Does Trump inspire hate from his followers?

[BmorePat87]

(12-11-2019, 04:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Seriously?   Do i honestly still need to prove TDS exists?!?

No, we've seen how deranged Trump has made his supporters. 

[GMDino]

(12-11-2019, 09:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, we've seen how deranged Trump has made his supporters. 

One of my personal favorite parts of every one of those types of videos is how he then strolls in the general direction of where the protester was sitting with his chest out like he's gonna go up there HIMSELF and take care of things....after the person has already been removed and we all know he doesn't have the stamina to walk the steps to the stage let alone to the top of the arena.

[GMDino]

They seem nice.

These deluded suckers are willing to go to war in defense of their clown dictator. Hello, cult.pic.twitter.com/fmLh7RITpP

— Bob Cesca (@bobcesca_go) December 11, 2019

 

[BmorePat87]

(12-12-2019, 02:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: They seem nice.

These deluded suckers are willing to go to war in defense of their clown dictator. Hello, cult.pic.twitter.com/fmLh7RITpP

— Bob Cesca (@bobcesca_go) December 11, 2019

 

First guy is just a lunatic. 2nd guy and 3rd guy just expressing how they think  people would react, with the 3rd guy making some good points about the divide between families. Bless #4's heart when she says she doesn't think he's dumb enough to say anything that will get him in trouble in front of people. I don't think she's been paying attention. I feel bad for #5 for thinking he's "the best president". I feel the same about anyone who would call Obama that too. 

[*jason*]

(12-12-2019, 02:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: They seem nice.

These deluded suckers are willing to go to war in defense of their clown dictator. Hello, cult.pic.twitter.com/fmLh7RITpP

— Bob Cesca (@bobcesca_go) December 11, 2019

 

Big talking p****es just like their boy. He's not gonna be removed but that lazy slob, and his .357 aren't gonna do anything but talk more shit down at the Elks Lodge if he does.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 02:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: They seem nice.

These deluded suckers are willing to go to war in defense of their clown dictator. Hello, cult.pic.twitter.com/fmLh7RITpP

— Bob Cesca (@bobcesca_go) December 11, 2019

 

Who is "they"

First dude is a thimble-dicked bytch; however, the rest seem rational and nice enough. Unfortunately, there are those that would classify them all using the same broad brush

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2019, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Unfortunately, there are those that would classify them all using the same broad brush

Well, not all, just 70-80 million of them would turn violent according to the guy in the video.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 10:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well, not all, just 70-80 million of them would turn violent according to the guy in the video.

Pretty sure we were referring to those in the link shared. How many of "them" did you find issue with? I really only found issue with one. 

As to your off the mark commentary: He said there would be possible violence. No where did he say 70-80 million would turn violent. That's just you making up stuff.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2019, 10:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  No where did he say 70-80 million would turn violent. That's just you making up stuff.

No That is not me "making stuff up"

The guy was talking about a strong movement of 70-80 million angry people "on the loose" who would be "possibly violent"

And another guy predicting a civil war.

I am not the one painting Trump base a violent mob of millions of people.  It is coming from his own followers.  You got a problem with a "broad brush" then take it up with them.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2019, 11:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No That is not me "making stuff up"

The guy was talking about a strong movement of 70-80 million angry people "on the loose" who would be "possibly violent"

And another guy predicting a civil war.

I am not the one painting Trump base a violent mob of millions of people.  It is coming from his own followers.  You got a problem with a "broad brush" then take it up with them.

So nowhere did anyone say 70-80 million folks would turn violent. Thanks for clearing it up.

BTW (surprisingly) you didn't give you opinion on the folks in the link as asked. How many did you find to be unfriendly? Because that was what mt "broad brush"comment was directed to, but don't let that stop you. 

[Bengalzona]

I think he inspires actual hate in a very small minority. But mainly, I think he is just a figurehead for most. I don't think that most are "following blindly". I think they just don't care what he does. They have other issues that are important to them. For some, it is the impact of certain things on their revenue streams. For others, it is the abortion issue and stacking the courts. And others are interested in immigration issues, police issues, gun rights, small government, etc. Some people have multiple issues that he appeals to.

I don't think it is accurate or fair to size up all people who support Trump in a certain way that you group them as one-dimensional. This is what happens with extreme partisanship and the equal and opposite reaction to it from the other side. It makes it easier to shut them out and dismiss their arguments.

I think there is a frustration among people with one partisan view when they try to "reach" supporters of an opposing view with a message and they continually get shut out. And then the first party places blame squarely on the second party for their "inability to consider all of the facts" or "listen to opposing arguments", etc. Could it be that the first party might also share part of the blame in the way they deliver their message and their own attitudes in delivering? Personally, I think it takes two to tango.

I've written the above paragraph using generalities such as "one partisan view" or "supporters of an opposing view" on purpose. This is not a chastisement of one party or ideology. Rather, they all do this. And that is how we get to where we are, IMO.

[masonbengals fan]

Wise words

[Dill]

(12-12-2019, 11:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think he inspires actual hate in a very small minority. But mainly, I think he is just a figurehead for most. I don't think that most are "following blindly". I think they just don't care what he does. They have other issues that are important to them. For some, it is the impact of certain things on their revenue streams. For others, it is the abortion issue and stacking the courts. And others are interested in immigration issues, police issues, gun rights, small government, etc. Some people have multiple issues that he appeals to.

I don't think it is accurate or fair to size up all people who support Trump in a certain way that you group them as one-dimensional. This is what happens with extreme partisanship and the equal and opposite reaction to it from the other side. It makes it easier to shut them out and dismiss their arguments.

Another thoughtful post.  I agree that Trump's base should not be regarded as monolithic. I've said before that it is somewhat motley, including Evangelicals whose one priority is ending abortion and protecting Israel, 4chan trolls who just like to see liberal heads explode when government is broken, out of work miners/union labor who desperately want to believe their jobs will come back, and establishment Republicans who are embarrassed by Trump, but see party goals met in tax cuts, deregulation of environmental protections, and the record number of judicial appointments, so they exchange temporary shame for what they think will be long-term gain--like Gloria Steinem supporting Bill Clinton.

That said, I still think the majority of his base does respond to white identity issues, along with the others just mentioned, and those Trump voters are the least interested in rational debate, data, political history and legal arguments. I say this in part because Republicans had other choices who would have worked for their goals, but went almost en masse for the candidate with the most racialized rhetoric, the guy who scorned "PC" and the filtered speech of candidates who speak to all Americans.

Just suggesting that white identity is a factor in Trump support, however neutrally, feeds that rage, making dialogue even less likely. But I don't think this is an equal and opposite reaction to the other side's rhetoric.  It is a response very much fed, and at least partly managed, by individuals (within and without the party) and organizations who wish to direct and deploy the rage against political opponents.

That is in part why Trump currently has such power over the GOP Senate--to a degree no Dem president has ever had.

(12-12-2019, 11:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think there is a frustration among people with one partisan view when they try to "reach" supporters of an opposing view with a message and they continually get shut out. And then the first party places blame squarely on the second party for their "inability to consider all of the facts" or "listen to opposing arguments", etc. Could it be that the first party might also share part of the blame in the way they deliver their message and their own attitudes in delivering? Personally, I think it takes two to tango.

I've written the above paragraph using generalities such as "one partisan view" or "supporters of an opposing view" on purpose. This is not a chastisement of one party or ideology. Rather, they all do this. And that is how we get to where we are, IMO.

It is indeed possible that the "first party" might share some of the blame for inept delivery.  Since Trump has been elected, a number of "liberals" have addressed the very issue you raise by asking--"Are WE listening well enough?"--and taking steps to hear the other side, sometimes in serious social scientific fashion involving hundreds of interviews and journeys through "red America."  Examples would be Arlie Hochschild's Strangers in their own Land:Anger and Mourning on the American Right (2016). Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal: Or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? (2016), Robert Wuthnow's The Left Behind: Decline and Rage in Small Town America (2018), and more. Not to mention a number of books and articles on political language and Tribalism, which attempt to map where "the other side" is coming from.  There may be positive results from these efforts over the long term. But not yet.

"Both sides" don't seem to be doing this reassessment, however.  As forms, institutions, ideals and norms of public debate break down, it may be mistaken to assume that direct, plain debate--however coupled with "listening"--is the way to address the other side. That seems to invite trolling. One cannot break the "gridlock" until the issue of disinformation is more squarely addressed by a dwindling population of people who still hold to those older ideals and norms. 

One possible option--finally enact some policy or policy which will economically help those who feel Dem-aggrieved. That seems the Warren/Bernie option right now.  But I am not sure that that will work if it is really identity, not economics, which fuels the rage.

[*Nately120*]

Generic question, but when people picture themselves taking up arms in protest and going to war, what are they picturing? Are they shooting people? Who are they shooting? Where are they going? What is going through their minds and how close to the reality of the situation is it?

Do they keep it intentionally vague? I imagine if these people go on a video and promise to kill Nancy Pelosi they'll end up in prison or something. Got to keep it generic, I guess.

[Dill]

(12-23-2019, 11:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Generic question, but when people picture themselves taking up arms in protest and going to war, what are they picturing?  Are they shooting people?  Who are they shooting?  Where are they going?  What is going through their minds and how close to the reality of the situation is it?

Do they keep it intentionally vague?  I imagine if these people go on a video and promise to kill Nancy Pelosi they'll end up in prison or something.  Got to keep it generic, I guess.

Which people are imagining here--Trump supporters?

To answer your question, we would have to figure out whom they are against, who is named by their leader as enemies of America.

[*bfine32*]

(12-23-2019, 11:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Generic question, but when people picture themselves taking up arms in protest and going to war, what are they picturing?  Are they shooting people?  Who are they shooting?  Where are they going?  What is going through their minds and how close to the reality of the situation is it?

Do they keep it intentionally vague?  I imagine if these people go on a video and promise to kill Nancy Pelosi they'll end up in prison or something.  Got to keep it generic, I guess.

Dude, who the hell do you expect to answer this question? We have no idea what they are picturing and if you do; you're either psychotic or a psychiatrist giving it your best guess. 

[*Nately120*]

(12-24-2019, 02:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude, who the hell do you expect to answer this question? We have no idea what they are picturing and if you do; you're either psychotic or a psychiatrist giving it your best guess. 

Maybe someone here had actually asked one of them about it.  I worked with a guy who vowed he would die fighting if the government came to took his guns and I asked what he pictured happening when he thought of that and he couldn't or didn't want to tell me.

[GMDino]

(12-23-2019, 11:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Generic question, but when people picture themselves taking up arms in protest and going to war, what are they picturing?  Are they shooting people?  Who are they shooting?  Where are they going?  What is going through their minds and how close to the reality of the situation is it?

Do they keep it intentionally vague?  I imagine if these people go on a video and promise to kill Nancy Pelosi they'll end up in prison or something.  Got to keep it generic, I guess.

In my experience they picture John Wayne movies and movies in general where the ragtag group takes up arms and joins together to take out (fill in the blank).  Except they think they will move with the efficiency of a "well regulated militia" and not like a bunch of yokel who sight their gns once a year for hunting season.

Half of them couldn't march to the corner let alone Washington.

[GMDino]

Ohio jury convicts man, 30, who punched a protester, 61, outside of a Trump rally last year.

Prosecutors relied, in part, on the man's jail phone calls in which he said "I wanted to knock him out so badly." https://t.co/hyBv8ONERd

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) January 10, 2020

 


https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2020/01/man-convicted-of-assaulting-protester-at-earlier-trump-ohio-rally.html

Quote:...prosecutors argued Frazier was looking for a confrontation with protesters, saying the pickup truck in which he was riding drove past the demonstrators several times. When the pickup stopped for a red light, Frazier shouted at the protesters, prosecutors said.


Frazier reportedly asked Alter if “he wants some” and exited the truck. Alter testified that he said nothing specifically to Frazier before he got out of the truck.


The video shows Alter taking off his cap and saying “Come on.” Defense lawyers argued it indicated Alter was encouraging a fight, WLWT Channel 5 reports. Alter testified that he meant, “Come on, really? You’re going to want to hit me?” the Enquirer reports.

However, prosecutors say phone calls from jail show Frazier was eager for a fight. “I wanted to knock him out so badly,” Frazier said, according to prosecutors. “I couldn’t believe he didn’t go to sleep. ... He must’ve had a good chin because I thought I was hitting him good.”


Frazier landed four punches, prosecutors said. WCPO reports Alter suffered a torn artery in his eye that required surgery. His $350 prescription glasses also were broken.



“This whole time it’s like he really didn’t care,” Alter tells WCPO. "You could tell by some of the things he said from the jail ... it’s like it didn’t matter to him what he did wrong.”

[GMDino]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cpac-chair-matt-schlapp-afraid-for-romneys-safety_n_5e40a048c5b6f1f57f1365d4

Quote:CPAC Chair: Mitt Romney’s ‘Physical Safety’ Would Be At Risk At Conference

Matt Schlapp had previously said the senator wouldn’t be invited after he voted to call witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.


The chairman of the Conservative Political Action Conference warned in an interview Sunday that he would be “afraid” for the “physical safety” of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) if he attempts to attend this month’s annual convention in Maryland.

The ominous warning follows Chairman Matt Schlapp’s Twitter attack on the senator last month after Romney went against the party line to call for witnesses in Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial. Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president, subsequently voted last week to convict Trump of abuse of power, the sole member of the GOP to do so. The senator cited his oath to God and the dictates of his religion to do “my duty.”

Schlapp’s tweet notified Romney that he was “not invited” to CPAC — though it was unclear if the senator ever planned to attend. The tweet included an unflattering, almost frightening, image of Romney.

Quote:
[/url]Matt Schlapp

@mschlapp




BREAKING: The "extreme conservative" and Junior Senator from the great state of Utah, @SenatorRomney is formally NOT invited to #CPAC2020.



53.4K
5:55 PM - Jan 31, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

36K people are talking about this


Schlapp told Greta Van Susteren on “Full Court Press” Sunday that Romney might be allowed to attend the conference — as a “nonconservative” — at some point “in the future.” But he noted that it could be too dangerous for Romney to do so now.

“We won’t credential him as a conservative. I suppose if he wants to come as a nonconservative and debate an issue with us, maybe in the future we would have him come. This year, I would actually be afraid for his physical safety because people hate him so much,” Schlapp said.

Romney has been the subject of nonstop attacks from Trump and other Republicans since he voted to convict last week.
The president has retweeted inflammatory and unfounded conspiracy theories about the onetime GOP standard bearer, and at least one member of his party has called for Romney to be expelled from the Republican caucus.

Schlapp called the political atmosphere in Washington “cancerous.” Ironically, he also told Van Susteren: “We actually need political leaders that can help all of us get to a better place.”



Romney’s office did not immediately respond a request to comment. But Twitter users had plenty to say.

Quote:
Rick Wilson

@TheRickWilson




Closer and closer to saying the quiet part loud. https://twitter.com/JoeMyGod/status/1226628654265851905 …
JoeMyGod

@JoeMyGod

Schlapp: Romney Wouldn't Be "Physically Safe" At CPAC - https://www.joemygod.com/2020/02/schlapp-romney-wouldnt-be-physically-safe-at-cpac/ …




31.9K
5:45 PM - Feb 9, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

9,798 people are talking about this

Quote:
neil pessall@neilpX



Replying to @TheRickWilson

This is really dangerous talk. Republicans apparently have no compunction in encouraging violence.

78
6:51 PM - Feb 9, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

26 people are talking about this

Quote:
whathappensnext@jsdmd2010



Replying to @TheRickWilson

After watching this sordid turn of events with Mitt Romney, it makes more sense how the Republicans stay so united. It’s out of sheer terror of their own party.

107
5:55 PM - Feb 9, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

24 people are talking about this

Quote:
Sue Brovarone@SueBrovarone



Replying to @TheRickWilson

It’s a damn bullhorn between the lines.

13
5:54 PM - Feb 9, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

See Sue Brovarone's other Tweets

[url=https://twitter.com/SueBrovarone]