This quote is particularly incredible, coming from the president's lawyer:
“We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel’s inquiry.
Giuliani doesn't deny that Trump knows about this. Trump is totally in on this scheme and probably planned it.
"He said his efforts in Ukraine have the full support of Mr. Trump. He declined to say specifically whether he had briefed him on the planned meeting with Mr. Zelensky, but added, “He basically knows what I’m doing, sure, as his lawyer.”"
The Washington Post published an op-ed warning that Trump will continue to use the Justice Department to launch investigations into his political rivals.
"So what we have here is the president’s lawyer, with the direct involvement of the president himself, pushing a foreign official to open an investigation for the obvious purpose of embarrassing a potential rival, while the president is pushing the Justice Department to act in ways that could harm that rival as well." Source
Last week, The NYT reported that Trump and Giuliani were pushing the "Biden has conflicts" story in the fake news conservative media:
"Joe Biden’s son used to sit on the board of a Ukrainian company that was under investigation by the corrupt chief prosecutor of Ukraine. The United States, along with all of Europe, wanted the corrupt prosecutor gone, and eventually Ukraine complied. Biden, as a representative of the US, was involved in this effort. This all happened years ago, but now the current Ukrainian prosecutor is reopening the case. Source
"Mr. Giuliani called Mr. Trump excitedly to brief him on his findings, according to people familiar with the conversations. ...Mr. Trump, in turn, recently suggested he would like Attorney General William P. Barr to look into the material gathered by the Ukrainian prosecutors — echoing repeated calls from Mr. Giuliani for the Justice Department to investigate the Bidens’ Ukrainian work and other connections between Ukraine and the United States. " Source
----
Now, I'm no Joe Biden fan, but using your influence as President and pressuring the justice department to investigate your rivals is some evil crap especially while he talks out the other side of his mouth about poor me, what about the oranges or the investigations? WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HE'S ORIGINATING FAKE INVESTIGATIONS ON HIS RIVALS!
They are absolute traitors. Every damn one of them. They are just flat-out ADMITTING the President's lawyer is running around Ukraine BEGGING them to open an investigation into Biden's son for NO OTHER REASON than to damage him politically. He is using the foreign policy apparatus of the Executive Branch to get another country to prosecute a potential campaign opponent's son. This is banana republic stuff, straight-up. If Biden's son deserves to looked into, that is one thing, but Rudy fucking Giuliani running around Ukraine ASKING it to happen on the direct orders of the President is so monumentally out of bounds that it almost defies belief. Now they are just doing it right out in the open.
@smeagolheart So, if a baby is the product of rape, it deserves to die?
@ThacoBell
I wouldn't say that. If you want a baby from a guy that raped you then great for you, wouldn't say the baby deserves to die.
I would say women should be able to abort the baby without needless crap in her way. If it is her choice and she doesn't want to bear a rapists baby then she should be able to terminate the pregnancy.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
context:
Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists' babies? Ohio says yes. Chicago Tribune
I’m sorry, is his role at the BBC a comedian? Even if it was, he’d know what this wasn’t appropriate in the slightest.
He very well should have been fired because his conduct negatively reflected the business he worked for. Do you think this journalist would be able to interview someone of the black community again after this stupidity? Do you think the black community would be able to take him seriously when it reports on something or would he, and in turn his employer, have lost all credibility with them.
Yes he should have been fired and I commend the BBC for doing it so quickly.
Re: Rudy Giulani. I haven't read up on it, but isn't that all sorts of illegal?
I'm sure Barr will get right on it.
After colluding with Russia to get dirt on Clinton, Republicans are colluding with Ukraine to get dirt on Biden and they aren't even hiding it.
I'm no Biden fan, and I hope he's not the nominee but this story is just how low Trump will go and how far gone our country is already towards a one party dictatorship
@smeagolheart So, if a baby is the product of rape, it deserves to die?
Not everyone accepts the claim that a brainless bunch of cells is a baby. Why should a secular state enforce your religion's regulations on those who don't share them?
That was not in relation to your post, as far as I can tell...
Sure it wasn't but it also doesn't stop my statement from being entirely accurate. It's simply a bit absurd to watch the pot calling the kettle black and celebrating it like it is a great victory, is all.
But when you in particular say things like "has whataboutism really become that knee-jerk for conservatives" it suddenly becomes a broad enough brush that it applies to more than the intended speaker, don't you think?
Oh man, if Republicans are actually starting investigations just to damage someone's reputation, they finally leveled up. It was always getting a bit tiresome watching them do nothing but play defense, while the shrieking pundits and deranged politicians accuse them in bad faith of everything under the sun from treason to closet fascism while the youngest of their supporters are lied about in the media and doxxed by politicians while the media defends them. The best way to respond to bad faith lies is to give them the more of the same. Evidence clearly doesn't matter, the truth clearly doesn't matter, they are going to stick to their fantasies anyway, try to harass your kids anyway, deplatform you anyway, being reasonable in the face of naked partisanship and agenda advancing is just a recipe for loss.
But nah, I can't see it happening. They are too much of a disappointment to ever do anything effective.
inb4 the democrats and media are saints who have never acted in bad faith
And in case you don't know what i'm talking about with the whole children thing, and I forgive you if you don't know because the media isn't talking about it because he's a Democrat, i'm speaking about Brian Sims. A representative from my state who offered money on information about 3 teenage girls standing outside a planned parenthood, and another altercation with an older woman.
Now, a state representative trying to dox a bunch of little girls is nothing sort of sick, twisted, and evil. It doesn't just open them up to harassment to have their names and addresses out there, but real danger, especially as he's agitating his supporters against them.
Why has only USAToday, local media, and FOX picked it up?
We all know how it goes if it's a local politician like a Moore or a Gianforte. Every possible news outlet picks it up, it's a front page story everywhere, endless commentary from ABC, BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian, CNBC, it would have a Twitter moment, be trending on Facebook.
It goes way beyond just being "unfair". The media is a player in the culture war that has chosen a side and will gleefully put people in harms way, or fail to protect them, as long as it helps with The Narrative. They are actually awful people.
Why has only USAToday, local media, and FOX picked it up?
Because state representatives are nobodies, and no one really cares what they do? Moore and Gianforte were both running for national office, so that's a ridiculous comparison.
Why has only USAToday, local media, and FOX picked it up?
Because state representatives are nobodies, and no one really cares what they do? Moore and Gianforte were both running for national office, so that's a ridiculous comparison.
Lol nobody knew who Moore was or Giantforte was. The comparison is exactly the same in that regard. The idea that it's only worthy when a nobody politician runs for office x that people also don't care about is beyond absurd.
We could do mental gymnastics all day, or we could acknowledge the obvious trend. Not that I think Democrats ever will acknowledge the state of the media, really. There will always be some obscure, arcane, tertiary difference they can point to in order to cling to the idea that the media is fair and it's always a coincidence that their coverage lines up exactly with their politics.
What? They were both running in extremely high-profile special elections for the U.S. Congress. A lot of people, including me, knew who both of them were. (Calling them "local politicians" in that context is wildly misleading.) Meanwhile I live in Philly and had never heard of Sims before this week. He acted like an ass, but he has precisely zero political power over anyone outside the state of PA, so there's no reason for them to care.
Gianrforte was a candidate in a special election just after Trump got elected who literally ASSAULTED a reporter the day before his election. The idea that wouldn't be news is what is absurd. Moore was being credibly accused of cruising shopping malls trying to pick up underage girls and was involved in a high-profile special election for the US Senate (to say nothing of the fact that his entire platform was based on so-called "morals"). And we spent a good two or three posts on the Washington state rep a couple of weeks ago who was literally coordinating with extremist groups who were talking about ambushing left-wing protesters at their children's day care centers, and he flat-out offered to get their personal information using his power as a state rep. Almost NO media covered it, not did you say a single word about it. And as @joluv just said, Giantforte and Moore were in NO WAY local politicians unless you think every single elected office in the United States besides the Presidency is "local".
Also, what Sims did was absolute wrong, but if we're gonna have a discussion about harassment and what goes on outside of clinics that provide abortions, then buckle up, because I'm not sure you're ready for that one. There is exactly ONE clinic that provides the service in North Dakota, and I pass it everyday going to work (in fact, I get to-go orders from the restaurant right next door to it at least a coupe time a month). That is by no means ALL they do, but it is enough to have had to make the place a fortress. They do not even have any identifying markers or signs for the clinic. There are no less than half a dozen security cameras I counted when I walked by it last week. There are signs everywhere making it clear that if you even set foot on the carpet outside the door and don't have an appointment, it is trespassing. You have to get buzzed in to even enter the door. And anyone who walks in for any reason on Wednesday of any week is verbally assaulted and confronted by pro-life protesters. And all these precautions are in place because they are legitimately worried based on the history of the "pro-life" movement in this country that someone is going to show up and bomb or murder someone.
Oh please. The media decided that Trump's two scoops of ice cream was news worthy, his fish feeding habits were newsworthy, a random video on the internet about kids and a native american was newsworthy, but suddenly the standard for newsworthiness is so high that they only cover high profile special elections? Give me a break dude, this nonsense doesn't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny when you actually look at the trivial crap the media will produce just to show how bad someone they don't like is. Even if they are nobody, and effect nobodies life, so forget that lame excuse.
What they decide is newsworthy is bottom of the barrel and trivial when it comes to Republicans, and has the high possible standards of relevant information when it comes to Democrats.
Huh, I guess the protesters are only allowed to publicly shame people going about their private lives, making what is probably the hardest decision of their life. The girls in question didn’t look like they were praying at the time either, more like lying in wait for someone to show up.
Sims also said this after the story broke locally:
“What I should have shown you in that video was protesters gathered together to pray at – not to silently pray for people coming in and out of Planned Parenthood,” Sims said in the video. “I was aggressive. Two wrongs don’t make a right and I know I can do better, and I will do better for the women of Pennsylvania.”
Not really an apology but since the mother didn’t ask for an apology, he didn’t give one, but said he’d like to apologize personally to the girls involved in the video. He admitted his mistake and is committed to do better. So what else would you like him to say? Should he resign as a lot of Republicans are calling for? I say he resigns as soon as everyone in the Republican Party who willfully publicly shamed a woman resigns.
Huh, I guess the protesters are only allowed to publicly shame people going about their private lives, making what is probably the hardest decision of their life. The girls in question didn’t look like they were praying at the time either, more like lying in wait for someone to show up.
So you're more offended about non-existent harassers that you can't point to right now, but maybe can at some other location and at some other time, than a grown man and politician doing so to defenseless little girls?
I can make baseless statements too.
Cool story that he claims without evidence they were harassing people though, I guess we can totally forgive him and take him at his word since he's a Saint/Democrat after all.
It's worth pointing out that silence on a given issue does not amount to tolerance or support for it. There are a lot of reasons someone might not speak up about a specific subject:
1. Because they were not aware of the issue
2. Because the issue was outside their field of interest or (if it's a political figure) their jurisdiction
3. Because they were addressing other subjects at certain times
4. Because they feel others have addressed the issue
5. Because they have no strong feelings about the subject, or are not certain about what specific views to express
No one is required to make a statement on any subject to "prove" they're against it.
It's true that some people will stay silent on a given issue because they don't consider it worthy of condemnation, but if we're going to draw that conclusion, we need more than silence as proof. And, of course, that would only apply to political figures and groups in this thread--the thread rules don't allow that sort of speculation about participants in the thread.
Huh, I guess the protesters are only allowed to publicly shame people going about their private lives, making what is probably the hardest decision of their life. The girls in question didn’t look like they were praying at the time either, more like lying in wait for someone to show up.
So you're more offended about non-existent harassers that you can't point to right now, but maybe can at some other location and at some other time, than a grown man and politician doing so to defenseless little girls?
I can make baseless statements too.
Cool story that he claims without evidence they were harassing people though, I guess we can totally forgive him and take him at his word since he's a Saint/Democrat after all.
No they are there for one reason.
A person can pray anywhere can’t they?
They are there to harass anyone who walks into that clinic. Praying loudly about the life of the child that is about to be aborted. They are passing judgement on them. Very unchristian like.
I am also speculating that the mother is dragging her teenage daughters there to intimidate by presence any teen looking to use the clinics services.
They are also doing this in public. Any response that these kids gets for speaking publicly, sorry “praying” publicly about it, they should learn to take it, learn to respond to it and the mother shouldn’t be hiding behind her daughters (which she is clearly doing) when another person confronts her about her views.
I guess he could have waited in wait like they were doing for a person to enter the clinic then approach them for praying loudly, but being a politician I think he had better things to do.
And the difference between him and Moore and Gianforte, Moore denied and denied and denied then doubled down on the denial making it a larger story than it should. Gianforte doubled down on assaulting a journalist. Both of these people were up for election and their actions should be reported so the public can make an informed decision on the individual.
The story here is Sims was acting aggressively towards people waiting for a others to enter a clinic, said what he did was wrong and promises to be better in the future. What more is there to cover?
I think Simms was right and the people harassing people trying to get medical procedures deserve some of their own medicine.
This is what the first time ever these protestors got a little push back when there are countless examples of people just letting protestors harass and even murder patients and doctors. So yeah, you reap what you sow.
These anti-abortion types have been allowed to run wild and look at what they are doing in Ohio, Alabama, South Carolina, and other places. Trying to turn their states into Ireland, which only recently came to their senses. Or maybe they want Gilead, Under his eye.
Oh man, if Republicans are actually starting investigations just to damage someone's reputation, they finally leveled up. It was always getting a bit tiresome watching them do nothing but play defense,
Wow. I really cannot tell if you're being serious or tongue in cheek. Do you not remember the multiple "investigations" into Benghazi? It is the utmost of absurdity to suggest the GOP hasn't been weaponizing congressional oversight for the decade.
FWIW - calling people out over hypocrisy for whataboutism is a LOT more effective if they've actually done it recently.
Huh, I guess the protesters are only allowed to publicly shame people going about their private lives, making what is probably the hardest decision of their life. The girls in question didn’t look like they were praying at the time either, more like lying in wait for someone to show up.
So you're more offended about non-existent harassers that you can't point to right now, but maybe can at some other location and at some other time, than a grown man and politician doing so to defenseless little girls?
I can make baseless statements too.
Cool story that he claims without evidence they were harassing people though, I guess we can totally forgive him and take him at his word since he's a Saint/Democrat after all.
No they are there for one reason.
A person can pray anywhere can’t they?
They are there to harass anyone who walks into that clinic. Praying loudly about the life of the child that is about to be aborted. They are passing judgement on them. Very unchristian like.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites
are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and
in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.- Matthew 6:5
Oh man, if Republicans are actually starting investigations just to damage someone's reputation, they finally leveled up.
Where the fuck have you been when the guy who is now House Minority Leader said, 4 years ago on national television, that the purpose of the billion Benghazi investigations was to tank a presidential candidate's popularity?
Oh man, if Republicans are actually starting investigations just to damage someone's reputation, they finally leveled up.
Where the fuck have you been when the guy who is now House Minority Leader said, 4 years ago on national television, that the purpose of the billion Benghazi investigations was to tank a presidential candidate's popularity?
And despite that admission, Hillary showed up and answered question for not one, not two, not three, but ELEVEN hours. Which also had it's intended effect, as the only thing anyone remember from that is a totally out of context soundbite.
Yelling at pro-forced breeding protestors is good. Putting a bounty on doxxing kids is bad.
Sorry but I disagree. Doxxing isn’t illegal and even though I personally do not agree with public shaming, they are no different than the alt-right ralliers in Charlottetown who lost their jobs for their views.
You want to publicly shame a person, fine let’s make it as public as possible. Let others pass judgement on you as much as you are passing onto a person walking into the clinic.
As I said, do you think a girl from their school would feel safe going to that clinic? Why should they have the ability to feel safe when they are taking it away from others? Very hypocritical and probably the point Simms was attempting to make, albeit, very poorly.
It wouldn't surprise me if the girl in question was bullying clinic visitors--there's a long-running pattern of anti-abortion protestors hurling insults at women visiting clinics that provide abortion services--and that would be worth some condemnation, if it were true. But true or not, I really don't like the idea of politicians meting out verbal punishments for a private citizen doing anything that's not illegal.
If a politician and his or her numerous followers and powerful allies decide to attack you, there's not a lot you can do to defend yourself unless you have powerful allies of your own. And I very much doubt that even a politically active teenager is in a position to defend herself against a legislator. Frankly, I don't think it's necessarily any better if the politician is a local legislator--it might even be worse, because the politician is closer to that girl's community.
I'm one of the last people to defend the folks who protest abortion clinics (that scene can get really ugly), but I've said before that organizing harassment of private citizens or encouraging people to do so should be flat-out illegal. Over the years, we have seen many, many cases of people receiving death threats and weeks-long campaigns of mass intimidation online and over the phone in response to various controversies. Those aren't legitimate expressions of free speech; they're attempts to crush opposing views through mob pressure. The last thing we need is a politician putting a private citizen at risk for that kind of treatment.
If someone goes out in public and protests, you can protest them back, but when they go home, you don't get to follow them home.
I said it was bad, not illegal. For me, it matters a huge amount that they're kids. They were kids making other people (potentially including other kids, as you mention) feel unsafe. That is very bad behavior, but it does not justify an adult making kids feel unsafe.
Comments
Big story from the New York Times:
This quote is particularly incredible, coming from the president's lawyer:
“We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the parallel to the special counsel’s inquiry.
Giuliani doesn't deny that Trump knows about this. Trump is totally in on this scheme and probably planned it.
"He said his efforts in Ukraine have the full support of Mr. Trump. He declined to say specifically whether he had briefed him on the planned meeting with Mr. Zelensky, but added, “He basically knows what I’m doing, sure, as his lawyer.”"
The Washington Post published an op-ed warning that Trump will continue to use the Justice Department to launch investigations into his political rivals.
"So what we have here is the president’s lawyer, with the direct involvement of the president himself, pushing a foreign official to open an investigation for the obvious purpose of embarrassing a potential rival, while the president is pushing the Justice Department to act in ways that could harm that rival as well." Source
Last week, The NYT reported that Trump and Giuliani were pushing the "Biden has conflicts" story in the fake news conservative media:
"Joe Biden’s son used to sit on the board of a Ukrainian company that was under investigation by the corrupt chief prosecutor of Ukraine. The United States, along with all of Europe, wanted the corrupt prosecutor gone, and eventually Ukraine complied. Biden, as a representative of the US, was involved in this effort. This all happened years ago, but now the current Ukrainian prosecutor is reopening the case. Source
"Mr. Giuliani called Mr. Trump excitedly to brief him on his findings, according to people familiar with the conversations. ...Mr. Trump, in turn, recently suggested he would like Attorney General William P. Barr to look into the material gathered by the Ukrainian prosecutors — echoing repeated calls from Mr. Giuliani for the Justice Department to investigate the Bidens’ Ukrainian work and other connections between Ukraine and the United States. " Source
----
Now, I'm no Joe Biden fan, but using your influence as President and pressuring the justice department to investigate your rivals is some evil crap especially while he talks out the other side of his mouth about poor me, what about the oranges or the investigations? WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HE'S ORIGINATING FAKE INVESTIGATIONS ON HIS RIVALS!
@ThacoBell
I wouldn't say that. If you want a baby from a guy that raped you then great for you, wouldn't say the baby deserves to die.
I would say women should be able to abort the baby without needless crap in her way. If it is her choice and she doesn't want to bear a rapists baby then she should be able to terminate the pregnancy.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
context:
Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists' babies? Ohio says yes.
Chicago Tribune
I’m sorry, is his role at the BBC a comedian? Even if it was, he’d know what this wasn’t appropriate in the slightest.
He very well should have been fired because his conduct negatively reflected the business he worked for. Do you think this journalist would be able to interview someone of the black community again after this stupidity? Do you think the black community would be able to take him seriously when it reports on something or would he, and in turn his employer, have lost all credibility with them.
Yes he should have been fired and I commend the BBC for doing it so quickly.
I'm sure Barr will get right on it.
After colluding with Russia to get dirt on Clinton, Republicans are colluding with Ukraine to get dirt on Biden and they aren't even hiding it.
I'm no Biden fan, and I hope he's not the nominee but this story is just how low Trump will go and how far gone our country is already towards a one party dictatorship
Not everyone accepts the claim that a brainless bunch of cells is a baby. Why should a secular state enforce your religion's regulations on those who don't share them?
Sure it wasn't but it also doesn't stop my statement from being entirely accurate. It's simply a bit absurd to watch the pot calling the kettle black and celebrating it like it is a great victory, is all.
But when you in particular say things like "has whataboutism really become that knee-jerk for conservatives" it suddenly becomes a broad enough brush that it applies to more than the intended speaker, don't you think?
Oh man, if Republicans are actually starting investigations just to damage someone's reputation, they finally leveled up. It was always getting a bit tiresome watching them do nothing but play defense, while the shrieking pundits and deranged politicians accuse them in bad faith of everything under the sun from treason to closet fascism while the youngest of their supporters are lied about in the media and doxxed by politicians while the media defends them. The best way to respond to bad faith lies is to give them the more of the same. Evidence clearly doesn't matter, the truth clearly doesn't matter, they are going to stick to their fantasies anyway, try to harass your kids anyway, deplatform you anyway, being reasonable in the face of naked partisanship and agenda advancing is just a recipe for loss.
But nah, I can't see it happening. They are too much of a disappointment to ever do anything effective.
inb4 the democrats and media are saints who have never acted in bad faith
Now, a state representative trying to dox a bunch of little girls is nothing sort of sick, twisted, and evil. It doesn't just open them up to harassment to have their names and addresses out there, but real danger, especially as he's agitating his supporters against them.
Why has only USAToday, local media, and FOX picked it up?
We all know how it goes if it's a local politician like a Moore or a Gianforte. Every possible news outlet picks it up, it's a front page story everywhere, endless commentary from ABC, BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian, CNBC, it would have a Twitter moment, be trending on Facebook.
It goes way beyond just being "unfair". The media is a player in the culture war that has chosen a side and will gleefully put people in harms way, or fail to protect them, as long as it helps with The Narrative. They are actually awful people.
Because state representatives are nobodies, and no one really cares what they do? Moore and Gianforte were both running for national office, so that's a ridiculous comparison.
Lol nobody knew who Moore was or Giantforte was. The comparison is exactly the same in that regard. The idea that it's only worthy when a nobody politician runs for office x that people also don't care about is beyond absurd.
We could do mental gymnastics all day, or we could acknowledge the obvious trend. Not that I think Democrats ever will acknowledge the state of the media, really. There will always be some obscure, arcane, tertiary difference they can point to in order to cling to the idea that the media is fair and it's always a coincidence that their coverage lines up exactly with their politics.
"Tertiary difference" like state vs. national.
Also, what Sims did was absolute wrong, but if we're gonna have a discussion about harassment and what goes on outside of clinics that provide abortions, then buckle up, because I'm not sure you're ready for that one. There is exactly ONE clinic that provides the service in North Dakota, and I pass it everyday going to work (in fact, I get to-go orders from the restaurant right next door to it at least a coupe time a month). That is by no means ALL they do, but it is enough to have had to make the place a fortress. They do not even have any identifying markers or signs for the clinic. There are no less than half a dozen security cameras I counted when I walked by it last week. There are signs everywhere making it clear that if you even set foot on the carpet outside the door and don't have an appointment, it is trespassing. You have to get buzzed in to even enter the door. And anyone who walks in for any reason on Wednesday of any week is verbally assaulted and confronted by pro-life protesters. And all these precautions are in place because they are legitimately worried based on the history of the "pro-life" movement in this country that someone is going to show up and bomb or murder someone.
What they decide is newsworthy is bottom of the barrel and trivial when it comes to Republicans, and has the high possible standards of relevant information when it comes to Democrats.
Somehow this isn't evidence of a blatant agenda.
Sims also said this after the story broke locally:
“What I should have shown you in that video was protesters gathered together to pray at – not to silently pray for people coming in and out of Planned Parenthood,” Sims said in the video. “I was aggressive. Two wrongs don’t make a right and I know I can do better, and I will do better for the women of Pennsylvania.”
Not really an apology but since the mother didn’t ask for an apology, he didn’t give one, but said he’d like to apologize personally to the girls involved in the video. He admitted his mistake and is committed to do better. So what else would you like him to say? Should he resign as a lot of Republicans are calling for? I say he resigns as soon as everyone in the Republican Party who willfully publicly shamed a woman resigns.
And you what, stuff like this can be fixed with legislation. There is actually a law in Ontario where protesters cannot be within a certain amount of feet of a clinic for the safety of the those wishing to use it:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-abortion-protest-bill-1.4372090
So you're more offended about non-existent harassers that you can't point to right now, but maybe can at some other location and at some other time, than a grown man and politician doing so to defenseless little girls?
I can make baseless statements too.
Cool story that he claims without evidence they were harassing people though, I guess we can totally forgive him and take him at his word since he's a Saint/Democrat after all.
1. Because they were not aware of the issue
2. Because the issue was outside their field of interest or (if it's a political figure) their jurisdiction
3. Because they were addressing other subjects at certain times
4. Because they feel others have addressed the issue
5. Because they have no strong feelings about the subject, or are not certain about what specific views to express
No one is required to make a statement on any subject to "prove" they're against it.
It's true that some people will stay silent on a given issue because they don't consider it worthy of condemnation, but if we're going to draw that conclusion, we need more than silence as proof. And, of course, that would only apply to political figures and groups in this thread--the thread rules don't allow that sort of speculation about participants in the thread.
No they are there for one reason.
A person can pray anywhere can’t they?
They are there to harass anyone who walks into that clinic. Praying loudly about the life of the child that is about to be aborted. They are passing judgement on them. Very unchristian like.
I am also speculating that the mother is dragging her teenage daughters there to intimidate by presence any teen looking to use the clinics services.
They are also doing this in public. Any response that these kids gets for speaking publicly, sorry “praying” publicly about it, they should learn to take it, learn to respond to it and the mother shouldn’t be hiding behind her daughters (which she is clearly doing) when another person confronts her about her views.
I guess he could have waited in wait like they were doing for a person to enter the clinic then approach them for praying loudly, but being a politician I think he had better things to do.
And the difference between him and Moore and Gianforte, Moore denied and denied and denied then doubled down on the denial making it a larger story than it should. Gianforte doubled down on assaulting a journalist. Both of these people were up for election and their actions should be reported so the public can make an informed decision on the individual.
The story here is Sims was acting aggressively towards people waiting for a others to enter a clinic, said what he did was wrong and promises to be better in the future. What more is there to cover?
This is what the first time ever these protestors got a little push back when there are countless examples of people just letting protestors harass and even murder patients and doctors. So yeah, you reap what you sow.
These anti-abortion types have been allowed to run wild and look at what they are doing in Ohio, Alabama, South Carolina, and other places. Trying to turn their states into Ireland, which only recently came to their senses. Or maybe they want Gilead, Under his eye.
Wow. I really cannot tell if you're being serious or tongue in cheek. Do you not remember the multiple "investigations" into Benghazi? It is the utmost of absurdity to suggest the GOP hasn't been weaponizing congressional oversight for the decade.
FWIW - calling people out over hypocrisy for whataboutism is a LOT more effective if they've actually done it recently.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites
are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and
in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.- Matthew 6:5
Where the fuck have you been when the guy who is now House Minority Leader said, 4 years ago on national television, that the purpose of the billion Benghazi investigations was to tank a presidential candidate's popularity?
And despite that admission, Hillary showed up and answered question for not one, not two, not three, but ELEVEN hours. Which also had it's intended effect, as the only thing anyone remember from that is a totally out of context soundbite.
Sorry but I disagree. Doxxing isn’t illegal and even though I personally do not agree with public shaming, they are no different than the alt-right ralliers in Charlottetown who lost their jobs for their views.
You want to publicly shame a person, fine let’s make it as public as possible. Let others pass judgement on you as much as you are passing onto a person walking into the clinic.
As I said, do you think a girl from their school would feel safe going to that clinic? Why should they have the ability to feel safe when they are taking it away from others? Very hypocritical and probably the point Simms was attempting to make, albeit, very poorly.
If a politician and his or her numerous followers and powerful allies decide to attack you, there's not a lot you can do to defend yourself unless you have powerful allies of your own. And I very much doubt that even a politically active teenager is in a position to defend herself against a legislator. Frankly, I don't think it's necessarily any better if the politician is a local legislator--it might even be worse, because the politician is closer to that girl's community.
I'm one of the last people to defend the folks who protest abortion clinics (that scene can get really ugly), but I've said before that organizing harassment of private citizens or encouraging people to do so should be flat-out illegal. Over the years, we have seen many, many cases of people receiving death threats and weeks-long campaigns of mass intimidation online and over the phone in response to various controversies. Those aren't legitimate expressions of free speech; they're attempts to crush opposing views through mob pressure. The last thing we need is a politician putting a private citizen at risk for that kind of treatment.
If someone goes out in public and protests, you can protest them back, but when they go home, you don't get to follow them home.
In general I agree. #bebest
What's the verbal punishment here though, he basically just told them to STFU.