I suppose this doesnât even need a comment.
(PS: Some people have noticed lately that there are too many threads about basically the same thing. I wouldnât object to this being merged, if thereâs already a thread about this sort of thing.)
I suppose this doesnât even need a comment.
(PS: Some people have noticed lately that there are too many threads about basically the same thing. I wouldnât object to this being merged, if thereâs already a thread about this sort of thing.)
WellâŚumâŚwelcome to present day America ?
Rhetoric matters. This person was probably already mentally unwell. But if the President is constantly banging on about building a wall and Mexicans being criminals, then that does have consequences for idiots like this who takes his words to the next level.
So maybe she could challenge the first amendment in her case? And alter the Twinkie defense to fit here?
This. It empowers the lunatics and ill-read. It has seeped over to Europe, too. If The President Of The Free World thinks that foreigners and immigrants are a bunch of whores and drug-running leeches, why not stomp on a few of our own? Heâs basically given us carte blanche.
Exactly. When the President throws a lot of it out there, well most people are not in a point in their life where theyâre generally enraged enough to commit a violent, hate filled act (unfortunately, for him). As horrible as it is for the President to throw it out there in the first place.
Like making guns available to people who have mental issues, this is the same thing. A president and party complicit in filling the heads of people like this who are maybe more easily influenced, itâs the equivalent of providing them ammo.
Which is why you still cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Words can be much more than just that in certain circumstances. The president doing it is essentially spamming the country trying to find volunteers, like this person.
The failing of 45 to continually go down this road, the buck stops at his desk.
Cue dismissive one liner about TDS.
So where does the line between Trumpâs right to free speech and inciting violence occur?
Obviously a big part of his MO in life is plausible deniability and technicalities. He was cheerleading security at a rally the other day to be rough with a protester they were removing. Just kidding of course, is the default escape route.
But dog whistles are legal, and cowards will happily use them. So the best answer is, when people stop tolerating it and motivate them into not doing it, in whatever form that takes, I guess?
Trump will get worse with this. If heâs about to lose the election, or lost it, he will try to rally people to revolt. Vast majority wouldnât even think about it, but you will get crazies. And the correlation between his instruction then and the corresponding reaction by crazies could be much, much more obvious than the story weâre talking about now.
Finally, dissenting voices with influence from his base.
Obviously a big part of his MO in life is plausible deniability and technicalities. He was cheerleading security at a rally the other day to be rough with a protester they were removing. Just kidding of course, is the default escape route.
Wait until election season really kicks off. Whoo hoo, weâre gonna see some real ish.
But dog whistles are legal, and cowards will happily use them. So the best answer is, when people stop tolerating it and motivate them into not doing it, in whatever form that takes, I guess?
Too much faith in Americans IMO.
Trump will get worse with this. If heâs about to lose the election, or lost it, he will try to rally people to revolt.
Thereâs a tweet for that.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142157838153895941
Vast majority wouldnât even think about it, but you will get crazies.
Youâd be surprised at what folks will do. I wouldnât sleep on the vast majority.
And the correlation between his instruction then and the corresponding reaction by crazies could be much, much more obvious than the story weâre talking about now.
I thought it was already obvious. Perhaps Iâm misunderstanding your post.
The Trump Effect
The killer directly cited Trump as âa symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.â But there are more subtle clues that the very worst people hear President Trump loud and clear. Hate crimes are up 17 percent since 2016. And there was the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesvilleâthe one Trump would retroactively describe as including âgood people on both sidesââwhich led to the death of Heather Heyer.
https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-inciting-violence-ilhan-omar/
Heâs calling CT a communist rag now, which is justâŚ
Well, Iâm saying what I observe. I get things shouldnât get underestimated. But when I look at Trump rallies, I donât see outraged, angry people in the background, ready to revolt and mob. More like people who are entertained by the spectacle of reality show star. And they are the most dedicated of his supporters of them all, among the ones who care to show their faces.
People donât get up in arms when they have party snacks, a roof over their head, and internet. Because those people have things to lose. Trump has definitely tried to convince them they need to die on a cross for him, their situation isnât desperate enough, nor his charisma strong enough. Especially after 3 years with the grandpa ranting about toilets record skipping over and over again.
Yes, there have been easy connect the dots situations between him and violent acts before, Iâm just saying the cause of an outburst at a lost election, and a subsequent reaction, will be so obvious even the simplest goober who remains uncorrupted will be able to see it for what it is.
I agree itâs been painfully obvious for a long time.
A mentally ill person tried to commit murder, police came and arrested her, she was charged and sits in jail until she faces a judge and jury who will likely sentence her to a good deal of years behind bars. Thatâs âthe state of America todayâ.
If you really believe that Trump talking about immigration and deporting people at a rate that is just under half of the Obama administration is the reason she did such an act, you have stepped so far away of the idea of personal responsibility that I wonder how you get through your lives. Rhetoric matters. Tone matters. However, Trump isnât responsible for what this woman did anymore than Obama was responsible for when police were shot by crazy people anymore than Hostess is responsible for you shoving their products into your faces.
Itâs nice you hold âChristianity Todayâ in such high regard.
Correction, in his rage, itâs ET, theâŚExtra Testamonial?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1207997319821615105?s=20
Nobody is fazed by the hyper-hyperbole and lies anymore. In fact, you can count on it and so I wouldnât expect anything less. CT is a leftist publication. OK, if you say so.
The postmodernism is strong.
Iâm betting theyâll be up in arms as well. But it wonât happen because heâs going to be reelected.
Iâm betting theyâll be up in arms as well. But it wonât happen because heâs going to be reelected.
Best to be anticipating the worst outcome I guess. And also prudent in terms of presenting that possibility to voters. Nothing wrong with campaigning on fear if you feel thereâs a genuine threat in the henhouse.
However, Trump isnât responsible for what this woman did anymore than Obama was responsible for when police were shot by crazy people anymore than Hostess is responsible for you shoving their products into your faces.
Find a statement from Obama that incites violence against police. Stop ignoring words like they donât matter.
Here I found one for you from 2016:
President Obama said the fatal shootings of three Louisiana police were âthe work of cowards who speak for no one,â telling reporters late Sunday afternoon, "Nothing justifies violence against law enforcement.â
All this talk that Obama encouraged violence against police is a crock of shit. I swear you live in a fantasy world.
The postmodernism is strong.
Is Christian communism truly pomo, or is it more retro?
As for CT, fwiw:
Political viewpoints
On June 7, 1974, in an editorial titled âShould Nixon Resign?â, published during the impeachment hearings of President Richard Nixon, Christianity Today did not call for his resignation, instead stating âthat the constitutional process should be followed, and followed with dispatch. Either Richard Nixon should be removed from office by the Senate or he should be acquitted. If he is acquitted, the nation will have to wait out the term of a President whose ability to function has been seriously eroded.â[9]
On October 5, 1998, regarding the imminent Impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Christianity Today stated in an editorial that âUnsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.â [10]
On December 19, 2019, a day after the U.S. House of Representatives voted to file articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Christianity Today published an editorial by retiring Editor in Chief Mark Galli calling Trump âprofoundly immoralâ and calling for his removal from office.[11][12]
Tldr:
Letâs hope they donât need to come up with a stronger descriptor next time.