Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[SAY HER NAME]

Important people in “the left” do condemn violence when carried out by left-wing perpetrators. As evidenced by Bernie sanders and the American Democratic Party at large condemning the shooter @tehdang used as his example. The democrats did not frame the shooter as a hero or “well but actually” or try and deflect away from it. They said it was unacceptable, and that is their choice of words for any and all such violence.

Important people on the right do not general do such things when it comes to right-wing violence, which we’ve established is statistically far more prevalent, and something that tehdang refuses to acknowledge is a fact and will not attempt to even hazard a guess at why that might be the case.


Perhaps it’s the left wing’s address of and willingness to condemn political violence in general, even if someone who supposedly agrees with them commits it, that has made left-wing people overall far less violent and willing to support or commit violence for political gain than right wing people.

Because I’m not hearing any theories to the contrary to address a verifiable fact.

I think trying to add the extra text already discredits your point.

If the random people on the internet dont matter then why bother mentioning them? The question isnt "Do leftists condemn violence?" the question is "Do you condemn violence and the rhetoric behind it?"

The moment you start adding these disclaimers you are already missing the point.

Like if I asked you: "Do you think Luigi Mangione murdering that healtchare CEO is bad?" And you answered in any other way that isnt simply Yes, then you are providing some justification for it. Whether you intended it or not.

I dont disagree with the point. Conservative leadership is unhinged. I dont remember any of them condemning the attack on Paul Pelosi and they instead used it as a chance to make fun of him for it. And to this day they wont recognize how unhinged that entire episode was.

[Endus]

the question is "Do you condemn violence and the rhetoric behind it?"

And again; if the vast majority of people answer this question honestly, no matter their political affiliations, they will say "no, I do not condemn violence".

Condemning violence wholesale, again, means condemning violence used in defense of one's self or others. It condemns police arresting offenders, and the very concept of the law being enforceable. It condemns any military action no matter how noble the purpose, including condemning the Allies for daring to resist Nazi expansion and terror.

Practically nobody actually condemns violence wholesale like this. We all understand violence is contextually defensible. The context and purpose of that violence is what matters.

No matter how much you try and avoid that question.

[Paranoid Android]

**TRUMP TAX BILL FAILS IN HOUSE PANEL AS GOP SPLITS ON COST**

Honestly incredible, Full govt control and the GOp couldn't even get it out of the budget committee. LMAO folks, this is why the entire media sphere is hyperfixated on Dems In Disarray Biden Old Feckless Dems, James Comey, Taylor SWiftes, it's because *Republicans have complete control and literally can't do anything*. The media hates reporting that, like a child avoiding brusselsprouts on their plate.

Four years ago today, with the *barest of majorities* and 2 intransigent Dems (who would soon after become Independents), Dems managed to pass multiple landmark bills, including a massive climate change bill that even Trump is having trouble stifling.

Trump's big bill advances in rare weekend vote as House conservatives negotiate changes

Naw they fell inline. It was the defecit hawk Republicans who just wanted people to work on Medicaid. In the end they didn't give a bleep about the defecit.

The Republicans criticizing the measure noted that the bill's new spending and the tax cuts are front-loaded in the bill, while the measures to offset the cost are back-loaded. They are looking to speed up the new work requirements that Republicans want to enact for able-bodied participants in Medicaid. Those requirements would not kick in until 2029 under the current bill.

Unlike Democrats; Republicans fall in line and don't shit on their bills to make them worse. I hate Republicans but always give them their Dues in that they fall in line and no matter how bad their policies are, they don't care.

Edit. For cleanup this is out of Committee not up for House vote yet. So slim margin maybe fail in the House? Then Senate could make changes to the bill.

[SAY HER NAME]

Trump's big bill advances in rare weekend vote as House conservatives negotiate changes

Naw they fell inline. It was the defecit hawk Republicans who just wanted people to work on Medicaid. In the end they didn't give a bleep about the defecit.



Unlike Democrats; Republicans fall in line and don't shit on their bills to make them worse. I hate Republicans but always give them their Dues in that they fall in line and no matter how bad their policies are, they don't care.

I didnt read that the new measures wouldnt kick in until 2029. So basically the new term? Dude this is unreal lol

[tehdang]

This sort of view. Like this framework in general. Is the "game" here condemnation of violence by people that share some of your ideology?

Its a weird to view to have. And its a bit pathetic.

I still think your overall point is right in that people in this forum arent capable of condemning violence as is without adding any disclaimers (if not outright excusing it see Endus and Luigi Mangione)

Ok. I took the instance of a terrorist attack on a fertility clinic, and Kaleredar's reflexive "How can we talk about actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence that harms and kills people" as endemic of an issue. Really, Corvus's "Trump's America gets more and more dangerous." is in the same vein. You should really comment on both those posts.

If you can look at a recent terrorist attack and say "Trump's America gets more and more dangerous" or "actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence" without knowing a damn thing about who did it and why, you betray a very perverted worldview on who's responsible and why.

When saying "actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence," without knowing, would the same hold true for left-wing violence? That's an open question. Not whether it would be condemned, as these generally are from both left and right.

[Gestopft]

I still think your overall point is right in that people in this forum arent capable of condemning violence as is without adding any disclaimers (if not outright excusing it see Endus and Luigi Mangione)

You're conflating 'excusing' with 'contextualizing,'

[tehdang]

Trump's big bill advances in rare weekend vote as House conservatives negotiate changes

Naw they fell inline. It was the defecit hawk Republicans who just wanted people to work on Medicaid. In the end they didn't give a bleep about the defecit.

Unlike Democrats; Republicans fall in line and don't shit on their bills to make them worse. I hate Republicans but always give them their Dues in that they fall in line and no matter how bad their policies are, they don't care.

Edit. For cleanup this is out of Committee not up for House vote yet. So slim margin maybe fail in the House? Then Senate could make changes to the bill.

My question is what kind of compromise was reached on the holdouts with SALT cap. Medicaid work requirements and that angle never appeared to be the big holdup.

[Kaleredar]

I think trying to add the extra text already discredits your point.

If the random people on the internet dont matter then why bother mentioning them? The question isnt "Do leftists condemn violence?" the question is "Do you condemn violence and the rhetoric behind it?"

The moment you start adding these disclaimers you are already missing the point.

Like if I asked you: "Do you think Luigi Mangione murdering that healtchare CEO is bad?" And you answered in any other way that isnt simply Yes, then you are providing some justification for it. Whether you intended it or not.

I dont disagree with the point. Conservative leadership is unhinged. I dont remember any of them condemning the attack on Paul Pelosi and they instead used it as a chance to make fun of him for it. And to this day they wont recognize how unhinged that entire episode was.

Random people on the internet are just that: random people on the internet. Not only might they not be voters, they might not be living in the US, period. They could be some 14 year old edgelord living in the UK for all you know. Why on earth would an American voter give a flying fuck what they think?

And regardless of all of that, there’s still far less left-wing aligned political violence than right-wing. This is a fact. And there must be a reason that this is a fact. Now I’m not actually saying it has to be because prominent individuals within the left-wing condemn and redress political violence far more than their right-wing counterparts. It I’m merely posing that as a possible explanation for a fact. But regardless of the reason, a fact it still remains.

But Tehdang isn’t proffering anny explanations for this fact. He isn’t even accepting that as a fact despite decades of research establishing it as a quantifiable and observable trend. He’s just dancing around it.

His whole thing is to pose this as a “both sides” argument. But here’s the thing… even if he were correct about the left-wing not condemning violence (he’s not,) even if he were correct about random people on the internet not condemning left-wing violence (he isn’t,), and even if he were to name entirely equal instances of left wing violence (he hasn’t, quick tip but vandalizing someone’s car isn’t equal to trying to overthrow the government) none of it would change the fact that right-wing political violence is far more prominent and dangerous than left-wing violence.


And if your worry, NED, is about left wing violence not being adequately rebuked then I’d suggest you’ve no real need to worry, as the left-wing political elements of the US writ large widely rebuke political violence no matter its source. Including the healthcare CEO’s murder.

[Mayhem]

Sweet. I know people on the right condemn the violence. I thought you were talking about being forced to "own" the violence, but apparently this has all been a terrible misunderstanding.

I am impressed by your occasional yet convenient lack of understanding English.

[Mekh]

Endus and Luigi Mangione

I'm sorry, did I miss when Luigi Mangione was found guilty?

[gondrin]

I didnt read that the new measures wouldnt kick in until 2029. So basically the new term? Dude this is unreal lol

This is the same nonsense they pulled in 2017 with the first Trump tax cuts. They "conveniently" had the middle class and poor tax cuts expire in 2025 with Trump thinking he would have won a second consecutive term. That way when the tax cuts expired, Trump and the rest of the GOP squad could blame the expiring tax cuts on the Democrats.

This is one of the reasons why they absolutely are panicking about it because if they expire, a lot of people are going to see their tax bill increase by not a small amount. That is on top of all of the removal of deduction that came with 2017 tax cut act.

It is basically to setup the opposing party for failure down the road.

[Huehuecoyotl]

It's a little beside the point if you refuse to acknowledge your own side when it happens.

And in case anyone has missed it, there's tehdang's hypocrisy laid bare. Making it clear that his position is that you can't attack the violence of the other side if you refuse to accept the violence on your own. While attacking the violence of the Left and refusing flat out to denounce the violence of the Right post after post after post.

"Rules for thee" once again.

It's hard work cutting through the mass of meaningless words that they spout to get to the nub of what they're actually trying to say. But every once in a while the truth of things manages to sneak its way through.

[Trifle]

Trump's big bill advances in rare weekend vote as House conservatives negotiate changes

Naw they fell inline. It was the defecit hawk Republicans who just wanted people to work on Medicaid. In the end they didn't give a bleep about the defecit.

The no tax on tips things seems bizarre to me. Why would you want to tax some jobs but not others ?! Time for highly paid doctors and lawyers to all of a sudden get big salary cuts but big "tips" from their employers and/or clients...

[gondrin]

And in case anyone has missed it, there's tehdang's hypocrisy laid bare. Making it clear that his position is that you can't attack the violence of the other side if you refuse to accept the violence on your own. While attacking the violence of the Left and refusing flat out to denounce the violence of the Right post after post after post.

"Rules for thee" once again.

It's hard work cutting through the mass of meaningless words that they spout to get to the nub of what they're actually trying to say. But every once in a while the truth of things manages to sneak its way through.

Funny thing is, one of the examples he used, the guy who firebombed Shapiro's house, was a Trump supporter. The guy tried to convince his family to vote for Trump. In fact, out of all of the examples he used, only 1 was definitively a far-left terrorist. That would have been the guy who shot up the baseball game. The gay guy who attacked the FRC? Outside of supporting gay rights, there is nothing that states he is politically left or right. Just that he didn't like pro-life groups. And the last example he used, the people who attacked cops at Trump rallies, could easily be both conservative and liberal seeing as there are a LOT of conservates that absolutely hate Trump along with hating the police.

[s_bushido]

The no tax on tips things seems bizarre to me. Why would you want to tax some jobs but not others ?! Time for highly paid doctors and lawyers to all of a sudden get big salary cuts but big "tips" from their employers and/or clients...

I haven't looked into it, but probably exactly because it's easier for that sort of abuse. Not to mention employers simply stealing the tips of their employees.

[Pannonian]

I haven't looked into it, but probably exactly because it's easier for that sort of abuse. Not to mention employers simply stealing the tips of their employees.

Or we will get another law by the end of the year reclassifying earnings from the stock exchanges or just company profit as tips...

[Doomcookie]

Sweet. I know people on the right condemn the violence. I thought you were talking about being forced to "own" the violence, but apparently this has all been a terrible misunderstanding.

All the lies and disinformation are just too thick. Fugus, get in here! I heard this is your area of specialization!

Frankly, I was wondering why you backpedaled from "actual manifest [partisan] terroristic violence that harms and kills people" and now you're all "a left-wing figured condemned it, moving on."

It's a little beside the point if you refuse to acknowledge your own side when it happens. There's a giant gap between recognizing when left-wingers do it and talking about the statistics of ideologically or politically motivated violence.

Said it several times:

You can always tell me that my point is correct, if you feel I have demonstrated it.

Can you articulate whatever this is more specifically and better? What is terrible? What is "you guys are doing terrible stuff?" How does it relate to some anti-life anti-religion zealot blowing up a fertility clinic? How does it relate to whether we're allowed to blame political ideology for violence, or under what conditions?

You voted for the guy who pardoned all those violent Nazis.

You don't get to try and lie yourself out of it.

- - - Updated - - -

My advice for anyone that wants to be accused of posting in bad faith is to post exactly what they believe and why.

In this case, what the problem is with the post: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54687002

The point being that the early stages of the story aren't positively "right-wing terroristic violence," but he still said such a thing. And why? See my previous posts, and respond if you wish.

You've correctly identified that I hate the Democrat ideology surrounding violence and terrorism. I hope that it's abandoned in the future. I don't like how people in this forum have failed to see it, but I hope they eventually see the destruction it's caused to both the dialogue and the Democratic permission structure.

The Democrats can start to agree with me more, and operate openly and honestly, and gain some support. Jared Polis occasionally has something good to say. Josh Shapiro too. Fetterman's turning on to be much better than his campaign for Senate would indicate, which is to say that a lot of Democrats hate him now (a flaw in moral compasses, since we're on that subject). Richie Torres also sometimes. Let's see if people whose moral compass doesn't revolve around hating Republicans can say some nice things in return!

Care to explain why you voted for a felon who pardoned all those violent terrorists?

- - - Updated - - -

I've put several users on ignore that do nothing but troll, spread lies, post in bad faith, and personally attack. I do heartily recommend it to people who feel likewise, even if I'm the object. I hope you find some right-of-center people to talk to that you do respect, in order to form a more complete ideology. This forum obviously doesn't have a large or diverse population of them, so you'll likely have to look elsewhere. Anybody I respond to I respect enough to have the conversation, and my posts reflect my true feelings on the subject, as far out of the forum mainstream they may be.

No, you put users on ignore, because you got caught lying, and wanted to pretend otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok. I took the instance of a terrorist attack on a fertility clinic, and Kaleredar's reflexive "How can we talk about actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence that harms and kills people" as endemic of an issue. Really, Corvus's "Trump's America gets more and more dangerous." is in the same vein. You should really comment on both those posts.

If you can look at a recent terrorist attack and say "Trump's America gets more and more dangerous" or "actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence" without knowing a damn thing about who did it and why, you betray a very perverted worldview on who's responsible and why.

When saying "actual manifest right-wing terroristic violence," without knowing, would the same hold true for left-wing violence? That's an open question. Not whether it would be condemned, as these generally are from both left and right.

You literally support violent right-wing terrorists.

Oh, and rapists.

[En Sabah Nur]

So what do republicans think is important to research? Is it gun violence, gang violence, drug abuse? Nope, they want to research Trump Derangement Syndrome......*sigh* yep. Brought to you by my state, Ohio; the south of the north.

Right up there with this one, I guess.



Man gets so butthurt when people say anything that isn't glowing positivity of him lol

[Fugus]

I didnt read that the new measures wouldnt kick in until 2029. So basically the new term? Dude this is unreal lol

Same as Trumps last term. All the tax cuts for the rich were permanent while the stuff for the power was to kick in in 2025 after he left so he could blame his replacement as he screwed his supporters on his way out the door.

[david0925]

Yeah. Based on the comments of one of the Republicans that voted against the budget, they were worried about that bills cost being front loaded. This tells you that they didn't vote no because the bill is going to yet screw over non rich people but rather it would be obvious who is footing the bill.

Once that is fixed and the cost of the bill only becomes apparent when Trump and said politicians are no longer in office, they will fall in line