JWeinCom said:
Well, there are a few major differences. First off, he's referring to "second ammendment people", which is a group defined by gun ownership. And he's not suggesting they protest. He said "if Hillary gets her justices, there's nothing you can do." There's nothing you can do implies that protesting isn't going to be effective. Then he suggested that a "maybe" there's something that people identified by gun ownership could do "he doesn't know". If he meant protest, he could have said, protest. Why the awkwardly vague phrasing of "maybe they could do something about it"? And why did he immediately distance himself by saying "I don't know"? He was being clear enough to get the message across but just ambiguous enough to deny it. But, I might give him the benefit of the doubt if he doesn't have a history of this. Hillary said something kind of sketchy (not as much so) about Obama 8 years ago. When she was losing, she was asked about the outlook, and she pointed out how elections could change. Among other examples, she mentioned the Bobbie Kennedy assassination. Now, that's definitely a really terrible way to phrase it. But, considered in the context of what Hillary says, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that it was just bad phrasing. However, Drumpf has said lots of things specifically to incite anger or violence. He recently said that Barack Obama "founded" ISIS. When asked if he meant in a metaphorical manner, he insisted it was literal. That's a dangerous thing for a candidate to say, not to mention obviously false. He suggested the his supporters should "knock the crap out of" a protestor, and offered to pay the legal bills of anyone who did so. He encouraged Russia to hack into American servers. He said of one of the Democratic speakers (presumably Bloomberg) " I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy, I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn't know what the hell happened." He said of a protestor in Nevada, "I'd like to punch him in the face". He also said he could shoot someone on fifth a avenue and he wouldn't lose any support. Again, if this was a one-off slip, I'd probably excuse it. But it's part of a pattern of increasingly violent suggestions that would be very concerning to anyone, even if they weren't in the running for a position that comes with a nuclear arsenal. At a certain point, we have to stop taking it as a joke. |
By "if hillary gets her justices", he meant you need to stand with him so Hillary doesn't get elected. Rousing up that base of voters to take a stronger side. He's pointing to her and SC justice decisions as the reason why 2nd amendment rights would be limited or banned. I take it as "rally behind me, because you'll be out of options with her".
Bandorr said:
My issue with the statement is that it is dangerous, and careless. He made not have been intending to incite violence, but he may have accidentally done that anyways. There are many difference ways to write the speech that doesn't give that impression. So he either intended it to have that impression, or was careless in the construction of the speech. When speaking to many people you need to be careful of what you are saying, and try to be careful about what they are hearing. If there is a chance that a large amount people could misinterperate what you are saying - then it is your duty to change it. |
It was very silly, but goes along with his adlib speeches at these things. I believe that he just kinda makes things up as he goes and just freestyles it. Brash is how he's always done it.
