Trump supporters: What do you think of this information?

[jc456]

Yea and it didn’t say that Obama supported violent rioters.

Quote the part that shows him supporting violent rioters.

BTW, he didn't take action to stop them. He encouraged them. Do you deny that?

 

[XponentialChaos]

BTW, he didn't take action to stop them. He encouraged them. Do you deny that?

He didn’t encourage them. He condemned them.

You still can’t show where he encouraged them.

 

[jc456]

He didn’t encourage them. He condemned them.

You still can’t show where he encouraged them.

from my link

"To bring about real change, we both have to highlight a problem and make people in power uncomfortable,"

now you post a quote with him condemning the rioters.

Oh, and whatever you end up posting had better have the word condemn in it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

from my link

"To bring about real change, we both have to highlight a problem and make people in power uncomfortable,"

now you post a quote with him condemning the rioters.

Making people uncomfortable doesn't mean supporting violence.

Ferguson riots: President Obama condemns violence as the community

Mr Obama said: 'Nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts'

www.independent.co.uk

“Burning buildings, torching cars, destroying property, putting people at risk – that’s destructive, and there’s no excuse for it. Those are criminal acts, and people should be prosecuted for it.” Speaking to an audience in Chicago, Mr Obama added, “Nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts.”

 

[jc456]

Making people uncomfortable doesn't mean supporting violence.

Ferguson riots: President Obama condemns violence as the community

Mr Obama said: 'Nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts'

www.independent.co.uk

“Burning buildings, torching cars, destroying property, putting people at risk – that’s destructive, and there’s no excuse for it. Those are criminal acts, and people should be prosecuted for it.” Speaking to an audience in Chicago, Mr Obama added, “Nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts.”

explain what he meant by uncomfortable then?

 

[XponentialChaos]

explain what he meant by uncomfortable then?

He meant that systemic change will make people uncomfortable.

He didn’t mean that he supports violent rioters. I just showed you a quote of his condemning that.

 

[jc456]

He meant that systemic change will make people uncomfortable.

He didn’t mean that he supports violent rioters. I just showed you a quote of his condemning that.

Yeah, a paper I can't access without registering which I will not. Without the full article, I don't know the jist of his comments.

uncomfortable like what?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Seems to me that many of those people were arrested. I’d say that’s doing something about it. Whether it was enough is debatable, but it isn’t nothing.

Arresting some is fine but will never stop the looting and burning.

These people looted, burned and vandalized pretty much at will and they did so because they thought they were entitled to it.

 

[jc456]

Arresting some is fine but will never stop the looting and burning.

These people looted, burned and vandalized pretty much at will and they did so because they thought they were entitled to it.

let's see how many were actually charged and brought to court.

 

[iceberg]

Another fail on your part

Cause you know it's a bullshit question based on bullshit.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What else would you call it when you agree to one thing and then retract your statement to take the exact opposite position?

I never took the opposite position. I told you that "immoral" was not the word I would use.

I’d call that a flip-flop. How about you?

I’m not sure why you insist on playing this stupid game. We both know what happened.

It doesn't matter at this point whether I flip flopped, I gave you my answer.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

let's see how many were actually charged and brought to court.

Shiiit...

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yeah, a paper I can't access without registering which I will not. Without the full article, I don't know the jist of his comments.

uncomfortable like what?

I just explained that. If you need a different article go look one up. This one took me a few seconds to find and I quoted it for you.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Arresting some is fine but will never stop the looting and burning.

These people looted, burned and vandalized pretty much at will and they did so because they thought they were entitled to it.

They were arrested. That’s more than doing nothing.

 

[jc456]

I just explained that. If you need a different article go look one up. This one took me a few seconds to find and I quoted it for you.

then don't ask me to accept it. that's all. I still haven't seen where a demofk tried to take action to stop the violence, the action that was stated absent from Trump. yet................................. nothing from a demofk.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I never took the opposite position. I told you that "immoral" was not the word I would use.

It doesn't matter at this point whether I flip flopped, I gave you my answer.

You did give me an answer. Then you flip-flopped on your answer.

Me: “Do you see anything immoral about a guy who was enjoying the violence that was happening and chose not to intervene in stopping it?”

You: “I suppose so.”

It seems like you desperately want to avoid admitting that you flip-flopped for some reason. Surely you must know that it’s 100% clear that this is exactly what you did. You’re not fooling anyone here. You know that.

 

[XponentialChaos]

then don't ask me to accept it. that's all. I still haven't seen where a demofk tried to take action to stop the violence, the action that was stated absent from Trump. yet................................. nothing from a demofk.

I don’t expect you to accept anything.

You asked me to post a link showing that rioters were reading Trump‘s tweets. I posted a video for you. Did you accept that?

You asked me to post a link showing that Derek Chauvin was charged with more than just 3rd degree murder. I posted a Fox News link stating exactly that. Did you accept that?

You asked me to post a link of Obama condemning violent rioters. I posted a link and a quote of his. Did you accept that?

You ask me to provide evidence for my claims and then you deny them anyway. Clearly you’re close-minded and you’re going to believe only what you want to believe. If you were interested in the truth, you would go look into it yourself.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

​

outcome​

noun
a final product or end result; consequence; issue.

I don’t know why you need me to define simple words for you. What I mean by outcome is the end result of the riot. Putting an end to a riot is an outcome. The break-in was an outcome. Police getting injured is an outcome.

We're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about the riot itself being the outcome and that its being the outcome whatever reasons Trump chose not to act. You're assuming the results of the riot (duration, number of people hurt, etc.) would have been different had he acted. I'm not so sure.

Yes, my issue with Trump is more so with his motive. He chose not to act. He enjoyed the riot. He had a reason not to try to stop it. Had this violence happened despite his efforts to call them off, I would see Trump in a different light, but that’s not the case.

Somehow I doubt that. I'm guessing you were highly critical of him even before this. In fact, I asked you something along those lines and you failed to answer (see how I did that again).

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You did give me an answer. Then you flip-flopped on your answer.

Me: “Do you see anything immoral about a guy who was enjoying the violence that was happening and chose not to intervene in stopping it?”

You: “I suppose so.”

Again, my response was to a hypothetical question, not a question about Trump.

This is what I meant about you flip flopping the questions. Except in your case it was three flips or three flops. You asked if I thought Trump was immoral for... Then you asked if his inaction was immoral. Then came the hypothetical about a "guy".

I couldn't keep straight what the fuck you were asking for.

It seems like you desperately want to avoid admitting that you flip-flopped for some reason. Surely you must know that it’s 100% clear that this is exactly what you did. You’re not fooling anyone here. You know that.

Ask one question consistently and you might get consistent answers.

As for you, you have misquoted me numerous times in this discussion, claiming I said this or that when I said no such thing. If flip flopping is my weakness, willful misconstruction is yours. You also consistently fail to answer my questions just as you accuse me of doing.

 

[XponentialChaos]

We're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about the riot itself being the outcome and that its being the outcome whatever reasons Trump chose not to act.

You lost me here. I didn’t understand this. Explain that one more time. What are these two different things?