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.
It actually was. I replayed that video more times than I care to admit.
When Trump starts ad libbing I normally pick out the the main theme and throw the rest of it in the word salad mental bin. Here I actually tried to get into his thought process and that’s when I realized that he was trying to get back to that phrase but kept tripping himself up. Breaking it up into paragraphs helped organize it for me.
She just sounds like Baghdad Bob, right?
Well I thank you for your suffering. I can’t believe you took the time and sacrifice to listen to and transcribe it.
Didn’t Obama say something to the effect of “you’ll know how I’ll run the country by how I run the campaign”?
1 Like
It’s madness following madness trying to make total sense of what Trump says. Normally I wouldn’t bother but this feel like a pivotal moment of the campaign, so I thought it was worth the effort to transcribe and fully understand it. It’ll help if I run into Trump supporters in the future.
As for that part you bolded, he is talking about the tied Supreme Court due to Scalia’s death which cost the conservatives their majority. My guess is that he is saying this to support his point that he needs to be elected to get that majority back.
And yes, ‘horrible thing’ is referring to Scalia passing away. It’s the same structure as the prior 2nd Amendment paragraph where he ended with the emotional comment, ‘horrible day’, on what he just said. This pattern is also mirrored in Trump’s tweets that end with some version of ‘so sad’.
Trumpology 101
So if I’m interpreting this un-American gibberish correctly, and I’ve heard some people say the Constitution and all its parts are a living document, that there’s a 2nd Amendment walking around somehow, and talking to people like Trump, which of course is no end of reassurance that Trump is as normal as the next guy, right? I mean, c’mon, who doesn’t talk to the 2nd Amendment (he? or she?, or LGBT? Dunno) on a regular basis anyway?
It’s like that Star Trek Alternate Universe episode with Spock with the little beard and all, only instead of Star Trek, it’s The Marx Brothers Duck Soup Alternate Universe.