Is the left more violent than the right?

[Beet]

I have noticed the left has a greater tendency to protest and riot than the right. This despite the fact that we are hyper sensitive about right wing violence. Is this hypocritical? It seems like a tradition of the left going back centuries that nothing will change, but it generally doesn't help the popularity of our causes.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Both sides have a tendency towards violence in the right circumstances.  You are seeing right wingers harrassing or even assaulting minorities after this election in (important to point out) isolated cases.

The left organizes a protest and then some of the cockroaches come crawling out of the woodwork to try and push their own agenda or the agenda of whatever radical group they belong to.

And neither side really does anything about it because:

1)  They don't really want to.  In this house of cards game, it is much more effective to focus on the "enemy" or other party and condemn their fringe elements.... than to reign in your own.

2)  It isn't that easy to reign in your fringe elements when they're mostly unorganized, acting without active approval, and your party is mostly bureaucratic in nature.

Instead we rely on police to do the dirty work and then complain about each other.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Yes. But it is not the worst part. The worst part is that they are hypocrites.

Their slogan should be:  "It is OK when we do it!".


Trust to institutes? FBI.
Conspiracy theories? FBI
Respect to election's outcome? Riots.
Identity politics? White old rural men.


And I post it again, cause it is relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does deplorables exist among right as well? Of course, look at hatred now and after Brexit. But there is a little, but important difference. They are individuals.


Left does it as a group, thinks it is legitimate and mainstream media cover it as it is "understandable" or legitimate as well.


If it was anti-Clinton protesters, media would demand Trump to disavow and condemn this, right? So where are Clinton and Bernie and Obama now?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Worldwide, I'm not sure, but in the American political tradition, a vast majority of political violence comes from the left.

[Hammy]

It's certainly starting to look that way from my perspective. It just shows how utterly immature this country is.

[Person Man]

Baby Jesus, please drone this thread.

Was a left-winger responsible for-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Unless you just want liberals to bring guns and yell epitets like Teabaggers and altright people, instead od grafiting the place.

[Beet]

Baby Jesus, please drone this thread.

Was a left-winger responsible for-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Unless you just want liberals to bring guns and yell epitets like Teabaggers and altright people, instead od grafiting the place.

I was just thinking the mid-1990s was the big recent exception to the rule.

It makes sense that the more anti-establishment end of the political spectrum would use physical force more often. The tradition of left-wing violence goes back to the Boston Tea Party. Not to say it's anything to be proud of, quite the opposite. New York merchants even offered to pay for the tea but the British refused.

[°Leprechaun]

The right is a big supporter of huge military spending. What is more violent than war?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The right is a big supporter of huge military spending. What is more violent than war?

Clinton is neocon that would start a lot of wars (she with Obama are already responsible for much sh**t in Middle East), Trump is not and probably won't. Isolationism!

[Ban my account ffs!]

The right is a big supporter of huge military spending. What is more violent than war?

This doesn't work anymore now that the Democratic party has been all too happy to embrace a giant military involved in perpetual war.

Not to mention that WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Syria, etc etc were all started by Democratic presidents.

Democrats have no right to chide anyone about war.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Baby Jesus, please drone this thread.

Was a left-winger responsible for-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Unless you just want liberals to bring guns and yell epitets like Teabaggers and altright people, instead od grafiting the place.

I didn't know the Houston shooter believed "all lives matter" was the proper slogan, or that someone who wasn't an atheist collectivist was behind the OKC bombing?

The right is a big supporter of huge military spending. What is more violent than war?

Clinton is neocon that would start a lot of wars (she with Obama are already responsible for much sh**t in Middle East), Trump is not and probably won't. Isolationism!

So what does that say about the contemporary American right when their standard bearer ran on a peace platform against a pro-war, military-industrial complex sponsored Democrat?

[DC Al Fine]

The right is a big supporter of huge military spending. What is more violent than war?

This doesn't work anymore now that the Democratic party has been all too happy to embrace a giant military involved in perpetual war.

Not to mention that WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Syria, etc etc were all started by Democratic presidents.

Democrats have no right to chide anyone about war.

QFT. The only people with the high ground here are 3rd party voters and a handful of fringe figures in both parties.

[°Leprechaun]

How many of the GOP are anti-war? Yes, too many Democrats are hawks, but there are more Democrats than Republicans who aren't. Those Democrats who have been anti-war deserve some credit. I hope that  they will have the backbone to stand up to anything Trump does to promote war. (I also hope that he will use more restraint than the previous GOP POTUS)

edit: and if being anti-war = being a left wing loon, then please feel free to call me a left wing loon

[Person Man]

Baby Jesus, please drone this thread.

Was a left-winger responsible for-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Unless you just want liberals to bring guns and yell epitets like Teabaggers and altright people, instead od grafiting the place.

I didn't know the Houston shooter believed "all lives matter" was the proper slogan, or that someone who wasn't an atheist collectivist was behind the OKC bombing?

The right is a big supporter of huge military spending. What is more violent than war?

Clinton is neocon that would start a lot of wars (she with Obama are already responsible for much sh**t in Middle East), Trump is not and probably won't. Isolationism!

So what does that say about the contemporary American right when their standard bearer ran on a peace platform against a pro-war, military-industrial complex sponsored Democrat?

You are a white nationalist and never read:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries

And there's only a right wing militant movement in this country. But maybe if you go back through history it would be more even. You can say the revolutions between 1770 and 1930 were left-wing mostly and mostly violent but many of those regimes were installed violently centuries ago in the vaccuum of the Dark Ages.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

How many of the GOP are anti-war? Yes, too many Democrats are hawks, but there are more Democrats than Republicans who aren't. Those Democrats who have been anti-war deserve some credit. I hope that  they will have the backbone to stand up to anything Trump does to promote war. (I also hope that he will use more restraint than the previous GOP POTUS)

edit: and if being anti-war = being a left wing loon, then please feel free to call me a left wing loon

Are you talking about GOP/DEM establishment or voters?If you are talking about establishment, so as European I don't see any significant difference between GOP and DEM.  If about voters, I don't think there are any who wants war for no unclear  political reasons.

In this election both anti-establishment candidate Trump and Bernie had clearly no interests to play war games. Clinton on other hand. After what she did to Libya...  If there is a karma, I hope, that I can say one day something similiar to what she said "We come, we saw, he died"

[°Leprechaun]

How many of the GOP are anti-war? Yes, too many Democrats are hawks, but there are more Democrats than Republicans who aren't. Those Democrats who have been anti-war deserve some credit. I hope that  they will have the backbone to stand up to anything Trump does to promote war. (I also hope that he will use more restraint than the previous GOP POTUS)

edit: and if being anti-war = being a left wing loon, then please feel free to call me a left wing loon

Are you talking about GOP/DEM establishment or voters?If you are talking about establishment, so as European I don't see any significant difference between GOP and DEM.  If about voters, I don't think there are any who wants war for no unclear  political reasons.

In this election both anti-establishment candidate Trump and Bernie had clearly no interests to play war games. Clinton on other hand. After what she did to Libya...  If there is a karma, I hope, that I can say one day something similiar to what she said "We come, we saw, he died"

Specifically those in Congress who voted against the Iraq War resolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

[Meclazine for Israel]

I believe political fanatacism on any level is unhealthy.

A small minority of democrats entered the "Fervent religious twilight zone" during this campaign, and have suffered a severe mental crisis following the election result.

I have to give credit to those Democrats who came back to the forums peacefully without picking fights or being rude to people.

They are the ones who genuinely love political analysis and discussion.

To put the "perceived horror" of a 4 year Trumpocracy behind them and respect the election process shows good character.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

How many of the GOP are anti-war? Yes, too many Democrats are hawks, but there are more Democrats than Republicans who aren't. Those Democrats who have been anti-war deserve some credit. I hope that  they will have the backbone to stand up to anything Trump does to promote war. (I also hope that he will use more restraint than the previous GOP POTUS)

edit: and if being anti-war = being a left wing loon, then please feel free to call me a left wing loon

Are you talking about GOP/DEM establishment or voters?If you are talking about establishment, so as European I don't see any significant difference between GOP and DEM.  If about voters, I don't think there are any who wants war for no unclear  political reasons.

In this election both anti-establishment candidate Trump and Bernie had clearly no interests to play war games. Clinton on other hand. After what she did to Libya...  If there is a karma, I hope, that I can say one day something similiar to what she said "We come, we saw, he died"

Specifically those in Congress who voted against the Iraq War resolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

And here Kosovo http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/29/kosovo.democrats/

And look who we have here... Biden, Clinton. Trump should jail them all https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/sconres21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Implementation.2C_1993.E2.80.932002
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Libya_intervention_in_2011

[Person Man]

Quote this now. By 2020, there will be a war. Red avatars will oppose. LBP will be screaming "Traitor!"

IIRC, W was supposed to have been the anti-war president.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The real test of whether or not a politician is truly anti-war is how they act when its their party doing the warmongering.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The real test of whether or not a politician is truly anti-war is how they act when its their party doing the warmongering.

That's why Trump is a good choice. He is basically unaffiliated.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The real test of whether or not a politician is truly anti-war is how they act when its their party doing the warmongering.

That's why Trump is a good choice. He is basically unaffiliated.

Not really, he's a Republican and thus the majority of Republicans won't oppose him.

[Frodo]

How?  Conservatives are the ones with the guns and the militias.  And they have a history of taking over federal property at gunpoint.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The real test of whether or not a politician is truly anti-war is how they act when its their party doing the warmongering.

That's why Trump is a good choice. He is basically unaffiliated.

Not really, he's a Republican and thus the majority of Republicans won't oppose him.

He will. I don't think that Obama wanted to be a warmonger, but concentrate on domestic issues. He was too weak though to fight against establishment. Trump is not.

[AtorBoltox]

Charleston church shooting
Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting
Oklahoma city bombing
Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting
The recently foiled bombing of a Somali apartment complex in Kansas.

Why don't we just agree that any act of violence is not representative of either the mainstream left or right wing in America and not turn this into a partisan issue?