Trump's Awkward Second Amendment Comment

Donald Trump said: “the Second Amendment people” might be the only group capable of stopping Hillary Clinton from appointing liberal judges if she is elected president." People are now debating whether he was suggested violence against Hillary. Seriously? Trump is an awkward guy who makes spontaneous awkward comments and has more than a touch of Joe Biden "foot in mouth" disease. He shouldn't be President. But not because of this comment.

I'm taking Trump's side on this one. He was obviously referring to the NRA and other gun rights groups' lobbying power and ability to influence the votes of millions of their members. He was not urging anyone use a weapon protected by the Second Amendment against Hillary. [More...]

In 1994 and 1995, when criminal defense lawyers wanted to stop Newt Gingrich' assault on the Fourth Amendment contained in his Take Back Our Streets Act (part of his Contract "on" America" it was the Second Amendment groups that came to our aid. He got the bill passed in the House, we needed to get it stopped in the Senate.

In summary, the T.B.O.S.A. provisions that passed the House were those curtailing the exclusionary rule to allow the admission of evidence seized in warrantless searches if the officer acted in "good faith;" imposing severe restrictions on habeas corpus petitions; eliminating all drug prevention funding and the establishment of drug courts included in last year's crime bill (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994); mandating restitution for direct and indirect victims of crime, regardless of the offender's ability to pay; restricting prisoner lawsuits; and authorizing $ 10 billion dollars for building more prisons to house violent offenders, while disallowing funds to build alternative correctional facilities

In a monthly column on legislation I wrote at the time, I explained how the Second Amendment groups came to our aid:

While the Republican Congress got off to a heady start, it later stumbled into obstacles created largely by the formation of new and unusual coalitions. NACDL (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) was strategically positioned to jump right into the fray, joining forces with groups who previously were considered "unlikely bedfellows."

For example, libertarians (Rep. Henry Hyde (RIL), the Cato Institute, etc.) joined forces with us on forfeiture reform. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other Second Amendment groups, along with libertarians, joined forces with us on "counter-terrorism" and law enforcement abuse issues... One prominent example is a recent NRA board policy change from what existed in the early days of Congress when the House passed its bill weakening the exclusionary rule. The new board policy resolves the NRA to work to strengthen the exclusionary rule and to oppose any efforts to weaken it. Another example is the recent commitment by several prominent Second Amendment organizations to join NACDL in opposing pending habeas corpus "reform" bills.

....How does the end-of-year scorecard read on the Contract's "Taking Back Our Streets Act" and S. 3, the Senate draconian counterpart? From NACDL's perspective, things could have been much worse. The House managed to pass five new crime bills.... The Senate has passed only three of the bills: one increasing penalties for child pornography; one regarding the block grants for police officers; and, on December 22, a version of the House bill requiring mandatory victim restitution (but, under the Senate's amendment, a federal judge may forego issuing a victim restitution order in "extraordinary circumstances").

On the counter-terrorism and habeas bills:

Using the lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge to convince Congress and other interested lobbying groups that these bills would significantly infringe on personal freedom and provide too much control to law enforcement agents has been quite successful.

[NACDL Legislative Director Leslie Hagin convinced Gun Week to publish her article] "Why Gunowners and Civil Libertarians Should Oppose Pending 'Counter-Terrorism' and Habeas 'Reform' Bills." Gun Week Executive Editor, Joseph Tartaro, strongly commending Leslie's article to his readership, stating:
"Habeas reform is an important issue that should be of special interest to gunowners who may not always appreciate how important a writ of habeas corpus could be to them. . . . Leslie Hagin of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers . . . may be a newcomer to our pages, but she is far from a newcomer to constitutional concerns. Hagin's examination of the historical roots of habeas corpus protection and her illustration of how it serves to safeguard the rights and property of law-abiding gunowners, as well as others should open many eyes."
Tartaro proceeds to label efforts of political conservatives to limit habeas "a knee-jerk response to criminal justice reform," concluding that ." . .Readers who in the past have seen the habeas protection merely as a refuge for scoundrels will find Hagin's article very enlightening."

I think all Trump was saying was the NRA, as a lobbying force and organization with 4.3 million members, could be a big help to those who want to see a Scalia-type justice on the Supreme Court, because if the NRA recommends that its members vote for Trump, and he's elected, Hillary's efforts to appoint a different kind of justice will be defeated. While I would hate to see that happen, since I think conservative justices are the worst choice for America, I think it's a fairy tale to say Trump was implicitly or otherwise endorsing violence against Hillary.

There are so many valid criticisms to make against Donald Trump -- claiming he was endorsing violence against Hillary isn't one of them.

So as not to have completely wasted my time writing about this, I'll take this occasion to point out that the Second Amendment is only one away from the Fourth (the Third Amendment is obsolete.) We should never give up any constitutional right, even one we don't personally use. Once the government takes power from its citizens, it rarely gives it back.

Update: The NRA has already swung into action, using the debate over Trump's comment as the perfect time to release a $3 million ad buy against Hillary.

< Blagojevich: Judge Refuses to Lower Sentence | DEA Rejects Rescheduling Marijuana >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    respectfully (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by athyrio on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 11:51:36 AM EST

    Ditto. He was talking about AFTER the election (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 08:19:57 PM EST
    Maybe this quote will add some perspective:
    Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

    And Henry II got his wish.

    Seriously, regardless of what you think Trump meant, it only takes one RWNJ with a gun.


    You need to listen to his entire comment again (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 11:53:36 AM EST

    Trump's comment (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    was in the context of what happens after Hillary is elected, and that there was nothing anyone could do about Hillary appointing Justices, except for...well, 2nd amendment people.

    If there were any doubt, just look at the reaction of the white haired guy in the red shirt seated behind Trump when he makes the statement.

    That pro-NRA people will find a way to disagree is not surprising.

    Sorry Jeralyn (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    You are just completely wrong on this, starting with the fact that you didn't include the actual quote.

    He was obviously referring to the NRA and other gun rights groups' lobbying power and ability to influence the votes of millions of their members.

    But here's why your analysis is wrong.

    But there's a big problem with it.

    Trump made the "Second Amendment" as he was already talking about a situation in which Clinton was the president. He said, "If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks." There's "nothing you can do" in this situation because Trump is talking about a time in which the 2016 election has already passed and Clinton is president. If he wasn't talking about that situation, why would he say there was "nothing you can do?" During the election, there's something pretty obvious you can do: Prevent her from becoming president in the first place.

    Then Trump immediately follows it up by saying, "But I tell you what, that'll be a horrible day." Again, this strongly suggests the time frame he's talking about is when she's already in the White House. Otherwise, both the "horrible day" comment and the "nothing you can do" comment that bookend his Second Amendment remark are total non-sequiturs.


    So no, this isn't about the NRA organizing their members to get out the vote.  This is about AFTER  the election.

    I think he was saying (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    if Hillary is elected there's nothing you can do -- if he's elected, there is. The Second Amendment groups can help defeat Hillary. If she's not president, she's not in a position to appoint judges. If she is President, she has the power.

    He's campaigning for President asking for people to vote for him. This is one reason.

     I took the quote from Politico. Did they get it wrong?


    So true (none / 0) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:50:40 PM EST
    We should never give up any constitutional right, even one we don't personally use. Once the government takes power from its citizens, it rarely gives it back.

    Many people clamoring for the power of government to grow, forget to realize that the elected officials may not be one of their choosing


    To suggest-pretend that a constitutional right (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 02:03:45 PM EST
    only allows for Your preferred narrow interptetation of that right, is another  totalitarian maneuver about as useful as the complete "taking away" or "overturning" of that right.  

    Maybe Trump should hire an (none / 0) (#108)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    interpreter to tell us what he just said.  

    I don't know why people are trying so hard (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 01:10:31 PM EST
    to interpret what Tr*mp says now.

    I thought his appeal (to the "poorly educated" people who love him and to the media that fluffed him for months) was the fact that "he tells it likes it is/says what he means" and "is not politically correct".


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    Trump people have said the like him because he "tells it like it is". So now he's not telling it like it is and has to be explained?

    Yes, you did (and they did) (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    Here's his quote:

    "Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. [Pause] Although the Second Amendment people -- maybe there is, I don't know. But I tell you what, that'll be a horrible day."

    And if you read the link I provided, it shows why it's obvious this is not about "defeating Hillary" - he specifically refers to a time after she's elected.   So itit has nothing to do with "getting out the vote".

    plus, in context (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by mm on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    it makes absolutely no sense.

    Why would it be a "horrible day" if all he was talking about was getting out his vote?  It is totally illogical.

    There is no ambiguity here.


    Yes, Look at the Context (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by RickyJim on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it.
    Lower electric -- lower electric bills, folks. Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick...
    (CROWD BOOING) If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. 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. If -- if Hillary gets to put her judges -- right now, we're tied. You see what's going on.
    XXX you see what's going on? We tied because Scalia - this was not suppose to happen. Justice Scalia was going to be around for ten more years at least and this is what happens. That was a horrible thing.
    I am using this transcript.
    If you read the entire transcript, you notice Trump's non-linear way of jumping back and forth between different subjects and it is truly hard to put a time sequence on his predictions. However it is clear to me that the horrible day he is talking about refers to the day that the judges, that Hillary appoints, sit on the Supreme Court.  And I do think that the now notorious non-sentence "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is." is really ambiguous.  There were 3 Second Amendment references before this sentence and 4 after. Judging from the entire rant he gave, it could be that his meaning was simply a call to "Second Amendment people" to band together and vote.  When he did refer to an execution, he was talking about his own.
    So recently a book came out a couple of weeks ago. A Secret Service agent made a statement because she said the other day she short-circuited. Hey, could you imagine if I said that "I short circuited"?
    They would be calling for my execution, -- electric chair. They'd bring back the electric chair. It would be a whole different ball game if I said it, believe me. But the Secret Service agent said, "She simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office," right?

    Horrible day ... if Hillary gets to put her judges (none / 0) (#149)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 11:35:54 PM EST
    RickyJim, it was good to see someone else who had the full quote (I had most of it from Politifact.)
    ...If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. 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. If -- if Hillary gets to put her judges -- right now, we're tied. You see what's going on.

    As we've seen he goes back and forth, jumping even in time. I've never seen a public person (or even a private one) with such a short attention span.

      I have thought there is his darker side, which would like to hint at gun violence, when we can't forget that he lamented publicly the fact that it's no longer ok to send protestors out on stretchers, and that it had something to do with his voicing that side. But, as you say, it's definitely ambiguous.  He is not a linear speaker as most would expect from a politician.

      The 'tie' he was talking about, I at first thought was a reference to polling numbers but then it became clear he was still talking about the Supreme Court.  I don't think he even really cares about the SC. But his crowds do, so he'd stress that.


    Sorry Jeralyn, Trump does not get the benefit (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by vml68 on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    of the doubt on his statement.

    As for this...
    "I think it's a fairy tale to say Trump was implicitly or otherwise endorsing violence against Hillary."

    Al Baldasaro who is one of Trump's advisers called for Hillary to be executed by firing squad for treason.
    The Secret Service is investigating him.

    Rather than firing him, Trump kept him on and praised Baldasaro just a few days ago.

    Will no one rid me of this troublesome (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by vml68 on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    priest ( or in this case woman)?

    "2nd Amendment people" as a descriptor (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    potentially covers a very wide swathe of individuals and temperments..

    I'm sure people like Mr Firing Squad and Ted Nugent would both answer in the affirmative if asked if they were 2nd Amendment people.

    And given Trump's pronounced predilection for avoiding making subtle distinctions and for throwing out red meat to the crowd, it requires a genuine leap of faith to be so absolutely sure about what he "really meant". Or to be sure Trump himself knew what he really meant..



    He never once mentioned the NRA. Rather, per his script, he falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton "wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment," and then said that it would be too late if she appointed judges, before suddenly veering off-script to allude that "2nd Amendment people" could do something about her.

    And IF Trump erred and simply misspoke as you're suggesting, Jeralyn, then his own official spokeswoman Katrina Pierson quite obviously didn't receive the memo. Because she apparently heard the exact same thing the rest of us did -- as did U.S. Secret Service, by the way -- and then forlornly tried to defend it.

    What happened yesterday has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd Amendment rights. To be perfectly blunt, that argument is nothing more than a red herring.

    Rather, this has everything to do with the fact that Trump has repeatedly used vile suggestions and innuendo to convey to his receptive audiences some incredibly horrible thoughts. And unfortunately, it likely won't be the last time he dog-whistles his followers in a thinly-veiled appeal to the lowest common denominators in their psyches.

    What Trump did yesterday, Jeralyn, was to deliberately cross a very bright line, one which  Sarah Palin also crossed a few years ago when she took out an ad that deliberately placed Gabby Giiffords in crosshairs, just before the then-Arizona Congresswoman was shot and critically wounded by a gunman.

    Words do matter, especially during such times of heightened domestic political tensions as these.

    Given your position as a criminal defense counsel, you should know as well as the rest of us that there are a lot of dimwits out there who are perfectly capable of taking such statements literally, and then acting upon them. And so with all due respect here, you need to start seeing the forest for the trees.


    In Trump's case, Words don't matter (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 09:01:02 AM EST
    As Bea Arthur's character said of Mel Brooks' "peripatetic philosopher" in History of the World, Trump is a "bull$hit artist."

    Someone engaging in B.S., [Harry] Frankfurt says, "is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all . . . except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says." Frankfurt writes that the B.S.-er's "focus is panoramic rather than particular" and that he has "more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the `bull$hit artist.' "

    - from Fareed Zakaria's recent Washington Post editorial.


    Putting aside the threat of violence question (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    I would mention that once again Tr*mp shows that he does not understand even the basics of our Constitutional system. (1) No President can "repeal" any provision of the Constitution (not to mention that HRC has never suggested any form of gun control that would effectively override the basic protections that the Supreme Court in Heller claimed were guaranteed by the Second Amendment, which is presumably what he means by "repeal"); and (2) after HRC is elected President, if she were to name someone to a federal judgeship (or a seat on the Supreme Court) who was known to favor overruling Heller, it is obviously not true that there would "be nothing you could do about it, folks." To the contrary, people could encourage their Senators not to confirm the nominee. Tr*mp seems to imagine that the President just puts judge directly on the courts, overlooking the Senate's "advice and consent" power. (Or perhaps by "nothing," Tr*mp is implicitly conceding that he knows the Ds will not only win the White House but also score a dominating majority in the Senate!)

    I apologize for putting "repeal" (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 04:42:25 PM EST
    in quotation marks. Tr*mp's actual word choice was "abolish," which makes even more clear that he doesn't have any internalized knowledge or understanding of the Constitution. At least "repeal" is something that might happen to an Amendment, as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th. "Abolish" is what you do with an evil or obsolete institution or practice, eradicating it by declaring it entirely illegal, as when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, or the 24th Amendment abolished the poll tax. The expression "abolish the Second Amendment" doesn't even make rhetorical sense, much less legal or policy sense.

    "Tr*mp" (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 09:12:35 AM EST

    Trump knew, in my opinion, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 01:52:19 PM EST
    exactly what he was doing, and he did so in the manner he has been using throughout the campaign.  A suggestion, an inference, a little birdie told him, it is what a lot of people are saying.  The dog whistle, the wink, the nod. Some ambiguity to the menacing comment, with a threadbare veil of coyness.

     "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment."  .."By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do,folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

    Of all the excuses, rationales and apologetics, the "power of unification," --second amendment people locking elbows and heading off to help folks do something about those Clinton judicial picks by exercising the post-election vote is most far-fetched.

    I would go for another. Perhaps, Katrina Pierson, Trump spokesperson's who asserted that Trump was only stating what could happen (assassination) and he does not want that to happen, to stop that, people who support second amendment rights need to come together and stop it by voting for Trump and save Hillary.

    Maybe, Rudy Giuliani got it right. On ABC Good Morning America, Rudy gave Trump's words the real test: how did they play with Trump's audience?  Such dark words could not be what Trump meant, Rudy observed, because if Trump had actually called for Hillary to be killed the crowd would have gone wild. Although, Rudy might have noted the Trump supporter in the red shirt over Trump's shoulder whose jar dropped.

    Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House, saw it as a "joke gone bad,"  And, surely, an explanation from Trump, himself, will clear things up. No call for an insanity defense, as of yet. And, this may all be an over-reaction; maybe it was not Hillary as target, but just President Hillary's judicial picks.


    Giuliani actually said (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    if Trump called for Hillary to be killed, "the crowd would've gone wild"?!

    And those are the people Giuliani proudly aligns himself with?



    So, was Giuliani's point (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:11:49 PM EST
    that it's obviously not what Tr*mp meant, because the crowd didn't "go wild"? Interesting way of proving Tr*mp's innocence, coupled with a pretty ugly comment on the proclivities of the crowd.

    Tr*mp's quote was (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

    The "I don't know" shows he wasn't talking about the NRA political clout

    I don't know (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    is a qualifier phrase to the "maybe there is.

    IOW, guns owners can push back....maybe.


    You of all (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 03:31:32 PM EST
    people should know about the wingnut "2nd amendment" solution. It's a call to arms to murder people.

    And therein lies the problem, Jim. Trump did not reference the NRA at all. Rather, he quite falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton would "abolish the 2nd Amendment," and he was clearly speaking of what could happen after she became president and started "appointing judges." He deliberately left his inflammatory remark about "2nd Amendment people" ambiguous, and thus open to personal interpretation.

    Well, most reasonable people are interpreting that remark as a thinly-veiled threat of prospective bodily harm against Mrs. Clinton or, if we're charitable, against her judicial appointees. That accounts for the general pushback against Trump's despicable antics from across the political spectrum, including from more than a few Republicans themselves.

    And then there's you, who's become so emotionally invested in Trump's campaign that you're contorting yourself into a pretzel to translate the candidate's Wingbatese into twisted English. Thus, and not surprisingly, we once again find you defending the indefensible.



    In the real world outside (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 03:51:00 PM EST
    the closet of the Left, people believe that Hillary wants to get rid of guns by appointing judges that will slowly choke the Second Amendment by doing such things as making semi automatics illegal... there goes a lot of shotguns, rifles and pistols......

    The NRA also believes that.

    And everyone who doesn't live in a hot house of Trump hatred knows that is what Trump means. And the "after" bit is to remind fence sitters and die hard conservatives of what would happen if they don't vote and prevent Hillary from being elected.

    Now I know that you, of two thousand words on every subject, don't understand this, but if I was to say to a friend who is known to drink Bud Light only, "Let's get a cold one," he would know exactly what I meant.

    You, of course, would start proclaiming I was going down to the local mortuary and start stealing corpses.

    It's politics. You want to confuse and are getting a ton of help from the media and some ex-Republicans. It's a strategy. It may work. But then again you are the people who said he would never get nominated.


    Yeah, right. The real world. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 09:36:11 PM EST
    Would that be the real world in which you reside, where 43% of Republicans believe that President Obama is a Muslim -- or the more moderate one where only 24% of Republicans believe that Obama's the Anti-Christ?

    I believe it is the batsh!t crazy world (none / 0) (#80)
    by vml68 on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 09:44:03 PM EST
    where Obama is the founder of ISIS.

    I thought he meant (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 07:24:46 AM EST
    Obama and Clinton founded this.

    No judgment.  I used to watch it on Saturday mornings too. 😁

    Ok, I thought we needed a little levity.


    Thanks :-)! (none / 0) (#110)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    Here's one for you.
    I read this somewhere on the intertubes...

    Sign outside a Restaurant

    Special of the day: Chelsea Burger!

    and the Hard to Swallow
    Trump Sandwich - (White bread, full of baloney, w/Russian Dressing and a small pickle).


    I preferred that ISIS (none / 0) (#123)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    I heard that tonight. It's utterly shameful. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 10:46:55 PM EST
    Trump is inciting his followers by preaching the gospel of demonization and insurrection, and the menacing overtones of his rallies are reminiscent of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph des Willens." And I'm not one who even likes the use of Nazi analogies per se, but in this particular case it's becoming increasingly appropriate.

    And as Trump excoriated Hillary Clinton tonight for the presence of Omar Mateen's father at her campaign rally the other day in Kissimmee, FL, seated directly behind the speaker's podium in full view was none other than Mark Foley, the anti-gay gay ex-congressman who served as the GOP's self-designated cyberstalker of teenage boys during his time on Capitol Hill, and who was gazing up at Dear Leader in rapt attention.

    "From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent."
    - H.P. Lovecraft (1890-1937), "Tales of H.P. Lovecraft" (first published in Sept. 2007)



    Trumps "Big Lie" convention speech ... (none / 0) (#125)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    ... tore it for me. That's the way fascists talk. As is encouraging violence against political opponents. So go ahead, call him the f word. If it walks like a duck (or rather goose-steps) ...

    Obama is founder of ISIS, (none / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 11:03:08 AM EST
    has been part of Russian propaganda for awhile. Is Putin his advisor on foreign affairs?

    If by some chance you wanted to pretend (none / 0) (#150)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 11:41:11 PM EST
    to take that ISIS accusation seriously enough to refute it, you might go to Juan Cole.

    I guess you've never gotten a threat . . . (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Caro on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    . . . from one of these suckers. I have. They're taking over because they have all the guns, they inform me.

    Trump meant to insinuate that violence is the answer to disagreement, and not for the first time.

    He is one of those suckers.. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    Where were you (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    during Chicago....San Diego....San Jose???

    Tea party (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    central is generally where they are threatening murder and using "second amendment" solutions.

    Never been there (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    Is that a web site??

    I have been to Liberal American and found a swamp loaded with feverish people wanting to do bad things to Trump.

    Try it. You'll be right at home.


    Actually (none / 0) (#152)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 13, 2016 at 04:54:46 AM EST
    I have seen articles recently where one gets beaten for wearing a Trump hat, but never for identifying with Madame Sec.
    From the news reports, the most violent people are the anti Trumpers

    Secret Service (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    has a conversation with Trump Campaign, on that "get out the second amendment people vote after the election of President Clinton"

    Apparently (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    They disagreed with this post.  They felt the need to comment publicly yesterday about the comments of a candidate for the first time ever.

    Yes, now, it (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:04:08 PM EST
    seems, the line is that the Secret Service did not "formally" speak with the Trump campaign.  Not sure what an informal speak would be. Trump, for his part, blamed it all on "low ratings CNN."

    The campaign is saying (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 07:02:34 PM EST
    There was no visit.  I expect it will be believed since it seems it's beng believed he did not say what we heard him say.

    Like I said (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 08:08:33 PM EST

    15 hours ago - (CNN)A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments. ... The campaign told the USSS that Donald Trump did not intend to incite violence, according to the official. ... Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former ...

    With all of his asides, snears, shrugs, gestures (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    He himself may have intentions on many levels. No way to tell.

    I agree, there are plenty of reasons to keep him out of the presidency. After that, nothing we can do...maybe...I don't know...is there?

    What if I named some group that might have an idea here?

    Best response I've seen (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 03:42:59 PM EST
    Maybe the 19th amendment people can do something to stop Trump.

    Especially when coupled with (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:02:12 PM EST
    Throw in the 21st Amendment people, ... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 09:39:45 PM EST
    ... and it's a landslide!

    "some people" (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 03:44:34 PM EST
    do all kinds of things.  99% of it is noise.

    Trump is running for president.  That's why his cr@p matters.

    His impulsiveness (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by pitachips on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    And seeming inability to consider the consequences of his words are disqualifying. When the president of the most powerful country speaks, things happen.

    Respectfully disagree (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by smott on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    I think this was incitement.

    We keep letting the line slide with Trump, every time this sort of thing is allowed to stand.

    But the media has more important things to write about, like Clinton's hand gestures.

    Thomas Friedman, (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 06:03:34 PM EST
    NYTimes, August 9, 2016. "...There are enough people with a tendency for violence that cannot distinguish between political stagecraft and practical exhortations to rescue the country by any available means."

     "People are playing with fire here, and there is no bigger flamethrower than Donald Trump.  Forget politics, he is a disgusting human being.  ...I only pray that he is not simply defeated, but that he loses all 50 states so that the message goes out across the land--unambiguously, loud and clear: The likes of you should never come this way again."


    Like these Obama quotes ? (none / 0) (#58)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:57:40 PM EST
    Obama: "They Bring a Knife...We Bring a Gun"
     "Get in Their Faces!"
     "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!"
     "Hit Back Twice As Hard"
     "We talk to these folks... so I know whose ass to kick."
     Republican victory would mean "hand to hand combat"
     "It's time to Fight for it."
     "Punish your enemies."
     "I'm itching for a fight."
     "Fight for me!"

    Please, cue the outrage


    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    Trevor that's exactly the same as saying your political opponent needs to be murdered---not.

    Face it. You have been dehumanizing Hillary for a quarter of a century and now you are reaping what you have sown. Stochastic terrorism has been your game for quite a while. It's finally worked it's way up to a presidential candidate from doctors that provide abortions.


    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 06:16:51 PM EST
    Only Trump didn't say his political opponent needed to be murdered,

    Only the Outrage police interpreted it that way

    Obama left nothing to be interpreted , but he is allowed to say those things.


    Oh, (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 06:36:24 PM EST
    the "second amendment" solution doesn't include murdering someone? He's not the first one to use it. Sharon Angle in Nevada suggested that all democrats should be murdered. Trump just narrowed it down to one.

    Yes, we're all quite aware of the conservative victim syndrome. It's been playing out for quite a few decades. Trump says anything he wants and nobody is stopping him. He's normalizing all kinds of bad things but conservatives will continually apologize for him.


    At the very best, (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 06:46:32 PM EST
    Trump is reckless, and can't communicate as to what he means.  Not a leader if he can't communicate and dangerous, if subject to misinterpretations by almost everyone.

    Oh stop the outrage (none / 0) (#68)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    Obama says bring a gun,


    Trump is an idiot, save the outrage for something real


    Bring a (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    gun to a gunfight. So totally like telling your minions to murder your political opponent. Right?

    You know the right wing in Israel did the same thing you guys are doing and it led to the assassination of Rabin. Stochastic terrorism seems to be a common thing with conservatives these days. Most recent example is Carly Fiorina and her spawning the murders in a Planned Parenthood Clinic.


    Thats the point (none / 0) (#72)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 08:27:00 PM EST
    He Never Said That

    It only happened in your mind

    So totally like telling your minions to murder your political opponent. Right?

    Man, Trump fishes for the media and you guys without using bait. And he catches every time out


    Only valid if you believe that all publicity (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    is good publicity. Possibly a valid theory for headline-seeking celebrities and hucksters, but not for someone trying to persuade more than 39% or so of the voting population that he would make a good President of the United States.

    Exact quote (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 08:48:30 PM EST
    silly boy is if they bring a knife to a fight we bring a gun which is nothing like what you are apologizing for.

    Yes, Trump is very good at getting media attention. He doesn't believe there is such a thing as bad PR. As long as the media is paying attention he thinks it's all good. Well, that's really the problem because he's imploding the entire GOP with this strategy along with the imploding they are doing themselves.

    Perhaps it is time for the GOP to fold their tent.


    playing your game (none / 0) (#73)
    by pitachips on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 08:47:47 PM EST
    If someone was bringing a knife to a fight, can you blame one for bringing a gun :)

    But But But (none / 0) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 08:54:17 PM EST
    That is outrageous

    A politician suggesting VIOLENCE...

    My gun trumps your knife

    Oh no, That is just unacceptable

    But  but  where was the outrage police for that?

    The Outrage police lose all credibility when they give free passes to their preferred politicians.


    Look I get your point (none / 0) (#77)
    by pitachips on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 09:22:36 PM EST
    But trump isn't getting the benefit of the doubt on this one considering how he so casually endorses violence at his own rallies.

    How many House repubs belong to the Outage police? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by parse on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 07:11:56 PM EST
    Unless Speaker Paul Ryan and New York (republican) Representative Peter King are part of the "outrage police," the interpretation that Trump's comments were an inappropriate invitation to violence isn't as limited as you claim that it is.

    Since your so fond of quotes. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 09:50:18 PM EST
    When, exactly was it that HRC ever said she wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment and take our guns. As Trump has been claiming on a regular basis.

    This would only be the start (none / 0) (#86)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 05:26:49 AM EST
    She believes Heller was wrongly, and to tell the truth, no one believes anything she states anyway. I believe her honest and trustworthy numbers lay the groundwork that no one actually believes any campaign promise she may make.


    Hillary Clinton believes a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that is the linchpin of an individual's right to own a gun was "wrongly decided," her policy adviser told Bloomberg Politics on Friday.
    "Clinton believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe, like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns," Maya Harris, a policy adviser to Clinton, said in an e-mailed statement. "In overturning Washington D.C.'s safe storage law, Clinton worries that Heller may open the door to overturning thoughtful, common sense safety measures in the future."
    The stance by Clinton, the all-but-certain Democratic presidential nominee, carries potentially profound implications for the future of gun rights in the U.S.
    In striking down a longstanding handgun ban in the District of Columbia, the D.C. v. Heller ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.

    I also believe that Heller was wrongly decided (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 08:42:23 AM EST
    But I would be adamantly against repealing the Second Amendment. In fact, I believe lots of Supreme Court decisions interpreting various provisions of the Bill of Rights were wrongly decided, but I would be against the repealing or even amending any of those provisions. This is why, for example, I don't agree with the suggestion of amending the Constitution to "overturn Citizens United." The Supreme Court has built-in a self-correcting mechanism, in which bad precedents can be "distinguished" (limited or reinterpreted) or even overruled in a later case. That is by far the preferred path, for reasons I could explain in detail, but won't here, at least for now. My point here is that "Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment" is not a fair summary or characterization, even in lay language or as a slogan, of the statement, "Clinton believes that the Supreme Court decision in Heller was incorrect and should be revisited or overturned."

    Thank you for explaining (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    a tiny corner of this landscape.

    Another example (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Justice Ginsburg believes that Roe v Wade was "wrongly decided", but does not believe the right to an abortion should be overturned. (She believes the decision was based on "the right to privacy" under the 4th Amendment. Instead, she believes it should have been decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).

    Roe v Wade was decided (none / 0) (#153)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 13, 2016 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    under the 14th Amendment, not the 4th (typo?), but yes, otherwise, arguably a pertinent example.

    Actually, I meant 9th (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 07:57:01 AM EST
    Roe was also decided under the 9th Amendment's interpreted right to privacy. That's the issue Ginsburg had with the decision  - she said it was "physician-centered" and not "women-centered" - it emphasizes the right of physicians to practice as they see fit.   The Equal Protection argument was downplayed.

    I meant 14th Amend Due Process (none / 0) (#156)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    not Equal Protection. (I don't remember the 9th Amend. being mentioned in Roe, only in Griswold.) But whatever. I understand your point, and RBG's.

    Agree. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 01:58:26 PM EST

    Or here (none / 0) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 05:31:56 AM EST

    In the Washington Post, written by Jonathan Adler, he concludes with this:

    Should these remarks be reassuring to gun owners and gun rights supporters? I'll let readers be the judge.

    And they don't , rightfully so


    Oh (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 06:47:02 AM EST
    wow a nutty conservative critique of Hillary Clinton and the 2nd amendment.

    How about we go with the word "some" (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 01:14:51 PM EST

    As in, some don't, though it's debatable whether their fears are justified.


    The beauty of it is that Trump (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:57:33 PM EST
    does all the bad things to himself, while his brilliant supporters keep cheering him on.

    "his brilliant supporters" (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 09:22:58 AM EST
    Or, as John Kennedy Toole would say, A Confederacy of Dunces.

    Ah (none / 0) (#132)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    That explains the affection for the Stars and Bars.

    I was interested in Thomas Friedman's... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by magster on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    article with the parallels to the normalization of the demonization of President Rabin right before he was assassinated.

    I think Trump thought he was being funny, and it's not. There's no way he was referring to the political power of the NRA. Too nuanced and deep for Trump's feeble intellect.

    The funny thing is (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    The press keeps trying to talk about CGI and all the "shady" deals and Trump keeps stomping all over their story.

    I'm really starting to believe the mans a plant.

    What's amazing (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    to me is the press is stupid enough to attempt to cover a story that comes from that crackpot Larry Klayman. They're completely blowing themselves up along with the GOP. The people of the country have completely lost trust in the press and this kind of stuff is one of the reasons.

    stop the name calling (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 10:44:58 PM EST
    If you disagree with Klayman, that's fine -- feel free to say so. But don't call him or anyone else names here.

    If the man is a plant (I really don't think he is) (none / 0) (#109)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 12:35:21 PM EST
    then he is not aware of it.
    He has a long history of saying whatever he feels like no matter how contradictory/baseless/flat out wrong he is.

    He said this at the Republican Convention...
    "As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me."

    And yet, today, Trump to Join Titans of Homophobia at Orlando Conference.


    Since you're taking Obama's comment literally, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ding7777 on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 12:16:13 PM EST
    then IMO folks who are bringing knives to confront a group of voters, are not "ordinary folks"; they are domestic terrorists who are being met with stand-your-ground rules of engagement.

    And to keep it literal, Hillary is not confronting the 2nd admendment folks with a knife. Your straw man failed. sad.

    Hillary is not responsible for BLM's rhetoric but Trump is responsible for his own rhetoric .

    The Linguistics of Assassination Threats (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 07:42:14 AM EST
    Thanks for posting that (none / 0) (#157)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Aug 16, 2016 at 07:31:41 PM EST
    It's a very nice analysis.

    The only thing I'd add is there's a history of some on the far right talking about second amendment remedies.


    Kaine made the best comment of all. (none / 0) (#34)
    by mogal on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    He quoted Holy Scripture concernig Trump's remarks .  
    Luke 6:45  Kjv

    "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."

    He used a differnt translation but the meaning is the same, King
    James happens to be my favorite for this verse.

    Josh Barrow (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    "It doesn't matter what he meant.  It matters what he said"

    Comment to Josh (none / 0) (#90)
    by mogal on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 08:38:45 AM EST
    Josh my point and I believe Tim Kaine's in referencing that text was that Trump does not have a kind heart for others, only himself and that comes out in his words.

    thread cleaned of off topic (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 04:53:28 PM EST
    comments, insults between commenters, and Jim's main comment because it included profanity.

    Not objecting to your clean-up, but (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    I don't think Jim intended to use profanity in his comment. I believe he simply made a typo, undoubtedly inadvertent, in the vowel of the word "shot."

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    Proof once again that relying on spell checkers has its liabilities.

    I don't think you have been paying attention (none / 0) (#81)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 10, 2016 at 09:46:11 PM EST
    Jeralyn. Trump doesn't have the nuance to suggest using political power. He is a crass bully. I'm certainly no Pollyanna, but I do believe he was inferring that 2nd amendment advocates take up arms to get their way. I'm a former NRA member but was driven away by the likes of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent. And the incessant, almost daily appeals for money in my mailbox.

    I don't believe you would be mistaken (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    For a Pollyanna Chuck.

    There is no reason for progressives to stoop (none / 0) (#105)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 11:41:02 AM EST
    to the absurd and dishonest level of our adversaries. Of course "pigs in a blanket" was meant to refer to police. To deny this is demeaning to the intellectual integrity of the person who tries. It is a disgusting slogan, whenever chanted, however rarely, by anyone. The Movement for Black Lives, however, as I understand it, is highly decentralized and skeptical of top-down leadership. This makes it hard, or even impossible, for someone to "speak for" BLM and disavow bad behavior by participants in a BLM event. The real point, of course, is the the slogan "Black Lives Matter" quite obviously means "Black Lives Also Matter" or "Black Lives Matter as Much as Any Other Lives." This is very clear from the official manifesto of the original organizers, as it should be, just on the face of it, to anyone conversant in the English language. Only racists or those who would excuse or attempt to justify police misconduct (not necessarily the same set of folks), pretend to interpret their very compelling slogan as if it meant "Only Black Lives Matter."

    Uh, Donald. (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 08:18:07 PM EST
    I have done nothing but quote what he said.

    I even said I don't know why.

    I did offer a guess.

    "My guess is that he wanted to appear tough for the audience. Too bad he didn't follow through with Iran, ISIS, etc."

    You and your buds are the ones trying to claim what Trump meant.

    the comment you are replying to was deleted (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 10:52:18 PM EST
    Thread cleaned of personal attacks (none / 0) (#147)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    and off topic comments. This thread is about Trump's comments, not Hillary's emails or Obama.

    also, to the (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 11:02:38 PM EST
    Hillary haters commenting here -- you may not use this site to shill for Trump or advance your own political agenda here. You may respectfully state your opinion on the topic of the post.

    For Trump haters here, comments with name-calling and potentially libelous accusations will be deleted.

    Jim and Jondee and Donald and Trevor are going to be in timeout if they don't stop the bickering and name-calling, personal attacks and/or off-topic comments.

    Is the Third really obsolete? (none / 0) (#151)
    by unitron on Fri Aug 12, 2016 at 10:27:02 PM EST
    I don't feel like repealing it to find out.

    I don't trust the government that much.