Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
Really don't even care.
He's at National Enquirer level "ignore this shit until someone else corroborates it" level
Ignore the National Enquirer? When a no less prestigious journalist than Sean Hannity lends it credence?!
National Inquirer busted Edwards' affair.
That's terrific but they're BS 99% of the time so I ignore them till someone else corroborates
O'Keefe doesn't even qualify as a source even a biased one
Which is great if you never venture outside the bubble but sometimes you have to talk and persuade folks who aren't super libby liberals and so actually rebutting the story that came with sexy (edited) video is something I would like to be able to do.
True, which is why I bring up how ACORN was cleared of wrongdoing by numerous attorney generals, Shirley Sherrod won her libel case, and that he...well...tried to sexually assault a CNN reporter on a boat.
Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
Really don't even care.
He's at National Enquirer level "ignore this shit until someone else corroborates it" level
Ignore the National Enquirer? When a no less prestigious journalist than Sean Hannity lends it credence?!
National Inquirer busted Edwards' affair.
That's terrific but they're BS 99% of the time so I ignore them till someone else corroborates
O'Keefe doesn't even qualify as a source even a biased one
Which is great if you never venture outside the bubble but sometimes you have to talk and persuade folks who aren't super libby liberals and so actually rebutting the story that came with sexy (edited) video is something I would like to be able to do.
True, which is why I bring up how ACORN was cleared of wrongdoing by numerous attorney generals, Shirley Sherrod won her libel case, and that he...well...tried to sexually assault a CNN reporter on a boat.
Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
Really don't even care.
He's at National Enquirer level "ignore this shit until someone else corroborates it" level
Ignore the National Enquirer? When a no less prestigious journalist than Sean Hannity lends it credence?!
National Inquirer busted Edwards' affair.
That's terrific but they're BS 99% of the time so I ignore them till someone else corroborates
O'Keefe doesn't even qualify as a source even a biased one
Which is great if you never venture outside the bubble but sometimes you have to talk and persuade folks who aren't super libby liberals and so actually rebutting the story that came with sexy (edited) video is something I would like to be able to do.
True, which is why I bring up how ACORN was cleared of wrongdoing by numerous attorney generals, Shirley Sherrod won her libel case, and that he...well...tried to sexually assault a CNN reporter on a boat.
Don't forget "was arrested in an attempt to gain access to a sitting Senator's phone system."
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
Edit: Just to be clear and reiterate, I'm just left of center and have voted Democrat a bit more than Republican iin my lifetime.
Didn't Donald Trump get more votes than any other candidate in Republican party history? How is that the fringe of the party?
He did, but in the same way that Titanic earned more than Gone With The Wind. The population has grown, so any nominal number will grow with it. He never had more than plurality support.
Right, also more votes were cast for "not-Trump". I'm going to assume that most nominees can't say that.
Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
Really don't even care.
He's at National Enquirer level "ignore this shit until someone else corroborates it" level
Ignore the National Enquirer? When a no less prestigious journalist than Sean Hannity lends it credence?!
National Inquirer busted Edwards' affair.
That's terrific but they're BS 99% of the time so I ignore them till someone else corroborates
O'Keefe doesn't even qualify as a source even a biased one
Which is great if you never venture outside the bubble but sometimes you have to talk and persuade folks who aren't super libby liberals and so actually rebutting the story that came with sexy (edited) video is something I would like to be able to do.
True, which is why I bring up how ACORN was cleared of wrongdoing by numerous attorney generals, Shirley Sherrod won her libel case, and that he...well...tried to sexually assault a CNN reporter on a boat.
Don't forget "was arrested in an attempt to gain access to a sitting Senator's phone system."
He actually pleaded to that so you can say "Found guilty" rather than "was arrested". O'Keefe is a pretty big goose but I was wondering if the sort of stuff above had come out about this video yet. I mean, clearly the timing was chosen to minimize the response window but I wanted to see if I'd missed it or it hadn't happened yet.
The Khans have done so much for this election. At the DNC Khizr reminded us that the GOP does not have a monopoly on patriotism or military support and showed us the bald hypocrisy of Republicans using these words for propaganda while obstructing any useful government efforts for any person in this country, military vet or otherwise.
Ghazala provided the stark contrast of a mother's broken heart with Trump's callousness and cruelty. He used race and creed to divide ("Maybe she wasn't allowed to speak?") and dismiss the importance of Khizr's words, and she responded by showing us that pain, suffering, loss, and motherhood are universal. Her honesty and sorrow destroys the image and propaganda of a faceless muslim to be feared. It is sad, but immensely powerful.
I want to meet them. I want to hug them and thank them for their son's service. I want to shake Mr. Khan's hand and tell him that he is the kind of lawyer I and all others should emulate, no matter our practice area or profession.
The Khans are the kind of people who have made the United States what it is and it's immigrants like them who will take us forward. It's the reason I still have hope for this place.
even in the worst case of the okeefe video, lets say its all true
Hillary's evil plan was to provoke violence by having people nonviolently protesting trump
WHY IS THIS A BLACK MARK AGAINST HER
I mean, deliberately trying to provoke people into violence isn't exactly awesome.
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does so they can sue you.
Something like this shouldn't have made anyone violent though and that it did is much more indicative of a problem with the attendees than the protesters. But I don't want to applaud someone if they schemed to try and piss people off enough to fight. But it's not really condemnable either.
Nonviolent protest? Great! Nonviolent protest specifically engineered to start violence? Not exactly awesome.
even in the worst case of the okeefe video, lets say its all true
Hillary's evil plan was to provoke violence by having people nonviolently protesting trump
WHY IS THIS A BLACK MARK AGAINST HER
I mean, deliberately trying to provoke people into violence isn't exactly awesome.
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does so they can sue you.
Something like this shouldn't have made anyone violent though and that it did is much more indicative of a problem with the attendees than the protesters. But I don't want to applaud someone if they schemed to try and piss people off enough to fight. But it's not really condemnable either.
The actual actions taken kinda put the lie to this silly equivalency. Unless you gonna start shitting on civil rights lunch sit-ins too.
even in the worst case of the okeefe video, lets say its all true
Hillary's evil plan was to provoke violence by having people nonviolently protesting trump
WHY IS THIS A BLACK MARK AGAINST HER
I mean, deliberately trying to provoke people into violence isn't exactly awesome.
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does so they can sue you.
Something like this shouldn't have made anyone violent though and that it did is much more indicative of a problem with the attendees than the protesters. But I don't want to applaud someone if they schemed to try and piss people off enough to fight. But it's not really condemnable either.
The actual actions taken kinda put the lie to this silly equivalency. Unless you gonna start shitting on civil rights lunch sit-ins too.
I don't think lunch counter sit ins were intended to have people assault them. I'm not shitting on anything though.
It seems very unlikely someone would say "I know how to make them fight! A cartoon duck!" at all but specifically going into the situation with the intent to start a fight isn't great or something I want to encourage.
+2
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Westboro provoking people with hate and..a donald duck costume just don't seem equivalent to me. Like, one is calling a group of people subhuman and condemning them to eternal damnation whereas the other one is using mean words (hah) and a cartoon costume. Like, if Trump's supporters are crazy and zealous enough to attack over that..maybe we need to see that. Show them for what they really are.
even in the worst case of the okeefe video, lets say its all true
Hillary's evil plan was to provoke violence by having people nonviolently protesting trump
WHY IS THIS A BLACK MARK AGAINST HER
I mean, deliberately trying to provoke people into violence isn't exactly awesome.
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does so they can sue you.
Something like this shouldn't have made anyone violent though and that it did is much more indicative of a problem with the attendees than the protesters. But I don't want to applaud someone if they schemed to try and piss people off enough to fight. But it's not really condemnable either.
The actual actions taken kinda put the lie to this silly equivalency. Unless you gonna start shitting on civil rights lunch sit-ins too.
I don't think lunch counter sit ins were intended to have people assault them. I'm not shitting on anything though.
It seems very unlikely someone would say "I know how to make them fight! A cartoon duck!" at all but specifically going into the situation with the intent to start a fight isn't great or something I want to encourage.
True I wouldn't want Hillary to be deliberately starting violence with agitators, if she was it would disappoint me a bit, but by all accounts she had nothing to do with it and the people responsible went in clear eyed as to the risks to themselves (and if she was, it's still NOT HER FAULT that the violence occurred, it's the fault of those committing the violence!)
The civil rights movement involved a fuck ton of provoking violence with peaceful actions, even in the shittiest of circumstances the violence is never the fault of the people peacefully provoking it, even in the literal worst case, the westboro baptists.
But That's not even a fair comparison at all, the UNION THUGS in question are hardly protesting these trump supporters' family's funerals or harassing them at their places of work, they're protesting at political rallies, it's kind of the designated venue for that kind of thing!
Look, if Slayer fans can go to Jeff Hanneman's funeral as its being protested by Westboro and not beat them down, I'm pretty sure people can ignore a dude in a Donald Duck costume.
+36
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
They were originally going to send donald to a Jill Stein rally but they decided there were already enough quacks on the stage.
There is a difference between "let's do an awful thing to provoke people" and "wow those people are easily provoked, let's do an innocuous thing and show that."
even in the worst case of the okeefe video, lets say its all true
Hillary's evil plan was to provoke violence by having people nonviolently protesting trump
WHY IS THIS A BLACK MARK AGAINST HER
I mean, deliberately trying to provoke people into violence isn't exactly awesome.
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does so they can sue you.
Something like this shouldn't have made anyone violent though and that it did is much more indicative of a problem with the attendees than the protesters. But I don't want to applaud someone if they schemed to try and piss people off enough to fight. But it's not really condemnable either.
The actual actions taken kinda put the lie to this silly equivalency. Unless you gonna start shitting on civil rights lunch sit-ins too.
I don't think lunch counter sit ins were intended to have people assault them. I'm not shitting on anything though.
It seems very unlikely someone would say "I know how to make them fight! A cartoon duck!" at all but specifically going into the situation with the intent to start a fight isn't great or something I want to encourage.
You need to learn more about the civil rights fights of the mid-20th century. And before too. Provoking violent reaction for doing nothing was a core part of their strategy. This idea you are pushing here is part of the white washing of the civil rights movement.
The only person/people to blame for violence are the people using violence.
"They egged me on!" is a super duper goosey fucking defense for 5 year olds.
+26
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
The only person/people to blame for violence are the people using violence.
"They egged me on!" is a super duper goosey fucking defense for 5 year olds.
I agree with you. You are 100% right.
I'm still never going to condemn someone who goes after Westboro.
It's sort of like "damn..dude..well..yep nope. I get it. I get it."
I'm not trying to say this and Westboro are equivalent, even a little, at all.
Trump's supporters have shown how vile they are in plenty of other ways without trying to muddy the waters by provoking a fight. If I show up somewhere and deliberately antagonize people until they hit me (Which was my goal the whole time) then yeah, I think I share some blame there. Certainly not all or even most, but some. Show up in a duck costume, sure. But if you show up there with the deliberate intent to cause a fight, I don't want to applaud deliberately attempting to cause violence.
I mean most likely Hillary had nothing to do with this at all, but worst case she did, I don't want to say that's just totally fine. But it's not some horrible black mark forever either. Just like "c'mon we're better than that."
The only person/people to blame for violence are the people using violence.
"They egged me on!" is a super duper goosey fucking defense for 5 year olds.
I agree with you. You are 100% right.
I'm still never going to condemn someone who goes after Westboro.
It's sort of like "damn..dude..well..yep nope. I get it. I get it."
I'm not saying I don't want to punch assholes in the face. That's perfectly normal.
I'm saying it's never acceptable to succumb to those instincts in these situations. The only winning strategy is not to fight
even in the worst case of the okeefe video, lets say its all true
Hillary's evil plan was to provoke violence by having people nonviolently protesting trump
WHY IS THIS A BLACK MARK AGAINST HER
I mean, deliberately trying to provoke people into violence isn't exactly awesome.
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does so they can sue you.
Something like this shouldn't have made anyone violent though and that it did is much more indicative of a problem with the attendees than the protesters. But I don't want to applaud someone if they schemed to try and piss people off enough to fight. But it's not really condemnable either.
The actual actions taken kinda put the lie to this silly equivalency. Unless you gonna start shitting on civil rights lunch sit-ins too.
I don't think lunch counter sit ins were intended to have people assault them. I'm not shitting on anything though.
It seems very unlikely someone would say "I know how to make them fight! A cartoon duck!" at all but specifically going into the situation with the intent to start a fight isn't great or something I want to encourage.
You need to learn more about the civil rights fights of the mid-20th century. And before too. Provoking violent reaction for doing nothing was a core part of their strategy. This idea you are pushing here is part of the white washing of the civil rights movement.
I find your remarks incorrect and condescending, but this isn't a civil rights thread. I think there's a notable difference between these two things but this isn't really the topic so I'm dropping it.
I'm not trying to say this and Westboro are equivalent, even a little, at all.
Trump's supporters have shown how vile they are in plenty of other ways without trying to muddy the waters by provoking a fight. If I show up somewhere and deliberately antagonize people until they hit me (Which was my goal the whole time) then yeah, I think I share some blame there. Certainly not all or even most, but some. Show up in a duck costume, sure. But if you show up there with the deliberate intent to cause a fight, I don't want to applaud deliberately attempting to cause violence.
I mean most likely Hillary had nothing to do with this at all, but worst case she did, I don't want to say that's just totally fine. But it's not some horrible black mark forever either. Just like "c'mon we're better than that."
Unless you are using violence or physically attacking someone to provoke a response then you are wrong.
Being an asshole to someone hoping they hit you still doesn't justify someone using violence against you.
How ever much you want to couch this it still falls back on "He made me mad so I was justified beating the shit out of him". It's just wrong.
I'm not trying to say this and Westboro are equivalent, even a little, at all.
Trump's supporters have shown how vile they are in plenty of other ways without trying to muddy the waters by provoking a fight. If I show up somewhere and deliberately antagonize people until they hit me (Which was my goal the whole time) then yeah, I think I share some blame there. Certainly not all or even most, but some. Show up in a duck costume, sure. But if you show up there with the deliberate intent to cause a fight, I don't want to applaud deliberately attempting to cause violence.
I mean most likely Hillary had nothing to do with this at all, but worst case she did, I don't want to say that's just totally fine. But it's not some horrible black mark forever either. Just like "c'mon we're better than that."
Unless you are using violence or physically attacking someone to provoke a response then you are wrong.
Being an asshole to someone hoping they hit you still doesn't justify someone using violence against you.
How ever much you want to couch this it still falls back on "He made me mad so I was justified beating the shit out of him". It's just wrong.
I never said it justified someone using violence. It doesn't justify you antagonizing them either. In schools if one kid is mocking the hell out of another kid with words and that kid hauls off and punches the first kid, they both get in trouble. One is obviously more serious but neither are acceptable.
I'm not trying to say this and Westboro are equivalent, even a little, at all.
Trump's supporters have shown how vile they are in plenty of other ways without trying to muddy the waters by provoking a fight. If I show up somewhere and deliberately antagonize people until they hit me (Which was my goal the whole time) then yeah, I think I share some blame there. Certainly not all or even most, but some. Show up in a duck costume, sure. But if you show up there with the deliberate intent to cause a fight, I don't want to applaud deliberately attempting to cause violence.
I mean most likely Hillary had nothing to do with this at all, but worst case she did, I don't want to say that's just totally fine. But it's not some horrible black mark forever either. Just like "c'mon we're better than that."
As people have pointed out, one of the great strategies of the civil rights movement was the provocation of disproportionate response (including violence) to civil disobedience and protest, precisely because it undermines the moral underpinning of the opposition. Your argument is the one that MLK took behind the woodshed in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, as you would privilege the absence of violence over the presence of justice.
I'm not trying to say this and Westboro are equivalent, even a little, at all.
Trump's supporters have shown how vile they are in plenty of other ways without trying to muddy the waters by provoking a fight. If I show up somewhere and deliberately antagonize people until they hit me (Which was my goal the whole time) then yeah, I think I share some blame there. Certainly not all or even most, but some. Show up in a duck costume, sure. But if you show up there with the deliberate intent to cause a fight, I don't want to applaud deliberately attempting to cause violence.
I mean most likely Hillary had nothing to do with this at all, but worst case she did, I don't want to say that's just totally fine. But it's not some horrible black mark forever either. Just like "c'mon we're better than that."
Unless you are using violence or physically attacking someone to provoke a response then you are wrong.
Being an asshole to someone hoping they hit you still doesn't justify someone using violence against you.
How ever much you want to couch this it still falls back on "He made me mad so I was justified beating the shit out of him". It's just wrong.
I never said it justified someone using violence. It doesn't justify you antagonizing them either. In schools if one kid is mocking the hell out of another kid with words and that kid hauls off and punches the first kid, they both get in trouble. One is obviously more serious but neither are acceptable.
I get what you're saying and in the context of kids at school I agree. Teasing/antagonizing a schoolmate isn't acceptable and most likely it's against some rules so both kids get in trouble.
There should be no such expectation with a rally or political discourse/protest. Trump supporters, same as Hillary supporters don't get to have their rally's be a "safe space".
I'm not trying to say this and Westboro are equivalent, even a little, at all.
Trump's supporters have shown how vile they are in plenty of other ways without trying to muddy the waters by provoking a fight. If I show up somewhere and deliberately antagonize people until they hit me (Which was my goal the whole time) then yeah, I think I share some blame there. Certainly not all or even most, but some. Show up in a duck costume, sure. But if you show up there with the deliberate intent to cause a fight, I don't want to applaud deliberately attempting to cause violence.
I mean most likely Hillary had nothing to do with this at all, but worst case she did, I don't want to say that's just totally fine. But it's not some horrible black mark forever either. Just like "c'mon we're better than that."
Suppose you observe that there is a person or organization that is actively violent toward a group that is doing no particular wrong, or even just creating conditions that make it more likely that a group will be violent toward someone that is doing no wrong. You attempt rational discourse with them: "Hey, you are engaging in/promoting violence against innocent bystanders. Please stop this. Here is evidence that we have that makes us believe this is true, although we don't actually have video evidence of the violence occurring." This is met with "No, you are wrong; what I doing is not in fact making violence more likely/you have no proof that I am committing violence."
At this point, what is the problem with demonstrating that they are in fact doing this by performing an action that, absent an intention of starting violence, would be doing no wrong, if all participants are knowledgeable of the consequences and risks? Is it not better to point this out to prevent further incitement than to do nothing and allow potential future innocents who have not willingly entered this arrangement be the victim of this violence?
"Provoking" violence at a Trump rally requires showing up looking like anything but a white person wearing Trump merchandise.
Being brown or wearing a Planned Parenthood t-shirt isn't a reason to get beatend up, regardless of your location. It is completely within the bounds of our political rights to attend the rally of candidates we do not support. We should not expect to be cheap-shotted with an elbow in the face (for example) just for doing so.
And, as Shryke and Hedgie pointed out, this is straight out of the Civil Rights Movement playbook. Being somewhere you're not wanted and reminding other people that you exist is not sufficient reason to experience violence against your person.
I do not believe you can accurately compare conspiring to start a fight at a Trump rally to staging civil rights protests in the name of racial justice.
Deliberately causing violence is not something I can support in this day and age. I can tell many of you disagree. But as I said, I'd rather not derail the thread further so I'll drop it.
I'm not trying to say this and Westboro are equivalent, even a little, at all.
Trump's supporters have shown how vile they are in plenty of other ways without trying to muddy the waters by provoking a fight. If I show up somewhere and deliberately antagonize people until they hit me (Which was my goal the whole time) then yeah, I think I share some blame there. Certainly not all or even most, but some. Show up in a duck costume, sure. But if you show up there with the deliberate intent to cause a fight, I don't want to applaud deliberately attempting to cause violence.
I mean most likely Hillary had nothing to do with this at all, but worst case she did, I don't want to say that's just totally fine. But it's not some horrible black mark forever either. Just like "c'mon we're better than that."
Unless you are using violence or physically attacking someone to provoke a response then you are wrong.
Being an asshole to someone hoping they hit you still doesn't justify someone using violence against you.
How ever much you want to couch this it still falls back on "He made me mad so I was justified beating the shit out of him". It's just wrong.
I never said it justified someone using violence. It doesn't justify you antagonizing them either. In schools if one kid is mocking the hell out of another kid with words and that kid hauls off and punches the first kid, they both get in trouble. One is obviously more serious but neither are acceptable.
Except that this isn't "one kid mocking another". This is protestors exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech to criticize a candidate for President, and being assaulted for doing so. Even if they went there to show what would happen to protesters, they have done nothing wrong. You seem to be hung up on the "antagonizing" part of the argument, while avoiding the point that a movement that responds to peaceful dissent with violence is one that is opposed to democracy.
I do not believe you can accurately compare conspiring to start a fight at a Trump rally to staging civil rights protests in the name of racial justice.
Deliberately causing violence is not something I can support in this day and age. I can tell many of you disagree. But as I said, I'd rather not derail the thread further so I'll drop it.
"Starting a fight" is what the person throwing the elbow does. Not the person who is non-violently existing inside the rally.
I'm gonna drop it since I've made my point and don't want to pile on SniperGuy.
In other election news I bet a steak dinner with a friend that McMullin wins Utah.
I almost never win bets because I always go for the crazy hail mary but it's nice to believe
I do not believe you can accurately compare conspiring to start a fight at a Trump rally to staging civil rights protests in the name of racial justice.
Deliberately causing violence is not something I can support in this day and age. I can tell many of you disagree. But as I said, I'd rather not derail the thread further so I'll drop it.
Considering how racial charged the Trump crowds are, yeah, I think you can absolutely draw parallels, largely because it's exactly the same thing.
As for the bolded however, is that what is taking place here? Did the Donald Duck costume guy say he went to a place specifically to start violence? Or just to be irritating?
Keep in mind, simply espousing opposing views at a place that largely disagrees with you is not the same thing as inciting violence, unless it was expressly stated that was the intent.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Maybe I'm confused on this issue and will admit that, as a human person, I was not born knowing all things and am refining my understanding of things all the time, but at the present moment I find it really insulting to equate stuff like the duck with civil rights protests.
It is a very fine line, but it has nothing to do with not wanting to provoke or wanting to maintain a status quo. It has everything to do with what your motivation is. Deliberately provoking violence, yes, but for what purpose?
Here is what feels like the difference to me:
A ) I am doing this completely innocuous thing that I know for a fact will make a certain kind of person nearby very angry, and they will probably try to beat the shit out of me. Good. Let them do it. Let the world watch them beat the shit out of me for doing what another man could do with literally zero consequence and see what a crock of shit this all is.
B ) I am doing this thing to mock and ridicule other people. That's about it. Bonus: if one of them punches me they will look super bad when I post it on the internet.
(Though I agree they could be viewed as a bit more similar if you are viewing Trump crowds as racists that the ducks are protesting against, though I am not sure that's what was happening here.)
I am seeing a significant difference in the morality/values driving these actions. It seems to me that not all cases of deliberately provoking violent response are inherently good and equal.
Posts
True, which is why I bring up how ACORN was cleared of wrongdoing by numerous attorney generals, Shirley Sherrod won her libel case, and that he...well...tried to sexually assault a CNN reporter on a boat.
Steam: pazython
typical lib slander imo
Don't forget "was arrested in an attempt to gain access to a sitting Senator's phone system."
Hillary's evil plan was to provoke violence by having people nonviolently protesting trump
WHY IS THIS A BLACK MARK AGAINST HER
Right, also more votes were cast for "not-Trump". I'm going to assume that most nominees can't say that.
Obvious West Wing reference is obvious:
I really hope Khan is enjoying his time being a knife straight up Trump's ass. He's a great spokesman.
He actually pleaded to that so you can say "Found guilty" rather than "was arrested". O'Keefe is a pretty big goose but I was wondering if the sort of stuff above had come out about this video yet. I mean, clearly the timing was chosen to minimize the response window but I wanted to see if I'd missed it or it hadn't happened yet.
The Khans have done so much for this election. At the DNC Khizr reminded us that the GOP does not have a monopoly on patriotism or military support and showed us the bald hypocrisy of Republicans using these words for propaganda while obstructing any useful government efforts for any person in this country, military vet or otherwise.
Ghazala provided the stark contrast of a mother's broken heart with Trump's callousness and cruelty. He used race and creed to divide ("Maybe she wasn't allowed to speak?") and dismiss the importance of Khizr's words, and she responded by showing us that pain, suffering, loss, and motherhood are universal. Her honesty and sorrow destroys the image and propaganda of a faceless muslim to be feared. It is sad, but immensely powerful.
I want to meet them. I want to hug them and thank them for their son's service. I want to shake Mr. Khan's hand and tell him that he is the kind of lawyer I and all others should emulate, no matter our practice area or profession.
The Khans are the kind of people who have made the United States what it is and it's immigrants like them who will take us forward. It's the reason I still have hope for this place.
I mean, deliberately trying to provoke people into violence isn't exactly awesome.
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does so they can sue you.
Something like this shouldn't have made anyone violent though and that it did is much more indicative of a problem with the attendees than the protesters. But I don't want to applaud someone if they schemed to try and piss people off enough to fight. But it's not really condemnable either.
Nonviolent protest? Great! Nonviolent protest specifically engineered to start violence? Not exactly awesome.
I, for one, welcome this post surreal world with open arms. I can't wait for Dada 2.0.
The actual actions taken kinda put the lie to this silly equivalency. Unless you gonna start shitting on civil rights lunch sit-ins too.
I don't think lunch counter sit ins were intended to have people assault them. I'm not shitting on anything though.
It seems very unlikely someone would say "I know how to make them fight! A cartoon duck!" at all but specifically going into the situation with the intent to start a fight isn't great or something I want to encourage.
True I wouldn't want Hillary to be deliberately starting violence with agitators, if she was it would disappoint me a bit, but by all accounts she had nothing to do with it and the people responsible went in clear eyed as to the risks to themselves (and if she was, it's still NOT HER FAULT that the violence occurred, it's the fault of those committing the violence!)
The civil rights movement involved a fuck ton of provoking violence with peaceful actions, even in the shittiest of circumstances the violence is never the fault of the people peacefully provoking it, even in the literal worst case, the westboro baptists.
But That's not even a fair comparison at all, the UNION THUGS in question are hardly protesting these trump supporters' family's funerals or harassing them at their places of work, they're protesting at political rallies, it's kind of the designated venue for that kind of thing!
Every one of these videos have been total spitfire from Olbermann. He's able to put into words what I want to say far better than I ever could.
I wish I were talented at speaking. :P
You need to learn more about the civil rights fights of the mid-20th century. And before too. Provoking violent reaction for doing nothing was a core part of their strategy. This idea you are pushing here is part of the white washing of the civil rights movement.
"They egged me on!" is a super duper goosey fucking defense for 5 year olds.
I agree with you. You are 100% right.
I'm still never going to condemn someone who goes after Westboro.
It's sort of like "damn..dude..well..yep nope. I get it. I get it."
Trump's supporters have shown how vile they are in plenty of other ways without trying to muddy the waters by provoking a fight. If I show up somewhere and deliberately antagonize people until they hit me (Which was my goal the whole time) then yeah, I think I share some blame there. Certainly not all or even most, but some. Show up in a duck costume, sure. But if you show up there with the deliberate intent to cause a fight, I don't want to applaud deliberately attempting to cause violence.
I mean most likely Hillary had nothing to do with this at all, but worst case she did, I don't want to say that's just totally fine. But it's not some horrible black mark forever either. Just like "c'mon we're better than that."
I'm not saying I don't want to punch assholes in the face. That's perfectly normal.
I'm saying it's never acceptable to succumb to those instincts in these situations. The only winning strategy is not to fight
I find your remarks incorrect and condescending, but this isn't a civil rights thread. I think there's a notable difference between these two things but this isn't really the topic so I'm dropping it.
Unless you are using violence or physically attacking someone to provoke a response then you are wrong.
Being an asshole to someone hoping they hit you still doesn't justify someone using violence against you.
How ever much you want to couch this it still falls back on "He made me mad so I was justified beating the shit out of him". It's just wrong.
I never said it justified someone using violence. It doesn't justify you antagonizing them either. In schools if one kid is mocking the hell out of another kid with words and that kid hauls off and punches the first kid, they both get in trouble. One is obviously more serious but neither are acceptable.
As people have pointed out, one of the great strategies of the civil rights movement was the provocation of disproportionate response (including violence) to civil disobedience and protest, precisely because it undermines the moral underpinning of the opposition. Your argument is the one that MLK took behind the woodshed in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, as you would privilege the absence of violence over the presence of justice.
I get what you're saying and in the context of kids at school I agree. Teasing/antagonizing a schoolmate isn't acceptable and most likely it's against some rules so both kids get in trouble.
There should be no such expectation with a rally or political discourse/protest. Trump supporters, same as Hillary supporters don't get to have their rally's be a "safe space".
Suppose you observe that there is a person or organization that is actively violent toward a group that is doing no particular wrong, or even just creating conditions that make it more likely that a group will be violent toward someone that is doing no wrong. You attempt rational discourse with them: "Hey, you are engaging in/promoting violence against innocent bystanders. Please stop this. Here is evidence that we have that makes us believe this is true, although we don't actually have video evidence of the violence occurring." This is met with "No, you are wrong; what I doing is not in fact making violence more likely/you have no proof that I am committing violence."
At this point, what is the problem with demonstrating that they are in fact doing this by performing an action that, absent an intention of starting violence, would be doing no wrong, if all participants are knowledgeable of the consequences and risks? Is it not better to point this out to prevent further incitement than to do nothing and allow potential future innocents who have not willingly entered this arrangement be the victim of this violence?
Being brown or wearing a Planned Parenthood t-shirt isn't a reason to get beatend up, regardless of your location. It is completely within the bounds of our political rights to attend the rally of candidates we do not support. We should not expect to be cheap-shotted with an elbow in the face (for example) just for doing so.
And, as Shryke and Hedgie pointed out, this is straight out of the Civil Rights Movement playbook. Being somewhere you're not wanted and reminding other people that you exist is not sufficient reason to experience violence against your person.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Deliberately causing violence is not something I can support in this day and age. I can tell many of you disagree. But as I said, I'd rather not derail the thread further so I'll drop it.
Except that this isn't "one kid mocking another". This is protestors exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech to criticize a candidate for President, and being assaulted for doing so. Even if they went there to show what would happen to protesters, they have done nothing wrong. You seem to be hung up on the "antagonizing" part of the argument, while avoiding the point that a movement that responds to peaceful dissent with violence is one that is opposed to democracy.
"Starting a fight" is what the person throwing the elbow does. Not the person who is non-violently existing inside the rally.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
In other election news I bet a steak dinner with a friend that McMullin wins Utah.
I almost never win bets because I always go for the crazy hail mary but it's nice to believe
Considering how racial charged the Trump crowds are, yeah, I think you can absolutely draw parallels, largely because it's exactly the same thing.
As for the bolded however, is that what is taking place here? Did the Donald Duck costume guy say he went to a place specifically to start violence? Or just to be irritating?
Keep in mind, simply espousing opposing views at a place that largely disagrees with you is not the same thing as inciting violence, unless it was expressly stated that was the intent.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
It is a very fine line, but it has nothing to do with not wanting to provoke or wanting to maintain a status quo. It has everything to do with what your motivation is. Deliberately provoking violence, yes, but for what purpose?
Here is what feels like the difference to me:
A ) I am doing this completely innocuous thing that I know for a fact will make a certain kind of person nearby very angry, and they will probably try to beat the shit out of me. Good. Let them do it. Let the world watch them beat the shit out of me for doing what another man could do with literally zero consequence and see what a crock of shit this all is.
B ) I am doing this thing to mock and ridicule other people. That's about it. Bonus: if one of them punches me they will look super bad when I post it on the internet.
(Though I agree they could be viewed as a bit more similar if you are viewing Trump crowds as racists that the ducks are protesting against, though I am not sure that's what was happening here.)
I am seeing a significant difference in the morality/values driving these actions. It seems to me that not all cases of deliberately provoking violent response are inherently good and equal.
pleasepaypreacher.net