Almost Smart

Almost Smart (
-   Front Page (
-   -   Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle (

Madre 08-09-2016 10:00 PM

Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle

Anybody who votes for this dangerous man is as crazy as he is!

"One day after his widely discussed "reboot" in which he did nothing more than read basic Republican economic talking points from a teleprompter, Donald Trump uttered perhaps his most outrageous – and dangerous – ad-lib yet. And that's saying something for a campaign in which he's criticized John McCain for being a prisoner of war, characterized Mexicans as rapists, called for banning Muslims from coming into the country, picked a fight with a Gold Star family and urged Russia to hack his political opponent.

Speaking to a crowd in Wilmington, North Carolina, Tuesday, Trump expressed concern about Hillary Clinton possibly picking Supreme Court justices and other judges. He then said, "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Let that soak in for a second. One of the two major-party nominees for president just called for "Second Amendment people" to "do" something about his political opponent's judges. According to the Trump campaign's rapid response team, he was talking about those "Second Amendment people" coming together politically – "unification," as they called it. The Clinton campaign, and pretty much the entire Internet, saw it differently: as a clear suggestion of violence against a political opponent.

It's hard not to side with the Clinton campaign here. What Trump said was that a particular group – those who are defined by rallying around guns – should do something about Clinton and her judicial nominees. What can people who rally around guns do that's different than others? Use those guns.

But it's really irrelevant what Trump actually meant, because enough people will hear Trump's comments and think he's calling for people to take up arms against Clinton, her judges or both. Though most of the people hearing that call may claim he was joking, given what we know about people taking up arms in this country, there will undoubtedly be some people who think he was serious and consider the possibility.

In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism. This is an obscure and non-legal term that has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half, and it applies with precision here. Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable."

Let's break that down in the context of what Trump said. Predicting any one particular individual following his call to use violence against Clinton or her judges is statistically impossible. But we can predict that there could be a presently unknown lone wolf who hears his call and takes action in the future.

Stated differently: Trump puts out the dog whistle knowing that some dog will hear it, even though he doesn't know which dog.

Those of us who work against anti-abortion violence unfortunately know all about this. Valerie Tarico wrote about this form of terrorism following the Planned Parenthood murders in Colorado Springs last November. The pattern she noted there is 100 percent applicable to Donald Trump and his supporters right now – except that we haven't yet had the major act of violence at the end of the string. As Tarico wrote:

"1. A public figure with access to the airwaves or pulpit demonizes a person or group of persons.
2. With repetition, the targeted person or group is gradually dehumanized, depicted as loathsome and dangerous—arousing a combustible combination of fear and moral disgust.
3. Violent images and metaphors, jokes about violence, analogies to past 'purges' against reviled groups, use of righteous religious language—all of these typically stop just short of an explicit call to arms.
4. When violence erupts, the public figures who have incited the violence condemn it—claiming no one could possibly have foreseen the 'tragedy.'"

This explains Donald Trump's campaign against Hillary Clinton to a letter. He has 1) demonized her whenever he can by calling her "Crooked Hillary" and constantly degrading her; 2) organized a convention around which the central theme, repeated over and over, was that Clinton is a criminal who needs to be locked up, clearly using fear and moral disgust as motivators; and 3) is now using violent metaphors (or "jokes," if that's what you think his statements were) against her, just short of an explicit call to arms.

Now we just have to hope that #4 doesn't come about – that violence does not erupt. Though, if it does, we know exactly what Trump and his supporters will say: that they never could have foreseen this tragedy.

In the world I'm most familiar with, the world of anti-abortion violence, we see this again and again from leaders of the anti-abortion movement. Tarico's post linked above is one example. This cartoon, drawn following Dr. George Tiller's assassination in 2009 (and dug up Tuesday by Michelle Kinsey Bruns), is another perfect illustration.

Following Trump's comments, we all have to hope (and, if it's your cup of tea, pray) that it doesn't come to this – that the lone wolves out there don't read this as urging someone to take the next step in the cycle.

Because what Trump has done is clear: He has incited violence against Hillary Clinton and/or her judges, even if he doesn't know exactly who will carry that violence out."

Funk*Sonic*7 08-10-2016 07:00 AM

Re: Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle
Screw Trump and Clinton. Both of them are completely unfit to be president.

HILLARY: "Between my opponent and some in the media, uhhh, there has been this urgency to end this. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of the June. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

^ From her mouth to your ears.

Ah yes, one of the left's favorite tactics is to invoke the George Tiller tragedy.

Well, perhaps the left at the same time can also share with us their outrage about a pro-life activist, and Vietnam Veteran - James Pouillon of Owosso MI, who was gunned down in cold blood by a staunch pro-abort within a few months of their esteemed "Dr." Tiller’s murder. The left have expressed fomenting indignation and contempt towards the pro-life community when "Dr." Tiller was murdered, with much fanfare and publicity by a sympathetic mainstream media, but the silence was deafening from their side when it came to reciprocating outrage over Mr. Pouillon’s senseless murder.

Or how about the SPLC lefty commie attorney group publishing target maps for organizations they disagree with prompting homosexual activist Floyd Corkins' attempt tp mass murder the people working at FRC?

In the case of George Tiller's situation, there was no organized effort to gin up murder on the part of pro-life organizations.

Tiller shouldn't of been shot and killed. But calling him "doctor" is sickening! We can discuss the murder of Tiller after we discuss the 60,000 murders on innocent babies in the womb he committed, and he was notorious for late-term (3rd tri-mester) abortions too.

I don't see much of a difference between Tiller and Gosnell.
The appropriate justice on Tiller should of been the same as what Gosnell received.

Bullies be bullies...

Back to Trump...

Even if he didn't mean what Commie Rollingstone says it means, because the left admits it themselves that the pro 2nd amendment lobby has a lot of POLITICAL influence and Hillary and Slick Willy are both notorious for pandering to the highest bidder, the fact that Trump never seems to learn how to nuance his statements or arguments properly makes him dangerous enough not to vote for him. So you're right, anybody who votes for Trump is as crazy as he is. So who is mostly responsible for his nomination? It isn't all that much Conservatives...

And not so much Christians either, but the nominal faith dwellers who call themselves Christians. Being a nominal Christian is not much different than being an agnostic. If GOD is simply seen as only having utilitarian value, then you may as well be an agnostic. Thus the so-called "evangelical" Trump support during the primary...

Madre 08-11-2016 08:49 AM

Re: Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle
Wow, Funk, you're just like Donald Trump. You take the bait every time, hook, line, and sinker.
Too bad you're going to be spending so much time tearing down Hillary for the next four years. I'd suggest getting a job instead.

Funk*Sonic*7 08-12-2016 08:46 PM

Re: Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle
As somebody who is older than me obviously can't debate or discuss the issues and are unable to do so with any civility. What are great example you set as the "adult in the room."

Madre 08-13-2016 09:36 PM

Re: Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle
Yeah, well, I still remember when you were the guy who was trying to get 13 and 14-year-olds on this site to discuss their sex lives and fantasies. Don't really have any interest in debating with you. I think you're creepy. When did you decide to move into conservatives politics instead? Just curious.

Funk*Sonic*7 08-13-2016 11:02 PM

Re: Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle
1 Attachment(s)
My posts from several years ago in my view were very idiotic and immature, but they were in no way pornographic or had any bad intent. I was very liberal, very much had bought into liberal propaganda, including that which came from frauds like Alfred Kinsey, and therefore I was still immature and needed to grow up. I can admit that.

(Meanwhile, Madre here expressed far less concern, if any concern at all, and made little to no noise about username "Holokitty" who was posting openly about, advocating for and encouraging incest and pedophilia. She also expressed little to no concern over username "Brisa" posting porn links on this forum that includes 13 and 14 year olds, according to Madre. This is just 2 of many examples).

Also, when I first joined this forum, I had no experience with online forums beforehand, so my first impression was that this forum involved college age to adults. I also had no idea how those posts could of been perceived by others. This was, again, due to my inexperience with social media, and my immaturity.

Since you have made up your mind about me and you're so convinced that I'm such a creep, why would you be curious about my conversion story of how I became a Conservative? I've been nothing but civil to you while always passionate about my views, but you continue to want to avoid specifics on issues. So why do you care about how I became a Conservative? Is this not another attempt at avoiding a civil debate or discussion about the issues?

Madre 08-17-2016 12:44 PM

Re: Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle
Okay, Funk, I'm not going to argue with you that you had no idea that most of the people on this community 10-11 years ago were not college-aged to adult. What really pisses me off about that statement is that it is a blatant lie and you try to purport yourself as a Christian.

This is from my "Sicko Alert" thread from 2005.

Sorry to put this on the main page, but it's the only way that it may actually be viewed by some of you. I read one of funksonic7's posts last week and it disturbed me, but I decided not to say anything at that time. After I saw the most recent thread this guy created this morning, I decided I wasn't going to stay quiet anymore. I'm referring to the one where he is asking the girls (who are mostly underage or, at the very least, much younger than he is) if they like watching porno films with their boyfriend. In later posts, he goes on to say that he "enjoys" talking about sex and relationships with others regardless of their age, gender, or race. This guy is 31 years old! In the thread I read last week, he mentions that his mother saw hair in the shower after he had sex there with his girlfriend and "figured things out". Is this guy living with his mother? He's 31! When I was 31, I had been married for several years already, owned my own home, had a kid and another one on the way. I certainly had better things to do with my time than talk to teenagers about sex. The odd part about all of this is that nobody seems to think there is anything wrong with this except, I shudder to say it, POOPY!!! For that, I gave him rep. His was the only voice of reason on that entire thread about watching porno when he mentioned that it was funny this 31 year old guy would want to talk about sex with underage girls. Then he suggested the guy get a hobby - maybe buy some legos. It was classic!!

The thing that is disturbing about this guy is that he may be trying to ingratiate himself with the girls on AS. In one post, he mentions that it's the older guys who really care about girls, not the teenage boys who they really have to be careful of. I'm telling you, watch out for this weirdo! This guy is more dangerous than the weirdo that joined last week and immediately starting contacting people and suggesting that they have sex. That kind of predator is easy to spot because they're so obvious. This guy is much more subtle and that makes him more dangerous. He's trying to get the girls to think he's a nice guy. Look at his posts! Almost everything he writes about has to do with sex! If you don't believe me, check out his posts for yourself:

If he tries to initiate contact with you, either by email, PM, or suggestions that you meet, if you are underage, tell your parents and have them call the police. If he tries to initiate contact with you, and you are over 18 and buying this guy's message, then all I can say is caveat emptor.

Funk*Sonic*7 08-17-2016 01:09 PM

Re: Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle
^ Yeah, me writing about my sex life and asking people on a forum what they think about couples watching porn together was very immature and inappropriate. It's "kiss and tell" stuff, which is something I would be totally against doing now (I don't even swear anymore), but there was nothing overtly crude or descriptive there. From your perspective, if it felt that way to you, I can appreciate and respect that you were concerned.
I apologize for my immaturity in the past on here.

Have you also reported Holokitty and others, as I pointed out in my previous post? There are a lot of threads started by many on this forum that engage in porn talk and sex talk..and the promotion of drug use as well. Again, I apologize for my past immaturity, but how about we have some consistency and not put forth blatant double standards? (Also, I wasn't a Christian back then, far from it...not until about late 2011 is when became a Christian, but i did actually hold socially conservative views from a secular standpoint not too long before then).

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2006, Almost Smart