PDA

View Full Version : Trump says Clinton bodyguards should lose their guns 'and let's see what happens to her'



Teh One Who Knocks
09-17-2016, 11:09 AM
FOX News and The Associated Press


http://i.imgur.com/OuUGn1j.jpg

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump revived another campaign controversy Friday night, sarcastically calling for Hillary Clinton's Secret Service agents to be stripped of their firearms before adding, "let's see what happens to her."

"I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm, right?" Trump asked the crowd at a Miami rally. "Take their guns away, she doesn't want guns. Take their — and let's see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK, it would be very dangerous."

There was no immediate comment or clarification from the Trump campaign about the remarks. However, the Clinton campaign had a quick reaction. Spokesman Robby Mook released a statement Friday night saying Trump "has a pattern of inciting people to violence. Whether this is done to provoke protesters at a rally or casually or even as a joke, it is an unacceptable quality in anyone seeking the job of Commander in Chief.

"This kind of talk should be out of bounds for a presidential candidate," Mook wrote.

A spokeswoman for the Secret Service declined to comment.

The riff recalled a remark Trump made last month that many Democrats condemned as a call for Clinton's assassination. Speaking at a rally in North Carolina, the Republican nominee said his opponent wants to "abolish, essentially, the Second Amendment."

He continued: "By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Mook said then, "A person seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

Trump later disputed that criticism, saying everyone in his audience knew he was referring to the power of voters and "there can be no other interpretation."

Trump, who has the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, eventually took to Twitter to say the Secret Service had not contacted him about the remarks.

While campaigning in South Florida, which has a large Cuban-American population, Trump also said that if he's elected president, he will reverse Obama's efforts to normalize relations with Cuba — unless the country abides by certain "demands." Among those, he said, would be religious and political freedom for the Cuban people and the freeing of all political prisoners.

Trump says he'll "stand with the Cuban people in their fight against communist oppression."

The comment marks yet another reversal for the GOP candidate, who previously said he supported the idea of normalized relations, but wished the U.S. had negotiated a better deal.

Trump also said the U.S. has a broader obligation to stand with oppressed people — a comment that seems at odds with his "America first" mantra. "The next president of the United States must stand in solidarity with all people oppressed in our hemisphere, and we will stand with oppressed people, and there are many," he said.

He added that the people of Venezuela "are yearning to be free, they are yearning for help. The system is bad. But the people are great."

Trump has often cited the country as a model of a failed state, warning that if Clinton is elected, she'll turn the U.S. into Venezuela.

deebakes
09-17-2016, 12:25 PM
is he trying to lose? :-k

Teh One Who Knocks
09-17-2016, 12:30 PM
He's got a point, she wants to ban guns, maybe she should lead by example. :dunno:

deebakes
09-17-2016, 12:36 PM
did you watch south park this week? they have garrison playing the role of trump (also called giant douche) pitted against hillary (who they call turd sandwich). what started as a joke for garrison is becoming serious as it seems as though he might actually win. he's actively trying to do things to piss people off and it isnt working :lol:

but he is facing turd sandwich after all :rofl:

Hugh_Janus
09-18-2016, 08:22 AM
this guy really needs to put a filter between his brain and his mouth

redred
09-18-2016, 10:16 AM
this guy really needs to put a filter between his brain and his mouth
That's the bit they seem to like

PorkChopSandwiches
09-19-2016, 02:55 PM
Hillary referred to half the country as deplorables ... So Fuck her

deebakes
09-19-2016, 02:56 PM
gay ol' deplorable porky :lol:

fricnjay
09-19-2016, 05:24 PM
I understand what he's saying. If she is so anti-gun then her and all her people should lead by example and no longer carry. But there is no way in hell she would do that because she knows what would happen. :yup:

redred
09-19-2016, 06:01 PM
only seems to have been trump that someone has tried to kill so far :lol:

Pony
09-19-2016, 07:14 PM
Even if her bodyguards disarmed she would still have her hired hit squad to take out her enemies observe her enemies putting two bullets in the backs of their own heads..

RBP
09-19-2016, 07:19 PM
Logical fallacy to me. Nobody, including Hillary is suggesting that the police or, in this case, the secret service, should be disarmed.

DemonGeminiX
09-19-2016, 07:57 PM
:-k

And what logical fallacy does that fall under? People shouldn't have guns and they should be disarmed if they do (according to Hillary). Hillary is included in people, and the people around her are people, so according to her beliefs, neither her nor the people around her should have guns. So the people around her should disarm themselves. Since the Secret Service assigned to her are included in the set of people around her, then the Secret Service assigned to her should disarm themselves.

RBP
09-19-2016, 08:04 PM
:-k

And what logical fallacy does that fall under? People shouldn't have guns and they should be disarmed if they do (according to Hillary). Hillary is included in people, and the people around her are people, so according to her beliefs, neither her nor the people around her should have guns. So the people around her should disarm themselves. Since the Secret Service assigned to her are included in the set of people around her, then the Secret Service assigned to her should disarm themselves.

Perhaps you should continue reading after "fallacy." There's an explanation right after it. And if you have anything that says she is proposing disarming police, please post it.

DemonGeminiX
09-19-2016, 09:05 PM
It's not necessary to openly suggest the conclusion when her belief logically implies the conclusion.

RBP
09-19-2016, 09:22 PM
It's not necessary to openly suggest the conclusion when her belief logically implies the conclusion.

Again, I know of no public statements, nor articles regarding private statements, where she suggested disarming the police.

DemonGeminiX
09-19-2016, 10:44 PM
Again, it doesn't matter. A conclusion does not need to be explicitly stated from a subject for it to be logically implied from known facts.

RBP
09-19-2016, 11:09 PM
Again, it doesn't matter. A conclusion does not need to be explicitly stated from a subject for it to be logically implied from known facts.

Where we disagree is that a demonstrably false conclusion can be labeled "logical". It's not logical if there are specific conditions required for a conclusion that have not been met. You have to have the known fact of a proposed police ban in order to go there. You have facts to support a civilian ban logical conclusion, that does not mean you have the facts to support a police ban logical conclusion.

Muddy
09-19-2016, 11:12 PM
http://i63.tinypic.com/5d8p6q.jpg

DemonGeminiX
09-19-2016, 11:28 PM
Where we disagree is that a demonstrably false conclusion can be labeled "logical". It's not logical if there are specific conditions required for a conclusion that have not been met. You have to have the known fact of a proposed police ban in order to go there. You have facts to support a civilian ban logical conclusion, that does not mean you have the facts to support a police ban logical conclusion.

No, you don't have to have a known fact of a proposed police ban for anything. You're twisting the idea to fit your narrative. You're the one who's guilty of a logical fallacy here.

DemonGeminiX
09-19-2016, 11:48 PM
No, you're right about my logical argument. My apologies, I should know better. I kick ass at logic, or at least I used to.

But you're still wrong. Not against me, mind you, but when you first entered the fray. No one was implying that she was requiring that law enforcement give up their weapons. They were challenging her to get her protection to give up theirs. "You go first and see how you like it." Of course, she more than likely will have some people take some shots at her if she did that and it became public knowledge.

I got so focused on logic that I missed that fact too.

RBP
09-20-2016, 12:55 AM
No, you're right about my logical argument. My apologies, I should know better. I kick ass at logic, or at least I used to.

But you're still wrong. Not against me, mind you, but when you first entered the fray. No one was implying that she was requiring that law enforcement give up their weapons. They were challenging her to get her protection to give up theirs. "You go first and see how you like it." Of course, she more than likely will have some people take some shots at her if she did that and it became public knowledge.

I got so focused on logic that I missed that fact too.

Sorry, but I have to still disagree. the context of Trump's comment is civilian gun laws. In summary... "she wants to take away your guns. If she was really serious she would give up her gun carrying police protection". That makes no logical sense. One has nothing to do with the other in this context.

DemonGeminiX
09-20-2016, 02:03 AM
She wants to take away your right to protect yourself so why doesn't she give up her protection first?

RBP
09-20-2016, 02:45 AM
She wants to take away your right to protect yourself so why doesn't she give up her protection first?

It's not her protection. It's assigned police protection. Saying that police should disarm is the BLM position.

Loser
09-20-2016, 05:21 AM
She wants/wanted all police to carry handguns only.

She was in favor of jackasses executive order to remove military style weapons from police custody saying they have no place on our streets.

Then a month later after orlando shooting, she about faced and said she would spend 1 billion for police training and proper equiptment.

The bitch is a flavor of the month style politician.

-edit-

Wanted to add. She has said on numerous occasions that the police forces in america are just as dangerous as terrorists. Sayin they kill more black men then white.

FYI, that's bullshit.

Of all police related homicides, only 31% were black. 63% were white.

But facts and all that shit.