Feds: Man threatened to kill CNN employees - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;53078885]BLM brands cops as murderous pigs. Guy actually goes out and MURDERS cops. But of course, no correlation whatsoever right? That's a [I]double standard[/I].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53077657]Let's say you are correct and BLM/Democrats incited violence against cops. What does that mean for BLM/Democrats? Sounds like an obvious problem that should be dealt with somehow! What does it mean for Trump inciting violence? Literally nothing, since the situation surrounding him is still exactly the same. Best case scenario, you pointed out one poster's hypocrisy. Worst case scenario is you derailed the thread into a discussion about whether or not BLM/Democrats incited violence. If you are right, then wow, there are other people in the world than Trump also inciting violence, what a surprise![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;53078885]BLM brands cops as murderous pigs. Guy actually goes out and MURDERS cops. But of course, no correlation whatsoever right? That's a [I]double standard[/I].[/QUOTE] Yes, but what if it's...? Murderous cops kill black people perhaps because they're racist, get off with warnings et cetera despite dubious camera footage etc - seemingly showing corruption. People protest this, demand investigations, make mass protests to show support for said investigations and decry the racial bias they see in the handling of those investigations. Cops refuse to investigate those cases, make excuses, find officers blameless and 'acting in favor of the law', et cetera - doubling down on making it seem like corruption. More cases like the first emerge. More demonstrations. A movement forms called BLM. More denials and deflections. More cases emerge. Few, if any, cops are let go from the force if they're even punished at all and not instead praised for their 'courage'. Many politicians refuse to commit to a stance against it because they have to be 'tough on crime'. Even more demonstrations. BLM takes the forefront to help organize and be a platform and signal booster for those demonstrations. Even more denials and deflections and a refusal to commit to or admit to any of the above. Even more cases emerge. Still no real political movement or pressure from 'on high'. This cycle continues for months and then years. New cases throughout. No strong committals from political figures to probe and potentially resolve the seeming injustice through reforms in the justice system; in fact the opposite is pushed, that we need to be 'even tougher' on crime, that justice needs to be allowed to be more independent and more well-armed. Someone goes out and murders cops, sick of the constant denials and deflections, feeling that no other course of action is available to them to effect change -- politicians aren't caring, cops are 'getting away with it', the system has 'stopped listening' and there's been no movement on the issue after many many cycles of the above. The double standard is where here? Also: As [I]everyone else[/I] has stated - what does that have to do with the thread (Trump inciting violence) to begin with?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074947]It's thrown around every time people want to make inconsistent arguments and not defend them.[/QUOTE] sgman :thinking:

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;53078945]sgman :thinking:[/QUOTE] What is there to say? Either you think Trump's comments are incitement to violence or you don't. I, personally, don't think they rise to that level, but clearly others do. There's really not much else to discuss, is there?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079026]What is there to say? Either you think Trump's comments are incitement to violence or you don't. I, personally, don't think they rise to that level, but clearly others do. There's really not much else to discuss, is there?[/QUOTE] Do you not think there is such a thing as a gradient between "explicit call to violence" and "innocuous statement"? Are you really going to sit and pretend that the POTUS calling CNN enemies of the people like some kind of WWII communist dictator doesn't have any influence on the increasingly violent and aggressive outlook his rabid followers have on the media? You don't think it factors in at all?

[QUOTE=srobins;53079351]Do you not think there is such a thing as a gradient between "explicit call to violence" and "innocuous statement"? Are you really going to sit and pretend that the POTUS calling CNN enemies of the people like some kind of WWII communist dictator doesn't have any influence on the increasingly violent and aggressive outlook his rabid followers have on the media? You don't think it factors in at all?[/QUOTE] I've already said I don't like what he's doing. I find much of it childish and stupid. I just don't think people taking your criticism to a level that you haven't suggested is your fault. Someone is able to say that they think the media is an enemy of the American people without calling for violence against them (just like people were able to call George Bush a fascist/Nazi/etc. without being responsible if he were to have been assassinated.) [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] I don't find the question of whether it "factors in" to be relevant. For example, the guy who shot up that baseball game was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Did Sanders's strong criticism of republicans factor into the shooting? Probably. Does that make Sanders in any way responsible for it? No, of course not because Sanders didn't call for what he saw as bad to be ended with violence. The fact that someone came to their own conclusion that violence was the best answer is totally on the person who made that decision.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079534]I've already said I don't like what he's doing. I find much of it childish and stupid. I just don't think people taking your criticism to a level that you haven't suggested is your fault. Someone is able to say that they think the media is an enemy of the American people without calling for violence against them (just like people were able to call George Bush a fascist/Nazi/etc. without being responsible if he were to have been assassinated.) [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] I don't find the question of whether it "factors in" to be relevant. For example, the guy who shot up that baseball game was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Did Sanders's strong criticism of republicans factor into the shooting? Probably. Does that make Sanders in any way responsible for it? No, of course not because Sanders didn't call for what he saw as bad to be ended with violence. The fact that someone came to their own conclusion that violence was the best answer is totally on the person who made that decision.[/QUOTE] Here's the difference. One of these people is calling someone an enemy of the American people as a random American citizen. The other is [I]the President of the United States[/I] declaring someone/something as 'an Enemy of the United States'. When the President says 'this is an Enemy of the United States' he doesn't mean 'to him' - he means that's an enemy to you, to Democracy itself, to the Republic and all for which it stands. He is more or less calling on American citizens to not only recognize but acknowledge what he says is 'their Enemy'. If the President calls someone 'an Enemy of the United States' American citizens are going to think it's their patriotic duty to serve the US and defend it against its enemies. That's why Presidents are careful about their statements. That's why Presidents don't say 'X is guilty and should be hanged until dead' when that person hasn't even been convicted of a crime -- because the President's words have great weight and enormous spread. This President does make those comments (and thus makes it easier for terrorists and criminals to walk free because it'd be difficult to argue that the jury was 'unbiased' by what the President stated - one way or the other - at that point) and the President should thusly share blame for the consequences of his actions. Implying the statements of these two people carry anywhere near the same weight is ridiculous. To imply otherwise is to state that in the murder case of Thomas Becket by Henry II you'd find Henry II innocent because 'he didn't explicitly call for someone to be murdered - just for someone to 'rid him' of the 'meddlesome Becket' - and so you couldn't call it a 'call to violence' despite it being the King who said it and his Court who took it as an order from their King, as was their duty (to execute his will). May as well say that when the president 'hopes you'll let a criminal case go' immediately after they clear the room and are having a private dinner with you that that 'wasn't an order' it was 'just an innocuous question', much like goons coming into a bar with bats and saying 'man, this is a nice place you've got here - it'd be a real shame if something happened to it' is also just an innocuous statement of appreciation - after all, they haven't actually swung their bats at anything so you can't 'know what they intended to do with those bats, considering their innocuous statement'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53079568]Here's the difference. One of these people is calling someone an enemy of the American people as a random American citizen. The other is [I]the President of the United States[/I] declaring someone/something as 'an Enemy of the United States'. When the President says 'this is an Enemy of the United States' he doesn't mean 'to him' - he means that's an enemy to you, to Democracy itself, to the Republic and all for which it stands. He is more or less calling on American citizens to not only recognize but acknowledge what he says is 'their Enemy'. If the President calls someone 'an Enemy of the United States' American citizens are going to think it's their patriotic duty to serve the US and defend it against its enemies. That's why Presidents are careful about their statements. That's why Presidents don't say 'X is guilty and should be hanged until dead' when that person hasn't even been convicted of a crime -- because the President's words have great weight and enormous spread. This President does make those comments (and thus makes it easier for terrorists and criminals to walk free because it'd be difficult to argue that the jury was 'unbiased' by what the President stated - one way or the other - at that point) and the President should thusly share blame for the consequences of his actions. Implying the statements of these two people carry anywhere near the same weight is ridiculous. To imply otherwise is to state that in the murder case of Thomas Becket by Henry II you'd find Henry II innocent because 'he didn't explicitly call for someone to be murdered - just for someone to 'rid him' of the 'meddlesome Becket' - and so you couldn't call it a 'call to violence' despite it being the King who said it and his Court who took it as an order from their King, as was their duty (to execute his will). May as well say that when the president 'hopes you'll let a criminal case go' immediately after they clear the room and are having a private dinner with you that that 'wasn't an order' it was 'just an innocuous question', much like goons coming into a bar with bats and saying 'man, this is a nice place you've got here - it'd be a real shame if something happened to it' is also just an innocuous statement of appreciation.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "random American citizen?" Is calling someone a fascist or Nazi not comparable in force to what Trump has said? Here are some examples, just to be clear: - Keith Ellison, chairman of the DNC, compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire and Bush to Hitler - Barry Goldwater was described as "the stench of fascism" by Pat Brown, the governor of California - William Clay, a democratic representative said of Reagan, "[He is] trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf." - George Soros said that Bush displayed the "supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany" - Al Gore, the former democratic presidential candidate said George Bushes, "executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. ... And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brown shirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President." - etc. etc. etc. These are all well known quotes that can be easily verified, and they aren't from "random citizens." Making strong insults and criticisms of your opponents is absolutely nothing new. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] It's hard for me to get outraged about Trump's comments when statements like those I've quoted happen all the time from the biggest names in politics.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079614]What do you mean by "random American citizen?" Is calling someone a fascist or Nazi not comparable in force to what Trump has said? Here are some examples, just to be clear: - Keith Ellison, chairman of the DNC, compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire and Bush to Hitler - Barry Goldwater was described as "the stench of fascism" by Pat Brown, the governor of California - William Clay, a democratic representative said of Reagan, "[He is] trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf." - George Soros said that Bush displayed the "supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany" - Al Gore, the former democratic presidential candidate said George Bushes, "executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. ... And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brown shirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President." - etc. etc. etc. These are all well known quotes that can be easily verified, and they aren't from "random citizens." Making strong insults and criticisms of your opponents is absolutely nothing new. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] It's hard for me to get outraged about Trump's comments when statements like those I've quoted happen all the time from the biggest names in politics.[/QUOTE] 'Biggest names in politics' is not comparable to 'The President of the United States'. Also, none of them called anyone 'an Enemy of the United States'. That language is special and particular because it is the exact phrase used to describe, as the phrase implies, "Enemies of the United States". Such enemies include: Terrorist organizations, nations that have declared war on our own, and powers that seek to destroy or subvert the republic.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53079617]'Biggest names in politics' is not comparable to 'The President of the United States'. Also, none of them called anyone 'an Enemy of the United States'.[/QUOTE] ... you honestly don't think calling someone fascist is equivalently similar to being an enemy of the US? Is it possible to both be like Hitler and not be an enemy?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079619]... you honestly don't think calling someone fascist is equivalently similar to being an enemy of the US? Is it possible to both be like Hitler and not be an enemy?[/QUOTE] Absolutely. One is an Enemy of the United States. The other [I]was[/I] an Enemy of the United States - and being [I]like[/I] Hitler isn't the same as [I]being[/I] Hitler. Further, if the President's saying 'you're an Enemy to the nation' it's of an entirely different category than just about anyone you could pick from the 330 million people in the US stating the same thing. Additionally: The [I]President is in charge of declaring who is an Enemy of the United States[/I]. I also think it's principally different when the President states it than anyone else. The only other person who carries such weight when labeling 'Enemies of the United States' are persons such as the Secretary of Defense or the Director of the CIA. To wit: Find me some non-military/non-intelligence person in the US who can say to someone else 'you're a traitor to the nation' with enough weight that that person is more or less immediately put behind bars. As in 'you are an Enemy Combatant - jail him'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53079626]Absolutely. One is an Enemy of the United States. The other [I]was[/I] an Enemy of the United States. Further, if the President's saying 'you're an Enemy to the nation' it's of an entirely different category than just about anyone you could pick from the 330 million people in the US stating the same thing. Additionally: The [I]President is in charge of declaring who is an Enemy of the United States[/I]. I also think it's principally different when the President states it than anyone else. The only other person who carries such weight when labeling 'Enemies of the United States' are persons such as the Secretary of Defense or the Director of the CIA.[/QUOTE] I'm really not sure how to continue from here. We fundamentally disagree on the facts on the ground. I see no meaningful distinction between calling someone an enemy and saying someone is fascist (The obvious conclusion to calling someone fascist is that they are therefore an enemy.) About the president, we aren't talking about some legal ramification of US declarations (Obviously Trump isn't actually saying they are legally enemies of the state. He's saying they are enemies in the sense of them being in opposition to our best interest). We're talking about how people perceive strong accusation and whether they ought to be considered incitement to violence. The statement "They are an enemy of the people" or "[they display the] supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany" are either incitement or they aren't. The person making the statement might affect the reach of the claim, but not the meaning of it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079647]I'm really not sure how to continue from here. We fundamentally disagree on the facts on the ground. I see no meaningful distinction between calling someone an enemy and saying someone is fascist (The obvious conclusion to calling someone fascist is that they are therefore an enemy.) About the president, we aren't talking about some legal ramification of US declarations. We're talking about how people perceive strong accusation and whether they ought to be considered incitement to violence. The statement "They are an enemy of the people" or "[they display the] supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany" are either incitement or they aren't. The person making the statement might affect the reach of the claim, but not the meaning of it.[/QUOTE] Then allow me to explain it to you. One is an ideology that can pull down your public image and make a few people made at you. The other [I]mobilizes armies and guns against you by its mere utterance.[/I] "Russia is fascist" does not do what "Russia is an Enemy to the United States" does.

I don't think either are incitement unless you also state that violence is an appropriate answer. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53079651]Then allow me to explain it to you. One is an ideology that can pull down your public image and make a few people made at you. The other [I]mobilizes armies and guns against you.[/I][/QUOTE] I have no clue what point you're making here.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079653]I don't think either are incitement unless you also state that violence is an appropriate answer.[/QUOTE] If you're being declared as an Enemy of the United States, the President is more or less stating that violence will be at least one of its answers against you. [quote]I have no clue what point you're making here.[/quote] That words spoken by different people have very different effects. Some random guy saying 'I'll have you arrested' doesn't carry the weight or implication of a Sheriff stating the same.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53079656]If you're being declared as an Enemy of the United States, the President is more or less stating that violence will be at least one of its answers against you.[/QUOTE] I simply disagree. Someone can be your enemy without justifying violence against them. In fact, most uses of the word "enemy" refer to this, nonviolent, sense of it. For example, I can say, "Socialists are the enemy of the people," without meaning that we ought to go kill and/or arrest all the socialists. My conclusion may be that we need to try really hard to push back against their social influence and not vote them into office. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53079656]That words spoken by different people have very different effects. Some random guy saying 'I'll have you arrested' doesn't carry the weight or implication of a Sheriff stating the same.[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about legal accusations of being an enemy of the state. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Trump obviously isn't making that claim. He's using it in the more general sense of the word: that the media is in opposition to the best interests of the people.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079661]I simply disagree. Someone can be your enemy without justifying violence against them. In fact, most uses of the word "enemy" refer to this, nonviolent, sense of it. For example, I can say, "Socialists are the enemy of the people," without meaning that we ought to go kill and/or arrest all the socialists. My conclusion may be that we need to try really hard to push back against their social influence and not vote them into office. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] We aren't talking about legal accusations of being an enemy of the state. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Trump obviously isn't making that claim.[/QUOTE] When the President states someone is an enemy of the United States - they become one. It is a legal accusation because what Trump writes on his twitter is considered to be public releases directly from the White House (or in more succinct terms 'official statements of the President'). [U]If the President declared war over twitter - it would be regarded as an actual declaration of war.[/U] You can say 'socialists are the enemy of the people' and maybe some people might listen. If the president states it then he is asking Americans to treat socialists as their personal enemy, for the good of the Republic.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53079667]When the President states someone is an enemy of the United States - they become one. It is a legal accusation because what Trump writes on his twitter is considered to be public releases directly from the White House. [U]If the President declared war over twitter - it would be regarded as an actual declaration of war.[/U] You can say 'socialists are the enemy of the people' and maybe some people might listen. If the president states it then he is asking Americans to treat socialists as their personal enemy, for the good of the Republic.[/QUOTE] I mean, you're just wrong. A police officer can't go arrest a CNN employee and use Trump's tweet as justification. They would be laughed out of the room and disciplined, if not arrested, themselves.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079672]I mean, you're just wrong. A police officer can't go arrest a CNN employee and use Trump's tweet as justification. They would be laughed out of the room and disciplined, if not arrested, themselves.[/QUOTE] A man just attempted to shoot up a bunch of reporters from CNN due to the constant declarations and inflammatory statements the President made against them. Police Officers aren't likely to carry out arrests without warrants and so on, sure. Random patriotic citizens who feel it's their duty to serve the interests of the nation? They're liable to attempt to do what they can. Edit: Also, they very well could besides. Trump could declare them to have committed no crime in doing so and demand the Judiciary to give up the case against said officers - much like how Candidate Trump told his base to 'punch agitators out' and that he would 'pay their legal and hospital bills'. Would it stick? Probably not. Could it be attempted? Definitely.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53079674]A man just attempted to shoot up a bunch of reporters from CNN due to the constant declarations and inflammatory statements the President made against them. Police Officers aren't likely to carry out arrests without warrants and so on, sure. Random patriotic citizens who feel it's their duty to serve the interests of the nation? They're liable to attempt to do what they can. Edit: Also, they very well could besides. Trump could declare them to have committed no crime in doing so and demand the Judiciary to give up the case against said officers - much like how Candidate Trump told his base to 'punch agitators out' and that he would 'pay their legal and hospital bills'.[/QUOTE] I honestly feel like this is just nonsense at this point. You've taken this a really weird direction with all the legal claims that don't really apply at all. People know where I stand. They're welcome to disagree, but I don't see any value in continuing this line of conversation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079678]I honestly feel like this is just nonsense at this point. You've taken this a really weird direction with all the legal claims that don't really apply at all. People know where I stand. They're welcome to disagree, but I don't see any value in continuing this line of conversation.[/QUOTE] If they 'don't really apply at all' then just answer one question. If the President declared war with North Korea, right now, over Twitter - would that be seen as a declaration of war? Would it be a legal declaration of war? I am asking if you believe the words he writes have the weight of the Presidency behind them; that his words on Twitter aren't just the opinions of Donald J. Trump but the official positions of The President of the United States.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079619]... you honestly don't think calling someone fascist is equivalently similar to being an enemy of the US? Is it possible to both be like Hitler and not be an enemy?[/QUOTE] Not when Trump has been doing some of the same thing the fascists have done?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53079614]What do you mean by "random American citizen?" Is calling someone a fascist or Nazi not comparable in force to what Trump has said? Here are some examples, just to be clear: - Keith Ellison, chairman of the DNC, compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire and Bush to Hitler - Barry Goldwater was described as "the stench of fascism" by Pat Brown, the governor of California - William Clay, a democratic representative said of Reagan, "[He is] trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf." - George Soros said that Bush displayed the "supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany" - Al Gore, the former democratic presidential candidate said George Bushes, "executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. ... And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brown shirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President." - etc. etc. etc. These are all well known quotes that can be easily verified, and they aren't from "random citizens." Making strong insults and criticisms of your opponents is absolutely nothing new. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] It's hard for me to get outraged about Trump's comments when statements like those I've quoted happen all the time from the biggest names in politics.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting the bigger picture. This isn't just Trump that once said one bad thing about CNN. It's about Trump's long term, on-going aggressive rhetoric towards CNN and others: He sometimes targets individual people, and publicly calls for prison sentences or firings. He tweeted a gif implying violence towards CNN after a real similar event actually took place. He refrained from specifically condemning Nazis who committed a murder in broad daylight during a protest. He implied that 'second amendment people' could 'do something' about Hillary Clinton. He once praised his supporters by saying they would stay loyal to him if he murdered someone. He asked his supporters at a rally to punch protesters and assured them he would pay the legal fees. He called the media the 'enemy of the American people'. That this would eventually happen was entirely predictable and not surprising at all, exactly because of this rhetoric. Even before anything happens, it's still worrying when the President broadcasts a violent attitude because it clearly causes division and tension, which logically leads to unstable people being more likely to act. Normal citizens don't need to worry about this. People with influence, however, have to be more responsible. People with a large audience, even more so. The [I]President of the United States[/I] should be held to the highest standard. I disagree with your examples because the strong criticism isn't accompanied by multiple previous statements alluding to support of violence. Or, if they did, then maybe you are right that they, too, should have been more responsible with their rhetoric. And just as a further side note, Trump calls [I]"fake news"[/I] his invention, and this man specifically used that phrase right before [I]"I'm coming to gun you all down"[/I]. Now, that doesn't show that it's Trump's fault, but it shows very clearly that there [I]is[/I] a connection between Trump's rhetoric and this man's actions, and thus it might be a good idea if the President considered cutting out such rhetoric, or responding to this event, etc. [QUOTE=MrRalgoman;53078885]BLM brands cops as murderous pigs. Guy actually goes out and MURDERS cops. But of course, no correlation whatsoever right? That's a [I]double standard[/I].[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly, I've explained why whataboutism is worthless personally to you multiple times before. You either accomplish people saying [I]"Oh, right, that's terrible too"[/I], or you manage to derail the thread. Great, so you've pointed out a supposed double standard even though sgman was the only one to bring up BLM in the first place, but what about the man who threatened to kill CNN employees? I have to give credit, though. It's been a year and a half and now Trump supporters are at least trying to defend the use of blatant misdirection, instead of simply ignoring being called out. That's an improvement, keep it up.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;53080208]so if obama said "conservative gunowners are the enemy of this nation" and some liberal dude killed a conservative gunowner, would you give obama some of the responsibility?[/QUOTE] I'd say the statement on its own would be worse, since the people being called the enemy here are explicitly stated to be armed. But it wouldn't be as bad as Trump's long-term violent discourse, because one statement doesn't cause the same kind of division and tension as Trump's general attitude has been causing for over a year now. But yes, it would be an extremely poor choice of words, and it would definitely make me think [I]"Damn, I hope no-one takes this as a call to action"[/I], just as it did every single time Trump said something similar.