Donald Trump running for president

primolift00 said:
nostrum, is it fair to say that you are suggesting that hateful, racist rhetoric has been a contributing factor to the trend of violence that has been noted above in this thread? Rob is your position that this rhetoric has played no role and those providing this rhetoric deserve no blame? if that is not your position, it is hard to follow what you are saying. Also I don’t think nostrum ever made the claim that you have stated above
Click to expand...
I got 50 cents you won't be voting for trump?;)
 
thebigt said:
I believe in personal responsibility...if a drunk driver harms my loved ones I am going to want justice for him/her-if he is a member of the Methodist church i'm not going to blame Methodist's for his/her actions.

@jimbuick brought up a good point, most murders by gun is gang related and they mostly kill other gang members...if you are not involved in gang activity your chances are better to be randomly killed by a drunk driver than by a gun.

from memory I believe the statistics are over half of gun deaths are from suicide.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone in your example would claim that the Methodist church contributed in any manner to the accident ( unless of course in your example, the church supplied the booze and didn’t take away the keys). Is your position that ongoing hate filled rhetoric has not been a contributing factor in the violence that has occurred? I dont know what the second paragraph has to do with the points nostrum has been making, it seems like a deflection. I think we all agree that drunk driving is terrible and any drunk driver deserves to be held responsible. I am not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
 
primolift00 said:
I don’t think anyone in your example would claim that the Methodist church contributed in any manner to the accident ( unless of course in your example, the church supplied the booze and didn’t take away the keys). Is your position that ongoing hate filled rhetoric has not been a contributing factor in the violence that has occurred? I dont know what the second paragraph has to do with the points nostrum has been making, it seems like a deflection. I think we all agree that drunk driving is terrible and any drunk driver deserves to be held responsible. I am not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
Click to expand...
do you believe violent video games are responsible for violence?
 
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...
But that's exactly why we need to call it out. Trump uses these sick people for political gain...
 
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...
White supremacists, in this case. White supremacy is after all an extension of nationalism.
 
primolift00 said:
It is possible they could contribute to the violence. What do you disagree with what I wrote? This question seems like another deflection
Click to expand...
this whole damned thread is one big deflection, everyone comes here with preconceived ideas/beliefs and no one should have expectations of being clever enough to change anyones preconceptions.
 
primolift00 said:
It is possible they could contribute to the violence. What do you disagree with what I wrote? This question seems like another deflection
Click to expand...

Its possible but some studies show the opposite is true.
Invalid Link Removed

Regardless, the idea of thought police, power of censorship and choices that dont harm others is scary.
 
Two people had melt downs for different reasons.
One was driven by some moron in chief rhetoric, and the other lost his **** because he was holding it together by a thread since childhood. Sure, there was an alleged twitter account canceled, but there's facebook people that look like this guy whom are still alive and having to tell people (stupid people) it's not them. (Guy is dead).

There's no tie in with the bar massacre to political motivation, but that doesn't make it any less horrible for the victims or their families. That guy killed his own sister. I'm only sorry he's not alive to answer for this sh&tstorm he set forth instead of being capped off by the cops. Lives saved of course in that end.
 
thebigt said:
this whole damned thread is one big deflection, everyone comes here with preconceived ideas/beliefs and no one should have expectations of being clever enough to change anyones preconceptions.
Click to expand...

I have no delusion of convincing anyone of anything, but I do like understanding the position of those that have different viewpoints than me. But fair enough, no need to continue this.
 
ax1 said:
Its possible but some studies show the opposite is true.
Invalid Link Removed

Regardless, the idea of thought police, power of censorship and choices that dont harm others is scary.
Click to expand...

I agree with this thought police idea of being scary and to be clear I did not advocate any form of government censorship, but as a parent, I will probably be reluctant to expose my child to these violent games
 
primolift00 said:
I have no delusion of convincing anyone of anything, but I do like understanding the position of those that have different viewpoints than me. But fair enough, no need to continue this.
Click to expand...
lol, I have about as much understanding of why people vote for democrats as I do of a man marrying another man....I just put it to down to people being wired differently, and have learned to accept it-even though I will never understand it.
 
primolift00 said:
I agree with this thought police idea of being scary and to be clear I did not advocate any form of government censorship, but as a parent, I will probably be reluctant to expose my child to these violent games
Click to expand...

Oh yeah thats 100% cool, Id do the same thing. Having age over 18 unless parent approval isnt the worst regulation to have either.
 
ax1 said:
Oh yeah thats 100% cool, Id do the same thing. Having age over 18 unless parent approval isnt the worst regulation to have either.
Click to expand...
lol...don't internet porn sites have age restrictions....kids can access anything!!!
 
thebigt said:
lol...don't internet porn sites have age restrictions....kids can access anything!!!
Click to expand...

There are ways for parents to set up child safe pc's, until the kid figures out the loopholes of course.
 
ax1 said:
There are ways for parents to set up child safe pc's, until the kid figures out the loopholes of course.
Click to expand...
kids have been figuring out loopholes for a very long time, lol.
 
BennyMagoo79 said:
White supremacists, in this case. White supremacy is after all an extension of nationalism.
Click to expand...
That's a much more specific group than the term 'right-wingers' more generally. White supremacy is an extension of a very specific form of nationalism (ethno-nationalism), too; not nationalism more generally.

To clarify, white supremacy is not a logical extension of nationalism as you are alluding. Civic nationalism (the type most often espoused in the US by Democrats and Republicans alike) does not breed ethno-nationalism.

Lumping them together as you just did would inherently mean you are referring to folks like Obama as people who use rhetoric that breeds white supremacy because they espouse nationalist sentiments, as you view ethno-nationalism as an extension of (and not a perversion of) nationalism more generally, which doesn't make a lot of sense
 
jimbuick said:
That's a much more specific group than the term 'right-wingers' more generally. White supremacy is an extension of a very specific form of nationalism (ethno-nationalism), too; not nationalism more generally.

To clarify, white supremacy is not a logical extension of nationalism as you are alluding. Civic nationalism (the type most often espoused in the US by Democrats and Republicans alike) does not breed ethno-nationalism.

Lumping them together as you just did would inherently mean you are referring to folks like Obama as people who use rhetoric that breeds white supremacy because they espouse nationalist sentiments, as you view ethno-nationalism as an extension of (and not a perversion of) nationalism more generally, which doesn't make a lot of sense
Click to expand...
nice post!!!

I wish I were smart enough to post something as intelligent as this!!!
 
primolift00 said:
nostrum, is it fair to say that you are suggesting that hateful, racist rhetoric has been a contributing factor to the trend of violence that has been noted above in this thread? Rob is your position that this rhetoric has played no role and those providing this rhetoric deserve no blame? if that is not your position, it is hard to follow what you are saying. Also I don’t think nostrum ever made the claim that you have stated above
Click to expand...

Yes, for my part, that's a fair characterization.
 
jimbuick said:
That's a much more specific group than the term 'right-wingers' more generally. White supremacy is an extension of a very specific form of nationalism (ethno-nationalism), too; not nationalism more generally.

To clarify, white supremacy is not a logical extension of nationalism as you are alluding. Civic nationalism (the type most often espoused in the US by Democrats and Republicans alike) does not breed ethno-nationalism.

Lumping them together as you just did would inherently mean you are referring to folks like Obama as people who use rhetoric that breeds white supremacy because they espouse nationalist sentiments, as you view ethno-nationalism as an extension of (and not a perversion of) nationalism more generally, which doesn't make a lot of sense
Click to expand...
If it's not an extension of nationalism, then why do you describe it as "ethno-nationalism?
 
jimbuick said:
That's a much more specific group than the term 'right-wingers' more generally. White supremacy is an extension of a very specific form of nationalism (ethno-nationalism), too; not nationalism more generally.

To clarify, white supremacy is not a logical extension of nationalism as you are alluding. Civic nationalism (the type most often espoused in the US by Democrats and Republicans alike) does not breed ethno-nationalism.

Lumping them together as you just did would inherently mean you are referring to folks like Obama as people who use rhetoric that breeds white supremacy because they espouse nationalist sentiments, as you view ethno-nationalism as an extension of (and not a perversion of) nationalism more generally, which doesn't make a lot of sense
Click to expand...
Also, I would describe civic nationalism as a conservative philosophy rather than right wing.
 
justhere4comm said:
Nobody is voting for Trump in 2020?
Click to expand...

Looks like some states may find a way to make it illegal to vote for him. lol, but not really lol....but then again lol, never mind :)

It would be cool if they made it illegal to vote for any Demican or Republicrat sorta.
 
BennyMagoo79 said:
If it's not an extension of nationalism, then why do you describe it as "ethno-nationalism?
Click to expand...

Because ethno-nationalism is it's own ideology. The only similarity between civic (and pretty well all other forms of) nationalism and ethno-nationalism is the word 'nationalism'.

Ethno-nationalists completely redefine the term 'nation' to shoehorn in a nationalist identity, but under any meaningfully agreed upon definition of 'nation' ethno-nationalism cannot exist.

Nationalists of all stripes will vehemently disagree with ethno-nationalists on all fronts, because the ideologies do not even begin from the same base assumptions. The ethno-nationalists pervert the definition of the 'nation' to suit their needs; that's why I described it as a perversion of nationalism.

That's why I'm trying to get you to further clarify your message, because so far it has been unclear. You use the ambiguous term 'right-wingers' when you mean to speak solely of white supremacists, and then seem to imply that nationalism in itself leads to white supremacy, which is what I was disagreeing with. Your language thus far has not been specific enough, and it is leaving far too much ambiguity for your posts to be meaningfully understood.
BennyMagoo79 said:
Also, I would describe civic nationalism as a conservative philosophy rather than right wing.
Click to expand...
That's not a useful distinction as the term 'right-wing' is most often defined as "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system." In the context of political discussion, 'right-wing' and 'conservative' are synonymous.

Further, the term 'right-wing' is not that applicable to Trump anyway. His politics are built on populism, not right or left ideology. His social politics can rightly be defined as 'reactionary right-wing', but his economic views are an odd amalgamation of left-wing protectionism and right-wing laissez-faire domestic policy meant to appeal to his populist base.

Historically, populism doesn't fit that well in our modern left/right dynamic.
 
I have to be careful calling myself "nationalist" these days. I consider myself both an American nationalist (and Earth nationalist, but I dont want to confuse this post) but people have different ideas of what a nationalist is and I have no desire to be affiliated with white supremacists or Dump and his sect of whatever he is.

Political slogans can be so distorted in various ways.
 
jimbuick said:
Because ethno-nationalism is it's own ideology. The only similarity between civic (and pretty well all other forms of) nationalism and ethno-nationalism is the word 'nationalism'.

Ethno-nationalists completely redefine the term 'nation' to shoehorn in a nationalist identity, but under any meaningfully agreed upon definition of 'nation' ethno-nationalism cannot exist.

Nationalists of all stripes will vehemently disagree with ethno-nationalists on all fronts, because the ideologies do not even begin from the same base assumptions. The ethno-nationalists pervert the definition of the 'nation' to suit their needs; that's why I described it as a perversion of nationalism.

That's why I'm trying to get you to further clarify your message, because so far it has been unclear. You use the ambiguous term 'right-wingers' when you mean to speak solely of white supremacists, and then seem to imply that nationalism in itself leads to white supremacy, which is what I was disagreeing with. Your language thus far has not been specific enough, and it is leaving far too much ambiguity for your posts to be meaningfully understood.
That's not a useful distinction as the term 'right-wing' is most often defined as "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system." In the context of political discussion, 'right-wing' and 'conservative' are synonymous.

Further, the term 'right-wing' is not that applicable to Trump anyway. His politics are built on populism, not right or left ideology. His social politics can rightly be defined as 'reactionary right-wing', but his economic views are an odd amalgamation of left-wing protectionism and right-wing laissez-faire domestic policy meant to appeal to his populist base.

Historically, populism doesn't fit that well in our modern left/right dynamic.
Click to expand...
Well, I just learned a hell of a lot about nationalist ideologies - thank you sir.


I think my original point was something like, Trump inspires, and even seems to appear tolerant of radical right wing groups, and this should be recognised and addressed because it endangers the stability of the USA.
 
BennyMagoo79 said:
Well, I just learned a hell of a lot about nationalist ideologies - thank you sir.


I think my original point was something like, Trump inspires, and even seems to appear tolerant of radical right wing groups, and this should be recognised and addressed because it endangers the stability of the USA.
Click to expand...

Not paying them much attention can be a strategy. If thats a better strategy or not is up to debate. I know I have heard him condemn these groups multiple times. Also, I feel like the media is shoving them down our throats making it appear as if the apocalypse is coming. As to why, I can only speculate I dunno for sure but it sure isnt unifying the country.

What is it you really want him to do other than old fashioned police work when actual crimes are real plots to hurt happen?
 
Last edited:
This is more of President Dumb Sh*t politicizing a tragic event he inspired.
What a piece of garbage.

Invalid Link Removed
 
justhere4comm said:
This is more of President Dumb Sh*t politicizing a tragic event he inspired.
What a piece of garbage.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

And after seeing this post Im more than confident that at this point Dump's best strategy is to say absolutely nothing ever again!
 
Dunno if you guys have run into news about the Hong Kong protests, things are getting serious with China warning of intervening soon. Personally I think they already have plain clothes military on the streets but things have been getting worse anyways.
Invalid Link Removed

Of course in the world of Republicrats and Demicans, China good, Venezuala bad!

185504

185505

185506

185507

185508
 
justhere4comm said:
Wow.
Click to expand...

Quick history lesson, in the early 80s Deng Xioping told Margerat Thatcher they better hand Hong Kong back over.

The deal was set for 1997 and part of the deal was to protect Hong Kong’s laws under a 2 system 1 country solution for 50 years.

Well, that’s eroding away quickly and the lives of Hong Kongers have been also significantly eroding (not for all.)

I was in China in 2007 watching the 10 year anniversary of the handover “liberation” on CCTV with my family and I was quadruple ROFLLLLL at them, they didn’t get it.
 
Was surprised to see this type of front page coverage today,

But anyways now that’s whatsup!

Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
Was surprised to see this type of front page coverage today,

But anyways now that’s whatsup!

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Did this guy have a manifesto talking about how Elizabeth Warren inspired him with her anti-1:00AM Bar rhetoric? I remember all the anti-sister chants at the last Bernie rally; he really should address that...
 
nostrum420 said:
Did this guy have a manifesto talking about how Elizabeth Warren inspired him with her anti-1:00AM Bar rhetoric? I remember all the anti-sister chants at the last Bernie rally; he really should address that...
Click to expand...

If he had a manifesto I probably would be the first to suspect he was in DARPA or MKUltra.
 
I just watch Dumps big speech from a couple days ago....

Dump supporters are going to all get it up the butt.

He is coming after your 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights and more and making everything worse.

He is supporting "Red Flag" laws which will empower government to legally criminalize you without proper due process and committing a real crime as well has further strip away gun rights.

If you voted for Dump because you hated Hitlery, you got Hitlery anyways. What a piece of trash.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Invalid Link Removed

#maga... (Built on the backs on immigrants, even Trumps' great grandfather who immigrated illegally and was deported from Germany)
 
justhere4comm said:
lol
Click to expand...

I’ve been saying all along for over 2 years, Dump is Obama’s 3rd term. Both are racially divisive war mongering big government lunatics that don’t give a damn about the United States Constitution and only serve the elites.
 
Nobody needs an assault rifle. Plus, even if you did, it would not stop you from fighting against your own government that is so freely using drones to kill. It's not even plausible.

That said.


Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
Not paying them much attention can be a strategy. If thats a better strategy or not is up to debate. I know I have heard him condemn these groups multiple times. Also, I feel like the media is shoving them down our throats making it appear as if the apocalypse is coming. As to why, I can only speculate I dunno for sure but it sure isnt unifying the country.

What is it you really want him to do other than old fashioned police work when actual crimes are real plots to hurt happen?
Click to expand...
Its the campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again". It incites hatred. He knew it, and he let it because he wanted the votes.

Things probably do look worse than they are. I hope so because, from Australia it looks bad. Americans used to be regarded as diligent, intelligent, proactive civilised world leaders but now we watch every time there's a mass shooting and nothing is done to try and restrict firearm access and we think, Jesus, how many times can someone kick their toe on the same thing before they do something about it?
 
justhere4comm said:
Nobody needs an assault rifle. Plus, even if you did, it would not stop you from fighting against your own government that is so freely using drones to kill. It's not even plausible.

That said.


Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I got a better idea....lets take their guns and drones away first. Then we will talk.
 
Last edited:
BennyMagoo79 said:
Its the campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again". It incites hatred. He knew it, and he let it because he wanted the votes.
Click to expand...

I dont think its so much the slogan but rather he is a lying blood thirsty Muslim baby killing special interest big government anti-constitutional oath of office breaking treasonous orifice.

He should change his slogan to "Make pre-1776 America Great Again!"
 
justhere4comm said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

"The Obama rule that Trump nullified had added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their financial affairs to the national background check database."

The problem is that the term "mentally ill" gets easily exploited and people who have financial difficulties shouldnt be suppressed their 2nd Amendment rights. You just end up with violent gun free broke slums like liberal cities such as NYC and Chicago where poor people cant defend themselves from gangs running the joints and people are too scared to call the cops because they will shoot them too. Plus national databases run by the government are dangerous to public safety.
 
BennyMagoo79 said:
but now we watch every time there's a mass shooting and nothing is done to try and restrict firearm access and we think, Jesus, how many times can someone kick their toe on the same thing before they do something about it?
Click to expand...

Nothing is being done to un-restrict good people from accessing guns, or good people who do have guns from carrying guns into restricted areas where most of these mass shooting occur in the first place.

Guns laws here especially in NY are too overly suppressive. Thats the problem.
 
Last edited:
BennyMagoo79 said:
Its the campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again". It incites hatred. He knew it, and he let it because he wanted the votes.

Things probably do look worse than they are. I hope so because, from Australia it looks bad. Americans used to be regarded as diligent, intelligent, proactive civilised world leaders but now we watch every time there's a mass shooting and nothing is done to try and restrict firearm access and we think, Jesus, how many times can someone kick their toe on the same thing before they do something about it?
Click to expand...

Fun fact: Trump's campaign slogan is nothing more than a repeat of Reagan/Bush 1980's "Let's Make America Great Again" campaign slogan. It was nothing more than him trying to harken back to Reagan's memory when campaigning.

Let's_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg.jpeg


As to guns, there are a ton of reasons why bans and the like aren't politically feasible, but the meat of the issue is that the Constitution explicitly prohibits the federal government from doing too much about it, and a lot of people take that seriously.


justhere4comm said:
Nobody needs an assault rifle. Plus, even if you did, it would not stop you from fighting against your own government that is so freely using drones to kill. It's not even plausible.

That said.


Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Lol @ "assault rifle". It's hard to take you seriously on this topic when you don't know what you're talking about.
 

Attachments

  • Let's_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg.jpeg
    Let's_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg.jpeg
    13 KB · Views: 104
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top