And the great admission tour continues..

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2016, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote: The phrase "JUST feeling threatened" doesn't seem dismissive to you? 

Trump offered to pay the legal fees of a man who punched a protestor. Was that a VIRTUAL punch? Or how are you defining "actual"? One of us may indeed not realize the difference.

The second link mentions another protestor hit with a sign, another kicked, and still another punched in the face.  Why do you call this "rhetoric and not actual acts of violence"?

This was all over the news during the campaign. You missed it?

First of all we must understand who introduced violence into this thread and who tried to make a  witty"biased' remark about such violence. 

Secondly, just feeling threatened IMO absolutely pales in comparison to someone actually having acts of violence committed toward them. It's your choice if you view that opinion as dismissive.

Finally any rational person can plainly see the stark difference in these reported acts of violence. One occurs when people are simply going to support their candidate and the second occurs when folks go to a place, at which, their only reason for being present is to agitate and often times conduct acts of violence (throwing objects) themselves. Apparently, you do not see the difference; perhaps because you are so blinded by your hate of the results of the National Election. There once was a time you were one of the more open-minded posters in this forum; however, lately, you have made Dino seem insightful and unbiased. 

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 06:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Didn't Bernie's group also yell "lock her up" at the Democrat rallies?
Russians Did It!
 "You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it."

I don't recall Bernie supporters yelling that. Perhaps they did. How did Bernie respond?

Mike, do you think Mexico is sending the US rapists? Are you for the Muslim ban and building the wall? Would you agree
that it is pretty hard for a woman to be a 10 if she's flat chested? Was Obama born in Kenya? Are Muslims threatening to impose Sharia law on the US? Is Obama himself a Muslim?

There is some evidence a large number of Trump supporters would answer "yes" to the above questions and the majority of Democrats would answer "no."  Or do you disagree? Perhaps you maintain there is no way we can tell?

Were endorsements for Clinton and Trump equally divided along the Storm Front? Or did one candidate attract more white nationalists than the other? 

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 06:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all we must understand who introduced violence into this thread and who tried to make a  witty"biased' remark about such violence. 

Secondly, just feeling threatened IMO absolutely pales in comparison to someone actually having acts of violence committed toward them. It's your choice if you view that opinion as dismissive.

Finally any rational person can plainly see the stark difference in these reported acts of violence. One occurs when people are simply going to support their candidate and the second occurs when folks go to a place, at which, their only reason for being present is to agitate and often times conduct acts of violence (throwing objects) themselves. Apparently, you do not see the difference; perhaps because you are so blinded by your hate of the results of the National Election. There once was a time you were one of the more open-minded posters in this forum; however, lately, you have made Dino seem insightful and unbiased. 

What was "biased " about my remark? Are you saying that Hillary did express a desire to punch people, call the press scum, etc.
Why is it "biased" to suggest Hillary did not do that?

I don't think having someone break into your home and write "Trump" and the n word all over you walls necessary pales to a kick or a punch. May depend on the person.  Sometimes people leave their home state just because of such threats. Black people were kept from the polls during segregation years by threats. Threats based upon religious, racial and ethnic differences are to be taken seriously.

And finally, any rational person can see that people are allowed to protest at Trump rallies. They are exercising their freedom of speech.  It is their constitutional right to be present to agitate. Trumpsters have that right too. Neither side has a right to do violence to the other for protesting.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-20-2016, 07:00 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't recall Bernie supporters yelling that. Perhaps they did. How did Bernie respond?

Mike, do you think Mexico is sending the US rapists? Are you for the Muslim ban and building the wall? Would you agree
that it is pretty hard for a woman to be a 10 if she's flat chested? Was Obama born in Kenya? Are Muslims threatening to impose Sharia law on the US? Is Obama himself a Muslim?

There is some evidence a large number of Trump supporters would answer "yes" to the above questions and the majority of Democrats would answer "no."  Or do you disagree? Perhaps you maintain there is no way we can tell?

Were endorsements for Clinton and Trump equally divided along the Storm Front? Or did one candidate attract more white nationalists than the other? 

What??  Clinton had the endorsement of 5/6 of the major news outlets, pretty much the same ration of the "celebrity" community, and you have the audacity to question weather Hillary was represented with enough endorsement?  Dill, you're much better than that..

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 07:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What??  Clinton had the endorsement of 5/6 of the major news outlets, pretty much the same ration of the "celebrity" community, and you have the audacity to question weather Hillary was represented with enough endorsement?  Dill, you're much better than that..

Sunset I don't dispute that Clinton had more celebrity endorsements. Trump is having trouble getting A-list performers for his inauguration.

Also, I would say that Hillary had ALL of the major news outlets.

My reference was to STORM Front, the alt right forum with supposedly 300,000 members.  My question was, who got the White Nationalist vote, not who got the most newspapers or celebrities.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2016, 07:14 PM)Dill Wrote: What was "biased " about my remark? Are you saying that Hillary did express a desire to punch people, call the press scum, etc.
Why is it "biased" to suggest Hillary did not do that?

Her VP candidate did, but I assume that doesn't count. As I said you are blinded and it is affecting your once sound points, but please carry on, just don't be surprised if your dance partners become fewer and fewer. 

[SunsetBengal]

(12-20-2016, 07:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Sunset I don't dispute that Clinton had more celebrity endorsements. Trump is having trouble getting A-list performers for his inauguration.

Also, I would say that Hillary had ALL of the major news outlets.

My reference was to STORM Front, the alt right forum with supposedly 300,000 members.  My question was, who got the White Nationalist vote, not who got the most newspapers or celebrities.

Then, you may want to re-read your post, as that is not the way it is worded.  However, even if the so-called "alt-right" numbered 300,000, not sure how 1/10 of 1% of the US population has that much sway on the voting populous.  When talking about having a deck stacked against them, just google groups sponsored by George Soros.  What Trump pulled off was a grass roots campaign that touched the everyday citizen of the US, rather than some short sighted appeal to the metro areas.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 07:22 PM)Dill Wrote: My reference was to STORM Front, the alt right forum with supposedly 300,000 members.  My question was, who got the White Nationalist vote, not who got the most newspapers or celebrities.

I'm sure Obama got the majority, if not all, of black nationalist organization votes as well.  You think Hillary or Trump got the Nation of Islam vote? 

You're tried this argument before, it hasn't improved with time.

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You fail in this thread, and many others, due to your dogged insistence that one side or the other has a monopoly on "X".  Anyone with a grain of common sense knows this is hardly the case, yet you seem enamored of the idea.  Fakenews?  Only the right engages in that.  Violent rhetoric/action?  Only the right wing engages in that.

You will continue to be wrong on this type of issue until you realize how blindly partisan you are.  Notice the most respected posters around here; Belsnikel (sp?), Zona, Benton and others all have the ability to divorce themselves from their personal opinion and comment based on fact.  Your comments suggest you have yet to acquire this skill.

What apparently started this dust up was my implication that Hillary's rhetoric was not nearly so violent as Trump's. A factual record of Clinton calling reporters scum, desiring to punch protestors, and offering to pay legal fees for people who do violence to protestors, would effectively refute my implication.

 But until I see evidence of that, Trump definitely has a MONOPOLY on this "X".

In any case my issue is not "monopolies" but false equivalencies--as if Clinton's rhetoric were really no different than Trump's because she once called a portion of Trump supporters "deplorables".

Then look at the mad scramble to lever the subject to "actual violence" to find some shred of "just as bad" to create an equivalence.


This is not different from previous disputes I have had with you. I provide you with a list of links of "right" news sources doing X and liberal doing Y, and wait for your counter factuals. But they don't come.  Just a lame insistence no one has a “monopoly”; “both sides” do it. And you muddy the waters additionally by attributing claims to me I have never made. I suggest you "unacquire" that skill if you want to have productive discussion with people who support their claims with factual record.

It is not logically consistent to continually ignore a presentation of factual record, then accuse the presenter of ignoring facts while refusing a similar presentation yourself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: What apparently started this dust up was my implication that Hillary's rhetoric was not nearly so violent as Trump's. A factual record of Clinton calling reporters scum, desiring to punch protestors, and offering to pay legal fees for people who do violence to protestors, would effectively refute my implication.

 But until I see evidence of that, Trump definitely has a MONOPOLY on this "X".

In any case my issue is not "monopolies" but false equivalencies--as if Clinton's rhetoric were really no different than Trump's because she once called a portion of Trump supporters "deplorables".

Then look at the mad scramble to lever the subject to "actual violence" to find some shred of "just as bad" to create an equivalence.

This argument really does you no favors.  I would agree that Trump's campaign rhetoric was far more aggressive, use "violent" if you want, than Clinton's.  Yet, it was Clinton supporters going to Trump rallies and physically attacking people.  This did not occur in reverse.  It was a Clinton supporter who went to a Trump rally with the intent to assassinate him, albeit in half-assed manner.  It was Clinton supporters sending electors death threats in an attempt to get them to vote for a president other than Trump.  That being the case we should be thankful Hillary reigned herself in on the rhetoric, imagine how much more violent her supporters would have been if she hadn't?!  The mind bottles.

Quote:This is not different from previous disputes I have had with you. I provide you with a list of links of "right" news sources doing X and liberal doing Y, and wait for your counter factuals. But they don't come.  Just a lame insistence no one has a “monopoly”; “both sides” do it. And you muddy the waters additionally by attributing claims to me I have never made. I suggest you "unacquire" that skill if you want to have productive discussion with people who support their claims with factual record.

There's a thread directly below this one with a concrete example.  It's not easy to miss, why haven't you commented in it?  I suspect I have a fair idea why. 

Quote:It is not logically consistent to continually ignore a presentation of factual record, then accuse the presenter of ignoring facts while refusing a similar presentation yourself.

I stated the fact that I wasn't interested in tracking down examples at that time and stated then that I would present them as I now see them.  I have followed through on that promise this very day and will continue to do so.  See for yourself and dissemble some more afterwards.

[*Nately120*]

I wouldn't mind if democrats and republicans declared outright war on each other...but isn't it possible that Trump is "to blame" for violence caused by people who support him and people who don't support him? The guy has made a killing off of our natural tendencies to form alliances and wage war on enemy factions but we are supposed to blame Hillary and Obama when a democrat punches someone?

If I punch a Trump supporter is Gary Johnson to blame, since I voted for him? Also, since when could some liberal wimp punch a republican and not get shot? I guess taking a selfie of your boo-boo is more important than beating the aggressor to a pulp these days. Feh, Trump really HAS dismantled the GOP, hasn't he?!

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 07:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Then, you may want to re-read your post, as that is not the way it is worded.  However, even if the so-called "alt-right" numbered 300,000, not sure how 1/10 of 1% of the US population has that much sway on the voting populous.  When talking about having a deck stacked against them, just google groups sponsored by George Soros.  What Trump pulled off was a grass roots campaign that touched the everyday citizen of the US, rather than some short sighted appeal to the metro areas.

You may have misunderstood the intent of my post. I was not about "deck stacking" of any sort or who had the most appeal. (In any case, Hillary clearly won more votes.) It was an indication of one group Clinton might be referring to when she mentioned "deplorables" among Trump supporters.

The number 300,000 is claimed by the website. No one knows whether that is more or less the number who use it.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-20-2016, 08:24 PM)Dill Wrote: You may have misunderstood the intent of my post. I was not about "deck stacking" of any sort or who had the most appeal. (In any case, Hillary clearly won more votes.) It was an indication of one group Clinton might be referring to when she mentioned "deplorables" among Trump supporters.

The number 300,000 is claimed by the website. No one knows whether that is more or less the number who use it.

No, I'm pretty sure that I understood the intent of your post quite correctly.  You seem to be intending that me (a white guy) and those like me, were somehow biased against Hillary Clinton.  All I can say is this;  It took plenty of White folk to elect Barack Obama.  Perhaps those same folk didn't feel the need to vote for Hillary Clinton?

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 08:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This argument really does you no favors.  I would agree that Trump's campaign rhetoric was far more aggressive, use "violent" if you want, than Clinton's.  Yet, it was Clinton supporters going to Trump rallies and physically attacking people.  This did not occur in reverse.  It was a Clinton supporter who went to a Trump rally with the intent to assassinate him, albeit in half-assed manner.  It was Clinton supporters sending electors death threats in an attempt to get them to vote for a president other than Trump.  That being the case we should be thankful Hillary reigned herself in on the rhetoric, imagine how much more violent her supporters would have been if she hadn't?!  The mind bottles.

There's a thread directly below this one with a concrete example.  It's not easy to miss, why haven't you commented in it?  I suspect I have a fair idea why. 

I stated the fact that I wasn't interested in tracking down examples at that time and stated then that I would present them as I now see them.  I have followed through on that promise this very day and will continue to do so.  See for yourself and dissemble some more afterwards.

So then I was not "biased" in implying the Clinton's rhetoric was less violent, but factually correct?

The earliest incidents of campaign violence recorded appear to be of protestors were being punched by Trump supporters at rallies; the more violent ones in California come later. But I so far have not made the case that Trumpsters had a monopoly on campaign violence. No sense refuting an argument I never made--or is there?

Why not name the thread you are referring to? I have no idea what you are talking about. A guy who doesn't "dissemble" should be less coy. You say you finally followed through with a promise?

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 08:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No, I'm pretty sure that I understood the intent of your post quite correctly.  You seem to be intending that me (a white guy) and those like me, were somehow biased against Hillary Clinton.  All I can say is this;  It took plenty of White folk to elect Barack Obama.  Perhaps those same folk didn't feel the need to vote for Hillary Clinton?

Mike was apparently trying to create an equivalence between Trump's rhetoric and Hillary's. That is what I was addressing as part of the larger issue of whether Trump's rhetoric was more violent.

Whether Hillary had more Hollywood support or help from Soros has nothing to do with that issue. 

Lots of white folks voted for Hillary this time around too. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 08:34 PM)Dill Wrote: So then I was not "biased" in implying the Clinton's rhetoric was less violent, but factually correct?

I believe that's what the English words I typed in the post you quoted state.

Quote:The earliest incidents of campaign violence recorded appear to be of protestors were being punched by Trump supporters at rallies; the more violent ones in California come later. But I so far have not made the case that Trumpsters had a monopoly on campaign violence. No sense refuting an argument I never made--or is there?

Unfortunately, you did make that claim.  When you discuss campaign violence and only reference incidents involving Trump supporters as the aggressors you make that very argument.  Not including the incidents of Clinton supporter violence, which more objectively much more severe in scope, is lying by omission.  I'm starting to get why you have a hard time connecting the similarities between HuffPo and Breitbart.

Quote:Why not name the thread you are referring to? I have no idea what you are talking about. You say you finally followed through with a promise?

I'm not your mom, I don't have to hold you hand when you cross the street.  As for you last sentence, a sad attempt.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-20-2016, 08:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike was apparently trying to create an equivalence between Trump's rhetoric and Hillary's. That is what I was addressing as part of the larger issue of whether Trump's rhetoric was more violent.

Whether Hillary had more Hollywood support or help from Soros has nothing to do with that issue. 

Lots of white folks voted for Hillary this time around too. 

Not according to your post earlier, the one that I first responded to.  But, yeah, plenty of White folk voted for Hillary, just not nearly as many that jumped on board with Obama.  Heck, if you look into the stats, Obama lost plenty of votes v. Romney.  Hillary thinking that her corrupt, old crusty ass could ever win the favor of the American public was just a pipe dream..

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-20-2016, 08:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I wouldn't mind if democrats and republicans declared outright war on each other...but isn't it possible that Trump is "to blame" for violence caused by people who support him and people who don't support him?  

No, the person doing the punching is responsible in every instance.  I know you're not advocating this (hence the quotes), but the abdication of personal responsibility, especially when it comes to adult's behavior, in this country honestly sickens me.  If I can put up with the stuff I deal with at work every day without punching someone then these people have no excuse.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2016, 08:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike was apparently trying to create an equivalence between Trump's rhetoric and Hillary's. That is what I was addressing as part of the larger issue of whether Trump's rhetoric was more violent.

It has been shown that Clinton supporters were more violent toward Trump supporters than the opposite. It was further shown than Clinton supporters sought out Trump supporters to assault while any Clinton supporter that was assaulted came looking to agitate.

Clinton's rhetoric of "They are going to take this from you" incited far more violence than Trump's "get 'em out of here". I am not sure how many more times you can be told this by various people; a couple of whom that seldom see eye-to-eye. 

 

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 09:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It has been shown that Clinton supporters were more violent toward Trump supporters than the opposite. It was further shown than Clinton supporters sought out Trump supporters to assault while any Clinton supporter that was assaulted came looking to agitate.

Clinton's rhetoric of "They are going to take this from you" incited far more violence than Trump's "get 'em out of here". I am not sure how many more times you can be told this by various people; a couple of whom that seldom see eye-to-eye. 

Well it's been shown that both Trumpsters and Trump protestors were violent towards each other.  But it was never shown that anyone ever disputed that. 

It has not been established that Clinton's rhetoric incited more violence than Trump's. 

Have you considered that protestors sometimes turn to violence, not because of what their own leaders say, but because of stated beliefs of those they are protesting?  E.g., Klan rallies often turn violent, but not because Democrats or anyone else encourage violent protest of such rallies. Rather, groups who feel especially affronted by Klan beliefs often take it upon themselves to start throwing rocks and punches.  If you disagree, why do you think Klan rallies turn violent?