2016 US Presidential Election Pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
First off, i don't have a violent hatred, it's a hypothetical.



ONCE AGAIN, you are jumping to conclusions.



But thanks for proving my point.


I understand it was a hypothetical. I was playing along and asking why you beat this hypothetical person in this hypothetical situation.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think some are focusing too much on Trump. Ok, remove him from the equation completely and let's just focus on the rhetoric.

My point is that the rhetoric feeds and validates this kind of "crazy".


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Obama goes after ISIS with drone strikes, targets them, executes them. Obama has a press conference where he speaks about the successful mission on TV, and justifies the mission with a tough message for ISIS. A guy on the street, who has seen Obama on TV, sees another man on the street who appears to be from the middle east. He also thinks the middle eastern man is ISIS, for whatever reason, and decides to attack him. When the police come and arrest him, he confesses to the crime thinking he has done nothing wrong. In fact he believes he was doing his part as a good citizen carrying out his idea of Obama's policy in regards to ISIS or terrorists. He is actually shocked that other people on the street, witnesses of the crime, didn't come to help him. Is this Obama inciting violence?
 
Obama goes after ISIS with drone strikes, targets them, executes them. Obama has a press conference where he speaks about the successful mission on TV, and justifies the mission with a tough message for ISIS. A guy on the street, who has seen Obama on TV, sees another man on the street who appears to be from the middle east. He also thinks the middle eastern man is ISIS, for whatever reason, and decides to attack him. When the police come and arrest him, he confesses to the crime thinking he has done nothing wrong. In fact he believes he was doing his part as a good citizen carrying out his idea of Obama's policy in regards to ISIS or terrorists. He is actually shocked that other people on the street, witnesses of the crime, didn't come to help him. Is this Obama inciting violence?


If Obama often grouped middle eastern men with ISIS and demonized middle eastern men in general, and spoke of how they should be removed from our country; then yes his rhetoric would be that of which invited this type of violence.

Your example? No


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Last edited:
If Obama often grouped middle eastern men with ISIS and demonized middle eastern men in general, and spoke of how they should be removed from our country; then yes his rhetoric would be that of which invited this type of violence.

Your example? No


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

:doh::doh::doh:
 
I think some are focusing too much on Trump. Ok, remove him from the equation completely and let's just focus on the rhetoric.

My point is that the rhetoric feeds and validates this kind of "crazy".


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Take "political rhetoric" and replace it with "video games" or "violence on TV/movies" or "rap/metal music" or "books"

It's all the same.

Could a violent crazy person be influenced to shoot up a school by a video game or movie? Yes, of course they could. But if the video game wasn't there, something else would trigger the crazy. Cause crazy does what crazy does.

Blaming Donald Trump, who's as legitimate a candidate as Deez Nuts and Limberbutt McCubbins, for these violent crazies being crazy is just plan wrong. Crazy will do what crazy does. If Trump didn't set them off, then some wack job on Fox would have. Or a website. Or a book. Or a random birdie on the street corner who looked at the guy funny.

Trump is a douche who's using those of lesser intelligence on a fucked up publicity stunt. Yes. True.

But I can't blame his words for the actions of two crazy people who he's never met.
 
Take "political rhetoric" and replace it with "video games" or "violence on TV/movies" or "rap/metal music" or "books"

It's all the same.

Could a violent crazy person be influenced to shoot up a school by a video game or movie? Yes, of course they could. But if the video game wasn't there, something else would trigger the crazy. Cause crazy does what crazy does.

Blaming Donald Trump, who's as legitimate a candidate as Deez Nuts and Limberbutt McCubbins, for these violent crazies being crazy is just plan wrong. Crazy will do what crazy does. If Trump didn't set them off, then some wack job on Fox would have. Or a website. Or a book. Or a random birdie on the street corner who looked at the guy funny.

Trump is a douche who's using those of lesser intelligence on a fucked up publicity stunt. Yes. True.

But I can't blame his words for the actions of two crazy people who he's never met.


I get what you're saying and I think my point has been blown out of proportion. And that's partly my fault for not starting out with a more detailed response, but I haven't had the time.

I think the difference between the video games/ movies and this scenario is that we're now talking about a potential U.S. Leader. And as confident as you and I know that will never happen, there is a group that is just as confident he will. They look to him as a real leader, you and I know some, and that kind of influence is real.

It's not an excuse, it's not the sole fault of the speaker, but it's real influence. And when you make the conscious decision to solicit certain extreme groups, which I believe Trump has, then you bear the responsibility of your words.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
So then who gets blamed for Dylann Roof's actions when he specifically said why he did what he did and what organizations inspired him? You people don't think that organizations such as the KKK or even ISIS aren't responsible for rhetoric that can incite violence?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Well said, Mrs. Garrison :up:

thanks :up:

That is the correct response to a BVS post

:applaud:

Take "political rhetoric" and replace it with "video games" or "violence on TV/movies" or "rap/metal music" or "books"

It's all the same.

Could a violent crazy person be influenced to shoot up a school by a video game or movie? Yes, of course they could. But if the video game wasn't there, something else would trigger the crazy. Cause crazy does what crazy does.

Blaming Donald Trump, who's as legitimate a candidate as Deez Nuts and Limberbutt McCubbins, for these violent crazies being crazy is just plan wrong. Crazy will do what crazy does. If Trump didn't set them off, then some wack job on Fox would have. Or a website. Or a book. Or a random birdie on the street corner who looked at the guy funny.

Trump is a douche who's using those of lesser intelligence on a fucked up publicity stunt. Yes. True.

But I can't blame his words for the actions of two crazy people who he's never met.

:up:

That guy is just full of hot air.

:heart:

So then who gets blamed for Dylann Roof's actions when he specifically said why he did what he did and what organizations inspired him? You people don't think that organizations such as the KKK or even ISIS aren't responsible for rhetoric that can incite violence?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

How about...Dylann Roof.

It's high time people take responsibility for their own actions (imho) and stop trying to blame society or everything else under the sun for their own actions.

If i were to hypothetically run a red light and slam into another car, killing an innocent driver in the other vehicle, can my defense be something along the lines of, "i saw a person/car run a red light in a video game or a tv show/movie, so therefore i though it was okay to do so in real life?" No..of course not.
 
Last edited:
So then if ISIS says "you should kill Americans" and someone actually goes out and does that, it's not ISIS' fault, it's the individual terrorist's fault instead?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
We're talking about the wrong thing with that story anyway. The real story should be Trump nonchalantly replying "How about the passion my fans have, huh?"
 
They were two Boston Red Sox fans that had just left a game drunk.

They pissed on a homeless guy and beat him up. Only after being arrested and taken to the station did they mention Trump. One guy was arrested for this one year ago. (no Trump excuse then)


This has always been a non-story, regarding Trump.
Whackadoos, have contorted themselves into believing whatever suits their motives.

And it is giving me a stressor.
 
and the context?

he got blind sided by a reporter

"hey Trump, two guys beat up a Mexican, got arrested, they mention you."

That's a shame > first reaction, acceptable,

those guys have some passion, ok, not good, could he be making fun of them?


but, because it was a blindside question, and not something that he had even 60 seconds to contemplate, of even know more than what bare facts the reporter put at him, I can't go off to the races on this one


his initial remarks about them being rapists, etc, no way would I break that down, that is all on him, he deserved all the criticism that got him.
 
The appropriate initial gut reaction should be at the very least something addressing the violence. "I don't condone violence." Or "While I would like to deport all the undocumented immigrants, no one should be attacking them."

I mean, come on.

Trump's response was basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
 
we may be splitting hairs here
my reaction would be more in line with, first condemning violence too

and I have only found his response to fit within the acceptable range, not at the best range at all.

this guy is either crazy or crazy like a fox

everybody is screaming CRAZY,
I am considering, like a fox
 
I was eating Ben & Jerry's with Bernie in Vermont. Then upon leaving I punted a little rat-dog named Baxter off a bridge on the Connecticut River in White River Junction. Upon my arrest I blamed Bernie.
 
When asked for comment, the interviewer ignored the dog punting incident and asked why Sanders didn't care about black people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom