Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you were not so blinded by hate, I think you would see Trump as a forthright, results-oriented, and transparent President.

Are we still talking about the psychedelic drugs?

Originally Posted by Ohio

As it is, you have lived off a media diet of biased fake news for years. Try to rationally analyze the accusations against Trump.

Vulgar. Rude. Incendiary.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Think about the Russian collusion charges which you bought into. After two years, they have nothing on Trump, so what do you think about all those who were so sure about him?

Many, many indictments and guilty pleas. So far I am happy with how taxpayer money is spent and no doubt the investigation is not over, simply keeping quiet during the election.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Next think about the charges of white supremecy / anti semitism / fascism. No facts, but who cares?

Perhaps, but it is undeniable that those of that persuasion are overwhelmingly pro Trump.

Originally Posted by Ohio

His daughter is Jewish. His support for Israel is second to none. But everyone seems to hate the guy so all mud-slinging is applauded. And celebrated in the media.

I don't consider him to be anti Jewish, rather I consider him to be a nationalist, and of course he is white, and he is strongly anti immigration, protectionist, even perhaps xenophobic. I also consider his conversation to be frank, transparent, incendiary, and undignified.

[zeek]

How much responsibility does President Trump have for inciting the recent acts of political violence? Here's an opinion: "The president and his supporters insisted that several thousand Honduran migrants were a looming menace—and the Pittsburgh gunman took that seriously."

Before committing the Tree of Life massacre, the shooter, who blamed Jews for the caravan of “invaders” and who raged about it on social media, made it clear that he was furious at HIAS, founded as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that helps resettle refugees in the United States. He shared posts on Gab, a social-media site popular with the alt-right, expressing alarm at the sight of “massive human caravans of young men from Honduras and El Salvador invading America thru our unsecured southern border.” And then he wrote, HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...n-jews/574213/

So, I repeat the question: How much responsibility does President Trump have for inciting the recent acts of political violence?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

How much responsibility does President Trump have for inciting the recent acts of political violence? Here's an opinion: "The president and his supporters insisted that several thousand Honduran migrants were a looming menace—and the Pittsburgh gunman took that seriously."

Before committing the Tree of Life massacre, the shooter, who blamed Jews for the caravan of “invaders” and who raged about it on social media, made it clear that he was furious at HIAS, founded as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that helps resettle refugees in the United States. He shared posts on Gab, a social-media site popular with the alt-right, expressing alarm at the sight of “massive human caravans of young men from Honduras and El Salvador invading America thru our unsecured southern border.” And then he wrote, HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...n-jews/574213/

So, I repeat the question: How much responsibility does President Trump have for inciting the recent acts of political violence?

It's like Domino's. You can't blame the first one for knocking down the last one.

Trump blames the media. The violence is their fault, for reporting and recording his inflammatory rhetoric.

[zeek]

Not only does Trump stoke violence with his divisive, xenophobic rhetoric, but he shut down programs to counter violent extremism. His "administration has hobbled the infrastructure designed to prevent atrocities like Pittsburgh."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...hbD-FB8asQzMiI

[awareness]

These American Muslim's are acting so Christian. They're not inciting violence. They're showing love :

'We wish to respond to evil with good': Muslim Americans raise more than $150,000 for Pittsburgh synagogue shooting victims and their families

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-victims.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, I repeat the question: How much responsibility does President Trump have for inciting the recent acts of political violence?

This guy in Pittsburgh despised Jews and hated Trump for siding with them. Sounds like a good reason to gather all his guns and go kill random, innocent Jews in a Synagogue? Yup, it's all Trump's fault. Then announce it on TV, and all the idiots in the world will believe it.

Your fellow Floridian Cesar Sayoc apparently liked Trump. Thus Trump has the exact same level of responsibility for those mail bombs as Bernie Sanders does for the actions of James T. Hodgkinson shooting up the Republican baseball team and almost killing Steve Scalise.

That would be ZERO.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't consider him to be anti Jewish, rather I consider him to be a nationalist, and of course he is white, and he is strongly anti immigration, protectionist, even perhaps xenophobic. I also consider his conversation to be frank, transparent, incendiary, and undignified.

What's wrong with NATIONALISM? It's the same as patriotism.

I strongly protest the accusations of "strongly anti immigration, even perhaps xenophobic." In this regard Trump only reverberates the desires of Americans. I do think "protectionist" is a great thing, however. Except for Obama, show me one President in history who was not PROTECTIONIST? Xenophobism is a false accusation. Trump only demands immigration that is legal and does not threaten American citizens. Sounds to me like "Law and Order."

Why is it that every politician, including Obama, Clintons', Schumer, etc. is on record supporting a southern wall and limits to immigration? Ten years ago even the Left would have been appalled at the thought of "Sanctuary" cities. My, how has America changed.

And how have you changed? Just because conservatives have resisted the daily onslaught of progressive ideology, gone crazy during the Obama era, does not mean we are guilty of any of the "-ISTS" and "-OBES" that we are accused of. It seems to me that you hate Trump because he fights back, as if being "presidential" means to be wimpy, and taken advantage of by the rest of the world, including the UN.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What's wrong with NATIONALISM? It's the same as patriotism.

My accusations were rude, vulgar and incendiary. Those points you can assume are things that are "wrong". I didn't say his nationalism was wrong. But in the extreme it is wrong. Again, nothing wrong with protecting the borders, but xenophobia in the extreme is bad.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I strongly protest the accusations of "strongly anti immigration, even perhaps xenophobic." In this regard Trump only reverberates the desires of Americans. I do think "protectionist" is a great thing, however. Except for Obama, show me one President in history who was not PROTECTIONIST? Xenophobism is a false accusation. Trump only demands immigration that is legal and does not threaten American citizens. Sounds to me like "Law and Order."

I did not accuse him of xenophobia, I said merely that it is a possibility given his attitude towards trade, borders, and our treaties.

Protectionism -- can be a very good strategy to get a better trade deal, if that is how he ultimately uses it then I applaud him. On the other hand protectionism as a policy is foolish, it shrinks the overall size of the pie, it hurts many economies including ours which leads to destabilization of regimes, wars, civil wars, revolutions, and all kinds of expenses that will dwarf the effects of a bad trade deal.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it that every politician, including Obama, Clintons', Schumer, etc. is on record supporting a southern wall and limits to immigration? Ten years ago even the Left would have been appalled at the thought of "Sanctuary" cities. My, how has America changed.

And how have you changed? Just because conservatives have resisted the daily onslaught of progressive ideology, gone crazy during the Obama era, does not mean we are guilty of any of the "-ISTS" and "-OBES" that we are accused of. It seems to me that you hate Trump because he fights back, as if being "presidential" means to be wimpy, and taken advantage of by the rest of the world, including the UN.

Once again the only "accusations" I made were vulgar, rude and incendiary. Those are three things that I dislike and which have not changed.

I am ambivalent towards his "wall". I have no issue with the President taking seriously his obligation to protect our borders. I am also simply a passenger watching as he renegotiates our treaties. If he does a better job I will give him credit, and I have no intention of being a backseat driver while he does that. If he wants to give the impression of being xenophobic to get a better deal, so be it. But there is a cost for the president to have the appearance of evil.

I don't think he is anti semitic. I am uncomfortable with his praise of dictators. But, I also agree that the media is making things much worse, and some of them are incredibly biased. Especially the comedians. The commentary has become very ugly. I don't agree with blaming Trump for that. You can't bloviate on the TV about how "unpresidential" he is if you are doing the same thing, even worse.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My accusations were rude, vulgar and incendiary. Those points you can assume are things that are "wrong". I didn't say his nationalism was wrong. But in the extreme it is wrong. Again, nothing wrong with protecting the borders, but xenophobia in the extreme is bad.



I did not accuse him of xenophobia, I said merely that it is a possibility given his attitude towards trade, borders, and our treaties.

Protectionism -- can be a very good strategy to get a better trade deal, if that is how he ultimately uses it then I applaud him. On the other hand protectionism as a policy is foolish, it shrinks the overall size of the pie, it hurts many economies including ours which leads to destabilization of regimes, wars, civil wars, revolutions, and all kinds of expenses that will dwarf the effects of a bad trade deal.



Once again the only "accusations" I made were vulgar, rude and incendiary. Those are three things that I dislike and which have not changed.

I am ambivalent towards his "wall". I have no issue with the President taking seriously his obligation to protect our borders. I am also simply a passenger watching as he renegotiates our treaties. If he does a better job I will give him credit, and I have no intention of being a backseat driver while he does that. If he wants to give the impression of being xenophobic to get a better deal, so be it. But there is a cost for the president to have the appearance of evil.

I don't think he is anti semitic. I am uncomfortable with his praise of dictators. But, I also agree that the media is making things much worse, and some of them are incredibly biased. Especially the comedians. The commentary has become very ugly. I don't agree with blaming Trump for that. You can't bloviate on the TV about how "unpresidential" he is if you are doing the same thing, even worse.

Yes by all means stop the comedians!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My accusations were rude, vulgar and incendiary. Those points you can assume are things that are "wrong". I didn't say his nationalism was wrong. But in the extreme it is wrong. Again, nothing wrong with protecting the borders, but xenophobia in the extreme is bad.

I agree with you that the media has been nothing but "rude, vulgar and incendiary" towards President Trump and his family.

Would you like a list of examples? I'll start with calling Ivanka a "feckless c**t, threatening to sodomize Baron, and sending white powder to Don Jr. hospitalizing his wife for 2 weeks. Vanessa was so traumatized she left the marriage and all public life.

Perhaps you don't think these are "rude, vulgar and incendiary?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree with you that the media has been nothing but "rude, vulgar and incendiary" towards President Trump and his family.

But Trump isn't identifying just who among the fake news is the enemy of the people. If it's true, and Trump doesn't tell us just who our enemy is, isn't he then complicit with the enemy of the people?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Trump isn't identifying just who among the fake news is the enemy of the people. If it's true, and Trump doesn't tell us just who our enemy is, isn't he then complicit with the enemy of the people?

So let me understand this. If Trump does not spell them out by name, as if we actually need that, then he is still guilty.

Yup, makes a lot of sense.

You have just given us a new standard for guilt.

[Ohio]

Here's the nuts and bolts about this crooked extremist Gillum:

Florida gubernatorial candidate and Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum served as the director of a radical youth training organization whose mission was to challenge U.S. “predatory capitalism,” abolish the prison system, fight a “spiritual resistance” battle against “Christian hegemony,” redefine the meaning of “borders” while aiding “undocumented” aliens, and enact the “collective liberation” of “communities of color” amid what it described as the scourge of “white supremacy.”

Gillum’s group accused the U.S. of being a “colonialist” power perpetrating “structural violence” and “continued genocide.” It claimed conservatives in the U.S. judicial system were “justifying white supremacist policing practices.” All of that extremist rhetoric and more was posted on the official “issues” sections of the organization’s website while Gillum not only served as its active director, but while his picture, position and bio were brandished on the same site on the “staff” page.

Gillum, Lettman-Hicks and Dream Defenders’ Agnew each are graduates of an Oakland, California-based training school for progressive revolutionaries that has spawned a list of activists who have gone on to become the who’s who of the far-left leadership world, with many taking senior positions at organizations financed by Soros.

In scores of cases, graduates of the Rockwood Leadership Institute founded or directed notorious Soros-financed activist groups, such as Black Lives Matter, Media Matters for America, MoveOn.org and the Tides Foundation, one of the nation’s largest funders of progressive groups. Soros’s own Open Society Foundations sent top staff to Rockwood for training. Notorious radicals Van Jones and Linda Sarsour are among the many famous names listed as alums.

Hey zeek, does he sound good for America? Sounds like the makings for Hitler's National Socialist Workers Party.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree with you that the media has been nothing but "rude, vulgar and incendiary" towards President Trump and his family.

Would you like a list of examples? I'll start with calling Ivanka a "feckless c**t, threatening to sodomize Baron, and sending white powder to Don Jr. hospitalizing his wife for 2 weeks. Vanessa was so traumatized she left the marriage and all public life.

Perhaps you don't think these are "rude, vulgar and incendiary?"

The person who said that would be characterized as a comedian. Like I said they have expressed the worst bias.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The person who said that would be characterized as a comedian. Like I said they have expressed the worst bias.

How can you justify spewing hate and vitriol in the name of comedy?

America is a country addicted to its laughter by so-called comedians. It used to be that late night ones like Leno, Letterman, Carson, Rivers, etc. were basically neutral. Today you would be hard pressed to find anything but hard left, obnoxious, R-rated, Trump hating comedians. Someone conservative like Tim Allen is hard pressed just to stay on TV.

When I refer to the "mainstream media," comedy is also included, and is regrettably a huge part of our culture.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How can you justify spewing hate and vitriol in the name of comedy?

America is a country addicted to its laughter by so-called comedians. It used to be that late night ones like Leno, Letterman, Carson, Rivers, etc. were basically neutral. Today you would be hard pressed to find anything but hard left, obnoxious, R-rated, Trump hating comedians. Someone conservative like Tim Allen is hard pressed just to stay on TV.

When I refer to the "mainstream media," comedy is also included, and is regrettably a huge part of our culture.

Where did I justify it?

Do you read what I say? You "strongly protest" the accusation of strongly anti immigration. Is that for real, how could anyone disagree that Trump is strongly anti immigration, his platform is the wall, shutting down the border, and numerous other comments that indicate a change in policy towards reducing and controlling immigration.

You say that xenophobic is a false accusation. I never accused Trump of this, only said it was a possibility.

You accuse me of hating Trump when there is nothing that I have said in over two years that could be used to support that.

And now in this post you accuse me of justifying these comedians. I haven't justified them, I have pointed out that their accusations of Trump being to blame for the ugly discourse is hypocritical and their own bias disqualifies anything they say to this end. I have said that their bias is demonstrated in the extreme. How is my saying they have exhibited the worst bias seen by you as justifying them?

I agree that it is getting very difficult to listen to anything these comedians do or say. I think it is because their audience is the young 20 something crowd. I used to like Jonathan Stewart, I thought he gave an insightful perspective on the news and loved his ability to pull up old footage and tapes exhibiting the hypocrisy of various leaders. His replacement, on the other hand, is terrible.