I agree, but then he goes on to imply there are several prominent Democrats he would like to see executed.
I agree it is not the blanket call to violence the headline would imply but it is still a call to violence.
I read the entire article. The guy is an asshole, but he's an asshole in line with typical asshole things conservatives say. The article title is misleading, a lure for democrats to assume something which is not quite true in context.
It's plainly obvious that the first several posters in the thread hadn't read the article thoroughly and were just reacting to the headline. It's more important to be consistent in honoring the facts than to be consistent in bashing Trump. Because that is how we distinguish ourselves from the deplorables. There's so many legitimately horrible things Trump and other conservatives say and do on a daily basis. We don't need to take an ordinary piece of crap and turn it into an extraordinary piece of crap as there's already plenty of real crap in both piles.
And now endorsed by el Presidente.
But, hey. They’re just words.
Silly me, I thought it was only open season on black people.
Trump Says 'Thank You' To Video Declaring 'The Only Good Democrat Is A Dead Democrat'
![]()
Trump Says 'Thank You' To Video Declaring 'The Only Good Democrat Is A Dead Democrat'
The president shared a tweet from Cowboys for Trump in which the group's founder told rallygoers that they should protest stay-at-home orders.www.yahoo.com
Yes, advocating a legally imposed death penalty for "treason." Not extra-legal violence.
Republican rhetoric tends to be violent. This has been going on a long time. Remember Sarah Palin with the map showing target markers over blue states? It's gotten even worse over the years.
That is the sort of thing worth discussing. We just have to honor the facts and try not to overcook when we discuss it. Because otherwise we are acting like them.
So it was ok for you to blanket dismiss the guy's comments? That's literally what you did, but now you want people to specifically condemn just one aspect of it?
Its plainly obvious that the guy absolutely would have no problem with extending the killing to others. You can keep deluding yourself into believing otherwise, just know that there's historical precedent for this type of rhetoric. Here's a spoiler, it lead to them indiscriminate killing of those others.
And sorry, you might be ok with this type of talk, but it is not "ordinary piece of crap" unless you're a fucking psychopath. But hey, keep trying to marginalize someone calling for the murder of their political enemies. I'll keep in mind that you only want to call it out if they go "extraordinary" with it, which I can only assume means you'll take issue once they actually start killing people. But until then its just talk, no reason to make a fuss about it?
Don't get carried away! Leave Turmp alone! *running mascara crying*
Our free speech warrior President and his supporters want American citizens to be executed for treason because they disagree with their speech.
Stop and think about that for a minute.
You DID read he was SPECIFICALLY talking about treason in his later comment, and not because of political side...RIGHT?
on my goodness gracious!
what Treason, then?
The treason of not being a Republican obviously.on my goodness gracious!
what Treason, then?
So … I find your assertion that he was "talking about treason in his later comment, and not because of political side" considerably less than convincing.
Yes, yes, if a partisan makes unspecified treason accusations against officials from the opposing party and only officials of that party, suggesting that they may need to be executed or lynched, there is absolutely no way of interpreting it other than his being super-concerned with the crime of treason. Anyone thinking otherwise clearly didn't read the part of the article that I literally quoted.If you had read the article, these arent MY words, but his.
Yes, yes, if a partisan makes unspecified treason accusations against officials from the opposing party and only officials of that party, suggesting that they may need to be executed or lynched, there is absolutely no way of interpreting it other than his being super-concerned with the crime of treason. Anyone thinking otherwise clearly didn't read the part of the article that I literally quoted.
Are you trolling me? This is all about your objection that "You DID read he was SPECIFICALLY talking about treason in his later comment, and not because of political side...RIGHT?"Right. I agree. I simply was answering the question of "what treason". I dont know, and the article doesnt say. Why are you complicating this?
Are you trolling me? This is all about your objection that "You DID read he was SPECIFICALLY talking about treason in his later comment, and not because of political side...RIGHT?"
It doesn't excuse the person's own words. He clearly added that part to try excuse the severity of what he said and try and cover his ass against any liability for it. It also plays into their "the media spins everything!" nonsense.
I wonder if he complains about "PC culture" since that's literally him being PC as well.
blackangst1 has proven repeatedly that he's incapable of deeper meanings, let alone anything that would dare challenge his views.
He is just another dishonest, willfully ignorant conservative who is best on ignore.
We aren't that bad. In my circle most everybody who voted for Trump figured out he was a scam, a hard core Zionist, and we no longer support him. Unfortunately that means Biden is out because he's a Zionist too. I'm voting random Green/Independent/Libertarian in 2020... I was considering Sanders.
How about the full quote instead of cherry picking?
“I’ve come to a conclusion where the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat,” says Griffin, going on to add that he doesn’t mean that in a “physical sense,” but in a “political sense.”
Yea, its almost like, he put a question mark at the end of the sentence and by doing so rendered the whole sentence void of meaning.
Gone full geek I see. So sorry about your loss. Of mind.
WTF are you talking about?
Oh I'm guilty of not reading it to completion. Reading into his sincerity of death wish doesn't seem possible to me. The rhetoric itself is indefensible regardless, and Trump's endorsement doubly so.
