More US election stuff

[Spud]

No, of course he wasn't, but he has supporters that might take him seriously. The problem isn't that he was being serious but that he said it at all. Presidents need to be presidential and not make stupid off the cuff remarks that might accidentally incite violence.

This is just another example of why he is unfit to be president.

Agreed, although I don't think there are many, if any, people who would take what he said literally. If there were I would think he'd be arrested straight away. It's disrespectful enough to damage his campaign though.

[L.A.]

No, of course he wasn't, but he has supporters that might take him seriously. The problem isn't that he was being serious but that he said it at all. Presidents need to be presidential and not make stupid off the cuff remarks that might accidentally incite violence.

This is just another example of why he is unfit to be president.

I agree entirely that he is unfit to be president, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen.

[jeremyp]

Trump has made a great many controversial and downright outrageous remarks throughout his campaign, yet he got nominated and is still very much in the running for the presidency.

Your assertion was that whenever he creates controversy he gains in the polls. Well he's still creating controversy (now is part of whenever) and he is not gaining in the polls.

[L.A.]

Your assertion was that whenever he creates controversy he gains in the polls. Well he's still creating controversy (now is part of whenever) and he is not gaining in the polls.

He makes a controversial remark and that he keeps his name in the headlines - it's the old 'no publicity is bad publicity' thing, a common tactic amongst politicians.

Yes, a remark may have short term negative effects, but it keeps the name of Trump is on everyone lips and long term that is good for him.

[jeremyp]

He makes a controversial remark and that he keeps his name in the headlines - it's the old 'no publicity is bad publicity' thing, a common tactic amongst politicians.

Yes, a remark may have short term negative effects, but it keeps the name of Trump is on everyone lips and long term that is good for him.

He's the Republican candidate for the next US president. He doesn't need controversial remarks like this to keep his name on everyone's lips.

[L.A.]

He's the Republican candidate for the next US president. He doesn't need controversial remarks like this to keep his name on everyone's lips.

Only time will tell how successful his tactics turn out to be.

We all thought that Americans couldn't possibly be stupid enough to elect Dubya - just look how wrong we were then!

[Jack Knave]

I dont think he was being serious - he's not that crazy. He ought not to be able to get away with it, though.

I agree. He is use to being on TV etc. and shocking the audience as a means to entertaining them. As long as there is a good number of people who don't want the usual politicians he is in with a chance.

[Spud]

I agree. He is use to being on TV etc. and shocking the audience as a means to entertaining them. As long as there is a good number of people who don't want the usual politicians he is in with a chance.

He says he was not advocating violence but was simply referring to the power that voters held, and that 'there can be no other interpretation'. Unfortunate that people immediately assumed he was calling for his opponent's assassination, such as the chap on LBC yesterday.

[Jack Knave]

He says he was not advocating violence but was simply referring to the power that voters held, and that 'there can be no other interpretation'. Unfortunate that people immediately assumed he was calling for his opponent's assassination, such as the chap on LBC yesterday.

All I was saying was what he is use to - a well train dog and all that - I wasn't justifying what he said; which was a stupid thing.

[Spud]

 I don't think he was trying to shock the audience, just stating that second amendment people could use their vote to prevent Clinton winning the election.

[jeremyp]

I don't think he was trying to shock the audience, just stating that second amendment people could use their vote to prevent Clinton winning the election.

Oh come n. He didn't say anything about voting. It sounded to me like he was in the middle of saying they could shoot Clinton down (but in a flippant way) when he realised what he was saying and so just left the end of the sentence hanging.

[Hope]

Oh come n. He didn't say anything about voting. It sounded to me like he was in the middle of saying they could shoot Clinton down (but in a flippant way) when he realised what he was saying and so just left the end of the sentence hanging.

We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this.  Instead the whole point was to leave everything hanging so that if anyone as to attempt an assassination attempt it couldn't be hung on Trump.

[L.A.]

We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this.  Instead the whole point was to leave everything hanging so that if anyone as to attempt an assassination attempt it couldn't be hung on Trump.

That was the point I was trying to make. He makes a statement that could be interpreted as advocating violence under certain circumstances, then clarifies his position by saying that he was simply pointing out that the gun lobby is a potent political force - so he manages to put out multiple messages that can be picked-up by various groups.

Even his moderate supporters, possibly after a bit of a wobble, will be left thinking along the lines.

Donald Trump, anti-establishment not afraid to speak his mind in defence of American values. (all that misunderstanding about the ‘Second Amendment People’ was probably just drummed up by establishment liberals. Anyway he say he's going to bring American jobs back home)

And I notice that today, if you google 'Donald Trump', the gun speech no longer appears on the first page. It has been superseded by his latest masterpiece.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/

[Gordon]

We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this.  Instead the whole point was to leave everything hanging so that if anyone as to attempt an assassination attempt it couldn't be hung on Trump.

I'd have thought the exact opposite: that if someone did decide to take a shot at HC (no shortage of guns in the good ol' USA after all) then Trump's comment would come back to haunt him no matter how much he tried to distance himself from such an event.

Sounded to me like a(nother) 'mouth is moving but the brain is disengaged' moment from the Donald.

[L.A.]

I'd have thought the exact opposite: that if someone did decide to take a shot at HC (no shortage of guns in the good ol' USA after all) then Trump's comment would come back to haunt him no matter how much he tried to distance himself from such an event.

Sounded to me like a(nother) 'mouth is moving but the brain is disengaged' moment from the Donald.

He doesn't actually want someone to assassinate her - that would make her a martyr, the last thing he wants. He just wants to make sure he gets the 'Redneck' vote (and keep his name in the headlines)

[Gordon]

He doesn't actually want someone to assassinate her - that would make her a martyr, the last thing he wants. He just wants to make sure he gets the 'Redneck' vote (and keep his name in the headlines)

I agree: I don't think he wants that, but my impression was it was an example of a remark that if it was planned then it wasn't a very clever plan, or if it was meant to sound witty then it was poorly delivered or it was a foot in mouth moment.

[L.A.]

I agree: I don't think he wants that, but my impression was it was an example of a remark that if it was planned then it wasn't a very clever plan, or if it was meant to sound witty then it was poorly delivered or it was a foot in mouth moment.

I think he is just emulating the 'Shock Jocks'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_jock

[Nearly Sane]

I think the idea that Trump's speeches are carefully crafted to this level is clearly incorrect - see link. That doesn't mean he's not clever enough while rambling, and the 'threat' to Hillary was similar constructed, to do a bait and switch of almost saying something.





http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57ab37d7e4b08ab70dc0f646

[L.A.]

I think the idea that Trump's speeches are carefully crafted to this level is clearly incorrect - see link. That doesn't mean he's not clever enough while rambling, and the 'threat' to Hillary was similar constructed, to do a bait and switch of almost saying something.





http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57ab37d7e4b08ab70dc0f646

I don't think that an electorate that voted in 'Dubya' would be put off by a 'rambling disjointed speech'

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think that an electorate that voted in 'Dubya' would be put off by a 'rambling disjointed speech'

That's not the point here. The question is whether the ambiguities caused by this type of rambling are somehow  cleverly conceived to be that way.

[Gordon]

I think he is just emulating the 'Shock Jocks'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_jock

I'd have thought that seeking notoriety as an election strategy is an odd one: it is very easy to achieve of course, as we've seen, but surely the cumulative effects of repeated notorious statements are difficult to predict in the sort-term and could also have long-term repercussions should he be elected when his remarks come back to haunt him (such as we saw when our Boris was doing a recent 'serious' press conference with John Kerry).

My impression is, and I could be wrong, that he really is a political loose cannon (albeit a rich one) who doesn't have the 'thinking on his feet' skills to carry off notoriety as a means of being seen to be clever and witty. 

[L.A.]

That's not the point here. The question is whether the ambiguities caused by this type of rambling are somehow  cleverly conceived to be that way.

I think you are correct that that speech did not go as planned, in fact there doesn't appear to have been a plan, but a bit of 'rambling' never did Reagan any harm in fact it helped maintain his  'folksy' image.

[jeremyp]

We were discussing this incident at work the other day and came to the conclusion that Trump (or at least his speech-writers) is too clever to accidentally make a mistake like this.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Trump is too clever, that's a good one. Don't forget his speech writers let his wife plagiarise one of Michelle Obama's speeches. They are not the sharpest tools in the box.

[jeremyp]

He doesn't actually want someone to assassinate her - that would make her a martyr, the last thing he wants. He just wants to make sure he gets the 'Redneck' vote (and keep his name in the headlines)

The redneck vote is already his. He needs to get the votes of people who disapprove of killing Democrats.

[L.A.]

I'd have thought that seeking notoriety as an election strategy is an odd one: it is very easy to achieve of course, as we've seen, but surely the cumulative effects of repeated notorious statements are difficult to predict in the sort-term and could also have long-term repercussions should he be elected when his remarks come back to haunt him (such as we saw when our Boris was doing a recent 'serious' press conference with John Kerry).

If we have gained anything from the recent referendum, it must surely be that some of the underhanded strategies of political campaigning have been laid bare. People start to believe all kinds of outrageous statements and downright lies if they are repeated often enough and that is part of what Trump is doing.

I doubt he even thinks about long term repercussions - why would he?,  he'd be president by then.

My impression is, and I could be wrong, that he really is a political loose cannon (albeit a rich one) who doesn't have the 'thinking on his feet' skills to carry off notoriety as a means of being seen to be clever and witty.

My impression is that he would be a very poor president and a very dangerous one, but that doesn't mean that he won't succeed.