It has already been on CNN, ABC, Time magazine, LA times, etc.
I remember reading about the story within minutes of it breaking on daily kos. At the time, no news stories on it. Now most of the major news outlets are covering it.
I am waiting to see who, from the right, repudiates him tonight, and who stays silent with approval. Lookin at Ryan and McConnell.
I think this really is the point of no return for any high-profile public GOP fence-sitters rationalizing their support for him on larger “principle” or “ideological” grounds (as dubious as that might be).
With this, if they’re in for a penny, they’re in for a pound. And there’s nothing to do after this except spin-spin-spin.
How about Fox? (I’m not about to give them a page hit)…
Make no mistake, the 2nd amendment people were the only ones who could protect the country* once Clinton is elected. *
Jason Miller can try to spin it it however he likes, but trump was advocating violence as a 2nd Amendment Solution.
Nope. All the top stories are about the Olympics. And below the fold, the story is that the media are biased against Trump.
They have a couple of articles on their Politics page, but they’re buried.
Exactly. What Trump said is clear:
IF she gets to pick her judges.
Nothing you can do.
This is CLEARLY referring to a situation where Clinton has been elected.
“Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is”
So AFTER she is elected, the “second amendment people” can prevent her from appointing judges. How would they do this, hmmmmm? Clearly not by voting - that has already taken place. There is only ONE SINGLE interpretation of this. Anyone who tries to spin this another way is just as guilty as Trump.
It’s currently the lead story on the news pages for CBS, ABC, and the BBC.
On NBC, it’s the #2 story, #1 being about the Olympics, which NBC is, of course, carrying.
It would kind of surprise me if they did:
The (non-FOX News) media desperately wants people to believe they’re not biased, so they effectively lean right by not calling Republicans out on this shit. They really, really want the right-leaning viewers (who tend to skew Old Enough To Still Watch TV) to keep tuned in, so I doubt this will make a huge splash in the TV news world or in the papers. I’d be happy to be proven adaher on this one.
He also said, “that would be a horrible day”. So calling “Second Amendment People” to get out the vote would be a horrible day? Nope.
See my simulpost with yours. 
Elizabeth Warren responds on Twitter:
You think they’ve shown reluctance to report these kind of outrageous statements from Trump?
This is truly a season of wonders and strange portents. It might actually herald a serious political shift in this country the likes of which we haven’t seen for generations.
Well, one thing it means is I stop making fun of adaher for a while. 
Secretary of the Department of Trump Apologists, Rudy Giuliani, explains Trump’s 2nd amendment statement. We can all relax now.
So wait. It wasn’t “officially the moment at which the Republican party stopped being a party, and became the American fascist movement” when Sharon Angle talked about “2nd amendment solutions” 5 years ago? Trump may be despicable, but he isn’t even original on this topic.
It’s the culmination of it all, John. And Sharon Angle isn’t the official republican nominee for president of the United States. I don’t know if that registers as a significant distinction or watershed moment, but maybe it should, no?
About a month ago I wanted to see Trump select Newt as VP. It would had been the Henry the VIII ticket. As in having 6 wives in total.
But now one can see that Trump does want to be instead like old king Henry II.
“What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?”
Translated in the more common but likely wrong quotation:
"Who will rid me of this troublesome [del]president[/del] priest?”
Words can lead to deadly results Mr. Trompo.