prove me wrong

[lsz]

I think you’ve misunderstood what I posted, which is ironic.

I am not sure I understand much of what you post

 

[Brookie1973]

I am not sure I understand much of what you post

I was simply making the point that depending on which end of the spectrum you get your news from, this guy is either a right wing MAGA or the boyfriend of a transgender who was rebelling against his conservative family.

 

[manlyfan76]

Nice selective reading skills you got there. Would the fascist stuff or the furry references inscribed be something a lefty would say?

 

[h27272727]

I was just using Rubios X message to satisfy SER8s need for examples ie a small subset of a wider population which encompassed the entire Obama presidency.

I know Obama is an untouchable/above criticism from those on the left, and your “vindications” are obviously framed from that perspective, so I can see it’s pointless pushing that case here. Rest assured, conservatives have a very different view of Obamas role in instigating the current political discord both in the US and in the west more generally.

It's ok if you don't agree with my assessment. But it is certainly not pointless to properly expand on why. I don't agree Obama is above criticism at all, nor did my post say anything about Obama's performance as president. If it appears that way I'd say it's likely more due to discontent over aging presidents and the blatant corruption / criminality associated with Trump (percieved to be unfathomable in previous eras of US politics). I did compliment the nature of political debates at the time. The only compliment on Obama was provided by Republican candidate Romney (to show that he doesn't harbour animosity against Obama long after his presidency).

The below summarises the arguments and walks you through the steps I took to evaluate each claim. Any information I introduced was done so only as it was relevant in assessing the claim at hand. If you want to address particular lines, I am more than willing to hear you out. Also, if there are instances where you strongly believe I demonstrated bias, then that would be good to address as well.

The claim: 'Obama also demonstrated Trump's use of violent political rhetoric to divide and demonise minority groups and/or political opponents'.

Evaluation of implied arguments (A):
A1.1 People opposed to same sex marriage were unfairly labelled bigots by Obama

​

Defined bigot. Identified two viable reasons for opposing same-sex marriage views. Reasons identified were i) intolerance (personal belief), and ii) religious views. Reason i) meets bigot criteria according to its definition. Reason ii) convoluted due to the grey area between religious moral beliefs and intolerance. Considered that even if religious people may have valid religious reasons to oppose same-sex views, the underlying religious teachings are reasonably described as intolerant or bigoted. Did not identify further reasons extending beyond religious or personal intolerance.​

A1.2. And this was an attack on Republicans.

Quote not found to explicitly reference Republicans. Stances on the topic predominately based on religious views as opposed to political affiliation. No group was mentioned in the quote except people 'bigoted' (intolerant to) same-sex relations. Concluded that due to the above factors it is not a legitimate example of violent political rhetoric.​

​

A2. The 'war on women' political slogan wrongfully suggests Republicans plan to take away women's rights.

Sourced a definition on the 'war on women' political slogan. Slogan was not found to originate from Obama (has ties to 90s, popularised by critics of George Bush). Looked for instances of Republicans improving women's rights since Obama. Looked for examples against. Used Trump's quote promising to purposely rig the supreme court to overturn Roe v Wade (1973). Noted Trump's plan worked in repealing women rights to abortion (2022) - senate pushed it to the states. 14 Republican states and 0 Democrat states remove the right to abortion. Touched on the stricter ideas supported by elements of the Republican party (Hegeseth, for example). Concluded that the Republicans did not improve women's rights, nor did they keep them the same. They did, however, take away key women's rights that had been granted for 49 years. Also haven't touched on the Trump admin's derogatory undertones with their rhetoric on 'DEI'​

​

A3. - did not find any information on what the quote was -

A4. Obama told Latino's that Republicans were their enemy

On first view, agreed this resembled a Trump-style attack. Researched the context of the quote. Identified that Obama clarified the quote a month after making it. Obama claimed he was warning Latino's that future Republican administrations will enact immigration policies targeting ethnic minorities such themselves. Considered the merits to this claim based on subsequent events. Throughout 2016-2024, political rhetoric increasingly radical; increased use of terms such as 'illegal aliens'. ICE since been permitted to racially profile. Unlawful detention and deportation widespread in 2025. Republican party removed the right for due process and 70% of victims were found to be legal during a 10 day study in LA (and Latinos disproportionately fear deportation). Republicans ignored court orders deeming ICE actions unlawful. Data of deportation by race/ethnicity is not readily available at this stage, although both you and I would agree that Latino's are disproportionately affected. Concluded that Obama's statement has likely come to fruition. i.e. Not unreasonable given subsequent rhetoric and policy (including policy deemed unlawful).​

 

[Cliffycomeback]

I apologise to any and all who I have annoyed, insulted or engaged in with in a way that caused anger.

View attachment 31261

Give it up mate. Even our local media is now conceding that he lived with a transgender boyfriend/girlfriend. He was clearly left aligned not that it really matters. It's a terrible event that has taken the life of a husband and father who never displayed any violence toward others. Sadly, this is indicative of the divisive spirit now sweeping the earth. People no longer seem to feel empathy. Rather they celebrate murder and rejoice at the suffering of others.

I fear things are about to be turned upside down for many around the world

 

[Eagle 1]

It's ok if you don't agree with my assessment. But it is certainly not pointless to properly expand on why. I don't agree Obama is above criticism at all, nor did my post say anything about Obama's performance as president. If it appears that way I'd say it's likely more due to discontent over aging presidents and the blatant corruption / criminality associated with Trump (percieved to be unfathomable in previous eras of US politics). I did compliment the nature of political debates at the time. The only compliment on Obama was provided by Republican candidate Romney (to show that he doesn't harbour animosity against Obama long after his presidency).

The below summarises the arguments and walks you through the steps I took to evaluate each claim. Any information I introduced was done so only as it was relevant in assessing the claim at hand. If you want to address particular lines, I am more than willing to hear you out. Also, if there are instances where you strongly believe I demonstrated bias, then that would be good to address as well.

The claim: 'Obama also demonstrated Trump's use of violent political rhetoric to divide and demonise minority groups and/or political opponents'.

Evaluation of implied arguments (A):
A1.1 People opposed to same sex marriage were unfairly labelled bigots by Obama

​

Defined bigot. Identified two viable reasons for opposing same-sex marriage views. Reasons identified were i) intolerance (personal belief), and ii) religious views. Reason i) meets bigot criteria according to its definition. Reason ii) convoluted due to the grey area between religious moral beliefs and intolerance. Considered that even if religious people may have valid religious reasons to oppose same-sex views, the underlying religious teachings are reasonably described as intolerant or bigoted. Did not identify further reasons extending beyond religious or personal intolerance.​

A1.2. And this was an attack on Republicans.

Quote not found to explicitly reference Republicans. Stances on the topic predominately based on religious views as opposed to political affiliation. No group was mentioned in the quote except people 'bigoted' (intolerant to) same-sex relations. Concluded that due to the above factors it is not a legitimate example of violent political rhetoric.​

​

A2. The 'war on women' political slogan wrongfully suggests Republicans plan to take away women's rights.

Sourced a definition on the 'war on women' political slogan. Slogan was not found to originate from Obama (has ties to 90s, popularised by critics of George Bush). Looked for instances of Republicans improving women's rights since Obama. Looked for examples against. Used Trump's quote promising to purposely rig the supreme court to overturn Roe v Wade (1973). Noted Trump's plan worked in repealing women rights to abortion (2022) - senate pushed it to the states. 14 Republican states and 0 Democrat states remove the right to abortion. Touched on the stricter ideas supported by elements of the Republican party (Hegeseth, for example). Concluded that the Republicans did not improve women's rights, nor did they keep them the same. They did, however, take away key women's rights that had been granted for 49 years. Also haven't touched on the Trump admin's derogatory undertones with their rhetoric on 'DEI'​

​

A3. - did not find any information on what the quote was -

A4. Obama told Latino's that Republicans were their enemy

On first view, agreed this resembled a Trump-style attack. Researched the context of the quote. Identified that Obama clarified the quote a month after making it. Obama claimed he was warning Latino's that future Republican administrations will enact immigration policies targeting ethnic minorities such themselves. Considered the merits to this claim based on subsequent events. Throughout 2016-2024, political rhetoric increasingly radical; increased use of terms such as 'illegal aliens'. ICE since been permitted to racially profile. Unlawful detention and deportation widespread in 2025. Republican party removed the right for due process and 70% of victims were found to be legal during a 10 day study in LA (and Latinos disproportionately fear deportation). Republicans ignored court orders deeming ICE actions unlawful. Data of deportation by race/ethnicity is not readily available at this stage, although both you and I would agree that Latino's are disproportionately affected. Concluded that Obama's statement has likely come to fruition. i.e. Not unreasonable given subsequent rhetoric and policy (including policy deemed unlawful).​

It's ok if you don't agree with my assessment. But it is certainly not pointless to properly expand on why. I don't agree Obama is above criticism at all, nor did my post say anything about Obama's performance as president. If it appears that way I'd say it's likely more due to discontent over aging presidents and the blatant corruption / criminality associated with Trump (percieved to be unfathomable in previous eras of US politics). I did compliment the nature of political debates at the time. The only compliment on Obama was provided by Republican candidate Romney (to show that he doesn't harbour animosity against Obama long after his presidency).

The below summarises the arguments and walks you through the steps I took to evaluate each claim. Any information I introduced was done so only as it was relevant in assessing the claim at hand. If you want to address particular lines, I am more than willing to hear you out. Also, if there are instances where you strongly believe I demonstrated bias, then that would be good to address as well.

The claim: 'Obama also demonstrated Trump's use of violent political rhetoric to divide and demonise minority groups and/or political opponents'.

Evaluation of implied arguments (A):
A1.1 People opposed to same sex marriage were unfairly labelled bigots by Obama

​

Defined bigot. Identified two viable reasons for opposing same-sex marriage views. Reasons identified were i) intolerance (personal belief), and ii) religious views. Reason i) meets bigot criteria according to its definition. Reason ii) convoluted due to the grey area between religious moral beliefs and intolerance. Considered that even if religious people may have valid religious reasons to oppose same-sex views, the underlying religious teachings are reasonably described as intolerant or bigoted. Did not identify further reasons extending beyond religious or personal intolerance.​

A1.2. And this was an attack on Republicans.

Quote not found to explicitly reference Republicans. Stances on the topic predominately based on religious views as opposed to political affiliation. No group was mentioned in the quote except people 'bigoted' (intolerant to) same-sex relations. Concluded that due to the above factors it is not a legitimate example of violent political rhetoric.​

​

A2. The 'war on women' political slogan wrongfully suggests Republicans plan to take away women's rights.

Sourced a definition on the 'war on women' political slogan. Slogan was not found to originate from Obama (has ties to 90s, popularised by critics of George Bush). Looked for instances of Republicans improving women's rights since Obama. Looked for examples against. Used Trump's quote promising to purposely rig the supreme court to overturn Roe v Wade (1973). Noted Trump's plan worked in repealing women rights to abortion (2022) - senate pushed it to the states. 14 Republican states and 0 Democrat states remove the right to abortion. Touched on the stricter ideas supported by elements of the Republican party (Hegeseth, for example). Concluded that the Republicans did not improve women's rights, nor did they keep them the same. They did, however, take away key women's rights that had been granted for 49 years. Also haven't touched on the Trump admin's derogatory undertones with their rhetoric on 'DEI'​

​

A3. - did not find any information on what the quote was -

A4. Obama told Latino's that Republicans were their enemy

On first view, agreed this resembled a Trump-style attack. Researched the context of the quote. Identified that Obama clarified the quote a month after making it. Obama claimed he was warning Latino's that future Republican administrations will enact immigration policies targeting ethnic minorities such themselves. Considered the merits to this claim based on subsequent events. Throughout 2016-2024, political rhetoric increasingly radical; increased use of terms such as 'illegal aliens'. ICE since been permitted to racially profile. Unlawful detention and deportation widespread in 2025. Republican party removed the right for due process and 70% of victims were found to be legal during a 10 day study in LA (and Latinos disproportionately fear deportation). Republicans ignored court orders deeming ICE actions unlawful. Data of deportation by race/ethnicity is not readily available at this stage, although both you and I would agree that Latino's are disproportionately affected. Concluded that Obama's statement has likely come to fruition. i.e. Not unreasonable given subsequent rhetoric and policy (including policy deemed unlawful).​

Hey H27272727, just curious, have you have you ever written book. Some of your posts are epic.

 

[h27272727]

Hey H27272727, just curious, have you have you ever written book. Some of your posts are epic.

Thanks Eagle 1

Funnily enough I'm always a bit weary of the length of my posts on here... a book might be the answer !!

For my own good I think I would try stay away from political topics. Quietly hoping my current interest in US politics / politics in general is short-lived . Always been keen on history. I'd say that's one of the main factors sparking my interest here. Problem is I spend half the time wondering if im looking at history or looking for it.

 

[lsz]

Sorry I missed the reporting where it was stated he “lived with a trans person?”

The hate speech needs to stop

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967260885489156553

 

[Ohgeez]

View attachment 31261

Wow, this is easily the most embarrassing post in this thread lmao. You try put people on blast for not waiting until facts come out but will post this rubbish? 🤣 What a hypocrite.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

Hey H27272727, just curious, have you have you ever written book. Some of your posts are epic.

Sorry I missed the reporting where it was stated he “lived with a trans person?”

The hate speech needs to stop

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967260885489156553

My posts are the opposite of hate speech mate. The transgender partner thing is being widely reported in many left leaning media organisations. But as I said, it really doesn't matter if he was straight, gay, queer, patriotic, left, right or the child of illegal immigrants. What matters is that murder is being celebrated by many online and around the world. Rapper Bob Vylan is perfect case in point. Meanwhile, a husband and father has been shot dead in cold blood for having a different opinion.

 

[manlyfan76]

Wow, this is easily the most embarrassing post in this thread lmao. You try put people on blast for not waiting until facts come out but will post this rubbish? 🤣 What a hypocrite.

Your anti trans rant was rather embarrassing.

 

[lsz]

My posts are the opposite of hate speech mate. The transgender partner thing is being widely reported in many left leaning media organisations. But as I said, it really doesn't matter if he was straight, gay, queer, patriotic, left, right or the child of illegal immigrants. What matters is that murder is being celebrated by many online and around the world. Rapper Bob Vylan is perfect case in point. Meanwhile, a husband and father has been murdered in cold blood for having a different opinion.

Sorry, that was more of a general comment on hate speech.

As for the trans thing, fair call. I just saw that and I am, rightly or wrongly, very sceptical of any early reported information. I do not think we can state any motives from it.

Just like the murder being celebrated or those calling for revenge, each view is just as bad as the other for me.

Again, it is impossible to know for sure, but most of these cases tend to involve a lone person acting in a way that we never fully understand. Take the first attempted Trump assassination by Crooks. According to the FBI, there is no clear political motive.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-shooter-motive-fbi-00176614

He was a registered Republican but had also made a small donation to a Democratic-leaning cause.

When he was younger, he had posted online content that included violent and extreme themes, particularly in his teenage years, with anti-immigration and antisemitic elements.

So who knows? Was he upset Trump did not go far enough with some of his views? Was he upset at how far Trump had gone? Was he simply looking for “fame”?

What we do know is that people on the left are more likely to suffer from political violence. That does not mean it is caused by the right.

It is an overly complex issue and one that requires true leadership — something I feel confident in saying Trump is unable or unwilling to provide.

 

[Ohgeez]

Your anti trans rant was rather embarrassing.

Anti trans rant? What are you talking about? I literally posted what ABC News put out & cited them as a source. As I’ve already said if they got it wrong it’s on them as a news company with over 20 million followers not me. Keep posting the silly Reddit posts if it helps you cope.

 

[Brookie1973]

Sorry I missed the reporting where it was stated he “lived with a trans person?”

The hate speech needs to stop

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967260885489156553

Here is some reporting on the trans person fyi.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Don’t follow any of those guys, but I’d say the left essentially declared war years ago.

Do you agree with me that western culture is in terminal decline, thanks to “cultural totalitarianism”?

I'm not sure about terminal decline, but yes certainly I agree heading fast towards another crisis point.
But not thanks to 'cultural totalitarianism' (although I'd thank you to explain what you mean by that term?)
I suggest the escalating crisis is due once again to the fairly obvious contradictions in capitalism

Always been keen on history. I'd say that's one of the main factors sparking my interest here

Yes

 

[Cliffycomeback]

Anti trans rant? What are you talking about? I literally posted what ABC News put out & cited them as a source. As I’ve already said if they got it wrong it’s on them as a news company with over 20 million followers not me. Keep posting the silly Reddit posts if it helps you cope.

I literally went back to scroll through your posts because I thought I must have missed you ranting about trans people. You never did. He is delusional and a very big part of why the world is in the state it is. I suggest you report him mate. Accusing people of posting hate speech falsely should not be tolerated.

 

[Brookie1973]

I'm not sure about terminal decline, but yes certainly I agree heading fast towards another crisis point.
But not thanks to 'cultural totalitarianism' (although I'd thank you to explain what you mean by that term?)
I suggest the escalating crisis is due once again to the fairly obvious contradictions in capitalism


Yes

On cultural totalitarianism, see post #55.
Agreed there are definite contradictions in capitalism/democracies, but they will be resolved when we are all forced to conform in thinking and in action in the future Marxist utopia.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

On cultural totalitarianism, see post #55.
Agreed there are definite contradictions in capitalism/democracies, but they will be resolved when we are all forced to conform in thinking and in action in the future Marxist utopia.

post 55 is a video! I don't come here looking for videos to watch!
You're a very literate person, how about summarising what you mean in a couple of sentences?

 

[Brookie1973]

It's ok if you don't agree with my assessment. But it is certainly not pointless to properly expand on why. I don't agree Obama is above criticism at all, nor did my post say anything about Obama's performance as president. If it appears that way I'd say it's likely more due to discontent over aging presidents and the blatant corruption / criminality associated with Trump (percieved to be unfathomable in previous eras of US politics). I did compliment the nature of political debates at the time. The only compliment on Obama was provided by Republican candidate Romney (to show that he doesn't harbour animosity against Obama long after his presidency).

The below summarises the arguments and walks you through the steps I took to evaluate each claim. Any information I introduced was done so only as it was relevant in assessing the claim at hand. If you want to address particular lines, I am more than willing to hear you out. Also, if there are instances where you strongly believe I demonstrated bias, then that would be good to address as well.

The claim: 'Obama also demonstrated Trump's use of violent political rhetoric to divide and demonise minority groups and/or political opponents'.

Evaluation of implied arguments (A):
A1.1 People opposed to same sex marriage were unfairly labelled bigots by Obama

​

Defined bigot. Identified two viable reasons for opposing same-sex marriage views. Reasons identified were i) intolerance (personal belief), and ii) religious views. Reason i) meets bigot criteria according to its definition. Reason ii) convoluted due to the grey area between religious moral beliefs and intolerance. Considered that even if religious people may have valid religious reasons to oppose same-sex views, the underlying religious teachings are reasonably described as intolerant or bigoted. Did not identify further reasons extending beyond religious or personal intolerance.​

A1.2. And this was an attack on Republicans.

Quote not found to explicitly reference Republicans. Stances on the topic predominately based on religious views as opposed to political affiliation. No group was mentioned in the quote except people 'bigoted' (intolerant to) same-sex relations. Concluded that due to the above factors it is not a legitimate example of violent political rhetoric.​

​

A2. The 'war on women' political slogan wrongfully suggests Republicans plan to take away women's rights.

Sourced a definition on the 'war on women' political slogan. Slogan was not found to originate from Obama (has ties to 90s, popularised by critics of George Bush). Looked for instances of Republicans improving women's rights since Obama. Looked for examples against. Used Trump's quote promising to purposely rig the supreme court to overturn Roe v Wade (1973). Noted Trump's plan worked in repealing women rights to abortion (2022) - senate pushed it to the states. 14 Republican states and 0 Democrat states remove the right to abortion. Touched on the stricter ideas supported by elements of the Republican party (Hegeseth, for example). Concluded that the Republicans did not improve women's rights, nor did they keep them the same. They did, however, take away key women's rights that had been granted for 49 years. Also haven't touched on the Trump admin's derogatory undertones with their rhetoric on 'DEI'​

​

A3. - did not find any information on what the quote was -

A4. Obama told Latino's that Republicans were their enemy

On first view, agreed this resembled a Trump-style attack. Researched the context of the quote. Identified that Obama clarified the quote a month after making it. Obama claimed he was warning Latino's that future Republican administrations will enact immigration policies targeting ethnic minorities such themselves. Considered the merits to this claim based on subsequent events. Throughout 2016-2024, political rhetoric increasingly radical; increased use of terms such as 'illegal aliens'. ICE since been permitted to racially profile. Unlawful detention and deportation widespread in 2025. Republican party removed the right for due process and 70% of victims were found to be legal during a 10 day study in LA (and Latinos disproportionately fear deportation). Republicans ignored court orders deeming ICE actions unlawful. Data of deportation by race/ethnicity is not readily available at this stage, although both you and I would agree that Latino's are disproportionately affected. Concluded that Obama's statement has likely come to fruition. i.e. Not unreasonable given subsequent rhetoric and policy (including policy deemed unlawful).​

A.1.1 If I am reading what you are saying correctly, Obama was correct in calling opponents of same sex marriage bigots because even if they disagreed on religious grounds, their underlying religion must be bigoted, because they disagreed with same sex marriages. Putting aside the circular argument, if we define a “bigot” as “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ” (the first definition that pops up on google) then surely that term could quite rightly be applied to both sides. By definition, Obamas own statement is bigoted, as it conveys intolerance of those who differ.

And please, let’s not open the same sex marriage debate again here. I am ambivalent either way, but prefer people to be free to express their beliefs without fear of being defamed, particularly by a President who preached tolerance.

Put another way, people who oppose same sex marriages are bigots because they are intolerant of what others believe. Could that statement not also be true if we substitute “support” for “oppose”, per the definition? Again, I am making no value judgements here, just applying the same logic you seem to be applying to prove Obama was not divisive.

 

[Brookie1973]

post 55 is a video! I don't come here looking for videos to watch!
You're a very literate person, how about summarising what you mean in a couple of sentences?

Is there a reason I have to play by your rules? The lady in the video articulated it far better than I could. Does that mean I don’t deserve to share her view? The video isn’t that scary, I’m sure you can get through it.