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

[Roemerista]

This kind of rhetoric, whatever he meant by it (and the one previous), just puts another nail in the coffin of Republican me.  Trump has done nothing for me except to vow that I will never vote Republican for any office ever again.

The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan is dead.

Hillary Clinton, someone I never thought I would support, is my candidate for 2016, and I will proudly cast my vote for her.

Only the most vile, contemptuous  person could vote for Trump.

[Ebowed]

This kind of rhetoric, whatever he meant by it (and the one previous), just puts another nail in the coffin of Republican me.  Trump has done nothing for me except to vow that I will never vote Republican for any office ever again.

The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan is dead.

Hillary Clinton, someone I never thought I would support, is my candidate for 2016, and I will proudly cast my vote for her.

What should Trump do to make you switch?

If powerful Melanie Trump gets cunigulus by some young poor boy and Trump "forgives" her [to get into power] and calls himself a proud feminist. Would he then be a good enough role-model for our children so you can vote for him?

I mean, seriously! How dare Hillary call herself a feminist after what she has done [covered this sick lyin bastard she is married with]?

She never fights against norm, she uses them [The Woman Card]

Donald Trump and his wife have been underpaying and exploiting women for years in their various business schemes.  It's a known fact that at Trump University, female professors were paid 47% of the salary that male professors made.  Now, you can quibble over whether the commission formula was inherently sexist or if it just conveniently worked out that way.  But females working at the Trump Foundation made a paltry 38% of what men made, one of the widest gender pay gaps of any multi-level marketing company in the United States.

It is not remarkable whether Ivanka cheats on him, because Donald Trump has been committing adultery his entire married life, accruing a laundry list of sexually transmitted infections, including some you've never even heard of.

[Seriously?]

Overreact much, leftists?

It's the rhetorical argument about gun control. If you take away the guns from one, why don't you take it away from all?

And if you do that, will Hillary or Cher or Rosie O'Donnell whatever loony actress or actor that spouts seizing people's 2nd Amendment rights away be better off or worse off?

Leftists like to piss on the little people and take away their rights. But when it comes to protecting their children, they'll hire security... with guns....

If you don't see what Trump was getting at here, you're just another DNC/leftist media shill.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Overreact much, leftists?

It's the rhetorical argument about gun control. If you take away the guns from one, why don't you take it away from all?

And if you do that, will Hillary or Cher or Rosie O'Donnell whatever loony actress or actor that spouts seizing people's 2nd Amendment rights away be better off or worse off?

Leftists like to piss on the little people and take away their rights. But when it comes to protecting their children, they'll hire security... with guns....

If you don't see what Trump was getting at here, you're just another DNC/leftist media shill.

I don't think that any of the SS are on the terrorist watch list...

[RJEvans]

Overreact much, leftists?

It's the rhetorical argument about gun control. If you take away the guns from one, why don't you take it away from all?

And if you do that, will Hillary or Cher or Rosie O'Donnell whatever loony actress or actor that spouts seizing people's 2nd Amendment rights away be better off or worse off?

Leftists like to piss on the little people and take away their rights. But when it comes to protecting their children, they'll hire security... with guns....

If you don't see what Trump was getting at here, you're just another DNC/leftist media shill.

He didn't say lets take away the guns of ALL bodyguards. He said to take away the guns of HER bodyguards and see what happens to HER. If that's not inciting an assassination attempt I don't know what is.

[Ebowed]

Overreact much, leftists?

It's the rhetorical argument about gun control. If you take away the guns from one, why don't you take it away from all?

And if you do that, will Hillary or Cher or Rosie O'Donnell whatever loony actress or actor that spouts seizing people's 2nd Amendment rights away be better off or worse off?

Leftists like to piss on the little people and take away their rights. But when it comes to protecting their children, they'll hire security... with guns....

If you don't see what Trump was getting at here, you're just another DNC/leftist media shill.

He didn't say lets take away the guns of ALL bodyguards. He said to take away the guns of HER bodyguards and see what happens to HER. If that's not inciting an assassination attempt I don't know what is.

Let's not forget that he also recently asked his second amendment people to do something to prevent Clinton from lawfully making judicial appointments.

The argument that any gun control advocates are saying we should allow political assassinations is so dumb as to not be worth dignifying with a response.  But to be sure, Donald Trump's statements are dangerous, and they have nothing to do with gun control, even if cultists disingenuously imply otherwise.  These people have been stockpiling guns for decades.  The single biggest threat to the country now is right-wing terrorism.  Anti-taxation, anti-immigration, and heavily violent, these people are waiting on direct orders from Dear Leader.  Trump is buttering them up by saying the vote will be rigged.  He is stoking resentment without regard for the consequences.  This will get ugly.

[RI]

This story is desperate, overblown BS. Only someone dropped on their head as a child could honestly interpret this as a death threat.

[TJ in Oregon]

This story is desperate, overblown BS. Only someone dropped on their head as a child could honestly interpret this as a death threat.

^^

Yup. It's incredibly obvious what he meant by the statement: If she's so anti-gun then why is it okay for her to have armed guards while the average person in the street isn't allowed to bring a weapon to defend themselves. The argument isn't terribly convincing, but this statement isn't what its detractors make it out to be.

[Virginiá]

Yup. It's incredibly obvious what he meant by the statement: If she's so anti-gun then why is it okay for her to have armed guards while the average person in the street isn't allowed to bring a weapon to defend themselves. The argument isn't terribly convincing, but this statement isn't what its detractors make it out to be.

It isn't really I guess, but Trump's comparison is pretty stupid. Clinton still looks to be favored to be the next President of the United States, and that makes her exponentially more important and critical to defend than the average American. As much as I loathe having to say it, Trump is also in the same position.

At any rate, are Democrats/Clinton even calling for a ban on concealed carry? I don't recall seeing anything like that on her website or the Democratic Party platform, but, then again, I could be wrong. I don't think I am, though. If no one is, then this argument is pointless.

[Ebsy]

This is basically the equivalent of saying that the secret service should stop protecting the President. Just a step away from calling for someone to assassinate her. Incredibly irresponsible and disgusting, and you should be ashamed if you really believe that this is acceptable campaign rhetoric.

[Ebsy]

This story is desperate, overblown BS. Only someone dropped on their head as a child could honestly interpret this as a death threat.

^^

Yup. It's incredibly obvious what he meant by the statement: If she's so anti-gun then why is it okay for her to have armed guards while the average person in the street isn't allowed to bring a weapon to defend themselves. The argument isn't terribly convincing, but this statement isn't what its detractors make it out to be.

This, obviously.

Disgusting new low.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

He's not encouraging anyone to kill her, true, but he's making sport of the idea that Hillary Clinton would be shot. That's not acceptable by any stretch.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

This kind of rhetoric, whatever he meant by it (and the one previous), just puts another nail in the coffin of Republican me.  Trump has done nothing for me except to vow that I will never vote Republican for any office ever again.

The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan is dead.

Hillary Clinton, someone I never thought I would support, is my candidate for 2016, and I will proudly cast my vote for her.

Between the radical tea party and now Trump...I am now in the same mindset.

[Averroës Nix]

This story is desperate, overblown BS. Only someone dropped on their head as a child could honestly interpret this as a death threat.

...and getting this reaction was presumably the point if we grant that this was anything more than the sort of off-the-cuff trolling in which Trump routinely indulges. It's disturbing insofar as it's the kind of ignorant garbage that you'd hear your dim-witted conservative uncle/friend/coworker pontificating about at a barbecue, which is disturbing enough without bringing up the ridiculous idea that it was meant as any kind of death threat.

The worst part is that the Clinton surrogates reacting with shock genuinely appear to have no idea how most people are likely to interpret this. It's as if they're broadcasting their takes from a parallel universe.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

He's not encouraging anyone to kill her, true, but he's making sport of the idea that Hillary Clinton would be shot. That's not acceptable by any stretch.

This. This is basically "second amendment people" all over again

[Erich Maria Remarque]

This story is desperate, overblown BS. Only someone dropped on their head as a child could honestly interpret this as a death threat.

^^

Yup. It's incredibly obvious what he meant by the statement: If she's so anti-gun then why is it okay for her to have armed guards while the average person in the street isn't allowed to bring a weapon to defend themselves. The argument isn't terribly convincing, but this statement isn't what its detractors make it out to be.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

He's not encouraging anyone to kill her, true, but he's making sport of the idea that Hillary Clinton would be shot. That's not acceptable by any stretch.

Trump is shaping "new normal". Right now. Right here.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

He's not encouraging anyone to kill her, true, but he's making sport of the idea that Hillary Clinton would be shot. That's not acceptable by any stretch.

Trump is shaping "new normal". Right now. Right here.

He's trying to, definitely. Hopefully the American electorate is smart enough to realize what a dangerous path this leads down...

[Hermit For Peace]

This is not a subject that any Presidential candidate should be talking about. Period. People have to continually "interpret" what Trump means when he says these awful things.

"Oh, he didn't really mean it like that...." "This is what he meant...."

Then WHY say it?

The only reason for Trump to utter the crap that he does is to entertain and to get people riled up. He doesn't think about the long-term consequences of his actions.

I find that very small-minded, unbalanced, and unacceptable behavior coming from a 70 year old who should know better, but doesn't.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

This is not a subject that any Presidential candidate should be talking about. Period. People have to continually "interpret" what Trump means when he says these awful things.

"Oh, he didn't really mean it like that...." "This is what he meant...."

Then WHY say it?

The only reason for Trump to utter the crap that he does is to entertain and to get people riled up. He doesn't think about the long-term consequences of his actions.

I find that very small-minded, unbalanced, and unacceptable behavior coming from a 70 year old who should know better, but doesn't.

Lol, what. You are crying like a baby.

Hypocrisy is what best energizes people. If they perceive her in that way (that she is hypocritical) he will use it. Even if I am myself against 2nd Amendment (in Europe), I understand why he uses it

And, of course, he knows, that it will trigger Red Hacks/media

[ProudModerate2]

This story is desperate, overblown BS. Only someone dropped on their head as a child could honestly interpret this as a death threat.

^^
Yup. It's incredibly obvious what he meant by the statement: If she's so anti-gun then why is it okay for her to have armed guards while the average person in the street isn't allowed to bring a weapon to defend themselves. The argument isn't terribly convincing, but this statement isn't what its detractors make it out to be.

This is a stupid position.
There are other nations who have strict gun controls (UK) who obviously have armed personnel protecting their political officials, including the Prime Minister.
There is nothing wrong with this at all.
What are you proposing in your argument .... that someone like the UK PM cannot have armed security, because of the fact that their citizens have very limited ability to own them ?

[ProudModerate2]

This kind of rhetoric, whatever he meant by it (and the one previous), just puts another nail in the coffin of Republican me.  Trump has done nothing for me except to vow that I will never vote Republican for any office ever again.
The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan is dead.
Hillary Clinton, someone I never thought I would support, is my candidate for 2016, and I will proudly cast my vote for her.

Between the radical tea party and now Trump...I am now in the same mindset.

I agree.
First we had the wacko Tea Party, and now this orange-haired clown and his new racist/bigoted alt-right ideology of Trumpism.
When does it end with the GOP creating these strange and disgusting wings of their Party ?

[DavidB.]

In 2016, to say a controversial politician should not get protection anymore basically means to say one is okay with said politician being killed. People who make such statements about Geert Wilders disgust me, and people who make such statements about Hillary Clinton disgust me too. I understand the argument "politician X is against guns yet their bodyguards are armed and that's hypocritical", but Trump's formulation was purposely different. Such ambiguity can have dangerous consequences in turbulent political times like these.

[Virginiá]

Lol, what. You are crying like a baby.

And yet you roam around the GE polls subforum whining about unskewing literally every day.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Lol, what. You are crying like a baby.

And yet you roam around the GE polls subforum whining mocking Red Hacks about unskewing literally every day.

Fixed for you