Trump wins bigly in 2020. What then?

Ziggurat said:
Then explain the joke. Why is it funny?
Click to expand...

You just never get it, do you?

I never claimed it was a joke. I was merely pointing out your double standard when you claim one is "a joke" and the other is "serious business".

However, to borrow your BS "reasoning":

"It’s a ridiculous over the top farce, and obviously so. And it’s notable that she’s the one doing the violence, because it’s pretty damned clear that its only significance is metaphorical (along the lines of “Maddow DESTROYS Trump in one tweet!”). Nobody thinks Griffin is actually going to decapitate anyone. "

See? Hilarity ensues!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Lindsey Graham on Trump:

I've gotten to know him, and I find him to be a handful. I find him to be an equal-opportunity-abuser of people. But, at the end of the day, he can be very charming and be very gracious.
Click to expand...

So could Ted Bundy. Graham just can't seem to keep his nose out of Trump's ass.
 
Cabbage said:
You just never get it, do you?

I never claimed it was a joke.
Click to expand...

Then what's your excuse for it?

I was merely pointing out your double standard when you claim one is "a joke" and the other is "serious business".
Click to expand...

When did I use the term "serious business"? Don't put it in quotes if you're not quoting me.

"It’s a ridiculous over the top farce, and obviously so.
Click to expand...

That's not at all obvious, because there's no joke there. The fact that one thing is a joke doesn't mean everything is a joke.

And it’s notable that she’s the one doing the violence, because it’s pretty damned clear that its only significance is metaphorical (along the lines of “Maddow DESTROYS Trump in one tweet!”). Nobody thinks Griffin is actually going to decapitate anyone. "

See? Hilarity ensues!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, no. Griffin can be a stand-in for other people. Trump cannot be a stand-in for anyone else. Neither could Clinton, in case you think I'm trying to make an exception for Trump. It's in the nature of their position. They are the focal points. But Griffin is an actress. Her job is to be a stand-in for other people.
 
Ziggurat said:
Then what's your excuse for it?







When did I use the term "serious business"? Don't put it in quotes if you're not quoting me.







That's not at all obvious, because there's no joke there. The fact that one thing is a joke doesn't mean everything is a joke.







Well, no. Griffin can be a stand-in for other people. Trump cannot be a stand-in for anyone else. Neither could Clinton, in case you think I'm trying to make an exception for Trump. It's in the nature of their position. They are the focal points. But Griffin is an actress. Her job is to be a stand-in for other people.
Click to expand...
You must be kidding. I fully expect a studio or newsroom shooting by the end of the year... and it won't be Donald doing it.
[emoji17]
 
Ziggurat said:
It’s a joke. The original it’s taken from was a joke. It’s a ridiculous over the top farce, and obviously so. And it’s notable that he’s the one doing the violence, because it’s pretty damned clear that its only significance is metaphorical (along the lines of “Maddow DESTROYS Trump in one tweet!”), just like the wrestling one. Nobody thinks Trump is actually going to shoot anyone. That’s aided by the inclusion of personified organizations, not just individuals. Furthermore, to the extent that Trump is destroying (metaphorically) his enemies, his supporters don’t have to.
Click to expand...

Peddling that kind of divisiveness and petty nonsense is pretty alarming.
 
Ziggurat said:
Then what's your excuse for it?
Click to expand...

I used the same one you just gave me. Double standard much?



When did I use the term "serious business"? Don't put it in quotes if you're not quoting me.
Click to expand...

I put it in quotes because I felt like it. "Get over it."



That's not at all obvious, because there's no joke there. The fact that one thing is a joke doesn't mean everything is a joke.
Click to expand...

Strawman. I never claimed everything was a joke. I merely pointed out that going by your standard, they are both jokes. Again, that was your standard, not mine; if you want anyone to answer for such an absurd standard.....well, you should be confronting yourself, not me.



Well, no. Griffin can be a stand-in for other people. Trump cannot be a stand-in for anyone else. Neither could Clinton, in case you think I'm trying to make an exception for Trump. It's in the nature of their position. They are the focal points. But Griffin is an actress. Her job is to be a stand-in for other people.
Click to expand...

It's not even clear what you're trying to say here, bro. In the Trump video in question, Trump attacks Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama, specifically. They are not stand-ins for anyone else. And yet......it's OK for Trump being depicted as attacking them, but it's not OK for Griffin being depicted as attacking Trump? Sure, Zig, Sure.

Double Standard, simple as that. QED :rolleyes:
 
Cabbage said:
I used the same one you just gave me. Double standard much?
Click to expand...

You explicitly denied that:

Cabbage said:
I never claimed it was a joke.
Click to expand...

You can't be using the same excuse as me if I'm saying the Trump/Kingsman clip was a joke and you're not saying Griffin's decapitation photo was not a joke. You would have to say that it is a joke, but you deny doing so. So what's your defense of it, since you're not saying it's a joke?

It's not even clear what you're trying to say here, bro. In the Trump video in question, Trump attacks Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama, specifically. They are not stand-ins for anyone else.
Click to expand...

Quite so. But you missed my point completely.

The viewer is not supposed to put themselves in the position of Trump. It's him doing all that stuff, nobody else. Griffin can be a stand-in. The viewer can put themselves in her position.

Furthermore, the Trump/Kingsman thing is obviously unrealistic. Even the original Kingsman scene was over-the-top absurd. That never happens in real life, and the Trump version, with its crudely superimposed heads, is even less realistic, and deliberately so. The Griffin decapitated head, however, was not unrealistic. People really do decapitate other people, and they really do pose with the heads for photos. One hopes it never happens to a president, but it does happen for real.
 
Ziggurat said:
You explicitly denied that:



You can't be using the same excuse as me if I'm saying the Trump/Kingsman clip was a joke and you're not saying Griffin's decapitation photo was not a joke. You would have to say that it is a joke, but you deny doing so. So what's your defense of it, since you're not saying it's a joke?
Click to expand...

........(sigh)...........

Using my standard, I'm not saying either is a joke. Using your standard, on the other hand, leads me to the inescapable conclusion they are both jokes--because, you see, when I use your standard, I do it without also incorporating your double standard.

Simple as that!



Quite so. But you missed my point completely.

The viewer is not supposed to put themselves in the position of Trump. It's him doing all that stuff, nobody else. Griffin can be a stand-in. The viewer can put themselves in her position.
Click to expand...

OK, now you're just making BS up. It's a video, bro. I guarantee many people imagine themselves in the position of Trump in that video, despite your protestations that they are "not supposed to". Trump is a well known political figure, sure, but that in no way prohibits others from imagining they live vicariously through him; your notion that it is otherwise is positively ludicrous. :rolleyes: This is merely desperate feces slinging on your part because you don't actually have a point anymore.

Furthermore, the Trump/Kingsman thing is obviously unrealistic. Even the original Kingsman scene was over-the-top absurd. That never happens in real life, and the Trump version, with its crudely superimposed heads, is even less realistic, and deliberately so. The Griffin decapitated head, however, was not unrealistic. People really do decapitate other people, and they really do pose with the heads for photos. One hopes it never happens to a president, but it does happen for real.
Click to expand...

BS. You don't get an escape clause for your violence simply because it is depicted cartoonishly. It is still violence porn whether you acknowledge it or not.

And look, I haven't even started to point out Trump's inflammatory rhetoric about "Fake News" being the "Enemy of the People" that he frequently jabbers about. And the fact that Cesar Sayoc was specifically inspired by such rhetoric as that when he attempted to mail bomb Democrats and media figures merely underscores the point of Just. How. Wrong. You. Are.

QED
 
Cabbage said:
........(sigh)...........

Using my standard, I'm not saying either is a joke. Using your standard, on the other hand, leads me to the inescapable conclusion they are both jokes--because, you see, when I use your standard, I do it without also incorporating your double standard.
Click to expand...

Except it's not a double standard. One is a joke (and I can explain the humor if you're really that impaired), one is not (because there is no joke in it).

BS. You don't get an escape clause for your violence simply because it is depicted cartoonishly.
Click to expand...

My violence? I don't have any violence. I don't commit any violence. There is no "my" here.

And look, I haven't even started to point out Trump's inflammatory rhetoric about "Fake News" being the "Enemy of the People" that he frequently jabbers about. And the fact that Cesar Sayoc was specifically inspired by such rhetoric as that when he attempted to mail bomb Democrats and media figures merely underscores the point of Just. How. Wrong. You. Are.

QED
Click to expand...

And Hodgkinson was inspired by leftist anti-Trump rhetoric. But unlike Cesar Sayoc, who just wanted to scare people (none of his bombs had detonating devices), Hodgkinson actually tried to kill people.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yup. And the apocalyptic prophesies aren't the only similarity that climate alarmism has to religion. Hell, they've even replicated the Catholic Church's indulgences.
Click to expand...

Climate alarmism? You believe the threats of global climate change are excessive or exaggerated?
 
Ziggurat said:
Yup. And the apocalyptic prophesies aren't the only similarity that climate alarmism has to religion. Hell, they've even replicated the Catholic Church's indulgences.
Click to expand...

It's not apocalyptic if you predict that things will get worse.
The Rapture narrative that even Pence and Pompeo subscribe to on the other hand claims that there is a Zero Hour coming up soon, and it is something that you hear everywhere from pro-Trump Evangelicals.

The closest equivalent on the Progressive side I would see is the belief in the Singularity.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Except it's not a double standard. One is a joke (and I can explain the humor if you're really that impaired), one is not (because there is no joke in it).
Click to expand...

Yeah, people with double standards generally say that.



My violence? I don't have any violence. I don't commit any violence. There is no "my" here.
Click to expand...

You are defending it, so yeah, I'm gonna call it yours.



And Hodgkinson was inspired by leftist anti-Trump rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant whataboutism.

But unlike Cesar Sayoc, who just wanted to scare people (none of his bombs had detonating devices), Hodgkinson actually tried to kill people.
Click to expand...

Whether Cesar Sayoc merely wanted to scare people or was simply an inept bomb maker, it was an attack on Trump's opposition inspired by Trump's rhetoric. Period.

And here you are, trying to defend it with your dismissals of it being merely a "joke" or merely a "scare".

Your position is disgraceful.

QED
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Of course it is. It's always a joke when it's a Republican. When it's liberals, however, it's serious terrorist threats.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I never said Griffin was making a serious terrorist threat. I said it wasn't a joke. There's quite a bit of space between the two. If you want to argue it was a joke, go ahead, I'll listen. If you don't understand why the Kingsman clip was a joke, I can even explain that. But merely being outraged that I made the argument isn't going to cut it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure, the right wing demonizes Clinton. Demonizing political opponents has been going on since time immemorial, there was never a period where it didn't happen.

But the demonization of Trump, aside from including nonsensical conspiracy theories, also involves quite a lot of fantasies about his violent death. There isn't an equivalent assassination porn surrounding Clinton.
Click to expand...

And you know, while you continue to utterly fail at convincing anyone of your claim that only liberals have "assassination porn" I thought it might be relevant to look at actual assassination attempts:

Here you will find over a dozen assassination attempts on Obama:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama

I challenge you to find a comparable number for any individual Republican president in recent years. After all, wasn't that the original topic? Actual violence, not fantasy or porn violence.

As I said, left wing violence is small potatoes to right wing violence.

Oh, and remember that time Trump made the assassination joke about Clinton, referring to the "2nd Amendment people"? Just proves my point even more.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Do you know the difference between an assassination attempt and an assassination threat? Your source counts the latter but you claimed the former. Do you see the problem?
 
Welcome to the post truth world.

The Republicans are afraid Jesus is gonna return and judge us all for being too nice to gays and brown people. The Democrats are afraid the the absolute climate impending climate disaster that every single scientist within a rounding error says is gonna happen is gonna happen.

The Republicans are afraid of the child sex dungeon the Democrats are running under a DC pizza parlor. The Democrats are afraid that the President who tells his followers to commit violence might inspire violence.

The Democrats are afraid people are going to be oppressed. The Republicans are afraid the Democrats are going to oppress their right to oppress people.

A 2nd rate liberal comedian that literally nobody remembers made an off color tweet. The standing President of the United States openly calls for his opponents to be jailed, sells out his own country to foreign dictators, calls the free Press the enemy of the people.

The Democrats occasionally use hyperbolic language. The Republicans use full on hate speech.

So even if the Left was just as unhinged as the Right the Left has the minor, piddling, teeny tiny little detail, advantage of NOT BEING WRONG ABOUT LITERALLY EVERYTHING.
 
Ziggurat said:
Do you know the difference between an assassination attempt and an assassination threat? Your source counts the latter but you claimed the former. Do you see the problem?
Click to expand...

Sure, I see the problem: It gives you an easy out for deflection as you continue to dismiss right wing violence.

Now, are you prepared to actually discuss the issue, or is mere deflection all you wish to pursue?
 
Deflection's all they got left. They will not argue the point. They know they can't.

Or to be more accurate the deflection is the point.
 
Ziggurat said:
I never said Griffin was making a serious terrorist threat. I said it wasn't a joke. There's quite a bit of space between the two. If you want to argue it was a joke, go ahead, I'll listen. If you don't understand why the Kingsman clip was a joke, I can even explain that. But merely being outraged that I made the argument isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying it is a joke.
If you get to pick what you think is funny, so can I.

More importantly, what Griffin did was Art - the video was not.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
And I'm saying it is a joke.
Click to expand...

OK, so explain it. What's the joke supposed to be?

More importantly, what Griffin did was Art - the video was not.
Click to expand...

Well, given what else passes for "art" these days, I'm not going to argue to the contrary. But I'm not sure that's really much of a defense, except in the legal sense (which isn't in question).
 
Ziggurat said:
Of course. It's not a problem that you fundamentally misrepresented the facts from your own source. It's my fault for pointing that out. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep, when the topic concerns violence directed at political figures, threats indeed do count. Again, your deflection is noted.



Linked from your own source:
Secret Service: No more threats against Obama than Bush, Clinton[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. But you previously mentioned assassination porn did not exist against Democratic presidents. Whether that is true or not (it's not) it's irrelevant when you consider the fact that assassination threats and attempts against Democratic presidents do exist......unless you seriously want to entertain the notion that assassination porn is somehow worse.....and coming from you that would not surprise me.
 
Okay. Kathy Griffin should never be President of the United States and should be impeached in a hypothetical alternative universe where she is.

Happy Zigg?
 
Cabbage said:
Fair enough. But you previously mentioned assassination porn did not exist against Democratic presidents.
Click to expand...

No I didn't. You complain that I straw man you, but you keep doing it to me.

I said the assassination porn against Dems wasn't equivalent to that against Trump. I didn't say it was non-existent.
 
Belz... said:
You've got me confused with another poster. I never brought up Griffin.
Click to expand...

That's the liberal example we were talking about. I assumed you were trying to take part in the conversation along with everyone else. I guess that was a mistake.
 
Okay. Let's pretend we live in Zigg's reality.

The Democrats are exactly as bad the Republicans. We accept your "Whaboutism" as fact and present it into evidence.

And? How does that make anything Trump is doing better?

I mean I don't care you aren't going to answer you're just going to talk about something else, but I figure I'd put the question on the record so you have to go on record ignoring or avoiding it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay. Let's pretend we live in Zigg's reality.

The Democrats are exactly as bad the Republicans. We accept your "Whaboutism" as fact and present it into evidence.

And? How does that make anything Trump is doing better?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make anything better. But it clarifies the problem, and has rather important implications for what to do about it. In particular, the idea that if we just get rid of Trump, everything will get better just isn't connected to reality. And the idea that if Trump gets re-elected then everything will get worse is similarly wrong.

I mean I don't care you aren't going to answer you're just going to talk about something else, but I figure I'd put the question on the record so you have to go on record ignoring or avoiding it.
Click to expand...

Um.... yeah. :rub:
 
The most essential difference Trump-excusers don't get is that
High Crimes are crimes that would not be crimes if someone with less authority was doing them.

Any whataboutism is nonsense, because the same things that are crimes when the President (Trump) does them would not be crimes if done by the Democrats: it makes a huge difference whether you speak with the authority of the Office or not.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's the liberal example we were talking about. I assumed you were trying to take part in the conversation along with everyone else. I guess that was a mistake.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you had bothered to read the post I made rather than add to it that mistake wouldn't have been made.

Now, do you have any response to what I said?
 
Belz... said:
Perhaps if you had bothered to read the post I made rather than add to it that mistake wouldn't have been made.

Now, do you have any response to what I said?
Click to expand...

No, I have no response to it, because I can't make anything of it if it's not part of the ongoing conversation, which apparently it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom