Jump to content

Sounds like someone is sowing some chaos.


AUDub

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Now see, you’ve picked up on Hannity’s rhetoric and are calling Avenatti “creepy porn lawyer.” That was even a chyron on Fox. Now you most likely just think it is funny but you probably see some truth in it since he represents a porn star.  But the rhetoric Fox uses made its way to your thinking and your rhetoric. It wasn’t your original thought.    You didn’t coin the term. See how rhetoric influences? Every POTUS who has served since I’ve been voting has had a basic understanding of how their rhetoric matters. That is until Trump. All those other men understood that their rhetoric could diffuse or inflame a situation so they chose their words carefully and with thought. Trump doesn’t. 

I’m sure that you’ve heard of victimology. Here’s what the intended targets had in common- political affiliation and Trump’s targets.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/opinions/number-of-times-trump-attack-bomb-targets-avlon/index.html

Are you triggered?

I’m not sure what your point is. Does it advance your point that we should blame Trump for the explosives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 607
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm not posting it but I think his Twitter has been found, and my God it's bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy runs the gamut. Crisis actors, chemtrail conspiracy theorist, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Nope. I'm not a violent person but there have been times when I wanted to punch someone in the mouth.  Is that as serious as shooting them or sending them bombs.

Nice dodge, but the question was do you hold Trump accountable for actually and specifically advocating violence while holding Waters to task for merely implying it (in your mind)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Saying it may have “played a part” (which has an array of meanings) vs saying it was essentially a direct but-for cause are two different things. It’s the latter that I, and others, dispute.

Get real Nola.  Stop with the disingenuous parsing over what constitutes a direct criminal act. It's patently absurd.

The claim against Trump relates to his demagoguery.  He has incited and condoned violence.  That's simply fact.  And you know it.

When the POTUS behaves in such a matter there are societal implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

In this day and age does he have to have rallies to reach people?

He could just have a Youtube Channel, Facebook Channel, Active Instagram, Pod Casts, Twitter. Could of been very involved in student organizations that held meetings, rallies, etc. Perhaps he is an active message board poster. I'm sure if we hunt we can find a message board with tons of hate toward the right filled with what would be considered violent rhetoric. Haha

All it takes is just one person.

 

Especially if that person is president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Potentially

Naw, this is a true shitgibbon. I’m shocked he didn’t have an orange complexion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alexava said:

Naw, this is a true shitgibbon. I’m shocked he didn’t have an orange complexion. 

I would love to know the ultra-conservative media spin (thinking Rush types here) today after the FBI has identified this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

No words do matter. So does the individual.

Like you. I have a hard time believing that any elected official or some celebrity could influence you to do something you did not want to do.

I think the real issue is an elected official - the POTUS in this case -  giving license or inciting people to actually do what they want to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I would love to know the ultra-conservative media spin (thinking Rush types here) today after the FBI has identified this guy.

Easy. "We're the real victims here!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Saying it may have “played a part” (which has an array of meanings) vs saying it was essentially a direct but-for cause are two different things. It’s the latter that I, and others, dispute.

And who exactly has made that argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AUDub said:

Easy. "We're the real victims here!"

Observe

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

This is really a false equivalency. The Georgetown student doesn’t have the audience that POTUS has. Sure he could have an audience, but he doesn’t. 

I thought that was a rather bizarre comparison also.

Some random Georgetown student and the POTUS?  :dunno:  wtf??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...