MSNBC host Joe Scarborough famously promoted Donald Trump throughout the primaries with copious interview and call-in sessions, then had a public falling-out after what appeared to be a come-to-jesus moment and some actual criticism of Mr Trump by Scarborough and his co-host Mika Brzezinski.
Well, that’s all over now. If you had a wtf moment over Joe’s defense of Trump’s new not-so-subtle threat against Clinton, monday morning (above) – and wondered what was up – well, this is what.
(Scarborough even brought climate change into the discussion briefly)
Joe Scarborough wants to make nice with Donald Trump.
Last week, Scarborough and his “Morning Joe” co-host, Mika Brzezinski, visited the Republican presidential nominee at Trump Tower to rekindle a once-rosy relationship that has turned bitter and adversarial, sources with knowledge of the meeting told CNNMoney.The three also discussed the possibility of conducting an interview for “Morning Joe,” though nothing was decided or finalized, one of the sources said. Scarborough did not respond to a request for comment.
The meeting, which NBC and the Trump campaign both declined to comment on, comes after a summer of barbs and insults. Trump has repeatedly slammed Scarborough and Brzezinski on Twitter and even spread a rumor that the two were romantically involved. Meanwhile, Scarborough and Brzezinski have been increasingly outspoken in their criticisms of Trump. Just three weeks ago, Scarborough released a song and music video he made in which he mocked Trump as “a soft and flaccid man” with “tiny little hands” and referred to him as “Amnesty Don,” a nickname he’d given Trump earlier.
The need for any rapprochement is surprising, given how close Scarborough and Trump used to be.
Throughout the Republican primaries, Scarborough was one of Trump’s biggest media boosters. He praised and defended him on the show, offered campaign and debate advice in private, and even refused to rule out the idea of one day being Trump’s running mate.
“You guys have been supporters, and I really appreciate it,” Trump told the co-hosts after he won the New Hampshire primary. “Not necessarily supporters, but at least believers.”
What would happen to her…she might likely change her opinions about gun control.
When Reagan got shot there was an opinion shift on gun control – they wanted more of it – and the Brady bill eventually showed up.
Wasn’t Joe also pro-NSA spying during the Bush Era?
“What would happen to her…she might likely change her opinions about gun control.
And what would those be, Ron?
And what would any opinion she might or might not have do to change the fact that the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals to own and use guns for their personal protection has never been stronger or more secure in the entire history of the U.S?
OK. You guys got me…Trump obviously meant that Conservatives would hunt her like a rabid dog and shoot her dead (the way police do African-Americans).
Ron Voisin, first, you have to keep in mind the point that Clinton isn’t opposed to the Second Amendment. (Personal admission: I do not support the Second Amendment but view it as a legacy of the institution of slavery. However, that has nothing to do with Clinton.)
Clinton believes that there should be a more thorough background check before individuals should be able to purchase guns. This is to prevent those with criminal records or mental illness from acquiring guns. Given this, there is no reason to argue that her personal bodyguards should lay down their weapons — unless you wish to falsely argue by innuendo that she is opposed to the Second Amendment and that she is a hypocrite for having armed protection.
However, as is pointed out in the video, this argument that her bodyguards should lay down their weapons so that we can “… then see what happens” is too similar to an earlier statement of Trump’s that once she is in office and able to nominate judges there is nothing anyone can do “… except for the Second Amendment people, maybe you can do something.” Let’s look back at that for a moment.
Obviously what the Second Amendment people can do that no one else can do isn’t vote to keep her out of office, because in Trump’s narrative we are assuming she has already made it into office. But if we assume that he is reverting to the earlier conditions where she hasn’t yet been voted in, while it is possible for the Second Amendment people to oppose her by voting for him, it is also possible for other people to oppose her by voting him in. Thus when he states “Except for you Second Amendment people, there may be something you can do.”
Now Trump has since stated that he was being “sarcastic,” and supporters have said that he was making a joke.
In this context it might be helpful to look at an analysis of humor that was written specifically for this Trump’s earlier allusion to the vulnerability and potential for someone harming Clinton and even killing her, or the judges she might nominate.
I will quote what is most relevant and link to the rest:
Now it should be noted that in the earlier, “Second Amendment people” event, Trump seemed to be suggesting that if Clinton got elected then it may be necessary to assassinate her (or the judges she nominates) in order to preserve the Second Amendment. That was a little too much for a lot of people. So this time around Trump seems to be suggesting that she should simply be rendered vulnerable and defenseless. Then with the phrase “see what happens,” he leaves it to us to fill in the blank, that is whether she changes her mind or takes a bullet.
Regardless, in the first case he seems to be suggesting that someone should assassinate her if she becomes president and in the second case that she should be made vulnerable so that we can see whether someone might try to kill her. Now in both cases he tries to remain vague enough that one can’t pin him down. More so in the latter. But given her prominence, the existence of mentally unstable people who might take the more unfortunate interpretation and the history of American politics, especially the US presidency, in making such statements, he is to a significant degree placing her in personal danger.
PS With regard to my mention of “mentally unstable people” who might read Trump’s statements as a serious suggestion that they should try to assassinate Clinton and consider such a suggestion as a license to do so, I think it might be worthwhile to distinguish between stochastic and deterministic causation.
If someone were to specifically order someone else to assassinate a political figure, this may properly be considered to be part of the same act of terrorism as the assassination itself. If however one deliberately creates an atmosphere in which the assassination is considerably more likely, e.g., by suggesting that perhaps someone should assassinate that figure, or perhaps by misrepresenting someone as evil or repeatedly using violent rhetoric, then it is much easier to claim that one lacks responsibility for the assassination when it actually takes place.
Nevertheless, one bears a certain responsibility, one that is in terms of stochastic causation. One has encouraged acts of terror without specifying the individual acts themselves, and recognizing as much, by encouraging such acts one is making implicit threats to those who would be the victims of those acts. And this, I submit, is itself a form of terrorism.
I see…so Trump has doubled-down on a solicitation to have his opponent assonated using the canard that Hillary and her party don’t support the 2nd Amendment. .
Yes, Ron, that’s a simplistic but basically correct interpretation of TC’s very well stated and intelligent replies to your moronic comments on this thread.
that is exactly correct, and if you look at today’s post – you see that climate deniers pioneered this technique, which is known now as “stochastic terror”. It is in fact the technique that ISIS uses to activate and radicalize lone wolf nut jobs around the world to create havoc they can then take credit for.
In the case of climate science, it is used as an attempt to intimidate the Mike Mann’s and Katherine Hayhoes of the world. Mark Morano protests a little too much that ” nobody wants anyone to get hurt” – just as Trump says it would be a “horrible day’ if “second amendment” people took action against his political enemies, or judges, for instance.
This is the mechanism of a terror state, and it is now firmly embedded in a major american political party.
Thanks dumoldguy,
With the help of your personal attacks I now see more clearly.
Trump’s “maybe you can do something” comment couldn’t possible have meant “the deck may become stacked against you such that you may have to defend the 2nd Amendment yet more vigorously than you have in the past…and possibly against a virtually impossible-to-defeat revised Supreme Court decision”.
And
His question of “what would happen to her” couldn’t possible have meant that she might be compelled to reconsider her party’s opposition to self defense.
And here I was confused into thinking that some of the above comments bordered on conspiratorial.
You’re welcome, Ron. Keep making “personally moronic” comments and setting up ridiculous straw men and I will reward you with more “personal attacks”, although I doubt anything any of us may say to you will help you “see more clearly”—-you are obviously a motivated reasoner who KNOWS what he WANTS to believe. Changing that would require some serious therapy, and we can’t do that via casual tele-psychiatry.
Folks like you love to scream AD HOMINEM ATTACK whenever someone takes issue with what you say. STOP ATTACKING THE MESSENGER, you shout. Be aware, Ron, that when someone continually makes illogical, non-fact based, emotional, and downright DUMB comments, that “calling them names” becomes truth. If you say moronic things, you eventually become a moron in the eyes of others, and if that hurts your feeling, I’m sorry.
Case in point is this comment. Tim C made some excellent points in his comments to you, as did Gingerbaker. Why didn’t you address them rather double down on your maundering?
Particularly GB’s comment that “… the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals to own and use guns for their personal protection has never been stronger or more secure in the entire history of the U.S.” People are open carrying everywhere in this country and even carrying AR-15’s into Wal-Marts. I was in my local gun shop the other day looking at my likely next gun purchase (a Sig Sauer .40 S&W to open carry and scare people with)—-the place was full of customers and the display cases and wall rack were filled with guns. We are making little progress on closing gun-show loopholes or requiring more substantial background checks. Whatever the heck are you talking about?
“His question of “what would happen to her” couldn’t possible have meant that she might be compelled to reconsider her party’s opposition to self defense.”
And just WTF would compel her to come to that conclusion short of her being attacked by someone her unarmed Secret Service men could not handle – namely, someone with a gun? Let us know when you have a suggestion.
“Trump’s “maybe you can do something” comment couldn’t possible have meant “the deck may become stacked against you such that you may have to defend the 2nd Amendment yet more vigorously than you have in the past…and possibly against a virtually impossible-to-defeat revised Supreme Court decision”.”
In what possible parallel Universe would this line of thinking be logical, Ron? Cause it sure ain’t the one we live in. Americans have NEVER had their gun ownership rights abridged. Half of all the Supreme Court decisions on the topic in the history of the Republic have affirmed these rights apply to individuals, and the last three decisions on this topic reaffirmed in specific detail and with reinforced precedents the explicit rights of people to own and use common firearms. Which means that AR-type rifles are absolutely protected.
So, as DOG asked: “Whatever the heck are you talking about?”
“she wants to destroy your Second Amendment” Trump cleverly follows claims like this with sarcastic hate-mongering to emotionally charge-up his supporters. The Press then spends all its air-time asking, with all seriousness, what was meant by the sarcasm! And the answer is ‘whatever you want’, because, duh, its sarcasm: linguistic evasion. So the dutiful Press goes off, having ‘done its job’, and never gets back to the actual claim, which is “she wants to destroy your Second Amendment”. THAT is not sarcasm. That’s a blatant lie that, unchallenged by the Fourth Estate, gets accepted as truth. And perhaps the worst part of the lie is it feeds a notion that Clinton could ‘destroy’ an Amendment; which would make her not just President, but Superwoman! So Trump’s crowd is left with the idea that the 2nd is, somehow, in some kind of existential risk in this election. As long as the Press is going to let Trump place the ‘election stakes’ wherever he damn-well pleases, they’re not serving the public interest: “Its hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head”
THAT is not sarcasm. That’s a blatant lie
OR
It’s politics.
Just like “Trump is a women hater and a racist.” Never mind that he employs these people he hates in his most senior positions in greater numbers than the local demographics.
Or it is both.
And it really is becoming rather clear that you
a) can’t follow an argument
b) can’t take responsibility for your own statements
c) can’t respond to the points other commentators have addressed to you and…
d) don’t seem to give a shit. Because now it’s “just politics” when before you implied he was making a valid point. Guess we were wrong.