Jump to content

For those who defend Trump


Ice_nine

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Peace said:

I meant that they are the same in principle, not degree. 

I woud say that the Republican resistance to public health insurance is in the direction of allowing people to freeze. 

As for racism, you can read the Wikipedia article "Southern Strategy" to start.

That's all the time I have for you today.

Peace

Saying Republicans are against public health insurance is ridiculous.     They are against the high premium, high deductible, can't keep you doctor, convoluted, pass it so we can find out what's in it, failure we have now.  

The Southern Strategy was essentially race based fear mongering done over 50 years ago, officially recognized and apologized for 10+ years ago by the Republican Party.

The technique of fear mongering as a tactic still being used by both parties.  Secure borders=xenophobic hate;  Anti-abortion=anti-women; anti-gay discrimination = pro child molestation; business profit = worker exploitation; 

Just the fact that the few fringe nut jobs were used to broadly stereotype large segments of society is evidence of this continued fear based political manipulation that is used by BOTH sides.   Next round of tit-for-tat, exaggerated misrepresentation response...

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Saying Republicans are against public health insurance is ridiculous.     They are against the high premium, high deductible, can't keep you doctor, convoluted, pass it so we can find out what's in it, failure we have now.  

I think you are wrong here. Sorry.

Quote

The Southern Strategy was essentially race based fear mongering done over 50 years ago, officially recognized and apologized for 10+ years ago by the Republican Party.

The technique of fear mongering as a tactic still being used by both parties.  Secure borders=xenophobic hate;  Anti-abortion=anti-women; anti-gay discrimination = pro child molestation; business profit = worker exploitation; 

Just the fact that the few fringe nut jobs were used to broadly stereotype large segments of society is evidence of this continued fear based political manipulation that is used by BOTH sides.   Next round of tit-for-tat, exaggerated misrepresentation response...

"It was a thing of the past". That's all good except that a variation of the same strategy played a large part in Trump's election. Why is it you think that these right wing racist groups seem to be so excited by Trump's election? Just a coincidence? Or is it because they can hear the dog whistle (e.g. not being able to clearly disovow an endorsement from the KKK, saying a judge cannot do his job because he is of Mexican ancestry, etc.)?

It ain't rocket science.

Edited by Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I think you are wrong here. Sorry.

"It was a thing of the past". That's all good except that a variation of the same strategy played a large part in Trump's election. Why is it you think that these right wing racist groups seem to be so excited by Trump's election? Just a coincidence? Or is it because they can hear the dog whistle (e.g. not being able to clearly disovow an endorsement from the KKK, saying a judge cannot do his job because he is of Mexican ancestry, etc.)?

It ain't rocket science.

Politicians (of any party) who campaign for public office make statements - some of them are not accurate, or nuanced, or kind, or whatever.

The people also project their own dreams, wishes, legislative agenda, etc. onto politicians who campaign for public office. What the people want may not be what the politician is selling. What the people hear may not be what the politician said. (Miscommunication in public discourse? Who'da thunk it?!?!) The people may interpret what they hear the politician say, perhaps twisting it to satisfy their own goals and agenda. Some politicians intentionally play to the people's wishes, thinking it will garner votes; some try very hard to speak accurately, but their statements are misinterpreted nonetheless.

The same thing happened when Obama ran; the same thing happened when Name-Any-Candidate ran in any presidential race in American history. The people who voted for Clinton projected their fondest hopes onto her, but are now projecting their worst nightmares onto Trump, whether there is any basis for doing so or not. The people who voted for Trump - including many people with whom he probably disagrees - projected their worst nightmares onto Clinton during the campaign and are now projecting their fondest desires onto Trump.

No politician, of any stripe, can be held responsible for what certain of their supporters say or do. Because whether we like it or not, the supporters have free will, and the politicians don't have a chokehold on each supporter. The politician, to some extent - perhaps a very large extent - is riding a wave of sentiment that s/he can't control; at best, s/he can direct some of that energy. Maybe a better analogy is that the politician is riding a bucking bronco while simultaneously trying to get it to go in the direction s/he prefers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted American Solidarity Party, so for neither side in the present debate. However, as an observer with more than the average understanding of the political process and the constitution, thus far I am pleased with his announced appointments. He could have come in with a complete one sided push, but I think he might truly be trying to represent the middle as well as the right. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

No politician, of any stripe, can be held responsible for what certain of their supporters say or do. Because whether we like it or not, the supporters have free will, and the politicians don't have a chokehold on each supporter. The politician, to some extent - perhaps a very large extent - is riding a wave of sentiment that s/he can't control; at best, s/he can direct some of that energy. Maybe a better analogy is that the politician is riding a bucking bronco while simultaneously trying to get it to go in the direction s/he prefers.

Sure, but if you fan the flames should you be surprised when the fire spreads? It ain't like Trump is some babe in the woods who has no idea how people perceive his words. Trump says "I would like to punch that protester in the face. In the good old days someone would have carried him out on a stretcher." At a subsequent rally a Trump supporter punches a protester in the face.You can't then sit there and then say "Oh I can't be held responsible the actions of my supporters. I had nothing to do with that." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Sure, but if you fan the flames should you be surprised when the fire spreads? It ain't like Trump is some babe in the woods who has no idea how people perceive his words. Trump says "I would like to punch that protester in the face. In the good old days someone would have carried him out on a stretcher." At a subsequent rally a Trump supporter punches a protester in the face.You can't then sit there and then say "Oh I can't be held responsible the actions of my supporters. I had nothing to do with that." 

Neither Clinton nor Sanders talked about punching protestors in the face, yet a number of their supporters punched protestors in the face. And rioted in Portland, and Oakland, and I don't know where all else. 

Neither Clinton nor Sanders, nor Trump, can be held responsible for what certain of their supporters do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Luigi said:

Neither Clinton nor Sanders, nor Trump, can be held responsible for what certain of their supporters do.

OK. But only because you say so.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2016 at 2:32 PM, Luigi said:

Neither Clinton nor Sanders talked about punching protestors in the face, yet a number of their supporters punched protestors in the face. And rioted in Portland, and Oakland, and I don't know where all else. 

Neither Clinton nor Sanders, nor Trump, can be held responsible for what certain of their supporters do.

Do you not see the obvious difference? Trump talked about it, people did it. Trump can certainly be held to account when people are doing things which he called for them to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Amppax said:

Do you not see the obvious difference? Trump talked about it, people did it. Trump can certainly be held to account when people are doing things which he called for them to do.

Do you see the similarity? Irresponsible people of any stripe are going to do stupid things in the name of their candidate, or their cause, or their ideals, or whatever. Trump looked straight into the camera on "Sixty Minutes" and said directly - "Stop it!" But irresponsible people will continue to do irresponsible things. And when they do, they should be arrested and prosecuted, no matter in whose name they claim to be doing it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Luigi said:

Do you see the similarity? Irresponsible people of any stripe are going to do stupid things in the name of their candidate, or their cause, or their ideals, or whatever. Trump looked straight into the camera on "Sixty Minutes" and said directly - "Stop it!" But irresponsible people will continue to do irresponsible things. And when they do, they should be arrested and prosecuted, no matter in whose name they claim to be doing it.

But if Trump had looked directly into the camera and said "carry on" or "boys will be boys" would he bear any responsibility for their actions? 

Your answer would seem to be "no" because "bad people will always do bad things anyway." 

But if that is the case, wouldn't the conclusion be that all words are meaningless? 

If I created a thread on this website or wrote a public article that said "A woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body, and has a right to choose for herself whether to have an abortion" wouldn't you and @dominicansoul accuse me of contributing to the number of abortions? 

Could I respond by saying "Oh I am not responsible for those words because women would have abortions even if I never wrote them?" 

If you would not give me a free pass for writing those words then I do not see why Trump or anyone else should get a free pass for their words.

Why do you think that they should?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe Trump is responsible to a degree, just as all the liberals and the Obama administration are for their ill-willed propaganda against the police force which has resulted in the murder of so many cops.  

The San Antonio Police force buried another one today...

Politicians are very good at making humans into disposable non-humans...

 

Keep praying for politicians and their conversion.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

I do believe Trump is responsible to a degree, just as all the liberals and the Obama administration are for their ill-willed propaganda against the police force which has resulted in the murder of so many cops.  

The San Antonio Police force buried another one today...

Absolutely.  Trump is probably to blame for some protesters getting punched, but Obama and Hillary incited the murders of many men and women in blue.  Obama and Hillary have blood on their hands.

So sad about the SAPD officer.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Quasar said:

Absolutely.  Trump is probably to blame for some protesters getting punched, but Obama and Hillary incited the murders of many men and women in blue.  Obama and Hillary have blood on their hands.

So sad about the SAPD officer.  

I am going to have to call BS on that one. Obama speaks very highly of law enforcement. I can pull up numerous videos or quotes where he talks about how honorable and worthy of respect police are. He has never said anything along the lines of "I hope that people are violent towards the police" or "police should not be respected." 

Please show me the specific statements that Obama has made that would suggest to a sane person that he should murder or commit violence against a police officer. Otherwise, BS.

Obama has criticized racial bias and other problems within the criminal justice system, and many of those criticisms are perfectly legitimate. He has never said "I would like to punch a police officer in the face."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...