Serious Explosives Sent to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama & Time Warner Center (CNN Office)

Started by Enigma, Oct 24, 2018, in Life Add to Reading List

  1. Enigma
    Posts: 14,984
    Likes: 17,365
    Joined: Nov 27, 2014

    Enigma Civil liberties > Police safety

    Nov 18, 2018
    Nah. As much as I hate the dude, I wouldn’t wish harm on him. Last thing we need is him becoming some kind of martyr.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  2. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 18, 2018
    "a president that doesn't encurage these fringe crazies" since when did Trump encourage people to send bombs to other politicians?? and literally all of those suggestions have been made countless time and worked on, you're not coming up with anything new here.

    All of those suggestions are out of my and every else in this forums' power. How thick skulled do you have to be to not understand my comment? Theres nothing I can do about it, so it's up to the people with power to find a solution. So having my "lazy" mentality, is all I can do. IMO: some people can't be rehabilitated and they should be kept away.

    The reason Trump fueled this nutheads rhetoric is because this bomber is a nuthead. That's what it is. Trump should and can't be held accountable for any of this. Remember that Bernie supporter that opend fire during a baseball game? Do you put any blame on Bernie for fueling his rhetoric? Certainly you don't, as you shouldn't. Wether you agree or disagree, Trump has said nothing radical enough that would fuel a normal person to send explosives to oposing politicians. But crazy people aren't normal and their brains do not work the same way as normal people.

    Lastly, if that's how you percieve my comment, I can't help with your issues. I've seen you say a lot of dumb stuff so that's what I based my perception on
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  3. Enigma
    Posts: 14,984
    Likes: 17,365
    Joined: Nov 27, 2014

    Enigma Civil liberties > Police safety

    Nov 18, 2018
    When has Bernie Sanders called Republicans the “enemy of the people?” When has Sanders called for locking up political opponents? Sanders rhetoric & Trump’s rhetoric are not the same at all. What rhetoric from Sanders would that shooter have been influenced by? This is an apples & oranges comparison.

    Glad we can admit the bomber was influenced by trump’s rhetoric. Trump deserve some share of the responsibility for that. His rhetoric is divisive. It’s mean & vulgar. He’s president of the United States, he should know his words hold a lot of weight & carry a lot of influence. You see it at his rallies all the time. His supporters harassing reporters, assaulting counter-protestors, calling for Clinton to be jailed etc. Like, this is no secret. He knows people follow what he says so he ought to carry some of the repercussions when things go violent.

    Now you’re being purposely thick headed. Trump didn’t need to literally advocate for bombings to take some responsibility for this (though trump has *literally* advocated for violence in the past but that’s besides the point). He constantly calls the media the “the enemy of the people” & spews baseless conspiracies on how there’s a “deep state” headed by his political rivals & their allies (Obama, Clinton, Soros etc.) to undermine his administration. He calls for his political opponents to be jailed. All of this could contribute to one of his fringe supporters doing something violent & that’s exactly what we saw happen.

    A) you can elect people to public office that will push for those reforms so no, it’s not entirely out of our hands.
    B ) in other words, you were never asking for solutions. You were asking for “things I can do personally about the problem.”
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  4. eddie313
    Posts: 12,464
    Likes: 10,187
    Joined: Feb 15, 2011

    eddie313 MUSIC TO BE MURDERED BY

    Nov 18, 2018
    Smells like Secret Service in here
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  5. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 19, 2018
    What rehtoric from Sanders would that shooter have been influenced by? I'll ask you the same question but about trump. None of those things you said Trump has done, would influence a sane person to commit a violent crime. Your argument just doesn't work. If you want to give Trump partial blame for this, Bernie must get that aswell for inspiring that shooting since the perpatrator was influenced by Bernie. But Ofcourse you won't do that, you have an agenda.

    And your second point makes you sound like a pissy pant softie. Seriously, his rhetoric is mean and vulgar? holy h--- are we little babies now? His rhetoric isn't mean at all, he's a brutally honest person, which is what countries need as leaders. Not actors that sugarcoat things to escape reality. Sure maybe sometimes he says something you wouldnt expect from a president, but you and the media make it out to be much worse than it really is. Trump should not share any responsibility whatsoever for an insane persons actions. You are just as insane for thinking he does. For example, let's say theres a teacher who makes an honest statement about mass immigration, stating that it can be very bad. Let's say one student who is insane, gets "inspired" by that and twists that to fit his insane world and goes out and kills people. Would you say the teacher shares responsibiity? h--- no. It is not the speakers fault for a maniacs inyerpretation of his/hers words.

    Calling the media the enemy of the people and rightfully stating that opponents such as Hilary (who is a criminal) should be in jail, is not at all something radical or anything that would drive a normal person to any violent actions. You're purposely sticking to a busted argument. It makes no sense. Saying that the media (which constantly lies and is biased) is an enemy, is a completely valid point and one that is true. You seem to just be offended that Trump has been willing to be honest about these issues.

    I won't respond to your last points as they offered nothing of value and were just elementary responses. Ofcourse if you want to be literal like an autist it's not entirely out my hand, but come on, my as well as yours ability to influence the prevention of terrorist attacks, is absolutely minimal. No I'm not asking for solutions from sectioneighty members, because as evident by your solution, you people have none. Neither do I. Difference is that I'll be honest about it and tell it like it is
     
    1
    dna hits likes this.
    1
    dna hits likes this.
    Mar 28, 2024
  6. Enigma
    Posts: 14,984
    Likes: 17,365
    Joined: Nov 27, 2014

    Enigma Civil liberties > Police safety

    Nov 19, 2018
    I'm not talking about sane, logical or rational people here though. I'm talking about fringe fanatics who have vans with trump/pence stickers all over. People just like the bomber. This guy isn't just some exception. Trump has tons of supporters who believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories and are beholden to everything he says. Those are the people that are susceptible to go do something violent. I'm not blaming Trump entirely for this but because of his vulgar, divisive and nasty rhetoric, he deserves some of the blame. He adds fuel to the fire and hurts the political discourse in this country. Bernie Sanders rhetoric is not comparable to Trump's at all. When has Sanders ever even insinuated violence against his opposition? Trump has not only been divisive and vulgar but he's *literally* called for violence. Whether at his rallies or toward his political opponents, toward the media, etc. It's ultimately all very dehumanizing. You're either with him or an enemy, that's the message he constantly pushes.

    Yes. it's vulgar, unprofessional, damaging and divisive. How else would you describe the president calling the media "enemy of the people" repeatedly? How else would you describe a person that till this day has his supporters chant to lock up his political opponent from two years ago? Your analogy is s--- because the rhetoric im referencing isn't just "X is bad." He's literally calling for his political opponents to be jailed. Calling for counter protestors to be assaulted by his supporters and not to worry because he'll "pay the legal fees." That's the rhetoric i'm talking about. Not some standard, I think X policy/candidate is bad.

    Your later accusation is false but that's besides the point of the topic we're discussing. If by "normal person" you mean rational, logical, mentally stable, no. However, someone who consumes nothing but Infowars, Breitbart, Fox News and hords a bunch of trump/pence gear and perhaps suffers from various social/mental issues? They might! Just like that person who shot up a pizza parlor because there was a right-wing conspiracy floating around that Clinton was running a child trafficking ring inside the restaurant.

    No intelligent person defines solutions to a problem this big as, "things only I can do." Obviously solutions to this would require vast government action. If that was your *big* point, thanks captain obvious.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  7. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 19, 2018
    "I'm not talking about sane, logical or rational people here though" exactly because your stupid argument doesn't apply to such people. I hope you realize that your argument can be used against any political leader right? "People just like the bomber. This guy isn't just some exception. Trump has tons of supporters who believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories and are beholden to everything he says. Those are the people that are susceptible to go do something violent." There are radical people on all sides of the spectrum and again, you are talking about nutjobs. Nutjobs are not in the majority and nutjobs can be controlled by anyone. Your argument falls weak again. You also seem to be completely unable to understand what I meant with the Bernie Sander shooter.

    Your second point about "vulgar" etc... Go ahead, keep having that toddler mentality. Obviously no argument will change your mind so I'm not going to keep trying because you obviously can't grasp why this isn't an actual issue.

    My "accusation" about the media being biased and lying is not false at all. All news medias are biased. Every single one of them. How is that a false accusation? For every infowar nutjob you can find, I can find 10 radical left wingers. We can go all day back and forth on that if you'd like. It wouldn't acomplish much but that's what you want to do.

    Lastly, I can tell why you're not very intelligent since your reading skills are absolute s---. That other r----- came in and asked me for solutions. To which I replied (which is true) with the fact that I don't have much power to do anything so I'm not going to sit here and offer obvious solutions (which is what you did. That leads to absolutely nothing since it's solutions a kid could come up with) . That wasn't my big point either but I guess when your IQ is in the double digits it's hard to comprehend simple texts.

    BTW: Offering obvious solutions to problems does not make you an intelligent person. This might crush your ego but sorry that's the wake up call you badly need.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  8. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 19, 2018
    Oooooh now this all makes sense. Enigma lives in San Fransisco.... That explains everything haha
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  9. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 19, 2018
    Also the point about Bernie Sanders rhetoric not being vile blah blah like Trump... Exactly, yet Bernie still "influenced" this guy to open fire at a baseball game. That proves that the rhetoric doesn't have to be radical at all, for a nutjob to fixate on it. You just strengthened the point that I was making.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  10. Enigma
    Posts: 14,984
    Likes: 17,365
    Joined: Nov 27, 2014

    Enigma Civil liberties > Police safety

    Nov 19, 2018
    I agree! There are extremists on both sides & they could be influenced by political leaders on either side of the political spectrum from divisive/hateful rhetoric. However, Trump is the only politician using this type of rhetoric on a consistent basis. If you continue to refer to your opposition as your enemy/out to get you, the extremists are going to buy it & could take matters into their own hands as we saw here & even with pizzagate.

    Trump’s rhetoric is vulgar. That’s not an opinion, it’s fact lol. Never was it the norm for presidents to lash out at everyone who doesn’t agree with him — including the department of Justice & judicial system. How would you describe a president who bashes people for their appearance? How would you describe a president who calls for protestors to get assaulted or labels African-American athletes “son of b------s” for peacefully protesting. How is vulgar not an accurate description of these actions?

    The rest of your post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Just you whipping your d-ck around again.

    You continue to operate under this premise that I’m entirely blaming trump for these bombings. Again, I AM NOT. I understand there are other variables at play here hence why I cited mental healthcare & criminal justice reform in my solutions to you. I’m saying, his rhetoric adds fuel to the fire. It riles up his supporters — including the ones who are fringe & extreme. That’s why he deserves a share of the blame. Glad you were *finally* able to admit Sanders rhetoric isn’t as vile as Trump’s.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  11. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 20, 2018
    It doesn't even matter what the rhetoric is, extremists will always exists no matter what and take anything to the extreme. Wether it's radical etc or not plays no role in extremists minds.

    Secondly, what's considerd vulgar is absolutely subjective. What you find vulgar, someone else will find truthful and amusing. This relates to all aspects of life.For example: Do you go around and act as if your opinion on humor is a fact and not an subjective assesment? Your answer is hopefully no. So how is that any different from what yo're doing right now? Stating that statements such as the media lies and that a criminal should be put in prison is vulgar, is absolutely subjective and you're acting as if this opinion of yours is a fact.
    Even if rightfully calling millionaries who protest against a non existing problem that does not effect them or as many as they think, sons of b------s, is vulgar, does it really matter if it's vulgar? I think it's a fair judgement to make. There's nothing funnier than seeing privliged millionaires dissrespecting a nation because of a non existing problem. Those athletes claim it's because of police brutality against blacks. Such "epidemic" does not exist and in most cases where "police brutality" is thrown around, it's just an intentional overreaction by left wingers to push an agenda. Time and time again we see correct meassures taken by the police, yet have it labeled as police brutality. I'm not denying that it never happens, but it does not exist on such a scale these athletes pretend it does. But again, wether this is vulgar or not, does not matter in the slightest. Wouldn't you say wether something is honest or truthful is more important than wether something is vulgar or politically correct? You seem to choose the latter and to that there is nothing I can help you with. It's that sort of thinking that destroys societies.

    And you say that the rest of my post had nothing to do with the topic. Well it was a response to something you said that had little to do with what we were talking about. You were the one that called me not intelligent for not trying to come up with solutions to problems I don't really have much power to prevent. Wouldn't you say calling someone not intelligent, to be unrelated to the topic at hand?

    Lastly, you are greatly mistaken if you think I'm working under such premis. Go back and read my posts. In them, I continue to claim that you are putting "PARTIAL" blame on Trump. That you are blaming this "PARTIALLY" on Trump. "PARTIAL" responsibility. Again, how am I thinking that you blame Trump for ALL of this lol? "I’m saying, his rhetoric adds fuel to the fire" the same way that Bernies rhetoric fueled that shooters fire..... Haha don't you realize what you're doing right now? You're supporting my arguments at this point. Like I said (if you were able to read), it doesn't matter wether Bernies rhetoric is vile or not, or if Trumps rhetoric is vile or not, Bernies rhetoric still resonated with that shooter. This shatters your argument that it's the rhetoric that Trump uses that fuels these sort of extreists.If that is the case, why are you so reluctant to admit the same for other politicians? Wether you agree or not, Bernies rhetoric fueled that shooters fire. Yet I don't see you jumping the gun to critize Bernie. You say it's because it's not a vile rhetoric that he spreads. That's the thing, it doesn't matter if it's vile or not in the mind of extremists. This goes for people of all political ideologies. Bernies rhetoric not being vile yet still influencing such incident, supports this argument. I don't think either Bernie or Trump leads a vile or radical rhetoric, but you obviously seem to be leaning very heavily to one side in this discussion which seems to be affecting your judgement.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  12. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 20, 2018
    If Trump deserves partial blame for this, I wonder why you have a hard time giving Bernie partial blame for adding fuel to that shooters fire. Let's throw the opinions out the way and look at it objectively. If you did and you think Trump deserves partial blame, so should Bernie for inspiring that seperate incident. I'm not denying that this guy was a Trump supporter or anything, but claiming that he should take partial blame or responsibility for this doesn't mae sense to me. Just like how Bernie needing to take partial blame for adding fuel to that shooters fire doesn't make sense to you.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  13. Enigma
    Posts: 14,984
    Likes: 17,365
    Joined: Nov 27, 2014

    Enigma Civil liberties > Police safety

    Nov 20, 2018
    It's not about whether or not extremists will exists, it's about their actions. The argument you're presenting here is that world leaders words don't matter and have no influence or impact on the citizens they govern what so ever. That's simply not true at all. How much impact trump's rhetoric has on his supporters is arguable but the impact exists. That's undeniable.

    Ugh..So you think the president trashing people's appearance and encouraging his supporters to beat up protesters is tasteful, professional and acceptable? You don't think that type of rhetoric is hateful or demeaning in any way? You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics here. Also, you're mischaracterizing the president's statements by presenting them to be more socially acceptable. He doesn't merely say the "media lies" he calls them "the enemy of the people." etc.

    Yes it matters lol. That's the topic of the entire conversation. Trump's vulgar and divisive rhetoric pushing his fringe fanatic supporters to the edge.

    You're trying real hard to change the topic of this discussion but i'm not biting lol. Probably because you realize your argument isn't holding up.

    This post lacks any type of reason or logic that it hurts. I'm not saying ANY rhetoric can influence someone to commit violence. I've specifically been talking about vile, vulgar, divisive rhetoric that Trump *constantly* uses. I've provided numerous examples of said rhetoric. Bernie preaching for universal healthcare has no connection to the shooter who shot up the GOP's baseball game. Those two situations have no relation to one another. A trump supporter sending a bomb to CNN's field office DOES have a correlation with the president's rhetoric who's labeled CNN as "the enemy of the people" and personally attacked several of their reporters. A trump supporter sending a bomb to Obama DOES have a correlation to Trump's rhetoric, even before he became president, questioning the authenticity of Obama's presidency, suggesting Obama and his supporters within the government are actively undermining him and forming some sort of coup. This isn't hard to grasp and you're clearly comprehensible enough to grasp this but you're too intellectually dishonest to admit it.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  14. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 20, 2018
    Firstly, you're creating a fictional argument to debate against. I never said that the goverments words doesnt matter or have no influence. You don't even understand what my argument is at this point. Saying that extremists always will exist amongst all political ideologies, is not the same as saying leaders have no influence. I never said there is no influence. Instead of making up arguments to debate, tackle the ones I actually presented.

    Secondly, I wasn't presenting the presidents words to be more socially acceptable. How is him saying "the media lies" more socially acceptable than "the media is the enemy of the people"? How is the latter not socially acceptable? If the publications that are suposed to inform people, spread lies, they do become the enemy of the people. Have you never heard of someone who gets too obsessed with what the media says and gets brainwashed by it? Thats one way that the media can be the enemy of the people. Nothing socially unaccapteble about that. Just brutal honest you're not used to hearing. Now going back to the "hateful" rhetoric. You're purposely picking "rhetoric" to fit your agenda and leaving out a lot of other things. You're taking a very small and selective sample of "rhetoric" and use it to define everything he stands for. Hilary has said plenty of childish things as well. Frankly, I could make the argument right now that some things Bernie and Hilary has said are radical and blah blah blah (insert adjective). You know why? (this goes back to what I Responded to) "Vulgar" is subjective. You were arguing as if all of Trumps rhetoric is "vulgar" (which is not true) as if it was a fact. I could do the same with any other politician and if you respond saying otherwise, I could do what you do and insert subjectivity. I honestly could care less if Trump trashes someones appearance, are there not bigger things to worry about? I have a hard time believing "thrasing someones appearance" is the type of hateful rhetoric that drives people to violence. Then again (just like I've said before), extremists do not care wether it's vulgar, hateful or not-

    Then you go on to repeat your point that Trumps rhetoric pushes his fanatic supporters to the edge. Again like I've said, every political ideologie that supports any rhetoric will have fanatics that take it past the line. One perfect example of this was the Bernie Sanders shooter. You can deny it all you want, but it's Bernies rhetoric that drove that guy to s---t people, but you're refusing to give him any partial blame for whatever reason *wink* *wink* (because you have an agenda and apperently this partial blame politicans have to take for inspiring fanatics only apply to Trump and the right. Not to Bernie sanders or anyone else right?) Again you''re supporting my argument that wether the rhetoric is vulgar or not doesnt matter. You claim that it does matter if the rhetoric is vulgar, thats the type of rhetoric that inspires fanatics right? Well Bernie Sanders' rhetoric inspired that shooter and when I brought this up you said his rhetoric isn't the radical rhetoric that Trump uses. Yet it still inspired a supporter of this to open fire. Does that not confirm, that how vulgar the rhetoric is doesn't matter, when it comes to extremists using it as fuel to their fire?t

    Then you go on to claim that I tried to diver the attention. How so? What I said (which you claimed was an attempt at shifting the discussion) was absolutely relevant to the discussion , specifically to what I was responding to. You have brought up a lot of things that differ from the original posts I left, but I'm not going to complain about that. However, you seem to lack the ability to appreciate a more in depth discussion. You just want to scratch the surface and repeat your same busted argument over and over (which I have continued to debunk just as many times as you've brought them up) and add nothing new or anything of value. Arent you diverting attention now?

    Then you completely missread what I said. I never claimed that you said that ANY rhetoric can influence someone to cmmit violent crimes. If you could f---ing read, you could see that I've specifically mentioned numerous times how you claim it's Trumps vulgar rhetoric that inspires his fanatics. Thuss I bring up the fact that Bernie inspired a violent crime, yet his rhetoric wasnt vile or vulgar. Which shatters your argument that its the type of rhetoric trump uses that leads to this.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  15. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 20, 2018
    I find it frustrating how badly you missread comments. You're now making up things I've never claimed. PLEASE: Read a comment twice if you need to, before going all special ED student on me. You were arguing against a fictional argument in the latter part of your post and this is not the first time you've done this either. You're also confirming my initial impression that you don't seem very bright. This is honestly starting to look like a troll.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  16. Enigma
    Posts: 14,984
    Likes: 17,365
    Joined: Nov 27, 2014

    Enigma Civil liberties > Police safety

    Nov 20, 2018
    Seriously? You don't see how in a country where there is freedom of the press and the press is suppose to act as a check on those in power, it might be a tad bit concerning if the president labels them "the enemy of the people?"

    Are you telling me that a vague statement such as "the media lies" is synonymous with "the media is the enemy of the people?" Because....like.... no. The prior statement is extremely general. Yes, there are media outlets out there that lie. The later statement is direct, specific and hateful.

    No I wasn't, I listed several specific examples but keep going on your tangent I suppose...

    I didn't ask you if you cared, I asked you whether it was vile and vulgar which it is. That was my point. I don't give a s--- if you care.

    So Bernie preaching for universal healthcare "drove that guy" to s---t up GOP memebers at a baseball game? You might as well just go around calling a banana orange. This makes zero sense. What drove that guy to s---t up the GOP baseball were other factors. Remember how I mentioned mental healthcare? Criminal Justice Reform? There are a bunch of other factors that likely led him to do what he did as well. Just like there factors outside of Trump that led the bomber to do what he did.

    Again.... no. You claim you understood when I said, i'm not blaming trump entirely for the attempted bombings but these posts suggest otherwise. Vile/vulgar/hateful rhetoric is ONE of the many factors that can lead to political violence. That's literally all i'm saying. You're acting as if my argument is that vile rhetoric is the only or primary factor that leads to political violence, nooooooo. In the case of the shooter, there was no vile/hateful/vulgar rhetoric from the person he supported to be influenced by BUT other factors drove him to s---t up that baseball game. With the bomber, there was vile/vulgar/hateful rhetoric from the person he supports that he could have been influenced by. I don't think it's a coincidence that his targets were individuals/entities that Trump's vile rhetoric is predominately aimed at either. I can't spell this out to you anymore clear than this.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  17. RipperRipper
    Posts: 310
    Likes: 204
    Joined: Jul 26, 2017

    Nov 23, 2018
    If his statements about the press is true, why would it be concerning? You're not denying that news outlets are biased and will to an extent lie right? If you do I could see why you so stubbornly defend the press. Saying that publiations that are suposed to spread information to people but are biased is a danger, is completely valid. The statement "the media lies" is not vauge, in fact it's incredibely direct and it absolutely means that they are a danger to the people. Which I've given my reasons as to why before. "The media is the enemy of the people" is not hateful, it's truthful. You're just not used to someone in a high ranking position to actually be honest about this. Which is the real danger

    Secondly, yes you were arguing as if your opinions on Trump rhetoric was a fact haha. Go back and check your messages. When you said his rhetoric was hateful and so on, I stated that such statement is purely subjective, to which your response was trying to convince me that his rhetoric was objectively hateful, vulgar, vile etc. You can list as many examples as you want, the fact remains that it is still subjective. Which you tried to argue wasn't. You're starting to forget what you've previously wrote. Then you immediately disregard what you previously said, with "I asked you wheter it was vile and vulgar which it is" does this not mean you think your view on Trumps rhetoric is objective? You keep contradicting yourself. I've already adressed that point numerous times and the reason I told you I don't care if Trump trashes someones opinion is because you shouldn't either. You're reading comprehension is complete s---. Why should you care about Trump trashing someones appereance when there are bigger things to worry about? Point here is that you care about things that are not important and make things a bigger issue than what they really are. That's what you and the rest of the left wingers constantly do.

    3rd: You still don't get my point. It's incredible how stupid you are. I recognize that there are other factors that drive these extremists. I've recognized that from the beginning but you've seem to fixate on this idea that because Trumps rhetoric is so radical, it drives his extremists supporters to violence. If that is the case and Trump deserves partial blame, why the h--- won't you put partial blame on Bernie? It doesn't matter what the f--- Bernies rhetoric is, one of his extremist supporters still shot up a baseball game and you don't think he was driven by Bernies rhetoric in the slightest? Here's the point I keep making and your dumb f---ing brain can't comprehend: It doesn't matter what the rhetoric is in the mind of extremists. It doesn't matter if Bernies rhetoric isn't radical. One of his supporters were driven to extreme violence to which you won't give any blame, yet you are more than ready to put blame on Trump for his "vulgar" rhetoric, which is just your subjective perception. Since you now finally f---ing recognized (which I've done much earlier) there are other factors that led the MAGA bomber to his actions, will you stop fixating just on Trumps "vile" rhetoric? This whole stupid debate has been built on your personal opinion against Trump and you've continued to ignore these other factors.

    And stop f---ing mentioning how you've specified that you're giving Trump partial blame, I've already adressed this numerous time but your dumb brain can't process it.


    I wan't you to recognize this: You continue to completely missread what I say and you didn't even care to adress my response to this:

    You claimed earlier that I acted as if you said any rhetoric leads to violence which prompted my response:
    Then you completely missread what I said. I never claimed that you said that ANY rhetoric can influence someone to cmmit violent crimes. If you could f---ing read, you could see that I've specifically mentioned numerous times how you claim it's Trumps vulgar rhetoric that inspires his fanatics. Thuss I bring up the fact that Bernie inspired a violent crime, yet his rhetoric wasnt vile or vulgar. Which shatters your argument that its the type of rhetoric trump uses that leads to this.

    I've mentioned numerous times how you're giving partial blame so why are you still going on this premise that I act as if you're giving all the blame on him?


    Please for the love of god stop making such dumb responses. None of your arguments at this point offer any new insight or value, rather just repeating the same shattered statements over and over. I keep adressing your point but it doesn't process in your brain and you just repeat the same stuff over and over. I can just copy and paste previous responses at this point and they would be relevant to the ones you currently make.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  18. Enigma
    Posts: 14,984
    Likes: 17,365
    Joined: Nov 27, 2014

    Enigma Civil liberties > Police safety

    Nov 23, 2018
    *yawn* this is so boring now. You’re arguing semantics & using stamrawmen. If you don’t believe that vile/vulgar/divisive rhetoric is one of the many factors that can lead to political violence, so be it. I’ve explained thoroughly why I’m not attributing blame to Bernie, especially in my last post. If you can’t grasp that, there’s nothing left to say.
     
    0 0
    Mar 28, 2024
  19. Michael Myers
    Posts: 40,807
    Likes: 82,818
    Joined: Feb 28, 2011

    Michael Myers Moderator

    Nov 23, 2018
    Is ripper some sort of spacemonkey ?
     
    1
    Enigma likes this.
    1
    Enigma likes this.
    Mar 28, 2024
  20. dna hits
    Posts: 5,790
    Likes: 3,870
    Joined: May 3, 2017

    Nov 23, 2018
    He has been doing this for a few years. He’s turning into a political troll, since Trump was elected. Plays the defense card and won’t mention any valid arguments from your post, when he knows you’re right and can’t argue against it.
     
    1
    RipperRipper likes this.
    1
    RipperRipper likes this.
    Mar 28, 2024