Trump responds to Clinton Alt-Right Speech Megathread

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trumps going to be on Anderson Cooper tonight at 8

Will he stay muzzled, or rip it off and start frothing again?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Edit to add: Although this is what Trump has said, I am asking these questions of Seriously? and all other Trump supporters on this forum. I assume you concur with him, so then defend his remarks. Validate and substantiate them.

Hillary Clinton sports an actual terrorist as a supporter. Should we paint all Hillary supporters as terrorists? Of course not.

Trump may be a fascist, but he's not actually a terrorist, yet.

[The Other Castro]

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Too much stupid. Sigh. Makes my head hurt.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Stupid Trump!

[Gustaf]

Can we just ban him, please?

Ban me? Why? For posting Trump's response.

You liberals sure don't like it when someone has an opinion that is not yours....

We're not the ones backing a presidential candidate who wants to curb freedom of expression. But nice try.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we just ban him, please?

Ban me? Why? For posting Trump's response.

You liberals sure don't like it when someone has an opinion that is not yours....

We're not the ones backing a presidential candidate who wants to curb freedom of expression. But nice try.

The Democrats are far more a threat to Free Speech nowadays than the GOP.

It wasn't always that way.  It is now.

[Pandaguineapig]

I don't like yrump, in fact I detest him but I would still like to see him pull out an upset just to see the Hillary hacks on this forum lose their minds

[Gustaf]

Can we just ban him, please?

Ban me? Why? For posting Trump's response.

You liberals sure don't like it when someone has an opinion that is not yours....

We're not the ones backing a presidential candidate who wants to curb freedom of expression. But nice try.

The Democrats are far more a threat to Free Speech nowadays than the GOP.

It wasn't always that way.  It is now.

I think the guy who is threatening to rewrite legislation to prevent the press from criticizing him if elected is a bigger threat to free speech than a party committed to respecting the Constitution. But you're a Trump fanatic so you probably don't care about constitutional freedoms as long as you get to kick out some brown people.

[Pandaguineapig]

Can we just ban him, please?

Ban me? Why? For posting Trump's response.

You liberals sure don't like it when someone has an opinion that is not yours....

We're not the ones backing a presidential candidate who wants to curb freedom of expression. But nice try.

The Democrats are far more a threat to Free Speech nowadays than the GOP.

It wasn't always that way.  It is now.

I think the guy who is threatening to rewrite legislation to prevent the press from criticizing him if elected is a bigger threat to free speech than a party committed to respecting the Constitution. But you're a Trump fanatic so you probably don't care about constitutional freedoms as long as you get to kick out some brown people.

Are you just upset trump might have your safe space taken away?

[Fuzzy Bear]

While I certainly understand that communities of color are in the situation they are in for reasons besides their political leadership, the sort of political leadership that rises to the top in such communities, how that leadership conducts itself in office, what it advocates, what it expects of its citizens, and who it blames for its failures are all relevant issues to be discussed during what it, after all, a political campaign.

The hope for many liberals, perhaps naïve, was that as blacks took over management of their cities and municipalities, they would improve the quality of government in these cities and municipalities.  I think it's hard to make the case that this is so.  Much has been made of the "racist" factor behind Michigan's takeover of a number of black-majority cities, pushed by Rick #NeverTrump Snyder (who, yes, is responsible for poisoning Flint), but it's also true that many of these cities had political leaders who refused to live within their municipalities' means, and were unwilling to think outside the box in solving problems.  And the corruption in these cities hasn't abated; it's just that different folks are at the trough.

I must admit that I despair of never hearing Donald Trump conduct a serious, even wonkish, discussion of this aspect of politics.  But it IS a legitimate issue, and something a President could, indeed, do something about.  Something besides throwing money at a problem that would actually help.  And, yes, there is a time and place to throw money at problems, but when you miss the problem and hit the rathole when you throw, that's another issue.

[The Advocate]

Can we just ban him, please?

Ban me? Why? For posting Trump's response.

You liberals sure don't like it when someone has an opinion that is not yours....

We're not the ones backing a presidential candidate who wants to curb freedom of expression. But nice try.

The Democrats are far more a threat to Free Speech nowadays than the GOP.

It wasn't always that way.  It is now.

Hate speech is not defensible, nor should it necessarily be protected under the definition of "free speech." Democrats (not even most) only seek to prohibit the utterance of words that would further reinforce hatred, dehumanization, racism, and phobic attitudes, which endanger not only the emotional, but often even the physical well-being of underprivileged groups. European countries apply these restrictions because they've learned from historical precedents that what is seemingly harmless speech, can quickly transform into something worse. Freedom from the dehumanizing and intimidating effects of certain expressions of free speech is a privilege enjoyed by the heterosexual, White male population - not the majority of Americans; thus, why they are the overwhelming majority of people who support nearly unregulated freedom of speech. And also the reason why Republicans are now its most ardent defenders.

[Cassius]

Can we just ban him, please?

Ban me? Why? For posting Trump's response.

You liberals sure don't like it when someone has an opinion that is not yours....

We're not the ones backing a presidential candidate who wants to curb freedom of expression. But nice try.

The Democrats are far more a threat to Free Speech nowadays than the GOP.

It wasn't always that way.  It is now.

Hate speech is not defensible, nor should it necessarily be protected under the definition of "free speech." Democrats (not even most) only seek to prohibit the utterance of words that would further reinforce hatred, dehumanization, racism, and phobic attitudes, which endanger not only the emotional, but often even the physical well-being of underprivileged groups. European countries apply these restrictions because they've learned from historical precedents that what is seemingly harmless speech, can quickly transform into something worse. Freedom from the dehumanizing and intimidating effects of certain expressions of free speech is a privilege enjoyed by the heterosexual, White male population - not the majority of Americans; thus, why they are the overwhelming majority of people who support nearly unregulated freedom of speech. And also the reason why Republicans are now its most ardent defenders.

Yeah... you know white, heterosexual males can be subject to all sorts of hateful and dehumanising applications of free speech, whether they relate to their family background, physical appearance, manner of speaking etc, many of which can also do rather unpleasant emotional, or even physical (hell, think of the socially awkward kid who gets beaten up in school) consequences. Yet, no one calls for the banning of these uses of free speech, because it would be unenforceable and frankly counerproductive.

[Ebsy]

Very low energy reaction from the forums resident racists.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump's response is typical Kellyanne Conway-written nonsense.

by the way, Robert Byrd is one U.S. Senator who apologized for years and attempted to right his wrongs. David Duke, and thousands of others not only praise Donald, but feel like they're a part of the conversation thanks to White Power Donald. There is no god damn comparison and I know politics makes people deranged enough to believe "BOTH SIDES DO IT" but it's just ridiculous.

In a Free Society, any person that wishes ought to be "part of the conversation".  People don't have the right to be received uncritically, but they have the right to be "part of the conversation".  Whatever that means.

I am a First Amendment person as much as I am a Second Amendment person, and then some.  There are lots of folks that I wish would shut up and go away, but I won't express that specifically, because they have the right to speak up, so long as they are respecting the rights of others.  And while respecting the rights of others doesn't mean threatening and intimidating others verbally, it DOES mean that one has the right to express themselves how they see fit.  It DOESN'T mean that one has the right to be received uncritically.  I really get the impression that many folks here don't appreciate the First Amendment when their adversaries make use of it.

[The Advocate]

Can we just ban him, please?

Ban me? Why? For posting Trump's response.

You liberals sure don't like it when someone has an opinion that is not yours....

We're not the ones backing a presidential candidate who wants to curb freedom of expression. But nice try.

The Democrats are far more a threat to Free Speech nowadays than the GOP.

It wasn't always that way.  It is now.

Hate speech is not defensible, nor should it necessarily be protected under the definition of "free speech." Democrats (not even most) only seek to prohibit the utterance of words that would further reinforce hatred, dehumanization, racism, and phobic attitudes, which endanger not only the emotional, but often even the physical well-being of underprivileged groups. European countries apply these restrictions because they've learned from historical precedents that what is seemingly harmless speech, can quickly transform into something worse. Freedom from the dehumanizing and intimidating effects of certain expressions of free speech is a privilege enjoyed by the heterosexual, White male population - not the majority of Americans; thus, why they are the overwhelming majority of people who support nearly unregulated freedom of speech. And also the reason why Republicans are now its most ardent defenders.

Yeah... you know white, heterosexual males can be subject to all sorts of hateful and dehumanising applications of free speech, whether they relate to their family background, physical appearance, manner of speaking etc, many of which can also do rather unpleasant emotional, or even physical (hell, think of the socially awkward kid who gets beaten up in school) consequences. Yet, no one calls for the banning of these uses of free speech, because it would be unenforceable and frankly counerproductive.

There's quite a substantive difference between targeting a person based on their historically dehumanized characteristics (race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender orientation) than attacking them for other reasons. This is not to suggest that heterosexual, White males cannot experience harmful verbal abuse, but that constitutes more of the level of bullying and harassment. But, bullying and harassment should be stamped out as well to the greatest extent possible, which requires teaching and enforcing in education, socialization, and peer pressure, sensitivity towards others.

[Seriously?]

Pop Quiz... Which candidate kissed a KKK member? Trump or Clinton? Who is the racist again?

[The Advocate]

Pop Quiz... Which candidate kissed a KKK member? Trump or Clinton? Who is the racist again?

Why don't you bother forming a substantive response to my reply to you, rather than ignore 99% of it and post this complete nonsense, which I have already proven to be an intentional mischaracterization of a repentant former Klan member in the 1940s. Are you just this dense or are you a troll?

[DrScholl]

I really would like to see what Seriously? would say if David Duke made the runoff in the Louisiana Senate race and it just so happened that Louisiana would be the deciding race for Senate control. What would people like Seriously? do if retaining their Senate majority was contingent on electing an actual Grand Wizard to the Senate?

[Seriously?]

Pop Quiz... Which candidate kissed a KKK member? Trump or Clinton? Who is the racist again?

Why don't you bother forming a substantive response to my reply to you, rather than ignore 99% of it and post this complete nonsense, which I have already proven to be an intentional mischaracterization of a repentant former Klan member in the 1940s. Are you just this dense or are you a troll?

You're telling me that if David Duke renounces the KKK, he could be elected to the Senate and climb to the Office of President Pro Tempure of the Senate and that it'd be OK? Give me a break.

I don't care what he did. Once in the Klan, always in the Klan.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can we just ban him, please?

Ban me? Why? For posting Trump's response.

You liberals sure don't like it when someone has an opinion that is not yours....

We're not the ones backing a presidential candidate who wants to curb freedom of expression. But nice try.

The Democrats are far more a threat to Free Speech nowadays than the GOP.

It wasn't always that way.  It is now.

Hate speech is not defensible, nor should it necessarily be protected under the definition of "free speech." Democrats (not even most) only seek to prohibit the utterance of words that would further reinforce hatred, dehumanization, racism, and phobic attitudes, which endanger not only the emotional, but often even the physical well-being of underprivileged groups. European countries apply these restrictions because they've learned from historical precedents that what is seemingly harmless speech, can quickly transform into something worse. Freedom from the dehumanizing and intimidating effects of certain expressions of free speech is a privilege enjoyed by the heterosexual, White male population - not the majority of Americans; thus, why they are the overwhelming majority of people who support nearly unregulated freedom of speech. And also the reason why Republicans are now its most ardent defenders.

Folks have the right to speak freely.

They don't have the right to be received uncritically.

They don't have the right to threaten people with physical harm.

They don't have the right to be in the majority.

Minorities have rights that our system rightly protects.  I'm not just talking race/ethnicity here;  I'm talking everyone who's in the smaller group when a matter is crystallizing into two sides.  Minorities (of all kinds) have the right to express themselves, but they don't have the right to be in the majority, and they don't have the right to have their point of view carry the day, unless it's on an issue where someone is trying to "vote out" someone's INDIVIDUAL rights.  If we can limit their speech, even when it does not threaten or intimidate persons physically, we can limit yours and you all can limit mine.  If we want to be like Saudi Arabia, then, sure, let's trod that path.

[The Advocate]

Pop Quiz... Which candidate kissed a KKK member? Trump or Clinton? Who is the racist again?

Why don't you bother forming a substantive response to my reply to you, rather than ignore 99% of it and post this complete nonsense, which I have already proven to be an intentional mischaracterization of a repentant former Klan member in the 1940s. Are you just this dense or are you a troll?

You're telling me that if David Duke renounces the KKK, he could be elected to the Senate and climb to the Office of President Pro Tempure of the Senate and that it'd be OK? Give me a break.

I don't care what he did. Once in the Klan, always in the Klan.

If David Duke were to genuinely and sincerely renounce any association with racism, the KKK, and his long history of extremist views, then yes, I would not object to him filling any position in the government. However, that's just my personal stance on the issue; I can't speak for others. Many people make mistakes in their lifetime, but they can change and become a better (or worse) person. To judge someone based on actions of which they are repentant is not only unfair, but the antithesis of Christian moral doctrine (which is relevant if you're a self-professed Christian).

[Trapsy]

Pop Quiz... Which candidate kissed a KKK member? Trump or Clinton? Who is the racist again?

LMAOLMAOLMAO

[Devout Centrist]

Pop Quiz... Which candidate kissed a KKK member? Trump or Clinton? Who is the racist again?

Why don't you bother forming a substantive response to my reply to you, rather than ignore 99% of it and post this complete nonsense, which I have already proven to be an intentional mischaracterization of a repentant former Klan member in the 1940s. Are you just this dense or are you a troll?

You're telling me that if David Duke renounces the KKK, he could be elected to the Senate and climb to the Office of President Pro Tempure of the Senate and that it'd be OK? Give me a break.

I don't care what he did. Once in the Klan, always in the Klan.

Old Strom was a good guy though

[Yank2133]

Trump's response is typical Kellyanne Conway-written nonsense.

by the way, Robert Byrd is one U.S. Senator who apologized for years and attempted to right his wrongs. David Duke, and thousands of others not only praise Donald, but feel like they're a part of the conversation thanks to White Power Donald. There is no god damn comparison and I know politics makes people deranged enough to believe "BOTH SIDES DO IT" but it's just ridiculous.

Seriously.

One party in 2016 is actively pushing for ID laws that are design to keep non-whites from voting. Save me the both sides schtick.