12-20-2016, 08:13 PM
(12-20-2016, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: What apparently started this dust up was my implication that Hillary's rhetoric was not nearly so violent as Trump's. A factual record of Clinton calling reporters scum, desiring to punch protestors, and offering to pay legal fees for people who do violence to protestors, would effectively refute my implication.
But until I see evidence of that, Trump definitely has a MONOPOLY on this "X".
In any case my issue is not "monopolies" but false equivalencies--as if Clinton's rhetoric were really no different than Trump's because she once called a portion of Trump supporters "deplorables".
Then look at the mad scramble to lever the subject to "actual violence" to find some shred of "just as bad" to create an equivalence.
This argument really does you no favors. I would agree that Trump's campaign rhetoric was far more aggressive, use "violent" if you want, than Clinton's. Yet, it was Clinton supporters going to Trump rallies and physically attacking people. This did not occur in reverse. It was a Clinton supporter who went to a Trump rally with the intent to assassinate him, albeit in half-assed manner. It was Clinton supporters sending electors death threats in an attempt to get them to vote for a president other than Trump. That being the case we should be thankful Hillary reigned herself in on the rhetoric, imagine how much more violent her supporters would have been if she hadn't?! The mind bottles.
Quote:This is not different from previous disputes I have had with you. I provide you with a list of links of "right" news sources doing X and liberal doing Y, and wait for your counter factuals. But they don't come. Just a lame insistence no one has a “monopoly”; “both sides” do it. And you muddy the waters additionally by attributing claims to me I have never made. I suggest you "unacquire" that skill if you want to have productive discussion with people who support their claims with factual record.
There's a thread directly below this one with a concrete example. It's not easy to miss, why haven't you commented in it? I suspect I have a fair idea why.
Quote:It is not logically consistent to continually ignore a presentation of factual record, then accuse the presenter of ignoring facts while refusing a similar presentation yourself.
I stated the fact that I wasn't interested in tracking down examples at that time and stated then that I would present them as I now see them. I have followed through on that promise this very day and will continue to do so. See for yourself and dissemble some more afterwards.
