It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the "Left" now calling for violence in the United States?

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
If you read between the lines, what this fine fellow is saying can be paraphrased in the following manner:

"if Trump gains more ground, then it's time to encourage/loose the gangs of our society's malcontents upon the rest of the American populace in order to further our agenda."

I ain't making this stuff up.

m.huffpost.com...




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks
And Trump just gained another 5% or more over Clinton because of this



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

Admittedly, it's disturbing that for the first time in American history, the people appear to be willing to elect a neo-fascist as President.


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

I know that's why I am not voting for Clinton.


Hopefully the left is not stupid enough to fall for this divide and conquer theme that TPTB desperately want us to buy into.
edit on 15-6-2016 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

True, but that's a separate issue.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

I don't think you need to read between the lines. The author is giving an elaborate, misguided justification for "violent resistance."

What seems to not be registering with you is that he's trying to defend these actions to the overwhelming majority of the Left who have condemned political violence of any kind:


As a result, a litany of think-pieces and condemnations from liberal media and politicians are making their rounds to make it clear how unacceptable and counterproductive any violence or rioting is, urging people to “listen to the other side,” and to use “legitimate means“ to fight Trump’s rise—ignoring the possibility of fascism in the US rising with it. Those who stray from this nonviolent narrative, like Emmet Rensin, an editor at Vox who tweeted that people should riot when Trump comes to town, face swift and punitive redress, urging them to fall back in line. Amidst the hot takes and denunciations from liberals, they all seem to miss a few key points. First, they misplace the blame. Second, they misunderstand the desired outcome from violent resistance and those protesting Trump in general. And third, they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle that’s ever achieved a thing.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

I would vote for him just to stick one up the establishment and the "Neo Facist" social justice warriors.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks
Just look at the violence the left propagates. In comparison any of the violence by the Trump supporters is nonexistent, though all I keep seeing is leftist violence. Protests they call them. These are riots, not protests.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

The rise of Donald Trump has exposed the frightening underbelly of America’s foulest tendencies. Our racism, nativism, xenophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, ableism, and propensity toward authoritarianism have been laid bare. Reactions from those who stand opposed to these manifestations of oppression have varied from calm condemnation and routine peaceful protests, to blockades of roads and borderline riotous outbursts, including sporadic violence in various cities.


I just love the smell of propaganda

Don't You?

Number one:



1. NAME CALLING or STEREOTYPING: Giving a person or an idea a bad label by using an easy to remember pejorative name. This is used to make us reject and condemn a person or idea without examining what the label really means. Examples: "Republican", "Tree-Hugger", "Nazi", "Liberal", "Environmentalist", "Special-Interest Group".


www.uvm.edu...

They threw everything including the kitchen sink.

But what do people really expect from the HuF Po.
edit on 15-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you are saying this guy is just a voice in the wilderness and this will go nowhere.

I hope you are right.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
The far-left has already become violent in the United States. Any look at the riots against Trump supporters is enough evidence of that:




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think you are saying this guy is just a voice in the wilderness and this will go nowhere.

I hope you are right.



The type of people that think Huffington Post is a credible source of news.. may be the same type of people who would take these things seriously.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
LOL

If Trump is inciting violence, why is it always Left Wing protests that use the violence?




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
There are forces on both sides of the stupid left / right paradigm that call for violence. To them, violence is their first and only tool. They are both wrong, of course.

There are in fact, myriad ways to resist or challenge any status quo. Those who have imagination, but little will, express nothing, and are nothing. Those who have will, but little imagination, choose violence to enforce their paradigm. Those who possess both imagination and will can accomplish much, without violence, while making the insecure feel vulnerable, beset on all sides by forces they cannot shoot at, or even comprehend.

This "third way" also carries the benefit of being a lot more "fun;" -- a concept sorely lacking in the worldview of both sides of the paradigm game.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

You ask "Is the "Left" now calling for violence in the United States?"
Did you not read your own article ?

The article points out that the left is not a as uniform or monolithic a political postition as the right would make them out. There are many (most) who take their protesting from the old Gandhi and King school of non-violence while others ( a few) who have take up the call of the old Weathermen and other actions from earlier in the century. To label them all, 'the left' and suggest that it as a whole is turning violent is just baiting. I could not find this in the article you provided.

And as I began to read the piece, I was reading not between the lines but rather exactly what it said and one of the first things that I read was not even mentioned in the OP


Trump might not be a fascist in the 20th century European sense of the term—though many of his supporters are—but he might represent its 21st century US version.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Whoa whoa whoa

I'm not baiting anybody. Not the purpose of my post.

Whatever you think of Huff Post, a substantial chunk of the country are like-minded libs, and they READ Huff Post, and this writer IS calling for violence.

The "read between the lines" refers to HOW he is calling for violence, by what vehicle this violence should be propagated. It's insidious. And unfortunately I can imagine a large number of my fellow Americans reading something like this and real actually taking it to heart.

Ideas have consequences.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks

It seems the US is becoming increasingly divided. I wonder how long before we see a Civil War in our doorsteps.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

EXACTLY!!!

Ever heard of the Fire Eaters? They were a bunch of writers and public speakers in the first half of the nineteenth century America. Jeffersonian, in this case. Pro States rights, pro slavery, pro a lot of really bad stuff. But they were skilled agitators. It can be said they helped bring about the freaking Civil War.

Point is, ideas have consequences. When somebody calls for violence from not an obscure corner of the internet but from a public pulpit like the Huff Post, I think it unwise to poo poo such a thing.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks Voice in the wilderness, maybe. The gist of what I read was pointed at those who consider themselves 'liberal"


Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any

"Sorry Liberals" If non-violent protesters think they can enter an arena of highly charged political fever such as Mr. Trump has instigated, they are gravely mistaken.
The non-violent concept can most only be non-violent when every one practices it and from my experience this can only be when it is done on a warm Sunday afternoon when everyone is comfortable and tired from marching five or ten miles and everyone is in love.
Put non-violence up against a phalanx of riot control law inforcement or a crowd of angry conservatives shouting derogatory names and no one should be surprised that things might lose their anti-violent nature quickly.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
So what the left is saying is that Trump has magical powers that his words alone will cause masses of people who dislike him to lose their self-control and riot. I guess if he possess such magical power, then we should put the blame on him. Otherwise losing self-control over political slogans is just a lack of will power and a sign of a weak mind.
edit on 15-6-2016 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join