From "Letter to FBI from shooting suspect made wild claims about Klobuchar and Walz, sources say/People with direct knowledge of a letter Vance Boelter addressed to the FBI say it is rambling and conspiratorial" (Minnesota Star Tribune).
Show us the letter. I'd like to form my own opinion and not just hear an assertion that it's "incoherent." The other day, I wasted time reading a prominent column with the headline stating that a new Supreme Court opinion was "incoherent." I almost blogged about it just to critique the deceptive use of the concept of incoherence. Even if I'd agree that this Boelter letter is incoherent, the fact of the man's incoherence is relevant to understanding what happened. And if it's not incoherent, then the fact that it's being called incoherent is also relevant.
Let me see the letter. Until then, I will presume it's being withheld to suppress information about which side of the political spectrum is stuck with having this man affiliated with them.
I think it's highly unlikely that Boelter received instructions from Tim Walz. But I also think that if a deranged man believed Donald Trump had instructed him to commit murder, there would be a lot of public debate about whether Trump has said things that might inspire a mentally disordered person to commit an act of violence. In that light, has Tim Walz said things that might be understood as a call to violence?
Meade sends me his elaborate discussion with Grok on that subject — here. His prompts:
1. Examples of violent rhetoric expressed by Gov. Tim Walz
2. Examples of violent rhetoric made by Pres Donald Trump
3. Examples of Barack Obama expressing violent rhetoric
4. You seem to use a different standard of judgement and criticism for Trump than you do for Walz and Obama
5. If Trump had ever explicitly told his supporters to “bring a gun” don’t you think that would be held out as THE number 1 example of violent rhetoric by Trump?
Posts
100 comments:
Incoherent means we don’t like what is being said, and we’re going to pretend we don’t understand it’s true meaning.
@Levi
Right. Or: When I saw that you weren't saying what I wanted to hear, my capacity for comprehension went straight to hell.
Or to put it another way, it’s a way to disparage the speaker in such a way that it’s not libel or slander, yet works to discredit what was actually said, without discussing the actual merits of the speaker’s words.
When I was young, I often encountered people who would screw up their face and say "What?" and otherwise indicate that I was making no sense. I had to learn not to let that intimidate me. Later it was my job to challenge people to understand opinions they didn't agree with.
Oh, dear. The Democrats wanted their Great White Killer and all they got was a nutcase.
Politicians are Machiavellian - strategic, manipulative, goal-driven. Maybe this is why crazy people are drawn to them?
I remember law students attempting to use the ruse of saying "Oh, well, it's Scalia" when asked to explain the argument in a Scalia opinion. They did it in a way that made me suspect you could get away with that in other classes in the law school.
What happened to the explanation that he was a pro life zealot? Hard to believe the media on any of this since that little rumor seems to have vanished.
Murderer alleges a conspiracy.
FBI: "It's a conspiratorial letter, we can discount everything in it."
Me: "Is it also incoherent?"
FBI: "Oh yes ... very, very incoherent."
Me: "Can I see it?"
FBI: "Uh ... uh ... uh .................no."
He also states that the Army gave him training to do this as well in that letter.
About as plausible as Walz claim.
I think Minnesota Nice has turned into Minnesota Crazy.
Oh, and let me just be the first to say that this guy definitely did not hang himself in prison next week.
This was one of just of several politically motivated attacks in the past 10 days.
"You seem to use a different standard of judgement and criticism for Trump than you do for Walz and Obama."
Meade has caught on to Grok's fatal flaw: It only regurgitates what is fed into it and the only thing that is fed into it is the left's rhetoric.
It’s a letter and not a manifesto?
There must’ve been some sort of coherent rule to be able to judge the difference. No?
So I read Groks analysis, and what I found was that it was quick to claim 57 cases of violence (based on reporting) linked to Trump, and said no such links existed between the words of Obama and acts of violence. I’m going say that I find it highly doubtful that the words of Obama were never subjected to the same level of scrutiny as were the words of Trump.
In other words there was no incentive in the press to link Obama’s words to violence therefore none was found. While there was every incentive to link Trumps words to violence.
Let’s ask this question, has black on black violence increased or decreased after Obamas “Bring a gun” statement. Of course this wasn’t what Obama was speaking to, however his statement did in fact encourage an escalation of violence in certain circumstances. It’s impossible to know with certainty what implications this has in the black community.
"I think it's highly unlikely that Boelter received instructions from Tim Walz."
“You see, there’s different kinds of unlikely: there’s sort of unlikely, mostly unlikely, and highly unlikely." - Miracle Max
It's not all the way unlikely, only highly unlikely.
You can't be allowed to see the letter or the manifesto because you might form a diverse fact set.
FBI: "Hmmm .... It says here in your letter that you killed these people.
Boelter: "Yes."
FBI: So you're guilty?
Boelter: "Yes. I did it at the request of Tim Walz."
FBI: "That's incoherent and conspiratorial, so we can ignore that. But here where you admit to being the killer, that's coherent. We can use that."
JournoLism. In a duel between PI and PC, who will emerge a viable contender? Let them get their ugly ducklings in a row.
The media and all the high profile assholes might want to stop the finger pointing and acknowledge that the escalation needs to be stopped. Trump and Vance could and should take the lead. The country is full of impressionable morons and nutcases.
Since the shooter of 4 people and a dog, and the killer of 2 of those people, has declared that he was acting under instructions in his 'written confession', I would like to know how the investigation is proceeding with the questioning of the governor. Or have the indefatigable investigators concluded it's a blind alley, and worthy of no further investigation? If it were Trump, he would already be indicted.
"Meade has caught on to Grok's fatal flaw: It only regurgitates what is fed into it and the only thing that is fed into it is the left's rhetoric."
But it's NOT fatal because you need to use it correctly and talk back to it, confront it with its flaws, as Meade did. Look at how it responded. You have to read critically and work with it.
has black on black violence increased or decreased after Obamas “Bring a gun” statement. Of course this wasn’t what Obama was speaking to
In the movie, that line is used to motivate the federal law enforcement official who at first is only willing to do "Anything within the law" to go after the guy who everybody knows is running a criminal empire. By the end, the federal official says "I have foresworn myself. I have broken every law I have sworn to uphold. I have become what I beheld, and I am content that I have done right", and of course the guy who everybody knows is running a criminal empire is convicted of a bunch of crimes that have nothing to do with running a criminal empire.
In light of what federal law enforcement became during the Obama presidency, it's really quite a scene to quote, and not because it mentions a firearm.
I think it 99.99% probable that Boelter lied about Walz in the letter. However, if the letter made the same claim about Trump the NYTimes and Minneapolis Star would be writing articles about how Trump needed to be investigated over the claim and the letter would definitely not be described as incoherent.
MI aggregates data from diverse sources through correlation and with semantic primitives interacts with Anthropogenic Intelligence in a love/hate relationship of no discernable or creative character.
At the end of the day, everybody should hasten to remember that A.I. is only doing what it has been told to do.
A coincidence with Obama's progression in politics but with more bloodshed.
Any ordinary citizen driving around with $10m in cash would have it confiscated by the cops.
Yet the wife of an on the run double murder suspect is sent on he r way with the cash.
She has since disappeared.
Seems like that cash would be important evidence. Where did it come from? Now that it has disappeared with her, we'll never know.
And the wife had guns. We're they legal?
you need to use it correctly and talk back to it, confront it with its flaws
AI steers the MI consensus of correlations assembled from AI sources.
Let's see the letter, not just extracts claimed to be in the letter by people who claim to have read the letter. Either it's evidence and its contents should not be disclosed at all (so fire those leaking some of the contents) or it's not and let the public see it.
Also the MAGA link and the anti abortion link seems to have gone away. How did that happen?
He probably didn't but if tampon Tim had hired Boelter to kill the hortmans would that be a "conspiracy"?
Somehow that word doe not seem quite right. Though it doesn't seem quite wrong either
So was it a conspiracy from the grammatical standpoint?
Legal?
John Henry
Any two people acting in concert constitutes a conspiracy.
Let's not forget that US Senator Amy Klobuchar had dinner with the dead woman on the night she was murdered.
That fact highly suggests that there was a conspiracy.
Not since Chandra Levy turned up dead 25 years ago has a member of Congress had dinner with a murder victim. It is virtually unprecedented.
"But it's NOT fatal because you need to use it correctly and talk back to it, confront it with its flaws, as Meade did. Look at how it responded. You have to read critically and work with it."
Yes, I'm familiar with how to trap Grok. It's a fun game I play with it.
Most people simply won't do that and they of course know this. Most people will simply accept whatever Grok says as the gospel.
My point is that intelligent people won't use AI that is built this way and therefore it will fail as a product. So far, it has failed miserably.
tolkien.
Yes. But since it's been leaked in part, present it in full. Let us decide what it means.
Timmy Timmy Tim Tim…
The evil Boelter could’ve slain Klobuchar with the same comb she eats her salads with.
Unless its neccessary for a trial or there's some huge privacy concern for something, these letters need to be released. I'm sick and tired of the FBI constantly holding back information. Its almost for politics for some bogus reason. Remember the trans Tennessee shooter's manifesto, how long did they hold on to that, months? years? There was no trial reason - because she was dead.
Incoherence's just another word for nothing left to lose.
Did you see his arrest photo? He totally has the crazy eyes. He's not all there. What we don't know is if it's natural or drug induced.
Ann Althouse said...
["Meade has caught on to Grok's fatal flaw: It only regurgitates what is fed into it and the only thing that is fed into it is the left's rhetoric."]
"But it's NOT fatal because you need to use it correctly and talk back to it, confront it with its flaws, as Meade did. Look at how it responded. You have to read critically and work with it."
I still wonder whether Grok learns from such use, or if its inputs (Grok only knows what they are), both within X and on the WWW in general, override any efforts to make it learn.
This seems it could apply to those who have decided to make our lives easier by applying the "incoherent" assessment for us. I mean, we dont need to waste our time reading gibberish. Perhaps the "two people familiar"'s comprehension skills - and jobs - are best served by them being some combination of:
Deliberately obtuse.
Willfully ignorant.
Knowingly evil.
Why is it, do you suppose that the default position of the FBI when a Democrat conspiracy is alleged is to immediately begin a cover up the actual evidence and begin to taint a potential jury pool?
And why do the media help them do this?
Maybe we can now retire 'Florida Man' and elevate 'Minnesota Man' to internet noteriety. No?
I live in Minnesota. Two things have become clear this week:
1) The local apparat really, really wants to this story to follow an evil MAGA narrative. The anchor on the 10 p.m. news on KARE made a point to call Boelter's activities "politically motivated" every night this week in the opening of the broadcast. It's an assertion, a mantra, and you should not question it. Boelter's letter, to the extent we understand its content, alters the narrative that's being constructed.
2) There's a barely concealed battle going on between the acting U.S. Attorney, Joe Thompson, and Mary Moriarty, the Soros-backed HennCo prosecutor. Moriarty is in trouble because she's been letting criminals loose in the usual Soros style, but she really, really wants to prosecute Boelter. The feds are taking the lead, as they have in the past, because she's feckless.
An example of how this dynamic has played out: the previous U.S. Attorney under Biden, Andrew Luger, was the guy who actually did the heavy lifting in prosecuting the massive Feeding Our Future fraud cases, in which politically connected Somalis and their friends stole millions of dollars by claiming to feed millions of meals to kids during COVID. The locals let this go on for years. Luger is a loyal Democrat, but he's of the old-school sort and he wasn't willing to countenance the open corruption of this arrangement. These stories are not openly discussed, because they reflect badly on Walz, Keith Ellison (who took meetings with the criminals) and others within the DFL apparat.
It would be unlikely in the extreme that Walz ever communicated to Boelter except in passing; the boards that Boelter served on were advisory and weren't especially political. Having said that, there were some fairly heavy hitters on the boards, including a longtime DFL power player named Myron Frans, who has been a bigwig at the University of Minnesota and was the guy who ran the state government management office under Walz and his predecessor, Mark Dayton. As far as I know, no one has asked Frans what he thought of Boelter and his role. We'd rather not know, apparently.
I don't believe in conspiracies. Boelter has, from what we know, had an, ahem, interesting career. I'd personally like to know more about his work in Africa and whether the USAID cuts affected what he was doing. He seems to have acquired a lot of weapons and although his financial issues have been discussed, he seemed to have enough money to own a big house in the country and a lot of material possessions. Maybe the answers and statements are incoherent, but at a minimum he's a deeply weird dude. I'd prefer to simply follow the story wherever it leads, but you can see the narrative construction team straining mightily at the moment. From that you can draw your own conclusions.
When I first saw this letter tidbit pop up on X i immediately thought totally made up by someone. And- the letter is real. Not made up at all. Wow!
I said from the beginning- nothing about this makes any coherent sense at all. It's not that there are so many questions that can't be answered- it's that there are so many questions, period.
He was trained off the books by the US Army? Totally nonsensical. But wait- those overseas trips? Who paid for them and who was he meeting and what was he doing? Now we have another layer to that question- was it someone training him?
Sometimes nutcases are just nutcases, or as the older saying goes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But sometimes, nutcases were recognized as such and manipulated into performing nutty things. Was this one of those case? Was Lee Harvey Oswald one of those cases? Travis King was such a nutcase that the North Koreans, propaganda experts, didn't even attempt to manipulate him but just handed him back...
That the authorities in this case are hiding things- and have apparently been doing so from the gitgo, along with a lot of weird things reported about police encounters with Boelter after the shootings, means we, the people, are never going to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what happened. And even if everyone comes clean and we do- no one will believe it!
Boelter is in custody. He's either going to stand trial, or be judged non compos mentis and be committed, or be killed by another inmate, or commit suicide. Possibly a few other outcomes. Want to place your bets?
Oh, I totally agree with loudogblog. "He totally has the crazy eyes. He's not all there." Crazy eyes are a warning sign- stay away.
As it happens, I asked Grok about the situation.
“Did the Minnesota assassin’s manifesto get released?” No, nobody knows why he did it.
“I thought there was an article in the Star Tribune yesterday about it.” No, nothing published yesterday about a manifesto.
“How about this URL to an article in the Star Tribune from yesterday?” Oh that’s about a letter not a manifesto. You didn’t ask about any letters.
anything that points to the corrupt democratic party - will fe smothered, hidden and buried.
Levi and Ann - crack the code in the first two comments.
I blame my typos on this horrible temp keyboard I've found myself stuck wiht.
The Media told us - He voted for Trump!
It's hearsay - 100% hearsay - but that's all they needed to blame MAGA MAGA MAGA.
If the truth points to the corruption that is the mob democratic party --- well - this is what happens.
Heh - the left have their new collective buzzword: "Incoherent!"
Rambling rhetoric. Just isn't coherent like Rhode's rhetoricals. Just can't be published. Isn't handmade. Is a quandary.
A devout Christian with failed ambitions and an arsenal of firearms who chose ‘war’ ~ Minnesota Star Tribune
“Interim [Trump appointed] U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said police found in Boelter’s car and house “voluminous writings” about his plans that dated back months. A letter found after the shootings included ramblings about a plan to kill U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar so Gov. Tim Walz could run for her seat, according to two people familiar with the document.
“In terms of the why,” Thompson said, “it’s unclear.”
“Friends, co-workers and neighbors of Boelter say they were floored to learn he has been implicated in the attacks, describing him as a “godly” and generous man who showed no signs of radicalization or a mental breakdown.
“We’re all shocked,” said Clinton Wolcyn, a member of Boelter’s church. “Obviously he was living a double life.”
The Vance Boelter they thought they knew was a devout evangelical Christian, educated at religious institutions and St. Cloud State University, and a family man from a small Minnesota farming town. He has no criminal record, and as recently as a couple of years ago preached peace as a response to violence.
A Republican who supported President Donald Trump, Boelter also talked about his opposition to abortion. He liked guns and listened to “Infowars,” the show hosted by right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones — who has already called the attacks on Minnesota politicians a “false flag” operation.”
The fact that he targeted Democratic politicians is further evidence of how the Democrats have lost touch with the working class. 🤣
Remember The Office and Jim and Pam pranking Dwight with the CIA? And think how these days comedy is all coming true.
I wonder if Boelter was contacted by someone representing himself as "a Dem Underground emissary?" and telling him he'd be protected if he undertook a mission for Tim Walz? And now they're telling him not to worry, he'll be taken care of when the time comes? Operation Code name: Waltzing Matilda.
Mark writes, "He also states that the Army gave him training to do this as well in that letter."
Mark is engaging in the same sort of mendacity that includes specious claims of incoherence. Mark, who has seen the letter in question, is trying to protect Tim Walz by lying about the letter's content. None of us have seen this missive. All we know is that a unnamed source asserts that in the letter Boelter claims to have been trained by the Army "off the books". What does that mean? I don't know, though I can concoct a few dozen interpretations, some more plausible than others, but none conclusive or worthy of honest discussion.
Althouse writes: “Let me see the letter. Until then, I will presume it's being withheld to suppress information about which side of the political spectrum is stuck with having this man affiliated with them.”
The question is why is the Trump appointed U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson withholding this information.
Let me guess why — there is an ongoing investigation.
There is something about that story that seems off. This man wrote a rambling incoherent letter,.. yet was coherent enough to plan his attack, and then evade capture for quite a length of time. Those two things don't really go together.
“Let me see the letter. Until then, I will presume it's being withheld to suppress information about which side of the political spectrum is stuck with having this man affiliated with them.” ~ Althouse
Why hasn’t the Trump Justice Department released the “Epstein files”
I think that it is highly likely that if the term "abortion" appeared anywhere in the letter the Strib would have put that in the headline. So much for that myth.
"Why hasn’t the Trump Justice Department released the “Epstein files”
My guess is that it's the same reason they weren't released before Trump. The whole Epstein story is the power of blackmail over many of the most important people in our society. No matter who has that power over so many powerful people, it's going to be pretty hard to throw it all away with the release, and those exposed will not let you cherry pick just them. Still, they may yet be exposed by this administration if any.
All of the photographic and other solid evidence is that Boelter and his wife were Democrats. The only evidence that Boelter was a Trump supporter was the hearsay evidence from "friends" talking to journalists and these friends, if they are like our resident lefties would lie about this without giving it a second thought, wouldn't they, Bich?
In the beginning there was “expletive deleted”, now there is ‘incoherence omitted’.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? - some powerful guy, sometime.
Whatever one's objections to Tim Walz, that doesn't sound like something he'd do. Timmie is more of a Hubert Humphrey or Walter Mondale than a Lyndon Johnson or Hillary Clinton. It does make for a good comedy premise though: the weak, inept politician being absolutely ruthless behind the scenes.
·
I finally saw the Bob Dylan movie. Is it weird that everyone in the special features refers to Chalamet as "Timmie" as if he were a child actor in "Lassie" or a 1960s Disney movie, rather than an ostensibly adult actor?
So off base.
1. Some content of the document was (wrongly) leaked to the press. The document was not. The prosecutor can't show you the document because it is evidence in a pending case whose disclosure would be both unethical and prejudicial to the defendant. That alone should defeat any presumption that it is being withheld to influence the debate on who, besides the defendant, bears responsibility for this violence.
2. Highly unlikely that Walz did what is described is generous. It's absurd on its face to think that he did so, and absurd to suggest that a statement by the defendant suggesting that he did so could be used as evidence of Democratic responsibility for violence against respected Democratic leaders. Absurd because, as Meade's own inquiries point out, (and very much unlike the current incumbent President) there is no evidence of Walz using violent rhetoric. Doubly absurd because Amy Klobuchar and Walz are strong political allies. Trebly absurd because how exactly would Walz have communicated this fantastic wish to the defendant. It's basically impossible to construct a coherent narrative supporting the view that the memo shows anything about Walz's responsibility for the crime or that it is being withheld because it tends to demonstrate Democratic complicity. Yeesh!
3. The idea that this does, or could, reflect a double standard being applied to Trump is nonsense. There is literally no evidence of violence rhetoric from Walz, and lots and lots from Trump. Tellingly, once Meade came up empty on Walz, he shifted to Obama. And it turns out, of course, that Obama made many, many fewer violent statements than Trump, and NONE while in office, while Trump has repeatedly blasted violent rhetoric from the most powerful megaphone in the country.
There is no President in living memory who has used more violent rhetoric than Trump, period, full stop. It is not applying a double standard to point this out or to ask whether the rhetorical climate that results has some connection to action. Meade's own efforts, which were intended to prove a double standard, in fact tend to show that none exists. I welcome a coherent argument for a contrary conclusion.
Either way, this guy will be getting a diagnosis soon, that's part of how autism diagnosis reached epidemic proportions. Diagnosing before the judge.
Since Grok was mostly trained on Twitter’s user data (because Elon favors it), it is unlikely to be neutral because nobody has ever labled X as progressive.
How about an honest acknowledgement of the violent rhetoric that overwhelmingly comes from the right all the way to the current president. The bully pulpit carries some weight no?
It can’t get anymore clear than Trump pardoning the violent insurrectionists and traitors who sacked the Capital on January 6. The symbol that sent goes far beyond mere silence and is more of an invitation for future political violence.
The nation is not normalizing political violence — Trump's MAGA Republican Party is promoting it. As a party, their problem is that they would need to take responsibility for the consequences of their rhetoric, but they have thrown in with a leader who is not only opposed to ever doing that, but stands ready to punish anyone who would.
We can't get out of this until Republicans stop cowering in fear.
@Steven: Obama adviced his followers to "bring a gun."
It’s a mug’s game to assess which politicians bloviations are worse, let alone attribute it as a cause of violent groups or individuals.
But the Dem politicians calling Trump a Nazi or Hitler then wishing him well after he was shot amused.
Most politicians don’t act in good faith most of the time.
It’s like listening to Michigan & Ohio State fans go at it.
That said, I don’t think law enforcement should release information to reporters anonymously. I discount all of it. It’s wrong to do it.
Questor, I don't defend Obama's choice of words in 2008, but obviously it wasn't intended literally, and nothing similar occurred during the 8 years of his Presidency or thereafter. Wouldn't you say that Trump's record in office is different in frequency and sustained character, not to mention the repeated use of terms like scum, vermin, and traitors to describe political opponents? If we can't agree on that factual difference, we don't have much to talk about.
Obama embraced the Fuck the Police attitude and hosted the crazies at the White House. Then a fuck-the-police nut killed 5 Dallas cops.
This game can be played endlessly.
The thing Trump has going for him is he was shot. So the Right is going to win these arguments.
The most likely explanation is that Boelter is a nutjob, but there are a few things that feel off, and in ways typical of journalists and PR flacks (I know, same thing)
1). If you watch the video of Walz afterwards, he is acting really weird (I know, not much difference from how he acts all the time, but still), kind of antsy and more spastic than usual.
2). The journalists made a consistent effort, across platforms, to insist that "...but Walz isn't running for Senate." This is an example of the "red herring" logical fallacy. He isn't running for Senate because there's a popular incumbent of his own party. If he WANTED to run for Senate, he would have to find some way for her to be removed.
3). The thing with the cops being at the house and doing nothing is weird.
4). The manufactured "outcry" about Trump not calling Walz has the smell of pre-emption or distraction. It's not like the people killed were Walz's relatives, and the gunman was caught by the time the whole fake controversy got going, so Trump didn't need to offer Federal help. Presidents call governors over big natural disasters or mass killings or in situations where the perpetrators are still on the loose. This was just two murders (i.e., a slow Tuesday in Chicago).
I do not think the Walz actually put a hit out on Klobuchar, but I do wonder why he and the incredibly corrupt Minnesota journalism establishment are acting so weird. Did he make a "knuckleheaded" joke in front of this guy at some point and the crazy took it as "who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"?
Whether attempting to assassinate the President, Supreme Court justices, congressional Republicans or actually killing cops, the left takes a back seat to no one when it comes to violence.
They’re obviously getting it from somewhere. Maybe leftist crazies aren’t getting the message that dumb statements made by Democrats are obviously unintended.
Because I have been using ChatGPT Pro for a few months now for work and various other conversations, I have a question: Did Meade use "expressed" for Obama and Walz and "made" for Trump on purpose? I wonder if that affected the answers.
I do not believe even Gov Walz commission a crime. This guy is nuts.
"Trump's record in office is different in frequency and sustained character, not to mention the repeated use of terms like scum, vermin, and traitors to describe political opponents?"
Trump has reached across the aisle from before he even took office, both times, and for that he's been maligned and slandered like nobody in USA history and ultimately shot by an assassin's bullet. Democrat Party rhetoric has been intentionally inciteful to their violent, anti-American racist base of Boomer losers and sociopathic gen x mental cases.
President Trump has never called his political opponents the things you accuse. He called the violent criminals among Biden's "newcomers" scum, he called the anti-American asswipes burning USA flags traitors, and he called the lowlife terrorists rioting in USA cities vermin.
As usual, Trump is 1000% correct, and as always, a braindead Party member is lying about him.
Here, Stephen.
"Calling for fierceness against Trump: Walz suggested that Democrats need to "be a little more fierce" and "ferociously push back" against former President Trump, even using strong language like "bully the shit out of him back" when referring to perceived bullying."
Stephen said...
Questor, I don't defend Obama's choice of words in 2008, but obviously it wasn't intended literally, and nothing similar occurred during the 8 years of his Presidency or thereafter. Wouldn't you say that Trump's record in office is different in frequency and sustained character, not to mention the repeated use of terms like scum, vermin, and traitors to describe political opponents? If we can't agree on that factual difference, we don't have much to talk about.
You are dishonest scum who have lying about every single thing for 10 years. You have been violent and vicious at every step. Trying to kill Trump twice was the last straw.
Both Obama and Biden were constantly threatening physical violence. For example "If they bring a knife you bring a gun."
In 2017 you people set DC on fire. You spent the next 6 years pretending Trump colluded with Russia. You weaponized the DOJ and tried to throw Trump in jail. You did throw a bunch of his supporters in jail.
Then you tried to kill Trump at least twice.
We were nice for 30 years. Now you got Trump.
And trust me when I say the person we elect next will be an escalation if you take him out.
not to mention the repeated use of terms like scum, vermin, and traitors to describe political opponents?
Yeah. He called the people who tried to bankrupt him, imprison him and kill him some bad names. Why, the nerve of that guy.
Will no one relieve this anticipated "burden"? (pregnant pause)
It’s not the rhetoric of the candidates but the silence that accompanies acts of violence and often the glorification of the perpetrators of violence that encourages psychopaths to engage in more violence. This is where the Democrats fail to deliver a clear message that violence will not be tolerated.
According to my sources, Walz didn't tell Boelter to shoot the dog, but Kristi Noem insisted on adding the dog to the list. Walz just shrugged and said, "Wow. Okay, whatever."
That's why they won't release the manifesto.
AA Kamalaesque comment from long ago:
"See, whatever happens can be said to have happened for the reason you've already reasoned is the reason for whatever happens to have happened."
Eva Marie said...
It’s not the rhetoric of the candidates but the silence that accompanies acts of violence and often the glorification of the perpetrators of violence that encourages psychopaths to engage in more violence. This is where the Democrats fail to deliver a clear message that violence will not be tolerated.
Democrats can never fully condemn violence.
Their entire world view is forcefully taking other people's stuff and redistributing it to themselves.
Their entire progressive platform is based on violence and the threat of it. They kicked all the JFK liberal democrats out of the party and all that is left are violent redistributionists.
They cannot maintain their lives without taking from others. They can't exist without violence.
Hodgkinson was in regular contact with Democrat Senators before he tried to kill Republican senators at the field.
People keep trying to pretend this is some type of one off.
The Democrats political strategy doesn't just include random violence now and then. Their entire political platform is based on taking other people's stuff and imprisoning or killing them when they resist.
Truly amazing how fast this disappeared from the national discourse. I wonder why?
Let me see the letter. Until then, I will presume it's being withheld to suppress information about which side of the political spectrum is stuck with having this man affiliated with them.
Congratulations, you said everything to be said on the subject
Kakistocracy said...
How about an honest acknowledgement of the violent rhetoric that overwhelmingly comes from the right all the way to the current president. The bully pulpit carries some weight no?
Gee 2 days ago Boelton was a MAGA Conservative and defined every Trump voter.
Today It is Republicans need to stop saying mean things because that triggers violent democrats.
Rich is just a violent dishonest piece of shit.
"Let me see the letter. Until then, I will presume it's being withheld to suppress information about which side of the political spectrum is stuck with having this man affiliated with them...." Yes, when it's the Progressive Democrats, this reduction to political utility becomes the most likely explanation.
As a 'Not Lawyer' - would the prosecutor be likely to hold evidence like this as closely as possible, in order to avoid tainting the Grand Jury and subsequent jury empanelment? Recognizing that anybody on either side can leak, when it suits them.
I notice that the story about Boelter in the local Star-Tribune referenced earlier, but not linked, does its level best to luridly paint the accused as a ultra-religious, right-wing looney-Prepper, gun-totin' conservative, even going so far as labeling him -- without evidence - a 'Republican that listens to Alex Jones'. I understood that party affiliation is not tracked in this state? Did their sources prefer to remain anonymous, or are they just responsible Democrats with healthy imaginations? Or was this part of Boelter's confession?
Yeah - the left are going over-board with their standard lies.
That's where they live - the LIE zone.
gut? - Tim Walz is one evil fuck head.
Haven't heard much about Boeltons wife either. Total blackout after we found out she was a democrat intern/staffer.
Kakistocracy said...
How about an honest acknowledgement of the violent rhetoric that overwhelmingly comes from the right
Since that's a lie, we can't do that.
Violent rhetoric, and actions, almost entirely comes from the Left.
See shooting up the Republican softball team, see murdering the health insurance executive, see BLM riots, see Antifa, see anti-ICE riots, see "globalize the infatada", ....
You provided no example, Kak, because even you know you're lying
Aggie said...
"As a 'Not Lawyer' - would the prosecutor be likely to hold evidence like this as closely as possible, in order to avoid tainting the Grand Jury and subsequent jury empanelment?
no
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.