HuffPo scrubs ‘Ultimate Punishment’ Trump piece after Shooting

>>149773
Where does Huffpost get money?

It was decent of them to go that far as to remove an article that made no mention of vigilante justice but as a liberal I'm kinda tired of the few truly far left outlets constantly being held to higher standards while the right wing writes whatever they want about foreigners and sticks their head in the sand after white supremacists kill people or questions whether Obama may be the next Stalin and acts indignant when one of their guys shoots a congresswoman in the face.

Threats made in the abstract aren't threats. Opining for folks guilty of treason to be found guilty of that in a court of law is perfectly OK and they should stand up for that. I don't think we should have a death penalty but I still agree it's important that folks guilty of treason as defined under current law should face justice. They've nothing to apologise for.

>>149786
It called for the state sanctioned execution of the president and several cabinet members

Idk about vigilante but the article was fucking toxic garbage and Huffpost should be ashamed of themselves for running it at all

>>149786
>incite and promote violence is a ok
>because the other guys are worse
It was nothing but a hateful vitriolic opinion piece and the only reason it was pulled was to prevent the huffpost from being held liable for the violence taken against people who were voted into office.

Calling for the death of an entire party is not the equivalent to wanting "justice". It's equivalent to the crying of a child in a temper tantrum.

>>149786
Yeah you're full of shit right there mate

>>149788
>state sanctioned execution of the president and several cabinet members
That is a penalty for treason under the law, whether you or I agree with it, is it not?

>the only reason it was pulled was to prevent the huffpost from being held liable for the violence taken against people who were voted into office.
It was obviously a gesture of good will considering pulling articles from one's website doesn't mean nobody has access to them or knows they existed. Of course that gesture is being twisted as expected.

>Calling for the death of an entire party is not the equivalent to wanting "justice".
These claims are getting more and more outrageous.

>>149797
Well how about a bit of consistency from the political right? Why not also call out right wing politicians and news outlets for fearmongering of foreigners or Obama or liberals when there's a white supremacist hate crime or when a democratic politician gets shot for being a democrat?

Personally I don't care for HuffPo, but maybe both sides could try to be more fair to the other.

CNN fired kathy griffin for a tasteless joke that some thought opined for violence, how about also asking Fox News not to invite Ted Nugent for the sake of fairness?

>>149798
Alright two things -
>You don't accuse and condemn before trial and deleberation
>There's zero fucking evidence for the Russia meme

You're a loon, I feel bad for even taking the bait

Lefties will go on this thread and shamelessly defend / accuse the right of doing the same thing (if not WORSE) with little to no evidence to back their claim

Calling it

>>149803

>You don't accuse and condemn before trial and deleberation

well you have to accuse before a trial obviously but they still took pains to mention that due process is always necessary

>There's zero fucking evidence for the Russia meme

The NatSec adviser lied under oath, as did the Atty General, and the President admitted to firing the FBI director to obstruct the investigation into them.
That along with other circumstantial evidence like Flynn calling to reassure Russians regarding sanctions following Trump's victory is enough reason to investigate for evidence of collusion with the Russian government during the campaign given that it's been established the Russian government attempted to influence the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.

>>149805
to be fair to the right, ted nugent apologized for the way he talked about liberals and says he's done with that sort of speech so I accept that, maybe other folks on the right and left can agree to do the same

>>149816
'paying lip service' is not 'taking pains'

>>149816
He never said he fired him to obstruct justice, you're full of shit

>>149817

This is a nice thought and I think it's essential but it's not going to be enough by itself, we've passed that point.

We need some concessions from the right wing or things will only get worse. When you get rid of all consumer protections, banking regulations, EPA, scale back civil rights enforcement, get rid of healthcare guarantee, social safety-net, lower taxes on the wealthy more than the working class, set minimum wage below livable wage, increase the price of goods and services with tariffs or eliminating cheap migrant labor, allow housing to become unaffordable anywhere on an entry level salary, wages don't grow, folks are laid off because of automation, and then stick your thumb in their eye when they complain, folks are going to realize they've no longer any stake in this country. There's nobody running for office that's sincerely going to protect them from starving to death if it ever comes to that.

At that point I'm pretty sure we're going to have violence everywhere and riots like police won't even be able to control them.

Folks are not going to honor a system where their living standards and peace of mind is in free fall and they're already in need of minimum standard of living with respect to basic needs.

And again things may not have to get exactly that bad. We just need enough momentum in that direction with no sign of stopping. The right wing's ideology still appears to be that the fewer protections for the most vulnerable among us, the better. Whether we're talking the working class or the environment.

>>149802
>Well how about a bit of consistency from the political right?
How about you so trying to deflect?

>>149826
That is just about what the right was saying to us under Obama, to be fair.

>>149859
And yet news outlets weren't calling for his death

>>149826
Your straw man is so grand it shall be known as WICKER MAN

>>149802
Whataboutism can't save you

>>149826
>a system where their living standards and peace of mind is in free fall

Exactly the current situation thanks to all the economy killing measures put in place by Obama.

What don't you get about Trump is fixing this, are you purposefully being obtuse about how much better everyone's lives, living standards and peace of mind will be when the economy takes off again?

>>149908
If by "fixing the economy" you mean fixing it for himself and other persons of wealth, then yes, trump is fixing thr economy.

>>150249
>Obama bailed out Wall Street and mortgage companies that fucked the working class with subprime mortgages and the failed car manufacturers, picked Citibank approved cabinet members and got tried to shovel the TTP down the throat of the world, and wrote a healthcare bill with the insurance lobbyists

But Drumph has a gold palace! He's a big mean real estate developer who only likes money!!

You litterally only have a mental image of him doing this and no evidence, while Obama litterally did exactly what you're talking about

>>149802
Short of blatant death threats, the only standards leftward media is held to is the party line. Violate that and you're toast. Anything less is acceptable and perhaps even brave.

>>150257
Obama had to work within the confines of the laws that congress was willing to pass.
He was also too friendly with the bankers, I agree with you, but it wasn't the very reason for his being; his policies actually had some evidence and reasoning behind them.
Like, we're in a recession, so we're going to bail out the banks, but we'll treat it as a loan so we can fine them if they don't pay us back, and then we're going to pass legislation to ensure the risky behavior they engaged in isn't repeated.
You might not agree it was the right approach but at least it was defensible in some way. At least there existed some nuance such that it could be understood how they were going to address the down sides of their approach. At least it wasn't then a naked attempt at growing the swamp.

Literally everything Trump has done has been a blatant scam. His infrastructure plan is just taxpayer subsidies for private industry. His apprenticeship plan is taking funds from the apprenticeship program the labor department already has and... handing them over to private industry as subsidies. His plans for keeping jobs in the US... subsidies and taxbreaks. His plan to achieve universal healthcare... tax breaks for upper class, nothing for the poor. His promise to restrict lobbying of individuals in his administration... totally unenforced, a dozen are already registered as lobbyists. Arguments against the Paris Agreement... total bullshit, nations got to decide their own commitment.

There is no logical progression from first principles to desired outcome in any of what he does without glaring loopholes the size of Texas and a consistent theme that the loopholes always seem to translate into corporate welfare without a second consideration. The only argument is the claim that everything he does is unassailable and if anyone tries, they're part of a liberal conspiracy to bring him down at all costs.

>>150292
I wish I could communicate to Trump supporters that I don't dislike them or all their ideas even if I dislike Trump.
The fact is Trump hasn't lived up to his supporters just like Obama didn't live up to his supporters.
And we can look for all the reasons for that but at the end of the day, I'd rather have a moderate Trump supporter as president than Trump. I'd rather have a president that maybe doesn't have all the right ideas but wants to do the right thing than one that pays lip service to doing the right thing, makes good on the fast and cheap promises, and sells even his supporters' future out on the rest.

>>149777

((()))

>>150295
To add to this, I had read a study conducted by Yale that the plurality of Trump supporters liked the idea of the Paris Agreement, were concerned about climate change, and wanted government to help tackle the problem, wanted to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies.
But just like the tea party, what started out as a grassroots movement by the people of the country was rapidly hijacked by corporate interests who weren't going to risk a political movement with potential that they didn't have some leverage over.
Corporate shills masquerade as one of their guys, pretend to speak on their behalf, and to maintain a unified political front, genuine conservatives scramble to adopt whatever ideologies they inject into the platform once crafted to serve their community.

>>149802

>Why not also call out right wing politicians and news outlets for fearmongering of foreigners

Foreigners or criminals? The brown who hopped the border shouldn't be given a "pathway to citizenship" merely because he votes Democrat. Neither should coloreds from third world trash countries be allowed to enter if they are going to be a net drain on the rest of us just because you want to virtue signal how progressive you are.

>or Obama

"my muslim faith"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M

"there are 60 states"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

"we are training ISIL"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NkjNvwuaU

"the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPKf5IUGn_Y

But, clearly, anybody saying that he's a muslim is "delusional" and "racist" because reasons.

>liberals when there's a white supremacist hate crime

Did you mean conservatives? How about when most of those "white supremacist hate crimes" turn out to be hoaxes?

>or when a democratic politician gets shot for being a democrat

And the last time that happened was... when? And, no, despite what the NYTimes wants to claim, Giffords isn't an example. That was debunked years ago by other leftist sources.

>both sides could try to be more fair to the other

It's about time you stopped with this "both sides are just as bad" bullshit. You are exponentially worse.

If your kind didn't have double standards, you wouldn't have any standards at all, subhuman.

>>150306 #
Should it be depressing that I can't tell if this is satire anymore?

>>149825
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation
He fired him to "relieve pressure" from the investigation, and to do so, fired the man leading the investigation against him.
The last President to do this was Richard Nixon.

>>150346
No he didn't, he fired him because he was asked to

>>149786
Brain damage?

>>149786
>Threats made in the abstract aren't threats
Nigga you retarded?

>>150652
that's an impossible standard.
I can argue that your criticism of my comment can provoke an unbalanced person to kill me in a fit of rage.
A threat is "I'm gonna kill X" or "Someone needs to kill X".
Even that is a bit of a stretch because saying "I'm gonna kill you" rarely reflects intent.
Typically if it's a detailed threat like "I know where you live and I'm gonna kill you" or intentionally telling a murderous angry mob where you live is more on the side of credible.

>>150679
Nigga in that case like 99% of online threats wouldn't result legal action

Guess what nigga, they do

>>150682
I can upload videos of the most non-contentious thing possible like kittens acting cute and if I get enough views some folks are guaranteed to threaten me with violence. Most folks in the public eye just ignore that shit or turn it over to law enforcement who proceeds to ignore it unless it's an unusually detailed threat.

>>150686
You think that's on the same level as a journalist calling for the execution of the president?

Can you not see the difference?

>>150687
I don't see how one can say it was a threat since their opining for an execution by treason conviction has no apparent way of influencing an actual trial to produce that result, regardless of the consequent sentencing.
And nowhere in the article is it implied anyone else should take that matter into their own hands. In fact, they do the opposite by taking pains to mention:
>upon receiving guilty verdicts