Someone was listening

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You just made her point. If you deny that inflammatory rhetoric from the left leads to violence but that Trump using perfectly valid words is the reason for mass shootings, then your opinion has no basis in reality. Constantly ragging on Trump for merely using a word, which accurately describes a situation, then giving a pass to all the pols and organizations that accuse him and white males and Republicans of being fascists, Nazis, etc., with no real basis for saying so, repeatedly, shows what a hypocrite who makes stuff up you really are.

Her point is saying “You can shoot invaders” has no effect?
Trump’s Denialists, of which you are one, must deny.
Because if voters realize that Trump is not only divisive but also a person who provokes terrorists, his presidency cannot be rescued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Her point is saying “You can shoot invaders” has no effect?
Trump’s Denialists, of which you are one, must deny.
Because if voters realize that Trump is not only divisive but also a person who provokes terrorists, his presidency cannot be rescued.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was referring to the article by her that I posted and to which you had a pseudo, or rather non-existent, reply. You changed the subject. I attempted to get back to the subject. You refuse. As I said, you ramble on about other things so you don't have to respond. Which is OK. Don't respond. But just don't post one of your knee jerk other hates as if it is a response.

I don't know about her "you can shoot invaders" remark. And I certainly don't know the context nor intent of what she said. I have learned that trusting to your interpretation of that could very well be misleading, or entirely wrong.

And I'm not interested in, nor agree with, everything that Coulter says. I thought that the article by her that I posted, and to which you pretended to reply to, was enlightening as to the one-sided, even hypocritical, if not entirely fallacious, condemning Trump of inspiring violence because he used certain words.

I understand why you would try to evade any reasonable discussion of how that is not fair nor accurate--or even an outride lie.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I was referring to the article by her that I posted and to which you had a pseudo, or rather non-existent, reply. You changed the subject. I attempted to get back to the subject. You refuse. As I said, you ramble on about other things so you don't have to respond. Which is OK. Don't respond. But just don't post one of your knee jerk other hates as if it is a response.

I don't know about her "you can shoot invaders" remark. And I certainly don't know the context nor intent of what she said. I have learned that trusting to your interpretation of that could very well be misleading, or entirely wrong.

And I'm not interested in, nor agree with, everything that Coulter says. I thought that the article by her that I posted, and to which you pretended to reply to, was enlightening as to the one-sided, even hypocritical, if not entirely fallacious, condemning Trump of inspiring violence because he used certain words.

I understand why you would try to evade any reasonable discussion of how that is not fair nor accurate--or even an outride lie.

Her article proposed that the shooter was influenced by a viewpoint that is held by very few as opposed to something broadcast on Fox, called as such by Trump in rallies time after time.

Keep denying, perhaps you actually believe that Trump’s speech has no effect and he is using those words to join people together to solve a problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device