D
Donald Trump
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
The GOP is a dumpster-fire, and it'll be nice to see the party fracture into two after this election.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
It sure is helping America if it means that Trump rallies are getting cancelled
Sure, if you like shutting down free speech because you disagree with it. Then it's a good thing. I like free speech though, and support everybody's right to be heard, so even though I detest Trump and think his followers are idiots, I don't like it.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
how many posters on jazzfanz have you reported to the mods?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
protesting is a form of free speech as well. They just knew it would get shut-down because the combined IQ of Tump + his followers equates to roughly one used condom.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
At least eleventy billion. And how does this apply?
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Not all forms of protesting are equal, either. I don't like a society where we violently protest people because we don't like their ideas. I don't think it promotes healthy discussion, and I have a hard time believing you as an intellectual could be in favor of something like this. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if it was Sanders instead of Trump.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Wait, who's violently protesting?
Umm there's only one group of violent protesters here dude. And it aint Bernie.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
a harmless act of free speech
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
This is so damn stupid to say. I think Trump is a buffoon, and I find it ridiculous that he says incendiary things and apparently cannot bring himself to apologize for anything, but the fact is that the vast majority of the violence during the Chicago event was done by people holding Bernie posters. From the Trump side there was that one geriatric guy who threw an unprovoked punch and then said some stupid **** (this didn't even happen in Chicago but I'm trying to be generous to your argument because I do believe it's fair to say it has had a rollover effect). On the Bernie side there were people storming the stage, people fighting with cops, people blocking traffic, people rioting. The comparison of violence on one side vs the other isn't even close.
Sadly, there is obviously some serious dissatisfaction in Chicago. I understand that they don't like Trump, but I think in reality they are protesting a lot more than just him. And one thing they are protesting but don't even realize is the political corruption and left wing policies that have put Chicago's poorest citizens in such an economic tailspin.
Red
Well-Known Member
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.""
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:
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
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.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
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.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
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 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