[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-03, 10:07, said:

If you start a war, you can't then whine that the other side isn't playing nice.

So you're justifying that violence? There's no justification for Nazi tactics left or right. Open your eyes! These thugs were as much alt-left crazies as the KKK are alt-right crazies.

Their behavior shouldn't be condoned by anyone.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-February-03, 10:54, said:

So you're justifying that violence? There's no justification for Nazi tactics left or right. Open your eyes! These thugs were as much alt-left crazies as the KKK are alt-right crazies.

Their behavior shouldn't be condoned by anyone.

I am not justifying it. I am explaining it. The violence began at the Trump campaign rallies, encouraged by rhetoric from Trump himself to crush dissent and act without Constitutional authority.

There is strong evidence - from appointees to actions to previous statements - that the core of this administration (Trump, Bannon, Flynn) views all Muslims as inherently anti-American and potentially dangerous. If instead of Muslims, the administration targeted Jews, would you still make the same argument?

This is what happens in populist uprisings - things get ugly.

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-03, 10:41, said:

When I was a young man, my grandfather (who was a passionate Wobblie) told me that the day the American labor movement stopped killed mine owners was the day the labor movement started to die...

I am a strong believer in the social contract and prefer living in a society governed by such.
With this said and done, the decision to abide by the social contract is a voluntary one and individual can withdraw from it if they want.

If any individual choses to do so, they are acting outside the law, deserve to be punished, and should expect to be punished.

However, I'm not going to claim that I wouldn't resort to violence if the conditions seemed right.

(Nor do I believe that individual or even mob violence is outside the American political tradition. We like to whitewash this, but it happens all the time)

Richard

You and I see eye to eye on most political matters, but I do think that you are in the wrong here.

Politics is a battle for the hearts and minds of the voting public. As in many countries, the US appears to be sharply divided with an ever-diminishing persuadable centre. It is that centre that will make the difference in 2018 and 2020, along with the degree of mobilization of the base.

Violence by those identified with 'the left' will be used by the right to demonize the left. Right now, because the right is in power, the bulk of protests will be by the left, so it will be easy to spin any political violence as emanating from the left, even if (as in Seattle) the worst violence is from the right.

The sight of violent protestors hiding their faces behind bandanas and balaclavas, etc, is virtually guaranteed to stoke outrage on the right and to mobilize them to vote.

It is likely to demoralize many on the left...those who feel that violence is a betrayal....and keep them at home on election day.

It is likely to persuade those few who are persuadable that the left doesn't have the answers.

And the irony is that I suspect that the 'activists' who commit these violent protests don't vote. I am not speaking of the many peaceful protestors, merely of the minority whose goal appeared to be to create a violent confrontation.

Italy in the early 1920's and Germany under the Weimar Republic saw open battles in the streets between communists and fascists/Nazis, and look where that ended up. Violence seems to 'work', in terms of bringing about progressive change only when the bulk of the populace is supportive of the cause. When the populace is split, history seems to indicate that the authoritarian side prevails. This makes sense to me. Many people want leadership...they are attracted to authoritarians, and that attraction seems to be magnified in times of fear and uncertainty, which goes a long way to explaining trump now. In addition, the military and police forces attract and offer meaning and fulfillment to the authoritarian personality. They operate according to clear lines of command, and with great structure. So the military and police forces will tend to side with those advocating for the right.

Unless and until there is a significant shift in the way the republican base thinks about trump, political violence will likely be counter-productive for the progressive movement.

Btw, the Wobblies lost, and it wasn't because they stopped murdering people. It was because the police and army were against them, and they couldn't mobilize the middle class to share their outrage.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on 2017-February-03, 11:13, said:

Richard

You and I see eye to eye on most political matters, but I do think that you are in the wrong here.

Note that I am not currently involved in violent protest. However, this decision is grounded in arguments about efficacy rather than morality.

Couple notes of my own:

1. I would not be surprised to see a "Reichstag fire" take place. Violent acts will be attributed to the left regardless of whether or they are true. In turn, this provides a certain degree of freedom

2. The Wobblies most definitely lost. However, so did the American labor movement...

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-February-03, 08:42, said:

http://nypost.com/20...al-regulations/

Trump rolls back Dodd/Frank.

Even if he could - he can't - why would you cheer? A repeal of Dodd/Frank does nothing for the middle class working person but is instead a reward to the wealthy bankers called "elitists" by the Trump mobs.

[Winstonm]

While I certainly don't condone violence as a normal political tool for use, it is impossible to argue that many, if not most wars are not politically motivated events. I doubt King George would have turned over the deed to the colonies if instead of revolution there had been a sit-in.

The question now is how unique is this time in politics. Can normal protocols still work? Perhaps liberals see this administration more corrupt than it really is; perhaps right-wing supporters misconstrue who they really are supporting. It is still a little early, but the indications so far are not promising for normal politics.

Steve Bannon has said that the media does not understand the depth of the populist uprising; I would suggest Bannon has likewise underestimated the decency of the vast majority of Americans.

But decency comes after removal from office of the current tenants.

[mike777]

As for Uni of Cal.


There is a difference between a riot and a protest...that was a riot.

Agree that both can be a political act.


Not sure what blame the Univ. had

some reports say about 150 showed up in black after the protest started and turned it into a riot.


Again it seemed the Univ acted in good faith, no blame that I see here---
------
I would hope the Univ reached out to request MY formally speak as a point for free speech and to stand up against the violence.
I do not view MY as the moral equivalent of Nazis marching in Skokie...I suspect some poster may

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-03, 11:21, said:

Note that I am not currently involved in violent protest. However, this decision is grounded in arguments about efficacy rather than morality.

Couple notes of my own:

1. I would not be surprised to see a "Reichstag fire" take place. Violent acts will be attributed to the left regardless of whether or they are true. In turn, this provides a certain degree of freedom

2. The Wobblies most definitely lost. However, so did the American labor movement...

I agree that a Reichstag fire could take place. The more the 'left' is seen to espouse violence, the easier it will be to sell that to the public. The communists in Germany in the 1920's and early 1930s were often indistinguishable in behavior and tactics from the national socialists. That is not surprising given what had been happening in Russia and the aftermath of WWI, which had millions of demobilized and unemployed soldiers, and the Russian civil war followed by the takeover of Stalin and the creation of the Comintern in 1919, for the purpose of destabilizing and violently overthrowing democracies (and other forms of non-communist governments) around the world....most especially in industrialized Europe which Marx had thought to be the logical birthplace of a workers' state.

History aside, and recognizing that eschewing violence merely out of a fear that otherwise a Reichstag fire scenario becomes more plausible may seem cowardly, my view remains that violent protest is exactly what Bannon and Fox want to see.

[Winstonm]

A move to a different discussion. I do think this is germane. (emphasis added)

Quote

PRRI's 2016 American Values Survey, released Tuesday, found Trump and Clinton voters near evenly split on how they perceive the nation's trajectory over the last 66 years.

About half of all Americans questioned in the nonpartisan group's study — 51% — said things have changed for the worse since the 1950s, while 48% disagreed.

The differences were far more pronounced when it came to Trump and Clinton supporters, PRRI found. About 72% of those likely to vote for Trump said American culture has devolved since the 1950s. A nearly equal number of likely Clinton supporters, 70%, said things had gotten better.

White evangelical Protestants had the most negative view of how the country has changed over the last six decades: 74% told PRRI they felt the culture had gotten worse since the days of poodle skirts and sock hops.

When you compare the last line to this Atlantic article and factor in the notion of authoritarian voters, the election seems more understandable.

How to change these minds, though, is a difficult question because the basis of the belief is emotive rather than cognitive.

[barmar]

The attitude of white evangelicals is hardly surprising. Their religious ideology is totally contrary to the progressive shift towards acceptance of LBGTQ people, and this is also not a segment of the population that's known for racial tolerance. And economically, I expect there's a large overlap with rural blue-collar workers and farmers, who have seen their jobs erode in the past few decades due to automation and offshoring.

Trump has vowed to bring manufacturing back to the US, but even if he's successful, it's not going to bring back most of the jobs -- the American factories will still be highly automated, and that's just going to increase as technology keeps improving. And it's not even clear how well his plan to increase tariffs on imports will work -- work is so cheap in places like Mexico and the far east that it may be worth paying a 20% tax to avoid having to pay American wages. Yes, prices will go up, but not as much as if they brought manufacturing home.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2017-February-03, 13:31, said:

The attitude of white evangelicals is hardly surprising. Their religious ideology is totally contrary to the progressive shift towards acceptance of LBGTQ people, and this is also not a segment of the population that's known for racial tolerance. And economically, I expect there's a large overlap with rural blue-collar workers and farmers, who have seen their jobs erode in the past few decades due to automation and offshoring.

Trump has vowed to bring manufacturing back to the US, but even if he's successful, it's not going to bring back most of the jobs -- the American factories will still be highly automated, and that's just going to increase as technology keeps improving. And it's not even clear how well his plan to increase tariffs on imports will work -- work is so cheap in places like Mexico and the far east that it may be worth paying a 20% tax to avoid having to pay American wages. Yes, prices will go up, but not as much as if they brought manufacturing home.

The problem is that the hopes of these people is fanciful, wishful thinking that can never be realized. The closest I can come to describing this is awkward and insulting - childish thinking - but I don't know how else to describe the yearning for a return to a yesterday that can never be and besides, was not nearly as good as the romanticized version makes it appear.

Myself, I yield my white privilege and grant equality for all in exchange for birth control pills and central heat and air.

[mike777]

The largest concentration of Evangelicals can be found in the United States, with 28.9% of the U.S. population or 91.76 million,[72] the


https://en.wikipedia.../Evangelicalism

[cherdano]

jogs, on 2017-February-03, 08:42, said:

http://nypost.com/20...al-regulations/

Trump rolls back Dodd/Frank.

Yay! We want back the bank regulations that were in place during the financial crisis! Yay!

[jogs]

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2963179

Saw one sign "HATE FREE ZONE". All the hate is coming from the left.

[hrothgar]

jogs, on 2017-February-03, 16:15, said:

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2963179

Saw one sign "HATE FREE ZONE". All the hate is coming from the left.

Sad "life" you you lead

In all seriousness, most kids figure out that there is a difference betweeb good attention and bad attention by the time they are 15 or so.

What does it say about you that you are so desperate for any kind of human interaction that you make random, idiotic, and easily falsifiable posts on a bridge site in a desperate attempt to get someone to acknowledge your existence.

Seriously, is you life this empty? Do you really have nothing better to do with your time.

Go outside. Get laid. See a movie. Do something. Because what you are doing here is really really depressing...

[Al_U_Card]

jogs, on 2017-February-03, 16:15, said:

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2963179

Saw one sign "HATE FREE ZONE". All the hate is coming from the left.

Go outside......free
Get laid........hopefully free
Go to a movie.....$12 + popcorn
Take Barney Google's advice?.......pointless

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-03, 14:16, said:

The problem is that the hopes of these people is fanciful, wishful thinking that can never be realized. The closest I can come to describing this is awkward and insulting - childish thinking - but I don't know how else to describe the yearning for a return to a yesterday that can never be and besides, was not nearly as good as the romanticized version makes it appear.

Exactly. They think there was no homosexuality simply because the gays were almost all in the closet. And there was no racial problem because black people "knew their place" and didn't make waves. They have this vision of life like in "Leave it to Beaver", but twas never really such.

To quote Billy Joel:

Quote

You know the good ole days weren't
Always good
And tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems

[kenberg]

I don't think that my life was like Leave it to Beaver but I can't say for sure because I never watched it. We did have Cyd Charisse though. Pretty good. In any age, we have to choose.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-03, 11:06, said:

I am not justifying it. I am explaining it. The violence began at the Trump campaign rallies, encouraged by rhetoric from Trump himself to crush dissent and act without Constitutional authority.

A couple disruptive protestors trying to disrupt Trump rallies got hit and you're saying Trump is trying to crush dissent? Let's see, one was an old geezer who apparently got enraged by a black protestor and sucker punched him as he went by. No excuse for that. The other was a protestor in a KKK uniform who was popped by an African-American supporter. There's still no justification for it. But I wonder whether a disruptive person in a KKK uniform at a Clinton rally would get out alive let alone be popped in the kisser once.

OTOH, there's Chicago. Violence shut down that Trump rally. How do you justify the statements by a Democratic operative boasting that the Clinton campaign used money paid through a PAC to hire thugs to break up that rally. And they did. This behavior is completely out of bounds in our political landscape for either side. It's even worse for those who profess to holding the moral high ground. Let's be clear, that kind of action IS an attempt to stifle dissent.

I'll grant that Trump used some ill chosen words to show his frustration at the progressive's attempts to crash and disrupt his rallies. But extrapolating those comments as promoting violence to stifle all dissent is ridiculous. Where is your evidence that conservative activists crashed Clinton rallies and tried to disrupt them?

Quote

This is what happens in populist uprisings - things get ugly.

You're justifying this?

http://www.msn.com/e...ocid=spartandhp

There is no justification for it, just as there's no justification for any similar violence against folks that share your viewpoint.

[mike777]

rmnka447, on 2017-February-03, 21:04, said:

A couple disruptive protestors trying to disrupt Trump rallies got hit and you're saying Trump is trying to crush dissent? Let's see, one was an old geezer who apparently got enraged by a black protestor and sucker punched him as he went by. No excuse for that. The other was a protestor in a KKK uniform who was popped by an African-American supporter. There's still no justification for it. But I wonder whether a disruptive person in a KKK uniform at a Clinton rally would get out alive let alone be popped in the kisser once.

OTOH, there's Chicago. Violence shut down that Trump rally. How do you justify the statements by a Democratic operative boasting that the Clinton campaign used money paid through a PAC to hire thugs to break up that rally. And they did. This behavior is completely out of bounds in our political landscape for either side. It's even worse for those who profess to holding the moral high ground. Let's be clear, that kind of action IS an attempt to stifle dissent.

I'll grant that Trump used some ill chosen words to show his frustration at the progressive's attempts to crash and disrupt his rallies. But extrapolating those comments as promoting violence to stifle all dissent is ridiculous. Where is your evidence that conservative activists crashed Clinton rallies and tried to disrupt them?


You're justifying this?

http://www.msn.com/e...ocid=spartandhp

There is no justification for it, just as there's no justification for any similar violence against folks that share your viewpoint.

thank you for taking the time to respond\\\


not sure what your one main point is?


I hope we all can agree that violence can be justified...that killing on a vast scale can be justified.


granted perhaps if Obama is president forum posters give you a different response