I’m worried that Kanye might get a false flag distraction bomb to take away the “trumps enemies” look that we have.
With a habanero-basted pineapple.
How does De Niro fit into the Bernie bro scenario?
Yup, all the targets are Trump critics, which sure does look like a glaring clue. To me, George Soros being on the list, along with Obama and Hillary, just screams Deep State. But who knows?
Blaming the media is pretty dumb. Hmm, orange attention whore gets put on TV, people report what he says, notice he’s lying, and that is their fault? No, that’s journalism, something they don’t really have on the right.
False flag seems unlikely, too. The dems really don’t Need to do anything to make the pubbies look bad, they pretty much have that covered with their own behavior. I can believe the whole thing is one big trolling attack though.
If he’s a Berniebro with good taste, he’d conclude De Niro has been fucking phoning it in and cashing paychecks since 1990.
Disagree. De Niro didn’t really start slumming until Rocky & Bullwinkle and Meet The Parents. He took paycheck roles before that but he also did great work in Casino, Heat, Ronin, and directed A Bronx Tale. After that, it is pretty much just walk-on cameos and pure shit like The Family and Bad Grandpa, and since most Bernie Bros have never seen a film before 2000 they could be excused for thinking De Niro is some kind of menace to society. However, I think we all know that this is actually some right wing nutjob whose anger at De Niro stems from the actor’s rambling, semi-coherent threats to punch Trump in the face, which was frankly more pitiable than sinister.
Stranger
Because you recognize that there are degrees of violence. Maybe I am upset with my neighbor and would like to have a old school playground fight to settle our differences. That’s pretty immature, I would give you that, but it doesn’t logically follow that I would put a pipe bomb in his mailbox.
So we can cross you off the list? It’s a start. Modest but a start.
So, if this board is any measure then this is where the right is at regarding violence against their opponents.
They’re not arguing about whether Trump is advocating violence. They’re admitting that he is and simply arguing about the degree of violence that he’s advocating!
Think about that. Think about how they’re shifting the conversation. If we engage them in such an argument then we’re arguing not about whether or not violence is acceptable. We’re instead arguing about what degree of violence is acceptable!
Let’s not do that. Let’s not argue about what degree of violence is acceptable.
In this context (domestic politics) violence in any degree is unacceptable, as is the advocacy of violence in any degree. The argument isn’t about the degree of violence. The argument is about violence or no violence.
If someone in an influential position is advocating violence then they’re advocating violence. If anyone takes them up on that suggestion, to whatever degree, then that influential person holds some of the blame.
I never suggested that Trump sent these bombs.
Beautifully put.
Casino and Heat were just rewarmed up leftovers from earlier, better roles when he gave a crap. A Bronx Tale he certainly cared about, but it was a cookie cutter film that broke absolutely no new ground.
I maintain it was someone who saw Little Fockers.
That list, yes. But not The List of course.
But that’'s you. One person.
If you told sixty million people to pick a fight with a joournalist, it is absolutely certain some will take that as meaning guns and bombs, and you know it. Tell one person you know too pick a fight and you’re probably okay; even ten people, twenty people, and it’s unlikely you are going to find a crazed bomber. Sixty million and the likelihood some will be homicidal maniacs is, statistically, one hundred percent. When the President of the United States of America says “hurt journalists,” many people are going to hear “kill and maim.” And Trump damn well should know that.
This.
Well, he didn’t actually *say *“send bombs” so how can you blame him? :rolleyes:
Crazy people hear crazy shit all of the time. Should the movie Taxi Driver have not been made? I mean, it caused an assassination attempt on the President! Surely, the writers and producers should have been more cautious.
I don’t think that a politician’s words should be crafted to mitigate the craziness of the craziest people in the country.
This stuff isn’t unique to Trump. Joe Biden said he would like to kick Trump’s ass and Maxine Waters is out telling people to harass Republicans, not on the job, but when they are out with their families at restaurants and gas stations.
She is telling them to go up to these Republicans and respectfully put forward their position as to why the Republican politician is wrong. Ha! Just kidding, no, she is telling them to go up to these Republicans and tell them that they are not welcome in society. Wow.
The rhetoric is charged on both sides and that is unfortunate, but nothing any of these people have said equals pipe bombs.
I don’t entirely disagree with you that Joe Biden and Maxine Waters may have crossed some lines with their rhetoric as well.
That being said, I would still argue that it’s almost exclusively one side that is talking about “2nd Amendment solutions” and “civil war”. Beyond that, however, there is also the subtle language of authoritarianism and also political behavior, which is inextricably tied to any conversation about rhetoric and tone. It’s one thing to have someone (an elderly man, to be exact) suggesting that he’d like to take someone behind the schoolhouse and throw a right cross. After one of their presidential debates, one of Mitt Romney’s sons said he wanted to punch the president while he was listening to Obama rip into Romney’s political record. It was perhaps inappropriate, but I think most Obama voters and progressives understood he wasn’t really advocating political violence.
But when political leaders tell tens of millions of voters that elections are rigged and that we need take up arms if the results don’t go their way, then that’s raising it to an entirely new level. See, it’s not just the rhetoric about violence; it’s the language of violence coupled with attempts to cast opponents’ political victories as illegitimate. It’s tying the rhetoric of violence into claims that Democrats want hordes of foreigner thugs to invade the country and commit mass lawlessness. It’s the tandem of violent and aggressive rhetoric with claims that the criminal investigations into the Republican party are baseless and only occurring because there are political operatives within the government loyal to the Democratic party, and by extension, also arguing that people can’t trust their own political system and the rule of law to produce fair results. In Republican land, everyone who has different viewpoints is potentially conspiring against them somehow.
If it were a handful of cranks saying “Liberals can take my guns over my dead body,” that would be one thing. But it’s so much more than that, and you damn well know it. So stop the false equivalency bullshit and again, ask yourself, what kind of country do you want to live in? Do you want a country in which violence and intimidation are a regular part of election cycles, as in parts of the post-colonial world?
No prominent Democrats have praised actual physical violence against “enemies of the state” like journalists. Trump has done so.
Stop trying to create false equivalences.
There has been an arrest. CNN breaking news.
You are an apologist for right-wing bombers.
Buh Bye.