What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Iti oj]

Have you noticed that Trump voters don't demonize Hillary voters?.

No I haven't noticed that, I've noticed the opposite.

 

[Revoltingest]

No I haven't noticed that, I've noticed the opposite.

Look at what happens on RF.
Alas, I cannot name names.
We focus upon Hillary, but her fans have much to say about us.....nothing positive.

 

[Iti oj]

Look at what happens on RF.
Alas, I cannot name names.
We focus upon Hillary, but her fans have much to say about us.....nothing positive.

I can tell you my time on facebook or even in town or visiting Alex Jones website have left the opposite taste in my mouth and it started long before the elections.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can tell you my time on facebook or even in town or visiting Alex Jones website have left the opposite taste in my mouth and it started long before the elections.

I spoke of RF.
I don't go to those places you mention.
They sound worth avoiding.

 

[Iti oj]

I spoke of RF.
I don't go to those places you mention.
They sound worth avoiding.

I'm not much of an avoider.eh

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not much of an avoider.eh

You're hardier than I am.

 

[idav]

Look at what happens on RF.
Alas, I cannot name names.
We focus upon Hillary, but her fans have much to say about us.....nothing positive.

What I notice is Trump has more die hard fans than Hillary. The anti-Hillary sentiment still has yet to die down. Can the die hards ever feel trump does any bad? People didn't normally defend Hillary in such a way even her own peeps.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I notice is Trump has more die hard fans than Hillary. The anti-Hillary sentiment still has yet to die down. Can the die hards ever feel trump does any bad? People didn't normally defend Hillary in such a way even her own peeps.

Die hard fans on both sides are rather difficult for me to deal with.
Tough to find common ground.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Look at what happens on RF.
Alas, I cannot name names.
We focus upon Hillary, but her fans have much to say about us.....nothing positive.

I mean other than being called a libtard, dumbocrat, special snowflake SJW...

 

[Curious George]

That's one way to see it.
But when we have 2 competing with each other, a vote for him is a more powerful vote against her.
And it worked.

I didn't fear either of them.
My kids are too old if war results in reactivation of the draft.
My debt load is manageable & heading even lower.
I & mine would weather any likely storm.
It was just a dispassionate choice about what choice was less bad.

Whose narrative?
I did my own analysis, which was either rejected or ignored by nearly everyone else.

The better choice, Gary Johnson, had a snowball's chance in Hades.
So a vote for him would eliminate influence I had.
You'd prefer that I let your candidate win.
I didn't want that.

You assume my candidate was? Thank you for illustrating my point about not trusting each other.

No, you feared Hillary would win if you and others didn't vote for Trump. So you did. You can rationalize whatever you like. Your vote as many others supported a two candidate system. Your vote was a vote against the libertarian ever having a snowball's chance in hades. You traded hope for what you wanted (a vote against the two party system and a chance for change)for fear (that Hillary would win).

You supported Trump, you supported the continuation of a two party system. And you helped perpetuate such a system by spreading the idea that a third party had no chance. You traded away what you wanted for a better chance at what you saw as security. I predict that if more people had voted for a candidate in whom they believed instead of going with the status quo, we could have had a third choice.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Look at what happens on RF.
Alas, I cannot name names.
We focus upon Hillary, but her fans have much to say about us.....nothing positive.

Clinton didn't have many "fans." She was one of the most unpopular candidates the DNC ever pushed out. The only reason people voted for her was because they didn't want Trump to win. Democratic voter turnout was abysmal, far worse than could normally be ascribed to voter apathy. Many people who didn't necessarily like Trump couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

You assume my candidate was? Thank you for illustrating my point about not trusting each other.

No, you feared Hillary would win if you and others didn't vote for Trump. So you did. You can rationalize whatever you like. Your vote as many others supported a two candidate system. Your vote was a vote against the libertarian ever having a snowball's chance in hades. You traded hope for what you wanted (a vote against the two party system and a chance for change)for fear (that Hillary would win).

You supported Trump, you supported the continuation of a two party system. And you helped perpetuate such a system by spreading the idea that a third party had no chance. You traded away what you wanted for a better chance at what you saw as security. I predict that if more people had voted for a candidate in whom they believed instead of going with the status quo, we could have had a third choice.

The problem is that the current voting system encourages two parties by its nature. If 70% of the country has vaguely leftist views, and there are six leftist parties that the 70% split their votes between, and the right has a single party that every right-wing person votes for, the right-wing party will win every election. The way elections are handled needs to be changed before alternative parties can spring up. Each person having a single, fixed vote will always result in a system like this through pure mathematics.

The last third party, incidentally, to win a major election was the Republican Party. When they became popular, they simply replaced the Whigs.

 

[Laika]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm not concerned with the greater mass of the left who do not condone or participate in violence. I am talking about and only about those engaged in organized violence against political dissent. We aren't going to get anywhere if the conversation is being taken by you as referring to the left in general and only to a currently small fringe element by me.


Go ahead and show some.


And yet, there was no organized effort to harm people or destroy property.


I really should stop posting in the midst of the early A.M.

With the caveat that no one directly called the instigator to violence, blame for violence lays solely on said instigator for violence.


That is just absurd.

@Sunstone Looks like I will retract my earlier statement to you. I can clearly see how a violent leftist believes they have a great deal of silent support.

Fair enough.

 

[Mister Emu]

And that is a problem, because often I can't, and I get stuck with governors like Pence who put my rights and liberties beneath religious bigotry.

That's the democratic process. Everything, including rights, are up for vote.

I'll need an example of organized violence.

I'm sure those guys and gals in all black with masks who brought truncheons, crowbars, and combustibles just coincidentally showed up. Come on man, those antifa scum were organized and had planned their actions.

A store being looted was ******** taking advantage of the situation. That wasn't part of the protest and it certainly wasn't planned.

That violence and rioting was planned by a small subsection of the protestors, they came there to riot, to harm people, and to destroy and loot.

I disagree to a point. I feel its justified to punch a nazi.

You are part of the problem. Be neither surprised nor outraged when "nazis" start to punch back.

But it has been done and in incredibly common rate.

That is because violence is now an incredibly common occurrence, and people as a group aren't bastions of pure reason and will associate it with the group it springs forth from collectively. I don't blame non-violent people for violence. Though I do assign responsibility for their sheltering of criminal elements.

So killing people because of their political beliefs isn't "organized" violence and shutting them down? That's quite a straw man

No, individuals in lone wolf actions are not organized. Groups planning out initiatives over time is organization. Also, a strawman is a false position you build up and attack as if it belonged to your opponent. If you are going to cite fallacies, at least do so properly. I never ascribed a position to you.

Only it's not a reality of what will happen, especially when there are a plethora of other options available to deal with rioters.

edit: Don't know how I missed putting a response to this.
There are a lot of ways this deescalates, a miracle could happen and the violent gutter trash could go home. Non-violent protestors could welcome and work with police in apprehending the violent agitators. Either of those would be amazing, protestors could protest in peace, speakers could speak in peace and life goes on. The options don't really get better as we move from there though.

That ignores what I'm saying though, I specifically said if violence continues to spread and escalate. I'm talking from my knowledge of psychology and what I'm seeing on the other side of the fence.

Flags, really? This is what we're considering "weapons?"

Yes, I consider wooden truncheons over an inch thick with which blows to people's heads are being administered weapons. Putting a flag on a wooden rod doesn't make it hurt any less when it hits.

but come on, let's tone down the hyperbole.

Pay no attention to the man they beat into unconsciousness. It was just flags hehe :^) Hyperbole to call their rods they are beating people with weapons. Come on yourself.

 

[Mister_T]

No, individuals in lone wolf actions are not organized. Groups planning out initiatives over time is organization.

Whether it is a group or individual the intent, planning and wanting to snuff out opposing voices is the same thing. You playing semantics doesn't justify your obvious double standard here.

Also, a strawman is a false position you build up and attack as if it belonged to your opponent. If you are going to cite fallacies, at least do so properly. I never ascribed a position to you.

You're right, I misspoke when I should have actually referenced your OP which you are certainly ascribing a false position to leftists as being oppressive and violent. That premise is one, big strawman.

There are a lot of ways this deescalates, a miracle could happen and the violent gutter trash could go home. Non-violent protestors could welcome and work with police in apprehending the violent agitators. Either of those would be amazing, protestors could protest in peace, speakers could speak in peace and life goes on. The options don't really get better as we move from there though.

I'm talking from my knowledge of psychology and what I'm seeing on the other side of the fence.

The fact that you consider any alternatives as a "miracle" is rather telling.

Yes, I consider wooden truncheons over an inch thick with which blows to people's heads are being administered weapons. Putting a flag on a wooden rod doesn't make it hurt any less when it hits.

And I don't disagree, however before it's a weapon it's a flag and not an intended weapon. As I stated previously, anything could be considered a "weapon," so your claim that leftist protesters are bringing "weapons" is quite a stretch.

Pay no attention to the man they beat into unconsciousness. It was just flags hehe :^) Hyperbole to call their rods they are beating people with weapons. Come on yourself.

You're missing the point, unsurprisingly. I can beat a man unconscious with my work laptop, shall we start referring to laptops as weapons now? Insinuating that leftist protesters are intentionally bringing weapons to intentionally cause harm is a lot of malarky when your only piece of evidence is video of people finding a way to violently use flagpoles. If you can't find evidence of actual weapons being brought to rallies, then just say so.

 

[Notanumber]

This video points out the double standards about free speech.

Hate preachers are allowed to address campus audiences without restriction, but she was banned from even talking about this injustice.

As she said, Multiculturalism does not work!

 

[Shad]

Publically funded healthcare that is both more reliable and cheaper than contracted healthcare. It is "free" because you are not charged for the services.

Services are paid by taxes thus not free.

No Healthcare by a government is not more reliable. The government must ration costs based on priority and funds, funds which increase with every new budget. How one is sick dictates priority and rationing. Minor illness have a low priority thus you are put on a list below those with priority cases. With private insurance or up front payment I can get treatment for minor illness without a government based ration policy. I can select from a number of competing institution providing service. I can pick one source over another based on cost and waiting lists. Government must always use a triage based policy as it treats everyone. The individual is not free to find the best option for the individual.

Much as our roads are "free" and so is our public education. Neither are "free" in that it isn't funded but that it is publically funded and not based on the capital of the individual.

Roads are not free either as these are paid for by taxes. Roads are a vital form of infrastructure, healthcare isn't

The fact you think that people don't understand this or that you yourself don't understand this is bait you have bitten.

No I am pointing out you equivocate free when it comes to healthcare. It is slogan rhetoric. The single payer system is government healthcare if the state is only using public funds for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Clinton didn't have many "fans." She was one of the most unpopular candidates the DNC ever pushed out. The only reason people voted for her was because they didn't want Trump to win. Democratic voter turnout was abysmal, far worse than could normally be ascribed to voter apathy. Many people who didn't necessarily like Trump couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

I know that "Hillary fan" isn't the most accurate term.
But it seems more positive than calling someone an "anti-Trumper".
Another problem with the latter term is that many of us who voted for him are anti-him too.
We also have many Hillary fans who weren't voters (ferriners who couldn't vote).

The problem is that the current voting system encourages two parties by its nature. If 70% of the country has vaguely leftist views, and there are six leftist parties that the 70% split their votes between, and the right has a single party that every right-wing person votes for, the right-wing party will win every election. The way elections are handled needs to be changed before alternative parties can spring up. Each person having a single, fixed vote will always result in a system like this through pure mathematics.

The last third party, incidentally, to win a major election was the Republican Party. When they became popular, they simply replaced the Whigs.

I still vote Libertarian in over 90% of all elections.
Politically, I'm as useful as tits on a boar.
Am I allowed to say that?

Remember the tooth!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's the democratic process. Everything, including rights, are up for vote.

Which is a problem, because certain things, such as racial, gender, and LBGT rights, should be such a given and not up for a vote. Quite literally a few years ago, because of some Bible thumping scientifically illiterate hicks, it suddenly become a legally protected "religious right" to discriminate. To not just American citizens but to any human being with a shred of decency such a policy should be intolerable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's the democratic process. Everything, including rights, are up for vote.

And not too mention we do not live in a Democracy, and minorities are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Iti oj]

That's the democratic process. Everything, including rights, are up for vote.


I'm sure those guys and gals in all black with masks who brought truncheons, crowbars, and combustibles just coincidentally showed up. Come on man, those antifa scum were organized and had planned their actions.


That violence and rioting was planned by a small subsection of the protestors, they came there to riot, to harm people, and to destroy and loot.


You are part of the problem. Be neither surprised nor outraged when "nazis" start to punch back.


That is because violence is now an incredibly common occurrence, and people as a group aren't bastions of pure reason and will associate it with the group it springs forth from collectively. I don't blame non-violent people for violence. Though I do assign responsibility for their sheltering of criminal elements.


No, individuals in lone wolf actions are not organized. Groups planning out initiatives over time is organization. Also, a strawman is a false position you build up and attack as if it belonged to your opponent. If you are going to cite fallacies, at least do so properly. I never ascribed a position to you.


edit: Don't know how I missed putting a response to this.
There are a lot of ways this deescalates, a miracle could happen and the violent gutter trash could go home. Non-violent protestors could welcome and work with police in apprehending the violent agitators. Either of those would be amazing, protestors could protest in peace, speakers could speak in peace and life goes on. The options don't really get better as we move from there though.

That ignores what I'm saying though, I specifically said if violence continues to spread and escalate. I'm talking from my knowledge of psychology and what I'm seeing on the other side of the fence.


Yes, I consider wooden truncheons over an inch thick with which blows to people's heads are being administered weapons. Putting a flag on a wooden rod doesn't make it hurt any less when it hits.


Pay no attention to the man they beat into unconsciousness. It was just flags hehe :^) Hyperbole to call their rods they are beating people with weapons. Come on yourself.

Were a republic not a democracy because attacking some ones rights are not up to vote. That's what the constitution is all about.