protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally

Thing1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't think nuke fear mongering is divisive? Damn dude, you really like to split hairs.
 
Seahawk said:
Lol, how can a question not be honest? By that way, since you said Trump lies and it is his strategy, he cannot be a pathological liar.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a firm understanding of the pathology. For starters, I don't think there is any doubt that Trump is a pathological liar. If you want to google it, there are plenty in the field who have weighed in on this.

But he also understands human psychology. You can be a pathological liar, and STILL like intentionally when it suits your needs. In his 1st book, he talks about the benefits of exaggeration.
 
Seahawk said:
You don't think nuke fear mongering is divisive? Damn dude, you really like to split hairs.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you even think that's splitting hairs. They are 2 completely different things.

It's hard talking to you, because you tend to lump broad concepts in together. Fearmongering rhetoric and divisive rhetoric are (generally) 2 completely different things.

How is nuke fearmongering divisive in the same way that pitting whites against Mexicans is?
 
anatta said:
you should source articles like that -my suggestion -to futher the discussion
Click to expand...

The story was initially on my news feed this morning; but when I went back, everything was updated.
I was able to find the same story, on another site though.

Protesters punch, throw eggs at Trump supporters in San Jose

Donald Trump supporters leaving the presidential candidate’s rally in San Jose were pounced on by protesters, some of whom threw punches and eggs.

A dozen or more people were hit and car windows were broken. Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire on the ground. At least one woman was pelted with an egg.

Police stood their ground at first but after about 90 minutes moved into the remaining crowd to break it up and make arrests. At least four people were taken into custody, though police didn’t release total arrest figures Thursday night. One officer was assaulted, police Sgt. Enrique Garcia said.

There were no immediate reports of injuries and no major property damage, police said.

Trump holds a rally Friday afternoon at the airport in the much smaller and more conservative city of Redding, where the high temperature could reach 102 degrees. Redding, far away from the large urban areas of San Francisco and Sacramento, and the anticipated triple-digit heat could make for a smaller and less active crowd.

Thursday night’s crowd, which had numbered over 300 just after the rally, thinned significantly as the night went on, but those who remained near the San Jose Convention Center were rowdy and angry.

Some banged on the cars of Trump supporters as they left the rally and chased after those on foot.

Mayor Sam Liccardo, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, criticized Trump for coming to cities and igniting problems that local police departments had to deal with.

“At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” Liccardo told The Associated Press by phone.

Clinton and Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders will also make campaign stops in the state on Friday in California as they look to Tuesday’s state primary.

Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, spoke for about 50 minutes at the rally, sniping at Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and calling her speech on foreign policy earlier in the day “pathetic” and “sad to watch.”

Protesters before the speech included Adam Rivas, a 22-year-old community college student who was born and raised in San Jose. He was holding a spray-painted sign that read “Dump Trump.”

Rivas said he was particularly disturbed by Trump’s remarks about Mexicans.

“For any one Mexican here he bashes, there are about 20 Mexicans out there who are hard-working and just doing their job,” he said.

Trump supporter Debbie Tracey, a U.S. Navy veteran from San Jose, said she came to hear Trump speak, and left his rally with two hats, a T-shirt and a handful of signs that said “Veterans for Trump.”

Passing in front of a wall of protesters, many chanting in Spanish, she said she supported Trump’s call for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I’ll go help build the wall because if you are going to come to this country, land of opportunity, you should be here legally,” she said.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't think you have a firm understanding of the pathology. For starters, I don't think there is any doubt that Trump is a pathological liar. If you want to google it, there are plenty in the field who have weighed in on this.

But he also understands human psychology. You can be a pathological liar, and STILL like intentionally when it suits your needs. In his 1st book, he talks about the benefits of exaggeration.
Click to expand...

pathological liar
Examples
noun
1.
a person who tells lies frequently, with no rational motive for doing so
 
Seahawk said:
pathological liar
Examples
noun
1.
a person who tells lies frequently, with no rational motive for doing so
Click to expand...

That's a dictionary definition, but you clearly don't have a deeper understanding of the pathology. It's not mutually exclusive (i.e. the fact that pathological liars tell most of their lies without awareness or purpose does not mean they are incapable of strategically lying).
 
Thing1 said:
I can't believe you even think that's splitting hairs. They are 2 completely different things.

It's hard talking to you, because you tend to lump broad concepts in together. Fearmongering rhetoric and divisive rhetoric are (generally) 2 completely different things.

How is nuke fearmongering divisive in the same way that pitting whites against Mexicans is?
Click to expand...

She driving a hard wedge between the left and right. She is basically telling his supporters that if you vote for Trump, you are voting for nuclear war.

I can't believe you don't think that is not divisive.
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
That's a dictionary definition, but you clearly don't have a deeper understanding of the pathology. It's not mutually exclusive (i.e. the fact that pathological liars tell most of their lies without awareness or purpose does not mean they are incapable of strategically lying).
Click to expand...

LOL. I see this is going to be another terrorism fiasco. You are shown the actual or textbook definition, but then claim that is not the true definition according to you.

Go ahead and just continue to make up your own meaning for words.
 
Seahawk said:
You're driving a hard wedge between the left and right. She is basically telling his supporters that if you vote for Trump, you are voting for nuclear war.

I can't believe you don't think that is not divisive.
Click to expand...

That's a stretch. It's more classic fearmongering.

I mean, try to put it in the context of the discussion we're having on this thread. Trump pits groups against one another according to ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. I think it's naive to think you won't create confrontation w/ that.

Do you really put nuke fearmongering on that same level? And btw, Trump has engaged in similar rhetoric on terrorism, and invoking that fear. How is that really creating differences based on some personal characteristic, and creating confrontation?

Total stretch. You really don't understand basic concepts. (it's a lot like Yurt, but I shouldn't really say that, I know).
 
Seahawk said:
LOL. I see this is going to be another terrorism fiasco. You are shown the actual or textbook definition, but then claim that is not the true definition according to you.

Go ahead and just continue to make up your own meaning for words.
Click to expand...

If you think you can boil something as complex as a pathology like the one we're talking about into a one-line dictionary definition, you're pathetic.

Say it right now: is your claim that those diagnosed as pathological liars have no ability whatsoever to tell a lie intentionally?

Say it.
 
Thing1 said:
And he lied about what I said. Funny that you ignored that. Couldn't be because he's on the right, could it?
Click to expand...

OHHHHHHHHHHHH; so you feel his misrepresentation or misinterpretation of what you meant, caused you to react the way you did.
In other words; he's responsible for your behavior.
 
Thing1 said:
That's a stretch. It's more classic fearmongering.

I mean, try to put it in the context of the discussion we're having on this thread. Trump pits groups against one another according to ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. I think it's naive to think you won't create confrontation w/ that.

Do you really put nuke fearmongering on that same level? And btw, Trump has engaged in similar rhetoric on terrorism, and invoking that fear. How is that really creating differences based on some personal characteristic, and creating confrontation?

Total stretch. You really don't understand basic concepts. (it's a lot like Yurt, but I shouldn't really say that, I know).
Click to expand...

And Hillary is pitting the left (a group) against the right and with her fear mongering, the division is driven to greater heights. If I believed her about the nuclear war, I might think about doing anything to stop Trump, including getting violent.

Yeah, fall back on the Yurt thing when you can't really support your notions.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OHHHHHHHHHHHH; so you feel he misrepresented or misinterpreted what you meant, caused you to react the way you did.
In other words; he's responsible for your behavior.
Click to expand...

Nah - I take responsibility for my behavior. But I don't like it when people like about me, so yeah, I'll curse.

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities. Maybe you'd have respected my words better if I added that Megyn Kelly had blood coming out of her wherever.
 
Thing1 said:
If you think you can boil something as complex as a pathology like the one we're talking about into a one-line dictionary definition, you're pathetic.

Say it right now: is your claim that those diagnosed as pathological liars have no ability whatsoever to tell a lie intentionally?

Say it.
Click to expand...

This is part of your problem, you don't understand the meaning of words. The definition did not mention intentional lying. Go back and read it again.
 
Rana said:
It's also hilarious coming from USF
Click to expand...

I SEE.
Your interpretation of my behavior is now being used as an excuse of others behavior.

Is that another way of saying that liberals aren't responsible for their choices; because it's the fault of someone else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top