historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Doral is now back on the PGA TOUR schedule after a 10 year absence

🚨🏆🏌️JUST IN: A new gold statue of President Donald Trump has been erected at Trump National Doral ahead of this week’s Cadillac Championship.

(Via: @AdamSchupak) pic.twitter.com/lS3zBLr1Bu

— NUCLR GOLF (@NUCLRGOLF) April 28, 2026

---

That is too much! One could even call it vulgar or obscene.

---

This is rich version of whitetrash . Good Lord

You guys are in a pro-Trump circle jerk.

There can be no answer but Trump is right. If you use media to show that others don't agree, you are using cherry picked leftist media so it doesn't count. So the only source that is acceptable is Breitbart, Newsmax or maybe FOX.

Hate crimes are up higher than under any President in US history, higher than 1968, that is something, but it has nothing to do what his Administration is doing. Protestors are just wrong. Everyone is just wrong but you guys and Donald.


Trump and racism: What do the data say? | Brookings Brookings - liberal... right
Did Donald Trump's presidency reshape Americans' prejudices? - ScienceDirect Science Direct is known for a low-bias, but I am sure that will be shown to be a "liberal plot".

Donald Trump: Aggressive Rhetoric and Political Violence Aggressive Rhetoric and Political Violence on JSTOR
Well, written by Columbia (liberal bias) but also a Jewish University (so they like Trump).

As I said, it is both sides that need to stop the hate rhetoric and the weaponization of the Government. You are the one saying it is only one side no matter how much evidence (these are all quotes, not made up.).

So, really I feel sorry for you living in your little bubble and not willing to recognize anything that threatens your view.

On a serious note, you really need to work on that as you get older, continued learning is the key to preventing dementia as we age. if you are not going to accept any other data and say it is all a conspiracy how to you expand your knowledge base? Retreating into your own opinions and believes is not healthy...

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear posts links to a collection of leftist and left-tilting sites which hate Trump, as some kind of evidence that Trump is as bad as the people actually driving violence.

But he insists he's not a leftist himself.

---

we have to remember that, to Democrats, words ARE violence.

It's all about defending the belief system for Democrats. Anything which exposes the internal contradictions of Marxist philosophy is tyranny personified and must be destroyed.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear posts links to a collection of leftist and left-tilting sites which hate Trump, as some kind of evidence that Trump is as bad as the people actually driving violence.

But he insists he's not a leftist himself.

---

we have to remember that, to Democrats, words ARE violence.

It's all about defending the belief system for Democrats. Anything which exposes the internal contradictions of Marxist philosophy is tyranny personified and must be destroyed.

---

What are you babbling about? Words are Violence????? The conversation is about "Hate Speech", not actual violence. You are equating speech to actual violence.

If you look back, I said both sides need to stop the Hate Speech. HOW CAN YOU OR ANYONE ELSE FIND FAULT WITH THAT???? Really, that is a such a radical violent view?

You are really too deep in MAGA, you need to get away from it for a while. Oldbear brought up Trump. I didn't.

So you think both sides shouldn't get away from Hate Speech?

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

What, specifically, are the sources you use?

---

News outlets, especially ones which do not edit quotes to change context or alter what was actually said.

---

Would you please share as to what, specifically, those sources are, which you believe are more accurate/truthful?

Keep in mind, he also says January 6th was nothing, even though we all watched on TV. It was a peaceful march by old people taking selfies...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keep in mind, he also says January 6th was nothing, even though we all watched on TV. It was a peaceful march by old people taking selfies...

---

william said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keep in mind, he also says January 6th was nothing, even though we all watched on TV. It was a peaceful march by old people taking selfies...

---

---

Some of which only went with the flow and walked thru the buildings. Others, many believe had criminal intent. Some believe that poor whatshisname was involved. Perhaps it was all a bad dream, or was it recording on live TV, with members of his own party calling for the 25th amendment on the floor of Congress in the days which followed. Thank goodness whathisname was elected president so we don't have to face what was obviously a lie on live TV. At least he learned his lesson and has become a model for who many want as our future "leader". Too bad the mainstream media polls are full of lies.

FLBear5630 said:

---

You guys are in a pro-Trump circle jerk.

There can be no answer but Trump is right. If you use media to show that others don't agree, you are using cherry picked leftist media so it doesn't count. So the only source that is acceptable is Breitbart, Newsmax or maybe FOX.

Hate crimes are up higher than under any President in US history, higher than 1968, that is something, but it has nothing to do what his Administration is doing. Protestors are just wrong. Everyone is just wrong but you guys and Donald.


Trump and racism: What do the data say? | Brookings Brookings - liberal... right
Did Donald Trump's presidency reshape Americans' prejudices? - ScienceDirect Science Direct is known for a low-bias, but I am sure that will be shown to be a "liberal plot".

Donald Trump: Aggressive Rhetoric and Political Violence Aggressive Rhetoric and Political Violence on JSTOR
Well, written by Columbia (liberal bias) but also a Jewish University (so they like Trump).

As I said, it is both sides that need to stop the hate rhetoric and the weaponization of the Government. You are the one saying it is only one side no matter how much evidence (these are all quotes, not made up.).

So, really I feel sorry for you living in your little bubble and not willing to recognize anything that threatens your view.

On a serious note, you really need to work on that as you get older, continued learning is the key to preventing dementia as we age. if you are not going to accept any other data and say it is all a conspiracy how to you expand your knowledge base? Retreating into your own opinions and believes is not healthy...

---

Again you use leftist sources to "prove" your point that his words call for violence and yet not a single one calls someone a future widow. Please provide his quote saying that.

You still have failed to understand the difference between mean things and hateful or violent speech. Please provide the speech from the right that shows this.

You keep saying "hate crimes" are up but ignoring that many of those crimes were paid to happen by a leftist group in an attempt to show that hate crimes are up....

Once you can understand that the left is manipulating the data and even creating data points to "prove" their point then you can understand that the violence is all from the left and we can have a discussion.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keep in mind, he also says January 6th was nothing, even though we all watched on TV. It was a peaceful march by old people taking selfies...

---

Much of it was.

But we were also told the riots were mostly peaceful as we watched cars and building burn. As we saw people bloodied from being assaulted.

But the leftist media pushed it as "mostly peaceful."

Do you see the difference???????

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

You guys are in a pro-Trump circle jerk.

There can be no answer but Trump is right. If you use media to show that others don't agree, you are using cherry picked leftist media so it doesn't count. So the only source that is acceptable is Breitbart, Newsmax or maybe FOX.

Hate crimes are up higher than under any President in US history, higher than 1968, that is something, but it has nothing to do what his Administration is doing. Protestors are just wrong. Everyone is just wrong but you guys and Donald.


Trump and racism: What do the data say? | Brookings Brookings - liberal... right
Did Donald Trump's presidency reshape Americans' prejudices? - ScienceDirect Science Direct is known for a low-bias, but I am sure that will be shown to be a "liberal plot".

Donald Trump: Aggressive Rhetoric and Political Violence Aggressive Rhetoric and Political Violence on JSTOR
Well, written by Columbia (liberal bias) but also a Jewish University (so they like Trump).

As I said, it is both sides that need to stop the hate rhetoric and the weaponization of the Government. You are the one saying it is only one side no matter how much evidence (these are all quotes, not made up.).

So, really I feel sorry for you living in your little bubble and not willing to recognize anything that threatens your view.

On a serious note, you really need to work on that as you get older, continued learning is the key to preventing dementia as we age. if you are not going to accept any other data and say it is all a conspiracy how to you expand your knowledge base? Retreating into your own opinions and believes is not healthy...

---

Again you use leftist sources to "prove" your point that his words call for violence and yet not a single one calls someone a future widow. Please provide his quote saying that.

You still have failed to understand the difference between mean things and hateful or violent speech. Please provide the speech from the right that shows this.

You keep saying "hate crimes" are up but ignoring that many of those crimes were paid to happen by a leftist group in an attempt to show that hate crimes are up....

Once you can understand that the left is manipulating the data and even creating data points to "prove" their point then you can understand that the violence is all from the left and we can have a discussion.

---

Help the rest of us out and give us some of the non-left sources we might use to balance out the information we can have available.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keep in mind, he also says January 6th was nothing, even though we all watched on TV. It was a peaceful march by old people taking selfies...

---

Yes, I'm hoping we are still working together on digging a bit deeper on finding out why we think differently on some things in this event. It's not easy and never is when it comes to allowing oneself to even consider the possibility of adjusting the amount of truthfulness or falseness in our belief system--much less admitting some aspects may not be exactly as we have come to believe. The sources of political information we access and those of our parents, plus our own experiences and chief figures in our lives are often the foundation of such beliefs. As you can see from this forum, you rarely notice any real change in someone's core beliefs. We do seem to be very good at defending our beliefs and deflecting when others present good, factual challenges. Of course when that fails, we get angry/fearful and use not so nice name calling.

Jack Bauer said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Doral is now back on the PGA TOUR schedule after a 10 year absence

🚨🏆🏌️JUST IN: A new gold statue of President Donald Trump has been erected at Trump National Doral ahead of this week’s Cadillac Championship.

(Via: @AdamSchupak) pic.twitter.com/lS3zBLr1Bu

— NUCLR GOLF (@NUCLRGOLF) April 28, 2026

---

That is too much! One could even call it vulgar or obscene.

---

This is rich version of whitetrash . Good Lord

---

exactly and Royalty with humility with the ability to praise Trump and ***** slap him at the same time and Piggy had no idea.

As I have already said, there is no answer you will accept. You already have your believe that Trump is a kind, benevolent and eloquent leader that does the position of POTUS proud.

It is a waste of time talking to you about this. I get it.

BUDOS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keep in mind, he also says January 6th was nothing, even though we all watched on TV. It was a peaceful march by old people taking selfies...

---

Yes, I'm hoping we are still working together on digging a bit deeper on finding out why we think differently on some things in this event. It's not easy and never is when it comes to allowing oneself to even consider the possibility of adjusting the amount of truthfulness or falseness in our belief system--much less admitting some aspects may not be exactly as we have come to believe. The sources of political information we access and those of our parents, plus our own experiences and chief figures in our lives are often the foundation of such beliefs. As you can see from this forum, you rarely notice any real change in someone's core beliefs. We do seem to be very good at defending our beliefs and deflecting when others present good, factual challenges. Of course when that fails, we get angry/fearful and use not so nice name calling.

---

They show one guy doing a selfie and leave out breaking into windows, forcing Congress to evacuate and the Secret Service drawing weapons to protect elected officials. If it was a benign as they say why didn't the secret service just tell them to disperse? Why have to evacuate? Why have to draw weapons? From what these guys are telling us the Secret Service knows little about determining threats. They know more...

The spluttering constant rage of JR is in a class usually reserved for members of The View.

FLBear5630 said:

---

As I have already said, there is no answer you will accept. You already have your believe that Trump is a kind, benevolent and eloquent leader that does the position of POTUS proud.

It is a waste of time talking to you about this. I get it.

---

LOL.

I have never said that. I have even said he says mean things. I have disagreed that he has said violent or hateful things.

I have simply asked for you to provide those things. By posting the whole speech or quote. Not cherry picked or misquoted ones.

I have given specific examples of things said by the left and asked for you to post Trump saying those things.

You have failed to do so.

And like anyone else suffering with TDS you think because someone disagrees with you it is a defense of ALL things Trump (it isn't) and that I think he can do no wrong- he can and does and I frequently point that out on here.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keep in mind, he also says January 6th was nothing, even though we all watched on TV. It was a peaceful march by old people taking selfies...

---

Yes, I'm hoping we are still working together on digging a bit deeper on finding out why we think differently on some things in this event. It's not easy and never is when it comes to allowing oneself to even consider the possibility of adjusting the amount of truthfulness or falseness in our belief system--much less admitting some aspects may not be exactly as we have come to believe. The sources of political information we access and those of our parents, plus our own experiences and chief figures in our lives are often the foundation of such beliefs. As you can see from this forum, you rarely notice any real change in someone's core beliefs. We do seem to be very good at defending our beliefs and deflecting when others present good, factual challenges. Of course when that fails, we get angry/fearful and use not so nice name calling.

---

They show one guy doing a selfie and leave out breaking into windows, forcing Congress to evacuate and the Secret Service drawing weapons to protect elected officials. If it was a benign as they say why didn't the secret service just tell them to disperse? Why have to evacuate? Why have to draw weapons? From what these guys are telling us the Secret Service knows little about determining threats. They know more...

---

But why are there pictures and video showing the Capitol police just standing there, weapons in holsters? Are they bad at determining threats? Did the people become violent after that?

Were there some violent people? Yes. Was everyone in the building violent? No.

I gave you links from a variety of sources. You don't qualify any as "worthy". I will look to see if Bannon has any on NewMax, maybe you will accept that.

Does "grabbing them by the *****" count?
Take your pick

2023, Truth Social: Gen. Mark Milley deserves "DEATH" for perceived disloyalty.
2024, Rally: Liz Cheney should face "a rifle with nine barrels shooting at her face."
2023, Interview: Immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country."
2016, Rally: "Knock the crap out of" protesters; "I'll pay legal fees."
2019, Rally: Suggested shooting migrants in the legs to deter crossings.
2024, Speech: Political opponents are "enemies from within," worse than foreign threats.
2023, Rally: Called Democrats "radical-left thugs" and "vermin."
2017, Rally: Praised body-slamming a reporter as "my kind of guy."
2022, Speech: Vowed "retribution" against political foes.
2019, X Post: Labeled journalists "enemies of the people."
2021, Rally: Called critics "losers" and "scum."
2018, Interview: Mocked a sexual assault survivor as "not credible."
2020, Rally: Called protesters "low-life scum" and "animals."
2023, X Post: Judges are "corrupt dogs" undermining justice.
2016, Speech: Suggested "Second Amendment people" could stop Clinton.
2024, Interview: Threatened to "lock up" political rivals if elected.
2017, Rally: Mocked disabled reporter's physical mannerisms.

That took 2 minutes. Now, make those nice, good comments....

FLBear5630 said:

---

I gave you links from a variety of sources. You don't qualify any as "worthy". I will look to see if Bannon has any on NewMax, maybe you will accept that.

Does "grabbing them by the *****" count? No not violent or hateful
Take your pick

2023, Truth Social: Gen. Mark Milley deserves "DEATH" for perceived disloyalty. His exact words were that in different times the punishment would have been death. He did not say he deserves it.
2024, Rally: Liz Cheney should face "a rifle with nine barrels shooting at her face." Already pointed out the FULL quote was she should be on the front line with 9 barrels facing her. Not violent.
2023, Interview: Immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." Not violent or hateful
2016, Rally: "Knock the crap out of" protesters; "I'll pay legal fees." The FULL quote was that if you someone about to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Not violent but preventing violence
2019, Rally: Suggested shooting migrants in the legs to deter crossings. This has only been claimed by one person but no one has ever backed this person up to say it was said.
2024, Speech: Political opponents are "enemies from within," worse than foreign threats. Not violent
2023, Rally: Called Democrats "radical-left thugs" and "vermin." Not violent
2017, Rally: Praised body-slamming a reporter as "my kind of guy." The FULL quote was "Any guy that can do a body slam is my kinda guy." Not Violent
2022, Speech: Vowed "retribution" against political foes. Not violent
2019, X Post: Labeled journalists "enemies of the people." Not violent
2021, Rally: Called critics "losers" and "scum." Not violent
2018, Interview: Mocked a sexual assault survivor as "not credible." Not violent
2020, Rally: Called protesters "low-life scum" and "animals." Not violent
2023, X Post: Judges are "corrupt dogs" undermining justice. Not violent
2016, Speech: Suggested "Second Amendment people" could stop Clinton. He was talking about second amendment supporters stopping her from getting elected, appointing judges that side with her to do away with the second amendment. It was made in the MIDDLE of an interview about her desire to abolish the second amendment.
2024, Interview: Threatened to "lock up" political rivals if elected. Not violent
2017, Rally: Mocked disabled reporter's physical mannerisms. Not violent

That took 2 minutes. Now, make those nice, good comments....

---

Again, you are giving only partial comments and not the full factual comments that do NOT say what you or the leftist media claim.

So again you post a bunch of partial quotes, some of which are mean, are not nice things to say, but are not full quotes and are not violent.

So again post where he called someone a future widow or any of the other violent talk from the left.

OR anyone else on the right.

But stop cherry picking comments that have been disproven multiple times now

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear posts links to a collection of leftist and left-tilting sites which hate Trump, as some kind of evidence that Trump is as bad as the people actually driving violence.

But he insists he's not a leftist himself.

---

we have to remember that, to Democrats, words ARE violence.

It's all about defending the belief system for Democrats. Anything which exposes the internal contradictions of Marxist philosophy is tyranny personified and must be destroyed.

---

What are you babbling about? Words are Violence????? The conversation is about "Hate Speech", not actual violence. You are equating speech to actual violence.

If you look back, I said both sides need to stop the Hate Speech. HOW CAN YOU OR ANYONE ELSE FIND FAULT WITH THAT???? Really, that is a such a radical violent view?

You are really too deep in MAGA, you need to get away from it for a while. Oldbear brought up Trump. I didn't.

So you think both sides shouldn't get away from Hate Speech?

---

you really are quite ignorant of the philosophy at play. The progressives insist that "words are violence." Such is the premise of hate speech laws. They literally call opposition to the trans movement as "genocide." I think such is ideological nonsense. But it has captured a number of societal institutions, so we have to deal with it. And the way you deal with it is to stand up to it....to confront it....to force it to bare its fangs. Trump is outstanding at that, and in so ding is actually defending Classical Liberalism from marxist philosophy.

My views on hate speech are guided by previously uncontentious classical liberalism. I would repeal every hate speech law on the books. They empower totalitarianism, by whomever gets to decide what is hate and what is not. We've already gotten to the point where saying something as factually obvious as "a transworman is a man" risks putting you into a world of trouble. The solution to problem speech is more speech. the way to deal with the barBEAReans of the world is not to cancel them, but to defeat the (repugnant) ideas they espouse in the public square.


"Justice Louis D. Brandeis is justly recognized as one of the foundational figures in modern American free expression jurisprudence. The interpretation of the First Amendment's free speech clause as a robust guarantee of free expression that he developed along with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a series of dissenting and concurring opinions in time was adopted by the Court as controlling doctrine. Fundamentally, this doctrine broadly protects expression, even and perhaps especially, in Holmes' words, the "thought that we hate." But this broad protection of expression has a set of categorical exceptions, among the most noteworthy of which is the incitement of imminent lawless activity. Brandeis highlighted the nature of this exception in his much-quoted opinion in Whitney v. California, ultimately adopted by the Court decades later in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The limited basis for the exception is found in the essence of the rule. Ordinarily, the corrective to anti-social expression is to be found in the process of debate. As Brandeis famously put it, "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.""
https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol51/iss2/4/

Jack Bauer said:

---

historian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Doral is now back on the PGA TOUR schedule after a 10 year absence

🚨🏆🏌️JUST IN: A new gold statue of President Donald Trump has been erected at Trump National Doral ahead of this week’s Cadillac Championship.

(Via: @AdamSchupak) pic.twitter.com/lS3zBLr1Bu

— NUCLR GOLF (@NUCLRGOLF) April 28, 2026

---

That is too much! One could even call it vulgar or obscene.

---

This is rich version of whitetrash . Good Lord

---

There are certainly a whole bunch of folks here that worship the golden calf.

FLBear5630 said:

---

I gave you links from a variety of sources. You don't qualify any as "worthy". I will look to see if Bannon has any on NewMax, maybe you will accept that.

Does "grabbing them by the *****" count?
Take your pick

2023, Truth Social: Gen. Mark Milley deserves "DEATH" for perceived disloyalty.
2024, Rally: Liz Cheney should face "a rifle with nine barrels shooting at her face."
2023, Interview: Immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country."
2016, Rally: "Knock the crap out of" protesters; "I'll pay legal fees."
2019, Rally: Suggested shooting migrants in the legs to deter crossings.
2024, Speech: Political opponents are "enemies from within," worse than foreign threats.
2023, Rally: Called Democrats "radical-left thugs" and "vermin."
2017, Rally: Praised body-slamming a reporter as "my kind of guy."
2022, Speech: Vowed "retribution" against political foes.
2019, X Post: Labeled journalists "enemies of the people."
2021, Rally: Called critics "losers" and "scum."
2018, Interview: Mocked a sexual assault survivor as "not credible."
2020, Rally: Called protesters "low-life scum" and "animals."
2023, X Post: Judges are "corrupt dogs" undermining justice.
2016, Speech: Suggested "Second Amendment people" could stop Clinton.
2024, Interview: Threatened to "lock up" political rivals if elected.
2017, Rally: Mocked disabled reporter's physical mannerisms.

That took 2 minutes. Now, make those nice, good comments....

---

First, it will be interesting to see if you get a similar list refuting all of the above items.
Second, let's say that at least half are not refuted, or even can't be refuted. As a result, does anyone think it will change their belief otherwise?
Third, does it really matter what the truth is, if we refuse to allow ourselves to admit we were wrong about some of the things we believed were true or false?

How do you know what the truth is if one is not truly willing to evaluate the information others present and compare that with their belief of what is true and admit that maybe, I may have been perhaps not totally correct? Too many appear to be more interested in getting in their version of "entertainment," and that noise is more than irritating--which is part of their motivation and speaks to their lack of true understanding of the issue too often.

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I gave you links from a variety of sources. You don't qualify any as "worthy". I will look to see if Bannon has any on NewMax, maybe you will accept that.

Does "grabbing them by the *****" count? No not violent or hateful
Take your pick

2023, Truth Social: Gen. Mark Milley deserves "DEATH" for perceived disloyalty. His exact words were that in different times the punishment would have been death. He did not say he deserves it.
2024, Rally: Liz Cheney should face "a rifle with nine barrels shooting at her face." Already pointed out the FULL quote was she should be on the front line with 9 barrels facing her. Not violent.
2023, Interview: Immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." Not violent or hateful
2016, Rally: "Knock the crap out of" protesters; "I'll pay legal fees." The FULL quote was that if you someone about to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Not violent but preventing violence
2019, Rally: Suggested shooting migrants in the legs to deter crossings. This has only been claimed by one person but no one has ever backed this person up to say it was said.
2024, Speech: Political opponents are "enemies from within," worse than foreign threats. Not violent
2023, Rally: Called Democrats "radical-left thugs" and "vermin." Not violent
2017, Rally: Praised body-slamming a reporter as "my kind of guy." The FULL quote was "Any guy that can do a body slam is my kinda guy." Not Violent
2022, Speech: Vowed "retribution" against political foes. Not violent
2019, X Post: Labeled journalists "enemies of the people." Not violent
2021, Rally: Called critics "losers" and "scum." Not violent
2018, Interview: Mocked a sexual assault survivor as "not credible." Not violent
2020, Rally: Called protesters "low-life scum" and "animals." Not violent
2023, X Post: Judges are "corrupt dogs" undermining justice. Not violent
2016, Speech: Suggested "Second Amendment people" could stop Clinton. He was talking about second amendment supporters stopping her from getting elected, appointing judges that side with her to do away with the second amendment. It was made in the MIDDLE of an interview about her desire to abolish the second amendment.
2024, Interview: Threatened to "lock up" political rivals if elected. Not violent
2017, Rally: Mocked disabled reporter's physical mannerisms. Not violent

That took 2 minutes. Now, make those nice, good comments....

---

Again, you are giving only partial comments and not the full factual comments that do NOT say what you or the leftist media claim.

So again you post a bunch of partial quotes, some of which are mean, are not nice things to say, but are not full quotes and are not violent.

So again post where he called someone a future widow or any of the other violent talk from the left.

OR anyone else on the right.

But stop cherry picking comments that have been disproven multiple times now

---

Do you believe that you could be guilty of cherry-picking?
Just asking you to think about both sides of this argument from a macro perspective.

So, none of those qualify as hate speech, divisive or hostile?

You guys are really getting bad. You can't really believe that.

BUDOS said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I gave you links from a variety of sources. You don't qualify any as "worthy". I will look to see if Bannon has any on NewMax, maybe you will accept that.

Does "grabbing them by the *****" count? No not violent or hateful
Take your pick

2023, Truth Social: Gen. Mark Milley deserves "DEATH" for perceived disloyalty. His exact words were that in different times the punishment would have been death. He did not say he deserves it.
2024, Rally: Liz Cheney should face "a rifle with nine barrels shooting at her face." Already pointed out the FULL quote was she should be on the front line with 9 barrels facing her. Not violent.
2023, Interview: Immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." Not violent or hateful
2016, Rally: "Knock the crap out of" protesters; "I'll pay legal fees." The FULL quote was that if you someone about to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Not violent but preventing violence
2019, Rally: Suggested shooting migrants in the legs to deter crossings. This has only been claimed by one person but no one has ever backed this person up to say it was said.
2024, Speech: Political opponents are "enemies from within," worse than foreign threats. Not violent
2023, Rally: Called Democrats "radical-left thugs" and "vermin." Not violent
2017, Rally: Praised body-slamming a reporter as "my kind of guy." The FULL quote was "Any guy that can do a body slam is my kinda guy." Not Violent
2022, Speech: Vowed "retribution" against political foes. Not violent
2019, X Post: Labeled journalists "enemies of the people." Not violent
2021, Rally: Called critics "losers" and "scum." Not violent
2018, Interview: Mocked a sexual assault survivor as "not credible." Not violent
2020, Rally: Called protesters "low-life scum" and "animals." Not violent
2023, X Post: Judges are "corrupt dogs" undermining justice. Not violent
2016, Speech: Suggested "Second Amendment people" could stop Clinton. He was talking about second amendment supporters stopping her from getting elected, appointing judges that side with her to do away with the second amendment. It was made in the MIDDLE of an interview about her desire to abolish the second amendment.
2024, Interview: Threatened to "lock up" political rivals if elected. Not violent
2017, Rally: Mocked disabled reporter's physical mannerisms. Not violent

That took 2 minutes. Now, make those nice, good comments....

---

Again, you are giving only partial comments and not the full factual comments that do NOT say what you or the leftist media claim.

So again you post a bunch of partial quotes, some of which are mean, are not nice things to say, but are not full quotes and are not violent.

So again post where he called someone a future widow or any of the other violent talk from the left.

OR anyone else on the right.

But stop cherry picking comments that have been disproven multiple times now

---

Do you believe that you could be guilty of cherry-picking?
Just asking you to think about both sides of this argument from a macro perspective.

---

How am I cherry picking? I provided the full quotes to refute his partial quotes.

The full quote calling the first lady a future widow is available all over the place. As a whole or part it is still wrong and violent.

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, none of those qualify as hate speech, divisive or hostile?

You guys are really getting bad. You can't really believe that.

---

Is that what I said?

Hate speech is a subjective term that the left uses to describe ANYTHING they do not like.

I even said some of these were bad, inappropriate or wrong to say. So that would fall into the divisive category. But so would a politician saying they want to cut money from a program. Some people will disagree with that.... thus meaning that statement is divisive. For example, when someone says defund the police that is divisive. But so would be saying we need to cut military spending. Or we should cut how much we spend on "safety net" programs, change the qualification rules, time limits, etc.

Hostile no. None of those would be considered hostile if said by anyone else. Since Trump said them they are hostile. But again hostile is a mostly subjective thing. One could argue that most of the above examples are hostile.

But violent has been my main argument since we started. The left has clear violent speech that is dismissed by others on the left while they attempt to make the list you gave examples of "violent" speech.

You have still failed to provide a single example of violent speech or actions from the right.

Just as you have ignored the comparison between Jan 6 and the riots

That is what the discussion was about Hate Speech. You turned it to violent, probably because it suited your definition.

Hate Speech - abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds

That is what we were saying.

I said both sides need to stop and focus on fixing our problems.

Apparently that is a leftist thing to say. Because all I have heard, from you and others, is it is all the Left. Trump si a loving soul that never says anything violent. Wonk, Wonk, Wonk...

So, you are good with Trump doing Hate Speech. You seem to be defending it pretty strongly.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear posts links to a collection of leftist and left-tilting sites which hate Trump, as some kind of evidence that Trump is as bad as the people actually driving violence.

But he insists he's not a leftist himself.

---

we have to remember that, to Democrats, words ARE violence.

It's all about defending the belief system for Democrats. Anything which exposes the internal contradictions of Marxist philosophy is tyranny personified and must be destroyed.

---

What are you babbling about? Words are Violence????? The conversation is about "Hate Speech", not actual violence. You are equating speech to actual violence.

If you look back, I said both sides need to stop the Hate Speech. HOW CAN YOU OR ANYONE ELSE FIND FAULT WITH THAT???? Really, that is a such a radical violent view?

You are really too deep in MAGA, you need to get away from it for a while. Oldbear brought up Trump. I didn't.

So you think both sides shouldn't get away from Hate Speech?

---

He is largely right, you missed his point that lefties see speech as a violent combatting of their beliefs and opinions. Of course some righties do too, but he is correct that when you go back through the rise of Marxism in any country, you find Marxists repressing and eliminating contrary rhetoric.

cowboycwr said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I gave you links from a variety of sources. You don't qualify any as "worthy". I will look to see if Bannon has any on NewMax, maybe you will accept that.

Does "grabbing them by the *****" count? No not violent or hateful
Take your pick

2023, Truth Social: Gen. Mark Milley deserves "DEATH" for perceived disloyalty. His exact words were that in different times the punishment would have been death. He did not say he deserves it.
2024, Rally: Liz Cheney should face "a rifle with nine barrels shooting at her face." Already pointed out the FULL quote was she should be on the front line with 9 barrels facing her. Not violent.
2023, Interview: Immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." Not violent or hateful
2016, Rally: "Knock the crap out of" protesters; "I'll pay legal fees." The FULL quote was that if you someone about to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Not violent but preventing violence
2019, Rally: Suggested shooting migrants in the legs to deter crossings. This has only been claimed by one person but no one has ever backed this person up to say it was said.
2024, Speech: Political opponents are "enemies from within," worse than foreign threats. Not violent
2023, Rally: Called Democrats "radical-left thugs" and "vermin." Not violent
2017, Rally: Praised body-slamming a reporter as "my kind of guy." The FULL quote was "Any guy that can do a body slam is my kinda guy." Not Violent
2022, Speech: Vowed "retribution" against political foes. Not violent
2019, X Post: Labeled journalists "enemies of the people." Not violent
2021, Rally: Called critics "losers" and "scum." Not violent
2018, Interview: Mocked a sexual assault survivor as "not credible." Not violent
2020, Rally: Called protesters "low-life scum" and "animals." Not violent
2023, X Post: Judges are "corrupt dogs" undermining justice. Not violent
2016, Speech: Suggested "Second Amendment people" could stop Clinton. He was talking about second amendment supporters stopping her from getting elected, appointing judges that side with her to do away with the second amendment. It was made in the MIDDLE of an interview about her desire to abolish the second amendment.
2024, Interview: Threatened to "lock up" political rivals if elected. Not violent
2017, Rally: Mocked disabled reporter's physical mannerisms. Not violent

That took 2 minutes. Now, make those nice, good comments....

---

Again, you are giving only partial comments and not the full factual comments that do NOT say what you or the leftist media claim.

So again you post a bunch of partial quotes, some of which are mean, are not nice things to say, but are not full quotes and are not violent.

So again post where he called someone a future widow or any of the other violent talk from the left.

OR anyone else on the right.

But stop cherry picking comments that have been disproven multiple times now

---

Do you believe that you could be guilty of cherry-picking?
Just asking you to think about both sides of this argument from a macro perspective.

---

How am I cherry picking? I provided the full quotes to refute his partial quotes.

The full quote calling the first lady a future widow is available all over the place. As a whole or part it is still wrong and violent.

---

He was referring to their age difference is what he claims, so it's also easy to refund your position.

I don't disagree. Just don't know what it has to do with what I said????

I said both sides need to stop and focus on solving problems. (Read the Caps, how is that a controversial statement?)

Not sure how that warrants an lecture on Cold War politics? You guys are the ones saying Trump doesn't have to stop.

BUDOS said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I gave you links from a variety of sources. You don't qualify any as "worthy". I will look to see if Bannon has any on NewMax, maybe you will accept that.

Does "grabbing them by the *****" count? No not violent or hateful
Take your pick

2023, Truth Social: Gen. Mark Milley deserves "DEATH" for perceived disloyalty. His exact words were that in different times the punishment would have been death. He did not say he deserves it.
2024, Rally: Liz Cheney should face "a rifle with nine barrels shooting at her face." Already pointed out the FULL quote was she should be on the front line with 9 barrels facing her. Not violent.
2023, Interview: Immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." Not violent or hateful
2016, Rally: "Knock the crap out of" protesters; "I'll pay legal fees." The FULL quote was that if you someone about to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. Not violent but preventing violence
2019, Rally: Suggested shooting migrants in the legs to deter crossings. This has only been claimed by one person but no one has ever backed this person up to say it was said.
2024, Speech: Political opponents are "enemies from within," worse than foreign threats. Not violent
2023, Rally: Called Democrats "radical-left thugs" and "vermin." Not violent
2017, Rally: Praised body-slamming a reporter as "my kind of guy." The FULL quote was "Any guy that can do a body slam is my kinda guy." Not Violent
2022, Speech: Vowed "retribution" against political foes. Not violent
2019, X Post: Labeled journalists "enemies of the people." Not violent
2021, Rally: Called critics "losers" and "scum." Not violent
2018, Interview: Mocked a sexual assault survivor as "not credible." Not violent
2020, Rally: Called protesters "low-life scum" and "animals." Not violent
2023, X Post: Judges are "corrupt dogs" undermining justice. Not violent
2016, Speech: Suggested "Second Amendment people" could stop Clinton. He was talking about second amendment supporters stopping her from getting elected, appointing judges that side with her to do away with the second amendment. It was made in the MIDDLE of an interview about her desire to abolish the second amendment.
2024, Interview: Threatened to "lock up" political rivals if elected. Not violent
2017, Rally: Mocked disabled reporter's physical mannerisms. Not violent

That took 2 minutes. Now, make those nice, good comments....

---

Again, you are giving only partial comments and not the full factual comments that do NOT say what you or the leftist media claim.

So again you post a bunch of partial quotes, some of which are mean, are not nice things to say, but are not full quotes and are not violent.

So again post where he called someone a future widow or any of the other violent talk from the left.

OR anyone else on the right.

But stop cherry picking comments that have been disproven multiple times now

---

Do you believe that you could be guilty of cherry-picking?
Just asking you to think about both sides of this argument from a macro perspective.

---

Cowboy was refuting the statements posted by FLBear. By definition, then, Cowboy is not 'cherry-picking' but instead calling FLBear out for doing that.


No one is arguing that Trump has not said offensive things. However he has not said anything that actually incited violence, where the Left clearly has done such incitement.

You guys are mad I included the GOP plain and simple. But, hey you guys are good with hate speech as long as it is you doing it.