Democrats setting a precedent on doxxing

[scruffy]

It's from the "How Commies Rule" playbook

It's from the "how commies get beaten into a bloody pulp" playbook

It's from the "why we spent trillions of dollars shooting commies on sight" playbook.

 

[scruffy]

The people have every tight to protest no matter what you people think or approve.

Rioting is not protesting, brainless leftard.

You fucking gutless hypocrites throw right wing rioters in jail while you bail your own out

You people are world class hypocrites. And you're also in violation of at least two Constitutional rights

 

[toobfreak]

Doxxing is bipartisan. No side invented it. But hey, it is easier to blame the other side rather than take responsibility and do something about it.

How have you taken responsibility for doxxing and what have you done so far about it?

 

[LeftofLeft]

He didn't endorse anything.

His press Secretary was asked to provide a statement on people protesting outside Justices’ homes. First order, the press secretary should have acknowledged that this could be a Federal offense. I was expecting the press secretary to state that the Administration does not condone protests or gathering outside any home of any justice.

To me, that’s condoning. It’s reminiscent of Candidate Biden not taking a hard stance on riots in the cities until political pulse said it was convenient.

 

[LeftofLeft]

So did yours. He also by my recollection advocated and implied physical violence against those he disagreed with.

Show us where any Republican President condoned or ignored protests against individual Supreme Court Justices?

 

[BS Filter]

I hope the Proud Boys show up at the homes of the Conservative Justices while the cops take a donut break.

 

[Coyote]

His press Secretary was asked to provide a statement on people protesting outside Justices’ homes. First order, the press secretary should have acknowledged that this could be a Federal offense. I was expecting the press secretary to state that the Administration does not condone protests or gathering outside any home of any justice.

To me, that’s condoning. It’s reminiscent of Candidate Biden not taking a hard stance on riots in the cities until political pulse said it was convenient.

I don’t see it. Here is the question and the answer (assuming this is the right briefing?) - it says nothing about the protests in front of the justices homes but about the need for increased security:

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, May 5, 2022 | The White House

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 5:16 P.M. EDT MS. PSAKI: Okay. Hi, everyone. It’s been a bit of an exciting day around here. So, before I get to the briefing, I just want to start by — I’m going to cry. Okay, whew. I want to talk about my friend Karine. You’ve got to…

www.whitehouse.gov

Q Got it. There have been concerns and there’s stepped-up monitoring among law enforcement across the country for potential violence around this draft majority opinion and the ultimate decision by the Supreme Court. The justices have had to see their security stepped up in the last few days.

Just curious what the President would make of that, if he’s aware that that’s had to happen; what the message might be to those who are upset by this and are contemplating the unthinkable.

MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I would say the President — for all those women, men, others who feel outraged, who feel scared, who feel concerned — he hears them, he shares that concern and that horror of what he saw in that draft opinion. It’s not a final opinion. What it has prompted is a redoubled effort across the administration and with Congress to take every step we can to protect women’s healthcare.

What he — his message directly would be to anybody out there who is feeling that frustration, is participating in peaceful protest, is: Ensure it’s peaceful; have your voice heard peacefully. We should not be resorting to violence in any way, shape, or form. That’s certainly what he would be conveying.



I don’t see condoning.

 

[Ropey]

Meanwhile the putridity is just fine with teaching sexuality subjects to kindergarten children.

I hope the Proud Boys show up at the homes of the Conservative Justices while the cops take a donut break.

 

[Mac1958]

And I once again find myself wondering how people can think this kind of thing is a net positive.

Do people like this EVER think about how their actions may only provide MORE fuel for their opponents?

Do people like this EVER seriously consider the net longer term effect of their actions, beyond just demonstrating their anger?

Once again, I just don't get it.

 

[Markle]

Enough already. Biden is right. It's not up to him to weigh in on this. And Pawxsnoos has taken something and blown it out of proportion once again. It makes the hate rise to the top. Cut out the hate speech already. Here is the real points without the making crap up by Pawssnoos.



Is it a states right. Can the states voter make that determination.

I am a big proponent of states rights. And each state should vote in a ballot (free and honest) on many things. It's not up to a bunch of old guys like it is today either at federal or state level.

The only reason that SCCA got involved back then was that the death toll was so great someone had to do something and the States refused to do anything. In many states, I see it going back to the way it was and the voter needs to kick the "Elected" or "Appointed" officials out of office.

Seriously? The President of the United States should NOT weigh in on the far-left doxing and threatening Supreme Court Justices? Granted, Biden would probably screw it up but by staying quiet, President Biden is giving tacic approval! Disgusting!

No, citizens should NOT vote on "many things". Reminder, we have a REPRESENTATIVE government, not a pure democracy.

 

[Markle]

The people have every tight to protest no matter what you people think or approve.

Protest is one thing, threatening, and violence is an entirely different matter. Especially when it comes to our Supreme Court.

 

[eagle1462010]

Since the conservative judges have made the decision to put partisan politics above the good of the nation they must now face the wrath of their intended victims. Where's your usual complaint about activist judges now hack? This decision has the potential to cause so much harm they should never have another minute's peace.

Sounds like your side needs doxxing

 

[BS Filter]

I don’t see it. Here is the question and the answer (assuming this is the right briefing?) - it says nothing about the protests in front of the justices homes but about the need for increased security:

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, May 5, 2022 | The White House

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 5:16 P.M. EDT MS. PSAKI: Okay. Hi, everyone. It’s been a bit of an exciting day around here. So, before I get to the briefing, I just want to start by — I’m going to cry. Okay, whew. I want to talk about my friend Karine. You’ve got to…

www.whitehouse.gov

Q Got it. There have been concerns and there’s stepped-up monitoring among law enforcement across the country for potential violence around this draft majority opinion and the ultimate decision by the Supreme Court. The justices have had to see their security stepped up in the last few days.

Just curious what the President would make of that, if he’s aware that that’s had to happen; what the message might be to those who are upset by this and are contemplating the unthinkable.

MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I would say the President — for all those women, men, others who feel outraged, who feel scared, who feel concerned — he hears them, he shares that concern and that horror of what he saw in that draft opinion. It’s not a final opinion. What it has prompted is a redoubled effort across the administration and with Congress to take every step we can to protect women’s healthcare.

What he — his message directly would be to anybody out there who is feeling that frustration, is participating in peaceful protest, is: Ensure it’s peaceful; have your voice heard peacefully. We should not be resorting to violence in any way, shape, or form. That’s certainly what he would be conveying.



I don’t see condoning.

Sounds pretty much like President Trump on January 6th, yet Trump is guilty of violent insurrection.

 

[whitehall]

"Protest the homes" means trespassing on private property. I'm sure the FBI will be out in force video taping every protest and rounding up offenders. Won't they?

 

[eagle1462010]

"Protest the homes" means trespassing on private property. I'm sure the FBI will be out in force video taping every protest and rounding up offenders. Won't they?

Wrong party. FBI is on break

 

[BS Filter]

"Protest the homes" means trespassing on private property. I'm sure the FBI will be out in force video taping every protest and rounding up offenders. Won't they?

The FBI is about as American as the Department of Education.

 

[Viktor]

From now on, Senators Warren and Schumer will be known as The Thugs.

 

[BULLDOG]

From now on, Senators Warren and Schumer will be known as The Thugs.

Make up your mind. Are you for free speech or not? You are trying to cancel the protesters.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

From now on, Senators Warren and Schumer will be known as The Thugs.

Are any of these protesters openly brandishing firearms?
Or threatening the lives of SC justices?...if not..get lost with this whiny, snowflake BS.

 

[White 6]

From now on, Senators Warren and Schumer will be known as The Thugs.

I thought it was the leaker, that did that.