[garygreen]

Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs.

hey maybe it's possible that they're generally from mars, too.  good argument.

Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

srsly tho please feed me more inductive weak inductive reasoning.  it's compelling.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.

[Woody]

It is a good indication of how US foreign and domestic policy will be run if he wins.  More military actions and violence. 

He is the first US political figure in my life time that I have not just dismissed comments comparing them to Hitler as being an outlandish statement.

Just seeing his support he gives for violent actions against people who protest him is enough for me to worry what might happen.  That is the same tactic Hitler used and would support violence being committed against any group or person that did not support him.

Supporting and stating he will not rule out special IDs and requiring a group of people to register with the government based on their religion.

I think just how much neo-nazi/white supremace support him is a good indication of what we can expect if he is elected.  I could be wrong, but I never noticed any other candidate have them support them so energetically.

It saddens me that Trump can use the tactics he is using so openly and has a chance of becoming President. 

I have been thinking of sailing to another country to live for a couple of years.  Maybe it is time to push up my plans and think about extending my stay.

[Rama Set]

Weird how leftists think a presidential candidate shouldn't be concerned about the safety of his supporters

Weird how you are putting words in my mouth.  All I am saying is that the assertion that Rushy was making was not factually correct.

That's ok right?  RIGHT???

[Rushy]

Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him. Saying "yeah, but they wanted to kill him" would be illogical, because then we'd have to start counting Facebook comments as assassination attempts. Good one.

Why don't Hillary or Bernie face repeated assassination attempts? Ah, that's right, they're the ones that are violent.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.

Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?

This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct, that instead of just conceding and saying "Yes, Rushy, Bernie or Hillary have never had a right-wing group shut down their rally by threatening violence or actually assaulting attendees" you pick the strawman route and say "but look! look these Trump supporters were pepper spraying protesters that were yelling in their face and assaulting other people!"

In fact, the only rally Bernie ever had shut down was done so in response to BLM, a left-wing hate group. The left is so violent, it's attacking itself.

[Rama Set]

Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him. Saying "yeah, but they wanted to kill him" would be illogical, because then we'd have to start counting Facebook comments as assassination attempts. Good one.

I know right? It's like counting the threat of violence as violence!  LOL that would be dumb.

Why don't Hillary or Bernie face repeated assassination attempts? Ah, that's right, they're the ones that are violent.

Hillary and Bernie are encouraging democrats to assassinate Trump?  Man, this campaign is getting dir-tay.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.

Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?[/quote]

So wait, Trump supporters are pepper-spraying democrats, yet its only the democrats you are violent?  Yes, you are living in a parody universe, and are starring in the show.

This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct, that instead of just conceding and saying "Yes, Rushy, Bernie or Hillary have never had a right-wing group shut down their rally by threatening violence or actually assaulting attendees" you pick the strawman route and say "but look! look these Trump supporters were pepper spraying protesters that were yelling in their face

NOT YELLING IN THEIR FACE!  THOSE ANIMALS!

and assaulting other people!"

If you read the entire article you would notice that in this case, the Trump supporters were clearly the instigators in this case.  Can you get off your high horse, or is too far to fall?



In fact, the only rally Bernie ever had shut down was done so in response to BLM, a left-wing hate group. The left is so violent, it's attacking itself.
[/quote]

[Rushy]

I know right? It's like counting the threat of violence as violence!  LOL that would be dumb.

What are you even talking about? I mentioned that Trump rallies have been shut down by violence and you stated that is addition to being shut down by violence some were also shut down by the threat of violence. You seem to think that you've somehow proven me wrong somewhere.

Hillary and Bernie are encouraging democrats to assassinate Trump?  Man, this campaign is getting dir-tay.

You don't constantly compare your opponent to Hitler whilst expecting everyone to be okay with it. People want to kill Trump because they literally, and I mean literally in the most literal possible way, think Trump is Hitler. Just look at this thread. The left has gone fucking nuts.

Hitler won because his brownshirts violently shutdown the opponent's political rallies and disrupted any possible peaceful discourse available. Hillary/Bernie are closer to Hitler/Stalin/Mao than Trump is.

So wait, Trump supporters are pepper-spraying democrats, yet its only the democrats you are violent?  Yes, you are living in a parody universe, and are starring in the show.

The Trump supporters pepper sprayed protesters that were attacking them. Christ, did you even bother reading about the incident?

NOT YELLING IN THEIR FACE!  THOSE ANIMALS!

Oh no, there's consequences to me getting in someone's face and yelling at the top of my lungs! Generally, yes, that's pretty animal-like to do. You're not going to convince someone how right you are by YELLING AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE.

If you read the entire article you would notice that in this case, the Trump supporters were clearly the instigators in this case.  Can you get off your high horse, or is too far to fall?

You should read a lot more about the incident than what Gawker, a literally bankrupt 'journalism' source has given you. The protesters were pepper spraying them in self-defense, hence why they were never charged with assault.

[George]

So you do blame Hillary and the media for people trying to assassinate Trump, while simultaneously insisting that Trump bears zero responsibility for the violence at his rallies that he openly calls for and encourages?

[garygreen]

Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him.

- A plot in Tennessee involved two white supremacists, Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, who planned to drive their car toward the Democratic nominee Obama and open fire with guns. They were arrested on October 22, 2008, before taking any action. Schlesselman and Cowart pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the threat in 2010 and were sentenced to 10 and 14 years in prison, respectively.

- In November 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a man who believed he was Jesus and that Obama was the Antichrist, hit the White House with several rounds fired from a semi-automatic rifle. No one was injured. However, a window was broken.

- Another attempt was made in April 2013 when a letter laced with ricin, a deadly poison, was sent to President Obama.

this is literally exactly what trump does.  you say something absurd, like, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do," don't back it up with any evidence, and then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you just define your way out of the argument.  you're about to do it again right now by coming up with some convoluted reasons why the attempts on obama and clinton, for instance, don't count.

Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?

protip: combining shitty inductive reasoning with confirmation bias makes your argument worse, not better.

so just to be clear, "Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs," and trump supporters are not, but only if we count the times that someone decided to cancel a rally?  if your argument is that trump's opposition are "generally violent" nutjobs, in apparent contrast to trump supporters, then i feel like examples of trump supporters being violent are pretty apropos.  but, again, if you want to just define yourself as correct without regard to reality, then i certainly can't stop you.

hey dummy: if it's only the times that a rally gets canceled that count, then you now have five total examples of 'trump's opposition' being violent.  wow how general.  shitty inductive reasoning is shitty.

This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct

lol.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/chronicling-donald-trumps-lies/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/24/Donald-Trump-s-8-Most-Recent-Blatant-Lies
http://www.ibtimes.com/list-donald-trump-lies-10-claims-gop-front-runner-immigration-muslims-kkk-dont-hold-2330265
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Trump’s entire personal and professional history is Obama-esque: When it serves his interests, Trump lies. He has lied to business associates, employees, friends, spouses, and now to millions of prospective voters. Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself. When it becomes expedient for Trump to lie, he will.

[Rushy]

So you do blame Hillary and the media for people trying to assassinate Trump, while simultaneously insisting that Trump bears zero responsibility for the violence at his rallies that he openly calls for and encourages?

Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

Trump has only ever encouraged a response to violence happening at his rallies. Protesters constantly interrupt and he wanted the violently punished. Maybe they'd stop interrupting private events if that were the case. If you want to protest Trump, do it at the voting booth. It serves no purpose at all to show up and harass people at Trump's rallies. If anything, you've just reassured them they made the right choice.

- A plot in Tennessee involved two white supremacists, Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, who planned to drive their car toward the Democratic nominee Obama and open fire with guns. They were arrested on October 22, 2008, before taking any action. Schlesselman and Cowart pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the threat in 2010 and were sentenced to 10 and 14 years in prison, respectively.

- In November 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a man who believed he was Jesus and that Obama was the Antichrist, hit the White House with several rounds fired from a semi-automatic rifle. No one was injured. However, a window was broken.

- Another attempt was made in April 2013 when a letter laced with ricin, a deadly poison, was sent to President Obama.

this is literally exactly what trump does.  you say something absurd, like, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do," don't back it up with any evidence, and then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you just define your way out of the argument.  you're about to do it again right now by coming up with some convoluted reasons why the attempts on obama and clinton, for instance, don't count.

It's funny that you've now managed to make this about Obama without investigating my base statement that Republicans face more assassination attempts than Democrats. I'm waiting for you to count them up.

protip: combining shitty inductive reasoning with confirmation bias makes your argument worse, not better.

so just to be clear, "Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs," and trump supporters are not, but only if we count the times that someone decided to cancel a rally?  if your argument is that trump's opposition are "generally violent" nutjobs, in apparent contrast to trump supporters, then i feel like examples of trump supporters being violent are pretty apropos.  but, again, if you want to just define yourself as correct without regard to reality, then i certainly can't stop you.

hey dummy: if it's only the times that a rally gets canceled that count, then you now have five total examples of 'trump's opposition' being violent.  wow how general.  shitty inductive reasoning is shitty.

Once again you can't even manage to admit basic truths, then you turn around and complain about me and making personal attacks. I can see you may very well be one of those violent people I mentioned.

If you don't understand the difference between hundreds to thousands of people attacking and shutting down rallies versus "yeah, but that one Trump supporter used pepper spray!" then I have bad news. I'll even bet you think La Raza isn't a big deal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/chronicling-donald-trumps-lies/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/24/Donald-Trump-s-8-Most-Recent-Blatant-Lies
http://www.ibtimes.com/list-donald-trump-lies-10-claims-gop-front-runner-immigration-muslims-kkk-dont-hold-2330265
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Oh boy, a long string of anti-Trump sites culminated with Politifact, a site that endorsed Hillary. You're also using some other RINO conservative sites that I could almost guarantee you wouldn't normally agree with. Even, laughably, The Blaze.

This is the Internet. You could find countless links saying anything you want them to. I could find you five or so links talking about military chemtrails. Media sites are pretty useless when they're all trying to peddle lies.



Edit:
In other news, Trump is now asking for donations and will be matching any donation made for the next two days after donating $50 million directly to the campaign. A donation to Trump goes a long way. One Trump dollar is worth at least four Bernie Bucks. Donate today!

[George]

Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"

lol

And just calling the websites that fact-check Trump liars isn't much of a defense when they provide the facts and explain their reasoning alongside their judgments.  I'll grant that Politifact does have a tendency to use weasel words and make some very subjective calls, but there's no doubt that Trump has told some absolutely outrageous lies.  Claims like this, this, this, this, and this are jaw-dropping in their audacity, and go far beyond whatever fibs about which emails were sent from where that Hillary may have been telling.  If Trump is willing to lie so blatantly - and stick to his story even when the rest of the world contradicts him - who knows what fabrications he'll come up with once he's in the Oval Office?

[Rushy]

Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"

lol

And just calling the websites that fact-check Trump liars isn't much of a defense when they provide the facts and explain their reasoning alongside their judgments.  I'll grant that Politifact does have a tendency to use weasel words and make some very subjective calls, but there's no doubt that Trump has told some absolutely outrageous lies.  Claims like this, this, this, this, and this are jaw-dropping in their audacity, and go far beyond whatever fibs about which emails were sent from where that Hillary may have been telling.  If Trump is willing to lie so blatantly - and stick to his story even when the rest of the world contradicts him - who knows what fabrications he'll come up with once he's in the Oval Office?

Defending yourself from someone violently attacking you is different from my quote, which you blatantly took from the context. Protesters showing up to Trump's rallies and being violent, then coincidentally being met with violent retaliation, is not the same as Hillary and the media constantly provoking this madness. People are convinced Trump is an evil racist that must be stopped, which is a false narrative that is strung on by the media who are never punished. The media needs to be reprimanded for constantly instigating this madness.

And yes, attacking the source is valid when the source is riddled with lies and bias. The Washington Post, for example, is no more accurate than Above Top Secret as a news source.

[garygreen]

It's funny that you've now managed to make this about Obama without investigating my base statement that Republicans face more assassination attempts than Democrats. I'm waiting for you to count them up.

you said, "Take Obama, for example...", so i did.  your original statement was, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do."  but it turns out that "Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous: more than 20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents, as well as the Presidents-elect, are known," and that, "With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

but by all means, you probably have a special way of counting that excludes the attempts on democratic politicians, so do some counting for me.

Once again you can't even manage to admit basic truths, then you turn around and complain about me and making personal attacks. I can see you may very well be one of those violent people I mentioned.  If you don't understand the difference between hundreds to thousands of people attacking and shutting down rallies versus "yeah, but that one Trump supporter used pepper spray!" then I have bad news.

i think your reasoning is shitty and asinine, so i may very well be violent?  what?

if it wasn't obvious, i don't think that i just magically happened to find the one trump supporter who was ever violent with a protestor at a rally.  not really sure what i'm supposed to admit to since i'm not the one suggesting that violence is a tendency reserved only to one political party.  that's your asinine position.  i think it all counts.

this is the fucked up position you put yourself in by getting drawn into 'good guy v bad guys' political demagoguery.  this will shock you to hear, but awareness of the basic fact that there are definitely violent and provocative trump supporters doesn't preclude me from awareness of violent trump protestors.

Media sites are pretty useless when they're all trying to peddle lies.

so the liberal sources are unreliable because they're liberal, regardless of the actual content, and conservative sources are unreliable because i personally sometimes disagree with other material they've written on other topics.  oh, and the centrist outlets are unreliable in general because they're news outlets.  lol.

so you're officially on the side of 'everyone else is a liar.'  srsly you're like a little trump acolyte or something.  it's almost adorable.

[Rushy]

you said, "Take Obama, for example...", so i did.  your original statement was, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do."  but it turns out that "Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous: more than 20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents, as well as the Presidents-elect, are known," and that, "With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

but by all means, you probably have a special way of counting that excludes the attempts on democratic politicians, so do some counting for me.

Hmm, I get that feeling you still haven't counted, though.

i think your reasoning is shitty and asinine, so i may very well be violent?  what?

if it wasn't obvious, i don't think that i just magically happened to find the one trump supporter who was ever violent with a protestor at a rally.  not really sure what i'm supposed to admit to since i'm not the one suggesting that violence is a tendency reserved only to one political party.  that's your asinine position.  i think it all counts.

this is the fucked up position you put yourself in by getting drawn into 'good guy v bad guys' political demagoguery.  this will shock you to hear, but awareness of the basic fact that there are definitely violent and provocative trump supporters doesn't preclude me from awareness of violent trump protestors.

One side is overwhelmingly using violent suppression tactics against the other. It isn't even a contest. This is as bad as when people bring up Islamic terrorism and others say "yeah, but remember that one guy that bombed an abortion clinic? like a year ago?? both sides are violent!!" Both sides are violent, yes, but one is exponentially more violent than the other one. I never once said all Trump supporters are peaceful monks and all anti-Trump's are violent, but anti-Trumps do tend to generally be more violent. An awful lot of people thought that assassination attempt was praise worthy.

so the liberal sources are unreliable because they're liberal, regardless of the actual content, and conservative sources are unreliable because i personally sometimes disagree with other material they've written on other topics.  oh, and the centrist outlets are unreliable in general because they're news outlets.  lol.

so you're officially on the side of 'everyone else is a liar.'  srsly you're like a little trump acolyte or something.  it's almost adorable.

The vast majority of media pushes an outright false narrative and outright lies right in their articles. They even go as far as using ridiculous images to prove their point (but the videos those images are from never make it to the article, how convenient!). You should be examining yourself, for example, since you've been driven to post links to The Blaze of all places. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?

[garygreen]

Hmm, I get that feeling you still haven't counted, though.

"With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

do you want me to count for you the number of republicans and democrats who have been in office sine john f kennedy?  is that going to be helpful in some way?  ok.  including jfk i count 4 democrats and 5 republicans.  oh wow, the disparity...

I never once said all Trump supporters are peaceful monks and all anti-Trump's are violent, but anti-Trumps do tend to generally be more violent. An awful lot of people thought that assassination attempt was praise worthy.

i think one of the places where trump supporters spend time not being peaceful monks is at political rallies.  again, maybe i just happened to find the sole example of a trump supporter instigating violence at a political rally, but i kinda doubt it.  i think it's more likely that trump supporters at rallies are also agitated and instigative.  you can keep asserting that no no no they really are generally more violent, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so.

The vast majority of media pushes an outright false narrative and outright lies right in their articles. They even go as far as using ridiculous images to prove their point (but the videos those images are from never make it to the article, how convenient!). You should be examining yourself, for example, since you've been driven to post links to The Blaze of all places. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?

right,  everyone's a liar but you and your buddy.  i mean, the facts and sources to support those claims are laid out right in front of you, but those are all probably lies, too, right?  very sophisticated reasoning.  everyone's a dumb liar but you.  how convenient.

no, it doesn't strike me as strange to substantiate my argument with literature from both sides of the political isle.  it was intentional.  i think that makes my position stronger and more credible, not less.  that was the whole point of collecting sources from the left, right, and center.

the national review already said it best for me: "Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself."  i would add to that list anyone who thinks trump hasn't lied to them already.  a lot.  as a matter of course.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Hmm, I get that feeling you still haven't counted, though.

"With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

do you want me to count for you the number of republicans and democrats who have been in office sine john f kennedy?  is that going to be helpful in some way?  ok.  including jfk i count 4 democrats and 5 republicans.  oh wow, the disparity...

A death threat and an assassination attempt are two entirely different things...

i think one of the places where trump supporters spend time not being peaceful monks is at political rallies.  again, maybe i just happened to find the sole example of a trump supporter instigating violence at a political rally, but i kinda doubt it.  i think it's more likely that trump supporters at rallies are also agitated and instigative.  you can keep asserting that no no no they really are generally more violent, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so.

You've obviously ignoring the exact same thing that happens when a Trump supporter gets anywhere near any kind of "progressive (repressive)" rally. They get attacked and their sign gets torn up. Let's just admit, through intentional divisiveness, the American political process has created a bunch of crazed violent idiots who are incapable of reacting to a different opinion with anything but anger.

The vast majority of media pushes an outright false narrative and outright lies right in their articles. They even go as far as using ridiculous images to prove their point (but the videos those images are from never make it to the article, how convenient!). You should be examining yourself, for example, since you've been driven to post links to The Blaze of all places. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?

right,  everyone's a liar but you and your buddy.  i mean, the facts and sources to support those claims are laid out right in front of you, but those are all probably lies, too, right?  very sophisticated reasoning.  everyone's a dumb liar but you.  how convenient.

no, it doesn't strike me as strange to substantiate my argument with literature from both sides of the political isle.  it was intentional.  i think that makes my position stronger and more credible, not less.  that was the whole point of collecting sources from the left, right, and center.

the national review already said it best for me: "Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself."  i would add to that list anyone who thinks trump hasn't lied to them already.  a lot.  as a matter of course.

Breaking News: Politicians LIE!

Also just in: The media can twist the truth to whatever narrative they want to!

I believe you are allowing your personal feelings get invested entirely too much into this debate. It's obvious you are coming from an emotional point of view and Rushy seems to be coming from a logical point of view. I have to admit, I mentioned earlier in this thread about how Trump was a racist, narcissist etc, and since I have realized that I actually allowed the media to influence this opinion, and upon further inspection determined it is not much more than false narratives supported by 5-10 second sound bytes meant to undermine an independent bid for the presidency. Yes, he's still an out of touch asshole. But he isn't Hitler. Hillary no doubt has about infinity % more blood on her hands than Trump does, and considerably less credibility than he does, and that's not up for debate.

[Rushy]

do you want me to count for you the number of republicans and democrats who have been in office sine john f kennedy?  is that going to be helpful in some way?  ok.  including jfk i count 4 democrats and 5 republicans.  oh wow, the disparity...

Wow, you made this entire argument against a point that was already correct, so instead of going straight for saying "well, that's correct, but..." you argued that it wasn't correct. This makes it pretty obvious that you didn't even bother checking whether or not you were correct in the first place.

i think one of the places where trump supporters spend time not being peaceful monks is at political rallies.  again, maybe i just happened to find the sole example of a trump supporter instigating violence at a political rally, but i kinda doubt it.  i think it's more likely that trump supporters at rallies are also agitated and instigative.  you can keep asserting that no no no they really are generally more violent, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so.

Hmm, it's almost like having a bunch of protesters show up punching people in the face, you get people who retaliate. Find me violence at a Trump rally that doesn't involve an anti-Trump. I'll save you the trouble and let you know that such an event doesn't exist. Your argument is bogus and you know it. You don't get to claim Trump supporters are violent and mean by citing all the incidents of Trump supporters defending themselves against the anti-Trumps.

right,  everyone's a liar but you and your buddy.  i mean, the facts and sources to support those claims are laid out right in front of you, but those are all probably lies, too, right?  very sophisticated reasoning.  everyone's a dumb liar but you.  how convenient.

no, it doesn't strike me as strange to substantiate my argument with literature from both sides of the political isle.  it was intentional.  i think that makes my position stronger and more credible, not less.  that was the whole point of collecting sources from the left, right, and center.

the national review already said it best for me: "Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself."  i would add to that list anyone who thinks trump hasn't lied to them already.  a lot.  as a matter of course.

Or, the more likely case, you've entrenched yourself in media lies (and even lies inside you own head). You've twisted my position repeatedly in this thread alone and you'll gladly link any source whatsoever that just happens to agree with your assessment. You'll judge the how trustworthy something is by what side its on (e.g. your "both sides of the isle" comment). Your conclusion is that because The Blaze is well known for lying --but-- its a well known right-wing source of lying, that they couldn't possibly do something like spin lies around Trump. That's hilarious.

[Pete Svarrior]

and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."

Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.

Referring to your homeland's biggest adversaries as "not technically allies" is not strictly inaccurate, but it's a choice of words even Fox News would approach with caution.

Countries which actively oppose and try to destabilise the west can be compared. Just because some of them are strong enough to actually be taken seriously doesn't mean that's no longer true.

what you're saying would make perfect sense in 1985

If you have a response, please feel free to formulate it. Since you haven't made an argument, I can't even pick a Current Year(tm) for your statement to work.

[garygreen]

You've obviously ignoring the exact same thing that happens when a Trump supporter gets anywhere near any kind of "progressive (repressive)" rally. They get attacked and their sign gets torn up. Let's just admit, through intentional divisiveness, the American political process has created a bunch of crazed violent idiots who are incapable of reacting to a different opinion with anything but anger.

i'm ignoring none of it.  i think there are lots of angry and violent folks on both sides of the isle.

Breaking News: Politicians LIE!

Also just in: The media can twist the truth to whatever narrative they want to!

I believe you are allowing your personal feelings get invested entirely too much into this debate. It's obvious you are coming from an emotional point of view and Rushy seems to be coming from a logical point of view. I have to admit, I mentioned earlier in this thread about how Trump was a racist, narcissist etc, and since I have realized that I actually allowed the media to influence this opinion, and upon further inspection determined it is not much more than false narratives supported by 5-10 second sound bytes meant to undermine an independent bid for the presidency. Yes, he's still an out of touch asshole. But he isn't Hitler. Hillary no doubt has about infinity % more blood on her hands than Trump does, and considerably less credibility than he does, and that's not up for debate.

my emotional attachment extends no further than my sarcasm and bad slams.  i have nothing to be personally or emotionally invested in here.  i don't have a dog in this fight, contra rushy who refers to trump as "god-emperor."  i only think it's dumb to talk about politics as if one side is the good guys and the other are the bad guys.

i also don't think trump is hitler.  my criticism of trump isn't even that i think he's a liar; it's that i think it genuinely doesn't concern him if what he's saying is true or not.  i don't think he considers it at all.  i don't think he's skeptical of his own opinions.  i hate that quality in any person.

Wow, you made this entire argument against a point that was already correct, so instead of going straight for saying "well, that's correct, but..." you argued that it wasn't correct. This makes it pretty obvious that you didn't even bother checking whether or not you were correct in the first place.

every president faces assassination threats and plots.  that makes you wrong, not right.

Hmm, it's almost like having a bunch of protesters show up punching people in the face, you get people who retaliate. Find me violence at a Trump rally that doesn't involve an anti-Trump. I'll save you the trouble and let you know that such an event doesn't exist. Your argument is bogus and you know it. You don't get to claim Trump supporters are violent and mean by citing all the incidents of Trump supporters defending themselves against the anti-Trumps.

lol you obviously didn't actually read the link i posted.  i get it, though, it came from a news outlet so it was probably bullshit anyway.  yeah these guys smiling and spraying the pepper spray and taking photos of it look super terrified and assaulted:

You'll judge the how trustworthy something is by what side its on (e.g. your "both sides of the isle" comment). Your conclusion is that because The Blaze is well known for lying --but-- its a well known right-wing source of lying, that they couldn't possibly do something like spin lies around Trump. That's hilarious.

i genuinely don't understand what you mean by this.  i do not judge the trustworthiness of a news source according to its politics.  you seem to, and that's why i included sources from left, right, and center; i haven't said anything at all about the blaze being well-known for lying.  i haven't said anything at all about the blaze before, i don't think.  don't like the blaze?  read the other sources, then.  i'm partial to the national review article and the washington post thing, myself.

[If you have a response, please feel free to formulate it. Since you haven't made an argument, I can't even pick a Current Year(tm) for your statement to work.

actually fair enough, 1985 was mostly denouement, but the point is that i wildly disagree with your description of us-russian relations, and the comparison you and rushy draw between russia and the dprk would only maybe make sense if we were living in the height of the cold war.  but we're not, so it isn't.

there are significant qualitative differences, the most obvious of which are things like red phones, arms control agreements, lots of trade, neither being run by a dictator with absolute control over a brainwashed and isolated population, a lack of ideological predisposition toward annihilate the other, etc.

either way, what difference does it make?  let's suppose you're right and russia is a huge threat.  what does one have to do with the other?  i'm not making any argument about what foreign policy toward russia is or isn't good.  my argument was that 1) i don't think trump should have anything to do with directing foreign policy toward the peninsula, and 2) our current foreign policy there is reasonably sound. 

[Rushy]

every president faces assassination threats and plots.  that makes you wrong, not right.

I never said otherwise? Continually building strawmen doesn't change my point. More violent people exist on the left than the right. A lot more. This is why people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao get away with using easily malleable students to their advantage. They use the left-wing students to attack or outright kill (in the case of Mao) their political opponents, then they turn around, note that they're "useful idiots" and shoot them in the streets.

Anytime a madman politician has gained power, it was the violent left that propelled them to that position. If Trump turns out to be "literally Hitler 2.0" and gets into office then there will be no one to blame but the left for once again instigating violence and affecting the vote. When will the left learn that attacking people at rallies and conventions means you're on the wrong side?

lol you obviously didn't actually read the link i posted.  i get it, though, it came from a news outlet so it was probably bullshit anyway.  yeah these guys smiling and spraying the pepper spray and taking photos of it look super terrified and assaulted:

It's impossible for the media to take an out of context image from a video and use that to support an almost entirely false narrative.

Maybe you should dig a little deeper than the first hitpiece that google spits out at you. You have a chronic condition of assuming it something is stated by enough people in enough places (e.g. look at all these links I have!!) that it suddenly becomes true. How curious that these articles avoid context and describe almost fairytale images of evil Trump supporters attacking poor unsuspecting minorities.

i genuinely don't understand what you mean by this.  i do not judge the trustworthiness of a news source according to its politics.  you seem to, and that's why i included sources from left, right, and center; i haven't said anything at all about the blaze being well-known for lying.  i haven't said anything at all about the blaze before, i don't think.  don't like the blaze?  read the other sources, then.  i'm partial to the national review article and the washington post thing, myself.

When both sides of the media are trying to take someone down with almost the exact same hitpieces, it should raise a red flag. The illusion of media competition starts to fade just a little.

[Rushy]

Also, here's some video evidence that Hillary is definitely a lizard person: https://vine.co/v/5BDdXUbetld

Or just someone that doesn't teleprompter very well. One of the two. I'm going with lizard.