Several of you have made this claim in this thread. I don’t think anyone has provided any evidence to support it. What’s your cite?
That’s certainly the most direct reading of the slogan. As I’ve already noted, I wasn’t intending to turn this into a fact check, but since some insist on doing so, I’m not going to sit idly by while they twist it into something that was not said / claimed.
[quote=“HurricaneDitka, post:121, topic:823233”]
[/QUOTE]A guy finds himself surrounded by a group of angry people after he inserts himself into a crowd of people and deliberately makes them angry. I guess technically an angry mob and since they are Gillum supporters probably Democrats for the most part. I’ll count it.
Eric Holder is one 67 year-old man. Not a mob.
Hillary Clinton is one 70 year-old woman. Not a mob.
Maxine Waters is one 80 year-old woman. Not a mob.
There’s no reason to believe a mob did this as opposed to one person. There’s also no reason to believe any Democrats were involved.
There’s no reason to believe a mob did this as opposed to one person. There’s also no reason to believe any Democrats were involved.
There’s no reason to believe a mob did this as opposed to one person. There’s also no reason to believe any Democrats were involved.
This one is an angry mob. There may have also been some Democrats there. This one counts too.
Two out of eight. On top of that a just plain wierd senior citizen phobia at play here. Single solitary old people are not angry mobs.
It’s not “senior citizen phobia”. The quotes from HRC, Holder, and Waters were intended to show Democrat officials and leaders doing their part to urge violence / incivility / mob-like actions, basically the “Democrats produce” part of the slogan.
You should have stuck with the senior citizen phobia. Only one of the three senior citizen statements you linked to comes even close to urging violence / incivility / mob-like actions. One out of the three is vaguely in the ballpark.
That’s the most disingenuous, hyperpartisan argument I’ve ever seen you make. You’re a better poster and debater than this.
:dubious:
(post shortened)
Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Maxine Waters all belong to the same mob. A mob that promotes violence actions from others.
Republicans create jobs, God alone knows what Robert Mueller would do without them! Boris Karloff look-alike contests are few and far between these days.
Not really.
Have you read the thread?
And that’s not including the dozens of assaults and deaths from right wing “lone wolves”.
That you continue to use Maxine Waters as proof of violence when she specifically said NOT to touch anyone is…educating. Incivility in the age of Trump is hardly a mob, and if that’s what you have to whine about when righties are literally shooting people, well, be glad you’re not a Democrat. We have real shit to worry about.
Anybody else thinking this whole “mob rule” shit is because the tighty rightys just figured out that they are outnumbered?
Don’t forget “running people over” and, of course, the numerous times Donald Trump has praised and encouraged violence.
Nah; that has nothing to do with it. They’re always the real victim, see. :rolleyes:
Which one are you thinking of? “… kick them”, “You cannot be civil …”, or “You get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them.”?
None of these are evidence for “Democrats produce fewer mobs”. I readily concede there are anecdotes of mob-like actions on both sides, but ‘the plural of anecdote is not data’. These don’t tell us which side has more or which side has fewer. I was looking for you to provide some data related to “fewer mobs”. Do you have any? If not, why would you claim “fewer”?
Why are you only viewing republicans under the “create jobs” banner,and only democrats under the “create mobs” moniker?
Your disingenuousness doesn’t seem to indicate a willingness to debate in good faith.
I don’t think I’ve claimed in this thread that “only” democrats create mobs. Earlier RitterSport said this:
He indicated he wasn’t coming back, so I didn’t respond, but if it would help you, I’ll concede “the same is true on the right”.
The same is also true of “produce jobs”. The White House has been occupied by both R’s and D’s while jobs have been created in this country. Ditto for control of Congress.
As I said, I hoped the discussion would focus on the political effects of the slogan. Nobody (or very few) seemed interested in that.
What effects? Anyone can objectively show that his slogan is just as meaningless as any other sound bite he offers. The people who love him will believe it. More will view it as the partisan bullshit that it is.
What’s there to discuss? It’s a phenomenally stupid, dishonest slogan that true believers will lap up without any critical thinking. What effect is it supposed to have? It’s more red meat for the base, but the base is not exactly in doubt as to who to vote for because they’re the kind of people who would buy into a slogan this stupid, even after people have explained at length why it’s a dishonest mess.