The above comment was made by the Republican candidate for president earlier this afternoon in Wilmington, North Carolina. If you don’t believe me, you’ll find the unedited video below, in which Trump clearly suggests that second amendment enthusiasts might be able to stop Clinton from appointing judges and further “destroying” our country.
Let that sink in for a moment.
A major party candidate vying for the highest office in our country, after telling his audience how, unless stopped, his Democratic rival would “destroy” what’s left of our once great country, then suggested that a motivated, well armed American patriot might be able to put things right.
I’m sure he’ll come out shortly with a statement about how we must have misunderstood him, and how he just meant that second amendment advocates, if they voted as a block, could keep her from office, but is there really any doubt as to what he was saying? And, even if he was just trying to be funny in order to whip up an angry, bloodthirsty crowd, is that really the kind of person we want leading our nation? Do we really want a president who, even in jest, could stand in front of the nation and suggest that, if we truly loved democracy, we’d kill those with opposing views? Shouldn’t we, as a nation, demand more? I know that people are angry, and scared about the future of the nation, and the world, but is it really too much to ask that our leaders not draw their strength from that darkness?
As for what Trump said about Clinton before calling for her assassination, here are a few examples… “Unstable Hillary,” he said, is “a dangerous person who doesn’t tell the truth.” And, what’s more, “she has disregarded the lives of Americans,” he said. People had died because of her, he added. And, if allowed to serve s president, “she will allow people into our country that will do damage,” he warned, “totally open(ing)” America’s borders to do so. And, to make matters worse, he went on to say, she has plans to “release violent criminals and criminal offenders from prison.” “If she gets elected,” he then concluded, “she will cause the destruction of this country from within.”
So, those of you who are still Trump supporters, was he also kidding when he said that Clinton would destroy our country from within and make it possible for dangerous criminals to kill our families, or just when he suggested that Clinton should be assassinated?
A few days ago, on Facebook, I asked whether or not Trump might go one step too far before the election and have a Dead Zone moment, in which everyone got to see very clearly what kind of man he really is. And I think that’s what happened on the stage today in North Carolina. The question is, what will we do with this information. Will we shrug it off one more time as an instance of “Trump being Trump”, or will we really think about what he’s said and consider what it means to cast a vote for a man who would say such a thing, even in jest?
It’s funny how much things have changed, even over the last decade. In 2004, as you’ll recall, we collectively deemed Howard Dean unfit for service because he yelled too loudly. And, back in 2000, we were told by people on the right that we couldn’t vote for Al Gore because he had the audacity to claim responsibility for the internet. And, just a few year’s later, we were told that John Kerry couldn’t hold the job of president because he “flip flopped” on his support of the Iraq war… I wonder where all those people are now, and why they aren’t holding their candidate to the same standards. Why is it that, by yelling too loudly into a mic, one proves himself not to have the temperament for the office, but one can refer to women as pigs, call for the roughing up of protesters at rallies, and suggest that we might get a Supreme Court that we like better through assassination?
Oh, and if you support Trump, you should know that I no longer intend to politely hear you out when you start talking about Clinton’s emails, and how, because she used a private server she’s not fit for office. I’m done with making excuses for people who support Trump. I’m done thinking, “Well, she just feels helpless in a rapidly changing world”, or, “He just hasn’t thought it through when he says his vote for Trump is just a vote to ‘shake things up’ and change the system.” No, if you support Trump, you are supporting a truly dangerous man who will put my family’s future at risk, and my opinion of you, from here on out, will reflect that. I don’t care if we’re friends, or relatives. There is no excuse for not seeing this for what it is. I mean, even conservatives in the intelligence community are beginning to come out publicly and say how unfit for service this man is. Here, if you missed it, is the beginning of the letter issued yesterday by 50 Republican national security experts including former CIA director Michael Hayden.
The letter went on to say the following, which I’d very much like those of you who still support Trump to consider. “We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems,” the authors said. “We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”
Back to Trump’s comments in Wilmington today, I liked what veteran newsman Dan Rather had to say… It’s worth reading in full, but here’s a taste.
No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that “The Second Amendment People” can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?
Candidate Trump will undoubtably issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.
To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.This cannot be treated as just another outrageous moment in the campaign. We will see whether major newscasts explain how grave and unprecedented this is and whether the headlines in tomorrow’s newspapers do it justice. We will soon know whether anyone who has publicly supported Trump explains how they can continue to do…
Now here’s that video clip from Wilmington.
I wasn’t going to announce it here publicly, but my intention is to spend at least some time between now and the election, working in either Ohio or my home state of Kentucky on the behalf of Hillary Clinton. [Current polling shows Clinton taking Michigan’s electoral votes with 92.4% certainty, so I’m thinking that my talents, such as they are, might be of more use elsewhere.] It won’t be easy, driving down a day here and a day there, but I don’t know how I could live with myself if I didn’t at least try to do something to help put Clinton in the White House, and keep Trump out.
63 Comments
I just read this (even though it was published in February), and it really hit home. For the past four (unhappy) years, I have worked in areas full of lower/working class white people who are very, very angry. I don’t think most of them would vote for any woman, and they certainly aren’t voting for Hillary.
I think the article buys into the “Terror Management” thing a bit much, only because I think it is going a little too deep. These people are just angry. They hate everybody, and they feel like their time has come.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/06/secrets_of_donald_trumps_cult_this_is_why_the_angriest_white_voters_will_not_leave_his_side/
From the Twitter feed of Zeddonymous:
These are terrifying times, Patti, and I get why people are anxious and scared. There’s big change afoot. Machines are taking jobs. Wealth is concentrating in the hands of a few. The temperature is growing hotter every year. Public education is disappearing. People are working harder and making less. And demographics are shifting away from a clear white majority. And a lot of people can’t handle it. And they want easy answers. They want someone who, without a plan, can just “Make America Great Again.” It sounds great, doesn’t it? The problem is, life is complex, and it’s complicated business to run a nation like ours. “We’ll make the Mexicans build a wall” sounds terrific. It’ll never happen, though. People, however, don’t seem to care. They don’t want the facts. They want to be told that everything is going to be like it was.
Esquire: “Are You Ready for the End of the Republican Party?”
Read more:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a47375/end-of-republican-party/
As long as we are quoting Twitter, Elizabeth Warren had this to say.
.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he’s a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.
https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/763130669606309892
The Hill: Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt, warned that Donald Trump’s apparent joke about “Second Amendment people” stopping Hillary Clinton with violence “may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed.”
Meanwhile, this is the number one story trending on Twitter.
A United States presidential candidate broaches the subject of his rivals assassination, and this is the story that people want to talk about. It’s no surprise we’re in the situation we’re in as a nation.
People who own guns are nice people, they wouldn’t shoot anyone. Except the ones that aren’t nice people. It is up to psychologists to figure out who they are. We can’t take responsibility for them and their actions.
I vote for the return of TaterSalad.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s campaign is assuring voters that she does not want to overturn the second ammendment – merely restrict gun ownership. They don’t seem to realize that a government that seeks to restrict gun ownership is clearing abandoning the rights granted in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. No strong supporter of Constitutional rights would ever consider voting for Hillary. Spinning this phrase as a call to violence is the usual kind of sleazy campaign tactic employed by the Clintons.
And why is it happening today? Possibly because Julian Assange identified the murdered DNC staffer, 27 year old Seth Conrad Rich, as the Wikileaks DNC source. Shot in cold blood on the street as, some have stated, he was on his way to an FBI appointment. The still at large murderer(s) left behind his watch, wallet, and phone.
Or perhaps because former UN official John Ashe “accidentally” crushed his throat and died a week before he was scheduled to testify against the Cliintons and the Democratic Party.
Or maybe because Victor Thorn, a 54 year old reporter who has written 4 books about the Clintons, was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head a few miles from his home. His current book was selling at a record pace. At the beginning of the 2016 campaign, Thorn told talk show host Russell Scott, “If I am ever found dead, it was murder. I would never kill myself.”
That’s 3 more bodies in the last two months.
So, EOS, your response to hearing that Trump actually implied that Clinton be assassinated before she had us all killed is not to condemn what was said but to suggest that her killing spree had already begun. Do I have that right?
Not that it will matter to anyone who believes in conspiracy theories such as these, but here are the facts in the Seth Rich case.
http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/
Bill Schuette, Brian Calley, Tim Walberg, Mike Bishop, Ronna Romney continue to stand by this person who is temperamentally unfit to be president. “He is polluting the moral atmosphere that we raise our kids in.”
5 people in the background are laughing when he says it. You know – because violence against women is such a hoot. Because killing a president is so damn funny.
U.S. Secret ServiceVerified account
@SecretService
“The Secret Service is aware of the comments made earlier this afternoon.”
https://twitter.com/SecretService/status/763142627202048000
Hey EOS, Ronald Reagan supported gun control. Was he not a Constitution supporter?
Dan,
He voiced support for the Brady bill only after he had left office and his brain was severely affected by Alzheimer’s. What could he do? Brady took a bullet for him. Can you name any legislation that he supported during his time in office that indicates he supported gun controls? If he did, then yes, it was unconstitutional.
Anon,
No. Construing what Trump said as a call to assassinate Clinton is a misinterpretation of the facts. I don’t think Hillary, herself, killed anybody. But how many people who oppose Hillary or have information that implicates her have to be found dead under suspicious circumstances before you get suspicious? Remember when they found Ron Brown’s body in the plane crash and there was a bullet wound to his head?
I think anonymous is being too generous to the logic of EOS comments. EOS is not just saying that Hillary is a killer who must be stopped by assassination, EOS is saying that she’s a killer who covers up her murders by mind-controlling her opponent into making him call for her assassination at the very moment she was about to be caught. Either that or she was able to organize immediate media outrage over trump’s call for her assassination, which would have gone unnoticed otherwise. Clearly, she is setting up the backstory to assassinate herself in order to make it easier for her to abolish the second amendment. The only way one can rationalize voting for Trump is to buy into conspiracy theory at this point.
Well Brian, that was quite a lame conspiracy theory you just posted.
in Feb of 1989, just a month after leaving office, Reagan voiced his support to ban assault rifles.
Yes Dan, and he couldn’t remember who was in his cabinet when asked during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Yeah. Reagan really was a horrible president especially after the dementia started to take hold. I actually agree with EOS on something!
OF course Trump would make us wish for Reagan to be sure.
Mark, you are right on that these are scary times. And yes, people want to hear simple, 140-character things bleated out and all the better if those short phrases promise to return us to a simpler time (that never fucking existed, but I digress).
Here is what scares me. I feel like we have people who are voting for Clinton no matter what. And people voting for Trump no matter what, no matter what the facts say, no matter what he does. Who is left in the middle? Who are the undecideds? I mean seriously, how can you even BE undecided between these two? I didn’t really agree, but I could see arguments that Gore and Bush were similar. That argument doesn’t fly with these two.
From Wikipedia article about The Mulford Act:
The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while they were conducting what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2]
Republicans in California supported increased gun control. Reagan was present when the protesters arrived and later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a ” ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”[3]
The bill was signed by Reagan and became California penal code 25850 and 171c.
I don’t have any doubt that Trump uses vague language that suggests violence against women in general. He is tapping into some dark subliminal places within a lot of voters, I think. I am not sure if it is an orchestrated use of language or if he is just such a confident speaker that in those moments that he goes off script his true feelings are revealed in a thinly veiled way. The whole thing is creepy.
FF, several professional hypnotist have said that Trump is using their tactics in such a textbook manner, that it is clear he was trained in it. From the creator of Dilbert, who is a trained hypnotist:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius
and from another interview
“I have a background as a trained hypnotist and I’ve been studying persuasion and influence in all its forms—everything from advertising and marketing to you name it—for decades. I’ve gone deeper than most people in the art of influence, and when I started watching Trump I realized early that what looked like the random behavior of a clown to people who were untrained, was almost pitch perfect persuasion.”
Yes, Trump was mentored by Roy Cohn for years.
Thanks Dan. I concluded something creepy was happening while taking a nap in front of the tv with one of Trump’s speeches playing. Half asleep I was pulled out of sleep several times with a fight or flight response triggered by phrases like “we are going to beat her down”, ” we will beat her into submission”, “she can’t hide from us”. I am paraphrasing….It seemed pretty clear to me, but I also wonder if the whole accepted approach to political “campaigns” as wars lends itself to this kind of talk and if maybe I am being overly sensitive to the language because we have a man running against a woman this time around. Maybe Trump is just sort of primitive in his basic approach and maybe he would (in an equal opportunity sort of way) be talking about stringing up a male opponent by the balls. I don’t know.
We KNOW FOR A FACT that Hillary garroted several school children in Eastern Europe several years ago as Secretary of State and drank their blood, and YET YOU SAY NOTHING! Instead you focus on Trump and his gentle suggestion that this monster should be stopped. STOP PLAYING GAMES!!! TELL THE TRUTH!!!
EOS, you are a moron. A simple search of “Ron Brown” reveals the following.
Read more:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
Just to reiterate.
• Ron Brown was not murdered by Clinton.
• Ronald Reagan wasn’t suffering from dementia when he supported gun control.
• EOS still hasn’t renounced Trump.
Meta,
Can you find a source that contains citations?
From Joe Scarborough in oday’s Washington Post.
Read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop-must-dump-trump
EOS,
You will find the citations if you read the posts above. All of them contain links.
You were right. The official response from the Trump camp was that he was encouraging “second amendment people” to vote:
“It’s called the power of unification–2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.” -Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor.
Who will you be voting for in November, EOS? I’d like to know.
Probably an obscure third party candidate. Maybe Trump, although as Mark wrote it probably won’t make a difference in Michigan. All I know for sure is that it won’t be Hillary.
It’s outrageous behavior, no matter who you support. Indefensible. It certainly should be a Dead Zone moment. It’s a separate discussion, but mentioning Howard Dean is interesting. Listening to him defending Clinton today was depressing. He has really sold his soul.
Meta,
There’s no link to the autopsy. Oh, there never was one. No link to the purported X-ray. Oh, they lost it. Pilot error was the official response. Except the plane didn’t have the necessary equipment – missing an ADF. Pilot flew 9 degrees to the left of the course and was distracted during the final approach. Except the plane flew directly into the side of a mountain. Hours after the plane crash military rescue workers arrived at the scene and found a survivor – one of the flight attendants. Except she didn’t survive the short ambulance ride to the hospital. Was the shooter on the plane? Not likely, it would have been a suicide mission. More plausible is that the shooter discovered a still surviving Ron Brown and finished the job. Or perhaps put a bullet in his skull as insurance. Four forensic experts looked at the body and saw what they believed to be a bullet wound to the head with no exit wound. Their military careers were destroyed. Did they find the bullet? No. They were denied the ability to perform an autopsy and all attempts to have the body exhumed have been denied. The whole story smells.
Bob,
One would have thought that Hillary’s treatment of classified emails or her Foundation’s quid pro quo donations would have been a game stopper as well. Politics are strange.
So now you want to see his autopsy. And what happens after that? If I get you the autopsy, will you demand a signed affidavit from the nurse who watched the physician conduct the autopsy? And what then? This reminds me of the ridiculous quest for Obama’s birth certificate. No matter what Obama gave people, it wasn’t enough. He gave them his birth certificate and they said it didn’t have a raised seal. He gave them a copy with a raised seal, and they said it wasn’t the “long form”. The goal line keeps moving.
More on the lack of evidence supporting the Ron Brown conspiracy theory.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-01-11/news/9801110008_1_x-rays-steven-cogswell-commerce-secretary-ron-brown
EOS, I’m curious what you think happened to the other 30-some people who died on that Air Force plane along with Ron Brown. Did they not really die? Were they actors? Or did they plane just happen to crash after one or all of them shot Brown in the head? I’d love to hear your theory.
Mr. X,
There was no autopsy. Nothing to see. 4 Military medical professionals saw a bullet wound and were not allowed to perform an autopsy.
I don’t believe we’re discussing this.
EOS, did you read the last article that I shared. It says the following.
“Meanwhile, military pathologists found another explanation for the ‘bullet-fragment’ images. They found identical patterns of particles on other X-rays, not just Brown’s, that were taken with the same X-ray cassette. They blamed the particles on a faulty X-ray cassette.
Col. William T. Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who did examine Brown’s body, ordered additional X-rays after finding the head injury. As for the hole that looks like a gunshot wound, closer examination revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound….
Gormley concluded that Brown died of ‘blunt force injury.’ In other words, he died from being in a plane that crashed.
That conclusion was supported by a review panel that included Hause and other armed forces pathologists assembled after Cogswell’s criticisms surfaced.
Brown’s family and their own medical expert met for two hours with armed forces officials and have not called for an exhumation.”
His body was examined. Col. William T. Gormley, an Air Force pathologist, did the work.
I think the idea of a woman with power just scares the bejeezus out of folks so they both start telling lies about her and start believing them.
Mr. X,
Their “examination” of the body did not include an autopsy.
http://rense.com/politics6/bullet.htm
I generally don’t mind your comments, EOS, but I find this really sad. At what point will you realize, I wonder, that you’re being manipulated? For what it’s worth, I just went back and read through some of your birther comments, which are remarkably similar. Here are some of my favorites excerpts.
It’s all about delegitimizing your opponents, and you keep falling for it. In the case of Ron Brown, it’s absolutely ridiculous. You’re arguing that a man was shot to death during a plane crash. Just think about that. And your evidence is that the body was just x-rayed and examined, instead of “autopsied”, as though that distinction makes any difference. Please read the articles that have been linked to above, and take a long walk somewhere. It’s a beautiful night. Just walk and breathe deeply. Get away from your computer. Go down to the river and meditate or something.
Man. Lol. Beat down
As EOS believes that the earth is 4,000 years old and that Noah lived to be 950, we can assume that she will believe just about anything at all if it is convenient to her.
It’s amazing that there are people who think that spinning an elaborate conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton is more effective at swaying people’s votes than than the simple fact that Donald Trump is unfit for the job.
I would assume that more people would be turned off by the latter. But I am not all that smart.
It is amazing that EOS is considering voting for Trump, who clearly does not believe in the Constitution (freedom of speech and the press), is not a Christian, is not a free marketer, is sexually loose and doesn’t value the family unit, etc. etc.
Thanks for bringing up the Obama post. Everything I wrote here was correct. Later, Obama did present a document that appeared to be a birth certificate. When you see the documents side by side it was easy to see the significant differences.
Eight years ago I warned you about the city budget. The Mayor said at the time that the financial picture was sound and there was no chance that the city wouldn’t meet their obligations. Yet in today’s post, you are worried about a financial manager.
You wrote, “It’s all about delegitimizing your opponents, and you keep falling for it.” That’s what you attempt to do, over and over – delegitimize Trump (and others). And I don’t fall for it. He didn’t suggest anyone kill Hillary. There’s no coded language that activated the hordes of 2nd amendment supporters to aim their rifle sites on her. When you push this talking point it reduces your credibility.
I don’t think that Ron Brown was shot during a plane crash. I think he was shot after the plane crash. I don’t think that Bill or Hillary Clinton kill their antagonists. I do think that some of their supporters would say or do anything to put them in power and that includes getting rid of anyone who stands in their way.
I think perhaps you need to take a break and breathe deeply, take a walk, meditate. Or more importantly, read something other than far left talking points. Expand your horizons and look at multiple perspectives of a given issue.
We have two deeply flawed candidates in the upcoming election. Admit it. Write about it. It would enhance your credibility. Otherwise, you are part of the problem.
lol
EOS: “I don’t think that Ron Brown was shot during a plane crash. I think he was shot after the plane crash.”
EOS, which of the 34 people who died on the plane crash shot Ron Brown in the head? Or was he the sole survivor of the plane crash, and Hillary Clinton hunted him down commando style, shooting him in the head?
Now he says that “Crooked Hillary Clinton” is the “co-founder” of ISIS.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-barack-obama-isis-latest-speech-terrorism-claims-election-2016-a7184536.html
I blame Jon Stewart.
He allowed us to laugh at this. He made the far right something to laugh at. He made it less serious.
It wasn’t the dead people on the plane. It was the first responders to the scene of the accident. You can read the full story in Jack Cashill’s book, Ron Brown’s Body: How One Man’s Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary’s Future. The Air Force personnel were prohibited from talking, but they were able to provide the author with multiple boxes of documentation in response to his FOIA request – free of charge.
Or you can read 11 exerpts from the book at: http://www.wnd.com/2004/04/24363/
So they crashed a plane with the intention of killing him. 34 people perished in the crash, but he miraculously survived, only to be shot in the head by a first responder? Do I have that right?
It was reported that only the flight attendant survived the crash. He may or may not have been alive when they put a bullet in his head. Maybe he was alive and they finished the job, or maybe they shot him to make sure he hadn’t survived.
Mark: “I generally don’t mind your comments, EOS, but I find this really sad. At what point will you realize, I wonder, that you’re being manipulated?”
I wonder the same of you, Mark, given your record of shamelessly (and approvingly) trotting-out bullshit DP propaganda intended to colonize and manipulate consciousness.
EOS: “We have two deeply flawed candidates in the upcoming election. Admit it. Write about it. It would enhance your credibility. Otherwise, you are part of the problem.”
Here here! Except that “deeply flawed” is much too charitable. We have two utterly repulsive and unacceptable candidates.
Mark: “I don’t know how I could live with myself if I didn’t at least try to do something to help put Clinton in the White House”
Mark, why do you support fascism?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/11/progressives-beware-why-a-vote-for-neoliberals-is-a-vote-for-the-fascists-and-the-far-right/
August 11, 2016
Progressives Beware: Why a Vote for Neoliberals is a Vote for the Fascists and the Far Right
by Walid Saba
Has Clinton ever presented a blood sample so that we can prove definitively that she’s not a reptilian humanoid? Until we have that, I have no choice but to support Trump.
2 Trackbacks
[…] I thought, “that they could support a candidate who promoted violence at his rallies and suggested that, if people really wanted to protect out country, that they’d assassinate his ri…. It’s apparently not, though. The following comes by way of The […]
[…] Earlier this summer, we talked here on the site about the possibility that Trump might have a Dead Zone moment – a moment in which, in front of the entire nation, he revealed to us something so absolutely shocking about himself that we could not help but to turn away collectively in disgust, once and for all. I believe, at the time, most of us thought it wouldn’t happen, as everything he’d said and done prior had just been written off as “Trump being Trump.” It seemed, at the time, that he was invincible. We’d heard him make countless misogynistic remarks, incite violence at his rallies, suggest with a smirk that gun rights advocates might want to save the nation by assassinating his rival, and even mock the disabled, but none of it seemed to bother his supporters. As he himself noted, he could “shoot somebody and not lose voters.” Apparently, though, there may be a limit as to what some Trump supporters can stomach after all. […]