Trump's Support

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2016, 09:16 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If I can convince a jury that I had a reasonable fear of an imminent threat of force that accompanied those words, then, yes, it is justified.

I get your point but convincing a jury doesn't really justify anything, it merely renders you not legally liable.  In such an instance you're going to need a lot more than actual words though, the circumstances are going to have to warrant a reasonable fear for your safety.  Just to clarify, you're not making this argument for those rioters are you?

Quote:I understand where this is getting muddled up. I never suggested that anyone who was attacked at the Trump rally acted in a manner that warranted violence. I concurrently suggested that the attacks were unprovoked while also stating I disagreed with the notion that one's words and actions can't ever justify assault. It's odd that I have to keep saying this, but I believe numerous people are trying to lump my position in with another poster's. 

You just threw the word actions in there.  I don't think anyone would argue that the actions of another couldn't justify physical force against them.

Quote:I certainly agree that it is ironic that the liberals are the ones getting upset at speech. I certainly do not agree with violence nor do I believe that anything stated warranted these unprovoked attacks. I find it out of character for you to suggest that I do as I have always found your posts grounded in reason and logic. 

If you feel attacked in this thread I honestly apologize.  Disagreement does not have to be coupled with disdain.  You are also likely correct that you've been lumped in with others in this thread.

Quote:It's not contradictory to say that Trump has been irresponsible in advocating for violence while also holding the opinion that he is free to voice any and all of the opinions he has voiced. 

Not contradictory but it is exculpatory.  The violence from these morons should be condemned, period, with no codicils.  Like I said many posts ago, any extremist group should be able to march in any area without violence being done to them.  Extreme views are not a license for physical battery against their holders. 

[GMDino]

(06-06-2016, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Since I never said anyone in this thread made this claim I feel rather free to not need to provide an example of one.  You do seem to harbor a bit of a guilty conscious though

(06-06-2016, 01:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The ironic thing about this whole "debate" is that left leaning types are now directly assaulting the first amendment.  Words are only acceptable if I agree with them, if they differ I can meet them with physical violence and claim the mortal high ground in so doing.  Quite honestly, the tyranny from the left in this regard is just as insidious and odious as that coming from the right in the days after 9/11.  Maybe it doesn't bother you because you agree with the current oppression?  Myself I'll take freedom of expression, without fear of physical reprisal, in every instance because this country was founded on it.  Feel free to disagree, the Constitution allows for that.

(06-06-2016, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Chortle, you're like a drowning man grasping at anything.  Words have consequences, they just don't justify physical violence.  Again, since you seem to have trouble with this; just like the Hedbo attacks you don't get to say, the terrorists were wrong BUT Hedbo shouldn't be insulting islam.  By the same token you don't get to say the rioters were wrong BUT Trump created this toxic atmosphere.

Say it with me now, the terrorists were wrong.  Done.  The rioters were wrong.  Done.

And you still haven't show where I or anyone else said anything different in this thread.  The one where you have wasted two days making up something that never happened and providing not one single quote to support your stance.

Still pretty good at breaking up response in order to respond though....so you know how to use the quote function.

And I'm not even to go into your delusion that Trump has never said anything to incite violence.  I did that already and you made it into me blaming him and not the protesters.

[GMDino]

(06-06-2016, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not contradictory but it is exculpatory.  The violence from these morons should be condemned, period, with no codicils.  Like I said many posts ago, any extremist group should be able to march in any area without violence being done to them.  Extreme views are not a license for physical battery against their holders. 

And should we not also condemn such language?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2016, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote:  

Still waiting were I said someone in this thread was doing it.  You do understand English right?

Quote:And you still haven't show where I or anyone else said anything different in this thread.  The one where you have wasted two days making up something that never happened and providing not one single quote to support your stance.

Again, when you seek to justify the actions of someone by citing the words of another you are excusing the behavior.  Much like the islamic apologists who said the Hedbo attacks were wrong BUT Hedbo shouldn't be insulting islam.

Quote:Still pretty good at breaking up response in order to respond though....so you know how to use the quote function.

It's not that complicated.  I suppose anything that one can't personally do can be impressive though.

Quote:And I'm not even to go into your delusion that Trump has never said anything to incite violence.  I did that already and you you made it into me blaming him and not the protesters.

Never said that either, feel free to prove otherwise.  Much like the thread in which you claimed the police unjustifiably shot a man who was pointing a gun right at them you're floundering in this thread.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2016, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: And should we not also condemn such language?

Absolutely, just not with physical violence.

[*bfine32*]

(06-06-2016, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not contradictory but it is exculpatory.  The violence from these morons should be condemned, period, with no codicils.  Like I said many posts ago, any extremist group should be able to march in any area without violence being done to them.  Extreme views are not a license for physical battery against their holders. 

It is similar to saying:

Did she burn the meatloaf? Yes

Did she break the dish? Yes

Is he resposible for assaulting her? Yes

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2016, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get your point but convincing a jury doesn't really justify anything, it merely renders you not legally liable.  In such an instance you're going to need a lot more than actual words though, the circumstances are going to have to warrant a reasonable fear for your safety.  Just to clarify, you're not making this argument for those rioters are you?





You just threw the word actions in there.  I don't think anyone would argue that the actions of another couldn't justify physical force against them.



If you feel attacked in this thread I honestly apologize.  Disagreement does not have to be coupled with disdain.  You are also likely correct that you've been lumped in with others in this thread.



Not contradictory but it is exculpatory.  The violence from these morons should be condemned, period, with no codicils.  Like I said many posts ago, any extremist group should be able to march in any area without violence being done to them.  Extreme views are not a license for physical battery against their holders. 

If I stopped a potential assault and I'm not liable for my actions, it was justified. And to answer your clarification for the 5th or so time, no. Those criminals had zero justification.

If someone says "something someone says or does", I should read that as "words and actions", right? Things you do are your actions.

You'll find that we are in agreement on a lot in this thread. 

I'm not suggesting Trump's words justified any attacks, I'm saying they were irresponsible for someone in his position of power. If you praise the fact that a man punches a random protester unprovoked at your rally, you're encouraging more people to do so.

[BmorePat87]

Just a thought and a few questions:

As a teacher, it would be irresponsible for me if I told students that I wish someone would punch a student who was disrupting my class or who was disagreeing with my lesson.

Would I be responsible if one of my students attacked that kid?

Would I be responsible if that student who I singled out then attacked another student in my class who agreed with me?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(06-06-2016, 01:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just a thought and a few questions:

As a teacher, it would be irresponsible for me if I told students that I wish someone would punch a student who was disrupting my class or who was disagreeing with my lesson.

Would I be responsible if one of my students attacked that kid?

Would I be responsible if that student who I singled out then attacked another student in my class who agreed with me?

If you say, "Someone should punch student "A"" and someone does right then and there, yes, you are responsible.

If you say, "Someone should punch student "A"" and a month later someone gets up and punches student "B" because student "B" agreed with you, then no you are not responsible.

EDIT: You should be reported by a student backed up by other students and fired though, that's for sure.

[Rotobeast]

(06-06-2016, 01:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just a thought and a few questions:

As a teacher, it would be irresponsible for me if I told students that I wish someone would punch a student who was disrupting my class or who was disagreeing with my lesson.

Would I be responsible if one of my students attacked that kid?

Would I be responsible if that student who I singled out then attacked another student in my class who agreed with me?

As your students are under 18 (most likely) and you have accepted the mantle of stewardship, absolutely.

If the assailant is over 18, then no.
You should, however, be reprimanded for providing a terrible example for the youth.

[BengalsRocker]

You guys can argue all you want but it seems like these aggressors are just opportunists.

They see something the can get rowdy for and jump at it.

Like Rodney King riots and taking it out on innocent people, property, and businesses.

Hate to break it to you guys but my Mom leans Dem and my Dad leans Repub.

They take turns going to each other's candidate's rallies.

So yeah they probably aren't the norm when it comes to politics.

Now how stupid would it be if either one of them were assaulted outside a rally?

Did my Mom or Dad "have it coming to them" because they wanted to listen to a man talk... and perhaps one they had zero intention for voting for?

No. This behavior is not acceptable.

The assumption that anyone willing to attend or even listen to Trump is a racist is just not true.

Just like doing that for Hillary and assuming that they are some tree hugging bleeding heart liberal that loves to hand out everything and give away our Constitutional rights.

Both are very extreme judgements that only small minded people partake in.

[GMDino]

(06-06-2016, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Still waiting were I said someone in this thread was doing it.  You do understand English right?

I do! And when you said "debate" I figure you meant this one in this thread as included the word in quotes. Did you mean anyone ever in the history of everything? Then you are probably right that someone said something that dumb.

(06-06-2016, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, when you seek to justify the actions of someone by citing the words of another you are excusing the behavior.  Much like the islamic apologists who said the Hedbo attacks were wrong BUT Hedbo shouldn't be insulting islam.

Again, did someone somewhere make that jump in logic? Probably. It has zero to do with this thread.

(06-06-2016, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not that complicated.  I suppose anything that one can't personally do can be impressive though.

Yet you can't find a quote to support you argument...you just say "no you didn't".

(06-06-2016, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Never said that either, feel free to prove otherwise.  Much like the thread in which you claimed the police unjustifiably shot a man who was pointing a gun right at them you're floundering in this thread.

(06-04-2016, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here I call complete bullshit.  He can say whatever he wants, none of his words give anyone the right to use violence on anyone else.  The worst thing he said in this regard iirc, is something along the lines of, "In the old days a person would be scared to protest like that because of what would happen to them".  What these anti-Trump protesters are doing is so far beyond the pale of acceptable behavior it honestly saddens me that you, or anyone, would even attempt to minimize or explain it away.  The Klan, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, La Raza, any of those types of groups should be able to march anywhere without being physically attacked.  To claim otherwise, or to excuse the behavior of anyone attacking someone else, is complete crap and hypocrisy of the highest order.

That exact quote, in bold, was the one I responded to when I shared videos and audio of Trump say worse than what you "recalled".

It was not excusing the violent actions of others. I agreed they were 100% responsible for their own actions.

It was blaming him for what he said.

Personal responsibility.

Something Trump is not very good at.

And, apparently, neither are those supporting him.

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2016, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If you say, "Someone should punch student "A"" and someone does right then and there, yes, you are responsible.

If you say, "Someone should punch student "A"" and a month later someone gets up and punches student "B" because student "B" agreed with you, then no you are not responsible.

EDIT: You should be reported by a student backed up by other students and fired though, that's for sure.

HAHA, I definitely agree with you on all of this, especially that I should be fired in that scenario.

(06-06-2016, 01:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: As your students are under 18 (most likely) and you have accepted the mantle of stewardship, absolutely.

If the assailant is over 18, then no.
You should, however, be reprimanded for providing a terrible example for the youth.

Fair points made. Certainly an irresponsible example on my part.

[GMDino]

(06-06-2016, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If you say, "Someone should punch student "A"" and someone does right then and there, yes, you are responsible.

If you say, "Someone should punch student "A"" and a month later someone gets up and punches student "B" because student "B" agreed with you, then no you are not responsible.

EDIT: You should be reported by a student backed up by other students and fired though, that's for sure.

(06-06-2016, 01:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: As your students are under 18 (most likely) and you have accepted the mantle of stewardship, absolutely.

If the assailant is over 18, then no.
You should, however, be reprimanded for providing a terrible example for the youth.

Agreed.  Actions have consequences.

So do words.

[GMDino]

(06-06-2016, 12:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nevermind.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/06/donald-trump-african-american-gregory-cheadle-npr-news/85477062/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/trump-fake-photo?utm_term=.ts7gxj4QZ#.vebl4LmdJ

Quote:We Spoke To The Family In This Trump Tweet And They’re Not Happy

The picture was not taken at a Trump rally, but rather at a black family reunion in Cincinnati last year.

Originally posted on Jun. 4, 2016, at 2:14 p.m.Updated on Jun. 4, 2016, at 2:36 p.m.

On Saturday morning, Donald Trump shared a tweetfrom a supporter that purported to show a black family on the “Trump Train.”


Twitter
“American Families for Trump: We need a common sense PRESIDENT,” the caption attached to the photograph reads.
The photo was originally shared by @Don_Vito_08 on Saturday morning, just three minutes before Trump’s tweet. A small watermark of the Twitter account’s avatar is visible in the bottom-right of the picture.


Twitter
In March, Trump was criticized for sharing an unflattering image of Heidi Cruz compared with his wife, Melania. That tweet and image also came from @Don_Vito_08.


Twitter
Neither the Trump campaign nor @Don_Vito_08 responded to requests for comment from BuzzFeed News on Saturday.
As many people on Twitter were quick to point out, the photograph first appeared last year on an article from Cincinnati station WCPO about the Midwest Black Family Reunion in August.


WCPO / Via wcpo.com
The family in the photo are identified only as “the Perry family.”
The image is among the first pictures that pop up on Google when you search for “black family.”


Google
BuzzFeed News can reveal the parents in the photograph, pictured at right, are Eddie and Vanessa Perry — and they are not endorsing or publicly supporting any political candidate during the 2016 election.
Eddie Perry, who lives in Cincinnati, told BuzzFeed News his family has previously attended several of the Midwest Black Family Reunion Events and he remembers having his photograph taken last year. “It was no big deal,” he said.


facebook.com
On Saturday morning, however, a friend texted him a screenshot of Trump’s tweet. “When I saw it, I immediately knew it was political propaganda,” he said.


facebook.com
“Why use it without asking for someone’s permission?” he asked. “Why use our image without asking?”
The other people in the picture are friends of the family, Perry said.
It’s not the first time Trump has shared something fake on Twitter. In November last year, Trump tweeted an image from a supporter that contained entirely fake statistics on race and crime.


Twitter
At a rally on Friday in California, Trump offended many when he pointed to a black man in the crowd and said, “Oh, look at my African-American over here. Look at him. Are you the greatest? You know what I’m talking about.”


youtube.com

Eddie Perry said the picture of his family that Trump shared was “misleading” and “taken out of context.”

“I’m not saying there aren’t black families who endorse Trump,” he said, “however, this black family didn’t endorse anyone

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2016, 03:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/trump-fake-photo?utm_term=.ts7gxj4QZ#.vebl4LmdJ

So many of the African Americans are his friend and support him though.

The blacks know he isnt racist. You guys will all see soon enough the oompa loompa's orange asshole isnt really racist.

Even though his African American he praised for supporting him at a rally the other day wasnt really there to support him, and the picture of a black family supporting him was bogus... He has tons of support outside of angry white guys who hated Obama. He said himself he cant lie. This is such an honest nice guy. I know I believe his load of bullshit.

[Rotobeast]

(06-06-2016, 03:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/trump-fake-photo?utm_term=.ts7gxj4QZ#.vebl4LmdJ

Quote:“Why use it without asking for someone’s permission?” he asked. “Why use our image without asking?”

While still really stupid, this is the price we pay for sharing our images on the internet.
Nearly every site and app that we share our pics on has licensing agreements in which we waive our rights of ownership to these images.
Trump could have likely requested permission from Twitter or paid them.
It's still a dumb move.

The Crime Stats info graph was a troll from 4chan.
Trump's camp was still dumb as hell for not fact-checking.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-06-2016, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Good luck with that in this thread....

Why do you say "good luck"? That sentence was right on the mark.