If ONLY there were liberal terrorists . . .

[Lord Jim]

They were also carrying Sanders signs and burning American flags...

You know a lot of Conservatives who do those things? Or Conservatives who hang out at demonstrations with folks doing those things?

God what a moron....

[Scooter]

People most likely to be motivated to protest Donald Trump would be those whose beliefs are pretty much diametrically opposed to his own (whatever they might be on the day in question).

That being said, I would not put it past Trump to pay a few agents provocateurs to pose as protestors and start some trouble so that he could play the victim. And I don't believe that you would completely put it past him either.

[Econoline]

...burning American flags...

I don't know any liberals who do that thing.

(Sounds like a conservative's idea of what a liberal might do, though... )

[rubato]

They were also carrying Sanders signs and burning American flags...

You know a lot of Conservatives who do those things? Or Conservatives who hang out at demonstrations with folks doing those things?

God what a moron....

Sanders is a Liberal now? He says that he is a Socialist. And that is what happened at all of the violent incidents? In more than half the Trumpians started the violence per the press.

"Not conservative" does not equal "Liberal" A fairly obvious point to an educated person.

And looking at your own statements, if you are a conservative there are conservatives who oppose trump. Some of them are less physically afraid than you are.

God, what an unthinking childish person you are.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The idea in the OP is simply ludicrous, silly. Liberals so not produce terrorist organizations and have not done so throughout history because it is against the nature of Liberalism:

Liberalism—it is well to recall this today—is the supreme form of generosity; it is the right which the majority concedes to minorities and hence it is the noblest cry that has ever resounded in this planet. It announces the determination to share existence with the enemy; more than that, with an enemy which is weak.
José Ortega y Gasset (1883–1955), Spanish essayist, philosopher. The Revolt of the Masses, ch. 8 (1930).

The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), British philosopher, mathematician. Unpopular Essays, “Philosophy and Politics” (1950).

And they have proven that it is not necessary. The 20th century in the United States, Europe and the other advanced countries has shown the complete triumph of liberalism socially, politically, and economically.

One of the last bastions of conservatism in Europe was Spain under the dictator Franco. It is flowered since then.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

I'm trying to find where Jim wrote that Sanders is a liberal...

[rubato]

I'm trying to find where Jim wrote that Sanders is a liberal...

got drunk before you read the thread again?


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Jim's statement was:

The people throwing eggs and punches at Trump supporters outside of Trump rallies sure as hell ain't Conservatives...

so presenting evidence that they were Sanders supporters would tend to support the contention that they "ain't conservatives". Jim never claimed that Sanders or those protestors carrying his signs were liberal, only that they were not conservative. You are engaging in misdirection to evade the point.

[MajGenl.Meade]

You are engaging in misdirection to evade the point.

rubato?

[Guinevere]

People most likely to be motivated to protest Donald Trump would be those whose beliefs are pretty much diametrically opposed to his own (whatever they might be on the day in question).

That being said, I would not put it past Trump to pay a few agents provocateurs to pose as protestors and start some trouble so that he could play the victim. And I don't believe that you would completely put it past him either.

This.

[Joe Guy]

I'm trying to find where Jim wrote that Sanders is a liberal...

got drunk before you read the thread again?

Yes I did. And I still couldn't find where Jim wrote that Sanders is a liberal.

[Lord Jim]

I'm trying to find where Jim wrote that Sanders is a liberal...

got drunk before you read the thread again?

Yes I did. And I still couldn't find where Jim wrote that Sanders is a liberal.

Sometimes I'll read rube's posts, get drunk, and then try reading them again to see if that helps make them make any more sense...

So far it hasn't helped...

[Joe Guy]

Maybe drunk isn't enough. Maybe extremely shit-faced, plowed or pie-eyed is necessary...

[rubato]

Jim's statement was:

The people throwing eggs and punches at Trump supporters outside of Trump rallies sure as hell ain't Conservatives...

so presenting evidence that they were Sanders supporters would tend to support the contention that they "ain't conservatives". Jim never claimed that Sanders or those protestors carrying his signs were liberal, only that they were not conservative. You are engaging in misdirection to evade the point.

I am not. I am demonstrating that "not conservative" does not mean liberal. Negating his point. And by pointing out that conservative Muslims and Mexican-Americans might engage Trump supporters. He is engaging in misdirection by implying that no Trump opponents are conservatives, obviously false, and anyone who is not a conservative is a liberal, an idiotic argument. Dishonest.


And I have succeeded.


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

I am demonstrating that "not conservative" does not mean liberal. Negating his point.

But he never claimed that they were liberal. You are arguing against a straw man of your own invention.

And yes, you were absolutely successful in doing so. Happy now?

And this exchange has already bored me sufficiently that I choose not to entertain it further.

[rubato]

I am demonstrating that "not conservative" does not mean liberal. Negating his point.

But he never claimed that they were liberal. You are arguing against a straw man of your own invention.

And yes, you were absolutely successful in doing so. Happy now?

And this exchange has already bored me sufficiently that I choose not to entertain it further.

The entire thread was about "Liberal terrorists". His saying that they were not conservatives (proven untrue by the existence of Moslem and Mexican conservatives) in the context of this thread made no sense unless he was saying that "not conservative" meant "liberal". If I am mistaken then his post was completely without a cogent reference in this thread. Who cares if they are conservatives or not? Was he saying they are white supremacists? Libertarians? Socialists? Parrots?


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

I am not. I am demonstrating that "not conservative" does not mean liberal.

....and anyone who is not a conservative is a liberal, an idiotic argument. Dishonest.

I'm now waiting to see who wins this argument. The rubato who imagined that Jim said Bernie Sanders is a liberal? Or the rubato who disagrees with himself and says his argument is idiotic?

[rubato]

So far no one has shown any evidence that the violent anti-trump demonstrators are liberals and Scooter has rejected the idea that

Re: If ONLY there were liberal terrorists . . .

Postby Lord Jim » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:00 am
The people throwing eggs and punches at Trump supporters outside of Trump rallies sure as hell ain't Conservatives...

Is proof that they are. Everyone else agreed with scooter that LJ was not saying that they were liberals (although it is plainly true that they might be conservatives, or parrots). My original question remains unanswered.

Postby rubato » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:50 am

Long Run wrote:
And in this very campaign, how many violent actions are being taken by liberals against those Trump supporters? It's almost not news anymore given how often it happens.

I have seen no evidence that any of the violence has been done by liberals.

yrs,
rubato

So keep trying there, dearies.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

And there is significant evidence that the violence is started by Trump supporters:


http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11219256/trump-violent

On March 9, a white Trump supporter named John McGraw sucker-punched a black protester named Rakeem Jones at a rally — then threatened to kill him the next time they met. On March 19, a similar incident happened with the protesters' races reversed: A black Trump supporter punched a white protester whose sign superimposed the Confederate flag over Trump's face, then kicked the protester after he fell to the ground.

Trump's own campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, has been accused of assaulting a reporter, and was caught on tape during the March 19 rally in Tucson, Arizona, grabbing a protester by the collar.

Trump has had opportunities to calm things down. Instead, a few days after McGraw was charged, he offered to pay McGraw's legal fees — carrying through with an offer he'd been making at rallies since the Iowa caucuses.

The Trump campaign is making a halfhearted effort to maintain plausible deniability. Trump has started denying he ever offered to pay anyone's legal fees; and the campaign claims that the video of Lewandowski in Tucson doesn't show exactly who grabbed the protester.

Here is Donald Trump's campaign manager in the Tucson crowd grabbing the collar of a protester. pic.twitter.com/JZ9RntWlHY
— Jacqueline Alemany (@JaxAlemany) March 19, 2016

But both Trump's supporters and his protesters are hearing exactly what they need to hear. And that's a problem that threatens to reverberate far beyond the rallies at which they're playing out now.

By explicitly condoning and encouraging violence, Trump is rejecting some of the most basic social norms of discourse and democracy. These norms aren't just niceties. They are the rules we follow to make our laws and institutions work.

Now the frontrunner for a major party's nomination — the man who could very plausibly be the 45th president of the United States — is gleefully undermining them.

A would-be president who would encourage and even subsidize violence among his supporters is something new and dangerous in American politics. A president who would do such things could use the power of the presidency to terrifying ends.

yrs,
rubato