Does Trump advocate Clinton assassination?

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know. But - but I'll tell you what. That will be a horrible day."

the last part actually means, it will be a horrible day at the polls when every 2nd advocate vote for trump instead of Hill, thats all.

there is no other context or interpretations needed, even if trump says there is.

a reply to: odzeandennz

the last part actually means, it will be a horrible day at the polls when every 2nd advocate vote for trump instead of Hill, thats all.

No it doesn't. You left off the first part of the quote:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,”Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

If she gets to pick the judges, the election is over and she is president already. The "polls" have nothing to do with it. And 2nd Amendment rights don't have anything to do with voting!

This is one of the most pathetic two-way member vs member mudsling posts I've ever read on ATS.

I only got nine pages in, and I don't think I've seen anything worth reading for at least six pages.

Shame on all of you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is what he says totally harmless though??? Because it seems that he's not the only one accused of attacking others with seemingly harmless speech.

For example:

And so if we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians who remain the majority in this country — we have to understand an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths. And when any religious group is targeted, we all have a responsibility to speak up. And we have to reject a politics that seeks to manipulate prejudice or bias, and targets people because of religion.

Because to me that certainly sounded not only harmless but reasonable to say. Yet when that was said last year at Easter Christians in the US lost their minds and accused Obama of attacking Christians and that he was praising Muslims, attacking Christians and that he was telling Muslims to war and kill Christians.

Now, whether any of us agree or disagree with what's said or how it was interpreted. The point is that apparently how harmless a statement may seem to us, others might see it differently no matter how far of a stretch of the imagination it takes. Without judging whether that's a good thing or bad thing the fact is, it's a thing. So it's probably best if one chooses to use their words carefully when they're in a position of power and influence as to avoid giving mixed messages to the best of their ability. I not only think Trump doesn't choose his words carefully, but I'd say he actually intends on them being vague and unclear as to hide his real intended meaning for various reasons.

a reply to: mOjOm

Yes what he says is totally harmless. The injury and body count as a result of his words is still at zero. Who is really to blame for harm and danger is the media, who have not only vilified and demonized a candidate running an election in a free country, but also has given reason for hate and violence against Trump and his supporters, for instance the assassination attempt against Trump, the attempt to rush the stage by an angry citizen, the heckler's veto enacted at his Chicago rally, and the violence against supporters at his rallies.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The fact that Secret Service had to talk with Trump about his 2nd Amendment comment suggests reason for concern.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You can claim it's all the media's fault but there is no way to determine whether or not the people who react violently are reacting because of what the media has said or simply what they've heard him say. Nor can it be said that the media always distorts what he's said either.

It's just as reasonable to suggest that after hearing Trump speak or reading what he's said first hand without the media being involved, that alone is what prompted people to react violently. Obviously some of the things he says are offending a variety of people on both sides of the isle and from many different demographics. In fact even the Media itself has gone back and forth in being Pro-and-Con for him because of what he's said.

You can't just dismiss everything he says as being perfectly fine and say the Media is to blame for twisting it. The media couldn't possibly misrepresent him in such a way with such success all on their own. It's very much because of what he's saying himself. That can't be denied. Many of his supporters even admit they like that he says stuff that is controversial and sometimes mean and rude. They say it's just him telling like it is. So trying to shift all the responsibility over to the media as twisting his words is dishonest. You must put at the very least some of the responsibility on him.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The fact that Secret Service had to talk with Trump about his 2nd Amendment comment suggests reason for concern.

"No such meeting or conversation ever happened," Trump tweeted in response to CNN's report.

a reply to: queenofswords

Riiiiight... Well, if Trump tweeted it, it must be true.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: queenofswords

Riiiiight... Well, if Trump tweeted it, it must be true.

As true as anything CNN might allege.

a reply to: queenofswords


Fair enough... good luck in Nov.

a reply to: mOjOm

You can claim it's all the media's fault but there is no way to determine whether or not the people who react violently are reacting because of what the media has said or simply what they've heard him say. Nor can it be said that the media always distorts what he's said either.

It's just as reasonable to suggest that after hearing Trump speak or reading what he's said first hand without the media being involved, that alone is what prompted people to react violently. Obviously some of the things he says are offending a variety of people on both sides of the isle and from many different demographics. In fact even the Media itself has gone back and forth in being Pro-and-Con for him because of what he's said.

You can't just dismiss everything he says as being perfectly fine and say the Media is to blame for twisting it. The media couldn't possibly misrepresent him in such a way with such success all on their own. It's very much because of what he's saying himself. That can't be denied. Many of his supporters even admit they like that he says stuff that is controversial and sometimes mean and rude. They say it's just him telling like it is. So trying to shift all the responsibility over to the media as twisting his words is dishonest. You must put at the very least some of the responsibility on him.

Except people who feign outrage—and no offence, but the Trump Kicks out Baby is a good example of this—is all media and mob derived, evidenced by the fact that anyone who was there, including the mother, said the exact opposite. Trump's supposed racism, which has now spread like wildfire among the populace, is completely unfounded, yet it still appears in the media, and parroted by those who take it as gospel. The one who wanted to assassinate Trump, an impressionable young man, clearly wasn't impressionable when he listened to Trump, but was "standing up for America" because he believed Trump was a threat, something repeated ad nauseum by the media and its followers.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
no offence, but the Trump Kicks out Baby is a good example of this

LOL... I just get a chuckle every time I see that headline... ahhh the Trump Kicks Out Baby debacle. You're right though. He didn't kick out the baby. He merely said, "Get the baby out of here" and pointed to the door. Good times.

Solid presidential material right there.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see. So again, it's all the media and couldn't possibly be anything Trump is saying which is promoting violence all on it's own huh???

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: odzeandennz

the last part actually means, it will be a horrible day at the polls when every 2nd advocate vote for trump instead of Hill, thats all.

No it doesn't. You left off the first part of the quote:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,”Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

If she gets to pick the judges, the election is over and she is president already. The "polls" have nothing to do with it. And 2nd Amendment rights don't have anything to do with voting!

im glad youre the only one who saw through my sarcasm. wait...

but thanks tho.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see. So again, it's all the media and couldn't possibly be anything Trump is saying which is promoting violence all on it's own huh???

Don't forget, we are also supposed to believe that the SS talked to the Trump campaign on at least 2 occasions because of the media outrage, and not because of what Trump said.

a reply to: mOjOm

Well do you remember when HRC made the comment about not dropping out of the Democratic nomination process a few years back because Obama may be assassinated?

a reply to: introvert

Yea thats so true. The SS "get your mind right Don" bullcrap. Press outrage, part of the in unison destruction of a candidate. Press, SS, CIA, hear a head, there a head, a basket full of heads.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: mOjOm

Well do you remember when HRC made the comment about not dropping out of the Democratic nomination process a few years back because Obama may be assassinated?

That was an incredibly dumb thing for her to say, but there is a lot more context to it than how you presented it.

She was referring to not dropping out because # happens and Obama could have ended up like RFK.

Eventually, she apologized for making that remark.

originally posted by: Logarock

Well do you remember when HRC made the comment about not dropping out of the Democratic nomination process a few years back because Obama may be assassinated?

No, I don't remember anything about that.

I believe you, I just don't recall anything about that.

What's your point???