Dan Rather???
She did not “hope” that Obama would be assassinated. She never used the word “hope” or an equivalent. What she said was that she was staying in the race even though he was leading because some candidates in the past, like RFK, had been assassinated in June. And she was rightly criticized for it. It was insensitive and showed an unseemly ambition.
You just described second amendment types as those who will use their weapons to kill law enforcement officers representing the government. So they wouldn’t kill Hillary but they’d kill cops. Fabulous.
So he’s recommending a violent uprising. Fabulous. Just curious: how do you define treason?
Look up second amendment. The purpose of the amendment is precisely so that the government cannot take away citizens’ rights and rule tyrannically.
I agree; it was an unfortunate occurrence then, with Hillary, as now, with Trump. I also recall Hillary saying in 2008 that Obama couldn’t win in the general election, implying because he was black. Even if she thought it was true, that was another poor choice of words that should not have been said.
Respectfully, perhaps it’s *you *who should read up on the subject. Justice Scalia was the most pro-second amendment justice on SCOTUS and he clarified the following in the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller:
SCOTUS isn’t going to repeal the second amendment. But I guess it’s good to know who among my neighbors would be murdering police officers in the streets if it ever did…
You wish then, that the revolutionary war never did happen? That’s how america won its independence from the unjust rule of England. The ultimate purpose of the second amendment is provision against a tyrannical government. Personal self defense is, of course another part of its stipulation.
No, it absolutely is not. When Justice Scalia (again, a major proponent of the second amendment) said its purpose is to guarantee the ability to use guns for “traditionally lawful purposes,” he was explicitly stating that the second amendment is NOT a “provision against a tyrannical government.”
This, too, is absolutely incorrect. When you write, “Thats what trump was talking about, people who wouldn’t take it lying down if the government comes knocking on their door to take away their guns,” do recognize that police officers are those who would hypothetically come “knocking on their door” and would apparently meet with a homeowner’s firearms.
Then no weapons would be necessary.
Again, you’re advocating for the deaths of police officers here.
God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Gun ownership is not a “God given right.”
Oh Gee! That makes everything all right. He wasn’t trying to suggest someone could assassinate Clinton, he was trying to start a revolution. Got it.
you know very well what he’s trying to do. He’s trying to win the election. His argument is if hillary wins and appoint judges to legislate from the bench against the second amendment, it’ll be too late and too bad a situation to correct.Oh Gee! That makes everything all right. He wasn’t trying to suggest someone could assassinate Clinton, he was trying to start a revolution. Got it.
I think you may find out, those folks who like to say they would never work for a trump whitehouse, I have a feeling if they were offered the job, most of them would probably jump on it in a heartbeat, that kind of job is a once in a lifetime opportunity and looks very good on a resume in the future, not to mention can usually lead to cushy jobs for the rest of their lives.
I have no doubt that he’s trying to win the election but a lot of times I’m not at all certain what he’s trying to say since he seems to be a master of innuendo and vaguely suggestive statements. I have no idea if he’s just sloppy and inarticulate with his words (which isn’t something we need in a president, either) or if he’s sending an oblique or coded message to some of his supporters (i.e. “dog whistle politics”) that he can later deny was his intended message.
Right, maybe make a TV show out of it. Oh wait…
It’s difficult to figure out his intended message because he keeps changing his tone and seemingly talks from both sides of his mouth. Not to mention mixing his hand gestures which become so irritating after a while. That said, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt on this one unless he doubles-down next week or next month. We haven’t heard the last on this topic for sure.
I think that is true for some, and not others.
So how could Trump ask Putin to hack into a server which did not exist anymore?
Trump also changes his voice inflections. So, often he mocks Hillary or the news media or other politicians by putting words in their mouth … he speaks with a partially closed mouth and faces one way or another imitating the way they read from the teleprompter. But unless you actually see what he is doing, you don’t get that from reading what some reporter wrote.
Except that his whole premise is wrong, further evidence of his basic ignorance of how government works.