Are Repubs okay with this?

Do you mean when you asked...

"How is shooting protesters not far outside the realm of acceptable suggestion in any context"

...and then I responded to your question and gave you a clear scenario where it would be justified?

LOL....So I answer your question, now you accuse me of searching for justification because I provided that answer. That is the problem with the TDS crowd. They can never be pleased, even when you give them exactly what they asked. You ask a question, and then because I answered it, I am searching for justification. You have a pre conceived notion, and by golly, nobody is going to change it. No matter what. Orange man bad! Very bad!

We get it.

 

In other words you've got nothing.

 

Not only are they okay with it. They would mostly cheer it on. Its a race to the bottom for Conservatives in this current environment.

 

Irrelevant. IT SHOULDNT EVEN BE A CONSIDERATION.

 

How is that not relevant?

 

No, it’s not what about this or that. You referenced an act of clear abuse and disregard to Americans. So I pointed out one that Obama done and wasn’t just a “shoot him in his leg”, it was a “blow him up”. And you not any other democrat on here will even discuss that or even demonize it as a blatant act against an Americans rights. Not because it wasn’t but because he’s on your party lines. It’s spineless to only point out wrong doings on party lines. Sheepish at best. Don’t pretend you give two craps about this if you refuse to damn all acts in line with it.

 

I traced this conversation back, and did not find any reference to anything 'Obama done'. Care to substantiate it?

Your point contingent upon reference to what 'Obama did', and since it has not been provided, it is therefore is moot.

 

Obama is the only president that I am aware of to send out a hit order (an assassination order) on an American citizen without due process or a warrant. Judge, and executioner with no regulars for constitution. If that wasn’t impeachable I don’t know what is.

 

Yes, "Obama did" it.

“In a speech before a military audience in Virginia Friday, President Barack Obama boasted of the role of the CIA and US special operations units in the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a 40-year-old, New Mexico-born Muslim cleric.

It marked the first time in history that an American president has publicly applauded the government’s assassination of a US citizen, who in Awlaki’s case has never been charged or indicted for any crime, much less tried and convicted in a court of law.”
WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE, Obama boasts of assassinating American citizen in Yemen, Bill Van Auken, 1 October 2011.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/alwa-o01.html

 

“The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights both condemned the killing. The two organizations had joined in a federal court case challenging on constitutional grounds the White House’s claim that it had the right to target US citizens for assassination. They sought to represent Awlaki’s father, a former agriculture minister and prominent member of Yemen’s ruling party, who claimed that his son was not a terrorist.”

“In response to Friday’s killing of Awlaki, ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said that the “targeted killing program violates both US and international law.” He charged that under this program, “American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.”

Jaffer warned, “It is a mistake to invest the President—any President—with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.”
WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE, Obama boasts of assassinating American citizen in Yemen, Bill Van Auken, 1 October 2011.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/alwa-o01.html

Of course it is hard to trust RW Ultra MAGA sources like WSWS.

 

Why stop there? I mean, Oh, that one, okay, yeah, well, welcome to the presidential Orwellian club.

 

IOW, None of those presidents ordered the assassination of an American citizen.

 

Welcome to the presidential Orwellian club, I mean, why stop there?

 

Because what Obama did, assassinating an American citizen, was 1st degree murder.
Trump asking a question is not 1st degree murder.

 

Leading GOP Candidates For Michigan Guv Could Be Disqualified Over Wave of Fraudulent Signatures

A signature forgery scandal has turned the race for the GOP nomination to be Michigan’s next governor on its head: Two leading Republican candidates did not collect enough signatures to qualify for the primary ballot after invalid signatures were excluded, according to a report from the state’s Bureau of Elections.

The Bureau of Elections reports will now go to the Board of State Canvassers, which will vote Thursday on which candidates qualify to appear on the ballot for the state’s Aug. 2 primaries.

Thirty-six petition circulators — campaign workers hired to collect signatures — “submitted fraudulent petition sheets consisting entirely of invalid signatures,” according to the Bureau. In all, according to the Bureau’s report Monday, these circulators submitted at least 68,000 invalid signatures across nominating petitions for 10 candidates.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/michigan-governor-fraudlent-signatures

Gosh, more cheating by Repubs!

 

But not a scenario under discussion when Trump suggested that people be shot in the legs. In the context of that discussion, his suggestion was unconscionable.

 

Of course you do not ACTUALLY know the context of that discussion, yet that doesn't seem to stop you from baseless speculation where you fill in the blanks to suit your preconceived notions. "Orange man bad". We get it.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Zzzz.

 

Please prove Trump said anything about shooting at protesters. Documentation or recording will do. And please don't try and bring a book being sold as your proof.

 

The POTUS, in the midst of a discussion about an impending protest in DC made up of people he characterized as "losers," asks why they can't be shot in the legs.

Here's a reference to the conversation's context. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/mark-esper-s-book-says-he-thwarted-trump-s-hope-n1295062

Pause...........let it sink in.

By a Herculean feat of mental gymnastics you are still trying to justify the suggestion under the guise of brainstorming. Orange man infallible, I get it.

 

That does not tell you the entire context, and your link, which looks like an editorial from the title, does not work. Perhaps you can provide another,hopefully not an editorial.

 

Your reply is what's called, in polite circles, spin. If the context provided by Esper in the article isn't enough for you to admit your "brainstroming" scenario is circling the bowl, nothing will. Have a good one.

 

Saying that your link does not work is spin? Huh? If you do not believe me, try clicking on it yourself. It does not work.

I just sincerely want to see what you think constitutes context (not to mention the notion that you have to 100% believe the person trying to sell books).

Do you not have a link to the actual quote in context as opposed to an editorial submitter's paraphrasing of such? This is a sincere request. Anything I have seen on the matter does not include much in the way of context. I had not seen your description before, but then the link didnt work and it was an editorial rather than an actual quote in addition to it too not providing a true context. There is a difference.

 

OK, You fixed the link or it now works does not matter which.

After reading it, SURPRISE SURPRISE, it DOES NOT say what you just claimed. It does not give the context you just claimed. Hell it wasnt an editorial from the link that made that claim, that is YOUR editorial input. Making that statement and then giving a link as if it were in there, is inherently dishonest. The fact that it initially did not work is even more curious but I will refrain from out and out accusing you of purposefully hiding the link in the hopes it would not be discovered that you were misrepresenting what it says.

LOL. I should have known. Yeesh. You acted as if you had something new to add to the conversation and then gave a link as if it backed up your new information. It does not. Have you ever heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? One of these days you are going to present something honestly and people are going to assume you are yet again being deceptive.

 

Let this sink in.. to your link ... "Esper says"... in a book he is selling. You swallow it hook line and sinker.

Please provide us with credible documentation or even a recording would be nice of Trump saying "characterized as "losers," asks why they can't be shot in the legs."" This "here say" garbage is getting old and you will not keep posting misinformation.. it has been going on to long.
Brown stain man infallible, I get it.