When she claims that political speech can “trigger” violence, Hillary Clinton attacks free speech.
If Donald Trump had actually called for violence against some group, then I would have no problem with Hillary Clinton speaking out against him. But he didn’t.
That didn’t stop Hillary Clinton from referring to Trump’s announcement speech and claiming it could cause violent mass killings like what happened in Charleston, South Carolina.
I have already pointed out that the mainstream media is essentially promoting the idea of thoughtcrime and using Dylann Roof’s murder spree to intimidate anyone who dares differ from Liberal propaganda.
Now we see that Hillary Clinton is working on the same strategy.
Thus, ABC News reports, “Hillary Clinton Suggests Donald Trump-Like Comments Can ‘Trigger’ Events Like Charleston.”
“We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, hatred, prejudice,” Clinton said of the Charleston shooting in an interview with Jon Ralston on his show “Ralston Live.”
“Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.”
Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, did not say Trump’s name, but went on to explicitly mention remarks he made during his announcement speech on Tuesday, the day before a white gunman opened fire in a historically African-American church, killing nine people.
“I think we have to speak out against it,” Clinton explained. “Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.”
Casually blaming people for being responsible for mass shootings is not a way to a “candid… conversation about race.” It is a way of making outrageous accusations in order to shut down conversation, smear your opposition, and gain political power.
So what were the “very inflammatory things” that Trump said? Since I have no interest in his candidacy, I didn’t bother to read anything about his speech. But ABC News provided the evidence they thought was behind Hillary Clinton’s critique. This was what was so “inflammatory”:
During his announcement speech Tuesday, Trump said “the U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems” and said people who immigrate here from other countries, like Mexico, are not the “right people.”
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us,” Trump said. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Okay, so Trump might be wrong in something he said. Why doesn’t Hillary Clinton get her researchers working to refute him? She doesn’t want to do so. She doesn’t even seem to care about the truth or falsity of anything he said. Because his words are “inflammatory,” therefore they are “not acceptable.”
If Trump has gotten something wrong, or wrongly generalized, he should be called out on it. Clinton’s attempt to shame him from speaking could easily communicate that she has nothing of substance to say in response to him.
Why are Hillary Clinton and others working so hard to purvey to the public that people can be expected to become homicidal in response to normal political debate? It seems obvious they are trying to basically stop normal political debate. It is too dangerous.
When she blames people who exercise free speech for causing violence, Hillary Clinton attacks free speech.