why are we even talking about on a “conservative” blog?
You would call this a conservative leaning blog … correct?
Matt_SE “The media would’ve tried to make hay of it anyway, but when they have to reach for it, it discredits them more than the candidate.” Only in the eyes of the already convinced conservatives. For the left, from the LIV to the hardcore ideologue, no discrediting whatsoever.
When I read the remarks, my opinion was that he was talking about voting and lobbying.
What I see is the violence by those on the left. I don’t hear of a conservative attacking someone wearing a Hillary or Bernie shirt, but I have heard about incidents about someone wearing Trump shirt. A lot of people are not putting up signs or bumper stickers because of the attacks.
I saw a piece during the conventions where someone wore a Hillary shirt in Cleveland and then a Trump shirt in Philly.There were significant differences in reactions. I think the Rs were polite and the Ds were very nasty with verbal and physical attacks.
Donald now has the Secret Service asking him about his comments. This is what a steep learning curve looks like, or possibly a flat spin (flying) applied to media and politics.
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/08/10/breaking-secret-service-talked-trump-second-amendment-solution-hillary/
” For the left, from the LIV to the hardcore ideologue, no discrediting whatsoever.” [Sharon W @ 3:56]
Sharon,
I don’t disagree with that at all but I think you miss the target here.
Those on the left have already dedicated themselves to not vote for Trump anyway. Discrediting the media is not going to change that.
The real target is the independent voters who would probably not vote for Trump, but at some point begin to see an absolutely despicable one-sided media treatment of him with essentially a cover-up of Hillary and might cast a vote because of that.
The other segment which is target rich are those people (many lower economic, non-college educated blue-collar people) who mostly sit out elections because “Democrats, Republicans, there all the same anyway.” Get these people angry enough at the way the media condescends to them (or one of theirs), add them to the independent voters you motivate and you have increased turnout.
see Liz’s comment above @ 4:04 as one example of what I’m referring to. The left doesn’t care, but the independent voters and blue-collar voters are hearing these stories, too.
‘Or it could be interpreted as referring to the “horrible day” that Hillary’s hand-picked judges “abolish the Second Amendment” if those “Second Amendment people” don’t elect Trump.’
This is a more complicated explanation though, which also requires the belief that Trump missed the first interpretation.
The thing is, instead of making convoluted explanations, Trump should admit it along with, “Hey, can’t you take a joke? What are you a liberal or something?”. That would sound much more normal and isn’t that the whole point of his campaign?
Re the so-called “threat” by Trump — anybody remember the books, Broadway play, and, IIRC, movie about the assassination of George W?
Exactly right, Neo-Neo. Hasn’t Trump used “I don’t know” several times, inviting hearers to complete the thought? He appears not to have wised up to the fact that the press will respond to the open invitation with the most uncharitable construal possible.
Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people–maybe there is, I don’t know.
Whatever Trump intended with that “nothing you can do, folks” followed by “maybe there is” by gun owners, I think the people hearing that at his rally didn’t think he was talking about direct mail campaigns and the like with that “something”.
Take a look at the reaction of the man with a white beard in the red shirt (around the 1:00 mark) behind Trump when Trump made that statement. He clearly doesn’t think Trump’s talking about Second Amendment folks doing prosaic political action stuff.
So the immediate flipback question that should be shoved front and center into any discussion with anybody outraged over this:
Why shouldn’t 2nd amendment people – many of whom have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution with their lives so as to secure the continued rule of law as opposed to the rule of man – contemplate violent over-throw of a criminally opportunistic administration?
Why should anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms not defend the nation against those parties hell-bent on withholding any or all of the Constitutional rights from those they disagree with so as to control the levers of governance for their own end as has been demonstrated by the left for decades?
The people feigning outrage are practicing battle space preparation in a war that is rapidly intensifying and if they’re not stopped now with vigorous debate the butchers bill will be of biblical if not 20th Century autocratic proportions.
@Ann – I think you hit it.
A lot of the trump supporters here are desperately trying to make it about media bias with their lengthy explanations (like we don’t know that exists).
OR, they argue from whole cloth that trump really meant something else, when it was anything but clear that is so.
Both are diversions.
The reality is it is ambiguous enough to be clear to people like the white bearded man in red, yet be half way plausible as a claim that it was vaguely about something else.
Bad joke or not, it is trump being trump. He rides that line. He just cannot help himself. He has no discipline. No focus.
That ambiguity extends to his governing philosophy and policy – just what the h*ll is he going to do if elected – still waiting for some clarity.
NOBODY KNOWS!
But somehow, whatever it is, it must be better than clinton!
I just read the comment before I came here, but I didn’t interpret it as a threat. This whole thing made me roll my eyes. I’d be shocked if regular people took it as a threat. If anything, it makes me think that the press just won’t stop in their non-stop hyper-ventilating attacks. (Sure, he deserves some of it, and he brings a lot of it on himself, but the MSM goes overboard.)
Richard Saunders:
Trump is the one behind, doesn’t seem to be capable of learning that he isn’t in primary land any more (it ain’t Kansas Toto) with FOX to cover for him.
People here know all about HRCs horribles, and project and predict what she will do, but Trump is pretty much giving her a glide path to victory. If the polls are to be believed, the public fears Trump and discounts HRCs history.
What ought to have happened to HRC, with the FBI etc, didn’t. Hoping for a more damaging leak from Assange may be clutching at straws, DJT being what he is.
This is another one of Trumps shoot from the hip comments he used to make earlier on where wer’re not supposed to know what he was really talking about. Another “blood coming from where-ever” comment I believe Trump thinks he’s being cute when he says things like that, but Im pretty sure its not going to add anymore followers than he already has.
And the next sentence, “that will be a horrible day,” could certainly be interpreted as referring to the “horrible day” of her assassination by those “Second Amendment people.” Or it could be interpreted as referring to the “horrible day” that Hillary’s hand-picked judges “abolish the Second Amendment” if those “Second Amendment people” don’t elect Trump.
HRC is protected by the SS. Armed militia and resistance cells would not target the head in 4th generational warfare, but the judge candidates and lawyers themselves. No lawyers, no judges. No judges, no SC picks.
Trum, however, shouldn’t be talking about this because if anyone is going to get killed, it would be him, under Hussein or HRC’s regime.
Hillary Clinton made a pretty similar statement when she was behind Obama in their 2008 primary battle.
See,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=0
That May 2008 statement was no mere off-the-cuff aside by Hillary Clinton, it was a remark practiced by her. See, https://web.archive.org/web/20080724072603/http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html
where Hillary made almost the identical statement 2 months earlier to Time Magazine:
See also,
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-rfk-comment/
I agree with T @ August 10th, 2016 at 11:14 am
and
I agree with Geoffrey Britain @ August 10th, 2016 at 11:55 am
and partly agree with Cornhead @August 10th, 2016 at 12:05 pm
Trump is so, so vague and ambiguous in his speeches he leaves himself open to attack. That’s how he will lose the undecided 20% unless he turns it around quick.
I would have agreed if you reversed it and put the onus on the elite who have to really think hard to twist around PLAIN SPEAK which the average joe they are so disconnected from, understands readily and doesnt think twice about even worse rhetorical speech by people they see almost every day on the trains, busses, busy street, etc. Heck, the average person is so used to this speech they are the first to be surprised when someone says such stuff and then acts on it, as they pretty much always assume its trying to be impactful or show how much you feel or some such.
The other part of being normal every day plain speak people is to also not blame the speaker for the actions of others. No court accepts that words are justification for much of anything other than words in response. blaming the speaker in this case is the same as blaming a woman for a miniskirt that got her raped. its the mode of thinking that they have been trying to eradicate, yet does not go away, does it.
The third and last part of this is that this is also the game with politically correct speech, the idea is to blame the speaker rather than the person doing the actual act, and by doing, control the speaker because the person who would do what the speaker said, is not present, is unknown, and might not even exist. its a way to control the dialogue by telling another that they will be held responsible for the actions of an unknown other if they dont speak a certain way… how else can you undo freedom of speech by other means?
of course the first refuge for this is that you cant yell fire in a movie theater, but the difference is huge. Fire is an expletive that is understood can signal danger, and spread a course of action during a situation that can be time sensitive to less than a second making all the difference. Any time anyone says “i wish somone would shoot that idiot”, its not an expletive, and its not part of those universal signals, and is very much understood not to be something acted on at all.
the sick part is that they have us living as if we are sick, and have gotten us to try to always imagine what a sick mind would think of to avoid stimulating a sick mind by saying something inducing. we see boys jumping on a couch in underwear, we worry its pedophilistic. why? because we try to imagine if a pedophile would like it, and if so, we must then dispose of it, as we now had to think like a pedophile to imagine what one would like. we cant go thorugh life without adopting the various mental disorders of mankind by imagination just so we can speak. we cant loo at images and things without first searching our personal deviant models for potential pleasure that is wrong, and then can only like what passes the gauntlet. no wonder why so much art is either abstract and offensive to no one, or its offensive to the unfavored and so its offense is ignored, as are the unfavored regard for it. which is why we have piss christ, and no piss koran. one is art, the other is a hate crime.
Bill Says: August 10th, 2016 at 2:29 pm: I believe Trump to be a pretty persuasive con-man and his opponent is so weak
Is there such a thing as an honest con man, and if i made the case for such, would one believe that the skill of persuasion and salesmanship thats on even when deals are not being made, does not mean anyone gets cheated.
When i was younger i had a side job helping design magic for the stage for a company. It was fun beause of the mix of engineering, and how you had to know how minds worked to make the engineering work. whats even more interesting is you also had to know that knowlege does not change biology, though the knowlege of biology can help one adapt to the biological effect. we like to think that if we know something, it no longer works. which might be true if thoughts were programs, which they are not, and if the effect was not the input to the thought. IF you dont believe, then look up the McGurk Effect. Try The McGurk Effect! – Horizon: Is Seeing Believing? – BBC Two https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 they discuss at the end how knowing the effect does not change or stop it from happening. (to those engineers out there, there is no feedback from knowlege to the effect generator. this is true of pretty much all illusions, though many of them we really dont stop the effect, we just adapt to it or knowlege of it and claim a post event correction is the same as negation, which it isnt. ask any lawyer about statements the jury is supposed to disregard)
anyway, i learned that a magician is an honest con man. MANY of the skills of magicians can be used in crime and often are, especially close up magic. madoff was a dishonest con man, but David Copperfield – $800 million dollars came honestly. not because he is an entertainer, he is a con man who chose to entertain you with the cons, not con people. A magician basically says, come to my place, i will trick you many many times and do it openly so it seems amazing, and i will walk away with a fee for doing so that you gladly part with for being tricked so many times.
To some, the theater is grift… but thats a whole other subject…
AND Bill Says: Why isn’t he running any ads, btw?
Well, that depends on whether you know election law about running advertisements.
http://www.rab.com/public/political/2016PoliticalHandbook.pdf
if a candidate wants air time, they can negotiate that at some rate that is agreed upon. once this negotiation happens, then the other candidate gets equal opportunity to match that time at the station’s lowest unit charge. From what i understand, unless i get the rule wrong, the one negotiating first pays full price, while the next up pays the lowest possible price. This rule and others also kind of makes things time sensitive in that a station cant offer a candidate as much time as they want so as not to appear to favor them, and not to have the other candidate step up and they not having time available for them too.
Its actually very clever since the rate hillary would be charged would be prime rate, while news items for bombastic speech and attention are not paid for, and so are not counted towards political advertising. in this way, hillary with all her money, would find it very hard to saturate markets due to price and lack of will on stations part in terms of self interest. while their news can be very slanted, the stations have to appear not to be, and we accept the advertising of stations as more of their will than news given its assumed random basis. they do worry about appearances even if honestly created by no action of theirs – like trump not wanting ad time.
for every station she gets for 10 million for 4 mins, trump can match that with 4 mins for a much lower price
if she tries to run 10, 10 million 4 min spots, the station would not run that many and nothing from trump
Trump will appear much more in the evening news and on the talk circuit and pol sci shows even if hillary does not advertise
(and hillary is not in a position to do much about this as she cant do anything from where she is of any consequence to get a boost, and her nasty problems all around, cause her to worry that the people will see trumps bad news as miniscule next to hers.)
IF this is a strategy, the above applies, if not, the above applies by serriptitious means.
even worse is that today, the ads have less reach than ever before vs the news.
people use DVR and such to avoid ads, while they pay attention to the news more on some level
news is like ripe fruit, it goes bad very fast and then its history… 🙂
The current polls showing Clinton ahead are entirely predictable. She represents the status quo. People don’t like her at all but they do trust her not to mess with their individual subsidies (social security, college loans, government jobs) or hand out more goodies. To win on changing the welfare state or significantly upending the status quo needs someone you can trust to treat you fairly. Reagan was the master of this. He proposed huge changes but people both liked and trusted him. Trump as the angry man struck a cord but from the very beginning he was not really trusted. The fact that he is always blaming others for “rigging” or “lying” is not a trust building venture
An interesting way to think about Trump’s statement is by remembering that he really doesn’t respect his supporters. It was probably just Trump saying that Clinton will get to appoint judges unless one of those whackjob gun nuts kills her – forgetting that he was trying to appeal to those whackjob gun nuts.
Trump isn’t even the Wizzard of Id (magician), more like Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer’s Appentice.
OM – Was I not clear about my attitude toward Trumps and his asinine comments? Let me reiterate: “I don’t care if Trump pulls down his pants and shits on the podium, I’m voting for him. I WANT HILLARY TRIED AND SHOT!”
Richard Saunders:
You are quite clear. It’s your vote to use as you wish. Trump’s behavior isn’t helping make the case with the public it appears. That’s where the country seems to be based on the polling. It’s not that I don’t care, but Trump won’t keep HRC out of the White House at this rate.
The second amendment wont mean diddle if this keeps going on:
they skirt the actual number by giving you recent drops but they dont tell you the old numbers so there is nothing to compare to. the link to the report leads to a pdf that requires a password to read.
the birthrate which is different number, has gone down from 30 per thousand in 1909 to around 15 per thousand today
to get an idea of it, you can go here
http://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visualization/us-natality-trends/
there is no way for a state to defend itself if its too small in population and the opposition is, in trumps terms, huge…
another way to see it without the latest worst drop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
A population that maintained a TFR of 3.8 over an extended period without a correspondingly high death or emigration rate would increase rapidly (doubling period ~ 32 years), whereas a population that maintained a TFR of 2.0 over a long time would decrease, unless it had a large enough immigration. However, it may take several generations for a change in the total fertility rate to be reflected in birth rate, because the age distribution must reach equilibrium.
and then it drops a lot very fast and it does not recover for several generations and only if the reason it went so low for so long is removed. otherwise, the liberated will be the extinct…
And fertility rate won’t matter for a generation or two if there is a large scale solar flare, or the Sweet Meteor of Death, or …..
One grows weary of those whack-job printing-press nuts making thing up. Trump should just shut the ‘folk’ up that he maybe lied about with no context whatsoever.
Who are “the 2nd Amendment guys”?
What does “do something” mean?
Remember, a thief looks at a Saint and sees only pockets. The press makes what they think they heard someone say, and what they believe he will do confirm to their own biases, and are completely unaware of it. Blue Falcons!
Yeah, that’s by design. That’s what makes it a dog whistle.
Who’s on board for a law limiting political campaigning to six months?
Alex:
No, that’s not what makes it a dog whistle.
That’s what makes it a possible dog whistle. An ambiguous statement that can be interpreted many ways can be interpreted as a dog whistle, and it can act as a dog whistle in its effect, but that does not mean that the person saying it had awareness and intent that it function as a dog whistle. That latter question is the question here: did Trump say it with that intent? And the answer is: maybe.
Definition of “dog whistle.“
Sure seems to me like a man known for making threats, when saying something that sounded like a veiled threat, was in fact making a veiled threat.
You can give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t understand why anyone would at this point. I’m done with underestimating what he’s capable of, and I think everyone else should be too.
Alex:
I don’t underestimate what he’s capable of. As I said in the post, he’s certainly capable of it.
But his statements on this topic were ambiguous enough that I simply don’t know what he actually meant in this instance, because he’s also capable of being unaware. And he is capable of saying something that is misunderstood and sounds worse than it is. We all are.
The reaction of the press and the elites reminds me ever so much of the little snowflakes at Emory University a few months ago who saw that someone had chalked “Trump 2016” on their sidewalk, and were so traumatized that they marched to the Dean’s office, begging that he protect them, and were offered counseling.
Cthulu would be better.
So would SMOD.
Sadly, Cthulu isn’t actually running; I hear he’s taking a nap.
And while SMOD’s Twitter feed is alive and well, the actual (potential) candidate hasn’t been seen on the trail, and looks to be a no-show.
I don’t mention Johnson, or that new conservative alternative dude, as much as I’d prefer either of them. I don’t mention that Jill Stein from the Venezuelan Economics Party; either. I don’t mention them because unlike SMOD or Cthulu, they don’t have any hope of winning, whether they run or not.
If SMOD or Cthulu ran, really showed up on the trail, then either one would probably sweep this thing. Not so, with any of the others.
So where does that leave us?
We’re a country which seems predestined to have a Chief Executive that has about as much business being in the Oval Office as Lindsay Lohan or Teodoro Obiang. (It was entirely at random that I selected, as my examples, a reckless dysfunctional hot mess and a paranoiac and persecutorial kleptocrat.)
People ask “How did we get HERE?” And the popular joke is to spend a moment contemplating the ratings of Jerry Springer reruns and then say, “Oh. Right.”
Personally I think we got here via the abandonment of Scholastic Metaphysics. Restore Aquinas and Maimonides, and you get Natural Law and Natural Law Ethics restored. Restore those, and you get back sexual morality, an ethos of marriage, laws that have fixed meaning, enumerated powers, and schools without Marxists dominating the faculty.
The restoration of the family means half as many poor kids emerging from poor broken homes into crime; the restoration of limited government means less incentive for corruption and cronyism; the restoration of education means a population who can think again (unlike our current crop, 75% of whom you can’t trust to sit the right way on a toilet seat).
So those would all make for nice changes. It took 400 years to do the current damage, though, so even if it happened, you wouldn’t want to hold your breath hoping to actually see the improvements.
But however we got here, I think the constant complaining about how bad the candidates are is a diversion. It’s how everyone’s distracting themselves from the frighteningly high odds that things could go very, very badly. I mean slow-motion-train-wreck collapse of civil society. I mean like a gigantic Haiti that’s populated by rich and feckless fatsos, hipsters, aging hippies turned bon vivants, Social Justice Warriors, and imitation Trayvons.
The pucker we’re feeling in our collective hindquarters is the sign of how very, very precarious “here” really is. And nobody can walk comfortably in a constant state of pucker; so, we distract ourselves.
Our last Civil War wasn’t even a Civil War; it was just a war to prevent southern secession. This time around, it’d be the real thing, albeit engaged in by a much smaller portion of the population. But also: One with no clear means of ever declaring it “over.”
Sure, there’d be the military coup after enough time had expired in low-grade violence to make that seem like a good thing. And that’ll end the violence (in important zip-codes) rather quickly…but it’ll also make turn notions of governing legitimacy into a bitter and cynical joke. And that’s the thing that’ll cause the violence to re-emerge periodically as the decades trickle by.
Screw this.
I’m going to write-in an E.L.E., whether Lovecraftian or Bruckheimerian.
New day and now Trump is saying Obama and HRC founded ISIS. A vote for Trump was a vote for Hillary after all. He is doing the “auger in” flight maneuver, riding his own political “lawn dart.”
Early F16s were called “lawn darts” because flight control software failures caused more than a few fair weather fatal crashes. In this case it is Donald’s brain.
I hate the term “dog whistle”. It’s used when a candidate says something perfectly reasonable, but the press decide to introduce a secondary, nefarious meaning. Even the name points to the fact that the observer can’t hear anything, but senses a reaction.
It’s not a dog whistle to refer to a “Second Amendment solution”, for example. That phrase has an obvious meaning, and you don’t need to refer to a secret language to understand it. Making a statement about “hard-working Americans” isn’t a racial dog whistle. Some of the listeners may picture a white guy when they hear that description, but that’s not what’s being said or implied. And it’s not a dog whistle when a candidate says something by accident.
Ultimately, when the press uses the term, they mean (1) that they’ve failed to understand what’s going on in a culture / tribe that they’re supposed to be covering, so they can’t understand why they’re responding to a statement the way they are, and (2) they disrespect the people they’re supposed to be covering to such an extent that anything they don’t understand they assume to be ill-intentioned.
One last bit of rant. It used to be the case that it was wrong to insult someone. Under the current PC thinking, it’s now wrong to say something that someone could possibly take as an insult. “Dog whistles” take it to the next level, eliminating the need for the listener to even come up with a way that a statement could possibly be taken as an insult. This is Kafka stuff. You’re not judged by your words; you’re not even judged by what someone else thinks your words mean. You’re judged by what someone else fears your words mean.
If you are just reading what Trump said, and reading nothing into it, it clearly looks as though “Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.” is a parenthetical remark delivered verbally, which in its most obvious interpretation means no more than the plain words seem to imply: that “Second Amendment people” and presumably there meaning activists, since he did not simply say “someone with a gun”, can do something the mass of civic victims cannot.
If you accept that “Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.” is parenthetically intended, then the is no question what the horrible day is: the day that that portion of the Bill of Rights is placed under direct assault by the Administration and its hand-picked Supreme Court justices.
Was he being cute and deliberately introducing – insofar as he is ever deliberate – a note of “clever” ambiguity to fire up the troops? Quite possibly.
Had he said, “Although the Second Amendment people, may have something to say about that. I don’t know”, we would not be having these conversations now.
Is it to be expected that the left would go ballistic over this? Yes, since they are always suggesting, and perpetually on the verge of calling for, violence against those political opponents who refuse to yield up more of their lives and freedoms to them, anyway.
They make no bones about wanting what they want out of you, just because it is the dream they dream, and that being the end of it.
Getting it, “by any means necessary” as they say.
What I’m seeing here (and everwhere) is everyone losing their minds over trying to parse 38 words of babble.
Assume that folks are stranded in a lifeboat in a part of the sea that rarely sees a ship pass. After many days a dot appears on the horizon and starts to get bigger. It could be a log or it could be a ship. That is where the working folks and others who love the American Dream are.
Do they listen to the SJW who has taken over leadership of the boat and ignore the “log”, which she says may sink them and instead quietly further reduce their water ration so that she can use more for her pet fish they have taken aboard? Or do they begin to yell, wave their coats and do everything they can to attract the possible rescue boat?
Yes, you can describe it as folks projecting their hopes and desires on Trump (I believe that is true) as the Saviour of the American Dream. Just think of the alternative for them.
If they don’t act now, the SJW’s and the cupcakes will take over America, hand it to the Clinton Foundation and we will end up with Europe II. Trump may turn out to be a log, but he is their only hope.
I say “Wave that coat and yell like hell!”
Well, I’ll still defend Trump’s quote as sloppy, ambiguous, but IMO innocent.
My cousin, who likes Trump a lot and wants to believe in his campaign, heard a veiled threat in it.
I see on Scott Adams blog he no longer claims Trump will win in a landslide. He claims Hillary has erased Trump’s Master Persuader advantage by hiring “weapons-grade” Master Persuaders of her own. Adams insinuates he knows these people and one of them he nicknames “Godzilla.”
Adams has “temporarily” disabled comments on his website. Adams says he has endorsed Hilllary Clinton “for [his] personal safety.”
Sounds like Adams’s “Master Persuader” shtick is more bull**** than gunsmoke.
Yes, you can describe it as folks projecting their hopes and desires on Trump (I believe that is true) as the Saviour of the American Dream. Just think of the alternative for them.
If they don’t act now, the SJW’s and the cupcakes will take over America, hand it to the Clinton Foundation and we will end up with Europe II. Trump may turn out to be a log, but he is their only hope.
I say “Wave that coat and yell like hell!”
If those are the stakes, we need to replace Trump NOW.
Of course, that’s not going to happen and Republicans are going to end up with the worst of both worlds — losing the election and throwing their principles, including the Constitution, out the window.
I took it as a warning, not a threat. Does Hillary seriously believe people will allow themselves to be disarmed peacefully? If she tries it, that will be truly a horrible day.
– I offered my opponents a deal: “if they stop telling lies about me, I will stop telling the truth about them.”
> Adlai Stevenson, campaign speech, 1952.
Trump just is playing the same game the progressives do all the time, so their outrage is hypocritical and dishonest. Never admit any fault, always attack and never be concerned about plausibility of your accusations. This is the only winning tactic in dealing with such hypocrites: being even more arrogant and big-mouthed than they are.
“This is the only winning tactic in dealing with such hypocrites: being even more arrogant and big-mouthed than they are.”
Except it doesn’t appear to be winning.
All he had to do was tout his ability to get good deals done for America, flesh out immigration and economic plans in more detail, keep the pressure on Hillary, and quit saying dumb things/attacking conservatives.
That’s all he had to do. It would still be a huge con, I still wouldn’t vote for him, but he would be in much better shape.
He could still win, but if he does it will be in spite of, not because of, his arrogant big mouth.
OM Says: August 10th, 2016 at 8:43 pm And fertility rate won’t matter for a generation or two if there is a large scale solar flare, or the Sweet Meteor of Death, or …..
except those are not happening, and only may happen and on timescales of a million yhears and what i reported is CURRENT NEWS from a few days ago..
so whats your idiotic point?
that not having babies leaves enough people that you dont have to import them from places that do have babies, and that not having babies doesnt lower the tax base and work base and business sales base, and more..
or that 100 million people down from 200 million cant defend a land the size of the united states from 30,000,000 chinese males who will never have wives?
you should not compare actualk events to maybe
the lowest birth rate in US history, is not a maybe
the group under fire as being the source of all hate, racism, and such, is already below the birth rate of the other groups and when the baby boomers die out your going to see a very fast sea change..
the worst of it will be that a very tiny population of what was majority, will have to pay for the programs and school and such of a very large majority that was minority. and the laws are already being fixed so that you cant say, hey, there are so few of us we are not the minority and those laws apply to us…
that was already looked at and thats why they swited to protected classes in the language and not minority, or else you could have the new majority fund the repair of the old majority that died out thanks to feminism….
and when that group dies out, you all can forget the constitution, freedom, and all that as its the only group that stood up for that and fought for it and shared it.
Mark Levin (LevinTV) in Episode #101 extrapolates from a NYT article and shows how only 14% of eligible adults voted for either Trump or HRC, ultimately representing 9% of our nation. Additionally he covers Trump’s absurd comments on the 2nd Amendment and goes over Chris Wallace’s interview with HRC about her lies regarding the emails. His show is very different from his radio broadcast; very professorial with good use of graphics and charts. He lays out the “lose/lose” situation we are in and why. You can watch 1 episode for free and I recommend conservatives do so (this episode would be a good introduction). It is a great way to get information and be able to share the facts. Hopefully his idea of a “townhall meeting” will emerge and we can assess current situations and try to solve what are the real problems facing our Republic.
Art:
Some facts you may not know about:
What If the Biggest Solar Storm on Record Happened Today?
Repeat of 1859 Carrington Event would devastate modern world, experts say.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110302-solar-flares-sun-storms-earth-danger-carrington-event-science/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/X-class-flares.html#.V60bUzUzLIU
just sayin
Artfldgr:
When is the Yellowstone caldera going to erupt next in a big, big way? It won’t be good to be a down wind of that, or to be depending on agriculture in the US. Then again global climate will be a bit twitchy for a while afterwards too, so may not be able to avoid mass starvation.
So rant about fertility and feminists. Lots of risks in this old world.
Art:
BTW don’t talk “millions of years” and expect me to be impressed, geologists know about the age of the Earth.
1859 was not millions of years ago.
Sharon W:
I “knew” you were a good egg. Can’t afford the show now so have to abide with the radio only.
Another bad joke or trump stirring up controversy…
“HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me.
DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?“ – Hugh Hewitt interviewing trump on his comment re: “Obama founded ISIS”
http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/#more-31501
Rather vainglorious than strategic. Yes, this gets headlines, but it hardly helps his case with those he needs to win over for the election.
But, what do I know?
What’s next?
2020 – Kanye West for President?
Maybe Vince McMahon will host the election?
Big Maq:
I heard the interview on Ben Shapiro’s podcast yesterday. Yes The Donald repeatedly refused to “stop putting his little finger into the light socket” or “to stop stepping onto his own member.” Hugh Hewitt proposed more nuanced interpretations of the “Obama founded ISIS” brain fart, but The Donald was stuck of stupid.
I guess only Sean Hannity can feed The Donald corrections and clarifications. Will Sean Hannity have that role in the glorious 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Trump House?
Now opening “Trump House, 1600!” Under new management, with extra gold-leaf, and faux Corinthian leather (a lot of Naugas had to die for that upholstery). Come in and have YOUR picture taken with the Donald (or with a cardboard cutout)!
The problem I have with the conservative media is how they bend over to help trump. Is that better than how the MSM is biased to the left?
Hewitt gave him WAAAY too many ways to “re-interpret” trump’s own statement.
Today trump is saying he was “sarcastic”.
Fact is, it is hardly the MSM bias that is painting trump for what he is – it is his own words.
They only need to give it plenty of airtime. And, why not? That’s how trump was able to win the primaries. As per my quote, he is actively seeking that coverage by making these kinds of statements.
@OM – forgot to mention re: your comment above – now that’s sarcasm!
trump’s notion of sarcasm leaves a lot to be desired.