sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Inflammatory rhetoric has the potential to rouse the rabble, for any reason, for any race or religion, and yet: People seem drawn to that inflammatory rhetoric that most of us would eschew.
What is to be done?
Trump is "a clear and present danger"
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
Inflammatory rhetoric has the potential to rouse the rabble, for any reason, for any race or religion, and yet: People seem drawn to that inflammatory rhetoric that most of us would eschew.
What is to be done?
In my country you can be charged with hate speech crimes. Politicians and anyone else can be arrested and brought before the courts if they say the kinds of things you hear Trump saying.sculptor said:
Donald J would have been in trouble if he was campaigning in my country, and called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, because that's textbook hate speech, and it's illegal.
Not that we have a lot of Mexicans trying to enter the country illegally. But that isn't the point; any ethnic group is protected by that law I mentioned.
When black lives matter say hateful things against police, why isn't this called hate speech? Hate speech is a form of censor, since it only seems to apply to those not going along with the liberal agenda.
Add up the controversial things Trump has said, and then add up the things the media and his opponents say about Trump. There is a lot more hate speech against Trump than Trump gives off. Just this Forum topic far exceeded the handful of singled out Trump comments. Hate speech is a form of censor that only applies to anyone who is not on the side of the cheaters. Trump he does not back down from hypocrites. In the end, the American people will see this is not a fair fight with the larger army rigging the system for cheating.
What I like about Trump is he speaks off the cuff. He is not an actor reading a teleprompter. The pitfall of speaking off the cuff is you will say things that might offend people since you are being spontaneous. If you are always use a teleprompter, like Obama and Hillary, you can be perfect. The problem I have is, will never know what a person who reads a teleprompter, really thinks. In the world of proper words and phrases, the ideal president will be an actor. An actor playing the role of president will read a script that is written for them, arranged by producers and directors; donors. Trump is not as good an actor as Hillary. He will not win an academy award for best actor in an election.
Hillary has not given a press conference in over 250 days. This is because her handlers do not what her off the cuff. Her directors, writers and producers cannot prepare a script that can cover all contingencies. Hillary's handlers are helping her avoid making plunders. Trump has news conference all the time, without any teleprompter, even against a hostile press, who are trying to trip him up. All they have gotten are a few gems.
Who is better prepared to deal with the real world? The US President can't stay on a script. He or She but will need to react to real time changes. He will need to be off the cuff, thinking n their feet, in negotiations. Hillary does not get any exercise. Trump grows stronger, training along side hostile forces, each day, all off the cuff. The pencil necks who try to trip him up have to prepare. Trump reacts off the cuff and rarely stumbles.
Picture President Hillary going to meeting with President Putin of Russia, all scripted and rehearsed. Putin is smart and he will throw her a curve that is not on her script. She will need to excuse herself for the writers to come in. Trump on the other hand, is spontaneous, without the need of an entire army of handlers, writers, directors and producers. He is training to be perfect, off the cuff. This is how a president needs to be. This is the type of person one can trust even of you don;t agree with him, since he is transparent.
Add up the controversial things Trump has said, and then add up the things the media and his opponents say about Trump. There is a lot more hate speech against Trump than Trump gives off. Just this Forum topic far exceeded the handful of singled out Trump comments. Hate speech is a form of censor that only applies to anyone who is not on the side of the cheaters. Trump he does not back down from hypocrites. In the end, the American people will see this is not a fair fight with the larger army rigging the system for cheating.
What I like about Trump is he speaks off the cuff. He is not an actor reading a teleprompter. The pitfall of speaking off the cuff is you will say things that might offend people since you are being spontaneous. If you are always use a teleprompter, like Obama and Hillary, you can be perfect. The problem I have is, will never know what a person who reads a teleprompter, really thinks. In the world of proper words and phrases, the ideal president will be an actor. An actor playing the role of president will read a script that is written for them, arranged by producers and directors; donors. Trump is not as good an actor as Hillary. He will not win an academy award for best actor in an election.
Hillary has not given a press conference in over 250 days. This is because her handlers do not what her off the cuff. Her directors, writers and producers cannot prepare a script that can cover all contingencies. Hillary's handlers are helping her avoid making plunders. Trump has news conference all the time, without any teleprompter, even against a hostile press, who are trying to trip him up. All they have gotten are a few gems.
Who is better prepared to deal with the real world? The US President can't stay on a script. He or She but will need to react to real time changes. He will need to be off the cuff, thinking n their feet, in negotiations. Hillary does not get any exercise. Trump grows stronger, training along side hostile forces, each day, all off the cuff. The pencil necks who try to trip him up have to prepare. Trump reacts off the cuff and rarely stumbles.
Picture President Hillary going to meeting with President Putin of Russia, all scripted and rehearsed. Putin is smart and he will throw her a curve that is not on her script. She will need to excuse herself for the writers to come in. Trump on the other hand, is spontaneous, without the need of an entire army of handlers, writers, directors and producers. He is training to be perfect, off the cuff. This is how a president needs to be. This is the type of person one can trust even of you don;t agree with him, since he is transparent.
Hmm. Someone who lives in the real world?wellwisher said:
I guess that disqualifies most US politicians.
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Are those protesters running for President? That is a ridiculous comparison. No problem, I promise, no one is going to vote for them for President.
Not until he demonstrated himself to be a danger to the country. Beyond that, again, that is an absurd comparison. Trump is running for President, not the people criticizing him. And there are thousands of critics arguing against Trump so of course there is a lot more said.
He attacks entire races of people as well as the Constitution and basic decency, mostly based on lies and deceptions, inane conspiracy theories, and total bullshit. We are all attacking him for that he has actually said and what he says he wants to do. And speaking off the cuff isn't an excuse for the outrageous statements he makes. In fact, he speaks his mind, as you say, so we know he means it. He wants to be the next Hitler.
You are using false logic to rationalize your primal instincts to support a man who sells hate. He offers simple-minded answers, hate, fear, racism, and lies - a two-bit con man. He is a monster in the making. That is what you are supporting.
Obviously, there is a place for spontaneous ramblings in the world of entertainment but I question whether a presidential wanna-be with access to so much 'privileged' and 'sensitive' information with a proven record of taking extreme delight in bragging about his ability to "morbidly" entertain the masses with his ignorance, incredible incompetence and his enthusiasm to attack other peoples self esteem, is an appropriate choice for the top job.
If he spontaneously revealed sensitive personal information about you, wellwisher, that he would only have access to via the various intelligence organizations he is over seeing would you still continue to "like" his spontaneity and his entertainment factor?
Last edited:
yes and I guess this is why so much emphasis is being placed on being "politically correct' in how one discusses issues. To attempt to discuss controversial issues with out inciting the "rabble".
BUT always having to be politically correct ( read : being careful in what is "published" in a terribly sick world) is awfully oppressive to the creative person hence the attraction to someone who outrageously inflames the unsound of mind into action.
Trump:
"I am only saying it how I feel!" "if I don't I would be dishonest to myself"
Assassin of the Imam and assistant in NY (8/2016):
"I am only saying (by demonstration) how I feel!", "If I don't, I would be dishonest with my self"
I might add, IMO, the only reason the USA and the free world is not bogged done in the massive anti Islam war that Da'esh wanted to provoke is because of the current USA administrations level headed responses. If it were not for some strong leadership ( mostly behind the scenes to avoid inciting the "rabble" ) the world would be at war with Islam big time...
A total and utter global disaster has been avoided ( so far ) mainly due to "politically correct dialogue" or in other words some serious "tact" published from the Obama administration.
I recall writing this on 15/8/2014:
re: Genocide of the Yazidis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_ISIL
"Opinion: It appears that the USA has managed with limited air strikes to allow the evacuation of a significant proportion of trapped Yazidis and start to change the image the world has of USA military interventions.
I feel many a world government and people are looking at the Obama administration policy shift in action with intense interest.
From here in Australia the recent limited and contained air action has proved successful and congratulations and thanks to the USA and it's people are in order. "
A total and utter global disaster has been avoided ( so far ) mainly due to "politically correct dialogue" or in other words some serious "tact" published from the Obama administration.
I recall writing this on 15/8/2014:
re: Genocide of the Yazidis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_ISIL
"Opinion: It appears that the USA has managed with limited air strikes to allow the evacuation of a significant proportion of trapped Yazidis and start to change the image the world has of USA military interventions.
I feel many a world government and people are looking at the Obama administration policy shift in action with intense interest.
From here in Australia the recent limited and contained air action has proved successful and congratulations and thanks to the USA and it's people are in order. "
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Good line from Hillary: Friends don't let friends vote Trump.
Funny!
Funny!
For starters, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine should be recognized as a mistake, and the blame for the current state of media affairs clearly assigned to the media operations that rose in its wake:
Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Falwell, Haggard, Rove, Luntz, and all the rest; Fox in general, the Republican Party, and the rightwing think tanks; name them and blame them. Clearly and repeatedly.
Call out, with historical examples for them to justify and followup questions drilled into them in public whenever they appear in public, every Republican politician in the Federal government with the solitary possible - possible - exception of Ron Paul. Every. Single. One.
No such rhetoric as "people seem drawn" should be given a pass: this (the rise of Trump) is a specific case. We know who they were and are, they have defined and identified themselves for thirty years now. They have betrayed us, their neighbors, and their country, for a generation. They have failed in their responsibilities as adult citizens of a democracy for their entire adult lives. Say so, repeatedly, as a matter of common knowledge, in public.
Reduce the influence of "politically correct" language control. For example, any professional straight news source who uses the "politically correct" language of "both sides", "both Democrats and Republicans", "partisan conflict", and the like, from a pundit's position, and does not immediately justify this unusual and seldom seen circumstance by overwhelming evidence and argument that there really were at least two "sides" equivalently responsible for whatever, should be fired.
We could do that.
What hateful things? Has any Black Lives Matter official engaged in "hate speech"? If so, let's see it. Do you know what "hate speech" is? Hate speech isn't dissent or protest or normal reasoned discourse. I suggest you look up the definition of hate speech. Unfortunately for Republicans the truth matters.
If that's the case, then let's see it. Where is this list of things which validates your assertion? I think this gets back to your ignorance of what "hate speech" is. Trump may not back down from hypothetical hypocrites, because Trump is one of the biggest hypocrites on the planet. For your edification, below is how hate speech is defined:
"Hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender,ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]
In the law of some countries, hate speech is speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5] In the law of other countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called ahate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint." - Wiki [/QUOTE]
I understand Republicans like hate speech and the Donald in particular likes hate speech, but that doesn't make it right. Speech which incites illegal violence isn't a good thing and it's particularly egregious when there is no basis in reality for that hate e.g. The Donald.
Well, I'm sure you do. I love it too when The Donald speaks off the cuff. But his minders i.e. handlers don't. That's why The Donald is constantly under the supervision of his minder, Kellyanne Conway. When the Donald speaks he reveals himself and what he reveals isn't palatable to most people. That's why he has a dedicated minder who follows him constantly to make sure he doesn't say anything stupid as he is wont to do.
Well, I guess that depends on what you call a "press conference". Hillary has met and taken questions from the press along the campaign trail. While that's not a formal conference, she has been taking and answering question from the press. Hilary has done more than 300 interviews this year alone. Contrary to your assertion, Trump does not hold news conferences all the time. He has held 17 news conferences this year. That's far from all the time. So your argument here is a red herring.
And contrary to your assertions, almost every Trump appearance is now scripted. Even his interview with the black pastor this weekend was scripted. It's reminiscent of Fox News were interviews and "debates" are scripted. It's also reminiscent of Russian media where news, interviews, and debates, are also scripted. Contrary to your assertions, The Donald is now very heavily scripted, because when he's not scripted, he has a penchant for saying stupid stuff as evidenced by his polling and replacing his senior campaign staff 3 times in as many months.
Unlike your beloved Trump, Hillary isn't scripted. She doesn't say stupid stuff off script. That's a very big difference between the Hilary and your beloved The Donald.
Well, I think it's very obvious the "Anybody But Trump" folks were correct. You're right in that the the POTUS must be able to speak directly to people, and that's why The Donald is so disqualified to become POTUS. We have seen the off script Donald and it isn't pretty. That's why his handler, Kellyanne Conway must follow him everywhere, and she does in an attempt to keep The Donald from saying something stupid. The "pencil necks" don't have to trip up The Donald. The Donald does that well enough on his own.
That's why he is now always under the wing of Kellyanne Conway. Unfortunately for you and those like you, the truth matters.
douwd20
Registered Senior Member
All it takes is someone anyone with a Black Lives Matter T-shirt to say something "hateful" then it becomes BLM engages in hate speech. One BLM person is indicative of all BLM people and is characteristic of BLM leadership, goals and objectives.
If they have the appropriate skin color and hair texture, and are somewhere in the vicinity of a TV camera covering an alleged Black Lives Matter "event", they don't need the T-shirt.
A question for the Americans on the board..
"Why is Hillary Clinton the subject of such incredible vilification and intense distrust from what appears to be nearly all quarters globally?"
Here in Australia she is constantly considered as terribly untrustworthy and Donald Trump is considered as trustworthy. Competency for the job appears utterly irrelevant.
Even Muslims and Afro-Australians here in Melbourne appear to favor Trump, which appears to be sooooo counter intuitive.
The only justification that they can give is that they believe him to be honest yet he has repeatedly demonstrated other wise.
It is so absurd that one could even imagine the Mexican Government would probably vote for Trump if it had the option to do so.
...Thoughts?
It might make a good test case for a "mass mind control" conspiracy in the para psychology forum as it certainly reeks of some sort of psi manipulation....
Certainly there is ample evidence to suggest such a thing. IMO
"Why is Hillary Clinton the subject of such incredible vilification and intense distrust from what appears to be nearly all quarters globally?"
Here in Australia she is constantly considered as terribly untrustworthy and Donald Trump is considered as trustworthy. Competency for the job appears utterly irrelevant.
Even Muslims and Afro-Australians here in Melbourne appear to favor Trump, which appears to be sooooo counter intuitive.
The only justification that they can give is that they believe him to be honest yet he has repeatedly demonstrated other wise.
It is so absurd that one could even imagine the Mexican Government would probably vote for Trump if it had the option to do so.
...Thoughts?
It might make a good test case for a "mass mind control" conspiracy in the para psychology forum as it certainly reeks of some sort of psi manipulation....
Certainly there is ample evidence to suggest such a thing. IMO
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Trump and Clinton have different styles.
Trump shows up. Donates food, clothing, blankets, toys and school supplies to a church helping in flooding relief. Talks with Mexico's president. He "speaks his mind", which even when he has regrets seems honest.
Trump has brought more people into the stodgy old republican party than anyone in history.
There is a problem there for Trump. To bring in new voters, his rhetoric was inflammatory. Now, he has to moderate that rhetoric without losing the base that brought him this far.
In the US: Those who vote democrat still outnumber those who vote republican, so any way you look at it he has an uphill battle ahead.
Clinton has managed to put herself in a defensive position concerning the media. She seems cagey which then seems dishonest, probably more dishonest than she actually is.
Let us consider brexit.
What percentage of the brexit vote was primarily a "NO" vote for the current government?
What percentage of us voters will vote trump as a no vote.
Yestereve, the 2 candidates spoke at a cic event. Here's a link to the transcript.
http://time.com/4483355/commander-chief-forum-clinton-trump-intrepid/
Trump shows up. Donates food, clothing, blankets, toys and school supplies to a church helping in flooding relief. Talks with Mexico's president. He "speaks his mind", which even when he has regrets seems honest.
Trump has brought more people into the stodgy old republican party than anyone in history.
There is a problem there for Trump. To bring in new voters, his rhetoric was inflammatory. Now, he has to moderate that rhetoric without losing the base that brought him this far.
In the US: Those who vote democrat still outnumber those who vote republican, so any way you look at it he has an uphill battle ahead.
Clinton has managed to put herself in a defensive position concerning the media. She seems cagey which then seems dishonest, probably more dishonest than she actually is.
Let us consider brexit.
What percentage of the brexit vote was primarily a "NO" vote for the current government?
What percentage of us voters will vote trump as a no vote.
Yestereve, the 2 candidates spoke at a cic event. Here's a link to the transcript.
http://time.com/4483355/commander-chief-forum-clinton-trump-intrepid/
Among many, two reasons:QQ said:
1) Twenty five years of nonstop slander and lies by the media wing of American corporate authoritarian faction that has taken over the Republican Party - the best, most sophisticated, and most lavishly funded marketing and media operation the world has ever seen. It's to the point where many - even most, in some regions - grown adults haven't seen five minutes of unmanipulated, "objective" news coverage of anything involving a Clinton in their entire lives. Hating Clintons is at the center of the fascist media bubble. That is because the Clintons are powerful Democrats, and the US Democratic Party was not the one taken over by that faction - so they have been and are an obstacle.
No one anywhere is immune - certainly not Australians, from which the US got some of its premier propagandists in this arena.
2) A core of truth, in that the Clintons - both, and Hillary in particular - are and have always been themselves rightwing corporate conservative politicians with a lean toward the military. So they have in fact done and supported doing things that ordinary people have actual reason to dislike - such as NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, TPP, the Iraq War, Homeland Security intrusions, and various offensively authoritarian approaches to domestic issues such as drugs, crime, welfare, and gun control.
Trump's style is to bully and brag, rip people off and oversell himself while making money with his mouth. That's one of the kinds of people self-described conservatives and competent adult men don't trust, according to themselves.
Two others: Hollywood movie faces with multiple wives and powerful backers who have learned to wear a suit well and deliver a smooth speech but are essentially playacting their way through life; wastrel third generation playboy sons of the Eastern moneyed elite whose daddies got them jobs as CEOs, and who appear to be physical cowards while surrounded by homoeroticism and overseeing torture of those in their power.
A little more self-awareness, please?
He does stuff on TV. He kisses babies unless they get in his way. He brags. He makes long speeches blaming everybody except white males aged 30 - 65 for what's wrong with the US. He doesn't know what he's talking about, when he's talking about the job he wants. He says things that aren't true, all the time. Does that matter to you?sculptor said:
No, he hasn't. Some Republicans who sidled out the fire exits when W&Cheney's circus dump splatted on the tanbark and started to breed flies, packed the "Mission Accomplished" T-shirts in the closet on top of the white hoodies, and started calling themselves "Independent" and "Tea Party", have slid back into the Party they came from. That's all.sculptor said:
And that's enough. W&Cheney won the popular vote in 2004, remember? And probably the fraud stuff that got them Ohio's electoral votes did not make all of that popular margin.
Hmm...well after 70 some years of life and coincidental run for POTUS, there is a first time for everything. After 70 some years of life I'd say its about time Trump did something for charity. But it would have been much more convincing if he wasn't running for POTUS and didn't do it in front of a gaggle of reporters.
Does he speak his mind? That's certainly what he wants people to believe. That's certainly how he wants to brand himself. But if that is true, then he is as dumb and as ignorant as a log. Politifact has found that about 76% of what Trump says is not true. So is Trump a liar or an ignorant idiot? I use to think he was just a liar. But now, I'm not so sure. I think there is a lot of ignorant idiot in there too in part driven by his well-known narcissism. Trump has a long history of lying, in fact Trump's associates invented a term to describe his dishonesty, "truthful hyperbole". Unfortunately, there is no truth in Trump's "truthful hyperbole".
I agree with much of that, but Trump didn't use inflammatory rhetoric to bring in new voters. There is little evidence he expanded the Republican Party beyond formerly registered Democrats who have always voted Republican. What Trump did was capitalize on the inflammatory rhetoric one can find on any given day by tuning into Republicans entertainment media sources. Inflammatory rhetoric is the bread and butter of Republican entertainment. Trump understood that and Trump has capitalized on it. Trump is the iconic Republican entertainer. That's why Trump has come so far knowing so little.
Clinton put herself in a defensive position when her husband first decided to run for public office. Hilary Clinton has been in a defensive position for more than 3 decades. For more than 3 decades Republicans have dishonestly smeared her character and falsely represented her as cagey, dishonest, and criminal. That's why she may seem cagey and dishonest to some.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But if you are saying some people are voting as a protest, that's foolish, but undoubtedly true.
I watched, I thought it was pretty good. I thought Hilary came out looking very well. But I couldn't help but notice the difference in treatment by the host, Matt Lauer. Lauer was very harsh on Clinton which was fine. But he should have been equally has harsh with Trump and he wasn't. He shouldn't have let Trump get by with platitudes.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...s-controversial-statements-last-night-n644746
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Sexy Susan Sarandon has made the long journey from supporting Bernie Sanders to Trump, mostly because she thinks HRC to be a hawk/danger who may start ww3.
If she can make that journey, so can you!
(A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.)
I made the same journey.
It wasn't difficult.
If she can make that journey, so can you!
(A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.)
I made the same journey.
It wasn't difficult.