Political Protest, or lynch mob?

I don't know for sure what happened but I am TOTALLY against violence.

Sure, people should voice their displeasure at racist, sexist ideas, but attacking people doesn't help
 
cecilia said:
Sure, people should voice their displeasure at racist, sexist ideas, but attacking people doesn't help
Click to expand...
And hold mass protests and blockading other people's political gatherings is an attack in a sense - it is deliberately confrontational. If Trump followers were to do the same to a Sanders rally I think that people would rightly chastise the Trumpets for being confrontational (though the sides would be fairly evenly matched). If two thousand Trumpets invaded a Hillary gathering you know what the news would be saying.
 
cecilia said:
I don't know for sure what happened but I am TOTALLY against violence.

Sure, people should voice their displeasure at racist, sexist ideas, but attacking people doesn't help
Click to expand...
But destroying Fox News does help.
 
cecilia said:
by the way.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/740388115475369985
Click to expand...

It's called poisoning the well. It's similar to what happened to Dan Rather with the Dubya Bush military service papers. It doesn't mean that Dan wasn't right, but the false papers injected into the process deligitimized and eventually killed the story. Injecting a few fake photos into the narrative will negate the fact that Trump supporters were attacked, that some were injured and that the protesters were completely out of line.
Mind you, the Kiev govt and US state department put out plenty of questionable images following the coup in Ukraine but ... the media here wasn't interested in hyping those.
All the best to Bernie and I hope he can catch a break - heartened to hear he's taking it all the way. However, we are in dangerous times. The neo-cons are desperately trying to start a war with Russia, if Obama can't get it started before he leaves office then Hillary will try - she is now fully aligned with the neo-cons. Trump is the candidate most likely to not go to war with Russia if he wins. I think that should count for something.
 
Robert said:
What makes you say that? (Other than he isn't already as borged as Clinton.)
Click to expand...
It's the current US/EU politicians who make the moves towards war; first replacing the Russian marionettes with their own, and more recently they set up a rocket shield in Rumania ( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-shield-idUSKCN0Y30JX ) 'against Iran'. If they have enough control over Ukraine, and place a rocket shield there, it's pretty much checkmate considering the arms race.
And that's the Clintons, Bushes and Obama's we're talking about.
I'm not sure what's Trump up to but he seems to be more of a protectionist, turned inwards.
 
Speelgoedmannetje said:
It's the current US/EU politicians who make the moves towards war; first replacing the Russian marionettes with their own, and more recently they set up a rocket shield in Rumania ( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-shield-idUSKCN0Y30JX ) 'against Iran'. If they have enough control over Ukraine, and place a rocket shield there, it's pretty much checkmate considering the arms race.
And that's the Clintons, Bushes and Obama's we're talking about.
I'm not sure what's Trump up to but he seems to be more of a protectionist, turned inwards.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I meant by Clinton being already Borged.
I was asking what (other than that) makes Trump less likely to do so.
Given his absurd, bombastic arseholery, I see no reason to think he is less likely to do something horrendous.
 
Robert said:
Given his absurd, bombastic arseholery, I see no reason to think he is less likely to do something horrendous.
Click to expand...
It may be so - but he is a businessman before statesman. He is the only person I know of in the race that has said we should TALK to Putin.
 
Robert said:
Maybe but the evidence still seems flimsy.
Click to expand...
As far as I can determine, he's never been invited to a Bilderberg meeting. :)
All the neo-cons hate him. AIPAC hates him.
I know it's not smoking-gun level proof but IMO those are some pretty strong endorsements.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Here's an article by John Pilger. It's a good read but if you don't have time then look at paragraphs 20 and 21 (thereabouts).
Click to expand...
That was a decent read and I like Pilger but nonetheless:
“Only Donald Trump has said anything meaningful and critical of US foreign policy,” wrote Stephen Cohen, emeritus professor of Russian History at Princeton and NYU, one of the few Russia experts in the United States to speak out about the risk of war.

In a radio broadcast, Cohen referred to critical questions Trump alone had raised. Among them: why is the United States “everywhere on the globe”? What is NATO’s true mission? Why does the US always pursue regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine? Why does Washington treat Russia and Vladimir Putin as an enemy?
Click to expand...

I don't see much there different from the type of things Obama was saying before he was elected. He soon changed his tune and, given how often Trump has already changed his mind, I have zero confidence that him mildly criticising US foreign policy is actually evidence of anything.
 
drumpf is a complete and utter asshole who just vomits things out of his racist, stupid mouth.

there's NO thinking going on there.
don't bother feeling any confidence about him. He has a thin skin, acts like a 2 year old having a temper tantrum, has NO clue how to discuss issues that require nuance.

he's actually worse than bush....and who thought THAT would be possible!
 
Oh somewhere I do hope he gets president and screw it up utterly and thoroughly. I just don't hope he will drag decent people with it.
 
Sure, it's INFOWARS and a different rally, don't need to like the source. It's still interesting to hear what the cop says:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top