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.