Trumpisms

[Sparko]

You guys have both short and selective memories. You do realize that, since Trump started his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-LGBTQ campaign rhetoric, we have seen a surge of hate crimes against those very communities.

Maybe. Because the left is offended by everything and everything becomes a "hate crime" - everyone is a victim. That is nothing new with the liberals and identity politics. Sure has nothing to do with Trump. Trump is not anti-immigrant, he is anti-ILLEGAL ALIENS. He is ANTI-TERROISM not anti muslim. and he has shown no anti-LGBTQ that I have seen.

I'm pretty sure "the left" is not doing those. When Obama was elected, there were many occurrences of burning him in effigy. Here's a news report from that period. One of his staff (Kaylon Johnson) was physically attacked for wearing a pro-Obama T-shirt and supporting the "n****r" president. I'm pretty sure they weren't from the left.

Unless, of course, you're going to just disavow all of these as "not us." In which case, I suggest that the left should simply disavow all of the people committing violence in their name as "not us."

May I suggest that we all simply acknowledge that buttheads who do bad things exist across the political spectrum, more so at the far right and left edges. Many of them are capable of doing harm and neither end of the political spectrum is innocent of that behavior.

A few isolated incidents does not compare to the nationwide riots and violence instigated against conservatives and protesting Trump.

[carpedm9587]

Maybe. Because the left is offended by everything and everything becomes a "hate crime" - everyone is a victim. That is nothing new with the liberals and identity politics.

And then you accuse me of handwaving?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/u...-fbi-2017.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ks/1987305002/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/ar...r-13389522.php

I could link more...but somehow I suspect they will all be dismissed, so I'll leave it at those.

Sure has nothing to do with Trump. Trump is not anti-immigrant, he is anti-ILLEGAL ALIENS. He is ANTI-TERROISM not anti muslim. and he has shown no anti-LGBTQ that I have seen.

I'm sure Trump's rhetoric has nothing to do with the surge, Sparko. It's just a coincidence that the surge happened at the same time that Trump was decrying illegal immigrants, slashing legal immigration, putting travel bans in place for predominantly Muslim countries, announcing that he would ban ALL Muslims from entering the country until he could "figure out what's going on," explaining that there were "good people on both sides" of the Charlottesville incident, rejecting trans-persons from the U.S. military, undermining LGBTQ advances on several fronts, and the list goes on and on and on. It just happened to surge for three straight years essentially beginning when Trump began pounding his drum, and getting the endorsement of hate groups around the country. That's all just happenstance.

A few isolated incidents does not compare to the nationwide riots and violence instigated against conservatives and protesting Trump.

Nationwide riots and violence? What on earth are you talking about?

[Sparko]

And then you accuse me of handwaving?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/u...-fbi-2017.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ks/1987305002/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/ar...r-13389522.php

I could link more...but somehow I suspect they will all be dismissed, so I'll leave it at those.

Says they are rising for the third consecutive year. I don't see you blaming Obama here. Just Trump. How is he responsible?

Nationwide riots and violence? What on earth are you talking about?

Charlottesville, Washington, California, other colleges, Dallas, BLM, Antifa. Sounds nationwide to me. Want me to post some pictures for you?

riot 1.jpg

riots 2.jpg

riots 3.jpg

riots 4.jpg

[carpedm9587]

Says they are rising for the third consecutive year. I don't see you blaming Obama here. Just Trump. How is he responsible?

Trump regularly contributes to this atmosphere with his speeches, actions, and choice of words. You and I both know that no one can trace a causal line from "words Trump says in a speech" to "Fred does X." But the fact is these actions are on the rise - and that rise began when Trump began his campaign and began to gain traction with his vitriol and his divisive language. Trump cannot be blamed for "what Fred did," but he is responsible for the tone of leadership he uses - and it has been regularly hateful and divisive.

I have no doubt you disagree.

Charlottesville, Washington, California, other colleges, Dallas, BLM, Antifa. Sounds nationwide to me. Want me to post some pictures for you?

So isolated rioting and violence in individual cities that happen to be scattered in varies locations across the nation. The term "nationwide" has a slightly broader meaning, Sparko, as I'm sure you know. Meanwhile, you are avidly resisting laying at the feet of Republicans or Trump any responsibility for acts of violence committed by those on the right acting violently and rioting.

You are very selective in your accusations. And ANTIFA is a bit of a red herring. While I do not endorse their actions or choices, they are a reactionary group. There would be no ANTIFA if there were no white supremacists and neo-nazis walking the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us" as they carry torches and perform the Nazi salute. BLM is also a reactive organization - and while there are some who have done violence in the name of BLM, it is not what the group stands for. SOrry, Sparko - but there is just no comparison.

[Sparko]

Trump regularly contributes to this atmosphere with his speeches, actions, and choice of words. You and I both know that no one can trace a causal line from "words Trump says in a speech" to "Fred does X." But the fact is these actions are on the rise - and that rise began when Trump began his campaign and began to gain traction with his vitriol and his divisive language. Trump cannot be blamed for "what Fred did," but he is responsible for the tone of leadership he uses - and it has been regularly hateful and divisive.

wow. That is some wild rationalization there buddy. And I suppose you never noticed how divisive Obama was?

So isolated rioting and violence in individual cities that happen to be scattered in varies locations across the nation. The term "nationwide" has a slightly broader meaning, Sparko, as I'm sure you know. Meanwhile, you are avidly resisting laying at the feet of Republicans or Trump any responsibility for acts of violence committed by those on the right acting violently and rioting.

You are very selective in your accusations. And ANTIFA is a bit of a red herring. While I do not endorse their actions or choices, they are a reactionary group. There would be no ANTIFA if there were no white supremacists and neo-nazis walking the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us" as they carry torches and perform the Nazi salute. BLM is also a reactive organization - and while there are some who have done violence in the name of BLM, it is not what the group stands for. SOrry, Sparko - but there is just no comparison.

Isolated? It happened in cities all across the USA, carp. Even here where I live in middle of corn country. I can list dozens of incidents in dozens of cities in dozens of states. The fact is, you are trying very hard to minimize this because it doesn't fit your narrative. None of this mass hysteria was in effect when Obama won. None of it happened when the Democrats took over the House back in November. Yet the day after Trump was elected, you had masses of liberals rioting in the streets of Washington and other cities, acting like the world just ended, burning cars, attacking police, smashing windows, looting. And you are calling it a few "scattered and isolated" incidents.

You are hilarious.

[rogue06]

wow. That is some wild rationalization there buddy. And I suppose you never noticed how divisive Obama was?




Isolated? It happened in cities all across the USA, carp. Even here where I live in middle of corn country. I can list dozens of incidents in dozens of cities in dozens of states. The fact is, you are trying very hard to minimize this because it doesn't fit your narrative. None of this mass hysteria was in effect when Obama won. None of it happened when the Democrats took over the House back in November. Yet the day after Trump was elected, you had masses of liberals rioting in the streets of Washington and other cities, acting like the world just ended, burning cars, attacking police, smashing windows, looting. And you are calling it a few "scattered and isolated" incidents.

You are hilarious.

Facts like that are nothing but right wing memes to carpe and are summarily hand waved off as a result.

[carpedm9587]

wow. That is some wild rationalization there buddy. And I suppose you never noticed how divisive Obama was?

I've listened to the claims. I have no found much about Obama to be divisive, except his desire to toss Fox News out of the press pool (which I thought was a bad call on his part). I do know that his election triggered a rash of divisiveness within the country - hence the burnings in effigy and the physical attacks on people for defending the "n****r president. I never heard him speak against a particular religion. I never heard him speak against a particular race. I never heard him take the sides of, or defend the actions of, any hate-oriented organizations. Generally - I liked Obama. I didn't agree with all of his policies, and he was weaker than I wanted him to be on foreign policy, but I found him to be an upright and conscientious leader and I found him to be a gentleman. I frankly miss him. We went from a good man to the current occupant of the White House. The shift was a significant whiplash.

However, you are welcome to provide some specifics on what Obama did/said that you believe were divisive. I'll take a look.

Isolated? It happened in cities all across the USA, carp. Even here where I live in middle of corn country. I can list dozens of incidents in dozens of cities in dozens of states.

Sorry, Sparko, but there is no "leftist conspiracy" as far as I know to have "nationwide riots and violence." As with the election of Obama, the election of Trump brought extremists out of the closet and they have acted out. Most of the organized/publicized gatherings have been peaceful and respectful. I think you're cherry picking data to meet your perception.

The fact is, you are trying very hard to minimize this because it doesn't fit your narrative. None of this mass hysteria was in effect when Obama won.

You're ignoring history, Sparko. I believe I provided the links.

None of it happened when the Democrats took over the House back in November.

Not sure why you think it would or should?

Yet the day after Trump was elected, you had masses of liberals rioting in the streets of Washington and other cities, acting like the world just ended, burning cars, attacking police, smashing windows, looting. And you are calling it a few "scattered and isolated" incidents.

You had isolated incidents by individual groups. The following weekend you had peaceful demonstrations in cities scattered around the world (notice I didn't say "worldwide") - the woman's march. Since then there have been numerous such peaceful marches. The actions of a comparative few extremists is not the responsibility of "the left" anymore than the actions of the right-wing extremists when Obama was elected was the general responsibility of "the right."

Trump, however, is a different matter. He is fomenting anger and division at an unprecedented level. Note that we have had divisive presidents before - so he is not the most divisive intrinsically (or at least i would have no basis for that claim). But Trump is being divisive in 2017-2021. He has tools at his disposal that no president has ever had or used as he is using them. IMO, he bears significant responsibility for fanning the flames of the political (and other) divisions that exist today. He didn't create the situation - he's just been fanning it to meet his personal desires.

[Sparko]

I've listened to the claims. I have no found much about Obama to be divisive, except his desire to toss Fox News out of the press pool (which I thought was a bad call on his part). I do know that his election triggered a rash of divisiveness within the country - hence the burnings in effigy and the physical attacks on people for defending the "n****r president. I never heard him speak against a particular religion. I never heard him speak against a particular race. I never heard him take the sides of, or defend the actions of, any hate-oriented organizations. Generally - I liked Obama. I didn't agree with all of his policies, and he was weaker than I wanted him to be on foreign policy, but I found him to be an upright and conscientious leader and I found him to be a gentleman. I frankly miss him. We went from a good man to the current occupant of the White House. The shift was a significant whiplash.

You don't remember the whole Treyvon Martin fiasco, with Obama saying he reminded him of a son? And an entire city in an uproar about the incident and the entire country divided over it?

However, you are welcome to provide some specifics on what Obama did/said that you believe were divisive. I'll take a look.

^up there is just one.

Sorry, Sparko, but there is no "leftist conspiracy" as far as I know to have "nationwide riots and violence." As with the election of Obama, the election of Trump brought extremists out of the closet and they have acted out. Most of the organized/publicized gatherings have been peaceful and respectful. I think you're cherry picking data to meet your perception.

Where did I say "conspiracy?" You love to exaggerate things you are arguing against to burn straw don't you?

It was spontaneous. And it is still happening.

You're ignoring history, Sparko. I believe I provided the links.

I am the one ignoring history?

Not sure why you think it would or should?

Well I bet if the Republicans kept both houses or even gained 13 more seats you would have had demonstrations and riots and vote recounts and pundits whining on TV. My point is that when Republicans lose an election we don't go crazy. When democrats lose, they go nuts. Crying, rioting, burning.

[carpedm9587]

You don't remember the whole Treyvon Martin fiasco, with Obama saying he reminded him of a son? And an entire city in an uproar about the incident and the entire country divided over it?

The Treyvon Martin situation was a sad one - and a great example of the position Obama found himself in for pretty much anything that had to do with race. If he spoke, he divided. If he didn't speak, he divided. It wasn't Obama that divided - it was the situation. Nothing he said or didn't say was going to improve things, IMO.

^up there is just one.

Where did I say "conspiracy?"

Fair enough - you didn't say "conspiracy," but your post leaves the impression of some kind of organized, left-driven agenda. Perhaps I am reading into it more than you put there - and if you do not have that view - then I withdraw the observation.

It was spontaneous. And it is still happening.

Yes - by isolated individuals and groups in isolated locations scattered in various cities. And yes, there is a chance (a good one actually), that many of these are Democrats. Of course, they can also be left-leaning independents. But this is pretty much what happened when Obama was elected - I don't see a significant difference in scale or vehemence. What IS different is the organized, peaceful rallies. There have been many of those since Trump was elected. I don't recall that happening when Obama was elected.

I am the one ignoring history?

Well I bet if the Republicans kept both houses or even gained 13 more seats you would have had demonstrations and riots and vote recounts and pundits whining on TV.

Speculation - so I have no response.

My point is that when Republicans lose an election we don't go crazy.

Really? An entire movement called the "T-Party" started when Obama was elected. The right-wing media set off instantly on a campaign against him (which continues to this day). And then there was the violence I already listed. The difference, Sparko, is seen in your next statement:

When democrats lose, they go nuts. Crying, rioting, burning.

See - it's "Democrats go nuts." It's not "Some democrats lose it." It's just "Democrats." But if I say "Republicans lost it - they burned Obama in Effigy and physically attacked his staff and headquarters" I'm accused of being hyperbolic and exaggerating. But there is no exaggeration when you do the same thing?

Sparko - your poisonous view of Democrats has been made evident in many of your posts. You are the one now being hyperbolic. I suspect some part of you knows this - or at least I HOPE some part of you knows this. Otherwise...well...that would make you a lot more partisan than I hope you actually are.

[Sparko]

The Treyvon Martin situation was a sad one - and a great example of the position Obama found himself in for pretty much anything that had to do with race. If he spoke, he divided. If he didn't speak, he divided. It wasn't Obama that divided - it was the situation. Nothing he said or didn't say was going to improve things, IMO.



Fair enough - you didn't say "conspiracy," but your post leaves the impression of some kind of organized, left-driven agenda. Perhaps I am reading into it more than you put there - and if you do not have that view - then I withdraw the observation.



Yes - by isolated individuals and groups in isolated locations scattered in various cities. And yes, there is a chance (a good one actually), that many of these are Democrats. Of course, they can also be left-leaning independents. But this is pretty much what happened when Obama was elected - I don't see a significant difference in scale or vehemence. What IS different is the organized, peaceful rallies. There have been many of those since Trump was elected. I don't recall that happening when Obama was elected.







Speculation - so I have no response.



Really? An entire movement called the "T-Party" started when Obama was elected. The right-wing media set off instantly on a campaign against him (which continues to this day). And then there was the violence I already listed. The difference, Sparko, is seen in your next statement:

The Tea Party, who demonstrated peaceably, and even cleaned up their own trash when they were done. Yep exactly the same as antifa burning cars and beating up people, and liberals chasing conservative speakers off of campuses, and black lives matter shouting to kill police.

See - it's "Democrats go nuts." It's not "Some democrats lose it." It's just "Democrats." But if I say "Republicans lost it - they burned Obama in Effigy and physically attacked his staff and headquarters" I'm accused of being hyperbolic and exaggerating. But there is no exaggeration when you do the same thing?

Sparko - your poisonous view of Democrats has been made evident in many of your posts. You are the one now being hyperbolic. I suspect some part of you knows this - or at least I HOPE some part of you knows this. Otherwise...well...that would make you a lot more partisan than I hope you actually are.

I think rioting in the streets for two years is pretty much the definition of "madness" - and I laugh heartily at your attempts to minimize it as "isolated incidents by isolated individuals"

dims.gif

[carpedm9587]

The Tea Party, who demonstrated peaceably, and even cleaned up their own trash when they were done. Yep exactly the same as antifa burning cars and beating up people,

I did not make that claim - so I'll leave this strawman to you.

and liberals chasing conservative speakers off of campuses,

SOME conservative speakers have been chased off campuses. Generally - the most odious ones. While I don't applaud the choice (and have suggested other approaches I think would be better), I understand it. Unfortunately, many on the right find themselves defending some pretty odious voices...

and black lives matter shouting to kill police.

Again - what a few do in the name of an organization does not mean that is what the organization is about. If that is the case - then Trump is guilty of being a white supremacist because white supremacists endorse him. You and I both know that is not true. I have given you the link to the BLM mission page - I leave it to you to actually read it.

BTW, I used to work with the local BLM chapter. I can tell you they were appalled when someone spoke in their name in that manner. I also know they are a lot of good young people working hard to achieve social justice. I applaud them and support them. In this city, they have forged a pretty good relationship with the local police and state police. As a result, a lot of work has been done to minimize "implicit bias" and we are starting to see reports of a reduction in the "experience of differences" between people of different racial/ethnic make-up when they are stopped by the police. That's how it's supposed to work: dialogue leading to improvement.

I think rioting in the streets for two years is pretty much the definition of "madness" - and I laugh heartily at your attempts to minimize it as "isolated incidents by isolated individuals"

Oh my, Sparko - your hyperbole is matched only by Trump himself. Yes - I've noticed how Democrats have been rioting in the streets for two years now. I'm amazed Trump does not declare martial law and call out the national guard.

I think you're more than a little over-the-top on this one...