BBC Camera Man Attacked at Trump Rally UPDATED.

So what is the consensus here? Was the guy a Democrat in disguise, was he "provoked" or was he in fact a violent Trump supporter that acted out after being riled up by carnival Barker Trump?

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470
originally posted by: narrator

Again, both sides are guilty. A lot of conservatives are going bonkers and seem downright scared about AOC, tons of people have said that Hillary should be in prison (and worse), caricatures of Obama were hanged by nooses off of trees.

Both sides are culpable.

Both culpable. Both capable. Both flawed. The left has just been much much... (worse? Nah, I guess emboldened would be a good or better word) more emboldened for the last 10 years or so.

The right is capable of the same. But the political climate has not led this to occur. The political climate has led the Left to accuse the majority of the Right, time and time again, of being evil nazi racists. See, when you convince these people over here that those people over there are evil hate filled nazis, and you have their Leaders telling them to form a crowd and send the message that Republicans, conservatives, Trump supporters are not welcome anymore Anywhere... they feel emboldened and they act out.

When you tell people that Trump is gonna sell America to the Russians, hes a traitor, a Russian double agent, and hes gonna start WW3, they tend to panic and act a little "looney".

When you tell people they Must resist in order to save America, and have them believing their freedom and way of life are at stake, they start to get scared and when people act out of fear they do some crazy things.

I don't even remember anything about Obama caricatures hung from trees, but I believe you as I believe you have nothing to gain from lying, but, I hope you aren't saying the right treated Obama and Hillary just as bad as the Left has treated Trump...

You're not saying that, are you? Surely you can see Trump is the most hated man to have ever lived. Even in Hitlers time there were a lot less people living on the planet so I think with the ability for information to travel plus the higher global population, Trump is quite possibly the most hated man to have ever lived.

The extremes and consistency are pushed far beyond any levels Obama or Hillary experienced. And it gets worse when you take the calibre of the positions of the people doing some of the most extreme hating. People who are supposed to know better, joking around about killing Trump and harming his family. Not just random nutjobs in Timbuktu. Pillars of community. Celebrities who kids look up to. Politicians in the highest positions in the land. Intelligence officials with access to some of our most guarded, sensitive information, News Anchors across the board. You name it. This attack, still ongoing, this resistance, this hostility, to a President, is unprecedented in American politics. Period.

So, what of the killings/shootings/bombings perpetrated by those on the right? Those pale in comparison to leftists, what, being mean and lying to people?

I'm in no way saying the left is innocent. I just think both sides go about expressing their crazy in very different ways.

As for the Obama effigies, I know you believe me, but I'll leave this here in case you want to research:
abcnews.go.com...
fox4kc.com...
thehill.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Hillary treated as bad...no way. Obama? I could make the argument that he was treated at least as badly. I mean, the guy spent years of his presidency having to listen to people say that he was a (insert racist slur) Kenyan Muslim who wasn't born in America. His family, his children, had to listen all of that as well. One of the most vocal of those people: Trump himself.
Obama bin Laden jokes were everywhere. Trump has been treated poorly, agreed. But making fun of a guy's spray tan is a little different than calling someone every racist slur in the world.
Kathy Griffin cut his head off...Several people hanged Obama from trees and burnt effigies of him.

The parallels are startling. Really paints the picture that Rs and Ds really are just two sides of the exact same coin.

So while I'll agree that what Trump is dealing with is bad, I can't agree that it's worse.

And I definitely disagree that he's the most hated man who has ever lived.

Ok. Well, while I do think you have a somewhat of a decent head on your shoulders and can navigate your way through a debate a heckuva lot better than most of your ilk, I don't see much point in continuing this conversation if we can't even agree on something that, to me, is as obvious as water being wet, that being that Trump has received more hatred, more openly, by more people, in higher positions of authority and responsibility than Obama.

Obama received maybe 10% of the hostility throughout his entire 8 years that Trump has in the last 3. 2 as president and one year of campaigning. I would be willing to debate these numbers, but, not to the extreme you are suggesting.

It would be so easy to prove, but time consuming, and I suspect not worth the time because you seem stuck in your ways. Besides I don't have to prove anything, what I said (about Trump getting More hate, not the specific numbers I gave) is a known and accepted fact to Anyone paying attention.

Even a Leftist would say "Yeah, but its because he deserved it."

Whether or not hes the most hated man ever is certainly debatable, but I would be more confident to say he is in the top 5. What is not debatable, for me, because it says you havent been paying attention or maybe are just too young to remember the Obama years, is that Trump is definitely the most hated US President to ever exist. How you could argue with that, I do not know.

Anyway, it hasnt been wholly unpleasant conversing with you. You seem to have some standards. There seems to be some part of you deep inside that genuinely wants truth. That's what I sensed anyway. *shrug*

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
So what is the consensus here? Was the guy a Democrat in disguise, was he "provoked" or was he in fact a violent Trump supporter that acted out after being riled up by carnival Barker Trump?

A violent madman Trump supporter.

We all are.

The Great Orange One tells us what to do with his tiny hands, and we obey.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Just wait until he activates the MAGA hat army with one single word!

Trump didn't call for this ,unlike the democratic congresswoman who told people to harass people anywhere they were seen in public places like restaurants .

The media was doing there job then, just like most of them are now.

And therein is the "Great Lie" made popular in Nazi Germany

Bold by me for subject

originally posted by: narrator

"It is characteristic of Leftists to.." Direct quote from 3n19m470.

Are they referring to a certain subset of "leftists", or all of them? Sure sounds like all of them to me.

If leftists are different than Democrats, I'll have to have someone explain that to me, as that's a new concept.

Actually--and please correct me, 3n19m470, if I misrepresent you here, but--in this case, they probably are. While "Democrats" and "the left" do often get used interchangeably, if you pay attention it appears that more often than not when someone here on ATS says "leftists" they're referring to the radically far-left, borderline-unhinged fringe element of the left. (Again, if I'm wrong, please correct me 3n19m470.)

a reply to: 3n19m470

Wow. Well said. And certainly something to take to heart.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
So what is the consensus here? Was the guy a Democrat in disguise, was he "provoked" or was he in fact a violent Trump supporter that acted out after being riled up by carnival Barker Trump?

Or...was he a Trump supporter pretending to be a Democrat in disguise? Lol.

a reply to: 3n19m470

You expect people to love him? Hahahaha the man has single handedly insulted half the planet much less country. He is the most polarizing president in my lifetime without a doubt.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: LSU2018

And that changes what ?

I don't know because it was edited. That means it doesn't say what it used to say. I'm just letting you know.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.

I was thinking the same thing. Right wing extremist attacks are Tim McVey, Dylan Roof, and the Charlottesville driver. Somehow those are equal to 2/3rds even though we've had the Orlando night club attack by isis people, San Bernadino attacks claimed by isis, shooting Republicans at baseball practice, multiple church shootings, etc.

These people must have taken the same math courses the poll analysts took.

On their site you need to sign up for access to the database, which I have done... looking forward to seeing how they categorised that Orlando nightclub shooting. I bet it wasn't islamic terrorism.

Here's some snippets, which make interesting reading.

Statistical information contained in the Global Terrorism Database is based on reports from a variety of open media sources. Information is not added to the GTD unless and until we have determined the sources are credible. Users should not infer any additional actions or results beyond what is presented in a GTD entry and specifically, users should not infer an individual associated with a particular incident was tried and convicted of terrorism or any other criminal offense. If new documentation about an event becomes available, an entry may be modified, as necessary and appropriate.

I wonder how they determine a credible news site... probably snopes, lol.

Current Data Collection Methodology (2012-present)
In order to maximize the efficiency, accuracy, and completeness of GTD collection, the GTD team at START combines automated and manual data collection strategies. The process begins with a universe of over one million media articles on any topic published daily worldwide in order to identify the relatively small subset of articles that describe terrorist attacks. This is accomplished by applying customized keyword filters to the “fire hose” of media articles available through a subscription to the Metabase Application Programming Interface (API) provided by Lexis Nexis. The English-language content from Metabase is supplemented with articles downloaded from the Open Source Enterprise (www.opensource.gov), which includes English-language translations of sources from over 160 countries in over 80 languages. This filter isolates an initial pool of potentially relevant articles, approximately 400,000 per month. These articles are then processed using more sophisticated natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning techniques to further refine the results, remove duplicate articles, and identify articles that are likely to be relevant. The GTD team manually reviews this second subset of articles to identify the unique events that satisfy the GTD inclusion criteria and are subsequently researched and coded according to the specifications of the GTD Codebook. Each month, GTD researchers at START review approximately 16,000 articles and identify attacks to be added to the GTD.

The availability of valid source documents cannot be taken for granted and in fact varies considerably, often over time and by location. Because the validity of the data is critically important, the GTD team recognizes this variation and assesses the quality of the sources. Information from high-quality sources—those that are independent (free of influence from the government, political perpetrators, or corporations), those that routinely report externally verifiable content, and those that are primary rather than secondary—is prioritized over information from poor sources. In order for an event to be recorded in the GTD it must be documented by at least one such high-quality source. Events that are only documented by distinctly biased or unreliable sources are not included in the GTD, however the GTD does include certain information from potentially biased sources, such as perpetrator claims of responsibility or details about the motive of the attack. Note that particular scarcity of highquality sources in certain geographic areas results in conservative documentation of attacks in those areas in the GTD

So their method boils down to - introduce bias by picking the sources they want, then intorduce more bias by human intervention to filter and categorise.

Total horse manure and being spread thickly even being quoted by Congressmen.

Shocker. I don't recall Roof or the Charlottesville driver claiming to be right wing extremists. The media labeled them that way. Yet that completely overlook a known terror group claiming responsibility on the other things.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.

I was thinking the same thing. Right wing extremist attacks are Tim McVey, Dylan Roof, and the Charlottesville driver. Somehow those are equal to 2/3rds even though we've had the Orlando night club attack by isis people, San Bernadino attacks claimed by isis, shooting Republicans at baseball practice, multiple church shootings, etc.

These people must have taken the same math courses the poll analysts took.

Those are the only 3 you can think of? Seriously? You're either being purposely forgetful, or you have a very short memory.

Off the top of my head, yes. But I encourage you to list all terror attacks in the U.S. and let me know whether they're from the right wing or not. Let me know how you got your "2/3rds" number so we can put this argument to rest. I'm genuinely curious.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: narrator

Ok, grammar police. Are you/they acknowledging that there's, at minimum, a 50/50 chance that it's a Trump supporter? If we're going to get into specifics, I want definitive numbers.

Now, what about everything else that was said that you conveniently skipped over?

Bro.

I would put it at 90%+ Trump supporter, but we have zero context to the incident, and can you even call it an incident?

BBC Camera Man Attacked

Can you with a straight face actually say he was attacked?

Hey pal, have you ever been pushed so ferociously hard that you lost a little bit of balance? I couldn't even BEGIN to imagine the horror of it! OMG just the mere thought!

I had a good laugh, thanks.

I'm far more concerned with the dangers state our news media is in than some random nut job pushing a another person.

The former affects my life far more than the other.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Yeah but he had on a MAGA hat and stuffs.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

I'm your huckleberry.

Actually the line is Huckle Bearer...

A huckle bearer is commonly known as the person who carries a casket.

Go back and watch that line again and it actually makes sense now since Doc was talking to Johnny Ringo... Where Huckleberry can mean "I'm your man" and that doesn't make sense with Doc talking to Ringo...

I'm saying this because of your avatar even though you might have truly meant Huckleberry.

Actually it makes sense either way you look at it. Ringo was looking for a gunfight when Doc said that. However, I'm on your side, I think he says huckle bearer, too. But last time I brought that up, I got chastised by several posters on the forum I was on. I figured, well then, I guess I'll just say huckleberry next time to save an argument, lol.

A huckle bearer is commonly known as the person who carries a casket. Huckleberry means I'm the man for the job. Often debated. But in the Tombstone script it says the latter.

a reply to: LSU2018

No point in arguing with someone who can't see both sides. Well, have fun in your fantasy world where Fox is non-bias.