Ambiguity kills (maybe)

[dreamville_bg]

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

Comments

[oportet]

If she gets to pick her judges, I'm pretty sure that means she won - and in that case, there is no more voting...

[htpcl]

So if they don't want her to be able to pick her judges, they're supposed to vote in advance against her and prevent her from getting elected - right?

[oportet]

Eh, I suppose you could read it that way. But, you can only vote in advance. In the hypothetical situation he set up at the beginning of his statement - she has already won, there is no voting left. So, his excuse doesn't really hold up.

I would've just gone with the stupid joke defense.

[mikeyxw]

Well, to be charitable, he could be calling for the assassination of the judges she nominates.

[oportet]

So...he either doesn't understand that she'd get to pick their replacements also, or he doesn't understand the presidential line of succession.

Either way, he doesn't understand a fairly simple concept....

[mikeyxw]

"he doesn't understand a fairly simple concept."

He has pretty consistently screwed up on basic civics. Considering he is well educated and fairly smart, this has actually been surprising.

[garote]

Define "well educated"..?