Ambiguity kills (maybe)
Most of us may've already heard of the latest scandal (crafted scandal? tempest in a teacup?) where Trump made some remarks about Hillary Clinton intending to stomp upon the precious rights of gun-toting 2nd Amendment fanboys and fangirls. The problem arose from the ambiguity of his words (typical for him), where he made some insinuations, which then in turn went on to be heavily spinned by both opponents and supporters alike. The words:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people - maybe there is, I don’t know.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment
One side now says it's not so subtle a threat on his opponent's life, their argument being that this is yet another occasion where Trump has incited violence, and because words do have power, some of his followers might actually attempt to follow them quite literally. Elizabeth Warren, who's been tweet-trolling the thin-skinned Donald, has even called him a coward who can't help making threats because he's mad that he's being beaten by a girl. (OH, SNAP!)
In the meantime, the right-wing side of the barricade (led by their flag-bearer FOX of course) has argued that this is yet another example of the liberal lamestream media machine using every occasion to try to destroy Trump by crafting scandals where none have existed - essentially, an effort of character assassination. Their argument is (and Trump's campaign has stated this position as well) that he clearly meant that 2nd Amendment supporters have tremendous political influence, and they should stand up and use their voice to stop Hillary from becoming president and potentially taking their guns away. Which, while possibly being yet another example of fearmongering for the sake of scoring political points in a hotly contested election, is not exactly like inciting violence and calling for the murder of a political opponent.
I think I already know where most of our forum denizens would stand on this matter, but I guess the more interesting point here is, Trump has again been unable to control his mouth, or rather, the words that come out of it, and the way they come out of there. Because words do matter a great deal, especially when you're in the public focus. They can be interpreted in many ways if they're not put in the right order within a sentence - and this could cause enormous problems. Whether this is a misunderstanding or just another troll-bait on Trump's part, my prediction is that it won't matter one iota in the larger picture of things. After all, he has proven time and time again that no matter how horrible the things he says are, he's Teflon Donald, and his supporters are still going to keep supporting him - or maybe exactly because of that. Question is, do you imagine such a divisive person being a proper president? Me being an outside observer of all this, I'd rather think in terms of LOLs. Although he *could* be dangerous for the rest of the world as well if he keeps up with this sort of shenanigans, and moves them to a new, presidential level.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people - maybe there is, I don’t know.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment
One side now says it's not so subtle a threat on his opponent's life, their argument being that this is yet another occasion where Trump has incited violence, and because words do have power, some of his followers might actually attempt to follow them quite literally. Elizabeth Warren, who's been tweet-trolling the thin-skinned Donald, has even called him a coward who can't help making threats because he's mad that he's being beaten by a girl. (OH, SNAP!)
In the meantime, the right-wing side of the barricade (led by their flag-bearer FOX of course) has argued that this is yet another example of the liberal lamestream media machine using every occasion to try to destroy Trump by crafting scandals where none have existed - essentially, an effort of character assassination. Their argument is (and Trump's campaign has stated this position as well) that he clearly meant that 2nd Amendment supporters have tremendous political influence, and they should stand up and use their voice to stop Hillary from becoming president and potentially taking their guns away. Which, while possibly being yet another example of fearmongering for the sake of scoring political points in a hotly contested election, is not exactly like inciting violence and calling for the murder of a political opponent.
I think I already know where most of our forum denizens would stand on this matter, but I guess the more interesting point here is, Trump has again been unable to control his mouth, or rather, the words that come out of it, and the way they come out of there. Because words do matter a great deal, especially when you're in the public focus. They can be interpreted in many ways if they're not put in the right order within a sentence - and this could cause enormous problems. Whether this is a misunderstanding or just another troll-bait on Trump's part, my prediction is that it won't matter one iota in the larger picture of things. After all, he has proven time and time again that no matter how horrible the things he says are, he's Teflon Donald, and his supporters are still going to keep supporting him - or maybe exactly because of that. Question is, do you imagine such a divisive person being a proper president? Me being an outside observer of all this, I'd rather think in terms of LOLs. Although he *could* be dangerous for the rest of the world as well if he keeps up with this sort of shenanigans, and moves them to a new, presidential level.