Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Which candidate will be held accountable by the media?
I think they're waiting to see how the Democrat convention shakes out. If Hillary walks away and everything is civil, then they'll start in on Trump. If the level of butthurt is over 9000 then it's anyone's guess.
Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
I have to say though that in the same way that all the dirt on Clinton is in the open and mostly has been taken into account by the populace, Trump's past bad behaviour also is well know if you bother to read up about it.
The dodgy deals, the failures in every area of business except real estate, the weak performance of his property business, the missing charity pledges, the multiple lawsuits by and against him, the many instances of apparent racism; all this is was public knowledge before he even began to campaign. I doubt Trump's supported will change their minds if this stuff is rubbed in their faces but I suppose it might affect the swing voters, but the same might be true about Clinton's past.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/04 07:00:54
Kilkrazy wrote: Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
I have to say though that in the same way that all the dirt on Clinton is in the open and mostly has been taken into account by the populace, Trump's past bad behaviour also is well know if you bother to read up about it.
The dodgy deals, the failures in every area of business except real estate, the weak performance of his property business, the missing charity pledges, the multiple lawsuits by and against him, the many instances of apparent racism; all this is was public knowledge before he even began to campaign. I doubt Trump's supported will change their minds if this stuff is rubbed in their faces but I suppose it might affect the swing voters, but the same might be true about Clinton's past.
Very true.Claiming to be stone broke upon leaving the White House after 8 years of almost a half million a year salary while living on the tax payer's dime doesn't really give me confidence in her financial skills.
As far as I'm concerned, Bernie is a not someone I'd vote for, but I give credit to for being the least flip floppy and being more transparent. I just don't agree with his methods.
Clinton or Trump....do I want to be shot or stabbed.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
The first article talks about how the media figured out to cover Trump: be reporters. The press finally figured out to do good old fashion journalism; ask questions, get answers, investigate, as more questions. He's a bully and everyone knows it, but even he will eventually cave (as he did with the veteran charity thing). They will stop with the wonderment of how this douchebag is actually winning primaries to holding him accountable for his constant barrage of verbal diarrhea, such as now claiming he did say he wants Japan to have nuclear weapons (even though he definitely did).
This video sums up the second article:
That guy is just a fething dickbag.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?
If I advocate for the destruction of your lifestyle and spearhead a movement dedicated to it there isn't much else you can do that makes a practical difference. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that the struggle for supremacy in society inevitably boils down to force.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
I have to say though that in the same way that all the dirt on Clinton is in the open and mostly has been taken into account by the populace, Trump's past bad behaviour also is well know if you bother to read up about it.
The dodgy deals, the failures in every area of business except real estate, the weak performance of his property business, the missing charity pledges, the multiple lawsuits by and against him, the many instances of apparent racism; all this is was public knowledge before he even began to campaign. I doubt Trump's supported will change their minds if this stuff is rubbed in their faces but I suppose it might affect the swing voters, but the same might be true about Clinton's past.
Scootypuffjr nailed the summaries for you. One tip that works for me for the Washington post and Nytimes websites once you hit their monthly quotas. If you stop the page from fully loading immediately after the text appears, you won't get the pop up block telling you you should subscribe. It doesn't work for other sites though like the WSj which check your subscription before the story appears.
Apparently Trump has a history of firing veterans for fulfilling their military duty. There are at least three cases of it that have been reported. (Can't post links. Posting from my phone).
It's step one in where we know this is going. Accept it, it is your destiny.
...
Food for thought...
Which candidate will be held accountable by the media?
At the end of the day, it's always whichever one brings in the most advertising dollars. I guess that says more about the viewers, than the media itself, though.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Kilkrazy wrote: Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
The first article talks about how the media figured out to cover Trump: be reporters. The press finally figured out to do good old fashion journalism; ask questions, get answers, investigate, as more questions. He's a bully and everyone knows it, but even he will eventually cave (as he did with the veteran charity thing). They will stop with the wonderment of how this douchebag is actually winning primaries to holding him accountable for his constant barrage of verbal diarrhea, such as now claiming he did say he wants Japan to have nuclear weapons (even though he definitely did).
This video sums up the second article:
That guy is just a fething dickbag.
Its like talking to someone with a mental issue.
"he's a Mexican I am building a wall unfair I am building a Wall Mexican Wall unfair Wall Mexican Wexican"
dude are you on drugs???
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?
If I advocate for the destruction of your lifestyle and spearhead a movement dedicated to it there isn't much else you can do that makes a practical difference. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that the struggle for supremacy in society inevitably boils down to force.
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet. Political speech is already protected speech and in this instance it was empty rhetoric with no power behind it to boot. Plus Trump himself was never even attacked or targeted just his supporter whose attendance implied a likelihood that they would vote for him. There is no legal or moral justification for assaulting somebody simply because they might vote for a candidate you don't like. Those protestors are lucky they got violent in a state like CA if they attacked people like that here in my state the Trump supporters could legally shoot them dead.
by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?
If I advocate for the destruction of your lifestyle and spearhead a movement dedicated to it there isn't much else you can do that makes a practical difference. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that the struggle for supremacy in society inevitably boils down to force.
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet. Political speech is already protected speech and in this instance it was empty rhetoric with no power behind it to boot. Plus Trump himself was never even attacked or targeted just his supporter whose attendance implied a likelihood that they would vote for him. There is no legal or moral justification for assaulting somebody simply because they might vote for a candidate you don't like. Those protestors are lucky they got violent in a state like CA if they attacked people like that here in my state the Trump supporters could legally shoot them dead.
I thought about adding my 2 cents, but you have already worded it well. Have an exalt.
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet.
I remember the debates on this forum a few months back regarding Trump's potential incitement speech, which isn't protected. IIRC, it was regarding some heckler or person in the crowd and trump said something like "if someone tries to come up here, hit them" or hitting them with a tomato (maybe that was the second or third time he said it, because he always changes things when repeated)
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet.
I remember the debates on this forum a few months back regarding Trump's potential incitement speech, which isn't protected. IIRC, it was regarding some heckler or person in the crowd and trump said something like "if someone tries to come up here, hit them" or hitting them with a tomato (maybe that was the second or third time he said it, because he always changes things when repeated)
I do recall that discussion.
However, the argument that has been made several times over the last few pages and that my quote above is in direct reply to is the notion that Trump's proposed immigration policies regarding Mexicans and Muslims create a justification for criminal violence to be committed against anyone suspected of desiring to vote for Trump. A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet.
I remember the debates on this forum a few months back regarding Trump's potential incitement speech, which isn't protected. IIRC, it was regarding some heckler or person in the crowd and trump said something like "if someone tries to come up here, hit them" or hitting them with a tomato (maybe that was the second or third time he said it, because he always changes things when repeated)
I do recall that discussion.
However, the argument that has been made several times over the last few pages and that my quote above is in direct reply to is the notion that Trump's proposed immigration policies regarding Mexicans and Muslims create a justification for criminal violence to be committed against anyone suspected of desiring to vote for Trump. A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Ohh, I agree with you, and you made the argument extremely well, I was just pointing out that when Donny opens his mouth, it isn't 100% political speech
Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
No, the general theory is that it is acceptable to use violence to not be a victim.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
Rhetoric. One man's defense of Liberty is another man's Cliven Bundy Dildo Brigade. It all still comes down to Might Makes Right.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
Rhetoric. One man's defense of Liberty is another man's Cliven Bundy Dildo Brigade. It all still comes down to Might Makes Right.
Did the Bundy idiots chase people down public streets and assault them for their political beliefs?
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
Rhetoric. One man's defense of Liberty is another man's Cliven Bundy Dildo Brigade. It all still comes down to Might Makes Right.
Did the Bundy idiots chase people down public streets and assault them for their political beliefs?
Yes.
There is a YouTube video where exactly that happened. It ended with one of them getting killed.
That's apart from following employees to their homes, brandishing weapons, destroying public property, and doing who-knows-what to those poor dildos.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
Rhetoric. One man's defense of Liberty is another man's Cliven Bundy Dildo Brigade. It all still comes down to Might Makes Right.
Did the Bundy idiots chase people down public streets and assault them for their political beliefs?
Yes.
There is a YouTube video where exactly that happened. It ended with one of them getting killed.
That's apart from following employees to their homes, brandishing weapons, destroying public property, and doing who-knows-what to those poor dildos.
Are you referring to the video where the Bundy people try to run a police roadblock and one of them is shot and killed by the police? The two situations are very dissimilar. However, law enforcement properly responded to the Bundy group, and they are now incarcerated or dead. I didn't see the police doing much to interfere with the violence in the street in San Jose. What voting bloc were the Bundy people attacking? Which candidate did they believe was so bad that it justified assaulting anyone who might vote for said candidate?
Prestor Jon wrote: A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Except for people who don't share your particular values and view the world through a different lens. I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything. Others believe it's moral to use violence against civil rights activists or what have you because they present a challenge to white power. Obviously I disagree with them but if nobody did anything to stop them they would win. You can be stuck in the middle and cross your arms about it all you want but if you're unable or unwilling to use force to assert the superiority of your system then you're eventually going to lose it all.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
No, we as citizens do not have a right to violence (it contradicts the right of life of others). We must let others practice their free speech, even speech that is idiotic and hateful. We then have the right to speak out against it, ridicule it and point out its flaws. If we convince enough people we are correct, the others' ideas will become ostracized and ignored, neutering it. That's the way it is designed to work here. Disagree with that system, fine, speak up about it and maybe you can get the constitution changed if you can change enough minds. Don't do it that way and become violent, go to jail. As it is, violence is less effective than speech anyway. MLK was much more effective at convincing white voters than Malcolm X
To put it another way, let's say anti Trump protesters who believe violence is ok are really successful with their violence (maybe they beat up or kill a lot of Trump supporters-because really, what other measure of successful violence is there?). Consider the result, Trump will get more support and get elected. Good job. On the other hand, say non violent speech protesters are really successful (they change other peoples' minds (again, because what other measure of political speech is there?) Consider the result, Trump will lose support and not get elected. Seems pretty simple to me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/04 22:57:12
Prestor Jon wrote: A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Except for people who don't share your particular values and view the world through a different lens. I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything. Others believe it's moral to use violence against civil rights activists or what have you because they present a challenge to white power. Obviously I disagree with them but if nobody did anything to stop them they would win. You can be stuck in the middle and cross your arms about it all you want but if you're unable or unwilling to use force to assert the superiority of your system then you're eventually going to lose it all.
If the violence was directed at actual members of a fascist government or some form of actual oppression/tyranny your argument would have some merit. The people who were attacked in the streets in San Jose weren't oppression anyone, weren't a threat to anyone. They were singled out and assaulted merely because they attended a Trump rally and might have voted for him in the upcoming CA primary. That's it, possibly voting for Trump in the state primary and then the general later this year of Trump holds onto the nomination through the convention. Possibly voting in a free democratic election isn't a form of fascism or tyranny in any way shape or form. Your argument is that it's ok for me to hurt you if I think you might vote for a political candidate that I don't like in an upcoming election. That's a horrible nonsensical argument. Participating in the democratic process doesn't justify violence.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No, we as citizens do not have a right to violence (it contradicts the right of life of others). We must let others practice their free speech, even speech that is idiotic and hateful. We then have the right to speak out against it, ridicule it and point out its flaws. If we convince enough people we are correct, the others' ideas will become ostracized and ignored, neutering it. That's the way it is designed to work here. Disagree with that system, fine, speak up about it and maybe you can get the constitution changed if you can change enough minds. Don't do it that way and become violent, go to jail. As it is, violence is less effective than speech anyway. MLK was much more effective at convincing white voters than Malcolm X
To put it another way, let's say anti Trump protesters who believe violence is ok are really successful with their violence (maybe they beat up or kill a lot of Trump supporters-because really, what other measure of successful violence is there?). Consider the result, Trump will get more support and get elected. Good job. On the other hand, say non violent speech protesters are really successful (they change other peoples' minds (again, because what other measure of political speech is there?) Consider the result, Trump will lose support and not get elected. Seems pretty simple to me.
This.
If I could use up the rest of my exalt of the year, this post is it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/05 01:23:20
Prestor Jon wrote: A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Except for people who don't share your particular values and view the world through a different lens. I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything. Others believe it's moral to use violence against civil rights activists or what have you because they present a challenge to white power. Obviously I disagree with them but if nobody did anything to stop them they would win. You can be stuck in the middle and cross your arms about it all you want but if you're unable or unwilling to use force to assert the superiority of your system then you're eventually going to lose it all.
so you are willing to throw away this countries 1st. Amendment rights like that because you don't agree with them? so by your own words, it is right for Trumps supporters to attack and hurt people because the government of California does not enforce the immigration laws? my Opinion is anyone who burns the American Flag should be burned, hung and shot then kicked out of the country, do I have the right to do those things to those people? according to you since Burning the American flag is a desecration to our countries Flag furthermore it is made worse by those same protesters waving a foreign nations flag, that is tantamount to insurrection and invasion, do I have the right to assault those people? according to you, I do.
as it goes all those protesters are doing are swaying more people to trump, since they see what the other side is capable of.
on a side note it appears Sanders will not go quietly into that gentle goodnight:
