Attorney General Jeff Sessions repeats 'lock her up' chant

[hollodero]

(07-24-2018, 07:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What would have been a acceptable response in your book? 

As I said, ideally I had wished for a McCain reaction. Him saying something like Hey guys, listen, you're wrong on that one, we do not lock our political opponents up without due process, nor do we demand such action.

Or he could just have ignored it, which as I said I'd consider less noble and a bit of a coward move, but ok.

By his reaction though, it's an emboldenment for those chanting that spooky line. And it seems to me that's how they would take it, as approval. And that I find wrong, since I find the notion behind the chant so nefarious and I'd also think a head of the Justice department has a responsibility to speak against undermining the very principles of the justice system (like demanding jailtime for a political opponent is).


--- All that said while admitting I'm guilty of an initial overreact. Not a big one though.

[Benton]

(07-24-2018, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I see nothing wrong with what Sessions did in this instance. The crowd started chanting; Sessions simply laughed at what they were saying, somply said he heard it a lot, dismissed the notion, and moved on.

But I fully expect this to turn into "biased AG joins in with chants of Lock her up."

(07-24-2018, 07:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What would have been a acceptable response in your book? 

Win gracefully. Stop spreading anger. Be a man.

He’s from the camp that did a huge amount of mud slinging on the trail, and does it now to deflect. He could’ve manned up and said “hey, I appreciate your energy but you know what would be better? If we move on.”

Instead of using it as a platform to promote a positive meaaage or to try and get people to stop being erroneously angry, he chuckled and gave silent approval to continue all the hate coming from the right these days.

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2018, 09:28 PM)Benton Wrote: Win gracefully. Stop spreading anger. Be a man.

He’s from the camp that did a huge amount of mud slinging on the trail, and does it now to deflect. He could’ve manned up and said “hey, I appreciate your energy but you know what would be better? If we move on.”

Instead of using it as a platform to promote a positive meaaage or to try and get people to stop being erroneously angry, he chuckled and gave silent approval to continue all the hate coming from the right these days.

"Silent approval". Is that like implied consent? 

One man's spreading anger is another man's recognition of maturity. He was simply pointing to how the population of needing "cry ins", "crisis dogs", "play doh"  ect... is opposite than the fortitude he sees in these youths and he applauded it. He didn't dwell on "lock her up", bring it up, or even expounded on it. He simply repeated what they were saying and laughed it off (aka he moved on). 


But as I've said those that point to situations such as these with outrage hurt the cause they try to help. It was a big nothing burger and his response was completely acceptable.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2018, 07:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: As I said, ideally I had wished for a McCain reaction. Him saying something like Hey guys, listen, you're wrong on that one, we do not lock our political opponents up without due process, nor do we demand such action.

Or he could just have ignored it, which as I said I'd consider less noble and a bit of a coward move, but ok.

By his reaction though, it's an emboldenment for those chanting that spooky line. And it seems to me that's how they would take it, as approval. And that I find wrong, since I find the notion behind the chant so nefarious and I'd also think a head of the Justice department has a responsibility to speak against undermining the very principles of the justice system (like demanding jailtime for a political opponent is).


--- All that said while admitting I'm guilty of an initial overreact. Not a big one though.

(07-24-2018, 09:28 PM)Benton Wrote: Win gracefully. Stop spreading anger. Be a man.

He’s from the camp that did a huge amount of mud slinging on the trail, and does it now to deflect. He could’ve manned up and said “hey, I appreciate your energy but you know what would be better? If we move on.”

Instead of using it as a platform to promote a positive meaaage or to try and get people to stop being erroneously angry, he chuckled and gave silent approval to continue all the hate coming from the right these days.

What is wrong with you guys?

You want members of the Trump administration to act like men?  Trump isn't even a man.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2018, 10:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: What is wrong with you guys?

You want members of the Trump administration to act like men?  Trump isn't even a man.

You don't get to determine his gender!  

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2018, 10:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: What is wrong with you guys?

You want members of the Trump administration to act like men?  Trump isn't even a man.

Hell, I don't think it's my responsibility to suggest anyone act like a man. But you feel free to assign gender roles. 

[hollodero]

(07-24-2018, 10:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: You want members of the Trump administration to act like men?  Trump isn't even a man.

Neither is Hillary. I don't want them to be men, I just want them to act responsible. But I'm an idiot helping "the other side" when expecting responsibility and attachment to the judicial process from a head of the DOJ. Stupid me. 

(07-24-2018, 10:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: "Silent approval". Is that like implied consent? 

One man's spreading anger is another man's recognition of maturity. He was simply pointing to how the population of needing "cry ins", "crisis dogs", "play doh"  ect... is opposite than the fortitude he sees in these youths and he applauded it.

Yes, it is implied consent. The youth in its fortitude sure took it that way. But sure, doesn't matter the "play doh" of the less chanty youth is the problem at hand. Sessions' youth is good, they are brave, mature and want to throw Hillary in jail without due process. What's there not to applaud.

I guess one could only see that as nothingburger if one did not have a problem with "lock her up" chants in the first place. While for me, it is a symptom.

Four years ago, chanting for imprisonment of a political opponent would universally have been thought outrageous. [If Holder just as much as nodded towards a group demanding jailtime for Trump or anyone really... I leave the reaction to the imagination. "Nothingburger!" would not have been the headlines.]
Two years ago, suddenly that's not a big deal. So what, they chant lock her up. Don't be a snowflake about that.
Now, it is the more mature youth in their fortitude chanting it, and it's good, at least they're not "crisis dogs". An AG just chuckles at it. Hey, nothingburger, he "chuckled and moved on!" What more is there to be expected really.

And in two years' time, new nothingburgers comes along, thought shocking, maybe devastating six years ago. All normalizes in increments.

I'm just slow. I still find "lock her up" chants incredibly creepy, dangerous and demanding utter, universal condemnation at all times. I find that to be the opposite of democratic western values. But sure, that's only me.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2018, 11:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't get to determine his gender!  

(07-25-2018, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I don't think it's my responsibility to suggest anyone act like a man. But you feel free to assign gender roles. 

Awwww.....the "He-man Dino hater's club" had a secret meeting last night!  How cute!  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 06:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: Neither is Hillary. I don't want them to be men, I just want them to act responsible. But I'm an idiot helping "the other side" when expecting responsibility and attachment to the judicial process from a head of the DOJ. Stupid me. 



Yes, it is implied consent. The youth in its fortitude sure took it that way. But sure, doesn't matter the "play doh" of the less chanty youth is the problem at hand. Sessions' youth is good, they are brave, mature and want to throw Hillary in jail without due process. What's there not to applaud.

I guess one could only see that as nothingburger if one did not have a problem with "lock her up" chants in the first place. While for me, it is a symptom.

Four years ago, chanting for imprisonment of a political opponent would universally have been thought outrageous. [If Holder just as much as nodded towards a group demanding jailtime for Trump or anyone really... I leave the reaction to the imagination. "Nothingburger!" would not have been the headlines.]
Two years ago, suddenly that's not a big deal. So what, they chant lock her up. Don't be a snowflake about that.
Now, it is the more mature youth in their fortitude chanting it, and it's good, at least they're not "crisis dogs". An AG just chuckles at it. Hey, nothingburger, he "chuckled and moved on!" What more is there to be expected really.

And in two years' time, new nothingburgers comes along, thought shocking, maybe devastating six years ago. All normalizes in increments.

I'm just slow. I still find "lock her up" chants incredibly creepy, dangerous and demanding utter, universal condemnation at all times. I find that to be the opposite of democratic western values. But sure, that's only me.

I could be wrong, but to me lock her up has always implied a trial.  "Try her by a jury of her peers, find her guilty beyone a reasonable doubt and then lock her up" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 09:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I could be wrong, but to me lock her up has always implied a trial.  "Try her by a jury of her peers, find her guilty beyone a reasonable doubt and then lock her up" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

That is awfully naive of you.

They "know" she is guilty!  Of...something.

Trump has called for her to be investigated...but usually that is a deflection when there is bad news about him.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-25-2018, 09:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: Awwww.....the "He-man Dino hater's club" had a secret meeting last night!  How cute!  

I think you'll find that hate is the wrong word.  Pity is closer to the truth.  But don't flatter yourself, I don't spend one second contemplating your existence when I'm not posting on this board.  But if it helps your ego to think this, who am I to shatter your dreams?

[hollodero]

(07-25-2018, 09:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I could be wrong, but to me lock her up has always implied a trial.  "Try her by a jury of her peers, find her guilty beyone a reasonable doubt and then lock her up" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Hm, I think you are wrong. I have no proof for that. I just take a look at the people who shout that, and (mostly) read what else they have to say, and I do not see them demanding an investigation, or an indictment, or due process, they want her to, as I could often read, "rot in jail" (for treason, being an americahating globalist, an enemy of the people who wants to flood the country with lib-votnig illegals, talking to braindead supporters...). She's pretty much proven guilty to those who chant already. Not only for emails or Benghazi, but also for her politics.

Be that as it may, the mere vibe of public trial and conviction is spooky to me, especially when used against a political opponent. No sophisticated person should engage in such chants, and no attorney general should give that a grin and a pass. Again, I might come off strong on that one because it strikes me particularly, but of course that's just my view of it.

[Benton]

(07-24-2018, 10:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: "Silent approval". Is that like implied consent? 

One man's spreading anger is another man's recognition of maturity. He was simply pointing to how the population of needing "cry ins", "crisis dogs", "play doh"  ect... is opposite than the fortitude he sees in these youths and he applauded it. He didn't dwell on "lock her up", bring it up, or even expounded on it. He simply repeated what they were saying and laughed it off (aka he moved on). 


But as I've said those that point to situations such as these with outrage hurt the cause they try to help. It was a big nothing burger and his response was completely acceptable.

It's mature to call for locking up political opponents for executing the duties of their office?

Applauding their ignorance doesn't make his action any better.

He could've used the opportunity to educate people, or call for them to have a higher standard. But that's not the direction of things these days.

(07-25-2018, 09:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I could be wrong, but to me lock her up has always implied a trial.  "Try her by a jury of her peers, find her guilty beyone a reasonable doubt and then lock her up" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

It didn't really have anything to do with a trial. Alex Jones was one of the biggest pushers of "Hillary for Jail" in his alt-right push, declaring she was guilty of war crimes. Not that she needed tried for war crimes, but that she was guilty. Trump latched onto that and carried it over into rallies. 

I'm no fan of Clinton, and I've been saying we need to get out of the ME for about as long as we've been there (we never needed a ground occupation there), but there were already hearings. It should have been over anyway, but the alt-right saw the potential to make some cash, so we've got "Hillary For Prison" shirts for $20-$30, and Trump selling pins with the same message for a few dollars each.

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 11:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Hm, I think you are wrong. I have no proof for that. I just take a look at the people who shout that, and (mostly) read what else they have to say, and I do not see them demanding an investigation, or an indictment, or due process, they want her to, as I could often read, "rot in jail" (for treason, being an americahating globalist, an enemy of the people who wants to flood the country with lib-votnig illegals, talking to braindead supporters...). She's pretty much proven guilty to those who chant already. Not only for emails or Benghazi, but also for her politics.

 

Members of Sessions' party called for her to be shot by firing squad. I don't think most of the people promoting "Hillary for Jail" really cared that elected officials were calling for the execution of political opponents for the exact same things members of their own party did when they were in those offices.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 11:10 AM)Benton Wrote: It's mature to call for locking up political opponents for executing the duties of their office?

Applauding their ignorance doesn't make his action any better.

He could've used the opportunity to educate people, or call for them to have a higher standard. But that's not the direction of things these days.

Sessions didn't call for anything in this instance; nor, did he applaud it. He laughed it off and pointed to it being in the past.

As to the stance of lock her up simply because she was executing her duties: I always attributed it to her using here home server to "execute those duties" and obstructing justice by deleting data from her CPU after she had been subpoenaed to turn it over. 

Do you take the opportunity to educate folks around here when they call current POTUS: traitor, Nazi, ect...,saying he should be impeached, and/or compare him to a serial killer simply for "executing the duties of his office" or do you give silent approval?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 11:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Hm, I think you are wrong. I have no proof for that. I just take a look at the people who shout that, and (mostly) read what else they have to say, and I do not see them demanding an investigation, or an indictment, or due process, they want her to, as I could often read, "rot in jail" (for treason, being an americahating globalist, an enemy of the people who wants to flood the country with lib-votnig illegals, talking to braindead supporters...). She's pretty much proven guilty to those who chant already. Not only for emails or Benghazi, but also for her politics.

Be that as it may, the mere vibe of public trial and conviction is spooky to me, especially when used against a political opponent. No sophisticated person should engage in such chants, and no attorney general should give that a grin and a pass. Again, I might come off strong on that one because it strikes me particularly, but of course that's just my view of it.

Well people said Bush needed to be drug off to the Hague or sent to Guantanamo for war crimes.  

To me the assumption is due process.  They are convinced of her guilt sure, but I think most mean after a trial.  Could be wrong.

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 11:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sessions didn't call for anything in this instance; nor, did he applaud it. He laughed it off and pointed to it being in the past.

As to the stance of lock her up simply because she was executing her duties: I always attributed it to her using here home server to "execute those duties" and obstructing justice by deleting data from her CPU after she had been subpoenaed to turn it over. 

Do you take the opportunity to educate folks around here when they call current POTUS: traitor, Nazi, ect...,saying he should be impeached, and/or compare him to a serial killer simply for "executing the duties of his office" or do you give silent approval?

To the bold: that's the absurd part of things. Private servers, private email and other private electronic equipment has been used by various elected officials since it became prevalent in the 90s. But we're going to arrest Clinton because she did something done by multiple members of every administration, members of Congress, etc? It was absurd.

As to the question, if I was named chief lawyer of the United States I'd hopefully use it as a soap box for mending wounds instead of rubbing salt in them. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 11:45 AM)Benton Wrote: To the bold: that's the absurd part of things. Private servers, private email and other private electronic equipment has been used by various elected officials since it became prevalent in the 90s. But we're going to arrest Clinton because she did something done by multiple members of every administration, members of Congress, etc? It was absurd.

As to the question, if I was named chief lawyer of the United States I'd hopefully use it as a soap box for mending wounds instead of rubbing salt in them. 

Absurd is the notion of: It shouldn't go punished because others did it. I've always said the mentality of: "That's the way we've always done it" to be absurd. Not to mention Colin Powell disputed his conversation with her about the practice. You also left out the deleting of the CPU data.

Meh, you're more than a cheif lawyer here; you're a judge. juror, and executioner.

[hollodero]

(07-25-2018, 11:23 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well people said Bush needed to be drug off to the Hague or sent to Guantanamo for war crimes.  

Oh, for sure, the right does of course not have any kind of monopoly on these kinds of folks and groups.
The big difference would be, that democratic politicians, let alone high-ranking ones, let alone ones that were actually responsible for that sort of action, would not have reacted in that manner. Imagine Holder saying, "haha, send Bush to Guantanamo, I heard that a lot lately" to a crowd chanting that very thing, in the midst of showing said group all-around approval.
You think that would have been seen as normal? Acceptable? Half as bad, they sure meant due process? I don't know, but I don't think so.

(07-25-2018, 11:23 AM)michaelsean Wrote: To me the assumption is due process.  They are convinced of her guilt sure, but I think most mean after a trial.  Could be wrong.

Could be right also. Still spooky. When democracies are undermined by a "strong-man" system, this is exactly the kind of thing that would fit the bill for an initial step. Calls for imprisonments of a political foe are ok now. I'm not saying that's the path the US takes, I just explain how I think it's spooky.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 11:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh, for sure, the right does of course not have any kind of monopoly on these kinds of folks and groups.
The big difference would be, that democratic politicians, let alone high-ranking ones, let alone ones that were actually responsible for that sort of action, would not have reacted in that manner. Imagine Holder saying, "haha, send Bush to Guantanamo, I heard that a lot lately" to a crowd chanting that very thing, in the midst of showing said group all-around approval.
You think that would have been seen as normal? Acceptable? Half as bad, they sure meant due process? I don't know, but I don't think so.



Could be right also. Still spooky. When democracies are undermined by a "strong-man" system, this is exactly the kind of thing that would fit the bill for an initial step. Calls for imprisonments of a political foe are ok now. I'm not saying that's the path the US takes, I just explain how I think it's spooky.

If you are right and their intention was just toss her in the dungeon, then I completely agree.