Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, MSM Idiocy, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Why Trump’s Comments about 2nd Amendment & HRC Won’t Hurt Him

Why Trump’s Comments about 2nd Amendment & HRC Won’t Hurt Him

As many of you might have heard earlier today, Donald Trump made a speech in Wilmington, NC where he said (among many other statements) the following.

Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick… If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.

As you also might have heard by now, every mainstream media outlet and “liberal” blogger/ tweeter/ presstitute is busy spinning this statement as an incitement to assassinate HRC if she wins the presidential election in November 2016. But is that really the case? And perhaps more importantly- will this help or hurt Trump’s chances of winning the presidential election in November? Note that I said- “winning the presidential election” and not “winning the next round of supposedly objective 3rd party polls based on curated information given over the phone by people who chose to answer them after being randomly dialed”. As you will see, this distinction is far more important than it seems.

On the question of whether that statement is evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) of Trump trying to incite others to assassinate HRC- I have to say, based on available information, there is no evidence that he was trying to do what his detractors have accused him of doing. At best, he was hinting to the well-known fact that any legislative measure to severely curtail legal gun ownership in USA might face significant pushback from those who believed in the commonly accepted and legally supported frameworks surrounding gun ownership today. He was also quite correct in pointing out that stacking the Supreme Court with judges known to oppose the current legal framework on that issue would result in erosion of 2nd amendment rights at the federal level.

In other words- nothing he said in that speech actually rises to the logical level of encouraging assassination of one or more public figure. But what about the alleged public perception of those remarks?

Well.. let me begin this part by restating that HRC is the least popular and most negatively perceived career politician ever to run for the american presidency as a candidate of a major political party. Many of you might remember that almost half of those who cast ballots in the democratic party primary voted for her opponent- Bernie Sanders, a hitherto unknown independent senator from Vermont. It is also no secret, now, that she “won” the democratic primary through large-scale direct and indirect electoral fraud. In other words, a lot of people in her own party hate her guts even though she has been in the national spotlight for over two decades. Therefore the idea that she is deeply disliked only by gun right advocates and hardcore republicans is simply untrue.

And this brings up the next question. Would a careful and oblique suggestion by Trump that HRC is a tyrant worthy of assassination actually hurt his chances with either his supporters or those who might potentially vote for him in November?

As far Trump’s supporters are concerned, HRC always has been the globalist tyrant she-devil who wants to take away their guns while impoverishing and destroying them. For them, Trump’s remarks are just more proof that he is the guy who will battle the evil witch and her army of flying monkeys. While some of Trump’s non-hardcore supporters might initially balk (at least publicly) at this particular statement- the reality is that many of them hate HRC far more than they are willing to admit in public. His latest statements about her will therefore almost certainly end up bolstering their support for him- especially since he alone seems to have the backbone and balls to stand up to the establishment.

It is also no secret that previous milquetoast republican presidential candidates such as McCain and Romney had major problems creating enough voter enthusiasm largely because their potential voterbase perceived them to be working against their interests and in league with establishment democrats. As I have said in previous posts on this blog, Trump’s strategy for winning the general election relies on increasing voter polarization to levels that would bring out those who would have voted republican if they felt their vote made a difference. He is fully aware that he (nor any other republican candidate) can win the presidency without a significant increase in voter turnout among republican voters who have given up on voting.

Therefore, in my opinion, Trump’s remarks about the 2nd amendment and HRC are very unlikely to hurt his chances of winning the actual presidential election. They will, if anything, help him win by further polarizing the electorate and increasing republican voter turnout in November 2016.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. webej
    August 9, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    The first time I heard the comment, I interpreted “second amendment people” to mean the NRA and their powerful and well-organized lobby. As the remark stands, it modifies “nothing you can do” after loading the Supreme Court bench. At that juncture shooting Hillary would make no difference anymore, only political/legislative change.
    I consider the assassination interpretation specious and disingenuous. I never bought into the Megyn Kelly bleeding as a remark intended to evoke menses … I think these interpretations are enabled by the vague casual manner of talking, but intent seems far-fetched.
    And I am not a Trump fan.

  2. P Ray
    August 11, 2016 at 3:34 am

    Trump is simply the man of the moment, because the elite considered normal people to be ripe targets to be lied to, abused and exploited.
    In a very real sense, he is offensive to the elite because he will be a competitor.
    That’s all the presidential campaign is turning out to be – the elite saying that normal people aren’t allowed to have an opinion.

    I don’t know whether he can save the regular people, but given the frustration many of them have, I figure they might reckon that annoying or threatening the elite may be an acceptable alternative.

    Agree.. people want to burn and reboot the system down rather than try to “fix” it.

    • P Ray
      August 17, 2016 at 6:07 am

      May 24, 2016
      / CORY DOCTOROW / 11:01 AM TUE
      After the precariat, the unnecessariat: the humans who are superfluous to corporations

      The Occupy movement rallied around the idea of the “precariat,” the downwardly mobile former members of the middle class who were one layoff or shift-reduction away from economic ruination. Below the precariat is the unnecessariat, people who are a liability to the modern economic consensus, whom no corporation has any use for, except as a source of revenue from predatory loans, government subsidized “training” programs, and private prisons.

      The precariat benefits from Obamacare, able to pay for coverage despite pre-existing conditions; the unnecessariat suffers under Obamacare, forced to pay into the system before going through the same medical bankruptcies they’d have endured in order to get the coverage they need to survive another day.

      You’re likely to be in the unnecessariat if you live in a county that has high levels of addiction and suicide — the same counties that poll highest for Trump.

      Corporations have realized humanity’s long nightmare of a race of immortal, transhuman superbeings who view us as their inconvenient gut-flora. The unnecessariat are an expanding class, and if you’re not in it yet, there’s no reason to think you won’t land there tomorrow.

      If there’s no economic plan for the Unnecessariat, there’s certainly an abundance for plans to extract value from them. No-one has the option to just make their own way and be left alone at it. It used to be that people were uninsured and if they got seriously sick they’d declare bankruptcy and lose the farm, but now they have a (mandatory) $1k/month plan with a $5k deductible: they’ll still declare bankruptcy and lose the farm if they get sick, but in the meantime they pay a shit-ton to the shareholders of United Healthcare, or Aetna, or whoever. This, like shifting the chronically jobless from “unemployed” to “disabled” is seen as a major improvement in status, at least on television.

      Every four years some political ingenue decides that the solution to “poverty” is “retraining”: for the information economy, except that tech companies only hire Stanford grads, or for health care, except that an abundance of sick people doesn’t translate into good jobs for nurses’ aides, or nowadays for “the trades” as if the world suffered a shortage of plumbers. The retraining programs come and go, often mandated for recipients of EBT, but the accumulated tuition debt remains behind, payable to the banks that wouldn’t even look twice at a graduate’s resume. There is now a booming market in debtor’s prisons for unpaid bills, and as we saw in Ferguson the threat of jail is a great way to extract cash from the otherwise broke (thought it can backfire too). Eventually all those homes in Oklahoma, in Ohio, in Wyoming, will be lost in bankruptcy and made available for vacation homes, doomsteads, or hobby farms for the “real” Americans, the ones for whom the ads and special sections in the New York Times are relevant, and their current occupants know this. They are denizens, to use Standing’s term, in their own hometowns.

      UNNECESSARIAT [Anne Amnesia/More Crows]

      I’m predicting a Trump victory … or a seething undercurrent of anarchy.

      • P Ray
        August 17, 2016 at 7:47 pm

        One more, from the source:

        Rashid Patch
        May 23, 2016 at 7:45 am
        Thanks for this article! Not many people are willing to talk about the glacier of despair that lays, kilometers thick, over the heartland of Amerika.

        Back in the late 1970s, early 1980s, Mother Theresa established the first branch of her order outside India – in San Francisco. In a published interview, she said that the poor dying on the streets of Calcutta were in a better state than the homeless in America – because the poor in India retained some hope, while the poor in America had none at all. That was 35 years ago, and the situation here has gotten orders of magnitude worse.

        I remember the urban riots of the 1960s, when areas of Chicago and other eastern cities as large as all of San Francisco burned. People wonder why there are mass shootings in the U.S.A. nowadays, and I keep wondering why there’s not 10 or 20 times more of them. Getting pissed off always feels better than just enduring getting shat on. There’s 100s of thousands of ex-GIs here who’ve spent the last several years in Iraq or Afghanistan, learning everything there is to know about IUDs. When is it going to be National Shit Hits The Fan Day?

        You’re right about the attraction of Trump – at least he’s yelling about things and blaming people. Sanders is shouting, but not pointing blame at individuals, only at policies and programs. People want targets with faces, and Trump is giving specific targeting coordinates.

        The Bernie or Burn It Down kids have an admirable appreciation for how monstrous a character it is who plays kissey-face with Henry Kissinger. The bile rises in my throat at the very idea of having to vote for Hillary to defeat Trump. If faced with that prospect, I hope I can keep from giving up on elections and just going to buy an AK. Shooting Republicans sounds extreme, but we don’t have hanging anymore.

        I met a young Muslim-American yesterday who said that if Sanders wasn’t nominated, he was going to vote for Trump, Hillary was so repellent. That’s a clear symptom of despair – abandon any self-interest or reflection, and just turn the gain up; actively making things worse becomes more attractive than making efforts to continue in quiet disgust and desperation. Burn, Baby, Burn redux…

        What I fear most now is that the election of Trump will become the excuse for the Christian dominionists to stage the coup which they have been quietly planning for decades by indoctrination, subornation, and infiltration of the U.S. military officer corps – especially the Air Forces. There is a reason that Colorado Springs – site of the Air Force Academy – has more evangelical churches per capita than anyplace else in the country; and that the Air Force Academy has had for decades more instances of forced evangelization, compulsory attendance at religious services, and religious-based discrimination than any other branch of the U.S. military. The oligarchs read Edward Luttwak’s “Coup d’etta” when it was published in 1968, and funded the dominionist movement to do it for them; just like the “Bankers Plot” conspirators had funded the Liberty League in 1933, after commissioning studies of successful fascist movements in Europe. Trouble is, now we don’t have a Smedley Buttler to stand in their way.

        Anyway – the First Duty of a Revolutionary is: Don’t Get Caught.

  3. Ernest
    August 11, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Trump has said a whole lot worst than his statement about Hilary. This is what his crowd wants to hear.

    Yes and I think more than a few do not seem to understand that a majority in USA don’t care about HRC or establishment democrats or republicans.

  4. Yusef
    August 26, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick… If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.

    The statement is essentially stupid and ignorant. It is no wonder people read more into it than is there– there is little of substance. “If she gets to pick her judges.” Well, she’ll get to pick some judges, but the courts in this country, including the supreme court, are already so packed with right-leaning judges even if every judge Hilary picks is an anti-gun extremist, it wouldn’t abolish the right to own guns as we now understand and exercise this right.

    This is Trump the demagogue in action and just the fact he’s willing to pander and divert in this manner is a danger signal as far as I’m concerned. In November 2008 in the town where I live it was impossible to buy ammunition. “Obama is going to take your guns!” caused the fools to buy up all the bullets they could get their hand on. Pallet loads of it. Note Obama, didn’t take away guns.

  1. November 12, 2016 at 10:11 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: