robosmith Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 The MAGA Right is Flirting With Political Violence Quote The MAGA right exists in a perpetual state of overheated grievance. But as the November election nears, the temperature seems to be rising, getting dangerously high. This week, following Gaza war protests that disrupted travel in major American cities Monday, Senator Tom Cotton explicitly called on Americans to “take matters into [their] own hands" to get demonstrators out of the way. Asked to clarify those comments Tuesday, Cotton stood by them, telling reporters he would “do it myself” if he were blocked in traffic by demonstrators: “It calls for getting out of your car and forcibly removing” protestors,” he said. The right-wing senator’s comments came on the heels of Kari Lake, the GOP candidate for Senate in Arizona, suggesting supporters should arm themselves for the 2024 election season. “The next six months is going to be intense,” she said at a rally Sunday. “And we need to strap on our—let’s see, what do we want to strap on? We’re going to strap on our seat belt. We’re going to put on our helmet or your Kari Lake ballcap. We are going to put on the armor of God. And maybe strap on a Glock on the side of us, just in case.” And those comments came a couple weeks after Donald Trump, who regularly invokes apocalyptic and violent rhetoric, shared an image on social media depicting President Joe Biden—his political rival—hog-tied in the back of a pick-up truck. “This image from Donald Trump is the type of crap you post when you’re calling for a bloodbath or when you tell the Proud Boys to ‘stand back and stand by,’” a Biden spokesperson told ABC News last month, referring to the former president’s dog-whistle to extremist groups during a 2020 debate and to cryptic remarks he’s made from rally stages this spring suggesting Biden’s reelection would mean a “bloodbath”—for the auto industry and for the border. This kind of thing is nothing new—not for Trump, not for his allies, and not in American history, which is what makes these flirtations with political violence all the more dangerous. How about it, right wingers? Legitimate to stoke VIOLENCE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffypants Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 I would be far more worried about the political violence the left will commit if Trump is elected. People cry about Jan 6th but there were riots all over the country when Trump was elected in 2016. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: The MAGA Right is Flirting With Political Violence How about it, right wingers? Legitimate to stoke VIOLENCE? When it comes to using violence on a regular basis, it's the political left that always takes the gold. Antifa and BLM are firmly entrenched on the left. American Hamas supporters too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 (edited) 18 minutes ago, robosmith said: The MAGA Right is Flirting With Political Violence How about it, right wingers? Legitimate to stoke VIOLENCE? Don't you remember leftists saying "gentle giant", long after we knew that Floyd and Brown weren't that at all? And saying "mostly peaceful protests", and bailing out rioters for years? OK'ing violent attacks on the WH? Shrugging off police stations being overrun and calling the hostile takeover of part of Seattle "The Summer of Love"? Even continuing to push violence when little black kids were being shot and killed by BLM? Michelle Obama wasn't shy about supporting all of that violence. Neither was Kamala Harris. They LOVE rioting and violence. Barack Obama stood in front of 5 murdered cops, at their funeral, and made it about slavery and Jim Crow laws. Leftist politicians always stoke violence. Always. From May 2014 - Aug 2020 it was more than half of the time. They do it for months on end, even while people are dying and communities are being destroyed. And you wanna talk about 'all conservatives' now because of one quote from Tom Cotton? There's a special place in hell for people like you, robo. Edited April 25 by WestCanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffypants Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 I keep forgetting Robo requires proof of anything that goes against his worldview but still will refuse to believe when you give it to him but I will try again. Anti-Trump protests, some violent, erupt for 3rd night ... Violence flares in Washington during Trump inauguration Donald Trump victory protests 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 8 minutes ago, ironstone said: American Hamas supporters too. Ironically it's a hamas supporter who's accusing conservatives of being violent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted April 25 Report Share Posted April 25 this is hardly proof of anything. If I was driving somewhere and encountered protesters.. would simply take another way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 25 Author Report Share Posted April 25 45 minutes ago, Fluffypants said: I keep forgetting Robo requires proof of anything that goes against his worldview but still will refuse to believe when you give it to him but I will try again. Anti-Trump protests, some violent, erupt for 3rd night ... Violence flares in Washington during Trump inauguration Donald Trump victory protests So who are the Democratic politicians inciting ^this violence like those DETAILED on the RIGHT in the OP? From your cite: Quote The protest was mostly peaceful until demonstrators met with an anarchist group, after which demonstrators vandalized buildings, kicked cars and knocked out power, KGW-TV reported. Who is the "anarchist group"? Do you even know? How about posting something which is NOT a FALSE EQUIVALENCE. Do yo even know what that is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffypants Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 Robosmith even when you present proof 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 26 Author Report Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, Fluffypants said: Robosmith even when you present proof You're LYING. You presented a FALSE EQUIVALENCE to the OP. And NOW you're dishonestly doubling down cause you got BUPKIS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 3 hours ago, robosmith said: The MAGA Right is Flirting With Political Violence How about it, right wingers? Legitimate to stoke VIOLENCE? You mean like threatening to take away the former president's security detail while saying he's too evil to deserve to be protected from someone killing him? Not a fan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 4 hours ago, robosmith said: The MAGA Right is Flirting With Political Violence How about it, right wingers? Legitimate to stoke VIOLENCE? Exactly which part of this article would you like us to review as you think it is an example of stoking violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 What the heck is going to happen if Trump loses again? Or Biden loses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 9 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: What the heck is going to happen if Trump loses again? Or Biden loses? If biden loses every democrat and supporter will think the election was 'rigged' in some way or another and the dems will continue to look for any way possible to cause trump legal trouble and they will strongly encourage their friends in blm and antifa and similar groups to step up violent demonstrations as we saw previously. They will attempt to gain control of the senate or the house to block any republican bill. And they will use their friends in the media to try to smear him at every turn. Trump will bad mouth them rigourously, will seek to get retribution for their legal attacks on him (but will not succeed much because he just doesn't get how that system works), and will continue to get into fights daily while the economy actually chugs along pretty decent. It will be much like last time. IF biden wins every republican and supporter will believe the election is rigged somehow. We may see some riots and unst but probably very small. Trump will legally challenge the results, but will run the real risk of having to do at least a little jail time now that he's definitely out of office. The economy will not be great, inflation will be sticky and trade deals will be rare. Biden won't likely survive till the end and will either step down or fall down. Tensions and anger in the us will flare and republicans will seek to seize the senate and the house to put in their own legislation and shoot down the dems. either way it will be a mess, and either way it'll be the last election we have to deal with either of them,. It'll be two new faces for the one after and that's actually pretty uncommon. So, should be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 26 Author Report Share Posted April 26 3 hours ago, User said: Exactly which part of this article would you like us to review as you think it is an example of stoking violence? Read it again and MAYBE you'll figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 19 minutes ago, robosmith said: Read it again and MAYBE you'll figure it out. In other words even you can't articulate it and it only exists in your head 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 6 hours ago, robosmith said: Read it again and MAYBE you'll figure it out. How will reading the article help me figure out what it is you agree with in the article that backs up your question asking folks if they think it is legitimate to stoke violence? Because one of the examples in the article was removing protestors that are blocking your path. So, why do you think it is OK to use such physical force to impede others travels and then why would you act like it is wrong to remove them out of your way? You don't get to block people and then act indignant about their response in removing you, especially if you are also duplicitous enough to support the left-wing local authorities who let them do it or wait forever to remove them, and when they do not punish them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 16 hours ago, robosmith said: So who are the Democratic politicians inciting ^this violence like those DETAILED on the RIGHT in the OP? From your cite: Who is the "anarchist group"? Do you even know? How about posting something which is NOT a FALSE EQUIVALENCE. Do yo even know what that is? All day long 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 26 Author Report Share Posted April 26 2 hours ago, User said: How will reading the article help me figure out what it is you agree with in the article that backs up your question asking folks if they think it is legitimate to stoke violence? Because one of the examples in the article was removing protestors that are blocking your path. So, why do you think it is OK to use such physical force to impede others travels and then why would you act like it is wrong to remove them out of your way? You don't get to block people and then act indignant about their response in removing you, especially if you are also duplicitous enough to support the left-wing local authorities who let them do it or wait forever to remove them, and when they do not punish them. Standing in YOUR way, is NOT violence. Duh It MAY be passive aggressive but really just causing you inconvenience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 1 minute ago, robosmith said: Standing in YOUR way, is NOT violence. Duh It MAY be passive aggressive but really just causing you inconvenience. Standing in someone's way is, in fact, a physical force. They are using themselves to block you, and if they resist being moved aside, that is more physical force. They do not hold any moral or ethical high ground in their use of physical force over someone else in moving them out of the way. And if you want to be technical here, violence involves a use of force meant to harm another... the intent here is not to harm, but move someone out of the way. Any harm that comes to them is entirely up to them in how much they resist. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 26 Author Report Share Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: All day long So Trump's DOUBLE TALK has FOOLED YOU, too. Dissecting Trump’s “Peacefully and Patriotically” Defense of the January 6th Attack Quote Trump and his lawyers have made that sentence a centerpiece of his defense since the very first legal proceeding arising out of Jan. 6– namely, his impeachment and Senate trial. Trump’s Oct. 13, 2022 letter to the January 6th Select Committee bore the heading, “PEACEFULLY AND PATRIOTICALLY” in all caps. Where the law now threatens him most, in a DC federal court, Trump and his lawyers claim that he does not bear any criminal responsibility for the events that followed his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, because he encouraged his supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically” down to the Capitol. Assessing the Full Record The full weight of the evidence – first collected by the January 6th Select Committee and now Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office – tells a very different story. And it is a damning one for Trump’s defense. Indeed, the record includes strong evidence that Trump supported the use of violence on Jan. 6 and tried to use it to his political advantage to block the certification of the election. That is in the context in which the one reference to “peacefully and patriotically” in the Ellipse speech will be understood by the jury and should be understood by the American public. The January 6th Select Committee found that the words “peacefully and patriotically” were drafted by Trump’s speechwriters – not Trump. Those two words were also completely at odds with the rest of Trump’s highly inflammatory remarks, during which he retold multiple lies about the election and directed the crowd’s anger at Vice President Pence and lawmakers. While Trump uttered the word “peacefully” just one time during his speech, which lasted more than an hour, he used variations of the word “fight” 20 times. That was Trump’s authentic voice. Though Trump knew the assembled crowd was “angry,” he ad-libbed the word “fight” on approximately 18 occasions. Trump also personally added multiple incendiary lines, including this one: “We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Footage obtained by Just Security showed the crowd’s immediate reaction to his incendiary words (the footage was used in the impeachment trial and by the select committee). It is obvious that the three speechwriters’ words – “peacefully and patriotically” – were inconsistent with the real purpose of Trump’s remarks: to have his followers go to the Capitol and “fight like Hell” to disrupt the proceedings. Prior to January 6th, Trump refused to call for that day to be “peaceful.” In her congressional testimony, Hope Hicks, one of Trump’s closest advisors throughout much of his presidency, recalled telling Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer, that the president should issue a statement calling for people to be “peaceful.” Hicks made this suggestion on both Jan. 4 and Jan. 5, 2021. She observed that Trump was regularly tweeting about the upcoming event and she thought that one of the tweets “could include the word ‘peaceful,’” state “that this would be peaceful event,” and remind “everyone to be peaceful.” Hicks explained that she wasn’t necessarily concerned about the prospect of Trump’s supporters becoming violent, but she worried that there would be “some kind of clash with counter protesters.” If the Jan 6th goons were not doing exactly what Trump wanted, he would NOT be promising PARDONS for their VIOLENT attack and he would have called out the National Guard instead of celebrating in the WH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted April 26 Author Report Share Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, User said: Standing in someone's way is, in fact, a physical force. They are using themselves to block you, and if they resist being moved aside, that is more physical force. They do not hold any moral or ethical high ground in their use of physical force over someone else in moving them out of the way. And if you want to be technical here, violence involves a use of force meant to harm another... the intent here is not to harm, but move someone out of the way. Any harm that comes to them is entirely up to them in how much they resist. It is NOT violence nor "physical force." It is resistance and inconvenience. If you push me, that is physical force. If I don't fall down, that is resistance to YOUR physical force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 (edited) 14 minutes ago, robosmith said: So Trump's DOUBLE TALK has FOOLED YOU, too. Dissecting Trump’s “Peacefully and Patriotically” Defense of the January 6th Attack If the Jan 6th goons were not doing exactly what Trump wanted, he would NOT be promising PARDONS for their VIOLENT attack and he would have called out the National Guard instead of celebrating in the WH. Weird. The video I showed was several minutes of prominent Democrats calling for actual violence like Kamala saying that protestors shouldn't stop being violent. Maxine Waters told people to get a crowd and get in their faces and make the uncomfortable. Boy, that's bad. So why are you deflecting to a speech that literally emplored people to be peaceful? Edited April 26 by gatomontes99 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 21 minutes ago, robosmith said: It is NOT violence nor "physical force." It is resistance and inconvenience. If you push me, that is physical force. If I don't fall down, that is resistance to YOUR physical force. How do they resist if not by physical force? If you do not want to be pushed out of my way, do not block my way. You have no moral high ground here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 36 minutes ago, robosmith said: Standing in YOUR way, is NOT violence. Duh It MAY be passive aggressive but really just causing you inconvenience. Breaking into your home and standing in your daughters bedroom is not violence... so what? What is your point? It is still wrong and when the dad comes into his daughters room and beats the crap out of the creep standing over his daughter while she is sleeping, that is fully justified. You stand in my way and block my path, I am fully justified in removing you out of my way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.