No, by voting, and I don’t agree with your interpretation. Look, we’ll just agree to disagree
That’s not what that quote says, or anything like it.
You need the Second Amendment to vote? Give it up, dude.
He was advocating violent insurrection, including the murder of Clinton and her appointed judges.
That’s not “disagreement,” that’s pointing out that what he said was not what you claimed he said. And this is a Trump tactic: claiming that what was said was not what was said.
Trump was clearly referring to Clinton being elected. As that would be what allows her to appoint judges.
That’s after voting.
I’m appalled that an honor student doesn’t know the difference between before and after.
He *knows *what Trump *really *meant. He’s an honor student, remember?
So you believe that he meant for people to go out and vote AFTER she had already been elected - and is thus "picking her judges "?
Enough is enough. There was no way Trump was advocated the murder of his political opponent; he was not. He was using bluster, it’s classic Trump style.
I think he was joking, honestly. I do. I think that political assassination is not a good thing to joke about, especially a political candidate joking about killing a political rival, but i cannot see how the alternative position of " it’s about souls to the polls. You know, voting after she has already won. But only those voters who happen to be armed. It’s obvious!" makes any sense at all.
Tell us what *you *think the Second Amendment is about. :rolleyes:
Watch some of the reactions of the people in the crowd behind him, they knew what he meant instantly. But its taken you this long to… ah… well, not figure it out, or at best, choose to remain in denial. Because Trump is to patriotic and wouldn’t do anything disgraceful like wish harm on the President of his country.
Also, “A spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service said it was aware of the comments.”
Or lock up a political opponent without a trial.
I agree it’s classic Trump style, and it’s why he’s so vile. He implied that gun-rights advocates might take matters into their own hands by assassinating Clinton. While he did not say he advocated it, he expressed no disapproval of that course. He suggested a despicable act, with just enough vagueness so that naive and gullible little warts like you can try to dismiss it.
The fact that he can suggest things like this with no moral reservations about what he says is a pretty clear symptom of his sociopathy.
I agree. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. While there is a certain amount of entertainment seeing you twist yourself in knots trying to explain what Trump “really meant,” you really should try to think for yourself a bit more before regurgitating what you’ve heard (and plagiarized) from elsewhere.
I was thinking to myself ‘Oh, OK, that’s a reasonable position…’ and then saw you basically reversed yourself 15 minutes later when it was Trump doing it. Disgusting. Grow yourself some moral backbone.
If the “man” had a moral backbone, he wouldn’t have voted for a sexual-assaulting, pro-choice atheist, one married to not one, but two Communists, and currently enthralled (and indebted to) a former KGB colonel.
Melania Trump is not a Communist, Donald’s Trump is not a pro-life atheist, but a pro-Loren Presbyterian, he’s not indebted to Putin as his government’s schemes had no effect on the election outcome (Trump would have won regardless), and his former wives were not Communists either.
Dnftt
This is something you certainly do not know.