Trump Uses Shocking Slur in Late-Night Thanksgiving Message

Damocles said:
Nah, he called Walz "retarded".
Click to expand...
Yup. Typical of MAGA retard crackers to sling names. Trump is famous for it. He popularized it. He Made the American idea Great Again. LOL

Can you imagine Ronald Reagan or GHW Bush saying this shit? Of course not. Only the MAGA retard crackers swallow the splooge from their great Orange Jesus. Conservatives don't kneel to ideology supporting autocracies like our Founders and ancestors fought so hard to remove or keep out.

Those supporting an autocracy, an oligarchy or any other form of a single leader dictating the rules of the land, are domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States. Those supporting such singular rule outside of law but who also took an oath to support and defend our Constitution then seek to overthrow it with an autocracy should be considered traitors.

FWIW, it's typical of all MAGA retard crackers...or should it be krackers? All MAGA Retard Krackers (MRKs) to be dumber than the dogs they have tied up in their front yards. Fucking MRKs are the scum of America and domestic enemies of the Constitution. Fuck them. Fuck them all. :flagsal:
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Say the people who think that repeating "fascist" is fine and actively hope for the death of political opponents. Which is still not violence.
Click to expand...
Say the people who think that repeating "communist" and "socialist" is fine and ALSO actively hope for the death of political opponents.

Violent rhetoric which leads to violence is part and parcel of any violence associated with it.
Damocles said:
Words are not violence, they may foment it, but they are not it.
Click to expand...
AKA a distinction without a difference.
Damocles said:
Words mean things.
Click to expand...
And often those meanings are very subtle.
Damocles said:
Again, talking mean is not violence.
Click to expand...
Talking mean is not the issue. It's using language that demonizes and directs hatred towards other people.
Damocles said:
These things are different even then. I remember when the lefties were all on about targets on maps.
Click to expand...
Targets on maps coupled with heated pro-gun rhetoric is what got Gabby Giffords shot in the head.
 
Nomad said:
Say the people who think that repeating "communist" and "socialist" is fine and ALSO actively hope for the death of political opponents.

Violent rhetoric which leads to violence is part and parcel of any violence associated with it.

AKA a distinction without a difference.

And often those meanings are very subtle.

Talking mean is not the issue. It's using language that demonizes and directs hatred towards other people.

Targets on maps coupled with heated pro-gun rhetoric is what got Gabby Giffords shot in the head.
Click to expand...
If you believe that then you believe rhetoric got Kirk shot. However, shooting Kirk was violence, the other was something that fomented it and was not violence. Words mean things, and none of them mean that saying things you do not like is violence.
 
Damocles said:
If you believe that then you believe rhetoric got Kirk shot.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do.

But it was Kirk's own rhetoric that got him shot.

It was not any rhetoric by the left.

Read the shooter's own words.
Damocles said:
However, shooting Kirk was violence, the other was something that fomented it and was not violence.
Click to expand...
Again, none of that was perpetrated by any political opposition group. A lone individual whose family were all on the same side of the issues as Kirk was, and who was raised in a manner synonymous with Kirk's ideology, shot and killed Kirk because he had gotten fed up with Kirk's bigoted ranting.
Damocles said:
Words mean things, and none of them mean that saying things you do not like is violence.
Click to expand...
Again (again) the meanings of words is often very subtle and open to interpretation.

Sometimes it's just a matter of how one interprets them vs how somebody else does.
 
Now pudgy Donald will have to make a list of what the 3rd world countries are, since I doubt there is any agreement across the globe. Then a debate of experts and historians should follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top