Someone was listening

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Trump has said nothing that would cause a rational person to kill a bunch of people, he has however since he started his 2016 campaign promoted violence (he will pay your legal fees) and empowered the hate filled white supremacy groups to attack those evil invaders.

Fixed it for you. Sure Trump has freedom of speech as we all do, but his words are heard by an entire country and the hate filled speech and the words not spoken matter. In his recent rally a participant yelled out shoot them in response to Trump stating I don’t know how to stop them and in typical Trump fashion he jokes that only in the pan handle can you do that. No condemnation of violence, no insistence chance must be peaceful and thru legislation, just a joke making it clear hey I can’t tell you not to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

latest meme making the rounds on FB ... I said this yesterday

Tumps base still just sees these shooting's the actions of a single person (aka Crazy) no matter the reason

[PaulS]

Violent video games

I wonder if the shooter thought he was helping to stop an "infestation"?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Violent video games

I wonder if the shooter thought he was helping to stop an "infestation"?

Newsweek had an article stating in the past year or so Trump has bought over 2200 facebook ads mentioning an "invasion" and nearly all about immigration.

But...but...but Clinton said deplorable! Give me a break.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Newsweek had an article stating in the past year or so Trump has bought over 2200 facebook ads mentioning an "infestation" and nearly all about immigration.

But...but...but Clinton said deplorable! Give me a break.

Sounds like an attempt to "fix" what Trump said. I have used the word infestation many times. I guess I've been fixed into a racist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Newsweek had an article stating in the past year or so Trump has bought over 2200 facebook ads mentioning an "infestation" and nearly all about immigration.

But...but...but Clinton said deplorable! Give me a break.

she did say deplorable. and is she in the oval
office at the moment?

Spence, why didn’t we see this level of carnage (mass shootings and garden variety gang violence) in the 1950s? Is it because we had better laws back then? Were guns not available back then? Did Eisenhower single
handedly suppress violence? Or is it all Trumps fault?

Or is violence correlated with the breakdown of the nuclear family?

Have fun answering that. You can’t, not in a way that doesn’t take a big dump all over your worldview.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

she did say deplorable. and is she in the oval
office at the moment?

Spence, why didn’t we see this level of carnage (mass shootings and garden variety gang violence) in the 1950s? Is it because we had better laws back then? Were guns not available back then? Did Eisenhower single
handedly suppress violence? Or is it all Trumps fault?

Or is violence correlated with the breakdown of the nuclear family?

Have fun answering that. You can’t, not in a way that doesn’t take a big dump all over your worldview.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Safer for who?

The average black man who feared being killed because he looked at a white woman?

A guy who could be picked up at random from a Georgia street and lynched?

Safer for the black driver looking for a gasoline station willing to sell to him? Or a restaurant? Or if he needed a hospital and the only one who admitted blacks was 100 miles away? 300 miles?

Safer for a union organizer who feared being shot down or clubbed to death by the company’s thugs?

Safer for people with polio?

Safer for car drivers who had no safety belts or airbags?

Safer for all those kids sitting around lead paint and asbestos?

Safer for those guys being conscripted and sent off to the hell that was Korea?

Safer for the homosexual who could be chased down and beaten and the police wouldn’t care?

Safer for the women who needed an abortion but could only seek out “back alley” operations?

Safer for the people who had to deal with the Mafia?

The answer is NO. It wasn’t safer.

Was it better for women who had no outlets for their talents except housework, motherhood, and the companionship they offered their husbands?

We did get some things in the 50s, TV, gas guzzling cars, suburbs, malls, the FBI, partisan politics, the Cold War and the Red Scare, consumerism, disposable appliances, the Pill (debuted in 1960, but “birthed” in the Fifties), Playboy, counter-culture, preemptive wars.

But don't worry Trump is the only one who can save you from something that has been improving since the 80s, just like he's saving you from the economy that has been consistently growing for a decade and he claims that nobody else could.

And remember there's always a tweet for that, if only he thought his tweets applied to him.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

2:01 PM · Nov 8, 2013·Twitter Web Client

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Safer for who?

The average black man who feared being killed because he looked at a white woman?

A guy who could be picked up at random from a Georgia street and lynched?

Safer for the black driver looking for a gasoline station willing to sell to him? Or a restaurant? Or if he needed a hospital and the only one who admitted blacks was 100 miles away? 300 miles?

Safer for a union organizer who feared being shot down or clubbed to death by the company’s thugs?

Safer for people with polio?

Safer for car drivers who had no safety belts or airbags?

Safer for all those kids sitting around lead paint and asbestos?

Safer for those guys being conscripted and sent off to the hell that was Korea?

Safer for the homosexual who could be chased down and beaten and the police wouldn’t care?

Safer for the women who needed an abortion but could only seek out “back alley” operations?

Safer for the people who had to deal with the Mafia?

The answer is NO. It wasn’t safer.

Was it better for women who had no outlets for their talents except housework, motherhood, and the companionship they offered their husbands?

We did get some things in the 50s, TV, gas guzzling cars, suburbs, malls, the FBI, partisan politics, the Cold War and the Red Scare, consumerism, disposable appliances, the Pill (debuted in 1960, but “birthed” in the Fifties), Playboy, counter-culture, preemptive wars.

But don't worry Trump is the only one who can save you from something that has been improving since the 80s, just like he's saving you from the economy that has been consistently growing for a decade and he claims that nobody else could.

And remember there's always a tweet for that, if only he thought his tweets applied to him.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

2:01 PM · Nov 8, 2013·Twitter Web Client

i was talking about gun violence, that was crystal clear. racism was worse then, good to see a kool aid drinker admit that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Newsweek had an article stating in the past year or so Trump has bought over 2200 facebook ads mentioning an "invasion" and nearly all about immigration.

But...but...but Clinton said deplorable! Give me a break.

Cue the straw talk Jeff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

See below for how that article started out. Doesn't sound like Pres. Trump did it willingly. This was after calling Neo Nazi's 'fine people". He had to read from a teleprompter bc if he didn't we all know he would have put his foot into his mouth again.

You might also want to read that other thread I bumped up.

Do you know where old DS has been lately?



President Donald Trump, facing mounting pressure from Republicans and Democrats alike, did what he declined to do over the weekend during an event at the White House on Monday when he directly condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis in a brief statement to reporters

He didn't call NeoNazis fine people, he called people supporting their right for free speech fine people. There were people on BOTH sides, protesting to remove and protesting to keep the statues. Those were the people he called "fine people". Not the Neo Nazis or White Supremacist nor the Antifa protestors (also assholios).

I know you are a smart guy but on this one you are intellectually lazy - not sure though if by design or by default.

So Paul, please set aside a little over 4 minutes, watch the following video, the unedited segment when Trump spoke of both sides. Then still tell me that you honestly believe he was calling the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists "Fine People"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

He didn't call NeoNazis fine people, he called people supporting their right for free speech fine people. There were people on BOTH sides, protesting to remove and protesting to keep the statues. Those were the people he called "fine people". Not the Neo Nazis or White Supremacist nor the Antifa protestors (also assholios).

I know you are a smart guy but on this one you are intellectually lazy - not sure though if by design or by default.

So Paul, please set aside a little over 4 minutes, watch the following video, the unedited segment when Trump spoke of both sides. Then still tell me that you honestly believe he was calling the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists "Fine People"

bingo. it’s a complete media
myth that he was referring to white supremacists as fine people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

He didn't call NeoNazis fine people, he called people supporting their right for free speech fine people. There were people on BOTH sides, protesting to remove and protesting to keep the statues. Those were the people he called "fine people". Not the Neo Nazis or White Supremacist nor the Antifa protestors (also assholios).

I know you are a smart guy but on this one you are intellectually lazy - not sure though if by design or by default.

So Paul, please set aside a little over 4 minutes, watch the following video, the unedited segment when Trump spoke of both sides. Then still tell me that you honestly believe he was calling the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists "Fine People"

Here's another short video that further corroborates yours:

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Fixed it for you. Sure Trump has freedom of speech as we all do, but his words are heard by an entire country and the hate filled speech and the words not spoken matter. In his recent rally a participant yelled out shoot them in response to Trump stating I don’t know how to stop them and in typical Trump fashion he jokes that only in the pan handle can you do that. No condemnation of violence, no insistence chance must be peaceful and thru legislation, just a joke making it clear hey I can’t tell you not to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, you didn't fix it for me, you fixed it for yourself. Which is exactly the trick the left is playing when it "fixes" things Trump says by falsely accusing him of saying something other than what he said--in order to fix it for themselves, to make him the evil that they will "fix."

I have actually watched some of his rallies, and, no, his campaign does not "promote" violence. I saw the context of what was said that you object to. The intent and motivation were not what you claim. What you've been fed is a pattern of "fixing."

But his campaign does promote a lot of other things that are good and necessary. And he appears to be one who actually tries to fulfill his promises, unlike the typical pols that preceded him.