The New American Politics thread

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Actual reality? So from your own list, the alternatives seem to be some form of civil war or armed insurrection. Is that the preferred interpretation?

Listening to the soundbite and without having read how others were reacting to it first, assassination was definitely my first impression of their meaning. But I can see the other interpretations as plausible. The campaign line that he was just talking about the political power they have by virtue of being unified seems about the least plausible reaction.

That said, even if you allow that he could have meant almost anything within his own mind, there's the fact that despite knowing that everyone is listening to every word he says, and despite probably believing that the media is against him, and despite having just gone through the ringer on off-the-cuff remarks he made, he still said something that can be reasonably interpreted as a call for an assassination of his opponent, or a call for armed insurrection.

There's a difference between the 'calling it like you see it, no political correctness B.S.' quality he would like to have, and the 'absolutely zero ability to impose any sort of filter between his mind and his mouth' quality he actually has.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by GGG

And Clinton is a warmonger. If you ask others to have nuance maybe you should do the same thing.

Also are any of the 4 options listed less bad. Advocating for violent overthrow of the government is somehow not as bad as assassination. The second amendment is about using force to ensure legitimate government so I don't see how any of your proposals is better then what you complain is hyperbole

I mean at least you could go with the NRA guys are really organized and they will go out and got to stop Hillary. Otherwise your saying assignating Clinton is bad but overthrowing the government isn't as bad.

The Outrage Patrol didn't interpret the other options, however. They just assigned an inflammatory label to one option. Because it makes the best news.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Buster

Ed Krayewski
‏@edkrayewski
Donald Trump is what a Democrat might imagine a Republican is like. "Second Amendment people" lol who says that?

The man with the best words of course.

[MarchHare]

Seen on Twitter: "Donald Trump is turning the Party of Lincoln into the Party of John Wilkes Booth."

[Senator Clay Davis]

Duncan Hunter, Repub from California, tries to explain the Trump comments. It's predictably painful. He probably needed a shower after this one.

https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/st...46601888186368

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Buster

The Outrage Patrol didn't interpret the other options, however. They just assigned an inflammatory label to one option. Because it makes the best news.

Set the goalposts for us. Which interpretation do you want us to take?

What did he mean? You seem to be the only person on this planet capable of comprehending the English language, so I would love to hear your thoughts so that I can properly understand what he was saying.

I noted you said you didn't know and presented four options. After using your vast brainpower to assess the entire context and situation, which one of those would be the appropriate interpretation?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Buster

assassination is clearly an inflammatory word. Which is par for the course here, I guess.

There is a general requirement to take something Trump says, paraphrase or interpret in the most inflammatory manner possible, and then repeat it ad nauseam.

People get upset when you hold them to actual reality, however, because it's more fun for them to rummage around flinging mud like a partisan group-thinker.

People convince themselves that Trump says something he didn't because people relish outrage.

You're right. They should have said "ruin her homeostatic balance", or "cease her cardiac function". What non-inflammatory word would be appropriate?

Jesus man.

[Swift]

The full text of that portion of the speech, given by surely one of history's greatest orators...

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially, the Second Amendment. By the way, 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 dunno. But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If Hillary gets to put her judges in, 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 happened. That was a horrible thing, So now look at it. So Hillary essentially wants to abolish the second amendment.
Now speaking to the NRA folks, who are great: when you, when you, and I tell you, so they endorsed me. They endorsed me very early. My sons are members. I’m a member. If you, we can add, I think the National Rifle Association, we can add the Second Amendment to the justices, they almost go, in a certain way, hand and hand. Now the justices are going to do things that are so important. And we have such great justices. You saw my list of eleven that have been vetted and respected and have gotten great, and they, a little bit, equate.
But if you don’t do what’s the right thing, you’re not going to have - either you’re not going to have a Second Amendment or you’re not going to have much of it left. And you’re not going to be able to protect yourselves, which you need. Which you need! When the bad guys burst into your hours*, they’re not looking about Second Amendments and ‘do I have the right to do this.’ The bad guys aren’t going to be giving up their weapons. But the good people will say, ‘oh, well, that’s the law.’ No, no. Not going to happen. We can’t let it happen. We can’t let it happen.

*Not sure if he said this, or if it's a typo by the transcriber, but does it really matter?

[Street Pharmacist]

He's full on nuts

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm looking for coherent sentences and thoughts in ummm....whatever that is, and I'm just getting nowhere.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm looking for coherent sentences and thoughts in ummm....whatever that is, and I'm just getting nowhere.

"Walter, what the #### are you talking about?"

[rubecube]

Oh well, that's much better.

@LEBassett
Katrina Pierson's long-awaited explanation: Trump was saying an assassination "could" happen, not that it "should" happen.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Buster

The Outrage Patrol didn't interpret the other options, however. They just assigned an inflammatory label to one option. Because it makes the best news.

So your point is that the media has naritives around candidates? Thanks tips.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Buster

There is a general requirement to take something Trump says, paraphrase or interpret in the most inflammatory manner possible

I sort of agree with you, but...

First of all, everybody who speaks publicly gets a taste of this. As you said, lots of people love outrage. (I think it's safe to call them a loud minority, but it doesn't much matter in this context.)

Second, Trump has brought it on himself. His campaign to get nominated was mostly built on saying outrageous things for attention. So he kept saying things that were kind of outrageous, but also kind of vague (the whole "they send us their rapists, but I'm sure some Mexicans are good people" stuff is a great example). As many have noticed, at one point his talks were mostly just complete nonsense, if you looked at the words literally. None of that mattered, because what he was pushing through was his tone of "I'm nothing like you've ever seen".

When your message is various versions of "I'm saying things nobody else dares to say" and "I'm completely different" etc, it's almost literally an invitation to interpret his words in extreme ways.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Set the goalposts for us. Which interpretation do you want us to take?

What did he mean? You seem to be the only person on this planet capable of comprehending the English language, so I would love to hear your thoughts so that I can properly understand what he was saying.

I noted you said you didn't know and presented four options. After using your vast brainpower to assess the entire context and situation, which one of those would be the appropriate interpretation?

I don't see a benefit to not referencing his statements with all of the interpretations available to us. I did so in a relatively short space. Of course, the straw man approach is the path of least resistance to Peak Outrage.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Itse

I sort of agree with you, but...

First of all, everybody who speaks publicly gets a taste of this. As you said, lots of people love outrage. (I think it's safe to call them a loud minority, but it doesn't much matter in this context.)

Second, Trump has brought it on himself. His campaign to get nominated was mostly built on saying outrageous things for attention. So he kept saying things that were kind of outrageous, but also kind of vague (the whole "they send us their rapists, but I'm sure some Mexicans are good people" stuff is a great example). As many have noticed, at one point his talks were mostly just complete nonsense, if you looked at the words literally. None of that mattered, because what he was pushing through was his tone of "I'm nothing like you've ever seen".

When your message is various versions of "I'm saying things nobody else dares to say" and "I'm completely different" etc, it's almost literally an invitation to interpret his words in extreme ways.

Possibly. But it also represents the lowest-common-denominator of thought on the subject.

I've said all along that there are some really serious reasons to dislike Trump. Real, actual, policy concerns.

And yet, people get hung up on this obviously baiting nonsense. It reminds me of a cat chasing a laser pointer.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

Okay, I'm back.

You're right. He never said assassination.

He might have meant any variety of these stupid things:

1. assassination
2. some sort of states' rights overthrow secede BS
3. overthrow government
4. militia action of some kind?

Without prior knowledge of his statement, I don't think I would have gone to #1 first. Probably 2 or 3 maybe?

Okay, using your own interpretations of these comments we can come to conclusion that he is, at best, encouraging sedition, and at worst, encouraging assassination. So what are we missing here? All the options are inflammatory. Or are we about to head down the rabbit hole on another trip to Semanticsland?

And yet, people get hung up on this obviously baiting nonsense. It reminds me of a cat chasing a laser pointer.

Really? Reminds me of a guy with policy positions and nothing of value to say. He's appealing to the worst characteristics society has to offer and hoping that ignorance and intolerance will carry him to win. This is the best Trump has to offer. His policy positions are non-existent and the ones he does bring forward get shredded in a matter of moments, by members of his own party.

[puffnstuff]

How does his reference to the second amendment, which is always used to refer to the right to bear arms, fit in with the made up possibility number 2, states' rights?

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

Okay, using your own interpretations of these comments we can come to conclusion that he is, at best, encouraging sedition, and at worst, encouraging assassination. So what are we missing here? All the options are inflammatory. Or are we about to head down the rabbit hole on another trip to Semanticsland?

Actually, I think that trying to parse statement with a specific intention to be vague and to bait you into this situation, is a waste of time. You want an answer to a question that isn't worth question. And that's what he wants.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

Actually, I think that trying to parse statement with a specific intention to be vague and to bait you into this situation, is a waste of time. You want an answer to a question that isn't worth question. And that's what he wants.

So you're finally admitting you got nothing. We've gone from your various interpretations, with specific outcomes, to "You want an answer to a question that isn't worth question," and "And that's what he wants." Looks to me the towel has finally been thrown in and YOU can't even dream up a way to defend this rhetoric.