Trevor Noah explains the Covington kids (1 Viewer)

[Mr Person]

Here's a hint for those that don't feel like watching 3-4 min of video....it's the hats and the Trump support that made it happen.



He starts out acknowledging that the media got it wrong...and then blames Trump and the hats. Bottom line, for Trevor Noah, yeah, it sucks that the kids got death threats but that's what the 1st Amendment is all about.

You straight-up lied.

You lied like just about every other goddamned right winger here talking about these videos.



I watched his clip. He didn't. He read about it on a RW media site, but to try to make it look like he's better than those liberals he's attacking, he didn't provide the link to the article he read before running here. He linked to the clip, to make it look like HE was better.

/vomit

An honest review:

He criticizes people for not watching their own bias. He criticizes that smug teenagers. He criticizes the media for not searching for all the videos first. He criticizes every single video-taker because they filmed things to make themselves look like victims.

He criticizes the kids for claiming (lying) they were scared and trying to diffuse a situation when the video showed them being brazen assholes to others and loving it.

MAGA hats: his point, as he explained painstakingly, was that wearing Trump’s MAGA gear conveys a very explicit message, which other people pick up on. Hence, he notes, an awful lot of Republicans don’t go around wearing MAGA gear. Thus, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that if someone is wearing a MAGA hat, they’re a strong believer in Trump’s anti-immigrant message. That’s what he talked about so damn much on the campaign trail, and in office.

In fact, he says it was “*****y” that the kid got death threats. He’s saying that’s wrong. Is this not serious enough for a comedian on a comedy show or something?

He then says the whole PROTEST thing was what the ‘national motto’ (or mode?) is all about: you go PROTEST, he says, then everyone goes home. That’s what the 1st is about. He does NOT in any sense say that the 1st Amd is about protecting death threats or anything like it.


I repeat: the point was that wearing a MAGA hat deliberately conveys a specific political message, so don't be offended if you do it and someone assumes you agree with that message. (my addition: It'd be like wearing Bernie gear than claiming you were gotten so horribly wrong because you actually think he's an evil socialist.)

In reality, he criticized the death threats.

And, in reality, he was saying the events in the videos are what America really is kind of about: protest, say your thing, go home.


Conclusion: Luther lied again. And I’m fairly sure we can guess what he thinks about anyone he sees wearing Bernie gear, though that would be naughty. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Now I wonder why Lutherf didn't respond. Did I not "like" his post and immediately spew some garbage in its favor without watching the video he didn't watch himself? Must be an evil liberal plot. It probably has nothing to do with him getting caught in a big fat pile of lies, while pretending to care about alleged liars. It probably has nothing to do with all the other times I and others were forced to point out his dishonest conspiracy sputum.

This, right here, is why republican democracy is done: they don't care about right and wrong. They care about *getting* liberals. That's how much they hate them. If the road to "winning" is seen as agreeing to lie about an event, there cannot be discussion. There cannot be compromise. And then, for the worst, each party will end up with its own version of reality.

They are gaslighting humanity, and blaming you for it.




And for extra credit, make sure you remember that an investigation run by Republicans is actually a deep state conspiracy to frame another Republican, and make sure you never look at all the people who already pled guilty. It's a witch hunt and they were "tricked" or "trapped" into going to federal prison to protect Trump.

This is the **** these people say. Remember it.

 

[Lutherf]

Now I wonder why Lutherf didn't respond. Did I not "like" his post and immediately spew some garbage in its favor without watching the video he didn't watch himself? Must be an evil liberal plot. It probably has nothing to do with him getting caught in a big fat pile of lies, while pretending to care about alleged liars. It probably has nothing to do with all the other times I and others were forced to point out his dishonest conspiracy sputum.

This, right here, is why republican democracy is done: they don't care about right and wrong. They care about *getting* liberals. That's how much they hate them. If the road to "winning" is seen as agreeing to lie about an event, there cannot be discussion. There cannot be compromise. And then, for the worst, each party will end up with its own version of reality.

They are gaslighting humanity, and blaming you for it.




And for extra credit, make sure you remember that an investigation run by Republicans is actually a deep state conspiracy to frame another Republican, and make sure you never look at all the people who already pled guilty. It's a witch hunt and they were "tricked" or "trapped" into going to federal prison to protect Trump.

This is the **** these people say. Remember it.

FFS.

I'm sorry I didn't drop everything to entertain you. It just so happens that between the time you posted your...whatever it was and now I finished work, cleaned the kitchen and won my regular Tuesday night poker game. Sorry to tell you but all that was FAR more important than replying to your crap.

FWIW, your screed is what we commonly call "opinion". It's neither right nor wrong but it speaks volumes regarding the way you viewed the situation we're discussing. Frankly, I find it no less disgraceful than I found Mr. Noah's commentary.

 

[Mr Person]

FFS.

I'm sorry I didn't drop everything to entertain you. It just so happens that between the time you posted your...whatever it was and now I finished work, cleaned the kitchen and won my regular Tuesday night poker game. Sorry to tell you but all that was FAR more important than replying to your crap.

Yeah, how dare someone respond to a thread someone took the time to create, because maybe they were wasting time at work when they did it. And how any liberal dare object to an unfair attack made upon them in the course of someone else objecting to an unfair attack. I'm such a poopy smellhead for doing that. You might have been working afterwords, and I should have waited until you said you were back. (Seriously?).





Am I allowed to respond now?

FWIW, your screed is what we commonly call "opinion". It's neither right nor wrong but it speaks volumes regarding the way you viewed the situation we're discussing. Frankly, I find it no less disgraceful than I found Mr. Noah's commentary.

Good, let's take a look at what you call a screed:

You straight-up lied.

You lied like just about every other goddamned right winger here talking about these videos.



I watched his clip. He didn't. He read about it on a RW media site, but to try to make it look like he's better than those liberals he's attacking, he didn't provide the link to the article he read before running here. He linked to the clip, to make it look like HE was better.

/vomit

An honest review:

He criticizes people for not watching their own bias. He criticizes that smug teenagers. He criticizes the media for not searching for all the videos first. He criticizes every single video-taker because they filmed things to make themselves look like victims.

He criticizes the kids for claiming (lying) they were scared and trying to diffuse a situation when the video showed them being brazen assholes to others and loving it.

MAGA hats: his point, as he explained painstakingly, was that wearing Trump’s MAGA gear conveys a very explicit message, which other people pick up on. Hence, he notes, an awful lot of Republicans don’t go around wearing MAGA gear. Thus, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that if someone is wearing a MAGA hat, they’re a strong believer in Trump’s anti-immigrant message. That’s what he talked about so damn much on the campaign trail, and in office.

In fact, he says it was “*****y” that the kid got death threats. He’s saying that’s wrong. Is this not serious enough for a comedian on a comedy show or something?

He then says the whole PROTEST thing was what the ‘national motto’ (or mode?) is all about: you go PROTEST, he says, then everyone goes home. That’s what the 1st is about. He does NOT in any sense say that the 1st Amd is about protecting death threats or anything like it.


I repeat: the point was that wearing a MAGA hat deliberately conveys a specific political message, so don't be offended if you do it and someone assumes you agree with that message. (my addition: It'd be like wearing Bernie gear than claiming you were gotten so horribly wrong because you actually think he's an evil socialist.)

In reality, he criticized the death threats.

And, in reality, he was saying the events in the videos are what America really is kind of about: protest, say your thing, go home.


Conclusion: Luther lied again. And I’m fairly sure we can guess what he thinks about anyone he sees wearing Bernie gear, though that would be naughty. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I almost criticized you right away, but I actually stopped what I was doing, put in earplugs, and listened to the video. He did NOT say what you claimed.

 

[Mr Person]

Evil is typically used in the context of profound wickedness. While I think you can easily make the case that Trump is immoral (and I would agree with you), nothing he has done meets the bar for evil. The best case that could be made in favor of it is the use of drones and bombs to kill people abroad, by this standard every President of my adult life and for the foreseeable future could be considered evil.

Ignoring the court order that forced Obama to release families detained together and institute "catch and release" (which worked, contrary to propaganda) and ramping up the policy such that children were separated and indefinitely held from their families, to the point where quite a lot are still (and likely permanently) severed from family?

I didn't agree with what she said at first, but traumatizing little kids to try to deter illegals from coming here is ****ing evil.


It don't care what someone thinks about illegal immigration. Best thing ever, worst thing ever. That really is evil. And it makes me ashamed to call myself an American.

I thought we hit bottom when we said we were justified in torturing people to find out if they're the terrorists we thought they were. These are children. Little ****ing children.


And anyone who responds with anything like "but the chiiiiildreeeen hehe" can burn in hell with Trump, not that there's a hell to burn in, but one might hope).

Technically he didn't ignore the court order as he was following the law and not detaining them together. He was detaining the parents for breaking the law which leaves the question as to what should be done with the kids. If an American citizen breaks the law they don't get to just skip out on jail time because they have kids. I view that less as a testament to his "evilness" and more with our broken system that needs reform.

hold on.

The 1997 Flores settlement addressed length of detention, and more.

Obama started detaining families together. But he held them too long, according to that part of the settlement. So he was ordered to let them go. It wasn't a "separation --> release" thing, it was about the time they were held. The result was "catch and release", which was actually release with electronic monitoring, contacts with legal/etc resources, and did in fact have a very very good success rate in terms of people showing up for the legal proceedings.

But really, Obama also ignored this order. The separation under him wasn't as extreme, but he still did this. So for Trump to come in, ignore all that, and just do it over with an enhancement tweak is something I really don't like.

First of all, if he really somehow thought the court would change its mind, there's no reason to separate families. There isn't. They are in custody and they're going nowhere. But Trump did, and he did it for far longer than he shouldn't have, and he did it to punish them and/or deter more from coming and/or because he just plain didn't give a ****. I don't know. But it was bad. And the thing is, regardless of what one might want to say about the wisdom or care of parents who would bring a child to the states knowing this might happen, the bottom line is that if you really do think your child will die if you don't move, you move.

PS: U.S. Law currently allows people who are here, illegally or not, to request asylum within one year of entering....not questions asked. It is not a crime. We ask them to do this. So if some family shows up and requests asylum, no, separation and detention is not out of some concern like you mentioned. It's not about having to detain parents but not knowing what to do with kids. That's the point. That's why I was calling this evil.


So as I said earlier, I'm definitely not calling all Trump supporters evil or KKK members or the like. But this stuff.....man....it makes me sick that we did it.

 

[Nap]

hold on.

The 1997 Flores settlement addressed length of detention, and more.

Obama started detaining families together. But he held them too long, according to that part of the settlement. So he was ordered to let them go. It wasn't a "separation --> release" thing, it was about the time they were held. The result was "catch and release", which was actually release with electronic monitoring, contacts with legal/etc resources, and did in fact have a very very good success rate in terms of people showing up for the legal proceedings.

But really, Obama also ignored this order. The separation under him wasn't as extreme, but he still did this. So for Trump to come in, ignore all that, and just do it over with an enhancement tweak is something I really don't like.

First of all, if he really somehow thought the court would change its mind, there's no reason to separate families. There isn't. They are in custody and they're going nowhere. But Trump did, and he did it for far longer than he shouldn't have, and he did it to punish them and/or deter more from coming and/or because he just plain didn't give a ****. I don't know. But it was bad. And the thing is, regardless of what one might want to say about the wisdom or care of parents who would bring a child to the states knowing this might happen, the bottom line is that if you really do think your child will die if you don't move, you move.

PS: U.S. Law currently allows people who are here, illegally or not, to request asylum within one year of entering....not questions asked. It is not a crime. We ask them to do this. So if some family shows up and requests asylum, no, separation and detention is not out of some concern like you mentioned. It's not about having to detain parents but not knowing what to do with kids. That's the point. That's why I was calling this evil.


So as I said earlier, I'm definitely not calling all Trump supporters evil or KKK members or the like. But this stuff.....man....it makes me sick that we did it.

The 1997 Flores settlement requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to their parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs, Doris Meissner, director of the US immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute,*

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...politics/flores-settlement-history/index.html

The Flores agreement addressed the length of time of which the children can be held and not the parents, hence the separation. Obama was detaining them together until that order. Trump simply separated the children from the parents so he could legally detain them which is why I said he was actually following the law. I do think that Obama's way of handling it (detain them together) was the proper and more humane way of handling but due to that court decision it was not an option for Trump so if he wanted to detain the parents the children would have to be separated and sent to a licensed program. From an ideological stand point I would prefer open borders and fully understand why you feel such disgust with it but from a pragmatic view point it just simply isn't feasible to do so with the social safety net everyone wants. If it were up to me the social safety net would be limited only to the disabled and elderly then everyone willing to provide for themselves are welcomed with open arms.

 

[Mr Person]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...politics/flores-settlement-history/index.html

The Flores agreement addressed the length of time of which the children can be held and not the parents, hence the separation. Obama was detaining them together until that order. Trump simply separated the children from the parents so he could legally detain them which is why I said he was actually following the law.

I do think that Obama's way of handling it (detain them together) was the proper and more humane way of handling but due to that court decision it was not an option for Trump so if he wanted to detain the parents the children would have to be separated and sent to a licensed program. From an ideological stand point I would prefer open borders and fully understand why you feel such disgust with it but from a pragmatic view point it just simply isn't feasible to do so with the social safety net everyone wants. If it were up to me the social safety net would be limited only to the disabled and elderly then everyone willing to provide for themselves are welcomed with open arms.

But the point is Trump didn't need to separate and hold. Obama was ordered to stop over the length of the detentions, so these families were released together (with electronic monitoring). There was no reason to go back to detaining for too long, unless the point was to manufacture an excuse to separate the families. That bit right there was deliberately cruel deviation from what Obama did in response to his own bad move.


It's completely circular for them to say "ok, we'll go back to holding them, but now we can't "hold" children for X time, so we'll go lock them up somewhere else but we won't call it locked up since we're just caring for the children, but we'll lock up the parents because time restrictions don't apply there, we won't reunite them unless we're ordered to months down the line but otherwise we'll deport the parents, so oops, cannot reunite some of you kids (but we'll deport you later), yadda yadda.

There's no chain of reasoning that leads to a conclusion that this had to happen.

 

[Nap]

But the point is Trump didn't need to separate and hold. Obama was ordered to stop over the length of the detentions, so these families were released together (with electronic monitoring). There was no reason to go back to detaining for too long, unless the point was to manufacture an excuse to separate the families. That bit right there was deliberately cruel deviation from what Obama did in response to his own bad move.


It's completely circular for them to say "ok, we'll go back to holding them, but now we can't "hold" children for X time, so we'll go lock them up somewhere else but we won't call it locked up since we're just caring for the children, but we'll lock up the parents because time restrictions don't apply there, we won't reunite them unless we're ordered to months down the line but otherwise we'll deport the parents, so oops, cannot reunite some of you kids (but we'll deport you later), yadda yadda.

Well that is what he ran on doing. He campaigned on stopping "catch and release" and going after those coming across illegally. The intent wasn't to separate the families as the justice department tried to modify the agreement in order to detain them together but a federal judge denied them. They did what they could within the law to go after those that broke the law coming here illegally, precisely what he campaigned on.

 

[Mr Person]

Well that is what he ran on doing. He campaigned on stopping "catch and release" and going after those coming across illegally. The intent wasn't to separate the families as the justice department tried to modify the agreement in order to detain them together but a federal judge denied them. They did what they could within the law to go after those that broke the law coming here illegally, precisely what he campaigned on.

1. Ok, he campaigned on doing that. Doesn't that support my point? Intent.

2. Really, please, stop and think about what you're saying. You're trying to suggest that somehow, the intent of an act does not include its necessary consequence. By that I mean, you cannot separate the fact that doing what he campaigned on from the necessary result of making good on the promise, therefore, the fact that he made good on his promise is no answer to an argument about his promise being horrible. You cannot say he didn't mean to separate children from families potentially forever if he took actions that necessarily would separate children from families potentially forever.

Again, they knew beforehand about the rules about keeping children and adults. They knew it from Obama's admin. They chose to ignore what they knew, did what they did, and they did it knowing full well that their own pointless actions would require them to separate the families. It was no thing they just-so-happened to find out, any more than I can't pretend to be surprised that someone dies if I've aimed a gun at them and fired.


"I just wanted the bullet to move in the air. I didn't intend anything that bullets moving in the air might do!"

 

[Nap]

1. Ok, he campaigned on doing that. Doesn't that support my point? Intent.

2. Really, please, stop and think about what you're saying. You're trying to suggest that somehow, the intent of an act does not include its necessary consequence. By that I mean, you cannot separate the fact that doing what he campaigned on from the necessary result of making good on the promise, therefore, the fact that he made good on his promise is no answer to an argument about his promise being horrible. You cannot say he didn't mean to separate children from families potentially forever if he took actions that necessarily would separate children from families potentially forever.

Again, they knew beforehand about the rules about keeping children and adults. They knew it from Obama's admin. They chose to ignore what they knew, did what they did, and they did it knowing full well that their own pointless actions would require them to separate the families. It was no thing they just-so-happened to find out, any more than I can't pretend to be surprised that someone dies if I've aimed a gun at them and fired.


"I just wanted the bullet to move in the air. I didn't intend anything that bullets moving in the air might do!"

There was no reason to go back to detaining for too long, unless the point was to manufacture an excuse to separate the families

I was responding to that part of your post. If that was what their intent was then they would not have tried to get the courts to let them detain the families together. Since the judge denied it they had no choice but to separate them if they were set on detaining the parents.

 

[Mr Person]

I was responding to that part of your post. If that was what their intent was then they would not have tried to get the courts to let them detain the families together. Since the judge denied it they had no choice but to separate them if they were set on detaining the parents.

And the point is that is not an intellectually honest argument to make.

Literally, the entire point is that it is a deliberate bull**** argument to claim that Trump was forced to separate children from parents, many times permanently.

Literally, that entire point hinged on the fact that Trump deliberately held everyone too long after Obama had been ordered not to and implemented a successful "Catch and release program".

Literally, the next part of the entire point was that because Trump deliberately did this knowing what he would have to do regarding the children, YOU do not get to defend Trump by saying he had to do it. Doing that is bull because, again, he chose to do it knowing what would happen.




(Or is the defense now that Trump is too damn stupid to know what he's allowed to do, and he was really super-sorry about the detentions once he found out that's what had to be done?)

I tried patience, but seriously....that's some BULL.

 

[Nap]

And the point is that is not an intellectually honest argument to make.

Literally, the entire point is that it is a deliberate bull**** argument to claim that Trump was forced to separate children from parents, many times permanently.

Literally, that entire point hinged on the fact that Trump deliberately held everyone too long after Obama had been ordered not to and implemented a successful "Catch and release program".

Literally, the next part of the entire point was that because Trump deliberately did this knowing what he would have to do regarding the children, YOU do not get to defend Trump by saying he had to do it. Doing that is bull because, again, he chose to do it knowing what would happen.




(Or is the defense now that Trump is too damn stupid to know what he's allowed to do, and he was really super-sorry about the detentions once he found out that's what had to be done?)

I tried patience, but seriously....that's some BULL.

It is simply the facts. It is true that Trump could have continued the "catch and release" program but he campaigned directly on ending it and going after people here illegally. If he is dead set on detaining the parents until their court date then he is literally forced to separate the families as he cannot legally detain the children due to the Flores agreement. He only has 2 choices in the matter: abandon what he campaigned on or seperate the families. The courts could have allowed the families be detained together but a federal judge denied it.

 

[WCH]

Not really, but there is a pointy point here: has Trump ever said when America WAS great? Was it the 60s before Medicare? Was it the 1950s before civil rights legislation? Was it the 1930s during the time of lynching? What hallowed time in the past does MAGA refer to? Otherwise it should just be MAG. My own interpretation is that it was before the uncertain times that whites and males have had to deal with in recent years and before the scary “press one for English, two for Spanish.” Others thoughts?

IIRC it was when we were economically greater. The Left has tried it's best to make it something else.

I'd like for it to be back before, ObamaCare, Gay marriage and RvW

 

[WCH]

Voting for him because it might be better for your bank account is one thing. Wearing the hat is a whole nother kettle of fish.

It says "Make America Great Again" nothing about the GOP or Trump.

The Left is continuing to look like fools.

 

[Mr Person]

And the point is that is not an intellectually honest argument to make.

Literally, the entire point is that it is a deliberate bull**** argument to claim that Trump was forced to separate children from parents, many times permanently.

Literally, that entire point hinged on the fact that Trump deliberately held everyone too long after Obama had been ordered not to and implemented a successful "Catch and release program".

Literally, the next part of the entire point was that because Trump deliberately did this knowing what he would have to do regarding the children, YOU do not get to defend Trump by saying he had to do it. Doing that is bull because, again, he chose to do it knowing what would happen.




(Or is the defense now that Trump is too damn stupid to know what he's allowed to do, and he was really super-sorry about the detentions once he found out that's what had to be done?)

I tried patience, but seriously....that's some BULL.

It is simply the facts. It is true that Trump could have continued the "catch and release" program but he campaigned directly on ending it and going after people here illegally. If he is dead set on detaining the parents until their court date then he is literally forced to separate the families as he cannot legally detain the children due to the Flores agreement. He only has 2 choices in the matter: abandon what he campaigned on or seperate the families. The courts could have allowed the families be detained together but a federal judge denied it.

It's a transparent lie. For some reason, Trump must always be defended, reality rewritten around the defender.

:shrug:


No amount of bull you throw at it will change the simple fact that Trump chose to ignore the settlement and separate families, when nobody had to be held. Well, ok, you might convince yourself and you may get "likes" from other people who don't give a damn about truth, but you won't convince anyone with their eyes open.

 

[Nickyjo]

IIRC it was when we were economically greater. The Left has tried it's best to make it something else.

I'd like for it to be back before, ObamaCare, Gay marriage and RvW

Why would the left try to make it something else? After all, most of the benefits we get on the job, the outlawing of discrimination, environmental protection, etc. came from the left, with assistance from many liberal republicans back when those existed.

And why do you want to take Obamacare protection from my wife, who has a pre-existing condition? Plus, paranoia is showing: if you don’t like gay marriage, be sure not to marry a guy.

 

[WCH]

Why would the left try to make it something else? After all, most of the benefits we get on the job, the outlawing of discrimination, environmental protection, etc. came from the left, with assistance from many liberal republicans back when those existed.

And why do you want to take Obamacare protection from my wife, who has a pre-existing condition? Plus, paranoia is showing: if you don’t like gay marriage, be sure not to marry a guy.

Damn Polly, you forgot RvW!

 

[Nap]

It's a transparent lie. For some reason, Trump must always be defended, reality rewritten around the defender.

:shrug:


No amount of bull you throw at it will change the simple fact that Trump chose to ignore the settlement and separate families, when nobody had to be held. Well, ok, you might convince yourself and you may get "likes" from other people who don't give a damn about truth, but you won't convince anyone with their eyes open.

What did I lie about? If anything you are the one not being factually accurate by saying he is ignoring the settlement. The settlement is the reason for the separations as he can not legally detain the children longer than 20 days so he must release them to the parents, other relative, or a licensed program. The flores agreement applies to the children not the parents, hence the separation.

 

[Nickyjo]

Damn Polly, you forgot RvW!

That too. Liberals hav no problem taking credit for the decision.

Btw, I rarely if ever get a straight answer to this from those who are anti-abortion: who goes to jail if it is outlawed? And, as in my case, when told that we had a deformed child that would die in the womb, what hoops do my wife and I have to jump through to terminate the pregnancy?

 

[Rexedgar]

Run for your life it's the red hat..... Run......... :lamo

Here’s your “red hat!”

View attachment 67248661. :2wave:

 

[Ouroboros]

MAGA hat doesn't mean anything except what you want to believe it means. Noah is ok with threats against kids because its just the 1st amendment, except when he doesn't like the kids expressing their 1st amendment by wearing some hat. Because I agree with many of Trumps positions and policies doesn't mean I agree with all nor that I am racist, misogynistic, homophobic or any of that other stuff Hillary spewed. Oh, she lost? Right?

This is a trope I've seen in a lot of ultraliberal cant: that if the conservatives suffer for their freedom of speech, it's no big deal, but if liberals do, that's a travesty.

 

[Ouroboros]

People who make death threats should be prosecuted.

People who wear MAGA hats are using their first amendment rights to show support for an evil man and an evil agenda, so they should expect some blowback as others exercise their own first amendment rights.

If they don't they're naive. Now, those were technically children, so maybe they were that naive. But if they were that naive then maybe their parents shouldn't have sent them out to the big city in MAGA hats to protest against women's rights.

Trevor Noah didn't support the death threats. He just supported realism.

Speak of the trope, and up it pops!

 

[Ouroboros]

Thank you. It sounds like the first five conservatives simply assumed he was telling the truth without watching the video.

What he did say is that MAGA hats carry a pointed message - and they do, even if it cannot be defined in one-size-fits-all - such that even most Republicans who voted for Trump don't walk around with a MAGA hat. Therefore, it's silly for someone who goes around wearing a MAGA hat to get all offended that someone assumed they've bought into Trump's platform. Namely, the things that Trump made the loudest noises about.

Noah didn't say the following, but it's just like someone walking around with Bernie gear, then getting offended that someone thinks he likes the idea of single-payer and democratic socialism. I mean, what the hell is that person doing, then, walking around in the gear?

It really was an innocuous video, saying generally the same thing that more reasonable people were saying: a lot of people made bad decisions that day, and none of them came out of it completely clean.

So in your opinion, is Noah saying that wearing a MAGA is a "bad decision?"

 

[Ouroboros]

Trump is evil because he is chose to be evil. Not because I have a difference of opinion with him.

Trump has had more opportunities than almost everyone else in the world. He didn't use them to gain knowledge or do anything to better humanity. He used them to facilitate the evil lifestyle that he chose.

He has not evinced many core opinions to have a difference of opinion with. He chooses the "opinion" that he thinks will rally his base or get him out of some slippery spot.

Using the same rule of thumb, do you deem Louis Farrakhan to be evil?

 

[Ouroboros]

Technically he didn't ignore the court order as he was following the law and not detaining them together. He was detaining the parents for breaking the law which leaves the question as to what should be done with the kids. If an American citizen breaks the law they don't get to just skip out on jail time because they have kids. I view that less as a testament to his "evilness" and more with our broken system that needs reform.

I believe the kids were being detained with their parents until the Ninth Circuit Court ruled-- prior to Trump's ascendance-- that this was no longer legal.

 

[Xelor]

Here's a hint for those that don't feel like watching 3-4 min of video....it's the hats and the Trump support that made it happen.





He starts out acknowledging that the media got it wrong...and then blames Trump and the hats. Bottom line, for Trevor Noah, yeah, it sucks that the kids got death threats but that's what the 1st Amendment is all about.

This is the second time I've seen someone on DP allege that people's reaction to the matter had something to do with a goddamned MAGA hat.

Maybe for some folks -- people bereft of gravitas, or reprobates, troglodytes, or people who have inadequate "home training" -- there's "hay" to make out of trying to make the animus' focus a damn hat. That appears to be the case for the OP-er and for at least one other member (see red highlighted text found at the link).

The significant factor, what matters most hasn't a damn thing to do with an "effing" hat! I'll repeat what I've elsewhere shared:

• That Mr. Phillips is a Native American has nothing to do with it.
• Who approached whom is, by the standards of behavior I was taught re: minors' comportment toward adults, irrelevant.
• By the standards of behavior I was taught re: minors' comportment toward adults, that Mr. Phillips is a man and the boy is, well, a boy, a minor, is the determining factor in how the boy should have reacted.
• By the standards of behavior I was taught re: minors' comportment toward adults, the reaction the boy should have exhibited is that of respectfully, deferentially backing away, stepping aside, etc....The boy's saying something like, "Excuse me, my name is "Chip." May I ask you about....," or otherwise introducing himself and entreating for discourse, would also have been an acceptable thing to do. He wouldn't have needed, for obvious reasons, to give way were he of a mind to engage the man in conversation.
• By the standards of behavior I was taught re: minors' comportment toward adults, the boy's standing there and, with that smug look on his face, staring at Mr. Phillips was insubordinate, disrespectful, etc. toward an adult, and such behavior is never acceptable from a minor toward an adult. Any adult.

I was surprised to see the essentially same sentiments expressed by another:

"Here’s the important part for me; when I got home and my parents saw a photo of me staring down an elderly veteran, especially a member of one of the most marginalized groups in our country, Native Americans, but any grown up of any ethnicity, I would have had hell to pay. They wouldn’t be saying, 'Oh my gosh,' they would have told me and sat me down, 'Boy, you get your narrow ass out of the way of that old man and show some respect. And don’t be embarrassing me or yourself in public and walk away.'"
-- Don Lemon​

It appears even Sandmann knows yielding to Mr. Phillips is what he should have done.

"I'd like to talk to him. I mean – in hindsight I wish we could have walked away and avoided the whole thing."
-- Nick Sandmann
​

Nothing but his willfulness and whatever emboldened it prevented him (his peers) from walking away.


As for the damn hats:

1. Do MAGA hats symbolize something? Yes, they do. That they do elevates neither them nor Master Sandmann's wearing a MAGA hat to the status of being the focus of what made Master Sandmann's comportment unacceptable.
2. Why the hell did the chaperones let the contretemps -- the one Mr. Phillips attempted to diffuse -- rise to the level it did? I don't know, but I went on enough school field trips to know that no chaperone we had would have let that happen.
3. Why were the kids even wearing politically charged attire? As minors on a school outing, we wouldn't have been permitted to wear politically symbolic garb. Why? Because:
   • Minors, especially ones of Master Sandmann's age, have no political voice because they cannot vote.
   • Minors, especially ones of Master Sandmann's age, are ill-informed on public policy matters and haven't the skills to aptly evaluate them.
   • We weren't on the field trip to advance a political POV.
   • We didn't speak for our school, and the school wouldn't countenance allowing us to even seem to be doing so, particularly given that the student body consists of kids from families all over the socio-/geo-political spectrum.
   • As a theist school, the trustees respected the separation of church and state and thus prohibited behavior that may have had even the appearance of advancing or opposing any political POVs.