ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Im not trying to justify anything but you seem to make it sound like all the unhinged folks are Trump supporters when I see Dems committing alot of violence. Id bet many here hope Trump has a failed presidency instead of accepting the vote and hoping he suceeds
Well.. that's why I opened up the question. I live in a heavy Trump area of Southern CA. I've lived in this area a very long time (30+ years). I've never seen anything like this, and so I'm asking if anyone else is seeing the same thing. If it's liberals/dems in your areas waving Biden flags and committing acts of violence on their neighbors, I'd like to hear about it.
But if anyone else is experiencing some similar to what we are over here, it would be interesting to hear as well.
No. Can you cite some examples of "dems" committing violence please? A picture of a black man in front of a fire from over 4 years ago doesn't qualify.
Ya, not quite what I was asking about.
But as a side note, his mind might be blown if he learned about all the far right outside agitators that were convicted or caught looting and starting fires. Guys like "the umbrella man", and all the mayhem proud boys members did during those protests.
It's just crazy that people are fed these propaganda narratives, and don't understand their minds are going to heavily bend towards confirmation bias of whatever narrative they want to be true.
Ya, not quite what I was asking about.
But as a side note, his mind might be blown if he learned about all the far right outside agitators that were convicted or caught looting and starting fires. Guys like "the umbrella man", and all the mayhem proud boys members did during those protests.
It's just crazy that people are fed these propaganda narratives, and don't understand their minds are going to heavily bend towards confirmation bias of whatever narrative they want to be true.
You mean like how you fell for the Tulsi is a Russian agent hoax and the Trump Russia collusion hoax?
Funny that he couldn't even cite one example.
I don't need to cite anything. Ever hear of Antifa? Their army destroyed statues and other property. Are you saying they're republicans? They were all "woke" democrats.
You mean like how you fell for the Tulsi is a Russian agent hoax and the Trump Russia collusion hoax?
You guys don't want to think about what's going on... you want to be told what to think, and then compartmentalize it.
It's bizzaro world that we're pretending all of these indictments, and shutting down an investigation, which names several Russian connections to Trump, means there's nothing there. Collusion is VERY hard to prove, but even if you want to say Trump has no connections (even though Trump jr himself said most of their assets are from Russia), you have to at least wonder why his geopolitical policy seems to line up 100% with what the Kremlin wants.
Like I've said many times in here, I don't know if Tulsi is a Russian agent. I said many credible people believe she is an ASSET, and she also happens to align w/ Russia geopolitical position. She grew up in a weird cult, and she could just be a useful idiot. Nobody knows for sure, but to say there's nothing there is being willfully ignorant. If you regurgitate Russian propaganda, any American who cares about this country should be concerned and asking questions imho.
I don't need to cite anything. Ever hear of Antifa? Their army destroyed statues and other property. Are you saying they're republicans? They were all "woke" democrats.
And you're not against fascism? What a bizzaro world also to be pro fascism.
My original question was about road rage, and increasing anger in your communities. Maybe this is the wrong forum to ask honestly.
You mean like how you fell for the Tulsi is a Russian agent hoax and the Trump Russia collusion hoax?
It's amusing that Trump people love Tulsi Gabbard so much now. Back in the late 2010s, I had the misfortune of being in the proximity of Rudy one evening while he and a bunch of his buddies were firehosing Fox News into their gullets. (I obviously wasn't with them. I just happened to be sitting near them.) Tulsi appeared on Fox for some sort of interview. Rudy mocked everything she said for several minutes and claimed not even to know who she was.
And you're not against fascism? What a bizzaro world also to be pro fascism.
My original question was about road rage, and increasing anger in your communities. Maybe this is the wrong forum to ask honestly.
Yeah, this is the Trump thread so maybe it's the wrong forum, but it's 2p2 P&S where every thread turns into a general off topic chat discussion anyway.
I wasn't responding to your question I was responding to another poster suggesting democrats don't commit violence, but for the record I'm against anything "woke" (such as tearing down statues of former presidents, changing the name of the Redskins to the Commanders, or the Cleveland Indians to the Guardians, etc.). Does that make me evil?
I am not a public figure and I have no social media following. If I had no scruples, and no concern for my future, I nevertheless am convinced that I could become a relatively prominent figure on right-wing media before the end of Trump's second term.
Am I crazy to think this? FWIW, I don't think I am remotely special. I expect that most recently intelligent people who follow politics closely could achieve this goal. It seems really easy.
Yeah, this is the Trump thread so maybe it's the wrong forum, but it's 2p2 P&S where every thread turns into a general off topic chat discussion anyway.
I wasn't responding to your question I was responding to another poster suggesting democrats don't commit violence, but for the record I'm against anything "woke" (such as tearing down statues of former presidents, changing the name of the Redskins to the Commanders, or the Cleveland Indians to the Guardians, etc.). Does that make me evil?
Yes, you're evil. 😉 Kidding...
But in all seriousness, of course most people will have issues w/ these things.
My opinion on the whole "woke" boogie man thing is contextual to the collective trauma we all went through w/ covid. I think a lot of younger people, who know how to use social media more effective than older people, ceased on a moment to say a lot of ignorant sht, and that somehow got completely tied to liberal politics.
I'll tell you as a certified rep of liberal politics, most people don't agree w/ a majority of this "woke" boogie man stuff. It was a fun house mirror effect that got blown out of proportion and then weaponized by the GOP.
What I do agree with is compassion and understanding, within reasonable boundaries. Even if I don't agree with something, my general philosophy is if it isn't hurting anyone, let it be. We are better off when we don't try to legislate culture wars. If something truly is good, or the best, then it should eventually rise to the top. You don't need to fight every personal battle about how others want to live their lives, if it's not really impacting you.
I am not a public figure and I have no social media following. If I had no scruples, and no concern for my future, I nevertheless am convinced that I could become a relatively prominent figure on right-wing media before the end of Trump's second term.
Am I crazy to think this? FWIW, I don't think I am remotely special. I expect that most recently intelligent people who follow politics closely could achieve this goal. It seems really easy.
Yeah this seems a bit crazy.
There have to be thousands (tens of thousands??) of people posting political stuff on Twitter daily.
Yeah this seems a bit crazy.
There have to be thousands (tens of thousands??) of people posting political stuff on Twitter daily.
It may be a bit... but I agree w/ his general premise.
All you have to be is semi-intelligent, no real moral compass, and willing to say controversial things. The base is gullible enough that you can even tell them you don't believe your own BS, and they won't care, as long as it continues to align w/ their narrative.
Tucker Calrson is a glaring example. He's intelligent, and knows what he's doing is wrong, and he has no moral compass. You can see what he really thinks about Trump and Trump supporters from the dominion lawsuit. He has no respect for either of them, and he knows he's playing them.
To any reasonable base of supporters, that should have been his undoing, but instead, he's grown his alt media profile. I can't imagine this happening on the left. When people get exposed, it's not just magically swept under a carpet by the liberal base. The purist in the party alone would never let that happen.
I don't need to cite anything. Ever hear of Antifa? Their army destroyed statues and other property. Are you saying they're republicans? They were all "woke" democrats.
Yeah, it's a pretty big reach to think we are talking about property destruction when using the word "violence." Do you have any instances of physical violence (harm to people) to cite or can we move on?
And, Antifa isn't an organization and has no army.
Yeah, this is the Trump thread so maybe it's the wrong forum, but it's 2p2 P&S where every thread turns into a general off topic chat discussion anyway.
I wasn't responding to your question I was responding to another poster suggesting democrats don't commit violence, but for the record I'm against anything "woke" (such as tearing down statues of former presidents, changing the name of the Redskins to the Commanders, or the Cleveland Indians to the Guardians, etc.). Does that make me evil?
It doesn't make you a Rhodes Scholar, I can promise you that.
Yeah, it's a pretty big reach to think we are talking about property destruction when using the word "violence." Do you have any instances of physical violence (harm to people) to cite or can we move on?
And, Antifa isn't an organization and has no army.
700 police officers were injured during BLM protests and 19 killed according to the US Justice Department
You guys don't want to think about what's going on... you want to be told what to think, and then compartmentalize it.
It's bizzaro world that we're pretending all of these indictments, and shutting down an investigation, which names several Russian connections to Trump, means there's nothing there. Collusion is VERY hard to prove, but even if you want to say Trump has no connections (even though Trump jr himself said most of their assets are from Russia), you have to at least wonder why his geop
Lol. Talk about projection.
Dude, here's Glenn Greenwald one of your fellow lefties debunking the Tulsi is a Russian asset hoax. If that doesn't convince you nothing will. Like I said to you before, stop being so gullible and have a look at yourself in the mirror. You are the one swallowing the propoganda hook, line and sinker. The Trump is a Russian asset stuff was debunked years ago and you are still going on about it. Honestly you must be one of the most stupid people I've come across in this forum and that's saying something.
700 police officers were injured during BLM protests and 19 killed according to the US Justice Department
That's a cool statistic but we were talking about violence specifically by "dems." Do you have some sort of evidence that those police officers were injured or killed by "dems?" Ideally that would be in the name of a political movement, because obviously some percentage of crime (not politcally motivated) is just committed by people, and some people are republicans some democrats. BLM protests were not political in nature, they were about police officers killing black people, which is a crime (neither side is in favor of police officers killing black people - republicans correct me if I'm wrong here), not a political ideal.
So no, this is not even remotely a statistic that supports the statement "all I see is dems committing violence."
Do you understand how trivially easy it is to point out politically motivated republican violence?
Yeah, it's a pretty big reach to think we are talking about property destruction when using the word "violence." Do you have any instances of physical violence (harm to people) to cite or can we move on?
And, Antifa isn't an organization and has no army.
Ahh ok so now you're trying to change the definition of "violence"?
LOL just like the dems changed the definition of a recession.
I see where this is going.
(nowhere).
No, I'm just going to insist you use context to follow the conversation. It was about physical violence. Reading comprehension is hard.
Here is the bit that started this thread of the conversation. Notice how it's all about physical violence, not breaking stuff.
I have a neighbor to the south called the USA that had two assassination attempts on the GOP candidate and recent events multiple cabinet appointees swatted one of the individuals had a bumper sticker " Use my proper pronouns or ill kill you " on his/her/they Tesla
The definition of recession hasn't changed, you just never knew what it was.
I'm sure you're used to that.
But yes, this is going nowhere if you can't cite cases of physical violence against people, since that's what we were talking about. Quibbling over the definition pretty much indicates you concede the point.
Again, do you understand how absolutely trivial it is to cite cases of politically motivated violence against people by republicans? It was so super disingenuous of him to insinuate it was being done by "dems" and then not be able to cite a single instance, wouldn't you agree?
Is this a serious question?
Occupy Wall Street
100+ BLM riots
Jan 6th
Politicians encouraging their supporters to get in the face of opposing politicians to make them feel uncomfortable.
Going to Supreme Court justices houses to try to intimidate them.
The above is a list of some of the largest political violence events in recent times. Somewhere around 99% of people who participated in these political violence events are dems. Outside of 1k people on 1/6 political violence is almost uniquely dem in this country.
It may be a bit... but I agree w/ his general premise.
All you have to be is semi-intelligent, no real moral compass, and willing to say controversial things. The base is gullible enough that you can even tell them you don't believe your own BS, and they won't care, as long as it continues to align w/ their narrative.
Tucker Calrson is a glaring example. He's intelligent, and knows what he's doing is wrong, and he has no moral compass. You can see what he really thinks about Trump and Trump suppo
Idk. Amy Goodman is still on the air. Rachel Maddow is perhaps a better example. People don't care because they tell them things that they want to hear.
