I plan to cite the starting lineup of the 1978 Boston Bruins, myself. It’s possibly more relevant.
Why are you asking me? Procrustus is the one who thinks everything is okay, even when people get death threats. Or at least, sixteen year olds getting death threats for wearing hats with political slogans on them.
FTR, neither the sixteen year olds nor Dr. Ford should get death threats.
If there is nothing you can do about the nuts on your side, what makes you think I can do more about the nuts on mine?
Regards,
Shodan
So when that crazy Florida ex-stripper guy started sending bombs around the country to Trump’s political enemies, and we saw that his van was full of Trump stickers and whatnot, we lefties said, “Holy cow! This Trumpism is out of control!” We said that on the basis that he sent bombs to Trump’s political enemies and so on. I think it is pretty hard to believe that there’s no connection between his violence and Trumpism.
For these irresponsible Internet assholes who threaten people’s lives, who should I hold accountable for their inexcusable actions? Tell me, really. Warren? Obama? Jimmy Carter? Rosie O’Donnell? Nicolas Maduro? Che Guevara?
So maybe think about that the next time you think about starting a sentence with “liberals…” or “Democrats…” or “the left…”. It’s almost like the right leaning posters here are more interested in using this incident as a cudgel against the other side than actual real concern about these kids.
You should hold everyone accountable who says that support of the President is not merely a political position of which you disagree but hatred or fascism which needs to be excised from the discourse in regular society. When you do that, people get radical.
But you are right, you cannot control what the craziest person in the country might do because of your political position. Neither can Trump.
Because one guy that is a Trump supporter sent bombs, then that means that it is Trump’s fault that he sent bombs. What are you at about 3 of 47,000,000 Trump voters that have bombed people? That is absurd logic and I know you can do better than that.
However, many more on your side have lost your minds. They see a two minute snippet of a video of a 16 year old kid smirking. Does that cause sadness or a shaking of the head, or someone needs to reach out to this kid, or God forbid, let’s watch the rest of the video for clarity. No, there is a unanimity of opinion, not among radicals, but among the media like CNN who decries the act as terrible. A rush to judgment because of preconceived notions.
And instead of recognizing the wrong, most posters in this thread have the anti-American, anti-democratic ideal that because he wore a hat with the President’s campaign slogan on it, that he invited any ill which might come to him. You have to admit how horrific that is. You simply have to. You’re a smart guy.
Do you understand that if Bob and Jeff are both liberals, and Bob says X, while Jeff says, Y, that’s not actually hypocrisy?
Cite???
How can you possibly say that? How are you quantifying it? Do you remember the insane reaction from “your side” to the Parkland kids just for engaging as citizens and getting involved in politics after their friends were killed?
The absolute irony of a post complaining about unreasonably criticizing people for political beliefs and including that.
[sorry, couldn’t stay away]
It is indeed sad that the name of our President or his campaign slogan has come to represent hatred, ignorance and support for incompetence. People are going to react poorly if you go out in public with a “Fuck the Police,” “I’m with stupid,” or “MAGA” hat on. It’s just a fact of life in a democracy. Of course that doesn’t mean someone should be the subject of violent threats of any kind. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t heard anyone state “he invited any ill will which might come to him.” I’ve heard people say that he and his school should be ridiculed and shamed for supporting the asshole in the White House. You don’t have to agree with that, but I don’t find it “horrific.”
I don’t understand. If I call the President a racist – because that’s what he is – am I to blame for random Internet whackadoodles threatening violence?
No, you aren’t following it at all. People who embrace racism and violence are embracing Trumpism. So many Klanners and neo-Nazis and whatnot truly believe that Trump is one of them, and they are encouraged to go out and do crazy things.
You can decide for yourself whether Trump the individual is responsible for this or not - that’s a perfectly fine debate to have. But who are the radical elements on the left who are (a) committing acts of politically motivated violence and (b) are thinking they are acting in concert with Democratic leaders?
Okay, maybe you think Antifa is the world’s biggest threat. Personally I think they are kooks, but you right-wingers are inflating them because you’re scared of everything that isn’t in a red hat, khakis, and polo shirts. But Antifa isn’t exactly in line with Clinton, Obama, Warren, etc. They are OPPOSED to “moderates” like them.
So once again, who on the left is linked to violence? Name names. I can name the ones on the right, for sure.
And anyone who wears anything with BLM on it is announcing his or her support for the murder of police. We know this is the case, because I say so.
That’s just a fact of life in a democracy. If people lie about you, harass you in public, try to get you expelled from school, well, that’s no more than to be expected.
Regards,
Shodan
nm
We can certainly dispute that BLM is properly associated with violence against the police.
Does anyone seriously dispute that MAGA is properly associated with racism and incompetence?
You get elected - yes. You have to walk on eggs with the things you say. Didnt look like a “joke” to me. More like testing the waters of things he wishes he could do. A responsible and elected representative SHOULD be held responsible for saying stupid things.
It didn’t look like a joke to you because it was really too clever by half – you probably wouldn’t have thought of Trump’s silly “shut it down until we figure out what’s going on” decree, but as soon as I saw your post, it reminded me of something, which I quickly found out.
All in all, an elected official makes a comment that you didn’t understand, but in context there’s zero doubt it was a satirical statement, and now you’re mad that you didn’t understand it so people shouldn’t say things that go over your head? Come on.
You called for the media to apologize for getting it wrong in the OP. Now that you’ve been shown that YOU jumped the gun without any understanding of the context of something you’re whinging about, YOU don’t apologize and retract your comments… while the media has been issuing retractions and running stories on how the media got it wrong!!
How does your position on any of this make sense? Why can’t you act more responsibly, like the mainstream media is doing?
ETA: not to mention the irony that you’ve been misled by the right-wing media in the exactly same way as a lot of people were misled by Facebook posts and the media in this whole Red Hat of Courage episode. You have got to admit that – you were snookered by the article you linked to.
How do we know which politicians to take seriously but not literally and which ones to take literally but not seriously?
Hmm, you mean like if Bill in Ohio wears a MAGA hat because he wants steel and manufacturing to grow in the US and Cletus out in WV wears a MAGA hat because he wants to work in the coal mines (don’t ask me why) and a kid wears a MAGA hat because he’s pro-life that doesn’t mean they are all Nazis? :eek:
For my money, it immediately registered as satire. Because the previous tweet by Trump about banning Muslims to find out what was going on was so incredulous, the language of the joke tweet stood way way out. Then again, Poe’s Law so whatareyougonnado, amiright?
One of the things that’s apparent from this thread is that there are very different characterizations of what actually happened, and the context associated with it. In an effort to translate for opposing side, try this thought exercise:
For those that have sympathy for the MAGA hat wearing person - imagine instead he was wearing a hat with a swastika on it, a swastika armband, and a bona fide Hitler mustache. Sure all those things are legal, but you’d see how he may get some grief.
For those that have sympathy for the drum beater - imagine instead he had one of those giant CO2 powered fog horns, and instead of wearing a MAGA hat, the other person was sitting calmly at a booth passing out pocket constitutions.
None of that happened, but people are reacting as if one of those scenarios is actually true.
I believe there were a number of old threads concerning libel, and slander, laws. If I correctly remember the legal jargon I read, the offending party had a limited number of days to retract their statement(s) (ten?) in order to render the lawsuit moot.
It would be interesting if they chose to sue Kaya Taitano, the Guam citizen who posted the original, biased, untrue, false, horseshit video, of the encounter between the teen and the old man. That was what lit the fire under the haters, and racists, on the internet. It was Taitano’s twits which led to the death threats, slander, hate mail, and various other stupid attacks on a teenager who had not responded to an old man who was attempting to bully, and intimidate, him.
The only black lives matter supporters lost support when they repeatedly denied that all lives matter.
The only people who associate a MAGA hat with racism, and incompetence, are racists, yellow dog Democrats, anti-Trump zealots, haters, etc…
You don’t have to guess. The lame stream media includes every news organization that can’t/won’t report a story correctly. News media outlets who’s primary goal is to be the FIRST to report a story, regardless of whether or not the facts are correct, qualifies as a lame stream media outlet. Any news outlet which is too lazy, too incompetent, or too biased to properly verify the actual facts of a story qualifies as a lame stream media outlet. Any news outlet who is in pocket of a political party qualifies as a lame stream media outlet. Any news outlet who’s TV stars think they are more important than the news stories they are paid to present definitely qualifies as a lame stream media outlet.
I expect news media outlets to provide the who, what, where, when, and how of a story. I expect news media outlets to verify the facts of a story BEFORE they cut-and-paste a story on their teleprompter for their newsreaders to read on air. In short, I expect a news media outlet to do their job, and their job is to report actual news.
Maybe we have different standards? Maybe you prefer biased, almost-but-not-quite-right news?