Trump's part in the New Zealand mass shooting

Post Reply New Topic

Let's also extend blame to the Democrats, shall we? They are largely responsible for putting Trump in the White House for reasons I've already expressed many times. Let's be fair, here. We have to acknowledge all the factors involved in elevating a white nationalist to a position of power.

But I don't really believe that, of course, just making a point.

Are you making a point? What point would that be, that it's possible to attribute blame to anyone if you're willing to stretch beyond the bounds of rationality? Is that a valid point?

Yes! Exactly! Neither blaming Trump or the Democrats isn't a rational argument.

Last edited by VegetableMan on 16 Mar 2019, 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes this is the strategy he used. No surprise why he chose Stever Bannon as his advisor (it wasn't an accident it was strategic).

Trump originally needed a platform to distinguish him from his republican competitors for the GOP leadership back in 2016. The frontrunners like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were also peddling lies and conspiracies about Obama but their primary focus was on running the economy. Trump had to go out on a limb (a calculated gamble) by appealing to the most disgruntled republican voters and to swinging voters who may have lost their jobs during the Obama administration. The formula was simple. Trump never had the crudentials to compete for running the US economy, so he went out on a limb by focusing on Obama's race/religion Mexicans, muslims, civil rights and jingoistic patriotism about American jobs and bringing jobs back to America. His appeal to the right wing worked, the timing was just right. But if I recall the gamble shocked even Trump himself when he won the GOP elections.

So when he went against Hillary Clinton he used the same tactics, Bannon asked him to focus on conspiracies on Hillary and continue with the wall, banning muslim migrants....the tactic worked again. Why? exactly because he tapped into people's fears. White Democrats and swinging voters who lost their jobs during the Obama years wanted a reason for their circumstance. Trump gave them scapegoats to blame. It's an old trick and one that worked for Trump.

But no one is entirely blaming Trump--the claim is that he fans the flames and increases hatred by making people feel like they can say hateful things out loud because he does and thereby contributes to the hatred being expressed and hate crimes (which have increased under his presidency). You're arguing against a strawman.

There is empirical evidence that Trump's rhetoric increases hate rhetoric in the public forum and inspires hate crimes like yesterday's shooting. It's not rational to deny that or to say that anyone else is just as culpable when no one else has the power over their audience the way Trump does because he is the leader of the country. When Trump is specifically mentioned as an inspiration for "white identity" by someone who goes out and mows down 49 innocent people who just happen to be brown and muslim, we should take their word for it--it's irrational to do otherwise and try to place blame anywhere but with the shooter and the people who directly inspired and encouraged the shooter's violence.

He may fan the flames, but the fire was already burning. Get rid of Trump, and the fire will still be there.

Trump being elected was a fluke. He'll be gone in a couple of years and then everyone can stop flipping out. In the meantime though full scale TDS.

OK, so you don't agree with the thesis of my thread, that Trump has any part in any hate anywhere. You've said so, I get it, and I get why you're saying it. So can we move on and allow a discussion on the topic now with other people, or are you going to keep clogging up my thread saying the same thing over and over again trying to stop discussion on the topic? You guys are so transparent, the same guys every time, saying the same kind of "arguments"--basically just immediately negating anything I say, just because it's me saying it. It's just...well, it makes me a bit sad you don't have more constructive ways to use your time. It's starting to come off as compulsive and unhealthy, the frequency with which your little group targets me.

But I'm going to keep doing my thing though and sharing my thoughts, that's not going to change no matter what you do. So keep doing what you're doing, that's fine. Just know that I see what you're doing, and it won't stop me from posting.

Please don't entertain that idea Ezra! what am I going to do on WP if Trump is gone!! !

Trump will never be gone, for the forseeable future he will continue to completly dominate the political conversation. He may not be president anymore so what? Obama finished his term over two years ago, Hillary lost over two years ago, Bill has been out of office for over 17 years but their scandals are still constantly talked about. And unlike those people Trump will constantly be tweeting, trolling, saying things that make it seemingly impossible for people not to react.

Bernie Sanders seems to nice to criticise, it will be like the Obama years again...

If only that relatively peaceful.

Sorry, I just want to add this so people actually understand the difference between a nationalist and a supremacist.

Nationalist:
a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Supremacist:
an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex.

Trump may be a nationalist, so are patriots, that has absolutely nothing to do with racism and in no way is a suggestion that Trump is a white supremacist.(Hint: the nation known as the US is a multi cultural nation containing many different races.)

I think attaching the word White to the word Nationalist is rather ridiculous, the race of the nationalist is pretty obsolete and seems more of a tactic to cause confusion to insist that someone who would be considered a white nationalist would be considered a white supremacist.

The establishment and its media is mostly to blame. Censorship is a big part of the problem. Maniacs like this go underground because these issues aren't allowed to be discussed openly. If people like this were challenged in the open their arguments would fall apart under scrutiny. The media also covers up the role of intelligence agencies in a lot of terrorist attacks.

National and racial identify are to blame - hell, any kind identity, really. As long as cling to tribalism, violence will continue.

I disagree with that, calling yourself an american does not cause violence, calling yourself a patriot does not cause violence, calling yourself a white man, black man, asian man, latino man, arab man, indian man or native man does not cause tribalism nor violence. Identifiers are used to identify differences they are important to have for millions of reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism, they are not forms of radical tribalism and do not spread violence.