The left does not hold any sort of moral high ground.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3bZ7SQJe4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0NpqCm2OeM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K1wEgDdO64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zaAs9Nsyuw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFfPei8wQG0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Aw5J0YGryU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQmbn7ndvZQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISB3-51Sdhs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwXlW_rm0Rs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnszDZkjBDE

Let me be clear. I am by no means pro-Trump, and this is not a post promoting Trump. I am just disgusted by the hypocrisy and willful ignorance of the modern American left. It seems that every god damn day there's a news report of liberals assaulting someone for being a trump supporter. I can think of a single case of trump supporters physically lashing out; the black man who clocked the shit out of the klansman at the Arizona(?) rally.

Now I know what the response is going to be from the NSG community. You're going to decry and disown them, and claim that they're a minority and don't represent the majority left. But here's the problem. They are still the left. It doesn't matter whether their particular flavor is the exact same as yours, you both fall under the same umbrella of populist and progressive philosophies. It doesn't mean a thing if you claim to stand for the marginalized or someone too socially weak or what the hell ever when Bernie and Hillary supporters are willing to attack anyone in the trump camp, be they Latino, African American, female, or elderly.

I'm going to leave it here because I don't really feel any more elaboration is needed. Basically what it comes down to is the left simply can't claim to hold any moral superiority anymore. You can say you represent (as a whole) what you wish, but when members of your camps act the exact opposite it totally flies in the face of everything you're trying to profess.

[Nazeroth]

Prepare for so many butthurt people to complain op

[Shaggy Dog Story]

Wasn't someone on Trump's staff investigated for assault?

[Wolfmanne2]

I was looking forward to this because as someone who is left-leaning I could agree with this sentiment. But than these links and the OP...

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Prepare for so many butthurt people to complain op

I'm well aware, but what good will talking about this in a right-centric community do? I'm not here to circle jerk.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I was looking forward to this because as someone who is left-leaning I could agree with this sentiment. But than these links and the OP...

I'm aware some of the sources (Alex Jones, RT) are shaky at best, but I'm looking at the videos in the context of themselves. And forgive my lack of eloquence, I had a long day at work.

[Ostroeuropa]

Wasn't someone on Trump's staff investigated for assault?

Don't conflate investigated with charged for one thing, for another;
That's due to the hypocrisy of the establishment. Most of the incidents on the Trump side of "Assault" and "Violence" are people attempting to move others by force, not attempting to actively injure and harm them.
Wrong? Yes.

But of a significantly different caliber to the violence within the left, especially when you also note that the incidents this is happening with tend to be when leftist protestors are violating the trump supporters constitutional rights to freedom of assembly.

Also, leftist media outlets continuously victim blame the trump supporters asking what they did to provoke assaults and such, and some have outright incited riots.

https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status ... 8855156742

Trump is responsible for the leftist "Protestors" and "Scuffles" (violence), and the Trump supporter "Violence." and "Assaults." (Restraining and removing from the premises.) according to the media.

[Shaggy Dog Story]

So let me see if I can sum up:

Trump supporters aren't committing assaults!

Didn't his own campaign assault someone?

That doesn't count!

[SUNTHREIT]

k

[Nazeroth]

while Alex Jones can be a loon at times he has a lot of good videos and he does make some good points, though he has his occasional "Wtf did he just say" Moments.

[Great Feng]

I agree-many Leftists are awful.
I however, desire to reestablish the Left as tolerant, and as a good party once again.
I will have to become a leader though...And it'll be hard.
But meh, my life has been choices against big odds. Nothing new.

[Ostroeuropa]

So let me see if I can sum up:

Trump supporters aren't committing assaults!

Didn't his own campaign assault someone?

That doesn't count!

Being accused obviously means it happened. An anti-trump journalist accused a member of trumps campaign staff of assault, and they were investigated, not charged.
There's no actual evidence it happened.

Now let's put that up against; anti-trump journalist actively inciting riots, and video footage of leftists assaulting trump supporters and riots at every single trump rally.

So this type of person will assault others, incite riots, and has a career as a liar, but obviously their accusation is true and not agenda based.

[Conserative Morality]

Being accused obviously means it happened. An anti-trump journalist accused a member of trumps campaign staff of assault, and they were investigated, not charged.
There's no actual evidence it happened.

Right, except the video evidence of it.

This is why no one takes Trump supporters seriously.

[Ostroeuropa]

Being accused obviously means it happened. An anti-trump journalist accused a member of trumps campaign staff of assault, and they were investigated, not charged.
There's no actual evidence it happened.

Right, except the video evidence of it.

This is why no one takes Trump supporters seriously.

The video doesn't really show anything. All that's confirmed is that contact was made long enough for one frame, and if you'll notice, she doesn't get "Yanked to the ground" like she originally claimed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -hour.html

Shocking stuff too, right?



Also:
Trump also said she was where she shouldn’t have been by slipping inside the perimeter of Secret Service agents who were in charge of protecting him. An anonymous Secret Service agent told DailyMail.com that Fields was told to stay away from Trump.
In making those statements, Trump helped lay the foundation for Lewandowski to raise a “defense of others” argument, which allows someone to forcibly grab another person if he or she is somewhere prohibited and poses a potential threat.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/t ... z4AZKpGRS3
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Like the other incidents, forcibly removing people who are there illegally. It's something of a theme for the left to argue that it's not okay to do this this election.

[Moschetia]

Trump is extremely dangerous, and the successfulness of his campaign is an embarrassment. The left (or whoever opposes Trump) retains their moral ground because he's an illiberal demagogue who shouldn't be a presidential candidate in the US.

Advocating violence against Trump supporters isn't justified. But "The Left" doesn't have a consensus on violence against Trump. Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents. Do we see Clinton Sanders or Romney offering to pay the legal fees of supporters who beat up those who annoy them?

[Caninope]

Wasn't someone on Trump's staff investigated for assault?

Don't conflate investigated with charged for one thing, for another;
That's due to the hypocrisy of the establishment. Most of the incidents on the Trump side of "Assault" and "Violence" are people attempting to move others by force, not attempting to actively injure and harm them.
Wrong? Yes.

That is, by definition, assault.

[Ostroeuropa]

Don't conflate investigated with charged for one thing, for another;
That's due to the hypocrisy of the establishment. Most of the incidents on the Trump side of "Assault" and "Violence" are people attempting to move others by force, not attempting to actively injure and harm them.
Wrong? Yes.

That is, by definition, assault.

Not under some circumstances. Notably the journalist incident, and several others, have a defense of others rationale. All of them also have defense of the constitutional right to freedom of assembly as a justification.

Forcibly removing people who are illegally in an area.

It's also qualitatively different, and you know it as well as I do. The intent to injure is lacking, and were these incidents judged by an impartial judge, the ones with intent and premeditated planning to assault, who actively seeks out the victims, would be deemed worse.

The sides aren't equivalent, even if you don't accept the Trump supporters legal arguments for why what they do isn't assault.

[Great Feng]

Trump is extremely dangerous, and the successfulness of his campaign is an embarrassment. The left (or whoever opposes Trump) retains their moral ground because he's an illiberal demagogue who shouldn't be a presidential candidate in the US.

Advocating violence against Trump supporters isn't justified. But "The Left" doesn't have a consensus on violence against Trump. Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents. Do we see Clinton Sanders or Romney offering to pay the legal fees of people who annoy their supporters?

I disagree. The Left and the Right both don't hold the moral high ground. It all depends on the actions they take and their beliefs.

Though "Trump is extremely dangerous, and the successfulness of his campaign is an embarrassment."
I pretty much agree.

[Nazeroth]

Trump is extremely dangerous, and the successfulness of his campaign is an embarrassment. The left (or whoever opposes Trump) retains their moral ground because he's an illiberal demagogue who shouldn't be a presidential candidate in the US.

Advocating violence against Trump supporters isn't justified. But "The Left" doesn't have a consensus on violence against Trump. Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents. Do we see Clinton Sanders or Romney offering to pay the legal fees of people who annoy their supporters?

No they don't have "moral high ground" It's this type of thinking that is dangerous

" We can beat them up and it's excused because we think he is dangerous"

It's the same as stabbing Ceasar in the back and yelling "tyranny" based on conspiracy and paranoia.

[Moschetia]

Trump is extremely dangerous, and the successfulness of his campaign is an embarrassment. The left (or whoever opposes Trump) retains their moral ground because he's an illiberal demagogue who shouldn't be a presidential candidate in the US.

Advocating violence against Trump supporters isn't justified. But "The Left" doesn't have a consensus on violence against Trump. Trump himself is the one who's come closest to advocating violence against opponents. Do we see Clinton Sanders or Romney offering to pay the legal fees of people who annoy their supporters?

No they don't have "moral high ground" It's this type of thinking that is dangerous

" We can beat them up and it's excused because we think he is dangerous"

It's the same as stabbing Ceasar in the back and yelling "tyranny" based on conspiracy and paranoia.

They have the moral high ground because Trump has no virtue.

[Great Feng]

No they don't have "moral high ground" It's this type of thinking that is dangerous

" We can beat them up and it's excused because we think he is dangerous"

It's the same as stabbing Ceasar in the back and yelling "tyranny" based on conspiracy and paranoia.

They have the moral high ground because Trump has no virtue.

According to you.
"Virtue" is subjective.
Some Leftists also hold "no virtue", they don't have the moral high ground.

[Caninope]

That is, by definition, assault.

Not under some circumstances. Notably the journalist incident, and several others, have a defense of others rationale. All of them also have defense of the constitutional right to freedom of assembly as a justification.

Forcibly removing people who are illegally in an area.

The defense of the right to freedom of assembly is not a justification for battery under Florida law. There is no such defense under Florida Statue 748.03. As noted here, possible defenses include: self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and mutual combat. None are particularly apt in this case.

Edit: Even further, there need be no intent to injure for the crime of battery; only the intent to strike or to touch.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

No they don't have "moral high ground" It's this type of thinking that is dangerous

" We can beat them up and it's excused because we think he is dangerous"

It's the same as stabbing Ceasar in the back and yelling "tyranny" based on conspiracy and paranoia.

They have the moral high ground because Trump has no virtue.

I believe it's actually called 'stoopoing to his level.'

[Ostroeuropa]

Not under some circumstances. Notably the journalist incident, and several others, have a defense of others rationale. All of them also have defense of the constitutional right to freedom of assembly as a justification.

Forcibly removing people who are illegally in an area.

The defense of the right to freedom of assembly is not a justification for battery under Florida law. There is no such defense under Florida Statue 748.03. As noted here, possible defenses include: self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and mutual combat. None are particularly apt in this case.

Several of the others do have a defense of others rationale, as the link I posted above shows.

Also the edit:

It's also qualitatively different, and you know it as well as I do. The intent to injure is lacking, and were these incidents judged by an impartial judge, the ones with intent and premeditated planning to assault, who actively seeks out the victims, would be deemed worse.

The sides aren't equivalent, even if you don't accept the Trump supporters legal arguments for why what they do isn't assault.

The Trump supporters also use a minimal amount of force in these incidents.

I'd also say that violence in defense of the excercise of constitutional rights is basically, you know.
America.

[Benuty]

Someones dangerously close to getting their illuninati membership revoked, and a visit from black helicopters.