Curiosity of Lib logic on latest Trump quip/Hillary assasination

Trump didn't call for the assassination of Clinton.

 

Yet....

 

There is multiple stupids here.

Clinton didn't call for removal of all guns from all people.

Trump call for removal of all guns for all people because Clinton is for expanding background checks and a few others gun restrictions.

This is a common stupid argument gun crazies like to bring up. They seems to think that any additional gun checks = ban guns.

And no, Trump comment this time is just his norm - insensitive and inaccurate, but nothing related to assassination.

The Clinton people are stupid to focus on that instead of clarifying their position and calling out the wrong remarks.

 

I don't think that horrible discourse is accurately summarized here, but separately Clinton is a public figure at higher risk of being targeted; so of course she needs protection: just like Medgar Evars, Larry Flynt and George Wallace, whatever you think about any of them. Nobody's banning guns just like nobody's going to deport all our aliens, pay down the federal debt or fully convert to renewable energy, but to the extent that genocides have happened banning guns was not the catalyst.

 

I know this is somewhat stupid, but I quit paying attention to the election already. My mind is made up (probably won't vote, out of protest....or I'll vote for the least evil, who I know won't win in Gary Johnson), and I've decided there are no good candidates. The American public should protest the political landscape in general for sending us weak candidates. It's getting worse with every election.

What we have now, are just a bunch of buffoons up parading themselves around looking for "likes" as if they were running a campaign on Facebook.


It's sad, truly.

 

first of all, its pretty dumb to get into political arguments with your neighbors and even dumber to go to a basketball message board to seek advice on strategy for arguing with your neighbors.

second, hillary clinton has not called for disarming american citizens or abolishing the 2nd amendment. however, she is calling for commons sense gun control measures that the VAST majority of american citizens support.

third, even if she did, you have to be pretty dense to not recognize that someone in her or trumps position is in need of armed security more so than the average american citizen.

fourth, the republican party are owned by the NRA and many of us are tired of having the extremist agenda of a few gun fanatics "shoved down our throats" (to use a term i hard alot from republicans).

these extremist tactics and all these morans carrying M-16s around wal-mart only serve to turn off moderates. if republicans and their NRA masters were smart they would try to get infront of the issue and support common sense gun control measures instead of stubbornly fighting any compromises and blocking any measures to even study the causes of gun violence.

 

It's the stupidity of a blanket statement that if you're for gun control then the secret ****ing service shouldn't have guns to protect the President. It's basic Trump nonsense that he learned from all you wingnut gun freaks. The kind of thing you see in Facebook posts and internet memes.

Trump's whole campaign proves Obama's quote true every day.

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

 

Because Hillary Clinton is a high profile political figure, hence why she requires bodyguards. I walk around everyday without bodyguards or a gun and I do just fine. Having said that, I'm not anti-gun, this is just a ridiculous argument you're making.

 

Only if the neighbors can't handle disagreement without taking things personally.

And how to formulate good arguments or asking others to vet your argument should be one of the functions of this D&D forum (if this serves any constructive purpose). It's not like he's asking for this advice in Hangout.

 

I don't think he is honestly asking though. He really is just trying to mock his adversarial side.

His logic is utterly flawed by the way. He's not asking Hillary to disarm - she already is disarmed. He's asking the law enforcement officers protecting her to disarm. It's like asking the entire police to disarm - something no one is calling for.

 

It's what the wingnuts think is hypocrisy. Hillary is anti-gun so she shouldn't be protected. Sort of like Gore is against climate change so he shouldn't live in a house.

 

Interesting sentence.

Interesting in a car wreck sort of way.

 

Being for gun control doesn't mean you want law enforcement not to have guns.

When Trump says the secret service should disarm he is obviously being sarcastic and not serious, but he is also playing into the idea that gun control advocates are somehow these crazy extreme gun haters.

It's a strawman - he says these things to demonize the other side and rachet up support from his base. It's brilliant but definitely playing with fire.

 

Would that be a white genocide?

 

OP, no offense, but it is very weak to make this thread without even posting Trump's words. Obviously you are going to be confused when you are not even looking at Trump's words. And you confuse others.

So, Trump's words (from CNN):
"I think her bodyguards should drop all weapons. Disarm immediately," Trump said. "Take their guns away, let's see what happens to her."
"Take their guns away, OK? It'll be very dangerous," he added.

Problems with these words: Trump says it will be very dangerous if Clinton's bodyguards "disarm," implying that something will happen to her. The implication is that someone exists who wants to do harm to her. Now, that is not a suggestion, it's just a claim that people would like to hurt her; also it is imagining dangerous things happening to Hillary Clinton.

Now if I say, "Birth control is important. You send your daughter to school without birth control and see what happens," some people might be offended, because I am imagining their daughter having sex and implying she would get pregnant without birth control.

Now, imagine I said that about your daughter to a gymnasium full of students. It might spread the image of boinking your daughter, who does not use birth control, to the minds of many boys in the audience. So now 500 people have imagined your daughter getting impregnated. It doesn't mean that will happen, but it's really not useful and probably not worth saying for any thoughtful person.

 

If this is the simplistic logic you use to debate people, I feel sorry for your neighbors.