Watch MSNBC anchor casually call for drone strikes against US citizens

Recall that way back when, only one Senator voted against the travesty called the USA Patriot Act.

It has long been a junta of domestic enemies of the US Constitution.

 

drones are new technology and used in warfare, are you against the use of drones, should the US military send all their drones to the trash heap?

like it or not, drones are here to stay, other countries will use them as will ours

 

...

 

Finally some clarity. I don't believe, based on what you wrote, that Wallace was suggesting that drone strikes be used to deal with domestic terrorists, but rather that it was something that has been conceived as a possibility.

Given drone strikes within the US would be a political hot potato I'd say it will be far down the list of potential methods to deal with terrorists, domestic or otherwise (actually at the bottom)

 

This is an OPINION Thread.

And, as I pointed out yesterday, the Headline is Mischaracterized RW BS

Oh well, as long as it stays in this section, the tactic of artificially pumping up the view count by deliberately posting an Opinion Thread in the Wrong Section (Current events) seems to have served it's intended purpose.

Although, one would think that in a World in the Midst of a Deadly Pandemic and a Country in the Midst of an Historic Impeachment Trial that there could be something more pressing as a Thread Topic than "Lookie Here! MSNBC!" posted in the Wrong Section.

In others words, to restate the obvious:

The Link in the OP is an absurdly misguided attempt by an Extreme RW "source" (The Post Millennial) to take Wallace's remarks out of context.

The Ridiculously Misguided "Narrative" that is quite often used by Extreme RW Blogs trying to make something out of the nothing.

I call this sort of obvious Bullcrap (a common RW Tactic) the:

"They didn't say those exact words, but this is what they meant" tactic.

^Obviously, the OP Link uses that misguided tactic and is out-of-context misguided Bullcrap.

To say nothing of that fact that the Ludicrous (out-of-context) Mischaracterization represents an OPINION (and doesn't even belong in Current Events).

 

The the OP Headline is Micharacterized BS. Period.
And, Everybody KNOWS That.

Nicolec Wallace Never Said Those Exact Words. Period.

 

That seems strange to me since you claim that you identify with some liberal values before reciting the Trumpster talking points rote.

I suspect that your liberal friends have heard enough of that. And the results of all of it are on display right now.

 

You have always indicated a leaning toward facism with no respect or understanding of democracy or democratic institutions.


Not surprising that you prefer a mob incited by a wannabe strong man surrounded by a wannabe junta.

 

We know it was never important to you.

The only reason anyone read your trashy right wing blog link is because you promoted it.

It was false, which clearly appealed to you, since you keep repeating the core lie. You even reduced yourself to trying to parse it

Nobody bought.

 

Perhaps. But here's the deal. The US has a pretty straight forward legal system. and for whatever reason, folks who host shows on MSNBC seem to want to entirely ignore that system and pine away for the ultimate of tyranny. As was ms Wallace. Suggesting that using drone strikes to go after those she believes deserve it actually demonstrates something pretty dangerous. It suggests that just governments classification of you as a person is sufficient to end your life. This is what the ultimate end point of cancel culture actually is. When the left determine that you don't conform. We saw this in the old Soviet. We see it today in China. If you don't conform, as ms Wallace suggests, the threat of domestic violence justifies the use of government military strikes against you. No charge, just death from above.

MSNBC as represented by ms Wallace isn't attempting to chill or find unity, they are fomenting tyranny at that point. And, to your point, reasonable folks might take your approach and hope this is "far down on the list". But who said the hosts on MSNBC are reasonable??

ANd here's the other things. This meme has been broadcast far and wide on FB Twitter et al, and so far, nothing. These posts remain. That says something about those platforms.

 

And on other threads, you're cheering on an impeachment baed on a speech that NEVER SAID THOSE EXACT WORDS..... So, you can see why folks don't find your position credible...

 

Gosh. Perhaps now you know how more than half of the nation view your cheerleading for the Russia hoax and now the second impeachment. The difference of course, is that ms Wallace, did, in fact, actually say those things. Sorry you sound wounded.

 

"don't find my position credible"?

Because I think that a 2-Month Campaign of Inflammatory Invective by a Sore Loser of a President (who wouldn't accept the Election Results) is NOT EQUIVALENT to a Single Statement by a Netwotk Talking Head?

Good luck with that one.

Everybody SEES that the Headline of this Mischaracterized Opinion Article Twisted Wallace's Words (and Made a Dubious Claim).
And, like I pointed out before about the Mischaracterized Headline:

I call this sort of obvious Bullcrap (a common RW Tactic) the:

"They didn't say those exact words, but this is what they meant" tactic.

Also, there is no "equivalency" (whatsoever) between:

Trump's 2-Month Campaign of Daily Invective BS on Social Media (Which Directly Incited the Deadly Capitol Riot)
And
A SINGLE Statement (by Wallace) which has been twisted (out of context) by Extreme RW Blogs.

No Equivalency (whatsoever).

Give me a Break

They aren't even on the same planet.

At this point, you may want to consider quitting while your behind.

 

I trust the system. I.e professionals will decide who drone strikes whom, not ms Wallace.

 

At no point did Ms Wallace ever what you claim in the headline in your OP. That is false. That has been repeated to you several times now, by virtually everyone else on this thread.

I don’t know anything about “cheerleading” for the “Russia hoax”. The Trump team colluded with Russian intelligence throughout the 2016 campaign. The various players admitted it under questioning and in public testimony. The Mueller Report not only details much of what is known about this activity, but it also documents the Russian “fake news” misinformation campaign that they have been feeding into right wing social media for most of this decade. Roger Stone revealed that he was the cut out between the Russian’s front man, Julian Assange, and the Trump campaign, and coordinated the release of emails that Russian intelligence had stolen. This is collusion. It’s textbook collusion. Even if it is conducted through cut outs.

When the disgraced loser of an election raises a mob and tries to overturn democracy, his fans have no moral ground to stand on.

As his attorney as much as said on the floor of the Senate yesterday.

Your wannabe fuhrer disgraced himself, his “movement”, and his nation. His “deplorables” earned the moniker on Jan 6th.

 

Are you defending right-wing terrorism? Are you bothered that the government might go after right-wing terrorists at the source? Take them out before they strike?

 

LOL... One hopes that didn't take too much of your morning typing.. What it does do is cement just how ridiculously wedded folks, like you, actually are to the lies the love to hang on to. More, when confronted with an MSNBC host who feels so entitled that they can simply dismiss constitutional guarantees because her dander, like yours, is unsatisfied, well that's dangerous. So, ever time you trot these well worn, and baseless lies back out, there should be plenty of folks who will dismiss them as the mindless brainwashing you suffered through. Happy thoughts. Cheers.

It is pretty ironic how the absence of your tormentor still torments you this way. But something indicates to me that you still enjoy it.

 

Gosh. So here you are, suggesting that you support this? It does seem to track with the current narratives of your team.

 

I think that right wing extremism is one of the most horrific things occurring in our country. It is absolutely destructive. Not all drones are capable of offensive strikes. The more common use is in surveillance. Small, quiet, unobtrusive, drones can track targets for miles without being detected. With a little AI, the drones need little supervision and can lock onto a target and gather massive amounts of data. During the attempted insurrection at the Capital, had the cavalry charged in guns a blazing, it would have been a bloodbath. Better to let the miscreants find their way back to their individual lairs, where the authorities can more easily apprehend them without bloodshed. As it is, most were tracked through their cell phones. Many ratted out by family members and co-workers. Drones following around likely terrorists is a good thing, in my book.

 

I'm going to spoil the fun because I did what the headline asked (but clearly didn't expect anyone to do) and actually watched the video. Then I transcribed the parts of the video the article chose not to. This is the full transcript of what she said in the linked video. The parts the article conveniently excluded are in bold;

"And again as I was saying John Hammond, there was a bulletin released by law enforcement earlier this week that (T)here is until the end of April, a persistent threat of domestic extremism, domestic terrorism, carried out in the ideology and around this belief that the election was fraudulent, that the COVID restrictions are unnecessary, all of those pushed ideologies by Donald Trump. But my question for you is around incitement. We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years and under the Obama years, attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, with a drone strike, for the crime of inciting violence, inciting terrorism. Mitch McConnell was in the Senate then, he was in the Senate after 9/11 too. How does Mr McConnell, who understands that the way you root out terrorism is to take on, in the case of Islamic terrorism kill, those who incite it, how does he not vote to convict someone who he said, on the floor of the Senate, incited an insurrection?"

With her actual words, rather than the spin and rhetoric of the article, it seems fairly clear to me that she wasn't calling for more drone strikes in any way what-so-ever. That was an outright lie. She was raising a moral principle that, if someone felt something as extreme of drone strikes was justifiable in those cases of incitement, why wouldn't they accept the idea of a simple criminal (or impeachment) conviction.

Now as it happens, I don't think that is a very good argument anyway, but given that is was asked of someone in the form of a question, it could have been (and for all we know was) challenged. And I guess it could be discussed here too if anyone wanted to. Discussing something she never said would be less than pointless though.

 

Thank you. It's good to know that there still are honest conservatives out there. You are living up to the name HonestJoe. Big boost to your credibility.

 

You’re the one trolling this thread with your own lie.

 

Why wasn’t Trump impeached due to Russian collusion if he was so obviously “guilty” of it? Wasn’t even charged with it actually. Oh that’s right. Because there wasn’t any collusion to change any election and you’re making **** up again. How does that coolaid taste?

 

Thanks for that, but in that context I should point out that I'm not conservative. I don't consider myself specifically conservative or liberal, nor do I support any political party, in the US or here in the UK. I'm a normal person.

 

It is more like the reason the Trump wasn’t impeached for consorting with Russians is because the Republican Party and it’s elected officials tend to be as corrupt as the Trump. That is why there is always so much more criminal activity surrounding Republican presidents.