Should 2nd Amendment People do something about Clinton?

[Wells]

Trump argues that if Clinton is elected, "Second Amendment People" should do "something" about her to make sure she doesn't get judges nominated. Would you support that something, whatever it is?

[The Other Castro]

No because inciting violence is wrong (sane). That shouldn't have to be said., especially in response to a presidential candidate.

[Seriously?]

Of course they should. They should show up at the ballot box en masse against Clinton. That's how democracy works.

The other stuff you are insinuating, of course not.

[Santander]

Of course they should. They should show up at the ballot box en masse against Clinton. That's how democracy works.

The other stuff you are insinuating, of course not.

[Wells]

Of course they should. They should show up at the ballot box en masse against Clinton. That's how democracy works.

The other stuff you are insinuating, of course not.

Trump is the one who insinuated it.

“By the way, if she gets to pick her judges¹, nothing you can do folks. Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is², I don't know.”

1) If she's been elected (can only pick judges once elected).
2) Maybe they (Second Amendment People) can do something to stop the judges from being nominated?

[Nyvin]

Of course they should. They should show up at the ballot box en masse against Clinton. That's how democracy works.

The other stuff you are insinuating, of course not.

I believe the "nothing you can do" part was suggestting Clinton won the election...

And then adding the exception for "2nd Amendment people" saying they "could" do something after she won the election.

[OwlRhetoric]

Lol at all the votes for "they should go after Trump instead." I guess Hillary really was a trendsetter in 2008! So progressive and ahead of the curve.

https://youtu.be/nC6Sa8t9Ywg

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Yeah you should support Gary Johnson.

[Seriously?]

Lol at all the votes for "they should go after Trump instead." I guess Hillary really was a trendsetter in 2008! So progressive and ahead of the curve.

https://youtu.be/nC6Sa8t9Ywg

SUNY Cornell graduate Keith Olberman is a loser. Watching that clip made my skin crawl. But it does bring to bear that candidates stay dumb things all the time.

Remember when Hillary! said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

[Joe Republic]

Remember when Hillary! [sic] said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

Please stop lying.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The country would be better off if the "2nd Amendment People" that Trump were referring to self-exercised their 2nd amendment right.

[Lyin' Steve]

Yes, pursuant to the second amendment they should refrain from infringing on her right to bear arms.

[Vosem]

Make Assassination Great Again!

[Suburbia]

No. Move on. Now.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I heard it as "Though the 2nd Amendment, people, maybe there is, I don't know." as in, "people" is a separate clause addressing the crowd.

[Seriously?]

Remember when Hillary! [sic] said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

Please stop lying.

Lying? That's exactly what Hillary! said. Listen for yourself.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

[Dr. Arch]

Remember when Hillary! [sic] said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

Please stop lying.

Lying? That's exactly what Hillary! said. Listen for yourself.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

Enjoy your Pants on Fire claim. As a linguist myself, I can verify that the methods used were sound and were the same ones I used to identify the same results they concluded. Not like your credibility could be shot any more.

[Seriously?]

Remember when Hillary! [sic] said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

Please stop lying.

Lying? That's exactly what Hillary! said. Listen for yourself.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

Enjoy your Pants on Fire claim. As a linguist myself, I can verify that the methods used were sound and were the same ones I used to identify the same results they concluded. Not like you credibility could be shot any more.

Dude, she f#^@ing misspoke. It happens in politics. She meant to say one thing, but said another. Look up the word gaffe and stop trying to cover for her.

[Dr. Arch]

Remember when Hillary! [sic] said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

Please stop lying.

Lying? That's exactly what Hillary! said. Listen for yourself.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

Enjoy your Pants on Fire claim. As a linguist myself, I can verify that the methods used were sound and were the same ones I used to identify the same results they concluded. Not like you credibility could be shot any more.

Dude, she f#^@ing misspoke. It happens in politics. She meant to say one thing, but said another. Look up the word gaffe and stop trying to cover for her.

No, sorry, there's this thing in speech called phonetic assimilation that happens with all speakers. Now, speakers of certain dialects have word coda t-deletion as part of one of those assimilatory processes. However, the contraction is still marked by the N sonorant consonant on the sound spectograph even when part of the contraction is omitted.

You are way out of your league trying to contest this with me. She didn't misspeak. The best you could argue is that she didn't articulate it clearly enough for certain speakers who aren't keen on picking up on these, but that falls way short of saying that's what she said. The cold hard evidence is there in the audio clip. You can't argue this. I'm sorry.

[Seriously?]

Remember when Hillary! [sic] said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

Please stop lying.

Lying? That's exactly what Hillary! said. Listen for yourself.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

Enjoy your Pants on Fire claim. As a linguist myself, I can verify that the methods used were sound and were the same ones I used to identify the same results they concluded. Not like you credibility could be shot any more.

Dude, she f#^@ing misspoke. It happens in politics. She meant to say one thing, but said another. Look up the word gaffe and stop trying to cover for her.

No, sorry, there's this thing in speech called phonetic assimilation that happens with all speakers. Now, speakers of a certain dialect have word coda t-deletion as part of one of those assimilatory processes. However, the contraction is still marked by the N sonorant consonant on the sound spectograph even when part of the contraction is omitted.

You are way out of your league trying to contest this with me. She didn't misspeak. The best you could argue is that she didn't articulate it clearly enough for certain speakers who aren't keen on picking up on these, but that falls way short of saying that's what she said. The cold hard evidence is there in the audio clip. You can't argue this. I'm sorry.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. You want to call it that she didn't articulate properly, fine. It still came off to the audience as she wanted to raise taxes on the freaking middle class.

In the real world we call them gaffes. It happens. Even to Queen Hillary!

[Dr. Arch]

Remember when Hillary! [sic] said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

Please stop lying.

Lying? That's exactly what Hillary! said. Listen for yourself.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

Enjoy your Pants on Fire claim. As a linguist myself, I can verify that the methods used were sound and were the same ones I used to identify the same results they concluded. Not like you credibility could be shot any more.

Dude, she f#^@ing misspoke. It happens in politics. She meant to say one thing, but said another. Look up the word gaffe and stop trying to cover for her.

No, sorry, there's this thing in speech called phonetic assimilation that happens with all speakers. Now, speakers of a certain dialect have word coda t-deletion as part of one of those assimilatory processes. However, the contraction is still marked by the N sonorant consonant on the sound spectograph even when part of the contraction is omitted.

You are way out of your league trying to contest this with me. She didn't misspeak. The best you could argue is that she didn't articulate it clearly enough for certain speakers who aren't keen on picking up on these, but that falls way short of saying that's what she said. The cold hard evidence is there in the audio clip. You can't argue this. I'm sorry.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. You want to call it that she didn't articulate properly, fine. It still came off to the audience as she wanted to raise taxes on the freaking middle class.

In the real world we call them gaffes. It happens. Even to Queen Hillary!

A gaffe would've been for her to have actually said it, which she didn't, but I'm glad you acknowledge that at least.

[Lyin' Steve]

Remember when Hillary! [sic] said she wanted to "tax the middle class?" When was that again? A few years ago? No try last week.

Please stop lying.

Lying? That's exactly what Hillary! said. Listen for yourself.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

Enjoy your Pants on Fire claim. As a linguist myself, I can verify that the methods used were sound and were the same ones I used to identify the same results they concluded. Not like you credibility could be shot any more.

Dude, she f#^@ing misspoke. It happens in politics. She meant to say one thing, but said another. Look up the word gaffe and stop trying to cover for her.

No, sorry, there's this thing in speech called phonetic assimilation that happens with all speakers. Now, speakers of a certain dialect have word coda t-deletion as part of one of those assimilatory processes. However, the contraction is still marked by the N sonorant consonant on the sound spectograph even when part of the contraction is omitted.

You are way out of your league trying to contest this with me. She didn't misspeak. The best you could argue is that she didn't articulate it clearly enough for certain speakers who aren't keen on picking up on these, but that falls way short of saying that's what she said. The cold hard evidence is there in the audio clip. You can't argue this. I'm sorry.

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. You want to call it that she didn't articulate properly, fine. It still came off to the audience as she wanted to raise taxes on the freaking middle class.

In the real world we call them gaffes. It happens. Even to Queen Hillary!

What point are you trying to make dude?
Hillary said "aren't" but you're saying she should suffer for it anyway because people didn't hear her clearly?  FWIW I didn't hear it the first time but when I was listening for it the second time I heard the "n".  But I didn't care because obviously Hillary isn't some diabolical troll who just wanted to sneak in her secret plan to raise taxes on the middle class the same way John allegedly sneaked "Paul is dead" into his songs.
Trump, on the other hand, quite clearly said what he said, the meaning was clear, it follows a clear pattern of saying similar things, it's something the far-right says with some regularity in the circles Trump undoubtedly listens to and reads, and his team has been completely unable to put together a cohesive excuse for it.

[Seriously?]

It's a mistake. Mistakes happen. You take your lumps, issue a clarifying statement and move on.

It's pretty darn clear what Hillary said during that speech. Of course her rivals are going to pick on her about it. It's politics.

Trump was inartful today. Nothing more. Nothing less. He was not advocating anything close to what you leftists claim. He issued a clarifying statement. Of course the left and their DNC presttitutes will make a huge story about this. Trump will take his lumps and move on. Again, it's politics.

[Lyin' Steve]

It's a mistake. Mistakes happen. You take your lumps, issue a clarifying statement and move on.

It's pretty darn clear what Hillary said during that speech. Of course her rivals are going to pick on her about it. It's politics.

Trump was inartful today. Nothing more. Nothing less. He was not advocating anything close to what you leftists claim. He issued a clarifying statement. Of course the left and their DNC presttitutes will make a huge story about this. Trump will take his lumps and move on. Again, it's politics.

Hillary said the word "aren't" in kind of a weird way.
Trump basically said "there's nothing you could do, except, aw hell, I guess you could just shoot her lol."
Of course Trump doesn't actually think someone should shoot Hillary Clinton.  But the fact that he's going around making jokes like this shows how completely reckless and unaware of the consequences of his words he is.  Trump now has tens of millions of loyal followers, many of whom are complete psychos.  When he says things like that, it can have a big impact, whether he intends it to or not.
That won't change once he gets in the White House.  Just because he didn't mean for a bad thing to happen doesn't excuse him when it does.  If he can't understand or accept the consequences, real or potential, of his words and actions, then maybe he shouldn't be seeking a job where his words and actions will be the most consequential of any man in the world.

[HAnnA MArin County]

It's a mistake. Mistakes happen. You take your lumps, issue a clarifying statement and move on.

It's pretty darn clear what Hillary said during that speech. Of course her rivals are going to pick on her about it. It's politics.

Trump was inartful today. Nothing more. Nothing less. He was not advocating anything close to what you leftists claim. He issued a clarifying statement. Of course the left and their DNC presttitutes will make a huge story about this. Trump will take his lumps and move on. Again, it's politics.

I think you need a hearing aid, among other things.