2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Gups]

Of course the fact that Hillary's campaign is giving a VIP treatment to the father of an actual mass murderer who semi-condoned his son's murder of 49 people because they were gay is nothing compared to Trump's joke.

What VIP treatment? He turned up to a rally. Clinton's campaign didn't even know he was going to.

[derspiess]

Well he did get a pretty nice seat.  In fact, he kind of reminds me of Cigar Guy.

[garbon]

As I felt compared to share on FB (despite basically never trying to be political there):

Dan Rather

No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that "The Second Amendment People" can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?

Candidate Trump will undoubtably issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.

To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.

This cannot be treated as just another outrageous moment in the campaign. We will see whether major newscasts explain how grave and unprecedented this is and whether the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers do it justice. We will soon know whether anyone who has publicly supported Trump explains how they can continue to do.

We are a democratic republic governed by the rule of law. We are an honest, fair and decent people. In trying to come to terms with today's discouraging development the best I can do is to summon our greatest political poet Abraham Lincoln for perspective:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Lincoln used these stirring words to end his First Inaugural Address. It was the eve of the Civil War and sadly his call for sanity, cohesion and peace was met with horrific violence that almost left our precious Union asunder. We cannot let that happen again.

[Valmy]

As for your question, the alternatives are countless. Dropping the "Islam is a religion of peace" shtick and stopping to treat the Saudis as a valued ally / accepting Saudi money for your foundation would be a good start.

A good start to what?

I don't know the details of the Terrordad of the year showing up at the Clinton rally. I fail to see what the Democrats get for championing the mass murder of one of their top demographics though. But hey if anybody knows something feel free to share.

[Sheilbh]

The Orlando killer was clearly motivated by Muslim hatred of gays. Is anyone even disputing that?

Yeah I agree it motivated his self-loathing. But the answer's to fight homophobia and not tolerate it in the Muslim community. I don't really get the grand over-arching link between him him and Saudi or global Islam.

As for your question, the alternatives are countless. Dropping the "Islam is a religion of peace" shtick and stopping to treat the Saudis as a valued ally / accepting Saudi money for your foundation would be a good start.

So you drop the schtick and say what? And what effect does it have? That's not a policy.

I think we disagree on Saudi. I think, sadly, the cost to ending the alliance outweighs the benefits - wish it were otherwise.

[Sheilbh]

Does anyone actually believe that when he said it he was implying *anything* other than what we all think he was implying?

He can have his lackey's "explain" it later, of course. Just like when he said we should murder suspected terrorists wives and children he really meant we should...do something else?....but we all know exactly what was going through his ten cent mind when he made those, and so many other, comments.

The man has no filter, he lacks that thing most of us have that flips through the things that run through our mind and rejects many of them before they exit our noise hole.

The problem here is that he has a podium and a bunch of people who are listening.

Obvs:

[garbon]

Oh I liked this from WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/10/trumps-latest-outrageous-statement-wasnt-a-gaffe-it-was-something-much-worse/

the reason Trump doesn't get a pass on hinting that violence against politicians or judges is an appropriate response to an imagined threat to gun rights is that there's a context in which this statement comes, a context created by gun advocates, by other Republicans, and by Trump himself.

A candidate who tells his supporters that if they see protesters, "Knock the crap out of 'em," or who says about one, "I'd like to punch him in the face" isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to advocating violence, and that's no one's fault but his. And Republicans at all levels frequently argue that one of the primary purposes of owning guns is so that you can use them to kill representatives of the government, whether police or soldiers, when they become too tyrannical. As Ed Kilgore reminds us, "During her successful Senate campaign in 2014, rising GOP star Joni Ernst of Iowa used to happily talk about the 'beautiful little Smith & Wesson' she carried with every intention of using it to defend herself and her family from 'government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.' " And she was hardly the first — we hear that kind of thing from Republicans all the time.

Now combine that with the NRA's constant warnings that if Democrats win the next election they're coming to confiscate your guns, and everybody knows exactly what Trump was saying.

His defense — that he was only encouraging people to vote — is utterly nonsensical. Remember that he said, "if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." He was talking about what the "Second Amendment people" might be able to do about Clinton picking judges, which happens after she has already been elected.

[Valmy]

That makes no sense. He was saying what would happen if Hillary got elected there would be nothing they could do to block the judges being picked by her. In that context how would second amendment types voting do anything about it? And how can something stated so poorly and confusingly have only one interpretation? 

You know what? Whatever. It doesn't matter.  I am not opposing Trump because he says stupid things, but because of what he has said his policies would be.

[Malthus]

That makes no sense. He was saying what would happen if Hillary got elected there would be nothing they could do to block the judges being picked by her. In that context how would second amendment types voting do anything about it? And how can something stated so poorly and confusingly have only one interpretation? 

You know what? Whatever. It doesn't matter.  I am not opposing Trump because he says stupid things, but because of what he has said his policies would be.

There is also what he said right after - that this action, whatever it is, would result in a "horrible day". An odd choice of words for voters voting out someone.

"By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. But I'll tell you what: that will be a horrible day."

Frankly, I think Trump should be forced to suspend his campaign 'until we can figure out just what the hell is going on'. 

[jimmy olsen]

Also, being viewed as the instigator of your opponent's assassination seems like a guaranteed way to lose an election.  Good work, Donald. 

I disagree;  there is a substantial portion of this country whose hatred of Clinton is visceral to the point of violence.  Way too many Teump supporters and Hillaryhaters that will just say, Fuck Yeah! about it.  It will still be close, because far too many FOX News knuckledragging mouthbreathers believe that, yeah, she should be shot.

Chants of "Lock her up", t-shirts that say "Hillary For Prison", even an RNC party delegate says she should be tried for treason and shot...plenty of fertile ground to sow, and as we saw in Arizona, in Dallas, in Colorado, all it takes is one bad seed who's listening.  And all the shrugs and "that's not what he really meant" and "just kidding" aren't going to be heard.  Give violence enough of a voice and violence will make itself heard.

The election is not going to be close. The dude is gonna be whipped like a democratic candidate from the 1920s. He is running in 4th place with black voters and with voters under 30. Together they make up like a quarter of the voters.  Add in his performance with hispanics and educated voters, especially women, and a landslide is inevitable.

[Admiral Yi]

Don't jinx it!

[CountDeMoney]

Great.  They fucking US general election just got Timmay Tainted.
Way to go, assfuck.

[Sheilbh]

The Secret Service has reportedly had 'more than one conversation' with the Trump campaign over the Second Amendment comment

Edit: And I know this is minor but I find it fascinating that he doesn't include himself in the 'Second Amendment people'. He really is an odd GOP candidate.

[jimmy olsen]

The Secret Service has reportedly had 'more than one conversation' with the Trump campaign over the Second Amendment comment

Edit: And I know this is minor but I find it fascinating that he doesn't include himself in the 'Second Amendment people'. He really is an odd GOP candidate.

Link?

[garbon]

The Secret Service has reportedly had 'more than one conversation' with the Trump campaign over the Second Amendment comment

Edit: And I know this is minor but I find it fascinating that he doesn't include himself in the 'Second Amendment people'. He really is an odd GOP candidate.

Link?

Look at CNN or the guardian