After being whipped up by Trump at rally a supporter attacks a BBC reporter

[Felya]

Not as a whole but I feel Republicans will always support a war if they get enough convincing. The concern trolling and conceding that the ME was largely a waste doesn't really change their military worship ways.

Only if a republican is president and he will lose the whole “classical liberal” side of his support.

[Dug]

Only if a republican is president and he will lose the whole “classical liberal” side of his support.

Eh I would consider a lot of that concern trolling too but I'd hope you're right.

[Felya]

The American Public is almost never asked, and almost always ignored. Here's some foaming at the mouth from trump's feed, including an Arabic version, cause you know, maybe Iranians rise up, and the US has a reason to step in.

Note the discussion though. He will lose votes and his odds of reelection will plummet. It wouldn’t help him stay in power, as it did for Bush. Different time...

[josykay]

The American Public is almost never asked, and almost always ignored. Here's some foaming at the mouth from trump's feed, including an Arabic version, cause you know, maybe Iranians rise up, and the US has a reason to step in.

Also, Trump seemingly forgot, why Persia became Iran in the first place, and why people supported the revolution.

[Xeones]

I don't get why this shit bag is trying to stroke off Kim Jung Un who is actively working on nuclear weapons while trying to start a war with Iran who seems to be complying with the nuclear deal from what I heard.

I find it hard to believe a war with Iran would boost his approval. Americans are pretty war weary at this point, and I'm beyond fed up with trying to be nation builders.

[Collegeguy]

You guys are so predictable.

Are you completely ignoring the guy attacked a reporter?

CNN assaulted a woman just to get a scoop on Trump.

This man was probably just defending himself.

[Felya]

Also, Trump seemingly forgot, why Persia became Iran in the first place, and why people supported the revolution.

His first Secretary of State was a former Exxon CEO. While campaigning on ‘bomb the shit out of them and give their oil to Exxon... they are good people”. I know Exxon is not British Petroleum, but I am 100% sure he knows why the revolution was supported.

- - - Updated - - -

CNN assaulted a woman just to get a scoop on Trump.

This man was probably just defending himself.

Don’t you mean payback? That makes more sense... he was attacking them, as payback for that poor woman they assaulted. Seeing those cameras, was just a signal and he had to defend the virtue of that poor woman against the media.

[Edge-]

Easy, race baiting = ratings. Didn't tray-tray and mike brown along with freddie grey teach you that?

Were those deaths "Democrat" issues? Or were those actual race issues?

Don't delude yourself in thinking that the media doesn't favors dems over the GoP.

Citation required*

The maga kids, the whataburger dude that got his hat stolen, the empire dude making up "this is maga country" (you still owe me an apology @Adam Jensen).

What about those? You mean the kids that were heavily covered based off of available information at the time when everyone was confused and conservatives were gaslighting hard? The kid that got his hat stolen that was heavily covered? And what about Jussie Smollett's claims? I've seen nothing that disputes that his attackers said "this was maga country", if you have any links I'd be curious to see!

Not saying the GoP doesn't desearve all this flak but the media has really dug it's own grave by promoting shit like the Catholic maga kids something that very well could bite CNN in the ass since they did fuck up that story bad.

Promoting? They covered the news based off the information available as it was coming out. As additional information came out coverage was updated with additional context.

The school is sueing CNN with defamation they very well could have a solid case.

The kids are trying to sue 50+ outlets for defamation, and based on the legal analysis I've seen they don't have a very strong case in the slightest.

[-Nurot]

Easy, race baiting = ratings. Didn't tray-tray and mike brown along with freddie grey teach you that? Don't delude yourself in thinking that the media doesn't favors dems over the GoP. The media has shown plenty of bias towards dems while jumping quick on any "orange man bad" stories. The maga kids, the whataburger dude that got his hat stolen, the empire dude making up "this is maga country" (you still owe me an apology @Adam Jensen). Not saying the GoP doesn't desearve all this flak but the media has really dug it's own grave by promoting shit like the Catholic maga kids something that very well could bite CNN in the ass since they did fuck up that story bad. The school is sueing CNN with defamation they very well could have a solid case.

Several things:

Trayvon Martin "tray-tray" was unarmed, followed and ultimately murdered by a serial domestic abuser.

Mike Brown was a prime example of excessive force. He was shot 6 times while unarmed.

Freddie Grey at best was willful negligence. At best.

Are you suggesting that because these stories were covered by the media it was automatically race baiting and no one had the right to be upset? Seriously?

The whataburger guy is a poor example. I mean.... a man stole a kid's MAGA hat and threw a drink on him. The fact that it was covered by the media goes against the bias you're claiming.

As for Jussie Smollett "the empire dude" making it up, I'm going to wait for the police to finish their investigation. They've said they'll charge him if it turns out to be fake. You're crying false flag simply because it didn't occur on camera I assume? I'm not sure what he would have to gain from draping a rope around his neck and planting a hot sauce bottle full of bleach at the scene, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the benefit is the police will charge him and he'll go on to become famous for it and become an actor or something.

In a society where people like the MAGA bomber exists, such an attack isn't outside the realm of possibility.

False flags are also perpetrated by idiots on both sides and they make the news no matter the slant. Remember the idiot who accidentally stabbed himself in the hand outside a hardware store and he called police and said a black man attacked him because of his haircut? Those kind of idiots. If Jussie turns out to be one so be it, but declaring such prematurely simply means that you're clearly hoping for it to be a false flag.

[Theodarzna]

Desperately clinging to any story - no matter how insignificant - in order to validate the narrative and their feelings. Lmao

The media: "it's been a rough two weeks for our side, what with the racist governor, the racist lieutenant governor, the Fairfax Rapist and the most dramatic fake hate crime in history. Hurry! Find out everything we can about this random Trump supporter! Dig into his past and ruin his life! Anything to swing the pendulum away from our side!"

The Covington Catholic media pogrom was a fresh dose of reality. With all the horrible BS the media collectively does, they scream out in pain as if the victim even as they stab you. Anything to save face for them.

Always and everywhere hate and scorn this scum and let them know they are reviled. I'm against physical assault, but letting these monsters know they are reviled dirt, worthless and hated is a worthwhile thing.

[Kiri]

The Covington Catholic media pogrom was a fresh dose of reality. With all the horrible BS the media collectively does, they scream out in pain as if the victim even as they stab you. Anything to save face for them.

Always and everywhere hate and scorn this scum and let them know they are reviled. I'm against physical assault, but letting these monsters know they are reviled dirt, worthless and hated is a worthwhile thing.

And to what end? You'd rather have a world without journalism, where all news comes from government-sanctioned outlets and churches, like in the old days?

[Theodarzna]

And to what end? You'd rather have a world without journalism, where all news comes from government-sanctioned outlets and churches, like in the old days?

I'd rather have a world without self-appointed gatekeepers belonging to a distinct and homogenous socio-economic class.

Moreover, the media institutions aren't entitled to love and admiration or even trust from the masses. That is the point of them being non-state enterprises. There is no mandate to respect them.

You mention churches. Would you seriously consider disliking say organized religion as an assault on Freedom of Religion? I mean nobody in this forum is going to seriously argue that dedicated atheists can't hate churches and mock and insult them. Yet now, we must treat the NYT's or CNN as some sacred cow, whose people must be given reverntial faith and trust. As if the fact that a sitting president or even masses of Americans don't consider Brian Stelter or Racheal Maddow the voice of gospel truth is an assault on the freedom of the press is plain laughable. It is especially laughable when you'd never have that same attitude about religion and religious institutions.

[Acidbaron]

The only surprising thing is, that this doesn't happen more often due to the tone of division and hatred for one another kept alive by Trump and his supporters.

Can't recall this being the norm with other presidencies, history books won't paint a pretty picture of this time and those caught on camera at rallies will forever be correctly demonized as either bigots or violent folk.

[Kiri]

I'd rather have a world without self-appointed gatekeepers belonging to a distinct and homogenous socio-economic class.

Moreover, the media institutions aren't entitled to love and admiration or even trust from the masses. That is the point of them being non-state enterprises. There is no mandate to respect them.

You mention churches. Would you seriously consider disliking say organized religion as an assault on Freedom of Religion? I mean nobody in this forum is going to seriously argue that dedicated atheists can't hate churches and mock and insult them. Yet now, we must treat the NYT's or CNN as some sacred cow, whose people must be given reverntial faith and trust. As if the fact that a sitting president or even masses of Americans don't consider Brian Stelter or Racheal Maddow the voice of gospel truth is an assault on the freedom of the press is plain laughable. It is especially laughable when you'd never have that same attitude about religion and religious institutions.

There is a distinct and homogenous socio economic class across all different media platforms and working there? I am not sure about that.
Anyway, no one says that you have to revere the media. But saying it has no merit of existing at all is way too far in the other direction. I mentioned churches because before we actually had media, those were the self-appointed gatekeepers of information. Governmental and clerical sources dominated much of the information game in the old days, and if you want to get rid of media companies altogether, then that is where you return to. Because that is the default. If you shut down every single news agency in the US tomorrow, then the only things you would learn about what the government does would come from the government itself. And that is what you advocate if you rail against the media as a whole.

It would be different if you wanted to reform it. But the fact of the matter is, this media landscape? It is what we chose. We, the consumers - at least most of us. Media bias exploded over the past few decades because of the increase in news availability. People being able to get their stuff for free means that fewer and fewer agencies run on subscription models. They run either on ad revenue, or because some wealthy donor sponsors them. That naturally increases bias, segregation and sensationalism. Honest and neutral reporting just does not pay anymore. Most people rather tune into CNN or FOX news, depending on their bias, in order to have their pre-existing notions confirmed. That's why both of these are still highly successful, despite so many people deriding them.

But, and this is a big but - the bias is usually mandated on the studio level. Unless they are the really big names coming down to big events, most stuff is covered by low-ranking local crews that just report on stuff happening, without much slant. I mean look at this case. It is about a cameraman. That's not a self-appointed gatekeeper of truth or any of that crap. That's just a guy pointing a camera at what he is told to. It's just a menial day job. And yet here you are, calling him "reviled dirt, worthless and hated". Why? That's like blowing up in the face of a burger-flipper because you think the food they serve at McDonalds is killing America or something.

And last but not least, your whole approach is short-sighted. You are against physical assault? Then why the heck do you want to normalize the de-humanization of a whole group of people? Because defining them as worthless dirt is exactly that. "Monsters," you call them. "Enemy of the people," Trump's people call them. You simply cannot do that without running the risk of someone taking up arms and try to fight that monster, fight that enemy. Either you are against violence, in which case you would work to erode the grounds that violence sprouts from, or you are not and don't do that. The words are just hollow if you don't.

[Theodarzna]

There is a distinct and homogenous socio economic class across all different media platforms and working there? I am not sure about that.
Anyway, no one says that you have to revere the media. But saying it has no merit of existing at all is way too far in the other direction. I mentioned churches because before we actually had media, those were the self-appointed gatekeepers of information. Governmental and clerical sources dominated much of the information game in the old days, and if you want to get rid of media companies altogether, then that is where you return to. Because that is the default. If you shut down every single news agency in the US tomorrow, then the only things you would learn about what the government does would come from the government itself. And that is what you advocate if you rail against the media as a whole.

It would be different if you wanted to reform it. But the fact of the matter is, this media landscape? It is what we chose. We, the consumers - at least most of us. Media bias exploded over the past few decades because of the increase in news availability. People being able to get their stuff for free means that fewer and fewer agencies run on subscription models. They run either on ad revenue, or because some wealthy donor sponsors them. That naturally increases bias, segregation and sensationalism. Honest and neutral reporting just does not pay anymore. Most people rather tune into CNN or FOX news, depending on their bias, in order to have their pre-existing notions confirmed. That's why both of these are still highly successful, despite so many people deriding them.

But, and this is a big but - the bias is usually mandated on the studio level. Unless they are the really big names coming down to big events, most stuff is covered by low-ranking local crews that just report on stuff happening, without much slant. I mean look at this case. It is about a cameraman. That's not a self-appointed gatekeeper of truth or any of that crap. That's just a guy pointing a camera at what he is told to. It's just a menial day job. And yet here you are, calling him "reviled dirt, worthless and hated". Why? That's like blowing up in the face of a burger-flipper because you think the food they serve at McDonalds is killing America or something.

And last but not least, your whole approach is short-sighted. You are against physical assault? Then why the heck do you want to normalize the de-humanization of a whole group of people? Because defining them as worthless dirt is exactly that. "Monsters," you call them. "Enemy of the people," Trump's people call them. You simply cannot do that without running the risk of someone taking up arms and try to fight that monster, fight that enemy. Either you are against violence, in which case you would work to erode the grounds that violence sprouts from, or you are not and don't do that. The words are just hollow if you don't.

First, De-humanization is my right, I owe nobody some form of respect, especially when, in my view, they've shown themselves to be nakedly hostile to me. They are not entitled to my love, admiration or respect. Nor anyone else's. I am against violence towards them generally speaking, but don't have any sympathy for them when it happens, as they clearly have none for me as they've called for violence with impunity against persons like me. So as a general rule, I don't consider there to be a compelling reason to care for them.

Second, unlike a burger flipper or cashier who is often poor and desperate, anyone working in journalism has a distinct upper class origin and make. They are people with means and thus have a choice not to do what they do.

[Kiri]

First, De-humanization is my right, I owe nobody some form of respect, especially when, in my view, they've shown themselves to be nakedly hostile to me. They are not entitled to my love, admiration or respect. Nor anyone else's. I am against violence towards them generally speaking, but don't have any sympathy for them when it happens, as they clearly have none for me as they've called for violence with impunity against persons like me. So as a general rule, I don't consider there to be a compelling reason to care for them.

Second, unlike a burger flipper or cashier who is often poor and desperate, anyone working in journalism has a distinct upper class origin and make. They are people with means and thus have a choice not to do what they do.

Who has called for violence against persons like you? I don't recall that. And it certainly did not come from every single news outlet. De-humanization is the first step towards violence. Actively and knowingly engaging in it is little different than any other such campaign in human history. When one group de-humanizes another, violence usually follows suit soon enough.
And no, not everyone working in journalism has a distinct upper class origin and make. The news anchors you see usually do, sure, but the nit and gritty low level people? Some camera man in the country does not have the same distinct origin and make as a high profile capitol hill reporter. Again, the job of a camera man is to point his camera where is told to and make sure that he captures what is going on. He doesn't influence the final product more than a burger flipper or cashier does. And most of them do not have the luxury to just drop their job and coast off their earnings or whatever.

If people have an issue with the final product, they should tell that to the people in charge, to those with a say in the matter. Not those that don't. But those people are usually far away, hard to reach and have enough money to sue and stuff, so people just go after the low-level workers instead.

[Greyvax]

Are you kidding me?

No, i'm not kidding you. And judging by your non-answer, it's clear that i'm right in being skeptical.

[Xeones]

No, i'm not kidding you. And judging by your non-answer, it's clear that i'm right in being skeptical.

No you're not, because what you said was nonsense.

[Orbitus]

No, i'm not kidding you. And judging by your non-answer, it's clear that i'm right in being skeptical.

Considering Trump has said they are the enemy of the people, and there has been numerous attacks since then because of that bullshit urging, including bombs sent to places like CNN, then yes, Trump is urging them. You would know this if you watched anything other than Fox fucking News.

[Everwake]

The only surprising thing is, that this doesn't happen more often due to the tone of division and hatred for one another kept alive by Trump and his supporters.

Can't recall this being the norm with other presidencies, history books won't paint a pretty picture of this time and those caught on camera at rallies will forever be correctly demonized as either bigots or violent folk.

The division exists on the internet and random rallies here and there. The rest of us -- from both sides of the spectrum -- get along just fine in our day to day lives.