ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Boem wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Huge difference between saying something and doing something.

The actions Trump took all point to not caring about the democrat base and only catering to his partisans.

Show me actual examples of Trump doing something for the democrat voter base in a way that isn't just him doing it out of pressure and in a late fashion (aka, not Puerto Rico, in which he delayed help for days kind of stuff).

Is trump a proud american and nationalist?

Peace,

-Boem-

I'd say he's neither. He's a nihilistic person whose entire world is himself and no one else matter.

I certainly do not believe him to be a proud american.

Nationalist, it depends of your definition.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Built upon lies, built upon racism, built upon xenophobia and built upon calls for violence.

Attacking the program of the opposition is fine. Trump attacked (and still is) the people directly. That one is certainly not unique to him but he's the most vicious one in recent history, by a big margin.

Show me even a single instance of Trump calling for violence against nonviolent US citizens. Protip: you can't.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/

I don't think all of those are violence encouragement but some are without a doubt.

Well, I wouldn't have ever made the mistake Ms. Sanders did. I knew fully well that Trump has justified violence against specific violent protesters — specifically, individuals protesting the Las Vegas rally of Feb 2016 and the Warren, MI rally of Mar 2016 — as well as hypothetical cases involving violent protesters — in the Snopes piece, two hypotheticals involve the seizure of a microphone and the throwing of tomatoes, both of which are assault and justify force in self defense. Given how encouraging self-defense was basically a recurring theme of Trump rallies, it's fair to say Sanders was not speaking the truth.

The one I didn't know about was the BLM protester in Nov 2015. I can't seem to find much evidence he was violent, and Trump doesn't even claim he was. So maybe one lone incident, out of what you thought was multiple instances, has Trump justified violence against a nonviolent protester — and that was 2015 greenhorn Trump, not the well-oiled machine of 2016 and onwards.

But Snopes giving the above cartoon a "true" rating is absurd. The only quote in the cartoon that includes the relevant context of self-defense is the one about hitting back; the "maybe he should have been roughed up" is also okay, since it apparently had no context of self-defense originally. Every other one of those is an out-of-context, misleading quote, intended to falsely portray Trump as encouraging the initiation, rather than retaliation, of violence. But beyond that, each quote drops the critical context of violence against protesters at rallies, and gives the false impression of inciting violence against people in general. For a fact-checker to be so mute on such clear misrepresentation is disgraceful.

Throwing a tomato isn't assault, cmon there. The tomato isn't gonna hurt anyone. If it was a rock, it would be assault.

And asking for retaliation is still encouraging violence.

If someone is being violent at a rally, should people defend themselves? Yes. Should the person in charge of the rally tell the crowd to defend themselves? Sure. Should the person in charge of the rally tell the crowd to retaliate? Hell no. There's a huge difference between self defense and retaliation. Retaliation has no limit on the amount of people involved or the power employed in said retaliation.

Would you consider it appropriate for someone throwing a tomato to get slugged by multiple people?

Would you consider it appropriate for someone being violent to be assaulted by multiple people, beyond what would be considered self-defense?


In both cases, I say no. The first one should be escorted out without being touched (except by security, but entirely 0 violence).

The second, it would be appropriate to neutralize the perpetrator (including hitting back) but once he's under control, no further harm should occur. Then let security cuff him/her and escort them to a police officer for a proper arrest. Victims can press assault charges.


The difference is in advocating self-defense and in advocating violence.


There is also this https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html which is extremely troubling. He's essentially asking people with deep belief in the second amendment to do something to her if she gets her way. It's unbelievable that he'd be asking for the murder of a political opponent but it's what he did. You might twist it however you want but it's obvious that's what it meant.

Throwing food or beverage at someone IS assault. Period. And it should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. Looking at you, United Kingdom.

^Both the format and the draw-style should have given any level headed person a clue about the bias involved in the piece and made them take a step back before absorbing the info.

Most of those can be read as having nothing to do with physical violence and simple rally cheers.

You need to be quite self-convinced he is stupid that he would say such things in a public format after having been on television and in the "self-image-branding" business in the context the flyer portrays it.

It's propaganda, though i like the older ones more.



Don't look up old propaganda left folks, your racism meter is going to tilt.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Throwing food or beverage at someone IS assault. Period. And it should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.

Looking at you, UK.

Hiy, it's just tomato's, no double standard to see here folks.

This is a completely normal saturday afternoon, you go to the grossery store buy a bunch of "non-solids"(as defined by reverend faerwin) and go nuke it on some randoms in the street.
And if it's not a random target and we might derive intent from such a context, happy little accidents as bob ross pointed out.

Don't forget scrotie, it's only an act of violence if you do it for the wrong reasons.


Peace,

-Boem-

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Throwing food or beverage at someone IS assault. Period. And it should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.

Looking at you, UK.

Might as well sue the clouds for assaulting you with water droplets then...

Are you one of those that think throwing snowballs is assault?

"

faerwin wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Throwing food or beverage at someone IS assault. Period. And it should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.

Looking at you, UK.

Might as well sue the clouds for assaulting you with water droplets then...

Are you one of those that think throwing snowballs is assault?

Are you just driving home the point that context is irrelevant for you in a very roundabout way?

If so, success!

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

^Both the format and the draw-style should have given any level headed person a clue about the bias involved in the piece and made them take a step back before absorbing the info.

Most of those can be read as having nothing to do with physical violence and simple rally cheers.

You need to be quite self-convinced he is stupid that he would say such things in a public format after having been on television and in the "self-image-branding" business in the context the flyer portrays it.

It's propaganda, though i like the older ones more.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You say it "can be read as", but people who remember the context know that it did have to do with physical violence. There was even that whole thing where he said he would pay legal fees of anyone who "got rough" (I'm paraphrasing). Then when someone sucker punched a protester who was being escorted out, Trump was like, we're looking into paying legal fees. I don't think he ultimately did, but that scenario was exactly what he was referring to.

.