Trump's 2nd amendment call to arms not a criminal offense?

[Whateverist]

While surfing for answers I came across this .. blog?  A couple of fun quotes:

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Donald Trump, arguably the most important [/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)] in the United States for a generation, is the direct beneficiary of Brandenburg’s racist speech and the legal rule that emerged from it.[/color]

Voters who are upset by Trump’s remarks, in other words, will need to seek a political remedy rather than a legal one.

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)] [/color][/color]

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-second-a....7y4jerlug

[CapnAwesome]

No, because he can just say he meant that he was calling them to vote in mass, which is what he said afterwards. It didn't seem that way to me, it seemed like he was joking about 2nd amendment people either revolting or killing Hillary Clinton. However he didn't say that directly and you can't prosecute someone for your perception of what they are saying. That's not a society I would want to live in. In fact if the government started throwing people in jail for an interpretation of their speech, that would be a government to revolt against.

[Minimalist]

The orange turd can say what he wants.  Very clearly he was talking about after the election which kind of takes the "voting" shit out of play.  But hey, his fans are the stupidest fucks in 'Murrica.  They'll buy anything he says.

[Whateverist]

They'll buy anything he says.

I wonder how many of them believe one of Trump's lawyers will get them off if they were to shoot Hillary.

[Minimalist]

Drumpf's lawyers mainly settle.

[Brian37]

No, because he can just say he meant that he was calling them to vote in mass, which is what he said afterwards. It didn't seem that way to me, it seemed like he was joking about 2nd amendment people either revolting or killing Hillary Clinton. However he didn't say that directly and you can't prosecute someone for your perception of what they are saying. That's not a society I would want to live in. In fact if the government started throwing people in jail for an interpretation of their speech, that would be a government to revolt against.

Bullshit, first off he didn't get arrested, Ted Buttnugget made a similar comment about Obama "if he gets elected, I'll either be dead or in prison". He got a visit from the Secret Service too. Now the point in that visit isn't to deny free speech rights, but to let those of celebrity and those in power that their words do carry weight and it is the job of the Secret Service, not to protect the individual, but the process of the institution of government. Now, I think you confuse legal and moral here. I don't give one fuck how legal you may want to argue it. I don't give a fuck if he was joking, there are nuts in this country who would take it as a challenge. Politicians should never talk like that not even in jest, and considering the past year of his outrageous repeated demagoguery this is yet another point to make that he is unfit. A western world leader does not nor should talk like that, it not only creates division here, but can lead to very bad diplomatic relations globally. Not even Bush Jr as much as I hated him ever talked like Trump does.
I  also don't think you understand that the Secret Service and FBI and CIA get thousands of threats to a sitting president and all our presidents, republican and democrat AWLAYS get threats. It is not the job of Law Enforcement to cherry pick which ones nor is there any favoritism going on when they do. Now don't you fucking sit there and tell me if Hillary had made the same "joke" about him you would find it appropriate.

[Esquilax]

No, because he can just say he meant that he was calling them to vote in mass, which is what he said afterwards.

Which would be a hard row to hoe, given that that particular excuse came only hours later, and is also contradicted by the direct next sentence Trump said in the incident itself, the one that isn't usually presented in videos of the threat itself, which I suspect played at least some role in why the Trump campaign felt safe in using that excuse at all. Specifically, Trump's very next sentence suggested that, when the "second amendment people" did what he was imagining them to do, that would be a "horrible day."

... Going out to vote in favor of the thing he's advocating would be "horrible"? Riiiiight.  

The Trump campaign lives in this contextual no-place, where the past, even just a few hours ago, doesn't exist, and the only thing you can rely on is what they're telling you happened, right at that exact moment. They kind of have to, because the candidate at the center of it all has no mental filter, no sense of decency, and a willingness to just do whatever he wants, but the end result is the solipsistic campaign we've seen thus far, where even what's captured on video doesn't matter, everything can be shrugged off, and all you're supposed to care about is what they're saying now, context be damned, prior statements be damned, none of that exists. Every moment is a fresh moment. So you're just supposed to buy the excuse that he was talking about voting, and you're supposed to ignore the very next sentence of the contentious remarks.

Why would you ever play that game for them?

[CapnAwesome]

No, because he can just say he meant that he was calling them to vote in mass, which is what he said afterwards. It didn't seem that way to me, it seemed like he was joking about 2nd amendment people either revolting or killing Hillary Clinton. However he didn't say that directly and you can't prosecute someone for your perception of what they are saying. That's not a society I would want to live in. In fact if the government started throwing people in jail for an interpretation of their speech, that would be a government to revolt against.

Bullshit, first off he didn't get arrested, Ted Buttnugget made a similar comment about Obama "if he gets elected, I'll either be dead or in prison". He got a visit from the Secret Service too. Now the point in that visit isn't to deny free speech rights, but to let those of celebrity and those in power that their words do carry weight and it is the job of the Secret Service, not to protect the individual, but the process of the institution of government. Now, I think you confuse legal and moral here. I don't give one fuck how legal you may want to argue it. I don't give a fuck if he was joking, there are nuts in this country who would take it as a challenge. Politicians should never talk like that not even in jest, and considering the past year of his outrageous repeated demagoguery this is yet another point to make that he is unfit. A western world leader does not nor should talk like that, it not only creates division here, but can lead to very bad diplomatic relations globally. Not even Bush Jr as much as I hated him ever talked like Trump does.
I  also don't think you understand that the Secret Service and FBI and CIA get thousands of threats to a sitting president and all our presidents, republican and democrat AWLAYS get threats. It is not the job of Law Enforcement to cherry pick which ones nor is there any favoritism going on when they do. Now don't you fucking sit there and tell me if Hillary had made the same "joke" about him you would find it appropriate.

Don't really know who you are replying to. Not me. I guess just having your usual conversation with yourself. I never said it was appropriate, nor anything close to that.

[abaris]

No, because he can just say he meant that he was calling them to vote in mass, which is what he said afterwards.

But if you listened to his actual speech he said, and I think I have the exact wording here: "That would be a tragedy". Right after talking about the second amendment people taking care of matters. That doesn't sound like urging them to vote en masse. Because that, for Trump, if one is to follow his image of self, wouldn't be a tragedy.

[CapnAwesome]

No, because he can just say he meant that he was calling them to vote in mass, which is what he said afterwards.

Which would be a hard row to hoe, given that that particular excuse came only hours later, and is also contradicted by the direct next sentence Trump said in the incident itself, the one that isn't usually presented in videos of the threat itself, which I suspect played at least some role in why the Trump campaign felt safe in using that excuse at all. Specifically, Trump's very next sentence suggested that, when the "second amendment people" did what he was imagining them to do, that would be a "horrible day."

... Going out to vote in favor of the thing he's advocating would be "horrible"? Riiiiight.  

The Trump campaign lives in this contextual no-place, where the past, even just a few hours ago, doesn't exist, and the only thing you can rely on is what they're telling you happened, right at that exact moment. They kind of have to, because the candidate at the center of it all has no mental filter, no sense of decency, and a willingness to just do whatever he wants, but the end result is the solipsistic campaign we've seen thus far, where even what's captured on video doesn't matter, everything can be shrugged off, and all you're supposed to care about is what they're saying now, context be damned, prior statements be damned, none of that exists. Every moment is a fresh moment. So you're just supposed to buy the excuse that he was talking about voting, and you're supposed to ignore the very next sentence of the contentious remarks.

Why would you ever play that game for them?

I said myself one sentence later that that wasn't what it seemed like to me. That it seemed like a threat. You know, when you get cherry picked on here that badly and you can't even take what I said in context, you shouldn't be lecturing me on context. You can't arrest somebody for what it seemed like they said though. Not unless you want to change the entirety of free speech/