protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally

Yeah buddy, and the greaser mayor condones it. And you all know the police takes orders from the politicians in the city. Liberal scum all.
 
Seahawk said:
I didn't imply you dumbass, I asked you a simple question and you go hysterical. Why don't you just answer the question and stop being silly.

But Hillary scaring people about nuclear war is perfectly acceptable to you, right?
Click to expand...

HRC can't hit her reset button once she launchs, does she realize that.
 
Thing1 said:
The violence is deplorable, and most of the protestors really suck.

That said, when was the last time we saw this w/ a major candidate for POTUS? At some point, I don't think it's out of line at all to take a look at the candidate & the campaign, and say "hey...maybe there's a connection here."

Trump is divisive and thrives on being inflammatory. He sees America as separate, disparate groups - Mexicans, Muslims, Christians, women, losers, winners...whatever it is. Instead of focusing on what we have in common and what brings us together, he highlights the differences and blames them for our ills. It's all us against them for him, and if you're them, look out.

His supporters justify this by saying he's "not pc," but that is a complete perversion of what the term "politically correct" means and how it's applied. Trump isn't "not pc." He's a divisive demagogue, who just likes to insult people & create division.
Click to expand...

OH, COM'ON!!

There are people who feel the same way about Hillary; but they're not engaging in this kind of behavior.
If they were, would you make the same disclaimer?

Maybe you can explain why those opposing Hillary aren't behaving like those who oppose Trump. :dunno:
 
Seahawk said:
Oh my gosh, what a baby.

Do you find Hillary's comment about nuclear war acceptable?

Do you think some of the rhetoric on the left could be responsible for this violence?
Click to expand...

It's not being a baby. You said you didn't imply anything. That is bull. And this isn't hairsplitting.

If you weren't trying to imply anything, here's how that's worded: "So, Hillary has had some divisive rhetoric and is scaring people about nukes: do you find that acceptable?" The way you worded it is assumptive, and clearly implies that you have already arrived at an answer & just want to confirm.

I think they're 2 different animals, but I don't find Hillary's scare tactics acceptable. My comments about Trump were strictly in terms of his rhetoric that divides us - by ethnicity, by religion, by politics, by color, by gender...whatever it might be. Of course, if you pit groups against each other, what will likely ensue?

Again, it comes down to degrees. I don't really want to get into the same discussion I had with you about lying. There are clearly different levels for this. I think all candidates have divisive rhetoric. I think Trump has ratcheted it up to a higher level - in many ways, I think it's what his campaign has been about. And like I said, I've never seen a candidate do it like he does with ethnicity, religion and other more sensitive associations, all under the false guise of "not being pc."
 
Last edited:
You should be more accurate, that wasn't protesters, it was an angry mob who isolated and attacked people.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OH, COM'ON!!

There are people who feel the same way about Hillary; but they're not engaging in this kind of behavior.
If they were, would you make the same disclaimer?

Maybe you can explain why those opposing Hillary aren't behaving like those who oppose Trump. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I've done that. Read.
 
Thing1 said:
You can mention it, but to imply that I'm okay with it?

Fuck you, you fucking insufferable moron.
Click to expand...

Here's a prime example.
Two people are both exercising their right of free speech and look who's the first one that has to result to vulgarity to express themselves.
Would you like to throw a few eggs and rocks at him also?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Here's a prime example.
Two people are both exercising their right of free speech and look who's the first one that has to result to vulgarity to express themselves.
Would you like to throw a few eggs and rocks at him also?
Click to expand...

And he lied about what I said. Funny that you ignored that. Couldn't be because he's on the right, could it?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Here's a prime example.
Two people are both exercising their right of free speech and look who's the first one that has to result to vulgarity to express themselves.
Would you like to throw a few eggs and rocks at him also?
Click to expand...

Also, the bolded is absolutely hilarious from a Trump supporter.
 
Thing1 said:
It's not being a baby. You said you didn't imply anything. That is bull. And this isn't hairsplitting.

If you weren't trying to imply anything, here's how that's worded: "So, Hillary has had some divisive rhetoric and is scaring people about nukes: do you find that acceptable?" The way you worded it is assumptive, and clearly implies that you have already arrived at an answer & just want to confirm.

I think they're 2 different animals, but I don't find Hillary's scare tactics acceptable. My comments about Trump were strictly in terms of his rhetoric that divides us - by ethnicity, by religion, by politics, by color, by gender...whatever it might be. Of course, if you pit groups against each other, what will likely ensue?

Again, it comes down to degrees. I don't really want to get into the same discussion I had with you about lying. There are clearly different levels for this. I think all candidates have divisive rhetoric. I think Trump has ratcheted it up to a higher level - in many ways, I think it's what his campaign has been about. And like I said, I've never seen a candidate do it like he does with ethnicity, religion and other more sensitive associations, all under the false guise of "not being pc."
Click to expand...

Thanks for finally answering the question. Once again, you basically apologize for Clinton. On the one hand you say it is not acceptable, but hey, it is about degrees so Trump is bad and Hillary not so much. Telling people you should not vote for someone because they will start a nuclear war is as high as you can ratchet it.
 
Seahawk said:
Thanks for finally answering the question. Once again, you basically apologize for Clinton. On the one hand you say it is not acceptable, but hey, it is about degrees so Trump is bad and Hillary not so much. Telling people you should not vote for someone because they will start a nuclear war is as high as you can ratchet it.
Click to expand...

It's not degrees on that last point. It's 2 completely different topics. Within the context of this thread, I brought up DIVISIVE rhetoric- pitting groups against one another, because that obviously is connected directly to confrontation.

At best, it's a goalpost move to jump in and say, "what about the nuke fearmongering!" It's really more of a strawman, though. And Trump has a lot of his own fearmongering rhetoric in that regard.

If you want to talk about fearmongering rhetoric, that's fine - but it's a separate conversation. I had been talking about divisive rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top