What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Notanumber]

Instead of rioting in the streets, why don’t they book a hall and make a speech about their concerns?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think I will ever understand how you can say such a thing without being satyrical.

So you cannot conceive that any reasonable person would judge her to be worse?
You seem determined to not understand the other side.

You are probably sincere... but it does not make any sense whatsoever.

Only "probably"?
I've some other secret possible reason for voting as I did?

Of course not.

But it seems you're advocating that I should've voted for Hillary, the worst candidate, because you dislike Trump.

If this is another attempt at convincing me not to point out the false equivalencies, it failed. Again. As one would expect.

Please explain why you think you see a false equivalency.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Baseless, eh?
We can't just disagree....I've no reason behind my views?
Again, I say....
Hubris!

Hillary didn't really even talk about guns. There was no reason to assume either one of us would be loosing our guns under a Hillary presidency.

Note that you list all the reasons you dislike Trump.

Concerns of rights violations extends far beyond disliking. And, if you recall, I did recognize the shortcomings of Hillary, however I did not buy into the Benghazi nonsense nor did I feel she should be singled out for an electronics policy violation when so many are doing various electronics violations that it makes me curious how well those policies are written.
One thing I can point out, is many groups make many assumptions here. Christians assume I'm an atheist because I criticize their religion, overly zealous haters of Islam think I'm an apologist when I'm even saying their claims are nothing more than fear-fueled nonsense, and in the case on "The Right," or rather Social and/or Fiscal Conservatives, they assume I'm a Liberal who regurgitates Liberal rhetoric. But, in reality, I've been saying the whole time, in regards to Trump, that although I agree with some on his positions he is too dangerous. And now we have people who came here to learn and study in our universities getting stranded over seas because, much like dictators before him, their is a devil of an enemy and he must be stopped because he is ruining our great country.

 

[Akivah]

Rioters break windows, set fire to force cancellation of Breitbart editor's UC-Berkeley talk

We do all agree that we cannot allow political speech to be threatened in such a manner, correct? No one wants to see similar actions towards leftists, or, the grace of god forefend, blood in the streets. Yet, it seems those are the only places this can go, if allowed to continue.

The people that really did wrong is the Berkeley administration. They just sent a message loud and clear, that rioting and property destruction, will achieve your goals.

That seminar should have gone on, despite the violence.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only reason I felt the need to support Clinton on RF was climate change as a global problem. I mean I couldn't even vote as because I live in the UK. In a less hideous election year, I probably would have been telling people to vote Green as a long-term investment in alternative politics to the status quo.

You are reasonable.
But voting Green has the same problem as my desire to vote Libertarian.
We're both guaranteed to lose, so then we've no ability to influence who
the winner will be. Tis an age old dilemma.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're young.
I've seen threats come & go.
We will survive....with some effort.

What does being young have to do with it? Pence already said my rights and liberties are beneath religious bigotry. That is something I expect to not happen. Basically, these RFRA bills do nothing more than affirm and empower bigotry. We'll survive, but I refuse to lower my expectations to the point I will remain silent while anyone has their rights thrown away.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The people that really did wrong is the Berkeley administration. They just sent a message loud and clear, that rioting and property destruction, will achieve your goals.

That seminar should have gone on, despite the violence.

I do agree with this. You don't defeat violence and fear by caving in to its demands, you defeat it by telling it no.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you say so.

It's not my line.
Blame the Buddhists.
I just agree with them.

Odds are that you will have a lot of authority to speak on the matter soon enough.

I don't predict either greatness or failure for Trump.
I only watch, & do what I think is appropriate.

You should learn to play go.
One learns to eschew rigid expectations in favor of effective response.

 

[Laika]

You are reasonable.
But voting Green has the same problem as my desire to vote Libertarian.
We're both guaranteed to lose, so then we've no ability to influence who
the winner will be. Tis an age old dilemma.

The trouble is weighing up losing one election with helping build a movement that could win a few decades later. It requires a level if fanatical zeal to do that and not believe its a waste or a risk.

I don't really see the point of reliving the election over again: Trump won, america lost. Its where we go from here thats the problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hillary didn't really even talk about guns. There was no reason to assume either one of us would be loosing our guns under a Hillary presidency.

Concerns of rights violations extends far beyond disliking. And, if you recall, I did recognize the shortcomings of Hillary, however I did not buy into the Benghazi nonsense nor did I feel she should be singled out for an electronics policy violation when so many are doing various electronics violations that it makes me curious how well those policies are written.
One thing I can point out, is many groups make many assumptions here. Christians assume I'm an atheist because I criticize their religion, overly zealous haters of Islam think I'm an apologist when I'm even saying their claims are nothing more than fear-fueled nonsense, and in the case on "The Right," or rather Social and/or Fiscal Conservatives, they assume I'm a Liberal who regurgitates Liberal rhetoric. But, in reality, I've been saying the whole time, in regards to Trump, that although I agree with some on his positions he is too dangerous. And now we have people who came here to learn and study in our universities getting stranded over seas because, much like dictators before him, their is a devil of an enemy and he must be stopped because he is ruining our great country.

We must accept that we each have very different perspectives & values,
which leads to having different goals, & thereby seeing different risks.

 

[Underhill]

It seems the entire left wing utterly fails to understand that Hillary too posed dangers.
Some rank her as less dangerous...some of us as more so. Reasonable people can differ.

The "false equivalency" charge bespeaks hubris, ie, that because you think
Hillary is far better, that that is fact...not mere opinion. And that for me to
judge her ask worse is the infamous & over-used informal logical fallacy.
Such a disagreement is about the premise...not about logic.

I wonder...
Just who is training the left to erroneously claim "false equivalency" at every disagreement?

You imagine the best case scenario for the one who lost.
You predict the worst for Trump.
It's a false comparison

So far Trump has done exactly what I expected. I don't have to imagine anything as he is actually doing what he promised. Everyone I know thought, he can't be that bad. His staff and congress will moderate him. How is that working for you?

But keep clinging to that notion that Hillary would have been just as bad. It's nonsense, but it may make you feel better...

What worries me most is all the rhetoric about China. Here you thought (against all reasoning) that Hillary was the war monger and Trumps man Bannon is openly talking about war with China. Who could have guessed it. *raised hand

 

[Akivah]

Nor a much larger group, either.

As one should expect.

It convinced half of America.

 

[Revoltingest]

The trouble is weighing up losing one election with helping build a movement that could win a few decades later. It requires a level if fanatical zeal to do that and not believe its a waste or a risk.

I don't really see the point of reliving the election over again: Trump won, america lost. Its where we go from here thats the problem.

I've been a fanatical Libertarian ever since George McGovern (the last Dem Prez candidate I voted for).
Where's it gotten me?
Older...much older.

 

[Revoltingest]

So far Trump has done exactly what I expected. I don't have to imagine anything as he is actually doing what he promised. Everyone I know thought, he can't be that bad. His staff and congress will moderate him. How is that working for you?

I'm only beginning to pass judgement.
We've a long way to go.
But the predictions that he's Hitler haven't come to fruition.....or do you claim otherwise?

But keep clinging to that notion that Hillary would have been just as bad. It's nonsense, but it may make you feel better...

No, I judged that she'd be worse.

What worries me most is all the rhetoric about China. Here you thought (against all reasoning) that Hillary was the war monger and Trumps man Bannon is openly talking about war with China. Who could have guessed it. *raised hand

As I warned you all along, both were bad risks.
The question of which was worse was a tough judgement call....at least for some of us.
Too many actually liked Hillary & her plans for more war, more regulation, more government, & more dependence upon government.
And they call me deplorable.....tsk, tsk.

 

[Laika]

I've been a fanatical Libertarian ever since George McGovern (the last Dem Prez candidate I voted for).
Where's it gotten me?
Older...much older.

Well on the plus side you didn't vote for Nixon. Given that Clinton was the best Republican candidate the Democrats ever had and was practically Richard Nixon in a dress- that could be seen as consistency.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well on the plus side you didn't vote for Nixon. Given that Clinton was the best Republican candidate the Democrats ever had and was practically Richard Nixon in a dress- that could be seen as consistency.

Nixon was a big reason I voted for McGovern.
He was troubled in so many ways.
But he was far more of a civil libertarian that he's given credit for.
He ended the draft the summer I was due to be shipped off to Viet Nam.

 

[Underhill]

I'm only beginning to pass judgement.
We've a long way to go.
But the predictions that he's Hitler haven't come to fruition.....or do you claim otherwise?

I never claimed he would. But it's to early to judge. Considering where he has gone in just the last month, anything is possible.

No, I judged that she'd be worse.

Ahh yes, even less likely.

As I warned you all along, both were bad risks.
The question of which was worse was a tough judgement call....at least for some of us.
Too many actually liked Hillary & her plans for more war, more regulation, more government, & more dependence upon government.
And they call me deplorable.....tsk, tsk.

More war? Say what you like, but that's just nonsense. She never called for more war. The only time she even threatened war was in a very specific circumstance. Circumstances made much more likely thanks to Trump who is right now aggravating the situation with his tough talk aimed at Iran. Who, up to this point, has been abiding by the agreement.

 

[LuisDantas]

It convinced half of America.

Nearly half. And failed to convince the other half. Not very many of those can reasonably be called "Hillary fans", if truth is a consideration.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It convinced half of America.

It convinced 48% of Americans who voted of which was only 57% of all eligible voters which is still not the whole American population. To be clear.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never claimed he would. But it's to early to judge. Considering where he has gone in just the last month, anything is possible.

Anything is always possible.

Ahh yes, even less likely.

That's where opinions differ.
You must realize that you & I have different goals regarding taxation, regulation & war.

More war? Say what you like, but that's just nonsense. She never called for more war. The only time she even threatened war was in a very specific circumstance. Circumstances made much more likely thanks to Trump who is right now aggravating the situation with his tough talk aimed at Iran. Who, up to this point, has been abiding by the agreement.

It might seem like "nonsense" if you're unfamiliar with her voting record or her statements.