In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 08 2017 13:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Former White house chief ethics lawyer under George W.
See, y'all should just listen to me (as much as it hurts).
Yes and he has all but admitted the second part of that in an interview. Basically you have the meat already established for obstruction because he already admitted what he was thinking. All this other stuff is just ways to make the case stronger. If he were anyone BUT the president at the moment this would be a no brainer but since they cannot prosecute the president it is a political issue instead of a legal one.
See, y'all should just listen to me (as much as it hurts).
He admitted in another conversation that he basically did it because of Russia though. That was the kicker for me personally.
Granted, that's a hearsay conversation so far, but I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of that one just as we will with Comey.
Right, and I've already said that it's the termination and the reasoning for it that matter. None of the conversations that Trump had with Comey even remotely constitute acts of obstructions of justice.
See, y'all should just listen to me (as much as it hurts).
He admitted in another conversation that he basically did it because of Russia though. That was the kicker for me personally.
Granted, that's a hearsay conversation so far, but I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of that one just as we will with Comey.
Right, and I've already said that it's the termination and the reasoning for it that matter. None of the conversations that Trump had with Comey even remotely constitute acts of obstructions of justice.
I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. Foolish maybe and in bad taste, but nothing that seems like it would meet any obstruction of justice definitions. Comey doesn't even say he ever felt intimidated or threatened.
I can't believe how incredibly stupid this article is. Did people actually read it?
It's pretty obviously both stupid and misleading. I'm sur.... No wait, it was Danglars posting this. That makes perfect sense.
Here's a video of the "Bat wielding mob" beating non thinkers with baseball bats from the idiotic article.
Danglars, wouldn't you want them to be able to carry guns instead anyway?
I knew I'd get a response from you, always dependable. They have been asked on their "community patrols" to not carry bats.
Dear RAD Students,
We are aware of a small group of students coordinating a community patrol of housing and campus. We acknowledge and understand the fear and concerns that are motivating these actions. We also understand that these students are seeking to provide an alternative source of safety from external entities as well as those community members who they distrust.
Community patrols can be a useful tool for helping people to feel safe, however the use of bats or similar instruments is not productive. Some members of this group have been observed carrying batons and/or bats. Carrying bats is causing many to feel unsafe and intimidated. The bats must be put away immediately in order to protect all involved. Non-students participating in this activity are advised to leave campus.
I know we have issues communicating. Openly carrying bats walking around campus on patrol is intimidation, particularly when the message is they're justified because of fake oppression. If there were more civil rights on campus and students were allowed to carry guns in self defense, I can imagine these radicals would think twice before using them. It's dumb and you're empowering all the wrong kinds of people by being so blatantly illiberal and intolerant on campus.
Of course you would get a response. I'm not going to let you post something so ridiculously stupid and not call you out for it. "fake oppression", really?
You realize WA is an open carry state? So people can walk around with guns displayed on their hip or on their shoulder if a long gun?
So you would prefer they were walking around with shotguns on their shoulders? Because this isn't about beating random people, it's self-defense. I'm guessing you didn't even read much beyond the garbage lie of a tweet.
This is exactly the kind of reinforcing of white supremacy I'm talking about. You know there are actual injustices on campus and in the area that people are trying to address while you're busy trying to prop up phantoms of the persecuted white man?
Do you ever look these things up before spouting off. Evergreen college bans any kind of carry for its students and teachers. They actually can't. Don't lie and invent to make argument, you're just reinforcing anti-speech stereotypes with a typical disinterested response to student groups patrolling campus with bats. It's like if they don't have a badge, you can't see intimidation.
lol So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus? You're correct that they can't currently carry (on campus), I was under the understanding that you supported students being able to carry guns on campus though?
I actually giggled when I saw the pictures and video compared to the hyperbolic bullshit describing it.
Like, holy sh*t man
campus has devolved into chaos, while the school administration cowers and capitulates to student mob rule.
are you serious with this trash?
It's like if they don't have a badge, you can't see intimidation
Is this you conceding the police regularly intimidate POC and that is an exponentially bigger problem than some marginalized people at Evergreen feeling the need to defend themselves from a dangerous and violent environment?
I lead with 'We have problems communicating' and sure enough, it happens. You lie and say guns are allowed, next reponse [no comment]. I say nothing about my opinion on guns on campus, you say "So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus." I'm rolling my eyes here.
I know you to be one of the more extreme posters here on white fragility, uncle tom blacks, "whiteness" (as in "Whiteness is complicit with white terrorists"-GH), and BLM. I put out my true opinions with the necessary bite to match.
You literally cannot see intimidation and only seek some kind of recognizance on police brutality against PoC? Just like in the past, I want police reform against brutality against all citizens. Not making this a race issue in the least. And I do accuse you and others of hurting blacks in inner cities. Police officers are more wary to do community policing given how BLM types won't hesitate to make every interaction another Ferguson. But to recognize and learn how your diatribes hurt blacks across the nation, you might have to stop shutting down speakers like Heather McDonald that made a whole book on the subject.
Your hierarchy of who matters when and your oppression gradient, with its attendant speech=violence and "danger" from liberal professors, is absolutely a problem here that I might not see resolved in my lifetime.
No, you lead with a trash article intended to troll. I didn't lie and say guns are allowed on campus. I'll explain this if when you actually read what I said, you still think that's what I said.
I'm saying your panties are in a bunch over some students carrying bats, but you support them having guns. I was trying to point out how stupid of a position that is, but it seems to have gone right over your head (maybe you caught a glimpse as your eyes rolled up?).
Pretty sure I've never used the term "uncle Tom", mostly because it's a bullshit term that resulted from white people ruining a good story.
This line about "cannot see intimidation" is categorically dumb. Thinking police brutality is not a racial issue is also a remarkably stupid position. Suggesting it's really me, and not folks like yourself who are openly complicit with white supremacy that are "hurting blacks in inner cities" is phenomenally ridiculous to even suggest, though the chutzpah it took to actually post that doesn't go without note.
I presume you're talking about Heather Mac Donald and either "The War on Cops" or "Are Cops Racist", and not the comedian Heather McDonald and "You'll Never Blue Ball in This Town Again: One Woman's Painfully Funny Quest to Give It Up". And lol.
On June 08 2017 11:42 Danglars wrote: After watching testimony all this morning on CNN from Capitol Hill with the ~"24hrs and counting" clock to Comey testimony (they had it yesterday as well in the 40s etc), it vanished same day.
Wishful thinkers are banking too hard on one big event that properly buries Trump. Though his shelf life is limited, we very clearly aren't there yet.
Everyone denies being pressured, feeling pressured, by Trump or anyone else, and the story is obstruction. The story might be thoughtcrime if you follow the hopes and dreams of some posters in this forum. Its just a better hope than collusion at this point, so everybody's on board.
They're also going to get hit hard on this partisan leak campaign if nothing criminal turns up. You mishandled classified information to hurt the other team, not to save the republic. A good amount ofpeople have already clued in to it; Trump's bad, classified leaks are bad, nobody comes out clean.
None of the testimony today related to the firing, though, which is the real obstruction of justice charge. And even Comey's statement doesn't talk about the firing specifically. Their adamant refusal to say if Trump asked them to stop investigating and only discussing pressure did not bode well.
Edit: Also, none of the unmasking questions (of which I saw a couple attempts I think) gained any traction or went anywhere and this was a prime opportunity to discuss them. I assume that at least because nobody is talking about it anymore.
These weren't the right people for the unmasking questions. The main thing I saw was denying they were pressured by the administration, so combo with Comey means obstruction is going nowhere. That's not to say Dems don't reap a political win with midterms since the independent counsel will still be going on in all likelihood. They just won't net the big scalp.
On June 08 2017 11:42 Danglars wrote: After watching testimony all this morning on CNN from Capitol Hill with the ~"24hrs and counting" clock to Comey testimony (they had it yesterday as well in the 40s etc), it vanished same day.
You usually post a countdown for an event on the day it occurs as the hours count down. If you want to make it a big multi-day 48 hour deal, suddenly retracting at the end is suspect. Anddddd it almost certainly helps Trump because he's unlikely to suddenly reverse on leaks made only days in advance. Pretty in line with CNN I gotta say.
Good for Trump how? I could see how you might say it's not as bad as we might have expected for him, but at the very least we're getting days of congressional investigation into Trump in which there's extended discussion of members of Trump's team being under investigation and Trump asking Comey not to investigate. I'm not a lawyer so I totally believe the people in the thread saying this doesn't point toward obstruction of justice being provable. But it's pretty hard to imagine someone watching these hearings and coming out feeling more positive about Trump than they went in.
We already know about what Trump likely said. It's good now to know nothing more happened and there was nothing to the serious charges. The original shock (Trump says classless and inappropriate thing, news at 11?) is worn down and Comey's sending word about nothingburger diet.
On June 08 2017 11:42 Danglars wrote: After watching testimony all this morning on CNN from Capitol Hill with the ~"24hrs and counting" clock to Comey testimony (they had it yesterday as well in the 40s etc), it vanished same day.
Wishful thinkers are banking too hard on one big event that properly buries Trump. Though his shelf life is limited, we very clearly aren't there yet.
Everyone denies being pressured, feeling pressured, by Trump or anyone else, and the story is obstruction. The story might be thoughtcrime if you follow the hopes and dreams of some posters in this forum. Its just a better hope than collusion at this point, so everybody's on board.
They're also going to get hit hard on this partisan leak campaign if nothing criminal turns up. You mishandled classified information to hurt the other team, not to save the republic. A good amount ofpeople have already clued in to it; Trump's bad, classified leaks are bad, nobody comes out clean.
No one has denied BEING pressured. That is a lie. A blatant lie to considering you watched the testimony they denied FEELING pressured. They outright refused to answer whether he pressured them only saying they did not feel pressured which is a statement which CANT be proven false which is why they made it. I can not mince words though, what you posted is a lie. They outright avoided saying that and if you were to infer anything from their silence it would be the opposite of what you said.
Considering that the burden is to show that Trump did exert unlawful pressure, testimony from people that they did not feel pressured is just as good as testimony that they weren't pressured. Saying Danglars lied is outright retarded in this context.
Except it is a lie. If a person threatens me with a gun to my head, I could testify under oath that I did not FEEL threatened and there is no way to prove I am committing perjury. How I feel DOES NOT MATTER in the context of the criminality of what they did, the attempt to do so and the intent behind it are what make it a crime and the same is true in this context. He added words that were not said in order to make it seem like they said something that when asked point blank they refused to say. So yes, Danglers lied and yes I am going to call him on it.
Random note, I just turned on CNN and the countdown is not there which likely means its a show by show choice on whether or not to display it.
Do we really have to rewrite statutes to suit your all caps assertions? Like seriously guys, Trump's bad enough already and his agenda is in shambles, no need to make shit up to satisfy impeachment fantasies. Obstruction of justice is not you peering into people's souls to say even though they testified under oath that they didn't feel pressured, they were obviously lying about criminality. Is the next step to claim that Trump has hit men watching their families, I honestly don't know.
On June 08 2017 11:42 Danglars wrote: After watching testimony all this morning on CNN from Capitol Hill with the ~"24hrs and counting" clock to Comey testimony (they had it yesterday as well in the 40s etc), it vanished same day.
Wishful thinkers are banking too hard on one big event that properly buries Trump. Though his shelf life is limited, we very clearly aren't there yet.
Everyone denies being pressured, feeling pressured, by Trump or anyone else, and the story is obstruction. The story might be thoughtcrime if you follow the hopes and dreams of some posters in this forum. Its just a better hope than collusion at this point, so everybody's on board.
They're also going to get hit hard on this partisan leak campaign if nothing criminal turns up. You mishandled classified information to hurt the other team, not to save the republic. A good amount ofpeople have already clued in to it; Trump's bad, classified leaks are bad, nobody comes out clean.
No one has denied BEING pressured. That is a lie. A blatant lie to considering you watched the testimony they denied FEELING pressured. They outright refused to answer whether he pressured them only saying they did not feel pressured which is a statement which CANT be proven false which is why they made it. I can not mince words though, what you posted is a lie. They outright avoided saying that and if you were to infer anything from their silence it would be the opposite of what you said.
Considering that the burden is to show that Trump did exert unlawful pressure, testimony from people that they did not feel pressured is just as good as testimony that they weren't pressured. Saying Danglars lied is outright retarded in this context.
Except it is a lie. If a person threatens me with a gun to my head, I could testify under oath that I did not FEEL threatened and there is no way to prove I am committing perjury. How I feel DOES NOT MATTER in the context of the criminality of what they did, the attempt to do so and the intent behind it are what make it a crime and the same is true in this context. He added words that were not said in order to make it seem like they said something that when asked point blank they refused to say. So yes, Danglers lied and yes I am going to call him on it.
Random note, I just turned on CNN and the countdown is not there which likely means its a show by show choice on whether or not to display it.
Do we really have to rewrite statutes to suit your all caps assertions? Like seriously guys, Trump's bad enough already and his agenda is in shambles, no need to make shit up to satisfy impeachment fantasies. Obstruction of justice is not you peering into people's souls to say even though they testified under oath that they didn't feel pressured, they were obviously lying about criminality. Is the next step to claim that Trump has hit men watching their families, I honestly don't know.
You are not understanding the distinction between what they said and what you said. They very intentionally avoided saying what you are claiming they said and when asked point blank about what you are claiming they said they refused to answer and then balked on even answering in a closed door session.
Basically think of it like this. Even if Trump (I am NOT claiming he did this but it is an example) had gone to them and said "Help me make this investigation go away or you are fired. Bury evidence do whatever it takes just make it go away or ill find people who will," which would obviously qualify as obstruction of justice BUT and this is important the testimony they gave could still be considered true because whether you feel "pressured" or not is purely an emotional response so even if he did all that they could claim they did not feel pressured by him and unless they told someone otherwise you cannot prove they are not telling the truth.
Its a very important distinction that you are missing and they said it the way they said it on purpose in order to insulate themselves later if needed. These people are not idiots and they choose there words very carefully. The people testifying did not have to lie because they used words that protected them and when called on those words they refused to use the words you are attributing to them.
Danglars, wouldn't you want them to be able to carry guns instead anyway?
I knew I'd get a response from you, always dependable. They have been asked on their "community patrols" to not carry bats.
Dear RAD Students,
We are aware of a small group of students coordinating a community patrol of housing and campus. We acknowledge and understand the fear and concerns that are motivating these actions. We also understand that these students are seeking to provide an alternative source of safety from external entities as well as those community members who they distrust.
Community patrols can be a useful tool for helping people to feel safe, however the use of bats or similar instruments is not productive. Some members of this group have been observed carrying batons and/or bats. Carrying bats is causing many to feel unsafe and intimidated. The bats must be put away immediately in order to protect all involved. Non-students participating in this activity are advised to leave campus.
I know we have issues communicating. Openly carrying bats walking around campus on patrol is intimidation, particularly when the message is they're justified because of fake oppression. If there were more civil rights on campus and students were allowed to carry guns in self defense, I can imagine these radicals would think twice before using them. It's dumb and you're empowering all the wrong kinds of people by being so blatantly illiberal and intolerant on campus.
Of course you would get a response. I'm not going to let you post something so ridiculously stupid and not call you out for it. "fake oppression", really?
You realize WA is an open carry state? So people can walk around with guns displayed on their hip or on their shoulder if a long gun?
So you would prefer they were walking around with shotguns on their shoulders? Because this isn't about beating random people, it's self-defense. I'm guessing you didn't even read much beyond the garbage lie of a tweet.
This is exactly the kind of reinforcing of white supremacy I'm talking about. You know there are actual injustices on campus and in the area that people are trying to address while you're busy trying to prop up phantoms of the persecuted white man?
Do you ever look these things up before spouting off. Evergreen college bans any kind of carry for its students and teachers. They actually can't. Don't lie and invent to make argument, you're just reinforcing anti-speech stereotypes with a typical disinterested response to student groups patrolling campus with bats. It's like if they don't have a badge, you can't see intimidation.
lol So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus? You're correct that they can't currently carry (on campus), I was under the understanding that you supported students being able to carry guns on campus though?
I actually giggled when I saw the pictures and video compared to the hyperbolic bullshit describing it.
Like, holy sh*t man
campus has devolved into chaos, while the school administration cowers and capitulates to student mob rule.
are you serious with this trash?
It's like if they don't have a badge, you can't see intimidation
Is this you conceding the police regularly intimidate POC and that is an exponentially bigger problem than some marginalized people at Evergreen feeling the need to defend themselves from a dangerous and violent environment?
I lead with 'We have problems communicating' and sure enough, it happens. You lie and say guns are allowed, next reponse [no comment]. I say nothing about my opinion on guns on campus, you say "So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus." I'm rolling my eyes here.
I know you to be one of the more extreme posters here on white fragility, uncle tom blacks, "whiteness" (as in "Whiteness is complicit with white terrorists"-GH), and BLM. I put out my true opinions with the necessary bite to match.
You literally cannot see intimidation and only seek some kind of recognizance on police brutality against PoC? Just like in the past, I want police reform against brutality against all citizens. Not making this a race issue in the least. And I do accuse you and others of hurting blacks in inner cities. Police officers are more wary to do community policing given how BLM types won't hesitate to make every interaction another Ferguson. But to recognize and learn how your diatribes hurt blacks across the nation, you might have to stop shutting down speakers like Heather McDonald that made a whole book on the subject.
Your hierarchy of who matters when and your oppression gradient, with its attendant speech=violence and "danger" from liberal professors, is absolutely a problem here that I might not see resolved in my lifetime.
No, you lead with a trash article intended to troll. I didn't lie and say guns are allowed on campus. I'll explain this if when you actually read what I said, you still think that's what I said.
I'm saying your panties are in a bunch over some students carrying bats, but you support them having guns. I was trying to point out how stupid of a position that is, but it seems to have gone right over your head (maybe you caught a glimpse as your eyes rolled up?).
Pretty sure I've never used the term "uncle Tom", mostly because it's a bullshit term that resulted from white people ruining a good story.
This line about "cannot see intimidation" is categorically dumb. Thinking police brutality is not a racial issue is also a remarkably stupid position. Suggesting it's really me, and not folks like yourself who are openly complicit with white supremacy that are "hurting blacks in inner cities" is phenomenally ridiculous to even suggest, though the chutzpah it took to actually post that doesn't go without note.
Take the L.
Pretty deep play mentioning guns and responding about open carry in WA, all the while knowing they weren't allowed on campus. You sure you're not a Conway alternative-facts type? Because you brought up guns and open carry laws in response to a bat-wielding patrol like you had a point.
I'm sadly becoming accustomed to blanket dismissals of "trash article" when the debating gets tough. It's much easier to debate when you can claim the other is obviously trolling. So when you're ready to talk about intimidation with bats and engage on the substance of the letter and videos, wake me up. You act like you're ready to talk intimidation at a disarmed campus, but at every turn you're deflecting to hypocrisy at the margins and reaffirming you only think ill of un-uniformed thug behavior.
When students do it, GH is fine "you're a hypocrite in all these other areas so let's change the subject" , but you expect respect in cop targeting? I suggest you're part of the problem here. Open your mind to stories that don't fit your narrative.
On June 08 2017 11:42 Danglars wrote: After watching testimony all this morning on CNN from Capitol Hill with the ~"24hrs and counting" clock to Comey testimony (they had it yesterday as well in the 40s etc), it vanished same day.
Wishful thinkers are banking too hard on one big event that properly buries Trump. Though his shelf life is limited, we very clearly aren't there yet.
Everyone denies being pressured, feeling pressured, by Trump or anyone else, and the story is obstruction. The story might be thoughtcrime if you follow the hopes and dreams of some posters in this forum. Its just a better hope than collusion at this point, so everybody's on board.
They're also going to get hit hard on this partisan leak campaign if nothing criminal turns up. You mishandled classified information to hurt the other team, not to save the republic. A good amount ofpeople have already clued in to it; Trump's bad, classified leaks are bad, nobody comes out clean.
No one has denied BEING pressured. That is a lie. A blatant lie to considering you watched the testimony they denied FEELING pressured. They outright refused to answer whether he pressured them only saying they did not feel pressured which is a statement which CANT be proven false which is why they made it. I can not mince words though, what you posted is a lie. They outright avoided saying that and if you were to infer anything from their silence it would be the opposite of what you said.
Considering that the burden is to show that Trump did exert unlawful pressure, testimony from people that they did not feel pressured is just as good as testimony that they weren't pressured. Saying Danglars lied is outright retarded in this context.
Except it is a lie. If a person threatens me with a gun to my head, I could testify under oath that I did not FEEL threatened and there is no way to prove I am committing perjury. How I feel DOES NOT MATTER in the context of the criminality of what they did, the attempt to do so and the intent behind it are what make it a crime and the same is true in this context. He added words that were not said in order to make it seem like they said something that when asked point blank they refused to say. So yes, Danglers lied and yes I am going to call him on it.
Random note, I just turned on CNN and the countdown is not there which likely means its a show by show choice on whether or not to display it.
Do we really have to rewrite statutes to suit your all caps assertions? Like seriously guys, Trump's bad enough already and his agenda is in shambles, no need to make shit up to satisfy impeachment fantasies. Obstruction of justice is not you peering into people's souls to say even though they testified under oath that they didn't feel pressured, they were obviously lying about criminality. Is the next step to claim that Trump has hit men watching their families, I honestly don't know.
You are not understanding the distinction between what they said and what you said. They very intentionally avoided saying what you are claiming they said and when asked point blank about what you are claiming they said they refused to answer and then balked on even answering in a closed door session.
Basically think of it like this. Even if Trump (I am NOT claiming he did this but it is an example) had gone to them and said "Help me make this investigation go away or you are fired. Bury evidence do whatever it takes just make it go away or ill find people who will," which would obviously qualify as obstruction of justice BUT and this is important the testimony they gave could still be considered true because whether you feel "pressured" or not is purely an emotional response so even if he did all that they could claim they did not feel pressured by him and unless they told someone otherwise you cannot prove they are not telling the truth.
Its a very important distinction that you are missing and they said it the way they said it on purpose in order to insulate themselves later if needed. These people are not idiots and they choose there words very carefully. The people testifying did not have to lie because they used words that protected them and when called on those words they refused to use the words you are attributing to them.
Your very important distinction ignores statute so stop rewriting the law to fit your cozy notions. They said they didn't feel pressured. You're focusing on questions they didn't outright answer like it's an "A-ha!" Go google if you're still confused about "what you are claiming they said" because "I have never been pressured I have never felt pressured" and "I do not recall ever feeling pressured" are direct quotes.
I saw your dodge to assuming they perjured themselves, so I ask again, is the next step saying Trump has their children held somewhere? It's nonsensical to deny direct quotes, try and pivot to unstatutory constructions, and allege they perjured themselves all at the same time. Just saying your distinctions are important does not make it so. Prove you aren't just reaffirming Trump says stupid things.
On June 08 2017 11:42 Danglars wrote: After watching testimony all this morning on CNN from Capitol Hill with the ~"24hrs and counting" clock to Comey testimony (they had it yesterday as well in the 40s etc), it vanished same day.
You usually post a countdown for an event on the day it occurs as the hours count down. If you want to make it a big multi-day 48 hour deal, suddenly retracting at the end is suspect. Anddddd it almost certainly helps Trump because he's unlikely to suddenly reverse on leaks made only days in advance. Pretty in line with CNN I gotta say.
Good for Trump how? I could see how you might say it's not as bad as we might have expected for him, but at the very least we're getting days of congressional investigation into Trump in which there's extended discussion of members of Trump's team being under investigation and Trump asking Comey not to investigate. I'm not a lawyer so I totally believe the people in the thread saying this doesn't point toward obstruction of justice being provable. But it's pretty hard to imagine someone watching these hearings and coming out feeling more positive about Trump than they went in.
We already know about what Trump likely said. It's good now to know nothing more happened and there was nothing to the serious charges. The original shock (Trump says classless and inappropriate thing, news at 11?) is worn down and Comey's sending word about nothingburger diet.
Jesus Christ, if it was Clinton in that position, I would love to read you.
Danglars, wouldn't you want them to be able to carry guns instead anyway?
I knew I'd get a response from you, always dependable. They have been asked on their "community patrols" to not carry bats.
Dear RAD Students,
We are aware of a small group of students coordinating a community patrol of housing and campus. We acknowledge and understand the fear and concerns that are motivating these actions. We also understand that these students are seeking to provide an alternative source of safety from external entities as well as those community members who they distrust.
Community patrols can be a useful tool for helping people to feel safe, however the use of bats or similar instruments is not productive. Some members of this group have been observed carrying batons and/or bats. Carrying bats is causing many to feel unsafe and intimidated. The bats must be put away immediately in order to protect all involved. Non-students participating in this activity are advised to leave campus.
I know we have issues communicating. Openly carrying bats walking around campus on patrol is intimidation, particularly when the message is they're justified because of fake oppression. If there were more civil rights on campus and students were allowed to carry guns in self defense, I can imagine these radicals would think twice before using them. It's dumb and you're empowering all the wrong kinds of people by being so blatantly illiberal and intolerant on campus.
Of course you would get a response. I'm not going to let you post something so ridiculously stupid and not call you out for it. "fake oppression", really?
You realize WA is an open carry state? So people can walk around with guns displayed on their hip or on their shoulder if a long gun?
So you would prefer they were walking around with shotguns on their shoulders? Because this isn't about beating random people, it's self-defense. I'm guessing you didn't even read much beyond the garbage lie of a tweet.
This is exactly the kind of reinforcing of white supremacy I'm talking about. You know there are actual injustices on campus and in the area that people are trying to address while you're busy trying to prop up phantoms of the persecuted white man?
Do you ever look these things up before spouting off. Evergreen college bans any kind of carry for its students and teachers. They actually can't. Don't lie and invent to make argument, you're just reinforcing anti-speech stereotypes with a typical disinterested response to student groups patrolling campus with bats. It's like if they don't have a badge, you can't see intimidation.
lol So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus? You're correct that they can't currently carry (on campus), I was under the understanding that you supported students being able to carry guns on campus though?
I actually giggled when I saw the pictures and video compared to the hyperbolic bullshit describing it.
Like, holy sh*t man
campus has devolved into chaos, while the school administration cowers and capitulates to student mob rule.
are you serious with this trash?
It's like if they don't have a badge, you can't see intimidation
Is this you conceding the police regularly intimidate POC and that is an exponentially bigger problem than some marginalized people at Evergreen feeling the need to defend themselves from a dangerous and violent environment?
I lead with 'We have problems communicating' and sure enough, it happens. You lie and say guns are allowed, next reponse [no comment]. I say nothing about my opinion on guns on campus, you say "So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus." I'm rolling my eyes here.
I know you to be one of the more extreme posters here on white fragility, uncle tom blacks, "whiteness" (as in "Whiteness is complicit with white terrorists"-GH), and BLM. I put out my true opinions with the necessary bite to match.
You literally cannot see intimidation and only seek some kind of recognizance on police brutality against PoC? Just like in the past, I want police reform against brutality against all citizens. Not making this a race issue in the least. And I do accuse you and others of hurting blacks in inner cities. Police officers are more wary to do community policing given how BLM types won't hesitate to make every interaction another Ferguson. But to recognize and learn how your diatribes hurt blacks across the nation, you might have to stop shutting down speakers like Heather McDonald that made a whole book on the subject.
Your hierarchy of who matters when and your oppression gradient, with its attendant speech=violence and "danger" from liberal professors, is absolutely a problem here that I might not see resolved in my lifetime.
No, you lead with a trash article intended to troll. I didn't lie and say guns are allowed on campus. I'll explain this if when you actually read what I said, you still think that's what I said.
I'm saying your panties are in a bunch over some students carrying bats, but you support them having guns. I was trying to point out how stupid of a position that is, but it seems to have gone right over your head (maybe you caught a glimpse as your eyes rolled up?).
Pretty sure I've never used the term "uncle Tom", mostly because it's a bullshit term that resulted from white people ruining a good story.
This line about "cannot see intimidation" is categorically dumb. Thinking police brutality is not a racial issue is also a remarkably stupid position. Suggesting it's really me, and not folks like yourself who are openly complicit with white supremacy that are "hurting blacks in inner cities" is phenomenally ridiculous to even suggest, though the chutzpah it took to actually post that doesn't go without note.
Take the L.
Pretty deep play mentioning guns and responding about open carry in WA, all the while knowing they weren't allowed on campus. You sure you're not a Conway alternative-facts type? Because you brought up guns and open carry laws in response to a bat-wielding patrol like you had a point.
I'm sadly becoming accustomed to blanket dismissals of "trash article" when the debating gets tough. It's much easier to debate when you can claim the other is obviously trolling. So when you're ready to talk about intimidation with bats and engage on the substance of the letter and videos, wake me up. You act like you're ready to talk intimidation at a disarmed campus, but at every turn you're deflecting to hypocrisy at the margins and reaffirming you only think ill of un-uniformed thug behavior.
When students do it, GH is fine "you're a hypocrite in all these other areas so let's change the subject" , but you expect respect in cop targeting? I suggest you're part of the problem here. Open your mind to stories that don't fit your narrative.
roflmao. Now I don't know if you really don't get it or you're just trying to save face.
I'm a gun owner in Washington state and have been since before college. I'm fully aware of the rules on Evergreen's campus. I actually happen to shoot not far from there. I mean you can go with your "deep play" conspiracy if you want, but I think the point I'm making is pretty clear. You're upset about bats, but you would support students being able to have guns on campus and that is a laughably silly position. There is a whole other angle about how oblivious you are to how you're turning people carrying bats as a form of self-defense into them intimidating the whites on campus but you're still struggling with the first part so we won't go there yet.
But since you seem to already forgotten let's go back to the beginning of your non-sense.
That's what you started with. That stupidity. Did you want to stand by the tweet, that
A group of students at Evergreen College are "community policing" by beating wrongthinkers with baseball bats.
Like that's what you think is happening on the Evergreen campus? If you were to describe it? But hey that's just the trash tweet with the throwaway oneliner, what about actually reading the article?
Evergreen State College erupted in protest two weeks ago when a biology professor Bret Weinstein spoke out against a social justice event that coerced white students and faculty to leave campus.
That's the first trash sentence in the trash article. "coerced white students and faculty to leave campus" lol. Only someone who has no idea what was actually going on would think that's not obviously misinformed.
But hey, maybe it's just clickbaity headline and hook, what's next...
Since then, the Olympia, Washington, campus has devolved into chaos, while the school administration cowers and capitulates to student mob rule.
Ah so the Administration is cowering in capitulation to student mob rule, that's what you actually think is happening?
Then there's this peculiar line
The school was shut down Monday because of acts of vandalism and window smashing the previous night.
Doesn't directly say it, just heavily implies that the bat wielding vigilantes (lol) are the cause instead of, I don't know, what they may be community policing? Perhaps someplace.....other.....than....that....trash would have some helpful information?
But no here you are comparing cops (paid to deal with danger) to vulnerable students (paying good money for a safe campus) like that isn't a cherry of absurdity on a decadent sundae of stupid that is this argument. It's late though and you've been spamming so you may be not playing at full speed right now.
Meanwhile, 86 staff and faculty members signed a statement Friday supporting the student protesters.
“We vehemently reject the claim that students have been violent simply because they have been loud and emphatic. There is a difference between exercising the right to freely voice an opinion and inciting violence — and that difference has nothing to do with volume or forcefulness. We support the demands made by students and honor the positive institutional change they have already achieved through their protests,” the statement reads.
and not folks like yourself who are openly complicit with white supremacy that are "hurting blacks in inner cities" is phenomenally ridiculous to even suggest
I've been watching your use of a particular phrase for a bit and I'm wondering if I could get a clarification on your meaning because while I may well be wrong, I think I detect a different meaning, slight or otherwise.
Over the last number of posts you have used the phrase "white supremacy". When you use it, do you mean white supremacy as in the idealogy that believes that whites are superior to other races or ethnic groups? Or do you mean white supremacy as a state of being, a description of how whites are in a supreme position in society? That is as a synonym for white domination/ white oppression? (A sort of racial version the bourgeois oppressor class?) Or are those two meanings one and the same to you? Or do you mean something else altogether?
I will go on record as saying I neither support students carrying guns on campus (unless they are police) nor baseball bats (unless it is part of a physical education program.) It sounds like mob rule to me (regardless of ethnicity), and I do not care for it. If you search my posts, I think you will find I am quite consistent in my opposition to open carry laws, though very much in favour of hunting and recreational shooting.
and not folks like yourself who are openly complicit with white supremacy that are "hurting blacks in inner cities" is phenomenally ridiculous to even suggest
I've been watching your use of a particular phrase and I'm wondering if I could get a clarification on your meaning because while I may well be wrong, I think I detect a different meaning, slight or otherwise.
Over the last number of posts you have used the phrase "white supremacy". When you use it, do you mean white supremacy as in the idealogy that believes that whites are superior to other races or ethnic groups? Or do you mean white supremacy as in whites are in a supreme position in society? That is a synonym for white domination or white oppression? A sort of racial version the bourgeois oppressor class? Or is that one and the same?
I will go on record as saying I neither support students carrying guns on campus (unless they are police) nor baseball bats (unless it is part of a physical education program.) It sounds like mob rule to me (regardless of ethnicity), and I do not care for it. If you search my posts, I think you will find I am quite consistent in my opposition to open carry laws, though very much in favour of hunting and recreational shooting.
I've gone over it before, but mostly all of that.
Okay well they are adults who don't have to be part of some program to play some softball or whatever but I don't really want to argue about whether bats should be allowed on a college campus.
I'm afraid we don't have the same understanding of the words "mob rule". I don't know how little you know about this situation or the difference of meaning of mob rule to assess how to address whatever it is you were getting at?
The second part was included because you were going after Danglars for being inconsistent, but that doesn't really get to the heart of whether they should or should not. I'm saying I am consistent (in this particular case) and that if I was back in university, I would not want to be at a campus where groups of students are wandering around with guns OR baseball bats (for purposes other than sports.) I don't know everything. I know there was phone call threat to the campus. So it follows that they should let the campus police do their job. I also know that students of Bret that supported him have been followed in the forest, have been doxed, or have had people show up at their doorstep. (Interviews from the Rubin Report and the Joe Rogan Show.) Doesn't sound like the campus is in a great place however you cut it.
So when you say mostly all of it, you do mean that "white supremacy" includes both the belief system that non-whites are inferior and that structurally whites reign supreme? Because that seems to make the term rather fuzzy: obfuscating rather than elucidating.
On June 08 2017 16:49 Falling wrote: The first part is entirely separate from the second part.
The second part was included because you were going after Danglars for being inconsistent, but that doesn't really get to the heart of whether they should or should not. I'm saying I am consistent and that if I was back in university, I would not want to be in a place where groups of students are wandering around with guns OR baseball bats (for purposes other than sports.) I don't know everything. I know there was phone call threat to the campus. So it follows that they should let the campus police do their job. I also know that students of Bret that supported him have been followed in the forest, have been doxed, or have had people show up at their doorstep. (Interviews from the Rubin Report and the Joe Rogan Show.) Doesn't sound like the campus is in a great place however you cut it.
The first part was an observation and seeking of clarification.
Like many campuses it's basically only freshmen who live on campus and the rest have to come onto and leave campus, where there can be groups of people with guns, bats, or a whole host of other goodies but that's just 'merica.
Basically both sides are saying the same threats and incidents are happening both ways. We have a long history of accepting one of these groups reports and dismissing the other, I'm sure you can guess which is which? Also the group born out of slave catchers (police) aren't known to treat these situations equally. One officer already had to be physically restrained by a superior after losing their cool with students of color.
But the idea that the administration is cowering to a bat wielding mob rule is laughable yet here we are.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HI1EOy0.jpg)
