CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Negro Democrat refuses to resign after "I Hope Trump Is Assassinated" post
On Thursday, Missouri state Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D) posted the following comment in a Facebook thread: “I hope Trump is assassinated!” Shortly after the Facebook post, the Secret Service noted they were “looking into” the remark. Additionally, politicians from both parties are not only condemning Chappelle-Nadal, but asking that she resign.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) released an official statement on Thursday, which reads: “I condemn it. It's outrageous. And she should resign.” Rep. William Lacy Clay echoed McCaskill: “[Calling] for the assassination of the President is a federal crime.” He added that Chappelle-Nadal is “an embarrassment to our state" and "she should resign immediately.”
Although she admitted to The Kansas City Star that her assassination comment “was wrong,” she claims she didn't mean it, and that she is simply “frustrated” because President Trump is “causing hate.”
Despite her controversial remark, Chappelle-Nadal says she will not resign.
The Party of Hate strikes again with a Negro at the lead !!!!!
What's funny about it is that she, a liberal, can make remarks that she didn't have a lot of time to think out, and she should quickly be forgiven, but if Trump doesn't say everything exactly the way they want it said and when they want it said, they crucify him, and he isn't even threatening to kill anyone.
Except, she wasn't quickly forgiven: “[Calling] for the assassination of the President is a federal crime.” He added that Chappelle-Nadal is “an embarrassment to our state" and "she should resign immediately.” and "I condemn it. It's outrageous. And she should resign.”
And, she didn't threaten to kill Trump.
Why can't you be against Democrats without giving your ideas of how the world works? That would be so much better. Every time you mention how you think the world works we see how much of a fraud you are and it damages your message and strengthens whatever message you attack.
For instance, look at excon. When he said he is a peace loving liberal then he says to punch people in the face he loses all his credibility.
Why can't you be against Democrats without giving your ideas of how the world works? That would be so much better
That makes about as much sense as crotchless underwear. Essentially, oppose the Democrats but never say why like an idiot with no opinion. In other words you'd feel better if I took no position and was a beta male like yourself. No thanks. I'm good.
No crap. And Trump is never forgiven for any word that comes out of his mouth and many times for words that never came out of his mouth or words he didn't say. Imagine if Trump had said he wanted Obama assassinated. All hell would break loose and then some.
Every time you mention how you think the world works we see how much of a fraud you are and it damages your message and strengthens whatever message you attack
You need a smarter, more comprehensive, less defensive, and less sensitive puppet account quantum.
Of course bronto. Only one person on this site could possibly find your religious nonsense to be backward, archaic and intellectually insulting. In fact, why stop there? Everybody in the entire world who opposes bringing back the 13th century is exactly the same person.
2)But you do want the 13th century. That's why you keep flooding London with Muslims and getting terrorist attack after terrorist attack. Apparently you want multicultural diversity and coexistence with a 600 AD death cult.
Jesus was thirteen centuries more backward than the thirteenth century. Shut the fuck up you witch-hunting retard.
But you do want the 13th century
Oh, I do? Well thanks for telling me. Atheism was definitely the dominant ideology in the 13th century. It isn't like everything you say is stupid and self-contradictory. Heavens no.
That's why you keep flooding London with Muslims and getting terrorist attack after terrorist attack
Right. So the Christian Crusades of the 13th century have been replaced in your personal version of history by Muslims attacking London. Gotcha.
600 AD death cult.
Must we do this all over again, you rabid, mentally deficient fucking hypocrite? From the Christian Bible:-
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
So no verses from the New Testament because you can't find any you can use! And knowing full well that Christians don't go by Old Testament dogma of the ancient Jews! Bwahahahaha! ROFL
So no explanation about why your Holy Book endorses mass murder?
because you can't find any you can use!
Here's a good one from Jesus himself which makes it quite clear you are LYING that Jesus commanded Christians to ignore the Old Testament.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
You have been lying constantly about the same thing for THREE FUCKING DAYS!!
So no explanation about why your Holy Book endorses mass murder?
Destroying your enemies isn't wrong if what you are destroying is a threat to your own existence. Ask liberals about Nazis. The Jews were Antifascists. They were standing against Fascists. Of course, to be more specific, the Canaanites were sacrificing children to demons by burning them alive. Of course, if God hadn't stopped it, your argument would be, why didn't God stop it.... And then you're going to have to define right and wrong, good and evil using Atheism Quantum. Good luck. What Liberals think is right and wrong, Conservatives do not, and visa versa. In Islam, stoning is the "right thing to do" to adulterers, so prove the Muslims wrong. Gonna have to do better than this quantum. You reek of desperation.
Killing people for being homosexual isn't wrong? Killing children for cursing their mother isn't wrong? Moses ordering the slaughter of the Midianites and the taking of their children as sex slaves isn't wrong?
Not according to you. According to you Muslims are wonderful peace loving people. Guess what they think is wrong or right concerning homosexuals... (smirk)
Killing children for cursing their mother isn't wrong
This isn't actually referring to children. It's referring to adults who curse their parents. Nevertheless, prove anything is "wrong" using atheism. Good luck. You approve of anal sex between men and Muhammed molesting a 6 year old.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.
He's not talking about the Law of Moses, which was abolished. He was talking about the Ten commandments you non theological hopless kangaroo. The 10 Commandments and the Law of Moses aren't the same thing.
He's not talking about the Law of Moses, which was abolished. He was talking about the Ten commandments you non theological hopless kangaroo.
LOLOLOL! The ten commandments were GIVEN TO MOSES at Mount Rushmore for him to follow. The ten commandments and "the law of Moses" are THE SAME THING!! Are you saying Moses was actually a rival God and gave people his own laws to follow instead of God's?
Everything you say is ridiculous, deliberately false and logically incoherent with itself!
Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,…” (John 1:17).
Nope. The Law of Moses is the partial list of verses you provided us from Leviticus. It also concerns a plethera of foods you cannot eat, rules for washing hands, etc etc, all of which Jesus ignored with pleasure.
The Ten Commandments are a different law, the law of God. Do not steal. Do not kill. Do not have other gods before me. Do not covet your neighbor's goods. Etc. You don't even have the slightest clue what you are talking about. You're out of your league and knowledge zone on this one.
Mount Sinai then. Your deflection makes absolutely no difference to the point made. It might as well have been Mount Rushmore because it never fucking happened in the first place.
And he says it shall never become invalid, which categorically proves that you are a liar for claiming it was "abolished".
not the Law referred to in Matthew 15:4.
But Matthew (15:4) refers to one of the earlier entries from Leviticus which you claimed fifteen minutes ago WERE THE LAWS OF MOSES.
Everything you say, EVERYTHING, contradicts something else you have said. You are, without any hint of doubt, insane. I was wrong when I brushed it off as common mental illness. You are textbook stark raving mad.
And another, this time Jesus himself criticises his compatriots for not putting their children to death, as per Old Testament law:-
“Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)
And he says the same thing to the Pharisee here:-
“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
He's mocking the Pharisees, who are Jews, who believe themselves bound to the law of moses, because they are trying to hold him to the law of moses while they themselves do not apply it. He's pointing out their hypocrisy for condemning him for ignoring it. Of course he's ignoring it because he's the messiah and does not need the law of moses or even care. He's bringing in a new testament, and a new law. His law.
No he isn't you hopelessly dishonest retard. The Pharisee criticised Jesus for not washing his hands before eating and Jesus criticised them back for not following the fifth commandment. Jesus was not a troll you insane madman. This is what your insanity has led you to. You are claiming to worship a Biblical troll rather than admit you have been lying for three days..
You are supposed to be giving your side of the debate. Every time you attempt to give your side of the debate you can't help but convince anyone who is honest that you don't know what you are talking about.
For instance, look at excon. When he said he is a peace loving liberal then he says to punch people in the face he loses all his credibility
Or it's like when you go on cursing fits like a 10 year old child when the debate doesn't go your way or someone disagrees with you. You lose all credibility. I can at least respect Excon for taking hard stances and defending a position. There's no one that knows what you stand for because you don't stand for anything.
Which would be... because I debated with you present for thousands of posts before it became abundantly apparent that you have no position and do not do serious debates. You do, do a fine job of going on cursing fits as if you have tarets. So... I tend to put as much effort into debates with you as you do with me, which would be? None.
I don't think you want me to describe you. It might not fit the rules of code 1943434 section ABCDillyDillyWaWa which is the code that references safe spaces and snowflake palaces.
I don't think you want me to describe you. It might not fit the rules of code 1943434 section ABCDillyDillyWaWa which is the code that references safe spaces and snowflake palaces.
What is the code which describes pathologically dishonest religious paedophiles?
Good debating strategy. Now I remember why we don't debate anymore. You're a one trick pony, and the trick isn't really very good. I probably got bored after 3 or 4 of your off topic remarks that didn't make any sense and just didn't feel intellectually stimulated. You need to start that Kenny sock puppet account that I suggested, ya know, the puppet that says smart things.
Would you like me to randomly quote the definition of religion instead? If you say someone wouldn't like something if you did it you imply that you haven't done it yet. Your intentions are clearly a lie. You have no desire for intellectual discussion.
I'm not interested in you doing anything. If I started a debate and you got involved, you wouldn't be able to keep up or manifest intellectual debate, thus you doing anything is completely pointless.
Dude!! I've NEVER said I was a "peace loving liberal".. I'm a LIBERAL, but peace loving is NOT in my nature.. I am NOT a nice fellow. I NEVER said I was..
Can you read WORDS????????? Do you know that WORDS matter???????
She is a Racist Negro Moonbeam and should a Negro get away with threatening a POTUS ?
Just imagine if a White politician had gone to Facebook to threaten your "BoyKing" Obama you on the Left would have been enraged but the Negro should get a pass don't you think?
Liberals keep showing us they are the intolerant ones.
They don't like Trump's policies so they show us all what complete intolerant hypocrites they are.
A few Democrats spoke out against her. Where was the outcry that should have occured?
Remember the Liberal Professor who is so filled with hate he painted a depiction of Trump's severed head. The intolernt Leftwing hypocrites allowed this hate painting to be displayed on the walls of a Pubicly funded College for impressionable students to see.
Do you like paying a fortune to send your children to College just so they can be indoctrinated to the Left's ideology.
What kind of person even would think of creating such a painting? An intolernt hateful person.... that's who. That hateful Professor should have been told to resign if he tried to put that on College walls.
There was no outcry from the Left to take that painting down, but they are ok with taking down things that bother them.
They scream, tear down those religious symbols on public land!!!!!!
They say censor the pledge of Alegience, it mentions God!
What kind of person even would think of creating such a painting? An intolernt hateful person....
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. True, some art is intended as a sort of symbolic wish fulfillment, but some of it is metaphoric commentary. All of it is open to interpretation, and the artist's interpretation does not predominate.
Consider how many paintings there are of crucifixion. They do not necessarily imply a desire to crucify anyone, nor that the artists were intolerant and hateful.
Consider that every Christian church displays the cross, which the Romans used to torture insurgents to death, which presided over the Inquisition, the torture of Roman Catholics in England under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, the enslavement and genocide of Native Americans, etc. Displaying a cross in no way implies approval of oppression, torture, slavery or genocide.
Images of a beheaded Trump are likewise open to various interpretations.
For example, Kathy Griffin's image of holding a bloody Trump head is easily and reasonably interpreted as a comment that the Left's dishonest treatment of Trump and his statements (in an attempt to remove him from power) is as evil, reactionary, and irrational as ISIS who literally behead their more similarly more rational opposition. Griffin's intent is irrelevant.
This mutability of art's meaning is similarly used by the left to assert that all statues of Civil War personages and the Confederate flag are automatically racist.
The way to fight it is to acknowledge that the meaning of art is subject to the individual viewing the art, and then to articulate clearly alternate interpretations.
Historical monuments are in no way comparible to today's art. Those statues represent real people who fought real wars.
If today's artists wanted to paint a rosier picture of their meaning of Trump's severed head, they had ample time to do so.
A painting of a crucifixtion of an unknown person has no hateful intent. It is merely speaking to how people were sometimes kill in the past.
When you put Trump on that cross, you have crossed over to hate art, UNLESS, you explain your intent for the painting. Why would a decent kind compassionate Artist leave it up to the viewer to jump to the wrong conclusion represented by such a barbaric painting?
It's about sensationalism, money, fame, notaritity, etc.
If the Artist does not want the wrong impression, he should clarify so as not to influence some nut job to assasinate the President.
When you put Trump on that cross, you have crossed over to hate art, UNLESS, you explain your intent for the painting.
This is a particularly apt example of what I am talking about. There are two obvious but contradictory interpretations to an image of Trump on a cross.
1-The implication that Trump is a traitor and ought to be tortured to death.
2-The implication that Trump is Christlike and thereby divine and righteous.
This ambiguity is the beauty of non-verbal communication. If someone thinks of it one way, that is equally valid as an alternate interpretation by someone else. It becomes a mirror to show us our feelings and assumptions.
Why would a decent kind compassionate Artist leave it up to the viewer to jump to the wrong conclusion represented by such a barbaric painting?
...If the Artist does not want the wrong impression, he should clarify so as not to influence some nut job to assasinate the President.
Those nutjobs who are "influenced" by art to kill, are already powder kegs with lit fuses. No matter what, they are going to do something horrible. If a piece of art does not set them off, then something else will, whether it is a news article or being stuck in traffic, or some other thing.
As much to the point, I don't buy the idea that hate art or hate speech are clearly definable or necessarily detrimental to a free and peaceful society. I think people hate because they are selfish and ungrateful and unhappy with their lives. The hate does not magically come into existence just because someone expressed it. If they express their frustrations and dissatisfaction and hate, then at least it is an opening for a conversation, and that conversation might actually lead to solutions to the underlying causes of the hatred.
That is the beauty of applying the First Amendment to ALL people and ALL ideas.
If you think a piece of art can only have one meaning, then explain why the examples I provided are insufficient or illogical. Name-calling hardly advances your viewpoint.
Are you aware that I am extremely conservative?
Moreover, why would you log on to a DEBATE website if you are sick of debating people who disagree with you? That seems unlikely to contribute to your happiness.
I am not sick of debating people who dissagree with me. I'm sick of wasting time debating people who deny the obvious.
Hate Art most definitely does infuence evil people and gives them a justification to commit evil acts.
Do you remember the Democrats complaining how anti Muslim videos created bloodshed and violence? People like you could have said that the video could have had other interpretations then the obvious one.
Art does have an impact and to deny it wastes my time.
When a person who is capable of violence, sees our Public Colleges displaying Art that speaks to his dark side, it is a green ight in his mind to commit evil acts.
Hollywood has made many brutal movies in the past, and we have seen copy cat killers acting out what happened in the movie.
Your hypothetical meanings of these paintings could have been a possibility in the Artist''s mind. It matters not because a severed head of our President who is hated by the Left, sends one OBVIOUS message, especially when the Artist does not explain it's meaning.
I spent years teaching literature analysis to high school students. That experience taught me that nothing is (universally) plain and obvious in art and literature.
I had kids point out truly obvious interpretations that I had missed despite having read the book/poem a dozen times before. I watched teenagers read plain statements in their native language that they either misunderstood or viewed as metaphorical.
I watched two 16-year-old girls almost come to blows over what a particular metaphor meant.
In a room of 30 people, only half of whom were participating, there would ALWAYS be at least 2, and usually more, supportable & supported interpretations.
Regarding the question of the artist being in charge of the meaning,
In the actual marketplace of ideas, that does not really work out as consistently as we might want.
I generally think that people interpret things independently of the author's/artist's intent, even when the artist explains it explicitly. Just consider how often people fail to recognize satire, miss the joke, or argue about what a speaker (Trump for instance) actually meant when he said x, y, & z.
Most often people simply choose the interpretation that supports whatever it is that they want to hear. People don't just do it with politicians' statements and art, but also with news stories and statements from family and friends.
That is why I would never hold an artist or author responsible for what someone did subsequent to reading a book, viewing a movie/play, seeing a piece of art, or listening to a song.
People make their choices freely and independently, and often independently of reason.
Were it not such a barbaric painting created by a Liberal Professor who hates Trump, I would agree with what you say about some Art.
Sometimes you must see an apple for an apple. Sometimes, as in a court of law, we must take in the evidence and come to a conclusion rather than blindly excusing this hatred against a Conservative President.
Maybe you are not as apt as I am to find ways to needle people I think ridiculous and bigoted.
I advocate vocally pushing and popularizing the interpretation that the painting shows that the left, especially the media and the academic left (like the libtard professor) are similar to psychopathic murderers and terrorists like ISIS.
We could do the same with Kathy Griffin's photo.
First, because it is interpretation of art, we would be protected from libel and slander laws.
Second, it would alienate the artist from many on the left simply by insisting that the artist was vituperatively criticizing leftists, the media, most liberal professors, and all Trump-haters.
Third, it is very frustrating for people to be misunderstood when trying to make a statement they think is deep and important. Sure, 2+2=4, but think about how spun up people would get when met with a consistent, logical, well-supported argument that 2+2=5. It would be hilarious!
What do you think? Are you mean enough to screw with hateful, bigoted, and foolish people like that? I am.
How could you possibly conclude that I am Liberal?
If you read what I have written, you will find:
- I think people can take care of themselves without help from the Federal government. (The implication of this is that when it comes to art, people are able to figure it out for themselves without being told what it means.)
- I tend to support Trump, despite the fact that his social & spending policies are too liberal. (He is basically a pre-Obama Democrat, but just calls himself a Republican.)
- I think most current Republicans are a bunch of liberal wussies.
- I think racism is stupid, but not a moral issue until people commit violent or discriminatory acts (which are already illegal.)
- I favor strict meritocracies.
- I think that if our nation is to survive we need to abolish the entirety of the welfare state, including Medicaid and Social Security.
- I think people are foolish to let their feelings dictate their positions.
- I am disgusted and dismayed by unthinking dogmatism and the drive to oversimplify issues.
I don't work too hard to keep track. You are one of the few who ever comes across as specifically conservative.
I think it is interesting to see how often the Conservative-Liberal/Right-Left dichotomies really do not characterize where people disagree. I think our current little subsection of this question is one of those instances.
Liberals keep showing us they are the intolerant ones.
They don't like Trump's policies so they show us all what complete intolerant hypocrites they are.
Excellent start to your argument. You start with a premise that is very easy to demonstrate. So, now all you have to do is talk about how ridiculous it is to hope for the president to be assassinated. Did you do that? Nope. Why would you do that?
A few Democrats spoke out against her. Where was the outcry that should have occured?
That's fucking stupid. You never give a single fuck about the bullshit Republicans pull. That's just stupid. Don't bring up what the democrats did right. That's fucking stupid.
Remember the Liberal Professor who is so filled with hate he painted a depiction of Trump's severed head. The intolernt Leftwing hypocrites allowed this hate painting to be displayed on the walls of a Pubicly funded College for impressionable students to see.
What the fuck are you doing? You haven't even discussed how awful it is to hope for an assassination. Don't go to a stupid painting. Someone is hoping the president dies. Get your priorities straight.
Do you like paying a fortune to send your children to College just so they can be indoctrinated to the Left's ideology.
The Democrats are electing these garbage individuals and you are not talking about it.
What kind of person even would think of creating such a painting? An intolernt hateful person.... that's who. That hateful Professor should have been told to resign if he tried to put that on College walls.
What kind of intolerant person hopes for the assassination of the president. Talk about that you fucking moron.
There was no outcry from the Left to take that painting down, but they are ok with taking down things that bother them.
There is no outcry from you about a Democrat hoping for an assassination. What's wrong with you?
So, because you are such a shitty debater you didn't even mention how awful it is to hope for an assassination attempt. Good job.
That's fucking stupid. You never give a single fuck about the bullshit Republicans pull. That's just stupid. Don't bring up what the democrats did right. That's fucking stupid
I told you that you become a mental midget with terets when you aren't getting your way or hearing exactly what you want to hear. It's pretty sad to watch your juvenile meltdowns. Maybe we can hire a mature teenager to make your posts for you.
I doubt that any of it makes much sense to you. I haven't seen you understand even the simplest of concepts in debates. At one time I thought you were actually a 4 year old down syndrome child, and most likely wearing a Thor helmet.
YOU DON'T DEBATE. The most basic thing in debating is responding to what the person said. You rarely do that. When you do respond to what the person said, you usually completely misrepresent/misunderstand what they said. In the few cases where you respond to what the person said and you actually understood it, you don't actually give a counter argument. Look what just happened here. You through it wild claims, and obvious lies, and I tell you exactly what I think you do wrong.
It isn't out of nowhere. By your own admission it isn't out of nowhere. It is a contradiction to claim that I am always cursing and that it comes out of nowhere. Stop doing stupid things and I don't have to curse. Being offended is still not an argument. You not approving of the words I use doesn't mean I am wrong.
Nothing is ever clear to you. I could put a naked woman bent over right in front of you and you'd give us the customary Cartman shoulders like "I don't know what to do Bronto".
This just proves my point. You go off on a tangent instead of doing the basics of debating all while trying top show I am wrong about you not understanding the basics of debating. Good job.
I'm not offended, and you do go on cursing fits, because you are emotionally unstable and lack the capacity and ability to control yourself. Of course, we both know you have a learning disability and wear a helmet. Nevertheless, seeing your mental handicap, you should quit the site, forfeit, and admit defeat to save what little face you have left.
Oh no, how terrible. If you weren't offended it wouldn't matter. Apparently it matters though. Hmmm.
because you are emotionally unstable and lack the capacity and ability to control yourself.
Why should I have to change my vocabulary because you are not offended? Please explain how my vocabulary indicates I have no control. Go for it. Try it. I dare you.
Of course, we both know you have a learning disability and wear a helmet
Cursing means someone had no control, but stupid insults don't? Can you give us your guidebook to being in control because it is impossible to piece it together from your sentence fragments.
Nevertheless, seeing your mental handicap, you should quit the site, forfeit, and admit defeat to save what little face you have left.
You know you are a bad debater when the only way you could possibly win a debate is to have your opponent wrote and declare you the victor. Maybe if you tried the basics of debating you could get more out of this site.
Oh no, how terrible. If you weren't offended it wouldn't matter. Apparently it matters though. Hmmm.
You're right it does matter. When you get carpel tunnel, look back at your posts, and realize you never actually made a point or defended a position, you'll start having those Cartman fits only on steroids.
So, now you agree that you are offended. You can't even keep that fact straight in your head. That makes your comment about me not defending a position even funnier.
Look at you doing the same stuff over and over again. You keep proving me right over and over. You can't stay on topic and you don't respond to what I have written.
realize you never actually made a point or defended a position
You have been proven wrong on this topic. Just because you admit to ignoring it doesn't mean I didn't make the point. For instance, when you provide links that ANTIFA is communist and excon ignores links it doesn't mean that you never provided those links.
According to the FRAUD Trump needs to resign but where were all the Democrat voters when the Election Process was under way ? They failed to show up and vote ?
after he called Nazis and white supremacists FINE PEOPLE...
I do not see how he said that. He said that there were "fine people on both sides" when talking about the gathering that turned violent in Charlottesville, AFTER he asserted that there is no place for violence OR BIGOTRY in our nation.
In the context of all his remarks, including the clear and unequivocal denunciation of both bigotry and violence I understood what he was saying to mean that he understood that many people who showed up did so to take part in peaceful public discourse with the good of the society at heart.
1-Some of those people in Charlottesville were behaving peacefully, and saying they wanted the statue to remain for various NON-racist reasons. (Preserve history for example) These are arguably fine people.
2-Some of those people in Charlottesville were behaving peacefully, and saying they wanted the statue to be removed, or that they disagree with White Supremacist ideology, or both. These are arguably fine people.
I am concerned about the eagerness to assume that people who have SOME ends in common with assholes must also be assholes, and that they must agree with the assholes about EVERYTHING.
-It is possible for a fine person to be within a block of members of the KKK and ANTIFA without approving or supporting either group.
-It is possible for a fine person and a KKK asshole to agree that our history ought to be preserved and publicly displayed in parks, without agreeing about anything else.
-It is possible for a fine person and an anti-free speech ANTIFA dickhead to agree that racism is bad, without agreeing about anything else.
I know it is trendy to try to find ways to give condemnable interpretations to statements that become vague when taken out of context, but it is hardly in line with responsible behavior and fair discussion.
It is misleading and irresponsible to ignore Trump's clear condemnation of bigotry.
I do not see how he said that. He said that there were "fine people on both sides" when talking about the gathering that turned violent in Charlottesville, AFTER he asserted that there is no place for violence OR BIGOTRY in our nation.
Saying there are fine people on both sides is a false equivalence when one of the sides consists of neo-Nazis and white supremacists. In fact it sounds exactly like something Hitler would say. Being neutral is a zero sum condition with no place in a world which has already experienced where Nazism leads.
including the clear and unequivocal denunciation of both bigotry and violence
Oh come on. He's being a politician for fuck's sake. He denounces bigotry when it suits him, and when it doesn't he tries to ban Muslim immigration.
Maybe this point was lost in the rest of what I was saying.
In the context of what else he said in the statement, he seemed to be pointing out that the KKK and White supremacists were not the only people protesting the removal of the statue.
While I understand your cynicism of any politician's statements, the fact remains that there actually were people on both sides (protesting the removal of the statue, and protesting the statue) who did no violence, and who neither support racism (as do the KKK and Black Lives Matter) nor depriving people of First Amendment rights (as does ANTIFA). It is arguable these tolerant, and non-violent people on both sides are, indeed, "fine people."
I think that the "false equivalency" argument assumes that people's underlying beliefs are more important than their actions. (If I misunderstand you, forgive me, please.) I do not buy that, partially because I don't trust people to be honest. (Your comment about Trump saying things just to be politic indicates you are right there with me.)
My problem with the Charlottesville incident is with the people who committed violence, who shouted hateful and destructive things. There were assholes doing that on both sides. The White supremacists hate everybody who is not them, and ANTIFA hates everyone who do not buy into their narrow political world view. I do not buy the proposition that some reasons for being violent and hateful to peaceful people are better than other reasons for being violent and hateful to peaceful people. Maybe the Neo-Nazis and ANTIFA a are different flavors of violent, intolerant dickheads, but they are all still violent intolerant dickheads, and that puts them all in exactly the same category.