At one point, is this possible to discuss the POTUS mental age seriously ?

[Spectral]

It's a very easy narrative to believe, when the main communication that comes from the right against everything supported with empirical evidence is: "LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU! FUCK LIBERAL ACADEMICS! LOL"

It is an image the right has helped create.

Also when you go look at the Trump rallies... I'm sorry, but there isn't a single person in there that looks as if they earn more than $50k/year or have a degree in anything. It's usually the typical hillbilly image waving a sign or flag, something something guns and immigrants.

Nobody should be surprised when you take on an anti-science stance (or support politicians that do such) that you're going to attract the image of "dumb fuck" like a magnetic stamp to your forehead.

Yes, I realize that you find it a very easy narrative to believe, but there is little or not difference in science literacy between parties:

[Ghostpanther]

Then you should probably try again and express your opinion more clearly. Use one syllable words if you have to, English isn't everyones native language.

Na. It will be interesting to see if anyone does understand what I meant. I do not think that will happen, considering the level of hatred for Trump here. I could say what it is, but then it would be bushed aside and dismissed as Trump supporting propaganda. I would rather wait and see if anyone does.

[Skulltaker]

I see lots of words, but not a single case in which "use force instead of dialogue" didn't devolve in violence.

Someone is definitely clinging to straws here, but I'm not sure it's me...

You sure are desperate to win your strawman there, aren't you? The 'you are reaching for straws' strategy might work with the weakminded people that you usually surround yourself with so you can win an argument, and I'm sure you'll find a lot of mentally handicapped people in the crowd that follows Trump who'd be impressed by you simply ignoring the facts, but it still holds no merit in an actual discussion.

Force and Violence are not the same, and no matter how much you flail around in your own filth, you'll not be dragging me down to your incredibly low level of argumentation. =) Please keep trying, though, your ineptitude is incredibly entertaining.

- - - Updated - - -

Na. It will be interesting to see if anyone does understand what I meant. I do not think that will happen, considering the level of hatred for Trump here. I could say what it is, but then it would be bushed aside and dismissed as Trump supporting propaganda. I would rather wait and see if anyone does.

There's nothing to understand in your posts, buddy. It's just a lot of hot air and nothing else.

[Malaky]

You sure are desperate to win your strawman there, aren't you? The 'you are reaching for straws' strategy might work with the weakminded people that you usually surround yourself with so you can win an argument, and I'm sure you'll find a lot of mentally handicapped people in the crowd that follows Trump who'd be impressed by you simply ignoring the facts, but it still holds no merit in an actual discussion.

Force and Violence are not the same, and no matter how much you flail around in your own filth, you'll not be dragging me down to your incredibly low level of argumentation. =) Please keep trying, though, your ineptitude is incredibly entertaining.

Lots of flailing, still no example.

You'd think that if what you claim was true you'd have no problem proving me wrong. Yet the flailing continues...

- - - Updated - - -

So, let me see if I got this right:

If a Democrat president were to tell his/her followers "get the Trumpkins out of here, try not to shoot them. If you do, you'll have pardons waiting, don't worry about it"

That's cool in your books? You'd defend it as asking people not to be violent, correct?

No? I'm not insane to think that "hurt" and "shoot" are the same, or that "defense" equals "pardon".

Not sure what you hoped to accomplish by building this strawman of what Trump actually said.

[Grapemask]

No? I'm not insane to think that "hurt" and "shoot" are the same, or that "defense" equals "pardon".

Oh boy. There's a lot to unpack here. None of it actually makes Trump sound any better except in bizarro world.

[Skulltaker]

Lots of flailing, still no example.

You'd think that if what you claim was true you'd have no problem proving me wrong. Yet the flailing continues...

Why don't you prove me wrong? Force and Violence are not the same thing.

But why don't I humour you? Any forceful action in economy is dealt without violence. Take the current 'trade war' inbetween the US and China. Is force used? Yes. Violence? No.

- - - Updated - - -

No? I'm not insane to think that "hurt" and "shoot" are the same, or that "defense" equals "pardon".

And yet you think "Force" and "Violence" are the same. If you can distinguish some completly different terms, but not two others, I'm not so sure you're fit to correctly assess your mental state, buddy.

[Azadina]

No? I'm not insane to think that "hurt" and "shoot" are the same, or that "defense" equals "pardon".

Not sure what you hoped to accomplish by building this strawman of what Trump actually said.

So...you're saying that shooting isn't hurting? What is it exactly then? Also, considering Trumps record of giving pardons to human rights abusers such as Arpaio, I'm not sure why pardons are somehow far fetched idea when talking of legal "defense". Perhaps you can explain why it would be?

[Mythic-RaidLead]

So, let me see if I got this right:

If a Democrat president were to tell his/her followers "get the Trumpkins out of here, try not to shoot them. If you do, you'll have pardons waiting, don't worry about it"

That's cool in your books? You'd defend it as asking people not to be violent, correct?

False equivalence, but do try again. Those SJW protesters were causing trouble in the rally. Don't be surprised if people don't take kindly to that.

[Malaky]

Why don't you prove me wrong? Force and Violence are not the same thing.

But why don't I humour you? Any forceful action in economy is dealt without violence. Take the current 'trade war' inbetween the US and China. Is force used? Yes. Violence? No.

Bbbzzzzzt. Not what I asked.
I asked specifically what Rochana claimed about "substituting dialogue with force".
Which means abandoning dialogue, negotiations, and replace that with force. Souds like a recipe for violence to me, and history proves me right.
If we're talking of the trade war for example they're putting out a contest of force to build up negotiations, dialogue. Not as a substitute for that.

So...you're saying that shooting isn't hurting?

All shooting is hurting, but not all hurting is shooting.
You're making this false equivalence in order to build a strawman of Trump's words, I suggest you try addressing the point honestly instead.

[Skulltaker]

Bbbzzzzzt. Not what I asked.
I asked specifically what Rochana claimed about "substituting dialogue with force".
Which means abandoning dialogue, negotiations, and replace that with force. Souds like a recipe for violence to me, and history proves me right.
If we're talking of the trade war for example they're putting out a contest of force to build up negotiations, dialogue. Not as a substitute for that.

A trade war can also mean the end of the dialogue. Stop moving goalposts to help your helpless cause.

As for substituting dialogue with force: Simply take their platform. That's using force aswell. If you deny them the opportunity to promote and distribute their bullshit, you use Force without violence.

For example, let's say you have your own Forum. And in that forum, you have a toxic poster that promotes radically left ideas. Actual communism. You try to engage him in a dialoge to change his ways, reduce his abusive behaviour, but he doesn't listen. As a consequence, you IP ban him. Simple as that. You just used force to solve a conflict without violence.

The same can be done in 'real life'. If politicians don't want to listen to reason or facts, stop talking to them. Stop hosting them on TV. Don't even engage them in a discussion. Disable their microphone. Ignore them.

Again, you have used force to solve a problem, without anyone getting hurt. And no, this isn't restricting anyones right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech guarantees you not to be prosecuted for what you say. It doesn't guarantee you a spot to say it. If candidates time and time again prove to not be willing to engage in factual discussions, just ignore them. It is that simple. And this is just that. You substitute dialoge (or the attempt at dialogue) with force, with a subject that has shown it is unwilling to engage in actual dialogue. This is why you see the orange retard still harping about Clintons Emails 3 years later, becaue he desperatly tries to deflect from his own shortcomings. Actually HE is substituting dialogue with force, by forcefully distracting from the matter at hand. You want a video example of someone substituting dialoge with force?`Here you go. This person directly refuses to engage in dialoge and forces the person attempting the dialoge away. The interviewed person simply uses force to shut down any dialogue. Is there any violence here? NO.

In the case of Trump, stop inviting him to the candidates' debates. Does he have the constitutional right to be there? Genuinely asking, since I'm not familiar with US law.

[Kaleredar]

Seems pretty hypothetical to me.
A call is a call, it does not involve hypotheticals. Saying "maybe disruptors should be roughed up, or maybe not" is not one.

I don't think this is in good taste, it's actually in bad taste and poorly worded, but to define this as a call for violence seems a stretch to me.

"I don't know if you should punch someone in the face for voicing an opinion or not" is a dogwhistle to do just that.

If it wasn't a dogwhistle, he would have said "don't do it." But he didn't say don't do it, he said "maybe."

That speaks volumes to me.

He specifically says that this is directed at guys throwing punches, which is a physical violent action.
Not what I asked in the post before?

Trump was talking about someone who by the admission of security personnel that removed the protestor had not been throwing punches or acting violent in any way. Did you not read what I posted? Trump made that part up.

To reiterate, because you have a hard time reading: Trump said he wanted to punch a protestor in the face and wished police were more violent with him, despite the fact that the protestor had not been violent.

....okay, do you even know what a call for violence is?
He's specifically saying to try not to hurt him while escorting the protester out, but if the protester struggles and you end up hurting him during the escort you're gonna get his defense.

This is what he's saying here, and to call this a call for violence... huh?

He didn't say "if the protestor struggles." He didn't qualify it at all. You're interjecting "what he meant to say was..."

He said "hey, yeah, totally don't hurt him. But if you do, don't worry."

So why should they be concerned about hurting the protestor, if Trump is telling them not to? He's absolving them of any repurcussion for doing so.

That, compounded with "I don't know, maybe you should hurt him" and "I'd like to punch this protestor in the face" paint a pretty fucking obvious portrait to me.

[Malaky]

"I don't know if you should punch someone in the face for voicing an opinion or not" is a dogwhistle to do just that.
If it wasn't a dogwhistle, he would have said "don't do it." But he didn't say don't do it, he said "maybe."
That speaks volumes to me.

Dogwhistle = "Someone I hate didn't say anything bad but I hate him so much so I'll just assume there's a hidden evil message behind the words and spaces so I can claim it's bad regardless".

Spare me your tricks, I care only for what people actually says, not your "dogwhistles" and "imagined hidden submessages".

To reiterate, because you have a hard time reading: Trump said he wanted to punch a protestor in the face and wished police were more violent with him, despite the fact that the protestor had not been violent.

Guess we're not reading the same text and context then.

He didn't say "if the protestor struggles." He didn't qualify it at all. You're interjecting "what he meant to say was..."

He said "hey, yeah, totally don't hurt him. But if you do, don't worry."

So why should they be concerned about hurting the protestor, if Trump is telling them not to? He's absolving them of any repurcussion for doing so.

He's not absolving them of any repercussions for doing so. Again, defense does not mean absolution. And that "totally" was totally made up by you.

You guys put way too little importance on the actual the meaning of words while being abundantly overly paranoid of stuff nobody said.

[wunksta]

Spare me your tricks, I care only for what people actually says, not your "dogwhistles" and "imagined hidden submessages".

Subtext is a liberal conspiracy.

[Malaky]

Subtext is a liberal conspiracy.

Aaaaaaaaaah

Dude. I know we're close to halloween, but... put a warning or something.

[Kaleredar]

Dogwhistle = "Someone I hate didn't say anything bad but I hate him so much so I'll just assume there's a hidden evil message behind the words and spaces so I can claim it's bad regardless".

Spare me your tricks, I care only for what people actually says, not your "dogwhistles" and "imagined hidden submessages".

It wasn't hidden at all. He did NOT say "don't do it." Why, according to you, is anything but "don't harm others" acceptable?

Guess we're not reading the same text and context then.

So you're saying that the protestor was being violent?

Because that, according to the security personnel who actually removed him, was not the case.

What evidence do you have that they were being violent?

You're correct in what you're reading and the context were off with what happened. But that's not because I misquoted or misrepresented the situation, it's because Donald Trump did.

He's not absolving them of any repercussions for doing so. Again, defense does not mean absolution. And that "totally" was totally made up by you.

"the president will defend you if you are violent." That is what he said.

You guys put way too little importance on the actual the meaning of words while being abundantly overly paranoid of stuff nobody said.

Words have meaning. Words that the president of the US says should have meaning.

You're arguing that they don't, or should not.

[Malaky]

"the president will defend you if you are violent."

Unless you're citing something else he didn't say that. He said he'd defend them if the protestor happened to get hurt.
That doesn't necessarily means intentional violence with the purpose of harming him, which was the point.
Sometimes people get hurt in defense, or through the line of duty.
You're conflating two very different things.

Words have meaning. Words that the president of the US says should have meaning.

And they do, but you're reading them wrongly and worse than what they actually are, probably because of how clouded you are by your hatred for the orange man.

Why, according to you, is anything but "don't harm others" acceptable?

You're arguing that they don't, or should not.

Nah, not my words.

[Kaleredar]

Unless you're citing something else he didn't say that. He said he'd defend them if the protestor happened to get hurt.

Well that's not what he said when he said:

The man that was — I don’t know, you say “roughed up” — he was so obnoxious and so loud, he was screaming — I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday, 10,000 people, and this guy started screaming by himself. And I don’t know, “rough up” — he should have been, maybe he should have been roughed up. Because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.

He said "he should have been roughed up."

That doesn't necessarily means intentional violence with the purpose of harming him, which was the point.
Sometimes people get hurt in defense, or through the line of duty.
You're conflating two very different things.

Trump said:

Yeah get him out, try not to hurt him. If you do I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it.

He mentioned nothing about "if it was unintentional hurting." He said "if you hurt him, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about hurting him."

And they do, but you're reading them wrongly and worse than what they actually are, probably because of how clouded you are by your hatred for the orange man.

My dislike of Trump is extremely well informed.

Nah, not my words.

So then you condemn Trump's remarks?

Remarks like

Oh, I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There's a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we're not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks," Trump said to cheers. "You know, I love our police, and I really respect our police, and they're not getting enough. They're not. Honestly, I hate to see that. Here's a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everything else when we're talking, and he's walking out, and we're not allowed -- you know, the guards are very gentle with him, he's walking out, like, big high fives, smiling, laughing -- I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you.

Like those? Where he lied about a situation and voiced a want to hurt someone because they spoke against him?

[Malaky]

He mentioned nothing about "if it was unintentional hurting." He said "if you hurt him, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about hurting him."

Yeah get him out, try not to hurt him. If you do I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it.

What do you think "try not to" means?
Hint: if something happens even though you weren't trying to do it, that's exactly what unintentional is for.

And he never said "don't worry about hurting him", quit lying.

So then you condemn Trump's remarks?
Remarks like
Like those? Where he lied about a situation and voiced a want to hurt someone because they spoke against him?

I don't know whether the guy was acting violent or not, but the speech you're quoting specifically mentions "throwing punches", which is a violent offence and not peaceful protesting.
As I said twice already I don't approve of responding to violence with violence, but it's certainly more understandable than attacking harmless peaceful protesters.

[Kaleredar]

What do you think "try not to" means?

To claim "credible deniability" if it happens.

Like you seem to be extending to him.

Regardless, any interpretation means that Trump is not concerned with whatever happens to the protestor.

Hint: if something happens even though you weren't trying to do it, that's exactly what unintentional is for.

And he never said "don't worry about hurting him", quit lying.

He said "don't worry."

So why should they worry about hurting them? Trump is in their corner.

I don't know whether the guy was acting violent or not,

He was not, by every account other than Trump's. He was not according to the press at the event. He was not according to the security guards that removed the person.

He was only acting violent in the justification Trump made up for wanting to punch him.

Is this your first instance of encountering Trump lying?

but the speech you're quoting specifically mentions "throwing punches", which is a violent offence and not peaceful protesting.
As I said twice already I don't approve of responding to violence with violence, but it's certainly more understandable than attacking harmless peaceful protesters.

The man Trump was specifically referring to as wanting to punch in the face was a peaceful protestor. He said, and I quote, "I'd like to punch HIM in the face."

Not, "I'd like to punch a hypothetical person." Not "if the situation was different, I would like to have seen him punched."

Trump made up a situation that did not happen, then said that he himself would like to have punched a nonviolent protestor.

[Malaky]

I was about to respond again, but then just stopped when I realized that no matter what Trump says, you'll always sprinkle and reword it and change it and interpret it in whatever nightmarish way you want while sprinkling the result with your own lies and assumptions.

No longer interested, go your own way.
None of those sentences are calls to violence, and if that's the best you got now I know Trump's innocent on that side.