Peter Fonda Makes Vulgar Tweet Suggesting That Barron Trump Be Kidnapped

[*Deidre*]

The difference between what he SAID and what is actually happening to kids ...is that his words are only words.

But my point is, from a moral standpoint, it shouldn’t be a competition of who causes the least harm to a child.  A person who cares about children wouldn’t even enter into that game.  Words, especially words like that, can most certainly hurt a pre-teen like Barron.  Especially someone like Barron.  It doesn’t matter if he suffered less than border children.  Any and All child suffering, regardless of degree, is BAD.

I addressed this after this post, and don't disagree. Not sure why you're reposting this. 

The truth is, my empathy goes to Barron for who he has as a father. It's a shame that celebs etc go on Twitter and use it to spew hateful garbage, and I said earlier in the thread, that kids should always be off limits. But, I wonder what Barron thinks of the terrible things his own father says and does?

[Crossless2.0]

Meh. There are worse things to be than a radical centrist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

Right? Oh, the horror!

Nevertheless, I maintain that 'radical centrism' is a grotesque abuse of language, even if it is a program of action I can get behind.

[FlyingNarwhal]

The system deserves disrespect?  What Democracy?  Voting? Because that is the system that put Trump into office.  And I think a big reason for that happening, including the hidden surge of voters not seen in pre election polls, is the disrespect of that system aka the people that voted for Trump.  If you think continuing down that same path is going to work well come mid terms and 2020 I would strongly urge you to reconsider.

And again I'll say, the comments that came from Samantha Bee and Peter Fonda were not directed at Trump, the office, or "the system."  They were directed at his children.  Where in the past has it been remotely appropriate for any previous president's family to receive that kind of rampant hatred with no consequences?

You think if it has votes and you can pin the label “democracy” on a system then that system automatically becomes its own justification?

What exactly is this democracy and voting?   It is the system that works by rewarding the group or coalition that is most effective in disenfranchising those whose interests do not coincide with those of the group or coalition.   It is a system that works by pandering to the basest and most paranoid instincts of the electorate in order to correl the basest and most paranoid of the electorate into the service of those same groups and coalitions.   It is a system that claims justification from the alledged wisdom of the people while doing its utmost to pander to the urge of its people to be smug and satisfied with their own ignorance and stupidity.  

It’s a sausage with a sticker labeled democracy

What exactly is the justification of this sausage?  That there is voting and there is that sticker?  

Maybe if you think what is in the sausage and what effect there would be in eating it is less important than the sticker.

That may be a merely irresponsible point of view had the sausage not put a trump at the button controlling 1/2 of the world’s nuclear weapons.

This sausage with the sticker “democracy” on it has now by that strayed dangerously close to being a cynide pill not for just that “hidden surge” of voters, not just for Americans, but for much of humanity.

So “If you think continuing down that same path is going to work well come mid terms and 2020 I would strongly urge you to reconsider.”.   Reconsider what?   Let that surge of voter who has turn the sausage into something beginning to resemble a collective suicide pack not have another go?

So what, you're not happy with democracy because the people that voted didn't vote for the person you wanted?  I'm not saying there aren't problems with democracy, it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.  And I certainly don't like our two party system.  But I will take a democracy over a facist regime, religious monarchy, oppressive dictatorship, or just about any other system out there.  What is your alternative?  I'm curious to know.
I'm urging you to reconsider treating every single person that doesn't share your worldview like garbage.  In this post alone, you've said that people that voted are being pandered to by base and paranoid instincts like they're neanderthals.  Like they're just rubes that aren't capable of their own critical thought unless it aligns with your vision.  You've called them smug, ignorant, and stupid.  Just heartwarming.  And the problem is that your attitude is not isolated to just you, it's shared by many people on the left that have been having a complete meltdown at anything Trump does.  I swear if Trump sneezed and didn't cover his nose it would be the main headline on CNN.  You are completely disenfranchising people that would elect Trump out of office in 2020, and instead helping to secure him a second term.  Have you noticed how Trump's approval rating has been on a steady incline since the start of this year?

[Fireball]

Meh. There are worse things to be than a radical centrist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

Right? Oh, the horror!

Nevertheless, I maintain that 'radical centrism' is a grotesque abuse of language, even if it is a program of action I can get behind.

Agreed, "radical" in this context is inflammatory, to say the least. Here are people trying to develop a rational solution, and they are called "radical".     Just more bad rhetoric.

[Amarok]

It's not antagonism toward criticism. I don't even consider myself centrist, as much as I consider myself not left or right. I'm literally curious about what you mean because I don't understand your meaning.

Of course centrists can be vicious. People are vicious. What I'm saying is that I don't feel compelled to excuse any shitty behavior because of the side I'm on, because I am on no side. I don't have to defend Trump or Fonda, because neither are my teammates.

What's wrong with centrism? What's wrong with radical centrism? Nothing. It just isn't the left, so you can't possibly be okay with it. It's funny that my criticism is only against far right and left big mouths, but you took it personally. Do you think what I say applies to you?

1. I mean centerism is a position it's not simply not a position or not on a team it is a political philosophy in it's own right . And some people who ascribe to that philosophy act as bad as the people they criticize . So my comment that i'm just as sick of centrists reflects that . 

2. I was saying to Road who was say he was tired of the left and rights tactics .I replied i'm just as sick of the same of centrist .I don't know how much simpler i can make it.

3. If you not a centrist why the heck are debating me on centrism for ?

4.What's wrong with centrism well considering political philosophers and commentators  have been pecking away at it for over century plenty . Some criticize it for being Self defeating ,Vague ,Inconsistent,Wishy washy ,Indecisive,That  throughout the 20th century it has been a buffer for violent ideologies and ironically enough in it's radical form with thinkers like Noel Pearson's ,Divisive, Out of touch,Idealist, Borderline elitist .So their is far from nothing wrong with it . 


5.I couldn't care less that's not the left nor do i take it personally i don't know were you get that idea from ?

---

Meh. There are worse things to be than a radical centrist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

You did read the criticism section right ? 

And really only a wikipedia article

---

Meh. There are worse things to be than a radical centrist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

Right? Oh, the horror!

Nevertheless, I maintain that 'radical centrism' is a grotesque abuse of language, even if it is a program of action I can get behind.

1. You did read the criticism section right and the links and really again wikipedia ?

2. No it's not it's a perfectly valid use of the  word

---

I find this hilarious that one off hand comment to road about how i'm just just as sick of centrists being jerks somehow manifested into a controversy

---

Right? Oh, the horror!

Nevertheless, I maintain that 'radical centrism' is a grotesque abuse of language, even if it is a program of action I can get behind.

Agreed, "radical" in this context is inflammatory, to say the least. Here are people trying to develop a rational solution, and they are called "radical".     Just more bad rhetoric.

You did read the post right were they explain that

---

Right? Oh, the horror!

Nevertheless, I maintain that 'radical centrism' is a grotesque abuse of language, even if it is a program of action I can get behind.

Agreed, "radical" in this context is inflammatory, to say the least. Here are people trying to develop a rational solution, and they are called "radical".     Just more bad rhetoric.

You did read the post were they state why it's radical compared to other forms of centerism .

[Crossless2.0]

---

Right? Oh, the horror!

Nevertheless, I maintain that 'radical centrism' is a grotesque abuse of language, even if it is a program of action I can get behind.

1. You did read the criticism section right and the links and really again wikipedia ?

2. No it's not it's a perfectly valid use of the  word

---

I find this hilarious that one off hand comment to road about how i'm just just as sick of centrists being jerks somehow manifested into a controversy

Again, Wikipedia? Wasn't my source. *shrug* And, yes, I read the article. Am I supposed to be surprised that an 'ism' has flaws and invites healthy criticism?

I had never heard of 'radical centrism' -- had never thought any creature would think to string those words together. Radical (going to the root of something) in what respect? Centrism, characterized in part by a pragmatic approach to political action? Whatever you and some political scientists may think, the phrase is a conceptual muddle. I'm going to have to disagree with (2).

[Amarok]

Fair enough i'm just saying it far from some totality of criticism. Nor did i say that it should not .As for the definition they cover that pretty well but your free to disagree .

The "radical" in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[3] The "centrism" refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion.[4] Thus one radical centrist text defines radical centrism as "idealism without illusions",[5] a phrase originally from John F. Kennedy.[6]

[Shell B]

Haha, the criticisms are nothing.

[RoadRunner79]

Once again; I think that the Babalon Bee satire site about sums up my previous comment about being tired of the BS from both sides.

Opinion: It’s Important To Hear Blatant Lies From Both Sides Before Forming Your Opinion On Any Political Issue

https://babylonbee.com/news/opinion-its-...cal-issue/

This is a crisis. Voters are going to the polls having been manipulated by only one side, scared into voting by one set of myopic irrational fears and not hearing the alternative nonsense that could have resulted in an equally uninformed vote in another direction. Everyone is increasingly comfortable with “their” hyperbolic trolls, seeing only one side as basically Hitler instead of recognizing the Hitler in everyone.

This has to end. People need to broaden the propaganda they listen to and be exposed to all the incorrect ways of looking at an issue. Listening to only one set of lies is part of what leads to all the destructive anger in our politics, but if people only opened up and really listened to all falsehoods, they could replace that anger with much healthier confusion.

[Amarok]

Haha, the criticisms are nothing.

It's far from nothing