• 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!

I don't know what to think about this stuff any more

MovingPictures said:
He has spent three years pitting whites against Hispanic culture. We tried to warn him that deranged people could see his words as legitimacy for harming Hispanics, but he didn't listen. The manifesto of the shooter is exactly the kind of person we warned the conservative movement could be listening to them.

His words are meaningless now.
Click to expand...

We need a citation for this one. Unless you want to suggest that drug running, illegal immigration, and child sex trafficking are Hispanic culture?

That's the problem with deranged people though. You could say basically anything and they'd have an adverse reaction. So now you're just blaming the man for setting off someones trigger, that he didn't even know existed. While the left keep doing the same thing every day, and even endorse such violence in their own capacity.
 
Mr Person said:
Reread the last 100 threads you created from start to finish.

FFS. How can "we"....



Everything is Trump innocent + liberal conspiracy to you. You make rational discourse impossible and then complain that people aren't taking you seriously; you and Trump and Trump supporters that is....

But hey, probably Obama's fault.





PS: Trump spends three years doing the wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean routine, the "fine people on both sides" routine, the "rough 'em up", the offering to pay legal bills, the etc etc etc routine, and new converts are supposed to drop to their knees and pray with you?

I'm glad he said it. That's good.. That's the one tiniest chunk of a start.
Click to expand...

Lutherf said:
This is a fine example of what I'm talking about.

Trump did not incite the person that shot up the Pulse nightclub. He didn't incite the one that shot up Virginia Tech. He didn't incite the one that shot up San Bernardino. He didn't incite the one that shot up Dayton.

Not all radicalization starts with Trump and intentionally ignoring that fact because of a political agenda is....well, it doesn't help the chances of realizing possible solutions.
Click to expand...

Lutherf announcing that Trump didn't radicalize someone =/= Trump in fact did not radicalize someone.*

Words have power.

Words mean something.

No matter what you type I know that you know that words have inspired people to do things, from the best to the worst. And you also know that I know that you know that arguing that a few mass shootings weren't possibly egged on by Trump =/= Trump didn't radicalize anyone. He doesn't need to have radicalized anyone. Even if the mass shootings (especially those echoing his rhetoric, targeting the people he targets) didn't happen he'd still be in the wrong for his hateful rhetoric.

When the dear leader is telling the country that certain groups of people are awful, a small subset of that country might just do something they'd only perversely dreamed of.




Words matter.
 
Words matter. OK.

So why all the words and accusations that go with it? Words like Nazi, racist, bigot, White Supremacist, etc. etc. etc.

If words matter, than shouting those words and making those baseless accusations matter too.

Political rhetoric does not equal incitement to violence, unless it meets the legal standard of actual incitement.

Bernie's political rhetoric of 'Republicans want to kill millions by denying them healthcare' is not incitement, and is not responsible for the Republican baseball practice shooter, for example.

Why? Because it doesn't meet the legal standards of actual incitement.

The same standards need to apply to all politicians. Including Trump, as his political rhetoric also has not met the legal standards of actual incitement.

So wiser politicians should stop alienating the very voters they are going to need to vote for them by shouting those words that matter.
 
Ran across an interesting article:
In “The Rise of Trump, the Fall of Prejudice?” sociologists Daniel Hopkins and Samantha Washington found that since the 2016 campaign and election, “white Americans’ expressed anti-Black and anti-Hispanic prejudice declined.”
University of Pennsylvania study: America under Trump is LESS racist | The College Fix
Click to expand...

Citing this study:
The Rise of Trump, the Fall of Prejudice? Tracking White Americans' Racial Attitudes 2008-2018 via a Panel Survey
20 Pages Posted: 26 May 2019

Daniel J. Hopkins
University of Pennsylvania

Samantha Washington
University of Pennsylvania, Students

Date Written: April 17, 2019
Abstract

In his campaign and first few years in office, Donald Trump consistently defied contemporary norms by using explicit, negative rhetoric targeting ethnic/racial minorities. Did this rhetoric lead white Americans to express more prejudiced views of African Americans or Hispanics, whether through the normalization of prejudice or other mechanisms? We assess that question using a 13-wave panel conducted with a population-based sample of Americans between 2008 and 2018. We find that via most measures, white Americans' expressed anti-Black and anti-Hispanic prejudice declined after the 2016 campaign and election, and we can rule out even small increases in the expression of prejudice. These results suggest the limits of racially charged rhetoric's capacity to heighten prejudice among white Americans overall. They also indicate that prejudice can behave like an issue attitude: rather than being a fixed predisposition, prejudice can respond thermostatically to changing presidential rhetoric and policy positions.
The Rise of Trump, the Fall of Prejudice? Tracking White Americans' Racial Attitudes 2008-2018 via a Panel Survey by Daniel J. Hopkins, Samantha Washington :: SSRN
Click to expand...

Science from academics, apparently.

So what's all the accusation about then?
 
I have never in my life seen more pissing and moaning than in this thread. Y’all ain’t even ashamed of it. :lol:

And y’all call us the snowflakes.
 
Lutherf said:
I just sat and watched Wolf Blitzer interview Tim Ryan and Kamala Harris. He asked them about Trump's comments today and both blasted what he said as being divisive. Kain, if I remember correctly, used the term "slap in the face" to describe what Trump said. After that I went looking for the video so I could watch it and maybe see what they saw.

Here's the video -



There are comments below the video that basically focus on when he misspoke and mentioned Toledo. That happened here too. Nobody seems to have focused on what he said. They just focused on the fact that he's Trump and that includes Blitzer!

How the heck can we expect to have a rational conversation about this stuff if nobody, INCLUDING THE MEDIA, is willing to actually discuss things?

Trump recognized the impact on Mexico and Mexicans. I thought that was very thoughtful.

Trump condemned hatred and white supremacy.

Trump directed the FBI to investigate domestic terrorism especially at its roots on the internet.

Trump talked about directing the DoJ to work with federal and state law enforcement as well ass social media providers to try to identify people who might be presenting problematic behavior.

Trump talked about "red flag" laws to better address public safety and the mental health needs of those exhibiting problematic behavior.

I didn't hear him spewing hate and divisiveness. Then again, I tend to agree with him on a lot of policy issues. If someone here can point out anywhere in that speech where he expressed a preference to divide this nation then please point it out to me.



But I have to ask, why would Blitzer just allow the stuff Harris and Ryan said go without at least challenging them? How is letting stuff like that slide "journalism"? How is it that, as a professional, he can simply allow their divisive claims of divisiveness go unchallenged?

I mean, it's like we're all living in two completely differrent worlds these days and that the same words spoken by the same person can sound 180° different when heard by a Democrat than they do when heard by anyone else.
Click to expand...


That is the standard that CNN operates on today. They are dying and only the TDS’ers who can’t move on are interested in hearing this drivel. They need ratings to keep their advertising rates up where they can support the company.

There are only a few people buying what they are selling now that the show is over.
 
Superfly said:
I have never in my life seen more pissing and moaning than in this thread. Y’all ain’t even ashamed of it. :lol:

And y’all call us the snowflakes.
Click to expand...

Trump's robotic lip service teleprompter reading on this one reminded me of those old sketches on Conan O'Brien's comedy show where he would put up a big picture of someone, and then have one of his staff use their lips super-imposed on the pic to answer Conan's questions. No sincerity,no emotion, no facial expression...just robotic lip flapping to appease his gullible base.
 
Logician Man said:
Trump's robotic lip service teleprompter reading on this one reminded me of those old sketches on Conan O'Brien's comedy show where he would put up a big picture of someone, and then have one of his staff use their lips super-imposed on the pic to answer Conan's questions. No sincerity,no emotion, no facial expression...just robotic lip flapping to appease his gullible base.
Click to expand...

And it works. Doesn’t matter what he says. Doesn’t matter what he does. As long as he says it, it’s OK. What a bunch of sheep.
 
Lutherf said:
I just sat and watched Wolf Blitzer interview Tim Ryan and Kamala Harris. He asked them about Trump's comments today and both blasted what he said as being divisive. Kain, if I remember correctly, used the term "slap in the face" to describe what Trump said. After that I went looking for the video so I could watch it and maybe see what they saw.

Here's the video -



There are comments below the video that basically focus on when he misspoke and mentioned Toledo. That happened here too. Nobody seems to have focused on what he said. They just focused on the fact that he's Trump and that includes Blitzer!

How the heck can we expect to have a rational conversation about this stuff if nobody, INCLUDING THE MEDIA, is willing to actually discuss things?

Trump recognized the impact on Mexico and Mexicans. I thought that was very thoughtful.

Trump condemned hatred and white supremacy.

Trump directed the FBI to investigate domestic terrorism especially at its roots on the internet.

Trump talked about directing the DoJ to work with federal and state law enforcement as well ass social media providers to try to identify people who might be presenting problematic behavior.

Trump talked about "red flag" laws to better address public safety and the mental health needs of those exhibiting problematic behavior.

I didn't hear him spewing hate and divisiveness. Then again, I tend to agree with him on a lot of policy issues. If someone here can point out anywhere in that speech where he expressed a preference to divide this nation then please point it out to me.



But I have to ask, why would Blitzer just allow the stuff Harris and Ryan said go without at least challenging them? How is letting stuff like that slide "journalism"? How is it that, as a professional, he can simply allow their divisive claims of divisiveness go unchallenged?

I mean, it's like we're all living in two completely differrent worlds these days and that the same words spoken by the same person can sound 180° different when heard by a Democrat than they do when heard by anyone else.
Click to expand...


You should understand one thing and one thing only. To the Hispanic community, the massacre in El Paso was equivalent to our 9/11 for them. It was a signal that they are all targets of hatred and possible terrorism. Did they receive some words of comfort in Trump's teleprompter speech? No they didn't and I'll explain why. It's true that Trump said the right words, 'hatred' and 'white supremacy'. He said "hate has no place in America". That was little comfort to many El Paso residents, who focused instead on the ways that Trump had stoked the racism and xenophobia that appeared to have motivated the killer and his decision to target Mexican immigrants. And then, just a few days later, ICE raided a shop in Mississippi and rounded up 680 Mexicans taking parents away from children who had just started school that day.

The words don't match the actions. The words he spoke were scripted and not his words. His words never match his actions.
 
I watched Trump's address live, and it appeared to me that he was like a school boy who was forced to get up in front of the class and read his book report. There was no passion, no energy, no commitment, just words on a teleprompter and let's get this over with.

I just imagine Trump going back to his office and saying to his campaign strategists "OK, I read your stupid statement. You happy now? Now leave me alone for the rest of the day!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom