Today Donald Trump Came to My Town Just To Put His Foot In His Mouth and His Ass in a Sling

[abaddon]

It doesn’t even matter if he really meant violence or just meant “can do something” politically. No one can prove what he really meant and in context it is possible he was just being dismayingly careless with his word choices. If there was no other problem with Trump, this incapacity for tact is in itself reason enough he cannot be a president. Nobody can say something that, either accidentally or intentionally, sounds suggestive of violence while holding that office. Surely some of the people thinking of voting for him will realize that...

 

[repoman]

Yeah, imagine Eisenhower acting like this...

 

[repoman]

Trump should just quote Jefferson:

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Not being sarcastic, this is the best message for our country...

Also, I think that Trump can be made to use the "Tree of Liberty" dog whistle if it is said by the right people on Twitter probably via 4chan and 8chan. Now that would be interesting.

 

[blastula]

Repoman, is this a cry for help?

 

[repoman]

If that quote was said about another place and time, many would agree with it. We here and now are no different, we should hold this quote as precious.

 

[Deepak]

Trump should just quote Jefferson:

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Not being sarcastic, this is the best message for our country...

Also, I think that Trump can be made to use the "Tree of Liberty" dog whistle if it is said by the right people on Twitter probably via 4chan and 8chan. Now that would be interesting.

I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial.2C_conviction_and_sentencing

 

[bleubird]

If that quote was said about another place and time, many would agree with it. We here and now are no different, we should hold this quote as precious.

You go first.I may be right behind you.....

 

[untermensche]

If that quote was said about another place and time, many would agree with it. We here and now are no different, we should hold this quote as precious.

We should settle political disputes by shooting who?

The quote is despicable. The lowest kind of appeal possible.

Not in any way helpful with any current problem.

Red meat for the sickest among us.

 

[Brian63]

As much public speaking as they do and as many off-the-cuff comments as these campaigning politicians make, it is inevitable that they are sometimes going to misspeak and make poorly-choiced statements. That is just being human, and as long as they seem to acknowledge that it was just a verbal slipup and not something they literally mean, then it is something I am willing to look past. So it is not so much the initial troubling phrase that has me interested, as much as how they respond to it publicly afterwards, and whether they are apologetic about it (and sincerely so), or whether they still try to find a way to blame other people for it, etc. instead of just acknowledging their own error. It also has me curious how his followers are going to treat this whole matter. Will they acknowledge it being just a poor choice of words by Trump himself, or will they somehow try to (as usual) blame this on Hillary, liberals, and the media, etc.? Will they do some mixture of the above?

I have looked on a couple right wing discussion fora, and on those particular ones do not even see them discussing or acknowledging this issue at all. They have so far just been silent about it. It is so obviously a slipup of Trump himself and not something that they can fault on liberals in any real way, so instead they seem to just have avoided talking about the whole situation, so far at least.

So sad their own behavior, and also so sad that this is being made into an issue at all. So many people are going to decide who to vote for as president of the United States based on a situation like this, rather than the actual issues and positions that should really be the factors. Such a pathetic world we live in.

Brian

*Update: Oooh, one of those right-wing fora I looked at does now have a thread about this whole situation, and they still make the effort to blame it on liberals. Apparently they understand Trump correctly while others misunderstand him, and he clearly meant no violence, and so he is not to blame for this whole mess, the liberals are. That is the script they are going with...<sigh>...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It doesn’t even matter if he really meant violence or just meant “can do something” politically. No one can prove what he really meant and in context it is possible he was just being dismayingly careless with his word choices. If there was no other problem with Trump, this incapacity for tact is in itself reason enough he cannot be a president. Nobody can say something that, either accidentally or intentionally, sounds suggestive of violence while holding that office. Surely some of the people thinking of voting for him will realize that...

My father-in-law is a narcissist. I hear some many similarities with how they toss stuff out like that. The intent is clear.

 

[laughing dog]

Trump should just quote Jefferson:

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Not being sarcastic, this is the best message for our country...

Anyone familiar with that quote would know Jefferson was talking about fighting against the armed forces of "tyranny", not the murder of individuals with whom one disagrees.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump should just quote Jefferson:



Not being sarcastic, this is the best message for our country...

Anyone familiar with that quote would know Jefferson was talking about fighting against the armed forces of "tyranny", not the murder of individuals with whom one disagrees.

In another board I replied that they hadn't known tyranny.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As much public speaking as they do and as many off-the-cuff comments as these campaigning politicians make, it is inevitable that they are sometimes going to misspeak and make poorly-choiced statements. That is just being human, and as long as they seem to acknowledge that it was just a verbal slipup and not something they literally mean, then it is something I am willing to look past. So it is not so much the initial troubling phrase that has me interested, as much as how they respond to it publicly afterwards, and whether they are apologetic about it (and sincerely so), or whether they still try to find a way to blame other people for it, etc. instead of just acknowledging their own error. It also has me curious how his followers are going to treat this whole matter. Will they acknowledge it being just a poor choice of words by Trump himself, or will they somehow try to (as usual) blame this on Hillary, liberals, and the media, etc.? Will they do some mixture of the above?

Apparently in a recent speech, Trump said 'titties' instead of what he meant. That is a harmless foul. A lot of his other statements, however, haven't been gaffes. They are intentional.

This statement was clearly intentional, even if true intent wasn't behind the words (confusing huh?). Trump didn't command people to kill President Clinton. Trump likely doesn't want someone to kill President Clinton. But his words said very much, to save the 2nd Amendment, kill President Clinton. And you aren't allowed to say that sort of thing. This really should be a crime. But this is the General Election, much like the Super Bowl, and larger and larger infractions are ignored in order to let them decide it on the field. But this "inappropriate joke" by Trump, according to Paul Ryan, crossed several lines, including a polka dot one.

Like you, I do find the brown shirt responses to his statement very depressing.

 

[repoman]

As an example, was I the only one cheering for the recently military coup in Turkey to succeed?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As an example, was I the only one cheering for the recently military coup in Turkey to succeed?

Says the nazi sympathizer.

 

[Brian63]

But his words said very much, to save the 2nd Amendment, kill President Clinton. And you aren't allowed to say that sort of thing. This really should be a crime.

That is where I would disagree. It seemed clearly more like an offhand remark, a bad joke, that he was making, not a serious statement actually advocating for Clinton's assassination. Regular people sometimes make assassination-themed jokes about politicians, and I do not think they should be investigated just for that. The fact that Trump happens to be a prominent politician does not change the fact that he is also a human and prone to making the same sorts of errors and verbal slipups. So unless he says or does something more prominent on the matter of assassinating Clinton, and if he simply apologizes for it, it is something that we should just not bother with, for the sake of everyone involved, and not treat it as a crime in itself. It is being turned into a prominent issue by Trump's campaign (not yet acknowledging the simple error) and his right-wing supporters (trying to blame others for it), and the whole thing is just a sloppy mess.

Brian

 

[Rhea]

Anyone unable to predict that this comment could cause problems will fail epicly and repeatedly in trying to negotiate with foreign powers who have a different world-view and for whom the sstatesman must always think about possible interpretations.

Trump is claiming loud and proud that he has no skill in this arena and we are all dumb for not realizing that.

When a man tells you what he's like, believe him.

 

[Rhea]

But his words said very much, to save the 2nd Amendment, kill President Clinton. And you aren't allowed to say that sort of thing. This really should be a crime.

That is where I would disagree. It seemed clearly more like an offhand remark, a bad joke, that he was making, not a serious statement actually advocating for Clinton's assassination. Regular people sometimes make assassination-themed jokes about politicians, and I do not think they should be investigated just for that.

[...]
and the whole thing is just a sloppy mess.

The last "sloppy mess" ended with six deaths.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...get-map-play-role-in-giffords-shooting/21575/

In March of 2010, Sarah Palin released a map of 20 Congressional districts she and John McCain had won in 2008 but whose Congressmen had voted in favor of the recently passed health care reform bill. The map, released amid a wave of small-scale violence against Democratic lawmakers, marked each targeted district with a set of crosshairs. Palin, who had promoted the map by tweeting "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD," drew controversy with the map, which some critics saw as a winking approval of violence.

On Saturday, Arizona Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, one of the 20 targeted Congressmen, was shot in the head by 22-year-old Jared Loughner, whose attack wounded 13 others and killed six. Loughner, who appears to have planned methodically to kill Giffords, had recently shown signs of severe mental deterioration, according to friends and acquaintances.

so, "investigated"? Perhaps not. Excoriated? Absolutely.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But his words said very much, to save the 2nd Amendment, kill President Clinton. And you aren't allowed to say that sort of thing. This really should be a crime.

That is where I would disagree. It seemed clearly more like an offhand remark, a bad joke, that he was making, not a serious statement actually advocating for Clinton's assassination.

I think he was joking about the assassination of Clinton.

Regular people sometimes make assassination-themed jokes about politicians, and I do not think they should be investigated just for that. The fact that Trump happens to be a prominent politician does not change the fact that he is also a human and prone to making the same sorts of errors and verbal slipups.

This wasn't a slip up. My FIL is a narcissist. I see the same methods of communication all the time. Throw something out there, with a minor cover and then pretend you didn't mean what you said.

As an anecdotal example, actual example:
FIL: *in reference to Obama* I just hope the man in the yellow hat comes back in time.
Me: *putting eyes back in sockets* That is century old type racism, what the heck?!
FIL: But Obama isn't black.
Me: *putting eyes back in sockets*

(paraphrase)
FIL: *out of blue reference to A*
Me: We didn't do A.
FIL: I never said you did.

The Trump comment follows along, with the big teller at the end "I don't know." That is the narcissist cover. I agree, that Trump isn't advocating that Clinton be killed, but he sure the hell was, at best, joking about her being assassinated.

So unless he says or does something more prominent on the matter of assassinating Clinton, and if he simply apologizes for it, it is something that we should just not bother with, for the sake of everyone involved, and not treat it as a crime in itself. It is being turned into a prominent issue by Trump's campaign (not yet acknowledging the simple error) and his right-wing supporters (trying to blame others for it), and the whole thing is just a sloppy mess.

There is nothing to apologize for. He meant what he said. It wasn't a slip of the tongue.

 

[Treedbear]

... It seemed clearly more like an offhand remark, a bad joke, that he was making, not a serious statement actually advocating for Clinton's assassination. Regular people sometimes make assassination-themed jokes about politicians, and I do not think they should be investigated just for that. ...

I've heard several pundits calling it a joke. And it mostly comes from those who really don't support Trump. The Trump supporters don't call it a joke, they spin it as a kind of compliment to activist gun owners. So I think its pollyannaish to try to cast it as a joke. Even a bad one. If you've been reading up on Trump's bio its obviously a tactic he uses when attacked. Just like they say Putin is when he's cornered (now that I think of it), but even more aggressive. Trump always counters by upping the ante, always going on the offense. I think its a direct response to many very respectable people, including Clinton and Obama, saying he's a danger to the nation. It would be a joke if Trump was the crazy uncle at the holiday party. This isn't comedy central or reality tv.