Trump literally said he could shoot a person in the face and get away with it. On television, at a campaign rally. Was pretty big news at the time, I find it very difficult to believe you missed it.
Well I did miss it. Sorry. I don't see why it matters though because I didn't deny that it happened or anything, I just said I know nothing about it and skipped over it.
And if you won't engage with a discussions of Trump literally bragging about getting away with sexual assault - which isn't the only time he's said that sort of thing, btw - because it's "rubbish," you're obviously not worth arguing with and are just a partisan hack, uninterested in a real argument, whose sole desire is to shift the blame from Fuhrer Trump for everything.
Well it's more that I have discussed it and it goes nowhere, so I'm not doing it again. Search my post history if you're interested. And you should probably refrain from making deductions about motivations if you're as far off base as that. I'm not American so don't really care which awful person they have as president, and I don't particularly like Trump at all as a person. I mean the fact that you're using the phrases "rape" and "sexual assault" interchangeably is more than enough reason for me to be arguing against what you're saying, regardless of who you're even talking about or the veracity of the claim.
Also, nice edit. I got on you about this in another thread. You make a commen, then edit it later. Was I supposed to miss this, since you didn't quote me in your original comment, and then you would 'win' the argument because I had no reply to your unassailable wisdom? Pitiful.
I don't even know what edit you're talking about. Am I not allowed to edit posts? The fact that you noticed the edit would seem to indicate it wasn't a problem though. Again, maybe stop with the conspiracy theories.
If you're talking about the fact that I added my response to your comment to the response to Estebonrober's comment then that's because it's frowned upon to make multiple sequential replies in a thread, which people have moaned about before, so if mine is still the last post in the thread and I want to reply to someone else then I'll edit my reply into that post. You're tilting at windmills here son.
No, I have already expressly allowed for the fact that nutjobs exist. Multiple times, even.
The synagogue shooter is not a nut job. He is a grown man, no criminal record, capable of getting a license to carry.
Well I'm using "nut job" to describe anyone who would go out and do something like, for example, shooting up a synagogue. I'm not meaning just someone who's actually mentally ill or psychotic in some way. The fact that he has no criminal record and isn't mentally ill doesn't stop him being a nut job to me. His actions make him a nut job.
Also I hope you don't find it deceitful of me to edit my post to add my response to you here.
And the synagogue shooter is on record saying Trump's talk about the "invading" caravan and Trump's talk about how the left was funding the caravan and the right's talk about how Jews are these left funders is what motivated him to do what he did.
Yeah but this is the guilt by association thing and exactly what I already addressed, so I'll just quote myself...
it's possible for two people to agree that something is a problem without agreeing on what should be done about it. And if one of those people's solution is "go mental and start murdering people", it's even possible for the other person totally and utterly opposed to that. I don't agree with holding the person who doesn't want to do that responsible for their actions, no matter what influence they have. And I certainly don't buy into the "well he was saying the same things as the murderer was saying, so...." guilt by assocation thing.
Like if I go on a big rant in the pub about how there's a gang of noisy kids who run around at night, painting graffiti, riding motorbikes around, etc, and then someone who hears what I say decides to go and gun them down, am I going to get the finger pointed at me because I dared to complain about them in the first place? Was my criticism and exasperation with them any less justified just because something bad happened to them at the hands of another?
(And I've been here long enough to know that the responses to this are going to claim that I'm saying everything Trump has ever said is completely justified and I support it all, but whatever. I'm not saying that, I'm saying judge people for their own actions, or weigh up what they espouse on its own merits (or lack thereof), but don't make them complicit in the actions of others just because they "say the same thing".)
[God I'm making so many stealthy deceitful edits here, I do hope no-one notices]
I just want to focus on this line because it shows how you choose to enter the discussion despite having no idea what the hell you're talking about - the motive appears to be kneejerk defense of Trump, yet of course you'll insist that you don't even like Trump. It makes no sense to me whatever. But anyway.
The shooter targeted that synagogue because, as he stated outright, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society "bringing in invaders to kill our people." So the idea that it was a "completely different group of people" is simply false.
Well you're quite right that I'm definitely not up on the details. I thought the "punching protestors" thing was unrelated. If the protesters in question were some group related to the synagogue shooting then I stand corrected. So just remove the bit about "completely different group", but my general point still stands.
I feel like it doesn't make sense to you because you have a rather black and white view of things and like to put people into boxes where if they say one thing, or argue against another, then you just assume a whole host of associated stuff. When some of those associations turn out not to be correct, it's confusing because it doesn't fit into how you view the world. The problem is how you categorise people.
The shooter was very clear about why he did what he did. So for you to argue that Trump and the Republicans saying exactly the same things about immigrants - in particular the migrant caravan in Mexico - as this man believed, didn't contribute to his actions, is just frankly idiotic. You don't need to go to Trump's campaign rhetoric, you don't need to point out the instances where he has generally advocated violence. You can just listen to the stuff Trump has been saying for the last month about immigrants in general and the caravan specifically, and look at how it's exactly the same as what this guy said his reasons for shooting up the synagogue were.
Well firstly, I didn't deny at all that whatever Trump et al may have said may have contributed to his actions. To quote myself again...
I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with the logic. I mean nutjobs have to get their ideas somewhere and it's probably true that if everyone went around being nice about everyone else all the time, there'd be a lot less inspiration for them and any other violently-inclined people.
But refer to what I said above about agency, guilt by association, etc. If you go shooting up a bunch of people, then that's an extreme act that's entirely on you. Other people may share your grievances (whether they are legitimate or not), but simply sharing and voicing them doesn't make them responsible for you doing something reprehensible, nor does that invalidate anything they said. (And again, I'm not saying anything he said WAS valid, just that the actions of someone else have no bearing on whether or not it was, or should have been said.)
