ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
I don’t know about the past 100 years but if we go by recent history it would seem the most violent times we’ve seen is during trump. However, blaming him for the blm riots that were widely supported by dems and almost 0 repubs would be quite the take.
Do u think blm asking not be shot by police for no reason is a solely democrat issue ?
Are u actually against police repression that isn’t call for ?
Or because it’s about black , u agree with any kind of police repression even the unwarranted ones ?
I don’t know about the past 100 years but if we go by recent history it would seem the most violent times we’ve seen is during trump. However, blaming him for the blm riots that were widely supported by dems and almost 0 repubs would be quite the take.
Citation needed on "almost 0 republicans." It's very transparent this renaming the protests to "the BLM riots." They were universally known as the George Floyd protests or protests against police brutality at the time. I know the ones I attended had nothing to do with the BLM organization. It was people that were against police brutality, and it wasn't divided by political party. I live in an extremely conservative area, and there was absolutely no sense that it was mostly left-leaning people at the protests.
Are you opposed to police brutality or do you support it?
Preserve self.
When he posted what he posted, I think he meant what you posted, jjjou
Killing in the name of
Politically motivated riots are political violence.
If your legal attempts don't get you what you want you suck it up. You accept it as the democratic will. and wait till you can legally get what you want.
Or you are a violent, anti democratic leftist and use violence. Which you justify because you are eversive as every leftist is deep inside.
The right waited decades to reverse roe and get actual 2a rights confirmed by scotus without needing
You changed the topic... which is fine, we can talk about riots.
Only people who are in a position to benefit from the suppression, would say what you're saying. If people are being killed or dying because of unjust systems, you change the system by rising up against it, AFTER you've tried all reasonable forms of compromise and justice through the courts.
How do you think America was born?
As far as waiting for decades to protect zygotes and fetuses... you must be forgetting about all the abortion clinic bombings, doctors and nurses that were killed by right-wing abortion extremist.
I don’t know about the past 100 years but if we go by recent history it would seem the most violent times we’ve seen is during trump. However, blaming him for the blm riots that were widely supported by dems and almost 0 repubs would be quite the take.
1) I don't think anyone is saying that.
2) What do the police brutality protests have to do w/ the study I posted? The study is about violent death rates under Republican vs Democratic administrations. How many people were violently killed during those protests in your mind? (Because I don't think we're going to be talking about reality anymore).
The "long hot summer" was 159 violent leftist riots in 1967.
I mean, how the ****ing **** can you not agree with the statement that the vast majority of political violence post WW2 in the USA was clearly, adamantly, based on leftist ideology ?
silly question but do u think ending segregation is really a left thing or just a common basic human right thing that should exist without even questioning it ?
Making it a left thing seem the right was ok to promote segregation and was a valid policy ?
End of segregation should just be a basic centered politic issue imo .
I mean it’s kind of funny calling the people being oppressed violent without condemning the violence and inhumane actions toward them to begin with ?
Yes vs deep far right oppressor’s, violence is the only language they understand sadly ….
I'm not misunderstanding. I think I could be an an objective juror because it's rules based and I can apply the rules fairly... I know Trump won in 2016. I honestly don't think you can because you're moron and think Trump won in 2020. It's just the difference in culture between conservatives and normal people.
It seems like of all the right wingers who are regulars ITF (half a dozen?), there is literally one who is neither dumb as a plank nor batshit insane, and that is Inso0 (and he hates Trump, must be a coincidence). This is really not a ratio that bodes well for modern conservatism.
So, to summarise today's little discussion. Leftist violence is justified. Violence by the right isn't.
Have I got that right?
If you're waiting to get something right, I wouldn't hold your breath. Maybe you could reserve use of the family brain cell for the next time you post here to increase your chances.
So you are ok with political violence and calls for political violence from politicians as long as people don't actually follow through and become violent? Examples of this would be people protesting outside of the SC justices homes (dem politicians supported this), dem politicians encouraging people to physically confront repub politicians and trump telling people to go to the capital on jan 6th.
So the only political violence I mentioned
Protests outside of homes are not violence. Breaking into buildings while chanting about killing people is violence. Very easy to differentiate.
If Trump's followers hadn't actually done anything violent, there would have been no call for any prosecution against Trump for January 6, and the whole speech would have been quickly forgotten. (However, Trump knew his supporters weren't the not-violent protest types).
Confronting people is not violence. The kind of thing that referred to is democrats heckling members of the Trump administration when they were out at a restaurant.
I have still never seen anything showing a democratic politician calling for violence. It has been claimed here over and over, then when asked the kind of thing pointed out is the VP mentioning legal funds for those who were arrested at BLM protests. I don't know if those particular people did commit any violence, and even if they had, offsetting support after the fact is not the same thing as calling for violence.
Not for collectivist riots, anti collectivist won't organize collectivist riots.
And anyway, even under "normal" identification of right and left, again, really rococo, tell me a democratic first world country where since 1946 more political violence came from the right.
USA is like 99% leftwing, only Jan 6 was right-wing. Italy was like 90-10.
Just unions + students violence is more than everything the right ever did in the streets since 194
You don't consider any of the lynchings of black people in the southern US to have been right wing violence? Or the buildings exploded by Timothy McVeigh? If not, you're just choosing your definitions with huge bias.
Actually, I would even count 9/11 as right wing violence, but I understand why some wouldn't.
This union and student violence you have in Europe is extremely rare in the US and not particularly relevant to a discussion about American politics.
Don't you mean they were blowing up abortion clinics, killing physicians and assaulting the pregnant women.
During the study period 1977-88, the National Abortion Federation reported the following violent acts against clinics: 222 clinic invasions, 220 acts of clinic vandalism, 216 bomb threats, 65 death threats, 46 assault and batteries, 20 burglaries, and 2 kidnappings.
Trump's frightening plan to 'ensure a big win'.
The GOP will deploy 100,000 election workers to swing states for 'election integrity'
Republican National Committee and Trump's campaign said they will deploy volunteers and attorneys
to battleground states to observe and report irregularities during voting and the ballot-counting process.
The RNC will also launch litigation efforts "every time election officials are breaking the law,"
“Having the right people to count the ballots is just as important as turning out voters on Election Day,” Trump said
But one has to wonder what Trump means by having the "right people" to count ballots.
https://newrepublic.com/article/180829/c...
There's links to the study in the article. It's pretty straight forward data honestly.
I can't see the data, but assuming a two year lag seems dubious, and the author acknowledges that controlling for other factors blunts the effect.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some effect, but I remain skeptical that it is as large as what you said. Republican and Democrat didn't even mean the same thing 70 years ago that they do now, especially in the Southeast. In today's environment, Eisenhower would be a Democrat, and people like George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and Orval Faubus would be Republicans.
You don't consider any of the lynchings of black people in the southern US to have been right wing violence? Or the buildings exploded by Timothy McVeigh? If not, you're just choosing your definitions with huge bias.
Actually, I would even count 9/11 as right wing violence, but I understand why some wouldn't.
This union and student violence you have in Europe is extremely rare in the US and not particularly relevant to a discussion about Am
I dont' consider every black killing a white political violence, why would i consider white over black racism political violence? some whites killing black people for whatever reason isn't political violence unless they are doing that with the express intend of changing the political landscape (the law, the rule of the land, elected leaders: political outcome). Most KKK violence had that goal, random lynchings didn't. And anyway the vast majority of lynching happened pre ww2.
I do consider blacks rioting against the state to further their political goals leftwing political violence, as the KKK rioting against the state to further its political goals is rightwing political violence, but the KKK ended civil unrest preww2 iirc, while blacks enacted several hundreds very violent political riots in the decades after ww2.
I do consider the Okhlaoma bombing political, but rightwing? the motivations sound anarchists, he even cited Lincoln assassination, the US bombing of foreign countries. He cited it was a response to Waco among other things.
That's out of the left-libertarian book, violence against the state is justified because the state itself is violent against us (and others), that's microbet and pointlesswords value system, certainly not rightwing.
Rightwing is to accept the state has the right and the moral duty to use up to unlimited violence against the enemy of the state. To actually embrace it without shame. That's a very basic rightwing value. If anything the left is the side which tends to limit/deny/restrict that use of force more.
Bombing a federal building because you consider the federal government too violent is literally leftism. Anarchic leftism, not normal leftism. Which is a fairly rare ideological system (ie not many people have it), still nothing to do with being rightwing.
I understand the push in favor of the 2a sounds rightwing but that is fully shared by left-libertarians (Again, check PW in this forum, he has that value system).
I mean if we are at the point that violent anarchism, the original (pre-communist) anti-governmental, anti law-and-order stance which rightwing goverments since the early 19th centuries fought with blood, is rightwing, words have lost all meaning.
Rightwing is "the waco massacre was absolutely fine". We have a warrant, you don't yield, you die.
Violence is political if and only if it's committed by leftists, and leftists are those who commit political violence (with a small number of enumerated exceptions), ergo 90%+ of political violence is committed by leftists and 90%+ of people who commit political violence are leftists. QED.
Mash buttons, win forum debates. Ez game.
Violence is political if and only if it's committed by leftists, with a small number of enumerated exceptions, ergo 90%+ of political violence is committed by leftists and 90%+ of people who commit political violence are leftists. QED.
Mash buttons, win forum debates. Ez game.
No, the KKK is a very normal example of rightwing political violence. Jan 6 as well.
In other countries, like the indonesia i cited, armed miltia genociding the communists is actual rightwing political violence.
It's simply a fact that post ww2 rightwing political violence has basically disappeared in western countries, and leftwing political violence has increased a lot.
An example of political violence that didn't happen, but could have happened, is rightwing militias defying stay at home orders and starting shootouts with the police trying to enforce those orders.
But that simply didn't happen. We don't have crowds of violent rightwing people willing to do violence to further their political goals almost ever in the USA. We had a bit in Italy (which is why i said 80-20 there), sometimes in some place rightwing crowds actually amassed to counter leftist protests/strikes, trying to start actual street violence with them and so on (a few decades ago).
I don't understand, why is it hard to admit that having 5-10-20k thousands violent people like it happened all the times with leftists (including the violence against WTO meetings, remember Seattle?), is ultra-rare for the right? it simply is, they don't do it.
They do it once in 70 years (jan6) , after 1k+ leftist such cases, and the left starts non-stop claiming the right is the violent side of politics lol.
But that simply didn't happen. We don't have crowds of violent rightwing people willing to do violence to further their political goals almost ever in the USA.
Lol, yep, for sure bro. That must be why you ignored my post quoted below, about all these left wing organisations.
Yes, all these guys are clearly against political violence. I think they usually have "political peace" somewhere in their charters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ne...
Lol, yep, for sure bro. That must be why you ignored my post quoted below, about all these left wing organisations.
Rightwing organizations with violent charters can exist, but which are the actual episodes of political violence? which urban areas did they pillage, which private or government building they set on fire and so on?
I don't understand why you think linking to the EXISTENCE of rightwing groups is proof of rightwing political violence.
What did these neo-nazi groups listed do, in terms of political violence?
quite a pivot
Rightwing organizations with violent charters can exist, but which are the actual episodes of political violence? which urban areas did they pillage, which private or government building they set on fire and so on?
I don't understand why you think linking to the EXISTENCE of rightwing groups is proof of rightwing political violence.
What did these neo-nazi groups listed do, in terms of political violence?
JFC man, you are not this dumb or uninformed, so stop pretending. What violent acts do militia and neo nazi groups commit? Lol.
