Not only do "upstanding" Americans like Madonna want to bring harm upon President Trump... http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/madonna-speech-march/index.html it looks like he's also riled up the fine folk across the world. Here's an example from Germany.... [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9zwRIpodyw[/ame] Trump is really rattling some psyches (and psychos) out there.
Those fools feign joking about murdering President Trump, but behind the laughter they seriously hope a deranged person takes them up on it and does the deed for them. They are evil people.
One thing that I would like to point out, is that there was no conservative outrage when Ted Nugent invited Obama to "suck on his machine gun" while waving an M16 around on stage at a concert back in 2012. I don't like Madonna's statement. But it is hypocritical to demand prosecution for her and others when everyone on the right turned a blind eye to folks threatening or hoping for harm against Obama.
Conservative outrage? Maybe not so much but there was certainly plenty of left wing outrage at his comments. For example: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...-clinton-during-vicious-onstage-rant-20070824
Asking for an investigation isn't the same as asking for a prosecution. Ted Nugent was investigated for that "machine gun" comment and probably some others that he made also. Why should left wing celebrities get a pass for doing the same thing? And actually, there are probably a lot more left wing threats coming against Trump already than there ever were right wing threat against Obama. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli.../gIQA5vvcRT_story.html?utm_term=.08a997a96db3
Sorry Rolling Stone, you have no credibility. Destroyed that back to the beginning and on to the end of time with the UVA student gang rape tale. RS could get that story from Ted holding a picture of a flintlock while wearing a molon labe shirt. Nemo
Then investigate her. I think while her comment was distasteful, and she in general is a distasteful person, it was quite obviously worded in a way that was not a direct threat towards anyone. I also feel the same about Ted's comment, but it was similar in nature. Quite frankly, I think it's absurd that anyone be investigated for exercising free speech, and until they make a definitive, absolute threat do no warrant investigation. Even that is a stretch on constitutionality though the law on it dates back to 1948.
They just might. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/secret-service-aware-madonnas-blow-white-house-comment/
The Secret Service doesn't investigate anyone for exercising free speech. They investigate people who make direct or indirect threats against the President of the United States, metaphorical or not.
Madonna's comment about wanting to blow up the White House was that she decided that it was not the right thing to do, and would accomplish no positive change. She said this is the same breath, the same seconds, during the same speech, that she said she had thought about bombing the White House. So obviously this isn't a threat to do it. She announced that she's NOT going to do it. And she doesn't want anybody else doing it either, because nothing good would come of that. She's just being rude and obnoxious, but not a real threat. She's not advocating violence, nor even speaking of it like she wishes it would happen. P.S. The courts are very tolerant of even threatening and hostile speech, where the speaker says how he'd love to rape and murder a certain person. As long as he doesn't say he's actually taking steps to carry it out, and if he offers even a halfway plausible alternative motive for making such vile threats, they're covered as "free speech" per the First Amendment. See ELONIS v. UNITED STATES, (U.S. Supreme Court, June 2015).