lock her up.... he murmured....

[wesw]

jeff sessions was informative on the topic of Free Speech on campus recently.....

....so of course the Free Press ignored it and played gotcha.....

I think that the 1st Amendment would be just fine, and in fact better served, if some of these Yellow Journalists, and their employers, were left by the wayside.....

all you kids out there Google.... Yellow Journalism....

they probably don t teach that topic these days......

don t you dare criticize the Press!!!!!!!!!

[Lord Jim]

[wesw]

exactly.

[wesw]

his comments on campus free speech were interesting and informative.

it s shame that those comments got very little airplay.

I think I caught that bit on c span.

[rubato]

Occasionally people find diamond rings in the sewer. Yet it is a mistake to look for them there.



yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

I'm not sure whether this guy is a little over-the-top, or if he's just hit the nail on the head. What I *AM* sure of is that an explanation is needed as to why a chant that was used against a losing candidate two years ago is still a thing, and that this much of the essay, at least, is certainly true: “As a cultural mantra, ‘Lock her up’ has become entirely unmoored from any specific conspiracy about Clinton. At this point, it’s more like a Pavlovian response, generated by citizens whose political views and behaviors are driven not by any coherent ideology, but by a reflexive hostility.”

http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2018/07 ... eve-almond

• The Disturbing Evolution Of “Lock Her Up”
  
  Last week, I did a reading for my new book at a local bookstore. After finishing the program, we opened it up to the audience. The first question came from an older white gentleman who rose from his seat in the back and marched to the front of the room.
  
  He had a piece of paper in his hand, which he brandished for the rest of the crowd. On it was a photocopy of a Facebook post in which I had praised Hillary Clinton as “the president of my heart."
  
  The man, by now trembling with rage, began to cite a litany of what he considered to be Clinton’s sins (her support for the Iraq War, her role in the invasion of Libya, etc.) “How black is your heart?” he growled at me.
  
  He turned and stomped back to his seat before I could answer, muttering, “And that’s why I voted for Trump!”
  
  The rest of the audience was stunned by the man’s palpable contempt.
  
  So was I. I tried to be deferential in answering his “question.” But what struck me as odd, in retrospect, was that this man was still obsessing over his hatred of Clinton, nearly two years after she lost the election. He had nothing positive to say about the man he’d voted for, only wrath for the woman who ran against him.
  
  I thought about this guy as I watched a video clip of Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaking to a group of young conservatives on Tuesday. The high schoolers spontaneously start chanting “Lock her up” and Sessions — our nation’s top law enforcement official — repeats their words and chuckles fondly.
  
  As you may remember, “Lock her up” was the central rallying cry at the Republican National Convention. Forget policy proposals aimed at helping working Americans, or hopeful slogans. Instead, the most salient message from one of our two major political parties was simply that the opposing candidate should be imprisoned.
  
  At the time, I figured this chant was a way of unifying the party behind a divisive candidate, one who barely understood the precepts of traditional conservatism and who had few real policy positions.
  
  But as I listened Tuesday to the bellowing of those mostly male teenagers, something finally clicked in my mind: “Lock her up” isn’t really a political rallying cry. It’s an attempt to criminalize female ambition and autonomy.
  
  As a cultural mantra, “Lock her up” has become entirely unmoored from any specific conspiracy about Clinton. At this point, it’s more like a Pavlovian response, generated by citizens whose political views and behaviors are driven not by any coherent ideology, but by a reflexive hostility toward all women.
  
  In this sense, the pronoun “her” was never just about Clinton. She was merely a convenient scapegoat for any woman who refused to accept the patriarchal yoke, who dared to call her male opponent a credulous puppet, who decried his sexual predation, who refused to accept his laughable excuse that bragging about sexually assaulting women was “locker room talk.”
  
  I can hear now much more clearly, in this despotic chant, the desire to create a culture in which men have legal dominion over women and girls.
  
  Sometimes this desire is overt. Women and girl migrants who come to America fleeing danger? Lock them up. Women who want to exercise their reproductive rights? Lock them up. Woman who dare to speak about sexual harassment and abuse? Well, if we can’t lock them up, we can at least shut them up.
  
  The GOP has become a party practically immune to accountability when it comes to assault and harassment against women. Unless there is media-ready proof of abuse, such as photos of your wife with a black eye, you needn’t worry.
  
  Just as often, the effort to punish women is more insidious, residing in policies that take aim at economically vulnerable women.
  
  As the mid-term elections approach, you can be sure we’ll be seeing more Republican rallies, and hearing crowds roar “Lock her up.”
  
  This speaks to the moral and intellectual poverty of the modern GOP, of course. But it also speaks to a vicious misogyny that extends far beyond an election. The “her” has become universal at this point.
  
  If you’re a woman in America, they're talking to you. They’re talking about locking you up.
  

[Lord Jim]

don t you dare criticize the Pres!!!!!!!!!

Edited to show your true belief...

I think that the 1st Amendment would be just fine, and in fact better served, if some of these Yellow Journalists, and their employers, were left by the wayside.....

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, one of the core defining characteristics of the hardcore Trumpanzee...

A sneering contempt for the Constitution...

Along with the abandonment of critical thinking and independent thought, it's an absolute prerequisite for being a hardcore Trumpanzee...

This lawless bunch of cult followers would be perfectly happy if The Leader declared martial law, shutdown the independent press, started throwing his critics and political opponents in jail, defied the courts, (in fact jailing judges who dared to rule against Il Boobce would be just fine with them) and ruled by decree...

In fact they would be delighted; they'd stand up and cheer...

It's they're fervent dream that the rule of law be struck down and replaced with cult of personality strong-man rule...

Perversely, they have deluded themselves into believing that they "love" America and want it to be "great" when the reality is they despise this country and everything it stands for, while they slavishly follow an amoral demagogue who left unthwarted would lead this country to anything but "greatness"...

A man whose image of an America made "great" is an America transformed into an authoritarian, oligarchical kleptocracy subordinate to another authoritarian, oligarchical kleptocracy...

An America that has abandoned it's friends, its basic values, and any claim to moral authority...

An America transformed from global leader to pariah state...

And his unthinking, delusional followers have either blinded themselves to these glaringly obvious realities, or they actually would like to see these things happen themselves...

Either way, these Trump toadies and their anti-American views must be always and everywhere opposed...

The sunshine of truth is the greatest disinfectant for the toxic bacteria of Trumpism, and our greatest hope for defeating it and preserving our republic...

Trump himself knows this; which is why of all the enemies on his list, truth is #1...

ETA:

all you kids out there Google.... Yellow Journalism....

I already know what the Trumpanzee definition of "yellow journalism" is...

It's the same as the Trumpanzee definition of a "fake news" organization...

It's any independent news media operation that reports truthfully about the scandals, crimes, and lies of the Trump regime...

[Sue U]

I just read Jim's post and I'm not even sure I didn't write that.

Dark days indeed.

[Big RR]

I agree 100% with Jim's post as well. And I'd prefer yellow journalism to an orange president.

[Lord Jim]

Dark days indeed.

While I was following the recent farcical HJC hearing with Peter Strzok, at one point I was thinking, "Gee, Sheila Jackson Lee really sounds like the voice of reason"...

[Scooter]

[Lord Jim]

Wes, I'd like to ask you a very simple and straightforward question:

If Donald Trump refused to follow an order from the US Supreme Court, would you consider that to be an impeachable offense?

(To be honest, I really do not expect a simple and straightforward answer. I expect either no answer, or some kind of diversion and/or tap dance....)

[Bicycle Bill]

LJ, you need to change party affiliation immediately.  Your 2:15 am post of Jul 26, 2018 makes far too much sense and speaks far too much truth for you to continue to call yourself a member of the Republican Party, at least as the party has become in the nearly 165 years since its founding in the little white schoolhouse in Wisconsin in 1854.

If you don't feel comfortable labeling yourself as 'Independent', 'Progressive', or even 'Green' (Kermit was right when he said "it ain't easy being green"), then just settle for the self-imposed designation of 'unaffiliated with any party'.  That will free you from the toxic cult of divisiveness that is today's 'Grand Old Party'.

-"BB"-

[wesw]

hey!

I m unaffiliated too!!!!!

twinsies!!!!

[Lord Jim]

So wes, no answer to my question...

[wesw]

no jim, no answer.

had you questioned me or commented on campus free speech, I, perhaps (almost certainly), would have answered or commented.

if you turn every topic into a tirade I see no point in participating.

I hope I didn t hurt your feelings...., I don t want to get suspended from campus.....

[wesw]

AG sessions had some interesting remarks about free speech, a shame it wasn t covered......

[Big RR]

If you thought those comments were that good, it would have been far more informative to quote or otherwise provide them, than to use the opportunity to complain about the press.

And FWIW, a quick google search "Sessions and free speech" returns a broad range of coverage, from the Times (NY and LA), to the Washington Post, to PBS, to a host of other MSM outlets reporting on it. How much more coverage would you have wanted?

[Guinevere]

Exactly BigRR. Pretty much in line with my prior comments, wesw. Got anything more than regurgitated talking points?

[Big RR]

What can I say Guin? Great minds think alike.