• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump flips table, walks out

No. I'm saying that if you claim that Dems are encouraging in any way rioting or looting, despite not actually saying anything like that, to go out and do anything illegal, then you cannot claim that Trump is not also encouraging such things. In fact, Donald Trump during the last campaign did in fact encourage illegal behavior directly, told his supporters that he would pay their lawyers, fees if they hit people.



He applauded and approved of illegal actions taken by a Republican Politician. And that politician was convicted of the violence.


Civil unrest? So Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks and those that staged sit ins, weren't at all involved in civil unrest? And you aren't limiting it to just those few Dems that may have said that, but rather pretty much all Democrats.




Should've just dropped it. You have been wrong over and over but just cant bring yourself to step back and see it.
 
I don't see how that would make any difference as to the information being there. I'm not repeating myself from someone refusing to read other responses.

And given that you didn’t give a specific answer the first time you were asked, why should I read the whole thread just because you CLAIM to have been specific elsewhere?
 


Should've just dropped it. You have been wrong over and over but just cant bring yourself to step back and see it.

Comments taken out of context and strung together that do not provide evidence that they actually encouraged violence with those words. Some even apologized. Has Trump ever apologized for his wording? But basically they are comments in the same vein as Trump's, if not less so, that you are claiming encourage violence. And not even all from lawmakers.


(She isn't a lawmaker, btw.)

Many of those are actors making those comments, not lawmakers.

The National lawmakers shown haven't said anything near to what Trump has said. QAnon is proof that Trump supporters take his words about them being traitors, committing treason as true, as actionable items.




But that's all rhetoric, right? Not the same as those few above saying that keeping you from voting is wrong, that they won't let up, that you should tell people they aren't welcome? I don't agree with telling people they aren't welcome somewhere, but plenty of those on the right are in favor of that very action when it comes to gays or Muslims or other groups.

And Democrats are condemning violence in protests.


Most of those claiming Democrats are encouraging violence, are taking comments out of context. Heck, even if in context, if they are similar to those that Trump is making, then that would mean they are doing the same thing. Go after both, hold both responsible, rather than claiming only one holds any responsibility. But you aren't. You are claiming only Trump is not responsible for his words encouraging violence.

And again, encouraging peaceful protests is not encouraging rioting or looting. Many, many Democratic lawmakers have condemn rioting or looting, violence in protests.
 


Should've just dropped it. You have been wrong over and over but just cant bring yourself to step back and see it.

You are the one who is wrong. You even claimed I commented on the baseball shooting that Democrats weren't responsible for that (not that I know much about the story or who said what, when), but we know that these militia groups are following Trump, idolize him. We have evidence.



Trump tweets are very encouraging to a lot of groups. And his "stand back and stand by" comment was very much taken as he wants people who are in these militia groups to support him, that he supports them.


He doesn't discourage this nor does he ever apologize for anything he says that could be taken out of context or that is clearly encouragement for violence.

 


Should've just dropped it. You have been wrong over and over but just cant bring yourself to step back and see it.


It is easy to portray a particular message with the power of editing. This is deliberately taking people's words out of context to present this propaganda video.
I really don't think that is appropriate or justified.
 
Comments taken out of context and strung together that do not provide evidence that they actually encouraged violence with those words. Some even apologized. Has Trump ever apologized for his wording? But basically they are comments in the same vein as Trump's, if not less so, that you are claiming encourage violence. And not even all from lawmakers.


(She isn't a lawmaker, btw.)

Many of those are actors making those comments, not lawmakers.

The National lawmakers shown haven't said anything near to what Trump has said. QAnon is proof that Trump supporters take his words about them being traitors, committing treason as true, as actionable items.




But that's all rhetoric, right? Not the same as those few above saying that keeping you from voting is wrong, that they won't let up, that you should tell people they aren't welcome? I don't agree with telling people they aren't welcome somewhere, but plenty of those on the right are in favor of that very action when it comes to gays or Muslims or other groups.

And Democrats are condemning violence in protests.


Most of those claiming Democrats are encouraging violence, are taking comments out of context. Heck, even if in context, if they are similar to those that Trump is making, then that would mean they are doing the same thing. Go after both, hold both responsible, rather than claiming only one holds any responsibility. But you aren't. You are claiming only Trump is not responsible for his words encouraging violence.

And again, encouraging peaceful protests is not encouraging rioting or looting. Many, many Democratic lawmakers have condemn rioting or looting, violence in protests.


Milk-and-water protests against protest-related violence have no effect on the violence, and the Dems know this. Because they know that weak condemnations will have no effect, they are complicit with the rioters-- far more so than Trump is for supposedly encouraging militia groups.

Here's Nutty Nancy, likening the President's attempts to restore order in Portland, with specific emphasis on protecting Federal buildings, to using "stormtroopers" in a "banana republic."


Even if there may have been irregularities in the actions taken by some Federal agents, it's unconscionable for Pelosi and her allies to perpetuate the myth that all Portland protesters were perfectly peaceful, and that Trump's forces were unnecessary. The troops are gone, and the riots are still causing pointless chaos and expense. But Nancy doesn't care; she used the chaos to make Trump look bad, and that dog whistle is all that matters. The rioters know that the Dems will take no real measures to rein them in, and if Biden wins, these dissidents are not suddenly going to lose their taste for blood. But in all likelihood the media will cover for Biden, to keep him and Kamala from looking bad.
 
It is easy to portray a particular message with the power of editing. This is deliberately taking people's words out of context to present this propaganda video.
I really don't think that is appropriate or justified.

Considering the thread title, its nearly completely appropriate because that is what is being done already. Little late to whine and cry when Democrats get targeted in exactly the same way isn't it?
 
You are the one who is wrong. You even claimed I commented on the baseball shooting that Democrats weren't responsible for that (not that I know much about the story or who said what, when), but we know that these militia groups are following Trump, idolize him. We have evidence.



Trump tweets are very encouraging to a lot of groups. And his "stand back and stand by" comment was very much taken as he wants people who are in these militia groups to support him, that he supports them.


He doesn't discourage this nor does he ever apologize for anything he says that could be taken out of context or that is clearly encouragement for violence.


FFS, just because they follow him closely and even idolize him that doesn't mean that words couched in legal action are contributory to illegal action. You keep trying to make A=C when you cant prove A=B or B=C.
 
Comments taken out of context and strung together that do not provide evidence that they actually encouraged violence with those words. Some even apologized. Has Trump ever apologized for his wording? But basically they are comments in the same vein as Trump's, if not less so, that you are claiming encourage violence. And not even all from lawmakers.


(She isn't a lawmaker, btw.)

Many of those are actors making those comments, not lawmakers.

The National lawmakers shown haven't said anything near to what Trump has said. QAnon is proof that Trump supporters take his words about them being traitors, committing treason as true, as actionable items.




But that's all rhetoric, right? Not the same as those few above saying that keeping you from voting is wrong, that they won't let up, that you should tell people they aren't welcome? I don't agree with telling people they aren't welcome somewhere, but plenty of those on the right are in favor of that very action when it comes to gays or Muslims or other groups.

And Democrats are condemning violence in protests.


Most of those claiming Democrats are encouraging violence, are taking comments out of context. Heck, even if in context, if they are similar to those that Trump is making, then that would mean they are doing the same thing. Go after both, hold both responsible, rather than claiming only one holds any responsibility. But you aren't. You are claiming only Trump is not responsible for his words encouraging violence.

And again, encouraging peaceful protests is not encouraging rioting or looting. Many, many Democratic lawmakers have condemn rioting or looting, violence in protests.
Uprising has a specific meaning. Pelosi used it. You have denial, you don't have much else.
 
Uprising has a specific meaning. Pelosi used it. You have denial, you don't have much else.
Yes, it is "an act of resistance or rebellion". That is its meaning. It is not advocating violence. rebellion and even resistance can be accomplished through many means.
 
FFS, just because they follow him closely and even idolize him that doesn't mean that words couched in legal action are contributory to illegal action. You keep trying to make A=C when you cant prove A=B or B=C.
No. You keep arguing some strawman argument I haven't made. I have only been arguing moral/ethical responsibility, not legal. You are the one that is bringing up legal or illegal.

 
Milk-and-water protests against protest-related violence have no effect on the violence, and the Dems know this. Because they know that weak condemnations will have no effect, they are complicit with the rioters-- far more so than Trump is for supposedly encouraging militia groups.

Here's Nutty Nancy, likening the President's attempts to restore order in Portland, with specific emphasis on protecting Federal buildings, to using "stormtroopers" in a "banana republic."


Even if there may have been irregularities in the actions taken by some Federal agents, it's unconscionable for Pelosi and her allies to perpetuate the myth that all Portland protesters were perfectly peaceful, and that Trump's forces were unnecessary. The troops are gone, and the riots are still causing pointless chaos and expense. But Nancy doesn't care; she used the chaos to make Trump look bad, and that dog whistle is all that matters. The rioters know that the Dems will take no real measures to rein them in, and if Biden wins, these dissidents are not suddenly going to lose their taste for blood. But in all likelihood the media will cover for Biden, to keep him and Kamala from looking bad.
So you are complaining that she called out Trump for his acting like the dictator within a banana republic? He does that constantly. And nowhere did she claim no one was being violent or destructive.
 
No. You keep arguing some strawman argument I haven't made. I have only been arguing moral/ethical responsibility, not legal. You are the one that is bringing up legal or illegal.

Because he is speaking of legal action---arresting the governor for violation of civil rights of the citizens, you are making the leap he's actively advocating illegal action against her. You ARE making the argument, you just don't want to admit it because its a terrible argument.
 
Yes, it is "an act of resistance or rebellion". That is its meaning. It is not advocating violence. rebellion and even resistance can be accomplished through many means.

Newsflash: what's been going on hasn't been nonviolent and rebellion isn't nonviolent by its nature. Bad hairsplitting, I give it a 2.
 
Considering the thread title, its nearly completely appropriate because that is what is being done already. Little late to whine and cry when Democrats get targeted in exactly the same way isn't it?

I am not whining, I am stating the facts.

I could take your post and say you said my comments were "completely appropriate". Is that an accurate representation of what your post was actually saying?
 
I am not whining, I am stating the facts.

I could take your post and say you said my comments were "completely appropriate". Is that an accurate representation of what your post was actually saying?

The thread is about saying Trump walked out when it was time for Pence to prepare for his interview. In other words, 60 minutes tried to deceptively edit things and got caught, so when it happens to Pelosi you have a problem with it, when it happens to Trump, you cheer it.

Live the edit, die by the edit.
 
So you are complaining that she called out Trump for his acting like the dictator within a banana republic? He does that constantly. And nowhere did she claim no one was being violent or destructive.

I don't think the comparison to a restrictive dictator is a fair one in this case, nor do I credence the inflated claims of Lefties constantly claiming that everything Trump does is some grand affront to liberty. I'm sure history will judge some parts of his record as negative, but the same is true of any President.

I already established in my earlier post that Libs like Pelosi don't have to actively acclaim the work of the violent rioters; what they do is the equivalent of the "dog whistles" that they so often accuse Trump of sending. By placing more emphasis on Trump's supposedly heinous act, Pelosi's statements in the linked article provide encouragement to Antifa and BLM, tacitly saying, "Yeah, we may officially condemn the chaos but we're much more interested in wrecking Trump, so don't worry about consequences."
 
Back
Top Bottom