Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Calling the Dims what they are is one thing. The roadside bomb comment is uncalled for and he should be not only fired, but investigated.
I agree that the roadside bomb comment was very bad, and stupid. It was a direct threat.
But you seem to think calling Democrats "Dims" is OK. Every time you use that term, you are throwing an insult at another American who just happens to disagree with you. Not the same as a threat, but equally distasteful.
What he did was stupid, but of course it's not nearly as disastrous actually shooting a Congressman at a baseball game.
Now that's what I call reaping what you sow.
What you are really pointing out here is what happens when threats go out on the internet, there will be some crazy out there who will act on it. That is why it is important to keep one's comments civil.
1. A person who says Politician "X" could be targeted with "Y" while traveling via "Z", which is only a threat by the way if you can divine peoples' intentions, otherwise it's just a statement or an opinion.
or
2. A person who runs his van through a tent where they are registering voters.
This thread is trash.
Regarding 1, depending on the context-it could be just a statement if the poster had said "She COULD be targeted with Y because of.............."
Regarding 2, I don't think anyone is arguing that the individual who did this is a threat.
I agree that the roadside bomb comment was very bad, and stupid. It was a direct threat.
But you seem to think calling Democrats "Dims" is OK. Every time you use that term, you are throwing an insult at another American who just happens to disagree with you. Not the same as a threat, but equally distasteful.
It was not a direct threat. At all. Not even close. Don't try to Schiff words that were said into words that were not said and change the meaning of the statement.
If I said you could be hit by a car when you cross the street, I have not said "I" am going to run you over.
That's what the poster said, "could". Read the quote in the first post or better yet, read the article.
"Pelosi just ripped up his speech. Roadside bomb on her way and any other Dumbocrats"
That could be interpreted as something he desires to do. His tweet should have indicated, something along the lines of "I wouldn't be surprised if someone.............." rather than coming on social media just straight up blazing. So because of this, I don't feel bad for him. I say "He gon learn today" and he learned.
"Pelosi just ripped up his speech. Roadside bomb on her way and any other Dumbocrats"
That could be interpreted as something he desires to do. His tweet should have indicated, something along the lines of "I wouldn't be surprised if someone.............." rather than coming on social media just straight up blazing. So because of this, I don't feel bad for him. I say "He gon learn today" and he learned.
LOL. You nor anyone else has any clue what he desires to do. You don't know his intent. He didn't issue a threat. You can interpret anything any way you want by what you read into it. But the language that was actually tweeted did not convey a threat. Period.
Maybe you gon learn today. But I doubt it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
