Donald Trump 2 - Trump's thinly veiled threats.

[see4]

Because race was even apart of this debate about the 2nd amendment....go on...

The implication here as an aside, infer to the listeners and readers that he suggests 2nd Amendment folks, aka gun owner freaks should do something about it. "But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day." - Implying that if she were to be murdered, that would be horrible.

See how he said it after "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know" as opposed to saying after, "...nothing you can do, folks."

A very clear distinction.

But because you're a racist coward that got his face punched in during high school, you choose to ignore that implication and chuckle behind the backs of people who aren't "in the know".

 

[UncleBuck]

What did he exactly say that was threatening?

Then show me the threat...you still havnt..your personal attacks aren't working

What is it like to be mentally retarded? Do you get good parking spots?

 

[Fogdog]

Instead of inventing stuff about Trump how about asking Hillary why she invited the Taliban supporting father of Orlando gay bar mass murderer to her rally in Florida? Don't say they didn't know he was there, he was less than 20 feet behind Hillary, anyone in that position is vetted by the secret service.

Now, just exactly who is making things up here? Nobody made up Trump's remark, he did that all on his own. Your stated opinion on this doesn't matter. Actually, I'm pretty sure your unstated opinion conflicts with what you just posted.

That other bit, what was wrong with Seddique Mateen, being there? As reported by the Chicago Tribune: "The rally was a 3,000-person, open-door event for the public," a Clinton campaign official said. "This individual wasn't invited as a guest, and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event." Do you have any facts to present or are you just experiencing difficulty with diarrhea from the mouth?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

It's not stricter gun laws. that's a totally separate debate. This is about abolishing the 2nd amendment

Then you should find it easy to prove that Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

 

[see4]

It's not stricter gun laws. that's a totally spate debate. This is about abolishing the 2nd amendment

No it's not. She does not plan on abolishing the 2nd Amendment. Stop being melodramatic.

Yes, she, along with many other Democrats, want to do away with A LOT of guns. But not the 2nd Amendment entirely.

Mind you, I'm an avid gun owner, and own a small business related to firearms.

 

[srh88]

What is it like to be mentally retarded? Do you get good parking spots?

you already know he doesnt drive. the dude cant even read properly. some of those signs on the road have big words, he might interpret them wrong and kill someone

 

[ThaMagnificent]

View attachment 3753637

The implication here as an aside, infer to the listeners and readers that he suggests 2nd Amendment folks, aka gun owner freaks should do something about it. "But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day." - Implying that is she were to be murdered, that would be horrible.

See how he said it after "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know" as opposed to saying after, "...nothing you can do, folks."

A very clear distinction.

But because you're a racist coward that got his face punched in during high school, you choose to ignore that implication and chuckle behind the backs of people who aren't "in the know".

That's not the right context and that's your interpretation.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

That's not the right context and that's your interpretation.

And of 57% of the country.

 

[UncleBuck]

That's not the right context and that's your interpretation.

What is it like to have a 4 centimeter penis?

Is that why you are so racist?

 

[Dankeh_fever]

It's not stricter gun laws. that's a totally separate debate. This is about abolishing the 2nd amendment

I've never heard that mentioned by anyone but you. Is there a source text?

 

[Fogdog]

It's not stricter gun laws. that's a totally separate debate. This is about abolishing the 2nd amendment

This line confirms that devolution of the mind is caused by right wing ideology and living the fact free life.

 

[Padawanbater2]

That's not the right context and that's your interpretation.

If she gets to pick her judges

In other words, if she is elected

There is nothing you can do folks

The people will have nothing that they can do to influence her nominations and in turn their decisions. If she gets elected, it's over, she will act without regard to the opposition.

Although [for] the second amendemt people maybe there is I dont know

There is something that the second amendment people, individuals or groups who support gun ownership can do that other people cannot do and that is effective even after an election win/nomination.

Tell you what, that will be a horrible day

Whatever happens in the above scenario is "a horrible day" in his perspective, the outcome is bad.

If he was referring to lobbyists preventing any action, it would not be a horrible day and it would go counter to his previous point that once she is elected she will act without consideration of the opposition.

The only thing that prevents an elected Clintons nominated justices from enacting their legislation, relates directly to the second amendment and would be considered "a horrible day" is an assassination of either Clinton herself or a justice. There is no getting out of this one.

-Hjeltepojk (Reddit)

 

[ThaMagnificent]

In other words, if she is elected

The people will have nothing that they can do to influence her nominations and in turn their decisions. If she gets elected, it's over, she will act without regard to the opposition.

There is something that the second amendment people, individuals or groups who support gun ownership can do that other people cannot do and that is effective even after an election win/nomination.

Whatever happens in the above scenario is "a horrible day" in his perspective, the outcome is bad.

If he was referring to lobbyists preventing any action, it would not be a horrible day and it would go counter to his previous point that once she is elected she will act without consideration of the opposition.

The only thing that prevents an elected Clintons nominated justices from enacting their legislation, relates directly to the second amendment and would be considered "a horrible day" is an assassination of either Clinton herself or a justice. There is no getting out of this one.

-Hjeltepojk (Reddit)

Reddit lol

 

[srh88]

anyone see the new donald trump dinner bell?

 

[Dankeh_fever]

Reddit lol

Shes getting elected

Tuesday, August 9
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Economist/YouGov Clinton 48, Trump 41 Clinton +7
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/SM Clinton 51, Trump 41 Clinton +10
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Economist/YouGov Clinton 42, Trump 36, Johnson 9, Stein 2 Clinton +6
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC News/SM Clinton 44, Trump 38, Johnson 10, Stein 4 Clinton +6
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 46, Trump 45 Clinton +1
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Quinnipiac Clinton 43, Trump 43, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Tie
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 49, Trump 45 Clinton +4
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Trump 42, Johnson 8, Stein 3 Clinton +2
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 52, Trump 42 Clinton +10
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Quinnipiac Clinton 48, Trump 39, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Clinton +9

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Reddit lol

Stormfront, lol.

Guess what? You personally are inferior to anybody i have ever met of any color.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

In other words, if she is elected

The people will have nothing that they can do to influence her nominations and in turn their decisions. If she gets elected, it's over, she will act without regard to the opposition.

There is something that the second amendment people, individuals or groups who support gun ownership can do that other people cannot do and that is effective even after an election win/nomination.

Whatever happens in the above scenario is "a horrible day" in his perspective, the outcome is bad.

If he was referring to lobbyists preventing any action, it would not be a horrible day and it would go counter to his previous point that once she is elected she will act without consideration of the opposition.

The only thing that prevents an elected Clintons nominated justices from enacting their legislation, relates directly to the second amendment and would be considered "a horrible day" is an assassination of either Clinton herself or a justice. There is no getting out of this one.

-Hjeltepojk (Reddit)

Those are just words. They could mean anything.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Inciting assassination, claiming the election is rigged... this guy wants the country to burn if he is not elected.

Is there a polling level he can drop beneath thst will allow us to cut off his intel briefing? I am guessing they are already doing this but not telling him.

 

[UncleBuck]

Reddit lol

you, lol(er).

 

[see4]

That's not the right context and that's your interpretation.

What? Not the right context? That's exactly what Trump said, verbatim. It is not left up to interpretation. He said it jokingly as an aside to his earlier remarks. He was not directly addressing NRA gun owners, he was addressing a crowd of likeminded racists such as yourself.

Besides, assault is interpreted. It doesn't make it less offensive. What Trump said was offensive and reprehensible at the very least, and punishable if persecuted by the same blood thirsty Republicans who think anything a Democrat does is punished by jail or death.