Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Booray said:

---

There is a difference between anarchists and Democrats

---

Then why don't 'Democrats' call this stuff out (or the media)? They sure were quick to label the tea party terrorists when they never did anything close to this.

---

If I recall the last presidential election correctly, the leaders of the Democratic party spent considerable time and effort urging their supporters that "when they go low, we go high."

There is no excuse for the acts of some of the protesters. But when our president spends almost every waking moment fomenting division, engaging in juvenile name calling and touting tin-foil conspiracy theories, its not surprising that things are getting uglier. There is not a successful politician in my lifetime who has spewed as 10% of divisive rhetoric that Donald Trump has over the past four years.

He has created the current climate as surely as Joseph McCarthy created the climate that existed in his era. And Trump will be remembered exactly the same way we remember McCarthy: as a stain on our country.

---

How is Trump divisive? Is he persecuting people as McCarthy did?

---

That's where my head went. I think it is another redefining terms. No "I disagree with him" has been redefined as "he's divisive." While I do not support Trump's tone or Twitter, he hardly was given a fair shake. People literally were protesting democracy on election night 2016, and he was never given a chance. Immediately, he was attacked by the fake Russian narrative, which morphed from Russians changed the vote to collusion to obstruction - nothing proved and likely setup by his political opponents. Now, it is impeachment ... same song, different dance.

Rather than focusing on emotion, what policies have been divisive? I'm sure I can be proven incorrect and did not think of everything, but I do not think he's implemented a single policy that would have been considered "divisive" in October 2016. Many of his actions would have been widely praised by Democrats if a Democrat had implemented.

Again in the service of short memories, these people were claiming George W. Bush was going to declare himself emperor and making movies about killing him. The stuff they attacked Bush and his family with was a moral and human embarrassment. These people are religious fundamentalists who believe they have a right to rule and will destroy anyone that gets in their way ... a trait practiced by Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Alinsky, etc.

---

Is Trump divisive? Any kindergarten teacher would tell you he is, because no kindergarten teacher would stand for his tactics.

It starts with his tone. We have never had a president use language in public like he does. His base celebrates him for being "politically incorrect" but then protests when folks take offense to his out and out rudeness. You can't have it both ways: being rude/politically incorrect contributes to divisiveness.

Example: in the last 10 presidential elections, what names did the candidates call each other? Anybody other than Trump using derogatory nicknames for the opponent?

I will give him this: he is an equal opportunity insulter. He insults anyone who disagrees with him.

But intentional or not, his insults are usually framed in a way that they implicitly apply to groups instead of just his immediate adversary. When he complains that Megan Kelly is asking him unfair questions because she must be on her period, the comment is fairly interpreted as sexist.

When he says the judge in one of his cases can't be fair to him because the judge is Hispanic, the comment is fairly interpreted as racist.

When he tries to equalize the fault for a white supremacist killing an innocent protester, he minimizes the evil of white supremacy.

When he says he wants to ban all Muslim immigrants, that comment is fairly interpreted as religious-based discrimination.

When he tells American citizens who are elected officials that they "need to go back where they came from," that comment is fairly interpreted as a racially motivated slam against immigrants, particularly in the context of previously saying he wants more Norwegians.

When he whips up patently false claims abut minority voter fraud or invasion forces of Hispanics, his comments are fairly interpreted as racist.

Pretending that anything Obama ever said even approaches the level of malevolence Trump displays is just a sad joke. This President caters to the 25% of America that hates anything that is not like them; and adds to that another 20% of Americans who will trade his tone for policies they support. He is doing incalculable damage to our body politic because: (1) the natural reaction to his success is to lower yourself to his level (he is dragging us all into the sewer) and (2) when he loses the next election, the 25% will not understand why and concoct a million fantasies about the deep state overruling democracy.

---

The fact that you call it a Muslim ban discredits every word coming out of your mouth.

Your interpretation of all of these events are inaccurate character assassinations.

Obama dropped more bombs than anyone before him, he jailed whistleblowers and journalists: you want to talk about real malevolence and division...then let's get real.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Your extended version does not really help your case, Booray.

---

Your usual tactic. Just declare yourself right without addressing any substance.

---

Actually, if you were paying attention I did not say I was right, I simply observed your extended quotes don't clear Obama of the accusation.

And yes, that does address the substance of the discussion. You want to claim Trump is uniquely arrogant and offensive, but Obama was just as bad. He simply used a different style of offense.

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Booray said:

---

There is a difference between anarchists and Democrats

---

Then why don't 'Democrats' call this stuff out (or the media)? They sure were quick to label the tea party terrorists when they never did anything close to this.

---

If I recall the last presidential election correctly, the leaders of the Democratic party spent considerable time and effort urging their supporters that "when they go low, we go high."

There is no excuse for the acts of some of the protesters. But when our president spends almost every waking moment fomenting division, engaging in juvenile name calling and touting tin-foil conspiracy theories, its not surprising that things are getting uglier. There is not a successful politician in my lifetime who has spewed as 10% of divisive rhetoric that Donald Trump has over the past four years.

He has created the current climate as surely as Joseph McCarthy created the climate that existed in his era. And Trump will be remembered exactly the same way we remember McCarthy: as a stain on our country.

---

How is Trump divisive? Is he persecuting people as McCarthy did?

---

That's where my head went. I think it is another redefining terms. No "I disagree with him" has been redefined as "he's divisive." While I do not support Trump's tone or Twitter, he hardly was given a fair shake. People literally were protesting democracy on election night 2016, and he was never given a chance. Immediately, he was attacked by the fake Russian narrative, which morphed from Russians changed the vote to collusion to obstruction - nothing proved and likely setup by his political opponents. Now, it is impeachment ... same song, different dance.

Rather than focusing on emotion, what policies have been divisive? I'm sure I can be proven incorrect and did not think of everything, but I do not think he's implemented a single policy that would have been considered "divisive" in October 2016. Many of his actions would have been widely praised by Democrats if a Democrat had implemented.

Again in the service of short memories, these people were claiming George W. Bush was going to declare himself emperor and making movies about killing him. The stuff they attacked Bush and his family with was a moral and human embarrassment. These people are religious fundamentalists who believe they have a right to rule and will destroy anyone that gets in their way ... a trait practiced by Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Alinsky, etc.

---

Is Trump divisive? Any kindergarten teacher would tell you he is, because no kindergarten teacher would stand for his tactics.

It starts with his tone. We have never had a president use language in public like he does. His base celebrates him for being "politically incorrect" but then protests when folks take offense to his out and out rudeness. You can't have it both ways: being rude/politically incorrect contributes to divisiveness.

Example: in the last 10 presidential elections, what names did the candidates call each other? Anybody other than Trump using derogatory nicknames for the opponent?

I will give him this: he is an equal opportunity insulter. He insults anyone who disagrees with him.

But intentional or not, his insults are usually framed in a way that they implicitly apply to groups instead of just his immediate adversary. When he complains that Megan Kelly is asking him unfair questions because she must be on her period, the comment is fairly interpreted as sexist.

When he says the judge in one of his cases can't be fair to him because the judge is Hispanic, the comment is fairly interpreted as racist.

When he tries to equalize the fault for a white supremacist killing an innocent protester, he minimizes the evil of white supremacy.

When he says he wants to ban all Muslim immigrants, that comment is fairly interpreted as religious-based discrimination.

When he tells American citizens who are elected officials that they "need to go back where they came from," that comment is fairly interpreted as a racially motivated slam against immigrants, particularly in the context of previously saying he wants more Norwegians.

When he whips up patently false claims abut minority voter fraud or invasion forces of Hispanics, his comments are fairly interpreted as racist.

Pretending that anything Obama ever said even approaches the level of malevolence Trump displays is just a sad joke. This President caters to the 25% of America that hates anything that is not like them; and adds to that another 20% of Americans who will trade his tone for policies they support. He is doing incalculable damage to our body politic because: (1) the natural reaction to his success is to lower yourself to his level (he is dragging us all into the sewer) and (2) when he loses the next election, the 25% will not understand why and concoct a million fantasies about the deep state overruling democracy.

---

You're making a subjective, emotional argument, so we can agree we're likely never to agree. You and those who choose to weaponize being offended interpret everything as some kind of "-ist," and some of the things you're just flat-out making up.

Again, I'll re-state the question as I agree with you about his tone. What policies are divisive?

I'm not going to engage in whataboutism, but President Obama's rhetoric reinforced our differences and emphasized real or perceived injustices, which inherently is divisive. Irony abounds these days, but a great example is treating everyone the same is divisive, but dividing people by race, sex, gender, religion, etc., is unifying. #youcantmakethis****up

Kyle said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Booray said:

---

There is a difference between anarchists and Democrats

---

Then why don't 'Democrats' call this stuff out (or the media)? They sure were quick to label the tea party terrorists when they never did anything close to this.

---

If I recall the last presidential election correctly, the leaders of the Democratic party spent considerable time and effort urging their supporters that "when they go low, we go high."

There is no excuse for the acts of some of the protesters. But when our president spends almost every waking moment fomenting division, engaging in juvenile name calling and touting tin-foil conspiracy theories, its not surprising that things are getting uglier. There is not a successful politician in my lifetime who has spewed as 10% of divisive rhetoric that Donald Trump has over the past four years.

He has created the current climate as surely as Joseph McCarthy created the climate that existed in his era. And Trump will be remembered exactly the same way we remember McCarthy: as a stain on our country.

---

How is Trump divisive? Is he persecuting people as McCarthy did?

---

That's where my head went. I think it is another redefining terms. No "I disagree with him" has been redefined as "he's divisive." While I do not support Trump's tone or Twitter, he hardly was given a fair shake. People literally were protesting democracy on election night 2016, and he was never given a chance. Immediately, he was attacked by the fake Russian narrative, which morphed from Russians changed the vote to collusion to obstruction - nothing proved and likely setup by his political opponents. Now, it is impeachment ... same song, different dance.

Rather than focusing on emotion, what policies have been divisive? I'm sure I can be proven incorrect and did not think of everything, but I do not think he's implemented a single policy that would have been considered "divisive" in October 2016. Many of his actions would have been widely praised by Democrats if a Democrat had implemented.

Again in the service of short memories, these people were claiming George W. Bush was going to declare himself emperor and making movies about killing him. The stuff they attacked Bush and his family with was a moral and human embarrassment. These people are religious fundamentalists who believe they have a right to rule and will destroy anyone that gets in their way ... a trait practiced by Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Alinsky, etc.

---

Is Trump divisive? Any kindergarten teacher would tell you he is, because no kindergarten teacher would stand for his tactics.

It starts with his tone. We have never had a president use language in public like he does. His base celebrates him for being "politically incorrect" but then protests when folks take offense to his out and out rudeness. You can't have it both ways: being rude/politically incorrect contributes to divisiveness.

Example: in the last 10 presidential elections, what names did the candidates call each other? Anybody other than Trump using derogatory nicknames for the opponent?

I will give him this: he is an equal opportunity insulter. He insults anyone who disagrees with him.

But intentional or not, his insults are usually framed in a way that they implicitly apply to groups instead of just his immediate adversary. When he complains that Megan Kelly is asking him unfair questions because she must be on her period, the comment is fairly interpreted as sexist.

When he says the judge in one of his cases can't be fair to him because the judge is Hispanic, the comment is fairly interpreted as racist.

When he tries to equalize the fault for a white supremacist killing an innocent protester, he minimizes the evil of white supremacy.

When he says he wants to ban all Muslim immigrants, that comment is fairly interpreted as religious-based discrimination.

When he tells American citizens who are elected officials that they "need to go back where they came from," that comment is fairly interpreted as a racially motivated slam against immigrants, particularly in the context of previously saying he wants more Norwegians.

When he whips up patently false claims abut minority voter fraud or invasion forces of Hispanics, his comments are fairly interpreted as racist.

Pretending that anything Obama ever said even approaches the level of malevolence Trump displays is just a sad joke. This President caters to the 25% of America that hates anything that is not like them; and adds to that another 20% of Americans who will trade his tone for policies they support. He is doing incalculable damage to our body politic because: (1) the natural reaction to his success is to lower yourself to his level (he is dragging us all into the sewer) and (2) when he loses the next election, the 25% will not understand why and concoct a million fantasies about the deep state overruling democracy.

---

You're making a subjective, emotional argument, so we can agree we're likely never to agree. You and those who choose to weaponize being offended interpret everything as some kind of "-ist," and some of the things you're just flat-out making up.

Again, I'll re-state the question as I agree with you about his tone. What policies are divisive?

I'm not going to engage in whataboutism, but President Obama's rhetoric reinforced our differences and emphasized real or perceived injustices, which inherently is divisive. Irony abounds these days, but a great example is treating everyone the same is divisive, but dividing people by race, sex, gender, religion, etc., is unifying. #youcantmakethis****up

---

I have been careful to make clear my comments have been about his rhetoric, not his policies.

The inherent idea behind a democracy is that we can disagree about policies but still function as a country. That is why we have elections: to choose how we are governed. By definition elections will be "divisive" as there is always a winner whose policies get enforced and a loser whose policies do not get enforced. So I have no problem with anything DJT proposes as a policy or that Bernie Sanders proposes as a policy. If you can get the votes, then you get the policy.

But our social contract has always been that we settle things at the ballot box and you are not a lesser American for disagreeing with me. DJT and his most fervent supporters break that contract with rhetoric that demonizes those who disagree with him.

Immigration is a good example. I agree with DJT that our immigration policies need to be more merit based and less family based. (Caveat: if you look at his actual policy proposals, he isn't really for "more merit based" he is for less family based and the same merit based}. But the vitriol directed at immigrating Hispanics, the caricature of the crime wave they supposedly bring with them is calculated to harm and divide.

TR was right when he identified one of the great powers of the presidency is the power of the "bully pulpit." Trump has abused that power mightily.

Finally, its easy to say "subjective" when we are talking about rhetoric. But it is a canard. Words have definitive meanings. The words Obama used were rarely divisive and usually were uplifting. The words DJT uses are the exact reverse.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Your extended version does not really help your case, Booray.

---

Your usual tactic. Just declare yourself right without addressing any substance.

---

Actually, if you were paying attention I did not say I was right, I simply observed your extended quotes don't clear Obama of the accusation.

And yes, that does address the substance of the discussion. You want to claim Trump is uniquely arrogant and offensive, but Obama was just as bad. He simply used a different style of offense.

---

All you do is make unsupported conclusions. One of your compadres picked the five most "offensive" Obama quotes. I showed how the "quotes" were: (1) out of context and (2) not disparaging. using actual definitions and grammar. If I am wrong, do the work of explaining why with reference to the words that came out of his mouth.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Your extended version does not really help your case, Booray.

---

Your usual tactic. Just declare yourself right without addressing any substance.

---

Actually, if you were paying attention I did not say I was right, I simply observed your extended quotes don't clear Obama of the accusation.

And yes, that does address the substance of the discussion. You want to claim Trump is uniquely arrogant and offensive, but Obama was just as bad. He simply used a different style of offense.

---

All you do is make unsupported conclusions. One of your compadres picked the five most "offensive" Obama quotes. I showed how the "quotes" were: (1) out of context and (2) not disparaging. using actual definitions and grammar. If I am wrong, do the work of explaining why with reference to the words that came out of his mouth.

---

All I did here was observe. You resorted to false knee-jerk claims.

Grow up.

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Booray said:

---

There is a difference between anarchists and Democrats

---

Then why don't 'Democrats' call this stuff out (or the media)? They sure were quick to label the tea party terrorists when they never did anything close to this.

---

If I recall the last presidential election correctly, the leaders of the Democratic party spent considerable time and effort urging their supporters that "when they go low, we go high."

There is no excuse for the acts of some of the protesters. But when our president spends almost every waking moment fomenting division, engaging in juvenile name calling and touting tin-foil conspiracy theories, its not surprising that things are getting uglier. There is not a successful politician in my lifetime who has spewed as 10% of divisive rhetoric that Donald Trump has over the past four years.

He has created the current climate as surely as Joseph McCarthy created the climate that existed in his era. And Trump will be remembered exactly the same way we remember McCarthy: as a stain on our country.

---

How is Trump divisive? Is he persecuting people as McCarthy did?

---

That's where my head went. I think it is another redefining terms. No "I disagree with him" has been redefined as "he's divisive." While I do not support Trump's tone or Twitter, he hardly was given a fair shake. People literally were protesting democracy on election night 2016, and he was never given a chance. Immediately, he was attacked by the fake Russian narrative, which morphed from Russians changed the vote to collusion to obstruction - nothing proved and likely setup by his political opponents. Now, it is impeachment ... same song, different dance.

Rather than focusing on emotion, what policies have been divisive? I'm sure I can be proven incorrect and did not think of everything, but I do not think he's implemented a single policy that would have been considered "divisive" in October 2016. Many of his actions would have been widely praised by Democrats if a Democrat had implemented.

Again in the service of short memories, these people were claiming George W. Bush was going to declare himself emperor and making movies about killing him. The stuff they attacked Bush and his family with was a moral and human embarrassment. These people are religious fundamentalists who believe they have a right to rule and will destroy anyone that gets in their way ... a trait practiced by Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Alinsky, etc.

---

Is Trump divisive? Any kindergarten teacher would tell you he is, because no kindergarten teacher would stand for his tactics.

It starts with his tone. We have never had a president use language in public like he does. His base celebrates him for being "politically incorrect" but then protests when folks take offense to his out and out rudeness. You can't have it both ways: being rude/politically incorrect contributes to divisiveness.

Example: in the last 10 presidential elections, what names did the candidates call each other? Anybody other than Trump using derogatory nicknames for the opponent?

I will give him this: he is an equal opportunity insulter. He insults anyone who disagrees with him.

But intentional or not, his insults are usually framed in a way that they implicitly apply to groups instead of just his immediate adversary. When he complains that Megan Kelly is asking him unfair questions because she must be on her period, the comment is fairly interpreted as sexist.

When he says the judge in one of his cases can't be fair to him because the judge is Hispanic, the comment is fairly interpreted as racist.

When he tries to equalize the fault for a white supremacist killing an innocent protester, he minimizes the evil of white supremacy.

When he says he wants to ban all Muslim immigrants, that comment is fairly interpreted as religious-based discrimination.

When he tells American citizens who are elected officials that they "need to go back where they came from," that comment is fairly interpreted as a racially motivated slam against immigrants, particularly in the context of previously saying he wants more Norwegians.

When he whips up patently false claims abut minority voter fraud or invasion forces of Hispanics, his comments are fairly interpreted as racist.

Pretending that anything Obama ever said even approaches the level of malevolence Trump displays is just a sad joke. This President caters to the 25% of America that hates anything that is not like them; and adds to that another 20% of Americans who will trade his tone for policies they support. He is doing incalculable damage to our body politic because: (1) the natural reaction to his success is to lower yourself to his level (he is dragging us all into the sewer) and (2) when he loses the next election, the 25% will not understand why and concoct a million fantasies about the deep state overruling democracy.

---

You're making a subjective, emotional argument, so we can agree we're likely never to agree. You and those who choose to weaponize being offended interpret everything as some kind of "-ist," and some of the things you're just flat-out making up.

Again, I'll re-state the question as I agree with you about his tone. What policies are divisive?

I'm not going to engage in whataboutism, but President Obama's rhetoric reinforced our differences and emphasized real or perceived injustices, which inherently is divisive. Irony abounds these days, but a great example is treating everyone the same is divisive, but dividing people by race, sex, gender, religion, etc., is unifying. #youcantmakethis****up

---

I have been careful to make clear my comments have been about his rhetoric, not his policies.

The inherent idea behind a democracy is that we can disagree about policies but still function as a country. That is why we have elections: to choose how we are governed. By definition elections will be "divisive" as there is always a winner whose policies get enforced and a loser whose policies do not get enforced. So I have no problem with anything DJT proposes as a policy or that Bernie Sanders proposes as a policy. If you can get the votes, then you get the policy.

But our social contract has always been that we settle things at the ballot box and you are not a lesser American for disagreeing with me. DJT and his most fervent supporters break that contract with rhetoric that demonizes those who disagree with him.

Immigration is a good example. I agree with DJT that our immigration policies need to be more merit based and less family based. (Caveat: if you look at his actual policy proposals, he isn't really for "more merit based" he is for less family based and the same merit based}. But the vitriol directed at immigrating Hispanics, the caricature of the crime wave they supposedly bring with them is calculated to harm and divide.

TR was right when he identified one of the great powers of the presidency is the power of the "bully pulpit." Trump has abused that power mightily.

Finally, its easy to say "subjective" when we are talking about rhetoric. But it is a canard. Words have definitive meanings. The words Obama used were rarely divisive and usually were uplifting. The words DJT uses are the exact reverse.

---

We settle things at the ballot box, but here we are still litigating the 2016 election.

On my reading of the numbers, illegal immigrants do bring a crime wave with them. Muslims also commit a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks. I don't think there's any way to say that without drawing condemnation and outrage from the left.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Booray said:

---

There is a difference between anarchists and Democrats

---

Then why don't 'Democrats' call this stuff out (or the media)? They sure were quick to label the tea party terrorists when they never did anything close to this.

---

If I recall the last presidential election correctly, the leaders of the Democratic party spent considerable time and effort urging their supporters that "when they go low, we go high."

There is no excuse for the acts of some of the protesters. But when our president spends almost every waking moment fomenting division, engaging in juvenile name calling and touting tin-foil conspiracy theories, its not surprising that things are getting uglier. There is not a successful politician in my lifetime who has spewed as 10% of divisive rhetoric that Donald Trump has over the past four years.

He has created the current climate as surely as Joseph McCarthy created the climate that existed in his era. And Trump will be remembered exactly the same way we remember McCarthy: as a stain on our country.

---

How is Trump divisive? Is he persecuting people as McCarthy did?

---

That's where my head went. I think it is another redefining terms. No "I disagree with him" has been redefined as "he's divisive." While I do not support Trump's tone or Twitter, he hardly was given a fair shake. People literally were protesting democracy on election night 2016, and he was never given a chance. Immediately, he was attacked by the fake Russian narrative, which morphed from Russians changed the vote to collusion to obstruction - nothing proved and likely setup by his political opponents. Now, it is impeachment ... same song, different dance.

Rather than focusing on emotion, what policies have been divisive? I'm sure I can be proven incorrect and did not think of everything, but I do not think he's implemented a single policy that would have been considered "divisive" in October 2016. Many of his actions would have been widely praised by Democrats if a Democrat had implemented.

Again in the service of short memories, these people were claiming George W. Bush was going to declare himself emperor and making movies about killing him. The stuff they attacked Bush and his family with was a moral and human embarrassment. These people are religious fundamentalists who believe they have a right to rule and will destroy anyone that gets in their way ... a trait practiced by Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Alinsky, etc.

---

Is Trump divisive? Any kindergarten teacher would tell you he is, because no kindergarten teacher would stand for his tactics.

It starts with his tone. We have never had a president use language in public like he does. His base celebrates him for being "politically incorrect" but then protests when folks take offense to his out and out rudeness. You can't have it both ways: being rude/politically incorrect contributes to divisiveness.

Example: in the last 10 presidential elections, what names did the candidates call each other? Anybody other than Trump using derogatory nicknames for the opponent?

I will give him this: he is an equal opportunity insulter. He insults anyone who disagrees with him.

But intentional or not, his insults are usually framed in a way that they implicitly apply to groups instead of just his immediate adversary. When he complains that Megan Kelly is asking him unfair questions because she must be on her period, the comment is fairly interpreted as sexist.

When he says the judge in one of his cases can't be fair to him because the judge is Hispanic, the comment is fairly interpreted as racist.

When he tries to equalize the fault for a white supremacist killing an innocent protester, he minimizes the evil of white supremacy.

When he says he wants to ban all Muslim immigrants, that comment is fairly interpreted as religious-based discrimination.

When he tells American citizens who are elected officials that they "need to go back where they came from," that comment is fairly interpreted as a racially motivated slam against immigrants, particularly in the context of previously saying he wants more Norwegians.

When he whips up patently false claims abut minority voter fraud or invasion forces of Hispanics, his comments are fairly interpreted as racist.

Pretending that anything Obama ever said even approaches the level of malevolence Trump displays is just a sad joke. This President caters to the 25% of America that hates anything that is not like them; and adds to that another 20% of Americans who will trade his tone for policies they support. He is doing incalculable damage to our body politic because: (1) the natural reaction to his success is to lower yourself to his level (he is dragging us all into the sewer) and (2) when he loses the next election, the 25% will not understand why and concoct a million fantasies about the deep state overruling democracy.

---

You're making a subjective, emotional argument, so we can agree we're likely never to agree. You and those who choose to weaponize being offended interpret everything as some kind of "-ist," and some of the things you're just flat-out making up.

Again, I'll re-state the question as I agree with you about his tone. What policies are divisive?

I'm not going to engage in whataboutism, but President Obama's rhetoric reinforced our differences and emphasized real or perceived injustices, which inherently is divisive. Irony abounds these days, but a great example is treating everyone the same is divisive, but dividing people by race, sex, gender, religion, etc., is unifying. #youcantmakethis****up

---

I have been careful to make clear my comments have been about his rhetoric, not his policies.

The inherent idea behind a democracy is that we can disagree about policies but still function as a country. That is why we have elections: to choose how we are governed. By definition elections will be "divisive" as there is always a winner whose policies get enforced and a loser whose policies do not get enforced. So I have no problem with anything DJT proposes as a policy or that Bernie Sanders proposes as a policy. If you can get the votes, then you get the policy.

But our social contract has always been that we settle things at the ballot box and you are not a lesser American for disagreeing with me. DJT and his most fervent supporters break that contract with rhetoric that demonizes those who disagree with him.

Immigration is a good example. I agree with DJT that our immigration policies need to be more merit based and less family based. (Caveat: if you look at his actual policy proposals, he isn't really for "more merit based" he is for less family based and the same merit based}. But the vitriol directed at immigrating Hispanics, the caricature of the crime wave they supposedly bring with them is calculated to harm and divide.

TR was right when he identified one of the great powers of the presidency is the power of the "bully pulpit." Trump has abused that power mightily.

Finally, its easy to say "subjective" when we are talking about rhetoric. But it is a canard. Words have definitive meanings. The words Obama used were rarely divisive and usually were uplifting. The words DJT uses are the exact reverse.

---

We settle things at the ballot box, but here we are still litigating the 2016 election.

On my reading of the numbers, illegal immigrants do bring a crime wave with them. Muslims also commit a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks. I don't think there's any way to say that without drawing condemnation and outrage from the left.

---

I disagree with your take on illegal immigrants and crime and agree with your take on Muslim terror attacks. Neither is a reason to vilify either group.

I notice you have not said anything about the President's tone. Is it ok by you to have someone so petty and mean captaining our ship of state?

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Booray said:

---

There is a difference between anarchists and Democrats

---

Then why don't 'Democrats' call this stuff out (or the media)? They sure were quick to label the tea party terrorists when they never did anything close to this.

---

If I recall the last presidential election correctly, the leaders of the Democratic party spent considerable time and effort urging their supporters that "when they go low, we go high."

There is no excuse for the acts of some of the protesters. But when our president spends almost every waking moment fomenting division, engaging in juvenile name calling and touting tin-foil conspiracy theories, its not surprising that things are getting uglier. There is not a successful politician in my lifetime who has spewed as 10% of divisive rhetoric that Donald Trump has over the past four years.

He has created the current climate as surely as Joseph McCarthy created the climate that existed in his era. And Trump will be remembered exactly the same way we remember McCarthy: as a stain on our country.

---

How is Trump divisive? Is he persecuting people as McCarthy did?

---

That's where my head went. I think it is another redefining terms. No "I disagree with him" has been redefined as "he's divisive." While I do not support Trump's tone or Twitter, he hardly was given a fair shake. People literally were protesting democracy on election night 2016, and he was never given a chance. Immediately, he was attacked by the fake Russian narrative, which morphed from Russians changed the vote to collusion to obstruction - nothing proved and likely setup by his political opponents. Now, it is impeachment ... same song, different dance.

Rather than focusing on emotion, what policies have been divisive? I'm sure I can be proven incorrect and did not think of everything, but I do not think he's implemented a single policy that would have been considered "divisive" in October 2016. Many of his actions would have been widely praised by Democrats if a Democrat had implemented.

Again in the service of short memories, these people were claiming George W. Bush was going to declare himself emperor and making movies about killing him. The stuff they attacked Bush and his family with was a moral and human embarrassment. These people are religious fundamentalists who believe they have a right to rule and will destroy anyone that gets in their way ... a trait practiced by Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Alinsky, etc.

---

Is Trump divisive? Any kindergarten teacher would tell you he is, because no kindergarten teacher would stand for his tactics.

It starts with his tone. We have never had a president use language in public like he does. His base celebrates him for being "politically incorrect" but then protests when folks take offense to his out and out rudeness. You can't have it both ways: being rude/politically incorrect contributes to divisiveness.

Example: in the last 10 presidential elections, what names did the candidates call each other? Anybody other than Trump using derogatory nicknames for the opponent?

I will give him this: he is an equal opportunity insulter. He insults anyone who disagrees with him.

But intentional or not, his insults are usually framed in a way that they implicitly apply to groups instead of just his immediate adversary. When he complains that Megan Kelly is asking him unfair questions because she must be on her period, the comment is fairly interpreted as sexist.

When he says the judge in one of his cases can't be fair to him because the judge is Hispanic, the comment is fairly interpreted as racist.

When he tries to equalize the fault for a white supremacist killing an innocent protester, he minimizes the evil of white supremacy.

When he says he wants to ban all Muslim immigrants, that comment is fairly interpreted as religious-based discrimination.

When he tells American citizens who are elected officials that they "need to go back where they came from," that comment is fairly interpreted as a racially motivated slam against immigrants, particularly in the context of previously saying he wants more Norwegians.

When he whips up patently false claims abut minority voter fraud or invasion forces of Hispanics, his comments are fairly interpreted as racist.

Pretending that anything Obama ever said even approaches the level of malevolence Trump displays is just a sad joke. This President caters to the 25% of America that hates anything that is not like them; and adds to that another 20% of Americans who will trade his tone for policies they support. He is doing incalculable damage to our body politic because: (1) the natural reaction to his success is to lower yourself to his level (he is dragging us all into the sewer) and (2) when he loses the next election, the 25% will not understand why and concoct a million fantasies about the deep state overruling democracy.

---

You're making a subjective, emotional argument, so we can agree we're likely never to agree. You and those who choose to weaponize being offended interpret everything as some kind of "-ist," and some of the things you're just flat-out making up.

Again, I'll re-state the question as I agree with you about his tone. What policies are divisive?

I'm not going to engage in whataboutism, but President Obama's rhetoric reinforced our differences and emphasized real or perceived injustices, which inherently is divisive. Irony abounds these days, but a great example is treating everyone the same is divisive, but dividing people by race, sex, gender, religion, etc., is unifying. #youcantmakethis****up

---

I have been careful to make clear my comments have been about his rhetoric, not his policies.

The inherent idea behind a democracy is that we can disagree about policies but still function as a country. That is why we have elections: to choose how we are governed. By definition elections will be "divisive" as there is always a winner whose policies get enforced and a loser whose policies do not get enforced. So I have no problem with anything DJT proposes as a policy or that Bernie Sanders proposes as a policy. If you can get the votes, then you get the policy.

But our social contract has always been that we settle things at the ballot box and you are not a lesser American for disagreeing with me. DJT and his most fervent supporters break that contract with rhetoric that demonizes those who disagree with him.

Immigration is a good example. I agree with DJT that our immigration policies need to be more merit based and less family based. (Caveat: if you look at his actual policy proposals, he isn't really for "more merit based" he is for less family based and the same merit based}. But the vitriol directed at immigrating Hispanics, the caricature of the crime wave they supposedly bring with them is calculated to harm and divide.

TR was right when he identified one of the great powers of the presidency is the power of the "bully pulpit." Trump has abused that power mightily.

Finally, its easy to say "subjective" when we are talking about rhetoric. But it is a canard. Words have definitive meanings. The words Obama used were rarely divisive and usually were uplifting. The words DJT uses are the exact reverse.

---

We settle things at the ballot box, but here we are still litigating the 2016 election.

On my reading of the numbers, illegal immigrants do bring a crime wave with them. Muslims also commit a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks. I don't think there's any way to say that without drawing condemnation and outrage from the left.

---

I disagree with your take on illegal immigrants and crime and agree with your take on Muslim terror attacks. Neither is a reason to vilify either group.

I notice you have not said anything about the President's tone. Is it ok by you to have someone so petty and mean captaining our ship of state?

---

It is okay, given the alternatives, but I don't think his tone is as bad as you take it to be. I don't think he meant that Megyn Kelly was on her period, for example.

The malicious interpretation of another person's speech is as much a sin against charity as malicious speech itself. And it's every bit as damaging to civil discourse.

Booray said:

---

I have been careful to make clear my comments have been about his rhetoric, not his policies.

The inherent idea behind a democracy is that we can disagree about policies but still function as a country. That is why we have elections: to choose how we are governed. By definition elections will be "divisive" as there is always a winner whose policies get enforced and a loser whose policies do not get enforced. So I have no problem with anything DJT proposes as a policy or that Bernie Sanders proposes as a policy. If you can get the votes, then you get the policy.

But our social contract has always been that we settle things at the ballot box and you are not a lesser American for disagreeing with me. DJT and his most fervent supporters break that contract with rhetoric that demonizes those who disagree with him.

Immigration is a good example. I agree with DJT that our immigration policies need to be more merit based and less family based. (Caveat: if you look at his actual policy proposals, he isn't really for "more merit based" he is for less family based and the same merit based}. But the vitriol directed at immigrating Hispanics, the caricature of the crime wave they supposedly bring with them is calculated to harm and divide.

TR was right when he identified one of the great powers of the presidency is the power of the "bully pulpit." Trump has abused that power mightily.

Finally, its easy to say "subjective" when we are talking about rhetoric. But it is a canard. Words have definitive meanings. The words Obama used were rarely divisive and usually were uplifting. The words DJT uses are the exact reverse.

---

Fair enough, but the problem is the left tends to be subjective, emotional and enable to deal with disagreement (history bears this out as well as contemporary America). For example, you subjectively interpret President Obama's words as uplifting because you agree with him politically, but if you're a small business owner being told "you didn't build that," or if you're a Christian being told you're stupid and must "cling to G-d and guns," or if you're in law enforcement being demonized by a community organizer, you may not feel uplifted. Using the typical tools of an expert propagandist, Obama smiled and spoke eloquently while providing messages of division and disunity (and I'm self aware enough to realize that simply is my opinion, but I think his emphasis on our differences was severely damaging to our national, cultural identify, and in times where he could have sought unity he tended toward division).

While I do not think is rhetoric is appropriate for an adult or hardly presidential, it is just the typical playbook of re-defining terms: disagreeing with the Left becomes "divisive," disagreeing with the Right is "healthy dialogue." If you open your mind, you realize the list of double standards is long.

On immigration, what is actually divisive is knowingly false claims that the president, Republicans, etc., are "anti-immigration." That caricature is completely fake news while the crime associated with illegal immigration may be overstated but grounded in evidence. Similarly, claiming the president proposed a "Muslim ban" is equally divisive because it is a caricature completely fabricated on fake news designed to enflame the Idiocracy. Finally, claiming President Trump called white supremacists good people in Charlottesville may be the most vile, mean-spirited propaganda of them all. Feeding complete lies as the service of making red meat propaganda to the outrage industry is the very essence of divisive. Trump has been a jackass for his entire life, and the president should be above the fray, but I thought it would never get as ugly as the mean spirited hate directed at President Bush, but the attacks on President Trump started earlier, have been meaner, and based less on reality even by the Left's standards.

Your point the social contract and elections as well as subjectivity and words having definitive meanings is so lacking self-awareness that I'm genuinely not sure if you're being serious. While I agree with you, the playbook fo the Left has always been 180 degrees.