[They just need a reason to go off. When a president overtly speaks this at rallies and subtlety implies this as well, he is a lighting the candle for these mentally unstable types. Add in all of the social media language & reposting / retweeting, and it's a formula for bad things to happen.
So, sounds like you are saying it is the Presidents fault
Am I blaming all of this on Trump? No. On the other hand his rallies, his rhetoric, his willingness to speak / imply violence, and his tweets cannot be dismissed as catalysts and contributing factors. I can't remember a president who over spoke and used his pulpit in such a way anywhere near the extent as Trump.
So, which is it? The President's fault? Yes or No?
Evidently you didn't understand the post. To answer your "yes" or "no' question - It is not a binary choice. The first line of the 2nd paragraph stated, "Am I blaming all of this on Trump?" The key word here is "all". I even went as far as to say "no". Let me add this - I do believe Trump doesn't get a free pass and is complicit in actions like these.
We disagree here, I don't think "Binary" has anything whatsoever to do with it. There is no "Kind of" or "sort of" either you are ultimately responsible for your actions or you are not.
I disagree. Charles Manson never actually murdered anyone. Should he not have not had to face punishment? He only encouraged violence. I guess only those who physically killed someone should be held responsible for those actions.
I believe Manson was convicted of both, first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
Keyword here is, Conspiracy
Ok, but when does a conspiracy become a conspiracy? Seems like whipping up a frenzy at campaign rallies when you are not even up for election might qualify. Screaming that any free press that is the slightest bit critical of you is the enemy of the people, and then your followers target that same press seems to fit the bill of conspiracy.
Comparing a political rally attended by thousands that is taped or filmed for whatever future purpose, Imho, is hardly in the same ballpark as 5 deranged people, led by a certified lunatic, sitting around a table plotting someone's death and then carrying it out in cold blood.
So suggesting violence in front of thousands is ok, but in a small group setting is bad? Well, ok then...
So suggesting violence in front of thousands is ok, but in a small group setting is bad? Well, ok then...
Really? A jury was convinced that Manson instructed others to kill. Do you think there is proof anywhere that Trump instructed anyone to kill? If you believe Trump is guilty of causing this crime then how do you deal with "When they are down we kick them"? or (and I paraphrase here, We can't be civil until we are back in power. or how about, "Get up in their faces..." You know, if you act like a dumbass people are going to start treating you as such.
So suggesting violence in front of thousands is ok
Does this scenario adequately describe a Conspiracy?
but in a small group setting is bad? Well, ok then...
This small group conspired to commit murder and then followed through
So you believe because there are a lot less people there, their approach means nothing?, I don't think so. They don't allow the ment ally ill to access firearms, or those who are wife beating pieces of sh!t and have violent tendencies, no guns for you. I'm sure no matter what the population is there, the result would be the same.
They also don't allow same sex marriage. Prostitution and assisted suicide are legal though. Maybe you want to consider going there if you like their laws so well.
Prostitutes assist you with suicide in Switzerland? I'm there.
Prostitutes assist you with suicide in Switzerland? I'm there.
I hadn't done the math myself but now that you mention it... Might be a good place to retire. Permanently!
So suggesting violence in front of thousands is ok, but in a small group setting is bad? Well, ok then...
Really? A jury was convinced that Manson instructed others to kill. Do you think there is proof anywhere that Trump instructed anyone to kill? If you believe Trump is guilty of causing this crime then how do you deal with "When they are down we kick them"? or (and I paraphrase here, We can't be civil until we are back in power. or how about, "Get up in their faces..." You know, if you act like a dumbass people are going to start treating you as such.
Civility from liberals. Is that what you all want? Highly doubtful.
The division is a good thing. More should embrace it.
I could think of worse ways to go.
[
Civility from liberals. Is that what you all want? Highly doubtful.
The division is a good thing. More should embrace it.
Why such a broad brush?
The answer is always more guns.
In this Republic and the value we place on Liberty, that solution beats the Hell out of "We need more Laws"
The fall back is mental health.
I repeat, "Who in possession of a Healthy mind walks into any place where people have gathered and begins randomly killing, be it with a gun or a bomb"?
It is absolutely a Mental Health issue
Bullsh!t. in switzerland, people love their guns, but have strict laws on who can have them, the result??? hardly any gun massacres.
Let's see Switzerland has 8.7 million people and the USA has roughly 325 million......Factor in education, history, health and now tell me that was a relevant comparison.
So you believe because there are a lot less people there, their approach means nothing?, I don't think so. They don't allow the ment ally ill to access firearms, or those who are wife beating pieces of sh!t and have violent tendencies, no guns for you. I'm sure no matter what the population is there, the result would be the same.
If someone really wants to get a gun in Switzerland, or in any other European country, they easily can on the black market there or in any number of nearby European countries.
https://www.thelocal.ch/20180614/swiss-police-logistics-chief-suspected-of-illegal-arms-sales
In comparison to other European countries, Switzerland has a high rate of death from guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Also, while many people think that various European countries must be very liberal/leftist because they have decriminalized/legalized prostitution and decriminalized/legalized/socially tolerated soft drugs like hash and weed, and Psilocybin mushrooms, the governments and people of these countries are actually rather conservative politically and socially.
Neo-Nazi and extremely far right nationalist-neo-fascist political groups, and social attitudes are also very popular in Switzerland, and gaining popularity especially among younger people, and older people as well in many other European countries. However, this should not be a surprise to anyone as it's been this way for decades. No this does not mean that most people in these countries are neo-nazis, support neo-nazi groups, etc. It's like here in the United States where there's a very tiny percentage of the population that consists of neo-nazis.
[Edited on 10/30/2018 by The_Newt]
[Edited on 10/30/2018 by The_Newt]
Neo nazi trump supporters at work.
This crazy guy Robert Bowers that shot all of those people at the temple, apparently did not vote for, like, or support President Donald Trump.
I saw screenshots of his social media page where Robert Bowers wrote this himself.
Neo-Nazis-even the ones in European countries and the ones in North America in the United States and Canada, who are all in extreme minorities and only a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population even of small European countries, do not like Donald Trump because he likes Jews, completely supports Israel, has Jewish family members, and they feel he is too far left or a leftist/globalist.
Also, neo-nazis have always been around ever since the end of WW II, and are not some new phenomenon or coming out of the woodwork or having people join them-even in European countries or in North America.
I first saw evidence and actual neo-nazis in different European countries, and regions of Europe, and the United States and Canada in the late 1990s and very early 2000s during the Clinton years.
[Edited on 10/29/2018 by The_Newt]
[Edited on 10/29/2018 by pops42]
That's the opinion of two people who are going off because they want media attention. T
These idiots do not represent all or most Americans or most people in Pennsylvania-even people who live in upstate PA near the NY border, and who are in Central Pennsylvania in and around Harrisburg. I do not like what they are saying and I do not agree with their hatred or support their bigotry at all but we have freedom of speech in the United States, and the people in the youtube video links you posted akin to the crazy, actually racist, and bigoted violent and hate filled people in far left groups like Antifa and black lives matter.
FYI, I am neither a con or lib and did not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary; but to me it is very silly how people falsely compare Trump to Hitler or claim he's "racist" or "Anti-Semitic", which actually just downplays actual racism, bigotry, and hatred.
Accused Pittsburgh synagogue killer Robert Bowers is a raving anti-Semitic white nationalist who also despises President Donald Trump. This might sound confusing to people who bought into the tiresome “Trump is Hitler” media narrative, but it makes perfect sense.
But actual Nazis disagree. Bowers was explicit in his dislike of the president, saying he did not vote for him and had never “owned, worn or even touched" a Make America Great Again hat. Challenging the news media narrative that President Trump praised Nazi demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, Bowers agreed with another extremist that the president had “betrayed” right-wing radical protesters by “comparing them with a violent mob.”
When Trump said he was a “nationalist” at a Texas rally last week, the left exploded with the usual Hitler-this and dog-whistle-that criticisms. Bowers made clear that from the extremist point of view, the president is not a nationalist but a “globalist” controlled by a Jewish conspiracy.
Trump isn't anti-Semitic, and it's wrong to say so
Linking Trump to anti-Semitism is factually incorrect and morally wrong. You never heard it before he ran for office. He has a history of giving generously to Jewish charities, including the Anti-Defamation League, and he received the Jewish National Fund’s “Tree of Life” award.
This is a president whose high-profile daughter Ivanka is an observant modern Orthodox Jew and whose Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is a trusted White House envoy and personal adviser. President Trump also has longstanding ties to Israel’s conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and, unlike three of his Oval Office predecessors, made good on a pledge to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
And while Trump did not garner support from the broad Jewish community in the 2016 election, he was overwhelmingly popular among more the observant Orthodox segment, whom one community activist compared to working-class “Rust Belt voters.”
Critics resort to the tired “dog whistle” trope to lump President Trump in with white nationalists because they lack actual evidence. But real extremists don’t hide their biases. You don’t need to use a secret decoder ring to understand the blatantly anti-Semitic message when Louis Farrakhan says Jews are “termites” and talks about “Satanic Jews who have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.” White supremacists praised Farrakhan for being “on point” with this message, showing the noxious nexus at which these conflicting racist ideologies agree.
Synagogue shooting shows what evil looks like
Political theorist Hannah Arendt noted in “The Origins of Totalitarianism” that extremist propaganda “is invariably as frank as it is mendacious,” and that “would-be totalitarian regimes usually start their careers by boasting of their past crimes and carefully outlining their future ones.” They believe in “the propaganda value of evil deeds,” as the tragedy in Pittsburgh and any other such acts of terrorism illustrate.
Mainstream critics who convert normal policy disagreements into mud-slinging contests over extremism, suggest apocalyptic consequences from pursuing any course of action they happen to disagree with, or hear hidden menacing messages in routine rhetoric, are making rational discourse in America impossible.
The synagogue shooting shows what real evil looks like. It is not hidden, it is not a subterfuge, it can be found openly expressed in chat rooms and online publications that cater to that wretched mob's mentality.
Mainstream Americans — whether leaning left, right or in the center — can and should denounce these radical views. But to the extent our political debate increasingly mimics the extremist tone of the fanatic fringes, we are the worse for it.
I find it so ironic that whenever their is a mass shooting the right screams that it is a mental health issue and not a gun issue, yet one of the first things that the GOP and Trump did after Trump took office was to pass a law making it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns.
Never happened, and you know it since we discussed this previously and you were proven wrong.
Plus, this is really the wrong place to push pro/anti gun feelings.
I feel for the victims and blame the killer.
The answer is always more guns.
In this Republic and the value we place on Liberty, that solution beats the Hell out of "We need more Laws"
The fall back is mental health.
I repeat, "Who in possession of a Healthy mind walks into any place where people have gathered and begins randomly killing, be it with a gun or a bomb"?
It is absolutely a Mental Health issue
Bullsh!t. in switzerland, people love their guns, but have strict laws on who can have them, the result??? hardly any gun massacres.
Let's see Switzerland has 8.7 million people and the USA has roughly 325 million......Factor in education, history, health and now tell me that was a relevant comparison.
So you believe because there are a lot less people there, their approach means nothing?, I don't think so. They don't allow the ment ally ill to access firearms, or those who are wife beating pieces of sh!t and have violent tendencies, no guns for you. I'm sure no matter what the population is there, the result would be the same.
Fact: In the US, people who have been adjudged mentally ill are banned from purchasing firearms.
Fact: People in the US who have had a separation order for domestic violence (not even a conviction)
are banned from purchasing firearms.
Fact: Criminals are also banned from even being close to firearms, but, since they don't follow laws,
they not only get close, but use them to commit more crimes. More laws don't affect criminals,
but do affect law abiding people. More laws help the criminal.
Fact - The ban on mentally ill people buying guns is only as good as the database. One of the first things Trump and the GOP congress did was to recind a law where the social security administration would be required to provide names of those receiving benefits for mental illness to the database.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-nixed-gun-control-rule/
Fact: In the US, people who have been adjudged mentally ill are banned from purchasing firearms.
But since the terrorist in Pittsburgh never saw a doctor, he purchased a gun and killed a dozen people. Therefore, mentally ill people CAN and DO buy guns.
Fact: Criminals are also banned from even being close to firearms, but, since they don't follow laws, they not only get close, but use them to commit more crimes.
Some probably do, sure.
More laws don't affect criminals, but do affect law abiding people. More laws help the criminal.
Possibly. But we will never know, because conservatives believe that more laws victimize them and their 2nd amendment right.
[Edited on 10/30/2018 by BoytonBrother]
Regarding Trump, I think it’s silly to suggest that Trump committed any type of crime with his inflammatory rhetoric. But I don’t see that as the point. The point is whether a President should be escalating tensions and intentionally trying to divide. And that answer is obvious.
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
For you? Not interested.
[Edited on 10/30/2018 by BoytonBrother]
And that answer is obvious.
To some, meaning it is far from "obvious".
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
For you? Not interested.
[Edited on 10/30/2018 by BoytonBrother]
Wisdom prevails - I'm flattered 😉
And that answer is obvious.
To some, meaning it is far from "obvious".
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
How about some examples of Trump trying to unite whites, blacks, those on the left & right, male, female, straight, gay, immigrants, etc.
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
How about some examples of Trump trying to unite whites, blacks, those on the left & right, male, female, straight, gay, immigrants, etc.
Seems to be a stalemate or more simply, opposing views with no common ground.
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
Democrat’s are evil people.
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
How about some examples of Trump trying to unite whites, blacks, those on the left & right, male, female, straight, gay, immigrants, etc.
Seems to be a stalemate or more simply, opposing views with no common ground.
So when you listen to & observe Trump, would you classify him more a president who unites or divides?
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
How about some examples of Trump trying to unite whites, blacks, those on the left & right, male, female, straight, gay, immigrants, etc.
Seems to be a stalemate or more simply, opposing views with no common ground.
So when you listen to & observe Trump, would you classify him more a president who unites or divides?
I think he "unites" the people who believe in him and those who revile him will not be moved, thus, a Stalemate with both sides equally to blame.
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
How about some examples of Trump trying to unite whites, blacks, those on the left & right, male, female, straight, gay, immigrants, etc.
Seems to be a stalemate or more simply, opposing views with no common ground.
So when you listen to & observe Trump, would you classify him more a president who unites or divides?
I think he "unites" the people who believe in him and those who revile him will not be moved, thus, a Stalemate with both sides equally to blame.
By singling out immigrants, ethnic groups, the press, Democrats and others, he is making no attempt to unify the country. You are either on the Trump Train or you are the enemy. There is no grey area. There is not a single politician on the left who acts like that.
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
How about some examples of Trump trying to unite whites, blacks, those on the left & right, male, female, straight, gay, immigrants, etc.
Seems to be a stalemate or more simply, opposing views with no common ground.
So when you listen to & observe Trump, would you classify him more a president who unites or divides?
I think he "unites" the people who believe in him and those who revile him will not be moved, thus, a Stalemate with both sides equally to blame.
By singling out immigrants, ethnic groups, the press, Democrats and others, he is making no attempt to unify the country. You are either on the Trump Train or you are the enemy. There is no grey area. There is not a single politician on the left who acts like that.
Jesus has spoken
This is sickening as an American and a Jew. The FBI has confirmed what I already suspected, there are more hate crimes against Jews than any other religious group. And, they are increasing
As all of the xenophobia has been unfolding since January '17, I always said that we would be next. We are. It's here.
I agree and just real sorry to see this even coming up in conversation in the 21st century. Disturbing that you even got to where you had to consider it. Sure, nothing new it is a chronic social undercurrent, standard ignorance bilge in the hold of history - really just sucks that it is getting revived rather than continuing to fade. These ideas are baggage from the middle ages.
How about some examples of Trump "intentionally trying to divide"?
How about some examples of Trump trying to unite whites, blacks, those on the left & right, male, female, straight, gay, immigrants, etc.
Seems to be a stalemate or more simply, opposing views with no common ground.
So when you listen to & observe Trump, would you classify him more a president who unites or divides?
I think he "unites" the people who believe in him and those who revile him will not be moved, thus, a Stalemate with both sides equally to blame.
By singling out immigrants, ethnic groups, the press, Democrats and others, he is making no attempt to unify the country. You are either on the Trump Train or you are the enemy. There is no grey area. There is not a single politician on the left who acts like that.
Jesus has spoken
Yes, and he agrees with me.
