Republicans on the whole should probably be a lot more concerned than they seem to be about how Hillary Clinton will use immigration reform against them. But if there is such a thing as being too concerned, then Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the Republican Party in New Hampshire, would qualify. “Republicans’ intransigence has created an obvious opportunity for Hillary to rip off our arms and beat us with the bloody ends,” he tells the Washington Post.
That sounds bad for the Republicans. But is this really Clinton’s plan?
While I’m no expert in aggravated bodily assault, it seems to me that, once you’ve torn off the arm from a person’s body, beating them with it is almost superfluous at that point, because they’re likely to bleed to death quickly. Certainly, if you’ve torn off both arms, the additional pain of a bloody stump beating would be almost trivial in comparison.
Then the other thing is that arms are covered in soft flesh, and don’t actually make a good weapon (though I have never personally been beaten by, or wielded, a severed arm). A bat would be a much more dangerous weapon — or, if there’s no weapon lying around, even simple fists. Now maybe the image of Hillary Clinton beating the Republicans with her bare fists isn’t frightening enough on its own, but remember — in this scenario, she is strong enough to rip off both their arms. So really, worst case, Clinton would probably rip off just one of their arms, administer a few punches, and leave them to die. Cullen should stop overreacting.
