Posted on 03/13/2016 8:13:36 AM PDT by Lazamataz
One consistent behavior of the left is that they create a crisis, then offer to solve it, all the while blaming the victim.
So it goes with Donald Trump and his rallies. The group #BlackLiesMatter has stormed his rallies, fighting with his supporters in Chicago, and disrupting other events, and even had a lone wolf Thomas Dimassimo rush Trump on his podium. Thank the Good Lord the Secret Service was prepared and protected him quickly with their bodies, for who knows how this might have otherwise played out.
In response, the Propaganda Ministry (formerly and inaccurately known as the American News Media) blamed Trump for the attacks on him. This is the political equivalent of blaming the rape victim. They are claiming that Donald Trump caused the attacks with 'divisive and inflammatory' rhetoric.
Note, also, that the meme circulated last weekend was that Trump is just like Hitler. Yet, who is really acting like the Nazis? It is those in the #BlackLiesMatter movement, and others who would shut down Trump's rallies. In the 1920's and 1930's, the Sturmabteilung (also known as Brownshirts) stormed the rallies of their political opponents with violence and disruption. It turns out that those who falsely accused Trump of Nazism, adopted every single tactic of the Nazis themselves.
Let us momentarily ignore the hideous accusation that "Donald Trump deserved it, for he dresses like a SLUT!” Let us analyze his "divisive and inflammatory" rhetoric:
In so doing, they impugn all of us who think these comments are very positive developments in modern politics -- and, most importantly, they blame Trump for the attacks upon his supporters and upon his person. They are saying that "Trump deserves his rape! He dresses like a SLUT!"
This is the most base and vile possible argument. People who advance this heinous must be called out and publically shamed for their comments. Additionally, let us imagine for a moment that Trump *was* speaking in an objectionable way. America traditionally does not shut down objectionable speech. America traditionally meets such speech with more speech.
I was quite disappointed to see Ted Cruz jump aboard this argument, and it gives me pause per his true allegiances and motivations. He presented the obligatory condemnation of the attackers, and then used the word 'but', and went on to defame Donald Trump. I hold that most of the time that people say "this, BUT that", they deny their first clause, and are actually solely advocating their second clause. Cruz went right to the most base of all possible arguments. He agrees: "Trump deserves his rape! He dresses like a SLUT!"
This argument cannot stand, and we must call out anyone who advocated this "blame the victim" mentality.
I hear you. :)
On the other hand, dude got me a lot of free BTTT’s. :)
Coming out of lurk mode to say “excellent” and good job. We need this and more of this type of talk to get out there. The picture demonstrates it perfectly and it what we’re up against.
Thank you, brother (or sister, as gender allows). :)
I had thought in the beginning that was the plan. A bit of play between the two of you. It was rather sweet. Ah, well. :)
Ok. I didn’t really go back that far. Just shooting my mouth off and intruding when i shouldn’t have, i suppose. It just irritates me sometimes because people can get so rude and testy. I’ll really be glad when Tuesday is over and done.
And if you’re not a troll, please vote for Trump if he wins. Yes, he’s obnoxious, but he’ll be better than any democrat.
If you’re a troll, Jesus still loves you.
And can someone share their troll list with me by freepmail? I misplaced mine. :-)
That was someone else. All i said was "I don’t care what “but” means in the real world nor in the world of English majors." Then i went on to show you the 25 words used by cruz out of the 3 minute speech to condemn the actions of violent, Marxist, protesters who have been claimed publicly by Moveondotorg as their own.
Now look at a transcript of a Trump speech and note that his use of but must negate what he has said about what he would do about immigration:
Since I'm not addressing the subject of "but" as used by grammar majors, politicians, or your everyday Joe Bob, I'll wait until those 25 words are discussed before moving on to the next topic.
Hey! Maybe you have a transcript of those 3 minutes and we can do a word count on it, then see what percentage of time cruz spent protecting our 1st Amendment during those 3 minutes.
I've only been cruz-free a few months myself. He's been my favorite for years, so forgive me if you detect some irritation; I assure you it's not directed purposely toward you. It's really not fun finding out this guy had me fooled for so many long years.
From what I can dig out thus far, we lost him to the Establishment as far back as Oct 2013. I'm not sure i even WANT to know if it turns out he's been a manchurian type of guy longer than that. I voted for him in 2012.
You ARE using the but to mean that all that preceded it is negated.
And, if you had read my post that you were replying to, you would have found the transcript of Cruz’s words. Didn’t actually read it, huh?
The most important concepts are generally expressed using few words. The concept Cruz was expressing about the leftist thugs was not complex, so it did not need many words. The concept of Trump’s words and actions was more complex, needing more words in order to be explained.
Therefore, your claim that Cruz was more interested in talking about Trump’s responsibilities because he used more words is wrong conceptually.
Forgot to tell you... the Mississippi stuff starts after the picture of cruz and mcconnell standing in a doorway.
So, he agreed to follow McConnell’s orders and joined the NRSC and the NRSC donated to Cochran? That’s the argument? Sheesh. And that in yet another sundance hit piece. Not impressed.
I'm sensing some anger here? If that keeps up i'll have to assume you're a troll and mosey on down the road.
Is this what you're talking about? I'll break it down by sentence for your convenience.
1. I also want to mention something about the events this evening in Chicago.
2. This is a sad day.
3. Political discourse should occur in this country without a threat of violence without anger and rage and hatred directed at each other.
4. We need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable, to have disagreements while being respecting human beings on the other side.
5. “Earlier today over thirty people were arrested at one rally.
6. And then tonight as violence broke out the rally was canceled altogether.
7. Now, the responsibility for that lies with protesters who took violence into their own hands.
8. But in any campaign responsibility starts at the top.
9. Any candidate is responsible for the culture of the campaign.
10. And when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that’s facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord.”
That's it, right? Where's the part about our 1st Amendment rights? Did i miss it somewhere in there?
You just said:
The concept Cruz was expressing about the leftist thugs was not complex, so it did not need many words. The concept of Trump’s words and actions was more complex, needing more words in order to be explained. Therefore, your claim that Cruz was more interested in talking about Trump’s responsibilities because he used more words is wrong conceptually.
But, but... you left out the point I'm making that you're skipping over. Here, let me fix it for you.
"Therefore, your claim that Cruz was more interested in talking about Trump’s responsibilities rather than defend our 1st Amendment rights for free speech because he used more words..."
There. Apples and oranges, i know. But we're in the same conversation and it's important that we stay on topic. You're talking about "buts" and I'm talking about 25 words out of 3 minutes to condemn a group who is denying his fellow Americans who want to listen to Trump their Constitutional rights.
I am not understanding your point. Are you saying that because Cruz didn’t say the words First Amendment, he was wrong? Or what exactly?
He blamed them. If he blamed them for what they did, then he was blaming them for violating people’s rights. So you allow yourself to make assumptions about what Trump means, but you don’t extend the same thing to Cruz? And then Cruz is wrong? Not so.
BTW, because that is all I saw, I was asking what more was there by asking my question. Please explain.
The List:
Everyone but me and thee.:)
And I'm not yet sure about thee.
Or, if you are unable to clear your mind enough to absorb facts, it will remain muddy. It takes a while to see it.
I read it all. I simply find it unconvincing.I was asking you to explain what I might have missed.
It's what Cruz and the other 2 Establishment/donor-owned candidates DIDN'T say.
Cruz wasted 3 minutes of valuable interview time and avoided defending your right to free speech. It doesn't matter what he talked about. He could have spent the 3 minutes talking about Heidi's favorite recipe, for all i care.
It's what he DIDN'T say in those 3 minutes that speaks volumes about who he is and who he is not. If his priority isn't on defending the 1st amendment, so be it. I'm sure it won't be the last time he puts himself and his donors' wishes ahead of you and me.
Spot on! I use the baseball game analogy. Let’s say you were at a baseball game with your wife and 11 year-old son. It took you a lot of trouble to attend the game. While there this guy stands up and hurls the most vile obscenities at the batter at the plate. Your young son starts to cry. All you want to do is watch the game and drink a beer. So, you tell the troublemaker to chill. With that he begins a barrage of obscenities and fists. He breaks your glasses, spills your beer all over your wife and knocks out a few of your son’s teeth. Does anyone around you say, “Keep cool, the cops are on their way,” while he knocks your wife down. If I was there, and saw the father letting the savage have his way, I would have said “Step away girly-boy, I will protect your family!” and beat the holy hell out of him. The foul-mouthed troublemaker cannot blame his actions on the tone of the game. He cannot blame an honest father’s desire for civility. He does not use his foul mouth in public. And he should know that the game has nothing to do with tone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.