trump

[Tombs]

How do we figure out the dogs? If you see a media van in the neighborhood, do you attack it?

If someone says they support the people who beat the Trump supporters, do you attack that person?

Just trying to figure out where you personally draw the lines. Not rhetorical, the actual lines.

The line is drawn at people who justify or attempt to justify violence as an answer to words, along with those actually doing the violence. It's only a matter of time until their insanity ends up eroding the first amendment for public safety concerns. As we all already know, we only have rights until the left screams loud enough that they finally get their way, since they're the protected class in this country, that already makes them a far more tangible and realistic threat to the country than any terrorist organization.

 

[T.Lex]

The line is drawn at people who justify or attempt to justify violence as an answer to words, along with those actually doing the violence. .

I can understand how Trump's supporters' rhetoric would make someone want to beat the snot out of them.

So what should happen to me?

 

[pudly]

So what should happen to me?

You really don't have much to worry about. We'll argue against you. We aren't leftists.

 

[Tombs]

I can understand how Trump's supporters' rhetoric would make someone want to beat the snot out of them.

So what should happen to me?

Understanding it is not the same as justifying and promoting it through the media or social networks. That's one of the very few things the first amendment does not protect.

You can want to all you like, hoping on twitter and telling people to go out and harm Trump supporters is another matter entirely. Doing it makes you a terrorist by the very definition of terrorism.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important]

• the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
  
  
  

[/COLOR]

 

[T.Lex]

Understanding it is not the same as justifying and promoting it through the media or social networks. That's one of the very few things the first amendment does not protect.

Ok. I think racist Trump supporters who say racist things deserve to get the snot beat out of them.

What would you do with me?

Or have I not justified it enough.

My uber-conservative 18 year old daughter thinks Trump supporters are idiots and should be beaten up. You going to go after her?

 

[Tombs]

Ok. I think racist Trump supporters who say racist things deserve to get the snot beat out of them.

What would you do with me?

Or have I not justified it enough.

My uber-conservative 18 year old daughter thinks Trump supporters are idiots and should be beaten up. You going to go after her?

Does she go on twitter and tell people to assault Trump supporters? Does she bullhorn it to crowds?

Perhaps you missed the "and" in that sentence.

 

[jamil]

Attacking everyone who has the ability to attack is a purge.

Everything else not withstanding, eliminating people who have the ability to attack is a purge. Attacking people based on party loyalty isn't an answer to the problem and it isn't any better than what the other side is doing, but it's not a purge either either. But maybe I haven't read all the posts that draw those points together.

 

[jamil]

Ok. I think racist Trump supporters who say racist things deserve to get the snot beat out of them.

What would you do with me?

Or have I not justified it enough.

My uber-conservative 18 year old daughter thinks Trump supporters are idiots and should be beaten up. You going to go after her?

You should talk to that girl. That's not the way to handle differences. We don't just beat people up because we disagree with them. That's not civility.

ETA: this is why many rental companies don't let people under 25 rent cars. They've not yet developed maturity.

 

[T.Lex]

The line is drawn at people who justify or attempt to justify violence as an answer to words, along with those actually doing the violence.

Understanding it is not the same as justifying and promoting it through the media or social networks.

Does she go on twitter and tell people to assault Trump supporters?

Depends on if the Kardashians said it first.

Perhaps you missed the "and" in that sentence.

If you could make up your mind, that'd be helpful.

YOU said "or attempt to justify violence." Pretty sure that was you. Yep, that was you. "Justify or attempt to justify" are part of the group. "Along with those doing the violence." That's what you said.

If that's not what you meant, please say so.

Look, if we're going to purge, we're going to have to be clear about who we're targeting, otherwise things get really messy.

 

[T.Lex]

Everything else not withstanding, eliminating people who have the ability to attack is a purge. Attacking people based on party loyalty isn't an answer to the problem and it isn't any better than what the other side is doing, but it's not a purge either either. But maybe I haven't read all the posts that draw those points together.

I'm just exploring what Tombs is advocating for. Getting rid of people for justifying or attempting to justify violence against Trump supporters is a purge. I didn't see any party-affiliation involved. Purely belief-based judgment and punishment.

But, its kinda like nailing jello to a wall.

You should talk to that girl. That's not the way to handle differences. We don't just beat people up because we disagree with them. That's not civility.

Yeah, but I'm just dad. I have no credibility. She has a low tolerance for people who don't make sense.

 

[bwframe]

Oh, I didn't know it was just the inner city blacks....

Kut (sees you making excuses)

No excuses from me, don't need them. You're the one calling Trump a racist, what's your excuse.

 

[Tombs]

Depends on if the Kardashians said it first.


If you could make up your mind, that'd be helpful.

YOU said "or attempt to justify violence." Pretty sure that was you. Yep, that was you. "Justify or attempt to justify" are part of the group. "Along with those doing the violence." That's what you said.

If that's not what you meant, please say so.

Look, if we're going to purge, we're going to have to be clear about who we're targeting, otherwise things get really messy.

Well, those promoting it are already in violation of existing laws, and by every dictionary definition, are terrorists.

Those justifying it, in my view, still need purged. This country has seen enough of that type of attitude, supporting a traitor and a felon for president on top of getting in the way of those trying to stop a national atrocity is over the line.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, those promoting it are already in violation of existing laws, and by every dictionary definition, are terrorists.

Those justifying it, in my view, still need purged. This country has seen enough of that type of attitude, supporting a traitor and a felon for president on top of getting in the way of those trying to stop a national atrocity is over the line.

Good luck.

 

[Tombs]

Good luck.

Yeah, never going to happen.

We'll just let them burn the country to the ground in november, then immediately resort to blaming ourselves for it.

Just need to give them space to riot, as Stephanie Rawlings-Blake put it.

 

[jamil]

I'm just exploring what Tombs is advocating for. Getting rid of people for justifying or attempting to justify violence against Trump supporters is a purge. I didn't see any party-affiliation involved. Purely belief-based judgment and punishment.

But, its kinda like nailing jello to a wall.

I understand about the Jello. However, I didn't see anything about a purge. I thought it was more reactionary.

So, point blank. Tombs, do you advocate violence to purge liberals from the nation, as T.Lex seems to be suggesting? You haven't exactly challenged him on that interpretation.

Yeah, but I'm just dad. I have no credibility. She has a low tolerance for people who don't make sense.

Maybe the car rental places are onto something. We should consider raising the voting age to 25. Or, better, you get to vote when you stop acting like a child.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, never going to happen.

Hey, don't sell Trump short. If he's president, I think your goal is totally achievable.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, those promoting it are already in violation of existing laws, and by every dictionary definition, are terrorists.

Those justifying it, in my view, still need purged. This country has seen enough of that type of attitude, supporting a traitor and a felon for president on top of getting in the way of those trying to stop a national atrocity is over the line.

So, point blank. Tombs, do you advocate violence to purge liberals from the nation, as T.Lex seems to be suggesting? You haven't exactly challenged him on that interpretation.

You're welcome.

 

[jamil]

You're welcome.

Ok. Confirmed. Carry on.

 

[Tombs]

I understand about the Jello. However, I didn't see anything about a purge. I thought it was more reactionary.

So, point blank. Tombs, do you advocate violence to purge liberals from the nation, as T.Lex seems to be suggesting? You haven't exactly challenged him on that interpretation.

In the end I would have to say no, but if I had the ability I'd forcibly deport them to which ever nation they raise the flag of when they burn ours. I see it as a similar situation to the Tories in early America.

I just find it a confusing state of affairs when we justify fighting a decades long war against irrelevant people who present little to no threat to our national security, yet we are told people within our own country who violently riot and protest against our rights and our country (Who even have their own political party) are just friendly neighbors. Realistically, who's in the position to do the most harm to us and our nation?

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. Confirmed. Carry on.

One point of clarification: I don't think he limits it to liberals. In fact, I think conservatives who attempt to justify violence against Trump supporters would also be included.

So, I do respect that consistency of principle.