Trump Consciousness

That's how a straw man argument works. You substitute some low-hanging fruit rant for the meaningful and legitimate criticisms made against Trump. Some rando on Facebook says "Trump said Neo Nazis are fine people. Orange Man Bad!" It get's picked up by a Trumper ( ), and then you get to pretend that Biden and Wallace made an easily knocked down argument, instead of addressing the argument they actually made.

When I said that they were your hoaxes, I meant they were the straw men the CTers have erected to represent The Left.

Randos on FB?

Joe Biden himself said the reason - the main reason - he got into the race was because Trump is in league with the Neo-Nazis. ""they came out of the woods. Eyes bulging", etc. "Trump praised them" - I heard Biden say three times, personally, at the debates.

Am I imagining I heard the democrats in congress assert repeatedly that Trump was a mole for Putin? Did I imagine the whole Mueller investigation the Democrats in congress implemented? I don't think so.

What color is the sky on your planet?

I asked you once to not try to gaslight me. This is the last time time, space man.
 
Randos on FB?

Joe Biden himself said the reason - the main reason - he got into the race was because Trump is in league with the Neo-Nazis. ""they came out of the woods. Eyes bulging", etc. "Trump praised them" - I heard Biden say three times, personally, at the debates.

Am I imagining I heard the democrats in congress assert repeatedly that Trump was a mole for Putin? Did I imagine the whole Mueller investigation the Democrats in congress implemented? I don't think so.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. It's not a "hoax" to question/discuss the extent to which Trump's words and actions have given oxygen to White Supreme Extremists. Yes, sometimes he has been misquoted and misrepresented. So what? That's not what the case against him is based on.

Similarly, the Mueller investigation isn't a hoax, given that evidence was found of criminal activity, and people were tried and convicted as a result. And you can't use the results of an investigation to try to claim that the investigation shouldn't have preceded. How would you know that beforehand?

What color is the sky on your planet?

I asked you once to not try to gaslight me. This is the last time time, space man.
Or what?
 
The Dems love to incite violence.

So let me ask you...If the audience, after the incendiary remarks by whichever Democrat was speaking, broke into government buildings or the White House and tried to run down Trump, killing and injuring the Secret Service as well as others in the crowd, would you want that Democrat to be held responsible in some way for that outcome?
 
The Dems love to incite violence.


Right

Spaceman doesn't seem to know about Steve Scalise getting shot by a Bernie Bro, Susan Rosenbaum literally bombing the Capitol and being pardoned by Bill Clinton (she's now a BLM leader), a mob of crazy women amped up by democrats hyperbolic rhetoric during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings literally taking over a building in the Capitol complex, BLM and Antifa literally taking over and burning down "government buildings", like police stations and attacking a federal court in Portland and attacking federal law enforcement buildings, like ICE HQ - all due to democrat rhetoric (example ICE = kids in cages).

Me thinks Spaceman is either lost in space or dishonest (or both).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
So let me ask you...If the audience, after the incendiary remarks by whichever Democrat was speaking, broke into government buildings or the White House and tried to run down Trump, killing and injuring the Secret Service as well as others in the crowd, would you want that Democrat to be held responsible in some way for that outcome?

People have died after the Dems made the statements shown in the video. The reason they are not being prosecuted is that they have the Constitutional right to free speech. So does Trump. That was the point being made by the lawyer. He wasn't asking for the Dems to be prosecuted, he was saying that the Constitution applies to everyone, even Trump.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure where you're going with this. It's not a "hoax" to question/discuss the extent to which Trump's words and actions have given oxygen to White Supreme Extremists. Yes, sometimes he has been misquoted and misrepresented. So what? That's not what the case against him is based on.

Similarly, the Mueller investigation isn't a hoax, given that evidence was found of criminal activity, and people were tried and convicted as a result. And you can't use the results of an investigation to try to claim that the investigation shouldn't have preceded. How would you know that beforehand?

Are you really that dense, or is being deliberately obtuse something they teach you at Marxist indoctrination camp?

Duh, the Mueller investigation isn't a hoax. There was a real investigation. The point is that it was based on a hoax (the "Steele Dosier", the FBI knew the Steele Dosier was nonsense (Comey even said so). And that he media and Lefty politicians kept repeating that Trump was in league with Putin even after the Mueller investigation found no evidence of collusion. The minor charges that resulted were not leveled at Trump and had nothing to do Russia collusion and, actually, were petty crap that Washington types do every day on both sides of the aisle.

The Fine people hoax is that the media and politicians on the Left, including Joe Biden, have publicly stated, repeatedly, that TRump said Neo-Nazis are fine people; something he absolutely didn't do.

I think you know all that, but the you like to insult the intelligence and knowledge of those who oppose Marxism. Or maybe you're truly retarded. We end up in the same place with you regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Eric, you will enjoy this segment from yesterday's Z-Man Podcast where he explains why it is a mistake for us to expect Leftists to abide or value reason and evidence...
Sorry. I try to give you guys the benefit of the doubt and listen/watch the stuff you link to. But once I am presented with a bunch of made up shit, I tune out. If you start with false premises, who cares where they lead?

Again, these are your straw men, not mine.
 
Right

Spaceman doesn't seem to know about Steve Scalise getting shot by a Bernie Bro, Susan Rosenbaum literally bombing the Capitol and being pardoned by Bill Clinton (she's now a BLM leader), ]a mob of crazy women amped up by democrats hyperbolic rhetoric during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings literally taking over a building in the Capitol complex, BLM and Antifa literally taking over and burning down "government buildings", like police stations and attacking a federal court in Portland and attacking federal law enforcement buildings, like ICE HQ - all due to democrat rhetoric (example ICE = kids in cages).

No one denies that some leaders of protest movements include the use of force to make their voice heard (I disagree with the idea). And that in some cases, people from the right and the left have used protests as cover for criminal and destructive behavior (the Boogaloo Boi helping set fire to the Mpls Police Station as an example), which has also been condemned. And no one denies that there is near constant dehumanization of "Them" coming from both the Right and the Left. Now, it's almost exclusively coming from the Right on this particular forum, but I don't doubt you could find something similar on a forum lefties are likely to be found. And that this dehumanization has consequences.

But we are talking about drawing a direct line between a leader employing incendiary language and their audience acting on it. That is speech which is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
 
Are you really that dense, or is being deliberately obtuse something they teach you at Marxist indoctrination camp?

Duh, the Mueller investigation isn't a hoax. There was a real investigation. The point is that it was based on a hoax (the "Steele Dosier", the FBI knew the Steele Dosier was nonsense (Comey even said so). And that he media and Lefty politicians kept repeating that Trump was in league with Putin even after the Mueller investigation found no evidence of collusion. The minor charges that resulted were not leveled at Trump and had nothing to do Russia collusion and, actually, were petty crap that Washington types do every day on both sides of the aisle.

I'm aware that the idea is that the Mueller investigation was based on a false claim. There's nothing particularly special about that. Many investigations start on the basis of one thing and then uncover something else instead. My point is that there was substantial criminal activity present, to uncover. Just because that criminal activity might not have been uncovered without the false tip, doesn't mean that there wasn't wrongdoing. And yup, there wasn't enough evidence to exonerate Trump and there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. But there was enough to substantiate the Russian interference (which apparently nobody did anything about), as well as criminal activity among other members of Trump's team.

The Fine people hoax is that the media and politicians on the Left, including Joe Biden, have publicly stated, repeatedly, that TRump said Neo-Nazis are fine people; something he absolutely didn't do.

Except, of course, that's not what happened. But, yeah, you go right on pretending that the case against Trump is all based on a misquote. Easier to knock down.

(ETA: It occurs to me Eric may not realize what the "Fine people on both sides" controversy is about. It's about the false equivalency drawn between people attending a rally organized by white supremists for the purpose of uniting other white supremist and alt-right groups, and people rallying to counter their racist, anti-semitic, and fascist rhetoric. It's about the false equivalency drawn about the cause of violence, when the absence of one group would mean "no violence", while there still would be and was violence in the absence of the other.)
 
Last edited:
So you want the Dems arrested for their incendiary speech too? The laws need to be applied equally.

I completely agree. So let's look at them.

Booing a cabinet member is lawful.

"Protests, marchs, rallies, and sit-ins" are all lawful.

Going to the Hill to "get up in the face of some Congresspeople" is lawful.

Challenging Trump in Congress, in the courts, and with protests is lawful.

Pelosi's comments are clearly metaphorical - she refers to getting into politics as getting into the arena and then follows through on the analogy with "you have to be prepared to take a punch.......and to throw a punch." And the audience clearly takes them that way.

Testor's comments seem metaphorical.

But let's pretend that Pelosi's and Testor's comments were taken as literal, and someone went out and tried to punch Trump in the face, killing a Secret Service member on the way. Yes, it would be reasonable to at least investigate whether their speech was "likely to produce such action".

Are you saying that someone did that?
 
I completely agree. So let's look at them.

Booing a cabinet member is lawful.

"Protests, marchs, rallies, and sit-ins" are all lawful.

Going to the Hill to "get up in the face of some Congresspeople" is lawful.

Challenging Trump in Congress, in the courts, and with protests is lawful.

Pelosi's comments are clearly metaphorical - she refers to getting into politics as getting into the arena and then follows through on the analogy with "you have to be prepared to take a punch.......and to throw a punch." And the audience clearly takes them that way.

Testor's comments seem metaphorical.

But let's pretend that Pelosi's and Testor's comments were taken as literal, and someone went out and tried to punch Trump in the face, killing a Secret Service member on the way. Yes, it would be reasonable to at least investigate whether their speech was "likely to produce such action".

Are you saying that someone did that?
I've noticed that you have been careful not to mention the times that the Dems encouraged the BLM rioters, and people died.

But it doesn't matter now, does it? Get ready for a free speech crackdown (at least on Conservatives).

 
I've noticed that you have been careful not to mention the times that the Dems encouraged the BLM rioters, and people died.

Because I addressed the specific claims in the video, none of which involved Dems encouraging violence in general, or during BLM protests specifically. If you have examples of the Dems encouraging violence or criminal activity from BLM protesters, I'd be interested in seeing it.
 
Because I addressed the specific claims in the video, none of which involved Dems encouraging violence in general, or during BLM protests specifically. If you have examples of the Dems encouraging violence or criminal activity from BLM protesters, I'd be interested in seeing it.
This [=EllisR
] is what happens when lunatics get a platform instead of a straight jacket
 
Because I addressed the specific claims in the video, none of which involved Dems encouraging violence in general, or during BLM protests specifically. If you have examples of the Dems encouraging violence or criminal activity from BLM protesters, I'd be interested in seeing it.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/08/01/aoc-advocates-for-violent-rioting-n2551004

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...-dems-inciting-violence-at-impeachment-trial/


https://townhall.com/columnists/mar...edia--politicians-incited-race-riots-n2570020

https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/

It’s spine-chilling to hear activists in Portland cheering about the cold-blooded murder of a Trump supporter Saturday night.


“I am not sad that a f–king fascist died tonight,” a woman shouts into a megaphone at a BLM-Antifa gathering after a man was shot dead nearby.
But it is not Trump who has been inciting violent riots and disempowering police, it is Democrats.


As polls in June showed Biden was picking up the support of young people amid anti-police protests, Sen. Kamala Harris, whom he later selected as his running mate, was gleeful when she told “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert that protesters “are not going to stop before Election Day … and they should not.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/19/democrats-stay-silent-on-violence-in-their-cities-devine/

The timing could not have been more inconvenient for Democrats. The day before they eulogized the Black Lives Matter movement and elevated it to the centerpiece of their national convention, a white man was dragged out of his pickup truck by BLM protesters, kicked in the head and beaten almost to death.


Even more inconvenient was the fact that the victim, laborer Adam Haner, had been trying to stop these “mostly peaceful” social-justice warriors from attacking a transgender woman at the time. You couldn’t make it up.

There was Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley on Saturday, the day before Haner, 40, was bashed senseless, calling for “unrest in the streets” to defeat President Trump.


There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives,” she told MSNBC.

Sunday night’s attack on Haner was video-recorded by independent reporters. We see the attackers yelling “black lives matter” and people wearing BLM-branded clothing involved, including a white woman who orders someone to record Haner’s license plate.


At one point, a voice is heard admonishing someone livestreaming events: “Do not record [things] that don’t matter to Black Lives Matter.”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top