Trump's Specter of Violence

a reply to: AboveBoard

Why would you hold the reactions of those who were attacked to a higher standard than Trump, or Trump supporters, who originally did the attacking?

I don't. One of the points is that Trump didn't originally do the attacking. The only problem I could see for the political class is that he hits back.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Trump's specter of violence is indeed a specter—it is a ghost. The real specter of violence surrounds the media.

What the MSM is doing with this election is a joke. They are showing the power of propaganda on an ignorant mass of people. They are starting a Race war by showing both BLM and TRUMP as a fictional polarity of American racism. They politically refuse to say there is a growing threat of international extremist movements, while the MSM makes millions off of gory images in the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and parts of the United States.

Violence keeps viewers watching or clicking, it makes the MSM billions, they never want hate and war to end, but they must have scapegoats. That's why Bill Clinton asked Trump to run in the first place, he knew how bad they were going to make it, and Bill knew how unbelievably polarizing Trump is, and how easily he could bankrupt the Republicans to make sure that robot of a wife of his could walk into the oval office.

Anyway, no one who should get what you are saying will.

also just to note: I am going to vote for Jill Stine because I like her policies, and not because I dislike Trump or Clinton or any other canidate.

S&F

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard

Why would you hold the reactions of those who were attacked to a higher standard than Trump, or Trump supporters, who originally did the attacking?

I don't. One of the points is that Trump didn't originally do the attacking.

To claim that, doesn't make it so.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

The media is falling apart. Whether win or lose, Trump's candidacy is bringing to light the propaganda of the media class, and this goes for both sides of the aisle. It will never be the same again.

a reply to: AboveBoard

To claim that, doesn't make it so.

Neither does the opposite.

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.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard

To claim that, doesn't make it so.

Neither does the opposite.

You have provided no evidence of his innocence, and his insults are well documented. Where is this "non-attacking Trump" and "complete media fabrication" that you claim? What of Trump's own inflammatory fabrications? Such as "thousands cheering of rooftops as the towers went down?"

You are claiming he is a victim then? Prove this. I posted video evidence of him saying plenty of violent and bullying things...you are claiming he didn't?

a reply to: AboveBoard

You have provided no evidence of his innocence, and his insults are well documented. Where is this "non-attacking Trump" and "complete media fabrication" that you claim? What of Trump's own inflammatory fabrications? Such as "thousands cheering of rooftops as the towers went down?"

You are claiming he is a victim then? Prove this. I posted video evidence of him saying plenty of violent and bullying things...you are claiming he didn't?

I am not saying he is innocent. Nor did I say anything about a "non-attacking Trump" nor "complete media fabrication", so I'm not sure why they are in quotation marks. I am saying he hits back, something people might need to get used to when they attack someone, in the media or otherwise. If someone threatens to throw tomatoes at me, I'm going to threaten them back. If someone is swinging at my supporters, I'm going to say "I wish I could punch him in the nose". Trump's words do not occur in a vacuum.

Sticking up for yourself is an admirable quality in my eyes. Do you not think so?

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.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AboveBoard

You have provided no evidence of his innocence, and his insults are well documented. Where is this "non-attacking Trump" and "complete media fabrication" that you claim? What of Trump's own inflammatory fabrications? Such as "thousands cheering of rooftops as the towers went down?"

You are claiming he is a victim then? Prove this. I posted video evidence of him saying plenty of violent and bullying things...you are claiming he didn't?

I am not saying he is innocent. Nor did I say anything about a "non-attacking Trump" nor "complete media fabrication", so I'm not sure why they are in quotation marks. I am saying he hits back, something people might need to get used to when they attack someone, in the media or otherwise. If someone threatens to throw tomatoes at me, I'm going to threaten them back. If someone is swinging at my supporters, I'm going to say "I wish I could punch him in the nose". Trump's words do not occur in a vacuum.

Sticking up for yourself is an admirable quality in my eyes. Do you not think so?

Ironically, the Trump Protestors believe they are sticking up for themselves?

(I should not have used quotes- I was attempting to summarize my impression of the media discussion in this thread)

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.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Not at all. I'm arguing that there is no specter of violence around Trump, that it is around the media, and that people like Maher only serve to enhance it through dehumanization of the candidate and his followers.

I guess it really depends on how you define "specter of violence." Does Donald Trump incite violence? That's open to interpretation as Donald Trump is rarely direct and so he typically falls short of calling for violence and instead says things that can easily be taken by an "unsound mind" to be if not an ouright endorsement of violence, at least tacit approval.

This isn't something that we typically see from presidential candidates, at least not in this era. Here are a few specific examples:

At the Trump rally in St Louis, MO on March 11, 2016.



Here's what Trump says as a protester is being removed:

"You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long, is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right? And they're being politically correct with the way they take them out, so it takes a little bit longer. And honestly, protesters realize it, they realize that there are no consequences to protesting anymore. There used to be consequences, there are none anymore. So that's it."

Is Donald Trump not lamenting that it takes a little extra time to remove a protester because it's not "politically correct" to hurt non-violent protesters? Quick aside: when the hell did "political correctness" come to refer to not physically harming people? What do you believe are the consequences that Donald Trump was referring to?

Two days earlier on March 9, 2016 at the Fayetteville, N.C. rally, protester Rakeem Jones was escorted out of the arena. At this point, the man you characterized as "grizzled Trump supporter" punches Jones in the face. Now, Donald Trump didn't command his supporter to punch Jones in the face but he was quick to not only lie in justifying it but also to then promptly state his approval.

I'll spare you the video for the sake of brevity but this is what Donald Trump said:

"He was a guy who was swinging, very loud, and he started swinging. And you know what? The audience swung back, and it was very appropriate. He was swinging, he was hitting people, and the audience hit back. That’s what we need a little bit more of."

Where it gets a little tricky here is that he prefaced his statement with something that wasn't true which leaves it open to the interpretation that he was simply advocating self-defense. However, do you believe that your hypothetical person with an "unsound mind" is really stopping to ponder the nuance?

What's less open to interpretation is what he said less than 24 hours later on Fox news regarding the incident:

"Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing."

Keep in mind, the "disgusting" thing that Jones did was to be verbally disruptive. Mealy-mouthed Trump always hedges his bets a little when he speaks so he starts the statement with "maybe" but it's fairly obvious that he's approving of violence by his supporters against a disruptive person.

Speaking of "unsound minds," you went to great lengths to talk about "dehumanizing" of Trump supporters and also the danger that media poses to Donald Trump when he's compared to the likes of Hitler. Do you not find fault in Donald Trump dehumanizing people or feel that via the "unsound minds" influenced by Trump's fear-mongering pose a risk to the objects of his rhetoric?

Implying that a majority of illegal immigrants are "rapists" is a tactic straight out of the 'ol dehumanization playbook (omg, they'll rape our women!) and far more egregious than Bill Maher referring to Trump supporters as idiots. How about the language Trump uses to describe protesters?

"These are not good people, just so you understand, these are not the people who made our country great. These are the people that are destroying our country"

I could go on with this and we both know it. It would be hard to argue that anything you're alleging of the Bill Maher, John Oliver, the media, etc isn't true of Trump and worse.

When it comes to pointing fingers there's always this issue of infinite regress. Is it intolerance to not be tolerant of intolerance? In other words, it stills falls back on Trump because — and yes, I'm going to quote every snotty nosed, finger pointing child ever — he started it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Trump has said Mexico is beating the US in trade, manufacturing, etc. He's giving them credit. The same with the Chinese. "They're smarter than us". Sure he did use the word rapist to dehumanize, but he was dehumanizing rapists, not Mexicans. There's a massive difference. Rapists, drug-dealers, are threats to law-abiding citizens, of all ethnicities, the last time I checked. If he was speaking about innocent people you'd have a point, but he's talking about rapists, as in people who rape others. The people making the connection between rapist and Mexican are dehumanizing Mexicans. The amount of projection involved here is brutal.

The only difference between Trump and the other candidates is that Trump doesn't hold Mexico to a lower standard.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: hubrisinxs

The media is falling apart. Whether win or lose, Trump's candidacy is bringing to light the propaganda of the media class, and this goes for both sides of the aisle. It will never be the same again.

The media isn't falling apart. The media is thriving making more money than ever before.
The propaganda machine is stronger than ever and to big to fail. It's capitalism....

theintercept.com...

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

prediction....Trump will bail and create a Yugggee media empire of his own. Look at his current staff, notice anything?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Trump has said Mexico is beating the US in trade, manufacturing, etc. He's giving them credit. The same with the Chinese. "They're smarter than us". Sure he did use the word rapist to dehumanize, but he was dehumanizing rapists, not Mexicans.

I disagree. Here's a RealClearPolitcs link with the CSPAN video.

Here is the exact quote:

When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

He's giving who credit for what exactly? The Mexican government for the trade deficit I guess? That line has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigrants from Mexcio residing in this country. You know, the people he wants to build a wall to "defend" us from? (Remember Kate!) He's certainly not dehumanizing rapists. In fact he's not saying anything about rapists. He's claiming that the illegal immigrants from Mexico:

- aren't like you ("They're not sending you" x2)
- are people "thave lots of problems"
- that are "bringing drugs" (they're drug dealers? smugglers? both?)
- that are "bringing crime" (they're criminals)
- that are rapists - "They're rapists" (please explain how this is dehumanizing rapists)

and "some" he assumes are "good people" which means what? That most are not "good people."

So where was he dehumanizing rapists and not Mexicans (or more precisely, illegal aliens in this country originating from Mexico)?

"They're rapists" That's about as simple as it gets: They - are - rapists. It's been a while since I was graphing sentences in elementary school but isn't the subject of that sentence "they?"

The amount of projection involved here is brutal.

What's brutal is the depth of the willful ignorance involved in defending this blithering twit. He's no anti-establishment hero. It's more like the establishment forget to lock the basement door and the hideously malformed product of their incest got loose.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Is this like when Obama repeatedly talks about punishing his enemies, tells his followers to bring a gun to a knife fight, refers to people in the Midwest as "bitter clingers," etc.?

You know, I believe you are right ... words do matter. I am looking at BLM right now!

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

"Damn near everyone in politics and the politically motivated media hates Trump and works overtime to distort his message"

Donald Trump Word Salad #1:
www.washingtonpost.com...

Word Salad #2

Word Salad #3

Word Salad #4

Distort his message? Please. Just type in 'Trump word salad' and you'll find many, many more of these. His brain is as scrambled as his tongue.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

THEY all ran to Hillary ,THAT SHIP is upside down, you are downing in dust.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

So what's an 'Alynsky radical', and what's wrong with being one?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: hubrisinxs

The media is falling apart. Whether win or lose, Trump's candidacy is bringing to light the propaganda of the media class, and this goes for both sides of the aisle. It will never be the same again.

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.