USA news & politics

[Ragey Erasmus]

I 100% agree about fanning the flames, ive said the same, and I agree he acts in an u presidential manner in general...

But if it can easily be interpreted that way, why does evey anti trump outlet remove the contextual part from their reporting?

Why do they quote the question and I couldn't care less?

You know why, its a framingbgame thats been going on for 10 years, and its failed for 10 years.

Look at this guys other posts, mis quoting the commissionaler in UTAH, claiming that the police didnt have a clue about the shooter, and ignoring the next sentence that they were following 5 strong leads. Its a bad faith tactic to radicalised, and I think you know it, but its gone too far to back down and now your going to argue pedantics

They don't all remove it, I got the transcript from MSNBC if I recall.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I 100% agree about fanning the flames, ive said the same, and I agree he acts in an u presidential manner in general...

But if it can easily be interpreted that way, why does evey anti trump outlet remove the contextual part from their reporting?

Why do they quote the question and I couldn't care less?

You know why, its a framingbgame thats been going on for 10 years, and its failed for 10 years.

Look at this guys other posts, mis quoting the commissionaler in UTAH, claiming that the police didnt have a clue about the shooter, and ignoring the next sentence that they were following 5 strong leads. Its a bad faith tactic to radicalised, and I think you know it, but its gone too far to back down and now your going to argue pedantics

If you agree he’s fanning the flames then you agree he doesn’t give 2 fucks about fixing America, in my humble opinion.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

So in essence, you wouldn't allow someone run and shout fire in a cinema, but you're fine with being verbally abused without restriction. So in essence, still kerbing free speech?

yes, and i can explain to you why. Shouting fire in a cinema has a very realistic chance of physically injuring third parties. Directly.

Calling me a "******* argie" or 'third world scum" (hate crimes by the definition you posted), does not. I want people to be able to call me that. Let me say it again. I want people to have the right to tell me those things. In my face, on social media, on tv shows. I want them to have that right.
I can chose to disregard or why not, not even listen at all. The line in the sand is clear and practical: when you go from words to actions.

If i'm being honest, i have an issue, a big one, with your use of the term "abuse". Have you ever talked to abused kids or women? I have. They all, 100%, had no options. They couldn't disregard, look the other way or chose not to listen. Your use diminishes the value of the term. It trivializes it. It puts them in the same bag as people who felt offended by a word.
Verbal abuse... **** that. I'd much rather stick to the old dictionary definition of the term: physical maltreatment (merriam webster). That's why we ended up with a generation of people who label everything they find inconvenient as violence: political violence when someone votes against their preferences, verbal violence when they dislike what other people say, economic violence when they cant buy what they wont (but still have enough money for 2k's worth of tattoos!). Anything anyone does that they dislike? Violence.
No.

But in the spirit of candidness, if you give me a specific example i am more than happy to answer on whether i'd be fine with it or not. And why.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Calling me a "******* argie" or 'third world scum" (hate crimes by the definition you posted), does not. I want people to be able to call me that.

You may be able to accept being told third world scum, but can you accept third world scrum™?

(scrum™ trademarked for future use)

 

[Which Tyler]

Ex British soldier shoots Irishman? No way I'm going down that road again.

FTFY

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Amazing to think, we are 50 odd comments in and someone finally posts an accurate transcript, that absolutely shows what he said:

This is going to get me in trouble but I dont care. The coordinating conjunction, the context and the sentence structure...

There is not one rational sane person alive who sees that clip and doesnt immediately understand Trump couldn't care less about getting into trouble for saying what hes about to say, its his usual sentence structure, and a familiar linguistic trait that every comedian mimics.

If you truly believe he said he couldn't care less about fixing the country, your either malicious like the guys who posts mis quotes in his tweets posted above, or people like him have radicalised you to the point you will see the video in front of your eyes, see the quote in which he removes the context of the words, and STILL believe it.

Why would a guy, who posts daily anti trump tweets, a lot being maliciously mis interpretation, leave out the half of the sentence?

When intalk about this strategy being stupid, this is the exact thing im talking about. You guys will sit around absolutely baffled as to how anyone can vote for him, pat yourselves on the back for catching him out saying he hates America, while the red team laugh at you lot lying about what hes saying...

So you have a choice, dishonesty or radicalisation. Ill leave you to decide which tou want to take home with you, I quite like you, and id like to think your not as dishonest as a lot here, but you have to learn to see the forests for the trees.

Some of you are better than this.

Just to point out that you put this down earlier in this thread:

"You seem to think he misspoke here and only addressed half of the question but at best that's still an egregious and unaddressed blunder from the Premier which doesn't help your stance."

I am a rational and sane person and I didn't take what he said as you did, I didn't even consider it because it's such a poor way to structure an answer to a question and what followed it did not address fixing anything, only planting the blame of a universal problem in the States firmly on one side.

For any other premier of any democracy on the planet this would be raised as an issue and have to be addressed. It's at best an egregious blunder. I still think he meant exactly what he said, he's never been shy of having a light touch or even pardoning republican criminals. He also hasn't shown any inclination of wanting to address the divide in the country.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the democratic side are addressing most things in the worst possible manner and have been since Obama left office.

But you made a whole song and dance about this, demanded a quote when you knew exactly what the quote was and came up with an interpretation. Massive waste of time.

 

[Which Tyler]

It would be interesting to do a "compare and contrast" reactions on both sides of the political spectrum to the assassination of a right wing political figure to the assassination of a left wing political figure.Maybe one of those tables with 4 tabs; lefties react to a leftie assassination, righties react to a leftie assassination etc.

I feel that if we're going to "both sides" this, then we should probably look at both sides, rather than deliberate obfuscation and straw-man arguments.

So we've got both sides reacting to Kirk's assassination - and can anyone think of an appropriate/acceptable left-wing assassination we could use?
Obviously, not Hortman, because that would be inconvenient for the "both sides" posters

 

[McTallshort]

FTFY

Hey I'm no Costas Georgiou

 

[Saintjay]

It would be interesting to do a "compare and contrast" reactions on both sides of the political spectrum to the assassination of a right wing political figure to the assassination of a left wing political figure.Maybe one of those tables with 4 tabs; lefties react to a leftie assassination, righties react to a leftie assassination etc.

I feel that if we're going to "both sides" this, then we should probably look at both sides, rather than deliberate obfuscation and straw-man arguments.

So we've got both sides reacting to Kirk's assassination - and can anyone think of an appropriate/acceptable left-wing assassination we could use?
Obviously, not Hortman, because that would be inconvenient for the "both sides" posters

That's the problem. You'd really have to show the idealogy and reason behind the assassination to compare the reactions. Plus are we using assasinations as 'political killings'. Because then you are also looking at terrorism offences. Brighton bombings etc. Plus the nature of the act ie public in front of students vs plutonium in cup of tea kind of thing.

I think it's realistic to assume 90% of people and politicians think killing people for political reasons is bad. I'd guess the list on both sides of people condemning the actions is longer than those milking.

 

[Which Tyler]

Why? If we're looking at how people react, then the motive of the killer isn't particularly relevant, is it?
So long as it's a deliberate, targetted murder of a political figure, rather than someone who got caught up in something else (eg burglary-gone-wrong), then how people react tells how they react

 

[Saintjay]

Why? If we're looking at how people react, then the motive of the killer isn't particularly relevant, is it?
So long as it's a deliberate, targetted murder of a political figure, rather than someone who got caught up in something else (eg burglary-gone-wrong), then how people react tells how they react

I could be if you support those opinions. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that.

The main motive of political killers is to force change through violence.

 

[Which Tyler]

Okay, I'm confused, and suspect we're talking at cross purposes.
Are you supplying that the president, front line politicians, political commentators SHOULD react differently if they agree with a killer's motivations?
Because I would very much disagree with that suggestion

 

[Saintjay]

Okay, I'm confused, and suspect we're talking at cross purposes.
Are you supplying that the president, front line politicians, political commentators SHOULD react differently if they agree with a killer's motivations?
Because I would very much disagree with that suggestion

That's more than possible I've done 6 horrific days at work. I should stick to discussing ballet with the riff raff

Not that they should of course they shouldn't but some will. As will some people.

 

[Which Tyler]

But that difference is what would be interesting, and IMO quite informative.
And I'm still not seeing the relevance of the killer's motive.
It doesn't really matter WHY Kirk was killed, what matter is how politicians and political commentators respond.
Firing people for "making light" of it, calling for war against the left, flags at half masks and the canonisation of Kirk from one side; whilst Kirk's opponents are calling for calm, sending thoughts and prayers etc.

If the "both sides" people are right, then we'd expect exactly the same reactions from the allies and enemies of a leftist politcal figure being assassinated.
If that's not the case, then that would be both interesting and illuminating.

 

[dirty harry]

They don't all remove it, I got the transcript from MSNBC if I recall.

Thats right, they went with Trump making the claim "Republican lives matter more than Democratic lives,"

Notice the use of Democratic over Democrat that they usually use...

Much better!

 

[dirty harry]

If you agree he's fanning the flames then you agree he doesn't give 2 fucks about fixing America, in my humble opinion.

Well id make that agreement, with one tiny caveat...

He does what they all do, every politicians wants to fix the country, but they realise first and foremost they have to win, and well as has been evidenced over and over both sides want to win more than they want to fix.

You see, I blame Trump as being part of the problem, your excuse everything from the opposing side and only want to blame Trump.

But lets say, i absolutely concede that argument, he wants to **** the country, and doesnt want to fix it... he still didnt say he didnt care less in answer to the question, and you know it. If people would stop pretending to believe the stupid **** they are trying too we would already be rid of him, hes survived this long because hes Teflon all the genuine criticism falls amongst the stupid hysterical bullshit, just like this idea he answered a question about fixing the country with 'i couldn't care less'.

Its laughable, that i, someone who continually criticises, tries to show a way to get rid of him, see this stupid **** and have to lean in his favour, what do you think the uninformed centrists think after these stupid stories?

They come to the conclusion that the establishment is out to get him no matter what, and near 80 million people vote for him, and maybe 50 million are scared into believing a 3rd term is preferable to the establishment coming after them!

 

[dirty harry]

Just to point out that you put this down earlier in this thread:

"You seem to think he misspoke here and only addressed half of the question but at best that's still an egregious and unaddressed blunder from the Premier which doesn't help your stance."

I am a rational and sane person and I didn't take what he said as you did, I didn't even consider it because it's such a poor way to structure an answer to a question and what followed it did not address fixing anything, only planting the blame of a universal problem in the States firmly on one side.

For any other premier of any democracy on the planet this would be raised as an issue and have to be addressed. It's at best an egregious blunder. I still think he meant exactly what he said, he's never been shy of having a light touch or even pardoning republican criminals. He also hasn't shown any inclination of wanting to address the divide in the country.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the democratic side are addressing most things in the worst possible manner and have been since Obama left office.

But you made a whole song and dance about this, demanded a quote when you knew exactly what the quote was and came up with an interpretation. Massive waste of time.

Is this my quote? You'll have to refresh my memory on context...

He 100% meant what he said, "im going to get into a lot of trouble for this but I couldn't care less,"

Every person seeing that understands what he meant, unless they willingly want it to mean otherwise, or arent smart enough to understand why every outlet reporting it deletes the first part of the sentence, which are you?

 

[Welsh Exile]

Well id make that agreement, with one tiny caveat...

He does what they all do, every politicians wants to fix the country, but they realise first and foremost they have to win, and well as has been evidenced over and over both sides want to win more than they want to fix.

You see, I blame Trump as being part of the problem, your excuse everything from the opposing side and only want to blame Trump.

But lets say, i absolutely concede that argument, he wants to **** the country, and doesnt want to fix it... he still didnt say he didnt care less in answer to the question, and you know it. If people would stop pretending to believe the stupid **** they are trying too we would already be rid of him, hes survived this long because hes Teflon all the genuine criticism falls amongst the stupid hysterical bullshit, just like this idea he answered a question about fixing the country with 'i couldn't care less'.

Its laughable, that i, someone who continually criticises, tries to show a way to get rid of him, see this stupid **** and have to lean in his favour, what do you think the uninformed centrists think after these stupid stories?

They come to the conclusion that the establishment is out to get him no matter what, and near 80 million people vote for him, and maybe 50 million are scared into believing a 3rd term is preferable to the establishment coming after them!

It’s funny how even in the unlikely scenario Trump gets a 3rd term that it would somehow still, essentially, be the lefts fault for overreacting, even though he essentially carried out their worst fears.

 

[dirty harry]

It's funny how even in the unlikely scenario Trump gets a 3rd term that it would somehow still, essentially, be the lefts fault for overreacting, even though he essentially carried out their worst fears.

Of course, not because they will react appropriately when the time comes, but because for a decade they've lied and manipulated every thing hes done, to the point where he is bullet proof!

Lets take this quote as an example, every MAGA, centrist and Democrats will absolutely see the video, and watch the reporting, and claims made about it, and rationally come to the conclusion that those criticising trump for it arent being serious or honest, so the next time it happens they discount the criticism, then, 347 times later they are laughing at all criticism...

The only people still taking this criticism seriously are the radicalised anti MAGA no matter what who then pump this stuff out.

MAGA are emboldened, centrists lean away from the anti MAGA, and a portion of Democrats flip on their own party to vote for Trump.

He received 62 million, then 73 million, then 78 million votes, a very solid increase, while Democrats lost 7 million from Biden to Harris.

Now you can go into the details on those elections, but we agree his popularity has absolutely grown over the decade. I dont think he is capable of flipping Democrats, engaging the Hispanic, black communities, they have been pushed his way by?

Why do you think, for all the stupid, nasty and borderline illegal things hes done, hes only gotten more popular?

 

[Welsh Exile]

Of course, not because they will react appropriately when the time comes, but because for a decade they've lied and manipulated every thing hes done, to the point where he is bullet proof!

Lets take this quote as an example, every MAGA, centrist and Democrats will absolutely see the video, and watch the reporting, and claims made about it, and rationally come to the conclusion that those criticising trump for it arent being serious or honest, so the next time it happens they discount the criticism, then, 347 times later they are laughing at all criticism...

The only people still taking this criticism seriously are the radicalised anti MAGA no matter what who then pump this stuff out.

MAGA are emboldened, centrists lean away from the anti MAGA, and a portion of Democrats flip on their own party to vote for Trump.

He received 62 million, then 73 million, then 78 million votes, a very solid increase, while Democrats lost 7 million from Biden to Harris.

Now you can go into the details on those elections, but we agree his popularity has absolutely grown over the decade. I dont think he is capable of flipping Democrats, engaging the Hispanic, black communities, they have been pushed his way by?

Why do you think, for all the stupid, nasty and borderline illegal things hes done, hes only gotten more popular?

That answer will vary depending on which Trump voters you speak to, I'd imagine.

For hardcore MAGA they would outright deny, or disagree with the "stupid" and "nasty" things he's done. Palm some of it off as banter or just his style/4D chess etc etc.

Others will acknowledge the more distasteful side of Trump but will put things like the economy or immigration above these things. I'm sure there's even many who even recognise Jan 6th as at least a dark day for America, albeit falling short of thinking it was an insurrection/coup.

Many other middle of the road voters might've been swayed to voting Trump based on my boy Joes perceived lack of mental awareness.

There's probably many other reasons as well. Including even your main thing that some middle of the road people (which there aren't that many of by the way) were sick of being called a racist online or something and decided to vote for Trump.