The narratives about Trump thread.


That would have been the responsible thing for the MSM to have done and I’m sure at this point you might wish that was what they did. But for over a year these violent attacks at Trump rallies or Antifa going wild at Berkley they blamed on Trump or Milo, which was why at Charlottesville they went ballistic when Trump said “both sides were to blame”, they were being called out on giving a pass to Antifa, and you can see by the sudden spike in interest in who Antifa were on google searches just how many people had never heard of them.

Some neighbors say this, some say that. He was vocal in his on line postings speaking out against Trump. Of course he is going to say it was not political, if that is the case he is looking at 20 years in jail.

As I recall Rand Paul was present when that Bernie Sanders supporter shot a Republican Senator earlier in the year.

But I get it, violent unhinged rioting and intimidating your political opponents through force isn’t a good look. The left might want to lay off the vitriolic rhetoric it pumps out 24/7, even going so far as to target trump supporters if they want to shake off that impression. I don’t think we are at a place yet they will manage to moderate themselves properly in that regard.


How many of the people who had never heard of Antifa had ever heard of Milo?

Iirc there were anti-free speech protests being covered in the msm well before Charlottesville. If they didn’t name Antifa until Chv, perhaps it’s because it’s just one of many groups that were involved, and up to then Don & Co. hadn’t been making a big deal about them (by name) either.


Watching this will make you fee like being on drugs.


Three logical fallacies in one short paragraph is raising the bar pretty high though.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

Ad hominem and genetic attacks are actually two different types of logical fallacies, but they share many similarities as both choose to attack the source of an argument instead of its actual validity. In an ad hominem attack, attempts are made to chip away at an argument through attacks on the character of the person making it. A genetic logical fallacy neglects the contents of an actual argument in favor of attacking where it came from.

The “any rational person knows. . . “ argument sounds suspiciously like the windup to a logical fallacy too but I’m too lazy to look up which one it is exactly.


The right leaning press had covered Antifa and other groups pretty much from the beginning, however there isn’t a right wing news site that left leaning people don’t consider fake news and hence mostly live in a echo chamber.

The right leaning media had gone as far to note these riots and acts of violence were happening in left controlled districts, when Antifa turned up in Republican controlled areas Antifa were asked to unmask and their weapons taken away. Leading many to speculate the Lefty Mayors of these areas knew Antifa planned violence and asked the police to take a hands off approach to protesters who came to protest Trump and Milo. The right media had also pointed out how the left leaning media avoided any criticism or naming of the groups who were protesting Trump and Milo.

Until Charlottesville anyway, and they didn’t like being called out on their bullshit one little bit, did they?


I was inviting you to elaborate upon your claim that FSM was a Soviet plot (or “Soviet-style” plot), as it was not explained in the article you cited (i.e. irrelevant citation).

Pointing out the obvious about WP (the fact that anyone can edit it, which has always been the point of WP) was not an attack on the Honorable Mr. (or Ms.) Politbureau but merely a response to the Honorable. Mr. JB.

If you can get three fallacies out of that, you can probably discover the true meaning of covfefe. :slight_smile:


I’m not denying the echo chamber. I’m questioning the assumption that the echo is stronger on one side.


Paul appears to be using this incident for political gain.

Intimidating your opponent being a leftist thing?



Damn. First support a suspected child rapist by using a multitude of excuses, including the bible. Use the racism card in a push-polling tactic against John McCain in 2000, and now this?

The bottom picture, the man is Ravi Bhalla. He is a Sikh and the freshly elected mayor of Hoboken, NJ. Also, a Berkeley grad.


Oh, the rightwing really needs to get off their high horse. They hold zero moral ground here.

The rightwing media, and the current occupier of 1600, spent 8 years trying to convince the public -and to a great degree, succeeded, that Obama was not born in the US and his birth certificate was fake. Hell, I say Trump’s birth certificate is fake. Thank that will catch on? Nah, and you and I both know why. Let us not pretend otherwise.

One more time, is the federal government limiting speech? If the answer is no, then the argument ends. Milo and Coulter’s appearances were not cancelled directly as a result of their speech, but out of safety. I am sure Berkeley has at least one rightwinger living there who could have hosted them, with their own private security. Maybe they could get the Hell’s Angels to work security. They did such a bang up job the last time they did that!

You are aware that a woman was photographed saluting 45 and was later fired, right? I do not see the right defending HER FoS.

I can sense some baiting in that. The left is more pro-immigration than pro the first three things you listed. Voter ID laws, for those who can see through the haze, are a new poll tax. It is simply a way to vet voters. More often than not, the US is responsible for their being refugees anyway, so, why not? Flags and anthems are not federally protected. The 1st amendment is not under threat by the government. And no, the left does not take the apparent NRA/GOP view that all restrictions to weapon ownership are unconstitutional, and the left pushes for sensible control on the ownership of firearms and restrictions on military grade weaponry. But, I am sure you can find someone who has said all guns need to be taken away.

And that pic is about as baity as they come. Did his attacker come clean and say he hated Paul’s policy stances and wanted to see him go down? Or is it just waving a false-flag to the rightist faithful and a call to arms, so to speak? That could cross the line on free speech and enter into…incendiary and inciteful.

If the right is unhappy that FB and Twitter, among others, are censoring their speech, then why not gather the funds, by the servers, and create their own forum where they can have an anti-left anything goes party? Oh, they already have. I doubt you will find any pro leftist arguments in there.


Freedom of speech doesn’t only have meaning and consequence within the narrow confines of Constitutional law and government action. It’s a civil rights principle that determines how well a society in general deals with its divisions and disagreements. The woman who was fired for flipping off the Trump motorcade, for example. My understanding of the facts is that her company had earlier given a pass to an executive who had used obscene language on social media against others expressing liberal viewpoints. If that’s true then the company is engaging in suppression of speech it disagrees with rather than merely trying to protect its brand from being dragged into political controversy. My view is that the former should be illegal and the woman should have legal recourse as a civil right.


Changing “Soviet-style version” of something to a “Soviet plot” is the straw man logical fallacy.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.


There is certainly an echo chamber on both sides, the blind spots are not the same.

In presenting a perception, of course it might seem there is baiting, but it was quite sincere, I could present the perception of the right from the left, and the right would see that as baiting as well. Both would have some basis for fact.

The lefts perception is based on defender of the minorities, as well as elevated intellectual capacity paints the right as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic as well as other things, it’s a very potent mix and it is indeed an effective combination.

All I was saying was, while the right seems aware of how they are perceived by the left and have indeed worked out a way to fight back against that perception, the left have yet to wake up to how they are perceived by the right.


They’re doing it plenty loud enough for my taste. My complaint is they’re doing it far too late.

You can’t make that up on, er, volume.

Once you’ve supported something like that for all that time, you can’t un-support it all that easily. In other words, they’ve got explaining to do. All this protesting too much looks like an attempt to stuff their past moral support of these thugs down the memory hole.


It can be the wind up to any of several logical fallacies, or it can simply be the truth.

Have you heard of the Fallacy Fallacy?


Does either side care about how the other side perceives them, and should they? The point is to beat the other side, and then it won’t matter what they think about anything.

Practically speaking, the only perception that matters is that of the majority of voters. And I do think both sides know it. The winners on both sides seek to know what the voters think. The losers on both sides presume to know what the voters think. Either way they care about the same thing. But only the winners make the effort to know what’s what.


I hear you Roland, but this is why people like Milo are so toxic to the left. You may not even like Milo, but he is this Jewish gay right wing supporter with a black husband which is entirely toxic to the left narrative of identity politics.

Someone else doing the talk show rounds recently was someone called Candace Owens (aka RedPillBlack) a beautiful young black woman who is also intelligent and articulate. Kryptonite to the left and they are already trying to discredit her. Very rough around the edges, but I like her.

Dispelling the other sides projected perception of you is at least 50% of the battle.


Yes, the winners also try to influence what the voters think. Close the loop to control the process. Those who are too out of touch can’t do this successfully. They just don’t know which levers to pull.

A whole lot of establishment Republicans in Congress are “retiring.” It’s interesting to read their stated reasons. They simply don’t understand how they’re perceived. They’re so out of touch, they actually think divisiveness is the problem.

The Democrats may not deserve to win in 2018, but if the Republicans don’t clean house (and Senate) then the Republicans deserve to lose. Let’s hope they lose to some group other than establishment Dems. See how the primaries go.

The establishments of both parties have lost their ability to manipulate public opinion because they’ve lost their understanding of which lever does what and how to read the gauges on the dashboard. They just don’t know how voters’ minds work anymore.

And some of them don’t even know that they don’t know - or are in some sort of denial. How else to explain the stupid, stupid things they say as they’re leaving in defeat?


But, that has been the course in the 240 years of the republic. In a legal sense, the companies are basically free to go about as they wish, in this regard. Yes, there are laws governing employment as it relates to race, religion, etc. But, there are ways to skirt that. A company cannot outright tell you what to say, who to vote for, etc. They can encourage it.

Was it explicitly stated why she was fired? They could simply state that they support whoever and that is that. Maybe it could be argued that the state could try to apply eminent domain here and forcefully protect her speech, but that is kind of a stretch and why give the rightwing radio nuts more ammunition?

Here is a fun quote. “My rights begin, where yours end.” I have no idea who said it, but it speaks volumes for the legality and morality of constitutional law in the US. Let’s try this…

Say you really like the Canadian Tuxedo and mullets. You want them to come back. You have every right to think and feel, even to promote it. Let’s say you discover that I am horridly anti denim and think that mullets should be relegated to the past, NHL be damned. You find where I live and set up a loud speaker outside my house doing your best to get your message across. Now what do we do? I do not have an out. No on invited you to speak, you arranged this on your own. You are on a public street, so nothing really anyone can do, right?

A common refrain towards people who do not like what is being offered on TV, or in other media is to simply “change the channel” or to take steps to otherwise avoid seeing something that would offend you. Well, in the above scenario, have I no rights in this?

Imagine going to parts of the American South…the deep south, and park yourself in a public square and start ranting about the glory of same-sex marriage, the power of satan, the evils of incest, and the praise of the Obama. I do not think the day would end pleasantly for you. I mentioned that before. I told this to a friend of mine. He said the person would be shot, and Fox News would blame him for going there in the first place. This is sort of what happened in Berkeley, except it was all planned ahead of time. The people protested, said they did not want that filfth in their town, community, school. No one listened, so they stepped it up. Why doesn’t Milo et al just go to a friendlier venue, like the aforementioned Southern location? Do the people of Berkeley not have a say? Are they being denied their right?


It is not so much toxic as it is befuddling. I hate to use this, but its like Jews supporting the Nazis, of which I am sure there were a few. I know there are same-sex couples who are against same-sex marriage. Christians against Christ. Given the things he says, not said, says -present tense- it pretty much makes him a hypocrite. OR he suffers from Stockholm Syndrome.


Are you aware that they have CNN in all the damn airports?

The trouble with going to some other venue if they try to take over every single damn venue. Every single one.

The battle for free speech is the battle to keep them from controlling every single damn venue.