Republicans Should Think Twice Before Chanting "Lock Her Up"

[Marvan Buren]

As a counter-point, what do you do when "law and order" has been circumvented and the elites are not actually bound by it while the proletariat class still is? Let them eat cake?

Vigilante justice is never the right answer in a democratic society.

When I watched Comey being grilled by Congress, I kept waiting for them to ask the only questions which mattered. Perhaps I missed it but I don't think they were ever asked. The questions that should have been asked were "Do you feel that what Hillary did should have been a crime and, if so, how would you suggest we change the law so that in the future, it is a crime."

If the system is not working in a democracy, it must be fixed by legislation.

 

[eohrnberger]

Perhaps you're right about the RNC. I hope so. However, I've been watching political conventions since 1968 and this feels different. If the heated "red meat" rhetoric of BLM is being blamed for inciting the maniacs in Dallas and Baton Rouge, how can political leaders justify the institutional use of similar rhetoric. BLM as an organization never called for police to be killed - only for the guilty ones, as decided by BLM, to be imprisoned.

As to the DNC, I fully expect that if you watch it, you'll want to throw things at the television but I suspect (hope?) they won't cross this line.

These two instances are quite different. Chanting 'Dead Cops now' and 'fry them like bacon' (a direct physical threat to cops) during a BLM protest, is very much different than chanting 'guilty' and 'lock her up' (not physical threats) at a political convention.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that the DNC will be one iota any different or better than what you object to as being at the RNC.

The commonalities are pretty clear. The present level of political discourse, and both major party's political elite establishment are under threat by their constituent's dissatisfaction and displeasure with them. As they are different parties with different structures, it looks a bit different, but it is most certainly the case.

 

[Socrates1]

It was not surprising when the assembled delegates at the Republican convention cheered enthusiastically when one of the speakers announced that another police officer in Baltimore had been acquitted of any crimes in the death of Freddie Gray.

The Baltimore Sun reported the decision by Judge Barry G. Williams as follows:

"Based on the law, he (Williams) said, the prosecution did not show that Rice (the policeman) acted in a "grossly negligent manner," required for a manslaughter conviction. It also did not show that Rice acted in an unreasonable way or was aware of and chose to ignore the substantial risk by placing Gray in a police van without a seat belt, which is required for reckless endangerment, he said. And, it did not show that Rice acted "corruptly," which is required for misconduct in office, he said.

Williams said a "mistake" or an "error in judgment" by Rice was not enough to prove the crimes alleged."

There is little doubt that Black Lives Matter was infuriated by this decision and considered it to be just one more example of a corrupt system that allows police officers to avoid the consequences of their actions. The acquittal did nothing to change their view that the officer was guilty and should have been sent to prison.

And yet, these same Republican delegates who cheered this verdict, employed BLM logic with their incessant "Lock Her Up" chants regarding Hillary Clinton. Their view is that the fact Clinton has never been charged with a crime is proof not of her innocence but that the justice system is corrupt.

I see it as a dangerous precedent that political leaders are now encouraging people to substitute their own opinions for a those of a carefully crafted professional criminal justice system. My position is that Republicans chanting "Lock Her Up" sacrifice their moral standing to criticize BLM and are essentially giving encouragement to every vigilante group that wishes to substitute their own idea of justice for what is decided in court.

Well it is a good thing the judge WASN'T white or out comes the racist judge BS ! How many guilty verdicts in that case so far ? case closed ! :lamo Hillary feels the Clinton's are ABOVE THE LAW ! And the vast majority of American citizens feel she should be in prison !

 

[Marvan Buren]

These two instances are quite different. Chanting 'Dead Cops now' and 'fry them like bacon' (a direct physical threat to cops) during a BLM protest, is very much different than chanting 'guilty' and 'lock her up' (not physical threats) at a political convention.

I'm only focusing on the official institutional level. Individual BLM protesters have indeed said things far worse than "Lock Her Up." On the other hand, so have Trump supporters at Trump rallies. Both, however, are entirely different from what political leaders say at a convention with millions of people watching. Particularly when the person who expects to be our next Attorney General is egging them on.

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm only focusing on the official institutional level. Individual BLM protesters have indeed said things far worse than "Lock Her Up." On the other hand, so have Trump supporters at Trump rallies.

Citations or examples?

Both, however, are entirely different from what political leaders say at a convention with millions of people watching. Particularly when the person who expects to be our next Attorney General is egging them on.

You call it egging the crowd on. In reality, Christi was factually accurate.

Chris Christie Made a Case Against Hillary Clinton. We Fact-Checked - New York Times.

Even the liberal left wing NYT agrees it was factually accurate.

Here, you can read it for yourself.

READ: Chris Christie's full speech at RNC 2016 where he prosecutes Hillary Clinton

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Citations or examples?



You call it egging the crowd on. In reality, Christi was factually accurate.

Chris Christie Made a Case Against Hillary Clinton. We Fact-Checked - New York Times.

Even the liberal left wing NYT agrees it was factually accurate.

Here, you can read it for yourself.

READ: Chris Christie's full speech at RNC 2016 where he prosecutes Hillary Clinton

Well Hilliary gave Christie the perfect rebuttal.

She released this little video.



Clinton trolls Christie on Snapchat with video of them hugging | TheHill

Hillary Clinton trolled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Snapchat Wednesday, hitting back at him a day after he laid out his "indictment" against her at the Republican National Convention.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's campaign shared a video of Clinton and Christie hugging in February on the set of CNN’s “State of the Union” in New Hampshire.

“All I do is hug Democrats, it gets me in trouble all the time,” Christie tells Clinton as they embrace.
Christie also teased Clinton about asking Ben & Jerry’s for her own ice cream flavor after the co-founder created a flavor honoring her Democratic primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt).

 

[eohrnberger]

Well Hilliary gave Christie the perfect rebuttal.

She released this little video.



Clinton trolls Christie on Snapchat with video of them hugging | TheHill

Christi's got facts on this his side, Hillary comes back that he hugged her? :lamo

In other words, she's got nothin'. So Christi's facts stand.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Christi's got facts on this his side, Hillary comes back that he hugged her? :lamo

In other words, she's got nothin'. So Christi's facts stand.

Here is one fact Christie does not have: the FBI chose not indict Clinton based on the evidence.

 

[eohrnberger]

Here is one fact Christie does not have: the FBI chose not indict Clinton based on the evidence.

He never made any claim that contradicted this.

So we've moved off of Hillary's lame hug video clip? That's fine.
Wasn't anything really 'there' anyway, other than Christi is a 'hugger' (well known fact if I recall) and he treated Hillary nicely enough to hug her.
Good on Christi I say. Rather odd that Hillary would post that as some sort of come back. It's really not.

 

[shades]

she should be locked up. You or I would have been a long time ago

 

[Fishking]

Vigilante justice is never the right answer in a democratic society.

When I watched Comey being grilled by Congress, I kept waiting for them to ask the only questions which mattered. Perhaps I missed it but I don't think they were ever asked. The questions that should have been asked were "Do you feel that what Hillary did should have been a crime and, if so, how would you suggest we change the law so that in the future, it is a crime."

If the system is not working in a democracy, it must be fixed by legislation.

How do you think they are going to "lock her up"? Just a bunch of people come and grab her and illegally detain her? No, the law would still be followed. It would just be a matter of appointing and AG that would actually do the job.

Comey already admitted that Hillary was given a special pass by his closing statement. He specifically says that other people doing the same thing shouldn't expect to get away with it.

 

[Marvan Buren]

Citations or examples?


You call it egging the crowd on. In reality, Christi was factually accurate.

Chris Christie Made a Case Against Hillary Clinton. We Fact-Checked - New York Times.

Even the liberal left wing NYT agrees it was factually accurate.

If you're not already a prosecutor, you should consider it as a possible career. You'd be good at it.

The actual quote from the NYT article was: "Like many indictments, the facts presented to the Republican jury were sometimes selective: not necessarily false, but often ignoring exculpatory evidence." Like Christie, you left out the part about the exculpatory evidence.

It would have been perfectly permissible for the crowd to chant "Indict her" or even "lock her out (of the White House.)" I also have no problem with Christie's theatric "guilty or not guilty." He actually wasn't charging her with crimes punishable by imprisonment - just gross incompetence.

As to citations of violence being incited at Trump rallies, one need look no further than the candidate himself:

Feb. 1: “Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay, just knock the hell. I promise you, I will pay the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”

Feb. 22: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

“I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”

 

[eohrnberger]

If you're not already a prosecutor, you should consider it as a possible career. You'd be good at it.

The actual quote from the NYT article was: "Like many indictments, the facts presented to the Republican jury were sometimes selective: not necessarily false, but often ignoring exculpatory evidence." Like Christie, you left out the part about the exculpatory evidence.

It would have been perfectly permissible for the crowd to chant "Indict her" or even "lock her out (of the White House.)" I also have no problem with Christie's theatric "guilty or not guilty." He actually wasn't charging her with crimes punishable by imprisonment - just gross incompetence.

Meh. Quibbling over details of a political speech.

You would have found "perfectly permissible"? This already smacks of excessive PC BS. Since when do people in a political convention need to consult with you or others with your view what they can and cannot, should or should not say or chant? Really?

The over all reality of it still boils down to if anyone other than Hill and Bill had tried to pull off what they'd have pulled off, they'd be both be behind bars by now. Pol;itical elitism has it's privileges, even in this country, it would seem.

As to citations of violence being incited at Trump rallies, one need look no further than the candidate himself:

Feb. 1: “Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay, just knock the hell. I promise you, I will pay the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”

Feb. 22: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

“I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”

Feb 1, yes.
Feb 22, nope, just said that he'd like to, didn't say that he would.
Carried out - nope. Reminiscing about the old days.

Nothing since Feb? I'd say that he's come to moderate his rhetoric, even if just slightly, as he should.

 

[tres borrachos]

Wasn't Barry Williams the guy who played Greg Brady?

The "lock her up" schtick is getting old. The Trump loyalists better find something better to beat her on.

 

[Marvan Buren]

Meh. Quibbling over details of a political speech.

You would have found "perfectly permissible"? This already smacks of excessive PC BS. Since when do people in a political convention need to consult with you or others with your view what they can and cannot, should or should not say or chant? Really?

The over all reality of it still boils down to if anyone other than Hill and Bill had tried to pull off what they'd have pulled off, they'd be both be behind bars by now. Pol;itical elitism has it's privileges, even in this country, it would seem.

PC? Well I do lean left so I might as well admit that I am somewhat infected with it. And, yes, maybe I'm a supersensitive wimp who can't handle the rough and tumble of politics.

HOWEVER, November 9th will come and, in all probability on that day we will know if Trump or Clinton will be our next President. If it's Trump, I'll hope he finds some good advisors, makes wise decisions, and moves the country forward. I'll recognize him as my President even though I see him as a flawed human being who is not qualified to be President and who has many views with which I disagree. But if Clinton wins, how can the Trump supporters possibly accept her if they see her as felon who should be in jail, or worse?

Sorry, but I think political leaders must leave a pathway for Americans to come together after an election. The Republicans have closed that pathway and America will suffer for it.

 

[eohrnberger]

PC? Well I do lean left so I might as well admit that I am somewhat infected with it. And, yes, maybe I'm a supersensitive wimp who can't handle the rough and tumble of politics.

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. If you hang out around here long enough, you'll adapt the prerequisite thicker skin, and it'll do you well, IMHO.

HOWEVER, November 9th will come and, in all probability on that day we will know if Trump or Clinton will be our next President. If it's Trump, I'll hope he finds some good advisors, makes wise decisions, and moves the country forward. I'll recognize him as my President even though I see him as a flawed human being who is not qualified to be President and who has many views with which I disagree.

It's a certainty that we'll know who are president is come 11/9. All the electorate can do is hope that whomever that is does find good advisors, makes wise decisions, and moves the country forward.

Both of the candidates are flawed human beings, each in their own way, hell everyone is a flawed human being one way or another. What really counts is what we accomplish in life and how we live life in spite of these flaws which is what really counts.

But if Clinton wins, how can the Trump supporters possibly accept her if they see her as felon who should be in jail, or worse?

There are very legitimate concerns about Hillary which will only continue if she is elected to POTUS. Her scandal ridden history will have the effect of eroding whatever precious little political capital she may have ever once had.

Sorry, but I think political leaders must leave a pathway for Americans to come together after an election. The Republicans have closed that pathway and America will suffer for it.

I think you'll find that the Democrats have closed that door with their rhetoric just as much as the Republicans have closed that door with theirs. However, I don't believe that the door completely closed nor permanently closed. It depends on what the new POTUS does with the cards they have been dealt, and which they've dealt themselves.

 

[yankintx]

The crowds chanting 'guilty' and 'lock her up' is little more than 'red meat' for the delegates, typical of political conventions and rallies.

If you're too sensitive to handle this, you shouldn't consider being a participant nor an observer of politics, really.

If you think the RNC delegates are offensive, you'd better not watch the TV coverage of the DNC next week. I suspect it'll be it's typical more vile yet.

Yup

Lets hope the Dems tear the Don apart next week, should be fun with so much ammunition.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yup

Lets hope the Dems tear the Don apart next week, should be fun with so much ammunition.

All the 'tearing apart Don' doesn't make Hillary any more honest, nor more trustworthy, nor make her instances of very poor judgement while SoS any better, nor erase her 30 year scandal ridden history.

 

[yankintx]

All the 'tearing apart Don' doesn't make Hillary any more honest, nor more trustworthy, nor make her instances of very poor judgement while SoS any better, nor erase her 30 year scandal ridden history.

I never mentioned Hillary, though you seem rather obsessed with her, no explanation needed.

 

[eohrnberger]

I never mentioned Hillary, though you seem rather obsessed with her, no explanation needed.

You think you see obsession where none exists.

I'd also observe that it seems only a small part of the RNC convention was talking about Hillary. Quite a lot of it was talking positive about the nation, about the candidate himself, and also his VP. And who could forget Rudy's stirring speech about first responders?

 

[Vox]

It was not surprising when the assembled delegates at the Republican convention cheered enthusiastically when one of the speakers announced that another police officer in Baltimore had been acquitted of any crimes in the death of Freddie Gray.

The Baltimore Sun reported the decision by Judge Barry G. Williams as follows:

"Based on the law, he (Williams) said, the prosecution did not show that Rice (the policeman) acted in a "grossly negligent manner," required for a manslaughter conviction. It also did not show that Rice acted in an unreasonable way or was aware of and chose to ignore the substantial risk by placing Gray in a police van without a seat belt, which is required for reckless endangerment, he said. And, it did not show that Rice acted "corruptly," which is required for misconduct in office, he said.

Williams said a "mistake" or an "error in judgment" by Rice was not enough to prove the crimes alleged."

There is little doubt that Black Lives Matter was infuriated by this decision and considered it to be just one more example of a corrupt system that allows police officers to avoid the consequences of their actions. The acquittal did nothing to change their view that the officer was guilty and should have been sent to prison.

And yet, these same Republican delegates who cheered this verdict, employed BLM logic with their incessant "Lock Her Up" chants regarding Hillary Clinton. Their view is that the fact Clinton has never been charged with a crime is proof not of her innocence but that the justice system is corrupt.

I see it as a dangerous precedent that political leaders are now encouraging people to substitute their own opinions for a those of a carefully crafted professional criminal justice system. My position is that Republicans chanting "Lock Her Up" sacrifice their moral standing to criticize BLM and are essentially giving encouragement to every vigilante group that wishes to substitute their own idea of justice for what is decided in court.

I guess this just shows that everybody thinks their dumb opinion is superior to the carefully considered decisions of the professionals in the legal system.

Arrogance and ignorance abound and are on display almost every day in the news.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

It was not surprising when the assembled delegates at the Republican convention cheered enthusiastically when one of the speakers announced that another police officer in Baltimore had been acquitted of any crimes in the death of Freddie Gray.

The Baltimore Sun reported the decision by Judge Barry G. Williams as follows:

"Based on the law, he (Williams) said, the prosecution did not show that Rice (the policeman) acted in a "grossly negligent manner," required for a manslaughter conviction. It also did not show that Rice acted in an unreasonable way or was aware of and chose to ignore the substantial risk by placing Gray in a police van without a seat belt, which is required for reckless endangerment, he said. And, it did not show that Rice acted "corruptly," which is required for misconduct in office, he said.

Williams said a "mistake" or an "error in judgment" by Rice was not enough to prove the crimes alleged."

There is little doubt that Black Lives Matter was infuriated by this decision and considered it to be just one more example of a corrupt system that allows police officers to avoid the consequences of their actions. The acquittal did nothing to change their view that the officer was guilty and should have been sent to prison.

And yet, these same Republican delegates who cheered this verdict, employed BLM logic with their incessant "Lock Her Up" chants regarding Hillary Clinton. Their view is that the fact Clinton has never been charged with a crime is proof not of her innocence but that the justice system is corrupt.

I see it as a dangerous precedent that political leaders are now encouraging people to substitute their own opinions for a those of a carefully crafted professional criminal justice system. My position is that Republicans chanting "Lock Her Up" sacrifice their moral standing to criticize BLM and are essentially giving encouragement to every vigilante group that wishes to substitute their own idea of justice for what is decided in court.

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

 

[yankintx]

You think you see obsession where none exists.

I'd also observe that it seems only a small part of the RNC convention was talking about Hillary. Quite a lot of it was talking positive about the nation, about the candidate himself, and also his VP. And who could forget Rudy's stirring speech about first responders?

Uhm

Your wasting your time my passive interest in this thread has expired

 

[eohrnberger]

Uhm

Your wasting your time my passive interest in this thread has expired

I'm reading this as you got nothing, but that's OK.

 

[Glowpun]

[
She's a vindictive, lying, piece of **** rich bitch . . . I don't care who does and doesn't like her - she DOES belong in jail or at least on her knees begging for forgiveness for every innocent person she's victimized.[/QUOTE]

So which shall it be for President: a crooked and lying bitch or an imbecile?