Trump's Specter of Violence

a reply to: cuckooold

We haven't the time.
Perhaps another thread.

Always good to see the resident dems from the party of the poor and gay giving life advice.

a reply to: theantediluvian

“They’re not sending their best”. That’s his argument, which he brings home with the follow up statements. What does that mean? That means exactly what he says. And yes that includes all of the above. If Mexico was sending their best, he might be singing a different tune. “They’re doctors. They’re lawyers.” But they are not. If the worst of a country are moving illegally into another country (emphasis on the word illegally) by subverting and breaking the laws of that country in order to do so, then yes that means most of them are not good people, by definition.

As for explaining how “they’re rapists” dehumanizes rapists, I was merely using your terminology to say that when he was talking about the rapists among the illegal immigrants, he was in fact talking about rapists, as in the criminals who illegally cross the border who commit sexual assault. Sure it isn’t eloquent, but it also isn't a complete denial of states of affairs.

Yes, rapists are rapists, and are deserving of the name rapist. They – are – rapists. These rapists in particular come illegally across the southern border. I'm not sure how that can mean Mexicans are rapists, or even illegal immigrants are rapists. He is not speaking about all Mexicans, all immigrants, all illegal Mexican immigrants, or any other combination of words you feel like using. This multi-culty relativism is a species of denial.

It is a point of fact to say that if there was a better immigration policy and enforcement along the southern border, sex crimes, kidnapping, homicide might be lower in parts of the US where it is a demonstrable problem. Many crimes against Americans will be prevented, and no amount of virtue signaling will change that admittedly difficult fact. It is dishonorable and ugly to expect less from the people who want to live in America because they come from a certain part of the world illegally, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the crimes against legal law-abiding Americans.

Mexico is sending their best. They are doctors. They are lawyers. They are football players. “Trump is calling Mexicans football players!” The logic does not follow.

And I get it, yes people will conflate what Trump says to mean "Mexicans are rapists", or "illegal immigrants are rapists", as you and others have shown, and they may commit hate crimes under that dubious assumption. But that is a sign of their own thought process, not Trump's.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ugh.

If anything, Trump has exposed how vulnerable the media is to exploitation. The "media class?" Off the top of my head:

- Donald Trump's new campaign CEO is Stephen Bannon, an ex-Goldman Sachs banker who was the Executive Chairman of Breitbart News until he stepped down to become Trump's campaign CEO.

- Donald Trump also hired Roger Ailes, the mastermind behind the rise of the Fox News empire which includes a 65% share of cable "news" and complete and utter dominance in talk radio.

- Donald Trump's ex campaign manager is now on the payroll at CNN along with his surrogates, Kayleight McEnany and Jeffrey Lord.

- Donald Trump has a small army of surrogates who log more air time than those of all other candidates going back to the primaries, combined. I can name a few others if you want?

- It was just "revealed" that Sean Hannity, who has a primetime slot on Fox News and has been pushing ever nonsense "theory" of Trump's including the whole youtube-stroke-pillow-she's-really-dying insanity, has been serving as an "unofficial adviser" to Donald Trump. That's okay, because as he just said in response to questions over the ethics of working in a coordinated fashion with the Trump campaign, "I never said I was a journalist."

- He leaked fake "conspiracy" theories about his Republican opponents to the National Enquirer whose CEO is long time pal, David Pecker.

Donald Trump has done a few things very effectively. One of those things was to innoculate himself against any sort of media criticism early on by proclaiming that the media were all liars who were out to get him. He also dispatched a whole team of surrogates that do nothing but apologize for him and blame the words that come out of his own mouth on the evil media.

He's no victim of the media.

All of it is proof that he knows what he is doing. It is unfortunate that people must translate the inherent nuance in language and figures of speech, but for a people so used to the euphemistic political speech, I suppose that is to be expected.

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Actually used the term "BIG mouth" a few times so I see a perception issue on your part.
Trump isn't violent ,reactionary or stupid.
AND he isn't a "Died in the wool" Alynsky radical, which I THINK is now VERY popular in America right now ,because we so tired of their S##T ,we are going to throw Trump at them an watch the show.
You guys up north might want to lay in extra beer.

More fantasy fox and breitbart propaganda, really throw trump at them and enjoy the show, more like trump is killing the right and you guys keep on pretending the ship is not sinking.

Please don't try to match wits with the OP.

He is making you look silly and even smaller if that's possible.

To the OP: You got called a "Special Snowflake"...

By a "Special Snowflake".

That free monthly check must really be worth fighting for.

Also, it's getting close to the end of the month. There's that.

Nice try son, you should work on your insult do, ill give you the at least you tried your best award.

The op is clearly good with words, does not make it true, very dramatic big words, sounds like snowflake business.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I don't mind the charge of snowflake. I love the snow, and there is no more beautiful pattern than that of a snowflake. It seems to me a term of endearment, and coming from you it is especially charming. Thank you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sure he did use the word rapist to dehumanize, but he was dehumanizing rapists, not Mexicans.

So he didn't say Mexico was sending us Mexicans - he said Mexico was sending us rapists? And rapists are neither human or Mexican?

Where was Mexico getting these non-human rapists - and why is it sending them here?

Address the topic....

Stop with the bickering and name-calling...this isn't the Mud Pit.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Decorum



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

When New York Magazine asked its readers if they would kill a newborn Hitler given the chance, 42% said "Yes", 30% said "No", and 28% were "not quite sure". This telling piece of information indicates that calling someone Hitler seems to be a great incitement to violence, so much so that people would kill a child if convinced it was him.

Please explain. Can words affect us - or not?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sure he did use the word rapist to dehumanize, but he was dehumanizing rapists, not Mexicans.

So he didn't say Mexico was sending us Mexicans - he said Mexico was sending us rapists? And rapists are neither human or Mexican?

Where was Mexico getting these non-human rapists - and why is it sending them here?

It was a lame attempt at chiasmus. I could explain it but explaining rhetorical devices is lost on most.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

When New York Magazine asked its readers if they would kill a newborn Hitler given the chance, 42% said "Yes", 30% said "No", and 28% were "not quite sure". This telling piece of information indicates that calling someone Hitler seems to be a great incitement to violence, so much so that people would kill a child if convinced it was him.

Please explain. Can words affect us - or not?

I think if you start calling someone Hitler, you'll begin to believe it is true. Do you disagree?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It was a lame attempt at chiasmus. I could explain it but explaining rhetorical devices is lost on most.

Explaining rhetorical devices is lost on most? Give it your best shot

How was that chiasmus?

trump is merely showing the truth of the american public that the mask of PC has been trying to hide from themselves, america is divided and he's just highlighting the division already there.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think if you start calling someone Hitler, you'll begin to believe it is true. Do you disagree?

What are you trying to say? Do you believe what you're saying?

So, one more time - can what people say affect us - or not?

a reply to: namehere

trump is merely showing the truth of the american public that the mask of PC has been trying to hide from themselves, america is divided and he's just highlighting the division already there.

Trump is like some kind of magic genius

Praise Trump

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I don't mind the charge of snowflake. I love the snow, and there is no more beautiful pattern than that of a snowflake. It seems to me a term of endearment, and coming from you it is especially charming. Thank you.

And each snowflake is one of a kind!

But the left gets all rolled up into a snowball and gets going through someone's window then blames it on the other kid.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sure he did use the word rapist to dehumanize, but he was dehumanizing rapists, not Mexicans.

So he didn't say Mexico was sending us Mexicans - he said Mexico was sending us rapists? And rapists are neither human or Mexican?

Where was Mexico getting these non-human rapists - and why is it sending them here?

Guatemala.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think if you start calling someone Hitler, you'll begin to believe it is true. Do you disagree?

What are you trying to say? Do you believe what you're saying?

So, one more time - can what people say affect us - or not?

Are we speaking in questions again? No, what people say cannot affect us.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Are we speaking in questions again? No, what people say cannot affect us.

Then how come the whole whiny bellyaching special princess OP?

You don't even believe in your own drivel

P.S. How about that chiasmus explanation?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It was a lame attempt at chiasmus. I could explain it but explaining rhetorical devices is lost on most.

Explaining rhetorical devices is lost on most? Give it your best shot

How was that chiasmus?

Why should I?

It was fine, thanks.