protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.

So is Trump doing the same thing if he warns that we'll have another WTC-type bombing under Hillary?

Once again, I think you're really stretching. I'm not going to dismiss your premise out of hand, but it's very flighty and theoretical. I can look at what's happening w/ the Trump protests, and a lot of it is clearly (to me) based on the ethnic & religious stuff that he harps on all of the time. We see that in the flags & placards that people have there. I don't see any mushroom clouds.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.

Why won't you just say it? Could you possibly be thinking the the pathology is much more complex than the definition? The definition is one line that describes the gist of the condition. It doesn't talk about the extent of the pathology, and the full-range of what those who have it are capable of.

Have the courage of your convictions: if you think I'm hairsplitting, or being too nuanced, or whatever - just say that you're 100% sure that those diagnosed as pathological liars have no ability whatsoever to tell a lie intentionally.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

How is me questioning your comment about how Trumps comments are a cause of the riots and pointing out your own comment, offending my sensibilities.
You do seem to be needing to finding ways to excuse not only the behavior of the rioters; but your own and the sad part is you're also ignoring it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So is Trump doing the same thing if he warns that we'll have another WTC-type bombing under Hillary?

Once again, I think you're really stretching. I'm not going to dismiss your premise out of hand, but it's very flighty and theoretical. I can look at what's happening w/ the Trump protests, and a lot of it is clearly (to me) based on the ethnic & religious stuff that he harps on all of the time. We see that in the flags & placards that people have there. I don't see any mushroom clouds.

 

[anatta]

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.

pathetic

 

[Celticguy]

pathetic

Seriously. Did "his campaign" organize a mob outside the venue armed with objects to throw and tactics to isolate and target ?

 

[Seahawk]

Why won't you just say it? Could you possibly be thinking the the pathology is much more complex than the definition? The definition is one line that describes the gist of the condition. It doesn't talk about the extent of the pathology, and the full-range of what those who have it are capable of.

Have the courage of your convictions: if you think I'm hairsplitting, or being too nuanced, or whatever - just say that you're 100% sure that those diagnosed as pathological liars have no ability whatsoever to tell a lie intentionally.

I see you didn't go back and read the definition. It says without any rational. You're just making stuff up as usual. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know it is very hard to diagnose someone with compulsive or pathological lying. Even for experts. But, you don't care about what words mean because you can just say something is this because you say so.

 

[Seahawk]

So is Trump doing the same thing if he warns that we'll have another WTC-type bombing under Hillary?

Once again, I think you're really stretching. I'm not going to dismiss your premise out of hand, but it's very flighty and theoretical. I can look at what's happening w/ the Trump protests, and a lot of it is clearly (to me) based on the ethnic & religious stuff that he harps on all of the time. We see that in the flags & placards that people have there. I don't see any mushroom clouds.

I don't think that is the same thing at all. One is about security and someone else harming us. That you can't see the difference has shed some light on why you are so confused about this stuff.

I can see your point about divisiveness, but for me, it is not just pitting races against each other, but the American people at large. The left has whipped up a hysteria over Trump and his supporters. If I was his supporter I would definitely feel like the left is putting a massive wedge between me and the other side. Trump supporters are racist, haters, violent and support nuking another country just because their candidate was supported.

Obama called that kind of rhetoric divisive in 08 and 12. Thanks for not dismissing it outright.

 

[Celticguy]

Pathological or not, she like BO is so comfortable lying that they believe they are good at it.
Neither are good at it and it's so painfully obvious when they do. Then they lie about the lies. And they act surprised when they're called out on it.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I see you didn't go back and read the definition. It says without any rational. You're just making stuff up as usual. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know it is very hard to diagnose someone with compulsive or pathological lying. Even for experts. But, you don't care about what words mean because you can just say something is this because you say so.

This is hard to believe. You are completely ignoring my question, and any more in-depth discussion of the pathology.

Do you really think that one line definition encompasses everything there is to know about that pathology? Yes, or no.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

To Thing!:

I asked you the following question:

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.

And your response was:

I've done that. Read.

I then asked you:

Your comment appears to have been lost in all the discussion.
Rather then reread 60+ responses, could you again explain why those opposing Hillary aren't behaving like those opposing Trump?

To which you responded:

Or maybe you should read what I've wrote about that?

I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

Since it became apparent that you had no intention of showing how you had explained this, I went back, copied all of your posts, and quoted them in order below.

It would be nice if someday, we could stop ascribing the negative actions of a small few to millions of people.

It's a lofty goal - but I think achievable.

Glass houses.

It's a pretty partisan board. The next time you start a thread criticizing someone on the right, just let me know.

Is that really why people start these threads? So we can all line up and one at a time, post something along the lines of "I deplore this activity and unequivocally condemn it on all levels."

What stood out for me on this thread was the generalization, so that's what I commented on. Since you're usual response is "but...Hillary!", you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Rana said it was wrong - she didn't say it was okay.

I haven't seen it, but I hate any violence. The anti-Trump protests I've seen have been lowest common denominator stuff in large part (though there have been some legit protestors). A lot of "F Trump" and aggressiveness. It's a shame, because - as evidence by the OP and subsequent discussion - it gives everyone on "that side" a bad name.

But I do take some exception to the idea that lefties are just supposed to hop on threads like this and condemn the violence, particularly after the generalization that was attached to it.

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.

Well, just to be clear, it's not you who has that expectation of lefties just condemning or renouncing something like this. It's usually the more hardcore righties who seem to have no sense of irony about it when they say it.

It's interesting: why can't I bring up that connection, without it being so black & white & interpreted as me saying that all of it is "trump's fault"?

It reminds me of what it's like when I try to have an honest conversation about terrorism with someone on the right. Inevitably, the lazy argument pops up that all I'm saying is that "it's all America's fault." All that kind of thinking does is shut down discussion.

Anatta, I did not say it's "understandable." Like I said before, that's the same BS I used to get when I'd talk about what motivated terrorists. It was impossible to have an honest discussion on that topic without someone saying that I was blaming America.

If there is a connection between Trump's rhetoric and what we're seeing, should we just ignore that, lest we be seen as justifying that? Why can't we have an honest discussion on that? It will never make sense to me. I don't know what people are afraid of.

It's not justifying anything to talk about the connection.

No, and that's a vast oversimplification of what I said.

I'm talking about a connection, not a justification or excuse. Unless you think it's pure coincidence that we happen to be seeing violence at rallies for the most divisive, incendiary candidate we've had for high office in decades.

Is that what you're saying? Is that what you think?

We've always had divisive rhetoric in campaigns, and supporters have always gotten very passionate and even angry. But we have never seen anything like this, ever.

It's why I brought it up. I think Trump's brand of divisiveness is unique, and worse. He thrives on pitting groups against one another. Even w/ the judge from Indiana who has Mexican heritage - if you have any association with a certain group, you're "them." You're different.

Don't try to compare it to what Hillary says, or what the average political candidate says. There IS a reason that this violence & disruption is following the Trump campaign, and no one else's, nor anyone who we've seen in decades. This is absolutely not a coincidence. And it's okay to talk about that.

Crazy! I was just thinking to myself, "Do you know what this thread is missing? A completely lame comment from Seahawk that ignores the discussion."

Quite a coincidence.

And I said that...where again?

Oh, never mind - this is like that thread where we were talking about Hiroshima, and you said it meant I liked ISIS & & the Nazis & the IRA & the Spanish Inquisition because I didn't bring them up too.

Forgot that was your m.o.

You can mention it, but to imply that I'm okay with it?

Fuck you, you fucking insufferable moron.

I'm asking this sincerely: you don't think the wording of the bolded implies anything?

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."

Just like that, yes.

I've done that. Read.

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

Also, the bolded is absolutely hilarious from a Trump supporter.

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.

Call it what you want. It wasn't honest.

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.

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?

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).

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).

I'll be sure to do that. Thanks for the reminder.

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.

Or maybe you should read what I've wrote about that?

I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

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.

So is Trump doing the same thing if he warns that we'll have another WTC-type bombing under Hillary?

Once again, I think you're really stretching. I'm not going to dismiss your premise out of hand, but it's very flighty and theoretical. I can look at what's happening w/ the Trump protests, and a lot of it is clearly (to me) based on the ethnic & religious stuff that he harps on all of the time. We see that in the flags & placards that people have there. I don't see any mushroom clouds.

Why won't you just say it? Could you possibly be thinking the the pathology is much more complex than the definition? The definition is one line that describes the gist of the condition. It doesn't talk about the extent of the pathology, and the full-range of what those who have it are capable of.

Have the courage of your convictions: if you think I'm hairsplitting, or being too nuanced, or whatever - just say that you're 100% sure that those diagnosed as pathological liars have no ability whatsoever to tell a lie intentionally.

Now you've made 33 posts in which in some of them you made attempts to defend Hillary, in some of them you attempted to denigrate Trump, and in others you were on about other things; but I still do not see a single post of yours that explained why those opposing Hillary aren't behaving like those who oppose Trump?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I don't think that is the same thing at all. One is about security and someone else harming us. That you can't see the difference has shed some light on why you are so confused about this stuff.

I can see your point about divisiveness, but for me, it is not just pitting races against each other, but the American people at large. The left has whipped up a hysteria over Trump and his supporters. If I was his supporter I would definitely feel like the left is putting a massive wedge between me and the other side. Trump supporters are racist, haters, violent and support nuking another country just because their candidate was supported.

Obama called that kind of rhetoric divisive in 08 and 12. Thanks for not dismissing it outright.

Dude, you're incredible. You think the difference between fearmongering on nukes and fearmongering on terrorism is night & day, but fearmongering on nukes is exactly equal of divisive language about ethnicity to you.

I need you to be more intelligent if we're going to continue this discussion. Sorry - there isn't any other way to say it.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Now you've made 33 posts in which some of them you made attempts to defend Hillary, in some of them you attempted to denigrate Trump, and in others you were on about other things; but I still do not see a single post of yours that explained why those opposing Hillary aren't behaving like those who oppose Trump?

LOL - see: comments on Trump's divisive rhetoric on race, ethnicity, religion and gender, among other attributes.

I can't spoon-feed you, USF. If you spent more time reading those posts instead of copying them to your reply, you'd get it. Or maybe not.

 

[Seahawk]

Dude, you're incredible. You think the difference between fearmongering on nukes and fearmongering on terrorism is night & day, but fearmongering on nukes is exactly equal of divisive language about ethnicity to you.

I need you to be more intelligent if we're going to continue this discussion. Sorry - there isn't any other way to say it.

Why don't you enlighten me instead of just claiming it to be so. I'll further explain my reasoning.

Saying if the other person is elected will result in lesser security that will result in more terrorist attacks, is a valid point. It goes directly to an important issue, national security. But to say that just because someone is thin skinned and will nuke a country just because of an insult is ludicrous. He can't push the button alone. It is beyond absurd. However, it is reasonable to say that if someone is weak on security, we will be attacked. But to say Trump can just simply push the button over an insult is hysterical. Also, nothing in Trump's past indicates that he has done anything remotely like that.

 

[Teflon Don]

Such a classy lot are liberal mercinaries.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a return to civil behavior ?
Liberals can't contain their immaturity which I suppose is the perfect sign of immaturity.
It's time to have grownups in government.
#donkeygohome

It is why I have CCW. I would love an excuse to plant one between the eyes of a scum sucking libtard

 

[USFREEDOM911]

LOL - see: comments on Trump's divisive rhetoric on race, ethnicity, religion and gender, among other attributes.

I can't spoon-feed you, USF. If you spent more time reading those posts instead of copying them to your reply, you'd get it. Or maybe not.

You're running Thing and doing a really good job of it.
I said that there are those who feel the same way about Hillary; but they're not engaging in this kind of behavior.

And then I asked maybe you can explain why those opposing Hillary aren't behaving like those who oppose Trump.

Are you going to answer or are you just going to continue to run toward your safe place?

 

[tsuke]

Why don't you enlighten me instead of just claiming it to be so. I'll further explain my reasoning.

Saying if the other person is elected will result in lesser security that will result in more terrorist attacks, is a valid point. It goes directly to an important issue, national security. But to say that just because someone is thin skinned and will nuke a country just because of an insult is ludicrous. He can't push the button alone. It is beyond absurd. However, it is reasonable to say that if someone is weak on security, we will be attacked. But to say Trump can just simply push the button over an insult is hysterical. Also, nothing in Trump's past indicates that he has done anything remotely like that.

actually if trump was thin skinned terrorists would be more afraid to attack the US.

 

[Legion Troll]

actually if trump was thin skinned terrorists would be more afraid to attack the US.

Think so?

How many have attacked the US in the past 10 years?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Why don't you enlighten me instead of just claiming it to be so. I'll further explain my reasoning.

Saying if the other person is elected will result in lesser security that will result in more terrorist attacks, is a valid point. It goes directly to an important issue, national security. But to say that just because someone is thin skinned and will nuke a country just because of an insult is ludicrous. He can't push the button alone. It is beyond absurd. However, it is reasonable to say that if someone is weak on security, we will be attacked. But to say Trump can just simply push the button over an insult is hysterical. Also, nothing in Trump's past indicates that he has done anything remotely like that.

I disagree w/ your characterization. I think Trump ratchets up the fearmongering on terrorism bigtime, and not in a rational way. If he laid out policies that were counter to Clinton's on how to address ISIS and terrorism, and how his way is better than Clinton's, then your argument would have more merit. But "we'll wipe out ISIS so fast that your head will spin" doesn't really cut it. In fact, most in the field think that the policies that he has talked about - many of which would alienate Muslim allies who we need in the region - would be counter-productive.

So, to me, it is just naked fearmongering. You're drawing a distinction between being afraid of getting nuked, an being afraid of a terrorist attack. I just don't see it.

Again, and you'll fault me for this, but I see Hillary as a pretty run-of-the-mill politician. Her dishonesty & fearmongering is playbook stuff, and stuff I've seen from almost every candidate on both sides for years.

I have never seen anyone really pit people against each other based on religion, ethnicity & gender, at least the way Trump does. I don't like Hillary, and don't like what she does in terms of rhetoric. But I don't think it's incendiary. We've seen its clone so many times - and there haven't been the kind of riots & confrontations that we've seen at Trump rallies.

I think those results beg the question: what is different? It's not what Hillary is saying. Politicians have used her brand of fearmongering for decades.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You're running Thing and doing a really good job of it.
I said that there are those who feel the same way about Hillary; but they're not engaging in this kind of behavior.

And then I asked maybe you can explain why those opposing Hillary aren't behaving like those who oppose Trump.

Are you going to answer or are you just going to continue to run toward your safe place?

See my last response to Seahawk. As I said in that post, all we have to do is look at the rhetoric, and the results. We've heard Hillary's kind of stuff for many years, from many different candidates - and no riots.