Sponsored Links

[Eeyore]

A story about a Michigan state official receiving death threats turned into an accusation of her inciting violence against her accusers after she posted an impassioned facebook post.

Michigan lawmakers, groups condemn Republican leaders for punishing state rep. over Facebook video

So the question(s) for debate here is:

How do you read this incident?
Is it two wrongs don't make a right?
A double dose of anti-democratic, racially suspect injustice?
Or a left leaning official willfully crossing a line and shedding crocodile tears for being caught?
Or....the more likely option 4, your different opinion.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

How do you read this incident?
I read it as a state legislator threatening a group of people.

Is it two wrongs don't make a right?
That's not how I read it. For a legislator to threaten the public, it's isn't just "wrong", it is irresponsible. Especially in a climate where cities have been burned, looted, mass violence has taken place and people have been targeted already.
Imagine the exact same statement for any other group of people.
Several legislators publicly backed the "Trump accountability project" which listed names of Trump contributors in handy alphabetical order, urging people to target them with violence/take away their employment and so forth.

[Eeyore]

How do you read this incident?
I read it as a state legislator threatening a group of people.

Is it two wrongs don't make a right?
That's not how I read it. For a legislator to threaten the public, it's isn't just "wrong", it is irresponsible. Especially in a climate where cities have been burned, looted, mass violence has taken place and people have been targeted already.
Imagine the exact same statement for any other group of people.
Several legislators publicly backed the "Trump accountability project" which listed names of Trump contributors in handy alphabetical order, urging people to target them with violence/take away their employment and so forth.

“My soldiers, they are soldiers for Christ, soldiers against racism, soldiers against domestic violence, soldiers against domestic terrorism,” Johnson said.

There are two versions of the video online. In the longer video, she emphasized that she wanted those threatening and other elected officials to exposed and impacted economically and be exposed.

. From the linked article.

I am sympathetic to officials trying to manage the election as a public service and receiving threats. Hopefully due response is being taken by law enforcement and threats are being reported with evidence.

I could see these officials reaching a breaking point. Here is story in regards to this: Threats to Election Officials Piled Up as President Trump Refused to Concede

From the evidence offered so far, I see little action in defense of electoral officials and an immediate assumption of a call to violence by this legislator.

As for TAP, I think the general idea is legitimate politics. Make sure you have a documented record of individuals that have done things in their public life that you think voters will think unfavorably about. I don't mind having public records highlighted. I think donating to causes should be part of the public record. Now, if they are publishing information that is illegal to publish that is one thing. This is a call for voting and spending your conscience. Both acts to me seem legitimate and democratic.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

I could see these officials reaching a breaking point. Here is story in regards to this: Threats to Election Officials Piled Up as President Trump Refused to Concede

From the evidence offered so far, I see little action in defense of electoral officials and an immediate assumption of a call to violence by this legislator.

The legislator mentioned (in the longer video) FBI action taken against a person for those threats.
I too have a lot of sympathy for public servants receiving threats. Fortunately, the FBI is involved.
In related news, a close friend of mine kept in touch with a paramour from years back. She is a lawyer who is (or was) working on the Pennsylvania case. Not a famous person, there are about 100 lawyers who were working on it, but the New York Times doxxed her.
After that she received numerous death threats on her personal cell.
She had to get 24/7 police surveillance and was terrified. She was going to move in with her (grown) son and his family, but the police told her that would be a bad idea because his family would then be targeted also (he has a couple of very young children).
He (my friend) got a hotel room under his name so should could live there in safety.
Haven't heard from him in a couple of weeks and I haven't asked.
Death threats are coming from both sides.

As for TAP, I think the general idea is legitimate politics. Make sure you have a documented record of individuals that have done things in their public life that you think voters will think unfavorably about. I don't mind having public records highlighted. I think donating to causes should be part of the public record. Now, if they are publishing information that is illegal to publish that is one thing. This is a call for voting and spending your conscience. Both acts to me seem legitimate and democratic.

Donations are public information. What the TAP did was place the names in alphabetical order in a convenient location, and urge persons to target "offenders" who support Trump.
So, for example, my mother in law who is in her 70s and once wrote a check to the Trump campaign should be targeted. She also just donated 1500 meals for people in the local community.

[Eeyore]

Mrs. Pigpen I am looking but I don't see it as going after small donors.

The Trump Accountability Project (TAP) is a resource on the Trump administration which catalogues the anti-LGBTQ statements and actions of President Donald Trump and those in his circle. The Trump Accountability Project also includes other harmful rhetoric, discriminatory actions, and exclusionary worldviews of the Trump administration. GLAAD publishes TAP to equip journalists, as well as LGBTQ people and allies, to hold the Trump administration accountable for their words and actions. Our individual TAP profiles also serve as a reminder that many in the administration have blatantly pledged to dismantle the legal protections that LGBTQ people, as well as other communities, have achieved over the past several years.

link


This link has a list but it is not directly aimed at donors, and the front pages of the site don't seem to use the rhetoric of getting or going after. They seem to want to hold people accountable for public actions that undermine protections of LGBTQ people. Seems like a normal thing for an interest group to do.

I see backlash articles calling it a blacklist. This one sources most of them. It is getting associated with AOC, and it does look like a progressive oriented interest group.

It seems to have been shut down to push toward Biden's call to unity. And perhaps mine is another organization altogether with different language.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

Mrs. Pigpen I am looking but I don't see it as going after small donors.

The TAP is no longer public access. I assure you when the site was up they listed all donors. Believe me or not. I didn't take a screen shot of it.
They took the site down (publicly) due to backlash. Kind of hard to claim one is being "unifying" while the thing was up.
There is now much "window dressing" (as you mention, above).
Which is ironic as AOC calls for "accountability" asking for a list, then claims Trump supporters will delete their old posts....as she deletes her old posts.

Edited to add:
Jennifer Rubin, a journalist for the WaPo, references a list here.
It's a different list, but the same principle.
"Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into "polite" society. We have a list."

This was November 6th.
In my world, there is a great deal of difference questioning election results while they are still counting ballots on November 6th, than say December 6th.
Think Hillary conceded on the 8th. Al Gore on the 13th of December.

Edited to add: I'm not going to tell anyone what they should think, but I do not believe that when this forum started most folks would think keeping lists of "wrongthinkers" to "hold them accountable" would be taken cavalierly.
For some perspective (since GLAAD was mentioned), when this forum started there was much debate about homosexual marriage (which Obama was against, at first).
Now even the likes of Martina Navratilova (a homosexual, whose coach incidentally was transgender) are accused of wrong think.
When you study the history, things like loyalty oaths never happen all at once. They happen gradually with things like blacklists.

And by the way, I have donated to organizations like the San Francisco Aids Foundation. Imagine if Conservative legislators said they had a list to hold people accountable for donating to organizations like that. I would have donated triple. And been horrified at the precedent they were setting. I am very disturbed by blacklists supported by journalists who now obviously make have dispensed with all pretense of objectivity, and legislators who make statements like this one.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 15 2020, 04:18 PM

[droop224]

It's a different list, but the same principle.
"Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into "polite" society. We have a list."

This was November 6th.
In my world, there is a great deal of difference questioning election results while they are still counting ballots on November 6th, than say December 6th.
Think Hillary conceded on the 8th. Al Gore on the 13th of December.

Yes, but in your world does context matter? What were they fighting for? Agreed, Trump was under no obligation to concede two days later or three weeks later. But the issue was not with Trump conceding. Trump attacked democracy.

First, he demands that all States where he is ahead STOP counting votes, while wanting for battleground States to continue to vote in hopes he could pull ahead.

It doesn't take 4 weeks before we say we can't have people in power that will go along with this.

But second he uses the influence and power to try to get people to not certify elections and he succeeded with some individual to an extent. But the institutions of our democracy withheld.

Thirdly he uses his power and influence to shame politicians so that they will vote against the will of their people in favor of him.

President Trump used his power and influence to subvert the will of the people, to undermine our election and yes a list of powerful people that supported him in doing so, should be kept.


That being said. The threat being made by the Michigan Legislator was empty, but it was wrong. She should not call out all of any group of Americans and pose even an empty threat. I couldn't care less about her. She needs to be held accountable for not being responsible for the little power she had.