2016 U.S. Presidential election

756 posts / 0 new
Last post
kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 26 2016 20:57

I think it's a little easier to believe that activists at trump events were yelling and spitting at trump ppl, than planned parenthood selling baby parts, Artesian. Is it really so hard to believe? Search for Trump rally in Tuscon. Also, The events are private so that trump can kick ppl out legally, that's only a point of clarity not an endorsement.

But my main point was that us leftists so desperately want to renact 1930's Street fights we begin believing things which are absurd exaggerations- like trump has some Street army(of 78 year old grandpa's I'm sure) he will us to impose a dictatorship when Congress gets in his way. I mean, this is simply dillusional, as dillusional as planned parenthood selling babies.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 26 2016 21:21
Quote:
Most of the violence was perpetrated against protestors who were attacked as they stood silently, simply holding signs or wearing t-shirts.

Actually, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and call bullshit on protestors standing silently being attacked for "no reason whatsoever." See the Chicago event where a protestors steals a sign and tears it in two. Etcetera, etcetera. That's how fights get started.

Not to justify them being attacked, which they have a right to not be attacked, but because I believe they are trying to start these fights(and I've seen footage attesting to it) for the reasons I noted. And frankly, this is really going to backfire and it gives credence to the notion of "liberal facism" and so on. Which I really detest.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 26 2016 21:26
kingzog wrote:
Quote:
Most of the violence was perpetrated against protestors who were attacked as they stood silently, simply holding signs or wearing t-shirts.

Actually, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and call bullshit on protestors standing silently being attacked for "no reason whatsoever."

Not to justify them being attacked, which they have a right to not be attacked, but because I believe they are trying to start these fights for the reasons I noted. And frankly, this is really going to backfire and it gives credence to the notion of "liberal facism" and so on. Which I really ditest.

So go out on a limb and provide evidence for that. Provide the links to the video showing protestors spitting on Trump people; to the Trump protestors engaging in assaults, in provocations.

I'm sure you believe what you believe; just like many people believe GIs returning from Vietnam were spat upon. There was, however, no evidence of any such incidents, much less a pattern, or planned response of such attacks.

What you believe doesn't matter if you can't provide any evidence to back it up.

Liberal fascism? WTF are you talking about? When the Klan shows up to rally in Orange Co. and gets attacked is that "liberal fascism"?? You think the African-American man, who was being escorted out of a Trump rally in the grip of the police when he was assaulted by a white Trump supporter is a "liberal fascist who "tried to start a fight"??

"Liberal fascism" is a fucking looney-toon myth.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 26 2016 22:14

Dude, just look it up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/21/police-officer-trump-protesters-were-the-most-hateful-evil-people-ive-ever-seen/

What's amazing here is this witness is black.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 26 2016 22:28

https://youtu.be/Kd6pVAb_tHs

https://youtu.be/gI9MCvK2MGs

https://youtu.be/OjbAs5F_bYY

There is a quite a bit of video and testimony to the aggressiveness of the protestors, it's not one sided Artesian.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 26 2016 22:24

Re: liberals facism is the notion that leftists are aggressive towards those they disagree with and so on. It's an absurd notion and the term itself makes no sense, but protestors acting like fools feeds it nonetheless. Sorry, not sorry, but it's the truth.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Mar 26 2016 23:40
S. Artesian wrote:
I'm sure you believe what you believe; just like many people believe GIs returning from Vietnam were spat upon. There was, however, no evidence of any such incidents, much less a pattern, or planned response of such attacks.

It was pointed out in a cracked article that soldiers coming back from vietnam arrived on military planes at military airbases. This belief seems to be based on First Blood.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 27 2016 01:04

I can still remember Rambo crying about it. Old myths die hard

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 27 2016 01:32

Yeah, so I want to clarify what I was getting at.

I don't think the violence is one sided. Both sides want blood. Some want some anti facism reenactment. Some want communist strike breaking reenactment (why does that 78 y/o grandpa remind me of grandpa Simpson and his strike breakers?) This will backfire because Americans hate it, hate it, when groups of people try to "infringe" on freedom of speech. But the left looks a little worse because they actually are disrupting speeches. That's how average ppl see it, ngl, It's deeply anti-liberal(in the classical sense). This is where liberal fascism comes in, unfortunately(not endorsing the term BTW).

Plus, the fact is, Trump is very, very unpopular with the general electorate -which is reassuring, in a way- he won't get elected unless Hillary royaly fucks up; like really bad- look at the polls, and half the GOP and virtually all the media hates Trumps guts- so that's an uphill battle.

Is xenophobia disturbing? Is it increasing? Idk, we live in a world with ISIS attacking random bystandards in Belgium and wannaba ISIS members in California doing the same. That will cause more xenophobia than a thousand trump speeches- in fact it causes Trumps speeches because he's appealing to the constituency that is fearful. Education is the only solution to that, picking fights at trump rallies do very little but harden the right.

news flash: ppl get defensive and will actually dig in when they are "called out". Any psychologists will agree with that. That's why I'm saying these protests and disruptions will royaly backfire....

But ultimately, Trump is not going anywhere, his constituency is just too small in this day and age. so all this anxiety over "fascist USA" is pretty dillusional, whether it's from the left or the genuienly fascist right(they too are marginalized and out of touch). And frankly, it's perverse that the left is fantasizing about this. I really think they want to believe this is the "it can't happen here" moment so they can Street fight(or at least fantasize about it) or be pious martyrs/victims for the cause.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 27 2016 01:33

dp

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Mar 27 2016 01:34

Apparently a bird grabbed the mic at a Bernie Sanders rally - up the struggle.

(This is probably more appropriate for the "Kill the humans" threads.)

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 27 2016 02:14

Trumps Jack-booted storm-strooper "Street army":

https://youtu.be/MiOHQ4Rhgx4

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 27 2016 06:00
kingzog wrote:
https://youtu.be/Kd6pVAb_tHs

https://youtu.be/gI9MCvK2MGs

https://youtu.be/OjbAs5F_bYY

There is a quite a bit of video and testimony to the aggressiveness of the protestors, it's not one sided Artesian.

Excuse me. If saying "black lives matter" at a Trump rally is aggressive, then there's something really wrong with your definition of aggressiveness. I've looked at the videos, as they were being posted over the last 2 months, and you have physical assaults against people who are chanting "black lives matter," or demanding Trump answer a question he himself solicited.

Every two-bit fascist, KKK twit, when they get confronted by those who aren't going to be bullied by their murderous bullshit complains about the "aggressiveness" of the protestors-- just look at the whining of the KKK group in Orange, Co.

Wait... right.... you don't think Trump supporters can be compared to the KKK? Yeah, tell that to the African-American woman who was called a c**t and a n*****r and struck and shoved by the trump crowd. Tell that to the African-American man who was assaulted when being led out by the police, and whose assailant said "Next time, we may have to kill him.'

You can keep making up all the bullshit you want about "liberal fascism." Doesn't mean it exists. Just confirms that you don't know what you are talking about.

arminius's picture
arminius
Offline
Joined: 11-08-06
Mar 27 2016 20:39

Not sure where this fits in with any of this, and I don't really know what to say about it, having become gob-smacked by it, but apparently there is a fairly serious effort, by petition, to allow the carrying of firearms on the floor of the Republican Party convention. Heard it on television.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 27 2016 22:33

Artesian, yelling at ppl that the will burn in hell and grabbing things out of their hands and tearing it up. Giving the finger, calling people racist, fighting security guards...yes, these things are aggressive. I didn't say trump supporters arent engaging in violence themselves. I'm saying both sides are. I've also provided video evidence. You can't make up video evidence- you've provided squat btw. Just saying someone is "making it up" doesn't mean it's "made up".

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Mar 28 2016 00:54
arminius wrote:
Not sure where this fits in with any of this, and I don't really know what to say about it, having become gob-smacked by it, but apparently there is a fairly serious effort, by petition, to allow the carrying of firearms on the floor of the Republican Party convention. Heard it on television.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/27/donald-trump-ted-cruz-john-kasich-guns-open-carry-cleveland-convention-republicans/82321374/

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Mar 28 2016 01:44
Quote:
yelling at ppl that the will burn in hell and grabbing things out of their hands and tearing it up. Giving the finger, calling people racist, fighting security guards...yes, these things are aggressive.

I'm shocked. I'm shocked and appalled. How can anyone possibly justify all this unseemly behaviour? Rude hand gestures? Tearing up paper? ffs, disgusted. Such aggression. Why couldn't they just get a petition together, or better still, a silent march or a candle-lit vigil?

I was under the impression that anarchists weren't particularly adverse to people fighting back. Maybe I'm in the wrong club. Oh well, the snacks are usually pretty awful anyway.

gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Mar 28 2016 01:55
kingzog wrote:
This will backfire because Americans hate it, hate it, when groups of people try to "infringe" on freedom of speech. But the left looks a little worse because they actually are disrupting speeches. That's how average ppl see it, ngl, It's deeply anti-liberal(in the classical sense). This is where liberal fascism comes in, unfortunately(not endorsing the term BTW).

is this some kind of silent majority argument? because I'm pretty sure there were way more protestors in chicago than trump supporters, so I don't how you can conclusively say that 'Americans' hate it. also, i haven't seen any huge swings of favorability in trump's favor following all of the protests, so......maybe you are wrong?

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 28 2016 02:27

On the Trump protests' 'aggressiveness'...I think, before the Chicago rally, most of them were pretty regular type of political protests/disruptions. People came in and shouted slogans and held signs until they were kicked out. That's pretty normal activism. Politicians have been interrupted at rallies since politicians have existed. I don't see anything out of the ordinary there.

What has been out of the ordinary is the type of physical and verbal hostility these protesters received. I think it is much uglier than what I've seen in my life. Racial slurs, xenophobic slurs, etc. One woman was shoved by fascists at a rally in Kentucky. Trump's head of security attacked protesters standing outside Trump Tower. A protester in North Carolina was sucker punched by a Trump supporter as he was being escorted out by police. I'm probably forgetting some of these pre-Chicago rally incidents, but the point I'm making here is that in none of them were the protesters engaging in anything but pretty run-of-the-mill activism, and they were met with the sort of violence that hasn't really been seen in mainstream politics since the 1960s.

By the time we get to Chicago, a liberal, majority people of color city, in which the rally was held at a University, I think protesters have gotten more aggressive and now seem to be wanting to shut down the rallies and fight back against Trump supporters. While I have mixed feelings about this emerging anti-Trump activism, I can't say I'm really that sympathetic to what kingzog is saying.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 28 2016 02:41

Responding to some of the 'Who is the most dangerous candidate?' discussion, I'm not really sure I can answer that. Guess it depends on how 'dangerous' is defined. I do think Trump's right-wing populism is quite dangerous. I think the explicit and 'wink, wink' stuff he says on topics like immigration and Islam empower actual fascists and white nationalists. But I also think he is incredibly opportunistic, and could fling this stuff off like a torn t-shirt if it suited him. But then again, Franco's dismantling and marginalization of the Spanish Falange didn't make his regime any less dangerous to people like me...

With all the attention Trump has gotten, it's been easily missed that Cruz has tapped Frank Gaffney Jr of the Center for Security Policy to be in his camp. Gaffney is an anti-Muslim conspiracy wingnut!

On the Democratic side, Sanders won Washington, Hawaii and Alaska yesterday by pretty wide margins.

My girlfriend and I actually spotted him, quite unexpectedly, in Madison last night. He was leaving this pretty fancy restaurant, which I'm assuming was a fundraiser or speech, and getting into a SUV, which had a pretty massive Secret Service/police escort. I wish I had shouted something funny/clever, but I came up blank...

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Mar 28 2016 04:07

@juan... communism or death would have sufficed, if it wasn't for that security detail

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Mar 28 2016 15:19
Fleur wrote:

I was under the impression that anarchists weren't particularly adverse to people fighting back. Maybe I'm in the wrong club. Oh well, the snacks are usually pretty awful anyway.

Kingzog isn't an anarchist, he self identifies as an "Orthodox Marxist" whatever that means.

Also regarding Trumps popularity being based on racism or not, there's a poll that's been released that shows that Trump's winning the Minorities get all the breaks group by quite a high margin.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-supporters-think-whites-left-behind

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 28 2016 17:57
Quote:
this some kind of silent majority argument? because I'm pretty sure there were way more protestors in chicago than trump supporters, so I don't how you can conclusively say that 'Americans' hate it. also, i haven't seen any huge swings of favorability in trump's favor following all of the protests, so......maybe you are wrong?

I can respond then this. I think majority of people look at the craziness and see it as both sides' doing. And I do think there is truth to that. At any rate, trump is very unpopular with the general public.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 28 2016 17:59

....for instance:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/273986-poll-voters-blame-trump-protesters-for-rally-violence

Quote:
A new Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday found that 64 percent of voters think the GOP front-runner causes the incidents that have occurred at his campaign events, compared to 34 percent who don’t believe he’s responsible.
The poll also finds that 78 percent of voters blame the protesters at Trump’s rallies, compared to 70 percent who think the violence is caused by the real estate mogul’s supporters
S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 28 2016 21:05

Learn some math.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 29 2016 03:34

I found this part from the introduction to Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons' Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort particularly relevant in this election year:

We see two common pitfalls in contemporary discussions of right-wing populist movements. On one side, many liberals and moderate conservatives routinely portray such movements as paranoid fringe phenomena fundamentally at odds with the political mainstream. A standard premise is that the U.S. political system has an essence of democracy and freedom - a vital center of pragmatism, rationality, and tolerance - but that this essence is threatened by extremists from the left and right. This centrist/extremist model, as we call it, obscures the rational choices and partially legitimate grievances that help to fuel right-wing populist movements, and hides the fact that right-wing bigotry and scapegoating are firmly rooted in the mainstream social and political order. Centrist/extremist theory is the dominant model used by government agencies, mass media and major human relations groups to portray right-wing movements. It is based to a large degree on the pessimistic studies of populism by Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Earl Raab, and others.

[,,,]

Centrist/extremist theory fosters a dangerous complacency about mainstream politics and institutions. It has often been used to rally support for moderate versions of oppressive politics - for example, to attack Republicans and bolster the Democratic Party, even as Democratic leaders embrace traditionally right-wing positions.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 29 2016 03:57

Artesian, here is the poll. See if you can wrap your mind around it.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2333

Quote:
Campaign Violence

Trump is "very responsible" for violent incidents at his campaign rallies, 37 percent of American voters say, while 27 percent say he is "somewhat responsible." Another 12 percent say he is "not so responsible" and 22 percent say he is "not at all responsible."

At the same time, 39 percent of voters say protesters at Trump rallies are "very responsible" for violence, and another 39 percent say protesters are "somewhat responsible."

And 30 percent of voters say Trump supporters are "very responsible" for violence, while 40 percent say supporters are "somewhat responsible."

"Donald Trump may say hired instigators have brought violence to his rallies, but 64 percent of American voters are laying the blame squarely on the candidate, while 78 percent are blaming the protestors," Malloy said

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 29 2016 04:01

Juan, that is an interesting point. In the end Trumpism is, I predict, going to bolster the Democrats, probably Clinton Democrats, who are fairly conservative.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 29 2016 04:10

78% blame the protestors, 70% blame Trump supporters; that makes 148%.

Now we get 78% vs 64%. That's 142%

They must be taking these surveys in Chicago, where generally 150% of the voting age population turns out to vote for the Democrat.

And you think any of that, that swill about who thinks whom is responsible has anything to do with reality?

You are probably too young to remember, but there were all those polls about Vietnam, and how the public supported LBJ and the story about the "aggression" from the North; and all the polls showing that the protestors were pissing people off... and on and on.

Until Tet 1968. Then suddenly, the support shifted. Then the protestors weren't quite so crazy; weren't quite so unpopular.

x359594's picture
x359594
Offline
Joined: 16-08-08
Mar 29 2016 04:38

Trump is somebody with whom I don't just "disagree" with. I am appalled by his open call for legalization and expansion of torture and for his proposals of policies based on ethnicity and religion. As far as I am concerned this makes him fair game for any type of peaceful disruption. He is an avowed anti-democratic bigot with whom I have no desire to "exchange views."

N.B. Whatever you think of the protesters in Chicago: 1) they were peaceful and non-violent if bothersome and noisy 2) They did nothing except hold up signs, snake dance and shout some slogans a full half hour before Trump was even scheduled to appear 3) Trump cancelled the rally because he knew he would be constantly booed and shouted at. Excellent.

Don't be one of those lumps who, when asked by your grandkids or nieces and nephews, "what did you do when Trump was on the rise" has to answer, "Well, Jimmy I sat on my ass and pontificated against those protesters who were being rude to him." Won't cut it.

Trump should be protested wherever he appears. And now that we learn more about Chicago, double shame on Democrats who have denounced these kids.

They disrupted exactly nobody (though I would support disruption). They gathered on the rally site -- that was open to the public-- two and a half hours before Trump was scheduled to speak. There was a lot of tension in the room given that there were clearly several hundred students there in opposition to Trump. Tough you know what.

Only after Trump chickened out and cancelled the rally did problems begin. Trump supporters then got aggressive and abusive with the students whom they blamed for the cancellation and then the yelling, pushing and shoving started.

As I said, I give these young people props and kudos for their courage and commitment. If the rest of the country showed that kind of resolve, we'd have a much better place to live in. Too many Americans are phobic about taking political action, even in the face of extremist demagogues.

Topic locked