Perhaps the FBI needs to be made aware of you. You can self-justify any act of violence. But please consider this: we all are sure we are right on the issues. We can’t all be right. In all likelihood we all do have part of the answer; but with so many opposed to our positions we can be confident that we don’t have the whole answer.
Cites?
Oh, and what of voter suppression in the democratic primaries? You know, super delegates? Was Nixon justified in calling for violence in the stolen election of 1960? Gore in 2000?
Voter suppression tactics have been documented and acknowledged by the GOP.
Since I have answered your question, will you answer mine: do blacks in states with active voter suppression have a right to use violence to end this suppression? If not, why not?
Yeah, generally it’s good advice to be sure that if you start the political violence, it is your side that has the guns.
You didn’t answer mine; and looser voter is laws favor dems. Its part of the game. The entire Dem machine was set up against Sen Sanders. Again, its the nature of the game. But we still vote. Violence is absolutely wrong to advocate unless you are willing to be a victim if retaliatory violence.
I know you were not asking me, but I would say at this time, no. The numbers of people suppressed are actually small, just enough to turn an election or two in the republicans favor, but not nearly enough to actually say that blacks have no say in the govt.
If suppression attempts continue, then that calculous changes. For instance, people in selma in early 1965, IMHO, would have been ethically justified in engaging in violence, as their voice was being shut down by those in charge, and as such, they had no peaceful method of creating a change in their environment.
It’s not a game, it is active suppression of voting in elections by the GOP of black voters. The GOP acknowledges it.
Superdelegates do not rise to the same level because parties are allowed by law to decide how they select candidates. Voting in elections is a right, established by law.
So please answer my question: when, if ever, do blacks who are having their voting suppressed have justification to use violence?
Mother Jones, the Hannity of the left. Those voters who didnt vote early were perfectly free to vote on election day. This article mentions no effort to suppress voters; just a lack of enthusiasm in said voters.
So you won’t answer the question? Hypothetically then: if black people are having their access to the ballot box suppressed by the state, do they have reason to resort to violence?
But they didnt.
Sure they didn’t. Keep telling yourself that and wonder why the blacks are getting so uppity.
Does an armed populace mean that any nut can declare himself a freedom fighter? Sure; but that includes facing the consequences of one’s daring stand. What you’re overlooking is the judgment of the rest of society. Democracy as originally envisioned by the Founders was to be a consensus of the armed: If a rebellion broke out, the government would only have the power to suppress it to whatever extent the populace would be willing to be mustered to arms to put the rebellion down. Remember that the Constitution forbids states from having standing professional armies; mustering a posse or militia of armed citizens was the State’s only recourse if a sheriff or constable was faced with something he couldn’t handle. Under that system, a lone nut gets shot down like the mad dog he is. A band of self-styled “freedom fighters” gets arrested and/or killed by civil law enforcement or the part-time volunteer National Guard. In the case of the Civil War, enough northerners either volunteered or acquiesced to serving in the Union army to suppress southern secession. What most people today don’t understand is that the idea of segregating society into the armed servants of the government and the disarmed citizenry is exactly what the founders of the United States were rebelling against.
These Philly Rep voters have no more right to be violent than Dem voters.
Especially since it is not at all the same thing as voter suppression.
Personally, I think that it’s not a matter of when is political violence is appropriate, it’s a matter of when have the political mechanisms made it inevitable? The continued systematic voter suppression of black and minority enclaves is making that political violence more and more likely. That’s a disastrous outcome for the nation, but I think very likely. When it happens, it will be very hard if not impossible to come back from it.
As long as we have a functioning democracy, violence is NEVER justified.
You seem to be unaware of places like Chicago were voter fraud gas been endemic for decades. And, no, Chicagoans shouldn’t resort to violence.
And that’s the problem with the lone gunmen type of thing that we saw a few days ago.
Some feel that if a democracy is not working for them, then violence is justified.
As long as I get to go vote (and I have reasonable expectation that it is counted), and I get to make sure that my voice is heard by any who wish to hear me, then I may not like the results of a particular election, but I have a non-violent recourse to try to change the govt in the future.
Well if it was a question of blatantly refusing to let people vote or throwing their ballets in the trash, there was the Battle of Athens.
Political violence is appropriate whenever other types of violence are appropriate. That is in self-defense and in proportion to the violence initiated by the aggressor.
That doesn’t mean it is a good idea.