(03-15-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly, and that's kind of my point.

The point is that because you perceive the left to be more violent that Trump should get a pass?

Perceive? Do you deny it?

Speaking for myself, the point is that left is more guilty of violence than the right, yet they are the ones pointing fingers.

There have certainly been more protests that have devolved into violence led by antifa. There has certainly been more bombs mailed out by Trump supporters.

So in my mind, it's kind of a wash. There have been bad actors causing an perpetrating violence on both sides of the divide, which is exactly why I said that the response to Trump's Charlottesville comments would have been different if he had stated there were bad people on both sides.

Also, look at how I responded to your question - instead of getting up and arms suggesting you're putting words in my mouth, I understand that you're asking for clarification and I provided it.

And to your last comment, why does the amount of violence matter? I guess if you want to point out that the left is being hypocritical, it does. But it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the POTUS is stoking flames through his use of language. One person's wrong does not make another person right, ya know?

I need a list of bombs mailed out by Trump supporters to evaluate your claim.

Every protest by Antifa that i know of has 'devolved" into violence. It is almost as if the violence is planned and expected. I would think when they leave home with their bandannas, they have an idea of what comes next.

To stoke flames, you first need flames. Where are the violent outbursts he is stoking?

That's a short memory: https://www.apnews.com/46514c3eb6fb474c9ac1df2c24b0acf5

Quote: Sayoc’s arrest Friday was a major breakthrough in the nationwide manhunt following the discovery of explosive devices — none of which detonated — addressed to prominent Democrats and other frequent targets of conservative ire, including former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and the cable network CNN. On Friday, new packages addressed to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper were intercepted — both similar to those containing pipe bombs discovered earlier in the week.

And I agree about Antifa - they're out looking for violence generally. Dems have condemned that or spoken out about how those on the right shouldn't be threatened with violence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powe...599eec2004

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmask...index.html

I would prefer that Democrats were more vocal about this, however.

edit: and unfortunately, the New Zealand shooter called out Trump, by name, as his inspiration. Trump was good to respond to the initial news with a supportive tweet, and would be good to follow this up with a strongly worded condemnation of people using him as inspiration for heinous attacks. But he needs to couple that with some changes to the language he uses on a daily basis.

(03-15-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point is that because you perceive the left to be more violent that Trump should get a pass?

Perceive? Do you deny it?

Speaking for myself, the point is that left is more guilty of violence than the right, yet they are the ones pointing fingers.

There have certainly been more protests that have devolved into violence led by antifa. There has certainly been more bombs mailed out by Trump supporters.

So in my mind, it's kind of a wash. There have been bad actors causing an perpetrating violence on both sides of the divide, which is exactly why I said that the response to Trump's Charlottesville comments would have been different if he had stated there were bad people on both sides.

Also, look at how I responded to your question - instead of getting up and arms suggesting you're putting words in my mouth, I understand that you're asking for clarification and I provided it.

And to your last comment, why does the amount of violence matter? I guess if you want to point out that the left is being hypocritical, it does. But it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the POTUS is stoking flames through his use of language. One person's wrong does not make another person right, ya know?

I need a list of bombs mailed out by Trump supporters to evaluate your claim.

Every protest by Antifa that i know of has 'devolved" into violence. It is almost as if the violence is planned and expected. I would think when they leave home with their bandannas, they have an idea of what comes next.

To stoke flames, you first need flames. Where are the violent outbursts he is stoking?

That's a short memory: https://www.apnews.com/46514c3eb6fb474c9ac1df2c24b0acf5

Quote: Sayoc’s arrest Friday was a major breakthrough in the nationwide manhunt following the discovery of explosive devices — none of which detonated — addressed to prominent Democrats and other frequent targets of conservative ire, including former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and the cable network CNN. On Friday, new packages addressed to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper were intercepted — both similar to those containing pipe bombs discovered earlier in the week.

And I agree about Antifa - they're out looking for violence generally. Dems have condemned that or spoken out about how those on the right shouldn't be threatened with violence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powe...599eec2004

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmask...index.html

I would prefer that Democrats were more vocal about this, however.

edit: and unfortunately, the New Zealand shooter called out Trump, by name, as his inspiration. Trump was good to respond to the initial news with a supportive tweet, and would be good to follow this up with a strongly worded condemnation of people using him as inspiration for heinous attacks. But he needs to couple that with some changes to the language he uses on a daily basis.

Sayoc is one. Or are you counting him as thirteen?
either way, I* think you need to find some more to support this statement:

There has certainly been more bombs mailed out by Trump supporters.

(03-15-2019 11:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 08:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 07:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 12:41 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:WASHINGTON—U.S. President Donald Trump has warned his political opponents of the possibility that they could eventually be confronted by armed Trump supporters in and out of uniform, telling a right-wing website on Monday that “it would be very bad, very bad” if his backers in the military, police and a motorcycle group were provoked into getting “tough.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/...tough.html

This is going to get lost in the news about the horrific Mosque attacks in New Zealand, but it is one of the most disturbing things Trump has said. If he had mentioned just bikers maybe you could write it off as a bad, highly inappropriate joke. But bringing police and the military into it is highly problematic. That's pretty much the definition of an authoritarian regime.

Disturbing? Perhaps.

But realistic? Quite possibly. I don't know about your daily affairs, but what I'm seeing regularly convinces me that there is very real and very widespread dissension with the way things are going in this country. I think he has expressed a very realistic concern. I am quite seriously worried that we are headed toward something like that, and if you are not worried I think you should be.

I guess I have a higher opinion of the military and police than you.

FWIW, I read Trump's comments as far more typically inartful, myopic, and self-centered than sinister: His references to having the support of "the police" and "the military" don't mean those as institutions per se but simply that people in those professions support him politically in their individual capacities. Which is undoubtedly true, as far as it goes: people in those jobs lean conservative (let's put aside whether Trump qualifies as conservative).

Now, I'm sure in Trump's mind he believes his support in those professions to be near-unanimous, given that police are always leading motorcades for him, every military person he encounters salutes him, and he's never actually met a cop or soldier that opposes him, given that he never does events that aren't fawning rallies. But that doesn't mean he literally believes he could direct these entities to perform political violence on his behalf (whether he fantasizes about it is another matter).

I won't argue the criticisms that he should change his tone, be more presidential, choose his words more carefully, etc. He should, but he won't; or more likely, can't.

This too shall pass.

(03-15-2019 02:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  FWIW, I read Trump's comments as far more typically inartful, myopic, and self-centered than sinister: His references to having the support of "the police" and "the military" don't mean those as institutions per se but simply that people in those professions support him politically in their individual capacities. Which is undoubtedly true, as far as it goes: people in those jobs lean conservative (let's put aside whether Trump qualifies as conservative).

...

I won't argue the criticisms that he should change his tone, be more presidential, choose his words more carefully, etc. He should, but he won't; or more likely, can't.

This too shall pass.

agree with the above.

(03-15-2019 11:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Actually, the reality is that Trump supporters have been very quiet compared to leftists. The Tea Party meetings were peaceful and they picked up after themselves. The left has to go back to a single punch thrown by a single individual at a rally three years ago to find something to mention to show how violent Trump supporters are in response to Trump's "calls" for violence.
Of course, on the left, we have rioting and antifa attacks and dumpster fires and people banned from campuses. But that's OK, since it is in a good cause - silencing the right.

Exactly, and that's kind of my point.

The point is that because you perceive the left to be more violent that Trump should get a pass?

Perceive? Do you deny it?

Speaking for myself, the point is that left is more guilty of violence than the right, yet they are the ones pointing fingers.

Wow, just completely detached from reality. Yes, antifa are idiots. But right wing violence has a body count.

Left wing violence is: a) directed at otherwise peaceful prayer gatherings; or b) specifically targets elected officials. Forgot Scalise already?

I would suggest getting off your high horse 'body count' rhetoric.

(03-15-2019 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point is that because you perceive the left to be more violent that Trump should get a pass?

No.
My point was written in sentences composed of English words. So was OO's. Kindly respond to what I wrote instead of restating (and misstating) it.
Or go on building straw men. Your choice.

OO's response literally said that the right hasn't been that violent compared to the leftists (see bold).
He said this in response to criticisms of Trump's use of language. That seems to pretty clearly suggest that because the left has been perceived to be more violent, the criticism of Trump is unwarranted.
If that isn't the point, please clarify what it was.

OO and I both wrote in explicit sentences composed of English words.
You were okay until you got to "seems." Everything after that is your interpretation, not our words. And, oh yes, I see, you said "seems ... to suggest ..."
How about this? Respond to what we actually wrote, and keep the "seems to suggest" part to yourself.

I responded to what you wrote. I'll rephrase my question, as I did to OO, since it seems to have triggered something in you.
Why does it matter if the left is perceived to be more violent than the right when discussing Trump's statements?

It doesn't. I'm not saying that it does. They are two, as nearly as I can tell, totally unrelated ideas.

Why don't you try reading what I wrote and responding to that instead of deflecting with what you think it "seems to suggest"?

(03-15-2019 11:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 08:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 07:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 12:41 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:WASHINGTON—U.S. President Donald Trump has warned his political opponents of the possibility that they could eventually be confronted by armed Trump supporters in and out of uniform, telling a right-wing website on Monday that “it would be very bad, very bad” if his backers in the military, police and a motorcycle group were provoked into getting “tough.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/...tough.html

This is going to get lost in the news about the horrific Mosque attacks in New Zealand, but it is one of the most disturbing things Trump has said. If he had mentioned just bikers maybe you could write it off as a bad, highly inappropriate joke. But bringing police and the military into it is highly problematic. That's pretty much the definition of an authoritarian regime.

Disturbing? Perhaps.
But realistic? Quite possibly. I don't know about your daily affairs, but what I'm seeing regularly convinces me that there is very real and very widespread dissension with the way things are going in this country. I think he has expressed a very realistic concern. I am quite seriously worried that we are headed toward something like that, and if you are not worried I think you should be.

I guess I have a higher opinion of the military and police than you.

Mine is probably higher. I have the utmost respect for anybody who puts his/her life on the line for me.

(03-15-2019 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 10:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No.
My point was written in sentences composed of English words. So was OO's. Kindly respond to what I wrote instead of restating (and misstating) it.
Or go on building straw men. Your choice.

OO's response literally said that the right hasn't been that violent compared to the leftists (see bold).
He said this in response to criticisms of Trump's use of language. That seems to pretty clearly suggest that because the left has been perceived to be more violent, the criticism of Trump is unwarranted.
If that isn't the point, please clarify what it was.

OO and I both wrote in explicit sentences composed of English words.
You were okay until you got to "seems." Everything after that is your interpretation, not our words. And, oh yes, I see, you said "seems ... to suggest ..."
How about this? Respond to what we actually wrote, and keep the "seems to suggest" part to yourself.

I responded to what you wrote. I'll rephrase my question, as I did to OO, since it seems to have triggered something in you.
Why does it matter if the left is perceived to be more violent than the right when discussing Trump's statements?

It doesn't. I'm not saying that it does. They are two, as nearly as I can tell, totally unrelated ideas.

Why don't you try reading what I wrote and responding to that instead of deflecting with what you think it "seems to suggest"?

You replied to a comment that OO left saying that was kind of your point. The point of OO’s comment was that the left is hypocritical. So your initial point was that the left was hypocritical?

That did not come across at all when you were talking about dog whistles and whether Trump’s statement was an observation of a situation or not.

I really shouldn't have to explain this, particularly to some who I presume to be a Rice grad, but here goes.

My point is that all this, "OMG. Trump is calling for violence," crap is nonsense. If he were dog whistling the far right into some kind of action, there would have taken action by now. He's not and they haven't.

OO's comments took a different but similar tack. I think one reason the left keeps seeing this as dog whistles is because the Alinsky thinking conditions them to accept violence from their side, so they expect it from the other.

(03-16-2019 07:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really shouldn't have to explain this, particularly to some who I presume to be a Rice grad, but here goes.

My point is that all this, "OMG. Trump is calling for violence," crap is nonsense. If he were dog whistling the far right into some kind of action, there would have taken action by now. He's not and they haven't.

OO's comments took a different but similar tack. I think one reason the left keeps seeing this as dog whistles is because the Alinsky thinking conditions them to accept violence from their side, so they expect it from the other.

But you are seeing people on the far right take action and directly cite Trump as a reason for their actions...

Does. Not. Compute.

(03-16-2019 08:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 07:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really shouldn't have to explain this, particularly to some who I presume to be a Rice grad, but here goes.

My point is that all this, "OMG. Trump is calling for violence," crap is nonsense. If he were dog whistling the far right into some kind of action, there would have taken action by now. He's not and they haven't.

OO's comments took a different but similar tack. I think one reason the left keeps seeing this as dog whistles is because the Alinsky thinking conditions them to accept violence from their side, so they expect it from the other.

But you are seeing people on the far right take action and directly cite Trump as a reason for their actions...

Does. Not. Compute.

And the myna birds seemingly ignore that many cite their hatred of capitalism, or their love of Communist China in the same breath. Funny that.

I am sure now that a Red Hat is now going to be cited as a trigger mechanism in a parrot-like fashion. Red Hat == secret code for padlock wrapped in sock in my book.

(03-16-2019 08:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 07:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really shouldn't have to explain this, particularly to some who I presume to be a Rice grad, but here goes.
My point is that all this, "OMG. Trump is calling for violence," crap is nonsense. If he were dog whistling the far right into some kind of action, there would have taken action by now. He's not and they haven't.
OO's comments took a different but similar tack. I think one reason the left keeps seeing this as dog whistles is because the Alinsky thinking conditions them to accept violence from their side, so they expect it from the other.

But you are seeing people on the far right take action and directly cite Trump as a reason for their actions...
Does. Not. Compute.

They're nutcases. They say all sorts of crap. They say they're communists, they say they're socialists, they say they were inspired by all sorts of things.

Their minds don't work logically. John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan because he wanted to impress Jodie Foster. That's the way their minds work. Nutcases gonna be nutcases.

Looks like the witch hunt has found another witch

"The case centers on lobbying work that Craig performed in 2012 for the Russian-backed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych,"

"As with Manafort's case, there is no indication that Craig improperly colluded with a foreign government while he was serving in any official capacity. Craig worked as White House Counsel from 2009 to 2010, and previously worked in the Clinton administration on impeachment matters."

(03-20-2019 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Looks like the witch hunt has found another witch

"The case centers on lobbying work that Craig performed in 2012 for the Russian-backed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych,"

"As with Manafort's case, there is no indication that Craig improperly colluded with a foreign government while he was serving in any official capacity. Craig worked as White House Counsel from 2009 to 2010, and previously worked in the Clinton administration on impeachment matters."

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

A by-product of the Mueller probe appears to be that out Justice Department was not enforcing or investigating crimes regarding unregistered lobbying.

(03-20-2019 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Looks like the witch hunt has found another witch

"The case centers on lobbying work that Craig performed in 2012 for the Russian-backed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych,"

"As with Manafort's case, there is no indication that Craig improperly colluded with a foreign government while he was serving in any official capacity. Craig worked as White House Counsel from 2009 to 2010, and previously worked in the Clinton administration on impeachment matters."

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

A by-product of the Mueller probe appears to be that out Justice Department was not enforcing or investigating crimes regarding unregistered lobbying.

Sunlight helps the weeds grow. too.

poll

It seems the JD regarded failure to register as a minor crime until the witch hunt. Even now, I think it is regarded as a tool to try and get to other infractions.

(03-20-2019 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

You really believe that or are you jus' playin'? If so, then let's first "shine a little light" on Hiliary's server. Or Barry's secret dealings with Insurance giants in not-open-to-tha-public white house meeting before unleashing Obissmalcare...or NancyP's "you have to pass the document before you see what's in it"--there's your lefty's attitude towards sunlight. So it's kind of difficult to take your statement sincerely, since it only seems to apply to those who don't agree with you instead of, you know, equally for everyone, and I'm getting that based on the actions of folks from the left side of the aisle, along with their comments. Sunlight should apply equally to everyone, just like laws should apply equally to illegal border-crossers as to citizens--but somehow, they do not.

(03-20-2019 12:43 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

You really believe that or are you jus' playin'? If so, then let's first "shine a little light" on Hiliary's server. Or Barry's secret dealings with Insurance giants in not-open-to-tha-public white house meeting before unleashing Obissmalcare...or NancyP's "you have to pass the document before you see what's in it"--there's your lefty's attitude towards sunlight. So it's kind of difficult to take your statement sincerely, since it only seems to apply to those who don't agree with you instead of, you know, equally for everyone, and I'm getting that based on the actions of folks from the left side of the aisle, along with their comments. Sunlight should apply equally to everyone, just like laws should apply equally to illegal border-crossers as to citizens--but somehow, they do not.

Well, in this case, sunlight is equally being applied to people involved with the Trump admin AND the Obama admin...

(03-20-2019 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 12:43 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

You really believe that or are you jus' playin'? If so, then let's first "shine a little light" on Hiliary's server. Or Barry's secret dealings with Insurance giants in not-open-to-tha-public white house meeting before unleashing Obissmalcare...or NancyP's "you have to pass the document before you see what's in it"--there's your lefty's attitude towards sunlight. So it's kind of difficult to take your statement sincerely, since it only seems to apply to those who don't agree with you instead of, you know, equally for everyone, and I'm getting that based on the actions of folks from the left side of the aisle, along with their comments. Sunlight should apply equally to everyone, just like laws should apply equally to illegal border-crossers as to citizens--but somehow, they do not.

Well, in this case, sunlight is equally being applied to people involved with the Trump admin AND the Obama admin...

A case can be made that Obama colluded with Russia, equally as much as the case against Trump. More so, maybe, for President Flexible.

(03-20-2019 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 12:43 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

You really believe that or are you jus' playin'? If so, then let's first "shine a little light" on Hiliary's server. Or Barry's secret dealings with Insurance giants in not-open-to-tha-public white house meeting before unleashing Obissmalcare...or NancyP's "you have to pass the document before you see what's in it"--there's your lefty's attitude towards sunlight. So it's kind of difficult to take your statement sincerely, since it only seems to apply to those who don't agree with you instead of, you know, equally for everyone, and I'm getting that based on the actions of folks from the left side of the aisle, along with their comments. Sunlight should apply equally to everyone, just like laws should apply equally to illegal border-crossers as to citizens--but somehow, they do not.

Well, in this case, sunlight is equally being applied to people involved with the Trump admin AND the Obama admin...

I'm not at all convinced that it is, certainly at least not yet. James Comey recited as facts certain things that would be sufficient to convince me, if I were a juror, that Hillary Clinton committed multiple federal felony offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt--beyond any doubt, as a matter of fact. I can see that it might have been difficult to obtain a conviction from a jury comprised of people who did not understand the national defense information security system. I would tend to include Hillary herself in the number of those who did not, and on a prospective basis I would argue very strongly that the system whereby politicians gain access to classified information is in dire need of severe changes.

To summarize, all I ask is that everyone be measured against the same rule, applied with equal vigor to all. I see no indication so far that such is going to be the case. I tend to fault republicans, who held majorities in both houses of congress for two years and did nothing.

(03-20-2019 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-20-2019 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Looks like the witch hunt has found another witch

"The case centers on lobbying work that Craig performed in 2012 for the Russian-backed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych,"

"As with Manafort's case, there is no indication that Craig improperly colluded with a foreign government while he was serving in any official capacity. Craig worked as White House Counsel from 2009 to 2010, and previously worked in the Clinton administration on impeachment matters."

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

A by-product of the Mueller probe appears to be that out Justice Department was not enforcing or investigating crimes regarding unregistered lobbying.

We should all rest easier now that that source of sheer terror is now being addressed.