Trump's Support

[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?