Political violence - how much of a problem and who's responsible?

[filghy2]

In order to free up the 'thought of the day' thread for other issues I have created this one, which seems to warrant it's own thread. For continuity I've posted the last response on this subtopic.

Nick Danger: "The important first step in your recovery from liberalism is to recognize that she DID say it. IIRC it was in response to Trump's immigration policy, which I happen to agree with but that's a whole different post. Do you agree, Bronco? Do you agree that there should be "uprisings all over the country" over Trump's refusal to admit Muslim refugees?

Also, "99%" of that content is not "irrelevant." Maxine Waters is on there calling for violence at BLM protests specifically. Kamala Harris is on there threatening the administration directly with riots. "Everyone, beware!" she says with a smile on her face, as if she is secretly conducting the riots from behind the scenes. "They're not gonna stop, not before Election Day." All of those liberal newscasts calling for non-peaceful protests are post-George Floyd.

So you know, yeah Bronco, it happened. Your party tore up the country over a counterfeiter who died of a fentanyl overdose. Your leaders encouraged it, drew the roadmap for it really, and it happened. I'd be the first to admit, the George Floyd video was absolutely incendiary. I wanted to choke that officer out myself before it was over with. But it turns out, Officer Chauvin was acting within policy, a lot of video of George Floyd FIGHTING the police was redacted, and the final medical determination was that the guy was a junkie who swallowed his whole stash as he was being arrested. Not EXACTLY as advertised eh?

Still, I get it. If I were black I'd probably have picked up a sign and protested myself, and maybe some of that protesting might get out of control, it happens.

But we're talking months and months here. Even after it was determined that the incident wasn't what it seemed, the Democratic machine kept pushing for violence. Because they knew that was the only thing that was going to get them into office in 2020. It worked. I stand in awe of the power of a political party that owns the media. Even though they have absolutely zero good ideas on how to move forward from the crises of 2020 (other than to simply cave in to every special interest that holds out a cup), they won the White House and the Senate. Incredible really. If I were a Democrat I'd be on here crowing about our amazing powers of political skullduggery.

But since I'm a Republican, all I can do is point out that they won it like a bunch of criminals."

[filghy2]

This article deals with the same issue, and suggests the words in the video have probably been taken out of context.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/15/fact-check-quotes-democratic-leaders-riots-out-context/6588222002/

[filghy2]

Nick Danger: Your party tore up the country over a counterfeiter who died of a fentanyl overdose.

No. While an autopsy by the Hennepin County medical examiner’s office did find drugs in Floyd’s system, it concluded that the cause of his death was “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression,” and that the manner of death was “homicide.”
https://factcheck.afp.com/george-floyd-did-not-die-drug-overdose

[Stavros]

Semantics is a key here -when a politician uses the word 'fight', does he or she mean physical fighting with guns, fists, pikes and so on? Or vigorous debate?

I assume that in the Senate trial, the lawyers for Trump will dispute the meaning of his words on the basis that he referred to political fights not fist-fights. His supporters may have stormed the Capitol chanting 'Hang Mike Pence' -and Trump was tweeting against Pence after the riots began- but would he have endorsed the violent slogans? And can his words prove that this was the case?

Or the US may be in the position that what used to be 'mere rhetoric' has become more concrete because those who were on the fringes of politics have moved - or have been brought -closer to the centre, do not accept the outcome of democratic elections, and intend to do something about it that involves violence -there is a strain of thought, associated either with Mike Flynn or people who support him, who believed the storming of the Capitol would give Trump the occasion to declare Martial Law, and thus suspend the certification process in Congress, and seek a reversal or the election in selected States.

By changing the rules of the game, Trump and his supporters have begged many questions about the resilience of the democratic process, have they also changed the way in which language is now used, and is that also a consequence of three decades of sectarian politics?

[filghy2]

Nick Danger: "I would like to see you illustrate the "Circle of Death" in which Marjorie Taylor Greene's ramblings led to hate crime murders."

Have you forgotten Pizzagate, the forerunner to QAnon? This had real consequences - a guy turned up with a gun and fired shots at the restaurant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

The great replacement theory that she advocates has inspired a number of murders, most notably the Christchurch mosque massacre that killed 51 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings

[Nick Danger]

LOL, Flighty, you made me my own thread! I feel that you and I are going to end up besties before it's all over with.

There is one problem though - you have gone pretty specific here. I mean yeah we were talking about the violence for a while, but that's pretty much talked out. I need a wider subject.

This entire sub-section is already a containment board for people like us who enjoy beating each other up over topics other than top vs. bottom or the importance of the cum shot. So this "containment thread within a containment board" just isn't going to work for me. The subject matter is too limiting.

I think I will start my own thread. All of you are welcome to join me - Flighty, Stavros, Bronco, Laphro, anyone else who has a political argument to make, I will field ALL debates in my thread. I have plenty of time on my hands right now. Or, if you'd just as soon consign me to oblivion and never hear from me again, that's easy enough, all you have to do is NOT reply to MY arguments. Difficult. But not impossible.

You'll know my thread when you see it. And I think I will start it by re-posting and replying to Stavros' and Flighty's latest posts here.

[broncofan]

I think I will start my own thread. All of you are welcome to join me - Flighty, Stavros, Bronco, Laphro, anyone else who has a political argument to make, I will field ALL debates in my thread.
This doesn't seem like attention seeking behavior at all. :)

[broncofan]

The great replacement theory that she advocates has inspired a number of murders, most notably the Christchurch mosque massacre that killed 51 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings
I had conflated the "white genocide" theory with "great replacement" which is easy to do but there's an important distinction. It says part of the great replacement theory's appeal is that it excludes the "Jewish control" element which Europe has a lot of historical baggage with and this helps make it more popular. "White genocide" also seems to involve replacement by all non-white people while great replacement focuses on Muslims but they are very similar.

Marjorie Greene Taylor posted a video about "zionist supremacists" facilitated immigration and replacement of the white race. She has also spent a ton of time demonizing Muslims, including saying Muslims shouldn't be allowed to hold office. These ideas led to the Christchurch Mosque massacre and also the Tree of Life synagogue shooting that resulted in 11 murdered worshippers. She didn't cause either but she promoted racist theories that did cause them.

[Nick Danger]

This doesn't seem like attention seeking behavior at all. :)

Attention? I'm starting my own thread because Flighty thinks it's important that the Thought For The Day thread be reserved for whatever it was before we started arguing in it, and this thread here is a bit restrictive - political violence is too narrow a topic for all the things on my little pea-sized brain. (Keep this quiet, I don't think Flighty knows he's already on a containment board).

Come on over to my thread, Bronco. There's punch.

[broncofan]

I'll stop by. Open til 4 am. As long as I don't wash off the stamp I'm good.

[filghy2]

I think I will start my own thread. All of you are welcome to join me - Flighty, Stavros, Bronco, Laphro, anyone else who has a political argument to make, I will field ALL debates in my thread.

I'm fine with you having your own thread, especially if it means other threads can be danger-free zones. Most people are happy to post under relevant topic threads rather than creating their own, but we're liberals so we are happy to cater for those with special needs.