Republican allegedly threatens to use Russian mob to eliminate opponent

This is what the Republican party is becoming because those on the right with principles remain silent.

You got scammed, @csbrown28. There’s no face, just a phone. And who is William Braddock? “Braddock is a lower-tier candidate”. Translation: a nobody that thinks he’s important and thinks he has a shot at getting elected.

Or it’s a Democrat hoax. Democrats have gotten pretty good at hoaxes. It’s not hard to pull this stuff off because investigative journalists rollover and obey their Democrat masters.

1 Like

When in doubt call it a Dem hoax. Don’t bring any evidence, just believe it.

For my part, Sure it could be a hoax, but I’m going to need a little more than your word on that.

He is a Republican running for Charlie’s seat.

Braddock is 37-years-old and lives in St. Petersburg, Florida, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

He allegedly plans register with the Federal Election Commission to run for the congressional seat as a Republican.

New York Magazine reported that Braddock is a lawyer.

On his social media, he identifies himself as:

“FL-13 Congressional Candidate
Christian
USMC Vet
Patriot
FL Native
Rollins Alumni
Entrepreneur.”

The fact that he has no chance is irrelevant in the context of this conversation.

Has he declared himself to be a candidate yet? He’s not listed on Ballotpedia.

No it’s not. It’s extremely relevant. You’re trying to tar the whole Republican party with one psycho who may or may not file to run for office. (Assuming it’s not a Democrat Hoax.)

Didn’t that conversation remind you of something? I heard conversations like that when I was in junior high school. If he really had access to hit men, why on earth would he tell anyone? He was bragging to make himself look important, just like kids do all over the world.

Read again…

Maybe, but it should be investigated, don’t you think?

Obviously. Did the article say it wasn’t?

Nope, didn’t say, just curious what you think. Interested to see where it goes.

1 Like

K, This was a republican threatening another republican while talking to an operative. That other republican won a primary, then lost the general in 2020.

So this “principles remain silent” thing? Where exactly?

  1. No one knew about it until the phone call was released a few days ago. So… what silence?

  2. There’s is nothing indicating this guy was leading the polls, or was in any advance position among the primary runners for 2022.

  3. The operative he was talking to, is the one who turned him in.

If you’re going to blame the party for a bad not-even 3rd stringer for talking or threatening other members of his own party (and that latter part is illegal, btw), then…

You know what? I don’t even know how to complete that sentence. Parties don’t have “requirements” for who runs, neither Dems, or 3rd parties other than being members, and this guy was not popular in the Republican camp.

If the phone call is real, he’ll go to jail. There’s already restraining orders in force about it.

So what filter has failed here CS? Looks to me this is exactly the result you’d hope for when the person is unhinged.

2 Likes

All I’m going to say here, is:

  1. it’s not the majority of Republicans I’m worried about
  2. His sentiment that something has to be done for “the good of the country” is increasing on the right, which is why the FBI has said that domestic extremism is on the rise and Trump has inflamed extremism on the right.

Now before you remind me about extremism on the left, I don’t deny for one second that it exists and it should be dealt with every bit as harshly as the extremism we see on the right, I have a few things to say to set the record straight.

The far left and the far-right stand at the opposite end of the familiar left-right continuum on many issues of public policy, political philosophy and personal belief. They hold sharply contrasting views on questions of law and order, foreign policy, social welfare, economic equality, racial equality, women’s rights, sexual freedom, patriotism, social conventions, religion, family values, and orientations towards business, labor, and private enterprise.

Nevertheless, while the two camps embrace different programmatic beliefs, both are deeply estranged from certain features of American society and highly critical of what they perceive as the spiritual and moral degeneration of American institutions. Both view American society as dominated by conspiratorial forces that are working to defeat their respective ideological aims.

The degree of their alienation is intensified by the zealous and unyielding manner in which they hold their beliefs. Both camps possess an inflexible psychological and political style characterized by the tendency to view social and political affairs in crude, unambiguous and stereotypical terms. They see political life as a conflict between ‘us’ and ‘them’, a struggle between good and evil played out on a battleground where compromise amounts to capitulation and the goal is total victory. This sentiment has captured our political system and it would seem that the influence of the extremists is increasing.

The man in that tape is a growing problem on the right, people who rationalize immorality and bad behavior to “save America”. This is a sentiment that is increasing on the political right (and even here in this forum), largely thanks to people like Tucker Carson who deceives for money. Now in fairness to Tucker, he deceives for a SHITLOAD of money, but he is still the worst kind of scumbag and a significant number of people on the political right believe his, perhaps not the majority, but enough to hold the rest of the Republican party hostage, such that the Republican party is close to passing a point of no return.

If I were to create any line of distinction between left/ right extremism I would say that left-wing extremism is usually based around ideas like freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism, while the political right fights for ideas like authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism.

Nope, right now I’m noticing the goal post shift.

You started this about silence, and threw on another point about standards.

Except no one besides the operative could have known this happened, and the guy wasn’t popular.

Who is defending him? I don’t see anyone. He levied a threat at a popular republican candidate, so that was pretty much a given.

So the initial premise of this thread, was incorrect.

We can talk about other points you want to make about him, but let’s first see some honesty on the first point.

Be nice if you posted about that once in a while.

To just throw you bone, be much nicer to talk about left-wing politicians stating things
like this during climate discussions.

“You cannot negotiate a climate bill with climate deniers,”

As this will have a much more lasting impact on our politics and standard of living than Braddock.

Nah, I see him be more honest than most anchors:


Love to see the last time MSNBC or CNN did anything equivalent.

1 Like

Most anchors don’t need to hire lawyers to argue that their audience must be pretty stupid to believe the crap Tucker peddles.

1 Like

In a defamation lawsuit? Plenty do, that’s not rare.

Case in point:

It’s the exact same thing. Heightening “opinion” as the angle, not saying it has to be believable, or that evidence has to exist for the claim to stand.

Same here:

In context, it is very hard to separate anything Tucker has done from the pack. His admission of error though, that’s not common. Especially when it’s over something that matters and carries a political cost.

Maddow’s never done this, and she had a pretty big one on her plate.

Martin Bashir had to be coerced pretty heavily just to elicit an apology for Princess Diana, where he was caught doing something dishonest. Has he ever admitted fault for a mistake or error in a claim he made of someone else?

1 Like

It is rare, actually. The Rachael Maddow example you provided clearly showed she was expressing an opinion in that particular context. The lawyers defending Carlson explicitly said that his views can never be taken seriously. That isn’t hair splitting - that’s a huge difference.

But let’s be honest; the only reason we are talking about Tucker Carlson and the only reason he has become relevant again after being eviscerated by a New York comedian is that unlike his predecessor, he doesn’t compulsively masturbate whilst having phone conversations we female co-workers… That’s Tucker’s redeeming feature and to be frank, that isn’t much.

Oh good grief.

The radical left supports authority just fine, as long as it’s theirs. They want to force everyone to accept and even celebrate their ideals, whether it be the new sexual orthodoxy or “climate change” (or have they gone back to calling it "global warming’ this week?). Although there are those in the conservative camp who want authoritarian solutions, traditional conservativism has it that the government which governs least, governs best.

As to rights, I’ll argue that they’re arguing for pseudo rights (new sexual orthodoxy and drug culture to name a couple) at the expense of real rights, and are also attacking genuine rights, like freedom of speech if they don’t agree with it, the right to keep and bear arms.

That latter one I’ve mentioned before. How can anyone have freedom if it depends on government force (not from police, whom the left is trying to defund in a power play, but ultimately, I expect, the American equivalent of the Nazi Brownshirts)? “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” You cannot oppress a people who have the means to fight back.

And decadence is not a healthy form of “progress.”

1 Like

Yup, same thing.

Maddow:

“the court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context,” Bashant wrote. “The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion.”

Carlson:

“Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have
been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect.”

It’s the same Pat. It’s literally making the same appeal, the same invocation of the 1st amendment as a defense for why it cannot be called defamation.

Right down to how both anchors offered disclaimers to signal this was opinion.

Yeah, Maddow gets the same thing there too:

“Plaintiff alleges that MSNBC “caters to and promotes
liberal politics” (id. ¶ 19) and that Ms. Maddow “is a liberal television host” (id. ¶ 30).
Her comment must therefore be examined in the broad context of what Plaintiff itself
characterizes as an opinion-laden, politics-focused discussion on an evening cable
news show. See id. ¶¶ 19, 30. In this context, an “average” viewer would understand
Ms. Maddow’s statements as being colorful commentary on The Daily Beast’s
reporting, Norse, 991 F.2d at 567—not asserting facts regarding the ownership and
financing of OAN or whether it is guilty of treason.”

It says speech which is hyperbole, insinuating crime or black mail, cannot be taken as factual defamation unless certain other actions are also undertaken.

Otherwise, it’s simply opinion, and the viewer (supposedly) knows it. That’s the claim. In both cases.

Is that he admits errors. He’s not the highest water mark I can find, but he’s in the trend.

So I ask again, what other anchors can you point to doing this, especially among opinion-lead segments like his?

I’d argue him admitting fraud could not have switched the election, is just as costly to him as if Maddow had admitted her Russia conspiracies were unfounded. Both had the profile of their shows rise due to these respective narratives.

1 Like

Except they weren’t “unfounded”.

That said, comparing Maddow to Carlson is a joke.

Yes, they both spout opinions, but not all opinions are the same.

Saying something like, “I don’t know if that person is honest”, is an opinion, but saying that a person is a baby killing pedophile" is also an opinion, not the same and that’s what the lawsuits you posted show.

Tucker is more the latter, while Maddow more the former.

They were unfounded, read the politico article. You need to know what she was accusing.

Nope, this is what Maddow said:

“We literally learned today that that outlet the president is promoting shares staff with the Kremlin. . . . In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. The on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

No qualification, no “I don’t know”, she just said it. Sorry CS.

And this accusation would be treason, not just an accusation of honesty.

1 Like

What do you mean by “far-right”?

When the all-hatred-all-the-time agitprop fake news channels say “far-right”, they usually mean racist and “white-supremacist”. This wrongful accusation is itself hatred. I listened to President Trump as often as I could and found that he frequently went out of his way to be very inclusive and celebratory of minority groups.

But the hate-filled media was careful to never cover anything that revealed that. Instead, they gave us a daily drumbeat of how racist he is. For example, he frequently stated the truth that there are criminals crossing the border from Mexico. But the all-hate media always reported that as if he had said all Mexicans are criminals. It should be obvious that that’s a bald-faced lie, but many people fell for it.

In fact white-supremacy traditionally has it’s home in the Democrat party. Conservatives as a rule want everyone to prosper and live free regardless of race. We’re much more likely to judge people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, just as Martin King encouraged us.

So what is “far-right”? Is it now an extreme view to believe that there are only two sexes? And that marriage should only be recognized between a man and a woman? And that it’s more healthy and honorable to work for a living than to receive a government handout? And that it’s wrong for the government to spend more than it takes?

If we disagree with leftists on a topic that touches on science, the all-hate media labels us “anti-science”, regardless of how many studies by scientists support our views. This is another wrongful accusation that is itself hatred. Is just disagreeing with a leftist considered “far-right”?

Have you ever actually listened to Tucker? I’m not a regular listener, but I catch clips frequently on YouTube and I find him to be a breath of practical fresh air. I would characterize him as someone who calls out the abysmal insanity of our times. He only seems sensational because of the sensationally bad behavior that has become commonly accepted.

Was he deceiving us when he showed the symbol of white supremacy that CNN’s Don Lemon displays prominently in his own kitchen? It’s not a big deal, but oh the striking, thick, stinking hypocrisy! Who else but Tucker reveals the truth?

1 Like