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

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Exactly, and now you've got a writer for a not so insignificant media source articulating the sentiment "Well, if we can't get enough of the voters to go our way, then it's perfectly acceptable for the people to commit acts of violence."

Let's not forget our history here folks. This is a familiar pattern. I'm not "the sky is falling!" But what I am saying is that, alarmingly enough, the precursors for wide spread violence are definitely happening right here right now.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: olddognewtricks
And Trump just gained another 5% or more over Clinton because of this

You don't say...
Poll: 7 in 10 Americans see Trump unfavorably

Seven in 10 Americans have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump, according to the results of the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out Wednesday, which also finds Hillary Clinton's image slipping, albeit less severely. Overall, both candidates are the least popular presumptive nominees for a major party in the poll's history, dating back more than three decades, to 1984.

A full 70 percent said they hold an unfavorable opinion of the presumptive Republican nominee, an increase of 10 points since the May survey. A little less than one in three, 29 percent, said they have a favorable view of Trump, down from 37 percent who said the same last month.

I wonder where that 5% is...

a reply to: olddognewtricks

That is really an amazing story. I am afraid, that the DNC, George Soros and all of his anti-american groups including BLM are preparing for a horrific blood bath on the streets outside of the RNC Convention in Cleveland, OH in July is in the making.

I just saw recently that the Head of all of the Police Unions in Cleveland are not ready, they are nervous, do not have the training, equipment and other states that had offered help and now pulling out because they are afraid of the unpreparedness.

Of course the Mass lame Liberal Media is not reporting this......they want a blood bath so they can report it for 24/7. It is a sad day in America. It is going to be an ugly week there.

people will be afraid to publically show their support for Trump, but will vote for him because look at people who are against him. All these left protesters are so intolerant, and anyone who disagrees, it's open season to attack them.

a reply to: thinline

Yes trump supporters are SUCH victims. Poor them always being attacked by the meanie leftists. Trump supporters would NEVER incite the violence against them. They are 100% angels and it is just a coincidence that their candidate is an obnoxious asshole. They certainly never mimic that behavior. Nuh huh! No way!

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
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.

My apologies olddog. Saying baiting was baiting in itself.
But no, I never read the Huff on purpose. The gal that started that outlet began in politics sounding like a lefty, but then she married a rich conservative and used her cleverness to push him to gain power in California where he ran for Governor once or twice. When he could garner little support for her power needs, she divorced him and took her charming accent to national TV shows and became a sharp tongued conservative pundit of many years.

She then did an about face as the political climate was not offering her the same money as it had in the past and became a voice for the left and then opened her new outlet as a progressive source which at that time were in short supply and of course the progressives flocked to it. But then she sold it to who I do not know or care.

As to the article calling for a more violent response to the perceived threat of fascism as epitomized by Mr. Trump, I think that it points out that liberals should not be surprised that there is. Conservatives, as demonstrated here on ATS and across the country are not surprised at all. It is the 'non-violence' people he is directing his words to telling them to not be so naive.

Some people have the privilege to consider the implications of Trump’s rise in the abstract and negotiate which means are necessary. That’s not true for everyone. And when those who hold that privilege dismiss the potential validity or logic of violent resistance, it’s effectively an effort to dictate the rules under which oppressed peoples respond to existential threats, and to silence forms of resistance disagreeable to privileged sensibilities.

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
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...

Actually, you ARE making this stuff up. When you put the "Left" in your headline, you insinuate there is a concerted opinion among liberals that violence is what needs to happen. In our reality, the opposite is the case. In fact, the article you are referring to is something that's specifically complaining that the "Lefts" take on opposing Trump is overwhelmingly non-violent. The thesis of the article you cite, in short, contradicts the false reality you're trying to paint with your headline.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

"I think that it points out that liberals should not be surprised that there is."

Maybe that's all there is to it and I've just been drinking too much coffee while I read this.

Let's hope.

a reply to: olddognewtricks

the precursors for wide spread violence are definitely happening right here right now.

You are correct, and we all, if we prefer a non-violent avenue to resolving our problems need to understand that what you point out is exactly true, wide spread violence IS in the offing. However, I hope I do not need to point out, but I will anyway, that this, as the article says that none of this is happening in a void. That Mr. Trump's supporters are supporting a man who at least in his earlier campaign has escalated the rhetoric of violence and to insist that he has not is as myopic as non-violent prostestors not realizing that violence will follow them and ruin their voice.

a reply to: SKMDC1

Far be it from me to heap more false narratives atop the whole mess.

But that sure sounded like what he was saying...

a reply to: olddognewtricks

I read the article, what a tool and he's probably too stupid and narcissistic to realize he's being used. Of course I could be wrong, maybe he's being paid to incite violence.

An important thing I've learned over the many years I've watched thus crap is that politicians and their tools say the opposite of what they mean or a going to do. A politicians says, peace and security they mean war and limitations of Rights. If they say lower taxes and more jobs, they mean higher taxes and fewer domestically located jobs. If they say they are going to be hard on crime. They make up new laws to make everything a crime.

This huff post writer is no different than the loons and the tools used to spread political propaganda. When he says Trump is inciting violence, he means the liberals are weak minded idiots that incite violence because they want to restrict Trump's message. When he says Trump is racist, it means Trump wants an equal playing field. When he says Trump is fascist, he is describing his own group, because he knows the free ride for libtards is coming to a close.

If it comes out of a politician's or any one of their tools mouths, or any form of communication, they mean the opposite of what they say.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

"I think that it points out that liberals should not be surprised that there is."

Maybe that's all there is to it and I've just been drinking too much coffee while I read this.

Let's hope.

At this juncture, were voting tomorrow, I would not vote for Mr. Trump. My 'tide' of rebellion rises and falls and for now is at low ebb. This doe's not mean that the part of me that wants to take this whole thing, toss it up in the air and cast our fate to the wind does not blow strongly through my soul. Mr. Trump IS a wildcard and may be exactly what will be necessary to whisk the miasma of our present national doldrums away. Just his very presence might be a catalyst to bring about in the near future a more reasoned solution. As the article points out, even if he loses, his supporters will not be going away and hopefully they, and we, will be able to come to a more stable solution to our problems.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: olddognewtricks

I read the article, what a tool and he's probably too stupid and narcissistic to realize he's being used. Of course I could be wrong, maybe he's being paid to incite violence.

An important thing I've learned over the many years I've watched thus crap is that politicians and their tools say the opposite of what they mean or a going to do. A politicians says, peace and security they mean war and limitations of Rights. If they say lower taxes and mote jobs, the mean higher taxes and fewer domestically located jobs. If they say they are going to be hard on crime. They make ip mew laws to make everything a crime.

This huff post writer is no different than the loons and the tools used to spread political propaganda. When he says Trump is inciting violence, he means the liberals are weak minded idiots that incite violence because they want to restrict Trump's message. When he says Trump is racist, it means Trump wants an equal playing field. When he says Trump is fascist, he is describing his own group, because he knows the free ride for libtards is coming to a close.

If it comes out of a politician's or any one of their tools mouths, or any form of communication, they mean the opposite of what they say.

Cheers - Dave

Sadly, I have to agree with all that you have stated. It seems all of the violence during this campaign season has come at Trump events. Most probably supported by the many DNC PACS and the George Soros groups that he funds. It appears that the liberals and their supper PAC the Mass Lame Liberal Media is salivating for the chance to see destruction of property, brutal attacks on innocent by-standers all being built culminating to the RNC Convention. Cleveland will be worse than the 1968 DNC convention in Chicago. That is my fear. I hope I am dead wrong. Peace

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

That does match what I have observed during my life.

What disturbs me though are the newer trends. I don't remember hearing about public violence like this, over and over again, from Ferguson to the current day skirmishes at Trump rallies.

Perhaps we have gone through this before and it just blew over the last time (older ATSrs please chime in if you will)?

originally posted by: olddognewtricks
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

That does match what I have observed during my life.

What disturbs me though are the newer trends. I don't remember hearing about public violence like this, over and over again, from Ferguson to the current day skirmishes at Trump rallies.

Perhaps we have gone through this before and it just blew over the last time (older ATSrs please chime in if you will)?

The violence of the late 60s civil rights journey was pretty intense. Actually, episode 1 of the new OJ documentary on ESPN does a good job of covering some of that. It certainly isn't a new trend. White men are now the minority of voters and that's causing all the recent violent heartburn, in my opinion anyway.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I understand the sentiment. And I understand that Hillary supporters genuinely think they are doing the right thing.

However, and I think somebody really smart like Cicero said this, we should not fool ourselves into thinking good can come of actions we are fairly certain are wrong.

Personally, I am voting Libertarian because they are the only ones who have any good ideas.

There, I said it.

Probably just upset a lot of people and derailed this whole discussion, but I said it.

a reply to: olddognewtricks

And even as I care little for the hopeful memes presented by Libertarianism, I would vote for a Libertarian candidate before Mr. Trump. And in all likelihood, would the Libertarian stand a chance, Mrs. Clinton also. But if push came to shove, and every little vote counted, I would vote for her over Mr. Trump. Today that is. But tomorrow?????

a reply to: olddognewtricks

Thank god he won't be president but if he does get elected there will be violence and that's because he's polarized the nation and inflamed everyone's emotion.

But like I said, he won't be president.

Mayor of San Jose:

www.weeklystandard.com...

Thousands of Americans participated in that most benign of civic rituals in San Jose, California, on Thursday night: seeing a presidential candidate speak. Of course, that candidate was Donald Trump, so as these engaged citizens streamed out of the arena, they were subjected to astonishing levels of violence. An angry mob pelted eggs, tomatoes, and bottles at the spectators—as well as the police, who tried (and failed) to maintain some semblance of order. Other Trump supporters were set upon and punched. One was left with blood streaming down his face. (See representative video below.)

The mayor of San Jose, Democrat Sam Liccardo, reacted angrily to the events. Not that he was particularly upset at the violent mob that attacked innocent Americans, of course. No, his ire was directed at Mr. Trump. "At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign," the mayor said. Apparently it was downright "irresponsible" of Trump to even set foot in California's third largest city.

The Washington Post characterized the mayor's remarks as if they were just standard partisan hackery: It noted that the mayor is a "Hillary Clinton supporter." But Liccardo's remarks were far different than, say, a cable TV flack claiming that Trump's tax policy "favors the rich." (And by the way, he employed the same logic as as a slack-jawed misogynist saying of a sexual assault victim, "hey, her skirt was so short, she was asking for it.")

a reply to: neo96

Not really any different than Trump does to other people, or any one else.

Everyone does it. It's only bad when it's your team leader being attacked though. It's how it always is, and always will be, man. We're only humans after all.