March 9, 2019 at 1:51 pm #10409
Am I mistaken or is the alt-left and media the main proponents of violence connected to the 2020 elections in it’s aftermath? It seems that they can’t help but to project thier own plans in the guise of alleged right-wing plans and plots. I was wondering if this also happened ini Selco”s Homeland before thier civil strife went hot?March 9, 2019 at 6:18 pm #10423
Some of it depends on ones point of view.
Daisy recently did an article about how Steve Bannon believes this will be the most vitriolic year in American politics since prior to the Civil War.
Reading some of the comments, and I am inclined to believe these are real people and not bots, some have a automatic belief that it will be those on the right who will initiate violence.
Yet they do not acknowledge the violence of antifa.
However, in their defense, depending on where they get their news from, corporate MSM which is predominately left-wing, self-censors and does not report anything that paints the left in a negative light. Only when a story gets so big it cannot be ignored that they then report on it. The situation in Venezuela for example. For a long time, only alt-news media was reporting on it, until it became such a large humanitarian crisis it could no longer be ignored.
One of the first tactics in spinning up to conflict is to dehumanize the opposition by calling them names, derogatory terms, making them less than human. Easier to beat on someone if they are “insert name here.”
One side calls the other deplorables, Nazis, racists, whatever-phobe.
The other side, snowflakes, loonies, libatards.
You get the idea.
The fact there have been more and more reporting of people having melt downs, assaulting people over a hat, or tee-shirt, I think is an indicator and warning of where this country is heading.
There was a recent Washington Post (left-wing corporate MSM) about the concern of possible pro-Trump supporters taking to the streets in violence if Trump were to lose the election.
But they refuse to entertain the idea of what if Trump wins due to the Democratic candidate is too far left, alienates the Democratic moderates and the Independents and they all stay home and not vote, giving Trump the win.
Is it not just as equally possible say Sanders supporters take to the streets in violence and “resist” by any means necessary?
Did we not see some of that after the 2016 election?March 9, 2019 at 7:28 pm #10427
I think we are going to see a lot of the left’s true colors and what they truly stand for. And don’t ask me why but for some reason I have had this gut feeling that Trump will win the 2020 election. I can’t say it will happen. It is just a feeling I have. So the circus will continue as this country becomes more and more divided. I for one have been over it for a long time now. It is bad how this country has become so evil. Right is wrong and wrong is right. You have to be careful what you say as it might be taken as rasist. And what they are teaching in the public schools is really bad. As I said the circus will continue.March 9, 2019 at 8:52 pm #10434
here ya go .March 9, 2019 at 10:42 pm #10443
Ditto, outside the urban areas it’s pretty red and getting redder. Our recent governor started off red, went RINO and left office pretty blue. I haven’t seen the feared right-wing violence here, but few protests either. There have been several attempts to pass tight to work measures and heartbeat measures but none have passed, a couple governor’s have vetoed the rest. But really, no matter where you live, the slide left bodes I’ll for the Dems, especially the increasingly radical legislation they are currently pushing. I believe you are dead right about alienating the Dem moderates and independents. Very foolish. Very expensive. I think it is much Superior to 1969 though, especially in the absence of bombings Ang bloodletting/arson.March 12, 2019 at 3:41 pm #10693
Unfortunately, regardless of political side if someone, especially a presidential candidate, wants to stay relevant, they they have to stay in our hyper-24/7 news cycle.
The more the bolder, even extreme stance on a given issue, the more they will be featured in the news, and more exposure.
Trump proved that in 2016. Even bad media coverage is still coverage. I dont recall the figures, but he got something like $3billion in free press coverage, even if it was negative.
Both sides see themselves as the “good side.” Depending on one’s POV, that is subjective.
I live in a very rural area. Contrary to what the left-wing MSM is reporting, most are good people, accepting of any race, religion, or sexual orientation, etc. Now, they may not agree with it, but they are more of the live and let live type. All they want is less government, lower taxes and just to be left alone to live their lives.
I heard a NPR report after the 2016 election, where the reporter commented on how those in the rural areas were less educated, not having a college degree. She absolutely seethed with contempt for voters living in the rural areas. I was offended. While many of my rural neighbors do not have higher education, they are far from stupid or uninformed. They are in my opinion, more grounded in reality.
Flip side, my wife has 2 masters degrees, and we have more than a few friends who have higher education.
And they are more inclined to vote for Trump, even if they do not like him, than Clinton, or some of the more radical Democrats currently running.
And they are more likely to vote as they see it as their civic duty to vote.
How will they vote? That depends on who is put forth as candidates, be it Trump, a Democrat, or a 3rd party.
But they will vote.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.