Trump's Support

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2016, 08:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: It doesn't mitigate anything but that is not what I did.

I said anyone who acts violently is responsible for the own actions.

I said Drumpf deserves some blame for encouraging those actions.

Two true statements.

Neither takes blame from the other but applies blame to both.

Are those "catch phrases" trade marked?

You're funny.

First of all: Keep digging that hole.

Secondly: As I asked before. List anything that supports Trump is to share any blame for folks attacking his supporters simply because they attend one of his rallies.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2016, 08:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: It means that SSF said Drumpf had said hardly anything to encourage such actions.

Yet again you abdicate personal responsibility for one's actions.  If Trump's words spawn such violence why are his opponents responsible for an inordinate amount of the violence?  Is he responsible for his opponents as well as his supporters?

Quote:He deserves blame for encouraging them.  Pretty clear to anyone who isn't trolling.  Even after I explained it above.

Some, sure.  But we're talking on the order of 95/5 here.  Someone could tell me to act violently all day, if I act violently I'm still responsible for my actions.  Given your argument who is responsible for these rioter's actions?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2016, 07:28 PM)GMDino Wrote:  

Then condemn their violence without mitigating it.  You're a borderline invertebrate in these posts.

Quote:I simply posted a video of Drumpf saying "mean things" in response to your suggestion: :

My suggestion that words don't, ever, justify violence?  Well played master of the internets.  

Quote:I don't blame Drumpf for what his supporters do.  I blame him for encouraging them to do it.  Same as I blame anyone who encourages the protesters to act violently.  Or really anyone who encourages violence as an any kind of answer.

Do you blame the actual protesters for acting violent is the question.  Failing that, who do you claim bears responsibility for their actions?  The world wants to know.

Quote:Difference there.  

So when you drag me back in to it at least do it honestly.

Or don't be a jellyfish and actually answer questions posed to you based on your own statements.  Sorry, there is no safe space here for you to retreat to.

Quote:Otherwise the rest of your post is your opinion on how this country is going and any discussion will go round and round.

It wouldn't go "round and round" if you actually sacked up and answered the questions posed to you.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I do believe there are some blaming that LA Times editor for tweeting out how if Trump comes to you city then you should riot. I do believe the guy has been suspended for it as well and I believe criminal charges should be brought. You know the whole you can't yell fire in a crowded theater free speech argument?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2016, 09:59 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I do believe there are some blaming that LA Times editor for tweeting out how if Trump comes to you city then you should riot. I do believe the guy has been suspended for it as well and I believe criminal charges should be brought. You know the whole you can't yell fire in a crowded theater free speech argument?

The LA times is a shell of its former self.  Much like the NYT it is desperate to stay relevant in the internet age.  Such partisan hackery has no place in the fifth estate, he shouldn't be suspended, he should be fired.  Failing to do so only further relegates legitimate journalists to the dustbin of history.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(06-04-2016, 10:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The LA times is a shell of its former self.  Much like the NYT it is desperate to stay relevant in the internet age.  Such partisan hackery has no place in the fifth estate, he shouldn't be suspended, he should be fired.  Failing to do so only further relegates legitimate journalists to the dustbin of history.

All newspapers are pretty much irrelevant but that doesn't mean people still don't follow them. There are people out there looking for any excuse to be stupid and this guy gave them that excuse it gives the aggressors legitimacy. 

The problem, or one of the problems I have with Trump is that he acts, thinks and talks like the average person on the street, he has no buffer in his brain to tell if he should or shouldn't say or do something and that can be dangerous in the highest political office in the land.

I like Clinton even less than Trump though and a vote for a third party is pretty much out of the question since I don't want Clinton nominating up to 4 Supreme Court Justices(which is just an estimate I've heard) and completely changing the United States into some left wing utopia.

[BmorePat87]

(06-04-2016, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I compared the mentality of suggesting what someone says or does somehow excuses them being physically assaulted.

In the video provided 2 men are physically assaulted for doing nothing more than carrying a sign. A woman has eggs thrown at her and when see sorta laughs off that assault they throw a bottle at her because she is wearing a shirt folks don't like.



 

Yea, but sometimes people are justified in being assaulted because of what they say or do... you can't EVER say that about rape, so your comparison was just awful.

And, no, I'm not saying anyone in the video you posted deserved it. 

Let's just cut out the rape talk. I actually agree that this behavior is criminal and inexcusable.

[GMDino]

(06-04-2016, 08:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all: Keep digging that hole.

Secondly: As I asked before. List anything that supports Trump is to share any blame for folks attacking his supporters simply because they attend one of his rallies.

First just because you can understand doesn't mean it is wrong.

Secondly I responded to this request...asking again doesn't mean anything.

(06-04-2016, 09:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yet again you abdicate personal responsibility for one's actions.  If Trump's words spawn such violence why are his opponents responsible for an inordinate amount of the violence?  Is he responsible for his opponents as well as his supporters?



Some, sure.  But we're talking on the order of 95/5 here.  Someone could tell me to act violently all day, if I act violently I'm still responsible for my actions.  Given your argument who is responsible for these rioter's actions?

I did no such thing.  I said in a direct quote that they are responsible for their own actions...AND...Drumpf is responsible for encouraging it.

Two different responsibilities...but are to blame for their own actions.

Not that hard to understand unless someone is trying to protect one from blame while blaming the other.

(06-04-2016, 09:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then condemn their violence without mitigating it.  You're a borderline invertebrate in these posts.



My suggestion that words don't, ever, justify violence?  Well played master of the internets.  




Do you blame the actual protesters for acting violent is the question.  Failing that, who do you claim bears responsibility for their actions?  The world wants to know.




Or don't be a jellyfish and actually answer questions posed to you based on your own statements.  Sorry, there is no safe space here for you to retreat to.




It wouldn't go "round and round" if you actually sacked up and answered the questions posed to you.

To the bolded:  I did.  And have already quoted it twice.

As to the rest I quoted your assertion.  I responded to it.

I've posted my actual quotes and yours.  How that makes me a "jellyfish" is a bit of a question.  Has your account been taken over by Lucy?

Sorry if I'm not manly enough for you because I already answered your questions but you don't like them.

You can go argue with someone else now.  I'll sleep secure without being in a "safe place" I suppose.

Edit: I really thought you were above the internet tough guy posts. Kind of disappointed you are stooping to it.

Meanwhile...

(06-04-2016, 09:59 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I do believe there are some blaming that LA Times editor for tweeting out how if Trump comes to you city then you should riot. I do believe the guy has been suspended for it as well and I believe criminal charges should be brought. You know the whole you can't yell fire in a crowded theater free speech argument?

(06-04-2016, 10:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The LA times is a shell of its former self.  Much like the NYT it is desperate to stay relevant in the internet age.  Such partisan hackery has no place in the fifth estate, he shouldn't be suspended, he should be fired.  Failing to do so only further relegates legitimate journalists to the dustbin of history.

Oh!  So words do have consequences?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2016, 01:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, but sometimes people are justified in being assaulted because of what they say or do

You and I are frequently on the same side, but this statement cannot be more false.  Nothing someone says justifies physically attacking them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2016, 01:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: First just because you can understand doesn't mean it is wrong.

Secondly I responded to this request...asking again doesn't mean anything.

No, you really didn't.  Go back and read.

Quote:I did no such thing.  I said in a direct quote that they are responsible for their own actions...AND...Drumpf is responsible for encouraging it.

You absolutely did not.  Words are not the same as actions.

Quote:Two different responsibilities...but are to blame for their own actions.

Not that hard to understand unless someone is trying to protect one from blame while blaming the other.

The voice of experience.

Quote:To the bolded:  I did.  And have already quoted it twice.

Post the examples then.

Quote:As to the rest I quoted your assertion.  I responded to it.

Post the examples then.

Quote:I've posted my actual quotes and yours.  How that makes me a "jellyfish" is a bit of a question.  Has your account been taken over by Lucy?

No, feel free to refute by actually posting your argument.

Quote:Sorry if I'm not manly enough for you because I already answered your questions but you don't like them.

You didn't, but I accept your apology as the obvious deflection it is.

Quote:You can go argue with someone else now.  I'll sleep secure without being in a "safe place" I suppose.

More of the same cowardly retreat, I accept it as such.

Quote:Oh!  So words do have consequences?  

They absolutely do, actions having much more consequences.  Familiriaze yourself with the difference.

[BmorePat87]

(06-05-2016, 01:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You and I are frequently on the same side, but this statement cannot be more false.  Nothing someone says justifies physically attacking them.

Someone says "I am going to ***** stab you" and lunges at you with a knife.

That justifies someone using physical force against them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2016, 01:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Someone says "I am going to ***** stab you" and lunges at you with a knife.

That justifies someone using physical force against them.

Then I can assume you can cite such an occurrence regarding Trump?

[Rotobeast]

(06-05-2016, 01:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Someone says "I am going to ***** stab you" and lunges at you with a knife.

That justifies someone using physical force against them.

I would wager a court would find being lunged at with a knife to be the acceptable reason for use of physical force.

There are no justified reasons for physical force to counter verbal abuse.
That being said, there are many that may be somewhat "forgivable".
(ie:Westboro incidents)

[JustWinBaby]

This thread is a pathetic demonstration of liberal lack of logic.

Trump is an asshole. The criminal demonstrators are thugs.

[BmorePat87]

(06-05-2016, 02:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then I can assume you can cite such an occurrence regarding Trump?

No, but I never said anyone in that crowd was excused in their attack on innocent Trump supporters. 

Sometimes the context of side conversations can get muddled in big threads like this. I suggested we stop comparing things to rape and then when someone clarified their comparison, I voiced my disagreement that what people say or do can justify assault against them. Clearly that's not the case here, but it can be. I even clarified that no one in the video "was asking for it".

[GMDino]

(06-05-2016, 06:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This thread is a pathetic demonstration of liberal lack of logic.

Trump is an asshole.  The criminal demonstrators are thugs.

While I used the word "responsible" vs thugs.  This "liberal" agrees.

[GMDino]

(06-05-2016, 01:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you really didn't.  Go back and read.




You absolutely did not.  Words are not the same as actions.



The voice of experience.





Post the examples then.





Post the examples then.




No, feel free to refute by actually posting your argument.



You didn't, but I accept your apology as the obvious deflection it is.




More of the same cowardly retreat, I accept it as such.








They absolutely do, actions having much more consequences.  Familiriaze yourself with the difference.

This is the whole "round and round" thing I mentioned that  you took as me having to "sack up".

I answer, I post quotes from other posts, you deny that it answers anything.

Added in now is "Super Internet Guy" calling names and acting tough.

So funny...and kind of sad.

[*bfine32*]

(06-05-2016, 01:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Someone says "I am going to ***** stab you" and lunges at you with a knife.

That justifies someone using physical force against them.

So the example you provided has more than just saying something; it includes an action.

For the second time I did not compare the action(s) to rape; I compared the mentality of those that mitigate the act. If I were to compare the acts I would have said "this is akin to raping someone".

[GMDino]

Drumpf's African American supporter.

http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2016/06/trump-look-my-african-american-over-0

How very PC of him. 

Also, seems his supporter punched a guy who was simply wearing a KKK outfit. 

1) Is like raping someone because of the clothes they have on?
2) Now at least Drumpf knows that the KKK is bad.

[Rotobeast]

(06-05-2016, 01:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: 2) Now at least Drumpf knows that the KKK is bad.

Well,yeah.....
An important guy like Trump doesn't have time for wasting his intellectual powers on something like the Klan.
I mean..... he didn't even know who David Duke was.

Oh..... I also heard that snarks prey upon jellyfish.
Be careful, my friend.