Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her

[Erich Maria Remarque]

What the hell do we have to lose

You are a white Swede living in Stockholm. You don't have anything to lose, but many Americans (and people all over the world, to be frank) do.

I am not white white. I partly am and certainly look like Hispanic White

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

I'm to assume that without bodyguards, Hillary haters will choose instead to approach her directly and give a substantive debate regarding the second amendment and what the limits of background checks and weapon bans should be.


Of course, I'm assuming most of her haters would be unarmed when they see her by herself with no protection in the middle of 5th Avenue.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

[Devout Centrist]

Unless Trump calls her a fat b*tch c*nt, it's all fair...after all, he meant something else.

Then again, Trump could say that and people would believe it. Be honest, don't piss on my leg and say it's raining.

Have we forgotten what happened to Pim Fortuyn?

[Ebowed]

It's pretty amazing the number of people here willing to explain away Trump's disgusting remarks on his behalf, as though he were simply alluding to some reasonable argument about gun control.

No country that restricts firearms has an unarmed police force.  The "argument" is a complete straw man.  Nobody is advocating that Trump has his Secret Service protection removed.  Stop pretending that his "point" has any basis in reality.

He's repeatedly encouraged his cultists to assassinate Hillary Clinton and he will continue to do so because people continue to try to legitimize it.

[Person Man]

...What would happen if they did?

[ProudModerate2]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Nah, this cartoon is just retarded.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's pretty amazing the number of people here willing to explain away Trump's disgusting remarks on his behalf, as though he were simply alluding to some reasonable argument about gun control.

No country that restricts firearms has an unarmed police force.  The "argument" is a complete straw man.  Nobody is advocating that Trump has his Secret Service protection removed.  Stop pretending that his "point" has any basis in reality.

He's repeatedly encouraged his cultists to assassinate Hillary Clinton and he will continue to do so because people continue to try to legitimize it.

But just stop it.

Was it a strawman argument?                    Yes.
Was it encouragement to an assasination?  No.

Full remark:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But almost literally none of the maistream media quoted it. Do you still think they are not heavily biased against Trump?
Why could they not just quote 3 senteces istead of 1?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e7468cc09b5c4e1aa97f543b598843e2/trump-unarmed-clinton-guards-lets-see-what-happens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/trump-clintons-bodyguards-should-disarm-immediately-and-see-what-happens-to-her/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
http://time.com/4498067/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bodyguards-weapons/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/16/trump-miami-clinton-disarm-security-obama-birther
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-disarm-20160917-snap-story.html

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

It's pretty amazing the number of people here willing to explain away Trump's disgusting remarks on his behalf, as though he were simply alluding to some reasonable argument about gun control.

No country that restricts firearms has an unarmed police force.  The "argument" is a complete straw man.  Nobody is advocating that Trump has his Secret Service protection removed.  Stop pretending that his "point" has any basis in reality.

He's repeatedly encouraged his cultists to assassinate Hillary Clinton and he will continue to do so because people continue to try to legitimize it.

But just stop it.

Was it a strawman argument?                    Yes.
Was it encouragement to an assasination?  No.

Full remark:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But almost literally none of the maistream media quoted it. Do you still think they are not heavily biased against Trump?
Why could they not just quote 3 senteces istead of 1?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e7468cc09b5c4e1aa97f543b598843e2/trump-unarmed-clinton-guards-lets-see-what-happens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/trump-clintons-bodyguards-should-disarm-immediately-and-see-what-happens-to-her/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
http://time.com/4498067/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bodyguards-weapons/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/16/trump-miami-clinton-disarm-security-obama-birther
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-clinton-disarm-20160917-snap-story.html

I think they're biased towards profit.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

[Wells]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

I can see your argument, but by that logic, those earning minimum wage should pay the same taxes as the top 1%. It's the same logic: the poor are more subject to running out of money (by the very nature of being poor), so we give them greater protection by lifting their tax burden. Likewise, because being President makes you incredibly high-profile, and because there are likely millions of people who would prefer to see Tim Kaine in the White House, it makes sense to give Clinton extra protection.

[rafta_rafta]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

Gosh, what a shockingly horrendous argument. Do you even reality bro?

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

I can see your argument, but by that logic, those earning minimum wage should pay the same taxes as the top 1%. It's the same logic: the poor are more subject to running out of money (by the very nature of being poor), so we give them greater protection by lifting their tax burden. Likewise, because being President makes you incredibly high-profile, and because there are likely millions of people who would prefer to see Tim Kaine in the White House, it makes sense to give Clinton extra protection.

I don't support progressive taxation. Also, those ordinary citizens, in your scenario, are not getting the "income" they need. Without guns, anyone is a sitting duck. Guns for some but not all makes no sense. Either we should have them or we shouldn't.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

Gosh, what a shockingly horrendous argument. Do you even reality bro?

Yes, valuing life is terrible. I'm sorry I triggered you with such evil thoughts.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

I can see your argument, but by that logic, those earning minimum wage should pay the same taxes as the top 1%. It's the same logic: the poor are more subject to running out of money (by the very nature of being poor), so we give them greater protection by lifting their tax burden. Likewise, because being President makes you incredibly high-profile, and because there are likely millions of people who would prefer to see Tim Kaine in the White House, it makes sense to give Clinton extra protection.

I don't support progressive taxation. Also, those ordinary citizens, in your scenario, are not getting the "income" they need. Without guns, anyone is a sitting duck. Guns for some but not all makes no sense. Either we should have them or we shouldn't.

So you support putting guns in the hands of potential terrorists and lunatics, or else spawning a gigantic, dangerous black market? ...OK

[rafta_rafta]

Yes, valuing life is terrible. I'm sorry I triggered you with such evil thoughts.

Your concern trolling shows such a gap in logic. Go back to your right wing safe spaces where such idiotic arguments are applauded by fellow deplorables.

The political leadership of a country always has to be better protected because they are in charge and responsible for running things. It's not a privilege accorded to the individual, but the position in government where a leadership hierarchy is necessary.

[Wells]

Politicians do need bodyguards more than the rest of us. Say that there's a president and vice president who agree on everything except trade and abortion. Now there are some people who will badly want to assassinate the president, and a successful assassination could change a few of the major decisions (even possibly SCOTUS picks) that would be made during those four to eight years. Or if there was an important Supreme Court decision about to be made and one of the judges gets assassinated and instead of a 5-4 ruling striking down the lower court's decision, it became a 4-4 ruling which would uphold the lower court's ruling by default. Meanwhile, average inner city citizens getting shot wouldn't have the same drastic effect.

[Zarn]

Yes, valuing life is terrible. I'm sorry I triggered you with such evil thoughts.

Your concern trolling shows such a gap in logic. Go back to your right wing safe spaces where such idiotic arguments are applauded by fellow deplorables.

The political leadership of a country always has to be better protected because they are in charge and responsible for running things. It's not a privilege accorded to the individual, but the position in government where a leadership hierarchy is necessary.

It's not, actually. You just replace them. The VP role is designed for exactly that. I also would like you to define deplorable, because I doubt I fit the category you are trying to fit me in.

[Zarn]

Politicians do need bodyguards more than the rest of us. Say that there's a president and vice president who agree on everything except trade and abortion. Now there are some people who will badly want to assassinate the president, and a successful assassination could change a few of the major decisions (even possibly SCOTUS picks) that would be made during those four to eight years. Or if there was an important Supreme Court decision about to be made and one of the judges gets assassinated and instead of a 5-4 ruling striking down the lower court's decision, it became a 4-4 ruling which would uphold the lower court's ruling by default. Meanwhile, average inner city citizens getting shot wouldn't have the same drastic effect.

It does not matter what they support. What if a private citizens becomes an advocate and is actually changing minds? Should that person then have security? Should others still not? People elect a ticket for a multitude of reasons. It is not restricted to one or two policies, anyway.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

I can see your argument, but by that logic, those earning minimum wage should pay the same taxes as the top 1%. It's the same logic: the poor are more subject to running out of money (by the very nature of being poor), so we give them greater protection by lifting their tax burden. Likewise, because being President makes you incredibly high-profile, and because there are likely millions of people who would prefer to see Tim Kaine in the White House, it makes sense to give Clinton extra protection.

I don't support progressive taxation. Also, those ordinary citizens, in your scenario, are not getting the "income" they need. Without guns, anyone is a sitting duck. Guns for some but not all makes no sense. Either we should have them or we shouldn't.

So you support putting guns in the hands of potential terrorists and lunatics, or else spawning a gigantic, dangerous black market? ...OK

They would get the guns, regardless of legality.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Politicians do need bodyguards more than the rest of us. Say that there's a president and vice president who agree on everything except trade and abortion. Now there are some people who will badly want to assassinate the president, and a successful assassination could change a few of the major decisions (even possibly SCOTUS picks) that would be made during those four to eight years. Or if there was an important Supreme Court decision about to be made and one of the judges gets assassinated and instead of a 5-4 ruling striking down the lower court's decision, it became a 4-4 ruling which would uphold the lower court's ruling by default. Meanwhile, average inner city citizens getting shot wouldn't have the same drastic effect.

It does not matter what they support. What if a private citizens becomes an advocate and is actually changing minds? Should that person then have security? Should others still not? People elect a ticket for a multitude of reasons. It is not restricted to one or two policies, anyway.

The president is possibly the highest-profile individual in the world. To suggest that they do not need security would be equivalent to suggesting that we don't need secure voting booths, because someone's private CoD server doesn't get the same protection.

[Virginiá]

It's not, actually. You just replace them. The VP role is designed for exactly that. I also would like you to define deplorable, because I doubt I fit the category you are trying to fit me in.

It's not like human life isn't valued here when we say the president requires more protection. They run the military and the federal government and have a lot of enemies and people who would potentially go after them if left unsecured in one way or another.

You can't just keep replacing presidents like you propose, either. You reduce the effectiveness of the office if you keep putting people in there that are not up-to-date on what is going on and have no experience in there. We elect people every 4 years in part to mitigate this issue.

And even when everyone deserves protection, there are people who deserve more protection because they face more threats, and more complex threats at that. You can't compare Joe the plumber to Obama the president. It's just not even comparable in the threats they face.

Lastly, people do have protection - it's called the police. We are limited in resources so we really can't protect everyone with personal bodyguards - if we did, who would protect the bodyguards? The entire country's economy would be nothing but bodyguard-related. We don't have personal robots, either. Police are the only real way we can try and protect large amounts of people. For people more important and more critical to this country (or those who can pay for their own private security), they get more personal protection.