Heh. But the joke with that character was his evident awareness of how rickety his approach was, how his imagination would flag and then come to his rescue again, and you’d see the relief on his face, where Katrina has what I imagine is a rock-solid pathological inability to imagine how ridiculous what she’s saying sounds. She really stands alone with that; I’ve never seen anyone else who comes close.
I’m completely unfamiliar with her, and what she said here is such patent nonsense it still seems more in keeping with Lovitz’s character than with a True Believer.
If this was the first explanation they gave us, I may have actually fallen for it.
But it’s the 2nd explanation they gav, more than a day after the statement, more than a day after the first completely different explanation which made absolutely no sense, and a few hours after Donald trump told Hannity that there was no way to interpret his statement other than as that first absolutely nonsensical explanation.
Objectively, Trump is running his sentences into one another, so it is difficult to interpret whether “that will be a horrible day” is a continuation of the 2nd amendment comment or tied to “if if Hillary gets to put her judges in”.
There is a slight pause after “horrible day” which can be interpreted as a full stop, or period. Then start next sentence with “if if” with obvious heightened voice volume and higher frequency, “Hillary gets to put”, which can indicat a new sentence.
Nonetheless, whether he was serious or joking, he made no reference to a strong NRA voting block, or Senate SCOTUS votes, as his campaign tries to spin it. The man was implying third party violence against his competition.
That is not an accurate translation of what Trump said. The “horrible day” part is part of the whole ad lib that Trump threw in when he talked about the 2nd Amendment people being able to stop Hillary appointing justices. After that Trump tries to get back to his prepared remarks by saying a line similar to "If you don’t do the right thing, you are not going to have a 2nd Amendment ", but repeatedly gets sidetracked.
Here is a transcript showing this. I started a new paragraph when Trump starts a new train of thought and bolded where Trump tries to get back to his main point. Notice that he tries to do this multiple times.
Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment.
By the way, and if she gets to pick…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. We’re tied. Cause Scalia…This was not supposed 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.
So now look at it. So Hillary essentially wants to abolish the second amendment.
(Trump is repeating the beginning of this section with this line)
Now…speaking to the NRA folks, who are great.
When you… When you…
And I’ll…I’ll…I’ll tell you…So they endorse me. They endorse me very early. My sons a member. I’m a member.
If you…
We can add I think the National Rifle Association. We can add the 2nd Amendment to the justices.They almost go…in a certain way, hand in hand. Now the justices are going to do things that are so important and we have such great justices. You saw my list of 11 that have been vetted and respected and have gotten great…ok. And they a little bit equate,
But if you don’t do what is the right thing. You are not going to have…either you are not going to have a 2nd Amendment or you are not going to have much of it left.
https://youtu.be/hf2STe6Cb-g?t=41s
@ 41 second mark
This clearly shows that the “horrible day” part is part of the 2nd Amendment ad lib. It proves that Pierson’s interpretation can’t be correct. From Trump’s point of view, if a judicial appointment got blocked by the NRA’s political influence, it would be a great day. The only way it is a horrible day when her judicial appointment gets stopped is if something else happens on that day that is horrible…like an assassination.
They’re both outrageous liars, of course. But his is a dramatic persona and it’s got stuff engineered into it to keep you watching and chuckling. She’s a real person, more or less, and she talks with this weirdly bland self-assurance while saying that outrageous stuff. Some people I can guess what ails them but with her, I have to throw up my hands. No idea but it’s a bad case of whatever it is. : )
1 Like
FOX will hire her for some right wing alternative to The View. Will be called Foxy Friends.
Best Tweet of the Day: 19th Amendment people can stop Donald Trump. (I wish I had written it)
1 Like
Yes, Yes, Yes! I just saw on the WaPo site that Trump said “it would be a horrible day” if the 2nd Amendment folks provide a solution. Why would voting be a horrible day? This means he meant assassination, not voting! The “horrible day” part is just his smarmy way of fake concern. Why is this key part left off of the quote by nearly all of the media? Sometimes I don’t think they even understand the logic. The WP also reported that audience member left shortly after this statement, meaning THEY understood what he said.
Here is the full quote from WaPost:
“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick — 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 I tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
2 Likes
Don’t worry, CNN will probably hire the bitch full time.
Adopting The Reince Priebus Breakfast of Champions™
(Wheaties, Bailey’s, Milk, and just a splash of Absolut!)
jw1
3 Likes
I actually just read an extremely interesting article at Slate that puts the entire statement in historical context within the insurrectionist theory of the 2nd amendment held by the Republican party, something that the founders and Supreme Court disagree with. It truly emphasizes the seriousness of the comment in ways I hadn’t realized without even bothering with the “horrible day” sentence.
Taken at face value, all of this rhetoric adds up to one very clear belief: If you believe the United States government has grown tyrannical, the Second Amendment protects your right to rebel violently against it, using firearms, to reclaim your liberty. Cruz and his ilk rarely specify precisely what this revolt would look like, but the implication is extraordinarily clear: Armed Americans should shoot enough government officials as is necessary to overthrow perceived oppression. The Cruz-endorsed insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment, in other words, is basically a tacit permission slip to assassinate political leaders whom one deems to be oppressive.
And that, it seems, is precisely what Trump implied on Tuesday. Should Clinton get elected and appoint ostensibly oppressive Supreme Court justices, the logical conclusion of the insurrectionist theory is that “Second Amendment people” should use their constitutional right to resist tyranny by shooting the president or her judges. One man’s president is another man’s tyrant, and the GOP’s current framing of gun rights quite explicitly licenses an armed revolt against tyrants. Oppression, much like the Second Amendment, is in the eye of the beholder. And Trump has just given his very eager supporters another excuse to view Clinton as a tyrannical oppressor—and given instructions to act accordingly.
1 Like
Wait, I’m confused…I thought Senators were “Article 1 People”?!
That is how the rightwing reads the 2d. Everything in our history screams: That’s wrong, you fuckwits!
Nevertheless, they truly seem to believe it = that’s why the Idiot Sovereigns thought they could take over a national park and government building.
And as it has always gone, ever since the American Revolution ended and US government began, every single time a citizen raises arms against the government they LOSE.
4 Likes
I remember when I thought Orly Taitz was the most crazy-ass woman allowed to blather nonsense on news channels. But that was back when America was Great, I guess.
1 Like
Thanks. I didn’t run across a full transcript and didn’t have the stomach to listen to much more than the immediate context. Check out the link I just posted. It puts it into historical context of the meaning of the second amendment as interpreted by the Rs.
P.S. New paragraph for every new train of thought??? That must have been a challenge. 
1 Like
No one on the Democratic side is mentioning the NRA because no one on the sane side of the gun control debate wants to be associated with the likes of LaPierre and Nugent. By the way, Ms. Pierson, no one on the Democratic side wants to take away guns from law-abiding folks.
If that were the case, they could just all say, “In other news, Donald Trump attempted to incite unstable individuals to kill his political opponent today, but his campaign staff and surrogates have come up with a colorful array of bogus explanations for what he really meant by his statement. Now on to the winners of the Podunk Rodeo on Sunday…”
1 Like
I hear it that way. The part in bold is practically gibberish. It’s almost like he’s suggesting there will be tie a la Bush v Gore and Scalia should have been around to give him the win. I do credit the “horrible thing” to Scalia’s passing (he has a remarkably small vocabulary), or maybe just not being around to break the tie for him, which is more likely. Anyway, parsing his nonsense is difficult enough, I think I’ll just stick to the implications of the one 2nd amendment sentence and quit trying to figure out how any one of his sentences is related to any other. They seem to be independent entities. Hell, we’re talking about a man that can contradict himself within a single sentence.
I thought Clinton (Bill) already took them back in the 90s.