i guess he spun it himself
GOP senator: Why I cannot support Trump
I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.
When the primary season started, it soon became apparent that, much like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mr. Trump was connecting with many Americans who felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington and who were tired of political correctness. But rejecting the conventions of political correctness is different from showing complete disregard for common decency. Mr. Trump did not stop with shedding the stilted campaign dialogue that often frustrates voters. Instead, he opted for a constant stream of denigrating comments, including demeaning Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) heroic military service and repeatedly insulting Fox News host Megyn Kelly.
With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.
My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.
The first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, a shocking display that did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. I kept expecting Mr. Trump to apologize, at least privately, but he did not, instead denying that he had done what seemed undeniable to anyone who watched the video. At the time, I hoped that this was a terrible lapse, not a pattern of abuse.
The second was Mr. Trump’s repeated insistence that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge born and raised in Indiana, could not rule fairly in a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. For Mr. Trump to insist that Judge Curiel would be biased because of his ethnicity demonstrated a profound lack of respect not only for the judge but also for our constitutional separation of powers, the very foundation of our form of government. Again, I waited in vain for Mr. Trump to retract his words.
Third was Donald Trump’s criticism of the grieving parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that anyone, much less a presidential candidate, would attack two Gold Star parents. Rather than honoring their sacrifice and recognizing their pain, Mr. Trump disparaged the religion of the family of an American hero. And once again, he proved incapable of apologizing, of saying he was wrong.
I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.
I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.
At the same time, I realize that Mr. Trump’s success reflects profound discontent in this country, particularly among those who feel left behind by an unbalanced economy and who wonder whether their children will have a better life than their parents. As we have seen with the dissatisfaction with both major- party nominees — neither of whom I support — these passions are real and the public will demand action.
Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Mr. Trump’s inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security_us_57a8d2dce4b0aae2a5a0ba36
50 Republican National Security Officials Eviscerate Trump In Open Letter
Trump “would be the most reckless President in American history,” they write.This is about as powerful as it gets. I doubt this would make the Trump masses pause and think about their votes.
Considering the alternative not for a second.
GOP senator: Why I cannot support Trump
I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.
When the primary season started, it soon became apparent that, much like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mr. Trump was connecting with many Americans who felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington and who were tired of political correctness. But rejecting the conventions of political correctness is different from showing complete disregard for common decency. Mr. Trump did not stop with shedding the stilted campaign dialogue that often frustrates voters. Instead, he opted for a constant stream of denigrating comments, including demeaning Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) heroic military service and repeatedly insulting Fox News host Megyn Kelly.
With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.
My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.
The first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, a shocking display that did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. I kept expecting Mr. Trump to apologize, at least privately, but he did not, instead denying that he had done what seemed undeniable to anyone who watched the video. At the time, I hoped that this was a terrible lapse, not a pattern of abuse.
The second was Mr. Trump’s repeated insistence that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge born and raised in Indiana, could not rule fairly in a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. For Mr. Trump to insist that Judge Curiel would be biased because of his ethnicity demonstrated a profound lack of respect not only for the judge but also for our constitutional separation of powers, the very foundation of our form of government. Again, I waited in vain for Mr. Trump to retract his words.
Third was Donald Trump’s criticism of the grieving parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that anyone, much less a presidential candidate, would attack two Gold Star parents. Rather than honoring their sacrifice and recognizing their pain, Mr. Trump disparaged the religion of the family of an American hero. And once again, he proved incapable of apologizing, of saying he was wrong.
I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.
I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.
At the same time, I realize that Mr. Trump’s success reflects profound discontent in this country, particularly among those who feel left behind by an unbalanced economy and who wonder whether their children will have a better life than their parents. As we have seen with the dissatisfaction with both major- party nominees — neither of whom I support — these passions are real and the public will demand action.
Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Mr. Trump’s inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.
Not surprising at all. I guess she likes people coming into this country illegally then letting them enjoy our social welfare programs and public schools paid for by the American taxpayer. As for Mr. Khan and his family, when they came here was ISIS around? No. There wasn't an organization going around saying they were going to infiltrate the refugee population from war torn countries. Keeping them out makes sense. See how much fun Germany is having with these refugees. Don't forget his connection to the Clinton foundation. He was no random choice to speak either. Susan Collins should switch to Independent so she can caucus with the Dems like Maine's other Senator. I think she'd feel right at home.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security_us_57a8d2dce4b0aae2a5a0ba36
50 Republican National Security Officials Eviscerate Trump In Open Letter
Trump “would be the most reckless President in American history,” they write.This is about as powerful as it gets. I doubt this would make the Trump masses pause and think about their votes.
Considering the alternative not for a second.
Is this is the same group of clowns that said invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
If there is any politician that I can say I've been proud to support, it is Susan Collins. And now she's made her constituents proud again...
Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump
By Susan Collins, Special to The Washington Post
Posted Aug. 08, 2016, at 9:40 p.m.
I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.
When the primary season started, it soon became apparent that, much like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, Mr. Trump was connecting with many Americans who felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington and who were tired of political correctness. But rejecting the conventions of political correctness is different from showing complete disregard for common decency. Mr. Trump did not stop with shedding the stilted campaign dialogue that often frustrates voters. Instead, he opted for a constant stream of denigrating comments, including demeaning Sen. John McCain’s (R-Arizona) heroic military service and repeatedly insulting Fox News host Megyn Kelly.
With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.
My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.
The first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, a shocking display that did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. I kept expecting Mr. Trump to apologize, at least privately, but he did not, instead denying that he had done what seemed undeniable to anyone who watched the video. At the time, I hoped that this was a terrible lapse, not a pattern of abuse.
The second was Mr. Trump’s repeated insistence that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge born and raised in Indiana, could not rule fairly in a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. For Mr. Trump to insist that Judge Curiel would be biased because of his ethnicity demonstrated a profound lack of respect not only for the judge but also for our constitutional separation of powers, the very foundation of our form of government. Again, I waited in vain for Mr. Trump to retract his words.
Third was Donald Trump’s criticism of the grieving parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that anyone, much less a presidential candidate, would attack two Gold Star parents. Rather than honoring their sacrifice and recognizing their pain, Mr. Trump disparaged the religion of the family of an American hero. And once again, he proved incapable of apologizing, of saying he was wrong.
I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.
I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.
At the same time, I realize that Mr. Trump’s success reflects profound discontent in this country, particularly among those who feel left behind by an unbalanced economy and who wonder whether their children will have a better life than their parents. As we have seen with the dissatisfaction with both major-party nominees — neither of whom I support — these passions are real and the public will demand action.
Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Mr. Trump’s inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.
http://bangordailynews.com/2016/08/08/opinion/contributors/susan-collins-why-i-cannot-support-trump/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security_us_57a8d2dce4b0aae2a5a0ba36
50 Republican National Security Officials Eviscerate Trump In Open Letter
Trump “would be the most reckless President in American history,” they write.This is about as powerful as it gets. I doubt this would make the Trump masses pause and think about their votes.
Considering the alternative not for a second.
To the contrary, considered and rejected.
"Now, if Donald J. Trump does win, OK, it’s going to be a real opportunity for people like white nationalists," the American Nazi Party's chairman said.
Donald Trump on seemingly joked about shooting Hillary Clinton during a speech Tuesday in North Carolina.
"If she gets to pick her judges —nothing you can do folks," Trump said, referring to Clinton getting to nominate Supreme Court justices if she were elected president. "Although, the Second Amendment, people, maybe there is."
[Edited on 8/9/2016 by gondicar]
he's becoming more presidential every day 😮
he's becoming more presidential every day 😮
Waiting for his defenders to defend this. Every time he opens his mouth saying things extemporaneously something dangerous, insensitive, inaccurate, or lacking class comes out.
He really needs to stick to scripted speeches. It might help the birther in spite of himself.
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
1. There was no ransom paid. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
2. There are not 3 dead "whistle blowers" There is one, and he was murdered in a robbery gone bad.
3. Nobody can prove that last one.
By all means, let us ignore a presidential candidate that has to explain what he meant every time he puts his foot in his mouth.
It's pretty funny when a bunch of conservative who took an out of context statement ("what difference does it make?") and beat it to death, now want the world to ignore every thing there candidate says.
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Threats to candidates are taken seriously. Certainly not the first time we heard implications of violence from Trump (remember the primary season speeches).
If you want to label it as "focusing on crossing political correctness boundaries", go ahead, but I'm not sure the Secret Service nor much of the public would who heard Trump's words would agree with you.
Trump's statement today is all about the man himself. Not sure why you chose to redirect to his opponent.
It's pretty funny when a bunch of conservative who took an out of context statement ("what difference does it make?") and beat it to death, now want the world to ignore every thing there candidate says.
Maybe it's because nobody, including them, take anything Trump says seriously anyway.
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Threats to candidates are taken seriously. Certainly not the first time we heard implications of violence from Trump (remember the primary season speeches).
If you want to label it as "focusing on crossing political correctness boundaries", go ahead, but I'm not sure the Secret Service nor much of the public would who heard Trump's words would agree with you.
Trump's statement today is all about the man himself. Not sure why you chose to redirect to his opponent.
The whole takeaway of the Trump Second Amendment comment is what Democrats and the
media think of gun owners, not on Trump.
[Edited on 8/10/2016 by alloak41]
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Threats to candidates are taken seriously. Certainly not the first time we heard implications of violence from Trump (remember the primary season speeches).
If you want to label it as "focusing on crossing political correctness boundaries", go ahead, but I'm not sure the Secret Service nor much of the public would who heard Trump's words would agree with you.
Trump's statement today is all about the man himself. Not sure why you chose to redirect to his opponent.
The whole takeaway of the Trump Second Amendment comment is what Democrats and the
media think of gun owners, not on Trump.
Translation: You're all low-info idiots who can't even interpret words you hear.
The quickest and easiest way to become a bigoted, racist hate-monger?
Simply announce your intentions of running in a political election and put an "R"
next to your name.
Works like magic!
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Threats to candidates are taken seriously. Certainly not the first time we heard implications of violence from Trump (remember the primary season speeches).
If you want to label it as "focusing on crossing political correctness boundaries", go ahead, but I'm not sure the Secret Service nor much of the public would who heard Trump's words would agree with you.
Trump's statement today is all about the man himself. Not sure why you chose to redirect to his opponent.
The whole takeaway of the Trump Second Amendment comment is what Democrats and the
media think of gun owners, not on Trump.[Edited on 8/10/2016 by alloak41]
Factually incorrect. Big wide paint brush strokes don't cut it.
Trump made his statement implying "an elected HC"; not "candidate running for office HC" which means the whole joke of an explanation of getting the 2nd Ammendment Voters out is an excuse after Trump stepped in it just as he does everyday. He ad libed again and misspoke getting in trouble leaving it to surrogates to sing & dance the far fetched justification. As I mentioned previoulsy, the Secret Service are aware of his statements. We probably will never know what they tell his campaign. The Secret Service takes these things seriously. Trump is great in ampping up people, and it only takes one riled up wacko to listen to him. Look at his primary events with people getting smacked. Remember him suggesting he might even pay the legal bills of these people? He's a dangerous individual who likes to incite fear and anxiety in people. Not hard to connect the dots to actions.
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Threats to candidates are taken seriously. Certainly not the first time we heard implications of violence from Trump (remember the primary season speeches).
If you want to label it as "focusing on crossing political correctness boundaries", go ahead, but I'm not sure the Secret Service nor much of the public would who heard Trump's words would agree with you.
Trump's statement today is all about the man himself. Not sure why you chose to redirect to his opponent.
The whole takeaway of the Trump Second Amendment comment is what Democrats and the
media think of gun owners, not on Trump.[Edited on 8/10/2016 by alloak41]
Factually incorrect. Big wide paint brush strokes don't cut it.
Trump made his statement implying "an elected HC"; not "candidate running for office HC" which means the whole joke of an explanation of getting the 2nd Ammendment Voters out is an excuse after Trump stepped in it just as he does everyday. He ad libed again and misspoke getting in trouble leaving it to surrogates to sing & dance the far fetched justification. As I mentioned previoulsy, the Secret Service are aware of his statements. We probably will never know what they tell his campaign. The Secret Service takes these things seriously. Trump is great in ampping up people, and it only takes one riled up wacko to listen to him. Look at his primary events with people getting smacked. Remember him suggesting he might even pay the legal bills of these people? He's a dangerous individual who likes to incite fear and anxiety in people. Not hard to connect the dots to actions.
I don't think Trump is actually calling for one of his supporters to kill Hillary, although I think he chose those words to once again make sure he made the news cycle. The problem is that there are certainly some lunatic supporters of his that might take this as a call to kill Hillary or anyone else they deem as a threat to the 2nd Ammendment. I don't think Trump understands quite how dangerous his rhetoric is. There are a lot of nutcases out there.
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Threats to candidates are taken seriously. Certainly not the first time we heard implications of violence from Trump (remember the primary season speeches).
If you want to label it as "focusing on crossing political correctness boundaries", go ahead, but I'm not sure the Secret Service nor much of the public would who heard Trump's words would agree with you.
Trump's statement today is all about the man himself. Not sure why you chose to redirect to his opponent.
The whole takeaway of the Trump Second Amendment comment is what Democrats and the
media think of gun owners, not on Trump.[Edited on 8/10/2016 by alloak41]
i guess the Secret Service too
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/index.html
Secret Service spoke to Trump campaign about 2nd Amendment comment
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Threats to candidates are taken seriously. Certainly not the first time we heard implications of violence from Trump (remember the primary season speeches).
If you want to label it as "focusing on crossing political correctness boundaries", go ahead, but I'm not sure the Secret Service nor much of the public would who heard Trump's words would agree with you.
Trump's statement today is all about the man himself. Not sure why you chose to redirect to his opponent.
The whole takeaway of the Trump Second Amendment comment is what Democrats and the
media think of gun owners, not on Trump.
That's a big crap sandwich right there.
CNN found the guy behind Trump in the red shirt who had opened his mouth in amazement at the comment. He is a Trump supporter but said he would have taken Trump to the shed to have a talk with him because these things are not said in public in the south. He said the people around him felt the same way. He was guarded but appeared honest and he said a lot with his shed talk. He also said this is the kind of stuff you talk about in the shed and not in public.
In this sense one could say it was a dog whistle and it was interpreted that way by his followers.
Keep focusing on crossing political correctness boundries, not a 400 million dollar ransom payment to Iran, or 3 dead Clinton whistleblowers, or a dead American spy, who may have been outed by Hillarys carelessness.
Threats to candidates are taken seriously. Certainly not the first time we heard implications of violence from Trump (remember the primary season speeches).
If you want to label it as "focusing on crossing political correctness boundaries", go ahead, but I'm not sure the Secret Service nor much of the public would who heard Trump's words would agree with you.
Trump's statement today is all about the man himself. Not sure why you chose to redirect to his opponent.
The whole takeaway of the Trump Second Amendment comment is what Democrats and the
media think of gun owners, not on Trump.[Edited on 8/10/2016 by alloak41]
Factually incorrect. Big wide paint brush strokes don't cut it.
Trump made his statement implying "an elected HC"; not "candidate running for office HC" which means the whole joke of an explanation of getting the 2nd Ammendment Voters out is an excuse after Trump stepped in it just as he does everyday. He ad libed again and misspoke getting in trouble leaving it to surrogates to sing & dance the far fetched justification. As I mentioned previoulsy, the Secret Service are aware of his statements. We probably will never know what they tell his campaign. The Secret Service takes these things seriously. Trump is great in ampping up people, and it only takes one riled up wacko to listen to him. Look at his primary events with people getting smacked. Remember him suggesting he might even pay the legal bills of these people? He's a dangerous individual who likes to incite fear and anxiety in people. Not hard to connect the dots to actions.
I don't think Trump is actually calling for one of his supporters to kill Hillary, although I think he chose those words to once again make sure he made the news cycle. The problem is that there are certainly some lunatic supporters of his that might take this as a call to kill Hillary or anyone else they deem as a threat to the 2nd Ammendment. I don't think Trump understands quite how dangerous his rhetoric is. There are a lot of nutcases out there.
2112,
Agree with you 100%. Don't think Trump is calling for that extreme measure. However, I do feel he knows what he's doing and can easily push buttons for a faction of those who drink his message. He's too smart to not know how his message resonates with his followers. That is in itself a dangerous line to walk, and he needs to temper his rhetoric.
CNN found the guy behind Trump in the red shirt who had opened his mouth in amazement at the comment. He is a Trump supporter but said he would have taken Trump to the shed to have a talk with him because these things are not said in public in the south. He said the people around him felt the same way. He was guarded but appeared honest and he said a lot with his shed talk. He also said this is the kind of stuff you talk about in the shed and not in public.
In this sense one could say it was a dog whistle and it was interpreted that way by his followers.
In an interview last night, Trump indicated that he doubted anyone in attendance took his thoughts the wrong way. How does he know? And Swifty's post proves him wrong as does common sense. Trump makes generalizations all the time with no factual knowledge. Last night is a perfect example.
I don't think Trump is actually calling for one of his supporters to kill Hillary, although I think he chose those words to once again make sure he made the news cycle. The problem is that there are certainly some lunatic supporters of his that might take this as a call to kill Hillary or anyone else they deem as a threat to the 2nd Ammendment. I don't think Trump understands quite how dangerous his rhetoric is. There are a lot of nutcases out there.
^^ This
He was so very clearly suggesting that "the second amendment people" could do something to stop HRC, not with their vote but with what "the second amendment people" are most passionate about, i.e. their guns. The fact that some Trumpies are actually trying to convince the world that he meant anything other than shooting her is spin doctoring at its finest (or worst depending on your perspective). He'd do a lot better for himself if he admitted it was mistake or he could even say it was meant as a meant as a joke (some people have tried to pass it off as such, but not the campaign nor the candidate) but that it was in poor taste and he shouldn't have said it. But no he doesn't apologize for anything and his followers would rather take the rest of us as fools as they piss on us and tell us it is raining.
God help us all if Trump is elected.
hate to say it but i believe this guys explanation more than gingrich, lewandowski, pierson, guliani, lord or any of trump's other interpreters
.ALEX JONES (HOST): Leftists claim Trump supporters -- and that Trump wants some type of Hillary assassination plan. And all he said is exactly what Joe Biden said in 2008, so we're gonna play those clips and I’m putting it together in an article, I think Kip or Don is right now, so that we can put it out on-air and put it out on the Internet and show the incredible hypocrisy.
That is a standard statement in history -- of the Second Amendment to say if all else fails, we may have to go to the Second Amendment. That’s what the Founders said it was for. So I don’t see why Trump needs to walk that back, it’s not a threat of violence against Hillary, it’s saying if the courts and everybody ban guns and come to confiscate ‘em, it’ll be 1776 all over again. If you try to take our firearms.
So I don’t see why Trump needs to walk that back, it’s not a threat of violence against Hillary, it’s saying if the courts and everybody ban guns and come to confiscate ‘em, it’ll be 1776 all over again.
That's just a bit of a stretch. He called out Hillary by name, not government in general, and said "if she gets to pick her judges" then the second amendment people can maybe do something about it, clearing meaning with their guns not with their votes, because she can only pick judges after they have already cast their votes and she's elected. So he essentially said if they can't use their votes to keep her from picking judges then they should do so with their guns, before she picks the judges not after "the courts and everybody ban guns and come to confiscate ‘em."
It's actually hilarious that Trumpies are working so hard to spin what he said when watching the video in the moment that he says it, it is crystal clear that he was talking about using a gun to stop her from picking judges. Anyone who says otherwise is in denial or spin mode, take your pick.
"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."