• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump hints that Clinton should be assassinated!

matchlight said:
That is not obvious to me in the least. Just replacing the majority opinion in Heller with Justice Stevens' dissent would read the individual right to keep and bear arms out of existence.
Click to expand...

If it was that easy don'tcha think Obama would have done it years ago? After all, I've been hearing he wants to take guns since his first day of office in 2008.
 
Fiddytree said:
Trump sure is trying as hard as he can to make people squirm all the time. The Olympics were supposed to cushion the blows and he's interrupting the coverage flow already.

Hell I'll get back to satellite feeds in several days and I'm just wondering what the hell he will say while I'm away from civilization.
Click to expand...

He will call someone's mother a whore and Rachel Maddow a little boy. That's my guess.
 
Thorgasm said:
That boogieman never gets old.
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain to us benighted souls who lack your keen understanding of constitutional law what makes it a "boogieman?" I assume you understand the view of the Second Amendment Justice Stevens expressed in his dissenting opinion in D.C. v. Heller.
 
Anagram said:
As an extremely non-Trump supporter I see this more as either a bad joke or what the campaign later clarified it as which is just that gun owners should unify and vote against her. Still dumb to do, seeing as it was obviously going to be taken this way.
Click to expand...

tRump dog whistles and then winks while insisting he didn't mean to imply anything wrong
 
Aristaeus said:
I'm beginning to think Trump is just trolling the whole world; if not then he really is dangerous. Now he has suggested that the '2nd amendment' is an option to stop Clinton picking supreme court judges.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat. This is a worrying new low in US politics: A presidential nominee suggesting the assassination of his opponent.

And Trump supporters will defend him... again.
Click to expand...

We've seen Libs do the same thing, when they say that if some people are banned from immigrating to America, then it could lead to more people committing terrorist acts against the US. Same threat being made - they'll claim they're just "making a harmless observation" even while accusing Trump of making a threat and not an observation. They call their own glass half-full, while calling Trump's glass half-empty. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
 
Thorgasm said:
No it couldn't. That's not how it works. The Supreme Court can't rule the Second Amendment unconstitutional. Can you guess why?
Click to expand...

You are not responding to my point. The Court most certainly could effectively overrule Heller simply by adopting the position Justice Stevens took in his dissenting opinion. According to that interpretation of the Second Amendment, it does not guarantee any individual right to keep and bear arms. Any government restriction on the right would be constitutional, according to Stevens et al., provided only that it did not threaten the existence of the militia.
 
Tigerace117 said:
If it was that easy don'tcha think Obama would have done it years ago? After all, I've been hearing he wants to take guns since his first day of office in 2008.
Click to expand...

Presidents do not make Supreme Court decisions. It would take such a decision to overrule an existing decision by the Court.
 
Aristaeus said:
Why would a president choosing supreme court judges require a revolution??
Click to expand...

Because when people's fundamental rights are abridged by a court that is appointed for the express purpose of bringing this about, then it can result in deep grassroots backlash, and a rupture of the system. How come Lincoln didn't die of old age?

The American system isn't perfect, and so even it can be fractured if political polarization is taken far enough. An activist court which uncautiously hammers at sensitive issues could certainly crack the fault line.

"Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread."
 
matchlight said:
Why don't you explain to us benighted souls who lack your keen understanding of constitutional law what makes it a "boogieman?" I assume you understand the view of the Second Amendment Justice Stevens expressed in his dissenting opinion in D.C. v. Heller.
Click to expand...

There is not enough political pressure by society to do so.
 
KevinKohler said:
No, read the link in the OP.

If she succeeds in neutering the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

They will have to get rid of the first amendment first. there is already a move to try and do that.
next will follow the second amendment as well.
 
Aristaeus said:
I'm beginning to think Trump is just trolling the whole world; if not then he really is dangerous. Now he has suggested that the '2nd amendment' is an option to stop Clinton picking supreme court judges.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat. This is a worrying new low in US politics: A presidential nominee suggesting the assassination of his opponent.

And Trump supporters will defend him... again.
Click to expand...

lol...Just when the GOP began breathing a sigh of relief that Trump was rebooting his campaign.
 
There was no vague hint. What he said was obvious and plain and he was advocating for the assassination of his opponent. Just watch the couple in their sixties over on the right side of the screen behind Trump - the man has on a red shirt and has a white beard and his companion has white hair with glasses. Look at their immediate reaction and then pretend to stick your head int he sand and lie about 'he did not mean it that way'. They knew how he meant it a second after he said it.

The link in the OP cuts off too quick but the fuller clip on other sites has their immediate reaction and it is without any doubt or debate they got the message he was advocating the eventual assassination of Clinton.

His message came across loud and clear and even his own supporters knew it.

Yesterday the talking heads debated as to how long Trump could stay on scripted message after the Detroit Economic Club speech. Well, in one day we got our answer. The man is ridiculous in the extreme.

The man is the most dangerous threat this nation has ever faced from an individual American I can ever remember. He is disgusting and must be defeated in November or else this nation could be irreparably lost into the abyss.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
You are not responding to my point. The Court most certainly could effectively overrule Heller simply by adopting the position Justice Stevens took in his dissenting opinion. According to that interpretation of the Second Amendment, it does not guarantee any individual right to keep and bear arms. Any government restriction on the right would be constitutional, according to Stevens et al., provided only that it did not threaten the existence of the militia.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. That won't abolish the Second Amendment. No right is absolute. There are limits.
 
tres borrachos said:
Maybe he was saying "2nd Amendment people, you can stop her (with your guns)". Or maybe he was saying "2nd Amendment people, maybe you can take over the Senate when they are having confirmation votes on Hillary's picks and put a stop to it, however you must". Or maybe he was just joking. Or maybe he was saying "2nd Amendment people, I know I was like best friends with her for years, and said repeatedly that she was a terrific woman, the best Secretary of State ever, and would make an amazing President, but now I'm pretending to support you so please go forth and make menaces of yourself because I'm too stupid to beat her". Or maybe he was joking (he needs someone to help write jokes for him). Or maybe he was being an ignorant asshole, as usual. Who knows?
Click to expand...

His comments clearly were about a situation where Clinton had already picked her judges and the Court and its rulings on guns had changed.
 
Aristaeus said:
I'm beginning to think Trump is just trolling the whole world; if not then he really is dangerous. Now he has suggested that the '2nd amendment' is an option to stop Clinton picking supreme court judges.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat. This is a worrying new low in US politics: A presidential nominee suggesting the assassination of his opponent.

And Trump supporters will defend him... again.
Click to expand...

Didn't take him long to get off message. I seriously do not believe he wants to be President. This is all a game to him.
 
Aristaeus said:
I'm beginning to think Trump is just trolling the whole world; if not then he really is dangerous. Now he has suggested that the '2nd amendment' is an option to stop Clinton picking supreme court judges.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat. This is a worrying new low in US politics: A presidential nominee suggesting the assassination of his opponent.

And Trump supporters will defend him... again.
Click to expand...
Not fond of Trump, but no he did not. People are so used to the Rumpster screwing the pooch with comments, now with him more on script and less off the cuff, they are reaching n this comment.
 
Evan McMullin - former Republican and now third party candidate - was just interviewed on MSNBC at 6:30 PM EDT and said Trump was advocating that gun owners commit violence against Hillary Clinton. He said its time we called a spade a spade when it came to his - Trumps - comments.

This is the perfect time when responsible Republicans leaders should both repudiate Trump and demand he quit the party and their nomination. They now have the moral high ground and they should take it.
 
Last edited:
Aristaeus said:
We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we all know if you support the 2nd Amendment you're a gun nut just chomping at the bit to assassinate Hillary. :roll:
 
haymarket said:
Evan McMullin - former Republican and now third party candidate - was just interviewed on MSNBC at 6:30 PM EDT and said Trump was advocating that gun owners commit violence against Hillary Clinton. He said its time we called a spade a spade when it came to his - Trumps - comments.
Click to expand...

This latest comment is going to hit Trump hard. The spinners here haven't figured that out yet. But, his numbers will never recover after that remark.
 
haymarket said:
There was no vague hint. What he said was obvious and plain and he was advocating for the assassination of his opponent. Just watch the couple in their sixties over on the right side of the screen behind Trump - the man has on a red shirt and has a white beard and his companion has white hair with glasses. Look at their immediate reaction and then pretend to stick your head int he sand and lie about 'he did not mean it that way'. They knew how he meant it a second after he said it.

The link in the OP cuts off too quick but the fuller clip on other sites has their immediate reaction and it is without any doubt or debate they got the message he was advocating the eventual assassination of Clinton.

His message came across loud and clear and even his own supporters knew it.

Yesterday the talking heads debated as to how long Trump could stay on scripted message after the Detroit Economic Club speech. Well, in one day we got our answer. The man is ridiculous in the extreme.

The man is the most dangerous threat this nation has ever faced from an individual American I can ever remember. He is disgusting and must be defeated in November or else this nation could be irreparably lost into the abyss.
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment was intended to maintain a credible threat to the state from the public, to deter the state from behaving high-handedly and cavalierly toward the public, such as with a dictatorship. If Hillary chooses an activist Supreme Court bench which creatively interprets the Constitution to its own skewed preferences - as activists are apt to do - then it may provoke a massive backlash from a sufficiently large segment of the public who cannot tolerate rights that are dear to them being infringed upon or revoked.

Once that happens, then Libs better start quickly yelling "The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!" all over again, as they did after their stacked electoral nomination process was exposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom