Trump's Support

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-06-2016, 01:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I did answer it. My answer wasn't what you were expecting because I don't have an answer for what lies in the mind of criminals. I also haven't limited the influence of Trump's rhetoric to just his supporters. I'd advise you to read my posts  more carefully. I haven't placed the blame on one group of supporters. 

With regards to the second part, isn't true that one does not need to wait until they are attacked to defend themselves? Do not err as bfine has and think I am trying to justify attacks on Trump supporters or that this even has anything to do with Trump supporters. I responded to the broad assertion that one's words can never justify assault against them. I absolutely disagree and still do. If one tells me that they are going to harm me and I have reason to believe so, I can be justified in using force to defend myself. This obviously never happened at the Trump rally, but my response to his claim isn't limited to Trump rallies.

That's a slippery slope. If someone is standing in front of you with a knife and they claim they are going to harm you, legally, where is the self-defense if they never actually start to commit an act for you to respond to?

"Reason to believe". Is the belief based on a previous action of the original perpetrator or just in the belief that anyone with a knife and a claim is dangerous? (the latter being more and more applicable in this day and age)

Kind of silly, but depending on a jury, it almost comes down to what they had for dinner the night before. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2016, 01:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Your posts on this issue are here for all to read. One of us definitely has a "unbecoming" view of the matter. We'll let folks determine who that is. 

I'd prefer to not engage in your childish antics in another thread. I've made my thoughts clear and your snarky responses in absence of substance won't change those words. I guess I'll add my new disclaimer with you: if you want to address what I've said, we can. If you want to play with straw men, leave me out, it's only June. It's not the right season for straw men... 

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2016, 01:31 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's a slippery slope. If someone is standing in front of you with a knife and they claim they are going to harm you, legally, where is the self-defense if they never actually start to commit an act for you to respond to?

"Reason to believe". Is the belief based on a previous action of the original perpetrator or just in the belief that anyone with a knife and a claim is dangerous? (the latter being more and more applicable in this day and age)

Kind of silly, but depending on a jury, it almost comes down to what they had for dinner the night before. 

It certainly isn't always legally justified. The jury will determine, but we can both concede that there are times when it is and times when it is not justified. I made no claims at any absolutes in the someone's words justifying assault, just that there are times when they do.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-05-2016, 08:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Many have a voice now that didn't before.

No, it's just that someone is standing up for them from being shamed and mocked for what they value.  It's easy to live in the liberal bubble and think you're the one with heart and the best ideas - because that's what your bubble is constantly telling you.

Not long ago I could say "but at least the crazies don't lead the Repubs like they do on the Dem side".  That's no longer true.  And this is a problem.  Trump and Ted Cruz are a reaction to the fact establishment Repubs are not doing a good job of checking and opposing the radical liberal agenda.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-06-2016, 01:33 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It certainly isn't always legally justified. The jury will determine, but we can both concede that there are times when it is and times when it is not justified. I made no claims at any absolutes in the someone's words justifying assault, just that there are times when they do.

I don't necessarily disagree with the interpretation...if i were in that situation, hard to say that i'd stand around and wait for the attack. Honestly, i've thought about it many times--i tend to play the "what if game" with myself when nothing is going on and i'm bored--and it usually ends up with me waiting until i have something to defend against, beyond words. 

But that's kind of a different discussion from what the current discussion started from, so there's really no need to keep hypothesizing on it. 

[JustWinBaby]

(06-05-2016, 10:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: ...why then has the violence from Trump protesters dwarfed that of his supporters?  Also, why haven't there been attacks by Trump supporters at Clinton or Sanders rally's?

I disagree with maybe 90% of Trump's platform.  But one thing I do appreciate and enjoy is that he doesn't passively take being shamed and attacked for not kneeling before the liberal agenda.

Liberals love to manufacture a war on whatever, and then when you defend yourself twist that into confirmation that you wage the war.  And the dirty secret of this election is that Trump is as scary and damaging to liberals as he is conservatives.  And that's why he's popular.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2016, 01:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: With regards to the second part, isn't true that one does not need to wait until they are attacked to defend themselves? 

You absolutely do need to wait.  By the very nature of the word, defense, you cannot defend yourself until someone takes offensive action against you.  We live in a society in which speech is protected.  You don't go to jail for denying the holocaust or offending someone.  Short of directly advocating violence, which no one can show Trump has done, you do not get to physically attack someone and claim defense unless they physically attacked you first.  This moral cowardice is what paralyses the left at the moment, the need to justify violence by claiming defense against words.  If you disagree, what words do you feel should be criminalized?  Blasphemy?  Against what faith?  Does anything that harms the sensibilities of another warrant legal sanction or physical violence?

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.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2016, 01:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You absolutely do need to wait.  By the very nature of the word, defense, you cannot defend yourself until someone takes offensive action against you.  We live in a society in which speech is protected.  You don't go to jail for denying the holocaust or offending someone.  Short of directly advocating violence, which no one can show Trump has done, you do not get to physically attack someone and claim defense unless they physically attacked you first.  This moral cowardice is what paralyses the left at the moment, the need to justify violence by claiming defense against words.  If you disagree, what words do you feel should be criminalized?  Blasphemy?  Against what faith?  Does anything that harms the sensibilities of another warrant legal sanction or physical violence?

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.

I dont think anybody is really saying this was in some way self defense. I'm not trying to justify the violence. Cause and effect. Your actions have consequences. Hang out in a dangerous place you elevate your risk of bodily harm.

Walk through a Chicago ghetto shouting racial slurs and your words might end up getting you in trouble. Not legally. Just in trouble with some people you offended.

Go to a klan rally whoops i mean trump event. Some people offended by your rallying cry might be there. In a movement led by a big mouth. Im sure there are a few big mouths in every trump rally crowd. Throw gas on the fire. And shit gets ugly.

I can say whatever i want. But im not dumb enough to think i can say whatever i want to anybody with total immunity. One of the facts of life. Your words and actions can get your ass beat.

Go to a town full of minorities with an anti-minority message to conduct a gathering. Thats like poking a hornets nest with a stick. Its a bad idea to begin with. And standing there and watching is dumb too. (did that analogy make sense bfine?)

The violence shouldnt happen. But it does. That doesnt make it right. But a leader promoting a devisive message will attract a rowdy crowd. So lets not pretend its surprising any more.

[Rotobeast]

(06-06-2016, 02:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: But a leader promoting a devisive message will attract a rowdy crowd. So lets not pretend its surprising any more.

So, our divisive president has created these rowdy democrats ?

I AGREE !!

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-05-2016, 11:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why is wanting to actually enforce immigration laws racist?  I'll absolutely concede that Trump stated it in an over the top fashion.  I'd like you to explain why asking the government to actually enforce the law is racist?

His overall body of work leads me to believe he is racist. I have never met a person who refers to "the blacks" " the mexicans" the way he does and not be racist.

As for current events. The American judge born in Indiana is too Mexican for Trumps liking and definitely should not be a judge in Trumps case of him stealing money from people. Simply because he is too Mexican.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-06-2016, 02:42 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: So, our divisive president has created these rowdy democrats ?

I AGREE !!

Hope and change =/= build a wall deport them all

[Rotobeast]

(06-06-2016, 02:45 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Hope and change =/= build a wall deport them all

The wall is a knee-jerk reaction to Obama giving out amnesty, in an Oprah-like fashion.

Damn.... been up 22hrs.
Time for bed.
You kids play nice.

[GMDino]

Charles Manson* never killed anyone.  He suggested to his followers that it was a good idea in order to start a race war.

The followers who killed were 100% wrong for doing what a madman told them.

The madman was also wrong for suggesting it.

Trump never told his followers to go to other places and start fights.

He told them to beat up anyone protesting in the building.

Fortunately most of his followers are smart enough to remove the protesters civilly.  Some are not.

The ones who are not must take 100% responsibility for their actions.

Trump must take 100% responsibility for his own words.

Trump has never taken any responsibility for anything bad or wrong in his entire life.



















































*Not saying Donald Trump is the same as, acts like, or is is represented by Charles Manson.  Using an example of a leader of a group that saw the group "follow orders" whether they were direct orders or simply a suggestion on how a situation should be handled.

[GMDino]

(06-06-2016, 01:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You absolutely do need to wait.  By the very nature of the word, defense, you cannot defend yourself until someone takes offensive action against you.  We live in a society in which speech is protected.  You don't go to jail for denying the holocaust or offending someone.  Short of directly advocating violence, which no one can show Trump has done, you do not get to physically attack someone and claim defense unless they physically attacked you first.  This moral cowardice is what paralyses the left at the moment, the need to justify violence by claiming defense against words.  If you disagree, what words do you feel should be criminalized?  Blasphemy?  Against what faith?  Does anything that harms the sensibilities of another warrant legal sanction or physical violence?

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.

Please, kind defender of the internet, post where someone in this thread (where the "debate" is) said it was just keen that protesters are getting violent against Trump supporters.

You know, those left leaning tyrant types that said it.

Meanwhile did you sign a petition to get that newspaper editor fired for being "partisan"?  Because (some) words have consequences I hear.

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2016, 01:47 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You absolutely do need to wait.  By the very nature of the word, defense, you cannot defend yourself until someone takes offensive action against you.  We live in a society in which speech is protected.  You don't go to jail for denying the holocaust or offending someone.  Short of directly advocating violence, which no one can show Trump has done, you do not get to physically attack someone and claim defense unless they physically attacked you first.  This moral cowardice is what paralyses the left at the moment, the need to justify violence by claiming defense against words.  If you disagree, what words do you feel should be criminalized?  Blasphemy?  Against what faith?  Does anything that harms the sensibilities of another warrant legal sanction or physical violence?

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.

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 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. 

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. 

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. 

[GMDino]

(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 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. 

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. 

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. 

Good luck with that in this thread....

[Rotobeast]

(06-06-2016, 09:16 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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. 

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. 

Perhaps he has created a learning exercise.
One in which you get to feel the "guilty by association" conviction laid upon Trump supporters.
I suppose the aggressive tone could be considered to metaphorically represent the violence thrusted upon said supporters.

Perhaps I need a hobby.

[Aquapod770]

(06-06-2016, 02:43 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: His overall body of work leads me to believe he is racist. I have never met a person who refers to "the blacks" " the mexicans" the way he does and not be racist.

As for current events. The American judge born in Indiana is too Mexican for Trumps liking and definitely should not be a judge in Trumps case of him stealing  money from people. Simply because he is too Mexican.

I wouldn't say Trump is a racist. Prejudice yes, but he is more of textbook narcissist. He thinks he is superior to everyone.

[GMDino]

(06-05-2016, 01:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

Nevermind.

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

Quote:Trump's 'African-American' says he isn't a supporter


The African-American man singled out by Donald Trump at a recent rally says he does not back the New York businessman.


"I am not a Trump supporter," Gregory Cheadle told NPR News. "I went to go hear Donald Trump because I have an open mind."

During a rally Friday in California, Trump was talking about a black supporter's actions at a previous event when he spotted Cheadle in the crowd.

"Look at my African-American over here! Look at him!" Trump said. "Are you the greatest? You know what I'm talking about, OK?"

Cheadle, a Republican candidate in a California congressional race, said he was using a "Veterans For Trump" sign to shield his head from the sun, and added he took no offense from Trump's comments.

"I was not offended by it because he had been speaking positively about black people prior to that statement," Cheadle told NPR News. "People around me were laughing [at the fact] that he noticed me and everybody was happy. It was a jovial thing."

Reports NPR:

Quote:"Trump's use of the possessive 'my' touched off a fresh wave of criticism of the candidate with some saying it came across as racist or at the very least tone deaf.
"The remarks came as the real estate mogul interrupted his own meandering remarks to recall an incident from a March rally in Arizona, where a black Trump supporter assaulted a protester being escorted out of the venue by police.
"In an attempt to show he, as Trump put it enjoys 'tremendous African-American support,' the candidate said the black man from the Arizona rally was a 'great fan' of his.'"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2016, 09:06 AM)GMDabo Wrote: Please, kind defender of the internet, post where someone in this thread (where the "debate" is) said it was just keen that protesters are getting violent against Trump supporters.

You know, those left leaning tyrant types that said it.

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.

Quote:Meanwhile did you sign a petition to get that newspaper editor fired for being "partisan"?  Because (some) words have consequences I hear.

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.