When will leftists cease their violent rhetoric?



The new example of corrupt media is calling Harris the boarder czar in the past and now saying she wasn't the boarder czar.
 




x.com

x.com x.com

This guy talks about why elections are clearly rigged. I'd be curious to hear a counter argument on why they wouldn't or don't rig them.
 




When will Leftist cease their violent rhetoric?

My inclination is to think that violent people, regardless of their political leanings, have one or more personal grievances that they are obsessed over. They seek acceptance for their hedonistic behavior/s. When they do not get it they lash out and a compliant media seeks an audience for the injustice to the aggrieved identity group.

I don't claim to be an authority on language, but I see the use of many words that are triggers. Take the word "Ban" and how it was used in the controversy surrounding gender materials in government schools. When some adults felt the material were not age appropriate or met the definition of Porn they were labeled as book "Baners". Logically, you could or can buy those "Banned" gender materials at almost any book store or from Amazon. Yet, the Left insisted on promoting the idea that parents of children were cruel and phobic for protecting their children.

Earlier someone mentioned that the Left (Networks, Cable Channels and Print) was using the word "weird" universally to describe J D Vance and some others on the right. It struck me as not unusual, since this has long been a technique employed by the leftist media. The obvious intent is to destroy the reputation of individuals they claim are "weird".

At this point I don't see anyway that violent or covert rhetoric will cease. Cable News Stations and Legacy Newspapers all come with an agenda headed up by the editors. There are no grownups at toxic newsrooms.
 












After Charlie Kirk's assassination, I don't recall one, not one riot or attack against the other side. Not one riot reported in any major city or anywhere. I can only imagine what would have happen if it would have been the other way. Imagine if a progressive supporter were murdered. Half the cities in this country would be a shit show. LA, San Fran, Portland, NY City, Minneapolis.
 




Here's my honest take. Both parties (regardless of thoughts/opinions of them) are similar and although they're opinions differ as in how to get there they basically want the same things and that does not include violence, hatred toward the other side, or a desire for the other party to disappear. The violence comes from the extremists on both sides, acting out on their own, and has absolutely nothing to do with the thoughts and ideations of the parties themselves.

Charlie Kirk's assassination IMO was just that. It was an act from a sick individual and was not something that democrats stood behind. Social Media plays into it just as much as everything is now about generating clicks which instantly gets people pushing the limits to stir up as much hatred as possible, not because they're actually violent or because they really believe it, but because they simply want to stir shit up and get clicks and comments. Because of this affect you get even more of a political divide and the mentality that its democrats/republicans fueling the fire, collectively as a whole rather than actions of individual. Factor in the argument over gun rights and it simply becomes a shitstorm.

I'd be willing to bet 99% of both sides are not violent individuals and do not believe in violent acts such as the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I also believe that they'd support the idea of actually working things out from a bipartisan standpoint to try to put an end to senseless acts of violence. But we all know how Washington works as well as the fact that its much easier to point fingers and blame rather then to try to actually put a stop to it.
 


MelroseHawkins said:
After Charlie Kirk's assassination, I don't recall one, not one riot or attack against the other side. Not one riot reported in any major city or anywhere. I can only imagine what would have happen if it would have been the other way. Imagine if a progressive supporter were murdered. Half the cities in this country would be a shit show. LA, San Fran, Portland, NY City, Minneapolis.
Click to expand...
You mean like the Two Senators, their spouse, and the dog, from a couple months ago?

Also, none of those cities have burnt down.
 


HawkeyeDug said:
You mean like the Two Senators, their spouse, and the dog, from a couple months ago?

Also, none of those cities have burnt down.
Click to expand...
Dude, seriously. Let's just cherry pick the one instance that you could think of. Lol, but not mention the murder to the school in Minny a month ago.....................Ok. Still, after this assassination, not one riot was mentioned.
 


kicker22 said:
Here's my honest take. Both parties (regardless of thoughts/opinions of them) are similar and although they're opinions differ as in how to get there they basically want the same things and that does not include violence, hatred toward the other side, or a desire for the other party to disappear. The violence comes from the extremists on both sides, acting out on their own, and has absolutely nothing to do with the thoughts and ideations of the parties themselves.

Charlie Kirk's assassination IMO was just that. It was an act from a sick individual and was not something that democrats stood behind. Social Media plays into it just as much as everything is now about generating clicks which instantly gets people pushing the limits to stir up as much hatred as possible, not because they're actually violent or because they really believe it, but because they simply want to stir shit up and get clicks and comments. Because of this affect you get even more of a political divide and the mentality that its democrats/republicans fueling the fire, collectively as a whole rather than actions of individual. Factor in the argument over gun rights and it simply becomes a shitstorm.

I'd be willing to bet 99% of both sides are not violent individuals and do not believe in violent acts such as the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I also believe that they'd support the idea of actually working things out from a bipartisan standpoint to try to put an end to senseless acts of violence. But we all know how Washington works as well as the fact that its much easier to point fingers and blame rather then to try to actually put a stop to it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think one side for decades has had the avenue of the media to push their propoganda and ideals. They have been able to push their ideas and brainwash on much more of a level. From that you get the extremist who are willing to act on situations.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top