Silent, Peaceful Non Trump Supporters Being Booted From Rally

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
But you are supporting Trump so you cant think for yourself clearly. And being non-white doesnt exempt you from having racial bias. And you vocally support a candidate who IS acting very hitler-ish. Do you think the other Trump supporters give a crap about you since you arent white? Because even if you arent racist, they are. Now you seem extra foolish being a minority and voting for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews

http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/as-many-as-150000-jews-served-in-hitlers-military/
Actually, my best friend in college was a jew atheist and most of our friends here are white. You just don't like it because I don't fit in your neat little race stereotype. I'm an equal opportunity independent (registered unaffiliated, wife is registered Dem) who has a brain and will vote for the candidate that will bring us more jobs. Bernie ain't bringing jobs, hillary's tax plan actually stifles job growth by increasing their taxes. That ain't the solution, folks.
Hillary Clinton would enact a number of tax policies that would raise taxes on individual and business income.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals
 

LPCTech

Senior member
Dec 11, 2013
679
93
86
Check out this appalling video of a black protester being kicked out just because she's black. It's disgusting that this Nazi is leading in the primary. Who would vote for this racist piece of garbage?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLPOotPu_RE


Wait for it....


She wanted Hillary to apologize to "black people" for something she said 20 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg
at no point does she mention a race.

She was gently quietly led away.. lol

not really a good example
 
Last edited:

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
She wanted Hillary to apologize to "black people" for something she said 20 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg
at no point does she mention a race.

She was gently quietly led away.. lol

not really a good example
It's a good example because it shows what idiots protesters are. And you know what? They actually help Trump. Why do you think he tells the cameras to film protesters getting dragged out? Because it ups his ratings/popularity. They don't even realize they're helping him. Afterwards Trump will say "Isn't this fun? Where else can you go to see this much excitement?" They are part of the show. If Trump wanted LESS protesters, he would tell the cameras to not even acknowledge them (like they do in pro sports).
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
"...you know me, it's no surprise that I am not a fan of Trump due to his racist, misogynist, and popularity-searching "campaign". But I try to keep an open mind..."

LOL, I'm sure she had just no intention of stirring up trouble there, it magically found her. :rolleyes: It's like the favorite two Proggie dumbshit buzzwords, but, not a coincidence, not at all...nah... lulz
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Interesting op-ed for those so inclined.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ee0bda-4fdc-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html

Sorry, Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is no Nazi.

In his seminal essay “How to argue effectively,” humorist Dave Barry had some advice for what to do “when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong.” The answer, he wrote, is simple: “Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.”

That is precisely what Hillary Clinton did Friday. A day after comparing her GOP opponents to terrorists, Clinton played the Hitler card, declaring that Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans want to “go and literally pull [illegal immigrants] out of their homes and their workplaces . . . Round them up, put them, I don’t know, in buses, boxcars, in order to take them across our border.”

Clinton’s comments reeked of desperation — a candidate willing to say anything to distract us from the FBI investigation into her e-mails. They also reeked of hypocrisy. Recall that it was her husband, Bill Clinton, who sent federal agents with semiautomatic weapons to bust down an immigrant’s door and drag away a terrified, screaming child — Elian Gonzalez — and forcibly deport him to communist Cuba. If Hillary Clinton is concerned about jackbooted thugs “literally pulling people out of their homes” to deport them, she ought to talk to her husband.

But her outrageous comments raise another question: Is there any Republican candidate, including Trump, who is seriously proposing forcible mass deportations of illegal immigrants?

The answer is no. And therein lies the secret even many of Trump’s most ardent supporters don’t even realize. While Trump speaks with a lot of bombast, his immigration plan is actually quite moderate — a form of amnesty that has been endorsed by the New York Times editorial page and nearly passed the U.S. Senate, where five Democrats senators voted for it.

Listen closely to what Trump is actually proposing. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Trump explained his plan this way: “I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal. . . . A lot of these people are helping us . . . and sometimes it’s jobs a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I want to move ’em out, and we’re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal.”

What he is describing is a policy called “touchback,” and it’s not new or especially controversial. In 2007, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.) — a moderate Republican — offered a “touchback” amendment that would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries to apply for a special “Z visa” that would allow them to reenter the United States and work indefinitely. Her amendment lost by a relatively close margin, 53-45. It got five Democratic votes — Sens. Claire McCaskill, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Byron Dorgan and John Rockefeller all supported it.

The idea was considered so reasonable that in an April 22, 2007, editorial entitled “Progress on Immigration,” the New York Times declared “It’s not ideal, but if a touchback provision is manageable and reassures people that illegal immigrants are indeed going to the back of the line, then it will be defensible.”

So what Trump is proposing today — sending illegal immigrants back to their home countries and then allowing the “good ones” to return in an “expedited” fashion — was not considered a radical idea back in 2007. In fact, the idea even got the support of — wait for it — illegal immigrants. In 2007, the Los Angeles Times did the first telephone poll of illegal immigrants and asked whether they would go home under a “touchback” law that allowed them to return with legal status. Sixty-three percent said yes, 27 percent said no and 10 percent were undecided. If they were promised a path to citizenship when they returned, the number who said they would leave and return legally grew to 85 percent.

In other words, the vast majority of illegal immigrants would voluntarily cooperate with Trump’s plan. Sorry, Hillary Clinton, no “boxcars” necessary.

If anything, the “touchback” plan was attacked by conservatives. In a 2007 editorial, National Review called the senate’s touchback bill a “fraud” that gives illegal aliens “their own privileged pathway” ahead of “applicants who have complied with U.S. immigration laws.” So if you get past Trump’s bluster, the plan he is proposing is so liberal that it earned the support of the New York Times and the opposition of National Review.

The reason is simple: Trump’s plan is in fact a form of amnesty — you just have to leave the country briefly to get it.

So when Trump says of illegal immigrants “they all have to go,” don’t forget that under his plan almost all would be able to immediately return.

That’s hardly the final solution Hillary Clinton makes it out to be.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
1. Clinton has not uttered "Hitler" in the quote. (though I think she has every right to)
2. Right wing luminaries have been calling The Duck Hitler. (see: Glen Beck)
3. Mark Thiessen is a partisan hack who "served" Donald Rumsfeld. Look at his face! (That face, ugh)
4. Since when conservatives have cared what is written in Washington Post? Only when someone like Mark Thiessen speaks?
5. The so-called "Touchback Amnesty," well, I do not know how many Trumpeters support that policy. Hah.
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Another op-ed...just for lopri...because he's kind of special.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-marshall-crotty/comparing-trump-to-hitler_b_9334668.html

Comparing Trump to Hitler Is Worst Kind of Hate Speech

To all those comrades on my Facebook feed irresponsibly comparing isolationist Donald Trump to imperialist Adolf Hitler: that is your constitutionally protected right.

However, we have a very important, if unwritten, rule in high-level policy debate: he or she that resorts to a Nazi Germany or Hitler comparison loses the argument. This is because there is nothing that can compare to that diabolical aberration or person. In addition, usually those making the comparison have not done their homework, and are lazily latching onto to one aspect of the thing they despise (e.g., Trump's support of Federal libel laws, or his opposition to sanctuary cities, or his temporary Muslim travel ban) and then loosely extrapolating to the whole.

I have routinely lambasted Mr. Trump for his irresponsible rhetoric - including his birther-ism and pointless ad hominems - as well as for some of his wiggy policy prescriptions. Just read my repeated Huffington Post takedowns of the man.

Nevertheless, as a journalist, author, and former debate coach of some of the top teams in the land (see the urban debate documentary, Crotty's Kids, to learn more), I am also particularly sensitive to irresponsible rhetoric. And, as even MTV News agrees, these comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust are grossly irresponsible.

Mike Godwin, director of innovation policy at R Street Institute, created his own Godwin's Law to call out these Nazi comparisons, which are commonplace online. Godwin's Law reads: "As an online discussion continues, the probability of a reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1." I urge you to read his article here and to get more granular in your comparisons going forward. I urge you to do this not because I am some monomaniacal hater of free speech - far from it - but because I find it deeply insulting to all those who died in the Holocaust to have their sacrifice cheaply denigrated in this way.

When we apply a Nazi comparison to someone or something that does not fit that comparison, then Nazism and the Holocaust lose their power to shock us. And they must never lose that power. If they do, which is quickly happening right now, when something diabolical does come along again in this world, we have no way to identify it, let alone stop it, because we've cried Nazi wolf so often that the comparison has lost its power to persuade. I fear this rhetorical desensitization has already happened in our delayed responses to atrocities in Syria, Rwanda, Darfur and beyond.

You see, for me, a Nazi comparison is a kind of inverted hate speech unwittingly directed at all those who died in the Holocaust. So, if you find Mr. Trump's comments a form of hate speech, it behooves you to not ape their very nature with a grotesquely irresponsible rejoinder. Moreover, when you make preposterous comparisons, you actually draw those on the fence closer to the very person you hope to disempower.

This is not to excuse Mr. Trump's more egregious utterances, but, rather, to create a wider space for moderate rhetoric to live and breathe. When we close off that space, then we create the conditions for rabid populists like Trump and Sanders to fill the rhetorical vacuum.

Remember that I called out the dangerous populist rhetoric of Barack Obama back in 2007. And I've been proven right, as that rhetoric has now morphed into a more virulent strain of leftist populism found in the Sanders voter, which has shocked many of Obama's original devotees.

We see its far-right parallel in Germany, which knows a thing or two about demagoguery. Because the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), at the behest of Chancellor Angela Merkel, has taken such a strident position on borders - foisting on the German people a disproportionately high number of the world's asylum-seekers without advance planning or deep and open dialogue - those who would naturally gravitate towards a more moderate border policy are left with no safe harbor, since all of Germany's conservative and liberal parties have embraced variants of the open border position.

Consequently, many decent, moderate Germans held their noses and reluctantly turned to far right political movements, such as PEGIDA, because they are the only ones standing up, however crudely, against Merkel's beautifully well-intentioned, constitutionally based (Article 16A grants asylum to anyone fleeing political persecution), but poorly conceived Wilkommenskultur. This is not to forgive this Heideggerian "turn," but to show how it happens.

Leftists in America are bumfuzzled that so many sensible, educated Americans find a home in the outlandish Mr. Trump. For me, however, the explanation is easy. Democrats have systematically enabled illegal immigration for cynical political gain for decades, and then successfully softened the deception by deceitfully reframing illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants." Just listen to mainstream media, which routinely group illegal aliens with legal immigrants, to grasp the success of this artfully deceptive meme.

In cahoots with the Republican establishment (which wants easily exploited illegal aliens for financial gain), DC politicos have thus deliberately failed to secure our borders (enabling the free flow of drugs, human trafficking, illegal immigrants and, perhaps a few suspects on U.S. terrorism watch lists).

Working class and middle class Americans, whose communities have been savaged by Mexican heroin, the wage-deflating effects of illegal labor, and other scourges that cross our southern flank, have had enough. Unfortunately, their natural allies, the Republican and Democrat parties, have abdicated the middle. Therefore, these moderate voters are forced to hold their noses and embrace candidates with more extreme views because they've lost faith that those who embrace the sensible center will do anything about the obvious crisis.

The same is occurring on the left with the popularity of Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders' vitriolic voters - just ask anyone who works for the Clinton campaign about the deranged hate mail and phone calls they get from Sanders backers, not to mention the dirty tricks that Sanders fails to fully control - believe that Obama, Hillary and the Democrats did nothing to punish Wall Street for the 2008 financial crisis (mainly because they took and continue to take outsized contributions from Wall Street investment banks). Now these voters want blood. Literal blood.

The angry sentiment emboldening the Sanders voter is precisely the vitriol that gets leaders' heads put on spikes. Scratch the surface of almost any of these Sanders firebrands and I can assure you that many would call for precisely such retribution (I've had to block a few on Facebook for precisely such sentiments). But few on Facebook are comparing Sanders to Stalin or his supporters to Brownshirts, even though the Sanders campaign plays on both nationalism and socialism.

I realize that in any political campaign there are policy prescriptions promulgated that certain segments of the population find deeply insulting. But because you want secure borders, for instance, or because you vehemently disagree with the policy prescriptions of those who want them, does not mean either of these positions is hate speech. Moreover, because you ask for calm restraint before castigating every black death by cop as a racist act, does not make you racist, despite what the lockstep believers at Black Lives Matter want you to think. These silencers of free speech recently tried to violently stop Breitbart's Ben Shapiro from speaking at CSULA because he dared to argue that diversity of speech on college campuses was under threat.

However, when you reach for dangerous comparisons in discussing this boorish behavior, such as the frequent violations of Godwin's Law seen on the Internet, or made recently on live television by former Mexican President Vicente Fox, you too are engaging in irresponsible, counterproductive, and dissent-silencing hate speech. Just because candidates from Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz to Ben Carson to Bernie Sanders to, yes, Donald J. Trump, indulge in that favorite American trope - the over-the-top end-of-days jeremiad - does not place them remotely in the same category as the deranged Austrian monster who brought us systematic rape, torture, ghastly human experimentation, the death camps of Auschwitz, Ebensee and Treblinka, as well as a game plan for these incomparable atrocities in his recently republished anti-semitic screed Mein Kampf.

So, rant all you want against Trump, cops, homophobic and environmentally ignorant candidates (my pet peeves) or anything else that displeases you, but please, for the sake of responsible rhetoric which breeds peace and goodwill among those of differing opinion, think long and hard before making odious comparisons.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
I am not sure why you thought that article would be for me. (??)

P.S. I thought the right wing hated the notion of hate speech. Such an irony.
 

LPCTech

Senior member
Dec 11, 2013
679
93
86
Do I? Maybe, I don't know. Please provide an example.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38084705&postcount=28
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38084953&postcount=32
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38071412&postcount=46
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38084958&postcount=88
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38084383&postcount=54
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38081266&postcount=54
Just the last few days.

No I was wrong, speed does the defending, you just insult people and act sarcastic. At least he has an argument. Sometimes he even makes good points. You just make little quips about those you dont agree with. Like Trump lol.

and when I said you guys I was referring to all the Trumpeters, not just you. ;)

I do find it fun on here tho and the expected posts from the expected people on both sides of the argument. Its nice that we are all semi-civil with our arguments. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38084705&postcount=28
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38084953&postcount=32
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38071412&postcount=46
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38084958&postcount=88
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38084383&postcount=54
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38081266&postcount=54
Just the last few days.

No I was wrong, speed does the defending, you just insult people and act sarcastic. At least he has an argument. Sometimes he even makes good points. You just make little quips about those you dont agree with. Like Trump lol.

and when I said you guys I was referring to all the Trumpeters, not just you. ;)

I do find it fun on here tho and the expected posts from the expected people on both sides of the argument. Its nice that we are all semi-civil with our arguments. :biggrin:

I'll gladly engage in intelligent debate, but 95% of what's posted in this forum doesn't reach anything resembling intelligence. I simply respond in the manner most befitting any given comment.

As to your comment, inferring that I'm a "Trumpeter" (quite childish by the way, you aren't really any better than the "Trumpeters" you hate) means your post is worthless. I don't support Trump and didn't vote for him, so I'm not sure what you think you hope to accomplish by labeling me as such. So you can thank me for being far kinder to you with this reply than I normally would to such a terrible post.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Why wear the Bernie t-shirt and hat to a Trump rally?

That's like showing up at a rally for the Alabama football team wearing an LSU shirt. You're just trying to piss people off.

Fern
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,490
16,959
136
I'll gladly engage in intelligent debate, but 95% of what's posted in this forum doesn't reach anything resembling intelligence. I simply respond in the manner most befitting any given comment.

As to your comment, inferring that I'm a "Trumpeter" (quite childish by the way, you aren't really any better than the "Trumpeters" you hate) means your post is worthless. I don't support Trump and didn't vote for him, so I'm not sure what you think you hope to accomplish by labeling me as such. So you can thank me for being far kinder to you with this reply than I normally would to such a terrible post.

And there it is! The forum is full of idiots and you will engage people with thoughtful and intelligent posts as soon as someone else does. In the meantime though, you will simply be that idiot you say you hate so much!

In other words, "I know you are but what am I?"

LOL! Hypocrite extraordinaire! The irony of you complaining about his post being childish was a really nice touch!
 

LPCTech

Senior member
Dec 11, 2013
679
93
86
I didnt intend "Trumpeter" as an insult. I was just under the impression you liked him.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
I think Trump should become a pastor and have one of those mega churches.

-235-1-230210.jpg
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126

Wow, what an awful piece.

To all those comrades on my Facebook feed irresponsibly comparing isolationist Donald Trump to imperialist Adolf Hitler: that is your constitutionally protected right.

However, we have a very important, if unwritten, rule in high-level policy debate: he or she that resorts to a Nazi Germany or Hitler comparison loses the argument. This is because there is nothing that can compare to that diabolical aberration or person.

WHATTFBBQ? History, recent history, is LITTERED with Hitlers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bashir
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milošević
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin

What a vapid fucking shithead to even say something like that.

In addition, usually those making the comparison have not done their homework, and are lazily latching onto to one aspect of the thing they despise (e.g., Trump's support of Federal libel laws, or his opposition to sanctuary cities, or his temporary Muslim travel ban) and then loosely extrapolating to the whole.

Um, no. The comparison is almost always drawn to point out Trump's targeting of immigrants and minorities as scapegoats for the economically marginalized. Just as Hitler did to the Jews.

Mike Godwin, director of innovation policy at R Street Institute, created his own Godwin's Law to call out these Nazi comparisons, which are commonplace online. Godwin's Law reads: "As an online discussion continues, the probability of a reference or comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1." I urge you to read his article here and to get more granular in your comparisons going forward.

Oh hey, look, a link. Let's click it.

The inventor of "Godwin's Law" about Hitler comparisons on the Internet says they're not always inappropriate.

Oops.

I urge you to do this not because I am some monomaniacal hater of free speech - far from it - but because I find it deeply insulting to all those who died in the Holocaust to have their sacrifice cheaply denigrated in this way.

Yeah, use Holocaust victims to prop up your arguments that can't stand on their own merit. Classy.

When we apply a Nazi comparison to someone or something that does not fit that comparison, then Nazism and the Holocaust lose their power to shock us. And they must never lose that power. If they do, which is quickly happening right now, when something diabolical does come along again in this world, we have no way to identify it, let alone stop it, because we've cried Nazi wolf so often that the comparison has lost its power to persuade. I fear this rhetorical desensitization has already happened in our delayed responses to atrocities in Syria, Rwanda, Darfur and beyond.

Wait, you already told us that "there is nothing that can compare to that diabolical aberration or person". So Syria, Rwanda, Darfur and others must not have been that bad. Right?

This is not to excuse Mr. Trump's more egregious utterances, but, rather, to create a wider space for moderate rhetoric to live and breathe. When we close off that space, then we create the conditions for rabid populists like Trump and Sanders to fill the rhetorical vacuum.

Oh, so Hitler-Trump is beyond the pale, but it's cool to compare Trump to Sanders? Guess you're not one of the moderate ones.

Remember that I called out the dangerous populist rhetoric of Barack Obama back in 2007. And I've been proven right, as that rhetoric has now morphed into a more virulent strain of leftist populism found in the Sanders voter, which has shocked many of Obama's original devotees.

WHHHHHHHATTTTTTT?

In what way has Obama's "rhetoric" ever been dangerous? How have you been proven right. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

-- Skipped over a bunch of anti-refugee hate.txt --

Leftists in America are bumfuzzled that so many sensible, educated Americans find a home in the outlandish Mr. Trump. For me, however, the explanation is easy. Democrats have systematically enabled illegal immigration for cynical political gain for decades, and then successfully softened the deception by deceitfully reframing illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants." Just listen to mainstream media, which routinely group illegal aliens with legal immigrants, to grasp the success of this artfully deceptive meme.

In cahoots with the Republican establishment (which wants easily exploited illegal aliens for financial gain), DC politicos have thus deliberately failed to secure our borders (enabling the free flow of drugs, human trafficking, illegal immigrants and, perhaps a few suspects on U.S. terrorism watch lists).

Wait a minute...

Working class and middle class Americans, whose communities have been savaged by Mexican heroin, the wage-deflating effects of illegal labor, and other scourges that cross our southern flank, have had enough. Unfortunately, their natural allies, the Republican and Democrat parties, have abdicated the middle. Therefore, these moderate voters are forced to hold their noses and embrace candidates with more extreme views because they've lost faith that those who embrace the sensible center will do anything about the obvious crisis.

You're wearing one of those red hats aren't you?

willy-wonka-116680671607_xlarge.png


The same is occurring on the left with the popularity of Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders' vitriolic voters - just ask anyone who works for the Clinton campaign about the deranged hate mail and phone calls they get from Sanders backers, not to mention the dirty tricks that Sanders fails to fully control - believe that Obama, Hillary and the Democrats did nothing to punish Wall Street for the 2008 financial crisis (mainly because they took and continue to take outsized contributions from Wall Street investment banks). Now these voters want blood. Literal blood.

Yeah, okay. Sanders supporters want 'literal blood'. But it's the people comparing Trump to Hitler that are the hyperbolic assholes.

The angry sentiment emboldening the Sanders voter is precisely the vitriol that gets leaders' heads put on spikes. Scratch the surface of almost any of these Sanders firebrands and I can assure you that many would call for precisely such retribution (I've had to block a few on Facebook for precisely such sentiments). But few on Facebook are comparing Sanders to Stalin or his supporters to Brownshirts, even though the Sanders campaign plays on both nationalism and socialism.

Because Sanders isn't appealing to authoritarians you fucking hack. Oh yeah, I love the 'waaaah people are mean to me on Facebook.'

Here's the list of egregious Bernie Sanders offenses according to his website:

2016 Democratic Primary
Data Breach

Bernie Sanders staffers exploited a temporary glitch in the DNC’s voter database to save lists created by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. [Bloomberg, 12/18/15]

LCVA & AARPBernie Sanders’s campaign distributed mailers in Iowa that included a photo of AARP members wearing shirts with the slogan of the group’s Social Security campaign. AARP’s Iowa chapter had to clarify publicly that it is not supporting Bernie Sanders. [Newsweek, 1/28/16]

Bernie Sanders’s campaign used the logo of the League of Conservation Voters on a mailer. The League of Conservation Voters later had to ask the Sanders campaign to stop using its logo. [Newsweek, 1/28/16]

Nevada Culinary UnionBernie Sanders campaign operatives wore culinary union pins to gain access to Nevada culinary workers dining rooms. [Ralston Reports, 1/28/16]

Culinary Workers Union Local 226 confirmed and condemned “reports of Bernie Sanders’ campaign staffers attempting and gaining access to Employee Dining Rooms at Las Vegas Strip properties.” [The Hill, 1/28/16]

Yeah, real crazy stuff there.

I realize that in any political campaign there are policy prescriptions promulgated that certain segments of the population find deeply insulting. But because you want secure borders [We HAVE Secure Borders], for instance, or because you vehemently disagree with the policy prescriptions of those who want them, does not mean either of these positions is hate speech. Moreover, because you ask for calm restraint before castigating every black death by cop as a racist act, does not make you racist, despite what the lockstep believers at Black Lives Matter want you to think[But if that's how you characterize BLM, then guess, what, you are racist]. These silencers of free speech recently tried to violently stop Breitbart's Ben Shapiro from speaking at CSULA because he dared to argue that diversity of speech on college campuses was under threat.

However, when you reach for dangerous comparisons in discussing this boorish behavior, such as the frequent violations of Godwin's Law seen on the Internet, or made recently on live television by former Mexican President Vicente Fox, you too are engaging in irresponsible, counterproductive, and dissent-silencing hate speech. Just because candidates from Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz to Ben Carson to Bernie Sanders to, yes, Donald J. Trump, indulge in that favorite American trope - the over-the-top end-of-days jeremiad - does not place them remotely in the same category as the deranged Austrian monster who brought us systematic rape, torture, ghastly human experimentation, the death camps of Auschwitz, Ebensee and Treblinka, as well as a game plan for these incomparable atrocities in his recently republished anti-semitic screed Mein Kampf.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dona...-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8

So, rant all you want against Trump, cops, homophobic and environmentally ignorant candidates (my pet peeves) or anything else that displeases you, but please, for the sake of responsible rhetoric which breeds peace and goodwill among those of differing opinion, think long and hard before making odious comparisons.

Or writing shitty, disingenuous, articles with lots of false balance and latently racist bullshit.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Why wear the Bernie t-shirt and hat to a Trump rally?

That's like showing up at a rally for the Alabama football team wearing an LSU shirt. You're just trying to piss people off.

Fern
For some folks, pissing people off is the highest accomplishment to which they can aspire.

I think Trump should become a pastor and have one of those mega churches.

-235-1-230210.jpg
Already been done. Church of the Divine Profit.
 

Art&Science

Senior member
Nov 28, 2014
339
4
46
If you know me, it's no surprise that I am not a fan of Trump due to his racist, misogynist, and popularity-searching "campaign". But I try to keep an open mind, understanding that people have different views and everyone is entitled to their own.

I wore a shirt bashing Trump

Wait...???........... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a hypocrite.
 

Roflmouth

Golden Member
Oct 5, 2015
1,059
61
46
Didn't see this posted, mods please delete if this is dupe thread.

This was posted a couple of days ago in regards to a local Trump rally where even those who aren't shouting a damn thing are being booted out of Trump rallies, screamed at, with Trump leading the charge. This happened at a rally in Warren, MI the other day. The young girl, Lauren Underwood's Facebook post has gone viral. Here it is:



This is worrisome. Can you imagine... the response of conservatives and FoxNews had Obama ever acted this way at one of his rallies? Especially for not saying a thing, just being there... Being removed for yelling, shouting, and generally disrupting a candidate I view as very good reasons to be peacefully removed from an event. Tell them to be quiet once then if they don't comply, boot them, kicking and screaming if need be. But to have someone who is running to be the President of the United States of America screaming at them from the stage; acting in a manner which is seemingly inciting the crowd... there really isn't much excuse for this.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...tting-booted-trump-rally-goes-viral/81382318/

Hilarious, more worthless women's / ethnic studies majors being treated like the non-contributing parasites that they are. Try not to cry :D
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,763
6,333
126
Imagine the reaction if Bernie/Hillary/Cruz/etc hat wearing individuals showed up with AR15s slung on their backs. :colbert: