"When they go low, we kick them"

  1. - Eric Holder

    is this really how we want to be perceived?
  2. Visit NCPcrab profile page

    About NCPcrab

    Joined: Oct '18; Posts: 2

    47 Comments

  3. by   elkpark
    Welcome to allnurses. Interesting first post, nothing about nursing. What brought you here? Who is "we," and what are your thoughts about the statement?
    Last edit by elkpark on Oct 11
  4. by   nursej22
    The current resident of the White House has called for violence multiple times. And the main reaction from his supporters is ho hum. But let a democrat who just happens to be a person of color hint that progressives should stop being so passive, well, OMG, get the rope!

    FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies?
  5. by   herring_RN
    I looked up the quote and posted from an article because others may not know the origin of the posted title of this thread

    I disagree with the former AG. I do NOT think emulating the crude hateful dishonest communication style of President Trump.
    'When they go low, we kick them': How Michelle Obama's maxim morphed to fit angry and divided times
    ... The advice originated not as a blueprint for the midterm elections but as a moral lesson for her daughters.

    As Malia and Sasha Obama were ushered into the center of Washington discord, their mother urged them to ignore the angry voices at odds with the "true spirit of the country" and unworthy of a response. "No, our motto is, 'When they go low, we go high,' " Michelle Obama...

    ... The debate was touched off this week by Eric Holder, a former attorney general in President Barack Obama's White House...
    ... He said a more antagonistic spirit is "what this new Democratic Party is about," adding, "We are proud as hell to be Democrats. We are willing to fight for the ideals of the Democratic Party.
    I don't mean we do anything inappropriate, we don't do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight."
    A combative strategy, he said, would honor the legacy of civil rights leaders such as Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Martin Luther King Jr....

    ... The president was more blunt. "I think it's a disgrace," he said of Holder's comments late Wednesday when he phoned in to "Fox News @ Night." Trump, during a 2016 campaign rally, urged his supporters to "knock the crap out of" protesters.
    'When they go low, we kick them': How Michelle Obama's maxim morphed to fit angry and divided times - The Washington Post
  6. by   macawake
    Quote from NCPcrab
    "When they go low, we kick them"

    - Eric Holder

    is this really how we want to be perceived?
    Less than four weeks remaining to the midterm elections.

    Welcome.

    Who is this "we" you're talking about?

    Aren't you on the Trump side of the equation?

    Personally, if I was an American (I'm not) and somewhat less than enthusiastic about the current President, that is exactly how I'd want to be perceived.

    I haven't heard whatever Eric Holder has said, but I think he's right judging by that quote.

    Bullies only understand one language.

    They consider kindness a weakness to be exploited and they do not value or respect civility. Trying to play nice when the other side deliberately refuses to behave in a decent manner, is in my opinion a losing strategy.

    When you have a Senator whose proudest moment was when he obstructed a lawfully elected President, you know you're dealing with people who lack an ethical compass and who do not respect democracy. Why reward blatant obstructionism by "taking the high road"?


    Quote from herring_RN
    I disagree with the former AG. I do NOT think emulating the crude hateful dishonest communication style of President Trump.

    It reflects well on you that your gut response is to not stoop to his level. I know you have a kind spirit.

    Unfortunately I don't think you can defeat someone who deliberately weaponizes cruelty by abiding by the rules of respectful, civil communication.

    A victim of assault shares with the world that the most painful memory of her assault was that her alleged attackers laughed at her helplessness. A person who after having heard that, uses his position of power to publically mock her and make hundreds of people in the audience, laugh at her all over again is in my opinion beneath contempt. So are the people who laughed.

    One doesn't have to, and shouldn't in my opinion, use the same brand of discourse, but bending over backwards to be civil will likely only result in being walked all over. I do think that those who oppose this new "normal" need to toughen up.
    Last edit by macawake on Oct 11
  7. by   NCPcrab
    I don't think violence is the answer. A better statement would be "when they go low, we go lower". That would exclude violence from the equation and be a more accurate tale of events that Holder is trying to get across. As many of you pointed out, it's a statement that shows that being the nice guy only gets you so far, to quote one person "Trying to play nice when the other side deliberately refuses to behave in a decent manner, is in my opinion a losing strategy."

    So to win, we must go lower than the other side, which would be, in Holder's eyes, to kick them. We cannot go high, or it is a "losing strategy". But advocating for violence is wrong, especially in a leadership role. I don't think Holder should have to resign or anything of that nature, as that would be extreme, but I do think advocating for violence is wrong.
  8. by   herring_RN
    Quote from NCPcrab
    I don't think violence is the answer. A better statement would be "when they go low, we go lower". That would exclude violence from the equation and be a more accurate tale of events that Holder is trying to get across. As many of you pointed out, it's a statement that shows that being the nice guy only gets you so far, to quote one person "Trying to play nice when the other side deliberately refuses to behave in a decent manner, is in my opinion a losing strategy."

    So to win, we must go lower than the other side, which would be, in Holder's eyes, to kick them. We cannot go high, or it is a "losing strategy". But advocating for violence is wrong, especially in a leadership role. I don't think Holder should have to resign or anything of that nature, as that would be extreme, but I do think advocating for violence is wrong.
    Even I know Eric Holder did NOT mean really kick someone.
    Do you REALLY believe he was advocating violence?
    Today's dumbest controversy is the idea that Eric Holder wants Democrats to literally kick conservatives
    "When they go low, we kick them" doesn't mean to actually kick someone

    ... Just from that quote, it should be obvious that Holder wasn't talking about physically kicking anybody, but lest someone misinterpret his comment as a call to violence, he clarified:

    "Now, when I say, you know, 'we kick 'em,' I don't mean we do anything inappropriate. We don't do anything illegal. But we've got to be tough and we've got to fight for the very things that John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young, you know, all those folks gave to us. That stuff can be taken away. That's what they want to do."...
    Today's dumbest controversy is the idea that Eric Holder wants Democrats to literally kick conservatives
    PS: Former AG Holder is a working attorney. What do you not think he should not hace to resign from?
  9. by   herring_RN
    I have been called insulting names and, as a child, had to walk in the gutter so a self described "Proud White Texan" could walk on the sidewalk.
    (My aunt said, "Bless his heart. He don't know no better."

    As a young teen racists threw eggs and tomatoes at our multiracial group of family and friends walking to and from school here in California.
    Age 20 holding a protest sign and singing in front of a real estate sign stating:'"FOR SALE TO WHITE CHRISTIANS ONLY"
    Police ordered us to leave.
    (Just a few months later the Civil Rights Law was signed my President Johnson making that sign we protested illegal.

    In my forties through my sixties I worked for safe nurse staffing. We were yelled at, called "stupid" and told, "Nurses must go to work and do as they are told. A mere nurse has no right to an opinion on how to run a hospital and THAT includes letting your betters make staffing decisions.
    Some of us angered management and were terminated. I was fortunate to keep my job.
    Thousand of us nurses worked for an won ratios in our state. (I help with information and moral support attempting to improve staffing world wide.)
    Global Nurses United | National Nurses United

    In 2009 I attended Healthcare Town Hall meetings held by members of congress. I held an 8.5 X 11 inch paper sign "MEDICARE FOR ALL"
    Verbal abuse was common and at age 65 an angry man with tea bags stapled to his hat spit in my face. I told him that I think HE deserves to have his healthcare needs met.

    Just before that a young man had angrily yelled very close to my face, accidentally getting spit on me, "DO YOU WANT THE POST OFFICE DOING A KIDNEY TRANSPLANT ON YOUR MOTHER?"
    After the cameras left he and I had a good talk. He was tired after being on a bus for eight to protest Obama and his "evil healthcare bill".
    He admitted that medical care paid for by Medicare saved each of his parents lives.
    We ended up hugging.

    How would my being rude to any of those people have helped?
    Would it help for more politicians to call names? To threaten violence? To lie? To obfuscate rather than tell the truth?

    The first amendment allows most speech, including lies, unless under oath.
    I can't order people to be civil.
    But I can say I think a citizen should do his or her best to behave and speak with civility.

    And, I think, violence must only be in defense of self or others.
    The short-term gains from adopting Trumpian tactics are not worth the long-term damage to American government.
    ... What's so great about civility? Citizenship, that's what. The word "civility" derives from the Latin word for citizen. It's not like courtesy, which refers to the manners you use at a royal court...
    ... When it comes to the great majority of Republicans, including many Trump supporters, Democrats would be making an error of major proportions if they adopted the belief that all such people are lacking the intention to make the republic the best it can be...

    ... Historically, winning moderate swing voters has been the key to winning national elections. It's how all presidents since Ronald Reagan won, until Trump. Trump may have upended our expectations and norms. But he probably hasn't inaugurated a new law of politics.
    When the time comes again to win elections the old-fashioned way, the Democrats will want to claim the mantle of civility. Respecting its norms now will keep that possibility alive...
    Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
    Last edit by herring_RN on Oct 12
  10. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from NCPcrab
    I don't think violence is the answer. A better statement would be "when they go low, we go lower". That would exclude violence from the equation and be a more accurate tale of events that Holder is trying to get across. As many of you pointed out, it's a statement that shows that being the nice guy only gets you so far, to quote one person "Trying to play nice when the other side deliberately refuses to behave in a decent manner, is in my opinion a losing strategy."

    So to win, we must go lower than the other side, which would be, in Holder's eyes, to kick them. We cannot go high, or it is a "losing strategy". But advocating for violence is wrong, especially in a leadership role. I don't think Holder should have to resign or anything of that nature, as that would be extreme, but I do think advocating for violence is wrong.
    Clearly this poster is either NOT American, or ill-informed, or both.

    Eric Holder doesn't currently sit in elected office.
  11. by   toomuchbaloney
    I don't smile and talk nicely to idiots who are aggressively stupid.

    We are presuming that current Republican leadership is going to conduct free elections when the evidence suggests that they are comfortable with cheating. Too many of them will trade democracy for the illusion of power.

    Just ask the citizens of Kentucky.
  12. by   macawake
    Quote from NCPcrab
    I don't think violence is the answer.
    Quote from NCPcrab
    But advocating for violence is wrong, especially in a leadership role.
    See, this is why I believe you are a Trump supporter and not "we" in relation to Holder and everyone else who opposes the current President.

    No reasonable person would deduce that Holder actually meant that for example Senator Feinstein should start to kick Senator Grassley in the shins. The kicking obviously isn't a reference to actual physical assault, but rather to forcefully, meaning within the boundaries of the law and democratic tradition, resisting the forces that are attempting to ruin your country.

    I think that this thing about trying to make it sound like Eric Holder was actually advocating physical violence is just another facet of the ongoing effort to try to paint the legitimate protests of U.S. citizens as "mob rule".

    This is in my opinion an orchestrated attempt to try to deligitimize the concerns and objections that many citizens are voicing.

    Attempting to reshape reality by actively promoting the idea that those who oppose the current Presidency are all angry and physically violent crazies, is in my opinion a deliberate strategy. Right here, we're seeing one of the prongs of that campaign.


    I'll give you an example of a situation where playing nice in my opinion was the wrong course of action. I watched the Senate hearing where Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh gave their testimony. I've already mentioned this particular situation in another thread, but since it effectively demonstrates what I mean, I'll go through it again.

    Senator Clobuchar asked Judge Kavanaugh if he'd ever drunk so much that he'd experienced memory loss/blacked out. Instead of answering the question, he turned the question back on her and asked if she'd ever blacked out from alcohol consumption. His tone/demeanor was in my opinion extremely disrespectful and arrogant.

    Senator Clobuchar reacted like a quintessential "nice" person. She appeared taken aback and become flustered and even answered his question. He was allowed to get away with his behavior. He was even rewarded for it and appointed to the Supreme Court.

    Who on earth gets to behave that way on a job intervie.w and still lands the job? The most likely explanation to me is that he knew that he had the majority's permission to blatantly disrespect an elected U.S. Senator. The only other possible explanation would be a profound lack of self-control. Can you guys think of a reason that I've missed? Anyway, I found the whole thing disgraceful.

    As I have experience with hostile and aggressive individuals from a previous career, I'm not as nice as Senator Clobuchar. My instinctive response to his question would have been to firmly put my foot down. I would have informed him that I asked him a question and that I expect him to give an answer and that he had no business trying to question me. His role that day wasn't to question the Senators on the committee and given his experience as a judge I'm convinced he's well aware of proper procedure.

    As far as I saw, nobody came to Senator Clobuchar's defense and no one admonished him for his improper tone. Does anyone here think that a witness in a trial would be allowed to address the presiding judge that way?

    This is a perfect example of when you shouldn't play nice. Accepting behavior that's unacceptable and thinking that means you're taking "the high road", only serves to enable bullies and virtually guarantees that the behavior will continue.

    Quote from NCPcrab
    to quote one person "Trying to play nice when the other side deliberately refuses to behave in a decent manner, is in my opinion a losing strategy."
    I was the person who said that.

    Quote from NCPcrab
    So to win, we must go lower than the other side, which would be, in Holder's eyes, to kick them. We cannot go high, or it is a "losing strategy".
    You are making an incorrect interpretation of what I said. I didn't say and I don't think that they should "go lower". Considering the debased behavior we're seeing from those who currently rule your country, I doubt it's even physically possible to go much lower. They are in my opinion already in the gutter spitting and stomping on your democracy, the rule of law and everything that used to make America great. Like for example standing up for human rights.

    But what's a journaist who's in all likelihood been tortured and murdered worth when there's $$$ to be made? Not a whole lot it would seem. But hey, he wasn't even a citizen, merely a resident......

    Quote from NCPcrab
    A better statement would be "when they go low, we go lower".
    No. A better statement would be "when they go low, we call them out on it and we hold them accountable".

    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    We are presuming that current Republican leadership is going to conduct free elections when the evidence suggests that they are comfortable with cheating. Too many of them will trade democracy for the illusion of power.

    Just ask the citizens of Kentucky.
    Or a citizen of Georgia it would seem. What kind of a sham democracy are you guys running over there? (not you you of course, TMB). How can it be possible to block a voter's registration and prevent him or her from exercising their democratic right? And funny (not funny ha ha) how it affects a disproportionate number of African-Americans.

    In my country you don't have to register to vote. Obstacles aren't deliberately placed in the way of voters. Quite the contrary. Here we try to make voting easier. We just had an election in September. You don't have to register in advance. Every single citizen is eligible to vote and voter turnout was 87.18%.

    To anyone who thinks they can counter using the argument that I'm from a much smaller country. You guys vote in small chunk-size districts. You could have the same voter turnout if that was something your politicians and those in power genuinely wanted and tried to facilitate.

    It really breaks my heart to see what's happening to your country.
    Last edit by macawake on Oct 12
  13. by   nursej22
    Quote from macawake

    Or a citizen of Georgia it would seem. What kind of a sham democracy are you guys running over there? (not you you of course, TMB). How can it be possible to block a voter's registration and prevent him or her from exercising their democratic right? And funny (not funny ha ha) how it affects a disproportionate number of African-Americans.

    In my country you don't have to register to vote. Obstacles aren't deliberately placed in the way of voters. Quite the contrary. Here we try to make voting easier. We just had an election in September. You don't have to register in advance. Every single citizen is eligible to vote and voter turnout was 87.18%.

    It really breaks my heart to see what's happening to your country.
    Kentucky, Georgia, Indiana, Alabama by closing DMV offices in predominately black counties, Kansas, Waller County, Texas. Not to mention the gerrymandering in several states.

    Yes, it breaks my heart too.
  14. by   Tweety
    macawake, do you have to provide any ID to prove citizenship?

    I am of the "when they go low we go high" variety. The putting up of Trump busts for dogs to pee on, the statues of him in the nude, the endless low class memes on social media, the calling him "the orange one", that's going low. I don't participate.

    But when I say I "resist" and "fight back" that really doesn't mean I'm advocating violence does it? I means I resist and fight back. I go to peaceful protests, write letters and I vote to make my voice heard.

Must Read Topics


close