What's new
By:

Donald Trump

No surprise that many of the protesters at Trump rallies support Sanders. But Sanders was quick to point out that it's not a case of that was planned by Sanders, as Trump has been claiming. Also, Trump has been referring to protesters as "the people who are destroying America", and these are not the people who will "make America great again", and these are "bad, bad people". Actually, they are his fellow Americans. Actually they are the fellow Americans of his followers. But, he is willing to in effect demonize protesters as the worst of America. Now, he also sends a message to his followers that their willingness to beat up protesters at his rallies can be seen as resulting from a "beautiful thing", namely their great love for their country. Tell me I'm the worst America has produced, hey? Lol. Well, I would shout him down at a rally too. I'd like to think I would have shouted other fascist hate mongers down as well. Free speech is one of the fundamental "rights of man", but I'm sure many are beginning to feel a moral obligation to protest the rallies of a hate mongering fascist...

Trump's followers all love America. Anybody who protests Trump's message basically is un American. This is one of the core messages Trump is conveying regarding the violence at his rallies. And of course, this makes him a "unifier". He actually demonizes any American who disagrees with him, making it far more likely his followers will continue to attack protesters at his rallies. Protesters are not "fellow Americans" They are the enemies of America.

And, it is not just one 78 year old sucker punching a black protester in Fayetteville. Attacks on protesters at Trump rallies has been going on for many months, as enumerated here, with links to each of those rally incidents:

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11202540/trump-violent

"What's arguably even more alarming than what Trump says in the heat of a rally to his supporters is what he says about them and to them after the fact.

Here's what he said when asked by CNN's Jake Tapper during Thursday night's debate about the violence at his rallies:

'We have 25,000, 30,000 people, they come with tremendous love and passion for the country. You're mentioning one case, I haven't seen, I heard about it, which I don't like. When they see what's going on in this country, they have anger that's unbelievable. They love this country.

They don't like seeing bad trade deals, higher taxes, they don't like seeing a loss of their jobs where our jobs have just been devastated. And I know -- I mean, I see it. There is some anger. There's also great love for the country. It's a beautiful thing in many respects. But I certainly do not condone that at all, Jake.'

Trump went on to say inaccurate things about protesters throwing the first punch, and about police removing protesters. But while it's easy to criticize Trump for saying things that are wrong, there are things that are more dangerous than simply lying about the facts. And this part of Trump's response was one of them.

Jake Tapper simply asked whether Trump had done anything to encourage violence. He didn't ask about "passion," or about "love for the country," which is what Trump talked about. Trump drew a connection between the "beautiful" "passion" that his supporters feel for America and the inescapable fact that his supporters keep beating people up at his rallies.

This isn't about the message Trump is communicating to the press or to voters. It's about the message he is sending to his followers. Trump effectively communicated to his followers that it is good and natural, that their frustration with the state of the country shows itself in the desire to beat people up. That it's "beautiful.""
 
Last edited:
Red said:
Jake Tapper simply asked whether Trump had done anything to encourage violence. He didn't ask about "passion," or about "love for the country," which is what Trump talked about. Trump drew a connection between the "beautiful" "passion" that his supporters feel for America and the inescapable fact that his supporters keep beating people up at his rallies.
Click to expand...
I am anti Trump and I think his rhetoric should disqualify him from being president, but the fact you are purporting above does not seem at all inescapable to me. I am aware of an old man who threw a punch. I saw some confrontations inside the arena after the cancellation of the Chicago event but it was unclear to me who was initiating the violence and who was defending themselves in those situations. Please show me the evidence that his supporters keep beating people up at his rallies.
 
#bern said:
I don't disagree with what Obama said up there, but you could easily apply it to the democrats as well, in many situations.
Click to expand...

I tire of the false equivalence. It's like everytime I talk to my Tea Bagger brother about what's happening with the Republicans, and how it is being controlled by its more radical elements, he always responds with something like, "Well, yeah, the left is just as bad. What about George Soros? What about Al Sharpton? What about Black Lives Matter? Etc." The fact that NONE of these individuals or movements have remotely near the power over the Democratic party, its policies, or its candidates as the Tea Party, Evangelicals, and now proto - authoritarians who support Trump, is of no consequence. Rather than acknowledge the obvious problem of the radical tail wagging the Republican dog, to him Al Sharpton is equivalent to Donald Trump. Un, f'n believable.

Whenever somebody on the right raises Al Sharpton as a point in comparison, implying that Al Sharpton has some mystical control over the Left, that is a clear sign that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by talking with this person. It reminds me of trying to debate people from other Christian sects on my mission when they quoted "Revelation 22: 18-19 about not adding to the Bible, it was a clear sign to me that talking to this person would be absolutely fruitless. It is that sort of unthinking, and uncritical use of a standard and dumb talking point that clearly signals that you are dealing with someone who's not serious about trying to understanding anything.
 
Somewhat related to this thread, here's a story on Rubio. This is the guy that some Republicans could lead them to the promised land. Now, take what you read here with a grain of salt, but a picture is emerging of Rubio as an empty suit, with little to no real accomplishments to his name, aside from being appointed to or wining public office, where he consistently did nothing of consequence. It seems from the beginning his sole ambition was to move up the political ladder, never to actually make a difference or to serve the public. An ambitious tool but with little to no actual competence for governing. In the end, he's equally as, if not more, unqualified for the highest office in the land than Trump.

I suspect that much of the same can be said of Cruz, an ambitious tool with zero regard for the actual public well-being, only what's good for Ted's political ambitions, although, unlike Rubio, he does appear to actually have done something of reasonable consequence with his life.

Ladies and gentlemen, here's the top Republican wanna-bees, Trump, Cruz and Rubio, what a triumvirate of unqualified douche bags! Romney was actually someone of substance, back in the day Republican's actually cared about the quality of the person who leads this country (although even this, this was debatable).

https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_sla..._lazy_underhanded_say_ex_florida_friends.html
 
I'd take an unqualified "empty suit" over Donald without hesitation.

As for Cruz vs Trump? Well, that's harder. I'd live with Cruz, but I wouldn't like it. Crazy to think I'd want a Christian conservative over anyone, ever. The marriage of religion and political ideology is pretty deplorable to me, and threatening to me. But Nothing is worse than what Trump is selling.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I tire of the false equivalence. It's like everytime I talk to my Tea Bagger brother about what's happening with the Republicans, and how it is being controlled by its more radical elements, he always responds with something like, "Well, yeah, the left is just as bad. What about George Soros? What about Al Sharpton? What about Black Lives Matter? Etc." The fact that NONE of these individuals or movements have remotely near the power over the Democratic party, its policies, or its candidates as the Tea Party, Evangelicals, and now proto - authoritarians who support Trump, is of no consequence. Rather than acknowledge the obvious problem of the radical tail wagging the Republican dog, to him Al Sharpton is equivalent to Donald Trump. Un, f'n believable.

Whenever somebody on the right raises Al Sharpton as a point in comparison, implying that Al Sharpton has some mystical control over the Left, that is a clear sign that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by talking with this person. It reminds me of trying to debate people from other Christian sects on my mission when they quoted "Revelation 22: 18-19 about not adding to the Bible, it was a clear sign to me that talking to this person would be absolutely fruitless. It is that sort of unthinking, and uncritical use of a standard and dumb talking point that clearly signals that you are dealing with someone who's not serious about trying to understanding anything.
Click to expand...

I read "You're worse people than us!"

I'm so tired of the polarized childish arguments. Follow the money son.
 
Jamezz said:
I read "You're worse people than us!"

I'm so tired of the polarized childish arguments. Follow the money son.
Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly a sub-text.

Yep, things ARE polarized, and one side bears the overwhelming responsibility for it. It's hardly childish to point out, and express concern, about the unqualified and dangerous proto - authoritarians and religious zealots the Republicans have put forward for the highest office in the land. Were the Republicans putting forward candidates of substance, interested in the messy process of governing, then things would be different. But they haven't so it isn't.

I believe strongly in the value of the two-party system, assuming both sides make a good faith effort to govern. No side has all the answers (up until only recently I've voted Republican almost as much as Democrat), but the scales have become unbalanced. To bring things back to balance, either the Republicans need to break free of the dominance their unhinged base has on the party, or it needs to blow the thing up and start again. The status guo is not sustainable; it will break eventually under the weight of the ideological inflexibility of the doctrinaire right. In my view, the sooner the better before more damage is done than later, when there is even greater potential for lasting damage.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Well, that's certainly a sub-text.

Yep, things ARE polarized, and one side bears the overwhelming responsibility for it. It's hardly childish to point out, and express concern, about the unqualified and dangerous proto - authoritarians and religious zealots the Republicans have put forward for the highest office in the land. Were the Republicans putting forward candidates of substance, interested in the messy process of governing, then things would be different. But they haven't so it isn't.

I believe strongly in the value of the two-party system, assuming both sides make a good faith effort to govern. No side has all the answers (up until only recently I've voted Republican almost as much as Democrat), but the scales have become unbalanced. To bring things back to balance, either the Republicans need to break free of the dominance their unhinged base has on the party, or it needs to blow the thing up and start again. The status guo is not sustainable; it will break eventually under the weight of the ideological inflexibility of the doctrinaire right. In my view, the sooner the better before more damage is done than later, when there is even greater potential for lasting damage.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It has been going on long enough that trying to place majority blame is simply wasted effort IMO. They both deserve mountains of blame. Enough to make pointing fingers pointless.

I agree that the status quo is not sustainable. I am hoping that a Trump and Clinton primary wins lead to mass revolt to the two party system. There are to many complex issues to fit everyone onto two groups.

The Rs are not capable of fixing this alone because they are not the sole cause of the problem.

I know we won't agree and not really interested in a debate. Just throwing out my .02
 
Stoked said:
I disagree. It has been going on long enough that trying to place majority blame is simply wasted effort IMO. They both deserve mountains of blame. Enough to make pointing fingers pointless.

I agree that the status quo is not sustainable. I am hoping that a Trump and Clinton primary wins lead to mass revolt to the two party system. There are to many complex issues to fit everyone onto two groups.

The Rs are not capable of fixing this alone because they are not the sole cause of the problem.

I know we won't agree and not really interested in a debate. Just throwing out my .02
Click to expand...

Well my friend, your .02 is always appreciated.
 
Gameface said:
I'd take an unqualified "empty suit" over Donald without hesitation.

As for Cruz vs Trump? Well, that's harder. I'd live with Cruz, but I wouldn't like it. Crazy to think I'd want a Christian conservative over anyone, ever. The marriage of religion and political ideology is pretty deplorable to me, and threatening to me. But Nothing is worse than what Trump is selling.
Click to expand...
Yep
Anyone but trump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top