Keeping Up with the Acts of Domestic Terror of the MAGA Cult
Let's make it's own thread so we can keep track of the ongoing acts of domestic terror by the MAGA cult.
I saw IslandBites post the link to the names and addresses of the Georgia Grand Jury that were posted online.
Then there is a woman in Texas just arrested: https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-woman- … 34408.html
The fine representative of the state of Utah that was killed by the FBI for threatening to kill Biden: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … -rcna99106I have nothing to add, Valeant. I thought the links to both of the accounts were shocking.
I am just surprised that the names and addresses of members of the jury would be made available tombe divulged all over the place.They are public information and a matter of record for the court, which could have sealed them. Why didn't that happen? In today's climate, you could see this result coming a mile away.
Well, Kathleen, it appears that there are more Trumpists, Trump sympathizers, than we would suspect with tentacles anywhere and everywhere, and any of them as 5th columnists could have well laid the groundwork for this to have occurred as it otherwise would defy common sense.
It appears to leave the names of jurors is common in Georgia.
"CLAIM: Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, forgot to redact the names of the grand jurors who indicted former President Donald Trump this week in relation to his actions following the 2020 election.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. It is standard that indictments in Georgia include the names of the grand jurors, in part because it provides defendants the opportunity to challenge the composition of the grand jury, legal experts told The Associated Press.
THE FACTS: A grand jury in Georgia on Monday indicted Trump as well as 18 others for their alleged efforts to overturn the results of his 2020 election loss in the state.
On social media, some quickly spread a claim that officials erred in releasing the indictment by including the jurors’ names.
“First they ‘leak’ the indictment before the jury even voted, then they forget to redact juror names,” reads one popular post on the platform X, formerly known as Twitter, seemingly referencing the fact that the court accidentally posted a list of criminal charges against Trump before he was actually indicted.
MORE FACT CHECKS
Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, center, speaks to reporters during a tour of wildfire damage on Saturday, Aug. 12, 2023, in Lahaina, Hawaii. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)
Hawaii’s governor did not tell reporters he wants to make Lahaina a ‘smart city’
FILE - A general view shows the aftermath of a wildfire in Lahaina, Hawaii, Thursday, Aug. 17, 2023. In the aftermath of the deadly Maui wildfires, some social media users are discouraging residents from accepting disaster aid by falsely claiming the Federal Emergency Management Agency could seize their property if they do. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
Online posts spread misinformation about FEMA aid following Maui wildfires
FILE - A general view shows the aftermath of a wildfire in Lahaina, Hawaii, Thursday, Aug. 17, 2023. On Friday, Aug. 18, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said it approved $2.3 million in assistance to roughly 1,300 households in Maui so far, as the federal government tries to help survivors of the devastating wildfires. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
No, Hawaii didn’t pass a law allowing development only in the event of a natural disaster
Another post similarly claimed: “They were in such a rush, they forgot to redact the names of the Grand Jurors. Unbelievable.”
But legal experts in the state told the AP that including the jurors’ names, unredacted, is standard in Georgia.
“In every felony case that I have handled in Georgia both as a former prosecutor and now defense lawyer, the names of the grand jurors have appeared on the Indictment,” Gabe Banks, a former Fulton County deputy district attorney, said in an email. Banks noted that indictments will usually show some names that are struck through, indicating jurors who were not present or didn’t vote.
Banks said a prosecutor would likely need to seek special permission from a court to redact the names of the jurors in an indictment.
Adam Hames, a former Georgia assistant attorney general, likewise said that it’s “common practice to list the names of the grand jurors on the indictment.” Even though grand jury proceedings are generally secret, he said, including the grand jurors’ names allows the defense to present a challenge if necessary.
In fact, the Georgia Supreme Court has consistently held that an indictment without the names of grand jurors is considered “defective,” said Elizabeth Taxel, an assistant clinical professor of law at the University of Georgia.
Though there isn’t a Georgia statute that explicitly states that the names of the grand jurors must be written in the indictment, “that requirement is both inferred from the statutes governing the grand jury process and is established through hundred years of case law,” Taxel said in an email."
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-g … 6743008561
To share my view: I believe to leave juror's names in an indictment is an error, given the heated political climate that is currently unavoidable in America."To share my view: I believe to leave juror's names in an indictment is an error, given the heated political climate that is currently unavoidable in America."
Sharlee, a wise assessment. That is the point that I make. Under most circumstances making the jurors names available in an indictment would be appropriate, but this is not just any case. There are Trumpers that could and would make good on their death threats and harassment, and his advocates are everywhere.I can do nothing but agree... There are people that feel Trump is being the brunt of one witchhunt after another, and it is more than apparent some are willing to at this point say -- time to fight fire with fire. I think the country is on the brink of becoming irrational.
I see no chance of either side coming together. The hate is palpable. Should we not expect violence could be acceptable without some solutions to what both sides are seeing as threats that crush their beliefs, values and the way they expect to live their lives?
Hey, we have a war due to clashing ideologies, a fight that is being fought for a system of ideas and ideals. In my view, this kind of war is the biggest threat to our society.The silence is deafening from even what were once considered rational Republicans on the current state of threats and violence toward judges, prosecutors and jury members. It speaks loudly, to me, revealing a lack of integrity in these individuals. A desire to place political power and gain over decency and what is clearly right. I don't think I've heard one Republican speak out against the death threat leveled toward judge Chutkan or the vile racist commentary directed at Fani Willis. Shouldn't Trump himself come out and rebuked these threats, wouldn't any person of character do so? If not, and these are the so-called ideals of the Republican Party, I want absolutely nothing to do with them.
Food for thought ---
Your perspective of this problem seems to oversimplify such a complex situation. IMO, It's important to recognize that individuals within any political group can have varying viewpoints. Condemning an entire party based on the actions or inactions of a few is. again in my view, not a fair assessment. Would It not be more productive to encourage open dialogue, rather than making a sweeping judgment?To clarify, my perspective is based upon the fact I have not heard or read of any in the Republican Party publicly condemning the threats of violence. I stand corrected if somehow I missed these statements. In any case, the presumptive nominee of the party has said nothing. In my book, that's a lack of character, a lack of integrity. He is essentially condoning these acts with his silence while others in the party seem perpetually afraid of getting on the wrong side of Trump so they remain silent as well. There is only one viewpoint in my book and that is violence is not acceptable to advance an ideology. Some may find shades of gray or nuance in that statement but I do not.
Just food for thought... I was not disputing your grievances, just hoping to impress your view seemed to offer a sweeping judgment.
As I can see you feel very strongly about your view. You have every right to share your view.
"There is only one viewpoint in my book and that is violence is not acceptable to advance an ideology."
I shared the same sentiment in another comment on this thread. However, I must point out, just to keep the conversation in perspective --- I thus far have not heard of any violence that has occurred only threats that are being investigated.
To add as an example of a sweeping view --- I will also add, we have no idea who made threats, and what political party they are affiliated with. In my view, the Democrats are not above such a ploy to create political baiting in the media. They can be very vile."Democrats are not above such a ploy to create political baiting in the media. They can be very vile."
A sweeping judgement?
"I will also add, we have no idea who made threats, and what political party they are affiliated with."
We do though, balanced media routinely uncovers and reports this information.
One question, shouldn't those in the Republican Party make every attempt to speak out against the type of threats that have been made? Could that not possibly help some to see that violent racist threats are not an acceptable way of expressing yourself? Why the silence?I did share a sweeping judgment "I will also add, we have no idea who made threats, and what political party they are affiliated with. In my view, the Democrats are not above such a ploy to create political baiting in the media. They can be very vile."
It was meant to be an example of a comeback-sweeping comment. That I meant to add the word example of a sweeping comment. I had hoped that my previous words would have shared my true thoughts. Sorry for this confusion. I should have left well enough alone.
Again
"Just food for thought... I was not disputing your grievances, just hoping to impress your view seemed to offer a sweeping judgment.
As I can see you feel very strongly about your view. You have every right to share your view.
"There is only one viewpoint in my book and that is violence is not acceptable to advance an ideology."
I shared the same sentiment in another comment on this thread. However, I must point out, just to keep the conversation in perspective --- I thus far have not heard of any violence that has occurred only threats that are being investigated."
The problem is that the party has given its overwhelming support to Donald Trump. The same Donald Trump that has been so frequently criminally indicted. The same Donald Trump who through his movement has incited many to violence. Donald Trump is the face of the GOP, and it is not a positive persona.
Consider -- The Republicans are backing Trump at this point due to polls. They certainly are not at this point going to turn away from "we the people".
No this is not a positive persona. America has changed, as have both political parties. Just look at the two men that are front-running candidates. I need not insult the two.
We are in trouble when we can defend either at this point. It well appears the fight is about sides, and got news --- either side is using good judgment. We have been pitted against one another, and man have they done a smashing job at it.
I have just opened my eyes, and that the great experiment has failed, and walk away with a bit of a smile, and an intent to enjoy life.
Hey, we got what we bought.
I am for letting the law take it course. I am not a fan of Trump, but that does not descend to denying him rights of due process that anyone else would have. I would not say that that particular stance is hatred. Resorting to violence will ultimately bring down this country. Resorting to violence is resistance to democratic governance in favor of autocratic approaches. As I mentioned to Willow, stats show clearly which side has employed violence the most frequently. This, inspite of grievances that are also held by those of the left. Regardless, we have not responded in the same way anywhere near as often. Both sides have ideas and ideals, why is violence so much more prevalent from one side as opposed the other?
Political violence can stem from a variety of factors, including individual motivations, social and economic contexts, and broader cultural influences. In my view, threats, and acts of violence are typically committed by a small fraction of individuals within any political group and do not accurately represent the entire spectrum of beliefs and values held by that group.
Both Democrats and Republicans, in my view, encompass a wide range of individuals with diverse opinions and viewpoints. I think It's essential to approach political discussions and analysis with a balanced perspective and avoid the temptation to paint an entire group with a broad brush based on the actions of so few. I think we would benefit as a society to use productive dialogue, and engage in conversations that acknowledge the complexity of political dynamics and avoid perpetuating stereotypes or baseless assumptions. I mean could not I list various examples of a handful of threats that have been perpetrated by most left? If I took time and did that, would it in any respect be constructive? The consent pointing the finger solves little.There will always be those that devolve into violence in the name of ideology. Isn't it up to the leaders and those in public positions of either party to flatly denounce such violence? This is my problem. This is where a lack of character and integrity is shown.
Yes, I agree that Kamala Harris should have denounced the violence of the BLM riots instead of posting bail for the rioters. Not denouncing that violence shows a lack of character and integrity.
And I am of the opinion that it's either laziness or open racism to omit that Harris did denounce the violence, looting and rioting. It's easy to check with a simple google search.
Or to omit the timeline that when Harris tweeted for people to donate to the MFF that assists others with bail, it was in response to hundreds that were peacefully detained by police after marching on a highway just past curfew. Nor did she 'post any bail for rioters.'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tic-terror
I provide this link earlier to show the vast difference in violence eminating from the Right as opposed to any other point of reference. It goes beyond polls and touches on actual offenses. See for yourself....
Would you be gracious enough to give those that lean left the same consideration of not painting all with one brush?
Yet, inspite of that the stats make it clear where the rubber actually meets the road.I did not in any respect use a wide brush. Just the opposite. Please carefully note my words --- I took time and made a great effort to share my thoughts and not show bias. So, where did you feel I painted anyone in this comment with a broad brush? It is very apparent to me, you did not read my comment. Please point out where I painted left-leaning individuals in this comment. I find your accusation very hypocritical archives here will show you repeatedly painting with a very broad brush in regard to Republicans. Which many here do to make their point. However, the comment you have referred to just does not hold any context of painting left-leaning individuals.
"Political violence can stem from a variety of factors, including individual motivations, social and economic contexts, and broader cultural influences. In my view, threats, and acts of violence are typically committed by a small fraction of individuals within any political group and do not accurately represent the entire spectrum of beliefs and values held by that group.
Both Democrats and Republicans, in my view, encompass a wide range of individuals with diverse opinions and viewpoints. I think It's essential to approach political discussions and analysis with a balanced perspective and avoid the temptation to paint an entire group with a broad brush based on the actions of so few. I think we would benefit as a society to use productive dialogue, and engage in conversations that acknowledge the complexity of political dynamics and avoid perpetuating stereotypes or baseless assumptions. I mean could not I list various examples of a handful of threats that have been perpetrated by most left? If I took time and did that, would it in any respect be constructive? The consent pointing the finger solves little.
"As I mentioned to Willow, stats show clearly which side has employed violence the most frequently."
I have not located any given stats regarding Left/right violence. I would say that The Summer Of Love" (SOL)must take the prize for left violence -- due to the death rate, damage, and the three-month timeline that the violent protesters were in the streets of our liberal cities.
Seem many ignore SOL... And all the riots that occurred in the streets that summer.
Leftest have done their share, and have been far more destructive than online threats to jurors. Has any of these jurors been hurt ? Has there been any reported destruction to their property? Have any been killed?
I could offer a long synopsis of all the above that occurred during the left's SOL. No, I don't think anything one can come up with could match the left's SOL.
It appears this latest report in regard to jurors being threatened just that threats. Violence is never the answer. The violence we watched over SOL was true violence -- not threats.
"I think the country is on the brink of becoming irrational."
We've been there since 2016. There is one figure in the situation who could pull us back from that brink, but the brink is where he lives.
Violence is never an answer. But it is what some turn to when they become desperate due to frustration. The country is split, and the slit is due to coaching ideologies. Both sides have very opposite ideas and ideals. I would think both sides could come to violence if these perceived threats to given ideologies continue.
Should we not at some point realize this? Either side is about to put up a white flag...
Desperate times, desperate measures!!
Not for those of us who wish for America to be great again, but for those of you who will never tire of condemning US for it.
God Bless America!
Make America Great Again!
America First, not Last!
Integrity in Elections; every county, every state, every time.And how does making threats against election workers, judges, and opposing politicians make America great?
Having America duck its head in the sand when it imports so many goods is a strategy for failure. Pulling scientists out of China helped lead us into the worst disaster this century. And there is integrity in elections, but not for those living in an alternate universe.abwilliams: Make America Good Again.
Well, I didn't coin the phrase, so I will leave that be.
But, just so you know and you don't have to believe me on this, you and your friends can believe about me what you will, I really don't care!
I want my grandkids to stay young, innocent and carefree for as long as possible! Their years of discovery should be what they discover in nature on a hike through the forest. Camping out in their backyard.
Asking me a million questions about the creatures of the sea...plus a million more for their Parents, about this amazing place we call earth!
When they have questions beyond...more complex, they'll know who to go to!
Someone who boasts on social media about sex talks with their Kindergartners... doesn't work for MOST Parents/Guardians!
Re-writing History, pushing propaganda, activist agendas in general, promoted in lieu of Reading, Writing, the basics of Math etc., in their classroom...IS NOT acceptable!
That doesn't make the Parents that AGREE with me on this, "Domestic Terrorists", as we have been labeled, even by the President of the U.S.!!!
The fact that I am even having to point this out is mind-blowing!
It means, we love and care about our children/grandchildren and are involved in their lives, beyond bringing them into it! We aren't about to just hand them over to the wolves.....no questions asked!!!
I want my grandkids Proud of the person God made them to be, not made to feel, they must work to escape it!
Proud to walk upon this earth and not be guilted or shamed, with every step they take!!
I want my grandkids to grow up Proud of the Country they live in, not living to tear it down!
What's worse, being pushed or indoctrinated to the point where they work to use their Country up and spit it out; believing they are entitled to do so!
Taking it so far, that they would even take a knee, during the playing of our National Anthem. A time-honored tradition, when we remember and honor the sacrifice it has taken to remain FREE!! Understanding the cost; every knee taken, twists the knife already placed in the backs of Patriots and Veterans.
I never thought I would live to see the day and then we lived it over and over again...comparable to a recurring nightmare.
I also never thought I would live to see the day that a hunting/fishing/sporting goods store in America would make it difficult to find anything 'Made in America'! I certainly didn't expect for every pair of boots that I looked at, to be made in China! Zero Made in the U.S.A. or in any other Country....only China!?!?
Yes, ALL of this concerns me!
America has always led the way, America has always been great...not perfect, no one is saying that!
It isn't a loaded phrase, but some have made it that!!!
We aren't trying to run any or every other Country's race, only our own; just as we can only run our race and no one else's, to the best of our ability!
That doesn't mean we don't give a hand up along the way. It is our nature!
I have had my fill of America hate!!
Yes, I want it to be great again and believe it can be, if we don't allow the haters of America to come between us....they are having a field day, at our expense!!!
God Bless America!
Make America Great Again....Amen and hear, hear!
Trump posted what he said was Obama's address, prosecutors say. An armed man was soon arrested there
Former President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform what he claimed was the home address of former President Barack Obama on the same day that a man with guns in his van was arrested near the property, federal prosecutors said Wednesday in revealing new details about the case.
Taylor Taranto, 37, who prosecutors say participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, kept two firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition inside a van he had driven cross-country and had been living in, according to a Justice Department motion that seeks to keep him behind bars.
On the day of his June 29 arrest, prosecutors said, Taranto reposted a Truth Social post from Trump containing what Trump claimed was Obama’s home address. In a post on Telegram, Taranto wrote: “We got these losers surrounded! See you in hell, Podesta’s and Obama’s.” That’s a reference to John Podesta, the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign.
Taranto also told followers on his YouTube live stream that he was looking to get a “good angle on a shot,” prosecutors said.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tru … -100719403This is along the lines of the Sicknick suit against Trump where Trump was clearly reckless with his speech and that led to violence. With Sicknick, the crowd should have been at the Ellipse - only Trump and a few of his aides knew of his plan to direct them to the Capitol, which in turn, overran the police.
This should be a conservative-free thread as they don't see any of this domestic terror as a concern.I have been waiting for a response from conservatives as for an explanation, the silence is deafening.
Two thirds to 3/4 of domestic terrorism in America involves the Right, are the conservatives listening?It seems to be the same refrain, condemn any violence they can link to the "left* while ignoring death threats to judges, prosecutors and jury members. Shouldn't we be condemning violence and threatening Acts of all kinds? My opinion of virtually all of the current Republican primary candidates is low but they will cement their fate during their upcoming debate if each does not speak out against these acts. Bad enough that they're presumptive nominee foments violence.
It annoys me that Conservatives would point to the 1 incidence of domestic terrorism from the Left in a thousand and consider it equivalent to the other 999 from their side.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tic-terror
We all know that violence is to be condemned at every instance, but when Trump blamed infida and BLM as the primary domestic terrorist threat, I was incensed. Trumpists are masters at using whataboutisms and false equivalences, deceiving the people and distracting them from the true threat that they, in fact, are.
Cowardice runs like a yellow streak through the GOP candidates for President. With the exception of a couple of candidates, no one is going to attack the violence as it has been directly or indirected motivated by Donald Trump and the Trumpists. And no one wants to ruffle Donald Trump's feathers.
Credence: "Two thirds to 3/4 of domestic terrorism in America involves the Right, are the conservatives listening?"
Finally. Thank you. This false equivalency that the violence is coming from both sides needs to be corrected or at some point it will become true.The list is so long and certainly horrific. I am so glad you posted this clip. It provides such a long list of pretty devastating incidents that most left have carried out. I can remember most of these incidents, and most were ignored by the left media. So, perhaps many that lean left are not aware of not threats, but actual violent acts these leftists committed. The list is very long and very much horrific.
In my view, I did not approve of many violent outbursts from leftists when Trump became president, the video of Kathy Griffen holding up a bloody fake Trump's head, or Maddona condoning blowing up the white house, or Depp inferring it might be time to see another assassination. The list goes on and on... Threat after threat. What I saw was most leftists relishing this disgusting rhetoric. Thanks for posting this clip, it should be an eye-opener to some, many violent acts that the left perpetrated were not reported on left media. So, I will surmise some here are hearing these violent acts for the first time. Thanks for posting this clip --- it is eye-opening.Kathy Griffen, Maddona, Depp
How many years did you have to go back to find those on the left?
On the right? They are in the news every day.
3/4ths huh? Wow!! Guess Trump is a shoo-in, the left should just stay home on election day.
You're Welcome.
The Right continues to put up this smoke screen that this is all part of the give and take of politics, when it is anything but......
Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).”
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894 … s894is.xmlDon't want to deny my conservative friends the opportunity to apply a little arithmetic regarding the stats provided. And you know, I can have that same information substantiated anywhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tic-terrorI don't agree with the classification of this British publication of "far right." Oh well, have your fun.
Tossing my hat in the ring. Here is where we are at today according to PBS. Their article: U.S. grapples with rising threats of political violence as 2024 election looms (Aug 12, 2023) opening paragraphs states;
"DENVER (AP) — This week’s confrontation that ended with FBI agents fatally shooting a 74-year-old Utah man who threatened to assassinate President Joe Biden was just the latest example of how violent rhetoric has created a more perilous political environment across the U.S.
Six days earlier, a 52-year-old Texas man was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for threatening to kill Arizona election workers. Four days before that, prosecutors charged a 56-year-old Michigan woman for lying to buy guns for her mentally ill adult son, who threatened to use them against Biden and that state’s Democratic governor.
Threats against public officials have been steadily climbing in recent years, creating new challenges for law enforcement, civil rights and the health of American democracy."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/u … tion-looms
An interesting opinion piece from the Kansas Reflector offers food for thought from the local point of view. The article is: Political violence and terroristic threats have no place in Kansas. They shut down open debate. (June 21, 2023) The opening paragraphs are:
"We don’t know much about the roughly 100 letters containing white powder sent to Kansas legislators and officials last week.
We know they went to Republicans and featured fake return addresses. We know the powder appears not to be dangerous, according to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. But we’re waiting to learn who sent the letters, what the powder actually was and the motivation behind the entire affair.
I can predict one thing with certainty, though. Partisans from both sides of the political divide will find a way to blame the other. They will cast aspersions and make snarky asides about where folks’ true loyalties lie.
This has been a constant pattern when it comes to acts of political terror. Republicans excuse it from their own and criticize it from Democrats. Democrats excuse it from their own and criticize Republicans. You can argue about the extent and volume of this hypocrisy — think tanks suggest it’s more of a problem on the right — but that’s for another time. No matter the perpetrator, the violence has grown."
https://kansasreflector.com/2023/06/21/ … en-debate/"This has been a constant pattern when it comes to acts of political terror. Republicans excuse it from their own and criticize it from Democrats. Democrats excuse it from their own and criticize Republicans. You can argue about the extent and volume of this hypocrisy — think tanks suggest it’s more of a problem on the right — but that’s for another time. No matter the perpetrator, the violence has grown."
--------
There is always going to be some this regardless, but extent and frequency is important as to where the vast majority is coming from and why. The issue goes beyond speaking of equivalencies as there isn't any.
Without being unduly biased, it has been made clear where the preponderance of these incidents are coming from as supported by any law enforcement agency. Perhaps, we can start there?
"You can argue about the extent and volume of this hypocrisy — think tanks suggest it’s more of a problem on the right — but that’s for another time."
No, it is for this time, getting a handle on it starts where it is most prevalent.Not in disagreement with your sentiment where it is most prevalent, yet let's explore a little. The University of Chicago did a survey about political violence. It is the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, or CPOST. It shares;
UChicago Survey Finds Millions of Americans Support Violence to Achieve Political Goals
https://news.wttw.com/2023/06/15/uchica … ical-goals
"some 12 million Americans would support violence to restore former President Donald Trump to power."
and
"Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, 22 million Americans now say force would be justified to restore abortion rights."
Cred, which evil is worse?
If one desires to look further the link following is to the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats - American Political Violence Surveys
https://cpost.uchicago.edu/research/apv/surveys/
The most recent survey study (July 2023) Report can be found at this link following.
https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/c … 1690317909
Worth a good skim and the graphics are telling.
Edit: Also, at the end are the questions asked and the compilation of the answers.Thanks for the links, TSMog, I read the polls and saw the points that you were making. But it one thing to give an opinion in a poll and quite other to commit crimes for those various causes. As I posted earlier and what was confirmed by Valeant, the overwhelming majority of violent acts, not polls, were coming from the Right side of the political spectrum. Have a look at thes graphics, if you please.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tic-terrorThanks for the link. Revealing!! Listen, Cred, I get and have for years now understood that the right is committing political violence and more than the left. But, the left is doing it. For example Jane's Revenge. The point of sharing that study is the fact that the mindset of a segment of both parties accepts political violence as a means to an end. That is what concerns me!
My concern is not primarily with which political party's followers commit more acts of violence or threats.
I find it disingenuous for any politician to condemn the violence of the other side while remaining silent toward the acts of their own. Everyone likes to claim the moral high ground but I see no morality, no integrity or love for your country when you keep your mouth shut on these issues. Shouldn't morality have consistency? Better yet, is morality that is inconsistently applied even morality to begin with?
In terms of the most recent death threats leveled against Judge Chutkan, shouldn't Trump say this is not ok? What does his silence say about his character? Even worse, he continues to attack judges and prosecutors on his social media platform which only fuels the threats. Pretty irresponsible in my view. These are actions and traits we seek in a president? Disappointing stuff.Trump has every right to free speech. We have every right to listen to what Trump has to say and construct individual views of what he says. To deem it proper or improper.
You have every right to your view, and to share that view. As do all Americans.He does have those rights. But don't think that the way he insults and labels his political opposition as a means to dehumanize them in the same way other fascists have done that led to violence goes unnoticed.
As you know, I have had a problem in some incidents with how Trump communicates or chooses not to communicate. He is not a politician, and he is very transparent in sharing his thoughts.
He is certainly a fighter, and will verbally attack anyone he feels deserves attacking, and he does not filter his words.
In my view, I prefer transparency to rehearsed words that are murdered by the speaker. Again, I don't always approve of what Trump states or how he says it. I do prefer a person that is transparent and shares their view. Even if I may not agree.You're right, he's not a politician. A politician would understand that being reckless with one's words can lead to fatal results. Dehumanizing one's opposition is not fighting, it's childish.
Val,
I fully agree - dehumanizing another person goes to show a lack of being able to empathize and understand the worth and dignity of others. It fails failure to recognize the shared human experiences and emotions that weave us all. It works also to show an inability to appreciate the uniqueness of others, and in my view, can lead to an erosion of respect for one another.
Whether Trump's statements, comments, and rhetoric can be definitively categorized as dehumanizing is a matter of interpretation and personal opinion, is it not? One might consider the various perspectives and take time to analyze specific instances of his communication to form an understanding of his words. It's also worth noting that political discourse can be complex and contentious, and consider language can differ widely based on one's own beliefs and biases.
Has Trump been overly scrutinized for his words?
SharTrump called Smith a "deranged lunatic." He also said "He's a raging and uncontrolled Trump-hater, as is his wife,"
Also; "Deranged Jack Smith, who is a sick puppet for A.G. Garland & Crooked Joe Biden, should be DEFUNDED & put out to rest,"
Put out to rest?
Again I ask, where is the integrity? Character? Morality?
Why are Republicans rallying to his defense rather than calling out this egregious speech?
My beliefs tell me that this kind of speech is simply wrong.Come on, Sharlee. Anyone can see that adults, particularly those in competition for our most important office do not communicate in the way that Trump has.
But Trump did, did he not? Has he set a new precedent, I must wonder? As you can see from my comment I just added another perspective. One some might not like or agree with... This is a conversation, a good conversation is one that makes one think, and consider different sides of many coins. I am an individual that upturns coins, and I try to point out more that there may not be two sides, but many sides that don't agree with the two-sided status quo.
I also answer directly when one asks me to share my personal view. Which I have actually shared in regard to Trump's unusual way of communicating. The comment you responded to was all about the aspects of dehumanizing. My thoughts on dehumanizing, and I shared my view (not sure why you missed it "I fully agree - dehumanizing another person goes to show a lack of being able to empathize and understand the worth and dignity of others. It fails failure to recognize the shared human experiences and emotions that weave us all. It works also to show an inability to appreciate the uniqueness of others, and in my view, can lead to an erosion of respect for one another."
I also added in regard to your question - It's also worth noting that political discourse can be complex and contentious, and consider language can differ widely based on one's own beliefs and biases.
This is all she wrote, my comment shared what I feel is relevant to the subject at hand.
Comments that clearly share my view
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/359 … ost4303951
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/359 … ost4303930
Trump uses grade school name calling and tactics where there needs to be adults in the room.
I can't wait to watch Christie bite into Trump during the first GOP debate, as his excellency couldn't be bothered to show up.
This has gotta be "must watch" TV
The right to free speech goes without saying. I'm speaking to the lack of integrity displayed by politicians who don't use their position to speak out against violence and threats. Some very eagerly point out the bad acts of the "other side" but are silent when it comes to their group. I believe that integrity is an important quality that should be evident in our elected officials. Would you or anyone else care to weigh in on politicians silence on Violence/threats? Is it hypocrisy? Immorality? Lack of integrity? Poor character? Shouldn't we expect more? Or is it ok to inconsistently apply your morality? For example "Threats are bad when your side does it but I'll remain silent when mine does?" Or do none of these traits matter?
" Would you or anyone else care to weigh in on politicians silence on Violence/threats? Is it hypocrisy? Immorality? Lack of integrity? Poor character? Shouldn't we expect more? "
I will share my view, as you requested. --- As a Christian who values good morals and ethics, I believe that addressing the silence of politicians on violence and threats is essential. I appreciate these questions. In my view, It's crucial for leaders to speak out against such behaviors, as their silence can be interpreted as condoning or tolerating them.
Silence in the face of injustice goes against my personal values, I advocate for compassion, and standing up for the marginalized. Inaction in the face of violence and threats, in my view, is a failure to uphold good values.
Labeling the silence as hypocrisy, immorality, lack of integrity, or poor character would depend on the intentions and motivations behind it. While it's not my place to judge individuals, it is valid to expect more from our leaders, especially those who claim to uphold values that align with the greater good.
Politicians have a responsibility to set an example and uphold a standard of behavior that reflects the values of their constituents. When they fail to do so, it can erode trust and faith in the political system altogether.
Ultimately, it's important as a society at large to encourage open dialogue, engage in constructive criticism, and promote accountability for politicians' actions and silence. This could help to foster a more just and ethical political environment.
We should demand more... But have we?Some have. They rarely get listened to above the yelling.
I'm not keeping a tab of which side perpetuates more violence in the name of a cause but rather to the reaction in the aftermath. I'm looking for statements or silence.
Good for you ... I am clearly noting hypocrisy. And I might add it is very easy to spot. As always, it seems to be well executed. In my view, there is no communication to be had when one meets closed minds.
(say what I expect or your just wrong) LOLDidn't many prominent members of the Democratic Party speak out against the violence surrounding some of the BLM actions?? Certainly a party is not responsible or to blame for the actions of some of its potential members (I personally think that everyone at BLM protests were not there for the cause but just as opportunists). I do believe it is incumbent upon politicians with any sort of character to speak publicly and denounce any sort of violence whether it's right or left.
Do you have any links of prominent members of the Democratic party speaking out against the violence of BLM actions?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi released a statement on June 2 that included remarks from Democratic Whip James Clyburn:
I do want to quote my colleague, Mr. Clyburn, the distinguished Whip – Democratic Whip of the House. He said this, ‘Firebombing police cars, burning down businesses and ravishing our neighborhoods dishonors the lives of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery and will destroy thousands of livelihoods.’
On May 31st, Joe Biden:
On May 31, the fifth night of demonstrations, former Vice President Joe Biden, the party’s presumptive nominee, wrote in a statement that protesting police brutality is “right and necessary” and the “American response."
“But burning down communities and needless destruction is not,” Biden wrote. “Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”
June 3, Clyburn again:
On June 3, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the majority whip of the House of Representatives, told The Washington Post that the movement for racial justice suffers when it is “hijacked” by violence.
"We have to make sure we do not allow ourselves to play the other person’s game,” Clyburn said. “Peaceful protest is our game. Violence is their game. Purposeful protest is our game. This looting and rioting, that's their game. We cannot allow ourselves to play their game."
A simple google search would have answered the question, by the way. But it is no way surprising to know that the far-right cannot do their own research to debunk their own false views on a topic.Val, I have noted you did not comment on AB's clip. I think it is important to point out that many on the left are committing violent hate crimes. I mean you had to have known when you added posted thread, that fair conversation would head into comparison.
Ab's clip although long list many violent crimes that the left has committed. Should these crimes be addressed? Did you view the clip?I was getting to it, but it wasn't really a conversation directed to me, so I was letting it evolve.
Fair... Hopefully, we can move past comparing and have a more fruitful conversation. I think AB's post was very relevant at the juncture she posted the clip. It offers a stark comparison, many of the crimes in that clip were not widely reported. But, they occurred nonetheless. Media is very selective of what they report, this should stand out if nothing else.
Why do you always feel the need to add a nasty comment on the end of your posts? The comments were actually interesting untill you added your evil leftist comment at the end of this.
If you are able to read this link this is a leftist politician telling protestors to get more confrontational: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56810245
"Go out there and get confrontational" however, according to her, is not inciting violence.Because it's lazy to ask something that one could check for themselves. That it's obvious that the view was false and so partisan that it was laughable to start with. Maybe I feel it's appropriate to be 'nasty' to someone who wants to waste the time of others in such a manner.
As to the use of the word 'confrontational,' go ahead and list the varying definitions for us. And then we will point out which one you chose to interpret.
Which is pretty much the point of this thread. The right hears a word and pretty much goes right to the most violent definition. The left hears the word confrontational and hears aggressive arguing. Both fit, but it's the way people interpret and choose to act based on that interpretation which is the uneven both-sidesism that was the basis behind this thread." But it is no way surprising to know that the far-right cannot do their own research to debunk their own false views on a topic."
Replace just the words far-left... LOL, you don't think that is a nasty statement?
In my view, making sweeping generalizations about people and passing judgments based solely on that ability... From a broad perspective, such a trait is unfavorable, not to mention indicative of self-centeredness.The generalizations wouldn't need to be so sweeping if we didn't see the conduct repeated so often in these forums. You may view it as self-centeredness all you like. I just prefer people to have the simplest of knowledge base before chiming in on a topic. And that one was very obvious to those of us who follow politics. And was easy to check before making a post about it for those who aren't buried in a right-wing media vacuum that makes the false claims like 'no democratic leader has condemned the violence around the rioting and looting.' It's these false narratives we see all the time in these forums.
So if people want to claim self-centeredness for expecting people to have some basic knowledge about the topics they discuss, so be it. I believe it to be self-centeredness to not want accurate information about topics.
I did check. That person was saying that those Dems said things against the protests. I asked if they had any video proof of that or if they were just relying on links to warped media sources.
If you feel it is a waste of your time and so beyond the limits of your endurance to answer a question then just ignore it. No one here asked you to answer something that was put to another person. I am sure you are intelligent enough to ignore a question and avoid confrontation.'I did check. That person was saying that those Dems said things against the protests.' Not what Willow said. You inserted the word 'protests,' which Willow did not say. Again, another false statement.
If you want to come into a thread I create and spread obvious falsehoods and fabricated narratives, expect a confrontation. Which means aggressive argumentative speech to those of us on the left, still.I did not notice you had created this thread. I will do my best to avoid any conversation with you in the future.
You misunderstood my comment I was pointing out the hypocrisy in this thread. I note many comments pointing fingers at far-right violence while no one addressed AB's clip of the long list of violence that has been perpetrated by the left.
I have not addressed the politicians and who said what, and I don't intend to. I feel that phony politicians always float to the top and speak up about a myriad of subjects. Could care very little about what I see as much of the time false indignation. I don't really put stock in words from politicians in many cases.
The Anti-LGBQT message from the GOP is resonating with their followers:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/california-st … 00379.htmlStudy: left wing attacks far outpace right wing attacks in the United States
First- far-left terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators- including from far-right networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. left-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 2016- and the total number of left-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. left-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8- 2020. Second- terrorism in the United States will likely increase over the next year in response to several factors. One of the most concerning is the 2020 U.S. presidential election- before and after which extremists may resort to violence- depending on the outcome of the election. Far-right and far-left networks have used violence against each other at protests- raising the possibility of escalating violence during the election period.
https://medium.com/@occupydimss/study-l … 0f15ac438cAs usual, Mike fails to fact check his work. Two comments from the page where this 'study' resides:
Comment 1:
Verify what you read, people! This article was literally copied and pasted from actual study done by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. None of the information provided in this article is based on fact, and the sources cited are clearly all conservative-leaning. The only exception is the UMD database, which only contains data up to 2018. The study which this author falsely plagiarized (from June 2020) shows that 57% of all terrorist attacks and plots are attributed to right-wing groups.
This is pathetic at best and this “article” ought to be removed.
Comment 2:
This is a fake study. The author ("jdje") took a report from the left-leaning Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which concluded (probably wrongly) that right-wing terrorism is a greater threat than left-wing terrorism, and he edited it to change "right" to "left" and "white supremacists" to "black supremacists," to invert the meaning. He also replaced the CSIS report's references with some conservative references at the end. Here's the original CSIS report:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalatin … ted-states
As a conservative, such dishonesty embarrasses me. I'm a "traditional values conservative," and the most important traditional value is simple honesty. The right way to counter erroneous information from the left is with facts. "Alt-right" propagandists like jdje don't bother with that, they just lie. They are not real conservatives.
What type of world are we in that a rainbow flag inspires a shooting?
Cedar Glen, Calif. — A dispute over an LGBTQ+ pride flag at a California clothing store spiraled into deadly violence this weekend when a man shot and killed the 66-year-old business owner right in front of her shop, authorities said.
Before the shooting, the man "made several disparaging remarks about a rainbow flag that stood outside the store," sheriff's officials said.
This is one instance that I would love to hear Republican politicians stand up, speak out against this type of violence. If their morality sees being gay as wrong, certainly their morality sees this type of violence is wrong also.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/storeowner … ride-flag/I am reposting AB's link. I have yet to see anyone address it. It would seem no one finds these horrific violent crimes a problem or has even the least bit of interest in commenting on this video. Yet, I see many comments on the thread in regard to far-right-wing violence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUs2v8NvFSUI'm missing the purpose or the point of a video like this? Am I to be convinced that one group that falls under the umbrella of the Democratic Party is somehow inherently more violent than the other group? How is this helpful to public discourse?
Violence doesn't help or improve a single thing, no matter who is participating in it!
I would suggest that you go back and read the title of this particular forum discussion, there you will find, my "purpose"!Pretty clear the purpose is to try both-sides the issue. And it's true, that both sides have their culprits.
But like the issue of sexual assault among presidential candidates, the quantity of conduct among the players is not on the same level.
Like the accusations of corruption among the two party front-runners, they are just not the same in terms of diversity and propensity. Both have family that have profited off member's position in government. But only one has been indicted on 91 charges in multiple jurisdictions by citizens of this country for a vast array of crimes.
Feel free to list the current acts of domestic terror for either side, and I stress current. It's important to know. It'll be an interesting way to see which side is the most dangerous among the two parties."Pretty clear the purpose is to try both-sides the issue"
V, this is YOUR title:
'Keeping Up with the Acts of Domestic Terror of the MAGA Cult'
It's pretty clear!!Very clear, and I found the post where you added your link very much promoted a different aspect and needed part of the ongoing conversation. In reality and this is my view -- I don't think many knew of all of the incidence of violence that has been perpetrated by the left wing. Your post was important to this conversation.
What most stuck out, the clip was pretty much ignored. To me, that says something very important about our society. And it is not pretty.
It so appears if they don't like it --- they just ignore it or flip the subject. That in my view, says a lot, does it not?
Bingo Maybe start from the first comment on this thread and proceed to this point. The conversation is revolving around one political party's propensity to be violent. This is the conversation that has evolved into comparing... Not unusual for those that lean left to ignore what the other side presented, and try as you are to turn the table --- no cigar.
All the finger-pointing is relevant early on in this thread, and yes, AB offers another side to the coin --- one that no one wants to talk about.
Diverting just won't cancel out the first few pages of this thread. Sorry
I see true hypocrisy afoot here. The very title "Keeping Up with the Acts of Domestic Terror of the MAGA Cult"
Many lists have been offered... And AB's list needs addressing. No averting away. I watched her clip, and some pretty horrendous violence has been perpetrated by the left."Not unusual for those that lean left to ignore what the other side presented, and try as you are to turn the table --- no cigar."
Completely unaware of how I've tried to turn the table? I've been abundantly clear that I believe violence is perpetrated by those across the political spectrum. I've been clearly more interested in those who choose to speak out publicly against it and those who don't. It's sort of a character issue for me.
I'm action oriented also. I closely watch the actions of politicians rather than listen to much of what they say.
I believe just yesterday we had a store owner killed because she displayed a pride flag on her store.
I will be looking for commentary from local politicians and further up for statements condemning this act. Who will do so and who will remain silent?
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/20/11949325 … flag-lgbtqThe woman was shot walking away. She was the mother of nine.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … on-barron/
No doubt some will say this act balances the scales.
It doesn't make a dent.
Still, it is unquestionably reprehensible.For as much as politicians run their mouths on a gamut of subjects, I believe they really have an obligation to speak up against this violence. Many of them choose to remain silent. Why? Afraid to alienate a portion of voters?
Related Discussions
- 93
Presidential Debate. What do you think will happen?
by Readmikenow 5 hours ago
I think harris lacks a lot in debate skills. She avoids questions from the press. Interviews she has done are very few. With the one national press interview done by her she was accompanied by her VP. It was taped. harris will have a difficult time answering questions...
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 14 months ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 98
GEORGIA INDICTMENT
by IslandBites 11 months ago
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) is expected to present her case this week against former President Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.Willis is expected to seek charges against more than a dozen individuals when her team presents its case before...
- 117
Trump Tribunals: Predict An Impeachment Article / Indictment Charge
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
There is no other acceptable choice and or remedy other than his resignation which would conceivably still lead to immediate criminal indictment given the trove of damning evidence which currently exists: The political END must be near for this most absurdly unqualified and mentally shackled...
- 17
Republican mayor supports Kamala Harris
by IslandBites 5 days ago
Why, as a Republican mayor, I support Kamala Harris over TrumpThe time has come for my fellow Arizona Republicans to return to the core foundations of the Grand Old Party.Our party used to stand for the belief that every Arizonan, no matter their background or circumstances, should have the...
- 84
"The Empire Strikes Back", the GOP will rip itself apart?
by Credence2 2 years ago
This is where the analogy ends. For all the things Donald Trump is, he is certainly no Luke Skywalker.There has been increasing rumblings as of late from the GOP mainstream that it has had it with Trump's endless supply of bull$hit.Senator McConnell, otherwise known "affectionately" as...