Verbally Attacked By TWO Bernie Supporters In 2 Hours...Unprovoked

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AnonymousMoose

Well, she might be less afraid if she didn't go around trying to piss people off as much as you.

What reaction did you expect by going around purposefully pissing people off???

Well I guess I should elaborate a bit, I enjoy engaging people in conversation when it comes to things like collectivism vs individualism, capitalism vs socialism, etc. I am "non-partisan" but am a conservative libertarian. I guess I don't so much try an piss people off as I try to challenge peoples way of thinking. I am usually able to do this in a way that brings civil conversation but I must say that the past year I have kept pretty silent seeing as how vile people are getting.

a reply to: AnonymousMoose

I see. Yes, that explanation is much better than the first one.

So much lulz ITT.

a reply to: Lysergic

In this thread? You should check out the comments in that Bernie vs Trump video. I was seeing comments by this guy called "Affected Area" who's trolling the hell out of the Bernie supporters by fulfilling all their stereotypes of the Trump supporters. One guy seems particularly pissed and it's funny; It's like watching someone go sport fishing and the fish is flailing around on the end of the line.

a reply to: butcherguy

Things could really get ugly this Summer.

Sorry so late

There's a lot to worry about these days - real or imagined fears are affecting our behavior

Left or right, it doesn't much matter. Anyone that promises a way out is like a flame to moths - anyone that works against what's working against our fears is dangerous

Seems like hope can work for us or against us

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Racism is like pornography. We know it when we see it.

originally posted by: lightedhype
Sounds like your brought the Trump name up to both of them and you in fact ARE a trump supporter afterall. Whether you said just a name or not we only have your word. Either way. Dude is a rascist. Yup it pisses people off in the 21st century. Who woulda thunk?

Its not RACIST to enforce the laws. BEside dont you know Bill nye even has said as well as numerous scientist that there is onlly One race on this planet. the sooner we all start seeing each other as human and not skin tone the better. But
please feel free to keep adding to the hate machine.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
Typical from them. I have several friends on my FB wall who have become increasingly violent as they realize the Bern is fading and all it left them with was a scar and a need for ointment.

For a group that's supposed to be so against hatred they sure seem to have a lot of it.

The 'Bullies For Bernie' movement is violence born of frustration.
They know he can't beat Hillary...She already has a lock.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: RomeByFire
So - you talked politics in a BAR and were met by hostility and aggression?

In other news - water is in fact wet.

So I'm guessing you didn't read my post?

Apparently not.
I thought you were clear about it.

And I am assuming you read it? AS only 1 person identified themselves as a Bernie Supporter.

The first girl threw Bernie in too. I just didn't write that part.

The un-attractive one? lol

Yes, the obese, loud, high pitched voiced, unkempt, greasy school teacherish......one

Never seen "greasy school teacherish" tossed in as an insult..

Sad you never had an attractive teacher...they help with the daydreaming on boring school days

Am I the only one old enough to remember David Lee Roth and "hot for teacher"?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: lightedhype
Sounds like your brought the Trump name up to both of them and you in fact ARE a trump supporter afterall. Whether you said just a name or not we only have your word. Either way. Dude is a rascist. Yup it pisses people off in the 21st century. Who woulda thunk?

Its not RACIST to enforce the laws.

Said Hitler to the Nazi's...

Hyperbole aside...Trump is talking about creating NEW laws and policies and yes they are Racist...and yes Trump's rhetoric is racist. Objectively that is a hard thing to spin out of.

a reply to: Indigo5

I notice that people keep referring to Trump's way of speaking as rhetoric... Trump is the only candidate that doesn't tap dance his way around most of the questions at the debates and rallies. Even if his responses are rather frank, blunt, simple, or otherwise, while offensive to some people he at least gives some sort of answer to the questions he's asked.

Searching Google for an accurate definition, one way of defining rhetoric is this:

The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.


Okay, so rhetorical speaking is supposedly a way of persuading one's opposition to believe in something you also believe in. Then however, there is this latter definition:

...language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.


So while rhetoric used to be an important and useful speaking tool, like in the days when Seward was trying to sell his "Ice Box" over dinner and wine, rhetoric nowadays is the simple art of bulls**tting while saying absolutely nothing at all. To me, a good candidate is someone where during a debate when they're asked a question, their answer doesn't leave you asking the followup "BUT HOW?!" You should, if you disagree with them, be able to go "f**k that, that guy/girl's wrong, this is why I think he/she's wrong." Anyone who leaves you puzzled in the aftermath of their crap is someone who is subversive and deceptive with only their own, usually poor interests at heart. Notice how Hillary never answers any questions properly? We know her history, and she sucks. We know why she sucks, but it's long after the fact and people have since died and secrets have been exposed.

In conclusion yes, Trump's way of addressing the public can be called rhetoric in the traditional sense. In the modern, current context though, by that latter definition, what Trump says isn't that kind of rhetoric. I guess it would be better to say that Trump is less full of s**t than the other candidates.


You know in writing this, the whole situation becomes rather grey for me, kind of like the human definition of life since we only define it by our understanding of life on this planet. Something that may be life on one planet may be what we'd call synthetic here. A candidate should not be defined by their rhetoric but by... well I hate to simplify it, but what Martin Luther King said, essentially the content of their character; the sum of their beliefs and what they can do for people. Some people could use this to argue on Bernie's behalf, but then I say to them that he brings up the "BUT HOW?!" question. People seem to forget that we all pay the same taxes, and yet they still argue on behalf of all the social programs he'll start. Even if you tax the hell out of the "1%," eventually the country's going to bleed out economically and we'll collapse like the Soviet Union, and that's if the upper class doesn't pull stakes and leave the country.

There's also the issue of immigration, as well as the things that threaten the country such as terrorism. And that's assuming that most of the terrorism we hear about isn't BS manufactured by various governments to justify continuing to fund bloated militaries and intelligence communities (see the 9/11 pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen," eerily reminiscent of the WTC attacks). All of these left-leaning individuals, other than what I refer to as the "Kennedy era left," remind me of what we out here call a Fool's Hen. That's a bird that is either slow, or doesn't have the same capable fear response as the rest of the wildlife. The Fool's Hen won't know what's going on until some other thing, such as a wolf, coyote (prairie wolf), other bigger bird, or some kind of cat has set upon it and is tearing it apart. They're so trusting and so... unresponsive to the situation that by the time they might realize that they should start running it's too late to do so. In regards to immigration, there's a difference between racial/religious motivations and excluding other races/religions, and reasonable concern. Yes, the Japanese POW camps were a terrible idea brought forth from California. Yes, other than in a handful of cases, they were pointless. Nowadays though, those who practice Islam (or Mohammadism as it was once called) bring up a different problem. We don't know for sure who can be radicalized, we don't who who is or isn't a threat for sure... I can't say exactly why (I admit some ignorance here), but the people who practice it are a lot more... dramatic, more emotional, more willing to act out of frustration. It's how their minds work, it's how they are as a people (from a scientific standpoint looking at different species of the same group). Until we can figure out who will and won't kill us, it's not like we'll be interning them and attacking them like the Nazis did to the Jews. We'll simply be barring them until we manage to get things under control, then we'll begin allowing them to enter the country again. We aren't blocking them because we hate them, we're blocking them because some of us fear for our own lives! Can't we be allowed to have some concern for the safety of ourselves and others?

There's also the other part of the immigration issue, and that is the "illegal" community. People keep making the moral argument about tearing apart families, but then I ask "Why did they have the family in the first place?" Was it out of love and affection, or was it because they needed a reason to stay?" (situations like those involving Cuban refugees are different, since Communist dictatorships suck for everyone) It doesn't change the fact that they've broken the law. On top of that, they do create a burden on our economy and government, and waste even more of our money. I think that automatically clearing all these illegal aliens and allowing them to stay in the country is a bad idea. It does reduce the opportunities for others who live here. Also, nobody seems to bring this up; people keep using the analogy of leading a [insert farm animal here] with a "carrot" of some sort. Well, what if something else eats the carrot... or, what if the carrot is moldy and rotten, and unappealing? If we let all these illegal immigrants stay, it might overwhelm our existing social programs and inundate our economy in other ways, much like that one dam in China that keeps getting clogged by detritus in the river. There is a reason that this country is a beacon of hope or a shining jewel for so many others, but if we let a bunch of people in that don't necessarily have anything to contribute to the country, then that "jewel" or "beacon" becomes tarnished and loses it's allure for the people who could really have used the opportunities this country once offered. Good luck achieving the "American Dream" when innumerable others have made it unaffordable and difficult to achieve and obtain. At that point you start to wonder if you were better off staying home; it's either that, or joining the local crime syndicate.

originally posted by: TheOneFreeMan
a reply to: Indigo5

I notice that people keep referring to Trump's way of speaking as rhetoric... Trump is the only candidate that doesn't tap dance his way around most of the questions at the debates and rallies. Even if his responses are rather frank, blunt, simple, or otherwise, while offensive to some people he at least gives some sort of answer to the questions he's asked.

Searching Google for an accurate definition, one way of defining rhetoric is this:

The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.


Okay, so rhetorical speaking is supposedly a way of persuading one's opposition to believe in something you also believe in. Then however, there is this latter definition:

...language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.


So while rhetoric used to be an important and useful speaking tool, like in the days when Seward was trying to sell his "Ice Box" over dinner and wine, rhetoric nowadays is the simple art of bulls**tting while saying absolutely nothing at all. To me, a good candidate is someone where during a debate when they're asked a question, their answer doesn't leave you asking the followup "BUT HOW?!" You should, if you disagree with them, be able to go "f**k that, that guy/girl's wrong, this is why I think he/she's wrong." Anyone who leaves you puzzled in the aftermath of their crap is someone who is subversive and deceptive with only their own, usually poor interests at heart. Notice how Hillary never answers any questions properly? We know her history, and she sucks. We know why she sucks, but it's long after the fact and people have since died and secrets have been exposed.

In conclusion yes, Trump's way of addressing the public can be called rhetoric in the traditional sense. In the modern, current context though, by that latter definition, what Trump says isn't that kind of rhetoric. I guess it would be better to say that Trump is less full of s**t than the other candidates.


You know in writing this, the whole situation becomes rather grey for me, kind of like the human definition of life since we only define it by our understanding of life on this planet. Something that may be life on one planet may be what we'd call synthetic here. A candidate should not be defined by their rhetoric but by... well I hate to simplify it, but what Martin Luther King said, essentially the content of their character; the sum of their beliefs and what they can do for people. Some people could use this to argue on Bernie's behalf, but then I say to them that he brings up the "BUT HOW?!" question. People seem to forget that we all pay the same taxes, and yet they still argue on behalf of all the social programs he'll start. Even if you tax the hell out of the "1%," eventually the country's going to bleed out economically and we'll collapse like the Soviet Union, and that's if the upper class doesn't pull stakes and leave the country.

There's also the issue of immigration, as well as the things that threaten the country such as terrorism. And that's assuming that most of the terrorism we hear about isn't BS manufactured by various governments to justify continuing to fund bloated militaries and intelligence communities (see the 9/11 pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen," eerily reminiscent of the WTC attacks). All of these left-leaning individuals, other than what I refer to as the "Kennedy era left," remind me of what we out here call a Fool's Hen. That's a bird that is either slow, or doesn't have the same capable fear response as the rest of the wildlife. The Fool's Hen won't know what's going on until some other thing, such as a wolf, coyote (prairie wolf), other bigger bird, or some kind of cat has set upon it and is tearing it apart. They're so trusting and so... unresponsive to the situation that by the time they might realize that they should start running it's too late to do so. In regards to immigration, there's a difference between racial/religious motivations and excluding other races/religions, and reasonable concern. Yes, the Japanese POW camps were a terrible idea brought forth from California. Yes, other than in a handful of cases, they were pointless. Nowadays though, those who practice Islam (or Mohammadism as it was once called) bring up a different problem. We don't know for sure who can be radicalized, we don't who who is or isn't a threat for sure... I can't say exactly why (I admit some ignorance here), but the people who practice it are a lot more... dramatic, more emotional, more willing to act out of frustration. It's how their minds work, it's how they are as a people (from a scientific standpoint looking at different species of the same group). Until we can figure out who will and won't kill us, it's not like we'll be interning them and attacking them like the Nazis did to the Jews. We'll simply be barring them until we manage to get things under control, then we'll begin allowing them to enter the country again. We aren't blocking them because we hate them, we're blocking them because some of us fear for our own lives! Can't we be allowed to have some concern for the safety of ourselves and others?

There's also the other part of the immigration issue, and that is the "illegal" community. People keep making the moral argument about tearing apart families, but then I ask "Why did they have the family in the first place?" Was it out of love and affection, or was it because they needed a reason to stay?" (situations like those involving Cuban refugees are different, since Communist dictatorships suck for everyone) It doesn't change the fact that they've broken the law. On top of that, they do create a burden on our economy and government, and waste even more of our money. I think that automatically clearing all these illegal aliens and allowing them to stay in the country is a bad idea. It does reduce the opportunities for others who live here. Also, nobody seems to bring this up; people keep using the analogy of leading a [insert farm animal here] with a "carrot" of some sort. Well, what if something else eats the carrot... or, what if the carrot is moldy and rotten, and unappealing? If we let all these illegal immigrants stay, it might overwhelm our existing social programs and inundate our economy in other ways, much like that one dam in China that keeps getting clogged by detritus in the river. There is a reason that this country is a beacon of hope or a shining jewel for so many others, but if we let a bunch of people in that don't necessarily have anything to contribute to the country, then that "jewel" or "beacon" becomes tarnished and loses it's allure for the people who could really have used the opportunities this country once offered. Good luck achieving the "American Dream" when innumerable others have made it unaffordable and difficult to achieve and obtain. At that point you start to wonder if you were better off staying home; it's either that, or joining the local crime syndicate.

Honestly...whatever that ramble was that began with a definition of "rhetoric"...I really tried...I can't bring myself to read it all..

a reply to: Indigo5

While it was a bit of a ramble, you argued against Trump due to his "rhetoric" and any possible laws or policies he may try to bring to the table. I tried to come up with a well thought out and reasonable argument against your opinion.

This thread is great. I wish I could say what's on my mind, but I know my post will be removed.

There are nuts and Just plain aggressive people supporting all of the candidates. I believe you OP! Especially being in a Bar. I haven't been in a Bar on purpose in decades. You can't paint all supporters with a broad stroke though. Many Sanders Supporters are the nicest people you'd ever meet. Many Trump supporters are really, really nice. Many Clinton Supporters are...Uh...kidding...Many Clinton Supporters are very nice. ( I actually know one personally who is one of the nicest people I know) I personally know a nice Cruz supporter too. The whole family is nice.

On my Facebook feed...lol it amuses me to see all the arguing back and forth...The Sanders and Clinton supporters are going at it the hardest...some really nasty stuff, especially from the Clinton supporters. And there are some hard core Christians on my facebook that literally Hate Trump. So in summary. It's not the left vs the right so much right now as Clinton vs Sanders supporters and Cruz vs Trump supporters.

a reply to: amazing

It kind of reminds me of this:

c2.staticflickr.com...

What is it... irony that I'm thinking of? Considering what I'm doing, that is...

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

These Bernie supporters are the first ones to cry about intolerance, yet they seem to want to control who supports who. They are acting like a bunch of Stalinists. Reminds me of those Black Lives Matter hypocrites. ~$heopleNation

strange. I find discussing politics and/or religion with strangers where there is alcohol is a perfect way to win friends

so...moral of the story?

What you experienced is an example of cognitive dissonance driven binary thinking and your observation was an insightful one imo: it IS a switch that gets flipped.

Irrespective of party, ideology, platform, position, candidates, or even topic for that matter, there are people - an increasing number of people, disturbingly - who will, as if on autopilot, knee-jerk violently at any whiff of perceived alignment with even the smallest facet of what they have deemed their adversary.

If you support the second amendment, you're automatically either a Republican or a Libertarian (nothing wrong with either, but) and all the things the individual making that assumption believes are true about them. And you will be attacked for that. Even if in reality you're as liberal as they come.

If you agree with one thing Obama says or does, you're a Dem, and you're the problem. Even if you didn't vote for him and disagree with much of what he's done.

If you're in agreement with one thing Trump says, ever, then you're automatically a Trump supporter and believe wholeheartedly in everything he's ever said, and whatever else they believe about his supporters. Even if you're as liberal as they come.

If you're pro choice, watch out, you must be a left wing bleeding heart "libtard" - whatever that is - and will be treated accordingly. Even if personally you find it heartbreaking that it ever happens.

If you support BLM's premise and beliefs (even if you disagree with the manner in which they are expressed,) you're an overly PC reverse racism proponent who "supports thugs" as someone told me earlier.

By the same token, if you disagree with [i[how people protest, you're racist.

If you oppose Trump's arguably incitements to violence, you're a Democrat. If you oppose violence at Trump rallies by protesters, you're a Trump supporter.

If you're a Sanders supporter you're a communist, and if you aren't, you're a sheep.

If, as I learned today apparently, you don't believe Muslims should be banned from the country, you "hate your country" and are choosing "them" over "us" as I was told earlier. Even if you think we actually need to be more assertive in our military engagement against ISIS.

Which, by the way, if you think that, it means you're a warmonger. Even if in reality you're a pacifist who wishes we weren't there at all but are simply saying, IF we're going to be there, the most efficient and effective means must be utilized to spare the most lives possible (on both sides) by getting the job done overwhelmingly and quickly.

If you're agnostic, you're not trying hard enough to be an atheist, and are irrational and in denial. If you're religious, you must be backward, stupid, unyielding, and a bigot. If you're an atheist, you must be an angry skeptical curmudgeon with no compassion or sense of wonder and magic in your life.

All of these assumptions should be self-evidently fallacious, but this is the climate we live in now. Suspending judgment, or worse still, holding multiple seemingly contradictory opinions, is uncomfortable. It's not convenient. It takes time to explain and articulate because it can't be boiled down into groupspeak or buzzwords or labels. (That means you're too verbose and nobody wants to read you're book, too long, didn't read by the way.) It makes people wonder why you haven't chosen the entirety of a side, especially THEIR side, in which they've invested so much emotion, and this is unpleasant. Therefore, it's easier to simply paint with a broad brush and be done with you.

There's no room for a nuanced opinion. There's no room for discussion. You get lumped in, immediately, right away, no time to think or respond. No. You are the enemy. You are beneath contempt. And there's CERTAINLY no time to stop yourself and think, "Maybe I can disagree with this person while still making a space within myself to hold some dignity and respect and dare I say compassion for them as a human being even if I PROFOUNDLY disagree with them."

No. That's not how it works anymore. That time is gone. Welcome to the era of manufactured misanthropy.

Instant dehumanization. On ALL sides.

Scary? It should be.

Peace.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: lightedhype
Sounds like your brought the Trump name up to both of them and you in fact ARE a trump supporter afterall. Whether you said just a name or not we only have your word. Either way. Dude is a rascist. Yup it pisses people off in the 21st century. Who woulda thunk?

Its not RACIST to enforce the laws.

Said Hitler to the Nazi's...

Hyperbole aside...Trump is talking about creating NEW laws and policies and yes they are Racist...and yes Trump's rhetoric is racist. Objectively that is a hard thing to spin out of.

Science says youre wrong. there is just one race on the planet. And No hes not talking about new laws. these laws have been done before. the US shut off immigration before legally and it didnt have to do with skin tone at all.

I f you think its racist to enforce a nations borders youre a anarchist. When outsiders want to come in and take advantage of freebies and they come out your pocket id bet you would be saying hell no.

Deporting IS legal and its in our current laws before TRUMP even tried to run. Regan tried amnesty and it made th e problem worse. whats that phrase about doing th e same thing over and over again is INSANE?

Ive told everyone before screw the rest of the world till we get our own house in order. If you dont want to be a part of it becoem a ex pat and dont let the door hit y a where the creator split ya.

And No It would only be hitler esque if he was demanding they be burned in ovens. Hitler wasnt a law abiding man.(well democratically voted on and enacted he was a DICTATOR)