American Politics the 2016 edition

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/11/trumps-good-old-days-when-battering-protesters-was-celebrated-in-the-white-house/
I'd say the protesters overall did a good job not being violent, and I definitely went to bed happy last night with the good news. I've seen so many posts today about freedom of speech, but people seem to forget that the protesters were practicing their right to free speech and assembly as well. Obviously I am not supporting the handful of instigators on either side, but I think the sheer number of protesters spoke a lot louder than that tiny minority and it was generally a good example of protesting/mass civil disobedience and how loud and powerful an action it can be.
I hope that leftists across the country continue to stand up against the hateful rhetoric Trump espouses, and the blatantly violent and racist supporters who have been assaulting protesters and reporters at Trump rallies so often lately.

A Person wrote: I hope that leftists across the country continue to stand up against the hateful rhetoric Trump espouses, and the blatantly violent and racist supporters who have been assaulting protesters and reporters at Trump rallies so often lately.

yep.  Perhaps I am in the minority what you post there is exactly why I personally have no problem with violence. I have thought for some time we would arrive at this point.  The level of hatred directed at the left and minorities was bound to finally push some to retaliate.  Sure if we were saints we could turn the other cheek but none of us are saints and you can only push people too far before they snap. 

Do you reason with a bully, make him see the error in his ways? Of course not.  Racial/social division and playing on the fears and outright bigotry of the ignorant has been page 1 of the Right Wing/GOP playbook since it was shown in clear terms in 1988 to actually work.

Do you try civil disobedience? You will have as much luck with that as running to your teacher complaining of being bullied on the playground. 

The only way you deal with bullies is by punching them in the face and standing up to them.   There is a reason violence is one of mankinds favorite tools since the time we started walking upright.

It works...  Perhaps an unpopular thought.  But the truth doesn't always reflect the reality we want to see.

So what does violence achieve. I firmly believe we are the midst of a culture war in this country and have been for some time.  This will mobilize the right and their racist supporters.  This will mobilibize the left. Yeah yeah yeah. What it might do... is finally wake up the apathetic center and perhaps they will see the root causes of it... and repudiate the policies and candidates. I think that been happening to a certain degree. Violence accelerate that .... and expose to the more pragmatic center that their votes are important and repudiating the right and their inherently divisive and destructive ideology that stand completely contrary to what this damned country should stand for.

rant over...


Edited by micky - March 13 2016 at 07:27

Violence merely increases the opportunities for demagogues to flourish. I would have thought that obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in politics.

rogerthat wrote: lazland wrote: Violence merely increases the opportunities for demagogues to flourish. I would have thought that obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in politics. Exactly.

I would have thought it quite obvious to anyone with a passing interest in American politics, and with our long history of racism and institutional discrimination, that violence is not necessary for demagogues to flourish.

oh yeah.. that won't play.. never has played here.  It isn't economics that drives this.  As Steinbeck say.. we are all temporally embarrassed millionaires here. 

All one has to do appeal the basic notions this country was founded on. Which sides represents it and governs responsibly and which side flies completely in the face of the values this country was founded on and doesn't mean to goven.. but rule.  Both sides are fairly well entrenched it is the middle I hope is disgusted by this violence and has enough smarts and good sense to see the reasons for it and vote accordingly

micky wrote: rogerthat wrote: lazland wrote: Violence merely increases the opportunities for demagogues to flourish. I would have thought that obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in politics. Exactly.   I would have thought it quite obvious to anyone with a passing interest in American politics, and with our long history of racism and institutional discrimination, that violence is not necessary for demagogues to flourish.

Micky, I said that violence increases the opportunities for demagogues to flourish, not that it was a necessary condition or state of existence.

Every democracy has had its loonies and demagogues, throughout history. They tend to do well, though, when people feel put on, disadvantaged, or "victims", and especially when they can give out their message in a climate of fear and violence.

The headlines around the world were not "Trump causes riots", they, were, by and large, "protesters force Trump to quit rally". There is a very subtle difference between the two. The former is Trump's fault. The latter provides his supporters with even more reason to feel put upon, and, of course, justifies entirely their use of force as a countermeasure.

Perhaps I should stress here, for the avoidance of all doubt, that this spineless and naive Limey does not want to be associated with any such violence, from either side. It will not end well, believe me.

Trump has his own bullies. they should wear brown shirts like the SA (Sturmabteilung, Hitler's gang for the dirty workl who were responsible for the Reichstagsbrand (Reichstag fire) and the Kristallnacht (crystal night)

zappaholic wrote: The American Right has pushing the idea for years that There Is No Such Thing As A Violent Conservative™ - any time anyone commits a violent act, they are assumed to be a Leftist, and even if they leave behind piles of hard-Right rhetoric, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is inevitably invoked.

^ 

Well, when you come to think of it, it's the same kind of argument made for first black president or first woman president.  I mean, representation is all very well but at the end of the day you want the most capable leader from among the candidates as prez.  Any other reason isn't good enough.  Not that Obama has been a letdown, but "wee, he'll be our first black president" is superficial.