08-01-2022, 05:31 PM
(08-01-2022, 01:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I watched the entire 6 minutes of the first video and while I am certainly not in favour of confronting admin members in restaurants and other places I do not really see anything that I can objectively depict as a call for violence. Maybe I overheard it. Not that it matters much, because your second example is valid enough. Or say it would stretch my own willingness to apply benefit of the doubt over the limit were I to say a call for being more confrontational is not a subtle call for being more violent. At the very least, she must have been aware that quite some people will interpret it that way. I say that not for you so much, but rather in regard to those that think this is totally harmless and righteous.
Yes, I would agree with your take on the first clip, if it was an isolated incident. However, those kind of veiled threats are a big part of her repertoire as the later clip shows. Given her history I don't think you can look at the first clip in a vacuum. Also, she's a horrible person and utterly corrupt. Read up on her hiring Damian "Football" Williams.
https://nypost.com/2017/04/25/new-dem-rock-star-maxine-waters-is-actually-a-swamp-monster/
I'll point out that this is an obvious hit piece on her and the title is hyperbolic in the extreme. But the facts they present are just that, facts. Waters is infamous in Los Angeles, and honestly, most people absolutely loathe her. But she is excellent at feeding her district just enough scraps to keep getting elected.
Quote:I would, however, argue that Trump was even worse, and not just because he was less subtle. But that is not meant as a defense. It's just, this debate started from whataboutism in respect to the Capitol storm.
I totally agree, there's certainly a difference in degree. I also completely get your point about "whataboutism". However, I would counter that right wing violence gets much more MSM coverage than left wing, hence those comparison are frequently made to bring some balance to the topic. Note, I do not think that is the case in this thread, as the people making that point aren't exactly credible in that regard. But outside of here, in the general public, I do think that this point is made largely to add balance, or to address the imbalance.
Quote:That is understandable, I share that view. I was astonished how the protests were painted as pretty much harmless and righteous, when it was clear that they often are not. I always attributed this to a shyness to critizise anyone that is perceived to be on one's own side.
Which I normally get, but not when it involves property destruction and injury, including death, on the scale that we witnessed. As another example of the extreme leaning towards leftist causes, look at the Covid restrictions that were being enforced at that time. People were told to quarantine as much as possible. Oh, unless you want to gather in huge crowds to protest, then Covid isn't a big deal at all.
Quote:Hm, yeah, maybe this is true. I am a bit uncertain for I do not know what the appropriate sentence for setting an empty car on fire would be. There might be a point that it is "merely" property damage and that a sentence exceeding 10 years/one decade would seem too high. But I don't know the precedents on this kind of deed and yeah, a few months sure seems too low. But I lack some information, eg. what was part of that plea deal, did they hand out more names in return, was there doubt that the case would have been airtight in court etc. These are lawyers, mabe they had a sly legal course in mind that would not be applicable for everyday folk.
A large part of the sentence was due to the conspiracy charges. Conspiracy on its own is a big deal, but you throw in domestic terrorism, which this certainly was, and you're in big trouble. I do agree that decades would have been excessive. I'd be good with eight years, meaning they'd serve about five.
