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.

 

Trump's Specter of Violence

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian



You cite "lawyers" and "doctors" as examples of people who aren't among "the worst" of society as though doctors and lawyers are inherently better people based on their professions which is at best the sort of hasty generalization an elitest would be expected to make based on a single possible measure of a person's worth.

In what way is a rapist with a law degree better than a poor farmer who has never committed a violent crime in his life? Does a doctor running a pill mill to line his pockets — a drug dealer for all intents and purposes — contribute more or less to society than a hard working blue collar laborer?


I do not think lawyers and doctors are “inherently better people”, as if they were born to a more superior breed. I’m not sure from what chasm of your imagination you get that from. Yes, I think lawyers and doctors are better than criminals. You got me. If you want to stretch that to mean I don’t think doctors and lawyers can be criminals in yet another fit of pretzel-logic, by all means.


You said it. You also said this: "then yes that means most of them are not good people, by definition."

So you're conceding that crossing the border illegally doesn't perclude (sic) a person from being a "good person" (by your own relativistic definition of "good person") and yet without any other specific knowledge of the people crossing the border, you're stating that "most of them" are not "good people?" Where's the rationale in that?


Yes, generally those who commit illegal acts are not good people (note your insistence on refusing to say “crossing the border illegally”). Admittedly it is a general statement. We tend to use general statements in language. Perhaps there is some good criminals out there. But if you need evidence, make your way to the nearest prison and try making friends.

What I see is you holding different people and different cultures to a lesser standard than you would your own. That’s what I mean by relativism.


Exactly what percentage of a group must be unduly disparaged to cross the threshold into dehumanization in your book? He didn't say "all" — that part is true — but he did say that "some" were "good people" and while the detonation of some is essentially "an unspecified part of a whole" there is a popular connotation for "some" implying a number that is certainly inconsistent with "most." In fact, in this usage, the obvious implication was that most (illegal immigrants from Mexico) arenot "good people" (only "some") which I'll also note is in line with your own statement, "most are not good people, by definition.

Not only is Donald Trump at the very least as guilty as Bill Maher of dehumanizing people, Bill Maher's brand of dehumanzing is far less severe by societal standards.

In other words, which is worse? To label people as "fact-free racist rednecks" or as "drug-dealing rapists?"


Maher didn’t append his claim with “and some are probably good people”. For one, Maher could not point to a single one of those fact-free racist rednecks, though I’m sure if he looked hard enough he might find one. Nonetheless, he just made the claim. Trump consistently refers to the story of the 64 year old woman raped and her face beaten in with a hammer by an illegal who had already been deported, and also cites the Government Office of Accountability Criminal Alien Statistics, cites his discussions with border patrol etc. Whether right or wrong, Trump isn’t deriving his conclusions from his some sort of prejudices, while Maher is.

There is some obvious hyperbole at work in Trump’s statements, a common technique in politics, but once again, we shouldn’t have to teach adults about figures of speech.


Who is really doing the "virtue signalling" here? Using the term is itself a form of "virtue signalling."

Why would the raw crime figures be a useful measure? If a society has 1,000 members and 8 rapes and another has 10,000 members and 16 rapes, in which society would you think a woman was less likely to be raped? A far more useful measure would be rate of occurrence.

Do illegal immigrants rape or murder Americans at higher or lower rates than American citizens rape or murder Americans? In all the reading I've done on the subject, all reports and analyes (sic) I've encountered conlude (sic) that the rates are in fact lower save for horrendously flawed analyes (sic) of 2 GAO Criminal Alien Statistics reports that are frequently presented by anti-immigration organizations, far-right media sources, and a handful of GOP politicians, most notably Representative Steve King of Iowa.


I do not suspect that illegal immigrants rape at a more or less rate than other human beings, just that a disproportionate amount of criminals are coming through the border illegally, and that includes rapists. The argument always has been that if those criminals were not allowed through he border so easily, they wouldn’t have committed the crimes they ended up committing.


The question I'm left with is why you're so much more concerned with the words of a comedian which have far less influence and import than the words of a man who could be President?


I am not more concerned with the words of Maher over Trump, and nowhere did I state that. It was merely an example I used. I am saying the specter of violence revolves around the media and not Trump, for the exact same reasons I gave in the OP.




posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard



1) "them" vs "us" and strong group identification / engendering of "loyalty" to a "strong leader" persona, (that is why he defines others as 'weak' 'small' 'low energy' 'infirm' and lauds his own supposed strength and stamina), which plays into they psychology of the Presidency in terms of those who see the presidency as fulfilled in the Strict Father figure archetype.


Yes, and I see no problem with that. Since his platform is about Americans, it goes to follow that it would exclude others.


2) Trump's insistence that "only he can solve the problem" (he claims to be a savior)


It might be true that he is the only one who can solve the problem. He is at the very least the only one who points out the problem, much to the chagrin of people who do not want to hear it.


3) his indications that strong actions may have to take place that will be morally/Constitutionally abhorrent because what the rules are being broken for is a greater evil, and thus a greater good will arise from these "tough actions."

Examples: killing families of terrorists, recommending torture - both waterboarding and greater, opening Guantanamo Bay prison to Americans with military trials without representation (this is particularly troublesome and echoes 'concentration camp' style imprisonment), a "tough cop" given permission to amplify his "toughness" could "eradicate the crime and street violence in one week" (one may assume by unfettered acts outside the rule of law, claiming to somehow be in service of the rule of law)- and I'm sure there are others - this is just off the top of my head.

Imagine if "the other" had proposed any of these things?


He knows, and he has stated this explicitly, that he is bound by rules. He has also stated that he is flexible. Much of it is tough talk, threat, and deal making. He doesn’t want to the US to appear weak and he doesn’t want to take anything off the table. It’s just negotiation tactics, and until he does go above the law, that is all it is.

He is maximizing the options.


4) Trump's approval and personal statements of desire to commit violent acts at rallies - not only does that play right into "group psychology" and "loyalty to the leader and group" it has a the secondary benefit of solidifying the "us v them" dynamic through direct actions (violence). These actions are then justified by a "moral shift" that allows for such actions to take place against "them."


Except it doesn’t happen. Expressing a desire to punch someone in the nose is not the same as punching someone in the nose. Not only that, but in many of rallies, he has a protocol for rally-goers, which demands the safety of the protesters.


For example, you say Trump supporters are acting in "defense" of the group who is being infiltrated and interrupted by protestors, and therefore they are simply "sticking up for themselves" (an appeal to fairness) when the protestors are acting out due to being labeled by Trump and his followers as "the problem" and "the other." They are acting out to demonstrate their own humanity, their own sense of anger and being told they do not belong (that is the perception they have based on Trumps rhetoric). They too feel they are being treated unfairly, and they justify their actions, even violence, on the SAME GROUNDS as Trump and his supporters.


I’m not sure about that, nor do I know how you can derive that conclusion. Watching any footage of the protesters, they make their motives and reasons quite clear. It’s disruption. They are kicked out of the rallies for that exact reason, and with the sheer amount of them, it takes a bit of sophistry to deny it.


So, perhaps you would rethink and rework your logic? Perhaps think not so much in terms of "direct cause and effect" and the more accurate "systems" approach to causality? In other words, group dynamics, group psychology, and projection of loyalty and leadership all must be accounted for in the equation, as well as the creation of "the other" and the "savior" by Trump; it is not simplistic, but complex.


If you take every statement that Trump has ever said that can be misconstrued as “encouraging violence”, you will not find any violence that is a direct or indirect result of those words. If no violence happened, then it is impossible to say violence was encouraged. In fact, it’s the opposite, and violence is discouraged by Trump.

On the other hand, if we watch any number of footage of protesters disrupting rallies, or protesting in the streets, they are repeating ad nauseum the talking points of political pundits and specious journalism.

I saw one video where Trump protesters were stopping traffic in New York on their way to protest Trump tower on account of his supposed racism, when a white protester gets right up to the face of a black police officer and started calling him a “traitor to his kind” and an Uncle Tom. This is racism of the worst kind, tribalism of the worst kind, and mob mentality.

The people lining up to get in to the Arizona rally, which included seniors and children, were met with swear words and racial epithets, before being threatened and spat on.

Trump supporters in San Jose were sucker punched, hit with bags of rocks, hit with eggs, their hats stolen, burnt, their clothes ripped by a seething mob. Juan Hernandez got his nose broken, who exclaimed that he has more people against him now than when he came out as gay.
source

In Chicago, under the hashtag #shutitdown, freedom of speech was assailed when mobs of anti-Trump protesters and rioters, who were protesting his supposed racism, threatened Trump and his supporters into submission. Their goal was to rush the stage when Trump appeared. And do what?

In Costa Mesa, a Trump supporter was bloodied after he tried to leave the rally. Another seething mob was outside, vandalizing police cars.
Source

In Albuquerque, a violent riot ensued. One sign ironically read “We hate your hate”.
source
More recently, donors leaving an event were spat upon, threatened, and assaulted in Minnesota. This include old people, families, young people.
Source

These are the tweets of an editor at Vox, which subsequently got him suspended.

“Let’s be clear: It’s never a shame to storm the barricades set up around a fascist.”

“If Trump comes to your town, start a riot.”

here is the Huffington Post justifying the violence against Trump:

Sorry Liberals

I am talking about real violence here against people who want to vote for a candidate they prefer in a free and democratic society. This is a threat to the very foundations of the enlightenment, to the US.






edit on 23-8-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Yes, and I see no problem with that. Since his platform is about Americans, it goes to follow that it would exclude others.


You completely mistook my point. The "Us" and the "Them" isn't JUST about "illegal immigrants," it is about "Those Americans in favor of Trump" and "Those Americans not in favor of Trump."

THIS is the dangerous dividing line. And liberals are guilty of feeding the same Us v Them. It should be noted that the demographics of Trump Supporting Americans do not include many minority voters, and that the Non-Trump-Supporting Americans are a much more diverse group.

This also leads to obvious culture clashes and racial conflicts, which have taken center stage, but are really symptomatic of underlying problems in the United States - a failing of the liberal Left and the usery of the elite politicians of the wealthy Right.

Poor and lower class, white, less educated and struggling people have been both taken advantage of by wealthy Right elites (since at least the time of slavery) and have been vilified by the Left, who have labeled them as racists and bigots and ignorant in various ways. the end of the day, they are just people who are trying to live in miserable economic conditions with little opportunity, usually in more rural settings. They know they have been left behind and they are angry at the left for looking down on them, and are loyal to the right, who have really done them no favors, but instead used them as a voting block.

It is a complex issue, but I feel there is an underlying and justified resentment that poor and lower class whites have, that has not been appropriately listened to or addressed by the left, and it is this resentment and anger which is given a release by Trump, who is using it for his own gain, if they could but see it. His platform is not designed to truly help the poor and struggling of any color.

Now on the other hand, let's be honest here: there IS a lot of racism and bigotry in the USA. The poor of many colors are left to hate each other, and blame each other for the conditions the elites among us have established through their greed and irresponsible governance. And yes, there are problems within BOTH parties that cause the struggles of the poor to continue, and the power of the elites to do the same. What SHOULD really be a "class war" of the Masses against the tiny minority of grotesquely, parasitically financially bloated elites, is deftly shifted into being a "race /ethnic/culture war." It is how we are divided so we can be more easily conquered.

So, no, I am not speaking of Immigrants or Foreigners v Americans. I am speaking of American v American.




It might be true that he is the only one who can solve the problem. He is at the very least the only one who points out the problem, much to the chagrin of people who do not want to hear it.


Which problem is that? There are so many. And Trump's blunt "A causes B" thinking isn't going to solve problems that are made of complex systems of interactions. He claims only HE can save us and yet, he gives us "solutions" that are half-formed and ham-fisted, trotted out and then walked back and then pressed forward again.


He knows, and he has stated this explicitly, that he is bound by rules. He has also stated that he is flexible. Much of it is tough talk, threat, and deal making. He doesn’t want to the US to appear weak and he doesn’t want to take anything off the table. It’s just negotiation tactics, and until he does go above the law, that is all it is.

He is maximizing the options.


He is asking to be made one of, if not the, most powerful humans in all the world and in all of history. He spouts his "tough talk" and you claim he is, what, just putting on a show? That we shouldn't believe him? That its all just a puff of the chest and a jutting of the chin for "dealmaking" purposes? Tactics?

Please provide examples of how he is obviously bluffing? Of how he's just 'negotiating?' And how do you really know that's what he is doing??? Did he tell you? Do you have some private inside source?

It is easy to excuse what does not make sense (creates cognitive dissonance) if you are willing to ignore the obvious question which is, WHAT IF that's just who he is and he means what he says?? What if, indeed.




If you take every statement that Trump has ever said that can be misconstrued as “encouraging violence”, you will not find any violence that is a direct or indirect result of those words. If no violence happened, then it is impossible to say violence was encouraged. In fact, it’s the opposite, and violence is discouraged by Trump.


That is your perception, and I'm telling you it lacks an understanding of group dynamics and systems causality. I explained this already. Violence DID happen. See my posted video on page 1.



I’m not sure about that, nor do I know how you can derive that conclusion. Watching any footage of the protesters, they make their motives and reasons quite clear. It’s disruption. They are kicked out of the rallies for that exact reason, and with the sheer amount of them, it takes a bit of sophistry to deny it.


I haven't denied their desire to disrupt. I have explained to you WHY they want to disrupt.

Everyone thinks they are the "good guy." Everyone is doing what they are doing because they believe it to be the right and just thing to do. Even those committing violence, whether it is Trump supporters or Trump protestors. I explained the why of that.

I also brought to your attention how you were explaining away the violence on the side of the Trump supporters with your "appeal to fairness" - you think the OTHER group is UNFAIR, and so violence is justified. And they think the SAME thing about Trump. They see him as attempting to become Dictator of the US, as a budding Hitler or Mussolini. They are fighting what they believe to be EVIL.

You are happy to quote all the instances of violence against Trump supporters while glossing over any reason they might have for acting that way. Again, I condemn ALL the violence. It is wrong. No one should feel threatened going to a peaceful assembly, and they have every right to do this without damage to person or property. I do not deny that it is happening.

Do you not see how people are not simply "acting out" but REACTING to Trump? They are actually following his own "hit harder than you are hit" approach to life? How they see him as evil and therefore themselves as justified? Do you not see how Trump supporters wear t-shirts saying "F*** ISLAM" and use the 'n' word and other race baiting language? Certainly not everyone at a Trump rally does that, but you can't gloss over those kinds of "fighting words" either.

You are equally happy to ignore how divisive rhetoric was stirred up by Trump, with his World Wrestling Champ tough talk and foul language not fit for TV, his mocking and his bullying, which fed his own crowd and amplified those attitudes so that now people think being polite is "PC" and being loud and rude and coarse is positive, affirming behavior??

How does that ennoble our country, how does that aid our civil discourse, how does that "Make America Great Again?"

- AB
edit on 23-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Great job. Your posts are always extremely well written, and well thought out. I always enjoy reading your words regardless of the content.

The hypocrisy of this whole scenario is what really strikes me as ironic. The only large outbursts of violence comes from the anti-Trump camp, which is spurred on by the media narrative. How many violent felonies have we seen being committed at Trump protests? It would be safe to say hundreds, and that is just what we saw on video.

"F*** Trump"
"Nazi's"
"White Supremacists"
"KKK"
"Xenophobe"
"Islamophobe"

The list of false dehumanizing language pushed by the mainstream media is influencing this behavior. If you can paint someone as "evil", then any actions taken against that person is seen as good and moral, just like your Hitler analogy. The general uninformed public has been worked up into a frenzy of actual violence.

On the bright side, people are starting to wake up to this. The msm is losing it's mind controlling grip on the masses. It will take a lot of people a bit longer to catch on, but I think it is happening at a very fast rate. Soon enough other "fringe" media outlets will be able to start competing against this machine, and that is the first step to regaining our freedom.

Again, great work. Thanks for the post!



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If YOU were a billionaire..would you risk your name, legacy, reputation, and your family for a bunch of retards who were too stupid to know they were being manipulated and led like cattle to the slaughter ?

www.youtube.com...



I'd probably be chilling on a beach somewhere smoking a joint and drinking a Pina Colada with my sweet sweet baby , hoping the globalists wouldn't catch up with me...or sending them money hoping I could stay on their " good side "... this guy doesn't give a #$@k and is trying to do right by his fellow countrymen, it isn't that hard to see when you really look


edit on 24-8-2016 by Noobarino because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2016 by Noobarino because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Give Bil Maher a position of power, and he will turn into an authoritarian left wing that hides his intentions with jokes.

Most of the left forgets that socialism and communism have authoritarian roots, disguised as power to the people, when in reality, the people are just numbers explored by a rulling class, yes because rulling classes will always prevail. Their actions are close to fascism in so many instants. No wonder back in the 1930s, Hitler signed a pact of no agression with the Soviet Union at first...
edit on 24-8-16 by Substracto because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
AGAIN Why are you listening to campaign CRAP?
It is a waste of your time.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




What I see is you holding different people and different cultures to a lesser standard than you would your own. That’s what I mean by relativism.


You're going to call relativism? Figures

You know why they're coming here? It has nothing to do with their being rapists - or any other kind of criminal. Mexico isn't sending them - they're just coming

Not going to end any time soon either

Relativism indeed. You want to waste all our time trying to explain things away by dissecting Trumps words - splitting hairs and playing fussy, effete word games

So that you can prove what? That bad Mexicans are coming to America - and Trump is the only one that understands this? He is so very brave, and honest - he alone isn't afraid to say this out loud because he's the first honest guy ever ever ever!

Only he can to talk to the peeps like this for reals?

Mexico is just the tip of the iceberg - this world is in a real state - but yes - by all means lets celebrate Trumps intelligence! And his special hard to come by talent for anti PC bull crap!

He's amazing! Praise Trump! Screw the Mexicans - they is all not good people! Screw Mexico too - for sending them here! Build the wall! Build the wall!

What a colossal waste of space is the space you take up

What a waste of time all of this really is


edit on 8/24/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: words...



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: dukeofjive696969




I am having a really hard time understanding this thread, trump fans where happy when trump was insulting people, now that the tables are turned, its bad to call people names?


Snowflakes on the right, say aint so...



Who said they were happy Trump was insulting people? One example will do.


Dammit you asked me for 1 example, you proved me wrong lol.


Mexicans are rapist, got applause's.


Please point to one video or other evidence where Trump said "Mexicans are rapists".



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The only violence associated with Trump is that which the anti-Trump protestors initiate at rallies.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Well, it appears most of the violence was incited by groups supportive of Hillary Clinton' thanks to new information from James O'Keefe. Trump's "spectre of violence" was always a fabrication by agitators and a media's confirmation bias.




top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join