Sow Wind, Reap Trump

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by whell

The system needs to be broken. If you had a manufacturing process that continued to produce products that were less than the best, logically you'd certainly want to fix it....or redesign it so it produces the best product.

And who the hell is espousing anarchy? Or are you just throwing a red herring in the pot to add flavor to the stew?

"Breaking the system" is anarchy by definition, unintended consequences are the inevitable result.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Not that I agree or not but what on earth was wrong with his reply that makes this reply of yours not just trolling?

This is a serious and none provoking question.

I honestly want to understand if you had any point other than arrogance.

Thanks

Yes, I did. To cite just one example from memory, whell dishonestly spins Parker's extended discussion of the parts, problems, and implications of persuasion (rhetoric) as a criticism of 'debate style.' This alone is enough to justify the labels I placed on whell's post.

Did you have any point besides to call me 'troll' and 'arrogant?'

I mean, 'honestly' my ass. You might as well have said you 'honestly' want to know if I've stopped beating my wife.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

It was a legit question, but I'm not surprised at your pathetic answer.

Trump has repeatedly urged his followers to commit acts of violence and when they occur he had excused them as an excess of passion or justified them as legitimate responses to "terrible" acts. He has threatened riots at the Convention in the event that he doesn't get the nomination, even if he were to arrive without the necessary delegates. His inflammatory and insulting rhetoric directed primarily toward Latinos and Muslims is and the violent responses of his "fans" is carefully calculated to inflame the passions of those groups and provoke acts of violence.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

A rhetorical question, intended as an act of labling, of course. Were I to consider answering, I'd first need to know what exactly you mean by 'elitist.'

My question wasn't an act of labeling, although a labeler would see it as such. Elitist does not have to be pejorative. Your final sentence answered my question. Thanks.

Once again, please refrain from editing my posts. The question was part of a whole.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

My question wasn't an act of labeling, although a labeler would see it as such. Elitist does not have to be pejorative. Your final sentence answered my question. Thanks.

Sorry, I'm a bit edgy today. But seriously, 'elitist' is generally considered a bad thing to be, but it's basically a vaguely-defined attitude, isn't it? I think I'm justified in asking you to expand on what I'm accused-of (and now convicted-of) a little.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

My question wasn't an act of labeling, although a labeler would see it as such. Elitist does not have to be pejorative. Your final sentence answered my question. Thanks.

Once again, please refrain from editing my posts. The question was part of a whole.

You added to this post, so don't accuse me of editing it! And I see I'm not only one edgy today!

[whell]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

"Breaking the system" is anarchy by definition, unintended consequences are the inevitable result.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Anarchy is "an absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

No one is talking about that, except for you. Breaking the system means reforming the system that the parties - which are private organizations on govermantal bodies or agencies - have built.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Anarchy is "an absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

No one is talking about that, except for you. Breaking the system means reforming the system that the parties - which are private organizations on govermantal bodies or agencies - have built.

By whom?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Sorry, I'm a bit edgy today. But seriously, 'elitist' is generally considered a bad thing to be, but it's basically a vaguely-defined attitude, isn't it? I think I'm justified in asking you to expand on what I'm accused-of a little.

Please note that I did not accuse you of being an elitist. I agree that generally when one calls another an elitist it is meant pejoratively, and did my best to recognize this this in my post. Resist looking for personal attacks and reread my post in the context of your OP. My question was the least important part and probably should have been followed by a . Do you not see the elitism in the novels I referenced?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Trump has repeatedly urged his followers to commit acts of violence and when they occur he had excused them as an excess of passion or justified them as legitimate responses to "terrible" acts. He has threatened riots at the Convention in the event that he doesn't get the nomination, even if he were to arrive without the necessary delegates. His inflammatory and insulting rhetoric directed primarily toward Latinos and Muslims is and the violent responses of his "fans" is carefully calculated to inflame the passions of those groups and provoke acts of violence.

Political rhetoric can get heated, but when protestors - and many of these folks make it their business to show up and agitate like that idiot who tried to rush the stage at one of Trump's ralllies - try to interrupt the proceedings at any of his events, he certainly has responded verbally in a forceful manner. I reject your characterization that this encourages folks to commit acts of violence.

As far as "inflammatory and insulting rhetoric directed primarily toward Latinos and Muslims", I've addressed this already in another post. It certainly wasn't PC, but you're in drama queen territory with your characterization.