In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 12 2016 14:41 LegalLord wrote: I'd take these Hitler/Nazi accusations more seriously if it weren't the oldest stupid smear in the book.
It's easier to find an important public figure that has NOT been likened to Hitler for some action or other.
I think people get confused with the comparison to Hitler's rise to power and what he did with it. No question Trump's campaign resembles Hitler's rise to power (though there are plenty of differences). What he would do with it is a separate issue imo.
This won't be the last Trump rally to go like this though. He'll have to avoid any major cities north of the Mason-Dixon line if he doesn't want it to happen again.
ROFLMAO @ "thugs who stopped Trump's rally" I guess since it wasn't just some young women he couldn't show his superior strength... Or go out into the crowd punching protesters like he'd like to do.
So Hitler took all guns (and knives, aces, bows etc) off the Jewish people.Then killed 6 million of them after disarming them.Great argument for gun control....
I'm not trying to make an argument for gun control using Hitler, that's idiotic. You said something that was factually incorrect, and obviously based on a biased perspective of reality because it's a republican talking point. I therefore corrected you. That's all.
Its always people who have no clue about germany, history and the plight of disenfrenchised people as well as minorities in society that trott out such bullshit. An armed populace wouldn't have changed anything because they were largely in favor of the jews getting shoved aside and then removed from society alltogether. An armed, very small, disconnected and diverse minority that is only looked on as monolithic from the false propagandistic tainted outside, has no chance to stand up to the rest of the population and an orderly organized police force including a resourceful secret police. Furthermore it was neither in most of their self image nor their understanding of the situation to accept the possibility of a holocaust. Enduring resentments and incarceration during wartime in a stressed society sounds like par for the course. That it gradually escalated to that end (centrally planned of course) was oblivious to almost all of the population from the outset.
So this argument breaks down at at least 3 levels: > german society - what is orderly, what is possible, what can be thought or enacted (nobody had guns (nobody in cities, few single cartridge rifles + revolvers in rural/forest areas for hunting), nobody made guns, especially not ones appropriate for personal defense) > actual possibility of physical resistance to the shoa (to few, to disconnected, no endgame (resistance till everyone is killed in a firefight is not a choice an individual will make if he sees a hope to endure the war+hardship to survive), gradual progression) > actual awareness and understanding what would happen when
And this ties in to today: when people keep arguing from false history, we get all kinds of wrong conclusions (that could be very well prevented from looking at the actual history and how things came to pass) > that germany will be overrun by russia if the US pulls back, which is a good thing since it will teach those ungrateful bastards a lesson, maybe even escort the russian troops through poland one poster suggested -> that is not the way to think about foreign relations that will net you any relevant or mutually beneficial relationships at all, since a spiteful, untrustworthy, erratic, dangerous brute is not a good trading partner
> it is ok to antagonize and rile up people with speech since everyone is personally responsible for himself so they should just get the deeper meaning of "fuck them all to death" (SouthPark) and not actually act out all this anger, confusion and frustration in violence against easy scapegoats and the weakest in society. (but they will do it, as is human nature, and noone from the "personal resposibility" crowd ever actually acknowleges the inevetible societal effects of speech)
> people who are not working are a parasite on society, policies advocating for redistribution of wealth to secure a dignified living for all of the people are just a ploy to bring on communist dictatorship in a few years, when societally stabilizing government enforced redistribution programs are running for over 120 years in some countries right now.
It's a sad state of affairs. Especially watched from germany, that shares so many of those failures in recent times, as economic hardship brings out the worst in us.
On March 12 2016 22:30 oneofthem wrote: would be interested to see some legit plans on rebuilding some of these communities, not just black ones.
Problem would be it would require a lot more policing, and considering the police tensions with the black community, I'm pretty sure increased policing would legit start a race war.
Like crime in detroit would be cut down significantly if the federal government was willing to step in and foot the bill and flooding the streets with UK-tier surveillance state with a police on every street corner. The problem with this falls close, if not near authoritarian military policing of own civilian, not to mention the likely leftist out cry of racism for highly patrolled high crime areas (which has a high correlation of minority population).
On March 12 2016 16:41 OtherWorld wrote: So what? People are surprised that minorities aren't going to accept Trump's hate speech without violence?
It's really important for the political system of a free society that candidates at all levels can hold rallies and events without having them disrupted to the point of shut down.
There was a great official response to this event (I don't want to say it was an overreaction because part of the reason it turned out so good - no shootings/stabbings right - could be because of that response). Beyond that, speech doesn't excuse violence, especially not violence against third parties.
There are groups of people in America that think violence, rioting and looting is the solution to all problems. I don't think Trump should have cancelled his rally, you shouldn't back down to these bullies.
I agree fundamentally, but practically speaking the blood bath that would occur would hurt Trump more. By, not showing up he at least lowers the chance of his own group of committing serious act of violence, and it makes the protesters look like shit.
On March 12 2016 16:41 OtherWorld wrote: So what? People are surprised that minorities aren't going to accept Trump's hate speech without violence?
It's really important for the political system of a free society that candidates at all levels can hold rallies and events without having them disrupted to the point of shut down.
There was a great official response to this event (I don't want to say it was an overreaction because part of the reason it turned out so good - no shootings/stabbings right - could be because of that response). Beyond that, speech doesn't excuse violence, especially not violence against third parties.
If you sow hate, it's only natural that you reap hate. Violence through words is not very different from violence through weapons/body, although the 1st amendment apparently considers that words cannot be violent.
The only people sowing hate are the media. Of course people whose only source of information are buzzfeed articles and facebook posts can get stuped into believing stupid things about political candidates.
I don't think the mean medias invented things like the Mexico-US wall paid by Mexico, or the "prevent all Muslims from entering the US territory" thing, etc? Politicians sow hate everyday (even Sanders or Clinton), and their supporters sow even more (and much much more in Trump's case). It's the easy solution to accuse the Great Media Evil and be persuaded that your favorite politician is all peace & love.
If you've seen the kind of reach America has across the world historically, and currently. Making Mexico pay for a wall to secure it's own borders, and our own, is not that far fetched, nor impossible. That being said, it's a retarded as fuck idea.
On March 12 2016 17:11 Slaughter wrote: I don't think Trump is really racist against US minorities, I think he simply couldn't give a shit about them or the nature of society. He just thinks more jobs and fixing the economy = its all good for everyone. He is more anti non US citizens if anything else. US vs the world....except they are all tremendous people that he loves
However, that doesn't mean that his kind of rhetoric isn't drawing in people who are racist. That doesn't mean every single person who supports Trump are racists, and I think a lot of his supporters really just care about trying to improve their own situations and any race relations stuff is something they don't care or think about. A lot of his stuff is very nationalistic and that speaks to people who feel they haven't had a fair shot and they find outlets in the form of immigrants, other countries stealing our jobs and killing us in trade, and those "moochers" who burden the system.
Frankly I don't think the majority of his supporters are consciously thinking about race but a fair bit of what he says can incite the unconscious racism that exists in all of us.
I also don't buy that he is attracting lots of minority voters, He may win the majority of them in the primaries...but those are those who already are republican and frankly they are a minority within a minority. If you can show me he is converting large numbers of minorities who were democrats then we can be impressed by his diverse voter base.
I agree, I don't think it's racism, it's more of a "America vs the World" mentality, which xenophobes and racists are obviously going to have some parallel sentiments. It also doesn't help when the left media is saying things like "racial tensions are at an all time high." When you look at race based hate crimes dropping to an all time low, year after year.
It's the same with "omg, we should be just like switzerland! They all have guns and a militia!" and all that... until someone from Switzerland destroys their illusion. Didn't we have something like that in here some time ago with a detailed post about how it's completly different from what those kind of people dream up?
It's the same with "omg, we should be just like switzerland! They all have guns and a militia!" and all that... until someone from Switzerland destroys their illusion. Didn't we have something like that in here some time ago with a detailed post about how it's completly different from what those kind of people dream up?
It's not even that detailed. We are free to have the guns that we use during our mandatory military service. But we don't keep ammo for these guns. If we want to have ammo, we need to ask for it, and there is strict gun control there. I never never expect someone I meet in the street in Switzerland to be carrying.
It's the same with "omg, we should be just like switzerland! They all have guns and a militia!" and all that... until someone from Switzerland destroys their illusion. Didn't we have something like that in here some time ago with a detailed post about how it's completly different from what those kind of people dream up?
It's not even that detailed. We are free to have the guns that we use during our mandatory military service. But we don't keep ammo for these guns. If we want to have ammo, we need to ask for it, and there is strict gun control there. I never never expect someone I meet in the street in Switzerland to be carrying.
I still think the mandatory military service does a good job of informing the general public about firearms. I would be totes down for similar licensing procedure for drivers were applied to all fire arm owners in America.
It's the same with "omg, we should be just like switzerland! They all have guns and a militia!" and all that... until someone from Switzerland destroys their illusion. Didn't we have something like that in here some time ago with a detailed post about how it's completly different from what those kind of people dream up?
It's not even that detailed. We are free to have the guns that we use during our mandatory military service. But we don't keep ammo for these guns. If we want to have ammo, we need to ask for it, and there is strict gun control there. I never never expect someone I meet in the street in Switzerland to be carrying.
I still think the mandatory military service does a good job of informing the general public about firearms. I would be totes down for similar licensing procedure for drivers were applied to all fire arm owners in America.
gun ownership licensing just means when operation jade helm 2.0 starts they will gas those registered gun owners first.. obviously!
It's the same with "omg, we should be just like switzerland! They all have guns and a militia!" and all that... until someone from Switzerland destroys their illusion. Didn't we have something like that in here some time ago with a detailed post about how it's completly different from what those kind of people dream up?
It's not even that detailed. We are free to have the guns that we use during our mandatory military service. But we don't keep ammo for these guns. If we want to have ammo, we need to ask for it, and there is strict gun control there. I never never expect someone I meet in the street in Switzerland to be carrying.
I still think the mandatory military service does a good job of informing the general public about firearms. I would be totes down for similar licensing procedure for drivers were applied to all fire arm owners in America.
same actually. As much as I don't like civilian gun ownership, if you force everyone who wants to have one to go through a maybe 3 months course led by a professional before you can buy one I'd be a lot more up for it. But then again, unlike cars you have a right to own guns ingrained no matter how uninformed you are so meh.
increased policing and really cracking down on the narcotics trade is necessary to some extent but better practice and attitude can solve a lot of long term negative dynamics. it's a dynamic of increased hostility and lack of communicate on both sides, and as a civilian police force, the local police has a duty to start the outreach.
currently some of these police forces do not seem to prioritize building trust
On March 12 2016 10:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: Who actually cares about them stepping on the flag? I understand that some people will inevitably find anything offensive, and I understand that this is a bad way of attempting to get sympathy from the american public, but I don't understand how anyone can rationally be offended by this?
Go look up the history of flag trampling/desecration/burning. It's far more storied than the modern obsession with taking offense at this and that. In the US, laws were passed by the people's representatives outlining criminal and civil penalties for the act, both in states and Congress. Maybe it's not as stunning as burning someone in effigy, but I'm surprised anybody is shocked by people caring about this. It was only through court action that laws declared the act protected by free speech were reversed.
Flags are symbols. Speech manipulates symbols. Of course manipulating a symbol like a flag is speech.
Maybe you're thinking of someone that claimed it wasn't free speech.
On March 12 2016 10:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: Who actually cares about them stepping on the flag? I understand that some people will inevitably find anything offensive, and I understand that this is a bad way of attempting to get sympathy from the american public, but I don't understand how anyone can rationally be offended by this?
Go look up the history of flag trampling/desecration/burning. It's far more storied than the modern obsession with taking offense at this and that. In the US, laws were passed by the people's representatives outlining criminal and civil penalties for the act, both in states and Congress. Maybe it's not as stunning as burning someone in effigy, but I'm surprised anybody is shocked by people caring about this. It was only through court action that laws declared the act protected by free speech were reversed.
Man, those National Justice Warriors (NJWs) are so thin-skinned. Are you going to create a safe space where no flags are stepped on, perhaps?
You're a deserved part of the modern era of offense with that sort of irony. I think they call it hate speech, mansplaining, and the sort of racism you yourself don't know you have nowadays.
On March 13 2016 03:35 oneofthem wrote: increased policing and really cracking down on the narcotics trade is necessary to some extent but better practice and attitude can solve a lot of long term negative dynamics. it's a dynamic of increased hostility and lack of communicate on both sides, and as a civilian police force, the local police has a duty to start the outreach.
currently some of these police forces do not seem to prioritize building trust
I mean, if we take the Baltimore incident as a micro-chasm of what's happening in these communities, these are communities that are indeed being ran by the locals. Their leadership easily reflect the racial breakup in the cities, same with the police force, and the police leadership.
I mentioned it earlier in the thread, that the crack down on crack cocaine originated from these community leaders that wanted to dissuade usage of crack cocaine in their community. The increased jail time for crack cocaine over powder cocaine came from these communities. It's not like some scary ol' racist KKK members were nefariously planning on jailing black people for longer; so they devised this crack cocaine vs powder cocaine legal difference as a way to punish black people in some KKK-bizzaro-version of the Illuminati mastermind plan. That's simply not what's happening. It's bad local governance that is an essential part of this problem in these communities.
CINCINNATI -- Rumors of a visit from Donald Trump to the Duke Energy Convention Center Sunday seem to be just rumors for now.
Trump's travel schedule updated Friday did not include a stop in Cincinnati, but the Republican front-runner will be in Dayton, Ohio, on Saturday.
The Dayton rally is set for 10 a.m. Saturday at the Dayton Airport Expo Center. Neither the Trump campaign nor the convention center have confirmed the visit yet.
On March 13 2016 04:00 Ghanburighan wrote: Whoever is attacking Trump is handing the nomination to him on a silver platter. So stupid.
The prevailing "common wisdom" in the US that "if you say racist things then people will come and beat the shit out of you" really does not reflect well on the minorities that tend towards violence when criticized, even if said criticism is unfair and harmful. This is precisely why the most successful part of the Civil Rights movement was the nonviolent protest.
On March 12 2016 10:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: Who actually cares about them stepping on the flag? I understand that some people will inevitably find anything offensive, and I understand that this is a bad way of attempting to get sympathy from the american public, but I don't understand how anyone can rationally be offended by this?
Go look up the history of flag trampling/desecration/burning. It's far more storied than the modern obsession with taking offense at this and that. In the US, laws were passed by the people's representatives outlining criminal and civil penalties for the act, both in states and Congress. Maybe it's not as stunning as burning someone in effigy, but I'm surprised anybody is shocked by people caring about this. It was only through court action that laws declared the act protected by free speech were reversed.
Man, those National Justice Warriors (NJWs) are so thin-skinned. Are you going to create a safe space where no flags are stepped on, perhaps?
You're a deserved part of the modern era of offense with that sort of irony. I think they call it hate speech, mansplaining, and the sort of racism you yourself don't know you have nowadays.
You're just as easily offended, except instead of being offended by racism and sexism you're offended by people walking on a symbolic piece of cloth :-)
On March 13 2016 04:00 Ghanburighan wrote: Whoever is attacking Trump is handing the nomination to him on a silver platter. So stupid.
The prevailing "common wisdom" in the US that "if you say racist things then people will come and beat the shit out of you" really does not reflect well on the minorities that tend towards violence when criticized, even if said criticism is unfair and harmful. This is precisely why the most successful part of the Civil Rights movement was the nonviolent protest.
IMO nonviolence was the face of it to the white community, but for a majority of the disfranchised blacks were truly consoled by the black panther movement.
CINCINNATI -- Rumors of a visit from Donald Trump to the Duke Energy Convention Center Sunday seem to be just rumors for now.
Trump's travel schedule updated Friday did not include a stop in Cincinnati, but the Republican front-runner will be in Dayton, Ohio, on Saturday.
The Dayton rally is set for 10 a.m. Saturday at the Dayton Airport Expo Center. Neither the Trump campaign nor the convention center have confirmed the visit yet.
On March 13 2016 04:00 Ghanburighan wrote: Whoever is attacking Trump is handing the nomination to him on a silver platter. So stupid.
I agree. There are voters who would have never voted for Trump but probably will just to disrespect this kind of opposition. They are MAKING people like Trump.
The heart of democracy is being able to talk freely - that's why I cheered when that black guy took a punch to the face. You don't like Trump? You support another candidate. You don't go to HIS rallies, ready to call everyone a fascist if they touch one of your hairs. This is so common in Europe too, but strangely, it is always the left.
On March 13 2016 04:39 SoSexy wrote: I cheered when that black guy took a punch to the face.
once only acceptable in boxing now on its way to mainstream: fuck society, burn it all down so we can watch and cheer for violence on screen that does not affect us and only vagely ties into symbolism and narrative of the scope and style of WWE
EPT
