Secret Service spoke to Trump campaign about 2nd Amendment comment

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: kaylaluv

Court nominees need to be confirmed by Senate.

Has Obama nominated a Scalia replacement yet? Things are awfully quiet on that front.

Secret Service: "Dude...SHADDAP!"

a reply to: BlueAjah

Saying if she gets to pick her judges is not the same thing as saying if she gets to nominate her judges. He was saying it's a done deal if she gets her choices in the Supreme Court. That's his assumption. And there's nothing you can do about it if that assumption comes true. Except for those 2nd amendment people...

a reply to: carewemust

EXACTLY!!!!

I'm sure Obama would love to appoint someone of his choosing.
He has tried nominating, but we still have the position open because the Republican majority in Senate has made it clear that they will not confirm anyone.

The Senate has the final say.
So, in the same way - even if Hillary nominates someone, the power of 2nd Amendment voters "might" be able to do something.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Are we going to split hairs regarding "pick" and "nominate?"

a reply to: kaylaluv

That's because it is a big "IF".
It might be too late, because Congress might confirm, especially if the majority happens to change.

That's why he shrugged at the "maybe" part. Because it's possible, but not a sure thing that we can stop the confirmation.

a reply to: JinMI

Oh please.

"I got my pick of the litter" is not the same as "I got to put in a request for the one I want".

a reply to: kaylaluv

Oh please indeed.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kaylaluv

Are we going to split hairs regarding "pick" and "nominate?"

With a President Hillary, those words will be merged and become "INSTALL". She will install whom she wishes to the Supreme Court. All Senators will know that whomever votes against the person she chooses for the Supreme Court, will meet with certain _____________. (Fill in the blank, using Clinton history as a guide.)

a reply to: carewemust

Well intent doesn't mean what I thought nor does it carry the weight I thought. Maybe I'm wrong here too.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Of course the Senate has the final say. But Trump was fear mongering with his statements. He never mentioned the Senate's role. He tried to strike fear in the hearts of his audience by implying that if Hillary wins, she will get her pick of judges into the Supreme Court.

Censorship
Not
News

To be fair I think when Trump said "that would be a horrible day, he was saying "if" Hillary gets in and she appoints her selected judges and abolishes the 2nd, then who knows maybe the 2nd amendment people might have to fight for their rights. So he`s suggesting to vote for him.

All of his exact words on it..

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment,” said Trump.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’tknow. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
www.theguardian.com...

Which has nothing to do with calling for assassinating Hillary, but it could very well end up violent if she gets in and tries to abolish the 2nd, that would be a horrible day he was referring to, because you know "out of my cold dead hands" an all.

Am I way off here?

ETA and if that day did come, it would have nothing to do with Trump and his statement, nothing.

a reply to: gps777

I don't believe he was referring to assassinating Hillary. It doesn't follow the logic of if she wins and gets her pick of judges in the Supreme Court. Once that's a done deal, killing her wouldn't fix that situation.

Personally, I think it was just a joke about the "cold dead hands" people if the government tries to take their guns, but it was a bad joke, and he didn't think it through (like most of his stream of consciousness statements).

a reply to: kaylaluv


I dunno if it was a joke, he is selling his stance and his stance is with the constitution.


And would be a horrible day to have to fight for those rights, is in my mind what he was saying, nothing to apologize for either.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kaylaluv

Are we going to split hairs regarding "pick" and "nominate?"

With a President Hillary, those words will be merged and become "INSTALL". She will install whom she wishes to the Supreme Court. All Senators will know that whomever votes against the person she chooses for the Supreme Court, will meet with certain _____________.

(Fill in the blank, using Clinton history as a guide.)

Intern?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: projectvxn

I would certainly agree. It's always something mundane and fabricated that takes the headline of the MSM. Of that you can surely bet your pennies.

Real news, real press and hard facts are all but gone from media. Were living in a propaganda induced culture, remind you of any other countries?

And some posters on ATS seem to work a continuous 24 hour shift posting the most baseless information from any source including blogs just voicing how much they dislike Clinton and they get used as fact - propaganda culture? You're just adding your own little contribution to it.

a reply to: carewemust

Has Obama nominated a Scalia replacement yet? Things are awfully quiet on that front.

Yes, and Congress refused to even vet him because they were so confident their candidate would win the Presidential election. That was BT (Before Trump). Idiots.

a reply to: uncommitted

Pots and kettles and such.

You should toss up a post! I'll even give ya your first flag.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JinMI

The Voting Power of 95 Million American Gun Owners . In Reality , that is what he was eluding to , not what some others might Read Into that for some Imagined LAME Political Gain .

I think some on here (the pro Trump crowd) are deliberately missing the point. Why do you have to assume what he was alluding to? Why are you mocking others for having to do the same but came to a different conclusion?

Surely when talking in a presidential campaign, he should be making his position/statements so clear even a total idiot could understand what has been said, regardless if they agree with or not - and doubly so when said idiots are in possession of firearms.

It's quite clear - he didn't state exactly what he thought people who scream "they're coming for our guns Ma" at the mention of any discussion around gun control could do - he didn't say "Vote for Trump", he didn't say "Don't vote for Clinton"............... now, why leave it so open to interpretation? There's one person at fault for this and I'm sure he's secretly pleased with himself.