'Live Explosive Device' Targets CNN At Time Warner Center; Others [deskpro2k3 almost got blown up (again)]

[EricHiggin]

Machiavellian said:

EricHiggin said:

Parents raise their children. Those children grow up and consume media and elect Presidents. Neither the President or the media is their parent, plus, they are all legally adults by then anyway. If Trump is more at fault, then those people's parents are even more at fault, and their parents before them. Don't blame the parents though, because it's not their fault that they didn't have a spouse, or time to properly raise their child because they were constantly trying to find work, or working multiple low paying jobs just to pay the bills.

If only there was a President who wanted to create more jobs and raise the wages of those jobs as much as possible, while also reducing taxes.

So if I get this right, If I tell someone to kill your kids and that person kills your kids, only the person who actually committed the act should be punish.  

As to your second paragraph, yeah that would be great.  If only there was a president who was smart enough to understand his position and increase jobs, reduce taxes but doesn't put the country into such debt that it will take decades to recover.  Oh well, as long as the economy is hot all is good huh.

Depends on your beliefs. Some people believe only the person who said it first should be totally guilty, some think the initiator should be more at fault but everyone is guilty to some degree, some think everyone is equally guilty, and some think only the act committer is guilty. I think everything factors into it one way or another. Just because someone 'said it first' doesn't necessarily mean they didn't learn or interpret that from something else that someone said or wrote before. How far back do we go? Just because someone takes action, doesn't mean they were specifically told to, or interpreted the meaning incorrectly.

I'm just saying to try and put complete blame on someone for saying something doesn't seem overly logical. I've been told/taught many things in my life, yet I don't do/follow many of them, since I don't agree and think they aren't useful or productive. Not everyone is like me though. So do we let everyone make up their own minds and hope for the best, or do we lead everyone by strict rules, or do we try and find a balance and just deal with the odd issue from time to time?

Lastly, if your going to put blame on the loud voices that are apparently directly leading to this violence, it needs to apply to all speakers, so not only would someone like Trump be at fault, but so would many Dems, journalists, anchors, actors, etc. Limiting speech is an extremely tricky thing and the enforcement of it is even trickier.

Hiku said:

EricHiggin said:

I look at this from a different angle, but I'm also not saying I think Trump hasn't said anything he shouldn't have, like quite a few others in the political realm recently, and over the last few years. It's the people however that either take the words as meant at face value, or try and read between the lines right up to a conspiracy level of insanity.

Based on the various ways this seems to be viewed by the left and the right, the way I see it, is that apparently the Dems didn't even have to entice anybody to incite harm against their opponents to enable someone to use extreme violence against some Reps, where as the Reps have apparently had to constantly scream and shout and push for years to get someone to incite extreme violence against some Dems.

So which is worse? Followers who have to be heavily persuaded to cause harm to your opponents, or followers who will do so without any influence? A question you could ask, is would the Bernie shooter or MAGA bomber still have followed through if they weren't prompted to by political leaders?

The fact is that both the left and right clearly have their extremist crazies and whether you coax them into doing it or not, there is a good chance they are going to do something stupid at some point in time regardless. Trying to stay ahead of it, and/or putting an end to it as quickly and peacefully as possible, is about all that can be expected otherwise.

Politicians should never incite violence, because then they are directly responsible for violent acts committed by people those words influence. They are however not responsible for a nutjob presuming that something else is intended when it is not.

Other than during wartime correct? What if Trump never said anything close to inciting violence, but many of his well known, non political followers were? Are they off the hook? How much weight would they hold? What about if the followers of those followers who had fairly respectable numbers of followers on their social media platforms, were inciting violence? Do they get a free pass? They aren't all that important, and would be ant's considered to Trump right?

I would have to assume everyone below Trump wouldn't be guilty of anything because if they weren't getting it from Trump, then there wouldn't be anything to worry about since he would be the most influential. This would explain why it seems the lefty groups or individuals rarely get fingers pointed at them, because the Dems weren't really inciting violence until more recently and yet there was violence erupting from the left since Trump was voted in. So why is it that it must be Trump who's at fault?

Trump never gets under my skin or causes me to get upset, but my own PM, JT, a Liberal, who wouldn't dare say anything mean ever, makes my blood boil sometimes. So should we ban 'polite speech' so people like me aren't ever pushed over the edge? What makes people go crazy or get to the point of harmful physical violence can be so many different things that simply pointing to certain words said by someone isn't ever going to solve the problem. Now it may help in certain situations potentially, but why bother trying to help if your going to end up being blamed regardless? If the finger always gets pointed at you, then you might as well do whatever you want anyway, right?