Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 22:13:56 GMT -5
Silent protesting is disruptive? Trump has escalated the protests with his rhetoric. No where else has there been protest, and I'll tell you honestly just as many people probably dislike Cruz as Trump.
Anyone has the right to attend a political talk. I try to see everyone who comes close enough to see... If I show up but am not a fan, wear a different party t shirt, I should be ejected? I should be told that I should be beat up? ... This is America, right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 23:04:43 GMT -5
Silent protesting is disruptive? Trump has escalated the protests with his rhetoric. No where else has there been protest, and I'll tell you honestly just as many people probably dislike Cruz as Trump. Anyone has the right to attend a political talk. I try to see everyone who comes close enough to see... If I show up but am not a fan, wear a different party t shirt, I should be ejected? I should be told that I should be beat up? ... This is America, right? Yes. It can be... as I said (pretty plainly, I might add) " if it makes people pay more attention to them than they pay attention to the speaker". From the OED: Having to interrupt the rally to remove the protester because "people are paying attention to them and not the speaker" (that's the "problem"), is, by definition, "disruption"... a disruption that they, by their presence caused, thus they are disruptive. ETA: and yes, everyone has the right to attend. What they don't have a right to do is be a disruptive influence on the event. So even if you aren't a supporter... by all means attend if you want, but do so politely and staying seated like everyone else, and preferably not while wearing an opposition t-shirt (which could cause just as much disruption as the silent stander).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 23:07:19 GMT -5
So what form of protests are ok then? Or should people who disagree with him just stfu?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 23:08:53 GMT -5
So what form of protests are ok then? Or should people who disagree with him just stfu? Protest outside the event all they want... as long as they don't hinder others.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 7:10:26 GMT -5
And get the right permits... If they are granted the right permits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 8:06:06 GMT -5
Here is the thing, his brand of push inspires extreme pull reactions likes no other. I mean, I heard about his call to boycott Megan Kelly this morning and I was like d*%m... I'm going to have to start watching Fox...
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 20, 2016 8:27:46 GMT -5
Ahhh, Geees, here we go for years it was Bush's fault for every fail policy, Now it is going to be Trump's fault for the idiot's blocking the highway! This affected tons of people that had nothing to do with Trump. This highway is one of the few out of Phoenix and Scottsdale for access to the Bush highway without taking many mile detour. Kinda ironic, The "Bush" highway and a political protest.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 8:36:59 GMT -5
And as Dem said on the other thread they were appropriately dealt with...
But yeah, you have to ask why only trump brings out this reaction. Words have consequences. You can say what you want. But you can't free yourself from the consequences of what you say...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 8:41:00 GMT -5
And as Dem said on the other thread they were appropriately dealt with... But yeah, you have to ask why only trump brings out this reaction. Words have consequences. You can say what you want. But you can't free yourself from the consequences of what you say... More people should talk about the consequences of Clinton's war rhetoric. imo.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 20, 2016 8:45:53 GMT -5
Ok, are we to hold Trump responsible for words, But not the people blocking the road, only a couple of people were arrested, lots of people involved.
Why wasn't everyone involved arrested?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2016 11:52:53 GMT -5
Ok, are we to hold Trump responsible for words, But not the people blocking the road, only a couple of people were arrested, lots of people involved. Why wasn't everyone involved arrested? find out. i am sure there is a reason. it is not like the police department is full of hippies. trust me on that one.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2016 12:29:57 GMT -5
And as Dem said on the other thread they were appropriately dealt with... But yeah, you have to ask why only trump brings out this reaction. Words have consequences. You can say what you want. But you can't free yourself from the consequences of what you say... How is this different from saying "You can rob a bank if you want. But you can't free yourself from the consequences of robbing a bank."? Expression, including speech, always has consequences. The issue is whether the consequences are socially acceptable. As far as I'm aware, the grand sum of everything "hateful" Mr. Trump has said thus far is: i) proposing a wall to stem the flood of illegal immigrants as a matter of economic pragmatism; ii) proposing a ban on Muslim travel to and from the US, which he no doubt also considers pragmatic; and iii) instructing his followers and security detail to throw out anyone he doesn't want at his rallies, which appears to be jointly a function of his narcissism and his pragmatism. If you're saying that people blocking traffic and inciting riots is a socially acceptable response to this, come out and say it. If you believe this is the natural reaction to Mr. Trump's rhetoric and that people ought not be punished for acting this way: come out and say it. Don't give us "Words have consequences." as though we somehow aren't aware that Mr. Trump's rhetoric is what set these people off. Finally: If you believe these people aren't acting in an acceptable manner, and you hold Mr. Trump liable for their misbehaviour, then you logically ought to support prohibiting Mr. Trump from voicing his policies and throwing people out of his rallies. Do you support such a prohibition?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2016 12:30:54 GMT -5
Ok, are we to hold Trump responsible for words, But not the people blocking the road, only a couple of people were arrested, lots of people involved. Why wasn't everyone involved arrested? They usually only arrest the instigators and the loudmouths. The jail cells can only hold so many and the courts can only process so many.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 16:19:38 GMT -5
It isn't being against illegal immigration. Its suggesting anyone who came here from Mexico is horrible people, rapists and murderers and the like...
It's suggesting all Muslums are terrorists who hate us, and torture should be brought back for them, and the killing of all of their families.
It's the nasty names he calls women, whether or not they are currently 'bleeding out of their wherever'.
It's discussing how vile and disgusting and dangerous anyone must be if they disagree with him...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2016 16:27:18 GMT -5
As far as I'm aware, the grand sum of everything "hateful" Mr. Trump has said thus far is: i) proposing a wall to stem the flood of illegal immigrants as a matter of economic pragmatism; ii) proposing a ban on Muslim travel to and from the US, which he no doubt also considers pragmatic; and iii) instructing his followers and security detail to throw out anyone he doesn't want at his rallies, which appears to be jointly a function of his narcissism and his pragmatism.... The reason #1 is hateful has a lot more to do with garnering Hispanic voters than racism IMO. The reason #2 is hateful has a lot more to do with political correctness than reality - unfortunately political correctness currently "Trumps" the security of our nation. The reason #3 is hateful is that Democrats have a horrible track record of shouting down anybody who doesn't immediately and implicitly agree with them. It's a very good strategy too - look at any successful dictator and that's the first thing they do. There's nothing hateful about i. I don't approve of ii; I consider it a bad idea and a bad precedent to boot. But I don't believe it's motivated by hatred either. I consider iii jointly motivated by Mr. Trump's narcissism and his pragmatism. He hates criticism. He hates disrespect. He has absolutely no tolerance for either, and very little patience, tact, or restraint. He's like a dog defending its yard. You're either a friend or not a friend, and if you're not a friend, you've got a real problem if you wander into his yard. I would say it's almost too primitive to qualify as "hatred", falling more along the lines of irascibility and poor impulse control. However, it is fair to say that he holds his critics in contempt, and contempt can easily mature into hatred. He's a man who makes very stark divides between his friends and his enemies.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2016 16:30:13 GMT -5
It isn't being against illegal immigration. Its suggesting anyone who came here from Mexico is horrible people, rapists and murderers and the like... It's suggesting all Muslums are terrorists who hate us, and torture should be brought back for them, and the killing of all of their families. It's the nasty names he calls women, whether or not they are currently 'bleeding out of their wherever'. It's discussing how vile and disgusting and dangerous anyone must be if they disagree with him... Are there quotes for any of these, with context provided? I haven't heard him say anything that would qualify for the first three. Contempt for his critics I have heard.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 16:42:22 GMT -5
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 20, 2016 17:44:37 GMT -5
I'm glad Mr. trump decided to run...just watching the lefties try to shut down his freedom of speech at every opportunity is justification enough that he should be our next President. The alternative - a nation where one party can shut down freedoms so easily - is a scary place indeed.
Considering Trump is having is hired thugs remove people from his events and fencing in the press that attend, you have an interesting slant. The "lefties' you cite are simply exercising their constitutional right to assembly and free speech. It's not their fault Trump chumps out in crunch time and doesn't continue with his events. And then you have the Repos that would love to shut him up and have him go away. Why do they want to shut down Trumps freedoms?
That scary place you talk about would be an America with Trump as POTUS.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 20, 2016 17:54:34 GMT -5
Nixon and Vietnam. Eisenhower and Korea. Reagan and Bush 1 had short wars that they both started and ended.
Funny stuff Hickle. Especially that second sentence. What proof that is that Repos stop wars! And Nixxon and 'Nam? how old are you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2016 18:37:57 GMT -5
i think that Clinton should just pay to run John Oliver's hit piece on Trump on every channel out there until it sinks in.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2016 18:42:39 GMT -5
I knew about the Megyn Kelly comment. The "Islam hates us." comment is true depending on how you define "Islam". Mr. Trump points out that it's difficult or impossible to distinguish between so-called "moderate Islam" and Islam based on strict interpretation of the Qu'ran (e.g. Salafism) when screening migrants. The latter (and all of the movements and groups that stem from it) very much do hate America and western society in general. It's not wrong for Mr. Trump to point this out. I consider his position on torture both immoral and untrue, but I also see it as a function of his pragmatism. Targeting terrorists' families is also a matter of his pragmatism, although in this case I agree it constitutes hatred. All nine of the quotes in HuffPo's collection, save for the last one, concern border-hopping Mexicans or individuals. Mr. Trump doesn't mention Hispanics or Latinos. His thesis is that Mexico is sending America "their worst", indicating his grievance is specifically with the border-hoppers. You can argue that his thesis is untrue, because it very well might be, but there's no merit to the argument that Mr. Trump hates Hispanics and/or Latinos simply because the border-hoppers he's accusing of being ne'er-do-wells happen to be Hispanic and Latino. If he starts saying things like "We don't need any more Latinos in this country.", then I'll buy it. As for "Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics-a tough subject-must be discussed.", the statement is also true depending on how you define "overwhelming amount" and "major cities", and how you measure violent crime. It's a messy statistical subject. ETA: Thanks for providing the sources.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 18:45:07 GMT -5
The issue is not distinguishing between Muslims and terrorists, and then advocating torture andkilling families of 'terrorists'.
I'll look at the rest later...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2016 18:51:32 GMT -5
I knew about the Megyn Kelly comment. The "Islam hates us." comment is true depending on how you define "Islam". Mr. Trump points out that it's difficult or impossible to distinguish between so-called "moderate Islam" and Islam based on strict interpretation of the Qu'ran (e.g. Salafism) when screening migrants. The latter (and all of the movements and groups that stem from it) very much do hate America and western society in general. It's not wrong for Mr. Trump to point this out. I consider his position on torture both immoral and untrue, but I also see it as a function of his pragmatism. Targeting terrorists' families is also a matter of his pragmatism, although in this case I agree it constitutes hatred. All nine of the quotes in HuffPo's collection, save for the last one, concern border-hopping Mexicans or individuals. Mr. Trump doesn't mention Hispanics or Latinos. His thesis is that Mexico is sending America "their worst", indicating his grievance is specifically with the border-hoppers. You can argue that his thesis is untrue, because it very well might be, but there's no merit to the argument that Mr. Trump hates Hispanics and/or Latinos simply because the border-hoppers he's accusing of being ne'er-do-wells happen to be Hispanic and Latino. If he starts saying things like "We don't need any more Latinos in this country.", then I'll buy it. As for "Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics-a tough subject-must be discussed.", the statement is also true depending on how you define "overwhelming amount" and "major cities", and how you measure violent crime. It's a messy statistical subject. ETA: Thanks for providing the sources. the problem with subjecting Trump's statements to a carefully nuanced analysis is that he never does. it is much easier, given that fact, to assume that he actually believes all of this rubbish, and that he is less a pragmatist than an opportunist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2016 18:52:17 GMT -5
The issue is not distinguishing between Muslims and terrorists, and then advocating torture andkilling families of 'terrorists'. I'll look at the rest later... and it is not just hatred- it is criminal. we are talking about murdering innocent people, here.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2016 18:55:02 GMT -5
The issue is not distinguishing between Muslims and terrorists, and then advocating torture andkilling families of 'terrorists'. I'll look at the rest later... If you're worried he's going to bomb the snot out of America's enemies with a highly limited ability to distinguish between friend and foe, welcome to US foreign policy under whoever's elected in 2016. There isn't a pacifist among them, except possibly Sen. Sanders. I don't know what his intentions are.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 20, 2016 18:58:20 GMT -5
The issue is not distinguishing between Muslims and terrorists, and then advocating torture andkilling families of 'terrorists'. I'll look at the rest later... and it is not just hatred- it is criminal. we are talking about murdering innocent people, here. Legally it's not murder. It's collateral damage inflicted in wartime. It's been the status quo since 2001 and will continue to be the status quo regardless of who's elected in 2016. I should think you'd appreciate Mr. Trump's forthrightness about it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2016 19:04:47 GMT -5
and it is not just hatred- it is criminal. we are talking about murdering innocent people, here. Legally it's not murder. It's collateral damage inflicted in wartime. It's been the status quo since 2001 and will continue to be the status quo regardless of who's elected in 2016. I should think you'd appreciate Mr. Trump's forthrightness about it. the GC does not allow for targeting civilians. it is a war crime. 2001 changed nothing, other than our moral sensibility on this subject.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2016 19:05:57 GMT -5
The issue is not distinguishing between Muslims and terrorists, and then advocating torture andkilling families of 'terrorists'. I'll look at the rest later... If you're worried he's going to bomb the snot out of America's enemies with a highly limited ability to distinguish between friend and foe, welcome to US foreign policy under whoever's elected in 2016. There isn't a pacifist among them, except possibly Sen. Sanders. I don't know what his intentions are. correction: there are probably hundreds of pacifists running.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 20, 2016 19:08:46 GMT -5
The issue is not distinguishing between Muslims and terrorists, and then advocating torture andkilling families of 'terrorists'. I'll look at the rest later... and it is not just hatred- it is criminal. we are talking about murdering innocent people, here. And we are not killing innocent people now? Bombing hospitals, Using drones to kill entire families.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2016 19:10:21 GMT -5
and it is not just hatred- it is criminal. we are talking about murdering innocent people, here. And we are not killing innocent people now? Bombing hospitals, Using drones to kill entire families. i have already stated that Obama is a war criminal. did you not catch that the first ten or so times i said that?
|
|