Trump did his thing today. I knew he wouldn't last.

[OWC Jamie]

http://nypost.com/2008/05/24/hills-assas...a-shocker/

[RgrF]

No one links to either NYPost or NationalEnquirer for information.

[vision63]

RgrF wrote:
No one links to either NYPost or NationalEnquirer for information.

It doesn't matter. Hillary was justifying staying in the race, Trump was suggesting that his 2A people might could consider killing her if they have their wacky way. Just more desperation. That's a good thing except that a desperate dog is a dangerous dog.

[RgrF]

vision63 wrote:
[quote=RgrF]
No one links to either NYPost or NationalEnquirer for information.

It doesn't matter. Hillary was justifying staying in the race, Trump was suggesting that his 2A people might could consider killing her if they have their wacky way. Just more desperation. That's a good thing except that a desperate dog is a dangerous dog.
It does matter. When a candidate for national office puts out a "dog whistle" that could lead to violent action, that can't be ignored.

Had you as a citizen made such a statement, you'd be in a detention facility answering questions.

[Lux Interior]

swampy wrote:
Hillary gets a pass on context?

lol!

Oh, you're serious, aren't you?

Here are two statements:

1) There was an assassination 48 years ago after a decisive victory in the Democratic primaries.

2) I wish one of you guys would shoot that bitch. I'll pay your legal expenses.

According to swamp-logic, the first statement uses the word assassination and is therefore, bad.

The second does not, so why are you getting into a bother?

[vision63]

RgrF wrote:
[quote=vision63]
[quote=RgrF]
No one links to either NYPost or NationalEnquirer for information.

It doesn't matter. Hillary was justifying staying in the race, Trump was suggesting that his 2A people might could consider killing her if they have their wacky way. Just more desperation. That's a good thing except that a desperate dog is a dangerous dog.
It does matter. When a candidate for national office puts out a "dog whistle" that could lead to violent action, that can't be ignored.

Had you as a citizen made such a statement, you'd be in a detention facility answering questions.
Well, what do you think is going to happen? He said this in the middle of telling a bold face lie which no one will correct him on. You slide past the lie to get to the threat. Not his first threat mind you. So, what do you think is going to happen. Just defeat him.

[Ted King]

Lux Interior wrote:
[quote=swampy]
Hillary gets a pass on context?

lol!

Oh, you're serious, aren't you?

Here are two statements:

1) There was an assassination 48 years ago after a decisive victory in the Democratic primaries.

2) I wish one of you guys would shoot that bitch. I'll pay your legal expenses.

According to swamp-logic, the first statement uses the word assassination and is therefore, bad.

The second does not, so why are you getting into a bother?
I think this shows how disingenuous this false equivalence is - look what happens if I change Clinton's quote with just a little bit of change of wording:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated died in June in California. I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Notice that changing "was assassinated" to "died" did not change the import of her statement and it would have been just as true as what she did say. The point she was trying to make had nothing to do with assassination - it was about "shit happens" sometimes late in the primaries, like a leading candidate can die, so I'm staying in just in case. It was a lame argument and insensitive to invoke what happened to R. Kennedy but in substance it was not at all like the issue of Trump's statement.

[$tevie]

Context IS important. And the context is that Trump constantly makes outrageous statements, yet is apparently still savvy enough to know how to make them in a way which he believes gives him plausible deniability. This happens on a regular basis. So this Second Amendment statement is part of a pattern of saying things to appeal to his more rabid base and then dialing them back by using excuses such as sarcasm or misinterpretation. Given this context, it's obvious to all but the most biased exactly what it was that Trump meant.

[$tevie]

Ted King wrote: It was a lame argument and insensitive to invoke what happened to R. Kennedy but in substance it was not at all like the issue of Trump's statement.

And this^^^ is it, in a nutshell. It WAS quite lame but it was also innocuous.

[$tevie]

Why Gun Owners Should Reject Trump’s Call to “Second Amendment People”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...oto%20(79)&CNDID=10018018&spMailingID=9336390&spUserID=MTQxMTE0MjU3Njg3S0&spJobID=980826132&spReportId=OTgwODI2MTMyS0