Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's wrong no matter who does it.. This mornings example comes from msn Wa Post: Trump "black protester deserved to get roughed up by white supporters" .. That is not what he said but it is another devisive tactic that is very irresponsible.
It's wrong no matter who does it.. This mornings example comes from msn Wa Post: Trump "black protester deserved to get roughed up by white supporters" .. That is not what he said but it is another devisive tactic that is very irresponsible.
Here's his actual quote: "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing."
So let's recap. The protester was black, the supporters were white, and Trump himself said he was okay with the guy being roughed up because "it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing."
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing how reporting the facts is divisive.
"Roughing some one up" no matter how disgusting their actions, is, or should be, considered assault. Assault is a crime even if it is done by a group. Saying "he should have been roughed up" is calling for mob rules or at least inciting a riot. Both are, like assault, already illegal.
"Roughing some one up" no matter how disgusting their actions, is, or should be, considered assault. Assault is a crime even if it is done by a group. Saying "he should have been roughed up" is calling for mob rules or at least inciting a riot. Both are, like assault, already illegal.
Agreed. Trump is fomenting violence with his condoning these kinds of actions by his supporters at his rallies. He is essentially giving them the green light to do it again. It's a dangerous precedent to set.
I see that you tried to claim that the Washington Post was being divisive even though what they said was accurate and truthful. And I see that you don't understand the meaning of the word divisive.
Im not condoning violence, just the devisive nature in which it is reported..How bout this headline, "black disrupter removed by black man in suit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlltcDhAFU Lets see if violence is condoned when the shoe is on the other foot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
