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
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.
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
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.
Easy tiger, we're speaking in the present tense. You sure you don't want to cite the Boston Tea Party while you're at it. This was before my time in America, so I don't know all the details, but can you cite some specific cases of violence (physical harm to other humans) related to this that can be tracked directly to "dems?" I looked briefly and didn't see anything obvious.
Not exclusively "dems" and not politically motivated (unless you would state republicans are not against police indiscriminately killing black people, but yes, please state that).
I'm quite sure you're joking.
Politicians encouraging their supporters to get in the face of opposing politicians to make them feel uncomfortable.
lol?
extra lol. Do you just not know what violence is?
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.
Come on dude. Be serious. Your post borders on comedy it's so ridiculous.
No, I'm just going to insist you use context to follow the conversation. It was about physical violence. Reading comprehension is hard.
MY reading comprehension is hard? How about your writing comprehension?
This is exactly what you asked:
You're sounding more and more like camela saying "I love fracking" then saying "I will stop fracking" then back to saying "I will never stop fracking".
Why didn't you just say "Please cite an example of a democrat physically harming someone"?
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.
lol, what an amazing turnaround after listening to some sam harris
you've posted abundantly in the past on a number of absurdist things that are the exact woke nonsense you're now trying to extricate yourself away from and pretend like you had nothing to do with
in fact, one of the big themes just a few months prior was that all the woke backlash was made up
what an absolute clown you are, just as bad as gorg, just take the L, admit you were wrong, and move on instead of trying to revise history and pretend like you were always of the mindset that you disagreed with the woke stuff
you literally pretended things like the inability to filter out transwomen on dating apps was something we were making up despite never using the app yourself and that multiple people on the apps were all posting that you were wrong and carefully explaining to you where your misunderstanding came from and instead you just turned off all those inputs and stuck your fingers in your ears going blah blah blah you guys are lying hateful bigots and none of what you say is true
it was true then, it still is true today
you know what types of personality disorders also struggle to admit they were ever wrong right? 😀
MY reading comprehension is hard? How about your writing comprehension?
This is exactly what you asked:
You're sounding more and more like camela saying "I love fracking" then saying "I will stop fracking" then back to saying "I will never stop fracking".
Why didn't you just say "Please cite an examp
Because most people are capable of following a conversation and I assumed I didn't have to treat you like an infant. Noted for the future, though.
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.
When Gorgonian is wrong he just makes **** up.
Here is definition of violence:
Violence is often defined as the use of physical force by humans to cause harm and degradation to other living beings, such as humiliation, pain, injury, disablement, damage to property and ultimately death, as well as destruction to a civilization society's living environment.[1]
Property destruction is in the definition, how can it be a "pretty big reach" when its literally in the definition.
When Gorgonian is wrong he just makes **** up.
Here is definition of violence:
Property destruction is in the definition, how can it be a "pretty big reach" when its literally in the definition.
Oh look, another clown that found it very important to demonstrate he was unable to follow the conversation. I already quoted the context of the conversation that was clearly referring to physical violence against humans, but go off, dunce cap.
And for the record, violence is widely used to mean specifically against people. In fact, the WHO definition of violence mentions nothing at all about destruction of property:
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization in the WRVH as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation”
Krug E, Dahlberg L, Mercy J.et alWorld report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002
I would imagine after getting absolutely humiliated with all your incorrect predictions and hot takes in the last election, you would have some humility to admit you are wrong often.
But nope, stubbornness is rooted in your DNA.
I would imagine after getting absolutely humiliated with all your incorrect predictions and hot takes in the last election, you would have some humility to admit you are wrong often.
Your imagination doesn't concern me, dunce cap.
Sorry you rushed to the microphone to announce to everyone you lack reading comprehension, but don't blame it on me.
Definition of words is normally the starting point for conversations. We aren't here to do that work for you.
I know its very painful for you when proven wrong, but you'll get over it.
Let's be clear: nobody asked you for jack squat. Nobody was even talking to you. That has a high degree of correlation with how many people give a crap about your input on this.
People login to twoplustwo from all over the world and post things and have conversations.
So unless you want to talk directly to 1 person, you have to DM them.
Hope that helps.
People login to twoplustwo from all over the world and post things and have conversations.
So unless you want to talk directly to 1 person, you have to DM them.
Hope that helps.
I didn't say you couldn't post things or comment. I disabused you of the notion that anyone asked you to do a damn thing.
Consider for a moment that you've spent half a dozen posts arguing that someone should be allowed to falsely equivocate breaking some things with literally killing people. That's literally what you're doing. All because I hurt your feelings sometime in the past and you thought you saw an opportunity to put me in my place. And you somehow think you are "winning."
You people actually baffle me.
Uh oh forum police disabusing me.
Someone doesn't have to be directed a question or comment to participate in an online forum.
Hope that helps your future forum policing efforts.
