It also didn’t make it on any of the news reports I saw.
I wasn’t attempting to paint a clear and irrefutable picture. More of a generally accurate one with an acknowledgement that it is not universally true.
I don’t methinks protest overmuch…
And I don’t argue that there is attention being paid, it’s just that as far as I can see the attention is on the horror of his actions rather than on their purpose. I’ve asked several people what exactly he did it for and few even knew it was a protest or that he did it in front of the Israeli embassy. They knew it happened and had various opinions about how terrible it was but none even mentioned the why of it.
Your points are valid…but there is a difference in fighting against tyranny even when the end result may very well be death but which may also lead to victory or at least positive change, and taking a single act which will inevitably lead to death without there being any chance it will directly affect the object of your protest. One man setting himself on fire, particularly in a country as apathetic as ours, is tragic but will be unlikely to sway anyone’s viewpoint especially those with the power to make change. If Ghandi had simply set himself on fire he would have been a brief moment in history. By engaging in continuing and continuous struggle he was able to, gradually, build the momentum which led to his ultimate goal. Arguments for or against aside my original question stands. What positive result could he conceivably have thought might occur that warranted such a painful and horrible death? It may be impossible to know since as far as I have heard beyond it being “a protest” he left no other indication as to why he was doing it or what he hoped to achieve.
As much as it revolts me I think a lot of magat women are looking forward to it. Why else would they support republicons?
The fact that the subject of discussion is how LITTLE attention was paid to his actual protest vs his horrific act pretty much proves my point.
My daddy always said “You can’t hate something unless you’re afraid of it first.”
From what I hear odious is exactly what he is.
Sleazy? Yes. As pathetic? I don’t think so.
In any other candidate I totally agree but with trump he is just as likely, if not more so, to throw gasoline on that dumpster. He does have no scruples and will do what serves him in the moment but he also often makes his choices driven by ego, or spite, or whim. I’m not saying he WON’T pick her and as I said I think she would be his best choice. I just read trump as too juvenile and prone to grudges to pick her. Hopefully I’m right because that could literally be the difference between him winning and losing.