US Presidential Candidates

dscott8 wrote:Came here this AM and was surprised to find no comments about Trump encouraging "2nd Amendment people" to assassinate Hillary Clinton. He was careful to phrase it so it can be interpreted more than one way, but it's obvious that some dangerous people are going to read it as a call to arms. "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" cried Henry II, and his minions heard him and rode off to murder Archbishop Thomas a Becket.

As usual, Trump prefaced this with the outright lie that Hillary Clinton would abolish the 2nd Amendment. The GOP has been blowing this particular dog whistle for decades, even when their opposition has explicitly stated in public positions like "I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this." (Hillary Clinton, January 2008 Presidential Debate) or "We can protect our Second Amendment rights AND take commonsense steps to prevent gun violence. It’s just a question of whether we choose to." (Hillary Clinton on Twitter, April 2016).

Trump's combination of lies and incitement to murder are completely indefensible.

PeterZ wrote:Oh that's right. From the same people that twisted whatever comments that sparked making the claim that Republicans would actually throw geriatrics off the cliff, this interpretation of Drumpf's comments is real credible.

Oh, please!

dscott8 wrote:It IS credible, and not to be sidetracked (as the Trump campaign so often does) by bringing up another lie about the opposition. Somewhere in America there are people thinking they have just been given a hunting license. Somewhere there's another Jared Loughner who's just been given the final nudge needed to push him into doing to Hillary Clinton what Loughner did to Gabby Giffords.

Whether Trump meant it, or was "just joking" or was "misinterpreted", he should have known that a segment of his own support base would take it as a call for assassination. Whatever he meant, the phrasing was irresponsible at best and criminal at worst.

By the way, about "throwing geriatrics off the cliff": the phrase "death panels" was coined by right-wing pinup Sarah Palin pushing the LIE that under the Affordable Care Act, bureaucrats would decide whether elderly and disabled people were worth keeping alive.

PeterZ wrote:And of course both misrepresentations were so far from what was actually meant. That's my point, not a credible interpretation of the comments.

PeterZ wrote:By all means assume the worst of your opponents and demonize him or her beyond what is supportable by facts. Engage in just what you decry right now. This is a presidential election year, one is free to be ridiculous.
Have at it!

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:And of course both misrepresentations were so far from what was actually meant. That's my point, not a credible interpretation of the comments.

You missed my point. Whatever was actually meant, the way he said it can be credibly interpreted as a call for assassination by paranoid right-wingers. He should have known better, and if someone does take a shot at Ms. Clinton, I will consider him morally responsible.

PeterZ wrote:Do you also consider Mrs. Clinton morally responsible for the death of anyone she talked about on her emails? You know the emails on the unsecured server she used to engage in her professional affairs while Secretary of State?

No? Well, then your indignation is worth very little and smells to high heaven of political hyperbole.

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:By all means assume the worst of your opponents and demonize him or her beyond what is supportable by facts. Engage in just what you decry right now. This is a presidential election year, one is free to be ridiculous.
Have at it!

I have no need to demonize Trump beyond what is supportable by facts. He demonizes himself by supportable facts, from mocking a disabled reporter to sneering at McCain's POW status to not knowing about Russia invading Ukraine to flip-flopping on issues between the time he opens his unregulated mouth and the time that his campaign handlers convince him to "walk back" his outrageous statements (like advocating legal penalties for women who have abortions -- oh, no, he didn't mean the women, he meant the doctors). Trump condemns himself with his own words.

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Do you also consider Mrs. Clinton morally responsible for the death of anyone she talked about on her emails? You know the emails on the unsecured server she used to engage in her professional affairs while Secretary of State?

No? Well, then your indignation is worth very little and smells to high heaven of political hyperbole.

Another attempt to divert the conversation. We were talking about Trump, but if you want to talk about Clinton, I'm game. The whole email issue has been investigated by the State Department Inspector General, the FBI and a Congressional Select Committee. They found carelessness but no criminal culpability. They also noted that many other government officials on that level (Colin Powell, for example) had used the same private server setup. The difference between what she did and what Trump has done is that she did not, intentionally or inadvertently, issue a direct and open invitation to violence.

Do I consider her culpable? Yes, but to a lesser degree. It's the difference between accidentally showing a light during the London Blitz and standing on the rooftop with a flashlight to direct the Heinkels.

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Do you also consider Mrs. Clinton morally responsible for the death of anyone she talked about on her emails? You know the emails on the unsecured server she used to engage in her professional affairs while Secretary of State?

No? Well, then your indignation is worth very little and smells to high heaven of political hyperbole.

Another attempt to divert the conversation. We were talking about Trump, but if you want to talk about Clinton, I'm game. The whole email issue has been investigated by the State Department Inspector General, the FBI and a Congressional Select Committee. They found carelessness but no criminal culpability. They also noted that many other government officials on that level (Colin Powell, for example) had used the same private server setup. The difference between what she did and what Trump has done is that she did not, intentionally or inadvertently, issue a direct and open invitation to violence.

Do I consider her culpable? Yes, but to a lesser degree. It's the difference between accidentally showing a light during the London Blitz and standing on the rooftop with a flashlight to direct the Heinkels.