The Angry Violent Right

[GSG]

On 12/7/2020 at 7:04 PM, ZRod said:

@GSG Um... I'm sorry...

 

But that's right next door. I bet you're going to the Muth while you're here aren't you?

 

 

 

I missed this, but Idk. I'm generally just along for the ride when we visit my wife's family  

[ZRod]

11 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Her quote in the video is as follows, I'll try to find the video.

 

 

It's vague enough to be a threat or a callling but also be deniable.  Unfortunately she was in a pretty vulnerable state when she said these things but it also seems to coincide with some of her previous behavior. 

 

11 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Sounds very similar to "Stand back and Stand by"

In the context of the whole video it's not a physical threat or even a violent one. She states before that they should make them pay through their wallet and that cussing at people wouldn't fix anything, but the final statement (made right after she sips some wine I think ) is an inflammatory one.

[Redux]

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Sounds very similar to "Stand back and Stand by"

 

I considered that Trump flubbing his words.  This gal was actually being aggressive.

[RedDenver]

Just now, Redux said:

 

I considered that Trump flubbing his words.  This gal was actually being aggressive.

Come on. You're give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he's talking about an election but not giving the person who's being threatened the benefit of the doubt.

[Redux]

5 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Come on. You're give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he's talking about an election but not giving the person who's being threatened the benefit of the doubt.

 

No, I'm taking both instances into full context.

 

-Trump, not a good public speaker to begin with (unless he's trolling the media) was trying to dance around a question he typically doesn't answer well.  I feel like his intention was to say "proud boys stand down".  Which wouldn't be much better and it's a poor choice of words because it could be construed into someone saying he's giving them a direct order as their leader.  Well, technically he is.  He is leader of all of us.  Just a gaffe from a bad speaker.

 

-Johnson on the other hand was coming off the heels of racist death threats.  She was rattled.  She was reacting emotionally to a situation she shouldn't have been put in.  Yet her words were direct enough that you can take them at face value.  She wanted a form of justice.  I would too if I were her.  That doesn't make it right.  I'll say it again, being a victim doesn't grant you immunity.  Actions have consequences regardless of the situation.

[Ulty]

I agree with @commando that it is not really our place to tell someone who has been subjected to discrimination and harassment how they should react. Most of us white folks are not going to be able to identify with someone who has put up with a lifetime of racism and isolation, and then face death threats simply for doing her job. 

 

However, I kind of see @Redux's point about the optics of her response. She is a politician and should understand that, no matter what she says or does, the other side is going to spin it in a way that makes her look bad. She gave them some words that made it too easy to do that. Given her position, she should have known better. That's just the game of politics. However, that in no way should excuse or outweigh the threats and racism she received. The folks that did that can all f##k off and go to hell.

 

12 hours ago, Redux said:

Trump, not a good public speaker to begin with (unless he's trolling the media) was trying to dance around a question he typically doesn't answer well.  I feel like his intention was to say "proud boys stand down".  Which wouldn't be much better and it's a poor choice of words because it could be construed into someone saying he's giving them a direct order as their leader.  Well, technically he is.  He is leader of all of us.  Just a gaffe from a bad speaker.

But this...this gives too much benefit of the doubt to a president who has frequently used his words, intentionally, to stir up racial divisions. He is not subtle with it. This was not flubbing his words: he has proven time and time again that he will tip his hat to white supremacy. He lashes out, insults, and attacks just about everyone else in the world, except for that population. Trump is an idiot, but to say he is not a good speaker and misspoke his disingenuous. He is a very charismatic speaker for his followers and says exactly what he means. 

 

Comparing Trump's rhetoric to Cynthia Johnson's words? This is not the same ballpark.

[RedDenver]

17 hours ago, Redux said:

 

No, I'm taking both instances into full context.

 

-Trump, not a good public speaker to begin with (unless he's trolling the media) was trying to dance around a question he typically doesn't answer well.  I feel like his intention was to say "proud boys stand down".  Which wouldn't be much better and it's a poor choice of words because it could be construed into someone saying he's giving them a direct order as their leader.  Well, technically he is.  He is leader of all of us.  Just a gaffe from a bad speaker.

 

-Johnson on the other hand was coming off the heels of racist death threats.  She was rattled.  She was reacting emotionally to a situation she shouldn't have been put in.  Yet her words were direct enough that you can take them at face value.  She wanted a form of justice.  I would too if I were her.  That doesn't make it right.  I'll say it again, being a victim doesn't grant you immunity.  Actions have consequences regardless of the situation.

Even in your response you're giving Trump benefit of the doubt in what you feel like he meant but not the victim of death threats. It's ridiculous.

[Redux]

46 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Even in your response you're giving Trump benefit of the doubt in what you feel like he meant but not the victim of death threats. It's ridiculous.

 

Because Trump was on a stage, during a presidential debate.  She was dealing with death threats.  These are not the same thing.

 

Look, if you want to believe Trump is some secret general of the proud boys you go right ahead.  Most people see that gaffe and think "Trump really sucks at talking", but Never Trumpers want it to mean more so they interpret it with a tinfoil hat.  You do you.  Meanwhile Johnson word for word tells soldiers to "do it the right way".  Vague enough to deny, but direct enough to get the point across.  Can we just be honest about both instances without trying to push a narrative?

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

Because Trump was on a stage, during a presidential debate.  She was dealing with death threats.  These are not the same thing.

 

Look, if you want to believe Trump is some secret general of the proud boys you go right ahead.  Most people see that gaffe and think "Trump really sucks at talking", but Never Trumpers want it to mean more so they interpret it with a tinfoil hat.  You do you.  Meanwhile Johnson word for word tells soldiers to "do it the right way".  Vague enough to deny, but direct enough to get the point across.  Can we just be honest about both instances without trying to push a narrative?

The Proud Boys leader thought Trump was talking to them:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/

Quote

Enrique Tarrio, the group’s leader, wrote on Parler: “Standing by sir.”

 

[commando]

8 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Because Trump was on a stage, during a presidential debate.  She was dealing with death threats.  These are not the same thing.

 

Look, if you want to believe Trump is some secret general of the proud boys you go right ahead.  Most people see that gaffe and think "Trump really sucks at talking", but Never Trumpers want it to mean more so they interpret it with a tinfoil hat.  You do you.  Meanwhile Johnson word for word tells soldiers to "do it the right way".  Vague enough to deny, but direct enough to get the point across.  Can we just be honest about both instances without trying to push a narrative?

the proud boys see him as their general.  

[Redux]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The Proud Boys leader thought Trump was talking to them:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/

 

 

Of course he did!   

Even if he knows better he's going to claim that!  Lol, come on man.

 

2 minutes ago, commando said:

the proud boys see him as their general.  

 

And?  You do understand there is a difference between someone rallying people and people rallying around someone, right?

[DevoHusker]

35 minutes ago, commando said:

the proud boys see him as their general.  

 

Really? Where is that link?

[DevoHusker]

40 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The Proud Boys leader thought Trump was talking to them:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/

 

 

from your article:

Two days later, Trump explicitly condemned white supremacists and the Proud Boys, though he also said he “didn’t know much” about the latter. 

[Redux]

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

from your article:

Two days later, Trump explicitly condemned white supremacists and the Proud Boys, though he also said he “didn’t know much” about the latter. 

 

tHaTs wHuT hE WaNtS yOu 2 tHiNk!

 

[commando]

5 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

from your article:

Two days later, Trump explicitly condemned white supremacists and the Proud Boys, though he also said he “didn’t know much” about the latter. 

he does that quite often...says 1 thing...then a couple days later has to refute what he said.  and it usually involves the very far right groups like the proud boys that he has to try and cover his tracks with.   it's fine if you believe  he didn't really mean it.   it  happens often enough that i don't believe it's a gaffe.