Shooting - The Democrats Won

[ozso]

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.

I don't even know what Trump must be repeated is supposed to mean.

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.

You're glossing over the extremely high level of hatred and paranoia that's been exhibited towards Trump.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't even know what Trump must be repeated is supposed to mean.

Dictation function error - must be defeated.

You're glossing over the extremely high level of hatred and paranoia that's been exhibited towards Trump.

Moving the goal posts again. We can talk about this if you want. But it is not relevant to what I am talking about - a very claim you made.

Are you or are you not going to give evidence to support your statement about people who say Trump must be defeated "at all costs" being dishonest if they also say they are happy the attempt on his life failed?

One way for you to succeed would be to show that when people generally use the "at all costs" metaphor, they implicitly include murder as an acceptable option. If that were the case, then, obviously, your claim would be correct. I do not see how you make that case but, please, proceed if you want to try.

 

[ozso]

Dictation function error - must be defeated.

Moving the goal posts again. We can talk about this if you want. But it is not relevant to what I am talking about - a very claim you made.

Are you or are you not going to give evidence to support your statement about people who say Trump must be defeated "at all costs" being dishonest if they also say they are happy the attempt on his life failed?

One way for you to succeed would be to show that when people generally use the "at all costs" metaphor, they implicitly include murder as an acceptable option. If that were the case, then, obviously, your claim would be correct. I do not see how you make that case but, please, proceed if you want to try.

My original statement was:

They go on and on about Trump being the worst person on earth who must be stopped at all costs.

And they've supposedly made up for that by tossing out a few platitudes?

All those posting all over the internet they are sad or angry it wasn't successful are at least being honest.

That's my opinion and I stand by it.

 

[probinson]

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

I'm not sure you understand what the word "anecdotal" means.

This isn't "anecdotal". It's a video of what actually happened when Gass said "Don't miss Trump next time" and the thunderous applause and laughter that followed.

No, there's nothing "anecdotal" about this. It illustrates that there are large groups of people who lament that the shooter missed.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I don't know. What did "the enemy of the people" report?

Is this a reference to the media?

 

[Belk]

Is this a reference to the media?

How did you guess? Was it because one of the candidates literally called the press "the enemy of the people"? I certainly remember that being vociferously defended on this board.

 

[Zaha Torte]

How did you guess? Was it because one of the candidates literally called the press "the enemy of the people"? I certainly remember that being vociferously defended on this board.

I guessed based on the word "report".

Would you point the finger at this candidate - condemning him for his rhetoric about the media - if journalists started getting shot?

There are many people on this board who have defended referring to Trump as Hitler and as a threat to democracy as well.

 

[Belk]

I guessed based on the word "report".

Would you point the finger at this candidate - condemning him for his rhetoric about the media - if journalists started getting shot?

There are many people on this board who have defended referring to Trump as Hitler and as a threat to democracy as well.

Would you condemn him for his rhetoric now? Why is it that people need to be shot first?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Would you condemn him for his rhetoric now? Why is it that people need to be shot first?

I think that is a heck of a thing for you to ask.

Didn't you just justify what the media has been saying about Trump?

 

[childeye 2]

There are many people on this board who have defended referring to Trump as Hitler and as a threat to democracy as well.

The freedom to speak the truth is a fundamental right in this country. I just got finished in another post pointing out the difference between saying Trump IS Hitler, and saying that Trump used the same phraseology as Hitler. It may seem petty to some but it's the difference between articulating what is false and what is true.

Most people know that Trump lied about the election being stolen and that he tried to get Pence to reject the official results. <--- A threat to Democracy.

So, what exactly are you meaning to convey? Do you feel that the Truth about Trump speaking similar to Hitler, and about Trump being a threat to Democracy should be silenced?

 

[Belk]

I think that is a heck of a thing for you to ask.

Didn't you just justify what the media has been saying about Trump?

No, I did not. Are you justifying what Trump said?

 

[Zaha Torte]

No, I did not. Are you justifying what Trump said?

You certainly did with your whataboutism.

I don't know the full context of Trump said - but it is much harder to claim that making general statements about large groups of people are calls for violence.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The freedom to speak the truth is a fundamental right in this country. I just got finished in another post pointing out the difference between saying Trump IS Hitler, and saying that Trump used the same phraseology as Hitler. It may seem petty to some but it's the difference between articulating what is false and what is true.

Most people know that Trump lied about the election being stolen and that he tried to get Pence to reject the official results. <--- A threat to Democracy.

So, what exactly are you meaning to convey? Do you feel that the Truth about Trump speaking similar to Hitler, and about Trump being a threat to Democracy should be silenced?

How did Trump lie about the election? Does the VP have the authority to reject election results?

This idea of "speaking similar to Hitler" is ridiculous on its face and people acting on what they believe to be true and within their authority is not a threat to democracy.

 

[Belk]

You certainly did with your whataboutism.

Yeah , no. Pointing out that both sides engage in heated rhetoric is not defending anything.

I don't know the full context of Trump said - but it is much harder to claim that making general statements about large groups of people are calls for violence.

Here come the excuses. Either it is an issue both sides need to address or it is not.

 

[childeye 2]

How did Trump lie about the election?

He declared definitively that it was stolen from him, and from America, by the radical left and the media, and that he had actually won in a landslide victory.

Here is Steve Bannon declaring that if Trump finds himself losing on election night, he will claim he won anyway.
Bannon audio

Does the VP have the authority to reject election results?

No, he is not authorized to reject the valid electoral votes of the United States.

This idea of "speaking similar to Hitler" is ridiculous on its face

It's just the fact that Trump expressed that migrants were "poisoning the blood" of our country, and that those are words are infamous for being used in racist Nazi propaganda and can even be found in Hitlers' manifesto Mien Kampf. When confronted with this fact, Trump responded by indicating that he had not read Mein Kampf and that he was unaware that he was speaking similar words as Hitler.

and people acting on what they believe to be true and within their authority is not a threat to democracy.

That's not an accurate description of the events. Any reasoning based on a falsehood ends in a contradiction, and it is contradictory to infer that we have elections to elect people to power so that they will have the authority to cheat us out of free and fair elections.

Trump claimed definitively that it was a fraudulent election, even identifying left wing radicals and the media as the culprits, but without any evidence to show how he knows this. When a person claims that they know something is factually true, but in reality, they don't actually know that it is, that's called lying. Slandering others is also lying about others. Devil=accuser/slanderer.

Anyway, we all know that a President who is lying so as to cheat by trying to get his Vice President to reject the results of the people's vote, is a person who is a threat to Democracy since a Democracy depends upon free and fair elections.

So, as per the OP, I'm asking if you feel the above observable truth about Trump should be silenced?

 

[Bobber]

I think that Trump is saying "Fight" while shaking his fist. But whatever he is saying, it's clear that his supporters were moved by such a display of defiance.

You're jumping to a willful extreme here. You're choosing to think "fight" means being illegally or physically aggressive. It can mean simply don't give up the vision we have for this country at all costs. If one says we're fighting for higher wages or we fighting for the right to vote or we're fighting for equality do you take that to mean they've got the physical boxing gloves out? Of course not.

Meanwhile Biden is clearly denouncing any political violence, calling for unity.

Oh I see. So you're taking a position that they're not fighting in a figurative sense to win the election? Oh and by the way....you might like to click on the video below.....Obama said once "Democracy will win IF WE FIGHT FOR IT" Worry not it's in the first minute of the video.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/06/23/exp-obama-amanpour-democracy-intw-062301pseg1-cnni-world.cnn

 

[childeye 2]

childeye 2 said:
I think that Trump is saying "Fight" while shaking his fist. But whatever he is saying, it's clear that his supporters were moved by such a display of defiance.

You're jumping to a willful extreme here. You're choosing to think "fight" means being illegally or physically aggressive.

Please note that my expressed sentiments indicate that it looked to me like he was saying the word fight. I didn't actually know Trump had said that when I wrote it. And if you look carefully, there is no need to guess as to what I was thinking when I wrote the post because I also qualified my thoughts about his demeanor as being "defiance". I don't think that's "jumping to a willful extreme" given the circumstance that he had just been shot at.

However, I will here add that we all know that some people will illegally and physically fight for Trump, just from the sworn testimonies of those who fought at the Capitol on January 6 and who were arrested.

 

[ozso]

I'm not sure you understand what the word "anecdotal" means.

This isn't "anecdotal". It's a video of what actually happened when Gass said "Don't miss Trump next time" and the thunderous applause and laughter that followed.

No, there's nothing "anecdotal" about this. It illustrates that there are large groups of people who lament that the shooter missed.

Folks need to come to terms with the level of sickness involved and get over it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

the US President and Pennsylvania Governor all gave correct responses to the shooting. Next week will be important for the Republicans to respond with equal dignity.

 

[iluvatar5150]

View attachment 351780

What’s a bullet when you’ve already stared down the sun and won?