Shooting - The Democrats Won

[Laodicean60]

Tough guy projecting. Nothing wrong with that tho. Its part of his image and he should definitely run with it.

Thank You, I've been listening to different news and some are subtle painting it as violent I've always thought of it as solidarity but I guess you can interpret it both ways depending on your biases.

I don't like his tough guy projecting because that is not going to heal the country. I liked it in 2016 but I've grown up since then. I know he doesn't act a fool when it comes to his business deals.

 

[Belk]

So they should keep making over exaggerated claims about Trump being the biggest threat to humanity on earth. Got it.

I see no reason for them to stop. Certainly no one held Republicans accountable for any of their overheated rhetoric.

 

[expos4ever]

I certainly hope so. The majority of the liberals I personally know (and yes, I know a good handful) have been posting that the whole thing is a hoax or a set-up to give Trump sympathy. I've even seen those overtones in here. I'm certain there are a few good people on the left who are glad the attempt failed. That's just not the overwhelming response I've seen so far. It's been few and far between.

Obviously I am not going to dispute your personal experience.

... and now that it has led to actual violence the overwhelming reaction from the left isn't to tone it down.

Where is your evidence that the overwhelming reaction from the left isn't to tone it down? All we can conclude from what you have posted above is that some on the left don't want to tone it down.

The Democrats need to own this, but they refuse.

Unless you can make an actual credible argument that any reasonable fraction Democrats are in favor of rhetoric that promotes violence, you have no case.

 

[Servus]

You are trying to edit your post after the fact - you never referred to "the radical left". You refer to those who think Trump needs to be defeated at all costs.

You have taken the concept of "at all costs" and mangled it to include assassination. Just how absurd this is can be easily appreciated through the following scenario. Imagine that the Chairman of Coca Cola tells his senior executives that "we must win our battle with Pepsi at all costs". Is he suggesting we should kill employees of Coca Cola?

Of course not

You are engaging in precisely the kind of inflammatory rhetoric we do not need at this delicate time.

"we must win our battle with Pepsi at all costs" is your comparison to the over the top psycho rhetoric about Trump being the world's greatest threat to humanity? Seriously? There's no justifying such insanity, or legitimacy in trying to project it on me or elsewhere, or sweeping it under the rug by saying it's too inflammatory to denounce all the over exaggerated poisonous rhetoric against Trump over the last 8 years.

 

[Saucy]

Obviously I am not going to dispute your personal experience.

Where is your evidence that the overwhelming reaction from the left isn't to tone it down? All we can conclude from what you have posted above is that some on the left don't want to tone it down.

Unless you can make an actual credible argument that any reasonable fraction Democrats are in favor of rhetoric that promotes violence, you have no case.

I will retract my statement then and say that time will tell if the Democrats will cool the rhetoric. Is that fair? I just haven't seen it other than Biden's statement.

But let's be honest...if Trump said, "We need to put Biden in the crosshairs" and someone shot at him, there would be intense anger from the left about deranged Trump supporters and how Trump is inspiring violence. I mean, he said to "protest peacefully" and the left thinks he inspired January 6th. I'm just not seeing anyone accusing Biden's rhetoric as being reckless, and dangerous, and inspiring violence when it is.

 

[Servus]

I see no reason for them to stop. Certainly no one held Republicans accountable for any of their overheated rhetoric.

Whatever you think is best.

 

[Belk]

I will retract my statement then and say that time will tell if the Democrats will cool the rhetoric. Is that fair? I just haven't seen it other than Biden's statement.

But let's be honest...if Trump said, "We need to put Biden in the crosshairs" and someone shot at him, there would be intense anger from the left about deranged Trump supporters and how Trump is inspiring violence. I mean, he said to "protest peacefully" and the left thinks he inspired January 6th. I'm just not seeing anyone accusing Biden's rhetoric as being reckless, and dangerous, and inspiring violence when it is.

Was the one "Protest peacefully" enough to overcome all his other rhetoric? If so then it seems Biden did more then enough with condemning the violence.

 

[childeye 2]

Biden is the peacemaker here? LOL he's the instigator! So are all the other Democrats. Didn't Biden say just before the shooting that we need to put Trump in the "bullseye"?

I believe Biden is a sincere peacemaker. As I recall, Biden also agreed that he was wrong to use the term bullseye.

Isn't it all the Democrats who say Trump is an existential threat to Democracy and he's literally Hitler and will become a dictator, etc, etc, etc?

First off, it's inaccurate to say Trump is literally Hitler, since Hitler is literally dead. Secondly, saying Trump is an existential threat to democracy and saying he is like Hitler are in some ways two different things. The similarities of note are that both Hitler and Trump have shown to be powermongers who both use fear and negative prejudice to appeal to their cause.

The claim that Trump is an existential threat to democracy actually has a completely valid point of reference because, as a sitting President, Trump tried to get Pence, his Vice President, to reject the valid votes of the people and overturn a fair election so that Trump could stay in power. We shouldn't blame Democrats just because they can clearly see that Trump was willfully trying to get others to undermine the ethical procedures under the laws of our Democratic Republic so as to hold on to power. Remember that the definition of a powermonger is a person who wields power in a tyrannical or irresponsible fashion.

And it's not just Democrats. Mein Kampf is a well-known manifesto which I have read. I know other people who have also read it, and we all were remarking that Trump sounded like Hitler because Trump was expressing similar sentiments of negative prejudice about migrants, using the same phrases that Hitler used about Jews. I think J.D. Vance even mentioned that Trump was like Hitler.

Do you really think they will stop using that kind of language? No, they won't. They will keep fearmongering to the left and the left will buy into it because that's what they do. All of this will be forgotten in a week and the vitriol will ramp back up.

"Fearmongering" and "to the left" are mischaracterizations. I am compelled to say that we need to sincerely try and not promote nor entertain slander. It's wickedness to even want to believe bad about others.

Having said that, it's not wrong to speak the truth based on observable facts. In reality, Trump actually did use his position as President to try and overturn the election based on the deliberate lie that it was stolen from him. He even tried to get the justice department without any evidence to imply that there were indications that the election results were questionable. It is also true that Trump did use Hitler type of remarks to express similar sentiments of negative prejudice, and it's also notable that prominent Neo nazi leaders have expressed support for Trump.

 

[Servus]

I believe Biden is a sincere peacemaker. As I recall, Biden also agreed that he was wrong to use the term bullseye.

First off, it's inaccurate to say Trump is literally Hitler, since Hitler is literally dead. Secondly, saying Trump is an existential threat to democracy and saying he is like Hitler are in some ways two different things. The similarities of note are that both Hitler and Trump have shown to be powermongers who both use fear and negative prejudice to appeal to their cause.

The claim that Trump is an existential threat to democracy actually has a completely valid point of reference because, as a sitting President, Trump tried to get Pence, his Vice President, to reject the valid votes of the people and overturn a fair election so that Trump could stay in power. We shouldn't blame Democrats just because they can clearly see that Trump was willfully trying to get others to undermine the ethical procedures under the laws of our Democratic Republic so as to hold on to power. Remember that the definition of a powermonger is a person who wields power in a tyrannical or irresponsible fashion.

And it's not just Democrats. Mein Kampf is a well-known manifesto which I have read. I know other people who have also read it, and we all were remarking that Trump sounded like Hitler because Trump was expressing similar sentiments of negative prejudice about migrants, using the same phrases that Hitler used about Jews. I think J.D. Vance even mentioned that Trump was like Hitler.

"Fearmongering" and "to the left" are mischaracterizations. I am compelled to say that we need to sincerely try and not promote nor entertain slander. It's wickedness to even want to believe bad about others.

Having said that, it's not wrong to speak the truth based on observable facts. In reality, Trump actually did use his position as President to try and overturn the election based on the deliberate lie that it was stolen from him. He even tried to get the justice department without any evidence to imply that there were indications that the election results were questionable. It is also true that Trump did use Hitler type of remarks to express similar sentiments of negative prejudice, and it's also notable that prominent Neo nazi leaders have expressed support for Trump.

Good example of what Saucy and I are talking about.

 

[expos4ever]

I will retract my statement then and say that time will tell if the Democrats will cool the rhetoric. Is that fair? I just haven't seen it other than Biden's statement.

Fair enough, clarification appreciated.

But let's be honest...if Trump said, "We need to put Biden in the crosshairs" and someone shot at him, there would be intense anger from the left about deranged Trump supporters and how Trump is inspiring violence.

I agree. However, and I suspect you won't agree, I suggest that Mr. Trump has used more rhetoric supporting violence than Mr. Biden. Do you dispute this? Do you want proof?

I mean, he said to "protest peacefully" and the left thinks he inspired January 6th. I'm just not seeing anyone accusing Biden's rhetoric as being reckless, and dangerous, and inspiring violence when it is.

I think the "cross-hairs" reference was unwise. But surely you will have to agree that people often use the "cross-hairs" image without intending to promote violence. But in your gun-obsessed country, it was not a smart thing to say. But it is hard to believe that he was actually intending to encourage someone to try to kill Mr. Trump.

 

[childeye 2]

Good example of what Saucy and I are talking about.

I'm not for slander. The devil= accuser/slanderer. However, I don't believe factual truth should ever be silenced, nor confused with rhetoric.

 

[expos4ever]

Good example of what Saucy and I are talking about.

Let's talk about the specific matter of the claim that Mr Trump is a threat to democracy. I submit that no reasonable person would deny that Mr Trump made many efforts to overturn the results of a democratic election.

This, I suggest, is in any reasonable sense an established fact that puts you guys in a very difficult position.

For those of us who recognize what should be undeniable, that is that Mr Trump is a threat to democracy, we have every right, and every responsibility, to make that assertion.

The fact that some nut bar somewhere might be prompted to take a shot at Mr Trump on the basis of such an assertion is very very unfortunate. But clearly we cannot allow that possibility to muzzle statements of plain fact that are relevant to the future of the country. Suppose Mr Biden were to be proven to be a child molester - would that mean it would be inappropriate for those on the right to declare this publicly just because of the possibility that someone might then try to commit an act of violence against Mr Biden? Of course not.

Mr Trump tried to overturn the results of a democratic election. This is a fact. How can any reasonable person suggest that this does not put him in the category of being a threat to democracy?

 

[Servus]

I'm not for slander. The devil= accuser/slanderer. However, I don't believe factual truth should ever be silenced, nor confused with rhetoric.

Uh huh.

 

[Servus]

Let's talk about the specific matter of the claim that Mr Trump is a threat to democracy. I submit that no reasonable person would deny that Mr Trump made many efforts to overturn the results of a democratic election.

This, I suggest, is in any reasonable sense an established fact that puts you guys in a very difficult position.

For those of us who recognize what should be undeniable, that is that Mr Trump is a threat to democracy, we have every right, and every responsibility, to make that assertion.

The fact that some nut bar somewhere might be prompted to take a shot at Mr Trump on the basis of such an assertion is very very unfortunate. But clearly we cannot allow that possibility to muzzle statements of plain fact that are relevant to the future of the country. Suppose Mr Biden were to be proven to be a child molester - would that mean it would be inappropriate for those on the right to declare this publicly just because of the possibility that someone might then try to commit an act of violence against Mr Biden? Of course not.

Mr Trump tried to overturn the results of a democratic election. This is a fact. How can any reasonable person suggest that this does not put him in the category of being a threat to democracy?

Some folks could take a cue from JD Vance.

 

[rjs330]

Who on this site has blamed Trump for the assassination attempt? I am not saying that no one has done this, but I would be surprised if anyone here has, let alone "quite a few".

I read it myself in two threads which have been removed. I noticed you didn't condemn it either.

 

[probinson]

Of course there are scores of "liberals" who are deranged and wish the attempt had succeeded!

A "score" is 20. Are there, say, 50 times 20 people who wished the assassination attempt at succeeded? No doubt there are. But no doubt the overwhelming majority of those who oppose the election of Mr Trump are happy the attempt failed

Here is a video clip from a Tenacious D concert in Australia.

Let me set the scene for you.

It's Kyle Gass' birthday. A weird looking robot thing delivers him a cake with candles to blow out. Jack Black asks him to make a wish. Kyle Gass says, "Don't miss Trump next time". The audience erupts with applause and laughter.

Since then, Tenacious D has suspended their world tour and all creative efforts due to the fallout. But make no mistake, even though Kyle Gass was forced to issue an apology for that remark, in that moment, he, and everyone who applauded his comment, showed us who they were.

 

[expos4ever]

"we must win our battle with Pepsi at all costs" is your comparison to the over the top psycho rhetoric about Trump being the world's greatest threat to humanity? Seriously?

You are moving the goal posts.

Let's recap: you strongly implied that anyone who believes that Trump must be repeated "at all costs" was being dishonest if they also claimed to be glad the attempt on his life failed.

That is a claim you need to defend with actual evidence.

Furthermore, your argument rests on the highly implausible assertion that when someone says Trump must be defeated "at all costs", they are implicitly including assassination as an option. That is an implausible stretch.

 

[expos4ever]

Here is a video clip from a Tenacious D concert in Australia....

Anecdotal, and therefore of no value determining the impact of rhetoric.

People on both sides of this discussion need to understand you cannot make a case based on one or a handful of anecdotal events.

 

[expos4ever]

I read it myself in two threads which have been removed. I noticed you didn't condemn it either.

To be fair, you're asking me to take your word for it that these threads involved people saying that Trump was responsible for the shooting. I never saw that thread.

And what is it you are saying I did not condemn? Statements in threads I never read? Or the Trump shooting? If the former, obviously I can't condemn something I never even saw. If the latter, of course I condemn the shooting.

 

[expos4ever]

Some folks could take a cue from JD Vance.

Evasive, you entirely ignore the content of my argument.