Trump Says 'Thank You' To Video Declaring 'The Only Good Democrat Is A Dead Democrat'

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

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
So … I find your assertion that he was "talking about treason in his later comment, and not because of political side" considerably less than convincing.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I agree, but then he goes on to imply there are several prominent Democrats he would like to see executed.

I agree it is not the blanket call to violence the headline would imply but it is still a call to violence.

Yes, advocating a legally imposed death penalty for "treason." Not extra-legal violence.

Republican rhetoric tends to be violent. This has been going on a long time. Remember Sarah Palin with the map showing target markers over blue states? It's gotten even worse over the years.

That is the sort of thing worth discussing. We just have to honor the facts and try not to overcook when we discuss it. Because otherwise we are acting like them.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
I read the entire article. The guy is an asshole, but he's an asshole in line with typical asshole things conservatives say. The article title is misleading, a lure for democrats to assume something which is not quite true in context.

It's plainly obvious that the first several posters in the thread hadn't read the article thoroughly and were just reacting to the headline. It's more important to be consistent in honoring the facts than to be consistent in bashing Trump. Because that is how we distinguish ourselves from the deplorables. There's so many legitimately horrible things Trump and other conservatives say and do on a daily basis. We don't need to take an ordinary piece of crap and turn it into an extraordinary piece of crap as there's already plenty of real crap in both piles.

So it was ok for you to blanket dismiss the guy's comments? That's literally what you did, but now you want people to specifically condemn just one aspect of it?

Its plainly obvious that the guy absolutely would have no problem with extending the killing to others. You can keep deluding yourself into believing otherwise, just know that there's historical precedent for this type of rhetoric. Here's a spoiler, it lead to them indiscriminate killing of those others.

And sorry, you might be ok with this type of talk, but it is not "ordinary piece of crap" unless you're a fucking psychopath. But hey, keep trying to marginalize someone calling for the murder of their political enemies. I'll keep in mind that you only want to call it out if they go "extraordinary" with it, which I can only assume means you'll take issue once they actually start killing people. But until then its just talk, no reason to make a fuss about it?

And now endorsed by el Presidente.

But, hey. They’re just words.

Don't get carried away! Leave Turmp alone! *running mascara crying*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
Silly me, I thought it was only open season on black people.
Trump Says 'Thank You' To Video Declaring 'The Only Good Democrat Is A Dead Democrat'


Most black people vote democrat, so he's just basically killing two birds with one stone (no pun intended)
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Yes, advocating a legally imposed death penalty for "treason." Not extra-legal violence.

Republican rhetoric tends to be violent. This has been going on a long time. Remember Sarah Palin with the map showing target markers over blue states? It's gotten even worse over the years.

That is the sort of thing worth discussing. We just have to honor the facts and try not to overcook when we discuss it. Because otherwise we are acting like them.

Sorry this is grade a bullshit.

He's declaring them simply being Democrats as being treason. If you don't see that as problematic I don't know what to say.

Oh so that makes it ok? Do you even listen to your own arguments? What the fuck?

We are? I don't see people in this thread calling for murdering this guy simply for being a Republican. If you're gonna bitch like that at least not be a massive hypocrite.

I don't know what facts you think weren't being discussed, let alone you ignoring facts yourself in order to justify saying that.

Now run along, your devil's advocate status is duly noted since that's clearly what drives a large portion of your posts as you clearly don't actually give a shit about the topic based on you dismissing exactly what people are taking issue with. "Oh Republicans are violent, who cares, it doesn't matter, we shouldn't hold them accountable for it! Or else we'll be just like them calling for Democrats to be murdered!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
So it was ok for you to blanket dismiss the guy's comments? That's literally what you did, but now you want people to specifically condemn just one aspect of it?

Its plainly obvious that the guy absolutely would have no problem with extending the killing to others. You can keep deluding yourself into believing otherwise, just know that there's historical precedent for this type of rhetoric. Here's a spoiler, it lead to them indiscriminate killing of those others.

And sorry, you might be ok with this type of talk, but it is not "ordinary piece of crap" unless you're a fucking psychopath. But hey, keep trying to marginalize someone calling for the murder of their political enemies. I'll keep in mind that you only want to call it out if they go "extraordinary" with it, which I can only assume means you'll take issue once they actually start killing people. But until then its just talk, no reason to make a fuss about it?



Don't get carried away! Leave Turmp alone! *running mascara crying*

I never said anything was OK or anything remotely like what you are parodying above. Cool off.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Our free speech warrior President and his supporters want American citizens to be executed for treason because they disagree with their speech.

Stop and think about that for a minute.

But you're missing the point! They're totally all about legal execution for it. You think they're not going to have a trial for it?!? God, you're just like them, actually you're worse because something something facts matter, damn the facts that dispute anything I say about disputing facts! /s
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
If you had read the article, these arent MY words, but his.
Yes, yes, if a partisan makes unspecified treason accusations against officials from the opposing party and only officials of that party, suggesting that they may need to be executed or lynched, there is absolutely no way of interpreting it other than his being super-concerned with the crime of treason. Anyone thinking otherwise clearly didn't read the part of the article that I literally quoted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Yes, yes, if a partisan makes unspecified treason accusations against officials from the opposing party and only officials of that party, suggesting that they may need to be executed or lynched, there is absolutely no way of interpreting it other than his being super-concerned with the crime of treason. Anyone thinking otherwise clearly didn't read the part of the article that I literally quoted.

Right. I agree. I simply was answering the question of "what treason". I dont know, and the article doesnt say. Why are you complicating this?
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
Right. I agree. I simply was answering the question of "what treason". I dont know, and the article doesnt say. Why are you complicating this?
Are you trolling me? This is all about your objection that "You DID read he was SPECIFICALLY talking about treason in his later comment, and not because of political side...RIGHT?"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,735
28,908
136
I think this thread is evidence it matters what a POTUS says...

 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,670
146
Are you trolling me? This is all about your objection that "You DID read he was SPECIFICALLY talking about treason in his later comment, and not because of political side...RIGHT?"

blackangst1 has proven repeatedly that he's incapable of deeper meanings, let alone anything that would dare challenge his views.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
It doesn't excuse the person's own words. He clearly added that part to try excuse the severity of what he said and try and cover his ass against any liability for it. It also plays into their "the media spins everything!" nonsense.

I wonder if he complains about "PC culture" since that's literally him being PC as well.

Oh I'm guilty of not reading it to completion. Reading into his sincerity of death wish doesn't seem possible to me. The rhetoric itself is indefensible regardless, and Trump's endorsement doubly so.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
We aren't that bad. In my circle most everybody who voted for Trump figured out he was a scam, a hard core Zionist, and we no longer support him. Unfortunately that means Biden is out because he's a Zionist too. I'm voting random Green/Independent/Libertarian in 2020... I was considering Sanders.

Who is this guy and what did he do to Juiblex? /kidding.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
How about the full quote instead of cherry picking?

“I’ve come to a conclusion where the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat,” says Griffin, going on to add that he doesn’t mean that in a “physical sense,” but in a “political sense.”

Yea, its almost like, he put a question mark at the end of the sentence and by doing so rendered the whole sentence void of meaning.

Gone full geek I see. So sorry about your loss. Of mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Yea, its almost like, he put a question mark at the end of the sentence and by doing so rendered the whole sentence void of meaning.

Gone full geek I see. So sorry about your loss. Of mind.

WTF are you talking about?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Oh I'm guilty of not reading it to completion. Reading into his sincerity of death wish doesn't seem possible to me. The rhetoric itself is indefensible regardless, and Trump's endorsement doubly so.

*gasp* you admitted you did that instead of doubling down and claiming that anyone criticizing the rhetoric is being just as bad because "facts" and instead condemned the rhetoric?

I guess I don't know what there is to read into it, he literally explicitly stated his wish for death on other people. There wasn't really much ambiguity there. He merely conceded that ok well it'd be better if Democrats had their political existence killed, except for the ones that he deems should be tried for treason (where he makes it clear how he feels that would go) and then violently killed.