Dangerous politic climate

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let me get this straight. You think I should not bring up any negative facts or opinions I have on Booker, because he was the recipient of a mail bomb?

Can I not condemn the mail bomb and, quite separately (as I make no connection), express my views?

Booker is currently trying to become the next POTUS. His receiving any threat of violence is abominable. That might get him deserved sympathy, but it does not give him a pass.

You can express your opinion. I haven't said I feel otherwise. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Booker. I was critical of Booker in the Dem Primary thread. I am objecting to hyperbolic disagreement like claiming Booker advocated violence when didn't. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

You can express your opinion. I haven't said I feel otherwise. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Booker. I was critical of Booker in the Dem Primary thread. I am objecting to hyperbolic disagreement like claiming Booker advocated violence when didn't. 

 I claimed he was inciting others to harass. He suggested others should "get in the faces" of Republican Senators.

If you equate this fact to advocating violence, then why are you claiming he wasn't?

26 minutes ago, rangerx said:

No, that's not what was said at all. In fact nobody suggested it.

Ten oz seemed to suggest that I attacked Booker by my pointing out the fact that he had made a call to harass Republican Senators, and that maybe some self reflection was in order for my having done so...given the fact that Booker himself had been the recipient of a violent threat.

I don't know how else to interpret it, but did ask for clarification. 

[rangerx]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 I claimed he was inciting others to harass. He suggested others should "get in the faces" of Republican Senators.

If you equate this fact to advocating violence, then why are you claiming he wasn't?

Ten oz seemed to suggest that I attacked Booker by my pointing out the fact that he had made a call to harass Republican Senators, and that maybe some self reflection was in order for my having done so...given the fact that Booker himself had been the recipient of a violent threat.

I don't know how else to interpret it, but did ask for clarification. 

So how many people stocked up an arsenal, mailed bombs or attacked media outlets based on Booker's rhetoric?

Equating protest (which is a constitutional right) to terrorist violence is seriously f'd up, dude.

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Is it possible that democrats denounced some of these attacks, rather than saying, oh, I don't know, something about having good people on both sides?

Oh, so if Democrats denounce the violence, then they're all good.

ALright. Republicans have denounced almost every single attack, including the one where pipe bombs were sent. 

So they're all good.

Glad we can agree, so let's move on.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

People have been calling AOC a witch, and there is a biblical verse about calling for the death of witches. Do you think the people spreading that story are unaware of the connection?

People have been calling Trump "Hitler" and "Worse than Osama Bin Laden."

Do you think people spreading those stories are unaware of the connection?

If people calling AOC are actually trying to call for her to be killed, then so are the people calling Trump Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, the whole lot of them should be thrown in jail.

 

However, that doesn't fit your narrative. It's only one-sided where Republicans are advocating violence against Democrats.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Pointing to “other sides” ignores the actual underlying problem. It’s the wrong conversation to have and is a distraction.

 

Pointing to "other sides" in direct response to a statement "It's only their side, not ours" is pointing out the hypocrisy that is there.

The key to solving the underlying problem of those inciting violence is to acknowledge the problem exists, instead of denying it where it's not in your favor.

I agree, a lot of what these people are saying is wrong. I haven't said it wasn't. I don't think anybody here is. But the fact that it's supposedly one side is utterly false, and I will point it out. 

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Rand Paul's neighbor attacked him over domestic issues the two had with each other. It had nothing to do with politics or the media. Your examples are just whataboutism.

1

Ah. One example was incorrect. Clearly, all 550 of them were just whataboutism. 

[Ten oz]

47 minutes ago, rangerx said:

So how many people stocked up an arsenal, mailed bombs or attacked media outlets based on Booker's rhetoric?

Equating protest (which is a constitutional right) to terrorist violence is seriously f'd up, dude.

Right, there is obviously rhetoric going around which is leading to an increase in hate groups and domestic terrorism. Democrats are literally being targeted for assassination. Those who support and listen to Booker, AOC, or any of the other Democrats most often complained about aren't trying to kill anyone. 

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Especially when a so-called president calls the media "an enemy of the people", it's no surprise that partisan malcontents will take up arms.

President calls the media an enemy of the people.

It's inciting violence.

Media makes jokes like "Where's John Wilke's Booth when you need him?" 

It's freedom of speech.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

51 minutes ago, rangerx said:

So how many people stocked up an arsenal, mailed bombs or attacked media outlets based on Booker's rhetoric?

Equating protest (which is a constitutional right) to terrorist violence is seriously f'd up, dude.

Ten oz brought up Holder and Booker. I made sure to not equate their divisive, and in Booker's case inciteful, rhetoric with actual terrorist violence, or even suggest a call for it.

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Booker and Holder called for the harassment of Republican Senators. Justify it as you like, but don't claim I misrepresented it.

Sayoc sent pipe bombs in the mail. No where did I claim Booker or Holder were advocates of that level of violence.

As usual, it is not all or none. More Americans need to recognize that in their speech.

Based on that as I read it I wouldn't say it should be excluded. I see that as quite different from can I "link this attack to rhetoric coming from politicians", that I replied no to.

The nut jobs are the danger. No reasonable person is going to run out and kill someone based on current political rhetoric.

Does Cesar Sayoc not fit your definition of a "nut job"?

 

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Pointing to "other sides" in direct response to a statement "It's only their side, not ours" is pointing out the hypocrisy that is there.

It fascinates me that you assumed I was talking to you despite not quoting anyone. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, there is obviously rhetoric going around which is leading to an increase in hate groups and domestic terrorism. Democrats are literally being targeted for assassination. Those who support and listen to Booker, AOC, or any of the other Democrats most often complained about aren't trying to kill anyone. 

In the link I gave the perpetrator was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Are you suggesting some blame should go to him?

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

It fascinates me that you assumed I was talking to you despite not quoting anyone. 

So you were talking to Ten Oz? He was the only person who said anything prior to me.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So you were talking to Ten Oz? He was the only person who said anything prior to me.

Both of you and more. You either understand my point or you don’t. 

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ten oz brought up Holder and Booker. I made sure to not equate their divisive, and in Booker's case inciteful, rhetoric with actual terrorist violence, or even suggest a call for it. 

You may not have said in those terms, but you continue to suggest Booker is inciting something untoward to counter the discussion. If that were true, just exactly what is it he's supposedly inciting. Protest? Anti-patriotism?

You did however bring up the baseball shooting, which was done in total absence of rhetorical indoctrination as though it was.

Even if Booker dropped dead before morning, Trump and his minions would still be doing the same thing and your ilk would silent as the crypt. It's only because liberals were implicated in some minuscule way that you'd mention it at all.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You may not have said in those terms, but you continue to suggest Booker is inciting something untoward to counter the discussion. If that were true, just exactly what is it he's supposedly inciting. Protest? Anti-patriotism?

You did however bring up the baseball shooting, which was done in total absence of rhetorical indoctrination as though it was.

Even if Booker dropped dead before morning, Trump and his minions would still be doing the same thing and your ilk would silent as the crypt. It's only because liberals were implicated in some minuscule way that you'd mention it at all.

 

Was. It was one particular incident. I did not bring it up in this thread. Ten oz did, and made the claim that Booker qualified it in the same speech to be nothing illegal or violent (I am pretty sure that was not the case, but would be more than happy to be corrected, as it would make me feel less malice was intended by Booker)

Booker was trying to incite mob protest, for political motivations. It was reckless, but not an explicit call to violence, never mind terrorism.

I don't expect to see the same from him during his run for POTUS. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think he is both better and smarter than that.

But that doesn't change the fact that he did what he did.

21 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Even if Booker dropped dead before morning, Trump and his minions would still be doing the same thing and your ilk would silent as the crypt. It's only because liberals were implicated in some minuscule way that you'd mention it at all.
 

Could you drop the personal attacks?

Thanks.

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Booker was trying to incite mob protest, for political motivations. It was reckless, but not an explicit call to violence, never mind terrorism.

I don't expect to see the same from him during his run for POTUS. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think he is both better and smarter than that.

But that doesn't change the fact that he did what he did.

Mob protest? That's little more than an over the top politically charged talking point that rolls off your tongue at every turn, yet you have the audacity to tell everyone else to tone it down?

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Mob protest? That's little more than an over the top politically charged talking point that rolls off your tongue at every turn, yet you have the audacity to tell everyone else to tone it down?

Allow me to rephrase. He tried to incite a lot of people to get in the faces of Republican Senators and shout at them in an unruly manner.

Fair?

[iNow]

Just so I’m clear, you’re suggesting shouting in support of a principle is the same as calling specific people enemies, correct?

[rangerx]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Allow me to rephrase. He tried to incite a lot of people to get in the faces of Republican Senators and shout at them in an unruly manner.

Fair?

Unruly is a stretch, no less a call to violence (that's being harped incessantly by republicans). A totally fake assertion that gets a free pass from you, lest you'd have mentioned it.

By your own admission, Booker is introspective yet you've still managed to frame him as insidious to the OP in the same breath.

Republicans by and large, have zero introspect, nada contrition and zilcho accountability for the incitement that caused a Coast Guard officer to amass an arsenal of weapons and a plot to kill liberal politicians and objective journalists.

Like I said, even if Booker dropped dead, republicans would not change their position on the matter one iota.

Edited February 21, 2019 by rangerx

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This stuff has been exacerbated by Trump specifically and those who support him. The leaders in question have names. This climate isn't being stoked by all our leaders. This stuff needs to be addressed directly if it is ever to improve. 

That’s fair. The FBI clearly spends more time investigating right wing terrorism than left. Also, Trump knows what he’s doing and so long as it keeps people watching he doesn’t care.  

Edited February 21, 2019 by iNow

[Raider5678]

57 minutes ago, rangerx said:

That's little more than an over the top politically charged talking point that rolls off your tongue at every turn,

Your definition of politically charged is telling the truth?

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, Trump knows what he’s doing and so long as it keeps people watching he doesn’t care.  

Nor do the majority of his followers, even though Trump is the root cause for a new brand of domestic terrorism. Heaven forbid it would be the second cousin of a brother-in-law who happened to speak to someone once who was in business with a Muslim, they'd be screaming from the rooftops. Trump throws the T-word out in his wall rhetoric, travel bans, trade wars, energy policies et al, yet when it comes to white supremacy or homegrown hate, nary a peep.

Even though public officials and journalists were targeted for terror,  there's no additional charges at this time.

As it stands, America has hamstrung itself by it's own inability to recognize, no less deal with domestic terrorism.

That's very troubling.

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Your definition of politically charged is telling the truth?

Truth what? Your truth that any protest by liberals is an unruly mob?

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Trump is the root cause for a new brand of domestic terrorism.

I suppose this hinges on what you mean by new brand, but domestic terrorism existed long before Trump. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t made it worse or conveyed perceptions that he sanctions more of it.  

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I suppose this hinges on what you mean by new brand, but domestic terrorism existed long before Trump. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t made it worse or conveyed perceptions that he sanctions more of it.  

It's true, it did exist already. Stemming from broad interpretations of things like 1st and 2nd amendment issues (for example),  but this new brand is based around Trump's rhetoric itself. Couple that with his total silence on the matter (at least up to this point). As the supposed leader, he's setting the example that domestic terror is not even worthy of a public comment.

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Truth what? Your truth that any protest by liberals is an unruly mob?

We aren't the straw men you seem to desire. Try being accurate.

The claim was with regard to Bookers call to harass Republican Senators. Something that was already going on at that point in time.

If you can't base your argument on what is actually stated...maybe you need a better argument? Because the one you are using frankly does not fit.

The fact Booker called for "in your face" harassment of Republican Senators is a fact...the suggestion that any protest by liberals is an unruly mob is a confabulation...by you...it's clearly not true, so why suggest it here?

 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The claim was with regard to Bookers call to harass Republican Senators.

Yes. He one time said we should speak out with passion against letting a guy with multiple credible rape claims from having a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

That's different from what’s being discussed here in this thread. Time to move off this point.

Here are some of Trumps calls for violence. It’s 4 months old so the list today has only grown. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-trump-comments-perceived-encouraging-violence/story?id=48415766

Quote

President Donald Trump on Thursday praised a congressman’s past assault on a reporter, making it the latest example where he appears to encourage or support violence.

...

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on the day of the Iowa caucuses, for instance, he told audience members he would pay their legal fees if they engaged in violence against protesters.

...

At a Las Vegas rally later that month, he said security guards were too gentle with a protester. "He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing," Trump said. "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."

A similar situation unfolded at a rally that month in Warren, Michigan.

"Get him out," he said of a protester. "Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it."

...

federal Judge David Hale rejected that argument in April 2017 and said there was sufficient evidence that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's comments

I haven’t shared them all. There were too many. 

Regardless, it’s beyond time to move off the Booker narrative, and I couldn’t care less who started it. You’re not in kindergarten. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by iNow

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The fact Booker called for "in your face" harassment of Republican Senators is a fact...the suggestion that any protest by liberals is an unruly mob is a confabulation...by you...it's clearly not true, so why suggest it here?

Because you have underlain your comments with it. I refuted it. Make cringe worthy comments, you'll draw comments. But no,  instead you'd rather censor me, even blame me for what you say.

Fail.

Bait and switch BS

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I know an attack on Republicans doesn't fit your narrative, but does this not count?

Then of course, there's your usual MO of opening with an assertion before even making your point.

As though the OP (and the author) are a false narrative.

The Booker example is grasping at straws and little else. A false narrative. A false equivalent.