Shut Up And Sing

[jwlcosu]

Bunch of self-important know-nothings who think they have influence while spewing fake news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a3qP-s1DBA

 

[Mitchrapp]

The one thing why they have no clue.. stuff like this works in favor for the conservative. The more they speak, the better.

 

[Mitchrapp]

As a side note.. If you like Fox News, we can thank NBC for taking Megyn Kelly. Fox News just got better. I don't have to hear about here stupid book any more.

 

[Monster]

I'm so sick of this shit.

Anarchy. That's my new goal.

 

[Michchamp]

While I think to some extent, the comments regarding Trump's racism, mysogyny, and xenophobia miss the mark, i.e. he personally is not the problem, but his willingness to appeal to those things to persuade people to vote for him is, as well as its effects on voters.
some of them will undoubtedly take the things he says to heart, and some already have.

So racist, misogyny, and xenophobia are troubling enough that I am okay with people - even celebrities - taking to their soapboxes to condemn them, without qualication. I am glad these entertainers and what not took the time to make the video, and I disagree with the views expressed heretofore in this thread.

Additionally, I have listened to interviews with at least a few of the people who made that video, and I do not think it's fair to call them know-nothings; they were, perhaps surprisingly to some, well-informed, educated, and articulate.

 

[Mitchrapp]

This must be your new New Year's resolution.. But the fact when they say people are committing crime and doing these deplorable things in Trumps name, is a flat out lie. And they should be ashamed.

 

[Michchamp]

This must be your new New Year's resolution.. But the fact when they say people are committing crime and doing these deplorable things in Trumps name, is a flat out lie. And they should be ashamed.

Do you mean they are not literally committing acts in Trump's name, or these acts are not happening at all?

 

[Mitchrapp]

Do you mean they are not literally committing acts in Trump's name, or these acts are not happening at all?

I'm saying these people in the video are saying people are committing crime in Trumps name. And other acts. They're lying.

 

[sggatecl]

Bunch of self-important know-nothings who think they have influence while spewing fake news.

If a bunch of memes and Facebook posts devoid of any facts can work for Trump, I won't doubt any methods at this point. It's all fair game.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm saying these people in the video are saying people are committing crime in Trumps name. And other acts. They're lying.

this instance appears to be true, according to the cops who arrested the men. it was over a year ago though. Trump's comments at the time were... less than ideal.

even if you ignore the swastikas and racial slogans spray painted here and there anonymously, or the other incidents that rely on the victim's statements alone (ie are uncorroborated by others) there were also the Trump supporters who assaulted protestors at his rallies. that's another half-dozen verified examples of acts committed in Trump's name at least. His supporters also harassed journalists he didn't like at his urging. I think that happened a few times as well.

maybe even more troubling is the way Trump refused to distance himself from support from outright white supremacists like those "alt-right" scumbags and the KKK. I think all reasonable people would be opposed to those groups gaining more acceptance in mainstream American culture and politics, yet Trump flirted with their support throughout the campaign. I think there is a real and obvious danger in their views becoming tolerated by more white Americans than they are already are, and so I am glad people - even celebrities and entertainers - are continuing to speak out against Trump on this issue.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I read an article about the alt-right and Pepe the frog. The frog didn't start out as a political thing at all. First it was just a weird comic about being an internet loser outsider than can't relate to 'normies'. It got popular enough to get used by Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj, but it was also picked up on 4chan where part of the humor is to try to say things that will piss people off. So there was a period where they were actively trying to make the frog too repulsive for 'normies' to want to be affiliated. That might be when it started going white nationalist. Wikipedia says that part of the story was based on a lie told to a Daily Beast writer who played a role in associating the frog with white nationalism and the alt-right. Either way, after it was on the blogs, it became real. There was overlap between the alt-right and people that just wanted to offend people and thought that was the way to do it. Not exactly a false flag operation, but related.

 

[Michchamp]

so its a false frog operation?

Heyo!

 

[Mitchrapp]

this instance appears to be true, according to the cops who arrested the men. it was over a year ago though. Trump's comments at the time were... less than ideal.

even if you ignore the swastikas and racial slogans spray painted here and there anonymously, or the other incidents that rely on the victim's statements alone (ie are uncorroborated by others) there were also the Trump supporters who assaulted protestors at his rallies. that's another half-dozen verified examples of acts committed in Trump's name at least. His supporters also harassed journalists he didn't like at his urging. I think that happened a few times as well.

maybe even more troubling is the way Trump refused to distance himself from support from outright white supremacists like those "alt-right" scumbags and the KKK. I think all reasonable people would be opposed to those groups gaining more acceptance in mainstream American culture and politics, yet Trump flirted with their support throughout the campaign. I think there is a real and obvious danger in their views becoming tolerated by more white Americans than they are already are, and so I am glad people - even celebrities and entertainers - are continuing to speak out against Trump on this issue.

You mean the women who came out and said she lied. You mean that protester? How about we blame the protesters after the election who beat up innocents because someone had a lousy Trump sticker on their car. The Hollywood left don't have facts behind their video's. They just spew more hate. How is it Trump's fault when someone does something and just says his name?

It's just like those senators who say they're going to delay the Trump appointee's not for weeks but for months, just because. Way to the help the country. I'd worry more about that.

 

[Michchamp]

You mean the women who came out and said she lied. You mean that protester? How about we blame the protesters after the election who beat up innocents because someone had a lousy Trump sticker on their car. The Hollywood left don't have facts behind their video's. They just spew more hate. How is it Trump's fault when someone does something and just says his name?

It's just like those senators who say they're going to delay the Trump appointee's not for weeks but for months, just because. Way to the help the country. I'd worry more about that.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you're saying. Who lied? The link I provided has an example, as well as comments from the police that the attackers were motivated by Trump and their mugshots. and there is video evidence of Trump supporters punching and kicking protestors, as well as articles documenting how he singled out a reporter (or two or three) for abuse. his former campaign manager Lewandowski also assaulted a Breitbart reporter - and the site threw her under the bus over it - live on video.

You claimed there was no evidence his supporters committed crimes in Trump's name. this is not true.

and the Senate claiming they will block Trump's nominees is a different issue altogether. Jwlco probably doesn't appreciate you hijacking his thread like that. But FWIW, this tactic follows what the house and senate GOP did - and basically ALL they did - from 2009 -2017.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you're saying. Who lied? The link I provided has an example, as well as comments from the police that the attackers were motivated by Trump and their mugshots. and there is video evidence of Trump supporters punching and kicking protestors, as well as articles documenting how he singled out a reporter (or two or three) for abuse. his former campaign manager Lewandowski also assaulted a Breitbart reporter - and the site threw her under the bus over it - live on video.

You claimed there was no evidence his supporters committed crimes in Trump's name. this is not true.

and the Senate claiming they will block Trump's nominees is a different issue altogether. Jwlco probably doesn't appreciate you hijacking his thread like that. But FWIW, this tactic follows what the house and senate GOP did - and basically ALL they did - from 2009 -2017.

One women who said she was beat up by Trump protestors.. later she recanted and said she lied. When did the GOP keep nominee's out for months. A couple weeks is normal, drill them about everything. But when they come out and say straight out they will delay as long as possible it's entirely different.. And there reason "just because."

 

[tinselwolverine]

Throughout the election cycle there was an amount of violence and crime perpetrated by both supporters of Trump and then people who responded violently when he was elected.

There is ample evidence that both are true.

He was a very divisive candidate (obviously Clinton was too).

I haven't heard of any senator saying that he or she would attempt to hold up Trump's appointments solely for the purpose of holding them.

If this actually has happened, I would like to see evidence that it did - a video clip or a press report, etc.

I know some senators have been voicing specific objections to some of the potential appointees for various reasons - this is not the same as holding them up just because.

 

[Michchamp]

One women who said she was beat up by Trump protestors.. later she recanted and said she lied. When did the GOP keep nominee's out for months. A couple weeks is normal, drill them about everything. But when they come out and say straight out they will delay as long as possible it's entirely different.. And there reason "just because."

I've never argued all these claims are true, and in fact I said in post #10 I wasn't even considering any uncorroborated or anonymous attacks when responding to your claim that no Trump supporters committed violent acts in his name. they did.

and good for the Senate for holding some of his nominees... most of them are awful. Sessions, for example, couldn't get confirmed in the 80's for his awful record on race issues and civil rights. if he is confirmed today, it's certainly a sign that we're regressing on civil rights.

Mnuchin, Tillerson have obvious conflicts of interest and should never have been considered for Treas. or State. Steve Bannon has no business being in public office, and same goes for Flynn. there's even bi-partisan opposition to most of these guys. the senate's job is not to be a rubber stamp tor appointees. if it was, they should've confirmed Merrick Garland for the supreme court, since they had already confirmed him once for the DC circuit without any or almost no concerns.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I've never argued all these claims are true, and in fact I said in post #10 I wasn't even considering any uncorroborated or anonymous attacks when responding to your claim that no Trump supporters committed violent acts in his name. they did.

and good for the Senate for holding some of his nominees... most of them are awful. Sessions, for example, couldn't get confirmed in the 80's for his awful record on race issues and civil rights. if he is confirmed today, it's certainly a sign that we're regressing on civil rights.

Mnuchin, Tillerson have obvious conflicts of interest and should never have been considered for Treas. or State. Steve Bannon has no business being in public office, and same goes for Flynn. there's even bi-partisan opposition to most of these guys. the senate's job is not to be a rubber stamp tor appointees. if it was, they should've confirmed Merrick Garland for the supreme court, since they had already confirmed him once for the DC circuit without any or almost no concerns.

I'm not going to say I like all his nominations either and if you have a problem with a guy then vote him down. But from what I hear is they're not going to have an open mind, and will just try to mess with our next POTUS.

You bring up 2008 - 2016. How many times did the GOP make Obama pick not get confirmed or draw out for months. Only example I remember was the Supreme court nomination, Garland. In-fact 2008, they approved the nominations quickly. America, have a smooth transition from one POTUS to another. That's the way it is..

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not going to say I like all his nominations either and if you have a problem with a guy then vote him down. But from what I hear is they're not going to have an open mind, and will just try to mess with our next POTUS.

You bring up 2008 - 2016. How many times did the GOP make Obama pick not get confirmed or draw out for months. Only example I remember was the Supreme court nomination, Garland. In-fact 2008, they approved the nominations quickly. America, have a smooth transition from one POTUS to another. That's the way it is..

Well, I'm not privy to what you hear, so I can't address it here.

also, of course it was a smooth transition in '08 (actually '09). Despite branding Obama as a dangerous socialist that had to be opposed, Obama retained Bush's secretary of defense, and appointed almost all corporate Democrats to his cabinet. the big banks and Wall Street all knew and loved Timothy Geithner, and indeed he proved easier to deal with for them than Bush's last treasury secretary (Paulson) was. Eric Holder was from a big DC law firm that defended all these same banks... Obama appointed the guys corporate America and the department of defense all wanted. The GOP would've faced a huge backlash from the 1% if they held any of these guys up

and despite approving his cabinet, and 2 supreme court seats, they were completely unreasonable on the 3rd pick, refusing to even consider a candidate, let alone nominate one.

and they've been worse than any other congress in terms of confirming Obama's appointments to appellate and district courts; even in the 90's when the GOP controlled congress, they confirmed more of Bill clinton's judges than Obama's. and the democrats were never as instransigent during Reagan's years or either of the Bushes (link).

 

[jwlcosu]

Yes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95HMg1l13EM