The Democrats newest conspiracy theory: Trump faked his own assassination

[herbie]

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

See now, the way I heard it, he shot himself in the head with a gun twice. Or maybe that was another guy.

You're both wrong. He tragically violently cut his own head off while shaving. 

2 hours ago, herbie said:

So i guess that would make kamala goofy  

[Chrissy1979]

Revelation 13:3 “One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.”

[ironstone]

Sadly, there are a lot of progressives that are angry or sad that the attempt on Trump failed. Not surprising given their propensity to use violence as a means to an end.

Pretty bloodthirsty.

[impartialobserver]

sadly, there are a lot of humans (therefore both sides) that are ever so angry or sad. This propensity to violence is not the sole monopoly of one side or the other. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

sadly, there are a lot of humans (therefore both sides) that are ever so angry or sad. This propensity to violence is not the sole monopoly of one side or the other. 

Careful, that's what trump tried to say about both sides at Charlotteville and they've never let him live it down   

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Careful, that's what trump tried to say about both sides at Charlotteville and they've never let him live it down   

A certain poster was trying to say that political violence or violence in general is purely a Democrat or Liberal phenomenon. Dylan roof would be very angry to be labeled as a liberal. 

[Deluge]

On 7/20/2024 at 8:24 PM, robosmith said:

FOS LIES. 🤮

Couldn't find a source that tells the truth? LMAO

At least you admit that the assassination attempt wasn't fake. 

Good for you, robocrat. 

[Black Dog]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Careful, that's what trump tried to say about both sides at Charlotteville and they've never let him live it down   

Yeah because one of the sides he was talking about were neo-Nazis.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

sadly, there are a lot of humans (therefore both sides) that are ever so angry or sad. This propensity to violence is not the sole monopoly of one side or the other. 

But it seems to be a more on the progressive side. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

A certain poster was trying to say that political violence or violence in general is purely a Democrat or Liberal phenomenon. Dylan roof would be very angry to be labeled as a liberal. 

Well there's no doubt both sides have their examples, but you do have to be careful.  Roof's shootings did not seem to be politically motivated. That was racial.  And when you move the goalposts to 'violence in general' you create a lot of interesting problems for the argument - such as most violence happens between black criminals in the us and blacks mostly vote democrat soooooooo......

Politically based events from politically motivated groups such as proud boys, antifa, blm and the like might be fair game but drifting beyond that is tough. 

I do think it's a reasonable statement tho that the left wing has been more of  a proponent of violence in the last 10 years than the right. But that's a small slice of a larger history. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Yeah because one of the sides he was talking about were neo-Nazis.

Yeah - they weren't. Some may have been but he was right - there were good people on both sides.  

But left wing scum who support violence always want to demonize and dehumanize.  You can't call for your opponent's death unless you convince people they're sub human first. 

So we see people like that claim that everyone who didn't want the statues pulled down was a nazi.  It's all part of  the hate based culture. 

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

But it seems to be a more on the progressive side. 

At the 'moment' maybe (last 10 years or so)

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Well there's no doubt both sides have their examples, but you do have to be careful.  Roof's shootings did not seem to be politically motivated. That was racial.  And when you move the goalposts to 'violence in general' you create a lot of interesting problems for the argument - such as most violence happens between black criminals in the us and blacks mostly vote democrat soooooooo......

Politically based events from politically motivated groups such as proud boys, antifa, blm and the like might be fair game but drifting beyond that is tough. 

I do think it's a reasonable statement tho that the left wing has been more of  a proponent of violence in the last 10 years than the right. But that's a small slice of a larger history. 

I find it lazy and ignorant to imply that if person x votes democrat that they are more likely to be violent or support violence. That is the general thought process when this comes up. Progressive/Liberal is not synonymous with being violent. 

[ironstone]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

A certain poster was trying to say that political violence or violence in general is purely a Democrat or Liberal phenomenon. Dylan roof would be very angry to be labeled as a liberal. 

I never suggested that any side has a monopoly on violence and rhetoric, merely that it seems to be rather more common on one side. Jan 6 get's mentioned constantly while far more numerous BLM/Antifa riots get glossed over. The new Democrat presidential nominee actually said that those rioters 'should not stop'. 

She also helped to get them bailed out too.

[impartialobserver]

Just now, ironstone said:

I never suggested that any side has a monopoly on violence and rhetoric, merely that it seems to be rather more common on one side. Jan 6 get's mentioned constantly while far more numerous BLM/Antifa riots get glossed over. The new Democrat presidential nominee actually said that those rioters 'should not stop'. 

She also helped to get them bailed out too.

Your sample size for deeming it more common on one side is artificially small. You rely on cherry picked articles from the Internet. The violence on January 6 can definitely be attributed to the Right but it is only one event. 

[Deluge]

16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

A certain poster was trying to say that political violence or violence in general is purely a Democrat or Liberal phenomenon. Dylan roof would be very angry to be labeled as a liberal. 

I don't think Roof declared whether he was democrat or Republican.

He appears to be a Civil War era democrat because he hates blacks and he murdered black people. 

[ironstone]

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Your sample size for deeming it more common on one side is artificially small. You rely on cherry picked articles from the Internet. The violence on January 6 can definitely be attributed to the Right but it is only one event. 

As opposed to BLM/Antifa riots...which were many. That's not exactly a small sample size.

Not for a second will I condone the use of violence as a means to an end by any side. Those committing acts of violence on Jan 6 were acting very foolishly and deserved to be punished for it.

 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

I never suggested that any side has a monopoly on violence and rhetoric, merely that it seems to be rather more common on one side. Jan 6 get's mentioned constantly while far more numerous BLM/Antifa riots get glossed over. The new Democrat presidential nominee actually said that those rioters 'should not stop'. 

She also helped to get them bailed out too.

You're lying. That is, quite literally and explicitly, a conversation about protests, not riots. 

 

Harris also explicitly condemned violent riots.

Harris, a U.S. senator who previously served as California's attorney general, said she supported peaceful protesters.
"We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice,"

 

Fox "news" and meme culture are not a substitute for reality.

Edited July 25, 2024 by Hodad

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Revelation 13:3 “One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.”

Not to be confused with: "The nation's preferred leadership candidate had his ear struck by a bullet from an evil Demonrat assassin, and he then knelt, thereby successfully dodging 7 more bullets. All men of character and women of grace were happy to see the man survive, and he went on to lead the free world to peace and prosperity for a second time." - Repolitics 7:25  

Come to me for your information from now on, I'm far more reliable than the worthless losers that you currently look up to. 

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - they weren't. Some may have been but he was right - there were good people on both sides.  

It was a neo-Nazi rally organized by neo-Nazis and populated by neo-Nazis.

Quote

But left wing scum who support violence always want to demonize and dehumanize.  You can't call for your opponent's death unless you convince people they're sub human first. 

These are your fine people buddy:

Quote

So we see people like that claim that everyone who didn't want the statues pulled down was a nazi.  It's all part of  the hate based culture. 

If you go to a neo-Nazi rally organized by neo-Nazis and packed with people waving swastikas and chanting about the Jews and you stick around do you know what that makes you?

Edited July 25, 2024 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well there's no doubt both sides have their examples, but you do have to be careful.  Roof's shootings did not seem to be politically motivated. That was racial.

White supremacism is a political ideology numbnuts.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

A certain poster was trying to say that political violence or violence in general is purely a Democrat or Liberal phenomenon. Dylan roof would be very angry to be labeled as a liberal. 

OOOH OOH OOOH! I THINK I KNOW THAT GUY!

FYI, it's always best to look at the view from 20,000 feet before you make wide-ranging statements like that.

When it comes to identifying a group as ________ or _________, you never look at the outliers like Dylan Roof or James Hodgkinson to fill in those blanks, because their views are not necessarily the views of the entire group. In the case of US federal politics, those outliers are usually just people who made a binary choice between 2 groups, and went with the group that checks more of their boxes than the other. They can hold extreme views which are way outside the norm for the vast majority of the other members in that group.

When it comes to identifying a group as ________ or _________, you always look to the leaders of that group to fill in those blanks. If the leaders say "this and this is ok, and this is bad", then people who do "this and this" are considered representatives of that group, and their actions speak for everyone in that group. 

 

Eg, when Demonrat leaders are directly telling their followers "When you see members of the opposition in public places, you push back on them. You get in their faces and let them know that they're not welcome!", and then their followers do that exact thing, the Demonrat followers are doing something that is EXACTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR GROUP.

Eg, when Michelle Obama tell HS graduates to "STAY ANGRY, AND FOCUS YOUR ANGER! NEVER LET ANYONE TELL YOU NOT TO BE ANGRY!", during a time of violent riots, and those kids join the violent rioting, that rioting is EXACTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR GROUP.

When Dem leaders say that severed head effigies and death threats against the president are ok, and then Dems take violent action by doing things like shooting at GOP congressmen or the president himself, those violent actions are EXACTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR GROUP.

That makes sense to you, right? When the leaders say: "This is the right way to act", and then members act that way, those actions represent the group. 

 

Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris etc supported violent riots. CNN supported violent riots. They all incited, condoned and or supported violent riots, quite implicitly. The violence that resulted was Demonrat violence. Violence with weapons. Violence causing death. Violence that went on for years. Violence that caused billions of dollars in damages and left people homeless and afraid. 

I'd love to see your example that compares with this. I'd love to see what GOP leader called for Dylan Roof to use violence. Because if they didn't, then Roof's violence wasn't representative of his entire group.

 

And make no mistake: the Scalise shooting, Trump shooting, and all the BLM shooting are all entirely representative of all Demonrats. 

 

Here's some logic for you to follow:

All healthy kittens are born with 4 legs, Jenny is healthy kitten, Jenny was born with 4 legs.  Correct.

All healthy kittens are born with 4 legs, Jenny was born with 2 legs, Jenny is healthy kitten.  Not correct.

 

The leaders of the Dems regularly incite, condone, and cheer on political violence. When Demi followers commit acts of political violence, it is representative of their group. Correct. 

The leaders of the GOP don't incite, condone, or cheer on political violence. When GOP followers commit acts of political violence, it is representative of their group. Not at all correct.

[CouchPotato]

3 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Revelation 13:3 “One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.”

The operative word here being "fatal".

I would add that the beast of Revelation is someone with whom the whole world becomes enamored. Trump is a long way off from that.

Edited July 25, 2024 by CouchPotato

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

It was a neo-Nazi rally organized by neo-Nazis and populated by neo-Nazis.

These are your people buddy:

Not my people regardless   I didn't care about some statues being taken down in the states   But the fact that SOME of the protesters are neo nazis does not at all mean all were. The reports at the time were clear that many groups were involved. 

 

Quote

If you go to a neo-Nazi rally organized by neo-Nazis and packed with people waving swastikas and chanting about the Jews and you stick around do you know what that makes you

Sorry kiddo, it wasn't a neo nazi rally.  And while the nazi's definitely showed up there it was a protest about removing the statues and other people were there. In fact several groups which the papers clumped in as "alt-right" were involved.

And the problem for small minded people like you is that there really are good people on both sides, not just here but in general.  There's "white nationalists' who are otherwise honest people and good members of their communities same as there's some excellent people who are on the far left violent facists BLM "burn the piggies" side. 

The trick is to reach out to the good people on both sides and open a dialogue.

But you're more interested in spreading lies and hatred.  Which would make you on about the same footing as the nazis. 

 

21 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

White supremacism is a political ideology numbnuts.

Umm no. No it isn't    That's pretty stupid   LOL thanks for the chuckle tho  

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

But I support white supremisists and I'm definitely on the left so how do you explain THAT?!?!

 

Yes yes, we know you hate black people, no need to harp on it. 

I see you're back to your tricks of fake quoting people because the truth doesn't suit your purposes.