Re: NBC Historian Takes Media's "Bloodbath" Insanity To A Whole New Level

On 3/20/24 10:30 AM, FPP wrote:

On 3/19/24 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2024-03-20 00:01:05 +0000, BTR1701 said:
>

In article <utd5p0$1371j$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>

On 2024-03-19 22:01:11 +0000, BTR1701 said:
>

In article <utctt9$11hfm$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>

On 2024-03-19 18:25:47 +0000, BTR1701 said:
>

On Mar 19, 2024 at 9:24:24 AM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
>

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 04:30:48 -0400
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>

NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss took the media
furor over former President Donald Trump’s "bloodbath" comments to
new heights during a Monday appearance on MSNBC's MORNING JOE.
>
During an Ohio campaign rally over the weekend, Trump predicted a
"bloodbath" if he does not win reelection in 2024, and media outlets
fell all over themselves trying to make it look as though he was
predicting politically motivated violence and a *literal* bloodbath.

>
And yet there's a Democrat state senator in Tennessee outright calling
for riots and political violence right now because she didn't get her
way in a vote and... yes, you guessed it, crickets from the legacy
media.

>
Maybe because she isn't powerful enough to inspire upwards of 80,000
followers to attempt a violent insurrection in Washington or even
Nashville.

>
So we have to wait until there's dead bodies in the street and downtown
Nashville is on fire before reporting on a state official calling for
riots and violence?
>
That's what you're going with?

>
I couldn't google the specific example of a "Democrat state senator in
Tennessee outright calling for riots and political violence right now
because she didn't get her way in a vote"

>
Just check out the thread posted right here in RAT today entitled,
"Civility Project Ends".
>

but the Republican jerks in charge have passed some pretty outrageous
laws in the past few weeks, like repealing an anti-"arrested for driving
while Black" law

>
Otherwise known as an "exempting black people from the traffic code
everyone else has to obey" law.

>
The law (or repealed law now) applies to everyone.
>
If your state has this policy maybe you'll appreciate getting pulled
over in your beaten up 40-year-old pickup without a license plate light
because some cop makes the subjective judgement that you look
suspicious.

>
If I'm driving around without a license plate light, then there's nothing
subjective about it. I'm violating the law.

>

You do realize that's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment, right? Or do you just not care?

>
It had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment because it applied to
everyone and all races.

>
Ah, so it just repealed enforcement of the traffic code full stop because
"muh racism!"?
>

But your apparent closet racism by assuming it applied to only Blacks
is interesting.

>
If I assumed anything it's that the Tennessee law was a carbon copy of a
recent California bill proposed by a black assemblyman from Compton, which
specifically exempts only blacks from being stopped for most traffic
infractions, including speeding for anything short of 25mph over the posted
limit.
>
This means if you have some lunatic blasting down a residential street at
50mph, the cops would just have to stand by and watch it happen if the
driver is black.
>
The bill would also render any evidence of other crimes discovered during a
traffic stop inadmissible. So if the speeder in the above hypothetical was
racing down the residential street at 60mph and could now be legally
stopped by police, and they discovered a dead murder victim in his back
seat, the body and any other evidence in the car would be inadmissible in
court at his murder trial.
>
Again, only for blacks.
>
So yeah, when these ridiculous laws and policy efforts spring up all around
the country at roughly the same time, they're usually carbon copies of each
other sent direct from BLM headquarters.
>
Mea culpa.
>

>

that was passed after Tyre Nichols was beaten to death by police in
2023 after one of these kind of aggressive traffic stops

>
By black cops. But go on with your "But muh racism!" nonsense.
>

and making unauthorized street protests a felony instead of a
misdemeanor.

>
Obviously misdemeanors weren't working.

>
Making street protests felonies isn't going to work either, if the
perceived transgression is egregious enough.
>
It's a felony to enter the Capitol Building in an unauthorized manner

>
No, it's a misdemeanor. 18 USC 1751, Restricted Buildings and Grounds. The
same statute I used to lock up White House fence jumpers.
>

and vandalize it and threaten members of Congress, did that work?

>
What if the cops held the door open for them. Is that still unauthorized?
>

 Yeah, the Jan 6'ers tried making that argument too.  They're in jail now.

I wonder if Twat calls them "hostages" like his main man Trump.  That's what's such a bummer about OKT, if you ask him a pointed question like this he just crawls back into the woodwork like cockroach he is.