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.
I also don't understand how people constantly say Trump is a master media manipulator building a character and yet this character is somehow not being represented accurately by the media he's masterfully manipulating.
On March 17 2016 11:52 xDaunt wrote: You people are reading way too much into what Trump is saying. Saying "X will happen if Y happens" is a neutral statement. It is no different than someone correctly pointing out that black people in Baltimore will riot if a Baltimore cop shoots and unarmed black kid. It's a facially neutral statement. It is not an encouragement of certain behavior.
He literally said "I wouldn't lead it." He had a chance to say "I would stop it." I'm not sure why you think he shouldn't have taken that chance or that it's okay to not do so in the aftermath of the statement.
That's kind of the whole problem people have with Trump's response to violence at his rallies.
On March 17 2016 11:45 SK.Testie wrote: He doesn't have to say that in this context because they are again, misrepresenting what he said. Look at the page on CNN, that's clearly not how he intended it. That's the media, again, inciting violence. They're the biggest perpetrators this entire campaign and it's really sad to see. Because I thought everything else was pretty shit, but CNN were at least the neutral brand.
ANY time you mention that your supporters might riot in ANY context you should say "that is not what my campaign is about and if there were violence I would firmly discourage anyone doing so" if you're a decent human being. Why people are so dedicated to excusing this behavior I cannot fathom.
Agreed, especially when Trump has encouraged his supporters to beat up other people and even offered to pay the legal fees of his supporters once they get arrested. Based on his rhetoric when it comes to rioting and fighting, he seems less concerned about safety or peace and more concerned about his messages being spread at any cost.
On March 17 2016 11:48 Plansix wrote: CNN: We have 45 eye witnesses showing Trump burning a cross on a black families lawn in a white hood. Plus video of the whole thing.
The internet: Are we sure he meant it? That is wasn't satire? I have to hear his side before I made a decision.
On March 17 2016 11:50 johnny123 wrote: hey guys, The girl next door deserved to be raped because she was wearing a really short skirt. Too bad
Neither of those statements has resembled a thing that Trump has said. His audience knows how to take a joke, that's why they're 100x funnier than Bernies SJW's.
On March 17 2016 11:53 SK.Testie wrote: Neither of those statements has resembled a thing that Trump has said. His audience knows how to take a joke, that's why they're 100x funnier than Bernies SJW's.
On March 17 2016 11:52 TheTenthDoc wrote: He literally said "I wouldn't lead it." He had a chance to say "I would stop it." I'm not sure why you think he shouldn't have taken that chance or that it's okay to not do so.
Because like Trump, I abhor our apologist culture that requires the incessant disavowing of extraneous bullshit. Trump isn't being held to a reasonable standard.
On March 17 2016 11:52 xDaunt wrote: You people are reading way too much into what Trump is saying. Saying "X will happen if Y happens" is a neutral statement. It is no different than someone correctly pointing out that black people in Baltimore will riot if a Baltimore cop shoots and unarmed black kid. It's a facially neutral statement. It is not an encouragement of certain behavior.
On March 17 2016 11:52 TheTenthDoc wrote: He literally said "I wouldn't lead it." He had a chance to say "I would stop it." I'm not sure why you think he shouldn't have taken that chance or that it's okay to not do so.
Because like Trump, I abhor our apologist culture that requires the incessant disavowing of extraneous bullshit. Trump isn't being held to a reasonable standard.
He doesn't need to say "I'm sorry it's my fault they'd riot." That's silly.
But I wholeheartedly disagree that saying you would try to stop violence caused by your supporters is an unreasonable standard. But I guess I'll leave it there since we won't get anywhere if you don't believe such.
I really thought you had the critical thinking not to pretzel for this guy, xDaunt.
On March 17 2016 11:52 TheTenthDoc wrote: He literally said "I wouldn't lead it." He had a chance to say "I would stop it." I'm not sure why you think he shouldn't have taken that chance or that it's okay to not do so.
Because like Trump, I abhor our apologist culture that requires the incessant disavowing of extraneous bullshit. Trump isn't being held to a reasonable standard.
I think he is, because he casually incites violence during his rallies.
On March 17 2016 10:26 SK.Testie wrote: Please make a list of demands so that we might channel our energy in a useful way to dismantle the patriarchy. What forms of oppression are you most against? We have gender gap (debunked multiple times)? and.. ? I'll wait for a long list, and if they are valid claims I will join the fight. ? ? ? ? ?
To the post below. No. 70c on the dollar is a myth. + Show Spoiler +
I know you were trolling last night with your kale fit; I'm not going to fall for it again
The Kale fit was pure fun but it was 100% true. If you're a fatty you will lose weight with that diet. It's quite literally impossible not to. But considering you keep hijacking the thread with womens issues yet not showing a single instance of women being oppressed, and astoundingly thinking that the west and other places oppress women in an equal way is complete, utter bullshit and you cannot be taken seriously. So when you say, "I'm not going to answer that question" it simply shows that your argument has no legs to stand on. So you can feel free to PM me the way women are oppressed as well. I think women have many advantages over men currently. I would say they didn't have these 50 years ago. But they have them now. I'd also argue that men have advantages over women inherently. (We're stronger, our sports are therefore way more funsies). I'd also argue that I really, truly, passionately do not care about this issue. But am still willing to hear it since you're bringing it up so much. I feel guilt at sidetracking this thread again.
xdaunt tried to make this thread great again. And I'm part of the problem now because I'm responding to these inane babblings that don't even attempt to define themselves using direct examples. The example used is heavily debunked. Completely. There's more sources on it. It's now common knowledge cuz "lul TV said it everywhere" but it's not. No company that could save 30% of it's labouring costs would not jump at the chance.
A wage gap has been by no means "debunked" here or elsewhere. The $.70 on the dollar figure has been shown to be misleading, but several studies that attempt to account for the gap have ended up still finding a 7-10% wage gap. That's still a significant gap. And the whole "why would a company not jump at the opportunity to save x% in wages" argument is wishful thinking. I could use the same argument to say private sector segregation and discrimination never happened because no sane business person would have turned down people's money. Except they did. And likewise, a wage gap does exist, notwithstanding your theorycrafting.
On March 17 2016 11:52 xDaunt wrote: You people are reading way too much into what Trump is saying. Saying "X will happen if Y happens" is a neutral statement. It is no different than someone correctly pointing out that black people in Baltimore will riot if a Baltimore cop shoots and unarmed black kid. It's a facially neutral statement. It is not an encouragement of certain behavior.
I find your naivete to be deeply saddening.
You anti-trumps remind me of this guy. One of these men is trying to conduct himself in a reasonable fashion and debate people point by point. He's trying to have a discussion. What are the rest doing? + Show Spoiler +
This one's the least obnoxious because Black man of Reason stays cool.
On March 17 2016 11:58 TheTenthDoc wrote: I really thought you had the critical thinking not to pretzel for this guy, xDaunt.
Please. Defending Trump on these bullshit incitement of violence charges that are being recklessly thrown around by his opponents requires zero critical thinking. Y'all are the ones doing mental gymnastics trying to frame Trump as the next Hitler, complete with his own regiment of brown shirts.There are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to criticize Trump, but this isn't one of them. Unfortunately, many of you are too apoplectic to see it.
Doc routinely criticizes Trump with regards to the feasibility of his rhetoric-inflated platform policies, so yeah, not sure he's one of the apoplectic ones
On March 17 2016 11:58 TheTenthDoc wrote: I really thought you had the critical thinking not to pretzel for this guy, xDaunt.
Please. Defending Trump on these bullshit incitement of violence charges that are being recklessly thrown around by his opponents requires zero critical thinking. Y'all are the ones doing mental gymnastics trying to frame Trump as the next Hitler, complete with his own regiment of brown shirts.There are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to criticize Trump, but this isn't one of them. Unfortunately, many of you are too apoplectic to see it.
At least watch the ten seconds from 0:28-0:38, where he explicitly incites violence (and not for the first or last time, either):
We're not making up the idea that Trump is promoting rioting and beating up people. We literally have him on video saying it.
On March 17 2016 11:58 TheTenthDoc wrote: I really thought you had the critical thinking not to pretzel for this guy, xDaunt.
Please. Defending Trump on these bullshit incitement of violence charges that are being recklessly thrown around by his opponents requires zero critical thinking. Y'all are the ones doing mental gymnastics trying to frame Trump as the next Hitler, complete with his own regiment of brown shirts.There are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to criticize Trump, but this isn't one of them. Unfortunately, many of you are too apoplectic to see it.
I don't think Trump is Hitler. I just think he's just a thuggish douchebag who doesn't do several things that I think decent human beings should do. I don't think I had to do any mental gymnastics to get to that point.
I mean I guess that doesn't disqualify him from being president-that has way more to do with just the moon base level policies he has-but I think it merits discussion in the thread.
Edit: I mean I don't really comprehend how people can watch his early debate performances and not conclude he's a douchebag and a bit thuggish rather than some super great guy beset by media harriers on all sides but that's just me
Edit2: For the record I watched the Apprentice for a couple years in high school and even then it was clear he was a thuggish douchebag
Again, the excuse you used was for a protester who was about to commit an aggressive act. Throwing something at a candidate. Retaliation is not the same as initiation. If you're going to be willing to go to Trumps rallies and start swinging, don't be surprised if someone swings back.
Bernies base has been far more rabid fanbase that is far more immature on average. And then he had a double standard about it. CNN allowed a man who attempted a legit assassination attempt to go on air and say "I wasn't gonna hurt him". Bullllllllllllllllllllshit.
I hope he gets elected just so that the media can't force false narratives like this shit again.
On March 17 2016 12:21 SK.Testie wrote: Again, the excuse you used was for a protester who was about to commit an aggressive act. Throwing something at a candidate. Retaliation is not the same as initiation. If you're going to be willing to go to Trumps rallies and start swinging, don't be surprised if someone swings back.
Bernies base has been far more rabid fanbase that is far more immature on average. And then he had a double standard about it. CNN allowed a man who attempted a legit assassination attempt to go on air and say "I wasn't gonna hurt him". Bullllllllllllllllllllshit.
I hope he gets elected just so that the media can't force false narratives like this shit again.
So you are saying you want him elected and him censoring the media? How many shit narratives has Obama had to deal with? GWB? The media has always pounced on and attacked viciously sitting presidents. This isn't something new to Trump.
On March 17 2016 12:21 SK.Testie wrote: Again, the excuse you used was for a protester who was about to commit an aggressive act. Throwing something at a candidate. Retaliation is not the same as initiation. If you're going to be willing to go to Trumps rallies and start swinging, don't be surprised if someone swings back.
Bernies base has been far more rabid fanbase that is far more immature on average. And then he had a double standard about it. CNN allowed a man who attempted a legit assassination attempt to go on air and say "I wasn't gonna hurt him". Bullllllllllllllllllllshit.
I hope he gets elected just so that the media can't force false narratives like this shit again.
So you are saying you want him elected and him censoring the media? How many shit narratives has Obama had to deal with? GWB? The media has always pounced on and attacked viciously sitting presidents. This isn't something new to Trump.
No, not censoring media. Just calling them out. That's really it. Yeah, it definitely did attack all presidents. GWB was pretty deserved. Obama less so because he was always cool calm and collected. Trump though this assault is completely on another level. Just the sheer volume of it is beyond any other media scope of assaults I've ever witnessed. And if there's a reasonable qualm, that's great. But the mass portrayal of violence, the complete narrative framing is a whole other thing. Never before have we seen the Hitler cards being played this early, ever. Only into a presidency do we get a rare, "omg executive action, literally hitler" type deal from GWB and Obama.
This is people attacking with no substance, and it's clear to see through, and it harms the image of the people making the articles, and comes off as really pissy.
For instance in any NYT article ever, Trump is evil. And it's "OMG another article ignoring Bernie" etc. Same with Bill Mahers show. Same with huffington post or washington post. The theme generally is. 99% negative on Trump full throttle. Semi-balanced on Hillary. Ignore Bernie as much as possible. Though they then did attack him 16 times in 16 articles or something in 16 hours finally. Trump's been getting that non-stop from the beginning and he's played it like a champ. Each time he pushes how outrageous they are a little further, and it's beautiful to watch. It's a dissection of them.
Tinfoil: Or they're working in tandem. AHHHHH. /tinfoil
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/05/03/2FCD09FB00000578-0-image-a-28_1451965385670.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GGbTsER.png)
