Welcome to Trump's America

You've posted things not in our discussion tree in an attempt I guess to salvage your position without addressing any of my questions despite me fully answering all of your obvious projections?

Countering which point? This crap you posted in response to my standalone reply to Sweet Lou's OP blaming Trump for an assault in LA? Here is the convo before you went off the rails

you hold the insane position black americans do whatever ann coulter tells them to. My question is why have you not fallen victim to this same rhetoric?

 

I don't need to salvage anything here.

I went off the rails? Not the guy who was triggered by my use of ebonics?

I hold the insane position that americans especially racist ones are emboldened by divisive rhetoric when their president uses it openly and his followers in the media encourage and cheer it on. This toxicity, as history has shown, tends to create hate against minority groups. History doesn't seem to indicate this is an insane position to hold, that when your leaders start demonizing groups of people it usually is followed by violence. Data seems to say that hate crimes have increased since Trump took office.

To answer your silly question, since I'm no racist and no fan of Trump his rhetoric doesn't affect me. Before Presidents would openly condemn such language, in fact, many people did condemn his language before he became president but I see now that was all politics and many conservatives were just going to kiss the ring of whoever won their primary.

Now, answer my question, do you agree with Ann Coulter's rhetoric?

 

So for this to be your defense against brainwashing, the only logical way Laquisha's attack was related to Trump is she is a fan of Trump. Amazin'

I would think she isn't, but I am interested to hear more facts when they become available. Including more details on what started the altercation considering she is a mother who was with her child on a walk.

 

You are so completely dishonest, no, that's not my defense.

Look at you above going on about how I wouldn't answer your question all while you ignore mines. A softball question at that.

This is why American conservatism has such a bad rap with racism, its supporters and representers can't merely just say "I don't agree with her position and I don't think that kind of rhetoric helps."

Such a simple thing to say and express.

 

You gave two reasons you are not susceptible. You are not a racist (according to you) and you are not a fan of Trump. You think she was susceptible so it can be logically deduced she must not share these characteristics.

 

Exactly. Therefore your response about her probably not being a Trump fan was nonsense when I gave two reasons. According to reports, she's racist. I have no idea if she's a trump fan or not.

It is also hilarious how I can't get a single conservative to condemn Ann Coulter's racial rhetoric. Even @cml750 is in here liking posts but no one can just come out and say that her rhetoric isn't helping. I mean one poster vaguely blames Mass Media and that gets cheered on...another poster (Me) shows an explicit example of it...silence.

You guys against racist rhetoric or not? Maybe like Ann Coulter you just think it's good racial politics to pit groups of people against each other. No one is denying it so I guess it is safe to assume.

 

FYI, "AND" means the subject must meet all criteria in that set. You seem to be switching to "OR" logic where the subject must only meet one of the criteria.

"since I'm no racist and no fan of Trump his rhetoric doesn't affect me."

See you use of the word "AND" there?

So now your argument is racists, who are not fans of Trump rhetoric, are beating people with bricks and Trump is at blame. This also implies Trump fans that are not racist are beating people with bricks for racist reasons. That makes even less sense. The "AND" logic was at least plausible pending more facts to come out about her motivations if you believe she has an eggshell skull (which is implied in your argument)

It's irrelevant to the thread unless you have a time machine and make a thread two years ago called Ann Coulters america. I'm working hard to stay on topic here Jay. Further, I reject the assertion that divisive speech removes a third parties free will.

 

I've already stated wasn't my defense or argument and said that Trump's rhetoric and those media members that cheer it on and encourage embolden racist, but you ignored that part of my post.

Once I stated that wasn't my argument you should have asked me to clarify which I would have readily done.

Really now? So it's irrelevant when Ann Coulter cheers on Trump for his divisive rhetoric?

Two years ago? Her opinions on this haven't changed lol, she still talks about this crap today. Maybe you'd have a point if she took it back but since she's still on twitter just as recently as few months ago trying to spread hate again it seems to me it's still very relevant.

Interesting coming from the guy that wanted to talk about my use of ebonics for about a page and then for good measure tossed out insults which had nothing to do with any discussion. Seems like you don't try hard enough to stay on topic.

I'm sure you do but my question was if you actually reject the divisive speech, it seems like it's very difficult to get that out of you so I'm assuming you're cool with racist rhetoric.

 

I can't be bothered to try and decipher what you mean with the first sentence. I'm at my limits with wading through your logic already. If you wish to rewrite it I will try in the name of not being accused of dishonesty.

In contrast, this clear statement needed no clarification.

Can we agree you now understand the AND/OR situation now? Was this poorly worded or is this in fact your reasoning why Laquisha hit a man with a brick in the face and you (to my knowledge) have not?

 

Your dishonesty is pretty clear to me.

I've answered your question, perhaps answer mine, otherwise, I really don't care to continue a useless back and forth where you get to throw out insults, feign outrage, and then claim you are all about keeping on the thread topic when you've spent most of the thread not even on topic. Another display of your dishonesty.

If you wish to actually answer my question, since I've answered yours, then I'll be happy to continue the discussion. Until then I guess I'll assume that you support racist rhetoric since ignoring it is just as good as giving it the big thumbs up.

 

This is exactly how I feel. Please learn to articulate your points better.

 

I've articulated my points and clarified them. You've refused to accept my clarification, kept on that, avoided a simple question that could have been answered in one sentence, threw out pointless insults, and also wanted to talk about my use of ebonics all while claiming you just wanted to stay on topic, lol, as you say...amazin'

Yeah, dishonesty is a nice way of putting it.

 

Your points are as clear as mud and stirred up intentionally when given the smallest of scrutiny. I gave you steelmans, I interpreted your statements charitably, and am accused of slinging insults.

I have no idea what you think clarified means but you have it just as wrong as you have "and/or"

 

It really isn't my fault if you failed to comprehend my point and then my clarified point. That's a you problem. I'm not going to clarify it a 3rd time just so you can avoid having to ever address racist rhetoric that Trump and his fangirl Ann Coulter use that embolden racist like this.

Oh boy....you are lost i think...did you forget that you asked ME why I wasn't smashing people in the face with bricks? I answered for MYSELF, since you posed the question to me.

Later, I clarified why I thought Laquisha attacked the man...

I never said or implied she was a Trump fan, just that I wasn't, since you asked ME why I wasn't attacking people in the same manner.

You took one sentence and separated it from the context of everything else I said, perhaps if you weren't trying so hard to be dishonest and dodge condemning racist rhetoric you would not have this issue.

 

It really is your fault here.

My question and your answer is an attempt to understand the mechanism in your accusation of speech causing violence. You gave two criteria to be met. Then called me a liar and said only one of the two needed meeting. Then I was again a liar when I questioned the upshot of that logic.

I get that you want to somehow blame me for people saying stuff you dislike that are totally unrelated to me or the discussion, but if you want to accuse anyone's speech of causing violence it has to stand up to scrutiny. You have to be willing to move forward in the discussion.

 

No, I gave two reasons why I, Me, Myself, is not committing hate crimes. You asked me. I did not give a list of criteria, I simply answered for myself.

I later clarified that the woman probably did so because she's racist.

Lol, I called you dishonest. Which is quite different from being a liar.

Blame you? No, not at all. I do blame you and others for continuing to let racist rhetoric like that thrive in the public space because you refuse, quite simply, you REFUSE to condemn it. Thankfully there are actually GOP politicians and conservatives sane enough to know that racist rhetoric should be condemned and that it takes nothing to condemn it. Unfortunately, too many on the right think ignorance is bliss and don't understand how a president saying immigrants are rapists, murderers, animals, bad people, so on and so on...too many people don't seem to understand the toxic environment that creates.

It seems completely relevant to the discussion. In fact, a few conservatives here thought to blame divisive rhetoric, it seems like everyone in the thread was talking about that instead of you...

 

You only differing from her in one of them means the direct link from speech to violence has not been satisfied under the simplest of scrutiny. I addressed this after you claimed and=or. It makes no sense.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Assign Ann Coulters statement a numerical value of racism. Now raise it by an order of magnitude. I will still ask for a mechanistic link between that statement and a violent act.

Do you understand this? Do you understand the real discussion here?

I've worked VERY hard to present your argument in a way you agree with and think is fair. It's the vast majority of my posts here. Do the same for me. What is my contention here? Where do we disagree?

 

It makes no sense because I never claimed and=or, I simply answered the question for me, as you directed it at me. I then later explained that for the woman, according to reports, that she was a racist and had no idea if she was a Trump supporter or not.

That's fine, i'm fine with that discussion. That's why I kept asking your opinions, thoughts, whatever, on her statements, and statements like hers.

My contention was for you to just drop it. I answered your question about the woman, that I thought her racism played at least a key role in the attack and racist rhetoric tends to make racist turn into violent people. Just that I answered this question, it was time to move on to the point of why you asked it, the real discussion as you call it, instead of going on about if I also considered her being a possible Trump supporter when I already said I didn't know.