Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin says bloodshed may be needed to protect conservatism

[Dug]

Seeing as we already do that I'd say sure, why not.
UK already does that.

Thank fuck the US isn't the UK.

[Crissi]

He didn't "call for bloodshed" in any sense that falls outside that which is protected by very clear 1st Amendment case law. He didn't really "call for bloodshed" in any context, for that matter, being so couched behind hypothetical conditions and future events.

Its still incredibly irresponsible coming from a high level government official.

[NED funded]

Oh? So it's bad because he's a politican eh? Are you implying it's fine for feminist to say the damnest thing as long as they're not in position of power?

LOL. There is obviously a difference when a random person says it than a politician. A politician has reach and influence something that a random person on the internet hasn't. Furthermore a politician much like the police is behold to higher standards. Unless you want to arrest every edgy teen in the internet.

Im not downplaying anything. I just point out the hypocrisy.
Either it's free for all or nobody is allowed.
You can't have your cake and eat it.

¿?? A niche group != to all the group.

[Deleted]

Thank fuck the US isn't the UK.

... yet.

/10char

[Saucexorzski]

LOL. There is obviously a difference when a random person says it than a politician. A politician has reach and influence something that a random person on the internet hasn't. Furthermore a politician much like the police is behold to higher standards.

well that just is not true in the US, of either of those.

[Deleted]

LOL. There is obviously a difference when a random person says it than a politician. A politician has reach and influence something that a random person on the internet hasn't. Furthermore a politician much like the police is behold to higher standards.

Outrage culture and everyone having a recording device connected to internet effectively turns everyone into a politician with reach and influence.

¿?? A niche group != to all the group.

Equality is equality is equality.

[NED funded]

well that just is not true in the US, of either of those.

Unlike the internet wants you to believe it is true.

- - - Updated - - -

Outrage culture and everyone having a recording device connected to internet effectively turns everyone into a politician with reach and influence.

A politician is behold to higher standards than a random person on the internet and the media is not forced to listen to radical feminists, they are however forced to pay attention to the comments of a politician.

Equality is equality is equality.

Then bloody you for wishing death upon us liberals and for opposing LGBT and abortion.

[Deleted]

A politician is behold to higher standards than a random person on the internet and the media is not forced to listen to radical feminists, they are however forced to pay attention to the comments of a politician.

Are you sure about that? This election has convinced me otherwise.

Then bloody you for wishing death upon us liberals and for opposing LGBT and abortion.

Where the hell did you get the idea that I oppose LGBT and abortion?

[NED funded]

Are you sure about that? This election has convinced me otherwise.

Yeah this election has been peculiar to say the least.

Where the hell did you get the idea that I oppose LGBT and abortion?

Niche group!= entire group.

[breadisfunny]

If a BLM supporter said they are going to slaughter corruption in law enforcement even if it takes physical bloodshed, it's not criminal. Ideas are not people.

an idea that threatens violence against people is illegal and is NOT PROTECTED under the first amendment. his comments could possibly fall under the sedition act for suggesting an incitation of violence towards the state.

[darkwarrior42]

Equality is equality. No matter how well off you are or not.

So you don't understand that elected officials represent their communities. Nor do you understand that people look to authority figures, and those who respect the governor of Kentucky may well take his comments as license or reason to act. Nor do you understand that his comments indicate that he no longer considers his political rivals people he can get along with; we have had a civil war in this country before, and hearing an elected official all but admit he believes another one is necessary is very different from hearing a survivalist nut say it should happen. You also fail to understand that my comments have nothing to do with his wealth or "how well off he is", and everything to do with the position he holds, what it means, how he obtained it, and what additional weight it confers upon his statements (rightful or not).

Given that, I'm neither inclined to agree with your or argue the point any further.

He didn't "call for bloodshed" in any sense that falls outside that which is protected by very clear 1st Amendment case law. He didn't really "call for bloodshed" in any context, for that matter, being so couched behind hypothetical conditions and future events.

No, he didn't. My point is that it is very different for a random person on the street to endorse violence than it is for an elected official to do so. He was very careful with his comments, but the message behind them was quite clear. Legally he's in the clear.

[Deleted]

Yeah this election has been peculiar to say the least.

Agreed.

Niche group!= entire group.

Umm... no... Im not sure what you're on about anymore.
My initial point is to have everyone regardless of background to have complete freedom to say whatever you want to say to whoever you want.
Stick and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.

[jimboa24]

It's not sedition, and anyone who claims that it is obviously has no idea what real sedition looks like.

Sedition is inciting the violent overthrow of the government here and now. The key word is inciting. They have to be out calling people to arms, rallying people to revolt, leading the charge to rebel NOW. What Gov. Bevin said was a conditional "if/then" hypothetical statement: "if X happens, then Y may be necessary one day." Sorry libs, but that isn't sedition and he can't be charged or prosecuted. There has to be a clear and present danger in order for it to be legitimate sedition.

Also worthy of note is that the Founding Fathers themselves said repeatedly that rebellion and violent revolt may be necessary if the United States veered too far off course from the path of liberty. We have a Second Amendment for a reason, and our very nation was itself a product of a very violent and bloody revolution. But of course, no one likes to think about that, because the thought that even here, now and today violent revolution may not only be possible, but one day necessary is a very, very uncomfortable thought.

Back to the point at hand, what he said wasn't sedition. It's still covered by free speech.

[Deleted]

So you don't understand that elected officials represent their communities. Nor do you understand that people look to authority figures, and those who respect the governor of Kentucky may well take his comments as license or reason to act. Nor do you understand that his comments indicate that he no longer considers his political rivals people he can get along with; we have had a civil war in this country before, and hearing an elected official all but admit he believes another one is necessary is very different from hearing a survivalist nut say it should happen. You also fail to understand that my comments have nothing to do with his wealth or "how well off he is", and everything to do with the position he holds, what it means, how he obtained it, and what additional weight it confers upon his statements (rightful or not).

Given that, I'm neither inclined to agree with your or argue the point any further.

Perhaps that's what his community want then? He got elected after all.
Perhaps people only need one push to act? Conservatives have only so much patiance.
Perhaps left and right dont view themselves as people anymore? Left spaming words like: Neo-Nazi, Islamophobe, Xenophobe, Racist, Sexist, Mysoginist, White Supremacist does indicate that.

You can virtue signal and pose as higher person all you want but you can not deny the fact that politics will turn bloody.

[-Nurot]

I wonder if Trump saying that she was the Devil with extreme hate in her heart, or Alex Jones literally saying she is a demon has anything to do with statements like this. Somehow I don't see Hillary doing anything that would require a civil war.

It is pretty funny though to see some people that think we will have a civil war over Hillary being elected.

The liberal go to if Trump wins is usually something like moving to Canada. Much more peaceful.

If Hillary wins, there will probably be at least a few nut-jobs calling for bloodshed, Trump included. He's already to trying to claim it's rigged against him. Not to mention when Romney lost, he went unhinged on twitter. He's already set a gold standard for losing your mind, creating fabrications and calling for bloodshed, when it was Romney who lost. Can you imagine the childish/craziness he'll come out and say when he loses?

At least he's evidently in good company with some of these other wackos not far behind.

[Deleted]

The Justice Department needs to start prosecuting these elected GOP nutjobs and charging them with sedition when they make these kinds of comments.

They should prosecute Hillary Clinton.

I don't have a single problem with anything Bevin said. It's good that REAL Americans who actually care about the future of the USA are speaking their minds and not caring what others think.

Its still incredibly irresponsible coming from a high level government official.

Quite the contrary - it is incredibly responsible coming from a high-level ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE government official. In fact, if there is a call to arms it should be coming from high-level ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE government officials, not some random whack job like Alex Jones.

[Taojnhy]

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Slight derail, but I have always hated this expression. If you can't eat the cake that you have, then whose cake are you going to eat? Someone else's? That can only be theft then, because if someone gives you their cake to eat, then it becomes YOUR cake and according to this stupid saying, you can no longer eat it.

Either it's free for all or nobody is allowed.

Not all things can or should be universally applied to anyone. A moment's thought will reveal this basic truth to you.

Either way man, you need to argue with better thought-out stuff instead of tossing out meaningless sayings.

[Crissi]

They should prosecute Hillary Clinton.

I don't have a single problem with anything Bevin said. It's good that REAL Americans who actually care about the future of the USA are speaking their minds and not caring what others think.



Quite the contrary - it is incredibly responsible coming from a high-level ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE government official. In fact, if there is a call to arms it should be coming from high-level ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE government officials, not some random whack job like Alex Jones.

When the basis is because " they're instituting policies I don't like" instead if anything actually unconstitutional, yes it's irresponsible. Liberal policies aren't inherently anti USA

[Wells]

Trying to paint calls for revolution as responsible is some seriously nutty shit.

[jimboa24]

Trying to paint calls for revolution as responsible is some seriously nutty shit.

Why is it surprising? We are a nation born from a revolutionary spirit. I refer you to my earlier post (addressed towards people claiming his statement was sedition):

It's not sedition, and anyone who claims that it is obviously has no idea what real sedition looks like.

Sedition is inciting the violent overthrow of the government here and now. The key word is inciting. They have to be out calling people to arms, rallying people to revolt, leading the charge to rebel NOW. What Gov. Bevin said was a conditional "if/then" hypothetical statement: "if X happens, then Y may be necessary one day." Sorry libs, but that isn't sedition and he can't be charged or prosecuted. There has to be a clear and present danger in order for it to be legitimate sedition.

Also worthy of note is that the Founding Fathers themselves said repeatedly that rebellion and violent revolt may be necessary if the United States veered too far off course from the path of liberty. We have a Second Amendment for a reason, and our very nation was itself a product of a very violent and bloody revolution. But of course, no one likes to think about that, because the thought that even here, now and today violent revolution may not only be possible, but one day necessary is a very, very uncomfortable thought.

Back to the point at hand, what he said wasn't sedition. It's still covered by free speech.