Yup. Anyone who interpreted it as a joke or claims it was a joke is deliberately ignoring the context in which it takes place. This is a country where Presidents have been murdered by lone and apparently self motivated snipers, where mass shootings happen almost daily, and where in the not-too-distant past an Arizona politician was shot in the head by an assailant after being subject to similar threats. The Gabbie Giffords shooting is particularly instructive because a Republican PAC had implied that she should be targeted. But the connection was vague enough that no one could definitely prove the PAC literally meant violence.
Further, I would point to Gary Kasparov’s recent statements about how business gets done in Russia. The government actively advocates for aggression against political opponents with the same kind of rhetoric and then shrugs when the target mysteriously winds up dead.
Anyone who tries to minimize Trump’s statements is ignoring the fact that this is EXACTLY what fascists do and it routinely does end in REAL violence.
It’s not that hard to click and read a previous page. How about not asking stupid and deliberately misleading questions that if you really were trying to get the answer of looking a page back would have been quicker than typing you’re posted question?
Answer it for yourself and quote where I said what you insinuate I said.
I personally think Rudy wants to be appointed AG so he can carry through on filing those charges against Hillary that he said he would’ve while the FBI investigation was still going on.
ETA: Not surprisingly, I was very late to that particular party.
Oh, I’m sorry, is that the kind of discussion you’re seeking, where you say something outrageous and then try to nitpick to death any paraphrase of your position instead of admitting it’s outrageous?
I wish you the best of luck having that conversation with someone else; I find it a contemptible sort of conversation to engage in.
If you read what I wrote you’d find nothing outrageous. Reread what I wrote and quote what the outrageous part is. Neither you nor Chronos can even when you accuse and insinuate otherwise. That’s what’s contemptible.
Why “paraphrase” when it’s more accurate and quicker to directly quote? What do you gain from paraphrasing instead of directly quoting?
Hmm. Funny that a truthful answer to a simple question is so contentious and misunderstood. The question was about the requirement of standards for a presidential candidate. The answer was Trump meets them and actually exceeds the behavior of actual former presidents. It’s a simple statement that doesn’t require endless inaccurate nitpickery or analysis.
Reminds me of those who called me a racist for suggesting that those who own a Confederate flag may own it for reasons other that those who dislike said flag may imagine. People have a hard time reading simple sentences for what they are.
Gee, you make that sort of conversation sound like so much fun! But no, it’s not something I’ll engage in with you. Good luck finding a partner for it!
If you need to get in the last word, feel free to imagine that I’ve repeated this response as needed :).
[Quote=Newt Gingrich 8-9-16]
Sure. I mean, he is at least as reliable as Andrew Jackson, who was one of the most decisive presidents in American history
[/quote]
Yes, and moreover: if it’s about mobilizing voters who care about the SCOTUS, why wouldn’t religious conservatives be at the top of that list? They are usually the ones most concerned about, and motivated by, the Court; yet they were curiously absent from his remark there.
I found it perfectly defensible at the time, if not advisable in retrospect. I thought it was obvious (and I was a strong Obama supporter at the time) that she was not even hinting “hey, maybe Obama will get assassinated, you never know” but rather “let’s not declare the race over so soon: we remember Bobby Kennedy getting assassinated in June, when he won the California primary in what was still an actively contested race” (whether Bobby had any realistic shot at the nomination was doubtful, but…).
As a huge fan of Grant, I would like to add this context from your cite:
Good catch. I hope people never forget how despicable Reagan was.
It’s an interesting question. When Ralph Nader was running for president, he was asked on PBS Newshour which president he saw as a role model, and without hesitation he answered “Jefferson”. I always thought that was kind of interesting given that he represented the sort of purist left, yet he most admired a president who had slaves and arguably raped at least one of them.
Heh, that must be it.
Yes, I noticed that too–and good on them, as otherwise the back-and-forth on this would reinforce a notion that Hillary is going to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
