Donald Trump Calls for Hillary Clinton's Assassination

1. 86

   Sychophantasticposted 7 years ago

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4
   
   Here's the text of what he said:
   
   In his Wilmington, North Carolina rally Tuesday, Donald Trump talked about Hillary Clinton and the 2nd Amendment, saying, "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. 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."
   
   I don't know how you get around the fact that he is suggesting she be shot.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't get that out of the video at all. I get not liking the guy but could we at least be reasonable and realistic in our criticisms?

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Reasonable? Really? The comment is on every major news network, except for Fox. He said there is nothing folks will be able to do, except for the 2nd amendment people, who have guns. Even if you give Trump every benefit of the doubt, the conclusion you have to draw is that he's too stupid to realize how the joke would be interpreted, incorrectly or otherwise.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If we are going to look at worst case scenario I would take it otherwise. He said "if she gets to pick her own judges there would be nothing you could do" so, I take that to mean after the judges were picked.  Then he says "maybe the second amendment people". Honestly, I would take that to mean revolution against it, not assassination of any individual.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Seems like whatever the implication, it involves the use of guns.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Armed revolt is not assassination.
                  
                  Although I believe we have passed the point where our piddly little fire arms can enforce the will of the majority in the event that tyranny becomes intolerable I understand the rhetoric.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, even armed revolt in response to the normal machinations of the democratic process would be pretty extreme given that should she pick judges that would mean her ascension to the presidency in a free election. It would also be consistent with the rhetoric coming from his campaign about rigged elections and bloodbaths.

                     replyreport
                  2. 78

                     Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     L to L, even advocating armed revolt is irresponsible as we are asocietybased on democracy and the rule of law. I certaintly do not want to hear things like what Trump said from a man who aspires to be the one who executes those same  laws.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm afraid I believe our government has become so corrupt it cannot be set right through conventional means. If I believed a somehow peaceful revolt were possible I'd join
                        
                        I believe Jefferson had words concerning the need for revolution periodically.

                        replyreport
         2. 70

            rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I didn't get that either. And citing the infotainment we call news gives it no credibility either. Look, I don't like the guy either but it is for his economic plans. I am not voting for him but I am not voting for the crook either. They all have to go.

            replyreport
      2. 86

         Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         It's worth considering that he has no filter in his brain. He doesn't seem to be conscience of the implication of many of his statements, including this one. Regardless of what he meant, there's an implication there. The implication is that somebody who supports the 2nd amendment would use their gun to solve the problem. Finally, the entire discussion is based on a preposterous lie. Who do you think wants to abolish the 2nd amendment more? Hillary or Obama? The right-wing nut factory has been saying that about Obama for 8 years. Man, that really came to pass. No Democrat I know has ever talked about abolishing guns or the 2nd amendment. Guns are part of our country's history and will always be with us. Every Democrat I know knows that.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I am afraid I do see merit in the argument that our government would, if able, remove our ability to own firearms. Many democrats I know support a ban on gun ownership. I see merit in the idea of reasonable restrictions but I do feel that once we start down that path the end result could feasibly be a total ban, at some point.
            
            Unfortunately if you remove my ability to obtain a gun it will have negligible effect on a criminal's ability to obtain one. Law abiding citizens should not lose their rights because criminals abuse those rights.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               No person who knows anything about American history would ever think that guns could be banned in this country. They simply could not. The 2nd amendment can never be repealed. The idea of groups to bear arms to protect themselves against tyranny is a fundamental value of this country and while we may disagree about the degree to which individuals should be armed (or what they need to be armed with), the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase a gun to protect themselves is a right that will never be taken away, no matter what anyone says.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I still believe that the comment was needlessly provacative, it is not helpful when you are already afflicted with 'foot in mouth' disease. Why continue to open yourself to criticism under these circumstances?

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment. They are talking about having it interpreted differently.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Liberals can interpret anything at all in complete  falsehoods  , but to expect EVERYONE  to re-interpret truths like you do AS  liberals !    No one else is that blind !

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm afraid I'm a believer in the spirit of the constitution. Things can be reinterpreted through new light, new information and a change in the common understanding by the majority. It is what keeps our society vibrant and allows it to maintain an evolving level of freedom.
                        
                        I simply think the minority is attempting to hijack the freedoms we, the majority, want to continue to enjoy.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           I agree ! ......I say ,  The idea that there is more than one truth is ridiculous  however , the idea that there is, or can be ,  a "new interpretation" of the original intent of a constitutional right  however ?  No.
                           
                           Is there a new interpretation of free speech ?
                           Of  the right to a speedy trial ?
                           What about the  right to legal representation  ?

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              The original intent. There is disagreement on this at many turns. Take the sixth and the eighth, for example. Has our interpretation not evolved? The first. Have we not added parameters over the years? Can we reasonably say the founders took these contingencies intoaccount and would agree with current interpretation? Would you say current interpretation of the tenth lines up with what the founders envisioned?
                              
                              Interpretations evolve.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Not in the  2nd   ,  They don't - 27 words  , How absolutely simple !     AND each states  or at least most of them ,  copied  and  improved upon the original intent of the fore-fathers -  " The people ......Shall not be infringed !"
                                 
                                 Get used to it !

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    I think you may be the one who can't get used to it. The people shall not be infringed, by you.
                                    
                                    I swear sometimes talking to the far right I feel that some bizarre form of a sharia style law is all you guys want. No room for thought, no room for discussion. Your way or 'OFF WITH THEIR HEADS'
                                    
                                    To anyone reading this, please don't have a hissy and think this implies I am suggesting anyone really be decapitated.
                                    
                                    Thanks.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Believe it or not  , I'm not even any where near far right , yet !  Why is it that to the leftist nanny state  crier- whiners   that  it's all about change ?  Guess what , change is simply  revolutions  around the  impossibility of solution !  Before you know it    you circle around to the point where you began !
                                       
                                       That is just plane dopey !

                                       report
      3. 60

         dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I was word play.  I immediately that he was saying it in jest.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I swear to God , Liberals  are nothing but human beings with training wheels !   Trump called for  NRA people to give her a collective hard time in this election , he clarified  that clearly ,.  Not for her assassination !  I cannot wait to see liberal faces  at the landslide victory of Trump this Nov. .Liberals   AND their  propped up "Hillary Media " are in for a major surprise .
      
      Assassination ?    What a farce filled  liberal rant !

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not sure if English maybe is your second language or what the deal is, but regardless of what he meant, there's an implication in what he said. It was also in the way he said it. Further, what he said is consistent with the chants at his rallies. "Kill her" is a common refrain. A Trump surrogate is promoting the idea Clinton be executed for treason. This is not a liberal vs. conservative argument. Trump is not a conservative. Conservatives would never bend to Putin's will. Conservatives would never government controlled trade versus free trade. Decency is an American value.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Regardless of how you perceived it English is my primary language, I have a better than average grasp of the language and I think you are simply grasping at straws here. I didn't get the same thing out of the comment you did. You can cave in to all of the wishful thinking you want to but that doesn't mean everyone has to buy into your fantasies.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Live to Learn, I was not talking about you or replying to your comment with that particular comment. I'm sorry if it seemed that way. What you got out of the comment is irrelevant. There is an implicit meaning in the language. If Trump wanted NRA supporters to rally, he could have very easily said that.

               replyreport
            2. 86

               Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               This is from former NSA director Michael Hayden:
               
               “That’s actually a very arresting comment,” Hayden said. “And it suggests either a very bad taste reference to political assassination and an attempt at humor, or an incredible insensitivity. It may be the latter, an incredible insensitivity to the prevalence of political assassination inside of American history, and how that is a topic that we don’t ever come close to, even when we think we’re trying to be light-hearted.”
               
               “There was an attempt on Donald Trump’s life a few weeks ago, actually, and the Secret Service got involved.” Tapper said, referring to the Dayton, Ohio rally where the Secret Service had to rush the stage after someone jumped the barrier.
               
               “Well, let me say if someone else said that outside of the hall, he’d be in the back of a police wagon now, with the Secret Service questioning him,” Hayden replied.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm afraid that doesn't change the fact that when I heard the clip I didn't get that out of it. I suppose there are some who look for the worst in everything and attempt to see everything from the most negative angle. I'm not one of those so maybe that is where the problem lies.

                  replyreport
   3. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Only if you understand political rhetoric  like a mental midget ,  Trump  did not say Kill Hillary  . He implied, to me , that the   NRA  being politically a  very , very  powerful entity ,  should vote her out !

      replyreport
2. 75

   Castlepalomaposted 7 years ago

   I agree with Hillary
   If she reduces the US military budget from 50℅ of the world's war budget to 5℅ world's budget like an average Countries war budget.. Then ban the 2nd amendment
   
   When the US military would be a defence military if it was 5℅ rather than a offence military war country as it is now. It's the greatest danger to humanity next to the natural environment which they don't give a dam for, by behavior right now.

   replyreport
3. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   The most ironic thing in all of this is that, unlike Trump, Hillary Clinton has actually suggested in the past that her political opponents could be killed off.
   
   In 2008, Hillary declared that she wouldn’t drop out of the presidential race against Barack Obama, despite trailing way behind, because ‘anything can happen’ and then she cited the assassination of RFK.
   
   Hillary cites RFK assassination in explaining why she's still in race
   *  http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanm … _race.html
   
   Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0QAewVrR28
   
   Hillary’s campaign went into spin mode almost immediately, saying that people “misinterpreted what she meant,” and that “people did not understand the context in which she made this reference”.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You do realize though that those viewed as demigods by their constituency can't do wrong in their eyes?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Joe Biden of all people threatened Obama with his "beretta" in 2008. "If he comes after my guns he is going to have a problem because I'm not bad with it." something like that.
         *  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcyLeOm6yGc
         
         Trump mentioned the 2nd Amendment.  "If she (Hillary) gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the 2nd Amendment people maybe there is, I don't know."
         
         That's the old statement from 100 years ago, "Well, if all else fails we've got the 2nd Amendment."  The thing is now we have multi-national corporations running this country pulling the corrupt politician's strings.
         
         It really shows the bias and the BS they smoke!

         replyreport
         1. 78

            colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Video, Hillary Clinton's strategist Bob Beckel called for WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to be assassinated.
            
            Another video, people are calling for Obama to kill Julian Assange.  They are freaking scared of the truth of their corruption being exposed.  More to come!
            *  http://www.infowars.com/flashback-hilla … n-assange/

            replyreport
         2. 86

            Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc … ed/495284/

            replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It was no acceptable then and it is not acceptable now.  Do you agree?

      replyreport
   3. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      There's actually a difference between what Hillary said back in 2008 and what Trump just said. However, I listened to that interview and it could be interpreted the same way. That's probably why she lost. It's also why I didn't support her back then. Frankly, I'm not super-thrilled with supporting her now, but it's better than the apocalypse.
      
      There is a contextual difference and that's the general level of violence at Trump rallies and the consistent call for various kinds of violence by Trump himself.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think this double standard by the left is what frustrates me the most. Because they pretend it isn't there as if because they pretend we have to pretend with them.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         IslandBitesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         True. The double standard is in both sides.
         
         Both candidates said similar things (it's ok for Trump but not for Hillary... it's ok for Hillary but not for Trump...?)
         
         As colorfulone said, her campaign went into spin mode almost immediately, saying that people “misinterpreted what she meant. Isn't that what Trump did? (every time he says a stupid thing, btw).
         
         The difference: Hillary actually said "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family, was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
         
         Someone please let me know if Trump apologizes this time, or any time.

         replyreport
      2. 86

         Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Sure, there's a double standard on both sides. People hate in Obama what they loved in Reagan. And people love in Obama what they hated in Reagan.
         
         However, on this particular issue, there is a difference and it has to do with context. In my opinion, the right throws context out the window. Everything is either black or it's white. There's never any gray. And they never want to talk about the gray areas. Either your for the cops or you're against them. You can't be in the middle. You can't talk about nuance. Language actually does matter and it does mean something.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            This article addresses the issue pretty well:
            
            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc … ed/495284/

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting. I see those of you on the left as insisting on black and white with no gray area. Like this issue. I find it hilarious that the left is adamant he was implying assassination when there are many ways the statement could be taken.
            
            Couple that with the fact you are insisting he isunfit for office because of it while refusing to ponder why Hillary is fit,.even though she did something similar during another failed bid for the presidency.
            
            If you guys aren't careful after this election the words hypocrite and democrat may be synonymous

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               No, again you can't recognize any nuance. It's either one way or the other. I think it's perfectly possible he didn't mean assassination or that he was joking. It's consistent with his other "jokes". However, the words do not lie. The implication, whether he meant it or not, is there. Hillary's statement, while offensive too, was made in a different context. She also apologized for it. She also has not consistently called for violence as a solution to simple problems. Trump has a long history of making incendiary statements.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Ahh. So suggesting the assassination of Barack Obama was ok because of nuance makes perfect sense to you. And she apologized (publicly). I'd post a laugh out loud but you already know that's what I'm doing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I didn't say it was okay. It was an inappropriate comment. It was definitely made out of desperation. I've already stated that. Are you saying both comments are okay or both comments are not okay?

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        And again, read the article in The Atlantic. Covers it pretty well.

                        replyreport
                     2. 60

                        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I didn't consider the comment any more inappropriate than many comments made on the campaign trail. They all say what they think their audience wants to hear. And since I saw none of that you are claiming in it, I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.  And I see no evidence that it was out of desperation as you fervently want to believe.
                        
                        I don't think either of them should have said what they said. Both probably regret having dumb statements analyzed. I think every politician would like what they say on the campaign trail to not be remembered past the particular rally they are speaking at. It would make it easier not to have to remember what lie they told where.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Be careful, L2L - you're beginning to sound as jaded and cynical about politics as I feel.

                           replyreport
                     3. 0

                        promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        It was both highly inappropriate and dangerously stupid. But at least he is consistent.

                        replyreport
            2. 86

               Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               And I tend to find it hard to take seriously people who are arguing with me who don't believe in science, like fundamentally don't understand it and don't believe in it, and overwhelmingly believe and continue to promote the idea that President Obama was not born in this country and is a Muslim. I mean, if I met a random person on the street who started a conversation with me and stated those things, I'd just walk away. There's no basis to converse.

               replyreport
4. 57

   Alternative Primeposted 7 years ago

   According to REPORTs, The SECRET Service are AWARE of and are NOW Investigating "Delusional Donald" for his INSANE Remarks about the ASSASSINATION a Future President ~ Just MORE Uncontrollable SELF-Destructive Behavior which could conceivably result in a PRISON Sentence for this Imbecile sooner or later ~
   
   It was NO Joke & could ONLY be interpreted as a Suggestion Pertaining to Assassination ~
   
   When are the last few remaining "Trumpeteers" going to FINALLY Realize the FACT that he NEVER Wanted to be President of the United States & the FACT that he could NEVER be President of the United States due to his OBVIOUS Mental Illness?
   
   Hillary LEADs in Georgia with TEXAS, Kansas & Several other Republican States "in PLAY" ~ Even Republicans are REJECTING Trump's Insanity & Under-handed Unscrupulous Scheme to "CUT the Pay" of Working AMERICANs ~ I've met thousands of Democrats & Republicans and one thing they do have in COMMON is the FACT that NONE have ever EXPRESSED a Desire for a "PAY Cut" which would become REALITY with a "Delusional Donald" Trump Presidency ~

   replyreport
5. 0

   JG Hemlockposted 7 years ago

   She even wants to kill comedians. LOL Why else did she want their addresses? Hellery will drop out of the race in the most unusual way anyways. You can't keep killing people, being murderous with no repentance and think that it will not catch up with you. She likes the headlines, and she will be all over the headlines for quite some time soon...just not in the way she would desire. bubye Hellery.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ … epublican/

      replyreport
6. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   Biden Threatens Obama With Gun In 2008, Yet Media Attacks Trump
   *  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA49_IjwCo4
   
   Take some acting classes like Democrat "Shot Gun Joe Biden".
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Alex Jones is a certified moron, so nice link. And second, you just proved that you don't understand the English language or context or anything. I assume you also believe Obama was born in Kenya? And that he's a Muslim? What else?

      replyreport