"Violence to Protest Against Trump a Logical Response"

[Karjin]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10316186

"In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate—whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance—there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this. In spite of this, such resistance is apparently more offensive and unacceptable to societal norms and liberal sensibilities than the nastiness being resisted in the first place."

The title and article speak clearly enough about the authors intent following the results of the election. What are NS' thoughts on this? Is he right, or overreacting?

[The Conez Imperium]

A murky issue as both sides have their justifications.

Huffington argues that violent resistance is the best way to forestall the normalisation of Trump's values (racism, misogyny, xenophobia), whilst on the other hand, violent resistance is generally harmful to society.

I do not think a newspaper arguing for violence as a logical response is going to promote long term benefits. The most interesting argument I found whilst reading is this, I think it shows both sides of the issue even though Huffington uses it as a final argument.

Some people have the privilege to consider the implications of Trump's rise in the abstract and negotiate which means are necessary. That's not true for everyone. And when those who hold that privilege dismiss the potential validity or logic of violent resistance, it's effectively an effort to dictate the rules under which oppressed peoples respond to existential threats, and to silence forms of resistance disagreeable to privileged sensibilities. Don't be that liberal.

[Sharania]

For all of you who are ready to say "Nay!" to such suggestion - a couple of pics, please.

One:

Two:

Go ahead - go ahead and tell these people while looking in their eyes that their struggle for Democracy was "wrong".

Now go and look into a mirror.

[Purpelia]

If you believe in democracy at all than you have to accept the fact that some times you lose. End of story.

Raising a violent revolt just because the person you supported lost is contrary to the basic principals upon which a modern republic is founded.

[Vassenor]

If you believe in democracy at all than you have to accept the fact that some times you lose. End of story.

Raising a violent revolt just because the person you supported lost is contrary to the basic principals upon which a modern republic is founded.

And when you still lose despite receiving more votes from the people? Doesn't seem all that democratic to me.

[Sharania]

If you believe in democracy at all than you have to accept the fact that some times you lose. End of story.

Raising a violent revolt just because the person you supported lost is contrary to the basic principals upon which a modern republic is founded.

Will you tell that, "end of story", etc, etc, to the people of Ukraine in 2004? Will you?

[Daburuetchi]

Material conditions are not right please try again later. Seriously I don't wanna give Trump the excuse to clamp down yet.

[Bhikkustan]

Arise! Ye workers from your slumbers!
Arise! Ye prisoners of want!

[Purpelia]

If you believe in democracy at all than you have to accept the fact that some times you lose. End of story.

Raising a violent revolt just because the person you supported lost is contrary to the basic principals upon which a modern republic is founded.

And when you still lose despite receiving more votes from the people? Doesn't seem all that democratic to me.

If you feel the system is deficient by all means work to change it for next time. But you can not go and retroactively declare it bad because you lost. Once you do that you open up the door to every following election being settled the same way.

You americans of all people should know this. That is how your civil war started!

[Dooom35796821595]

There was a similar divide when Obama was elected in 2008. Any call for violence is immature and uncalled for.

[Sharania]

Seriously I don't wanna give Trump the excuse to clamp down yet.

1) He is not a president. Yet

2) Where is your courage? Where is your civic consciousness?

[Rhomaia]

If you believe in democracy at all than you have to accept the fact that some times you lose. End of story.

Raising a violent revolt just because the person you supported lost is contrary to the basic principals upon which a modern republic is founded.

And when you still lose despite receiving more votes from the people? Doesn't seem all that democratic to me.

Republic, I'm afraid, is the key word in that sentence. The United States is not a true democracy, but a federal republic, and as such it's leaders are not decided by popular vote alone. The electoral college, which in itself is an establishment representative of the will of the voters, gave it's votes to Trump. There is little more to be said.

[Mascargo]

There doesn’t need to be a violent protest against Trump. In democracy, you lose sometimes, or you win sometimes, and you have to deal with the outcome. Instead of calling for outright violence, they should be taking the next four years to figure out how to make their candidates and party/platform more appealing. Just as Trump's campaign was considered as grassroots to some, maybe it would benefit the Democrats to follow a similar approach.

[Sharania]

If you feel the system is deficient by all means work to change it for next time. But you can not go and retroactively declare it bad because you lost. Once you do that you open up the door to every following election being settled the same way.

You americans of all people should know this. That is how your civil war started!

1) Sometimes it's the only way to have things done. Like declare Independence and fight for it, not "working within a system".

2) Are you against people rising up against tyrants and despots of the world?

[The Liberated Territories]

Violence is only "logical" for beasts, not for humans with the capacity for reason.

There doesn’t need to be a violent protest against Trump. In democracy, you lose sometimes, or you win sometimes, and you have to deal with the outcome. Instead of calling for outright violence, they should be taking the next four years to figure out how to make their candidates and party/platform more appealing. Just as Trump's campaign was considered as grassroots to some, maybe it would benefit the Democrats to follow a similar approach.

Well said.

[Purpelia]

If you feel the system is deficient by all means work to change it for next time. But you can not go and retroactively declare it bad because you lost. Once you do that you open up the door to every following election being settled the same way.

You americans of all people should know this. That is how your civil war started!

1) Sometimes it's the only way to have things done. Like declare Independence and fight for it, not "working within a system".

2) Are you against people rising up against tyrants and despots of the world?

That's what the South said.

[Orostan]

Arise! Ye workers from your slumbers!
Arise! Ye prisoners of want!

this

[Sharania]

1) Sometimes it's the only way to have things done. Like declare Independence and fight for it, not "working within a system".

2) Are you against people rising up against tyrants and despots of the world?

That's what the South said.

1) That what USA said. But this is apparently is meaningless to you.

2) I take it as "yes".

[Redsection]

Arise! Ye workers from your slumbers!
Arise! Ye prisoners of want!

Bah , if you lefties rise up so will the righties . For example the moment any communists try anything ...libertarian , and fascist paramilitary groups will respond. A revolution in a modern united states would be bad for everyone.

[Daburuetchi]

Seriously I don't wanna give Trump the excuse to clamp down yet.

1) He is not a president. Yet

2) Where is your courage? Where is your civic consciousness?

Lol. I'm a communist. I want workers revolution not random acts of violence.

[Flarbinia]

And when you still lose despite receiving more votes from the people? Doesn't seem all that democratic to me.

Republic, I'm afraid, is the key word in that sentence. The United States is not a true democracy, but a federal republic, and as such it's leaders are not decided by popular vote alone. The electoral college, which in itself is an establishment representative of the will of the voters, gave it's votes to Trump. There is little more to be said.

Trump won fair and square. People need to face the fact that you can win the popular vote and still lose the election.

[San Poland]

If you feel the system is deficient by all means work to change it for next time. But you can not go and retroactively declare it bad because you lost. Once you do that you open up the door to every following election being settled the same way.

You americans of all people should know this. That is how your civil war started!

1) Sometimes it's the only way to have things done. Like declare Independence and fight for it, not "working within a system".

2) Are you against people rising up against tyrants and despots of the world?

No, people should rise up against tyrants or if their rights are being taken away. However, Trump won. I am not a Trump supporter, and as disappointed as I am about the outcomes of the whole election, we should not condone people violently protesting against this, or protesting at all. This is how democracy works. The people have chosen Trump, and we need to accept that.

[Bhikkustan]

Arise! Ye workers from your slumbers!
Arise! Ye prisoners of want!

Bah , if you lefties rise up so will the righties . For example the moment any communists try anything ...libertarian , and fascist paramilitary groups will respond. A revolution in a modern united states would be bad for everyone.

We can beat them

[Free Missouri]

If you believe in democracy at all than you have to accept the fact that some times you lose. End of story.

Raising a violent revolt just because the person you supported lost is contrary to the basic principals upon which a modern republic is founded.

And when you still lose despite receiving more votes from the people? Doesn't seem all that democratic to me.

Ever heard of a Tyranny of the Majority? our system was specifically designed to prevent a Tyranny of the majority taking place. Hence why Hillary lost despite having the popular vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10316186

"In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate—whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance—there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this. In spite of this, such resistance is apparently more offensive and unacceptable to societal norms and liberal sensibilities than the nastiness being resisted in the first place."

The title and article speak clearly enough about the authors intent following the results of the election. What are NS' thoughts on this? Is he right, or overreacting?

I despise Trump, and will support almost any legal means of blocking his agenda and removing him from office, but I find the decision of some on the Left to engage in and advocate violence despicable. We do not need two tea parties, one on the Left and one on the Right. We do not need bodies in the streets.