Left-Wing Political Violence During the Trump Era

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

Let’s examine this more closely, shall we?  I mean, it’s one thing to use a meme to tell half the story.  But me, I like to hear the REST of the story...

 

”I’d like to punch him in the face” - comes from 23 February 2016, when a protester was causing a ruckus, and when the guards tried to remove him, said protester started throwing punches.  Trump called him nasty and said he would like to punch him in the face.

 

“Maybe he should have been roughed up” - comes from 22 November 2015, when a protester at a Trump rally started screaming and shouting.  Other bystanders started pushing the guy to the ground to get him to stop.  In a later interview (I believe it was the next day?) Trump said:

“The man that was — I don’t know, you say “roughed up” — he was so obnoxious and so loud, he was screaming — I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday, 10,000 people, and this guy started screaming by himself. And I don’t know, “rough up” — he should have been, maybe he should have been roughed up. Because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

 

“Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other anymore” - During a March 2016 rally in St. Louis, protesters were causing a stir (notice a trend here?), and Trump called for law enforcement to remove them, which then took place, but rather slowly, apparently.  Trump said:

“You know, part of the problem, and part of the reason it takes so long, is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right? And they’re being politically correct the way they take them out, so it takes a little bit longer. And honestly, protesters, they realize it. They realize that there are no consequences to protesting anymore. There used to be consequences, there are none anymore.”

 

Basically, he was apologizing to his crowd for the disruption and gentle removal of the perps.

 

“I don’t know if I will do the fighting or someone else will do it for me” - 

Trump said this on 11 August 2015, when asked at a press conference in Birch Run, Michigan whether he would ever yield the stage to a protester at one of his events. 

Two days earlier, Black Lives Matter demonstrators came on stage at a Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle, taking over the podium and interrupting the candidate’s stump speech. Sanders reluctantly gave the microphone to the protesters. 

At the press conference in Michigan, a reporter asked Trump “Would you give up your microphone to a protester?”

 

The candidate responded:

“I would never give up my microphone. I thought that was disgusting. That showed such weakness, the way [Sanders] was taken away by two young women — the microphone — they just took the whole place over…That will never happen with me. I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will, but that was a disgrace…”

 

 

“The audience hit back.  That’s what we need a little more of” - Said in response to a protester in Vegas who was acting like a fool, and started swinging at Trump supporters (I think even Ray Charles could see the trend by now).  Trump said:

“He was a guy who was swinging [punches] — very loud, and then started swinging at the audience and you know what, the audience swung back, and I thought it was very, very appropriate. He was swinging, he was hitting people, and the audience hit back. And that’s what we need a little bit more of. “

 

I could go on, but I think most logical-minded human beings can see this meme, while accurate in the words used, completely takes the words out of context to paint Trump in a negative light.  I get it that it makes TDS folks very happy, but when looked at more closely, I think anyone who was being fair can see why he said the things he said.

 

If you’d like to read more, you can find it on snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/ 
Videos are there as well as the quotes.

 

Like the one that Trump actually said “Yeah get him out, try not to hurt him.  If you do, I’ll defend you in court.”

 

This is nothing new, he uses memes, half truths and name calling in all of his opinion pieces, he has no substance, no clear thought just cartoons and mdl catch phrases to "prove" his points 

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

If the MDL/MOB could win the argument with facts., they would not have to use false allegations of sexual assault to try and stop a nomination or incite racism to keep the minority voting block in line

[TBoneTX 43,058]

All that they have is emotion.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

Thats what happens when you only read one type  of media.. it makes it hard to differentiate your  "facts" from conspiracies. 

 

 

[ILikeBread 43]

On 10/29/2018 at 4:08 AM, TBoneTX said:

All that they have is emotion.

Conservatives tore their clothes apart and burnt their shoes when they saw an ad with a certain former football player. 

 

Americans across the board seem fairly emotional. 

 

2 cents from an outsider 

[Póg mo 1,749]

This article covers a lot, which makes it difficult to which parts I should quote. Mods if I have copied and pasted the too much of the article, please by all means cut it down. 

 

"In the real world, since the end of the Vietnam era, the overwhelming majority of serious political violence—not counting vandalism or punches thrown at protests, but violence with lethal intent—has come from the fringes of the right. Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project says that “if you go back to the 1960s, you see all kinds of left-wing terrorism, but since then it’s been exceedingly rare.” She notes that eco- and animal-rights extremists caused extensive property damage in the 1990s, but didn’t target people."

 

 

"But while the extreme right has held a near-monopoly on political violence since the 1980s, conservatives and Republicans are no more likely to say that using force to achieve one’s political goals is justified than are liberals and Democrats. That’s the conclusion of a study conducted by Nathan Kalmoe, a professor of political communication at the University of Louisiana. "

 

"Ideology alone isn’t a significant risk factor for violence. “There’s a much stronger factor of individual personality traits that predispose people to be more aggressive in their everyday lives,” Kalmoe says, “and we see that playing out with people who engage in political violence.” Mass shooters are often found to have had histories of domestic violence, and that was true for James Hodgkinson, the shooter who attacked the congressional baseball practice in Virginia. Kalmoe says, “we often see that violent individuals have a history of violence in their personal lives. People who are abusive, or who have run afoul of the law in other ways, are more likely to endorse violence.”

 

"Part of the answer lies in a clear difference between right and left: For the past 40 years, Republicans, parroting the gun-rights movement, have actively promoted the idea that firearms are a vital bulwark against government tyranny."

"Call it the Minutemen theory of gun rights. While the Second Amendment was framed to protect government-organized militias at a time when we had a very small standing army, the right has promoted the idea that it’s “America’s first freedom,” integral to defending our other rights, since the 1960s."

 

"The belief that democratic government rests on the Second Amendment has become widespread among Americans; one poll found that about two-thirds believe that “their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.” But Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at SUNY Cortland and the author of several books on the politics of guns, says that’s a modern idea. While “there’s a long tradition of some in America feeling deeply mistrustful of our government—and there have been incidents throughout our history where people took up arms against the government—the more specific idea that there’s a right to rebel, or that somehow you can keep the government under control by taking up weapons, found its first serious expression in a law review article published in 1960. And the idea really took hold among a subset of Americans and a subset of gun owners, who argue to this day that this was part of the purpose of the Second Amendment. They talk about the Minutemen and the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence. The idea really took hold in the 1970s and 1980s when the NRA itself began to use this same kind of rhetoric.”

 

"Nathan Kalmoe says that there’s “an important distinction to make between people who have more conventional views, versus people who have much more extreme views.” He thinks that, whether on the left or the right, those who are at least somewhat close to the mainstream “probably have a greater commitment to nonviolent approaches to politics and are socialized into nonviolent norms of how participation is supposed to work.” But on the right those lines have become blurred in recent years—Glenn Beck’s goldbuggery, the ravings of the “alt-right” and the Minutemen theory of gun rights have all become features of the larger conservative landscape, even if they’re not quite mainstream.

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/

[Dashinka 23,239]

17 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

This article covers a lot, which makes it difficult to which parts I should quote. Mods if I have copied and pasted the too much of the article, please by all means cut it down. 

 

"In the real world, since the end of the Vietnam era, the overwhelming majority of serious political violence—not counting vandalism or punches thrown at protests, but violence with lethal intent—has come from the fringes of the right. Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project says that “if you go back to the 1960s, you see all kinds of left-wing terrorism, but since then it’s been exceedingly rare.” She notes that eco- and animal-rights extremists caused extensive property damage in the 1990s, but didn’t target people."

 

 

"But while the extreme right has held a near-monopoly on political violence since the 1980s, conservatives and Republicans are no more likely to say that using force to achieve one’s political goals is justified than are liberals and Democrats. That’s the conclusion of a study conducted by Nathan Kalmoe, a professor of political communication at the University of Louisiana. "

 

"Ideology alone isn’t a significant risk factor for violence. “There’s a much stronger factor of individual personality traits that predispose people to be more aggressive in their everyday lives,” Kalmoe says, “and we see that playing out with people who engage in political violence.” Mass shooters are often found to have had histories of domestic violence, and that was true for James Hodgkinson, the shooter who attacked the congressional baseball practice in Virginia. Kalmoe says, “we often see that violent individuals have a history of violence in their personal lives. People who are abusive, or who have run afoul of the law in other ways, are more likely to endorse violence.”

 

"Part of the answer lies in a clear difference between right and left: For the past 40 years, Republicans, parroting the gun-rights movement, have actively promoted the idea that firearms are a vital bulwark against government tyranny."

"Call it the Minutemen theory of gun rights. While the Second Amendment was framed to protect government-organized militias at a time when we had a very small standing army, the right has promoted the idea that it’s “America’s first freedom,” integral to defending our other rights, since the 1960s."

 

"The belief that democratic government rests on the Second Amendment has become widespread among Americans; one poll found that about two-thirds believe that “their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.” But Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at SUNY Cortland and the author of several books on the politics of guns, says that’s a modern idea. While “there’s a long tradition of some in America feeling deeply mistrustful of our government—and there have been incidents throughout our history where people took up arms against the government—the more specific idea that there’s a right to rebel, or that somehow you can keep the government under control by taking up weapons, found its first serious expression in a law review article published in 1960. And the idea really took hold among a subset of Americans and a subset of gun owners, who argue to this day that this was part of the purpose of the Second Amendment. They talk about the Minutemen and the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence. The idea really took hold in the 1970s and 1980s when the NRA itself began to use this same kind of rhetoric.”

 

"Nathan Kalmoe says that there’s “an important distinction to make between people who have more conventional views, versus people who have much more extreme views.” He thinks that, whether on the left or the right, those who are at least somewhat close to the mainstream “probably have a greater commitment to nonviolent approaches to politics and are socialized into nonviolent norms of how participation is supposed to work.” But on the right those lines have become blurred in recent years—Glenn Beck’s goldbuggery, the ravings of the “alt-right” and the Minutemen theory of gun rights have all become features of the larger conservative landscape, even if they’re not quite mainstream.

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/

So a far left publication (The Nation) that references a far left organization (SPLC) and comes to the conclusion all the nasty political violence (not counting of course the battery one might encounter at an Antifa/Fascist demonstration) is the fault of the right and even deeper, because the right supports the 2nd Amendment.  Call me surprised.   I guess I could expect this from such sources as the left has certainly been pushing to tear up the Bill of Rights lately.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[TBoneTX 43,058]

3 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Thats what happens when you only read one type  of media.. it makes it hard to differentiate your  "facts" from conspiracies.

Often (always?) overlooked by leftists is that conservatives operate from reason; accordingly, both sides of issues need to be presented in detail and analyzed completely before informed conclusions can be drawn.

 

For example, Rush Limbaugh's genuinely superior talent ("on loan from God-d") is not just analyzing issues, but shredding them.

[yuna628 9,528]

11 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Often (always?) overlooked by leftists is that conservatives operate from reason; accordingly, both sides of issues need to be presented in detail and analyzed completely before informed conclusions can be drawn.

 

For example, Rush Limbaugh's genuinely superior talent ("on loan from God-d") is not just analyzing issues, but shredding them.

You realize of course that the other side thinks conservatives do not operate from reason, in the same way that conservatives feel liberals do not, right? Neither side is willing to analyze or make an informed conclusion. Whatever fits your confirmation bias is the flavor of the day.

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Should have originally said "thoughtful conservatives."  There are indeed some who fail or refuse to think.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

So a far left publication (The Nation) that references a far left organization (SPLC) and comes to the conclusion all the nasty political violence (not counting of course the battery one might encounter at an Antifa/Fascist demonstration) is the fault of the right and even deeper, because the right supports the 2nd Amendment.  Call me surprised.   I guess I could expect this from such sources as the left has certainly been pushing to tear up the Bill of Rights lately.

Agree. I got as far as SPLC and stopped reading 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

24 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

You realize of course that the other side thinks conservatives do not operate from reason, in the same way that conservatives feel liberals do not, right? Neither side is willing to analyze or make an informed conclusion. Whatever fits your confirmation bias is the flavor of the day.

Very few people that are objectively middle of the road like me 

[yuna628 9,528]

40 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Very few people that are objectively middle of the road like me 

Is that what you self identify as?