Trump

[(o)(o)]

I'm surprised somebody hasn't tried to take out Trump tbh.

[Darkflame]

Random, but has Trump specified if his own company will be building this wall?
Because could all this be a ploy to hand himself a insane construction contract?

[merman]

Is Trump now inciting violence against Clinton?

https://twitter.com/CandaceSmith_/statu ... 3957787649


The media are all over this now.

Remember when Sarah Palin's website had crosshairs on it, and everyone said it was not about guns and shooting politicians?
Just a few weeks later a Democrat senator was shot.

Trump's rhetoric is dangerous.

[zip accident]

Trump's rhetoric is dangerous.

Ironically, it's not just rhetoric.

The people who do stand to lose their guns are the nutters, so the people he's talking to do have something to fear, even if Hilary isn't going to repeal the second ammendment.

[gumboot]

But she has a strong analytical mind from her time in academia, is excellent at presenting complex ideas in clear, plain ways, and has been applying these skills to calling Trump’s bluster and bullshit for many months, like this. Her tweets are especially effective. Best of all Trump can’t help taking the bait and replying, usually with an appalling racist slur.

I know, which is where the disappointment stems from. She thinks the US public is thick. She may be right. Or wrong. Either the implications aren't great.

This is exactly what American politics is. It's all utterly contemptible and is simply no place for grown-ups.

There's absolutely no sign, anywhere, of a mature or reasoned approach to it. Everybody turns out to be a let-down in the end.

[funkstar]

The fact that there is even doubt about whether or not he made a serious allusion to using arms as a "solution" to Clinton appointing judges to SCOTUS, or a joke to that effect, or simply to something blander like voter unification*, is itself grounds for alarm.

When you have the ear of the world, you cannot be that reckless with words. Imagine if, instead of Reagan winning the 1980 election, we have a Trump out of time, going on and off about using nuclear strikes, being unpredictable, and showing disregard for the delicacy of international relations. Is it conceivable that the 1983 false alarm incident would have played out differently, then? Could the duty officer had drawn a different conclusion?

*Obviously not, regardless of what the Trump campaign says: He was clearly referring to a hypothetical post-election situation. As usual, he is incapable of even admitting that his words could be misconstrued - he has to "win" every confrontation, ever, regardless of whether reality gets in the way. Because to Trump, everything is a dominance game.

[pogo]

Yes. The best comparison I made is with racist jokes. I mean, racist jokes are now beyond the pale for most people. I know some people still delight in them, but for most people you just don’t make racist jokes. They can easily offend someone, and so are just not funny. The people who do enjoy them are racists – they know they are being offensive and racist and don’t care.

Trump joking about killing people (and it‘s not the first time) is the same. You don’t joke about such things as it will disturb and frighten some people. If Trump is joking he either intends to disturb and frighten people; or he has so little empathy and understanding of people that he does not know when he is saying something disturbing and frightening.

Or he is not joking and really means for Clinton, and/or judges she appoints, to be assassinated. Take your pick, but whichever of those it is renders him unfit to be president. Unfit for any role with responsibility frankly.

[tufty]

She thinks the US public is thick.

They are. Well, around 50% of them are, at least.

Assuming people would be smart enough to vote for the greater good instead of knee-jerking against rhetoric got us to #brexit, after all.

[(o)(o)]

Yes. The best comparison I made is with racist jokes. I mean, racist jokes are now beyond the pale for most people. I know some people still delight in them, but for most people you just don’t make racist jokes. They can easily offend someone, and so are just not funny. The people who do enjoy them are racists – they know they are being offensive and racist and don’t care.

Racial jokes in the hands of a good comedian can be great fun.

..around 50% of [..the US public are thick], at least.

They certainly make poor decisions. I wouldn't say they are inherently "thick fucks".

The grey matter probably has the same potential as any other nation's, but it's fed the wrong stuff.

[pogo]

Racist jokes are only funny if you are a racist. A good comedian can turn that around and joke about racists, about racist humour; but that’s quite different.

Dude tries to climb Trump Tower in NY with only suction cups to support him. New York’s finest arrest him, but only after trying to decapitate him with a sheet of window glass falling at high speed.

[(o)(o)]

Racist jokes are only funny if you are a racist.

Not necessarily. Non-racists might find racist humour laughable.

Racial jokes OTOH can be most amusing. This man might be laughing at a racial joke whilst not being a racist :

[pogo]

No, racist (not racial) humour is only funny to racists. It’s based on racism, primarily on racist stereotypes such as Blacks being lazy, Irishmen being stupid, Jews being stingy. If you aren’t racist then jokes like this just don’t work, as the premise of e.g. the thick Irishman makes no sense.

[(o)(o)]

No, racist (not racial) humour is only funny to racists. It’s based on racism, primarily on racist stereotypes such as Blacks being lazy, Irishmen being stupid, Jews being stingy. If you aren’t racist then jokes like this just don’t work, as the premise of e.g. the thick Irishman makes no sense.

Racial humour can be thoroughly enjoyable, and some racist humour is entirely laughable.

Jeez why does everthing have to be so black and white with you...

[pogo]

The problem is there is no such thing as “racial humour”. There’s humour based on race, but that’s racist humour. To me “racial humour” sounds like something a racist would say, trying to describe the racist jokes they are making without admitting they are racist. It’s like UKIP, who want a migration policy that will keep out gypsies and darkies, but let in Aussies and Americans. I.e. they want an immigration policy based on racial differences. But they will never admit that’s racist.

[(o)(o)]

The problem is there is no such thing as “racial humour”. There’s humour based on race, but that’s racist humour.

Yes there is and here's an example - based around race but not racist.