"They even said, but all of them and they didnât correct her once and they corrected me everything I said practically, I think nine times or 11 times and the audience was absolutely, they went crazy and, and the real, I thought it was, I walked off, I said, that was a great debate. I loved it. You know, you got a lot of people watching."
That was Trump, again on Fox News, with Greg Gutfeld.
...and the audience was absolutely, they went crazy...
The audience went absolutely crazy when Trump was repeatedly fact checked by the moderators.
The audience went crazy.
The Audience.
They went absolutely crazy.
Just one problem: THERE WAS NO AUDIENCE AT THE DEBATE.
There was no live audience to go crazy.
No audience. None.
Trump imagined the entire thing.
He's hallucinating. He's seeing and hearing things that aren't there.
Now, I'm not a doctor, but I did care for a dementia patient for many years, this isn't that. No, this is something else. This is a rich privileged spoiled narcissistic man/boy who has lived his entire life inside a made up fantasyland where he is perpetually both the king and the victim, where he is always perpetually the greatest smartest most handsomest cleverest manly man ever and at the same time the single most humble, unfairly hounded, oppressed martyr who ever died on the cross.
This isn't Alzheimer's, this is Rich Kid Syndrome.
This is chronic fully metastasized terminal affluenza.
I guess that was when you were taking your last sabbatical then. He also took a sabbatical and came back as our Steely_D . He can better explain should he choose. Not material to my comment though, to be clear.
K. Thx. Didn't know that. Steely_D is on my shortlist of dipshits.
I remember being challenged here some years ago over the thought words alone are violence in of themselves. This was during an argument regarding hate speech. I said they were not. It was argued back by the majority that yes they are. I believe that you were around for that one as well steely in his dmax days. So what has changed since then ?
What are the "dmax days" ? Refresh my memory pls. I recall the username, not the tone.
I guess that was when you were taking your last sabbatical then. He also took a sabbatical and came back as our Steely_D . He can better explain should he choose. Not material to my comment though, to be clear.
I remember being challenged here some years ago over the thought words alone are violence in of themselves. This was during an argument regarding hate speech. I said they were not. It was argued back by the majority that yes they are.
I believe that you were around for that one as well steely in his dmax days.
So what has changed since then ?
What are the "dmax days" ? Refresh my memory pls. I recall the username, not the tone.
The big difference is that trump was elected and did threaten democracy when he attempted to overturn the next election when he lost. Biden was elected and hasn't attempted to overturn an election and I don't think there is any credible claim that he would.
Understood and I agree. I was talking only about whether — based on the words alone — the former is more inflammatory,
I remember being challenged here some years ago over the thought words alone are violence in of themselves. This was during an argument regarding hate speech. I said they were not. It was argued back by the majority that yes they are. That just saying words was equal to crossing the line to an actual physical assault.
I believe that you were around for that one as well steely in his dmax days.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 18, 2024 - 5:56pm
haresfur wrote:
The big difference is that trump was elected and did threaten democracy when he attempted to overturn the next election when he lost. Biden was elected and hasn't attempted to overturn an election and I don't think there is any credible claim that he would.
Understood and I agree. I was talking only about whether â based on the words alone â the former is more inflammatory,
I do not see a lot of daylight between âTrump is an existential threat to democracyâ and âwe wonât have a country anymoreâ if Biden or Harris is elected.
The big difference is that trump was elected and did threaten democracy when he attempted to overturn the next election when he lost. Biden was elected and hasn't attempted to overturn an election and I don't think there is any credible claim that he would.
I just arbitrarily picked one of your offerings to pick at.
Are people who strongly oppose Trump supposed to say nothing? Again randomly chosen, "Grijalva: Trump is an existential threat to American democracy." I guess if you don't believe that's true that might sound like it's over the top but it doesn't say anything about violence. It really doesn't say anything at all. Just "vote," I guess. It's strong wording, sure, but it's not inciting violence. I refer you to the cartoon for reference.
You might scoff at Maxine Watters' "are Trump supporters preparing a civil war against us?" I can tell you, me talking to you about a co-worker who I personally know and still have him in my contacts list, that the answer is Yes. ALL Trump supporters? No. But please don't think she's off base with that. I think I mentioned it here before but this guy offered me safe harbor at his house when the war starts. Protection from his network of people who agree with him. I don't feel comforted by that thought.
I haven't spoken to him since Kamala became the nominee. We need to go have a beer so I can take a reading...
I think if we all will just remember to take a deep breath and remind ourselves that the most loony and extreme of either side are in the minority. The much larger majority of each 'side' are the quiet(er) ones who generally tend to vote sanely and rationally, even if we on one side may not agree with their reasoning (of the other side). The problem, as always, is the majority folks rarely call out their own extremists and screamers - for whatever reason ... don't want to get involved / lose a friend / let pass as they serve the cause / etc.
As far as the politicians - they all have ZERO excuse. They're amping up their electorates extremists - and they know it. Again, because in their mind, it serves the cause. These are the folks that ought to be condemned by all sides, especially the silent majority.
Meanwhile, the majority quieter folks endure this broken process (same but different kind of broken here in Canuckistan) because there are only two parties that are capable of reaching enough votes to win and take control.
You are putting 100% of the blame on Trump for inciting these assassination attempts.
1) There are crazies everywhere shooting at Kennedy, Warhol, MLK, Pope, RFK, Reagan, and now Trump. Crazy isn't coherent so we have to scrub them from the equation.
2) Yes, the stuff going on now, it's all Trump. Where have we seen Carter, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, or Harris tell anyone to knock the crap out of someone because of political differences - and they'll pay the lawyers' fees. (Narrator: he never paid fees for anyone, including himself.)
But it's embarrassingly easy to create a series - not merely a single instance - of TFG extolling flat out violence against dissenters. He's the anti-Ghandi, isn't he? Cheat your business partners, cheat on your wife wives, speak loudly and violently, and take everything for yourself that you can.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 18, 2024 - 3:25pm
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I just arbitrarily picked one of your offerings to pick at.
Are people who strongly oppose Trump supposed to say nothing? Again randomly chosen, "Grijalva: Trump is an existential threat to American democracy." I guess if you don't believe that's true that might sound like it's over the top but it doesn't say anything about violence. It really doesn't say anything at all. Just "vote," I guess. It's strong wording, sure, but it's not inciting violence. I refer you to the cartoon for reference.
. . .
I do not see a lot of daylight between âTrump is an existential threat to democracyâ and âwe wonât have a country anymoreâ if Biden or Harris is elected.
I just arbitrarily picked one of your offerings to pick at.
Are people who strongly oppose Trump supposed to say nothing? Again randomly chosen, "Grijalva: Trump is an existential threat to American democracy." I guess if you don't believe that's true that might sound like it's over the top but it doesn't say anything about violence. It really doesn't say anything at all. Just "vote," I guess. It's strong wording, sure, but it's not inciting violence. I refer you to the cartoon for reference.
You might scoff at Maxine Watters' "are Trump supporters preparing a civil war against us?" I can tell you, me talking to you about a co-worker who I personally know and still have him in my contacts list, that the answer is Yes. ALL Trump supporters? No. But please don't think she's off base with that. I think I mentioned it here before but this guy offered me safe harbor at his house when the war starts. Protection from his network of people who agree with him. I don't feel comforted by that thought.
I haven't spoken to him since Kamala became the nominee. We need to go have a beer so I can take a reading...
I just arbitrarily picked one of your offerings to pick at.
Are people who strongly oppose Trump supposed to say nothing? Again randomly chosen, "Grijalva: Trump is an existential threat to American democracy." I guess if you don't believe that's true that might sound like it's over the top but it doesn't say anything about violence. It really doesn't say anything at all. Just "vote," I guess. It's strong wording, sure, but it's not inciting violence. I refer you to the cartoon for reference.
You might scoff at Maxine Watters' "are Trump supporters preparing a civil war against us?" I can tell you, me talking to you about a co-worker who I personally know and still have him in my contacts list, that the answer is Yes. ALL Trump supporters? No. But please don't think she's off base with that. I think I mentioned it here before but this guy offered me safe harbor at his house when the war starts. Protection from his network of people who agree with him. I don't feel comforted by that thought.
I haven't spoken to him since Kamala became the nominee. We need to go have a beer so I can take a reading...
I'd ask that you take a step back on consider the origins of the aggression. . Violence is a well-documented element of Trump doctrine. He says aggressive shit...and the crowd cheers. "Punch 'em, hit 'em, fight like hell"... every speech. He wraps that in the flag. If you don't (insert aggression)... America will be dead. That emotional connection is the only reason he's so popular. Most Trump supporters say they don't admire him as a person... so what else is the draw? It's emotional anger, followed by "I am your retribution"! I guess the sheriff thinks he should help out at the local level.
. Democrats say Trump is a "Threat to democracy". They don't attach any acts of violence, other than those associated with January 6.
You have taken great liberties with my remarks.
You are putting 100% of the blame on Trump for inciting these assassination attempts.
You appear to be giving democrats a complete pass at inspiring the assassination attempts at Trump. Beaker's list documents a great deal of them yet leaves out all of those made by the supporting media pundits who amplify these remarks adding their own inflammatory commentary to the narrative. That you find all of this as harmless rhetoric explains your political bias and thought processes.
Regarding the rock solid support for Trump ... I have explained it over and over again here for years and everyone, and in this case I mean everyone, fails to accept my explanations and instead goes into what is wrong with them rather than saying "I understand but disagree" Instead it is, you're crazy, defective, racist ... fill in that blank anyway you wish. It is simply that no one can comprehend any support for Trump. and rather than try, just simply shoot the messenger instead.
And here we are. I am tired of talking to a brick wall.
