Kavanaugh Confirmed...

[Mojouw]

Didn't Anitfa attack another building last night? I thought I saw something like that flash on my phone this morning, can anyone verify? Yes I'm lazy and don't feel like looking. Hey, at least I'm honest about it.

Yeah. It was all linked together. Antifa and the Proud Boys got in a series of altercations in New York last night. Antifa wrote on a building and then got stomped. The same group that stomped Antifa appears to then have stomped other folks who were not involved in the original protests but were just against said stomping. It really isn't clear because it is a clown car on all sides.

[43Hitman]

Yeah. It was all linked together. Antifa and the Proud Boys got in a series of altercations in New York last night. Antifa wrote on a building and then got stomped. The same group that stomped Antifa appears to then have stomped other folks who were not involved in the original protests but were just against said stomping. It really isn't clear because it is a clown car on all sides.

Thanks for the info Moj. Everyone needs to grow the eff up. And our local and state representatives need to step up on BOTH sides and squash this petty bullshit before this crap gets out of hand. Because I know for a fact that if that crap comes around my way, in my neighborhood, it won't end well for anyone.

[GoSlash27]

There was also another incident in Portland yesterday where Antifa (yet again) went after a Patriot Prayer march and got into a pitched battle with "proud boys". That one is especially tragic, because Patriot Prayer isn't the least bit "fascist" or even right-wing.

Best,
-Slashy

[Mojouw]

Mojouw,
You have not provided any instances that contradict my statement. There is only one side of the aisle where politicians are exhorting their base for more conflict and confrontation. Ellison is just one of them. You've also got Hillary (there can be no civility with a party that is destroying everything you believe in/ there will only be civility when we win) Maxine Waters (Get out there and get in their faces, tell them they're not welcome here. In gas stations, restaurants...) Eric Holder (when they go low, we kick them in the face) Cory Booker (supporters of Kavanaugh are complicit in evil, get up in their face)

You attempt to draw an equivalence between people on the right being "linked to" or "reaching out to" far right extremists, but there is not a single example of this dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric from any of them. It has happened in the past, but it's not happening now. So yeah. Unilateral.

And yeah, there is violence out there at both extremes, but the conflict only happens at right- wing events, never left- wing events. The lefties are actively seeking conflict at right- wing events. The opposite is not true.

It has gotten out of hand and it is up to the Democrats to ratchet it down.

Right wing protesters struck and killed an otherwise peaceable protester at Charlottesville. So there is one leg of your argument kicked out as not true.

Booker's actual comments here (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...t_in_evil.html) -- clearly indicating not literal fighting. But the idea that one should confront what one sees as moral wrongs. I, you, or anyone does not have to agree with Booker's definition of "moral wrong" but to say he is inciting violence is a bit much.

Holder's comments here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.a7df8cf27f6a) again he was not talking about literal violence. FWIW, Holder is a moron - but that is another subject.

By the definitions you are using, MLK was a massive instigator of political violence. JFK was calling for beating commies in the streets apparently.

If we want to go tit for tat on this, what about the fairly infamous Flight 93 Election essay (https://amgreatness.com/2016/09/05/flight-93-election/) written by a prominent right wing thinker that argues "I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live." Really not hard to read that as a naked appeal to a white base and white fear of "others". Maybe you don't. Maybe it wasn't intended that way. But if we are going to lay the blame for violence at Booker and Holder's feet - why can't we argue that this type of thing has a role in violence like we saw at Charlottesville?

Romeny in 2012 - "The Obama Administration fundamentally does not believe in the American Experiment." Is another version of what you accuse the Dems of. Don't listen to these other guys, they are not American in the right manner. So listen to us, even though we are out of power.

Trump has repeatedly made a claim that he saw lots of Muslims celebrating 9/11 - never happened. Wanna bet that pissed some people off and made them want to get violent? Further his claims that an international cabal of bankers was plotting against him is about as open an appeal to antisemitism as you can get in 2018.

While I will agree with you that one can not demonstrate a direct link between terrible statements made by right wing politicians and any specific violent episode - the same can be said in the other direction. There is simply no linkage between Antifa and the American Democratic party.

You can believe whatever you want. But the linkage of ideas and concepts together with fundamentally flawed logic and then to attempt to use that to convince others just kinda pisses me off, regardless of subject.

There is a ton of totally legitimate things to use to take down Booker, Waters, Holder, and Clinton. They have actually done stupid, ignorant, and illegal things. Why do we need to concoct some vast conspiratorial alliance between entitled whiny college kids, the liberal media, the higher education system, and Antifa in order to oppose individual politicians, their ideas, and/or their party? I mean there is more than enough wrong about the current liberal agenda that some half-baked conspiracy theory from the bowels of the internet is simply not necessary to mount a credible and convincing opposition.

[GoSlash27]

Right wing protesters struck and killed an otherwise peaceable protester at Charlottesville. So there is one leg of your argument kicked out as not true.

False. It was one guy, not established as "right wing", nor a "protester", let alone plural "protesters". And Charlottesville was a right-wing event. Plus "otherwise peaceable" is a bit of a stretch there. How did all of those "otherwise peaceable protesters" produce baseball bats so quickly? We've all seen the video.

Booker's actual comments here (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...t_in_evil.html) -- clearly indicating not literal fighting. But the idea that one should confront what one sees as moral wrongs. I, you, or anyone does not have to agree with Booker's definition of "moral wrong" but to say he is inciting violence is a bit much.

No it's not. If a Republican Senator were to have said those same exact words with what's going on right now you'd be demanding a retraction and rightly so.

*snip*

By the definitions you are using, MLK was a massive instigator of political violence. JFK was calling for beating commies in the streets apparently.

False and ???. MLK never told anyone to seek out and harass his political opponents. JFK... I have no idea what you're even alluding to here.

If we want to go tit for tat on this, what about the fairly infamous Flight 93 Election essay (https://amgreatness.com/2016/09/05/flight-93-election/) written by a prominent right wing thinker that argues "I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live." Really not hard to read that as a naked appeal to a white base and white fear of "others". Maybe you don't. Maybe it wasn't intended that way. But if we are going to lay the blame for violence at Booker and Holder's feet - why can't we argue that this type of thing has a role in violence like we saw at Charlottesville?

Have I not made it abundantly clear that I'm talking about what's going on right now? I have already plainly stated that the right has done this sort of thing in the past. And attempting to draw a moral equivalence between this and "there can be no civility" is a heckuva stretch. If some Dem said today "I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live", I would not have a problem with it. You could find a better example than this if you tried... but not a recent one.

Romeny in 2012 - "The Obama Administration fundamentally does not believe in the American Experiment." Is another version of what you accuse the Dems of. Don't listen to these other guys, they are not American in the right manner. So listen to us, even though we are out of power.

"listen to us" is a far cry from "find them, get in their faces, let them know that they aren't welcome here". Good God... could you *imagine* if Romney had actually said any of this crap back then? It would've been a firestorm...

(more stuff)

Look, it's very simple: You either believe that what is going on right now is acceptable or you don't. You either believe that the level of rhetoric is acceptable or you don't. Imagine the tables turned and ask yourself if you would still be okay with it.

^ Yeah, I'm sure these aren't related at all. She didn't *literally* mean to do what she specifically told them to do, right? Or at least when she found out it was actually happening, she walked it back... right?

Every Republican on this forum will tell you that I have never hesitated to call them out when they were in the wrong. Never. But now, sorry... but the Dems are clearly at fault for this and I'm laying the blame squarely at their feet.

Best,
-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

Right wing protesters struck and killed an otherwise peaceable protester at Charlottesville. So there is one leg of your argument kicked out as not true.

False. It was one guy, not established as "right wing", nor a "protester", let alone plural "protesters". And Charlottesville was a right-wing event. Also "otherwise peaceful" is somewhat suspect, given how quickly all of those "otherwise peaceful" protesters produced baseball bats. We've all seen the video.

Booker's actual comments here (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...t_in_evil.html) -- clearly indicating not literal fighting. But the idea that one should confront what one sees as moral wrongs. I, you, or anyone does not have to agree with Booker's definition of "moral wrong" but to say he is inciting violence is a bit much.

No it's not. If a Republican Senator were to have said those same exact words with what's going on right now you'd be demanding a retraction and rightly so.

*snip*

By the definitions you are using, MLK was a massive instigator of political violence. JFK was calling for beating commies in the streets apparently.

False and ???. MLK never told anyone to seek out and harass his political opponents. JFK... I have no idea what you're even alluding to here.

If we want to go tit for tat on this, what about the fairly infamous Flight 93 Election essay (https://amgreatness.com/2016/09/05/flight-93-election/) written by a prominent right wing thinker that argues "I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live." Really not hard to read that as a naked appeal to a white base and white fear of "others". Maybe you don't. Maybe it wasn't intended that way. But if we are going to lay the blame for violence at Booker and Holder's feet - why can't we argue that this type of thing has a role in violence like we saw at Charlottesville?

Have I not made it abundantly clear that I'm talking about what's going on right now? I have already plainly stated that the right has done this sort of thing in the past. And this isn't a particularly good example. If a Dem were to say these exact words this evening, nobody would bat an eye and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Romeny in 2012 - "The Obama Administration fundamentally does not believe in the American Experiment." Is another version of what you accuse the Dems of. Don't listen to these other guys, they are not American in the right manner. So listen to us, even though we are out of power.

"listen to us" is a far cry from "find them, get in their faces, let them know that they aren't welcome here". Good God... could you *imagine* if Romney had actually said any of this crap back then? It would've been a firestorm...

(more stuff)

Look, it's very simple: You either believe that what is going on right now is acceptable or you don't. You either believe that the level of rhetoric is acceptable or you don't. Imagine the tables turned and ask yourself if you would still be okay with it.

^ Yeah, I'm sure these aren't related at all. She didn't *literally* mean for them to do what she specifically told them to do, right? Or at least when she found out it was actually happening, she walked it back... right? Riiight?

Every Republican on this forum will tell you that I have never hesitated to call them out when they were in the wrong. Never. But now, sorry... but the Dems are clearly at fault for this and I'm laying the blame squarely at their feet. It would be politic to say, "there is plenty of blame to go around and everyone needs to take a step back"... but that's simply not accurate and I can't pretend otherwise. And it's fine if you don't agree with me. Nobody said we have to agree in order to be cool with each other. But this is the way I see it and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Best,
-Slashy

[Mojouw]

So really your only point appears to be this:

"...that I'm talking about what's going on right now? I have already plainly stated that the right has done this sort of thing in the past."

So all you have really observed is that the political party out of power often resorts to the rhetoric of fear, violence, and hate to rally its base to stay mobilized and engaged? And yes, that sadly and unacceptably sometimes has the consequence of sparking or encouraging violence.

I mean, I conceded that point in the original posts related to this subject. You can not just draw arbitrary lines around a situation and then exclaim that you have identified a new phenomena or outcome.

The pattern of American politics for the past 70 (possibly far longer) years has been that the party out of power resorts to fear and anger to rally is supporters and maintain a coherent opposition until they can retake power at the ballot box. Then when an election flips the parties in power, they decry the same tactics they had just used a "moment" ago. This is not novel, new, different, unusual, or even, sadly, remarkable.

Which is why I argue that neither party is seeking to serve the American people in a real or coherent manner. Both parties are cowards and frauds that will say and do whatever they feel is necessary to win elections. Once they win those elections they will seek to deny the use of the same/similar tactics to their opposition.

And I honestly think we are both getting hung up on the details here. Are the comments of Water and Booker a "good" thing? No, of course not. But they are consistent with the type of political firebombs that politicians of the minority party make. So, we are back to the both sides do it thing. And we can assign blame to any one side or the other if we simply play around with the chronology. But, perhaps this is not your point or position, many are attempting to take this one moment in time and draw some sort of moral high-ground argument and that is almost totally unsupportable.

[GoSlash27]

So really your only point appears to be this:

"...that I'm talking about what's going on right now? I have already plainly stated that the right has done this sort of thing in the past."

So all you have really observed is that the political party out of power often resorts to the rhetoric of fear, violence, and hate to rally its base to stay mobilized and engaged? And yes, that sadly and unacceptably sometimes has the consequence of sparking or encouraging violence.

I mean, I conceded that point in the original posts related to this subject. You can not just draw arbitrary lines around a situation and then exclaim that you have identified a new phenomena or outcome.

The pattern of American politics for the past 70 (possibly far longer) years has been that the party out of power resorts to fear and anger to rally is supporters and maintain a coherent opposition until they can retake power at the ballot box. Then when an election flips the parties in power, they decry the same tactics they had just used a "moment" ago. This is not novel, new, different, unusual, or even, sadly, remarkable.

Which is why I argue that neither party is seeking to serve the American people in a real or coherent manner. Both parties are cowards and frauds that will say and do whatever they feel is necessary to win elections. Once they win those elections they will seek to deny the use of the same/similar tactics to their opposition.

And I honestly think we are both getting hung up on the details here. Are the comments of Water and Booker a "good" thing? No, of course not. But they are consistent with the type of political firebombs that politicians of the minority party make. So, we are back to the both sides do it thing. And we can assign blame to any one side or the other if we simply play around with the chronology. But, perhaps this is not your point or position, many are attempting to take this one moment in time and draw some sort of moral high-ground argument and that is almost totally unsupportable.

Mojouw,

Yes, we are mostly in agreement on this post. But to clarify, I have 'observed' a helluva lot more than that over the decades.

So now, *in the moment* we either place the burden of de-escalating the situation in the hands of those who are responsible *in the moment* or we accept whatever happens. You know... "In the moment"

Personally, I think it's gone too far, and I think the general electorate sees it the same way... but I may be mistaken. Of course YMMV.

Steelers are finally above .500!
-Slashy

[Mojouw]

Mojouw,

Yes, we are mostly in agreement on this post.

So now, *in the moment* we either place the burden of de-escalating the situation in the hands of those who are responsible *in the moment* or we accept whatever happens. You know... "In the moment"

Personally, I think it's gone too far, and I think the general electorate sees it the same way... but I may be mistaken. Of course YMMV.

Steelers are finally above .500!
-Slashy

Fair enough. The saddest part of all this is that the politicians who make the most extreme statements, on either side, are also the electorally safest.

[GoSlash27]

Fair enough. The saddest part of all this is that the politicians who make the most extreme statements, on either side, are also the electorally safest.

Mojouw,
Hell, that's by design and it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface But I'm not here to convert you to my way of thinking.

Best,
-Slashy

[Dwinsgames]

[Craic]

Trump has repeatedly made a claim that he saw lots of Muslims celebrating 9/11 - never happened.

Actually, it did. There was an AP freelance videographer who recorded a few thousand people celebrating in Nablus. It never made the news because his life was threatened if it was release. Here's the AP story recounting the AP Chief of Bureau Dan Perry's protest to the Palestinian Authority on the threat to the reporter's life.

The video that made the rounds that day, however, was an earlier video of kids dancing in Jerusalem that was wrongly associated with the attacks.

So, no, Trump most-likely never saw the video. However, yes, there were some Muslims celebrating, at least in Nablus.

EDIT: Here's a November 2001 piece on the topic written by an American Missionary (who comes from the left side of the spectrum) and then a Muslim. Note that overall tone is how the US responded incorrectly to what was shown on TV and how it was very wrong to do so. However, in the midst of that, she also says, "Yes, there were some gatherings of people, particularly in Nablus who were shown in the very hours of the horrible attacks in the US on the street, dancing and cheering, and passing out chocolate. But, these expressions were few and . . . " she goes on to say how the majority were as upset as everyone else. So, that's two independent sources confirming that in fact, there were some celebrations. Again, not a lot, the "Muslim world" didn't celebrate. Some Muslims in a few areas did.

As much as we need to counter the narrative that paints Muslims celebrating with a large brush across the mideast, we also have to counter the narrative that non of them did, because neither narrative is true.

[AtlantaDan]

Actually, it did. There was an AP freelance videographer who recorded a few thousand people celebrating in Nablus. It never made the news because his life was threatened if it was release. Here's the AP story recounting the AP Chief of Bureau Dan Perry's protest to the Palestinian Authority on the threat to the reporter's life.

The video that made the rounds that day, however, was an earlier video of kids dancing in Jerusalem that was wrongly associated with the attacks.

So, no, Trump most-likely never saw the video. However, yes, there were some Muslims celebrating, at least in Nablus.

Of course Mr. Trump claimed he saw thousands cheering in Jersey City, New Jersey, and, as usual, doubled down on that ludicrous claim when called on it by contending what he allegedly saw was "well covered"

VIDEO CLIP OF DONALD TRUMP, IN WHICH HE SAYS: Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”...

[GEORGE] STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you misspeak yesterday?”

TRUMP: “It did happen. I saw it.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “You saw that…”
TRUMP: It was on television. I saw it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: “…with your own eyes?”
TRUMP: “George, it did happen.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Police say it didn’t happen.”
TRUMP: “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.”...

We heard from many readers who are convinced they saw this on television but from their description they are referring to reports (linked above) of Palestinians celebrating on the Israeli-occupied West Bank. ...

This appears to be another case of Trump’s overactive imagination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.eb39eea6a73e

[Craic]

Of course Mr. Trump claimed he saw thousands cheering in Jersey City, New Jersey, and, as usual, doubled down on that ludicrous claim when called on it by contending what he allegedly saw was "well covered"

VIDEO CLIP OF DONALD TRUMP, IN WHICH HE SAYS: Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”...

[GEORGE] STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you misspeak yesterday?”

TRUMP: “It did happen. I saw it.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “You saw that…”
TRUMP: It was on television. I saw it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: “…with your own eyes?”
TRUMP: “George, it did happen.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Police say it didn’t happen.”
TRUMP: “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.”...

We heard from many readers who are convinced they saw this on television but from their description they are referring to reports (linked above) of Palestinians celebrating on the Israeli-occupied West Bank. ...

This appears to be another case of Trump’s overactive imagination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.eb39eea6a73e

Meh... as I said. It happened, but he didn't see it. Moreover, it wasn't like he said. (Oh, and it did occur in NJ as well. But again, not like he said, and he didn't see it on TV.)

[Dwinsgames]

Meh... as I said. It happened, but he didn't see it. Moreover, it wasn't like he said. (Oh, and it did occur in NJ as well. But again, not like he said, and he didn't see it on TV.)

meh ... I do not give much credence to this sort of thing here is why ...

we are all football fans ...

we are all steelers fans ( well 98% of us here anyways )

the year mendenhall was drafted I seen a piece on him ( may have been path to the draft ) where he exclaimed football was not his #1 priority in life and was not his first love ... now considering it was a football piece and a draft piece and he knew it .... that hit home with me and stuck ... I did NOT want him drafted by the steelers ... I wasnt that high on him prior to seeing that piece and he lost a full round of value in my mind just making that statement ... I posted about that here before a few years ago and if my memory serves only 1 or 2 people could recall any such piece ... I searched and searched for the video to show it but to no avail I could not find it but I know 100% I seen it

I remember seeing Muslims cheering and dancing in the streets during 911 too , I do not believe it was here in the US as I think some of them had AK's in their hands but its pretty fuzzy on the details and was a long time ago and watched countless hours of coverage on several networks during and since .... I can see how someone could mistake where a video took place at with coverage jumping from one place to another with reactions add in that is was a horrific event and a degree of shock has taken over it is quite possible you may remember something incorrectly but it does not mean it wasnt seen , just misrecalled ...



I landed under sniper fire

[Craic]

meh ... I do not give much credence to this sort of thing here is why ...

we are all football fans ...

we are all steelers fans ( well 98% of us here anyways )

the year mendenhall was drafted I seen a piece on him ( may have been path to the draft ) where he exclaimed football was not his #1 priority in life and was not his first love ... now considering it was a football piece and a draft piece and he knew it .... that hit home with me and stuck ... I did NOT want him drafted by the steelers ... I wasnt that high on him prior to seeing that piece and he lost a full round of value in my mind just making that statement ... I posted about that here before a few years ago and if my memory serves only 1 or 2 people could recall any such piece ... I searched and searched for the video to show it but to no avail I could not find it but I know 100% I seen it

I remember seeing Muslims cheering and dancing in the streets during 911 too , I do not believe it was here in the US as I think some of them had AK's in their hands but its pretty fuzzy on the details and was a long time ago and watched countless hours of coverage on several networks during and since .... I can see how someone could mistake where a video took place at with coverage jumping from one place to another with reactions add in that is was a horrific event and a degree of shock has taken over it is quite possible you may remember something incorrectly but it does not mean it wasnt seen , just misrecalled ...

The difference, however, is the clip that was played that we all saw was pretty well known. Moreover, they store all that happens on live TV. So, unlike what you said about Mendy, we know for a fact that the videos being discussed were aired the day of and the week of the attacks. From there, it doesn't take much to go through and view all the video from CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, and so on. In fact, in the article I linked, that very thing has been done. What they found was all those videos linked back to footage that was about something else entirely. The videos were applied in the wrong context, and then to make it worse, a British Journalist is narrating over the top of it, "Sweets from Bin Laden" as in, the candies the kid was giving out was a metaphor for the "sweet" of seeing an act of terror in the US. That video has been debunked by several different groups. The problem is that the video created a narrative, and now we interpret all the events of that day (specifically talking about celebration) based on the narrative even though the roots of the narrative have now been disproven (the video at hand).

As I've said, however, it didn't mean some didn't celebrate. I've linked to sources in which the historicity of the account is proven or at the very least, evidence strongly suggests it should be accepted as factual.
______

Apropos to the general discussion now in this thread.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/two-...ted-minnesota/

[GoSlash27]

Honestly, I don't even know why we're arguing this minor point.

Yes, Trump is prone to embellishment and doubling- down on his mistakes. We all know this, even if some on the right are loath to admit it. But here's the thing: It was offered up as an example of inflammatory rhetoric from the right, which it was not. He said this in defense of his proposal to curtail immigration from countries with a large ISIS presence. He *never* suggested or implied that people should confront or assult Muslim Americans and (more importantly) nobody was doing that. It would've been arguable if people from the right were going into Muslim communities and cracking heads at the time he said it, but they weren't doing that and they didn't do it after he said it.
This is, in no way shape or form, comparable to what's going on today where we have militant leftists assaulting people in the streets and destroying property while Democratic politicians are encouraging and defending it.
Whether Trump was lying, or mistaken, or technically correct... that doesn't matter in the slightest AFA what's going on right now. The entire subject is irrelevant.

Best,
-Slashy

[AtlantaDan]

This is, in no way shape or form, comparable to what's going on today where we have militant leftists assaulting people in the streets and destroying property while Democratic politicians are encouraging and defending it.
Whether Trump was lying, or mistaken, or technically correct... that doesn't matter in the slightest AFA what's going on right now. The entire subject is irrelevant.

Best,
-Slashy

In terms of politicians encouraging and defending assault, how about this?
Twice in two months, President Trump has gone to Montana and praised that state’s congressman for assaulting a reporter.

On Thursday, Trump outright celebrated the incident, which led to Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.) eventually pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. A judge called Gianforte’s behavior “totally unacceptable.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.a1f54c5a0323

Trump: He’s so smart. You know, you’re on live television all over the place, and we have people that get up and speak for 20-25 minutes and these guys are going crazy, that’s not the deal. But Greg is smart. And by the way never wrestle him. Never. [Laughter] Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind of guy. [Cheering] I shouldn’t say that—there’s nothing to be embarrassed about. So I was in Rome with a lot of the leaders from other countries talking about all sorts of things and I heard about it. And we endorsed Greg very early, but I heard he body slammed a reporter. [Cheering] [Applause] And he was way up, and I said this was like the day of the election, or just before, and I said oh, this is terrible he’s going to lose the election, then I said, wait a minute, I know Montana pretty well, I think it might help him, and it did. [Applause] He’s a great guy. Tough cookie.

[GoSlash27]

In terms of politicians encouraging and defending assault, how about this?
Twice in two months, President Trump has gone to Montana and praised that state’s congressman for assaulting a reporter.

Doesn't bother me in the least. If his remarks lead toa spate of reporter bodyslamming, I'll revise my opinion.

Best,
-Slashy

[Mach1]

The ever tolerant left.

House Minority Leader and potential Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi raised eyebrows throughout the nation this week; saying she was willing to accept “collateral damage” for those who “do not share our view.”

Pelosi’s fiery rhetoric comes as other leading Democrats -including Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton- call for the public harassment of GOP politicians in the wake of Brett Kavanaugh’s brutal confirmation battle.

“We owe the American people to be there for them. For their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country,” said Pelosi.

“If there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well so be it,” she added.

https://bongino.com/pelosi-says-shes...9WJmZL9hLnBRfk

[Mojouw]

Th guy running in PA that threatened to stomp on his opponents face with golf cleats.

The PAC that ran an ad in support of the GOP candidate in the AZ congressional race that said black people might get lynched due to false sexual assault accusations.

But, you know ANTIFA...which isn't even linked to liberal politicians...

One side of the political spectrum continual talks about "our country", "our values", "western civilization", "western values" etc. It is dog-whistle racism. They might as well stand up there and talk about blood and soil or the 11 words or whatever.

If we are intended to accept that the comments of liberal politicians are causing ANTIFA street violence I refuse to back-down from the claim that the same logical structure must be replied in reverse. The linkage between right wing commentary and white hate groups needs to be acknowledged.

I am not accusing any individual politico from either side as actively being racist or inciting violence. But I do think individuals from both sides of the aisle will shameless pander to their worst instincts if it gets them votes. Overall, it is all of our faults. Americans don't consistently vote in any great numbers. The data shows that the segments of the electorate that do reliably go out and vote often represent the most ideologically extreme poles of the spectrum. This, in my opinion, results in hyperbolic and vitriolic rhetoric from politicians. And we all keep rewarding them for it by voting, or not voting as the case my be.

[Mojouw]

The ever tolerant left.


https://bongino.com/pelosi-says-shes...9WJmZL9hLnBRfk

The full quote funny how many places don't include the highlighted part:

Pelosi was going back and forth on climate change and its connection to job creation and prosperity with Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist. After finishing a sweeping discussion about those topics, Pelosi made the case that liberal policies would entail "collateral damage for some others who do not share our view" but ultimately help the country.


"We owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there is some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn't be our original purpose," Pelosi said.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/pelo...nt-share-view/

You have to go pretty far down the rabbit hole to see Pelosi's comments (who for the record is not great at a great many things) as calling for street level violence. Just as I think that many comments I find distasteful from a variety of politicians are also very very far from calling for violent clashes in the streets.

[43Hitman]

Can't we just agree that this crap is bad for all of us? We really need to stop drawing lines in concrete, and start figuring out how to compromise, you know, that thing that founded this country. WE

are spiraling out of control, and WE are ALL to blame. I believe that it starts with us, you, me, Slashy, Moj, Dan, people who have different opinions. We are acting like children while telling our

children to act like adults. WTF? Let's let bygones be bygones and focus on the hear and now. That means calling out our own parties and being intellectually honest enough to say, "hey that's

fucked up and we shouldn't do that" and not worry about what the group thinkers say. I mean that's where it starts, right? That when people see other people acting with civility and making progress

that they may start acting that way too. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm the only guy that thinks this, but I highly doubt it. Until we as individuals can admit our own shortcomings and be willing to

compromise we are doomed for failure, we all know it too and to me, that's the saddest part of all of this.

[Mojouw]

Can't we just agree that this crap is bad for all of us? We really need to stop drawing lines in concrete, and start figuring out how to compromise, you know, that thing that founded this country. WE

are spiraling out of control, and WE are ALL to blame. I believe that it starts with us, you, me, Slashy, Moj, Dan, people who have different opinions. We are acting like children while telling our

children to act like adults. WTF? Let's let bygones be bygones and focus on the hear and now. That means calling out our own parties and being intellectually honest enough to say, "hey that's

fucked up and we shouldn't do that" and not worry about what the group thinkers say. I mean that's where it starts, right? That when people see other people acting with civility and making progress

that they may start acting that way too. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm the only guy that thinks this, but I highly doubt it. Until we as individuals can admit our own shortcomings and be willing to

compromise we are doomed for failure, we all know it too and to me, that's the saddest part of all of this.

I actually agree. I really do. But I get driven up a wall that we have reached an era where we can not agree on what the facts are so to speak. It is not possible to reach compromise(s) when the two sides attempting to compromise have a fundamentally divergent understanding of the basic facts.

Recently there has been talk that the left has been taken over by "the mob". How can DEMS and the GOP reach any sort of compromise when the leadership of one part rejects the other party's constituents as irrelevant and unworthy of being heard? We can turn it around and say the same thing in the other direction. When the DEMS dismiss a core component of GOP voters as "deplorable" there is not the basis for a compromise.

If we can not agree, as a nation, that the following things are broadly true, then it is pretty much hopeless.

The climate is changing and it poses a serious challenge to human populations.
Entitlement spending is a problem and serious and sober solutions need to be considered.
Giving corporations massive tax cuts does not seem to help the "common man" as much as has been promised.
What is the United State's role on the world stage? Endless war in the Middle East either by drones or boots on the ground is not a viable long term strategy.

But ask a cross section of people about these issues and you will get NO agreement that they even exist, let alone that they are a problem worthy of discussion.

[43Hitman]

I actually agree. I really do. But I get driven up a wall that we have reached an era where we can not agree on what the facts are so to speak. It is not possible to reach compromise(s) when the two sides attempting to compromise have a fundamentally divergent understanding of the basic facts.

Recently there has been talk that the left has been taken over by "the mob". How can DEMS and the GOP reach any sort of compromise when the leadership of one part rejects the other party's constituents as irrelevant and unworthy of being heard? We can turn it around and say the same thing in the other direction. When the DEMS dismiss a core component of GOP voters as "deplorable" there is not the basis for a compromise.

If we can not agree, as a nation, that the following things are broadly true, then it is pretty much hopeless.

The climate is changing and it poses a serious challenge to human populations.
Entitlement spending is a problem and serious and sober solutions need to be considered.
Giving corporations massive tax cuts does not seem to help the "common man" as much as has been promised.
What is the United State's role on the world stage? Endless war in the Middle East either by drones or boots on the ground is not a viable long term strategy.

But ask a cross section of people about these issues and you will get NO agreement that they even exist, let alone that they are a problem worthy of discussion.

I can agree with all of those sentiments. I don't think we need to be the world's watchdog, but we should play a role. I also agree that we've been in the Middle East too long, but I'm not sure what

the answer is there either. Do we pull out and create a vacuum, or do we stay and try to keep the peace between warring tribes at that the expense of American lives and tax dollars? Not easy

answers for sure, but I lean more to the side of bringing our men and women home.



As far as the tax thing, I can only talk about my experience in my field of profession. A lot of my co-workers, including myself, have received raises and promotions in the last 2 years, so to us, it

seems to be working. However, I have to admit that I'm not really astute on taxes and how they affect big corporations and small businesses. Common sense tells me you give more breaks to the

small businesses, not big corporations. Because in theory some of those small businesses grow into big corporations and obviously they would no longer need those breaks. As I've already said

though, I have limited knowledge on how those tax laws work.

[AtlantaDan]

Can't we just agree that this crap is bad for all of us? We really need to stop drawing lines in concrete, and start figuring out how to compromise, you know, that thing that founded this country. WE

are spiraling out of control, and WE are ALL to blame. I believe that it starts with us, you, me, Slashy, Moj, Dan, people who have different opinions. We are acting like children while telling our

children to act like adults. WTF? Let's let bygones be bygones and focus on the hear and now. That means calling out our own parties and being intellectually honest enough to say, "hey that's

fucked up and we shouldn't do that" and not worry about what the group thinkers say. I mean that's where it starts, right? That when people see other people acting with civility and making progress

that they may start acting that way too. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm the only guy that thinks this, but I highly doubt it. Until we as individuals can admit our own shortcomings and be willing to

compromise we are doomed for failure, we all know it too and to me, that's the saddest part of all of this.

Agreed

I posted this previously in this thread and stand by it now

Both Mojouw and I are not contending only "the right" engages in violent and reprehensible behavior....

It is the contention it is only "the left" that engages in this sort of conduct that has prompted me to continue posting on this point.

It drives me to distraction that a grifter such as Hillary Clinton is an alleged champion of all women except for those who her pig of a husband screwed over, that Elizabeth Warren doubles down on a bogus claim of Native American heritage, and that Democrat Senators such as Diane Feinstein and Corey Booker helped make a farce of the Kavanaugh hearings.

Due to the intellectual bankruptcy of both major political parties in dealing with matters such as ongoing declines in real middle class incomes that have been going on under GOP & Dem administrations since the mid-70s, culminating in the Great Recession in which the financial industry was bailed out, nobody of significance was prosecuted by Obama's Justice Department, and the middle class took the hit, we ended up with a choice between two horrible candidates in 2016 (FWIW I voted for Rubio in the Georgia primary as the only candidate with a shot to stop Trump in Georgia then wrote in John Kasich in the general election since my vote only counts in Georgia due to the Electoral College and the election was not going to be decided by whoever carried Georgia). Since then it has only become worse.

Unfortunately with the way political campaigns are structured today I am highly confident that the candidate who engages in unilateral disarmament and does not go negative will get smoked. As Mojouw posted, I do not even know what an issues based campaign would look like since a cross section of voters cannot even agree on what the issues are, let alone possible solutions.

So I am sick of the current political situation on both sides but frankly do not know where that leaves us. It usually takes a catastrophic event to blow up the status quo in American politics (Civil War/Great Depression). The 2008 financial crisis did not do it but something will. Until then maybe the cliche that voters get the government they deserve says it all.

No wonder so many people tune out and do not even bother to vote.

[Mach1]

[GoSlash27]

One side of the political spectrum continual talks about "our country", "our values", "western civilization", "western values" etc. It is dog-whistle racism. They might as well stand up there and talk about blood and soil or the 11 words or whatever.

As we all know, the lefties are the experts on what is or is not "dog- whistle racism". They're such experts on the subject, they're usually the only ones who can hear it...

Best,
-Slashy

[Mojouw]

As we all know, the lefties are the experts on what is or is not "dog- whistle racism". They're such experts on the subject, they're usually the only ones who can hear it...

Best,
-Slashy

Yeah. I don't need anyone to tell me anything - much less a politician. I can see and hear for myself. It really isn't hard to judge.

I;m not calling all people on the right side of the aisle bigoted or even prejudiced. But you start with Atwater's infamous comments and you can trace a pretty clear line to someone like Steve King talking about not being able to build "our civilization with someone else's babies". I mean I do not know how else to read that other than a barely veiled statement of pro-white nationalism.

I fully realize this prize is not emblematic of any party or majority viewpoint -- but it does beggar belief that someone like this can openly run for office:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ded-from-satan

But...I don't know why I even bother. You seem to have no interest in having a discussion or to acknowledge anything other than your predetermined point of view. So I yield the floor and will make my best effort to stay out of these types of discussions. Because...what is the point? Clearly everyone who holds a view left of center are simply misled sheeple that are under the thrall of a tyrannical and violent anti-American ideology. Likely the result of the loony left brainwashing they received during their stay at some worthless liberal institution of higher learning.

Thank god the internet was invented so we could call attention to this subtle and vast liberal conspiracy to subvert the nation in the name of their corporate globalist masters.

[GoSlash27]

Yeah. I don't need anyone to tell me anything - much less a politician. I can see and hear for myself. It really isn't hard to judge.

Mojo,
Yeah, that's the problem IMO. You're not a racist politician, nor are you a closeted right- wing bigot. Yet *somehow*, you are supremely confident in your ability to crack their secret communications when nobody else can.
Meanwhile, everyone else is like "WTH is this dude talkin' about??"

Just maybe it's a little "harder to judge" than you assume. Maybe you are the one that has been mistaken all these years. Maybe you have been wrongfully labeling everyone who disagrees with you as "racist" and they're sick of it. Maybe constantly insulting the people you're supposed to be persuading is the reason they no longer identify with you.



Or, you know... Maybe not. Perhaps I'm the one that's mistaken
Best,
-Slashy