Some Republicans say this should not be interpreted as implying incitement to assassination by those who defend the right to bear arms in the USA:
Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.
Donald Trump said it. He says he was simply calling on the NRA to take political action. I think few believe him. I am amongst them: I think this was meant as a physical threat.
As a result the fragile relationship between politics and democracy continues to be at risk.
And I have to ask as a consequence whether we are in the dying days of what we have thought of as freedom?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“And I have to ask as a consequence whether we are in the dying days of what we have thought of as freedom?”
Yes. This is another key milestone in the descending trajectory our societies are taking now. That path will not plateau and begin to rise again until a sufficiently large proportion of the individuals who comprise ‘society’ relearn this lesson; the freedom to live without fear only exists when it is actively asserted and supported by enough of us working together. Until then the alienation and atomisation that has characterised the path we are taking will continue apace.
But I have a strong hope that more and more people are seeing the need for this human solidarity (rather than its opposite) day by day so the turn will happen.
I support your reply and share your conclusion. I’m 72 next birthday and can’t recall before such times of extreme insecurity and uncertainty. There’s a sense of the ‘old ways’ disappearing and an unclear picture of what is ahead. But, as you say, there will be a turn and my wish is that it will arrive before I lose too many more marbles! It’s a fascinating period. (And that isn’t overlooking the vast numbers of people who are genuinely struggling to keep their heads above water at present.)
Not quite a direct threat, but a weaselly incitement or threat by proxy. He knows how to press people’s buttons, and never hesitates to do so.
The number of republicans beginning to baulk at their own candidate suggests that a sanity/decency ‘safety valve’ is beginning to come into play. But you’re right that only solid reassertion of peace-seeking humanity is the only way to avoid these dire situations in future!
Yes we are. And it has been the inevitable consequence of the Neolib agenda.
They haven’t rolled back the state, they have rolled back democracy. The state is as powerful as ever & gets more oppressive by the day. The career of Mrs May as Home Secretary is riddled with attempts to destroy our democratic rights.
The Neolibs aren’t averse to a centrally planned economy, it’s just that their version is in the hands of unelected corporations. For their agenda to have survived the 2008 crash, it has taken brainwashing on a scale Stalin & Mao would have been proud of.
Jeremy Hunt under a planned ‘Single GP dataset’ is preparing the way to sell all our medical data to the private sector, whether we agree or not. Thatcher sold the family silver, this lot are selling the family itself.
So I agree that loose canons like Trump are a big threat, but an even greater threat has been churning away quietly right in the middle of the institutions that we rely on to actually preserve our freedom – parliament, the press & academia.
Trump and his equally ignorant supporters do not even know that Hillary and all of the Supreme Court judges combined cannot change the constitution.
Hillary has been wearing bullet proof vest. Now needed more than ever.
Old values never fade out quietly. What we are seeing is increasingly desperate people who will literally say or do anything to cling on to their outdated views of the World.
A critical example is gun control, which reflects a wider philosophy that owning more weapons makes us safer. Not only do Americans own more weapons than any other country (making them the murder capital of the World) but they also supply more weapons to developing countries than any other nation. This in spite of terrible conflicts being waged across Africa and the Middle East, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions more. These conflicts take place in countries that struggle to feed themselves let alone manufacture arms and ammunition of their own, so violence on this scale is only made possible by imported weapons. Oxfam has pointed out that many of the arms and technology being used to devastate Yemen this year have been sold by the UK government to Saudi Arabia.
We have to hope that our Global attitudes to weapons will change rapidly, and I for one believe this is possible. A victory for Hilary Clinton in November, and change to the balance of the Supreme Court will be a huge step in the right direction. However, no-one should expect that old World views will simply fade away without a fight, and at times this contest will continue to be both dirty and ugly. This should not lead us to despair. It is instead the sign that the cause of non-violence is finally set to gain the upper hand.
Robert P Bruce – author http://www.TheGlobalRace.net
You’re right, but for the wrong reason. This is Trump doing what he does all the time – opening mouth before engaging what passes for a brain. Interpreting it as a direct incitement is some way over the top.
What you ought to be worried about is the mechanics of the way Americans vote.
In far too many parts of the US, they use machines to register votes – machines which leave no paper trail, and whose workings are not auditable. With the hacking that has already gone on, the question of whether such machines could be reprogrammed to give Trump three votes for one button press or give votes to Trump when another candidate is selected is a very real one. If you’ve not read this, you should do so.
An interesting question.
I’m not convinced that we have ever been free really. And if we have been free it has been for a reason.
When the world was split between East and West (communism versus capitalism) that division perhaps provided a modicum of freedom because the fear in the West was that if capitalism’s ‘animal’ instincts were not held in check, the result would be increased communism. So the capitalists then were more prepared to share their wealth in order to ward off revolution.
Since most of the major communist countries have some how changed and adopted more Western capitalist principals we could argue that the fear of more communism that held capitalism in check has melted away giving way to a more rampant capitalist fundamentalism – capitalism unhinged so to speak.
And the irony (or is it a paradox?) for me is that the system that we saw as threatening our freedom (communism) has by its retrenchment led to potentially less freedom in capitalism as a result because communism is no longer seen as a consequence of capitalism that has gone too far.
Post modern capitalist society will be more unequal as it will be money that buys freedom – not basic human rights. And if you have not got the ability to operate in the ‘freedom market’ (able to buy political influence, dominate markets and prevent new entries into it, able to use your money to make more money as debt etc.,) life will be very hard indeed. In short it will become everything neo-lib theories of power etc., used to say of socialist states and institutions.
I worry about this a lot. To the extent that my instincts are becoming increasingly less democratic and more revolutionary – which is also worrying.
The last worries me a lot
I thin k that the risk of serious disruption is very high now
And I am not sure where it will come from
But I am quite sure it will not end well
You echo perfectly the thoughts of this ageing Brit living in Southern Oregon.
As for Trump and his “without thinking” remark/s…..if he had gone a step further he would have been inciting someone to kill the president. That would have been illegal. Eve suggesting that it may be a idea to do so is illegal. That he skimmed the surface of that suggestion leads me to consider the remark had a lot of thought behind it. Not quite the dummy people think then?
Altering the US constitution is highly difficult. Removing the second amendment would be highly unlikely to be successful. Altering it only slightly easier. Any president suggesting personal weapon confiscation, nationwide, would almost certainly not last long.
As for “revolution”…ok. But can yer wait for corrie to end please?
The best scenarion would be for Trump to get in.
Then take the US out of NATO.
The Russia moves into Europe.
The limited nuclear conflict starts.
Given the past 15 years of Russian rearming, several divisions of armour and new missiles with MIRVed MIRVes…..I think that scenario likely.
Civil war, in the UK, I consider extremely unlikely…..
Ha-Joon Chang is interviewed by Owen Jones (not Smith unfortunately) about austerity on the Guardian website today. A ray of sunshine in this dour (but warm) summer of ours.
I will take a look when I get back from tobogganing (seriously)