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.

 

BBC Camera Man Attacked at Trump Rally UPDATED.

page: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.


So, it's factually incorrect? Care to direct me to a link to demonstrate that please?

ETA: I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to see/learn about evidence to the contrary, if there is.


First off the source is the Southern Poverty Law Center... a known leftist shill group. Might want to do some research on them and their methods before taking anything the claim as gospel.

Here is a video to get you started since I know you won't take the time to do your own research to upset your world view...





I'm not taking it as gospel, and I've heard that report several different places. In fact, the SPLC lists that the report they used came from another source, so it isn't their own report.

But, back to what I said. I'm not taking it as gospel, I'd actually like to see evidence to the contrary.

**Of which, you didn't provide any at all. You just told me that the source I quoted is a leftist shill.

Who cares what side of the aisle they lean towards, if they list an accurate report?

Can you show me evidence that the report is inaccurate? Actual evidence, not "don't trust that organization".

Again, not being sarcastic, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

ETA: I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but I'll give you a glimpse of my actual world view:

Be a good person. Be fair. Be impartial.

Basically, a sort of Buddhist amalgamation. I'm not sure what you were insinuating it to be, but that's what it actually is.
edit on 13-2-2019 by narrator because: ETA




posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere

Media Trump Hatred Shows In 92% Negative Coverage Of His Presidency: Study

www.investors.com...


edit on 13-2-2019 by ausername because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
haha!

I gotta say av been reading through the replies on this thread and its a sad indictment of ATS in 2019. So many of you claiming that he must be some kind of Leftist/Dem/Liberal plant with zero evidence. It's astounding how many of you completely fail to acknowledge the rotten fruit in your basket. Yes there are some morons out there who put on a red MAGA hat who take Trump so literally when he calls the press the enemy of the people that they believe that justifies violence against the press.

But no let's pretend it's a plant by the Dems.

This is why its so difficult to have meaningful discussion with some Trump supporters because the inability to acknowledge any kind of flaw in Trump or those who support him undermines all your positions.

Its a bit like this with those of who who claim this guy is a stooge of the democrats....



I mean if you actually believe this guy is a plant then what is the point in discussing it further, whats the point in trying to discuss anything with any of you if your that blinded by your own politics.



Try something other than " Reeeeeee !! Orange Man Bad !!! " and you would have better luck.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   
BREAKING NEWS:
The shover has been identified as Nathan Phillips's son.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

Right? I mean, it's not like he mailed bombs to people. Or shot up a church.

Crazy people are on both sides of the aisle. To argue otherwise is foolish.


It's funny how people pick and choose to fit things to their narratives. Since we are on this subject and you assume conservatives are so violent compared to liberals how do you rate the 2 million gang members that are just about all minority liberals, or death level violence in extremely liberal cities like Chicago, hell walk down the streets in Portland OR as a Conservative...... I guess they all don't count, but hey keep pushing your narrative.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
'm not trying to be hyperbolic, but I think this is. . .

Shove-aggedon.

Or the Push-ocalypse.

I'm scared. Someone hold me.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
BREAKING NEWS:
The shover has been identified as Nathan Phillips's son.


Link to source please, or you are knowingly propagating a false statement (which is against the T&C's here).

Thanks



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.


So, it's factually incorrect? Care to direct me to a link to demonstrate that please?

ETA: I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to see/learn about evidence to the contrary, if there is.


First off the source is the Southern Poverty Law Center... a known leftist shill group. Might want to do some research on them and their methods before taking anything the claim as gospel.

Here is a video to get you started since I know you won't take the time to do your own research to upset your world view...





I'm not taking it as gospel, and I've heard that report several different places. In fact, the SPLC lists that the report they used came from another source, so it isn't their own report.

But, back to what I said. I'm not taking it as gospel, I'd actually like to see evidence to the contrary.

**Of which, you didn't provide any at all. You just told me that the source I quoted is a leftist shill.

Who cares what side of the aisle they lean towards, if they list an accurate report?

Can you show me evidence that the report is inaccurate? Actual evidence, not "don't trust that organization".

Again, not being sarcastic, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

ETA: I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but I'll give you a glimpse of my actual world view:

Be a good person. Be fair. Be impartial.

Basically, a sort of Buddhist amalgamation. I'm not sure what you were insinuating it to be, but that's what it actually is.


Since you are apparently too lazy to do your own research....

The source is the Global Terrorism Database produced by the University of Maryland. They supposedly track every terrorist event in the world.

Link to database. U of M Global Terrorism Database

The problem is mainly with their methodology in how they assign something as right wing. There is a clear bias when no real political ideology is present. In addition, you are also talking about an extremely small number of events in the US. 36 incidents in 2017.

This opinion writer talks about some of the criticisms and flaws.

No Surge in Right Wing Violence



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
So basically whenever anybody is caught doing something wrong at apolitical rally they're probably a plant?


I think some people have suggested it is a possibility....possibility...as to your whenever...



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: JDmOKI

Don't need to compare Trump to anything. He is clearly helping to divide the country by further cheering on the trend of people staying in their political ideological bubbles.

Just like the school kid MAGA hat story... One side thought it was racist kids. The other side that it was proud maga kids. Both sides just live in their bubble, pushing news opinion pieces that all confirm their biases.

Discussion and debate is disappearing and we need honest journalism more than ever.

While outlets like MSNBC aren't helping, niether is Trump with his divisive "fake news".


So how do you suggest stopping the reporting of fake news?



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

well if you all stopped planting people at each others rallies, there's be a,lot less aggro.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.


So, it's factually incorrect? Care to direct me to a link to demonstrate that please?

ETA: I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to see/learn about evidence to the contrary, if there is.


First off the source is the Southern Poverty Law Center... a known leftist shill group. Might want to do some research on them and their methods before taking anything the claim as gospel.

Here is a video to get you started since I know you won't take the time to do your own research to upset your world view...





I'm not taking it as gospel, and I've heard that report several different places. In fact, the SPLC lists that the report they used came from another source, so it isn't their own report.

But, back to what I said. I'm not taking it as gospel, I'd actually like to see evidence to the contrary.

**Of which, you didn't provide any at all. You just told me that the source I quoted is a leftist shill.

Who cares what side of the aisle they lean towards, if they list an accurate report?

Can you show me evidence that the report is inaccurate? Actual evidence, not "don't trust that organization".

Again, not being sarcastic, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

ETA: I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but I'll give you a glimpse of my actual world view:

Be a good person. Be fair. Be impartial.

Basically, a sort of Buddhist amalgamation. I'm not sure what you were insinuating it to be, but that's what it actually is.


Since you are apparently too lazy to do your own research....

The source is the Global Terrorism Database produced by the University of Maryland. They supposedly track every terrorist event in the world.

Link to database. U of M Global Terrorism Database

The problem is mainly with their methodology in how they assign something as right wing. There is a clear bias when no real political ideology is present. In addition, you are also talking about an extremely small number of events in the US. 36 incidents in 2017.

This opinion writer talks about some of the criticisms and flaws.

No Surge in Right Wing Violence



It's not on me to prove it wrong. I presented a statistic that was produced from a University research center. If someone doesn't believe it to be true, it's on them to show the evidence. That isn't me being lazy, that's just how it works here.

Also, I know it's a small number of incidents, I didn't say the number was huge. I'm simply pointing out that BOTH sides are guilty of bad things.

I'm just trying to keep things in perspective, as some here tend to automatically throw out "bad" stuff the right does, but call the left out for everything.
Vice versa with the left.

Examples:
Left - Trump having TP on his shoe. That shouldn't have been a thread, and the fact that some tried to turn it into a thing was ridiculous and reaching.
Right - automatically saying that this was most likely (in some cases just flat out saying that it was) a Democrat operative planted in the crowd. That's insane. Could it be? Sure. But why automatically go there with no evidence of that?

Both sides are bad. It's important to call out both sides. Which is why I chimed in in the first place. Conservatives aren't infallible. Neither are progressives.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Edumakated

So you will take it at face value when its a Liberal going bat-# crazy but when its one of your own you want to pretend it a fake.

I can understand being a little skeptical but there are members right now claiming that this guy was a plant there is zero evidence to support such a view.


Because it is CHARACTERISTIC of Leftists to, what was it Democrat Leader Maxine Waters said again? Push back, get in their faces, form a crowd, let them know they are not welcome, Anywhere!?

They go low, we kick em? Was that Corey Booker who said that?



And to your post below this one: We DO condemn him, no matter What his true beliefs are he harmed the movement!

Qanon and Trump and the White House Press Releases have condemned violence.

I'll hand it to you that Trump, during his campaign made a statement that he would pay for lawyer fees for people getting into a skirmish at his rallies. That was probably not right but it's an innuendo, much different than the direct orders given by Democrats who basically said "hunt them down". Remember the crowd outside Tuckers home? Where are the examples of this on the right?

This is not characteristic of the right, and that is what makes a logical unbiased thinker, think twice about this event. Whereas with the left... well, it would be near impossible to pull off that many staged hysteria events... so therefore it is easier for a logical unbiased thinker to accept. Of course, in all situations there could be missing information that we did not have at first, but we can't help but lean one way or the other at least a little, based on our past experiences and data pool we have to work with.

My past experiences and accumulated knowledge tells me this is right up their (the BBC, or some other Leftist) alley to stage something like this.

My past experience tells me that any Trump supporter would know this would only hurt Trump. There is a chance he may not be mentally stable, but since most people Are mentally stable... I have to wonder why he would do something like this. To intentionally hurt Trump and his support base comes to mind as one obvious option.

I guess there is a possibility that he really thought Trump was telling him to do this... But he would have to be a mentally unwell person. We can't always watch our words just because some mental case might take our words in a way we did not intend.

You could silence anyone with that threat. "Oh, so you're saying guns are bad and gun owners are insensitive to the deaths of children? Oh ok, I guess that means you're telling people to target gun owners with all manner of harassment and violence until they give in. It's only matter of time before some poor whacked out person hurts somebody because of these irresponsible declarations."

"Oh, you're saying soda is bad for you and everywhere that sella soda doesnt care if we live or die or contract diabetes? Oh, ok, I guess that means..."

So it's a little rediculous to say the media can attack Trump day in day out for 3 years, celebrities showing bloodied Trump heads held up triumphantly with a psychotic expression and making fun of his penis and everything else under the sun, but...hes inciting violence by calling them fake news and the enemy of the people.

Do you forget how the media collaborated with the CIA to get us into Iraq 1 and 2 just for starters??



www.splcenter.org...

2/3 of US terrorism is carried out by "right wing extremists". Can that be considered "characteristic" of right wing people?

Shootings, mailed pipe bombs, etc. Characteristics of the right wing?


I believe I said something to the effect of "based on my past experiences and accumulated knowledge". I haven't witnessed or experienced this. Have you?

I don't think a rare event like terrorism can be used like you are trying to use it... Hundreds or Thousands of terror attacks by Muslims happen every year, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is characteristic of Muslims.

I'm quite confident Billions of them dont terrorize anyone, other than their own families and communities of course, as directed by Allah. Honor killings and genital mutilation and female persecution and such.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.


So, it's factually incorrect? Care to direct me to a link to demonstrate that please?

ETA: I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to see/learn about evidence to the contrary, if there is.


First off the source is the Southern Poverty Law Center... a known leftist shill group. Might want to do some research on them and their methods before taking anything the claim as gospel.

Here is a video to get you started since I know you won't take the time to do your own research to upset your world view...





I'm not taking it as gospel, and I've heard that report several different places. In fact, the SPLC lists that the report they used came from another source, so it isn't their own report.

But, back to what I said. I'm not taking it as gospel, I'd actually like to see evidence to the contrary.

**Of which, you didn't provide any at all. You just told me that the source I quoted is a leftist shill.

Who cares what side of the aisle they lean towards, if they list an accurate report?

Can you show me evidence that the report is inaccurate? Actual evidence, not "don't trust that organization".

Again, not being sarcastic, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

ETA: I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but I'll give you a glimpse of my actual world view:

Be a good person. Be fair. Be impartial.

Basically, a sort of Buddhist amalgamation. I'm not sure what you were insinuating it to be, but that's what it actually is.


Since you are apparently too lazy to do your own research....

The source is the Global Terrorism Database produced by the University of Maryland. They supposedly track every terrorist event in the world.

Link to database. U of M Global Terrorism Database

The problem is mainly with their methodology in how they assign something as right wing. There is a clear bias when no real political ideology is present. In addition, you are also talking about an extremely small number of events in the US. 36 incidents in 2017.

This opinion writer talks about some of the criticisms and flaws.

No Surge in Right Wing Violence



It's not on me to prove it wrong. I presented a statistic that was produced from a University research center. If someone doesn't believe it to be true, it's on them to show the evidence. That isn't me being lazy, that's just how it works here.

Also, I know it's a small number of incidents, I didn't say the number was huge. I'm simply pointing out that BOTH sides are guilty of bad things.

I'm just trying to keep things in perspective, as some here tend to automatically throw out "bad" stuff the right does, but call the left out for everything.
Vice versa with the left.

Examples:
Left - Trump having TP on his shoe. That shouldn't have been a thread, and the fact that some tried to turn it into a thing was ridiculous and reaching.
Right - automatically saying that this was most likely (in some cases just flat out saying that it was) a Democrat operative planted in the crowd. That's insane. Could it be? Sure. But why automatically go there with no evidence of that?

Both sides are bad. It's important to call out both sides. Which is why I chimed in in the first place. Conservatives aren't infallible. Neither are progressives.


There are far more incidents coming from the left in regards to fake racism and violence claims. The left has a history of this type of stuff which is why many are skeptical of its truth. It is just to "convenient".

We see it as an attempt to push a narrative. Trump racist. Maga hat racist. Trump supporters violent. When the left cannot stand on facts and logic, they push the above narrative. They try to gin up incidents to push this narrative.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
'm not trying to be hyperbolic, but I think this is. . .

Shove-aggedon.

Or the Push-ocalypse.

I'm scared. Someone hold me.


There there... Soon we will repeal that dastardly 2nd amendment that guarantees people the right to arms... arms that can be used for pushing and shoving... We will make it so only special people who can prove they really need their arms can have them.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

*sobs openly*

Thank you!





We've become a nation of sissies if pushing someone can be conflated to terrorist activities.

Jezus!

We did get off lucky though, I heard a rumor that next time, someone might end up using harsh language.







posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Is there a full length video that shows his actions prior to the incident?

We should wait for the full story to emerge, and not get reactionary out of the gate. After all, the media and those with an agenda would never tailor a clip to support their biased narrative, right?



the full story??.....c'mon, this type of demonization of the "media" has been common in all types of dictatorial governments for along time.....political history books give many examples of this....the whole idea is to get the populace to ONLY AGREE with what the dictator thinks is right...regardless of truth or reasoning skills


So... you are against the concept of gathering all the information before making a judgement? And are in support of knee jerk reactions and automatically believing what you're told with no questions asked?

Because dictators in the past have attacked the media, that means the media cannot be criticized or else people might think we like dictators?

Damn you caught us. We love dictators and hate freedom...



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Edumakated

So you will take it at face value when its a Liberal going bat-# crazy but when its one of your own you want to pretend it a fake.

I can understand being a little skeptical but there are members right now claiming that this guy was a plant there is zero evidence to support such a view.


Because it is CHARACTERISTIC of Leftists to, what was it Democrat Leader Maxine Waters said again? Push back, get in their faces, form a crowd, let them know they are not welcome, Anywhere!?

They go low, we kick em? Was that Corey Booker who said that?



And to your post below this one: We DO condemn him, no matter What his true beliefs are he harmed the movement!

Qanon and Trump and the White House Press Releases have condemned violence.

I'll hand it to you that Trump, during his campaign made a statement that he would pay for lawyer fees for people getting into a skirmish at his rallies. That was probably not right but it's an innuendo, much different than the direct orders given by Democrats who basically said "hunt them down". Remember the crowd outside Tuckers home? Where are the examples of this on the right?

This is not characteristic of the right, and that is what makes a logical unbiased thinker, think twice about this event. Whereas with the left... well, it would be near impossible to pull off that many staged hysteria events... so therefore it is easier for a logical unbiased thinker to accept. Of course, in all situations there could be missing information that we did not have at first, but we can't help but lean one way or the other at least a little, based on our past experiences and data pool we have to work with.

My past experiences and accumulated knowledge tells me this is right up their (the BBC, or some other Leftist) alley to stage something like this.

My past experience tells me that any Trump supporter would know this would only hurt Trump. There is a chance he may not be mentally stable, but since most people Are mentally stable... I have to wonder why he would do something like this. To intentionally hurt Trump and his support base comes to mind as one obvious option.

I guess there is a possibility that he really thought Trump was telling him to do this... But he would have to be a mentally unwell person. We can't always watch our words just because some mental case might take our words in a way we did not intend.

You could silence anyone with that threat. "Oh, so you're saying guns are bad and gun owners are insensitive to the deaths of children? Oh ok, I guess that means you're telling people to target gun owners with all manner of harassment and violence until they give in. It's only matter of time before some poor whacked out person hurts somebody because of these irresponsible declarations."

"Oh, you're saying soda is bad for you and everywhere that sella soda doesnt care if we live or die or contract diabetes? Oh, ok, I guess that means..."

So it's a little rediculous to say the media can attack Trump day in day out for 3 years, celebrities showing bloodied Trump heads held up triumphantly with a psychotic expression and making fun of his penis and everything else under the sun, but...hes inciting violence by calling them fake news and the enemy of the people.

Do you forget how the media collaborated with the CIA to get us into Iraq 1 and 2 just for starters??



www.splcenter.org...

2/3 of US terrorism is carried out by "right wing extremists". Can that be considered "characteristic" of right wing people?

Shootings, mailed pipe bombs, etc. Characteristics of the right wing?


I believe I said something to the effect of "based on my past experiences and accumulated knowledge". I haven't witnessed or experienced this. Have you?

I don't think a rare event like terrorism can be used like you are trying to use it... Hundreds or Thousands of terror attacks by Muslims happen every year, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is characteristic of Muslims.

I'm quite confident Billions of them dont terrorize anyone, other than their own families and communities of course, as directed by Allah. Honor killings and genital mutilation and female persecution and such.


It was said that it's characteristic of Democrats to act that way. I was pointing out that I could use the same tactic on the right wing, by using that stat to show that it could be construed to be characteristic of the right.

You got my entire point. It isn't characteristic of Democrats to do that, because only .0001% of them act like that. Just like only .0001% of Republicans act negatively as well.

It's important to show that both sides do bad things.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

You might want to read behind the headline.
This database is compiled from news articles crawled online.
If the media characterise something as right wing, but hide details about left wing or radical islam attacks then the source is completely compromised.

In other words, fake news spin and hiding details that are not politically expedient directly to the news outlet reporting it affect this so called authority on terrorist attacks. i.e. it's complete horse#. Makes for a nice politically useful headline , though.... grabbed eagerly by those that don't need any convincing.


So, it's factually incorrect? Care to direct me to a link to demonstrate that please?

ETA: I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to see/learn about evidence to the contrary, if there is.


First off the source is the Southern Poverty Law Center... a known leftist shill group. Might want to do some research on them and their methods before taking anything the claim as gospel.

Here is a video to get you started since I know you won't take the time to do your own research to upset your world view...





I'm not taking it as gospel, and I've heard that report several different places. In fact, the SPLC lists that the report they used came from another source, so it isn't their own report.

But, back to what I said. I'm not taking it as gospel, I'd actually like to see evidence to the contrary.

**Of which, you didn't provide any at all. You just told me that the source I quoted is a leftist shill.

Who cares what side of the aisle they lean towards, if they list an accurate report?

Can you show me evidence that the report is inaccurate? Actual evidence, not "don't trust that organization".

Again, not being sarcastic, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

ETA: I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but I'll give you a glimpse of my actual world view:

Be a good person. Be fair. Be impartial.

Basically, a sort of Buddhist amalgamation. I'm not sure what you were insinuating it to be, but that's what it actually is.


Since you are apparently too lazy to do your own research....

The source is the Global Terrorism Database produced by the University of Maryland. They supposedly track every terrorist event in the world.

Link to database. U of M Global Terrorism Database

The problem is mainly with their methodology in how they assign something as right wing. There is a clear bias when no real political ideology is present. In addition, you are also talking about an extremely small number of events in the US. 36 incidents in 2017.

This opinion writer talks about some of the criticisms and flaws.

No Surge in Right Wing Violence



It's not on me to prove it wrong. I presented a statistic that was produced from a University research center. If someone doesn't believe it to be true, it's on them to show the evidence. That isn't me being lazy, that's just how it works here.

Also, I know it's a small number of incidents, I didn't say the number was huge. I'm simply pointing out that BOTH sides are guilty of bad things.

I'm just trying to keep things in perspective, as some here tend to automatically throw out "bad" stuff the right does, but call the left out for everything.
Vice versa with the left.

Examples:
Left - Trump having TP on his shoe. That shouldn't have been a thread, and the fact that some tried to turn it into a thing was ridiculous and reaching.
Right - automatically saying that this was most likely (in some cases just flat out saying that it was) a Democrat operative planted in the crowd. That's insane. Could it be? Sure. But why automatically go there with no evidence of that?

Both sides are bad. It's important to call out both sides. Which is why I chimed in in the first place. Conservatives aren't infallible. Neither are progressives.


There are far more incidents coming from the left in regards to fake racism and violence claims. The left has a history of this type of stuff which is why many are skeptical of its truth. It is just to "convenient".

We see it as an attempt to push a narrative. Trump racist. Maga hat racist. Trump supporters violent. When the left cannot stand on facts and logic, they push the above narrative. They try to gin up incidents to push this narrative.


I'll again repeat my question: Do you have evidence of that? You say there are far more incidents coming from the left. Cite them, please.
ETA: The right has a history of shooting people and blowing people up. Should the Left be skeptical of the Right for that reason?
It isn't the entire Left, and it isn't the entire right. Stop speaking hyperbolically.

It's not that I don't believe you. In my world, I've seen a lot of negatives coming from the Right, I'd venture to say more than the Left. So it's only normal to question what you're saying.

If you provide evidence though, I'm happy to look into it and be proven wrong. You just saying it doesn't make it so.
edit on 13-2-2019 by narrator because: eta



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Wow people will say anything to excuse assault, if the person who did it shares tha same politics.scary.


Hey pal I don't mean to get on your case, but, could you maybe clarify your post?

I don't know that I've seen anyone excusing the assault.

I said it once but I'll repeat it here: No matter what the man's true political leanings are, he has harmed the movement and harmed Trump. There's no excuse for that.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join