David:
Donald Trump started his campaign by saying that Mexico was not sending us their best. He called the Mexicans coming across the border criminals, "while some of them are nice people". In the last few weeks, we've seen protesters rioting at Trump rallies, and assaulting Trump supporters. They've burned American flags while waving Mexican flags. In essence, they appear to be....Mexican criminals.
Doug:
I had not heard of Mexican Criminals showing up to Trump rallies. Won't they get caught that way? Wonder how they have time in their criminal schedules to protest at a rally? Oh, I see this article about a single person burning an American flag. But your description jumps to a few conclusions: that there is an organized group (more than one person), that they are Mexican (no evidence), and that burning flags is a criminal act (it isn't). According to you, it isn't even their flag. But let's go with this mind-bending leap of logic to see where this takes us. A critique of Trump's racism perhaps?
David:
The Huffington Post hasn't really reported on these attacks (they're too busy claiming Trump is racist), so your complete lack of knowledge of current events is excusable. Let's see. If you come into the country illegally, you are indeed breaking the law. If you assault people, you are committing a crime. While all hispanics are not Mexican, many of the protesters at these "rallies" are waving Mexican flags, perhaps just to support illegal Mexican immigrants. But these anti-Trump protests have occurred in numerous cities over the past few weeks, and have become ever-more violent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/
Trump supporters have been egged, punched, and in one instance, struck with a plastic bag full of rocks. If you bring a plastic bag full of rocks to a protest, I assume you're looking to cause bodily injury to someone (or maybe the fellow just stopped at the protest on his way home from the rock store).
Doug:
That looks like chaos, with lots of violence coming from many people from all sides. I guess it isn't surprising; as the reporter notes: "The ugly scenes of violence toward Trump supporters Thursday appeared to be the inverse of similar incidents earlier in the campaign in which Trump protesters, not supporters, were targeted."
David:
You'll note that the article lists numerous attacks on Trump supporters, but your excerpt above mentions only a single incident at one Trump rally, where one individual struck a Trump protester. I don't see that as violence coming from all sides. There certainly is quite a bit of violence from one side. And it makes that side look bad.
Doug:
No, that doesn't mention any incidents, but suggests "similar incidents." But there are people keep tabs of the violence: A Continually Growing List of Violent Incidents at Trump Events. And let's not talk about "violence coming from all sides." That implies that the violence is like a team sport. The Republicans vs. The Democrats. No, these are angry individuals.
David:
I agree that most protesters have been peaceful, but in the last few weeks the violence has increased, and it's been mobs of anti-Trump folks singling out Trump supporters for vicious attacks.
Hillary Clinton has blamed the victims of these attacks, saying they're bringing it upon themselves by supporting Trump. The Democratic mayor of San Antonio also said that the Trump supporters were responsible for getting beaten. An editor at Vox encouraged rioting at Trump rallies, as though rioting is an acceptable and legitimate weapon to shut down political discourse, if you aim it at the "right" target. This appears to be the new, acceptable way Democrats shut down free speech: with violence.
Doug:
Not just Clinton, but even the reporter of the article that you linked to suggested that Trump supporters were reaping what they have sown.
David:
I don't see how that somehow excuses her "blame-the-victim" rhetoric.
Doug:
I always have a hard time following your thinking. So, you are describing this single, solitary person bruning an American flag as "attacks"? Who are the victims? The burnt flag? And then some editor (another single, solitary person) as advocating rioting as acceptable. And you then jump to the conclusion that Democrats (all/most/some/one?) want to eliminate free speech with violence. Are you sure that you want to make that argument? We could perhaps discuss Trump advocating killing of the innocent families of anyone he declares to be a terrorist. That is an undisputed statement, not some crazy leap of illogic. Killing innocent people seems like a violent act worthy of discussion.
David:
I'll try to explain it for you (and I'll type slow, so you don't miss anything). Hitting folks with bags of rocks is a crime. Hitting someone in the face with a fist is a crime. The crime is not the burning of the flag. However, when the person burning the American flag is waving a Mexican flag, it adds context to the entire picture.
Doug:
I see. "Adds context to the entire picture" means that it allows you to jump to the conclusion that "Mexicans are violent criminals." For regular folks, they would not assume that the same person who burned the flag is the same person who committed a different crime. But in your logic, you can collapse all of those events to a single Mexican. Your explanation is indeed helpful to see how your mind can make such leaps.
David:
You do like to put words into other's mouths, don't you? Even though you put it in quotes, I don't see the phrase "Mexicans are violent criminals" anywhere else in the blog. Nice try. Let's try to stick to this topic, and not allow your bias to cloud the actual conversation. No wonder you can't follow my thinking. You've added all sorts of your presumptions into the debate.
I'm sure we'll discuss the many things Donald Trump has said at length. It's still a long way to November. Hillary hasn't even been indicted yet.
Doug:
I think we are talking about violence at Trump rallies, so I would think that any violence Trump advocates is indeed on topic. You do realize that Trump is scheduled to appear in court for his Trump University scams, and that he has appeared in court 169 times? I don't see Hillary Clinton scheduled to appear in front of any court.
David:
Yes, because so far she has refused to talk to her own State Department inspector general, or the FBI. So much for cooperation.
Doug:
You mean like the 11-hour question-answer grilling? She answered every question, as far as I see.
David:
Like I said, she hasn't talked to the FBI, and refused to answer questions from her own IG.
Doug:
She would also probably refuse to talk to you. Does congress have higher authority? Yes. Did they ask her questions about everything? Yes. But you still aren't happy. Surprise!
David:
If she's answered all of the questions that could be asked about the legal issues at hand, then why would she refuse to talk to the legal authorities?
Trump being sued for fraud has nothing to do with the violence at these rallies. And do you realize he's in court quite a bit because he sues people at the drop of a hat. I don't think that's a good trait to have, and feeds the notion he's thin-skinned, but again, it has nothing to do with this conversation.
Doug:
Agreed, but you mentioned "Hillary" and "indicted". If you mention weird accusations, I will refute them. And if people sue at the drop of a hat, then why aren't Clinton and Sanders being sued? And Trump is thin-skinned. He is the definition of having a sensitive ego. How many times has he threatened to sue people? Googling "Trump threatens to sue" gives me over 500,000 hits. But, I agree, this is only tangentially related to his violence.
David:
Fair enough, but you have made several erroneous assertions that should be clarified. Articles with the words "Hillary" and "Indicted" are all over the internet, so it isn't some weird accusation that your brother came up with after a closed-head injury. After the release of the State Department report, it seems ever more likely some form of indictment is forthcoming.
Doug:
Place your bets. There is a big difference between the prospect of a single court case versus 169 actual, different court cases. But continue.
David:
In addition, if someone famous threatened to sue someone, there may be a thousand stories and blogs written about that single event. The number of internet hits does not correlate with the number of incidents being reported on. President Obama himself is currently being sued by Congress, and there are 50 million Google hits for the search "President being sued". By your logic, he's a particularly nasty fellow. The reason these clarifications are important to this conversation, is that the number of separate, distinct riots outside of Trump rallies, by anti-Trump forces, is increasing in number and severity. And there appears to be some coordination from well-funded Democratic groups.
Doug:
We love a good conspiracy! Please continue.
David:
Again, the Huffington Post has not reported on Democratic ties to the riots, so I'll forgive your ignorance on this issue as well.
Doug:
I don't read the Huffington Post, so I'll have to trust you on the conspiracy to hide violence. You must keep pretty close tabs on it to know what they do not report on. How can you stand to read it? I find that much of HuffPost is surrounded by stories of celebrities and weird stories.
David:
Apparently you don't read anything. At least Hillary acknowledges that these riots are occurring, and admits the violence is coming from the protester's side. However...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/6/tammy-bruce-anti-trump-rallies-funded-by-the-left/
Doug:
Are you kidding me? You are referencing an opinion article from the Washington Times titled "Anti-Trump rallies funded by the left." Did Hillary buy the eggs? Your writings in this blog have as much weight as a Tammy Bruce opinion article.
David:
This article discusses ties to several national Democratic groups funding and organizing these protests: MoveOn.org, Bernie Sander's Democratic Socialists of America, and the Hillary Clinton campaign itself.
Donald Trump started his campaign by saying that Mexico was not sending us their best. He called the Mexicans coming across the border criminals, "while some of them are nice people". In the last few weeks, we've seen protesters rioting at Trump rallies, and assaulting Trump supporters. They've burned American flags while waving Mexican flags. In essence, they appear to be....Mexican criminals.
Doug:
I had not heard of Mexican Criminals showing up to Trump rallies. Won't they get caught that way? Wonder how they have time in their criminal schedules to protest at a rally? Oh, I see this article about a single person burning an American flag. But your description jumps to a few conclusions: that there is an organized group (more than one person), that they are Mexican (no evidence), and that burning flags is a criminal act (it isn't). According to you, it isn't even their flag. But let's go with this mind-bending leap of logic to see where this takes us. A critique of Trump's racism perhaps?
David:
The Huffington Post hasn't really reported on these attacks (they're too busy claiming Trump is racist), so your complete lack of knowledge of current events is excusable. Let's see. If you come into the country illegally, you are indeed breaking the law. If you assault people, you are committing a crime. While all hispanics are not Mexican, many of the protesters at these "rallies" are waving Mexican flags, perhaps just to support illegal Mexican immigrants. But these anti-Trump protests have occurred in numerous cities over the past few weeks, and have become ever-more violent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/
Trump supporters have been egged, punched, and in one instance, struck with a plastic bag full of rocks. If you bring a plastic bag full of rocks to a protest, I assume you're looking to cause bodily injury to someone (or maybe the fellow just stopped at the protest on his way home from the rock store).
Doug:
That looks like chaos, with lots of violence coming from many people from all sides. I guess it isn't surprising; as the reporter notes: "The ugly scenes of violence toward Trump supporters Thursday appeared to be the inverse of similar incidents earlier in the campaign in which Trump protesters, not supporters, were targeted."
David:
You'll note that the article lists numerous attacks on Trump supporters, but your excerpt above mentions only a single incident at one Trump rally, where one individual struck a Trump protester. I don't see that as violence coming from all sides. There certainly is quite a bit of violence from one side. And it makes that side look bad.
Doug:
No, that doesn't mention any incidents, but suggests "similar incidents." But there are people keep tabs of the violence: A Continually Growing List of Violent Incidents at Trump Events. And let's not talk about "violence coming from all sides." That implies that the violence is like a team sport. The Republicans vs. The Democrats. No, these are angry individuals.
David:
I agree that most protesters have been peaceful, but in the last few weeks the violence has increased, and it's been mobs of anti-Trump folks singling out Trump supporters for vicious attacks.
Hillary Clinton has blamed the victims of these attacks, saying they're bringing it upon themselves by supporting Trump. The Democratic mayor of San Antonio also said that the Trump supporters were responsible for getting beaten. An editor at Vox encouraged rioting at Trump rallies, as though rioting is an acceptable and legitimate weapon to shut down political discourse, if you aim it at the "right" target. This appears to be the new, acceptable way Democrats shut down free speech: with violence.
Doug:
Not just Clinton, but even the reporter of the article that you linked to suggested that Trump supporters were reaping what they have sown.
David:
I don't see how that somehow excuses her "blame-the-victim" rhetoric.
Doug:
I always have a hard time following your thinking. So, you are describing this single, solitary person bruning an American flag as "attacks"? Who are the victims? The burnt flag? And then some editor (another single, solitary person) as advocating rioting as acceptable. And you then jump to the conclusion that Democrats (all/most/some/one?) want to eliminate free speech with violence. Are you sure that you want to make that argument? We could perhaps discuss Trump advocating killing of the innocent families of anyone he declares to be a terrorist. That is an undisputed statement, not some crazy leap of illogic. Killing innocent people seems like a violent act worthy of discussion.
David:
I'll try to explain it for you (and I'll type slow, so you don't miss anything). Hitting folks with bags of rocks is a crime. Hitting someone in the face with a fist is a crime. The crime is not the burning of the flag. However, when the person burning the American flag is waving a Mexican flag, it adds context to the entire picture.
Doug:
I see. "Adds context to the entire picture" means that it allows you to jump to the conclusion that "Mexicans are violent criminals." For regular folks, they would not assume that the same person who burned the flag is the same person who committed a different crime. But in your logic, you can collapse all of those events to a single Mexican. Your explanation is indeed helpful to see how your mind can make such leaps.
David:
You do like to put words into other's mouths, don't you? Even though you put it in quotes, I don't see the phrase "Mexicans are violent criminals" anywhere else in the blog. Nice try. Let's try to stick to this topic, and not allow your bias to cloud the actual conversation. No wonder you can't follow my thinking. You've added all sorts of your presumptions into the debate.
I'm sure we'll discuss the many things Donald Trump has said at length. It's still a long way to November. Hillary hasn't even been indicted yet.
Doug:
I think we are talking about violence at Trump rallies, so I would think that any violence Trump advocates is indeed on topic. You do realize that Trump is scheduled to appear in court for his Trump University scams, and that he has appeared in court 169 times? I don't see Hillary Clinton scheduled to appear in front of any court.
David:
Yes, because so far she has refused to talk to her own State Department inspector general, or the FBI. So much for cooperation.
Doug:
You mean like the 11-hour question-answer grilling? She answered every question, as far as I see.
David:
Like I said, she hasn't talked to the FBI, and refused to answer questions from her own IG.
Doug:
She would also probably refuse to talk to you. Does congress have higher authority? Yes. Did they ask her questions about everything? Yes. But you still aren't happy. Surprise!
David:
If she's answered all of the questions that could be asked about the legal issues at hand, then why would she refuse to talk to the legal authorities?
Trump being sued for fraud has nothing to do with the violence at these rallies. And do you realize he's in court quite a bit because he sues people at the drop of a hat. I don't think that's a good trait to have, and feeds the notion he's thin-skinned, but again, it has nothing to do with this conversation.
Doug:
Agreed, but you mentioned "Hillary" and "indicted". If you mention weird accusations, I will refute them. And if people sue at the drop of a hat, then why aren't Clinton and Sanders being sued? And Trump is thin-skinned. He is the definition of having a sensitive ego. How many times has he threatened to sue people? Googling "Trump threatens to sue" gives me over 500,000 hits. But, I agree, this is only tangentially related to his violence.
David:
Fair enough, but you have made several erroneous assertions that should be clarified. Articles with the words "Hillary" and "Indicted" are all over the internet, so it isn't some weird accusation that your brother came up with after a closed-head injury. After the release of the State Department report, it seems ever more likely some form of indictment is forthcoming.
Doug:
Place your bets. There is a big difference between the prospect of a single court case versus 169 actual, different court cases. But continue.
David:
In addition, if someone famous threatened to sue someone, there may be a thousand stories and blogs written about that single event. The number of internet hits does not correlate with the number of incidents being reported on. President Obama himself is currently being sued by Congress, and there are 50 million Google hits for the search "President being sued". By your logic, he's a particularly nasty fellow. The reason these clarifications are important to this conversation, is that the number of separate, distinct riots outside of Trump rallies, by anti-Trump forces, is increasing in number and severity. And there appears to be some coordination from well-funded Democratic groups.
Doug:
We love a good conspiracy! Please continue.
David:
Again, the Huffington Post has not reported on Democratic ties to the riots, so I'll forgive your ignorance on this issue as well.
Doug:
I don't read the Huffington Post, so I'll have to trust you on the conspiracy to hide violence. You must keep pretty close tabs on it to know what they do not report on. How can you stand to read it? I find that much of HuffPost is surrounded by stories of celebrities and weird stories.
David:
Apparently you don't read anything. At least Hillary acknowledges that these riots are occurring, and admits the violence is coming from the protester's side. However...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/6/tammy-bruce-anti-trump-rallies-funded-by-the-left/
Doug:
Are you kidding me? You are referencing an opinion article from the Washington Times titled "Anti-Trump rallies funded by the left." Did Hillary buy the eggs? Your writings in this blog have as much weight as a Tammy Bruce opinion article.
David:
This article discusses ties to several national Democratic groups funding and organizing these protests: MoveOn.org, Bernie Sander's Democratic Socialists of America, and the Hillary Clinton campaign itself.
“It seemed like an outpouring of veteran anger against Donald Trump: over a dozen former service members protesting outside Trump Tower. But the reality was more complicated. The protest was actually a coordinated effort, led in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign… It only looked like a grassroots demonstration…”
At first everyone lied about the fact that it was Hillary astro-turf protestors, but then it all fell apart. “A spokesman for the demonstrators insisted they had no affiliation with any campaign. Later he said the protesters had reached out to the Clinton campaign for press contacts, but that’s all. Then the activist finally admitted that, yes, the Clinton campaign had helped organize the protest.”
I suppose this is all just my imagination, or as Hillary says, it's a vast right-wing conspiracy to try to make her look bad, along with the FBI. And the State Department inspector general. Curious that the violence is all outside of the Trump rallies, from the protester ranks directed towards Trump supporters, and not the other way around.
Doug:
If you are going to quote at length from a Tammy Bruce opinion piece in the Washington Times, and pretend that it is real, then at least two things will happen: people will stop reading and they will stop taking you seriously. Come on man! My time is valuable. Can we can raise the bar of discussion just a tad higher? Feel free to delete the above paragraph's for all of our reader's sakes.
David:
I chose this article for a reason. While the conclusions are Tammy Bruce's opinion, she lists multiple sources for each episode she discusses. The information listed and quoted within the piece is not her opinion, and can't just be tossed aside as such. The part of the article I quoted from is from another report.
Doug:
If Tammy Bruce is the best article you can find, and you can't find primary sources, then, yep, it is tossed aside. Wikipedia is even better. It is no wonder that people have trouble separating fact from fiction if they rely on Washington Times articles.
David:
We don't really have the space for all of the articles on this topic. Like I said, this article incorporates quotes and information from numerous primary sources, and fits our space needs perfectly. Apparently you'd prefer no one read the article, as you've suggested I delete it, or that everyone should just look the other way. I'll let our readers decide for themselves.
Doug:
Now, let's actually talk about violence. I am absolutely appalled by the violence both inside Trump rallies by Trump supporters, and outside by whomever these people are. If they are Democrats, shame on them for stooping to Trump's level.
But this pales in comparison to the kind of violence that Trump advocates in his "speeches." Do you really think that torturing terrorists and killing the family members of terrorists is a valid plan? Even if such illegal violence would lead to peace (it won't), I would not be in favor of that type of policy. It is immoral and despicable, and I am ashamed we even have a candidate for President of the United States speaking those words.
David:
I agree, and don't make any attempt to defend such talk.
Doug:
Thank you! But, when you divert attention away from Trump's chest-beating, it is almost like you are defending such talk.
David:
I find it curious that you discount everything that Trump says as complete nonsense, but for some reason you've latched onto this one sentence as something he will actually do. You do realize that the president can't just go waterboard terrorist in the oval office, nor can he go out and kill people or their families. Donald Trump has said a great many things to get the attention of the media, without any serious plan to actually accomplish any of it. It seems some people think it's part of his charm.
Doug:
Trumps' charm?! "I'll kill their families! Just Kidding!" Who are these people that think that such nonsense is endearing?
David:
But let me refresh your memory, as there are two candidates that have gone on record supporting torture. After giving a speech in which she condemns "torture", Hillary Clinton said the following during an interview: "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. When asked to clarify if her comments were about torturing terrorists, she again said," In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we've got to have a check and a balance." She has since made comments that are all over the board in regards to the use of torture. It seems it's allowed if her audience is veterans, but it is absolutely wrong when she is talking to college students. This makes her appear cynical and opportunistic. But then again, no one has accused her of being honest and trustworthy.
Doug:
But let's be clear: Clinton allegedly said that in 2006. She no longer supports that position, and hasn't since 2008. Trump advocates torture today. And he wishes to go further, actually going after innocent families of anyone declared to be an enemy. Today. Your opinion is that is better to support someone who is consistently violent rather than someone who waffles on using violence? Rather than criticize Clinton, shouldn't you be celebrating her change of heart, and supporting her change of position on violence? Unless you really don't care about violence, and just want to criticize her.
David:
I do criticize her. She's changed her positions on so many different things (and then changed back again) for political expedience, that no one really knows what she stands for. That's why no one trusts her. Even huge numbers of Democrats don't find her honest or trustworthy.
Doug:
I trust her. I trust her because she thinks.
David:
So you're the one guy in the polls who thinks she's trustworthy.
Doug:
More trustworthy than Trump. He has changed his mind on far more things.
David:
I think we can both condemn the violence directed at supporters of a presidential candidate. But blaming the victims is wrong as well. Let's hope the Trump supporters don't get the Juanita Broaddrick treatment.
Doug:
I had never heard of Juanita Broaddrick, so whatever her treatment is, it is unknown outside of whatever bubble you live in. Googling her, I see that this is a woman who reluctantly accused President Bill Clinton of rape. You do not have to go back to 1978 to find stories of Rape Culture, you can find that in the headlines today. Literally today. And yesterday, and probably every day since 1978, and before. So the treatment of Juanita Broaddrick is one of blaming the victim? In my brief googling, I see no claim made by anyone that whatever happened was her fault. Like many rape cases, it seems to end up being a he-said/she-said accusation, without supporting evidence one way or the other. On the other hand, Trump advocates violence, and he gets it at his rallies, both by supporters and by others.
David:
Holy smoke! You're really stretching your credibility with that whooper! Bill Clinton was accused of assaulting women? When did that happen? Golly jee whillikers! Hillary and her advisers attacked the women, calling them "Trailer trash", "Bimbos" and "Narcissistic looney toons"? Hillary's an enabler? Bill settled out-of-court to avoid trial? Multiple women accused him of sexual assaults, and Hillary did what to those women? Bill was impeached for lying about it? I've never heard such outrageous tales...
Doug:
Watch your language, Gilligan. I only said that I never heard of Ms. Broaddrick.
David:
Here's a piece from the liberal NYTimes to inform you of these events:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0
Doug:
That is a reliable newspaper, and liberal the way that truthiness always is. What are we talking about? How is this related?
If you really care about stopping violence, support someone who at least waffles on its use. Killing innocent families and torturing anyone is unacceptable. If you really care about stopping Rape Culture, call it what it is. Don't associate a victim's name (Juanita Broaddrick) to represent it. Leave her out of it. Rape is violence, and is unacceptable. If you care about stopping violence, support Black Lives Matter. If you want to stop violence, make sure that trans- people are protected. We don't need to qualify our condemnation of violence: let's agree to condemn violence directed at anyone.
David:
Ah, so now she's a waffler. Good.
Doug:
Definitely agree that it is better to be hesitant about using violence. I'm glad that you think a waffler on violence is better than someone committed to violence.
David:
I'm just glad you can admit she's a waffler about important issues.
Doug:
I think Trump would win the waffle contest, but do continue.
David:
Maybe we can just skip the rest of the campaign season, and just settle this with a waffle-making contest. Best waffle wins?
But we can certainly agree no one should get raped. (Make sure you tell that to Hillary's husband.)
Doug:
Amen! You might want to mention that to Ivana's ex-husband, regarding The Time Donald Trump's Ex-Wife Accused Him of Brutally Raping Her. Ivana says to her friends: "He raped me." Which is worse: the rapist or the enabler? Which is worse: the future war criminal, or the waffler?
David:
Now you're reporting events that never happened, as Ivana Trump denied she ever said such a thing. But at least you admit she's an enabler.
Doug:
Yes, let's blame Hillary for everything that Bill did. (But she didn't leave him. Trump has been divorced three times. If you paint her as "enabler" then you also have to paint her as "loyal", and a "forgiver".) Ivana did later deny that she said it, but she didn't deny the action. It sounds like rape to me.
David:
She's so loyal she attacked his victims. That seems to be a pattern.
No one should get assaulted for any reason. The Black-Lives-Matter movement has led to more violence in the cities it is operating in. They should be condemned. I agree that we should condemn all violence.
Doug:
Remember, don't blame the victims. Unless you are suggesting that we should condemn Trump supporters.
David:
I'm condemning people who's actions lead to violence, not the victims. So, how about we just allow people to attend rallies for the people they want to support without the threat of being beaten. How about we just allow Presidential candidates to give their speeches without protesters from the other side threatening the listeners. And how about cracking down on the daily black-on-black violence in the President's old neighborhood. If you can join me in all of these sentiments, I think we can make some progress.
Doug:
Oh, yes, I agree that all violence is evil. But one has to admit that the threat that the proposed leader of the free world wanting to track down your family and kill them if you are considered (by him) to be a terrorist is the worst kind of violence. A bit worse than throwing eggs, or even burning a flag.
David:
Then you'll be glad to hear that Donald Trump changed his mind, and now holds the position that his original ideas were wrong. He's declared that torture and killing family members was a bad idea, and he is opposed to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/04/donald-trump-reverses-position-on-torture-and-killing-terrorists-families/?_r=0
Apparently he does have the ability to listen to critics and make the right decisions. That sounds like a good quality for a president to have. Since your major criticism of him in this blog is gone, maybe you'll have to give him another look?
Doug:
You are serious?! You say that "Trump changed his mind" and that means he has "the ability to listen to critics" and therefore deserves "another look"? But when Clinton changes her mind she is a "waffler"? Ok, I now believe that you will just believe whatever you want to believe. There are no principles, only justifications. Do you seriously want people to consider Trump because he says something different? He always says something different, and he has no experience in politics. What kind of criteria does one need in your book to be unqualified?
David:
Apparently you have no taste for sarcasm. Lighten up. I don't really expect you to take a serious look at Trump. He's running as the Republican.
Trump needs to get a lot more serious in what he says, but the people at his rallies should not have to fear for their safety to find out if he can manage that. That's all I'm asking.
Doug:
Oh, this is so dramatic and entertaining! Will Donald say something serious? Will people be able to find out that he said something serious? Will there be violence at his rallies? Will Donald change his mind again? I see why people find him so charming! Not. This is disgusting and a travesty.
David:
But that's what makes our country great, you see. Apparently anyone can become president. Everyone has the right to express whatever ideas they have, and all Americans should have the ability to freely exchange their ideas, and support candidates for political office, without the threat of violent assault. That's neither disgusting, nor a tragedy. That's how free speech works.
Doug:
No, not just anyone should be president! We should elect qualified people to hold office. I really wish that you would be against violence in general, rather than just against violence on Trump supporters.
If you are going to quote at length from a Tammy Bruce opinion piece in the Washington Times, and pretend that it is real, then at least two things will happen: people will stop reading and they will stop taking you seriously. Come on man! My time is valuable. Can we can raise the bar of discussion just a tad higher? Feel free to delete the above paragraph's for all of our reader's sakes.
David:
I chose this article for a reason. While the conclusions are Tammy Bruce's opinion, she lists multiple sources for each episode she discusses. The information listed and quoted within the piece is not her opinion, and can't just be tossed aside as such. The part of the article I quoted from is from another report.
Doug:
If Tammy Bruce is the best article you can find, and you can't find primary sources, then, yep, it is tossed aside. Wikipedia is even better. It is no wonder that people have trouble separating fact from fiction if they rely on Washington Times articles.
David:
We don't really have the space for all of the articles on this topic. Like I said, this article incorporates quotes and information from numerous primary sources, and fits our space needs perfectly. Apparently you'd prefer no one read the article, as you've suggested I delete it, or that everyone should just look the other way. I'll let our readers decide for themselves.
Doug:
Now, let's actually talk about violence. I am absolutely appalled by the violence both inside Trump rallies by Trump supporters, and outside by whomever these people are. If they are Democrats, shame on them for stooping to Trump's level.
But this pales in comparison to the kind of violence that Trump advocates in his "speeches." Do you really think that torturing terrorists and killing the family members of terrorists is a valid plan? Even if such illegal violence would lead to peace (it won't), I would not be in favor of that type of policy. It is immoral and despicable, and I am ashamed we even have a candidate for President of the United States speaking those words.
David:
I agree, and don't make any attempt to defend such talk.
Doug:
Thank you! But, when you divert attention away from Trump's chest-beating, it is almost like you are defending such talk.
David:
I find it curious that you discount everything that Trump says as complete nonsense, but for some reason you've latched onto this one sentence as something he will actually do. You do realize that the president can't just go waterboard terrorist in the oval office, nor can he go out and kill people or their families. Donald Trump has said a great many things to get the attention of the media, without any serious plan to actually accomplish any of it. It seems some people think it's part of his charm.
Doug:
Trumps' charm?! "I'll kill their families! Just Kidding!" Who are these people that think that such nonsense is endearing?
David:
But let me refresh your memory, as there are two candidates that have gone on record supporting torture. After giving a speech in which she condemns "torture", Hillary Clinton said the following during an interview: "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. When asked to clarify if her comments were about torturing terrorists, she again said," In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we've got to have a check and a balance." She has since made comments that are all over the board in regards to the use of torture. It seems it's allowed if her audience is veterans, but it is absolutely wrong when she is talking to college students. This makes her appear cynical and opportunistic. But then again, no one has accused her of being honest and trustworthy.
Doug:
But let's be clear: Clinton allegedly said that in 2006. She no longer supports that position, and hasn't since 2008. Trump advocates torture today. And he wishes to go further, actually going after innocent families of anyone declared to be an enemy. Today. Your opinion is that is better to support someone who is consistently violent rather than someone who waffles on using violence? Rather than criticize Clinton, shouldn't you be celebrating her change of heart, and supporting her change of position on violence? Unless you really don't care about violence, and just want to criticize her.
David:
I do criticize her. She's changed her positions on so many different things (and then changed back again) for political expedience, that no one really knows what she stands for. That's why no one trusts her. Even huge numbers of Democrats don't find her honest or trustworthy.
Doug:
I trust her. I trust her because she thinks.
David:
So you're the one guy in the polls who thinks she's trustworthy.
Doug:
More trustworthy than Trump. He has changed his mind on far more things.
- 20 times Donald Trump has changed his mind since June
- A Look at Donald Trump's Evolving Positions Over the Years
You name a topic and Trump has believed both sides of it: abortion, war, marriage, undocumented immigrants, nuclear weapons for everyone, Obamacare, women, and violence.
David:
I think we can both condemn the violence directed at supporters of a presidential candidate. But blaming the victims is wrong as well. Let's hope the Trump supporters don't get the Juanita Broaddrick treatment.
Doug:
I had never heard of Juanita Broaddrick, so whatever her treatment is, it is unknown outside of whatever bubble you live in. Googling her, I see that this is a woman who reluctantly accused President Bill Clinton of rape. You do not have to go back to 1978 to find stories of Rape Culture, you can find that in the headlines today. Literally today. And yesterday, and probably every day since 1978, and before. So the treatment of Juanita Broaddrick is one of blaming the victim? In my brief googling, I see no claim made by anyone that whatever happened was her fault. Like many rape cases, it seems to end up being a he-said/she-said accusation, without supporting evidence one way or the other. On the other hand, Trump advocates violence, and he gets it at his rallies, both by supporters and by others.
David:
Holy smoke! You're really stretching your credibility with that whooper! Bill Clinton was accused of assaulting women? When did that happen? Golly jee whillikers! Hillary and her advisers attacked the women, calling them "Trailer trash", "Bimbos" and "Narcissistic looney toons"? Hillary's an enabler? Bill settled out-of-court to avoid trial? Multiple women accused him of sexual assaults, and Hillary did what to those women? Bill was impeached for lying about it? I've never heard such outrageous tales...
Doug:
Watch your language, Gilligan. I only said that I never heard of Ms. Broaddrick.
David:
Here's a piece from the liberal NYTimes to inform you of these events:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0
Doug:
That is a reliable newspaper, and liberal the way that truthiness always is. What are we talking about? How is this related?
If you really care about stopping violence, support someone who at least waffles on its use. Killing innocent families and torturing anyone is unacceptable. If you really care about stopping Rape Culture, call it what it is. Don't associate a victim's name (Juanita Broaddrick) to represent it. Leave her out of it. Rape is violence, and is unacceptable. If you care about stopping violence, support Black Lives Matter. If you want to stop violence, make sure that trans- people are protected. We don't need to qualify our condemnation of violence: let's agree to condemn violence directed at anyone.
David:
Ah, so now she's a waffler. Good.
Doug:
Definitely agree that it is better to be hesitant about using violence. I'm glad that you think a waffler on violence is better than someone committed to violence.
David:
I'm just glad you can admit she's a waffler about important issues.
Doug:
I think Trump would win the waffle contest, but do continue.
David:
Maybe we can just skip the rest of the campaign season, and just settle this with a waffle-making contest. Best waffle wins?
But we can certainly agree no one should get raped. (Make sure you tell that to Hillary's husband.)
Doug:
Amen! You might want to mention that to Ivana's ex-husband, regarding The Time Donald Trump's Ex-Wife Accused Him of Brutally Raping Her. Ivana says to her friends: "He raped me." Which is worse: the rapist or the enabler? Which is worse: the future war criminal, or the waffler?
David:
Now you're reporting events that never happened, as Ivana Trump denied she ever said such a thing. But at least you admit she's an enabler.
Doug:
Yes, let's blame Hillary for everything that Bill did. (But she didn't leave him. Trump has been divorced three times. If you paint her as "enabler" then you also have to paint her as "loyal", and a "forgiver".) Ivana did later deny that she said it, but she didn't deny the action. It sounds like rape to me.
David:
She's so loyal she attacked his victims. That seems to be a pattern.
No one should get assaulted for any reason. The Black-Lives-Matter movement has led to more violence in the cities it is operating in. They should be condemned. I agree that we should condemn all violence.
Doug:
Remember, don't blame the victims. Unless you are suggesting that we should condemn Trump supporters.
David:
I'm condemning people who's actions lead to violence, not the victims. So, how about we just allow people to attend rallies for the people they want to support without the threat of being beaten. How about we just allow Presidential candidates to give their speeches without protesters from the other side threatening the listeners. And how about cracking down on the daily black-on-black violence in the President's old neighborhood. If you can join me in all of these sentiments, I think we can make some progress.
Doug:
Oh, yes, I agree that all violence is evil. But one has to admit that the threat that the proposed leader of the free world wanting to track down your family and kill them if you are considered (by him) to be a terrorist is the worst kind of violence. A bit worse than throwing eggs, or even burning a flag.
David:
Then you'll be glad to hear that Donald Trump changed his mind, and now holds the position that his original ideas were wrong. He's declared that torture and killing family members was a bad idea, and he is opposed to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/04/donald-trump-reverses-position-on-torture-and-killing-terrorists-families/?_r=0
Apparently he does have the ability to listen to critics and make the right decisions. That sounds like a good quality for a president to have. Since your major criticism of him in this blog is gone, maybe you'll have to give him another look?
Doug:
You are serious?! You say that "Trump changed his mind" and that means he has "the ability to listen to critics" and therefore deserves "another look"? But when Clinton changes her mind she is a "waffler"? Ok, I now believe that you will just believe whatever you want to believe. There are no principles, only justifications. Do you seriously want people to consider Trump because he says something different? He always says something different, and he has no experience in politics. What kind of criteria does one need in your book to be unqualified?
David:
Apparently you have no taste for sarcasm. Lighten up. I don't really expect you to take a serious look at Trump. He's running as the Republican.
Trump needs to get a lot more serious in what he says, but the people at his rallies should not have to fear for their safety to find out if he can manage that. That's all I'm asking.
Doug:
Oh, this is so dramatic and entertaining! Will Donald say something serious? Will people be able to find out that he said something serious? Will there be violence at his rallies? Will Donald change his mind again? I see why people find him so charming! Not. This is disgusting and a travesty.
David:
But that's what makes our country great, you see. Apparently anyone can become president. Everyone has the right to express whatever ideas they have, and all Americans should have the ability to freely exchange their ideas, and support candidates for political office, without the threat of violent assault. That's neither disgusting, nor a tragedy. That's how free speech works.
Doug:
No, not just anyone should be president! We should elect qualified people to hold office. I really wish that you would be against violence in general, rather than just against violence on Trump supporters.
Not everyone Should be president, but it seems anyone Can be president. Whoever gets the most votes, wins. Unfortunately, we're stuck with the candidates that we have. I'd like to elect someone who Should be president, but that person is never running...
ReplyDelete