Chuck Schumer radicalizes man, man tries to murder SCOTUS justice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I was surprised to not already see a thread on this. A California nut job traveled to Brett Kavanaugh's home, armed with a firearm, with the intent to murder Kavanaugh.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3515826-officials-detain-armed-man-outside-kavanaughs-home/

Not too long ago Chuck Schumer directly threatened Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name, stating the following;

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2020/03/05/chuck-schumer-threatening-rhetoric-gorsuch-kavanaugh-crosses-line-editorials-debates/4964578002/

We heard a lot from the Dems about how Tucker Carlson "radicalized" the Buffalo shooter. One wonders if they will have the same opinion on Schumer radicalizing and emboldening this sick weirdo with his direct threats against Kavanaugh. Maybe Schumer should resign? Maybe Merrick Garland should resign for utterly refusing to enforce the law prohibiting protesting outside the home of a judge with the intent to sway their opinion or intimidate them? I will be very interested to see how the Dems react to this.

[StoneTheCrow]

It’ll be met with quotes about how “Oh nowwwww people are concerned about people owning guns” and will be conveniently out of the news by Friday due to Kavanaugh being the correct “opponent”.

Edit: If it does stay in the news it will be due to headlines about “Republicans seizing and pouncing”.

[HarleyDog]

(06-08-2022, 06:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I will be very interested to see how the Dems react to this.

I doubt they do unless reporters hold them over the fire and we already know how that will go. Same rules don't apply to the left.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2022, 06:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was surprised to not already see a thread on this. A California nut job traveled to Brett Kavanaugh's home, armed with a firearm, with the intent to murder Kavanaugh.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3515826-officials-detain-armed-man-outside-kavanaughs-home/

Not too long ago Chuck Schumer directly threatened Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name, stating the following;

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2020/03/05/chuck-schumer-threatening-rhetoric-gorsuch-kavanaugh-crosses-line-editorials-debates/4964578002/

We heard a lot from the Dems about how Tucker Carlson "radicalized" the Buffalo shooter. One wonders if they will have the same opinion on Schumer radicalizing and emboldening this sick weirdo with his direct threats against Kavanaugh. Maybe Schumer should resign? Maybe Merrick Garland should resign for utterly refusing to enforce the law prohibiting protesting outside the home of a judge with the intent to sway their opinion or intimidate them? I will be very interested to see how the Dems react to this.

Yeah I would like Chuck to explain what pay the price means. He can’t threaten their jobs so what price was he talking about?

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2022, 07:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I would like Chuck to explain what pay the price means. He can’t threaten their jobs so what price was he talking about?

Yeah he can. Impeachment proceedings apply to SCOTUS, as well.

[HarleyDog]

(06-08-2022, 07:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah he can. Impeachment proceedings apply to SCOTUS, as well.

That would be tougher than impeaching a POTUS IMO.

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-08-2022, 07:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I would like Chuck to explain what pay the price means. He can’t threaten their jobs so what price was he talking about?

Let’s not forget Ligthfoot’s gem:

https://twitter.com/lorilightfoot/status/1523844510735908864?s=21

Spoiler: they won’t have to explain (D)

[*Nately120*]

The liberal spin on this is obvious...Oh look, yet another armed and dangerous white male is brought in alive by the police, amazing how that works.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2022, 07:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah he can. Impeachment proceedings apply to SCOTUS, as well.

Factually accurate, but not really true.  There's zero chance a SCOTUS justice would be impeached for reversing a previous SCOTUS ruling.  Unless there was evidence of massive malfeasance, which there obviously is not.  Schumer was speaking about social consequences, much like China's social credit system.  One need look no further to the response to the Kavanaugh hearings and how people publicly badgered people backing Kavanaugh.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2022, 07:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The liberal spin on this is obvious...Oh look, yet another armed and dangerous white male is brought in alive by the police, amazing how that works.

You're right, anything to detract from the actual event and the motivation behind it.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2022, 07:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Factually accurate, but not really true.  There's zero chance a SCOTUS justice would be impeached for reversing a previous SCOTUS ruling.  Unless there was evidence of massive malfeasance, which there obviously is not.  Schumer was speaking about social consequences, much like China's social credit system.  One need look no further to the response to the Kavanaugh hearings and how people publicly badgered people backing Kavanaugh.

I was more replying to the statement that Schumer couldn't threaten his job, not that it is what he meant by it. I know there is a zero chance of it.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2022, 07:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah he can. Impeachment proceedings apply to SCOTUS, as well.

I’m aware. As I said, he can’t threaten his job.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2022, 07:24 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Let’s not forget Ligthfoot’s gem:

https://twitter.com/lorilightfoot/status/1523844510735908864?s=21

Spoiler: they won’t have to explain (D)

She’s a treasure ain’t she?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2022, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: She’s a treasure ain’t she?

I'm not one to attack a person's appearance, it's obviously not something you can control.  But she is absolutely a person who's outside accurately reflects her inside.

[hollodero]

Ah, I could try to make a case that what Schumer said is maybe not quite as awful as what Tucker does. But when reading tweets like this Lightfoot one, I lose every incentive to do so.

As much as it pains me, but this indeed is inacceptable, and imho so is just letting things like this silently slide and not calling it out. A call to arms? No one would believe Tucker if he used that term and then called it a mere figure of speech.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2022, 08:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ah, I could try to make a case that what Schumer said is maybe not quite as awful as what Tucker does. But when reading tweets like this Lightfoot one, I lose every incentive to do so.

As much as it pains me, but this indeed is inacceptable, and imho so is just letting things like this silently slide and not calling it out. A call to arms? No one would believe Tucker if he used that term and then called it a mere figure of speech.

I think you're starting to see more of why I call out Dems more than the GOP on this board.  The Dems have almost the entirety of the main stream media hauling water for them. Schumer knew exactly what he was doing when he made those threats, as did Lightfoot, as did Maxine Waters as does Joy Reid.  As you've heard me say it in the past, I absolutely loath hypocrisy, and this situation is absolutely steeped in it.  

[Goalpost]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5uf_uABAfQ

Biden's press secretary from a month ago clearly approved that Kavanaugh's house was in play.

[hollodero]

(06-08-2022, 08:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're starting to see more of why I call out Dems more than the GOP on this board.  The Dems have almost the entirety of the main stream media hauling water for them. Schumer knew exactly what he was doing when he made those threats, as did Lightfoot, as did Maxine Waters as does Joy Reid.  As you've heard me say it in the past, I absolutely loath hypocrisy, and this situation is absolutely steeped in it.  

I feel being put on the spot and after careful consideration, there's nothing for me to disagree. I might have had the wrong perspective on this.

As much as I wished there was something substantial to disagree on. Probably more because I'm biased than anything else really. I sure favored Dems for 4 reasons, they're closer to me ideologically, they made more sense to me on a factual basis, they seemed to be the more decent people, and they would not participate in or endorse coup attempts. The latter point still stands for me (still a big one imho), the others might have been more wishful thinking than anything. The decency point evaporated just right about now. The difference to things Trump would say is getting too narrow to really claim it's a substantial one.

And still I so would hope that someone like Lightfoot would post a tweet saying OMG my choice of words was exceptionally bad, of course I never meant actual arms or my tweet to be understood as a call for violence, I'm sorry... or that others in her party will speak out against her tweet if she doesn't. But that won't happen, will it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2022, 09:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: I feel being put on the spot and after careful consideration, there's nothing for me to disagree. I might have had the wrong perspective on this.

As much as I wished there was something substantial to disagree on. Probably more because I'm biased than anything else really. I sure favored Dems for 4 reasons, they're closer to me ideologically, they made more sense to me on a factual basis, they seemed to be the more decent people, and they would not participate in or endorse coup attempts. The latter point still stands for me (still a big one imho), the others might have been more wishful thinking than anything. The decency point evaporated just right about now. The difference to things Trump would say is getting too narrow to really claim it's a substantial one.

And still I so would hope that someone like Lightfoot would post a tweet saying OMG my choice of words was exceptionally bad, of course I never meant actual arms or my tweet to be understood as a call for violence, I'm sorry... or that others in her party will speak out against her tweet if she doesn't. But that won't happen, will it.

Here's the thing.  We all have groups we feel more ideologically inclined towards, that's completely normal.  We also tend to maximize the actions of those we disagree with and minimize the actions of those we are in sync with.  The sad fact of the current US climate is that very few people acknowledge this, and even fewer will recognize that some of what they claim to despise is propagated by the very people they support.  In this regard I do not hold the GOP more, or less, responsible than the Dems, but the media certainly does.  Both sides think their guys (used gender neutral) wear the white hat and the other the black, but in reality both sides are wearing varying shades of grey (not 50 shades either).  Until we can hold our own side to our stated standards, and refuse to minimize or excuse them, we'll continue to get this type of result.

Under the Dems own standards Schumer, and others, should be impeached.  We'll see if that happens.  I'm certainly not holding my breath.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-08-2022, 06:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was surprised to not already see a thread on this.

No you weren’t.