Whitmer extends stay at home order under May 28th
How's everyone feeling about this?
I don't know why this is getting negs. Maybe I am misinterpreting it.
But it seems to me that you are correct: It was for the shock value. And it worked. It made headlines everywhere.
Edit: Well, my comment appears to have turned the tide on your upvotes. You're welcome.
Because the butt hurt folks can't own up to the truth.
Is shock value always effective? I’d argue that the protesters are ultimately hurting their cause by alienating moderates who might be more inclined to agree with some of their general concerns, but are turned off by the armed rebellion nature of their tactics.
I think this tends to happen on the far right as well as the far lwft.
I'm not arguing anything. The guy asked why they did it, and I answered. They did it to get under people's skin and, judging by the rancor of the comments on here, it worked.
So more to get under peoples skin then to effectively sway public sentiment?
That's my read on it. It's a big fuck you to the generally liberal people who tend to support this sort of thing. Again, just look at the comments on here. People are acting like these guys took a shit in their living room, when in reality what they did has nearly zero impact on their lives.
Trolling the libs isn't a governing strategy nor should it guide your politics. Your personal politics should be driven by a set of core values you believe in. SHowing up to a protest strapped with weapons of war just to piss off the opposing side seems wrong and dangerous.
By bringing these weapons, these dudes heightened an already tense situation and made the equation significantly more dangerous. I'm safe in my living room but I don't want to potentially see needless bloodshed in a major state capital.
People are really fucking stupid. What’s new?
Their core values are precisely why these guys are rifled up - they embody the 2nd amendment. Do not fuck with our rights/freedom, or we'll militia your ass.
Violent threats in the service of achieving political goals? I'm pretty sure that's called terrorism, mastodon.
Enough of an impact to have u post 20 times.
To own the libs, duh!
Absolutely in fact this is pretty much the modern state of politics for the moderate. It’s no longer which guy/gal seems more like able, level headed, non ideological, less likely to be psychopath. Now it’s which group of crazies more annoyingly bothers me
All it takes is one wacko with a gun to pull a trigger.
There's a reason people were upset with it.
I'm thankful nothing happened, but there's no damn legitimate reason to bring a gun in that situation.
And no, I don't think trolling to make them "butt hurt" is a good reason.
Shock value: yes.
Counter-productive: also a yes.
Trump won Michigan by less than 11,000 votes. With his support cratering in Florida, it's already very hard to perceive any path to an electoral college win. As my rich aunt, a connected Republican, volunteered in discussion last week. Getting your ZZ Top beard caught in the barbed wire while you scream at the nice policemans is not a way to put Michigan back in the red column.
If they can keep Biden breathing until November, Stacey Abrams is our new president. (Joking. A little.)
I disagree... its pure intimidation. Although they are the minority, they have the guns so they think that there opinion and anger matters more than everyone else. Otherwise, they would be peacefully protesting and clearly articulating their arguments... and there are valid arguments to make
It certainly was for shock value, but I don't think it's fair to describe people as being "butt hurt" over an armed crowd forcing its way into the Capitol, like it's some trivial thing. Legislative officials in a democracy should not have to look over their shoulder to see gunmen in their chamber. I think most reasonable people can agree about that.
That was a disturbing image and really not beneficial to their cause in the public eye.
Those poor put upon people who pass the laws that we all have to follow. If it's such a problem they could put forth a bill to outlaw open carry on capitol grounds. Frankly, it's odd that there isn't already one - which speaks to how backwards the state of Michigan really is.
Most state legislators in the country make like $27k/year for their legislative work . And most of them have full time jobs and don't make that much. They're not super wealthy. Public officials shouldn't be intimidated.
One thing to keep in mind, these were law abiding individuals. They didn't trash the place, break windows, light fires to cars or trash cans or do anything else other than to exercising their 1st and 2nd amendment. Believe it or not, there are a lot more law abiding gun owners than those who illegally flout the gun laws.
To answer your question about why they brought their guns could be to deter the police from trying to arrest them in the Capital building for no reason.
Fine - i'll bite because why the hell not. If a group of people kneeling for the national anthem is "disrespecting the flag" how is a group of people entering a government building, making demands, while armed, not "treason"?
I'll go you one further.
Trump's "liberate" tweets were sedition, plain and simple.
Vlad: I thought you were for Trump.
I'm Team Chaos, always and forever.
Puttie is smart enough to know an idiot he can play!
Uhhhhh, disrespecting the flag and treason are two completely different things. Disrespecting the flag is not a treasonous act and nor is open carrying in a government building. what exactly are you trying to argue here?
My point is the hypocrisy is laughable. These were the same group of people who said that kneeling aka peaceful protest was disrespecting the flag. So you say that this is disrespecting the flag, and i'll say that yesterdays actions were treasonous. Neither of us right, but that doesn't matter, what does matter is double standard of these "law abiding citizens" could not be more evident than with the actions yesterday.
Now that being said, is Michigan's stay at home shodily implemented compared to that of NY? Probably; but storming a capital building with guns is not the right
Yeah man, you're not finding any hypocrisy here, sorry.
You seem to be appalled that they brought guns to the capitol. I'm curious, were you appalled that Kap knelt for the anthem? If not, are you calling yourself a hypocrite?
TBH - I find them both to be within their rights. Is one a bit more extreme than the other? Sure.
But in the venn diagram of the world I am sure that these are the same people who were against the kneeling, despite it being within constitutional rights.
You know, I didn't think responding was necessary because this looked like a concession but based on how my plusses were negged off the map, I guess I need to actually take the time to spell this out for people. So, BGoBlue, this is not necessarily directed at you, but some others who are having trouble with this.
Person with gun at capitol building back when Kap was kneeling in protest: "That's disrespectful! I don't like it! Despite his constitutional right to do so, I am very opposed to this method of expression and (possibly) I also don't like his message!"
Also person with gun at capitol building yesterday: "I don't like your stay at home order! I am protesting and legally carrying my weapon into the capitol building! Just like Kap, I have a constitutional and a state right to do this! I am also in no way being disrespectful of the flag or the anthem, or the country! And this is totally unrelated to the thing Kap was protesting about!"
Not hypocritical, just different reasons for protesting. Here's something that would be hypocritical:
"Kap kneeling distracted from his message and therefore it was a stupid form of protest."
"Bringing guns to the capitol was totally reasonable and did not distract from our message."
That would be hypocritical. But I don't think that's their position. I think their position is that one is immoral and one is not. It is possible to be consistent while holding those views, just as it is possible to be consistent while holding the exact opposite view (i.e., kneeling is cool but bringing guns to the protest was batshit crazy).
Your arguments are valid. But you seem to miss the fact that these men are clearly making others feel unsafe when they express their rights. That is not the same by any means as kneeling (unarmed and with no ill intent) in a public arena.
Thanks for acknowledging my valid point. My only issue in this particular portion of the thread has been, essentially, about the definition of "hypocrisy." Perhaps that was being too narrow on my part but the dude kept doubling down on it being hypocritical.
But you seem to miss the fact that these men are clearly making others feel unsafe when they express their rights.
I'm not missing that, it just wasn't actually relevant to the point I thought he was making or that I was responding to.
fair enough.
When people fear government there is tyranny. When government fears people there is liberty
Not for nothing, but yesterday proves Kaep's point. The law is applied unevenly in this country. If you don't think so, consider the response had everyone at the Capitol yesterday been not white.
For sure. They might have gone Kent State and that would have been BAD.
The state is 78% White. For the same number of people to be there, all of them not-white would imply they represent a far more niche argument than simply, "you've taken the covid response too far".
I also disagree, if you put the same number of people behaving in EXACTLY the same way - you'd get a nearly identical result (there are people who react differently depending on race, but not everybody, so I put the nearly qualifier). Do you think an Antifa or BLM protest bearing arms would've left the capital undamaged - whether or not they were actually provoked?
Lol so any protest that is comprised mostly of white people represents the will of the people? By the same token, the fact that 22% of the participants were not non-white, shows that the argument is in fact niche. Because in order to be representative, there should have been a representative sample of all races.
Niche - adjective - denoting or relating to products, services, or interests that appeal to a small, specialized section of the population.
Niche doesn't mean representative, these are not synonyms. And representative doesn't mean exactly perfect demographic match for the population, just generalized. I don't know who all was at the capital, but I'm comfortable thinking it wasn't 100% white. One would hope you completed middle school successfully, I'm certain your 6th grade English teacher should have taught you the fundamentals of word definition. Maybe you should consider trying again.
The protests aren't about the "will of the people" that's a made up term by tiny-brained folk. They want Gov. Whitmer to listen, which she's not.
The point of the lockdown originally was to, "flatten the curve" that's been accomplished, objectively and without question. Once accomplished, further expanding the lockdown only serves to hurt us, that is basic logic. No, I'm not suggesting opening the doors wide and going back to 100% normal, but the lockdown hurts us, that's not arguable except by people who are willing to listen to people who lie to them. We MUST open back up, _in phases_, but those need to be very regular, to get us back to 100% no later than July 1 (or within reason, listen to the doctors, and keep the most vulnerable protected). Keeping 20-somethings with normal not-work-from-home jobs at home at this point is (unless they're living with vulnerable housemates) is nothing but a reprehensible power play and causes people harm.
Everything beyond that is you lying to protect your own tiny view of the universe. Why is it that you're so closed-minded?
So I agree with everything you said; except when everyone was shouting at Kap no one acknowledge that it was his constitutional right; the focus was how un-American he was, thats why I feel as though there is hypocrisy.
For some reason people In this thread completely missed your point.
The hypocrisy is this:
These people claiming they have the right to protest at the capital because of free speech, were not out there vehemently defending Kaeps right to protest and his free speech. In all likelihood they were the same people attempting to deny him his right to protest.
If you truly believe in the bill of rights you should have been standing up for everyones freedom of speech. Not just what you want to say, or speech you agree with. That’s the hypocrisy.
Before saying “we didn’t deny him his right to protest”, people made such a big deal out of it that he lost his job and livelihood.
If you were not a closed-minded bigot you would know that very few people denied his right to protest. They were denying the VALIDITY of his protest.
And they were arguing he was protesting in the wrong place and time, too. Because a football game is not the place to make that particular case. And it was wrong of the media to give his protest air time.
Why is a football game not the place? That’s his platform. Why is it wrong to give him air time? He has a right to his opinions. I’m the close minded bigot? You’re the one trying to say what he can say and when he can say it.
If you’re truly a free speech advocate then you can’t criticize him for his actions. Otherwise you’re being a hypocrite. Its quite simple really.
edit: on second read the irony in your post is incredible. “We didn’t deny him his right to protest! He just has to protest when and where we say! And somewhere that I don’t have to see it!”
- Why is it wrong to give him air time - Because people watching football are paying (through advertising) to watch football, not deal with politics.
- Why is a football game not the place - because it's a football game, not a political discussion.
- He has a right to his opinions - no one ever denied that, full stop. Others have a right to prove his opinions have no validity, and others also have a right to the opinion he's shouting his opinions at the wrong place and time. If I go to a funeral and start talking about how OSU sucks, it would ENTIRELY appropriate for someone - even if they agree with me entirely (because who doesn't) - to tell me that discussion should happen at a different time and location.
You don't understand the term hypocrisy, please try harder.
You also don't understand the term irony. It is _unfortunate_ that you seem to have gotten through at least high school English without knowing how to look up words you don't understand. It would be _ironic_ if you told me you're an English major.
Wow, dude. This is not true. A huge number of people boycotted the NFL and demanded the league require him to stand. They absolutely wanted him to be denied his right to protest.
But keep your head in the sand hiding behind that argument.
This is for everyone who is incorrectly stuck on calling this an example of hypocrisy:
They were not opposed to his right to protest (which, incidentally he was not denied, he was not arrested and jailed by the government).
What they opposed was his method and his probably his message. They did not say “protesting is bad.”
Had he brought a gun to an Obama campaign stop and said “Get your government hands off my medicare” they probably would have bought his jersey.
Everyone agrees that everyone has a right to protest. Everyone also agrees (I think) that there can be consequences associated with it.
Ever heard of a counter protest? Are all counter protesters hypocrites?
People oppose the means and method of a protest all the time without saying the government should arrest them.
I can only speak for me. I never had a problem with kap kneeling. Just that his message is hypocritical bs considering he was abandoned by his black parent and raised by white adopted parents and somehow still became a millionaire in such a “racist” country. He’s just a dummy
If this group of protestors were African-American or Muslim and carried ARs even approached that building they would have been shot, arrested, and thrown in jail. It's completely insane to think that these peoples civil liberties are being violated during a pandemic such as this.
This is not 1770 in Boston. This is not fascist Italy in the late 1930's. This is people complaining about not being able to get a hair cut, when most don't have hair, and feeling they can come out and play solider while screaming in police officers face because Trump said "liberate" while being too stupid to realize that the whole "liberate" tweet goes against what their brave commander put out for opening up.
Completely ignorant. It’s people who don’t think their businesses and livelihoods should be taken away by edict.
It's a disease. Do you really believe the government wants businesses to be shut down and people lose their jobs?