"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

Red Baron Farms said:
I write for a couple conservative spaces at Quora. Here is an example:

What do right wing people consider racist?
Click to expand...


Regardless of whether you think race is a thing or not, discrimination against people on the basis of their religion or skin colour is what the current Party of Trump do. I refuse to call this current GOP "conservatives". They are not. Conservativism, at least for me, has always been about fairness and equality and the right to live your life free of government interference, regardless of your skin colour, or your religious persuasion... if any. Conservative Presidents in the past have always talked about how America is a nation for the people, and nation of Laws, a nation built on immigrants.

From President Ronald Reagan's final speech, Jan 19,1989.

"We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people -- our strength -- from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.

While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost."
It is bold men and women, yearning for freedom and opportunity, who leave their homelands and come to a new country to start their lives over. They believe in the American dream. And over and over, they make it come true for themselves, for their children, and for others.

They give more than they receive. They labor and succeed. And often they are entrepreneurs. But their greatest contribution is more than economic, because they understand in a special way how glorious it is to be an American. They renew our pride and gratitude in the United States of America, the greatest, freest nation in the world -- the last, best hope of man on Earth.​

How prophetic those words! How far the GOP has strayed from their roots! They have betrayed every principle they have ever stood for by allowing Trump to remake them in his image.
 
smartcooky said:
Regardless of whether you think race is a thing or not, discrimination against people on the basis of their religion or skin colour is what the current Party of Trump do. I refuse to call this current GOP "conservatives". They are not. Conservativism, at least for me, has always been about fairness and equality and the right to live your life free of government interference, regardless of your skin colour, or your religious persuasion... if any. Conservative Presidents in the past have always talked about how America is a nation for the people, and nation of Laws, a nation built on immigrants.

From President Ronald Reagan's final speech, Jan 19,1989.

"We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people -- our strength -- from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.

While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost."
It is bold men and women, yearning for freedom and opportunity, who leave their homelands and come to a new country to start their lives over. They believe in the American dream. And over and over, they make it come true for themselves, for their children, and for others.

They give more than they receive. They labor and succeed. And often they are entrepreneurs. But their greatest contribution is more than economic, because they understand in a special way how glorious it is to be an American. They renew our pride and gratitude in the United States of America, the greatest, freest nation in the world -- the last, best hope of man on Earth.​

How prophetic those words! How far the GOP has strayed from their roots! They have betrayed every principle they have ever stood for by allowing Trump to remake them in his image.
Click to expand...
I like that quote. I may use it!
 
The Great Zaganza said:
From your article, some dispute that Weld is a Republican.
Click to expand...
Sure they do, for the same reason I dispute Trump is...except he has been a loyal Republican since before the Neolibs hijacked the party away from conservatives.....

Oh and BTW. Look who said it for context:
"He's not even a Republican," argued Mike McKenna, an energy lobbyist who briefly served in 2016 as the head of Trump's transition team for the Department of Energy.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the definition of corruption when you let special interest groups run the executive branch of the government. I consider this high praise considering the source. In fact this may just be a great example of what I constantly fight against from both parties,

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
Click to expand...

Although I am usually grousing about agricultural regulatory capture, no doubt there is a case to be made for Dept of Energy as well.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
So this means you do see what I am talking about? You see the logic chain now?
Click to expand...

I see that while there are some Republicans leading the charge against Climate Change, I also see that there are damn few. They are an extreme minority in the party.

Now, do you see what I am talking about? Do you see the logic chain now? If not, here's a little more help for ya:

85% of Republicans Reject That Climate Change Is a Serious Problem That Requires Action
Click to expand...


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25725055/climate-change-poll-republicans-americans-nbc-news/
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Sure they do, for the same reason I dispute Trump is...except he has been a loyal Republican since before the Neolibs hijacked the party away from conservatives.....

<snip>
Click to expand...


You use this term fairly often. Its historical usages seem to have gone through several sometimes mutually contradictory changes since its coinage over a century ago.

Would you mind providing the definition you are using when you employ the term?

Thanks in advance.
 
Upchurch said:
Oh, them crocodile tears.

They're merely repeating Trump's own message. It didn't bother him so much at the time, did it? He didn't say anything when it happened, did he?
Click to expand...

Yea what is the big deal really, it wasn't a problem when it was politically active school kids in 2016 after all.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/students-chant-build-wall-middle-school-cafeteria-day/story?id=43451771

Chanting the latest Trump talking point was always a part of these rallies and why should that change now?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
If privacy isn't relative, why did you bring it up?

If it's supposedly the limited exposure, like your example of talking to a single person, you are also wrong. FB reaches far and wide because you don't control who your 'friends' tell. And that spreads out like the neutrons in a bomb.
Click to expand...

The term "expectation of privacy" has a particular legal meaning. It has to do with whether or not police can monitor (in this case) Facebook posts without a warrant, even those that are on "private" pages. They can.

I was referring to private postings in the non-legal sense. Those can be read only by Friends, Friends of Friends and let us now add police conducting surveillance and hackers interested in the page, if you insist. That's still not publicly accessible in the relevant sense. The cop wasn't broadcasting for all the world to see. His post was easily seen by a small number of readers, namely Friends and Friends of Friends. The odds that his comment that AOC deserves to be shot would result in someone shooting her is quite small.
 
johnny karate said:
You didn’t answer my question:


I’m legitimately curious to know what specifically would tell you that a threat of violence against you or a loved one from a police officer merits casual dismissal.
Click to expand...

Context, of course. If the comment she should be shot includes a humorous (though insulting) reference to her previous career and if it was made in a private context, I would not view it as a serious threat on her life. If it was made in public, or about a private citizen not in the public eye (so that the deeply expressed annoyance would be genuinely difficult to explain, making the post more mysterious), or made in what appears to be a serious manner, etc., I would take it as a real threat.

See, you and I both know how to use context to interpret writing. The various features I've mentioned are why I don't think that this was a genuine threat. I'm sure that there are other features that do not come readily to mind.

I think reasonable folk can disagree with my assessment that this was not a serious threat, or at least conclude that it is not obvious one way or the other. Indeed, I'd reevaluate if new information came to light and I know that I could be wrong to dismiss the cop's post.

But this was a post by a guy seriously irritated because he wrongly thought AOC complained soldiers are paid too much. That was the context of the writing. I find it very unlikely that he literally meant someone should shoot AOC.
 
Sideroxylon said:
“She is so vile she should be shot.”
Click to expand...

This is not the same as literally saying he would shoot her.

I'm really not interested in any further discussion of whether this was a serious threat or not. The question in this thread is whether Trump's rhetoric of late has inspired any legitimate threats. This particular post has no obvious connection to the "go back to your miserable countries" tweets and comments by Trump, so this discussion is going off the rails.

I'm not at all saying that Trump's rhetoric isn't dangerous. I believe it is. I just don't believe that this event is evidence one way or the other. There's no sign that this guy posted what he did because of Trump. The proximate cause was a bit of fake news found online.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I'm pretty sure we've been over this in numerous threads. No, you can't link one statement of incitement to one display of political violence.

I'm sure that reasoning helps some people sleep at night, but that's also completely missing the point.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that Trump's rhetoric, recently and even earlier, is dangerous. The New Zealand shooter was almost certainly influenced by it, even though he complained that Trump doesn't go far enough.

But this is a thread about Trump's "Love it or leave it" xenophobia, which has no clear, direct connection to the cop, in the same way that AOC's use of the phrase "concentration camps" has no clear, direct connection to the incident Zig raised.
 
phiwum said:
The question in this thread is whether Trump's rhetoric of late has inspired any legitimate threats.
Click to expand...

Maybe already mentioned upthread, but...

Regarding how to stop Hillary, if elected, from nominating liberal Supreme Court judges, Trump said this to a booing crowd:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

This sort of vague, conditional pondering about what could or should or might happen is unlikely to cross the line into criminality. First Amendment and all that. But it certainly condones such actions, or at least put them forth as options. Despicable, whether illegal or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom