Donald Trump running for president

jimbuick said:
The C-SPAN link has 3 iterations' results in it, and justhere4comm posted the other survey (a business insider link) I had referred to in my original comment.
Click to expand...

You never mentioned business insider or C-SPAN in your original post. See how that works. You want to clarify yourself and expand on an internet post because you didn't realize that every time you post you need to write an entire essay addressing any possible disputes that other may raise in the future. My point from the start has been that Reagan is a Christ figure for Republicans. He gets mentioned in every election as the pinnacle of what a Republican president should be, despite the horrible crap that he's done. That's it. That's my opinion. You don't agree with it, but I'll find a way to go on.

The C-SPAN link is the same survey done over three separate time points to get a comprehensive score in 2017. If I'm citing a history book (one single history book) I don't get to call three editions of that single book, three books. It's one book.
 
jimbuick said:
Who exactly do you mean by "right wingers" because that is a phrase that would apply to your average, non-radicalized, conservative American, and I'd like to believe you aren't actually intending to paint with that broad of a brush.
Click to expand...

I know several that voted for Obama...twice. It’s a stupid talking point to diminish the person you disagree with. It makes it so you don’t have to actually engage in debate.
 
BennyMagoo79 said:
Why is it gross?

Not surprising he was a MAGA supporter considering the facts. This is the problem with cultivating support from right wingers and racists.
Click to expand...

Well when people worship past Presidents and jump to their defense for using racist terms, these things do tend to happen.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You never mentioned business insider or C-SPAN in your original post. See how that works. You want to clarify yourself and expand on an internet post because you didn't realize that every time you post you need to write an entire essay addressing any possible disputes that other may raise in the future. My point from the start has been that Reagan is a Christ figure for Republicans. He gets mentioned in every election as the pinnacle of what a Republican president should be, despite the horrible crap that he's done. That's it. That's my opinion. You don't agree with it, but I'll find a way to go on.

The C-SPAN link is the same survey done over three separate time points to get a comprehensive score in 2017. If I'm citing a history book (one single history book) I don't get to call three editions of that single book, three books. It's one book.
Click to expand...

First, the C-SPAN is 3 separate iterations. In 2000, Reagan came in at number 11. In 2009, he came in at number 10. In 2017, he came in at 9.

Invalid Link Removed

3 separate surveys, 3 separate rankings. Decidedly not 3 iterations to compile 1 list.

Further, I responded directly to justhere4comm and plainly stated that his link was one of the exact surveys I was referring to (it being the survey of political scientists I noted in my original comment). I also further spoke about that specific survey where 57% of respondents identified as Democrats and 13% as Republicans with Reagan coming in at 9 for them. ie. not from Republicans cherry-picking his memory.

Try harder.
 
Last edited:
Aleksandar37 said:
You never mentioned business insider or C-SPAN in your original post. See how that works. You want to clarify yourself and expand on an internet post because you didn't realize that every time you post you need to write an entire essay addressing any possible disputes that other may raise in the future. My point from the start has been that Reagan is a Christ figure for Republicans. He gets mentioned in every election as the pinnacle of what a Republican president should be, despite the horrible crap that he's done. That's it. That's my opinion. You don't agree with it, but I'll find a way to go on.

The C-SPAN link is the same survey done over three separate time points to get a comprehensive score in 2017. If I'm citing a history book (one single history book) I don't get to call three editions of that single book, three books. It's one book.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
 
Last edited:
jimbuick said:
Honestly, it makes sense for them to do that because of how favorably he is viewed. He is their most successful President since Eisenhower, so evoking his memory is a good campaign strategy.
Click to expand...

He was a terrific actor thats for sure :)
 
ax1 said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
if he hadn't helped destabilize the middle east, what would all those kids with no plans after high school do? We really should give him credit for all the hard work he did to keep the military welfare system chugging along.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Have you confirmed that against a single C-SPAN survey? Or maybe imdb is more appropriate for that one lol
Click to expand...

Whats not fair about that survey is there was no "0" option or skip to the next question. They forced these "experts" to pick between 1-10 so really maybe many of them pick 1-3 for most questions about each Prezident so we dont know the truth of what these rankings really mean. The survey may really qualify for a name change to "Experts pick least unconstitutional corrupt treasonous mass murdering blood drinking big bank war mongering anti-humanity sociopathic lunatic Prezidumps" list, but instead they will just stick to a plain rankings list and we dont know what these historians were really thinking based on what they acquired from that single history book they read in the public school system that was heavily censored by the DoED.
 
Last edited:
Dayton Ohio.

Where’s Trump?
Oval Office?
On his way to one of the mass shootings?
Or Golfing?

... golfing. He’s golfing.
 
justhere4comm said:
Dayton Ohio.

Where’s Trump?
Oval Office?
On his way to one of the mass shootings?
Or Golfing?

... golfing. He’s golfing.
Click to expand...

Probably simultaneously calling for the drop of love bombs on Muslim children off his golf cart too.
 
rob112 said:
Same reason it was gross when republicans tried to say it was Bernie’s fault one of his supporters shot up the baseball game. Using these sick people for your political gain is gross.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's really a fair comparison at this point. If as many Bernie bros had committed acts of violence as MAGA guys have, I would want him to address it. If you look at the way he did address the one time it happened vs Trump's repeated 'meh' attitude and continued incendiary rhetoric, I think it's really apple's and oranges. There's a clear trend here at this point.
 
nostrum420 said:
I don't think that's really a fair comparison at this point. If as many Bernie bros had committed acts of violence as MAGA guys have, I would want him to address it. If you look at the way he did address the one time it happened vs Trump's repeated 'meh' attitude and continued incendiary rhetoric, I think it's really apple's and oranges. There's a clear trend here at this point.
Click to expand...
I may be remembering things differently than you are, so I'll just lay it out how I remember it and you tell me where/if you disagree and we can go from there, yeah?

Bernie: denounces acts of violence, does not change us vs. them rhetoric that spawned it, continues to employ the same rhetoric today.

Trump: denounces acts of violence, does not change us vs. them rhetoric that spawned it, continues to employ the same rhetoric today.

You are correct, of course, that these events have seemed to come from right-wing extremists far more often that left-wing extremists, but the response hasn't been significantly different between these cases and the Bernie case. I'm not sure why the perception is that it has.
 
jimbuick said:
I may be remembering things differently than you are, so I'll just lay it out how I remember it and you tell me where/if you disagree and we can go from there, yeah?

Bernie: denounces acts of violence, does not change us vs. them rhetoric that spawned it, continues to employ the same rhetoric today.

Trump: denounces acts of violence, does not change us vs. them rhetoric that spawned it, continues to employ the same rhetoric today.

You are correct, of course, that these events have seemed to come from right-wing extremists far more often that left-wing extremists, but the response hasn't been significantly different between these cases and the Bernie case. I'm not sure why the perception is that it has.
Click to expand...

2016

Trump talks about people leaving rallies like his on stretchers, says he'll pay people's legal fees if they hit someone, etc. Several fights break out during said rallies. Trump continues his rhetoric.

Some of Bernie's supporters graffiti and make harassing and potentially threatening phone calls. Bernie Sanders issues a statement denouncing violence.

2017

Steve Scalise shooting, Bernie makes a speech on the senate floor denouncing violence.

Mosque in Canada shot up, Trump, silent.

Militia member who wanted to build Trump's wall bombs a mosque in Minnesota, Trump, silent

Trump supporters chant antisemitic slurs carry torches (albeit tiki torches) dress invoke nazism, and one member drives his car into a crowd injuring people and killing one of them. Trump, "very fine people" "both sides" etc.

2018

Bernie resolves to combat sexual harrassment in any of his campaign staff.

Trump fan calls in threats to CNN, Trump mocks " fake news CNN" on Twitter.

Kid who bragged about writing Trump a letter and receiving a response shoots up his school killing 17 people in Parkland Florida. Trump, basically hides until he feels like it's blown over.

And I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find many more instances of Bernie espousing nonviolence and many more examples of Trump fomenting it.

I maintain, this is not really a fair comparison neither by quality nor quantity.
 
nostrum420 said:
And I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find many more instances of Bernie espousing nonviolence and many more examples of Trump fomenting it.
Click to expand...

But then he will turn around and tell everybody to vote for Hitlery who voted for the war in Iraq as a Senator and took part in the demolition of Syria and Lybia so he truly is nothing more than a violent war mongering hyposhyt.

He could have directed his voters to anti-war Gary Johnson or on a higher non-violent level Jill Stein but instead he wanted everyone to vote for mass genocide and that evil lunatic with hundreds of thousands of deaths on her hands Hitlery just because he had a personal agenda and massive ego and wanted Dump to lose the election.
 
ax1 said:
But then he will turn around and tell everybody to vote for Hitlery who voted for the war in Iraq as a Senator and took part in the demolition of Syria and Lybia so he truly is nothing more than a violent war mongering hyposhyt.

He could have directed his voters to anti-war Gary Johnson or on a higher non-violent level Jill Stein but instead he wanted everyone to vote for mass genocide and that evil lunatic with hundreds of thousands of deaths on her hands Hitlery just because he had a personal agenda and massive ego and wanted Dump to lose the election.
Click to expand...

As much as he was perfectly willing to level many of those same criticisms neither "what's a leppo?" nor hippie grandma had a chance. So he supported what he felt would the less disastrous of the 2. Obviously, he did not want Hillary to be president if it were up to him, hence running against her.
 
nostrum420 said:
2016

Trump talks about people leaving rallies like his on stretchers, says he'll pay people's legal fees if they hit someone, etc. Several fights break out during said rallies. Trump continues his rhetoric.

Some of Bernie's supporters graffiti and make harassing and potentially threatening phone calls. Bernie Sanders issues a statement denouncing violence.

2017

Steve Scalise shooting, Bernie makes a speech on the senate floor denouncing violence.

Mosque in Canada shot up, Trump, silent.

Militia member who wanted to build Trump's wall bombs a mosque in Minnesota, Trump, silent

Trump supporters chant antisemitic slurs carry torches (albeit tiki torches) dress invoke nazism, and one member drives his car into a crowd injuring people and killing one of them. Trump, "very fine people" "both sides" etc.

2018

Bernie resolves to combat sexual harrassment in any of his campaign staff.

Trump fan calls in threats to CNN, Trump mocks " fake news CNN" on Twitter.

Kid who bragged about writing Trump a letter and receiving a response shoots up his school killing 17 people in Parkland Florida. Trump, basically hides until he feels like it's blown over.

And I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find many more instances of Bernie espousing nonviolence and many more examples of Trump fomenting it.

I maintain, this is not really a fair comparison neither by quality nor quantity.
Click to expand...

Look up antifa violence. You can find them assaulting people all over the web if you look. They just are not using guns. I do not blame anyone who did not tell them to act this way.

Why can’t we just blame the people that actually do the crime. You all remind me of religious people blaming music for Columbine.
 
nostrum420 said:
As much as he was perfectly willing to level many of those same criticisms neither "what's a leppo?" nor hippie grandma had a chance. So he supported what he felt would the less disastrous of the 2. Obviously, he did not want Hillary to be president if it were up to him, hence running against her.
Click to expand...

One already had hundreds of thousands of deaths on her hands, how is that logical? Dump hasnt even caught up to her, at least not yet that is to be seen, but Hitlery was certain to intervene in more warfare and commit genocide.

Picking the "lesser" of evils doesn't qualify one as non-violent when your directly supporting violence. Its all hypocrisy. Bernie Sanders is an accomplice to mass murder, everything out of his mouth is pure hypocrisy as he has proven to have no ethical integrity.
 
Last edited:
rob112 said:
Look up antifa violence. You can find them assaulting people all over the web if you look. They just are not using guns. I do not blame anyone who did not tell them to act this way.

Why can’t we just blame the people that actually do the crime. You all remind me of religious people blaming music for Columbine.
Click to expand...

But that would be racist.
 
ax1 said:
But that would be racist.
Click to expand...

I just hate the mindset of lumping people together. I think it is part of what is wrong with the world. Also why I think this two party system has to go.

That mind set is how people lump in:
Pedo’s with everyday Catholics
Muslim extremists with all of Islam
Violent cartels with all of Mexico
Bands that make metal music to school shootings or things like west Memphis 3
Rappers with all gang members
White nationalists with republicans
Antifa with democrats
Etc etc etc you can make a ton of these and they are all wrong.

Engaging in that type of behavior does not help anyone. It just divides people more and more. The irony is a lot of people doing this type of thing believe that they are helping make the world a better place.

People should come together and blame the criminal, mourn the victims, and work towards a better world. Dividing everyone is just going to make things worse.
 
rob112 said:
I just hate the mindset of lumping people together. I think it is part of what is wrong with the world. Also why I think this two party system has to go.

That mind set is how people lump in:
Pedo’s with everyday Catholics
Muslim extremists with all of Islam
Violent cartels with all of Mexico
Bands that make metal music to school shootings or things like west Memphis 3
Rappers with all gang members
White nationalists with republicans
Antifa with democrats
Etc etc etc you can make a ton of these and they are all wrong.

Engaging in that type of behavior does not help anyone. It just divides people more and more. The irony is a lot of people doing this type of thing believe that they are helping make the world a better place.

People should come together and blame the criminal, mourn the victims, and work towards a better world. Dividing everyone is just going to make things worse.
Click to expand...

And at the end of the day both sides are duped by the same elites in power belonging to the Demican and Republicrat duopoly power.

They are good at what they do, keep us divided voting out of fear that one side will save the country from the other, and then they take turns destroying it - repeat process for an eternity. Social disorder is good for business. No change, most of the same policies both incrementally rip away our rights, our life savings and sanity.
 
nostrum420 said:
2016

Trump talks about people leaving rallies like his on stretchers, says he'll pay people's legal fees if they hit someone, etc. Several fights break out during said rallies. Trump continues his rhetoric.

Some of Bernie's supporters graffiti and make harassing and potentially threatening phone calls. Bernie Sanders issues a statement denouncing violence.

2017

Steve Scalise shooting, Bernie makes a speech on the senate floor denouncing violence.

Mosque in Canada shot up, Trump, silent.

Militia member who wanted to build Trump's wall bombs a mosque in Minnesota, Trump, silent

Trump supporters chant antisemitic slurs carry torches (albeit tiki torches) dress invoke nazism, and one member drives his car into a crowd injuring people and killing one of them. Trump, "very fine people" "both sides" etc.

2018

Bernie resolves to combat sexual harrassment in any of his campaign staff.

Trump fan calls in threats to CNN, Trump mocks " fake news CNN" on Twitter.

Kid who bragged about writing Trump a letter and receiving a response shoots up his school killing 17 people in Parkland Florida. Trump, basically hides until he feels like it's blown over.

And I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find many more instances of Bernie espousing nonviolence and many more examples of Trump fomenting it.

I maintain, this is not really a fair comparison neither by quality nor quantity.
Click to expand...
See, that's exactly what I mean. Trump regularly made statements (and Tweets) condemning those types of violence after they happened, but your perception of it is that he just ignored them, and I'm not sure why that is.

Christchurch, for example, where he referred to it as a "horrible massacre" and a "vicious act of hate." Invalid Link Removed

Or when that Florida supporter was mailing bombs to prominent Democratic Party members: Invalid Link Removed

Even the most recent:

Invalid Link Removed

And, while I think his handling of Charlottesville (and many, many other things) was abysmal, he did condemn the violence immediately:

Invalid Link Removed

And did so even more strongly a few days later:

Invalid Link Removed

This isn't comprehensive mind you, just from some quick searching. There are almost certainly attacks he never mentioned (you named a couple that I don't even recall, which is a sad commentary on recent events if there ever was one!), but it isn't as if he isn't condemning these acts when they occur. He is, and he does so with the same type of language used by his peers.

I can only assume it is because people perceive him as being less genuine, so they write it off or ignore it, but I don't really know.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not a Trump supporter, and I do think his rhetoric is encouraging these events, and it would be in all of our best interests for him to stop using it. It's just that it isn't all that different from Sanders who also uses similar divisive rhetoric (99% vs. 1% with Trump using Rep vs. Dem which largely shakes out to White vs. Non-White) and then condemning the acts of violence they spawn whilst continuing to espouse the same rhetoric.

All that said, I grant that Trump's rhetoric is more extreme in most (perhaps even all) cases when compared to Sanders', but with that being the case, the difference between them is not one of kind, but of degree.
 
Last edited:
rob112 said:
Look up antifa violence. You can find them assaulting people all over the web if you look. They just are not using guns. I do not blame anyone who did not tell them to act this way.

Why can’t we just blame the people that actually do the crime. You all remind me of religious people blaming music for Columbine.
Click to expand...

Because stochastic terrorism is real and Trump has a clear pattern of it.

Where has Bernie Sanders ever encouraged Antifa? You can find Proud Boys assaulting people all over the internet too. Equivocating assaults by Antifa to bombings and mass shootings spurred on by Trump's rhetoric is also not a fair comparison.
 
ax1 said:
One already had hundreds of thousands of deaths on her hands, how is that logical? Dump hasnt even caught up to her, at least not yet that is to be seen, but Hitlery was certain to intervene in more warfare and commit genocide.

Picking the "lesser" of evils doesn't qualify one as non-violent when your directly supporting violence. Its all hypocrisy. Bernie Sanders is an accomplice to mass murder, everything out of his mouth is pure hypocrisy as he has proven to have no ethical integrity.
Click to expand...

Trump is killing plenty of people; the Saudis are not just avid firearms collectors. I think you're going to be hard pressed to find any viable candidates that pass your litmus tests and until then this all kind of just nihilism.
 
nostrum420 said:
Trump is killing plenty of people; the Saudis are not just avid firearms collectors. I think you're going to be hard pressed to find any viable candidates that pass your litmus tests and until then this all kind of just nihilism.
Click to expand...

Larry Sharpe is my current #1, he is not running though
 
jimbuick said:
See, that's exactly what I mean. Trump regularly made statements (and Tweets) condemning those types of violence after they happened, but your perception of it is that he just ignored them, and I'm not sure why that is.

Christchurch, for example, where he referred to it as a "horrible massacre" and a "vicious act of hate." Invalid Link Removed

Or when that Florida supporter was mailing bombs to prominent Democratic Party members: Invalid Link Removed

Even the most recent:

Invalid Link Removed

And, while I think his handling of Charlottesville (and many, many other things) was abysmal, he did condemn the violence immediately:

Invalid Link Removed

And did so even more strongly a few days later:

Invalid Link Removed

This isn't comprehensive mind you, just from some quick searching. There are almost certainly attacks he never mentioned (you named a couple that I don't even recall, which is a sad commentary on recent events if there ever was one!), but it isn't as if he isn't condemning these acts when they occur. He is, and he does so with the same type of language used by his peers.

I can only assume it is because people perceive him as being less genuine, so they write it off or ignore it, but I don't really know.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not a Trump supporter, and I do think his rhetoric is encouraging these events, and it would be in all of our best interests for him to stop using it. It's just that it isn't all that different from Sanders who also uses similar divisive rhetoric (99% vs. 1% with Trump using Rep vs. Dem which largely shakes out to White vs. Non-White) and then condemning the acts of violence they spawn whilst continuing to espouse the same rhetoric.

All that said, I grant that Trump's rhetoric is more extreme in most (perhaps even all) cases when compared to Sanders', but with that being the case, the difference between them is not one of kind, but of degree.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I'm not counting a brief tweet. That's basically nothing. Certainly not equivalent to making a speech on the Senate floor.

When Trump doesn't respond at all the silence says everything. Any of the examples I listed, on their own, can be explained away but taken together there's a clear pattern here. One that Trump has been asked about, should be aware of and has done little, if anything, to curtail as he continues to inspire chants about kicking one of his political opponents out of the country.
 
nostrum420 said:
I'm sorry but I'm not counting a brief tweet. That's basically nothing. Certainly not equivalent to making a speech on the Senate floor.

When Trump doesn't respond at all the silence says everything. Any of the examples I listed, on their own, can be explained away but taken together there's a clear pattern here. One that Trump has been asked about, should be aware of and has done little, if anything, to curtail as he continues to inspire chants about kicking one of his political opponents out of the country.
Click to expand...
In most instances of violence like these all politicians simply respond with Tweets and statements from their office. That is the case with Sanders as well, as with these most recent shootings.

The President doesn't have the Senate chamber to give speeches from, so he responds via statements from his office, Tweets, and/or press briefings. Trump has made statements denouncing violence and extremism via all of these mediums.

To your closing point, that's exactly what I mean here though. None of these politicians, to include Sanders, are changing their rhetoric after these attacks. They make their statements denouncing the violence, and then they are straight back to stumping on the campaign trail using the same rhetoric. Trump is not remotely unique in this regard.
 
Invalid Link Removed

The shooter used the word "Invasion"... I wonder where that was uttered most publicly?
 
rob112 said:
Yes I think using dead people for political points is gross. I have standards.
Click to expand...

I think a mass shooting is gross. We have different standards. Rather than comment on the actual event, you chose to distract from it by drawing blame to somebody posting a picture that the shooter took and posted.
 
rob112 said:
I just hate the mindset of lumping people together. I think it is part of what is wrong with the world. Also why I think this two party system has to go.

That mind set is how people lump in:
Pedo’s with everyday Catholics
Muslim extremists with all of Islam
Violent cartels with all of Mexico
Bands that make metal music to school shootings or things like west Memphis 3
Rappers with all gang members
White nationalists with republicans
Antifa with democrats
Etc etc etc you can make a ton of these and they are all wrong.

Engaging in that type of behavior does not help anyone. It just divides people more and more. The irony is a lot of people doing this type of thing believe that they are helping make the world a better place.

People should come together and blame the criminal, mourn the victims, and work towards a better world. Dividing everyone is just going to make things worse.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but you're doing the exact same thing in another post when telling people to look up Antifa violence. Not everybody that protests or even everybody that protests violently in a mask is Antifa. Most of those are black bloc as I've repeatedly stated in this thread. Somebody taking a video of a violent act and calling it Antifa doesn't make it true, the same way all of these other things aren't as you have listed. Yet you're telling people to google Antifa violence and accept that as fact.
 
jimbuick said:
In most instances of violence like these all politicians simply respond with Tweets and statements from their office. That is the case with Sanders as well, as with these most recent shootings.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable response when the shooter isn't specifically one of your fans/followers, let alone one of several of your fans to have committed violence.


jimbuick said:
The President doesn't have the Senate chamber to give speeches from, so he responds via statements from his office, Tweets, and/or press briefings. Trump has made statements denouncing violence and extremism via all of these mediums.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the POTUS has more of a soapbox than a Senator, not less. Trump could easily have done something that would reach even more people than a speech on the Senate floor.

jimbuick said:
To your closing point, that's exactly what I mean here though. None of these politicians, to include Sanders, are changing their rhetoric after these attacks. They make their statements denouncing the violence, and then they are straight back to stumping on the campaign trail using the same rhetoric. Trump is not remotely unique in this regard.
Click to expand...

I think this is where the numbers become important. 1 =/= 5, Trump's stumping seems to be particularly inflammatory. I don't think Trump is unique but he is unusual in terms of the volume of violent acts committed, specifically, by his followers combined with his minimal, occasionally absent response, and his rhetoric, at times, containing actual calls to violence, some thinly veiled, some not, as opposed to the usual political rhetoric that can, at times, be inflammatory.
 
nostrum420 said:
I would argue that not running excludes one from viability.
Click to expand...

Oh yes your right, lol no need to argue.

Larry Sharpe will be making a presentation at the Libertarian Convention in may of 2020. Its possible he might, I would hope so. Unlike Gary Johnson from 2016, he is far more charismatic and intelligent. He would have been an incredible Governor for NY, but Cuomo had 30+ million dollars to buy his election and Larry didnt. He made incredible progress though by getting enough votes to have the L party a mandatory on the ballot next election for the first time in NY history (previous you would have to collect some 50k votes manually before the election.)

Keep in mind, I am not a Libertarian and just vote for Libertarians for the heck of it. Some have both policy and ethical values that I feel are best needed for the job.

Larry is awesome!
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I agree with you, but you're doing the exact same thing in another post when telling people to look up Antifa violence. Not everybody that protests or even everybody that protests violently in a mask is Antifa. Most of those are black bloc as I've repeatedly stated in this thread. Somebody taking a video of a violent act and calling it Antifa doesn't make it true, the same way all of these other things aren't as you have listed. Yet you're telling people to google Antifa violence and accept that as fact.
Click to expand...

Here you go with these stupid arguments trying to twist my words. I gave him a quick search to show that you could do the same thing the other way and be wrong. Nice try.

Furthermore I did not blame a poster for the violence, but I think smug political shots within hours of people dying is uncalled for.

You have a habit of either purposefully or accidentally trying to twist points on here that get people arguing about things that are not even their point in the first place.
 
Last edited:
15 minutes after posting his tweet about the Texas shooting, Trump tweeted a photo op with an MMA fighter.

Invalid Link Removed
 
nostrum420 said:
I think this is where the numbers become important. 1 =/= 5, Trump's stumping seems to be particularly inflammatory. I don't think Trump is unique but he is unusual in terms of the volume of violent acts committed, specifically, by his followers combined with his minimal, occasionally absent response, and his rhetoric, at times, containing actual calls to violence, some thinly veiled, some not, as opposed to the usual political rhetoric that can, at times, be inflammatory.
Click to expand...

I agree. I tried to make that point clear in an earlier comment when I said that the difference between Trump and other populist politicians is one of degree, but not of kind.

The rhetoric is similar, and the responses to these events are similar, but the frequency and severity are different.

Like I said earlier though, I'm mostly just trying to wrap my mind around why our collective consciousness is that he doesn't condemn these events, because he most certainly does and he does so using the same language and platforms of his peers (with some exceptions, of course), but no one seems to remember them.

Perhaps it is simply because his rhetoric is so extreme that people don't believe him when he does make those condemnations, so they aren't noteworthy enough to remember. I don't really know, but it's interesting.
 
jimbuick said:
I agree. I tried to make that point clear in an earlier comment when I said that the difference between Trump and other populist politicians is one of degree, but not of kind.

The rhetoric is similar, and the responses to these events are similar, but the frequency and severity are different.

Like I said earlier though, I'm mostly just trying to wrap my mind around why our collective consciousness is that he doesn't condemn these events, because he most certainly does and he does so using the same language and platforms of his peers (with some exceptions, of course), but no one seems to remember them.

Perhaps it is simply because his rhetoric is so extreme that people don't believe him when he does make those condemnations, so they aren't noteworthy enough to remember. I don't really know, but it's interesting.
Click to expand...

I do notice he always condemns these events, domestic extremists and crazies. I also notice the coverage usually for the most part scrutinizing him for not doing it right or timely and then preferring to cover rhetoric, or creating his statements into rhetoric or some other stupid drama (stupid to me as its a distraction to real issues.)

Of course we saw this with Barry for 8 years by the "other" side but this just feels different. Im just ticked that they are distracting people from real issues and I have reason to believe as to why.

When I was in China last year for 3 weeks watching English news and newspapers you would come out thinking Dump is a good strong professional president, and most people there have absolutely no clue of the other crazy deranged side. Absolutely no drama to make him look bad.

The media controls and influences how most people think and thats that.
 
Last edited:
rob112 said:
Here you go with these stupid arguments trying to twist my words. I gave him a quick search to show that you could do the same thing the other way and be wrong. Nice try.

Furthermore I did not blame a poster for the violence, but I think smug political shots within hours of people dying is uncalled for.

You have a habit of either purposefully or accidentally trying to twist points on here that get people arguing about things that are not even their point in the first place.
Click to expand...

Nope, just enjoy pointing out clueless hypocrites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top