Were those three hispanics personally responsible for tearing apart a man's Trump sign and then one of them pulled a gun on the man? Yes they are responsible for that.
Interesting how you keep calling the perpetrators "Hispanics" but the victim is simply a "man".
Yes, these men are responsible for their actions. But you're trying to use this anecdote to say something bigger about illegal immigration. And by your own standard of "personal responsibility" with which you have excused Trump, how could any other illegal immigrants, or any of the people currently in charge of immigration policy, or anyone else whatsoever, be responsible for this attack? Clearly it must be an isolated incident, and we can't draw any conclusions from it. Right?
Who said anything about illegal immigrants? You did. It's nice to know that you're projecting your bias and assumptions onto the person you're arguing with. And I called them "hispanics" and the other guy "man" because they are factually accurate statements. "Illegal immigrants" is the term you conjured up out of nowhere to justify you rant. I never tried to conflate anything into this attack. That's another strawman you've constructed in order to avoid the point.
And Trump is factually wrong. And your study has nothing to do with the point I brought up since the only information I had was that the criminals were Hispanic. You're jumping to conclusions about their immigration status. But since you insist on bringing up illegal immigrants for some reason, I would like to point out that if we enforced our immigration laws Kate Steinle wouldn't have been killed by an illegal immigrant. You can say "well that's an outlier" all you like and even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that it didn't have to happen in the first place.
Nor is sucker-punching a guy equal to chasing a likely Presidential nominee from major U.S. cities with threatening rallies that lead to multiple arrests.
You're cool with this because it starts here, but this might not be where it ends. What if it's Hillary next, because she's not as in-line with the SJWs as Bernie is? It's already been Bernie, though only once, and he handed over the podium... what if next time he actually wants to speak? What then? He's not allowed to because the protestors say otherwise? So again, where does it end? At what point does the criminal disruption of the democratic process become a problem?
If you're going to call for your followers to assault protesters, then any protest becomes a security concern. These groups have protested at Cruz rallies, at Clinton rallies, at Sanders rallies, everywhere. And somehow no one is "chased" from a city. We might wonder, then, how it is that the problem only seems to occur at Trump events. Maybe that's where the issue lies.
Posted 10:46 am, March 16, 2016, by Ben Winslow and David Wells, Updated at 12:34pm, March 16, 2016
The decision to cancel the debate followed Donald Trump's announcement on "FOX & Friends" that he would not be appearing. Instead, he said he would be appearing at a pro-Israel group's event on Monday night. Trump dropping out led John Kasich to indicate he would not be appearing at Monday's debate.
Trump shapes the narrative once again, and other folks on the Left and Right then react as best they see fit.
This just goes to show that Kasich stands for nothing. Whining for months on end about not getting enough attention and then he backs out of a 1 v 1 against Cruz. Shows that he's only in it to show himself as a contrast to Trump. I've seen some of his town halls and they're nothing but empty rhetoric hidden behind a polite package. His ideas are sub-par and wouldn't be able to withstand scrutiny. All he does is stand on the sidelines decrying "we should all act like adults".
No, Trump supporters are working to undermine the COUNTRY, Nevelo. Putting a person who uses threats of violence to undermine democracy, who condones First Amendment violations, who advocates racial profiling, who advocates violence against protesters, and who expresses routine ignorance over basic facets of law is undermining America.
Do you guys not get it? We're there. This isn't a what if scenario, we're actually there. We're at the point where a demagogue is attempting to seize power. We're at the point where someone is threatening people with violence to get himself elected. We're at the point where someone is actively talking about undermining our liberties.
All he does is stand on the sidelines decrying "we should all act like adults".
1. In a presidential election, people should act like adults.
2. Kasich has a long record of political service. He is currently serving as Governor of Ohio. If you want someone whose political career has amounted to nothing more than words from the sideline, that'd be Donald Trump.
I just said I think people would have been justified in rioting. If people were that angry with the results they should have rioted.
people are never justified in rioting. Destruction of private property, looting, general chaos? Does that sounds like a good constructive response to you? If they want to protest go for it but rioting is just plain criminality poorly justified by anger.
I think there are times when people are justified in rioting, although I don't think a brokered convention is such a time.
I'd like to pop that guy in the mouth/= somebody pop that guy in the mouth right now.
If Bernie Sanders said, "I'd like to go over and disrupt the Donald Trump rally", would you accept that he was not endorsing any disruptions? Of course not. And you'd be absolutely right not to. The endorsement is barely even coded. So please, don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending Trump said nothing inflammatory here. And we both know that this is hardly the only Trump quotation pertaining to violence, anyway.
Who said anything about illegal immigrants? You did. It's nice to know that you're projecting your bias and assumptions onto the person you're arguing with. And I called them "hispanics" and the other guy "man" because they are factually accurate statements. "Illegal immigrants" is the term you conjured up out of nowhere to justify you rant. I never tried to conflate anything into this attack. That's another strawman you've constructed in order to avoid the point.
If you weren't talking about illegal immigrants, this would be the point where you explain what you were talking about when you said that a crime committed by "hispanics" is "why we need Trump".
But since you insist on bringing up illegal immigrants for some reason, I would like to point out that if we enforced our immigration laws Kate Steinle wouldn't have been killed by an illegal immigrant. You can say "well that's an outlier" all you like and even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that it didn't have to happen in the first place.
...Yeah, you were talking about illegal immigrants.
Nothing will happen. The fear and paranoia of "omg the prices will increase" is bogus. Our prices didn't decrease with "Free Trade" and the only thing that happened was Executive CEO pay increased. Competition will still exist. What you're doing here is fear mongering.
It would take a very poor understanding of economics to believe this is what will happen if Trumps starts his economic wars.
Can the people stating stuff about Trump's economic plan justify their responses instead of just saying, "No it won't," and "Yes, it will"? I think that would be an interesting discussion.
His ideas are sub-par and wouldn't be able to withstand scrutiny. All he does is stand on the sidelines decrying "we should all act like adults".
So basically he's the same as Trump, but wants to act like an adult?
Kasich supported, NAFTA, GATT, and the TPP. Furthermore he supports more H-1B visas. So no he's not like Trump at all. He's an establishment sellout who would stab the American people in the back to make a quick buck. And he supports arming radical terrorists moderate rebels in Syria along with establishing a no fly zone in the area. He's another buffoon who might outright start WW3. He's policies are terrible and he tries to hide that under a package of pretty words. He's a doofus.
I'd like to pop that guy in the mouth/= somebody pop that guy in the mouth right now.
If Bernie Sanders said, "I'd like to go over and disrupt the Donald Trump rally", would you accept that he was not endorsing any disruptions? Of course not. And you'd be absolutely right not to. The endorsement is barely even coded. So please, don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending Trump said nothing inflammatory here. And we both know that this is hardly the only Trump quotation pertaining to violence, anyway.
Who said anything about illegal immigrants? You did. It's nice to know that you're projecting your bias and assumptions onto the person you're arguing with. And I called them "hispanics" and the other guy "man" because they are factually accurate statements. "Illegal immigrants" is the term you conjured up out of nowhere to justify you rant. I never tried to conflate anything into this attack. That's another strawman you've constructed in order to avoid the point.
If you weren't talking about illegal immigrants, this would be the point where you explain what you were talking about when you said that a crime committed by "hispanics" is "why we need Trump".
But since you insist on bringing up illegal immigrants for some reason, I would like to point out that if we enforced our immigration laws Kate Steinle wouldn't have been killed by an illegal immigrant. You can say "well that's an outlier" all you like and even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that it didn't have to happen in the first place.
...Yeah, you were talking about illegal immigrants.
Well if your rebuttal is "you were talking about this thing you never said" then I guess this is where we move on to something else.
Do you guys not get it? We're there. This isn't a what if scenario, we're actually there. We're at the point where a demagogue is attempting to seize power. We're at the point where someone is threatening people with violence to get himself elected. We're at the point where someone is actively talking about undermining our liberties.
All he does is stand on the sidelines decrying "we should all act like adults".
1. In a presidential election, people should act like adults.
2. Kasich has a long record of political service. He is currently serving as Governor of Ohio. If you want someone whose political career has amounted to nothing more than words from the sideline, that'd be Donald Trump.
1. Ok.
2. What I should have said is: All he does during the debates is stand on the sidelines decrying "we should all act like adults".
Yes, Kasich has a long career. This was a chance to really let it shine so to speak without Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the room. But it would have also meant that he would have faced more scrutiny and he wouldn't be able to slide through a debate without doing what I previously mentioned. In previous debates he whined about not getting enough attention: when given the chance to have up to 50% of the time devoted to himself, he's taken a pass. And the reason for why he backed out backs up what I said: he only wants to portray himself in contrast to Trump. He doesn't think his positions in and of themselves can stand on their own.
I recall Trump supporting this program in one of the debates claiming that Disney abused it and its proper usage was fine.
Also Is it bad that I read your posts in Trumps voice?
Yes, previously Trump talked about eliminating them and then he changed to allowing them because his stance softened. This country has a need for H-1B visas, however we already have too many and some of the uses we have now are being subject to abuse. Hence my criticism of supporting more H-1B visas: we don't need more.
3) You are making excuses for illegal activity, by inferring it is ok since--allegedly--they are better people than the average American citizen.
Where am I making excuses for illegal activity? I'm saying that illegal immigrants are better than the average American citizen because, statistically, they don't commit as much illegal activity. Yes, obviously they have committed one illegal act by definition, but Trump is talking about them committing other illegal acts, like drug dealing and rape.
I said omission and commission, but you "forgot" again.
Actually you said "omission or commission". A disjunction. True when either of the disjuncts is true. And since "commission" is false, only "omission" remains.
4) Quoting Trump's statements about an "obnoxious" "trouble maker" is not proof one way or the other. What was the protester doing? I don't know. Do you?
In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. And Trump didn't even claim the protester was guilty. If Trump had said something like, "This guy was violent, so my supporters had a right to defend themselves", we'd be having a different conversation. But that's not what he said. He endorsed violence irrespective of the protester instigating it.
Also, Trump later clarified his remarks in a debate, a press conference, and multiple rallies. Your quote of Trump is not the whole story.
Yeah, if somebody advocates a war crime and then backs off from it later, I'm still going to hold him in lower regard than everybody else who's never advocated a war crime at all. And if Trump was not advocating collective punishment, why were you insinuating that collective punishment is acceptable just above?
Maybe millions and millions of Americans are less concerned with crude style, than what they consider to be reformative substance. Food for thought.
I've known that millions and millions of Americans are perversely attracted to crudity ever since the reality TV craze began. Now the king of reality TV is running for office and they're voting for him. They're not looking for substance in his campaign any more than they were looking for it on his show. They're looking for entertainment. You're looking for entertainment. Your posts are all empty, fannish excitement and fun until someone actually challenges you.
No matter what I share, u sanctimoniously and/or dismissively oppose it. Understood. Gotcha. Noted.
Complaining that I missed a "t" in the word "matter" is beyond silly.
The hypocrisy of your complaints about Trump's frequent rudeness towards the filthy rich and powerful, while u verbally bash one poster after another because he/she is audacious enough to disagree with your opinion is unfortunate to witness.
Being a moderator has its perks, I guess.
Have a great life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
No matter what I share, u sanctimoniously and/or dismissively oppose it. Understood. Gotcha. Noted.
Complaining that I missed a "t" in the word "matter" is beyond silly.
The hypocrisy of your complaints about Trump's frequent rudeness towards the filthy rich and powerful, while u verbally bash one poster after another because he/she is audacious enough to disagree with your opinion is unfortunate to witness.
Being a moderator has its perks, I guess.
Have a great life.
Unless BS has been sending you disparaging pm's that the rest of us don't know about nothing he has said has been bashing you, they have been bashing Trump. Discussion of Donald Trump is the purpose of this thread and if you post in it be prepared to have your post questioned by those who feel differently about the subject.
In short we oppose your views on Trump not you personally, try not to take it that way.
No matter what I share, u sanctimoniously and/or dismissively oppose it. Understood. Gotcha. Noted.
Complaining that I missed a "t" in the word "matter" is beyond silly.
The hypocrisy of your complaints about Trump's frequent rudeness towards the filthy rich and powerful, while u verbally bash one poster after another because he/she is audacious enough to disagree with your opinion is unfortunate to witness.
Being a moderator has its perks, I guess.
Have a great life.
Unless BS has been sending you disparaging pm's that the rest of us don't know about nothing he has said has been bashing you, they have been bashing Trump. Discussion of Donald Trump is the purpose of this thread and if you post in it be prepared to have your post questioned by those who feel differently about the subject.
In short we oppose your views on Trump not you personally, try not to take it that way.
I appreciate your classiness. Seems like you almost always engage me and others, while BS is putting out a totally different vibe.
Like it not Trump is highly likely to win at this point. He's even getting evangelicals to vote for him in the primaries and there's basically no way he can lose if this demographic also votes for him in the general election. Democrats are getting really low turnout, and a pretty significant percentage of Sanders supporters absolutely despise Hilary Clinton and will not vote for her in the general election. The youth vote and the evangelical vote are the two biggest question marks on either side and the Democrats are not going to win if young people stay home and evangelicals show up. The Norpoth model predicts a 97% chance of a Trump victory.
Trump's threatened trade war is the scariest part of his candidacy and that's not a fight we're going to win even if the numbers say we can. A trade war with China would be an absolute disaster. In China, the political party responsible for a >50 million person genocide is still in power. They will have no problems convincing their population to endure the hardship of a simple economic depression. That's most certainly not the case over here, and we'll be throwing in the towel and looking like idiots the moment things start getting really bad.
Yes, Kasich has a long career. This was a chance to really let it shine so to speak without Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the room. But it would have also meant that he would have faced more scrutiny and he wouldn't be able to slide through a debate without doing what I previously mentioned. In previous debates he whined about not getting enough attention: when given the chance to have up to 50% of the time devoted to himself, he's taken a pass. And the reason for why he backed out backs up what I said: he only wants to portray himself in contrast to Trump. He doesn't think his positions in and of themselves can stand on their own.
Wait, "the reason for why he backed out"? You know for a fact that's the reason why he backed out? Please cite your source.
Yes, Kasich has a long career. This was a chance to really let it shine so to speak without Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the room. But it would have also meant that he would have faced more scrutiny and he wouldn't be able to slide through a debate without doing what I previously mentioned. In previous debates he whined about not getting enough attention: when given the chance to have up to 50% of the time devoted to himself, he's taken a pass. And the reason for why he backed out backs up what I said: he only wants to portray himself in contrast to Trump. He doesn't think his positions in and of themselves can stand on their own.
Wait, "the reason for why he backed out"? You know for a fact that's the reason why he backed out? Please cite your source.
Kasich, the Ohio governor, said he would join the event only with the participation of GOP front-runner Trump
"Shortly afterward, John Kasich's campaign announced that without Trump at the debate, Kasich would not participate.
Of course I have to admit I'm speculating, but that sure as hell looks like it backs up what I said. He can't exist without being a foil to Trump. Of course he'll never say that.
We know why Trump won't be there. He has a scheduled event with AIPAC.
Look at why Cruz won't be there. The debate was cancelled.
Look at why Kasich won't be there. Because he can't debate anything without Trump being there.
Looks like his ideas can't stand on their own merit and scrutiny to me without a contrast of some sort.
Stepping back into the topic to say that one of the random stack of infallible's links that I checked was a picture of a lady saying that Denmark needed to be less socialist because everyone is so very sad. According to the 4th Annual World Happiness Survey (apparently that's a thing?) Denmark is the happiest country in the world, mainly due to it's low social inequality.
EDIT: Trump definitely has a staff, one of them knocked down a reporter for asking difficult questions, admitted to knocking her down, then denied ever seeing the lady or something. I'll grab a link from GAF if I can be bothered.
Stepping back into the topic to say that one of the random stack of infallible's links that I checked was a picture of a lady saying that Denmark needed to be less socialist because everyone is so very sad. According to the 4th Annual World Happiness Survey (apparently that's a thing?) Denmark is the happiest country in the world, mainly due to it's low social inequality.
I am sure you would find quite a few inaccuracies if you were inclined to examine that list thoroughly.
Of course I have to admit I'm speculating, but that sure as hell looks like it backs up what I said.
That's precisely my point: you don't actually know why he isn't joining the debate. You made up a reason based on your point of view, and act like it's some sort of eureka moment that the reason you came up with backs up your point of view.
Look at why Kasich won't be there.
Because Trump won't be there.
That's all we know. Maybe he's being polite and thinks it's bad form unless they're all present. Maybe he figures it's a better use of his time to campaign instead of flying to Utah for a debate. Maybe he feels like a debate against Cruz would benefit Trump more. Maybe he figured that if Trump can't be bothered to show up, why should he? Maybe he had something else he'd prefer to do. Maybe he wants to watch his Game of Thrones blu-ray.
All that link states is that he cancelled because Trump cancelled. That's it. You're reading into it whatever you want to read into it, drawing your own conclusions, and using your own conclusions as evidence for your own conclusions. That's begging the question.
Also, I love that you're not scrutinizing Trump's reasons for backing out. The man publicly stated that he didn't even know that there was a debate. He said no one told him. We don't have to speculate on that, it's what he told the press. I mean... Want to maybe comment on a man running for president not even knowing when the debates are?
I'd like to pop that guy in the mouth/= somebody pop that guy in the mouth right now.
Who said anything about illegal immigrants? You did. It's nice to know that you're projecting your bias and assumptions onto the person you're arguing with. And I called them "hispanics" and the other guy "man" because they are factually accurate statements. "Illegal immigrants" is the term you conjured up out of nowhere to justify you rant. I never tried to conflate anything into this attack. That's another strawman you've constructed in order to avoid the point.
And Trump is factually wrong. And your study has nothing to do with the point I brought up since the only information I had was that the criminals were Hispanic. You're jumping to conclusions about their immigration status. But since you insist on bringing up illegal immigrants for some reason, I would like to point out that if we enforced our immigration laws Kate Steinle wouldn't have been killed by an illegal immigrant. You can say "well that's an outlier" all you like and even if it's true, it doesn't change the fact that it didn't have to happen in the first place.
If you're going to call for your followers to assault protesters, then any protest becomes a security concern. These groups have protested at Cruz rallies, at Clinton rallies, at Sanders rallies, everywhere. And somehow no one is "chased" from a city. We might wonder, then, how it is that the problem only seems to occur at Trump events. Maybe that's where the issue lies.
This just goes to show that Kasich stands for nothing. Whining for months on end about not getting enough attention and then he backs out of a 1 v 1 against Cruz. Shows that he's only in it to show himself as a contrast to Trump. I've seen some of his town halls and they're nothing but empty rhetoric hidden behind a polite package. His ideas are sub-par and wouldn't be able to withstand scrutiny. All he does is stand on the sidelines decrying "we should all act like adults".
Even if I had a lapse in judgement, I thought the anti-Trump folks opposed rudeness and petty name calling.
So basically he's the same as Trump, but wants to act like an adult?
And you all are supporting him.
1. In a presidential election, people should act like adults.
2. Kasich has a long record of political service. He is currently serving as Governor of Ohio. If you want someone whose political career has amounted to nothing more than words from the sideline, that'd be Donald Trump.
I think there are times when people are justified in rioting, although I don't think a brokered convention is such a time.
If you weren't talking about illegal immigrants, this would be the point where you explain what you were talking about when you said that a crime committed by "hispanics" is "why we need Trump".
...Yeah, you were talking about illegal immigrants.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Kasich supported, NAFTA, GATT, and the TPP. Furthermore he supports more H-1B visas. So no he's not like Trump at all. He's an establishment sellout who would stab the American people in the back to make a quick buck. And he supports arming
radical terroristsmoderate rebels in Syria along with establishing a no fly zone in the area. He's another buffoon who might outright start WW3. He's policies are terrible and he tries to hide that under a package of pretty words. He's a doofus.Well if your rebuttal is "you were talking about this thing you never said" then I guess this is where we move on to something else.
Also Is it bad that I read your posts in Trumps voice?
1. Ok.
2. What I should have said is: All he does during the debates is stand on the sidelines decrying "we should all act like adults".
Yes, Kasich has a long career. This was a chance to really let it shine so to speak without Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the room. But it would have also meant that he would have faced more scrutiny and he wouldn't be able to slide through a debate without doing what I previously mentioned. In previous debates he whined about not getting enough attention: when given the chance to have up to 50% of the time devoted to himself, he's taken a pass. And the reason for why he backed out backs up what I said: he only wants to portray himself in contrast to Trump. He doesn't think his positions in and of themselves can stand on their own.
Yes, previously Trump talked about eliminating them and then he changed to allowing them because his stance softened. This country has a need for H-1B visas, however we already have too many and some of the uses we have now are being subject to abuse. Hence my criticism of supporting more H-1B visas: we don't need more.
Complaining that I missed a "t" in the word "matter" is beyond silly.
The hypocrisy of your complaints about Trump's frequent rudeness towards the filthy rich and powerful, while u verbally bash one poster after another because he/she is audacious enough to disagree with your opinion is unfortunate to witness.
Being a moderator has its perks, I guess.
Have a great life.
In short we oppose your views on Trump not you personally, try not to take it that way.
Either way, I hope all y'all have a great week.
Trump's threatened trade war is the scariest part of his candidacy and that's not a fight we're going to win even if the numbers say we can. A trade war with China would be an absolute disaster. In China, the political party responsible for a >50 million person genocide is still in power. They will have no problems convincing their population to endure the hardship of a simple economic depression. That's most certainly not the case over here, and we'll be throwing in the towel and looking like idiots the moment things start getting really bad.
Let's hear what Kasich via his campaign has to say about why he backed out...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/16/donald-trump-will-skip-upcoming-fox-debate-for-major-speech-before-jewish-group/
Of course I have to admit I'm speculating, but that sure as hell looks like it backs up what I said. He can't exist without being a foil to Trump. Of course he'll never say that.
We know why Trump won't be there. He has a scheduled event with AIPAC.
Look at why Cruz won't be there. The debate was cancelled.
Look at why Kasich won't be there. Because he can't debate anything without Trump being there.
Looks like his ideas can't stand on their own merit and scrutiny to me without a contrast of some sort.
EDIT: Trump definitely has a staff, one of them knocked down a reporter for asking difficult questions, admitted to knocking her down, then denied ever seeing the lady or something. I'll grab a link from GAF if I can be bothered.
Art is life itself.
Because Trump won't be there.
That's all we know. Maybe he's being polite and thinks it's bad form unless they're all present. Maybe he figures it's a better use of his time to campaign instead of flying to Utah for a debate. Maybe he feels like a debate against Cruz would benefit Trump more. Maybe he figured that if Trump can't be bothered to show up, why should he? Maybe he had something else he'd prefer to do. Maybe he wants to watch his Game of Thrones blu-ray.
All that link states is that he cancelled because Trump cancelled. That's it. You're reading into it whatever you want to read into it, drawing your own conclusions, and using your own conclusions as evidence for your own conclusions. That's begging the question.
Also, I love that you're not scrutinizing Trump's reasons for backing out. The man publicly stated that he didn't even know that there was a debate. He said no one told him. We don't have to speculate on that, it's what he told the press. I mean... Want to maybe comment on a man running for president not even knowing when the debates are?