|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 June 04 2016 10:19 SK.Testie wrote:No, that's silly and that comment from Trump was pretty stupid even if there 'may' be a measure of truth to it. Can say for certain, the man who can do no wrong aka god emperor who is playing 5D chess with the press stumped himself on that one. Saying illegal immigrants do bring drugs, crime, and can be rapists is true, albeit hard to swallow for many despite overwhelming evidence. But telling an American judge that he's Mexican thus has a conflict of interest is playing the race card in a pretty bad way. Now, he is a member of La Raza and did award illegal immigrants scholarships and he is quite clearly proud of being Mexican by his own account. So what Trump is saying can actually be true. But in this case it's pretty wrong to insinuate that without being very clear, concise and provide more evidence toward unfair treatment. I put an article here earlier though implying that the judge was quite pro illegal immigration, even awarding some scholarships. But a better conflict of interest could be that he's an Obama appointee and one of the law firms gave Clinton $700,000 etc, short vid on it there's more to the matter though. https://www.facebook.com/LouDobbsTonight/videos/10153686907662951/The judge did fuck up though as well. Show nested quote +U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued an order Friday unsealing various records in the suit, citing significant public interest in the matter, driven in part by Trump’s own public attacks on the judge.
However, on Tuesday evening, Curiel tried to roll back his earlier order. He said he had “mistakenly” listed some records to be released in full, when they were actually supposed to be edited or redacted to delete personal information like home addresses and personal emails. S1S2
Conflict of interest is "Curiel had a son who enrolled in Trump U."
Conflict of interest is "Curiel reaped financial benefits from Trump U."
Conflict of interest is NOT Curiel was appointed by an administration that opposes Donald Trump or Curiel does not want Donald Trump to be president.
(unless you wanted every conservative-appointed judge in the SCOTUS to recuse themselves from the Obamacare decision on account of conflict of interest from being appointed by administrations that opposed his party)
|
These anit trump protests are disgusting. show me one effing anti sanders or anti hillary protest that turned violent. Liberals are always the ones attacking. They luv free speech and tolerance but damn man cant let someone else share their views on things
|
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones.
|
On June 04 2016 13:03 IgnE wrote:
Normally I think that the chances of a military coup in America are pretty low, but do you think that maybe a Trump presidency would present a non-negligible chance for one?
Military tends to support him, not sure if they'd start a coup against him.
|
On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones.
The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one.
More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it.
+ Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more.
|
On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more.
Not about policies. Liberals have led a cultural revolution in which conservatives gave ground foot by foot to get where we are today. Trump unapologetically challenges a large portion of the idiotic part of the "progress" that liberals have achieved and as a result is getting a lot of vocal support and is gradually shifting public opinion in his favor. Liberals aren't used to losing in the court of public opinion and are therefore enraged.
|
On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more.
You can't chalk up liberal activist violence as a response to Trump. This stuff far predates his candidacy. You don't even have to look that far back in time to see it rear its ugly head: BLM and Occupy Wallstreet. The activist left has long embraced the tactics of Malcolm X (or worse) and has never been properly shamed for it by its own.
|
That does make sense but I'd like to point out the violence and harasment coming from liberals in college debates. I think it would be a stretch to apply the same argument you gave on those groups.
We don't see same kind of violence on the other side where if these liberals have their extreme feminist debates and conferences they don't get harrased and shut down by anyone. Is it because people are not threatened by these ideas? To a degree I would say yes, but the the main culprit as I see it is actually who makes the bulk of these people.
|
On June 04 2016 16:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more. You can't chalk up liberal activist violence as a response to Trump. This stuff far predates his candidacy. You don't even have to look that far back in time to see it rear its ugly head: BLM and Occupy Wallstreet. The activist left has long embraced the tactics of Malcolm X (or worse) and has never been properly shamed for it by its own.
Exactly. Liberals in the recent history have been known to employ outrage and attempts of censorship through public shaming to further their agenda. Trump was able to shamelessly ride the wave of negative publicity they created long enough to make others see his point of view and they are starting to realize that a lot of what he says makes sense even if a lot of it may be rooted in ideas that are somewhat naive.
On June 04 2016 16:15 NukeD wrote:
That does make sense but I'd like to point out the violence and harasment coming from liberals in college debates. I think it would be a stretch to apply the same argument you gave on those groups.
We don't see same kind of violence on the other side where if these liberals have their extreme feminist debates and conferences they don't get harrased and shut down by anyone. Is it because people are not threatened by these ideas? To a degree I would say yes, but the the main culprit as I see it is actually who makes the bulk of these people.
Difference is that liberals are used to whining and getting their way. So for them escalating their protests to violence is simply a natural progression of the behavior that they're used to using to successfully shift the public opinion in their favor.
Meanwhile the opponents of their agenda are used to intentionally remaining anonymous as to avoid having the brunt of public outrage negatively effect their livelihood (eg. having your place of employment receive phone calls about how you're a racist/sexist/etc)
|
There have been riots in favor of leftists causes since at least the Haymarket affair. This really isn't anything new. Or you can do as xDaunt did and stay with more recent history.
It's just something they do on a semi-regular basis.
|
Perhaps a better word than violence is force. My point is only wrong then if conservatives, by comparison, AREN'T inclined to use force to get their point across. History tells us this isn't the case.
- Bundy and Friends taking over federal property in Oregon. The video and testimony of officers clearly indicates that the one person killed in the stand off was going for his gun when he was confronted by authorities.
- Abortion clinics and all the violence around them.
- Organized Racist groups actions, from the KKK to The Order to (these groups are almost exclusively on the conservative side of the spectrum and who we KNOW support Trump and attend his rallies).
- Large terrorist acts, like the Knoxville Unitarian Church shooting, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, and even as far back as the Oklahoma City bombing and Ruby Ridge.
- Old man Bundy in Nevada using the threat of a gun battle to keep federal authorities at bay.
There are significantly more examples.
So if we accept that both are willing to use force where they see fit (which I consider more of a human failure than a failure of their individual ideologies), then my original post and argument remains true.
|
On June 04 2016 16:47 On_Slaught wrote:
Perhaps a better word than violence is force. My point is only wrong then if conservatives, by comparison, AREN'T inclined to use force to get their point across. History tells us this isn't the case.
- Bundy and Friends taking over federal property in Oregon. The video and testimony of officers clearly indicates that the one person killed in the stand off was going for his gun when he was confronted by authorities.
- Abortion clinics and all the violence around them.
- Organized Racist groups actions, from the KKK to The Order to (these groups are almost exclusively on the conservative side of the spectrum and who we KNOW support Trump and attend his rallies).
- Large terrorist acts, like the Knoxville Unitarian Church shooting, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, and even as far back as the Oklahoma City bombing and Ruby Ridge.
- Old man Bundy in Nevada using the threat of a gun battle to keep federal authorities at bay.
There are significantly more examples.
So if we accept that both are willing to use force where they see fit (which I consider more of a human failure than a failure of their individual ideologies), then my original post and argument remains true.
I take issue with multiple parts of that, but would you be willing to say that mob violence is almost exclusively the doing of the left?
|
On June 04 2016 16:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 16:47 On_Slaught wrote:
Perhaps a better word than violence is force. My point is only wrong then if conservatives, by comparison, AREN'T inclined to use force to get their point across. History tells us this isn't the case.
- Bundy and Friends taking over federal property in Oregon. The video and testimony of officers clearly indicates that the one person killed in the stand off was going for his gun when he was confronted by authorities.
- Abortion clinics and all the violence around them.
- Organized Racist groups actions, from the KKK to The Order to (these groups are almost exclusively on the conservative side of the spectrum and who we KNOW support Trump and attend his rallies).
- Large terrorist acts, like the Knoxville Unitarian Church shooting, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, and even as far back as the Oklahoma City bombing and Ruby Ridge.
- Old man Bundy in Nevada using the threat of a gun battle to keep federal authorities at bay.
There are significantly more examples.
So if we accept that both are willing to use force where they see fit (which I consider more of a human failure than a failure of their individual ideologies), then my original post and argument remains true. I take issue with multiple parts of that, but would you be willing to say that mob violence is almost exclusively the doing of the left?
Conservative/right leaning violence does tend to be more organized rather than springing up organically. I mean the Bundy's were hoping for mob violence, they just couldn't get themselves a mob.
|
On June 04 2016 07:33 Ravianna26 wrote:
It's a legtimate concern. Racism against minorities has completely vanished, however racism against whites is a huge problem thanks to the fearmongering left in this country.
Just to make sure, on the chance that you are not being ironic: "Racism against minorities" has not completely vanished, not at all.
On June 04 2016 08:10 SK.Testie wrote:
Mostly personal crap to plansix since technically asked. Still waiting on your high tier intellectuals btw. Genuinely eager to read their works so that I can understand your point of view better.
I must have missed that part of the discussion, in regards to what do you wish to see "high tier intellectuals"? I ask because the discussion seems to have been about plansix thinking Hitchens, Dawkins et al being dummies, which I would wholeheartedly agree with 
On June 04 2016 10:19 SK.Testie wrote:
Saying illegal immigrants do bring drugs, crime, and can be rapists is true, albeit hard to swallow for many despite overwhelming evidence. Much ovewhelm. the drugs, by the way, continue to be a problem fueled by the US as much as by any of the latin american states.
Also, this mythical image of the Other-as-rapist is so damn pernicious. A majority of victims have actually been raped by their husband or by someone else in their life whom they already know (friends, family).You want to prevent rape, start there.
On June 04 2016 16:15 NukeD wrote:
We don't see same kind of violence on the other side where if these liberals have their extreme feminist debates and conferences they don't get harrased and shut down by anyone.
Extreme Feminist Debates, you make it sound like a TV show, hahaha. I like it. Will Judith Butler, three times winner of the EFD championship win the trophy once more? Gotta make sure that the trophy doesnt look too phallic tho
|
On June 04 2016 18:30 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 07:33 Ravianna26 wrote:
It's a legtimate concern. Racism against minorities has completely vanished, however racism against whites is a huge problem thanks to the fearmongering left in this country. Just to make sure, on the chance that you are not being ironic: "Racism against minorities" has not completely vanished, not at all. Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 08:10 SK.Testie wrote:
Mostly personal crap to plansix since technically asked. Still waiting on your high tier intellectuals btw. Genuinely eager to read their works so that I can understand your point of view better. I must have missed that part of the discussion, in regards to what do you wish to see "high tier intellectuals"? I ask because the discussion seems to have been about plansix thinking Hitchens, Dawkins et al being dummies, which I would wholeheartedly agree with Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 10:19 SK.Testie wrote:
Saying illegal immigrants do bring drugs, crime, and can be rapists is true, albeit hard to swallow for many despite overwhelming evidence. Much ovewhelm. the drugs, by the way, continue to be a problem fueled by the US as much as by any of the latin american states. Also, this mythical image of the Other-as-rapist is so damn pernicious. A majority of victims have actually been raped by their husband or by someone else in their life whom they already know (friends, family).You want to prevent rape, start there. Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 16:15 NukeD wrote:
We don't see same kind of violence on the other side where if these liberals have their extreme feminist debates and conferences they don't get harrased and shut down by anyone. Extreme Feminist Debates, you make it sound like a TV show, hahaha. I like it. Will Judith Butler, three times winner of the EFD championship win the trophy once more? Gotta make sure that the trophy doesnt look too phallic tho
Im too lazy to write out what kind of debates i was refering too, and also because I figured everyone here will know what i had in mind. Are you trying to undermine my point or just find my label funny?
|
United States42009 Posts
On June 04 2016 16:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more. You can't chalk up liberal activist violence as a response to Trump. This stuff far predates his candidacy. You don't even have to look that far back in time to see it rear its ugly head: BLM and Occupy Wallstreet. The activist left has long embraced the tactics of Malcolm X (or worse) and has never been properly shamed for it by its own.
I finally get to feel what it's like to be a Muslim or a black person and be told I'm not doing enough to reject some group I feel no kinship with.
I see myself as center right which, given the choices available to me in the United States, puts me in the Democratic party. A few days ago I was forced to interact socially with some 19 year old college kid who told me he was really into far left politics and social organizing when I asked what he did for fun and I noped the hell out of that conversation because no 19 year old knows anything about the world worth listening to and it was clear that he was really, really eager to talk about it. The fact that he might be slightly closer to me that Trump did nothing to negate my desire not to hear anything he had to say. But perhaps I should be doing more to denounce them. Tell me xDaunt, unlike me you share citizenship with them, what have you done to denounce them?
|
Why do you give them spotlight then?
|
TWENTIETH Century Fox has apologised for a billboard that features Jennifer Lawrence’s X-Men: Apocalypse character Mystique being throttled. The billboard has been criticised by some who are offended by the imagery of Oscar Isaac’s Apocalypse choking Mystique. Actress and filmmaker Rose McGowan says there’s “a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is a way to market a film”. In a statement, Fox says that in highlighting the villainy of Apocalypse, “we didn’t immediately realise the upsetting connotation of this image in print form”. ![[image loading]](http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2016/05/CjOrqbQWUAAIA2j.jpg)
You guys seriously need to stop being outraged by everything or stop catering to those who are outraged by everything.
EDIT: I wonder what the reaction would be if it was a female xman choking a male xman.
|
I just saw the footage of Trump protesters kicking trump supporters' cars. What a democratic process in action!
|
On June 04 2016 15:55 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2016 15:16 NukeD wrote:
What irony it is that "liberals" are overwhelmingly the violent ones. The simplest answer is that liberals are significantly more frightened of a Trump Presidency than conservatives are of a Clinton one. More detailed answer in the spoiler, but that is the gist of it. + Show Spoiler +So the fact you consider this revelation as "ironic" tells me that you don't believe there is anything inherent in liberal policies that advocates this sort of violence as the solution to our problems. For the sake of this argument, lets assume the same is true of conservatives.
If that is the case, why is one set getting violent while the other isn't nearly as much? If it isn't anything inherent in their beliefs, then the obvious answer lies in what they are being violent against.
Liberals truly FEAR a Trump Presidency. There are people who believe (and rightfully so imo) that Trump is an existential threat to both this country and their lives (it isn't a coincidence that so many Hispanics are protesting in the west/south). This fear and anger compels them to become violent, even if they haven't been in the past.
The lack of violence from conservatives either means there is something inherent in their belief system that finds violence abhorrent, or they don't consider Hillary a massive threat to their ways of life. I think most would agree there is nothing about conservative ideology that considers violence abhorrent (the party of guns, the military, the bible, hunting, etc), Ultimately, then, conservatives don't seem to fear Hillary anywhere near as much as liberals fear Trump.
This is one possible explanation for the difference in the levels of violence at rallies. Unless of course you're going to tell me that liberals are more inclined to be violent. That argument I'd like to hear, because if that's the case, then if we can show that conservatives are just as inclined, if not more, to violence, then we come back to the same answer: one side fears a loss much more.
I'm sure the media has nothing to do with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
