And of course:
August 10 and 11
Hillary Clinton is the co-founder of terrorist organization ISIS.
I agree with you: he is building the case to his followers that she must be assassinated. He has reached the point at which, he believes, this is the only outcome that can save him from the humiliation awaiting him on November 8, and he is determined that it will happen.
octopus: The 2nd Amendment is not and never was intended as sanctioning armed revolt against the US government, let alone assassinating politicians or political opponents. It was intended to preserve slavery. cite.
I don’t say that as a springboard into an argument about why guns should be confiscated or any similar point- I’m not interested in that kind of thing personally. I just wish right-wingers would drop the tired, false meme that they have some kind of constitutional right to start murdering people if they don’t like the way political winds are blowing, because that is an utterly false and bankrupt idea sold to you by people who are yanking your chain.
George Washington, suppressing the Whisky Rebellion, would certainly have laughed to think that the Second Amendment was designed to stymie him!
(Of course, to his credit, he suppressed the rebellion…but did not disarm the regions he took control of. Also pardoned the rebels. We were really lucky in our choice of first President!)
I honestly think that Trump doesn’t understand that. He actually asked why we make nuclear bombs if we can’t use them. As if they are just another conventional weapon. Anyone who asks that question does not understand the power of an atomic bomb or the consequences of using one.
In any event, Trump probably believes that if America got nuked, he’d survive just fine.
The greatest bunker. Deeper than any other bunker. YUGE bunker?
Hilary’s bunker? People say it’s just a hole, just a hole she dug. Not even concrete. Sad!
I didn’t think cockroaches needed bunkers to survive a nuke.
For the win…
Since I obviously “resemble this remark”, let me ask you: would Hillary, with her sky high unfavorable rating, be eight points ahead of a normal Republican nominee? Would the GOP be tearing itself apart, panicking at its gloomy downballot prospects?
So I will gladly take responsibility, but it’s called “credit” where I come from. 
If Clinton is assassinated by some right wing gun nut before an election her replacement would walk it in wouldn’t they? For all that there are those who don’t like her, I think the revulsion for the assassination and the thought that Trump encouraged it would drive anyone slightly moderate away from Trmp in droves.
That’s highly unlikely.
I have every faith that the Secret Service can protect Clinton from lone nuts, but in the extremely unlikely event that she was killed or injured so badly that she had to withdraw then I think Tim Kaine would win in a land slide. In fact I think even a well publicised failed attempt on clinton’s life stopped by the secret service would also result in a an increased vote for the Democrats.
The real danger is that Trump is not rational so he may not realise the above.
This is my surmise, as well.
I would be curious to know if his adult children are encouraging or discouraging the ‘de-humanize Hillary and make the case that killing her would be a righteous act’ tactic that Trump seems bent on continuing. At least one of those kids must have an IQ higher than their father’s (due to the phenomenon of regression toward the mean).
Which is perfectly fine. But then those who encouraged, approved of, or participated in such manipulation are hypocrites to cry about it now.
To be clear, SlackerInc ended up not participating in that manipulation. He did propose and advocate it, before he backed off.
Someone pointed out on twitter that if the GOP base wasn’t crazy, they wouldn’t have nominated an outsider like Trump, but they also wouldn’t have drummed up a string of phony attack stories on Hillary, starting with murder allegations regarding Vince Foster. Or witchhunts and stories of phony scandals that don’t survive scrutiny. Under that scenario Hillary would have also been a strong candidate. So she would have been strong either way.
The role of election tampering in 2016 of course has been trivial. 60% of the GOP primary vote consistently was directed at outsiders. The pro-sanity faction was a minority: establishment types together hovered around 20%. If Trump was the only unsuitable candidate, the GOP establishment could have ganged up on him. But Cruz and Carson were also unacceptable. So they were stuck.
ETA: Wow. A couple of months later, we can evaluate the SlackerInc case with greater clarity. Trump has about 20% odds of victory. In August. That’s too high. Next time around we should bear that in mind.
I think it’s cute that you attempt to make the case for equivalency between what asahi posted…
…and Bernie Bros.
asahi notes decades of Republican toxicity. Likely many of the “Bernie Bros” were not even born yet when it started. They have literally spent their whole life seeing toxicity from Republicans yet somehow they are somehow equally culpable for playing politics the way they have seen the opposition party operate.
More importantly, Bernie lost. The Republicans that spent a quarter century were the ones who won elections. Newt Gingrich was an instigator and he was still relevant enough to run for President this year.
The people who impeached Bill Clinton over a blowjob and the people who claimed Obama was a Kenyan Muslim terrorist sympathizer were elected Senators and House Republicans, not college kids in their first election.
The people who spitefully caused millions of poor people to not take advantage of the Medicaid Expansion because they had to stick it to Obama were not disillusioned lefties with zero power, they were elected governors making policy.
Yes, what a minority of Bernie Sanders supporters did at various times this election season were pretty terrible. But to compare what they did to the 25 year reign of actual elected officials is a terrible equivalency.
I am not sure what is more dumb about this statement - the fact that you compare an actual Presidential candidate’s real life statements to unambiguous works of fiction or that you are so utterly ignorant of the many, many cases where movies, TV shows, rap music, heavy metal music, video games and other forms of entertainment are criticized for inciting violence.
This Second Amendment Person here (Me) certainly won’t be voting for hilliarry…
But I won’t be voting for trump either, I loathe them both, trump is insane, and hilliarry is no friend to the 2nd Amendment either
It doesn’t matter though. She can’t take your guns away. Obama has been President during some of the worst massacres in US history and all he gets to do is make speeches about how terrible it is that all he can do is make speeches. The president has no control over the laws or lack thereof surrounding guns.
So you would rather risk having an insane president than vote for someone who probably isn’t pro-gun (and may even be anti-) but is at least sane and can’t do anything about the 2nd amendment anyway?