Jump to content

Don’t blame ‘both sides.’ The right is driving political violence.


homersapien

Recommended Posts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/30/paul-pelosi-attack-republican-bothsidesism-false-equivalence/

October 30, 2022
 

It should not be controversial to say that America has a major problem with right-wing political violence. The evidence continues to accumulate — yet the GOP continues to deny responsibility for this horrifying trend.

On Friday, a man enflamed by right-wing conspiracy theories (including QAnon) entered the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and attacked her 82-year-old husband with a hammer, fracturing Paul Pelosi’s skull. “Where is Nancy?” he reportedly shouted, echoing the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, at President Donald Trump’s instigation. This comes after years of Republican demonization of the House speaker, a figure of hatred for the right rivaled only by Hillary Clinton.

The same day as the Pelosi attack, a man pleaded guilty to making death threats against Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). Two days earlier, three men who were motivated by right-wing, anti-lockdown hysteria after covid-19 hit were convicted of aiding a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D). In August, another man died after attacking an FBI office because he was so upset about the bureau’s search of Mar-a-Lago. “We must respond with force,” he wrote on Trump’s Truth Social website.

Then there are all the terrible hate crimes, in cities including Pittsburgh, El Paso and Buffalo, where gunmen were motivated by the kind of racist rhetoric — especially the “great replacement theory” — now openly espoused on Fox “News.”

This is where any fair-minded journalist has to offer an obligatory “to be sure” paragraph: To be sure, political violence is not confined to the right. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot in 2017 by a gunman with leftist beliefs, and in June, a man was arrested for allegedly plotting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh after becoming incensed about court rulings on abortion and guns.

Republican leaders cite those attacks to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for political violence. “Violence is up across the board,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said on Sunday, arguing that it’s “unfair” to blame anti-Pelosi rhetoric for the assault on Pelosi’s husband.

Violence is unacceptable whether from the left or right, period. But we can’t allow GOP leaders to get away with this false moral equivalency. They are evading their responsibility for their extremist rhetoric that all too often motivates extremist actions.

The New America think tank found last year that, since Sept. 11, 2001, far-right terrorists had killed 122 people in the United States, compared with only one killed by far-leftists. A study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies last year found that, since 2015, right-wing extremists had been involved in 267 plots or attacks, compared with 66 for left-wing extremists. A Washington Post-University of Maryland survey released in January found that 40 percent of Republicans said violence against the government can be justified, compared with only 23 percent of Democrats.

There is little doubt about what is driving political violence: the ascendance of Trump. The former president and his followers use violent rhetoric of extremes: Trump calls President Biden an “enemy of the state,” attacks the FBI as “monsters,” refers to the “now Communist USA” and even wrote that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has a “DEATH WISH” for disagreeing with him. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has expressed support for executing Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tex.) has tweeted that “the America Last Marxists … are radically and systematically DESTROYING our country.”

That type of extremist rhetoric used to be confined to fringe organizations such as the John Birch Society. Now it’s the GOP mainstream, with predictable consequences. The U.S. Capitol Police report that threats against members of Congress have risen more than tenfold since Trump’s election in 2016, up to 9,625 last year.

The sickness on the right was on display after news broke about the attack on Paul Pelosi. While leading Republicans condemned the horrific assault, the MAGA base seethed with sick jokes making light of the violence and insane conspiracy theories. (Filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza suggested that the attack was “a romantic tryst that went awry.”)

There was, alas, no sign of the GOP taking responsibility for fomenting hatred. Kari Lake, the GOP nominee for governor of Arizona, blamed “leftist elected officials who have not enforced the laws.” Naturally, Republicans accuse Democrats of being “divisive” for citing Republican rhetoric as a contributing factor to political violence.

It’s true that, by calling out GOP extremism, Democrats do risk exacerbating the polarization of politics. But they can’t simply ignore this dangerous trend. And it’s not Democrats who are pushing our country to the brink: A New York Times study found that MAGA members of Congress who refused to accept the results of the 2020 election used polarizing language at nearly triple the rate of Democrats.

So please don’t accept the GOP framing of the assault on Paul Pelosi as evidence of a problem plaguing “both sides of the aisle.” Political violence in America is being driven primarily by the far right, not the far left, and the far right is much closer to the mainstream of the Republican Party than the far left is to the Democratic Party.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





https://amgreatness.com/2022/10/30/permissible-and-impermissible-incendiary-speech/

Permissible and Impermissible Incendiary Speech?

For many on the Left, what most see as incendiary and violent rhetoric is simply contextualized as the necessary
talk of social justice.
Vth441YH_400x400-160x160.jpeg
October 30, 2022

United States Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) hit the airwaves to connect the recent assault on Paul Pelosi with “fascism” and “white nationalism.” She insists that both are now ubiquitous. And both prompt increasing politically motivated violence. (Ocasio-Cortez remains oblivious to the greatest sustained political violence in our recent history; the 120 days of Black Lives Matter and Antifa-fueled rioting, arson, looting, and mayhem of summer and fall 2020—often cheered on or defended by public officials and social media.)

The deplorable violent attack on Pelosi, husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), has been described as the logical reification of increasing bitter political discourse. Shrill accusations spread even as full details of the attack are still not known. But the general picture of the assailant is one of an unhinged conspiracy freak of all flavors. He seems to have been a lunatic, drug-crazed white supremacist and anti-Semite, a former hemp jeweler, and nudist, who was either homeless or was living in a cluttered hippie-like commune in Berkeley plastered with pride and BLM flags. 

Nonetheless, almost immediately the Left has seized on the attack to blame supposed right-wing political rhetoric as the cause. 

As we enter the final week before the midterms and likely near-historic Democratic losses in Congress, this effort to manipulate violence in the news for last-minute political advantage will increase—but certainly it is not new. 

In late October 2018, after the despicable mass lethal shooting of worshipers in the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue, the Left immediately blamed Donald Trump and his supporters. That useful pre-midterm narrative insisted that Trump had provided the rhetorical fireworks that set off anti-Semite and conspiracy nut, Robert Gregory Bowers. 

The killer came from an atrocious family background. He was a known loner and outsider who came to embrace white nationalism. But in his incoherent rants and postings, he had made it clear that he was also no fan of Donald Trump. He considered the president pro-Jewish (Trump’s son-in law is Jewish and his daughter a Jewish convert) and a “globalist.” That fact, apparently, was of no importance. For the next week before the midterms, the media saturated coverage of supposed Trump culpability for Bowers’ crazy violence. 

In general, the Left has three predictable characteristics when it seizes upon pre-election news of shootings and assaults.

Things Just Happen to Conservatives
 
Violence of any sort of against conservative political figures rarely has anything to do with combustible rhetoric emanating from the Left. 

When New York gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin was recently physically attacked on stage by a troubled alcoholic David G. Jakubonis (released into an alcoholic recovery program from police custody a few weeks after his attempt on Zeldin’s life), the media made no effort to tie the assault to politically driven rhetoric. 

When Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was severely injured by a crazed neighbor, there was no suggestion that left-wing extremist talk, and in particular political attacks on Paul, had pushed the assailant over the edge—although there was plenty of undisguised liberal schadenfreude at Paul’s injuries. For example, in a March 2020 tweet, Christine Pelosi (Nancy and Paul’s daughter) snarked: “Rand Paul’s neighbor was right.” 

James Hodgkinson was a declared left-wing political activist and former Bernie Sanders campaign worker who went hunting for Republican legislators and ended up shooting six people—among them Representative Steven Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip at the time, who nearly died. 

The media did not attempt to tie the unstable Hodgkinson to often hysterical anti-Trump and anti-MAGA rhetoric of the time. And the matter was mostly forgotten as the work of another unhinged shooter.

Acceptable Violent Rhetoric?

Second, calls for violence from the political Left, often from among its most high-profile officials, are simply dismissed as occasional excitable verbiage. They are not considered to play a role in any subsequent shooting or assault as a catalyst for the unhinged. Consider what then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) screamed in March 2020 to an angry throng of pro-abortion protestors before very doors of the Supreme Court:

I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Ostensibly nothing could have been more combustible than riling up an already furious crowd of pro-abortion protestors, then identifying Supreme Court justices by name, then claiming the two named would pay a justified “price” for their actions, and then issuing an “if you . . .” threat through vivid imagery of violence, e.g. “You won’t know what hit you if you …”

The response? Few in the media believed that Schumer had lowered the bar on what was acceptable speech directed at the Court—not even when two years later a fanatical pro-abortionist, would-be assassin Nicholas Roske showed up near Brett Kavanaugh’s home. Roske was apparently angry over illegal court leaks that Kavanaugh would vote to repeal Roe v. Wade. The would-be assassin certainly wished Kavanaugh “to pay the price.”     

Both before and after that scary aborted hit, protestors had shown up at Kavanaugh’s home and also forced him to leave a restaurant. Note that Pelosi and House Democrats held up House passage of bipartisan legislation to provide increased security for Supreme Court justices. That bill had passed unanimously in the Senate and would have been sent immediately to get Joe Biden’s signature, were it not for Pelosi’s hold-up.

On Inauguration Day in 2017, Madonna infamously screamed to an angry crowd assembled about the ceremonies, “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”

No one considered that such inflammatory imagery had anything to do with the numerous threats that Trump, like all elected presidents, received. Indeed “fact checkers” immediately went to work, as they do in such examples of left-wing incendiary rhetoric, to offer “context” in order to avoid any “misunderstanding” or “confusion” about what Madonna was “really” trying to convey. 

Ditto in June 2020, when Kamala Harris offered an incendiary boast of approval to Stephen Colbert—just 17 days after a violent BLM and Antifa-led crowd in Lafayette Park attempted to torch the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, and then sought to storm the White House grounds, sending the Secret Service and the Trump family into a secure presidential bunker:

But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.

Again, the media and “fact checkers” insisted she was referring only to peaceful protests, although the summer riots of 2020 entailed $2 billion in damage, dozens killed, 1,500 law-enforcement officers injured, the torching of a federal courthouse and police precincts, and 14,000 arrests. 

At the height of the June 2020 violence, New York Times essayist and architect of the “1619 Project” ruse, Nikole Hannah-Jones, dismissed the nationwide massive looting with the apologetics: 

Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence . . . Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.

An unbiased observer might have concluded her televised editorialization empowered looting and violence that nearly always accompanied it. 

Sometimes leftist elected officials were more focused than Harris or Schumer in their calls for physical confrontations. Consider Maxine Waters’ sick June 2018 clarion call to physically confront and harass Trump officials:

Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere . . . The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’ 

Since the Obama era, there has been a serial effort to demonize the working class as somehow Neanderthal-like, clueless, and to be written off. Obama’s “clingers” slur transmogrified into Hillary’s “deplorables” and “irredeemables,” and on into Biden’s “chumps” and “dregs.” And we forget sometimes that well before Donald Trump’s chants of “Lock her up!” it was Barack Obama on the campaign trail who suggested to his supporters to confront their adversaries and “Get in their faces.”      

 

And Obama gave further advice about such confrontations, saying: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.” And lest we forget, Obama reminded his supporters “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry!” 

Joe Biden waited until his campaign and presidency to hone his prior tough talk—for example, of taking Trump behind the gym to beat him up or calling those at his campaign events “fat” and “lying dog-faced pony soldiers”—into a fiery condemnation of his political opponents. In two now infamous speeches in recent months, Biden damned roughly half the country (“It’s not just Trump”) as “semi-fascists”:

What we’re seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy . . . It’s not just Trump. It’s the entire philosophy that underpins the—I’m going to say something: It’s like semi-fascism.

Biden a few days later elaborated on that charge in an even more divisive rant couched in near-Old Testament imagery: “MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.” 

Again, despite the efforts of fact checkers and press secretaries to contextualize Biden’s eerie speech, the clear meaning of his speech writers was that Republicans who had voted for Trump had irrevocably “made their choice” not to live with the rest of the nation in the “light” of truth, but rather in some dark nether regions among the “shadow of lies.”     

A disturbed leftist might at this point ask, if half the nation is semi-fascist and thrives on anger and dwells in some dark domain of lies, what then are we to do with such hopeless threats to democracy? 

Unleash the FBI to “lose” subpoenaed phone records, to alter court documents, and knowingly to deceive a FISA judge with a false dossier? Have the FBI work with social media to censor unwelcome political speech or to mislead and suppress information deleterious to Biden’s campaign? Summarily excuse the FBI hierarchy after lying to federal investigators?

Have FBI informants work to destroy a political campaign, transition, and presidency? Surveille parents at school board meetings on the prompt of teachers’ unions?

To deal with Morlock semi-fascists and those in the “shadows,” are any means then necessary?

Projection Again

Third, attributing violence to conservative political rhetoric is characteristic of the larger progressive embrace of projection. And by now we know how that tic works.

Those who deify Stacey Abrams or are amused by Hillary Clinton’s near decade-long lunatic obsessions with election denial are the most prone to scream “election denier!” They slander anyone who expresses doubts about the 2020 balloting, in a fashion that Clinton, Jill Stein, Hollywood stars, or Jimmy Carter routinely did in 2016.

Joe Biden’s long history of racist slurs and outbursts have become prerequisites for his current serial charges of “racism!”—extending now to the absence of sufficient leg space in economy class.

Screaming “Russian collusion” is a guarantee that the progressive accusers—Hillary Clinton and her cohort—were past masters of colluding with the Russians. Their paid henchmen like Igor Danchenko and Charles Dolan vacuumed up Russian-leaked lies to feed Christopher Steele with the known falsehoods central to his collusion charge.

 

So, too, the more the Left charges conservatives with rhetorical culpability for subsequent violence, all the more the guardians of proper political speech can contextualize and excuse what a Charles Schumer or Maxine Waters or Joe Biden says. 

Their logic is the fallacy that those who police violent political verbiage cannot themselves possibly ever need such policing—or in fact peremptorily police others precisely to excuse their own culpability. 

So, yes, let us by all means tone down the political fireworks lest the nation’s unhinged translate such rhetoric to violence. But let us also remember that for many on the Left, what most see as incendiary and violent rhetoric is simply contextualized as the necessary talk of social justice.

 
 
Edited by AUFAN78
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN-Mostly-Peaceful.jpg?resize=796%2C437

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/only-some-kinds-of-protest-are-always-mostly-peaceful/

https://freebeacon.com/media/fiery-but-peaceful-protest-cnn/

CNN Journo Who Reported ‘Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests’ Gets Emmy Nomination

Maybe we can get Andrew Cuomo and Omar Jimenez to share the stage together with their Emmy Awards...

Edited by DKW 86
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man attacks Democrat and has written confession that Right wing/Conservative rhetoric and misinformation was his motivation. 

Victor David Hanson:"  😭 Republicans are so oppressed. Dems are just projecting! Biden said that Republicans are liars one time, Why are we not talking about HIS violent rhetoric?! "

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

CNN-Mostly-Peaceful.jpg?resize=796%2C437

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/only-some-kinds-of-protest-are-always-mostly-peaceful/

https://freebeacon.com/media/fiery-but-peaceful-protest-cnn/

CNN Journo Who Reported ‘Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests’ Gets Emmy Nomination

Maybe we can get Andrew Cuomo and Omar Jimenez can share the stage together with their Emmy Awards...

WTF does this have to do with the topic post?  :dunno:

 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, homersapien said:

WTF does this have to do with the topic post?  :dunno:

 

You and Coffee earn 4 Pinocchio's. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You and Coffee earn 4 Pinocchio's. 

If you read the article -which you likely didn't- you will note that all specific claims are referenced.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The party of slavery, bombings, discrimination and Jim Crow blames other side of violence. Laughable 

when will the Woke demand a name change of the Democratic Party? 🙄

  • Like 3
  • Facepalm 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The party of slavery, bombings, discrimination and Jim Crow blames other side of violence. Laughable 

when will the Woke demand a name change of the Democratic Party? 🙄

I never thought you would be this disingenuous.  Deeply disappointing.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2022 at 11:19 AM, homersapien said:

WTF does this have to do with the topic post?  :dunno:

 

It was about Political Violence. Both sides do political Violence pretty well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One side represents humanity/society, the other represents business/capital.

Which side benefits more by virtue of division?

This stuff is actually pretty easy.  

The real answers are about balance.  Unfortunately, most are easily manipulated and, for some, their lust for money and power is insatiable.  

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politically, I think we should consider the words of Jay Gould when asked about if he feared a popular uprising.

He said, "no, I can always hire one half of Americans to kill the other half".

I think in many ways that is where we are politically, economically.  It is essentially the "divide and conquer" strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

It was about Political Violence. Both sides do political Violence pretty well.

No, you're wrong. it wasn't about political violence.  It was about which political party is encouraging political violence.

And why do you equate race riots to Democrats?  These were riots instigated by black people protesting police injustice.  That has nothing to do with promoting violence against members of the opposing political party. 

Do you equate such race riots with Democrats because a large majority of blacks vote Democratic, or is it the Democrats are the party (of today) that supports equal rights?  

Either way you are sadly missing the point. :no:

Edited by homersapien
  • Thanks 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go tell the people that lost their jobs, careers, businesses, life’s work to Molotov cocktails and police inaction and see how they feel. They will tell you ALL VIOLENCE sucks. And yes I think that the Portlandia Mayor and his like did in fact encourage the violence. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I never thought you would be this disingenuous.  Deeply disappointing.  

Tell me how it’s disingenuous? When Democrats live the hypocrisy there’s nothing to be disingenuous about. 

Edited by autigeremt
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Politically, I think we should consider the words of Jay Gould when asked about if he feared a popular uprising.

He said, "no, I can always hire one half of Americans to kill the other half".

I think in many ways that is where we are politically, economically.  It is essentially the "divide and conquer" strategy.

The political machine has been doing this for years.

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Tell me how it’s disingenuous? When Democrats live the hypocrisy there’s nothing to be disingenuous about. 

Maybe but, Democratic policy is attempting to at least bring the issues of social justice, relative equality, campaign finance reform, real tax reform into discourse and, the political process.

These are the real issues.  The others are simply a means to obsucre these issues.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Maybe but, Democratic policy is attempting to at least bring the issues of social justice, relative equality, campaign finance reform, real tax reform into discourse and, the political process.

These are the real issues.  The others are simply a means to obsucre these issues.

They are siding with parts of the country that ideologically agree with them. The rest of the country can take a walk in their minds. That’s not leadership. That’s divisiveness 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

They are siding with parts of the country that ideologically agree with them. The rest of the country can take a walk in their minds. That’s not leadership. That’s divisiveness 

I believe those things are of great benefit to all of us.  So, I respectfully disagree.

  • Facepalm 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I believe those things are of great benefit to all of us.  So, I respectfully disagree.

Ichy, the Dems thought that they would benefit from Roevember. That White Suburban Women would flock to them over Dobbs and they thought that was sacrosanct. Just a given. They spent 10x the cash, $320M vs $31M, on Abortion than on the Economy that all the pollsters and all of America was SCREAMING at them that was more important. That the struggling middle class was where the fulcrum point was focused. But no. The Bubble-Crats ignored the polls, the advice of everyone, of common sense, history, logic. They will now scream that the Voters are Deplorables unable to see that they are just graciously putting up with the peasants. BTW, WSW moved 27 points TOWARD THE REPUBLICANS... So much for all that expertise.

I know this. We all know this. The Dem Leadership will continue to blame everyone but themselves. Like HRC, they will accept no blame whatsoever for the dumpster fire we are all about to see. They were shocked that McAuliffe lost in VA, and then they ran his campaign again nationwide and predictably will get their heads kicked in again.

Rinse and Repeat. Never Learn anything. 

Maybe we need to call WSW Cockroaches, Call the Middle Class Deplorables, Focus on Issues that the rest of the nation could not care less about...AND LOSE YET AGAIN.

Edited by DKW 86
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2022 at 12:22 PM, DKW 86 said:

Go tell the people that lost their jobs, careers, businesses, life’s work to Molotov cocktails and police inaction and see how they feel. They will tell you ALL VIOLENCE sucks. And yes I think that the Portlandia Mayor and his like did in fact encourage the violence. 

That's totally irrelevant to the issue on the table. 

Yes, all violence is bad, especially if you are victimized by it (duuuh!)

Just like white lives matter also.  (duuuuh)  :-\   

(And btw, the term "Black Lives Matter" was obviously coined to highlight the frequent incidences of black people being killed by police, often in questionable circumstances.  Hell, the "BLM protests" were sparked in particular by the cops kneeling on George Floyd until he died. The violence that ensued in some of this riots was born from rage from experience such racism.  It certainly didn't take any Democratic urging. :-\ )

In no way did Democrats promote violence among black protestors, your "opinion" not withstanding. 

Why would they?

Do you think Democrats think such violence supports the cause of racial equality or helps to prevent police abuse? 

Do you think Democrats believe racially-motivated violence in general is good for them politically?

Do you think Democrats believe that any violence is good for them politically?

To suggest violent riots that unfortunately emerged from black protests against police brutality is somehow equivalent to the current politically-based threats that are clearly partisan, and clearly emanating from the MAGA right is as crazy as it gets. 

MAGA Republicans constantly run advertisements promoting "2nd Amendment solutions" (wink, wink), welcome support from extremist groups and white nationalists, support extremist groups "patrolling" ballet collection sites, nominate people who are explicit in their intentions to steal elections, and run for state positions that would allow them to do so, constantly allude to Christo fascism, erect gallows at their Jan. 6 political rally, and ******* break into the capital looking for Pelosi and other leaders...... ( I could go on)

Then they are just shocked! Shocked I tell you!  When some nut who has been listening to - and believing them - tries to hurt someone.

And the best you can do is to claim Democrats support violence because of some violent riots instigated by blacks protesting police abuse?  :rolleyes:

That is the most absurd, over-the-top, crazy whataboutism I could even imagine. 

Even coming from you.  :ucrazy:

 

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

They spent 10x the cash, $320M vs $31M, on Abortion than on the Economy that all the pollsters and all of America was SCREAMING at them that was more important. That the struggling middle class was where the fulcrum point was focused. But no. The Bubble-Crats ignored the polls, the advice of everyone, of common sense, history, logic. They will now scream that the Voters are Deplorables unable to see that they are just graciously putting up with the peasants. BTW, WSW moved 27 points TOWARD THE REPUBLICANS... So much for all that expertise.

I know this. We all know this. The Dem Leadership will continue to blame everyone but themselves. Like HRC, they will accept no blame whatsoever for the dumpster fire we are all about to see. They were shocked that McAuliffe lost in VA, and then they ran his campaign again nationwide and predictably will get their heads kicked in again.

Rinse and Repeat. Never Learn anything. 

Maybe we need to call WSW Cockroaches, Call the Middle Class Deplorables, Focus on Issues that the rest of the nation could not care less about...AND LOSE YET AGAIN.

Well, what would you expect from a political party that you believe promoted or encouraged violence by blacks protesting police abuse?  :dunno:  

And why would you even care about such a party's mistakes, no matter how clumsy or stupid?  NO way I would support a political party that promoted violence.

David, why not just give up on the Democratic party and get in bed with the MAGA Republicans?  I am sure they would welcome you and everyone would be happier. You already think like them.

Maybe you can even get Republicans to address the issues you care most about (if there are any).

Clearly, the Democratic party is not worthy of your iconoclastic wisdom, as you oh-so-frequently make clear.

 

 

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well, what would you expect from a political party that you believe promoted or encouraged violence by blacks protesting police abuse?  :dunno:  

And why would you even care about such a party's mistakes, no matter how clumsy or stupid?  NO way I would support a political party that promoted violence.

David, why not just give up on the Democratic party and get in bed with the MAGA Republicans?  I am sure they would welcome you and everyone would be happier. You already think like them.

Maybe you can even get Republicans to address the issues you care most about (if there are any).

Clearly, the Democratic party is not worthy of your iconoclastic wisdom, as you oh-so-frequently make clear.

 

 

Come on over David!  Deplorable is the new awesome!!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2022 at 2:38 PM, icanthearyou said:

I believe those things are of great benefit to all of us.  So, I respectfully disagree.

One sided Ideology over everything else. That’s not beneficial to this country. 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...