Interesting events going on in chicago. An embarrassing reflection on chicago and university students.
http://abc7chicago.com/politics/donald-trump-cancels-uic-rally/1241331/
Some may applaud the disruption of a political rally by people who are against this particular candidate. I am not one of them.
As I consider the unfolding event, cancellation, and coordinated effort by students to prevent a legitimate Republican candidate from holding an event, counter to all the principals of democracy and elections.
I mean reverse the events. Sanders spoke at Liberty university and was NOT treated with any disrespect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3qT4qMeLxU
Quote...a legitimate Republican candidate...
That is questionable even amongst mainstream Republicans.
Would you feel the same way if the Grand whatever (wizard?) of the KKK was to give a speech and it got interrupted? What about the late Phelps asshole?
It's a slippery slope, but I see nothing wrong with shunning hate-mongerers from the limelight. They do far more damage when you give them credibility then when you let them only preach to their flock.
Might be of note that the protesters outnumbered the supporters. And as far as whether it was appropriate or not, Trump's followers have initiated violence against protesters and been a pretty nasty bunch themselves, so I'd say the response might be considered as done in kind to what preceded it.
I don't agree with it because I personally have been caught in the middle of a race fueled melee and it wasn't pretty.
Yeah, I've watched videos of Trump rallies. They often go like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngeORuhnajc
I've never heard tell of anyone acting like this at a Sanders rally or speaking engagement. So maybe it's not quite apples and oranges, but I don't think you can compare. If Trump wants to be treated seriously as a candidate, he should act like a serious candidate.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 11, 2016, 09:22:33 PM
That is questionable even amongst mainstream Republicans.
Would you feel the same way if the Grand whatever (wizard?) of the KKK was to give a speech and it got interrupted? What about the late Phelps asshole?
It's a slippery slope, but I see nothing wrong with shunning hate-mongerers from the limelight. They do far more damage when you give them credibility then when you let them only preach to their flock.
Nothing you post is relevant to the issue as unfolding. A Red Herring response. Trump is not the leader of the KKK and the grand dragon (afaik) has never attempted to be nominated by the Republican party.
I don't think you have actually listened to anything trump has said, relying on 'other sources' for your opinion forming.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trumps-craziest-quotes-the-2016-presidential-hopeful-speaks-201568
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/blogs/550112/donald-trump-quotes.html
Quote from: chill98 on March 11, 2016, 10:10:29 PM
Nothing you post is relevant to the issue as unfolding. A Red Herring response. Trump is not the leader of the KKK and the grand dragon (afaik) has never attempted to be nominated by the Republican party.
True, Trump is not the leader of the KKK, but that doesn't mean he acts like a decent person and often neither do his followers. Last I checked, people didn't act that way at Liberty University when Sanders spoke. They may not have greeted him with open arms, but they were respectful, and Sanders was respectful back to them. People at Trump rallies often end quickly devolve into witchcraft-era hysteria, and things have often gotten out of hand, sometimes incited by Trump himself:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-protester-confrontation/
http://winningdemocrats.com/trump-tells-crowd-to-steal-coats-from-protesters-before-throwing-them-out-in-the-cold-video/
So when it comes to a Trump rally being cancelled over security concerns, all I can say is "you reap what you sow."
Quote from: TomFoolery on March 11, 2016, 10:22:25 PM
So when it comes to a Trump rally being cancelled over security concerns, all I can say is "you reap what you sow."
Yes Sir!
Quote from: stromboli on March 11, 2016, 09:48:57 PM
Might be of note that the protesters outnumbered the supporters. And as far as whether it was appropriate or not, Trump's followers have initiated violence against protesters and been a pretty nasty bunch themselves, so I'd say the response might be considered as done in kind to what preceded it.
I don't agree with it because I personally have been caught in the middle of a race fueled melee and it wasn't pretty.
Link to that information please.
The reporter says " As many as 10,000 people in building with several thousand... what rally organizers realized was several thousand of those people PERHAPS were anti-Trump protesters... waiting to disrupt the rally...
Are you jumping to conclusions via your own personal bias regarding Trump?
I mean, I don't like Trump, never have. But I think these protesters as just as big of an asshole as I think pro-lifers who show up at Clinton rally's are. How Dare they try to shut down Clinton's free speech (as an example).
I look forward to the Hillary/Trump debate more than a Sanders/Trump debates.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bill-history-1.3393395
Quote from: chill98 on March 11, 2016, 10:36:07 PM
Link to that information please.
The reporter says " As many as 10,000 people in building with several thousand... what rally organizers realized was several thousand of those people PERHAPS were anti-Trump protesters... waiting to disrupt the rally...
Are you jumping to conclusions via your own personal bias regarding Trump?
I mean, I don't like Trump, never have. But I think these protesters as just as big of an asshole as I think pro-lifers who show up at Clinton rally's are. How Dare they try to shut down Clinton's free speech (as an example).
I look forward to the Hillary/Trump debate more than a Sanders/Trump debates.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bill-history-1.3393395
The "link" was a picture in a tweet that I could not post on here that showed the supporters on one side and the protesters on the other. Protesters visibly outnumbered the on the other. Might have been erroneous, but visually it looked that way to me. Here is the article with the picture.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-rally-chicago_us_56e366ece4b0b25c9182176f?12a9k9
Note: even if I'm wrong, the number of protesters was significant. Something like equal numbers even so.
QuoteNothing you post is relevant to the issue as unfolding. A Red Herring response. Trump is not the leader of the KKK and the grand dragon (afaik) has never attempted to be nominated by the Republican party.
No, but if you read what I actually wrote I said that hate mongerers should not be given limelight; what do the KKK, Phelps and Donald share? They are hate mongerers. Only a Red Herring if you want to ignore what I actually said.
No shit I don't think he is part of the KKK.
QuoteI don't think you have actually listened to anything trump has said, relying on 'other sources' for your opinion forming.
(http://okp-cdn.okayplayer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Cosby-copy.jpg)
Racism against 34.6 million Americans.
Calling for anyone who doesn't worship like him to be banned from entering the country and that the ones here are likely violent terrorists in waiting.
Saying that we should commit fucking war crimes.
Yeah. Not a hate mongering man who is preaching racism and committing war crimes. Glad I actually listened to his words rather than reading his words, really changed my opinion on him. Seems like a standup guy.
Poor victim, this Trump guy.
6:40ish+
Trump is calling for MORE of this...
No, fuck Trump, fuck his supporters and fuck his little circle jerk rallies. Cry me a river that, "Oh his poor freedom of speech to incite violence is being infringed on it's just as terrible as interrupting a peaceful rally!".
Nah, fuck that.
The only reason a Trump candidacy can exist in the first place is due to the politics of fear and anger which both parties have been stoking for decades. This is what happens when politicians allow things to reach critical mass. Pray that there is no reaction. (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ca/98/86/ca9886d433e34858926786471ad1177e.jpg)
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on March 11, 2016, 10:27:46 PM
Yes Sir!
This is what gets the Brown Shirt security fighting the Red security in Weimar Germany. Frankly I would be happy if all the Republicans and Democrats were sterilized ... for eugenics' sake ... so the master race of Independents aren't contaminated with inferior politics ;-))
See, just like the 1960s. Suppose y'all will be fighting in the streets of the conventions, like it was 1968. But people are really pissed this time ... this time the universities will be shut down permanently. We can get well behaved engineering and business graduates from China, thank you very much.
Shiranu ... I like most of what you post ... but including Bill Cosby? Really??
Quote from: stromboli on March 11, 2016, 10:42:47 PM
The "link" was a picture in a tweet that I could not post on here that showed the supporters on one side and the protesters on the other. Protesters visibly outnumbered the on the other. Might have been erroneous, but visually it looked that way to me. Here is the article with the picture.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-rally-chicago_us_56e366ece4b0b25c9182176f?12a9k9
Note: even if I'm wrong, the number of protesters was significant. Something like equal numbers even so.
From your link; the Huffington Post :
The network [CNN] said approximately 8,500 people were at the rally (I am assuming this is inside based on the numbers estimated in my link [ABC7 chicago] and yours).
An estimated 2,000 protesters had already gathered in a designated zone just outside the pavilion when doors to the rally opened at 3 p.m.
So no, it does not seem equally divided. But it shouldn't be. There should be many less than 2000 protesters at a Trump rally, even given that there is always the oddball. Trump gets to have his rally in Illinois for his supporters. He has not been elected yet, but he does have the right to campaign.
QUOTE from new link below (nov 2015):
The man was holding a sign that said “Yes Ms. Clinton, It does make a difference†when he was escorted out. That sign was apparently in reference to her testimony before Congress in January of 2013 regarding the September 11 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/11/17/man-holding-protest-sign-removed-from-clinton-event-in-dallas/
Different day different event (october 2015):
Protesters with the Black Lives Matters movement interrupted a Hillary Clinton rally in Atlanta on Friday, where she planned to unveil her criminal justice reform plan.
The protesters were eventually removed from the rally.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/258704-black-lives-matter-protesters-interrupt-hillary-rally
Bill's rally for his wife (feb 2016):
As security guards moved in to escort the man away, the audience cried "shut up" and "get him out," the State newspaper reported.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/watch-bill-clinton-spars-protesting-marine-rally-article-1.2545846
Fuck Trump. He brings this all upon himself. I wouldn't mind if every one of his rallies had to be cancelled.
Trump incites people, both his supporters and protestors. This is not just a Trump thing. Rush Limbaugh has the same effect on people and has been doing this sort of thing for years. It's part of today's politics and has become a political strategy. Trump is just better at it than the other Republican candidates, who for obvious reasons, would like to discredit his strategy as being bad for the country.
This is not some sort of censorship. It's outraged Americans standing up for the country and taking a stand against egregious bigotry and fearmongering. I consider this to be a sign of hope.
It isn't censorship, it is intimidation. This is why Presidential candidates at a certain point, get Secret Service protection. Until then, you have to hire your own security. Obviously this situation is too big for his security detail to handle.
But it takes two to tango ... I think that Hillary and Bernie should be picketed by violent protestors too. This is like the last days of the Roman Republic. Assassination of candidates is next. I am surprised how many here believe that "the end justifies the means".
I can't comment, not being European, but it is odd that the Europeans are so anti-Trump in a hysterical way. This is just another election, and the Americans will pull another turd out of our ass, like we always do ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2016, 09:12:36 AM
It isn't censorship, it is intimidation. This is why Presidential candidates at a certain point, get Secret Service protection. Until then, you have to hire your own security. Obviously this situation is too big for his security detail to handle.
But it takes two to tango ... I think that Hillary and Bernie should be picketed by violent protestors too. This is like the last days of the Roman Republic. Assassination of candidates is next. I am surprised how many here believe that "the end justifies the means".
I can't comment, not being European, but it is odd that the Europeans are so anti-Trump in a hysterical way. This is just another election, and the Americans will pull another turd out of our ass, like we always do ;-)
I often wonder if a functional democracy is outlined by just a thin line that society chooses to work within. It's not a particular worry I have about Trump. It's something that I've wondered about for a few years. I see a parallel here to Nazi Germany in its beginnings, and I've been wondering about that parallel as I've watched politics become more irrational in recent years. I always hope it will be contained, but I sense there is a balloon of rage that is on the verge of bursting. It feels to me like a collective insanity. There is no single particular cause for the rage. It's more like a general frustration from losing control of our lives, our government, and our political system. Our leaders feed on it, and ocean of despair and scapegoats they can point to. That's why they don't fix it, and are even willing to make it worse.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 11, 2016, 10:46:50 PM
No, but if you read what I actually wrote I said that hate mongerers should not be given limelight; what do the KKK, Phelps and Donald share? They are hate mongerers. Only a Red Herring if you w
Racism against 34.6 million Americans.
Its not racism to expect immigrants to follow the laws and rules for immigration.
Its not racism to recognize illegal immigration allows criminals to enter this country with the intent to continue their criminal activities.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-problem-with-downplaying-immigrant-crime/399905/
QuoteCalling for anyone who doesn't worship like him to be banned from entering the country and that the ones here are likely violent terrorists in waiting.
Now your just making shit up. No where in that video does Trump proclaim anything about worship. And he's doesn't say banned, he says 'shut down UNTIL we need to get a handle on what the hell is going on'.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
The Pew poll was multi-country. The CSP poll was USA. Comparing the two, it does not seem to be widely different in results.
Sharia Law (which is exactly what Trump was talking about) is the equivalent of many things I oppose. Womens rights, religious discrimination, freedom of speech, etc.
And I stopped watching the videos. Late and tired.
QuoteYeah. Not a hate mongering man who is preaching racism and committing war crimes. Glad I actually listened to his words rather than reading his words, really changed my opinion on him. Seems like a standup guy.
Except he ISNT preaching racism. You are just making that up.
As far as the war crimes, well... for my own red herring:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-torture-hands-arent-entirely-clean
Now to remove the red-herring part as best I can. Obama promised a lot of things regarding Torture, Gitmo, etc before he got into office. And he changed his m.o. after getting through the oath to defend the constitution. Is that because he became better informed now that he was in the loop with security briefings? That its possible its worse than he thought as he campaigned under his Hope and Change banners? That his vision was unrealistic given all the factors beyond his control and his choices were narrowed just a bit due to the reality of the situation?
And I watched the videos of Obama bombing terrorist hideouts, with their civilian casualties. Bigger picture? Terrorists do use children/family to hide, counting on our pledges to abide by rules of engagement. The battle field has shifted and sometimes these incidents are not 'war crimes'.
The point being I think Obama was telling the truth on what he hoped to do while campaigning. Then he found out that it was worse than he thought.
But none of this is relevant to the fact that the political process was interrupted by people who have the same right to vote for someone else. But that's not good enough, rather they must disrupt/infringe upon Trump supporters right to hear their candidate speak.
The hypocrisy is relevant. You know Damned well the outrage you would feel if a Clinton or Sanders political rally was disrupted, even cancelled due to safety concerns for the candidate because a bunch of born-again rednecks interrupted 'we the peoples' right to hear their candidate of choice speak to them.
Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2016, 09:38:43 AM
I often wonder if a functional democracy is outlined by just a thin line that society chooses to work within. It's not a particular worry I have about Trump. It's something that I've wondered about for a few years. I see a parallel here to Nazi Germany in it's beginnings, and I've been wondering about that parallel as I've watched politics become more irrational in recent years. I always hope it will be contained, but I sense there is a balloon of rage that is on the verge of bursting. It feels to me like a collective insanity. There is no single particular cause for the rage. It's more like a general frustration from losing control of our lives, our government, and our political system. Our leaders feed on it, and ocean of despair and scapegoats they can point to. That's why they don't fix it, and are even willing to make it worse.
History shows that democracies are short-lived. The US was able to pull it off for that a long while mainly because the founding fathers had come up with a formula to avoid such short-lived states with the idea of separating the different powers of the state into the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. But two hundred years of wear and tear, and just looking at the present state of affairs, we see these separations have been eroded - all three branches have been corrupted to the core by those who hold the money bag. The only way to escape this erosion is to go back to the ff and their original intentions, but there are no present leaders up to that task.
Only the Democrats offer a slim hope if they win and are prepared to repeal certain court decisions, especially Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Howerver if they nominate Sanders, that slim hope goes off the rails.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 08:47:20 AM
This is not some sort of censorship. It's outraged Americans standing up for the country and taking a stand against egregious bigotry and fearmongering. I consider this to be a sign of hope.
You would not be saying its a sign of hope if Hillary rally's were shut down. These things work both ways in a free country.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 10:06:58 AM
You would not be saying its a sign of hope if Hillary rally's were shut down. These things work both ways in a free country.
Hillary isn't saying that Mexicans are rapists and criminals.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 10:15:49 AM
Hillary isn't saying that Mexicans are rapists and criminals.
You can't de-platform people just because you disagree with them; even if what they say is monstrous. That's how free speech works.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 12, 2016, 10:19:21 AM
You can't de-platform people just because you disagree with them; even if what they say is monstrous. That's how free speech works.
I in no way advocate removing anyone's right to free speech. The protesters showing up at the Trump rally are a really good example of exercise of the right to free speech. I fully support free speech, no matter how much I disagree with the speakers. This was not an example of repression of free speech. It was people speaking out against something they disagree with.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 10:33:25 AM
I in no way advocate removing anyone's right to free speech. The protesters showing up at the Trump rally are a really good example of exercise of the right to free speech. I fully support free speech, no matter how much I disagree with the speakers. This was not an example of repression of free speech. It was people speaking out against something they disagree with.
The rally was cancelled due to concerns about safety. Somehow I don't think "speaking out" is all these people were doing.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 12, 2016, 10:37:17 AM
The rally was cancelled due to concerns about safety. Somehow I don't think "speaking out" is all these people were doing.
Nobody's right to free speech was violated here.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 10:15:49 AM
Hillary isn't saying that Mexicans are rapists and criminals.
sorry but LoL
Hillary lies All The Time. This link is fun. Lots of links to other clinton whoppers on the side:
http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/hillary-clintons-million-little-lies/
Are you saying no illegal mexican/latino immigrants are rapists or other type of criminal (beyond being illegally in the country)?
No, of course you are not.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 10:39:42 AM
Nobody's right to free speech was violated here.
And abortion protesters who bar entry to clinics aren't violating anyone's right to their own body. I mean, they're just preventing you from safely doing something that's perfectly legal. Nope, no violation of rights here.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 10:39:42 AM
Nobody's right to free speech was violated here.
Yes it was.
The Trump rally was cancelled due to safety concerns via the protesters. People who do not support a candidate and are taking matters into their own hands rather than democratically attending their primaries and voting during elections.
They do not have to support Trump. The state caucus is the proper place to set election agendas. The protesters do not like Trumps platform and with intent, decided to disrupt peoples right to hear their candidate of choice; celebrating the fact that the democratic process was interrupted.
It is a shameful reflection on Chicago.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 10:41:02 AM
sorry but LoL
Hillary lies All The Time. This link is fun. Lots of links to other clinton whoppers on the side:
http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/hillary-clintons-million-little-lies/
Are you saying no illegal mexican/latino immigrants are rapists or other type of criminal (beyond being illegally in the country)?
No, of course you are not.
Strawman arguments aren't becoming.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 12, 2016, 10:43:05 AM
And abortion protesters who bar entry to clinics aren't violating anyone's right to their own body. I mean, they're just preventing you from safely doing something that's perfectly legal. Nope, no violation of rights here.
I hate the abortion protesters as much as you do. I want to slap the shit out of them. But they do have a right to free speech. They are crossing a line when they PREVENT you from doing things. I do not think this is a good example of what happened at the rally. It was canceled out of fear of violence, but nobody prevented it from happening. It would have been unpleasant, sure, but I do not agree that it was a violation of anyone's right to free speech.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 10:48:42 AM
Yes it was.
The Trump rally was cancelled due to safety concerns via the protesters. People who do not support a candidate and are taking matters into their own hands rather than democratically attending their primaries and voting during elections.
They do not have to support Trump. The state caucus is the proper place to set election agendas. The protesters do not like Trumps platform and with intent, decided to disrupt peoples right to hear their candidate of choice; celebrating the fact that the democratic process was interrupted.
It is a shameful reflection on Chicago.
I do not agree that this was a violation of anyone's right to free speech. Nobody was prevented from speaking by law. Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.
Well isn't it just so patriotic to defend the rights of the presidential candidate who has said he could shoot people and get away with it, the same one advocating openly to be a war criminal. You can blather on all day long about these grand, high falutant ideas and I might agree, but Trump has brought every bit of this rhetoric on himself.
I can't believe how many of you people are excusing or defending the actions of these violent protesters. I hear people say, " I don't condone their actions, but...". There is no but. When you try to prevent other people from speaking because you don't like what they're saying, either passively or violently, you are against free speech. And don't try to say you trying to stop hate speech, that's pure bullshit. Sure, Trump is a liar and has crazy political views, but I personally find BLM and radical feminist views much more divisive, discriminatory and hateful. Would it be alright if a bunch of skinheads showed up and shut down a BLM or feminist rally through intimidation and violence? Hell no.
Quote from: Jack89 on March 12, 2016, 11:30:07 AM
I can't believe how many of you people are excusing or defending the actions of these violent protesters. I hear people say, " I don't condone their actions, but...". There is no but. When you try to prevent other people from speaking because you don't like what they're saying, either passively or violently, you are against free speech. And don't try to say you trying to stop hate speech, that's pure bullshit. Sure, Trump is a liar and has crazy political views, but I personally find BLM and radical feminist views much more divisive, discriminatory and hateful. Would it be alright if a bunch of skinheads showed up and shut down a BLM or feminist rally through intimidation and violence? Hell no.
I said absolutely none of this.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 10:51:21 AM
Strawman arguments aren't becoming.
Fair enough. More from hillary:
Quote from: Hillary
In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.â€
In an interview on WABC radio, she said: “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.â€
“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,†she said.
Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,†she said. “I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.â€
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/13/20041213-124920-6151r/?page=allShe was against it, but now she's for it. Which position do you think she really takes?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-stance-on-immigration-is-a-major-break-from-obama/2016/03/10/6388a1f8-e700-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html She will say anything to get a vote and then revert to sameold sameold.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 11:34:20 AM
I said absolutely none of this.
True: your argument is that they
technically didn't prevent the rally. And as we all know, technically correct is the best kind of correct. /s
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 12, 2016, 11:04:17 AM
Well isn't it just so patriotic to defend the rights of the presidential candidate who has said he could shoot people and get away with it, the same one advocating openly to be a war criminal. You can blather on all day long about these grand, high falutant ideas and I might agree, but Trump has brought every bit of this rhetoric on himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 12, 2016, 11:47:45 AM
True: your argument is that they technically didn't prevent the rally. And as we all know, technically correct is the best kind of correct. /s
Based on my understanding of what rights to free speech mean, I think both "sides" exercised these rights quite well. It's very very important that this basic right to free speech is upheld, like I said. People are assholes, but they did not prevent anything. That decision was made by Trump.
Freedom of speech does in no way mean freedom from consequences of saying whatever the hell you want. It has only to do with government repercussions.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 11:58:48 AMFreedom of speech does in no way mean freedom from consequences of saying whatever the hell you want.
Interesting. So, if people are willing to threaten Trump with violence, you would agree that they should accept the consequences of making Trump into a sort of martyr. I mean, his supporters sure as hell didn't back down when he was simply being trash-talked. What do you think they'll do now? :lol:
Consequences are not necessarily the end of a discussion. Quite often they are the beginning of a feud. If you're fine with no-platforming someone, then you should also be fine with the
consequences of doing so.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 10:54:48 AM
I do not agree that this was a violation of anyone's right to free speech. Nobody was prevented from speaking by law. Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.
Trump was prevented from speaking. It became a safety issue caused by the disruption of a legal political rally. And it is against U of Chi rules:
QuoteThe right of freedom of expression at the University includes peaceful protests and orderly demonstrations. At the same time, the University has long recognized that the right to protest and demonstrate does not include the right to engage in conduct that disrupts the University's operations or endangers the safety of others. University Statute 21 states:
"Disruptive Conduct . Conduct of members of the University disruptive of the operations of the University, including interference with instruction, research, administrative operations, freedom of association, and meetings, is prohibited and is subject to disciplinary action".
https://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/protest
Added: The UIC (University of Illinois at Chicago) Pavilion is a 9,500-seat multi-purpose arena. It is home to the University of Illinois at Chicago Flames basketball team and the Windy City Rollers.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 12, 2016, 12:06:52 PM
Interesting. So, if people are willing to threaten Trump with violence, you would agree that they should accept the consequences of making Trump into a sort of martyr. I mean, his supporters sure as hell didn't back down when he was simply being trash-talked. What do you think they'll do now? :lol:
Consequences are not necessarily the end of a discussion. Quite often they are the beginning of a feud. If you're fine with no-platforming someone, then you should also be fine with the consequences of doing so.
No. I said none of that either.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 12:09:30 PM
Trump was prevented from speaking. It became a safety issue caused by the disruption of a legal political rally. And it is against U of Chi rules:
https://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/protest
Added: The UIC (University of Illinois at Chicago) Pavilion is a 9,500-seat multi-purpose arena. It is home to the University of Illinois at Chicago Flames basketball team and the Windy City Rollers.
This is not relevant to the right to Freedom of Speech. You are citing policy here. That is the crux of what I am saying here. Freedom of Speech is not U of Chicago rules. I am stating no more, no less than this.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 12:18:36 PM
No. I said none of that either.
I never said you did. I extrapolated your position based on past statements. If my extrapolation is false, then explain why. Otherwise, based on the evidence, you agree that feud behavior is a perfectly valid response to someone saying something you don't agree with.
Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2016, 09:38:43 AM
I often wonder if a functional democracy is outlined by just a thin line that society chooses to work within. It's not a particular worry I have about Trump. It's something that I've wondered about for a few years. I see a parallel here to Nazi Germany in its beginnings, and I've been wondering about that parallel as I've watched politics become more irrational in recent years. I always hope it will be contained, but I sense there is a balloon of rage that is on the verge of bursting. It feels to me like a collective insanity. There is no single particular cause for the rage. It's more like a general frustration from losing control of our lives, our government, and our political system. Our leaders feed on it, and ocean of despair and scapegoats they can point to. That's why they don't fix it, and are even willing to make it worse.
This is called a psychotic break (nervous breakdown) in individuals. But it happens in whole societies too. This is what happened in Germany before 1933. And any individual, or society, when under enough stress, can breakdown ... it isn't just for Germans or leaders with funny mustaches.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 12:21:57 PM
This is not relevant to the right to Freedom of Speech. You are citing policy here. That is the crux of what I am saying here. Freedom of Speech is not U of Chicago rules. I am stating no more, no less than this.
Quote from ACLU:
Some students are surprised to learn that the First Amendment
does not protect unlawful conduct even if it’s done to make a political point. This guide provides a brief introduction to your rights in student discipline matters and some tips on navigating your school’s systems.When student protesters occupy buildings
or disrupt classes and events, their actions may be punished through the criminal courts (if the conduct constitutes a crime, like trespassing or vandalism) and through the university’s disciplinary system, if university rules were broken.
https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/civil-disobedience-public-universities
Freedom of Speech does have boundaries. Protesters inside the arena were trespassing, hence their legal removal from Trump and Clinton rally's across the country.
I am not a student of any university and every university has a right to remove me from their premise' if I do not follow their rules.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 12, 2016, 12:35:36 PM
I never said you did. I extrapolated your position based on past statements. If my extrapolation is false, then explain why. Otherwise, based on the evidence, you agree that feud behavior is a perfectly valid response to someone saying something you don't agree with.
Your extrapolation is false. I am discussing freedom of speech. I do not agree that "feud behavior" is perfectly valid response to someone saying something I do not agree with. I think it's very important that everyone has the ability to freely assemble and speak, which they did. That is in no way condoning any violent behavior or threats.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from ACLU:
Some students are surprised to learn that the First Amendment does not protect unlawful conduct even if it’s done to make a political point. This guide provides a brief introduction to your rights in student discipline matters and some tips on navigating your school’s systems.When student protesters occupy buildings or disrupt classes and events, their actions may be punished through the criminal courts (if the conduct constitutes a crime, like trespassing or vandalism) and through the university’s disciplinary system, if university rules were broken.
https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/civil-disobedience-public-universities
Freedom of Speech does have boundaries. Protesters inside the arena were trespassing, hence their legal removal from Trump and Clinton rally's across the country.
I am not a student of any university and every university has a right to remove me from their premise' if I do not follow their rules.
I am aware that there are boundaries. Never said there weren't any.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 12:45:56 PM
Your extrapolation is false. I am discussing freedom of speech. I do not agree that "feud behavior" is perfectly valid response to someone saying something I do not agree with. I think it's very important that everyone has the ability to freely assemble and speak, which they did. That is in no way condoning any violent behavior or threats.
Then why are we arguing? The rally was cancelled because of the threat of violence, which you have now explicitly stated you disagree with.
Your mouth says you're on one side, but your actions say you're on the other. Which is it? Spit it out already!
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 12, 2016, 12:49:07 PM
Then why are we arguing? The rally was cancelled because of the threat of violence, which you have now explicitly stated you disagree with.
Your mouth says you're on one side, but your actions say you're on the other. Which is it? Spit it out already!
I think you are misunderstanding me. The threat of violence was wrong. This does not violate anyone's right to freedom of speech. They are separate issues.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 12:47:08 PM
I am aware that there are boundaries. Never said there weren't any.
Quote from: Mermaid#32
I do not agree that this was a violation of anyone's right to free speech. Nobody was prevented from speaking by law. Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.
So which is it? Were the protesters wrong or not? Did they violate both the rules and Trumps Freedom of Speech, and violate the Trump supporters Right of Assembly or not?
It was the protesters actions that caused the cancellation of the event due to safety concerns.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 12:58:46 PM
So which is it? Were the protesters wrong or not? Did they violate both the rules and Trumps Freedom of Speech, and violate the Trump supporters Right of Assembly or not?
It was the protesters actions that caused the cancellation of the event due to safety concerns.
It seems to me that you are attempting to create a false dichotomy here.
The protesters who assembled due to outrage I support.
The protesters who threatened violence were wrong.
Nobody's right to freedom of speech was violated by the cancellation of this rally, either the audience or Trump. The right to freedom of speech prevents government interference. It is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. That did not occur. What about this is this so hard for you to understand?
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 01:04:23 PM
It seems to me that you are attempting to create a false dichotomy here.
The protesters who assembled due to outrage I support.
The protesters who threatened violence were wrong.
Nobody's right to freedom of speech was violated by the cancellation of this rally, either the audience or Trump. The right to freedom of speech prevents government interference. It is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. That did not occur. What about this is this so hard for you to understand?
Its not a false dichotomy.
Trump was advised there were safety issues because of the protesters. He did the responsible thing to prevent harm by canceling. It was the protesters INSIDE the arena that presented the concern for safety.
Outside the arena, a zone for protesters was created. Each and every protester inside the arena was there to disrupt the event. Trespassing in other words. A criminal endeavor negating the argument of 'free speech'.
Edit: Now you and I are just going around in circles so until a new argument is introduced, I am bowing out.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
Its not a false dichotomy.
Trump was advised there were safety issues because of the protesters. He did the responsible thing to prevent harm by canceling. It was the protesters INSIDE the arena that presented the concern for safety.
Outside the arena, a zone for protesters was created. Each and every protester inside the arena was there to disrupt the event. Trespassing in other words. A criminal endeavor negating the argument of 'free speech'.
Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of
government retaliation or censorship.
That did
not happen.
And yes, it is a false dichotomy. You asked if the protesters were bad or not.
Donald Trump has gone so far as to offer money for his supporters to assault protesters. I'm not even sure he hasn't broken the law by doing so.
We have numerous examples of Trump whipping his supporters into a frenzy and pointing them at his detractors. Are we really to believe that the protesters are the ones who initiated violence or elevated the situation to a dangerous level? Lets see, furious unemployed blue collar southern religious bigots vs multicultural college kids. Who do you imagine threw the first punch here?
Frankly the whole thing is nothing more than a political maneuver by the trump campaign.
1) Trump spends every other breath, for months, saying the most racist, hateful bullshit he possibly can at any opportunity he is given.
2) Directly incites his supporters to do physical violence to protesters.
3) Holds a massive rally right next to a college campus, sits back and lets the inevitable happen.
Now for a full 24 hours the only candidate in either party that we are hearing about is Trump. He gets free air time, excludes everyone else from the airwaves, and also manages to appear to be a victim. Hes manipulated everyone in order to make himself seem like a big deal. He's used peoples stupidity against themselves and the people arguing in this thread about who was right and who was wrong at the protest are among those people being used.
The thing we should be focusing on is that Trump engineered a dangerous situation so he could cash in and gain the limelight. He took a piss on Americans last night, and we are handing him a big old thank you card in the form of free exclusive media and by indirectly acknowledging that he and his views are of any importance.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 02:11:19 PM
Donald Trump has gone so far as to offer money for his supporters to assault protesters. I'm not even sure he hasn't broken the law by doing so.
We have numerous examples of Trump whipping his supporters into a frenzy and pointing them at his detractors. Are we really to believe that the protesters are the ones who initiated violence or elevated the situation to a dangerous level? Lets see, furious unemployed blue collar southern religious bigots vs multicultural college kids. Who do you imagine threw the first punch here?
Frankly the whole thing is nothing more than a political maneuver by the trump campaign.
1) Trump spends every other breath, for months, saying the most racist, hateful bullshit he possibly can at any opportunity he is given.
2) Directly incites his supporters to do physical violence to protesters.
3) Holds a massive rally right next to a college campus, sits back and lets the inevitable happen.
Now for a full 24 hours the only candidate in either party that we are hearing about is Trump. He gets free air time, excludes everyone else from the airwaves, and also manages to appear to be a victim. Hes manipulated everyone in order to make himself seem like a big deal. He's used peoples stupidity against themselves and the people arguing in this thread about who was right and who was wrong at the protest are among those people being used.
The thing we should be focusing on is that Trump engineered a dangerous situation so he could cash in and gain the limelight. He took a piss on Americans last night, and we are handing him a big old thank you card in the form of free exclusive media and by indirectly acknowledging that he and his views are of any importance.
You're talking about a guy who spent 14 years in the reality show called The Apprentice. He was on the cover page of magazines more than three dozen times. He is a household name, and during those years, he learned every tricks in the books to promote himself and get into the headlines. One thing he's counting on is that his rivals will underestimate, they have at their own peril. This latest event, he has been able to muster it into his own advantage. At this point the only guy who can defeat him is himself, or maybe an act of God... ooops...
I agree, that people have a right to peaceably assemble and make speeches. I wish we had a Speaker's Corner like they have in London, where every loon can have their 15 minutes of fame. Maybe then the Unabomber wouldn't have gotten violent. But that peaceable assembly has to be done under the local municipal/county/state/national rules for that ... otherwise they are just taking the law into their own hands, and peasants can't do that .... only lords and ladies can do that ;-)
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 02:11:19 PM
Donald Trump has gone so far as to offer money for his supporters to assault protesters. I'm not even sure he hasn't broken the law by doing so.
Link Please. It seems to me you are mixing things up.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 02:11:19 PM
Now for a full 24 hours the only candidate in either party that we are hearing about is Trump. He gets free air time, excludes everyone else from the airwaves, and also manages to appear to be a victim. Hes manipulated everyone in order to make himself seem like a big deal. He's used peoples stupidity against themselves and the people arguing in this thread about who was right and who was wrong at the protest are among those people being used.
True dat! And the protesters HANDED it to him. Idiots.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 02:11:19 PM
The thing we should be focusing on is that Trump engineered a dangerous situation so he could cash in and gain the limelight. He took a piss on Americans last night, and we are handing him a big old thank you card in the form of free exclusive media and by indirectly acknowledging that he and his views are of any importance.
Engineered? LOL. Read the facebook posts below. The Democrats walked right into this one. If they would have held a rally SOMEWHERE else, Trump would have been speaking at a half empty arena and the media would have played it as LOOKIE Trumps popularity is falling in the state of Illinois. Instead, every undecided working class person in Illinois is going to vote for Trump in the primary Tuesday because of the students depriving Trump the venue.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2016/03/donald_trump_comes_to_campus_and_students_fear_for_their_safety.html
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160307/near-west-side/trump-protesters-plan-uic-rally-takeoverour-strength-will-lie-numbers
http://dennismichaellynch.com/highlight-one/chicago-protest-fueled-by-moveon-org-illinois-congressman-gutierrez/
Its kinda interesting to see the connections politically amongst the protesters and organization of the protest vs school policy on protests linked to in an earlier post.
https://www.facebook.com/stoptrumpchicago/timeline?ref=page_internal
https://www.facebook.com/events/1060752830629598/
I already posted info on the colleges rules on interrupting events and code of conduct.
At the other end of the Chicago extreme, my Sister attended a Sanders rally in the Chicago area yesterday. No violence, no protests, and just a bunch of voters happy to be able to participate in the process. But then Sanders doesn't act like an asshole either.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 04:53:15 PM
Link Please. It seems to me you are mixing things up.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-knock-the-crap-out-of-protesters-offers-to-pay-legal-fees/
Just one of 50 links easily found with a simple google search.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 04:53:15 PM
True dat! And the protesters HANDED it to him. Idiots.
The protesters may have fallen into the trap, but if you are not stepping back from the UTTERLY POINTLESS argument over who is responsible and instead focusing on how Trump is a manipulative piece of trash who didn't care at all that people might have gotten seriously hurt in his crusade for exclusive media coverage then YOU are the one handing 'it' to him.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 04:53:15 PM
Engineered? LOL. Read the facebook posts below. The Democrats walked right into this one. If they would have held a rally SOMEWHERE else, Trump would have been speaking at a half empty arena and the media would have played it as LOOKIE Trumps popularity is falling in the state of Illinois. Instead, every undecided working class person in Illinois is going to vote for Trump in the primary Tuesday because of the students depriving Trump the venue.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2016/03/donald_trump_comes_to_campus_and_students_fear_for_their_safety.html
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160307/near-west-side/trump-protesters-plan-uic-rally-takeoverour-strength-will-lie-numbers
http://dennismichaellynch.com/highlight-one/chicago-protest-fueled-by-moveon-org-illinois-congressman-gutierrez/
Its kinda interesting to see the connections politically amongst the protesters and organization of the protest vs school policy on protests linked to in an earlier post.
https://www.facebook.com/stoptrumpchicago/timeline?ref=page_internal
https://www.facebook.com/events/1060752830629598/
I already posted info on the colleges rules on interrupting events and code of conduct.
Again, you are absolutely determined to blame "democrats" for this instead of placing the blame where it belongs; directly on Donald Trump's shoulders. He absolutely did engineer this, and "democrats" (read: unhappy college kids) showing up at the event was just another thing he cause to happen by holding his rally right next to a campus.
You can't prevent people from reacting the way the protesters did. Thats simply not possible. What you can do is acknowledge that Trump did everything he possibly could to ensure that the event turned out the way it did, and boy did it ever pay off for him. In fact it turned out so well for him that its absolutely laughable to suggest that he didn't plan it.
But the one thing that would rob him of the momentum and recognition he has gained from this absurdity is also the one thing you refuse to do: openly acknowledge that he planned it, regardless of the safety of the people involved. Thats what the story should be. Thats what he should be remembered for. He incited his supporters to violence, infuriated the left with his asinine statements and then shoved both groups together into a room too small to fit them all. Then when the inevitable powder keg exploded he put his hand over his brow and said "oh, woe is me".
THATS the story. Not who threw the first punch, or whether or not the protesters were wrong to enter the stadium. Trump would probably pay out of his own pocket for candy and strippers for the people who threw the first punch or decided to bring the protesters into the stadium.
QuoteIts not racism to expect immigrants to follow the laws and rules for immigration.
Its not racism to recognize illegal immigration allows criminals to enter this country with the intent to continue their criminal activities.
Racist: "Black people coming over here, you know, they are mostly rapists and criminals... I'm sure there are some good black people, but I haven't met any."
Racist: "White here in this town, you know, they are mostly rapists and criminals... I'm sure there are some good white people, but I haven't met any."
Not Racist: "Mexicans coming here, you know, they are mostly rapists and criminals, I'm sure there are some good Mexicans, but I haven't met any."
No. That is fucking text-book definition of racism; stereotyping an entire group of people based on their "nationality" (he means ethnicity, since many of the immigrants he is complaining about come from further south like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador [who aren't Mexican]) as being criminals and "evil people" regardless of the fact that it is statistically wrong.
QuoteNow your just making shit up. No where in that video does Trump proclaim anything about worship. And he's doesn't say banned, he says 'shut down UNTIL we need to get a handle on what the hell is going on'.
Oh. Right. He didn't say Muslim shouldn't be banned. My bad, I misheard him. I didn't realise being a Muslim was completely detached to worshiping.
And a handle on what? How many terrorists in the United States are Muslim? What the fuck do we need to "Get a handle on"? Terrorism? Well lets start fucking cracking down on white people first then, since they are statistically more likely to be a terrorist. That's not racist by your standards to say, right?
And they aren't banned... they are just prohibited from entering. Super different!
:roll:
QuoteYour warcrime wall of text...
Summed up...
"Obama did bad things, so you cant judge Trump!"
Brilliant.
QuoteExcept he ISNT preaching racism. You are just making that up.
Right. Racism isn't racism when YOU decide it isn't.
Nah. Don't work like that. Sorry.
Also interesting; reports are now coming out that Trump was never advised to cancel the event or that it was a safety threat.
A politician lying? That would be unheard of.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 06:21:16 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-knock-the-crap-out-of-protesters-offers-to-pay-legal-fees/
Just one of 50 links easily found with a simple google search.
Just as I thought, mixing things up:
Trump Quote from your link above - "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?"....I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.
Why?
Article Quote:
Last week, at another Iowa rally, a heckler chucked a few tomatoes at Trump, and was arrested for disorderly conduct.
So we have a real event, tomato chucking, which is assault, and a candidate telling people its ok to try to stop such things if you see them. I don't have a problem with that. Born-again rednecks at a Hillary rally can be roughed up for the same attempt. I support this basic crime prevention effort no matter who the candidate is. No one gets to chuck tomato's at candidates. Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, or Trump.
But again it boils down to anti-democracy figures attempting to disrupt the political process. They don't think they can win via the ballot box? Like GROWN-UPS?
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 06:21:16 PM
The protesters may have fallen into the trap, but if you are not stepping back from the UTTERLY POINTLESS argument over who is responsible and instead focusing on how Trump is a manipulative piece of trash who didn't care at all that people might have gotten seriously hurt in his crusade for exclusive media coverage then YOU are the one handing 'it' to him.
well Says You...
Except he did listen to the advice that his going on with the rally could cause safety issues. I personally listened to the chicago police sending police into the area as protesters blocked traffic and went after cars, fights breaking out, elderly people who had gone for the rally asking for escorts to their car because of fear of the protesters. .
http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/763
Contrary to your belief, it was the protesters who had no regard for people getting hurt.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 06:21:16 PM
Again, you are absolutely determined to blame "democrats" for this instead of placing the blame where it belongs; directly on Donald Trump's shoulders. He absolutely did engineer this, and "democrats" (read: unhappy college kids) showing up at the event was just another thing he cause to happen by holding his rally right next to a campus.
I backed up my claims with links to FACEBOOK efforts to ORGANIZE disruption. I post links to Illinois democrat representives calling for protests against a republican candidate (who has not been declared the official challenger).
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 06:21:16 PMYou can't prevent people from reacting the way the protesters did. Thats simply not possible. What you can do is acknowledge that Trump did everything he possibly could to ensure that the event turned out the way it did, and boy did it ever pay off for him. In fact it turned out so well for him that its absolutely laughable to suggest that he didn't plan it.
Ah yes, because the same thing happened when Sanders went to Liberty University and spoke to the students there. I most certainly can expect the same courtesy from this 'supposedly' diverse student body. Didn't get it, true enough, but that is Chicago's shame, not Trumps.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 06:21:16 PMBut the one thing that would rob him of the momentum and recognition he has gained from this absurdity is also the one thing you refuse to do: openly acknowledge that he planned it, regardless of the safety of the people involved. Thats what the story should be. Thats what he should be remembered for. He incited his supporters to violence, infuriated the left with his asinine statements and then shoved both groups together into a room too small to fit them all. Then when the inevitable powder keg exploded he put his hand over his brow and said "oh, woe is me".
Again, says you but the facts do not align with that position:
Quote from article posted previously:
Organizers told those opposed to the GOP presidential frontrunner to show up at the UIC Pavilion, 525 S. Racine Ave., Friday and not only protest outside â€" but snag tickets and get inside.
On Monday, a number of Latino politicians including U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D), Ald. George Cardenas (12th), Ald. Raymond Lopez (15th), and Ald. Gilbert Villegas (36th) said they will stand among the protesters Friday outside of the UIC Pavilion.
Ald. Danny Solis (25th), whose ward includes parts of the UIC campus, said that the Latino Caucus plans to send a letter to UIC leaders asking that "they not give racist individuals a platform" in the future. The longtime alderman will be marching alongside protesters Friday, he said...
Solis' youngest sister, Patti Solis Doyle, has served as a campaign manager to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Ald. Solis is campaigning for Clinton in this race, he said.
New Link:
Financier George Soros is launching, along with other donors, a $15 million campaign to achieve the largest Latino and immigrant participation at the polls
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/03/10/billionaire-smackdown-george-soros-funds-effort-to-stop-trump-mobilize-latinos/
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 12, 2016, 06:21:16 PMTHATS the story. Not who threw the first punch, or whether or not the protesters were wrong to enter the stadium. Trump would probably pay out of his own pocket for candy and strippers for the people who threw the first punch or decided to bring the protesters into the stadium.
Again, Says You.
I think the real story is the ongoing efforts of people to disrupt the political process by disrupting the events held by an opposing party. Afraid to let the voters decide? Fearful they can't win an election via candidate policy?
"Afraid to let the voters decide? Fearful they can't win an election via candidate policy?"
I do hope the irony of this statement, with the "victim" actively doing exactly this, is not lost upon you.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 06:26:43 PM
Not Racist: "Mexicans coming here, you know, they are mostly rapists and criminals, I'm sure there are some good Mexicans, but I haven't met any."
You really struggle to keep things straight don't you?
Actual Quote
“
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best,†he said during the announcement. “They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 06:26:43 PM
Original Shiranu statement not based upon video:
Calling for anyone who doesn't worship like him to be banned from entering the country and that the ones here are likely violent terrorists in waiting.
Oh. Right. He didn't say Muslim shouldn't be banned. My bad, I misheard him. I didn't realise being a Muslim was completely detached to worshiping.
Good, then you admit his statement said nothing about not worshiping like he [trump] does.
Constantly you misrepresent what is actually said. Why is that?
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 06:26:43 PM
That's not racist by your standards to say, right?
And they aren't banned... they are just prohibited from entering. Super different!
Yes, I decide for myself what I think is racist. Prohibited from entering until we can get a handle on who is coming for what reason. I am ok with that. An immigration reform idea I would like to hear more about.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 06:26:43 PM
Summed up...
"Obama did bad things, so you cant judge Trump!"
well again you misrepresent what was said. Typical. Average even. Not exceptional.
And of course avoids explaining why Obama flip-flopped on his campaign platform once he was within the security clearance to get a different idea of what is going on.
I figure, he had good reason to keep bombing hideouts of terrorists regardless of the potential for civilian casualties.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff
Will you stick to your 'morals' and insist Obama be charged with war crimes? Or is it selective morality (as it always is).
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 06:26:43 PM
Right. Racism isn't racism when YOU decide it isn't.
Nah. Don't work like that. Sorry.
Actually, it does work like that.
Political candidates are always misquoted ... the candidates you like and the candidates you don't like. We naturally believe the misquotes for the candidates we dislike, and ignore or deny the misquotes for the candidates we like. This happens to Trump also. What one believes, all turns on our political vision.
I don't even work for the INS ... so probably the government won't care what I actually think about immigrants. I see more Spanish speakers all the time ... but it doesn't bother me. I really don't care if the Hittite Empire survives long term or not.
Quote
Actual Quote
“When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best,†he said during the announcement. “They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
So... you are repeating what I said. Cool.
Did he say they are sending rapists? Yes. Did he say they are sending criminals (druggies)? Yes. Did he say there are probably good people, but he doesn't know? Yes.
You bolded "When Mexico sends it's people"... do you think the Mexican government is ordering it's people across the border? Have you ever met an immigrant? Really, answer that, have you ever met an immigrant.
I grew up on the border, both in Texas and in New Mexico. Two of my best friend's families were illegals, one just got their citizenship after 20 years in the country. To imply that more than likely these people are grew up around were criminals simply because they were Mexican is
REALLY fucking racist! And the majority of immigrants are not criminals and he is pulling that straight out of his ass.
He is saying that, because of the race of Latino immigrants, they are likely criminals and rapists (which is a bit redundant anyways).
QuoteGood, then you admit his statement said nothing about not worshiping like he [trump] does.
I'm trying so hard not to resort to personal attacks, but fuck you are being a stupid motherfucker right now.
Trump is saying that people who worship in a different way (practice Islam) are quite possibly terrorists and need to be barred entry into the country.Just because you are being intentionally dense and refusing to acknowledge that something can mean the same thing without being quoted verbatim is getting really dull really quickly.
QuoteConstantly you misrepresent what is actually said. Why is that?
-So he didn't call Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, with some possibly being good people?
-So he didn't say that Muslims should be banned entry (temporary or not)?
QuoteWill you stick to your 'morals' and insist Obama be charged with war crimes? Or is it selective morality (as it always is).
Well, if you look at my posting history you will see I have actually posted threads about my disdain for the Obama administration's war crimes and silencing of whistleblowers, but why don't you just talk more shit without knowing what you are even talking about? That seems to be all you have done so far.
QuoteActually, it does work like that.
Yeah. Okay. So the offended ethnic group doesn't know what racism is, and you are the one who get to decide what is or isn't ACTUALLY racially offensive.
To quote Mr. Ice Cube himself...
"Eat a dick Brian, get the fuck outta my house."
Reality is a harsh mistress ..
African-Americans cannot fit into American society, ever ... because its actual definition excludes them. They also can't fit into African society, because in Africa they are Americans aka foreigners. Part of the expression of anti-Islamic views in America, have to do with the fact that the majority of our Muslims are African-American ... so it shades into our existing racism.
Latinos are also excluded by definition from American society ... because they are not Spaniards usually, they are Mestizo (Native American and Spanish). Native Americans, from tribes north of Mexico, from Mexico, or from places south of Mexico, cannot fit in. The Catholicism of many Latinos is also contrary to the definition of American society ... which is essentially publicly secular and privately Protestant.
I believe that multiculturalism isn't a bad thing, change happens. But for Latinos and Blacks to fit in ... requires that the America as defined by White society ... has to die. Naturally White folk find this threatening ... just as Conservatives always oppose change, particularly change that is inevitable.
Change over the decades will come to America, the America we have known will pass away, and a new America will emerge ... but in name only ... the America prior to the 21st century is not sustainable in any form. Conservatives will lose eventually, as they always do.
The America of 2050 may be something you like or dislike ... but reality will tell you to STFU and deal with it.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 10:09:16 PM
So... you are repeating what I said. Cool.
Just curious. Have you been drinking?
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 10:09:16 PMYou bolded "When Mexico sends it's people"... do you think the Mexican government is ordering it's people across the border? Have you ever met an immigrant? Really, answer that, have you ever met an immigrant.
Yes I did bold that part of Trumps quote. He is not claiming all illegals, rather the ones that mexico sends. And they [mexican police] do, drive them right to the border and drop them off. In those instances, they are typically criminals being dropped at the border so mexico doesn't have to deal with it (along with drug runners via corrupt or fearful of the cartels police). Is it a large percentage of the illegals? No.
I don't know anyone who hasn't met an immigrant. What a silly assed question. But I guess I should consider the source.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 10:09:16 PMI grew up on the border, both in Texas and in New Mexico. Two of my best friend's families were illegals, one just got their citizenship after 20 years in the country. To imply that more than likely these people are grew up around were criminals simply because they were Mexican is REALLY fucking racist! And the majority of immigrants are not criminals and he is pulling that straight out of his ass.
They would have still been your best friends if they had applied through the legal process of staying in the USA. Again, it is not racist to expect immigrants to do this legally.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 10:09:16 PMHe is saying that, because of the race of Latino immigrants, they are likely criminals and rapists (which is a bit redundant anyways).
I'm trying so hard not to resort to personal attacks, but fuck you are being a stupid motherfucker right now.
Again, you should re-read the actual quote. And its a shame you have such a short fuse. Nature or Nurture... a whole different topic.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 10:09:16 PM
Just because you are being intentionally dense and refusing to acknowledge that something can mean the same thing without being quoted verbatim is getting really dull really quickly.
Devil in the details... and all that.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 10:09:16 PMWell, if you look at my posting history you will see I have actually posted threads about my disdain for the Obama administration's war crimes and silencing of whistleblowers, but why don't you just talk more shit without knowing what you are even talking about? That seems to be all you have done so far.
So answer the question. Are you going to call for Obama to be prosecuted under war crimes? Or is your morality subjective? After all, Trump has not killed any civilians or waterboarded anyone.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 12, 2016, 10:09:16 PMYeah. Okay. So the offended ethnic group doesn't know what racism is, and you are the one who get to decide what is or isn't ACTUALLY racially offensive.
Yeah. I thought I was clear. Let me say it again
I get to decide for
myself what
I think is racist.
Quote from: chill98 on March 12, 2016, 11:31:05 PMAnd they [mexican police] do, drive them right to the border and drop them off.
Proof, please.
QuoteYes I did bold that part of Trumps quote. He is not claiming all illegals, rather the ones that mexico sends. And they [mexican police] do, drive them right to the border and drop them off. In those instances, they are typically criminals being dropped at the border so mexico doesn't have to deal with it (along with drug runners via corrupt or fearful of the cartels police).
What the fuck are you smoking?
Quote from: Mermaid on March 13, 2016, 10:20:33 AM
What the fuck are you smoking?
Whatever it is, I want some.
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10730781_1086935914732795_2531052208937972950_n.jpg?oh=c577ac7e00755e560b59454995e2c98c&oe=57978E6A)
The Trump crowd were saints, how dare those evil oppressive counter-protesters exercising their right to free speech silence poor widdle Trump's right to free speech!
The rest of your post is complete, fabricated bullshit but I wanted to respond to this:
QuoteYeah. I thought I was clear. Let me say it again
I get to decide for myself what I think is racist.
This really is one of the most amusing things I've ever seen said on this forum and, believe me, you've got some serious competition.
Unfortunately for you, reality intrudes. Racism has an actual definition. Its not some intangible that exists in a zone of ambiguity for you to freely manipulate as you please. I won't be so tiresome as to post the definition of racism, since I'm absolutely certain that you and everyone else here knows it.
When Trump says ban Muslims, hes talking about the people his supporters would refer to as "shit skins". When he says build a wall to keep the Mexicans out, he's talking about the people his supporters would refer to as "wetbacks". His policies discriminate against 'brown people', and that discrimination is racism. There really is no other way to slice it. By defending Trump, you are defending a racist and joining the ranks of disgruntled southern blue collar morons who are just aghast that niggers are allowed to drink from what should be the whites only fountain.
Your opinion on whether or not something is racist has no bearing on whether or not it actually is racist. Thats just you flatly denying obvious racism so you can pretend you aren't supporting a racist.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 13, 2016, 10:18:17 AM
Proof, please.
Mexican police corruption is well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_corruption_in_Mexico
Trump does not say what border agents relayed the info to him, but I do believe our border guards are much more resistant to such things. But not immune.
Quote - Madrid, a 20-year veteran, is one of 177 agency employees who have faced corruption charges since 2005, according to CBP spokesman Roger Maier.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/31/border-patrol-poster-boy-arrest-new-report-bare-agency-corruption-issue.html
You can search for more info yourself.
Ms. Peterson, who was born in West Berlin in 1946 and became an American citizen in 1982, said she took offense to the comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler.
“They said Trump is a second Hitler,†Ms. Peterson said. “I said do you know what that sign stands for? Do you know who Hitler really was?â€
“I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,†she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.â€
That is when she made the Nazi salute â€" a gesture that is banned in Germany â€" as a form of counterprotest. But that is all it was, she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/12/trump-supporter-who-made-nazi-salute-explains-why-she-made-the-gesture/?_r=0
Wiki Quote: During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". Later, during the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted a salute which had a similar form, and which was derived from the so-called Roman salute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
Quote from: chill98 on March 13, 2016, 03:21:24 PM
Ms. Peterson, who was born in West Berlin in 1946 and became an American citizen in 1982, said she took offense to the comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler.
“They said Trump is a second Hitler,†Ms. Peterson said. “I said do you know what that sign stands for? Do you know who Hitler really was?â€
“I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,†she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.â€
That is when she made the Nazi salute â€" a gesture that is banned in Germany â€" as a form of counterprotest. But that is all it was, she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/12/trump-supporter-who-made-nazi-salute-explains-why-she-made-the-gesture/?_r=0
Wiki Quote: During the period when it was used with the Pledge of Allegiance, it was sometimes known as the "flag salute". Later, during the 1920s and 1930s, Italian fascists and Nazis adopted a salute which had a similar form, and which was derived from the so-called Roman salute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
So her logic as a Trump supporter, to prove they have nothing in common with the Nazi's, was to put up the Nazi salute...
Not a Nazi then, just not a very bright woman.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 13, 2016, 04:14:25 PM
So her logic as a Trump supporter, to prove they have nothing in common with the Nazi's, was to put up the Nazi salute...
She probably isn't aware of Godwin's law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Just like you had no idea who Bellamy was.
Quote from: chill98 on March 13, 2016, 04:39:59 PM
She probably isn't aware of Godwin's law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Just like you had no idea who Bellamy was.
Just...stop. I am starting to feel sad for you :(.
Just to make sure I'm not missing anything...
A. Trump isn't racist despite multiple racist remarks, because you get to decide what is or isn't racist.
B. Trump shouldn't be called on advocating war crimes because Obama did it too so it's okay.
C. Trump didn't call for banning Muslim immigration strictly on the grounds of what religion the person follows means they are a threat.
D. A woman admitting that she did a Nazi salute means people are making unjustified comparisons to her doing a Nazi salute.
I miss anything?
Quote from: Shiranu on March 13, 2016, 04:47:43 PM
So doing the Nazi salute has actually nothing to do with Nazism, especially when she said it did.
Just...stop. I am starting to feel sad for you :(.
did you not read what she said?
She explained herself quite clearly.
And it is likely, she has no knowledge of Bellamy either.
But its not me trying to assign a nazi connection to trump; rather its you.
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-nazi-salute/
Godwins law and all....
Fascism didn't come to the US with Trump ... it was here before it was in Germany. Ever hear of the KKK?
People who went to sleep and dreamed that the US was some sort of Blue Pill utopia, have had a rude awakening. Maybe time for them to grow up.
When they start rounding up random people off the street for "enhanced interrogation" because they want to put the fear of Koch Brothers into the population ... then you need to worry. The Establishment was nearly ready to do this with Occupy ... but Occupy backed down (bought off?).
Quote from: chill98 on March 13, 2016, 04:54:41 PM
did you not read what she said?
She explained herself quite clearly.
And it is likely, she has no knowledge of Bellamy either.
But its not me trying to assign a nazi connection to trump; rather its you.
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-nazi-salute/
Godwins law and all....
"I'm offended that people compare trump to Hitler, so I'm going to do the Nazi salute while wearing a trump shirt to show how different the two are!"
Brilliant.
Also, where did I compare him to Hitler? You are just blindly throwing shit from your keys left and right and leaving a mess all over yourself.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 13, 2016, 04:47:43 PM
Just...stop. I am starting to feel sad for you :(.
Just to make sure I'm not missing anything...
A. Trump isn't racist despite multiple racist remarks, because you get to decide what is or isn't racist.
B. Trump shouldn't be called on advocating war crimes because Obama did it too so it's okay.
C. Trump didn't call for banning Muslim immigration strictly on the grounds of what religion the person follows means they are a threat.
D. A woman admitting that she did a Nazi salute means people are making unjustified comparisons to her doing a Nazi salute.
I miss anything?
A. YES For the 3rd Time.
I get to decide for
myself what
I think is racist
B. Yes. He has a clearer grasp of the situation than you. I make that determination based on Obama's continued targeting of terrorists with 90% of causalities being civilian. I don't believe for a minute Obama would do it unless he saw no other option. Trump won't have better options and he's telling you STRAIGHT up he's not afraid to make those kinds of decisions.
C. Oh, now your changing your story? Before it was because they don't worship like him. And Immigration Reform needs to be looked at.
D. quote - “I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,†she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.â€
Similarly, YOU don't know what you are talking about. Hence my link to the snopes article.
Please y'all don't have a cardiac, over who is running or who gets elected. We survived Shrub.
Sanders isn't the next Stalin, and Trump isn't the next Hitler. Both are all American bull-shit thank you very much. But I prefer American bull-shit to any other kind. There were people who hated FDR ... and he was still a great President, in spite of their hate. There were people who hated Churchill ... and he was still a great PM, in spite of their hate. And both FDR and Churchill were not paragons of virtue.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 13, 2016, 04:59:56 PM
"I'm offended that people compare trump to Hitler, so I'm going to do the Nazi salute while wearing a trump shirt to show how different the two are!"
Brilliant.
Also, where did I compare him to Hitler? You are just blindly throwing shit from your keys left and right and leaving a mess all over yourself.
You really can't process information well can you?
What I said:
But its not me trying to assign a nazi connection to trump; rather its you.
Where did I accuse YOU of comparing Trump to Hitler?
Why dont you go back and read the fucking caption of the pic YOU posted.
*sigh*
I'm going to give you one more chance to prove you are actually being serious and just don't realise the stupidity in what you are saying rather than actually believing what you are saying. So I will try to make this detailed and insult free, so you hopefully see what you keep saying for several pages now that is wrong.
QuoteA. YES For the 3rd Time. I get to decide for myself what I think is racist
What you think is or isn't racist is irrelevant. That is not how language works; you don't get to pick and choose what a word means. I could say I don't find calling someone with Downs Syndrome retarded offensive, or that I don't think calling African Americans niggers while waving a Confederate flag is offensive, but that doesn't change the fact that those things are both offensive and, in the second case, racist.
The point of the matter is that the vast majority of Mexicans found him stereotyping their race as rapists and criminals offensive, and by the very definition of racism it IS racist.
QuoteB. Yes. He has a clearer grasp of the situation than you.
Please prove that. In what way is Trump more qualified than any other non-government personal with classified information to determine what is or isn't appropriate military action?
I can tell you what actual experts have said, people who's careers revolve around knowing about these type of things; they say that the mass killings of civilians creates more and more terrorists, destroys our legitimacy both in terms of appearing as a "positive" or "good" force in the region as well as our statements that we are trying to make a positive change, and it makes our international allies view us in a less positive light. They tell us that torture is not proven to be an effective form of intelligence gathering and again creates only more animosity amongst neutral and friendly parties than it does intimidation and submission from our enemies.
QuoteTrump won't have better options and he's telling you STRAIGHT up he's not afraid to make those kinds of decisions.
There are better options, and Obama has made some; get the international community involved. Stop running drone strikes where we have no business running drones. Stop trying to turn the entire Middle East into one giant war zone because we have to "strike at them before they strike at us." That only works for so long before it turns from preventive defense to unjustified sustained aggression and damages our reputation.
Telling me or anyone else that he is not afraid to break international human rights agreements and laws should scare me, you and everyone else. There is nothing that should be more terrifying than that other than calls for outright genocide and oppression. It should be an absolute last resort, not an enthusiastic, "Yeah lets go kill us some civilians!" like Trump and his supporters scream.
There lies the difference; I have called Obama on it before, but at least Obama never took pride in it. Obama had shame about it, tried to cover it and never bragged about it. Trump want's to trumpet his enthusiasm for committing war crimes loud and to the nation. I really hope you see the difference there.
QuoteC. Oh, now your changing your story? Before it was because they don't worship like him.
When I say they don't worship like him, I am saying they are Muslim. Muslims and Christians do not worship in the same way. The remark was a way of saying the same thing without using the exact same words, something you are taught to do to avoid over-saturation of the same phrase. This is what I have tried to explain several times; my sentence means the exact same thing as saying, "...because they are Muslim."
QuoteAnd Immigration Reform needs to be looked at.
I agree, but here is the issue; Trump wants to look at it and make it worse. It's one thing to respect him for at least addressing it, but the problem is that he sees the issue and wants to throw gasoline on the fire. That is not helpful. Immigration reform needs to address how many innocent people are deported, how many hard working people are deported, rather than trying to ban as many people from coming in. Our economy runs on immigration and turning away people who are willing to pay taxes and work hard or people who are fleeing from war, violence and death is neither economically or ethically acceptable.
Trump only cares about security reform, and making security stricter and stricter, rather than making immigration a smoother process for those who should be here and providing support to those who obey our laws. We likewise need to provide more security against exploitation of illegal labour and provide them with opportunities to invest in insurance and bringing their families here legally. Trump just assumes that these people are likely criminals and thus are terrible people who need to be sent back.
QuoteD. quote - “I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,†she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.â€
Again... she is trying to make Trump look less like the Nazi party by throwing up probably the second most defining symbol after the swastika of the Nazi party while wearing a Trump shirt.
To use a shitty comparison, it's like saying... "Bah, these people don't know what real racism is. I'll prove my side isn't racist by showing real racism... HEY, nigger, go back to Africa you ape! Look at this Confederate flag! Yeah you chinese squint eye, go back to a cave and get blown up you ni hao chop souy! There we go, that will prove we aren't racist!"
That doesn't "show what real racism is", it just sets you up in a situation where you are going to make what ever side your supporting look even more racist (or Nazi) then people are even accusing it of being. You don't prove you aren't racist or aren't "nazi" by cranking the racist/nazi meter up. All she achieved was create a brilliant photo-op for exactly what happened to happen; people to interpret her actions as Nazi support for Trump.
As for the over-all theme of the post, I think it stands; Trump is about as close to the text book definition of a fascist as any politican has come lately; "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. / extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."
Nationalistic? Check. Right wing? Check. Authoritarian? He want's to get rid of laws that protect people's free speech to criticize him, wants to commit war crimes, want's to close our borders and ban groups he doesn't approve of, says he will make people do what he tells them to...
Quote from: Shiranu on March 13, 2016, 05:43:25 PM
*sigh*
I'm going to give you one more chance to prove you are actually being serious and just don't realise the stupidity in what you are saying rather than actually believing what you are saying. So I will try to make this detailed and insult free, so you hopefully see what you keep saying for several pages now that is wrong.
Hows this for serious?
Shove your ADHD up your ass and bugger off.
Quote from: chill98 on March 13, 2016, 09:01:34 PM
Hows this for serious?
Shove your ADHD up your ass and bugger off.
Alright, so your just a garden variety troll. Glad to see you admit it.
Please senpai-chill98, give me more. Dirty Shiranu likes it!
Edit: Also, ADD not ADHD. Close though.
Create a circus atmosphere in your political rallies you might just get a circus, what a surprise.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on March 13, 2016, 11:26:53 PM
Create a circus atmosphere in your political rallies you might just get a circus, what a surprise.
It is a circus, a theater of the absurd. Read Coriolanus? Give up on Civics 101 ... complete bullshit.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 15, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
The irony is that people are angry for being conned by the system, and here they go supporting Trump, a genuine con artist.
It reminds me of people who are mistrustful of the medical establishment for wanting to put "harmful chemicals" in our bodies to treat autism or HIV when we can actually "cure" autism with bleach enemas or "cure" HIV by ingesting large quantities of concentrated hydrogen peroxide. Just like we can't "solve" jihadist terrorist attacks by nuking Muslim countries.
It pays to be wary of anyone who claims to solve previously unsolvable complex problems with the simplest of solutions, whether we're talking medicine, politics, or even religion.
Quote from: TomFoolery on March 15, 2016, 04:29:54 PM
It reminds me of people who are mistrustful of the medical establishment for wanting to put "harmful chemicals" in our bodies to treat autism or HIV when we can actually "cure" autism with bleach enemas or "cure" HIV by ingesting large quantities of concentrated hydrogen peroxide. Just like we can't "solve" jihadist terrorist attacks by nuking Muslim countries.
It pays to be wary of anyone who claims to solve previously unsolvable complex problems with the simplest of solutions, whether we're talking medicine, politics, or even religion.
True.
In the case of Trump and his supporters, the question is: they have been duped so many times, what happens if their man loses? and what happens if he wins but he doesn't deliver, and they realize they've been duped again?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 15, 2016, 04:57:51 PM
and what happens if he wins but he doesn't deliver, and they realize they've been duped again?
That would first require the intelligence to understand how blame works. If they're still following Trump despite all the evidence that the man is a total fraud and often blames his shortcomings on others, I can't imagine his failures as a president would be any different.
Remember, everything wrong with America is because of Muslims and immigrants, not our foreign policy, corrupt banking system, or greasy political empire. So when we go back to the future circa 2008 and banks once again need to be bailed out and the economy crumbles, it will still be because of Muslims and Mexicans who "don't want America to be great."
I wish I could give TomFoolery 100 "likes" for that last post in particular. In the SNAFU universe, things just don't get better.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 12, 2016, 08:47:20 AM
This is not some sort of censorship. It's outraged Americans standing up for the country and taking a stand against egregious bigotry and fearmongering. I consider this to be a sign of hope.
The fact so many express views like this in this forum really shows the effects of american media propaganda is really strong. You think this is hope? Hillarious you have no idea those protestors fighting the trump supporters they are also extremely deluded and intolerant people (just look at arguments both sides use when they confront each other, they are both intellectually bankrupt.) This is not a sign of hope this is the future the american electorate chose with their apathy, their desinterest and/or inability in having real conversations about crucial ideas. Not that i make value judgements, this may just be the ways things are all around the globe. Maybe the liberators of south america were right when they argued the recently liberated countries might not be ready for democracy, not that that means benevolent dictorship would work either. You may not like the "facists" but the "anti-facists" are not your friends either if you are a sensisble individual. Look at greece for example or ukraine. Would not be surprised if conditions worsen in the US this violence could scalate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI9MCvK2MGs&ebc=ANyPxKo81IRVWdYqexFIihUF1yCS9NU1BZRqrYzP33OgyWgb0NGKFGsOCnOw56RFnwjKcqhQI0bwYn0AYZyTMIhYKNvduxLj6w
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3vcvGpALQ
Inb4 but muh infowars source. It's a primary source and that's why you have a brain. It is kind of useful at sorting information.
The Chaos Capitalists clean up, every time it is 4th-Reich vs USSA. And these capitalists are international, not national. They are supermen unto themselves. And some of them are Jewish ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 10:58:46 PM
The Chaos Capitalists clean up, every time it is 4th-Reich vs USSA. And these capitalists are international, not national. They are supermen unto themselves. And some of them are Jewish ;-(
Baruch I swear to god half the time I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 17, 2016, 12:00:32 AM
Baruch I swear to god half the time I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I assume people are keeping up with the news in general, and have been for the last 10 or so years. If you don't know what Chaos Capitalism is, I suggest you look it up ... it was relevant when Rmoney was running last Presidential election cycle, and relevant to what the US is doing in the Ukraine.
Of course the Rothschild story is more 19th century, they stay out of the news better now.
Would I get in trouble for starting a thread, "Chicago Rump Tally Cancelled"?
Quote from: mauricio on March 16, 2016, 08:16:27 PM
The fact so many express views like this in this forum really shows the effects of american media propaganda is really strong. You think this is hope? Hillarious you have no idea those protestors fighting the trump supporters they are also extremely deluded and intolerant people (just look at arguments both sides use when they confront each other, they are both intellectually bankrupt.) This is not a sign of hope this is the future the american electorate chose with their apathy, their desinterest and/or inability in having real conversations about crucial ideas. Not that i make value judgements, this may just be the ways things are all around the globe. Maybe the liberators of south america were right when they argued the recently liberated countries might not be ready for democracy, not that that means benevolent dictorship would work either. You may not like the "facists" but the "anti-facists" are not your friends either if you are a sensisble individual. Look at greece for example or ukraine. Would not be surprised if conditions worsen in the US this violence could scalate.
https://m.
Inb4 but muh infowars source. It's a primary source and that's why you have a brain. It is kind of useful at sorting information.
This is symptomatic of the different worldviews from the Right and from the Left. The Left wants to improve the lot of the ordinary folks. And to achieve that end, it is willing to override not only freedom of speech, but any freedom. The Right wants unfettered capitalism as it believes this is the best way to generally increase wealth, even if that means to further impoverish the lot of ordinary folks. In both cases, the end justifies the means.
Quote from: mauricio on March 16, 2016, 08:16:27 PM
The fact so many express views like this in this forum really shows the effects of american media propaganda is really strong. You think this is hope? Hillarious you have no idea those protestors fighting the trump supporters they are also extremely deluded and intolerant people (just look at arguments both sides use when they confront each other, they are both intellectually bankrupt.) This is not a sign of hope this is the future the american electorate chose with their apathy, their desinterest and/or inability in having real conversations about crucial ideas. Not that i make value judgements, this may just be the ways things are all around the globe. Maybe the liberators of south america were right when they argued the recently liberated countries might not be ready for democracy, not that that means benevolent dictorship would work either. You may not like the "facists" but the "anti-facists" are not your friends either if you are a sensisble individual. Look at greece for example or ukraine. Would not be surprised if conditions worsen in the US this violence could scalate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI9MCvK2MGs&ebc=ANyPxKo81IRVWdYqexFIihUF1yCS9NU1BZRqrYzP33OgyWgb0NGKFGsOCnOw56RFnwjKcqhQI0bwYn0AYZyTMIhYKNvduxLj6w
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3vcvGpALQ
Inb4 but muh infowars source. It's a primary source and that's why you have a brain. It is kind of useful at sorting information.
Nobody's freedom of speech was violated. But nice condescending tone!
Quote from: Mermaid on March 17, 2016, 06:53:18 PM
Nobody's freedom of speech was violated. But nice condescending tone!
What? I did not say anything about freedom of speech. I found your suggestion of this being a sign of hope completely ridiculous and i was baffled at your ignorance/naiveness at thinking a violent clash at a political rally by two very polarized sides drenched on identity politics is a sign of hope. Which does not imply my superiority over you which is implied in condescendation. I do not see a person as inferior just because they make a statement i find ridiculous and based on ignorance since i make those myself. Thinking you are wrong does not mean i think of myself as completely right and intellectually superior, otherwise i would not even bother to engage you. This was not a sane opposition against trump. This was ideologues and true believers shouting and hitting each other. I say ignorance because i think you might have not really seen the footage of this fights and confrontations. If you watch this videos i have linked and think they are a sign of hope then... I do not know what to tell you man.
The last comment of using your brain was not really an attack towards you since it was framed as a conditional. It was a humoruous anticipated objection against the possible BS response of dismissing the video due to it being shot by infowars, which is a crazy conspiracy site, a fact completely irrelevant to the ability of the video to illustrate the kind of thing i was talking about. So if you had not planned to respond with that you have nothing to feel mocked about.
Here have some "hope" with lulzy /pol/ editing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tBGQlFWIWyU
Mauricio, have you ever taken a debate class? You might want to do that if you have any hope of engaging in a productive conversation with another human being. Unless you don't care, then carry on!
Quote from: Mermaid on March 18, 2016, 07:46:40 AM
Mauricio, have you ever taken a debate class? You might want to do that if you have any hope of engaging in a productive conversation with another human being. Unless you don't care, then carry on!
And You might want to try to engage the actual points being dicussed that's useful for conversation. What is not useful is bringing up random things like freedom of speech in response to a post which did not mention or imply anything about it.
You imply i don't have any hope of engaging in productive conversation when i have had decent conversations in very controversial topics in this forum. Some of them ended up much better than others but most people at least attempt to engage my points even if there's misunderstandings along the way or things get heated. Meanwhile our first debate/discussion interaction i remember since i came back to this forum after a very long break some months ago. Was you dismissing my clearly explained and sourced, with pictures and all so you didn't even had to download the sources, criticism of the RAINN page on sexual assault stats, because "there is something wrong with you". The only thing you had to say at the evident flaws of that page was a personal attack. And by personal attack i do not mean insults. But rather the uncharitable act of trying to discredit the speaker rather than engage his arguments. Which you have done again later. And you repeat it here again, implying that my tone and debate skills makes it impossible for you to engage such a simple point. Clearly the problem is not on my end, my argument is well articulated: "you characterization of the anti-trump protests in illinois as a sign of hope is ridiculous, here is why and some video to illustrate the point " And im perfectly able and willing to continue on with the dialogue. The problem seems to me, from our multiple failed engagements, that you are simply unable or unwilling to deal with me challenging and mocking your views. Which speaks more about you, specially when my criticisms were on your statements and positions and your responses were criticisms on my quality as a person and my abilities, as if that somehow furthers the dialogue. You know rather than being passive agressive with the implications you can simply respond by engaging my actual point and ask for me to tone down the aggravating rhetoric and i would happily do so, as i already did in my second response to you on this thread and on this one, but only if you stop the evasion and the personal attacks. Since conversation is a give and take.
Something I've been saying for some time now... Conservatives who oppose trump may have no choice but to support the democratic nominee be it Clinton or Sanders because they damned sure don't have anyone else and Trump may well split the party badly..
Who can stop Trump? Republicans may have little choice but to vote Clinton
http://gu.com/p/4hknn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 18, 2016, 11:52:34 PM
Something I've been saying for some time now... Conservatives who oppose trump may have no choice but to support the democratic nominee be it Clinton or Sanders because they damned sure don't have anyone else and Trump may well split the party badly..
Who can stop Trump? Republicans may have little choice but to vote Clinton
http://gu.com/p/4hknn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Not surprising, Bill, Barak and Hillary are Republicans. And Democrats are former racists, who tried MJ and liked it.
Quote from: mauricio on March 18, 2016, 08:17:39 PM
And You might want to try to engage the actual points being dicussed that's useful for conversation. What is not useful is bringing up random things like freedom of speech in response to a post which did not mention or imply anything about it.
You imply i don't have any hope of engaging in productive conversation when i have had decent conversations in very controversial topics in this forum. Some of them ended up much better than others but most people at least attempt to engage my points even if there's misunderstandings along the way or things get heated. Meanwhile our first debate/discussion interaction i remember since i came back to this forum after a very long break some months ago. Was you dismissing my clearly explained and sourced, with pictures and all so you didn't even had to download the sources, criticism of the RAINN page on sexual assault stats, because "there is something wrong with you". The only thing you had to say at the evident flaws of that page was a personal attack. And by personal attack i do not mean insults. But rather the uncharitable act of trying to discredit the speaker rather than engage his arguments. Which you have done again later. And you repeat it here again, implying that my tone and debate skills makes it impossible for you to engage such a simple point. Clearly the problem is not on my end, my argument is well articulated: "you characterization of the anti-trump protests in illinois as a sign of hope is ridiculous, here is why and some video to illustrate the point " And im perfectly able and willing to continue on with the dialogue. The problem seems to me, from our multiple failed engagements, that you are simply unable or unwilling to deal with me challenging and mocking your views. Which speaks more about you, specially when my criticisms were on your statements and positions and your responses were criticisms on my quality as a person and my abilities, as if that somehow furthers the dialogue. You know rather than being passive agressive with the implications you can simply respond by engaging my actual point and ask for me to tone down the aggravating rhetoric and i would happily do so, as i already did in my second response to you on this thread and on this one, but only if you stop the evasion and the personal attacks. Since conversation is a give and take.
Your immediate use of angry, condescending strawman arguments cause me to prefer eating roadkill to taking anything you say seriously or engagint you in meaningful conversation. You can take that or leave it, I have nothing invested. Just giving you a glimpse in how at least one other person perceives you.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 19, 2016, 09:36:29 AM
Your immediate use of angry, condescending strawman arguments cause me to prefer eating roadkill to taking anything you say seriously or engagint you in meaningful conversation. You can take that or leave it, I have nothing invested. Just giving you a glimpse in how at least one other person perceives you.
Since we are apparently gonna discuss ourselves as usual rather than the actual disagreement (funny this only ever happens with you and shoe)In the same vein then i will offer you more perspective. You talk about anger. Not there. You are just projecting those emotions onto me when they are probably just in your reading of the text. This would be plainly obvious if we were talking in person. Honestly i dunno how you survive in the real world if a criticism with some snark can get you into that mindset. Stop taking shit so seriously. I mean what are you even doing in this forum? Here people discuss controversial topics with no tone policing. Almost a lot of posters in this forum argue with some level of snark when they have a strong disagreement. I mean holy shit people here treat theists as utter retards. But i guess that's ok because it is not directed at you. BTW your accusation of strawman is hillarious it is clear that you say you thought the cancellation of the trump rally due to protests where violence broke out in mutiple instances and it was all mainly shouting matches as somehow being a sign of hope i found that to be stupid and explained why. Then you comeback with a random response about freedom of speech which i had not really talked about? How exactly i'm strawmaning you?
Quote from: mauricio on March 19, 2016, 03:18:41 PM
(funny this only ever happens with you and shoe)
Mermaid and I are very two different posters. We have different opinions on many subjects. And if you are getting similar reactions from two different posters, that's because of your own attitude, kiddo. You are not sharing an idea or having a conversation, you are attacking readily defined 'opponents' who you know to be female and feminists, doesn't matter what is the subject or their opinions. And you are not speaking to male members or anyone you are not aware their gender is female in the same style. You see yourself entitled to attack me and her in a specific style, because we call ourselves feminists. But you are not even aware of it, because you are a silly kid who thinks he is figured everything out without a clue of real life. Yeah well that's what happens when you live with a life vision created by a fragment of social media.
You are not discussing controversial subjects or expressing an original idea, you babble mainstream nonsense bitterly and angrily and PROJECT your bullshit on me and her at every opportunity. Because that is your window to life. 'Oh look, a couple of feminists. I know what they think.' That simple, cheap and limited. Most of the time you don't even know about the concepts you throw around.
It's not up to you to question anyone's place in this forum. Esp. a poster who has been a contributing member here for years.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 19, 2016, 04:08:14 PM
Mermaid and I are very two different posters. We have different opinions on many subjects. And if you are getting similar reactions from two different posters, that's because of your own attitude, kiddo. You are not sharing an idea or having a conversation, you are attacking readily defined 'opponents' who you know to be female and feminists, doesn't matter what is the subject or their opinions. And you are not speaking to male members or anyone you are not aware their gender is female in the same style. You see yourself entitled to attack me and her in a specific style, because we call ourselves feminists. But you are not even aware of it, because you are a silly kid who thinks he is figured everything out without a clue of real life. Yeah well that's what happens when you live with a life vision created by a fragment of social media.
You are not discussing controversial subjects or expressing an original idea, you babble mainstream nonsense bitterly and angrily and PROJECT your bullshit on me and her at every opportunity. Because that is your window to life. 'Oh look, a couple of feminists. I know what they think.' That simple, cheap and limited. Most of the time you don't even know about the concepts you throw around.
It's not up to you to question anyone's place in this forum. Esp. a poster who has been a contributing member here for years.
So do you find the protesting, the rhetoric and violence that went down in illinois as a sign of hope or not ?
Oh wait you were just here to prove my point with your meaningless attempts at mind reading and character attacks. Ok thanks.
Could care less about hyped up American fantasy of freedom of speech or what you think of it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 19, 2016, 04:31:10 PM
Could care less about hyped up American fantasy of freedom of speech or what you think of it.
Lol is this joke? When exactly did i made any point about freedom of speech. I think you need to read and understand my point before responding.
Here's what one of my favorite people had to say about politics:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ff/70/80/ff7080bef748df36d95b2c916452d02e.jpg)