Chuck Schumer threatens SCOTUS justices

[childeye 2]

We in the middle are accustomed to the double standards of the Left and Right wings.

Exactly. There's an objective view that discerns the difference between divisive rhetoric and speaking in a way that brings unity concerning an objective Truth. Having said that, Schumer would need to tone it down to a lesser extent than someone like Trump. Too many voters love red meat.

 

[Aldebaran]

Exactly. There's an objective view that discerns the difference between divisive rhetoric and speaking in a way that brings unity concerning an objective Truth. Having said that, Schumer would need to tone it down to a lesser extent than someone like Trump. Too many voters love red meat.

Schumer isn't alone in needing to tone it down: Nancy Pelosi's inflammatory rhetoric

 

[Swag365]

Making a threat is still making a threat.
If anyone carries out that threat, are you willing to treat Schumer the same way Trump has been treated?

Ask me that again when it happens, and you'll know the answer.

 

[natitude]

How many people from Schumer's crowd stormed the Supreme Court and violently threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

None.

Should it matter whether the incitement to violence was successful or not when it comes to holding an individual accountable?

 

[Albion]

A reasonably perceptive person listening to that speech understands the message. Stop Congress from accepting the certified vote tallies from the states. And if you don't, our country is at great risk. For people who believe in the lie, that's a clear signal to do something - today, before it's too late.

The appeal to violence appears to have been left out of your rendition of the Senator's remarks. What a surprise.

 

[childeye 2]

Schumer isn't alone in needing to tone it down: Nancy Pelosi's inflammatory rhetoric

I agree that the sentiment of murder makes it too strong of a term. I also take into account that the context is in the way the family and friends of Breonna Taylor feel.

The issue to me is the over-play of implying/denying racism happening on both sides. I see it overplayed in left media, making it bigger or more reported and of being an urgent matter. And I see it as underplayed in the right as being overplayed in the left, which makes it a benign non-issue. The issue is actually about police policy on tactics and police policing each other. Overall, I see that the issue erupted with a video about George Floyd, which makes what Pelosi said happening in a bigger context. I'm not sure that Pelosi's words were not unifying in the big picture, but I do think they were divisive in the nuance of Breonna Taylor's death.

In all of this, Pelosi did not start the process nor incite violence in some measure of damage comparable to what Trump has done since he got into office. I see the Pelosi/Schumer comment as an attempt to mitigate Trump's actions by deflecting away from Trump. Time and time again, Trump has accused the Democrats of manufacturing hoaxes meant to damage him which is a very serious matter with huge consequences. This time his lie about the Dems stealing the election is just on a whole new insane level.

 

[Swag365]

Should it matter whether the incitement to violence was successful or not when it comes to holding an individual accountable?

There has to be violence for someone to have incited it. It ain't like Schumer said "Go out and smash Kavanaugh with a baseball bat."

 

[Yttrium]

Does that mean that someone who is a democrat has to do exactly as a Republican is accused of in order to be held accountable?

Not at all. How did you come to that odd conclusion? It doesn't even make sense.

Then why does he just need to tone down his rhetoric? Why not demand he resign? Why not smear him in the media?
IOW, why not treat him equally as those held to a higher standard?

I'm not sure what you mean by "treat him equally as those held to higher standards". If he doesn't tone down his rhetoric, I'd want him to resign. I wouldn't vote for someone who said things like that.

 

[Strathos]

I've never been a fan of the guy either.

 

[NotreDame]

After small portions of President Trump's speech to a rally has been deemed to be intended to "incite violence", it looks as if there are politicians on the other side who are guilty of actually making threats against SCOTUS justices if they don't vote his way:

The big question is if he will ever be held accountable for it if either of these justices suffer harm.

If your wildly questionable assumption of “reap the whirlwind” is parallel to the factual context in which his comments occurred, and parallel to Trump’s remarks, and the parallel is better than wildly questionable, then you’d have an excellent point.

 

[Pommer]

If your wildly questionable assumption of “reap the whirlwind” is parallel to the factual context in which his comments occurred, and parallel to Trump’s remarks, and the parallel is better than wildly questionable, then you’d have an excellent point.

And if red was green then I didn’t break any traffic laws this week!

 

[NotreDame]

Does that mean that someone who is a democrat has to do exactly as a Republican is accused of in order to be held accountable?
Then why does he just need to tone down his rhetoric? Why not demand he resign? Why not smear him in the media?
IOW, why not treat him equally as those held to a higher standard?

What it means is context is pivotal in understating what is said. Your mind numbing reasoning would treat innocuous statements, containing a hyperbolic threat, as a five alarm fire. A friend tweets about another friend in a group tweet, “Someone should send a hit squad to John’s house for tweeting the ending of the movie and spoiling it for us.” Or the phrase, “If you tell me how the movie ends before I see it, I promise I’ll kill you.”

Here’s a concept, not all threat are the same, not all threats are equal, not all threats are actual threats, not all calls for violence mean actually to engage in violence. Hyperbole, exaggeration, jokingly, an emotional outburst, etcetera, which involve some threat, aren’t threats as they are hyperbole, joking, exaggeration, mouthing off, etcetera.

The fact your argument cannot distinguish between the differences of statments containing threats, specifically those which aren’t threatening from those which are, plagues your view. It is irrational to lump all all statments containing a threat into one boat.

 

[NotreDame]

And if red was green then I didn’t break any traffic laws this week!

Well, be sure not to jokingly say, “If you do that again, I’m gonna kill ya,” a common phrase jokingly used, because that statment contains a threat and since it does, it must be treated as a bona fide, actual threat.

 

[natitude]

There has to be violence for someone to have incited it. It ain't like Schumer said "Go out and smash Kavanaugh with a baseball bat."

I disagree. The definition of "incite" is "encourage", "persuade", or "urge" someone to act in a violent manner. Whether the violence actually occurred is immaterial to the action of inciting.

 

[KCfromNC]

You mean they couldn't have fired even a single shot at any of the many police officers in order to get to their "intended victims"?

The used a fire extinguisher to beat one to death, that enough for you or do you need more violence against law enforcement by a violent pro-Trump mob before it bothers you?

 

[Swag365]

I disagree. The definition of "incite" is "encourage", "persuade", or "urge" someone to act in a violent manner. Whether the violence actually occurred is immaterial to the action of inciting.

That's fine, but he did not encourage, persuade, or urge someone to act in a violent manner. You only claim that he did.

I claim that the words "I disagree" in your post encourage people to act in a violent manner against me. You see how that works? There is the same amount of evidence for your claim as there is for mine. None.

You seem to take it for granted that what Schumer said amounts to encouraging people to act in a violent manner, but that is what you need to prove. You have not proven it, and there is no evidence to support it. The evidence itself indicates that the words he said did not have that intention or effect, because you have yet to identify a single person on the planet Earth who admits to having been encouraged to do violence by those words. It is not like people on the left or people who dislike conservative members of the Supreme Court are adverse to acting violently, as we have recently seen during the riots this past summer. If the words that he said encourage people to act violently, or were said with the intention that people would act violently after hearing them, we would expect to have seen at least some attempt at violence against those judges among the millions and millions of people on the left. The fact that there was none indicates that the words did not encourage, and were not, intended to "encourage", "persuade", or "urge" someone to act in a violent manner.

 

[natitude]

That's fine, but he did not encourage, persuade, or urge someone to act in a violent manner. You only claim that he did.

My apologies for my misleading comment. Responding to your comment:

There has to be violence for someone to have incited it. It ain't like Schumer said "Go out and smash Kavanaugh with a baseball bat."

I was only disagreeing with the first sentence, and not commenting on the second sentence. I can see how my response could have been misconstrued.

 

[Sparagmos]

I see the moral compass for hate speech is more like a stopwatch now.
Carry on.

Hate speech and speech that incites violence are two different things. It’s not illegal to be hateful.

 

[Sparagmos]

I disagree. The definition of "incite" is "encourage", "persuade", or "urge" someone to act in a violent manner. Whether the violence actually occurred is immaterial to the action of inciting.

The law isn’t based on the dictionary.

 

[Aldebaran]

What it means is context is pivotal in understating what is said. Your mind numbing reasoning would treat innocuous statements, containing a hyperbolic threat, as a five alarm fire. A friend tweets about another friend in a group tweet, “Someone should send a hit squad to John’s house for tweeting the ending of the movie and spoiling it for us.” Or the phrase, “If you tell me how the movie ends before I see it, I promise I’ll kill you.”

Here’s a concept, not all threat are the same, not all threats are equal, not all threats are actual threats, not all calls for violence mean actually to engage in violence. Hyperbole, exaggeration, jokingly, an emotional outburst, etcetera, which involve some threat, aren’t threats as they are hyperbole, joking, exaggeration, mouthing off, etcetera.

The fact your argument cannot distinguish between the differences of statments containing threats, specifically those which aren’t threatening from those which are, plagues your view. It is irrational to lump all all statments containing a threat into one boat.

Then be specific about what Trump's "threat" was.