https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4

What say you?

Poll result (37 votes) Trump actually just suggested someone shoot Hillary Clinton (8 votes) Vote Trump just joked about someone shooting Hillary Clinton (21 votes) Vote Trump merely alluded to the political influence of 2nd Ammendment types. Lliberals are fake outraging this one (6 votes) Vote What's wrong with joking about shooting Hillary Clinton? (0 votes) Vote Hillary is just as bad #ImwithJill! (2 votes) Vote This is a distraction from _____________ (0 votes) Vote

Gives him wiggle room, but his target audience heard it loud and clear.

.
*****
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5P6zdlPJ34&feature=related
^^^ever walked the streets of...

fake outrage by the liberals if the political mastermind genius is using dogwhistles with his nutty crowd ?

---------------------------
Signature

incident. He's definitely a virtuoso on the dog whistle, but I tend to slightly lean toward he probably meant something more to the effect of NRA and tea-party types obstructing or helping to thwart HRC

I wasn't voting green primarily for the "fake outrage liberals" line, although I do think the Left (of which I consider myself a part of) does have a very bad fake outrage habit. Im not even convinced he definitely meant green, but I just find it a tad more probable.

but it is worth some outrage given his rallies and history.

---------------------------
Signature

I can't argue with that.

I'm still in shock this is happening. And I even predicted this shit. Not a doubt in my mind that he alluded to her getting shot on purpose while leaving an out for when confronted about it. Then he'll play the victim. But he's been doing that all along.

I certainly don't think he's actually advocating someone actually shooting her, but I don't think there's much room for interpretation.

I fail to see how this could be seen as a mere reference to the political influence of gun advocates given the context of the statement, which immediately follows the statement that "if she gets the pick her judges there's nothing you can do".

To me a joke about shooting her is the minimum reasonable interpretation for the statement "although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know" coming right after the prior line.

To those that vote green, I'd like to understand what they think he meant when he said "second amendment people" might be able to do something about her picking her own judges. If it's the political influence of pro-gun advocates, I'd like to hear the rationale for that in direct correlation to his assertion that "there's nothing you can do".

He knows - he's cleary and unequivocally advocating shooting Hillary and any judges who don't agree with him.

There's no room for doubt.

And just because HE thinks it's funny doesn't mean he's joking.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

I think the evidence suggests a joke at minimum, but I don't see much from that clip to suggest he's seriously or, in your words, clearly advocating shooting Hillary and judges.

I think that's the most extreme interpretation here and do not see anything suggesting that to be a reasonable conclusion.

The "I don't know" thing is just the way he talks. He's always done that and not just when he says something criminal. He does it much more when he's discussing someone or something he dislikes, but it's disingenuous at worst and obtuse at best to say he does it "whenever he says something criminal", which implies that's the only time he does it.

>The "I don't know" thing is just the way he talks. He's always
>done that and not just when he says something criminal. He
>does it much more when he's discussing someone or something he
>dislikes, but it's disingenuous at worst and obtuse at best to
>say he does it "whenever he says something criminal", which
>implies that's the only time he does it.

BULLSHIT.

He knows EXACTLY what he's saying and know that people are hearing the scummiest/most hateful/most criminal way to interrupt it - but adding "I don't know" is meant to give him plausible deniability.

He didn't pick the 8th amendment - or the 5th or the 18th or the 1st - he picked the *one*dealing with guns.

He needs to drop the "I don't know" and "People tell me" bullshit and just admit that his position is that he wants people with guns to stop Hillary.

Maybe then you'll stop making excuses for him.

Like he doesn't know what he's doing and he's just a victim. Get the FUCK OUTTA HERE with that BULLSHIT.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

>BULLSHIT.

LMAO. No, but please carry on with your outrage.

>He knows EXACTLY what he's saying and know that people are
>hearing the scummiest/most hateful/most criminal way to
>interrupt it - but adding "I don't know" is meant to give him
>plausible deniability.

EL OH FUCKING EL.

he's always said the " I don't know" bit. You're reaching to turn that into fuel for your fix.

>He didn't pick the 8th amendment - or the 5th or the 18th or
>the 1st - he picked the *one*dealing with guns.

Yeah. We know. We all caught that in the video. You're not explaining anything new.

>He needs to drop the "I don't know" and "People tell me"
>bullshit and just admit that his position is that he wants
>people with guns to stop Hillary.

LMAO. So you actually want him to double down on it and say it outright?

If that's not proof that you need this to be worse than it is to justify your misguided outrage I don't know what is.

>Maybe then you'll stop making excuses for him.

It's not that I'm making excuses for him, it's that I have an objective perspective on the matter. That's difficult to grasp for a guy like you,a partisan blowhard outrage junkie on a bender with no ability or desire for such nuance.

>Like he doesn't know what he's doing and >he's just a victim

Pretty sure I didn't say that at all.

>Get the FUCK OUTTA HERE with that BULLSHIT.

Nah, you get the fuck out and suck my dick until you get some objectivity and the ability to discuss this reasonably.

Toodles.

>he's always said the " I don't know" bit. You're reaching to
>turn that into fuel for your fix.

No, he's done that all along because he's a despicable racist and wants to incite violence.
He wasn't joking when he said that 99.9% of immigrants are rapists. He's not joking here either.

>LMAO. So you actually want him to double down on it and say it
>outright?

Yes, if he said what he meant then he'd at least being saying something.

Because if he DIDN'T mean to suggest that people with guns take action against a political rival - we'll he's not saying what he means anyway.

You attribute this to incompetence or stupidity - I attribute it to cynical political ruthlessness.

>It's not that I'm making excuses for him, it's that I have an
>objective perspective on the matter. That's difficult to grasp
>for a guy like you,a partisan blowhard outrage junkie on a
>bender with no ability or desire for such nuance.

See , that's EXACTLY Trump's playbook.

When people of different political ideologies starting questioingn his mental stability he immediately questioned their's back - and with a topper. -- They're either shills - or actually *they're the ones who are unstable.*

You did that exactly here. Bravo.

>Nah, you get the fuck out and suck my dick until you get some
>objectivity and the ability to discuss this reasonably.
>
>Toodles.

You're either a strident ideologue (like Trump) or dumber than a big of shit (like Trump.)

I don't think you're an ideologue.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

>No, he's done that all along because he's a despicable racist
>and wants to incite violence.
>He wasn't joking when he said that 99.9% of immigrants are
>rapists. He's not joking here either.

Wait, you think that's new to his campaign?

It's not. And you're inflating its importance to a ridiculous degree.

>Yes, if he said what he meant then he'd at least being saying
>something.

Wow, didn't think you'd actually admit this nonsense. So, to be clear: You want Trump to ACTUALLY call for people to shoot Hillary.

Wow. Again: Wow. Holy shit. Just so you can feel justified in your outrage. That's fucking nutty.

>You attribute this to incompetence or stupidity - I attribute
>it to cynical political ruthlessness.

No shit. This didn't need to be explained but hey, carry on.

>See , that's EXACTLY Trump's playbook.
>
>When people of different political ideologies starting
>questioingn his mental stability he immediately questioned
>their's back - and with a topper. -- They're either shills -
>or actually *they're the ones who are unstable.*
>
>You did that exactly here. Bravo.

Meanwhile it was a direct response for your idiotic "making excuses" comment. So, you know, yeah. And I didn't say shit about you being "unstable" or any of that so I have NO clue what the fuck you're babbling about. You just built a brand new straw man to yell at. LMAO have fun with that.

>You're either a strident ideologue (like Trump) or dumber than
>a big of shit (like Trump.)
>
>I don't think you're an ideologue.

Nah, just a reasonable human being who isn't ultra-partisan with an agenda who can objectively see things for what they are.

>Nah, just a reasonable human being who isn't ultra-partisan
>with an agenda who can objectively see things for what they
>are.

The most ultra-partisan people are the ones who yell that they are NOT ultra-partisan the loudest - and the most(ests).

There's NO FAKE OUTRAGE HERE - this is REAL OUTRAGE.

And what is continuing to stoke it is that Trump's people are saying "That's not what we meant - it was a rational and sound call to action for voters to vote in their interest" and you're they AND you are saying "It's just LIBERALS trying to stoke fake outrage when it could *NEVER* be construed to mean what they are saying it means" - "Oh - and Hillary is unfit to be president because her brain SHORT-CIRCUITED."

I don't think you're partisan - I just think you're one of the people who can be fooled ALL OF THE TIME.

What's hurting Trump is that the people who can be only SOME OF THE TIME are not fooled by this.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

>The most ultra-partisan people are the ones who yell that they
>are NOT ultra-partisan the loudest - and the most(ests).

Right. That's just a bullshit platitude fam, it means nothing.

>There's NO FAKE OUTRAGE HERE - this is REAL OUTRAGE.

Oh I know it's real. It's synthetic, but real. I get that you're really OUTRAGED. LMAO.

>And what is continuing to stoke it is that Trump's people are
>saying "That's not what we meant - it was a rational and sound
>call to action for voters to vote in their interest" and
>you're they AND you are saying "It's just LIBERALS trying to
>stoke fake outrage when it could *NEVER* be construed to mean
>what they are saying it means" - "Oh - and Hillary is unfit to
>be president because her brain SHORT-CIRCUITED."

Uh... ok. It says a lot that you've ran to all these absurd straw man conclusions that have nothing to do with anything I've said in here.

>I don't think you're partisan - I just think you're one of the
>people who can be fooled ALL OF THE TIME.

uh.. yeah. Sure thing. You bet! Just more ridiculous and vague ramblings of a card carrying zealot.

>What's hurting Trump is that the people who can be only SOME
>OF THE TIME are not fooled by this.

Cool. Stay fake woke, or whatever.

18 replies to the thread thus far and you're calling me a zealot?

TYPICAL bullshit.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

----------------------------------
I have a webcomic: www.watchthecomic.com

My webcomic has a page: www.facebook.com/watchyourheadcomic

I don't think most people need him to be joking to fuel their fake outrage over it.

Personally it's just another in a long ass list of undignified comments he's made his entire career that look a lot worse coming from a presidential nominee than a celebrity personality.

>that look a lot worse
>coming from a presidential nominee than a celebrity
>personality.

I mean come the FUkC on are we bout to elect DONALD TRUMP? This guy?

He better lose by 20 percent at this point or people just really suck.

.
*****
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5P6zdlPJ34&feature=related
^^^ever walked the streets of...

https://twitter.com/5thcircappeals/status/763098172633657344

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

I think the conclusion that he's joking is immaterial to whether or not it was funny or, more importantly, an appropriate joke for a presidential nominee to give or receive.

But that academic breakdown of "just joking" is just plain insufferable and reads like it was written by a guy who really can't just take a joke.

I think "just joking" is far more nuanced than he deduces, I don't give two fucks what he wrote in the subject or what grade he got for the paper. That guy either takes life WAY too seriously or he's simply found a situation where his overthought, overbearing take is actually applicable.

.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Note how you still can't engage in anything resembling thoughtful discourse and have done nothing but throw darts.

who challenges him.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

I address those challenges point by point based on the merit of those points all the time.

Right here in this very thread, for example.

In the same post where I told handle to suck my dick, for example.

Which was in response for his inability to discuss this in a civil way without the GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE bit.

My prior response was 100% civil. His was not, so I took it down to his level and took it a step further.

See, you dumb little lap dog lackey for hire, I even addressed you on the (lack of) merit in your response.

Everyone SHOULD be outraged when political leaders joke about shooting each other.

its definitely not something you joke about.

I remember Huckabee making a joke about Obama ducking gunfire. It wasnt funny.

I remember Palin and her gun scope targets on an info graphic.

In a country where we have more guns tha people and more deaths by guns than any other country in the world... its fucking terrible joke.

Have we ever had a joke about shooting a presidential candidate before by their rival?

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

I don't sincerely think this puts Hillary at risk.

But I do know that the social function of politics is to avoid violent solutions. That's kinda the point of this whole process.

It also pisses me off that someone can get away with this trolling. The star of david that they used piss me off. The Moussilini quote pissed me off. The white supremacist retweet pissed me off.

This shit is working because of the 'anti-politically correct' crowd. He is baiting people into making legitimate accusations...and then playing the victim of political correctness to appeal to the mostly white, male, hetero backlash against marginalized people demanding to be recognized and respected. We've probably all said this shit to death on these boards.....but maybe it pisses me off particularly as a white, male, heterosexual.

with a gun

given the madness at Trump rallies this is beyond fucked up.

and you dont have to be white, male, etc to be upset over Trumps nonsense. Anyone with half an ounce of compassion should be upset over some of his statements

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

his rallies where they punch people and attack women. He is throwing gasoline on the fire and you got people in this thread making excuses for him.

---------------------------
Signature

if you are Black you are probably gonna get punched or get called out by Trump on sight

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

O gets fake-raged at for his use or non-use of "radical Islam", but we're supposed to shrug our shoulders at his potential replacement implying someone shoot his political rival?

Every politician with any significant following has crazy followers. And all politicians, and particularly Donald Trump, traffic in apocalyptic rhetoric. Jokes like this trigger crazy people to do crazy things, and it's in the job description of a politician to know better.

Hillary accidentally made a suggestion like this about Obama in '08 and people still rake her over the coals for it, and rightly so.

I dont remember this... I know she went scorched earth at the end but I def dont remember this.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

where she didn't think through the implication.

When people were asking her, late in the campaign, why she wasn't dropping out despite an implausibly large delegate deficit, she made the usual "anything can happen" argument. But then she added that nobody expected that Bobby Kennedy would have been assassinated during his campaign, but he was.

From what I remember, I think the Obama campaign quickly accepted the explanation that she was just grasping for an example of how anything can happen. But by then that wasn't what mattered. Everyone agreed it was a huge unforced error on Hillary's part, and a big step toward the end of the campaign.

I vaguely remember this. And no...it's not even remotely the same. I think it's pretty clear that Hillary was not trying to make a joke and was not jokingly ADVOCATING Obama to get assassinated. So Hillary's comment was more of a 'matter of fact' type of thing. She shouldn't have said it but it's still not an equivalent.

Here....the joke itself is a tongue-in-cheek advocation of her getting shot.

she knew what she was doing. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html

---------------------------
Signature

If so, then why did President Obama so thoroughly embrace her as soon as he took office?

Of course "it was wrong then and it's wrong now"! That was exactly my point. Saying it was a joke, or an accidental implication, is no excuse. But no, I don't think it's rational to believe that even Trump wants to take power by a default win after an assassination. That's the strawman argument that the Trump supporters will trot out to avoid the issue.

for her she would take it.


>
>If so, then why did President Obama so thoroughly embrace her
>as soon as he took office?


Politics he had another election coming up. You don't really believe they like each other do you ?

>Of course "it was wrong then and it's wrong now"! That was
>exactly my point. Saying it was a joke, or an accidental
>implication, is no excuse. But no, I don't think it's rational
>to believe that even Trump wants to take power by a default
>win after an assassination. That's the strawman argument that
>the Trump supporters will trot out to avoid the issue.
>

If she didn't do it on purpose and it was an accident how could it be wrong ? Trump and Clinton will do anything to win they don't care how. You think they are doing all this to get elected but will not take the job if it comes from some nutjob gunning down the opponent ?

---------------------------
Signature

Seriously, I don't follow your logic here. How does implying that someone might assassinate your opponent scare voters into voting for you?


>>If so, then why did President Obama so thoroughly embrace
>her
>>as soon as he took office?
>
>
>Politics he had another election coming up. You don't really
>believe they like each other do you ?

Of course they like each other! Have you ever seen Obama talk about her? Did you see the speech he just gave at the convention? He doesn't need ANYTHING from her, and she has no more vehement supporter than him.


>>Of course "it was wrong then and it's wrong now"! That was
>>exactly my point. Saying it was a joke, or an accidental
>>implication, is no excuse. But no, I don't think it's
>rational
>>to believe that even Trump wants to take power by a default
>>win after an assassination. That's the strawman argument
>that
>>the Trump supporters will trot out to avoid the issue.
>>
>
>If she didn't do it on purpose and it was an accident how
>could it be wrong ?

Are you literally asking me how an accident could be wrong?

Repeating myself: it was wrong because she should have known better. She should have been more careful with her words and not made an implication that could be taken by a crazy supporter as an invitation to assassination.

And Trump should have known better too, and should have been more careful with his words, and he should pay at least as much political price for this as Hillary did.

>Trump and Clinton will do anything to win
>they don't care how.

Don't be a fucking idiot.

>Seriously, I don't follow your logic here. How does implying
>that someone might assassinate your opponent scare voters into
>voting for you?
>

Scared he might get assassinated so they throw the vote to her.

>>>If so, then why did President Obama so thoroughly embrace
>>her
>>>as soon as he took office?
>>

Are you really this naive ? Did you start following politics today ? How about this shocker, one of the Bush's endorsed Trump. This will turn your world upside down Regan didn't like HW Bush. Guess who endorsed McCain ? W the one who ran a smear campaign against him.


>
>Of course they like each other! Have you ever seen Obama talk
>about her? Did you see the speech he just gave at the
>convention? He doesn't need ANYTHING from her, and she has no
>more vehement supporter than him.
>

Smdh yes Obama wants her to get elected because he needs her to protect what he started, you really believe the speeches ? Wow you bought into all of it. I guess you think he really wanted to help her with the campaign debt from 08 because they are friends, not because it was a deal.

>>>Of course "it was wrong then and it's wrong now"! That was
>>>exactly my point. Saying it was a joke, or an accidental
>>>implication, is no excuse. But no, I don't think it's
>>rational
>>>to believe that even Trump wants to take power by a default
>>>win after an assassination. That's the strawman argument
>>that
>>>the Trump supporters will trot out to avoid the issue.
>>>
>>
>>If she didn't do it on purpose and it was an accident how
>>could it be wrong ?
>
>Are you literally asking me how an accident could be wrong?

No, get in your hi-chair and put your bib on. If it was a mistake why would she offers such a weak sorry excuse like

“Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy"

An unforced error because Kennedy was on her mind forced her to suggest an assassination could change the race ?

>

>
>>Trump and Clinton will do anything to win
>>they don't care how.
>
>Don't be a fucking idiot.
>

Don't be a fragile cowardly dumbass. It's called politics research it.

---------------------------
Signature

>>Seriously, I don't follow your logic here. How does
>implying
>>that someone might assassinate your opponent scare voters
>into
>>voting for you?
>>
>
>Scared he might get assassinated so they throw the vote to
>her.

Have you ever given a second thought to the details of your conspiracy theories?


>>>>If so, then why did President Obama so thoroughly embrace
>>>her
>>>>as soon as he took office?
>>>
>
>Are you really this naive ? Did you start following politics
>today ? How about this shocker, one of the Bush's endorsed
>Trump.

Yes, a young, state-level politician. A politician who can't afford to rock the boat. Hardly analogous to an elected president.

>This will turn your world upside down Regan didn't like
>HW Bush.

And note: he didn't give him a particularly strong endorsement in '88.

>Guess who endorsed McCain ? W the one who ran a
>smear campaign against him.

Are you intentionally reaching for specious analogies? W didn't even attend McCain's convention (apparently at McCain's request).


>>Of course they like each other! Have you ever seen Obama
>talk
>>about her? Did you see the speech he just gave at the
>>convention? He doesn't need ANYTHING from her, and she has
>no
>>more vehement supporter than him.
>>
>
>Smdh yes Obama wants her to get elected because he needs her
>to protect what he started,

If it was just about electing any Democrat, then why didn't he push Biden to run? Why was he privately so dismissive of Bernie Sanders?

>you really believe the speeches ?
>Wow you bought into all of it. I guess you think he really
>wanted to help her with the campaign debt from 08 because they
>are friends, not because it was a deal.

No, because it's standard practice.


>>>If she didn't do it on purpose and it was an accident how
>>>could it be wrong ?
>>
>>Are you literally asking me how an accident could be wrong?
>
>No, get in your hi-chair and put your bib on. If it was a
>mistake why would she offers such a weak sorry excuse like

Have you ever watched Hillary Clinton deal with fallout from a gaffe?





Again, the Trump joke is already an enormous scandal, just like the Hillary thing was rightfully a scandal. Elevating the motivation to a ridiculous conspiracy theory makes it less of a scandal, not more.

>
>Have you ever given a second thought to the details of your
>conspiracy theories?
>

I've given thought to the strong feelings some expressed for the first Black President.
Do you always swallow the official story ?


>
>Yes, a young, state-level politician. A politician who can't
>afford to rock the boat. Hardly analogous to an elected
>president.
>

It's called politics even if it's not the elected President.


>
>And note: he didn't give him a particularly strong endorsement
>in '88.

Still politics


>
>Are you intentionally reaching for specious analogies? W
>didn't even attend McCain's convention (apparently at McCain's
>request).

You said a convention speech proved she has no more vehement supporter than him, you really want to talk about reaching ? W was a terrible President thats's why he wasn't at the convention. McCain didn't turn down the endorsement.


>
>If it was just about electing any Democrat, then why didn't he
>push Biden to run? Why was he privately so dismissive of
>Bernie Sanders?

Biden vs Clinton would cause internal problems and Bernie was not part of the establishment.

>>you really believe the speeches ?
>>Wow you bought into all of it. I guess you think he really
>>wanted to help her with the campaign debt from 08 because
>they
>>are friends, not because it was a deal.
>
>No, because it's standard practice.
>

It was a deal = politics. Just like whatever deal they cut with Bernie and Jesse Jackson when he ran.


>Have you ever watched Hillary Clinton deal with fallout from a
>gaffe?
>

yes

>
>
>Again, the Trump joke is already an enormous scandal, just
>like the Hillary thing was rightfully a scandal. Elevating the
>motivation to a ridiculous conspiracy theory makes it less of
>a scandal, not more.

Giving Donald a pass and making excuses for him by covering for Clinton reinforces his media double standard spin.

---------------------------
Signature

seriously tho...

cause Obama knows how to play the game. Clintons have a shit load of donors and political connections.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>seriously tho...
>
>cause Obama knows how to play the game. Clintons have a shit
>load of donors and political connections.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

---------------------------
Signature

>cause Obama knows how to play the game. Clintons have a shit
>load of donors and political connections.

He developed a bigger donor list than her in '08 and by the time he was president he had just as many political connections as the Clintons ever had.

By the time he won the '08 general election (which, by the way, was before he gave her the State Department), he didn't need anything from the Clintons anymore. He certainly doesn't need anything from them now.

you arent making any sense..

its politics, the fuck you mean Obama had enough donors already? lol

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Understanding what it was and, more to the point, what it wasn't, isn't an actual stance on his statement. I don't really see anyone saying it's okay or acceptable.

I don't think it was enough to incite anyone who isn't already thinking along those lines anyways.

That doesn't make it OK or even harmless, just something significantly less than the OMNG HE JUST TOLD PEOPLE TO SHOOT HILLDAWG!!!! hysteria people like that moron handle are riding.

It's an awful thing to say, not funny, definitively NOT presidential and further exemplifies just how ill-suited he is for the job.

Ideally this causes more of the GOP and some of his less fervent supporters to back further away from him, but who knows. He's been seemingly invincible thus far and it's hard to predict how this will impact things going forward.

whether it's meant as a joke or not is unimportant.
to say something like this in a country like this in a time like this?
thats never proper in any context. trump is mentally unfit to do anything beyond sitting behind a table firing reality show contestants.

but now we have hillary seeking an endorsement from MASS-murdered kissinger. I mean, there already homies since back in the day so, why not?

https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-is-inexcusable/

hooray democracy!

all the media does is sideline and discuss it like idiots..instead of checking his rhetoric and calling out anyone who supports him

------------------------------------
2021 Mexican Resident

2019 CABG Survivor

2016 OK Survivor Champion

be about it or be without it

RIP GOATs

and if they checked Trump he may actually stop saying dumb shit and thats not how this is supposed to work.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Also, who think it's not a big deal because it's a joke?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

you know who...

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

.....and fucking explained why.

The context of his statement was the Supreme Court appointees and the impact of citizens on that process... and in that context, you can be sure the "2nd Amendment people" are not going to just sit back and let Hillary appoint someone that may try to limit their 2nd amendment rights. They'll mobilize, politically, to ensure the least impact on the 2nd amendment because that's what they've been doing for the last 30-40 years with a lot of success.

Of course, being Trump, he's going to say it in a provocative way but I think this is a case where it's less Trump implying something and more people inferring the worst bc of his track record of saying controversial shit.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

given his track record, if someone were laying odds, it would be a far safer bet to assume the worst

He knows what he is saying. He says it in a way that stirs up his supporters while also being able to deny what people think he meant. Dude is a genius/idiot hybrid.

---------------------------------------

"The world is before you and you need not take it or leave it as it was when you came in." - James Baldwin

Hannity, Coulter, Palin, Rush, Stacey Dash... all those fools say what their base wants to hear...

does this really make them geniuses?

i hope not.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ all that

---------------------------
Signature

He's an idiot who somehow accidentally on purpose found a way to actually win the republican nomination. He shouldnt even have gotten this far.Which is in a way, is accidentally genius or whatever. He knows what hes doing, even if hes an idiot.

---------------------------------------

"The world is before you and you need not take it or leave it as it was when you came in." - James Baldwin

Those people mentioned aren't successfully baiting people into calling them racist so that they can play the victim thereby appealing to feelings amongst the majority that they are a victim of a politically correct backlash.

They aren't employing a technique that baits, anticipates a reaction and then capitalizes on the result in a way that controls the media narrative and wins record-breaking voter turn-out.

Bill OReilly just said slaves who built the WH were well fed

only difference is they all preferred to get paid on tv/radio instead of running for office.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>Bill OReilly just said slaves who built the WH were well fed
>
>
>only difference is they all preferred to get paid on tv/radio
>instead of running for office.


Trump should be taken much more seriously though, Legs...More serious than the others baiting people with racist dogma...

Because Trump is running for our highest office. This dude is setting new jaw dropping precedences every day that goes beyond the Right Wing media hustle of Coulter and Hannity...

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

I'm talking about the "genius" label and the race baiting...

no one should have to tell anyone else, especially on here, how dangerous Trump is because he is the nominee. wtf...

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>I'm talking about the "genius" label and the race baiting...
>
>no one should have to tell anyone else, especially on here,
>how dangerous Trump is because he is the nominee. wtf...

Yeah...I agree with your rebuke of the genius tag.....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

i was one of the first people to admit I was wrong about Trump being a joke when my wifes gay white friend from Alabama told her Trump was speaking the truth and he was going to vote for the first time in his life. Dude is damm near 50.

I made a post saying that shit scared the shit out of me...

still think he is trying to look good losing but it comes down to 5 or 6 states and America scares me right now.

and IMO we cant trust the polls because some Trump supporters are afraid to admit they will vote for him.

but as far as those people not benefiting from their racist bullshit, all of them make millions playing on Americas fears.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

But you seem to only be able to differentiate between Trump and someone like Palin by saying 'Well Trump is the one who was able to win the GOP nomination'. And other than that.....they are the same?

So I'm saying WHY Trump was able to win a GOP nomination while those others you mentioned couldn't. It's because he's different from them. Palin IS a stupid person. Trump MANIPULATES stupid people. And the latter is infinitely more dangerous than the former.

I'd suggest that there's an emotional reaction to the contention that Trump is a genius that takes over. Possibly because the word 'genuis' carries positive connotations and we can't bear to see a word that we associate with those connotations used to describe someone we hate so much. And we've seen that on these boards with several posters....who equate the declaration of Trump's 'genuis' with an advocacy for him.

So maybe it's simply a semantics thing. How about 'Trump is highly skilled in the art of persuasion and media narrative'? And if you deny this than you are burying your head in the sand. Bad guys are sometimes good at things. This makes them villains. Trump is a villain.

you are so focused on Trump winning the nomination you fail to see my argument.

Those other folk are making a shit load of money talking that bigoted bullshit.

Sure, Palin is stupid as hell but she also had a shit load of fans and voters who believed her nonsense. Ultimately she realized didn't want to actually do the work for a politicians salary so she cashed out.

my point is Hannity, Rush, Bill, could all quit their high paying jobs and run for president and they would get the same "genius" label when they say bigoted shit and get the same folk all riled up.

It isn't genius. It's ignorance. He isn't doing anything special IMO besides saying what bigots want to hear... just like those other folk.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Whatever you associate with the word 'genuis'.....

I've often objected to describing Hitler as a 'genuis' because i read Mein Kempf and the shit is not intelligent. For example...he makes an analogy about race-mixing that compares inter-racial relationships to dogs breeding with cats. Obviously stupid.

But when people use the word 'genuis'....it might not mean 'intelligent'. It might be a skill in some other area. So even if Hitler was a stupid man....that doesn't mean he wasn't extremely capable in rhetoric, propaganda, seizing power, etc etc. Hitler was not the only nationalist anti-semite in pre-WW2 Germany....but he WAS the one who ended up leading the nazi's to power.

So Trump is kinda similar to me. The fact is....those other people like Palin don't have the same skills and capabilities that he does. So I have no problem with dropping the words 'genuis'...but we have to recognize that he has certain capabilities and expertise in exploitation and manipulation which make him very dangerous.

legs, you blacks get all emotional and respond with anger. If you could only control your feelings you would see that Trump is a political mastermind genius.

---------------------------
Signature

You are relentlessly accusing me of being racist. I'm kinda taking offense at your seemingly random attacks. What did my post have to do with race? My family is black asshole. Characterizing me in this way (you blacks?) is really offside not to mention ridiculous. If anything I said in the post 112 was racist....you wouldn't have to rewrite it and add 'you blacks' to it. I clearly wasn't referring to black people in any way.

>You are relentlessly accusing me of being racist. I'm kinda
>taking offense at your seemingly random attacks.

You should be offended at your weak attempt to cover up the fact that you can't support your pathetic argument that Trump is a political mastermind genius.

What did my
>post have to do with race?

Who are these whites on the board ?

"an emotional reaction to the contention that Trump is a genius that takes over. Possibly because the word 'genuis' carries positive connotations and we can't bear to see a word that we associate with those connotations used to describe someone we hate so much"

>My family is black asshole.

Are some of your best friends Black, coward ? You know that doesn't give you a get out of white privilege free card no matter how many times you say your family is black.

>Characterizing me in this way (you blacks?) is really offside
>not to mention ridiculous. If anything I said in the post 112
>was racist....you wouldn't have to rewrite it and add 'you
>blacks' to it. I clearly wasn't referring to black people in
>any way.

It's ridiculous that you believe you are hiding your racism when it's obvious. I'm sure you were talking about everyone who disagrees with the Trump is a genius label, when you said "emotional reaction" because of the stereotype that whites get emotional and we know they hate Trump.

It's not like you have a history of rushing into to push back against anyone who dares speak against the double standard treatment of white and black drug addicts.

You never suggested minorities would jump at the first chance to vote for Trump if he handed out trinkets.