Trump: I Need A Deplorable To Assassinate Hillary Clinton

The birther “clean up” having failed, Trump had to lure the press away from the issue. What better way than, once again, putting out a call for Second Amendment nuts to Second Amendment Hillary Clinton to death? I mean, it didn’t bother too many folks the first time he suggested such a thing five weeks ago, so why not give it another shot just to stir up a new controversy that journalists will talk about until the next new one comes along?

“Take their guns away,” Trump said of the “body guards” protecting Mrs. Clinton, and then, “Let’s see what happens to her.” Someone should remind the Orange Menace that if he loses this election, his Secret Service detail will eventually go away. Then we’ll see what happens to him. And you know what will hImage result for second amendment remediesappen to him? He’ll have to invest a ton of money in private bodyguards and invest a ton of time in worrying about whether one of the billions of people he has offended will embrace the Second Amendment remedies he not-so-subtly champions. After all, they know where he lives.

Brian Fallon, Clinton’s press secretary, tweeted out last night, “Republicans across country should be forced to say whether they are OK with Trump’s comments inciting violence against Hillary Clinton.” Nice try, Brian. But an appeal to decency hasn’t worked in the past and there is little evidence it will work this time. No matter what percentage of Trump supporters they represent, Republican candidates need the deplorables to win and there is no sense in pissing them off by repudiating their champion.

Next Post


  1. ansonburlingame

     /  September 17, 2016


    As you wrote “Republican candidates need the deplorables to win and there is no sense in pissing them off by repudiating their champion.” What might I ask does it take for Hillary to win? What name (other than deplorable) would you put on those groups, all of whom will be legally voting, American citizens (I hope)?

    It seems you have adopted Hillary’s sentiments, calling a large mass of Trump supporters deplorable. You don’t even bother to put it in quotes now.

    I won’t dispute your use of “deplorable” against Trump himself. I don’t even object if you want to call many individual GOP pundits and supporters personally deplorable because of the views they express for themselves. But lumping (generalizing) any, all, even most Trump supporters goes too far in my book. Might I say such tactics themselves are “deplorable” by whomever uses them.

    Consider this. During Hillary’s inauguration address what might she say about or to the 31 million (your number) Americans she labeled as such. More important how can she expect to find compromise with them to move America to the correct path?

    In terms of compromise in the future, how can she and her administration find a way to achieve compromise with any elected Republican in Congress after lumping them all into the same category as her worst enemies.

    I fully understand the use of campaign rhetoric to win an election, or spin while in office to pass legislation. But some remarks are so pointed (“you can keep your healthcare plan”) that they come back to haunt people trying to govern time and again. Hillary is compiling a similar size “Library of Congress compendium” now that like “why are we discussing this NOW” (related to Benghazi) that we the people will be reading them again and again come Nov 9, 2016 and onward, for “4 more years”.



    • In terms of compromise in the future, how can she and her administration find a way to achieve compromise with any elected Republican in Congress after lumping them all into the same category as her worst enemies. (emphasis added)

      Hillary, of course, didn’t lump them all into the basket, just “half”, and that, as you mention Anson, was campaign rhetoric, something you say you understand. There is a false equivalency here, and TV journalism, such as it is, is guilty of it. Trump spouts inanities in a steady stream almost daily, but let Hillary slip one time and it seems chiseled in stone. Considering his crackpot nature, Trump isn’t even in the same universe as Hillary. She is sometimes disingenuous, he is an outright fraud.

      Indeed, as Anonymous says, how do you compromise with a man who:

      Insists he will build a Berlin wall a thousand miles long and that Mexico will pay for it?
      Refuses to release his tax returns (plural) as every candidate has for decades?
      Who systematically cheated people with Trump University, a bizarre scheme worthy of the worst TV huckster?
      Who wants to deny immigrants entry based on religion? (Give me your tired, your poor . . . )
      Who openly implies that his rival might suffer violence at the hands of 2nd amendment radicals? (Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?)
      Whose foundation (yes, he has one), unlike Clinton’s, is used to promote his business interests and which bought a large painting of himself as a gift to him?
      Who is a braggart, nonpareil?
      Whose admirers and supporters include David Duke and other racists and alt-right extremists?

      That half of Trump’s supporters are “deplorable” is a clear exaggeration, but there is no doubt in my military mind that the label is appropriate for many of them. For the rest, I suggest “chumps”.


    • Anson,

      A large mass of Trump supporters are deplorable. I include among them those who falsely think Obama is a Muslim (and so what if he was? what would that prove?). That is a big chunk of Trump folks. I also include those who falsely think he wasn’t born in America (and so what if he wasn’t? his mother was an American citizen). That is also a big chunk of Trump folks. I also include those who believe brown people are ruining America (this tradition goes back a long way; a man I once supported, Pat Buchanan, was a champion of this idea). That’s another big chunk of Trump folks. Do the math. The percentage of these people have been quantified in various polls. And those are only the people willing to admit such ridiculous beliefs.

      That’s a lot of deplorables, basket or no basket.

      As far as compromising with such people, I point you to the last six years. By and large, there is no compromising with them, to the extent the deplorables now have seats in Congress and the Senate.

      Let me ask you this: Is Trump himself deplorable? And is he deplorable in a much more dangerous way than you may think Hillary Clinton is? If so, why make it possible for him to win by voting for a third party candidate? I will not stop appealing to your conscience, Anson, like it or not.



  2. Anonymous

     /  September 18, 2016

    How do you compromise with the other side when they refused to do the same over the last eight years? How do you compromise with people who pass laws that allow anyone that wishes to carry a concealed weapon? How do you compromise with people in which believe we need to refuse people entry into our country based on religion?

    How do you compromise with a party that a large percentage believe our President is a Muslim and not a citizen? Do we follow the GOP lead over the last eight years and obstruct any attempt at governance? If the GOP wins, the USA loses.


    • “Do we follow the GOP lead over the last eight years and obstruct any attempt at governance?” I will answer that question on November 9, should Trump use third-party voters to slip him into the White’s House. That is his only path in. Hopefully the rumors of Bill Weld dropping off the Libertarian ticket–if he sees Johnson’s candidacy as abetting a Trump win–are true. He’d get my vote for Patriot of the Year if he did.


  3. ansonburlingame

     /  September 19, 2016

    To all,

    First, I mildly correct Jim, in that during the primary Hillary and others were asked during a debate who was their “greatest enemy”. Hillary said “Republicans”, not “half of all Republicans”. That one has stuck with me to a much greater extent that her “deplorable” remark” which indeed was “half of Trump’s supporters”.

    All three of you above basically asked how can anyone compromise with the GOP call for governance? Well I suggest that it seems nigh on impossible to do so with the party line form of Dem. governance today for roughly half the American people, as well. That reflects, almost exactly, my view of partisan politics today as a “dumb bell”. That is a metaphorical physical shape, not a comment on IQ by the way. Both sides have become so isolated from one another that governance via compromise is nearly impossible now.

    Both sides as well firmly believe cutting off the other end of the dumb bell is the solution, single party dominance in the federal government. I have noted before that when one end of a dumb bell is removed it becomes a club.

    Solution? Move both sides back to some form of the center where America governs best, historically.

    I will admit, Duane, that your appeals to me not to vote third party are heard and given careful thought. I have not yet decided that is what I will do, vote third party and continue to read and reflect on that matter.

    What do I want to see and hear from Hillary to cause me to vote in her favor? Simple, but impossible, I would like to hear her admit that some of her positions (free college, etc.) are strongly opposed by some (many?) and how she would negotiate such minefields of opposition to achieve a better path forward for all Americans in such policy disputes.

    My column did appear in the Globe on Sunday. That says best my continuing concerns but I lack the …… to find the right compromises to allow progress, for now.



    • @ Anson,

      I really don’t see anything in my comment that needs “correcting”, mildly or otherwise. Hillary’s comment was made in the context of 8 years of obstinate obstruction by Republicans to every initiative the president presented to them, no matter even if the subject was something Republicans had previously supported! In addition, the word “Republicans” was offered in the context of a joke (unlike Trump comments, offered deadpan), and even preceded with “probably”.

      No matter, if you want to believe it was offered seriously, well, that’s confirmation bias for you. Here’s the way the WaPo summarized it (emphasis, mine):

      Hillary Clinton’s Democratic rivals are now faulting her for joking (sort of joking, anyway) during the Democratic debate that she is proud of the fact that she has made “enemies” out of Republicans. The candidates had been asked: “Which enemy are you most proud of?” Clinton responded by citing a predictable litany of bad guys (the NRA, the drug and health insurance companies) before adding, with a big grin: “probably the Republicans.”

      The truth is, Anson, that the extreme right of the GOP is now directing Trump’s campaign, and the alt-right too for all I know. If you don’t consider that inimical, I don’t know what is.



%d bloggers like this: