dajo9 said:

---

January 6 was a violent attack.

Also, non- violent coups are not unprecented. The First French Republic was overthrown by Napoleon's "bloodless coup" in 1799.

---

I haven't heard NPR talk about Jan. 6 this week, they weren't talking about Afghanistan so much either, they seemed to be focused on global warming. Hey, the stealing of the 2020 election was also bloodless.

This is how radical whitists peacefully protest. This is just a taste but I'm sure Okaydo could find dozens more.

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, so shove it in his face and make the statement that you condemn ALL political violence.
Then demand that he do the same by keeping the GOP leadership accountable of the same.

---

Tom if someone tells you they won't condemn child abuse unless you condemn some other bad thing, what would you say?

I don't need other people to condemn bad things in order for me to do so. BG demanding other people condemn unrelated things (which he mischaracterized, as is his wont) is a stupid rhetorical device. He is attempting to have us adopt and confirm stupid right wing talking points that don't deserve to be elevated.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

I'm going to ask you to join me in condemning all political violence, including the property damage caused by rioters and antifa in places like Minnesota, Portland and Seattle. Do you condemn those people and their tactics unconditionally even if you are perhaps sympathetic to their cause?

Yes or no. I'll wait.

---

Absolutely. I CONDEMN ALL POLITICAL VIOLENCE!!! I have always said as much
I think EVERYONE here condemns ALL political violence.
I'm sure Dajo and everyone else will agree - nobody wants buildings damaged in MN, Portland, Seattle.

I think the only reason you are trying to claim that the Anti-Trumpists, Anti-Jan6'ers on here are Pro-violence is because you are misled by FoxNews and the RWNJ media who asserts as much.

It's all part of their misdirection "what about" campaign.
Don't be so inept as to be led by con artists. They turn the entire dialogue into something it's not. And you follow by simply asking the questions. I've never heard anyone here say "yeah, go burn that stuff down."

---

His request was preposterous. The vast majority of the violence he's talking about was from petty rioters and looters with no connection to any political cause or movement. They were opportunistic violence-seekers. He is buying into the propaganda repeatedly pushed by Fox News that all or a majority of the violence arose out of some progressive cause. The Patagonia store in Santa Monica looted by surfers was not in response to George Floyd's murder or retributive justice - it was people taking advantage of the situation. There were obviously exceptions - I won't say that none of the violence was politically motivated - but Fox played stock footage for weeks of not months to overstate the situation. No one here supported the attacks on the courthouse in Portland last summer (even if we did criticize the government response) and no one defended the looters or rioters. I do believe that many conservatives defended the excessive government force used on peaceful protesters. Imagine if CNN kept playing January 6 footage and saying that cities across the US are under constant attack from radical whitists. That's what Fox News did all last summer. January 6 happened because Donald Trump lit the match and because right wing media poured gasoline on the fire. Not because people took advantage of protests in the wake of the George Floyd murder.

So yea, I see no reason to play BG's dumb game. Just because a bunch of dumb people, spurred on by the Republican Party and their propaganda outlets, tried to prevent the peaceful transition of power does not mean that we have to pretend like what happened last summer is related or just as concerning. They are independent and BG is just trying to gaslight us so that he can justify the conservative insurrection. No dice.

---

If you're talking about "insurrection" then I think maybe the Seattle Capitol Hill occupation and Portland courthouse protests could qualify, though in both cases I'm not sure how much either one was clearly directed at disrupting or overthrowing the government. In Seattle it was more about occupying a city block (including one police station), not going to City Hall or something. In Portland, the courthouse attacks happened at night and not during working hours, so how much did that actually disrupt the workings of the government?

Everything else BG mentions is just standard protest, with the intent being for the government to change its policy to what the protesters want, not to overthrow the government itself. They also seem generally non-violent. Looting of private businesses is not insurrection. It's crime and should be condemned, but it's not violence directed at the government.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

I'm going to ask you to join me in condemning all political violence, including the property damage caused by rioters and antifa in places like Minnesota, Portland and Seattle. Do you condemn those people and their tactics unconditionally even if you are perhaps sympathetic to their cause?

Yes or no. I'll wait.

---

Absolutely. I CONDEMN ALL POLITICAL VIOLENCE!!! I have always said as much
I think EVERYONE here condemns ALL political violence.
I'm sure Dajo and everyone else will agree - nobody wants buildings damaged in MN, Portland, Seattle.

I think the only reason you are trying to claim that the Anti-Trumpists, Anti-Jan6'ers on here are Pro-violence is because you are misled by FoxNews and the RWNJ media who asserts as much.

It's all part of their misdirection "what about" campaign.
Don't be so inept as to be led by con artists. They turn the entire dialogue into something it's not. And you follow by simply asking the questions. I've never heard anyone here say "yeah, go burn that stuff down."

---

His request was preposterous. The vast majority of the violence he's talking about was from petty rioters and looters with no connection to any political cause or movement. They were opportunistic violence-seekers. He is buying into the propaganda repeatedly pushed by Fox News that all or a majority of the violence arose out of some progressive cause. The Patagonia store in Santa Monica looted by surfers was not in response to George Floyd's murder or retributive justice - it was people taking advantage of the situation. There were obviously exceptions - I won't say that none of the violence was politically motivated - but Fox played stock footage for weeks of not months to overstate the situation. No one here supported the attacks on the courthouse in Portland last summer (even if we did criticize the government response) and no one defended the looters or rioters. I do believe that many conservatives defended the excessive government force used on peaceful protesters. Imagine if CNN kept playing January 6 footage and saying that cities across the US are under constant attack from radical whitists. That's what Fox News did all last summer. January 6 happened because Donald Trump lit the match and because right wing media poured gasoline on the fire. Not because people took advantage of protests in the wake of the George Floyd murder.

So yea, I see no reason to play BG's dumb game. Just because a bunch of dumb people, spurred on by the Republican Party and their propaganda outlets, tried to prevent the peaceful transition of power does not mean that we have to pretend like what happened last summer is related or just as concerning. They are independent and BG is just trying to gaslight us so that he can justify the conservative insurrection. No dice.

---

You're the best. Don't ever change. Thank you for so eloquently making my point by claiming that left wing violence is "petty rioters and looters with no connection to any political cause." No way are you by any means minimizing left wing violence. How could anyone even think you're doing that . . .

*** is antifa or BLM if not a political movement? Remind me what all those statues were defaced and torn down during protests? Just for fun or perhaps a political motivation?

You're right, absolutely no one defended the mostly peaceful looting and riots protests. LOLZ

Your words "not supporting, not defending" are far short of condemning. Again, all political violence (really all violence) should be condemned. And despite your claim that I'm trying to "justify conservative insurrection" - I will once again unequivocally condemn Jane 6. One of us here is justifying bad behavior - claiming acts of violence/crimes were petty and important. It is not me.

Only a simpleton or partisan would claim violence doesn't beget violence.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, so shove it in his face and make the statement that you condemn ALL political violence.
Then demand that he do the same by keeping the GOP leadership accountable of the same.

---

Tom if someone tells you they won't condemn child abuse unless you condemn some other bad thing, what would you say?

I don't need other people to condemn bad things in order for me to do so. BG demanding other people condemn unrelated things (which he mischaracterized, as is his wont) is a stupid rhetorical device. He is attempting to have us adopt and confirm stupid right wing talking points that don't deserve to be elevated.

---

Actually, I'm just trying to find a principle in your arguments when, sadly, there is none because your partisanships trumps (pun intended) any principle. It is obvious to everyone that left wing political violence is related to right wing political violence - even if they have very different intentions/motivations.

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, so shove it in his face and make the statement that you condemn ALL political violence.
Then demand that he do the same by keeping the GOP leadership accountable of the same.

---

Bingo. You win the $1,000,000 prize (sorry I don't have that money to pay you).

Partisanship is arguably defined by wanting to hold ONLY the other side accountable for bad acts and/or ignoring/minimizing when your side does something wrong.

It doesn't mean all things/people are equally bad - we can probably agree that Trump's character is uniquely bad or worse. But Trump only exists because the "bad but less bad" behavior of people like the Clintons was dismissed and justified.

---

Trump exists because millions of people love him and love what he represents. You are on their side. It has nothing to do with your fabricated issues with Hillary Clinton. As Rush Limbaugh liked to say, "you are responsible for your own actions".

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

I'm going to ask you to join me in condemning all political violence, including the property damage caused by rioters and antifa in places like Minnesota, Portland and Seattle. Do you condemn those people and their tactics unconditionally even if you are perhaps sympathetic to their cause?

Yes or no. I'll wait.

---

Absolutely. I CONDEMN ALL POLITICAL VIOLENCE!!! I have always said as much
I think EVERYONE here condemns ALL political violence.
I'm sure Dajo and everyone else will agree - nobody wants buildings damaged in MN, Portland, Seattle.

I think the only reason you are trying to claim that the Anti-Trumpists, Anti-Jan6'ers on here are Pro-violence is because you are misled by FoxNews and the RWNJ media who asserts as much.

It's all part of their misdirection "what about" campaign.
Don't be so inept as to be led by con artists. They turn the entire dialogue into something it's not. And you follow by simply asking the questions. I've never heard anyone here say "yeah, go burn that stuff down."

---

His request was preposterous. The vast majority of the violence he's talking about was from petty rioters and looters with no connection to any political cause or movement. They were opportunistic violence-seekers. He is buying into the propaganda repeatedly pushed by Fox News that all or a majority of the violence arose out of some progressive cause. The Patagonia store in Santa Monica looted by surfers was not in response to George Floyd's murder or retributive justice - it was people taking advantage of the situation. There were obviously exceptions - I won't say that none of the violence was politically motivated - but Fox played stock footage for weeks of not months to overstate the situation. No one here supported the attacks on the courthouse in Portland last summer (even if we did criticize the government response) and no one defended the looters or rioters. I do believe that many conservatives defended the excessive government force used on peaceful protesters. Imagine if CNN kept playing January 6 footage and saying that cities across the US are under constant attack from radical whitists. That's what Fox News did all last summer. January 6 happened because Donald Trump lit the match and because right wing media poured gasoline on the fire. Not because people took advantage of protests in the wake of the George Floyd murder.

So yea, I see no reason to play BG's dumb game. Just because a bunch of dumb people, spurred on by the Republican Party and their propaganda outlets, tried to prevent the peaceful transition of power does not mean that we have to pretend like what happened last summer is related or just as concerning. They are independent and BG is just trying to gaslight us so that he can justify the conservative insurrection. No dice.

---

You're the best. Don't ever change. Thank you for so eloquently making my point by claiming that left wing violence is "petty rioters and looters with no connection to any political cause." No way are you by any means minimizing left wing violence. How could anyone even think you're doing that . . .

*** is antifa or BLM if not a political movement? Remind me what all those statues were defaced and torn down during protests? Just for fun or perhaps a political motivation?

You're right, absolutely no one defended the mostly peaceful looting and riots protests. LOLZ

Your words "not supporting, not defending" are far short of condemning. Again, all political violence (really all violence) should be condemned. And despite your claim that I'm trying to "justify conservative insurrection" - I will once again unequivocally condemn Jane 6. One of us here is justifying bad behavior - claiming acts of violence/crimes were petty and important. It is not me.

Only a simpleton or partisan would claim violence doesn't beget violence.

---

There is one person here who is intentionally conflating "left wing violence" with other violence. The looting that occurred was not "left wing violence" in any sense. Antifa is not left wing. Other than sharing a common opposition to fascism, which I would hope mainstream right wingers would agree with, Antifa is just not a part of progressive politics. Whatever happened in Seattle with the weird collective was not connected to progressive politics. They don't support the democratic party or Joe Biden and they are not supported by the democratic party or Joe Biden. Democrats and progressives don't promote Antifa. Was some amount of the violence last summer caused by or participated by progressives? Sure, I don't think anyone denies that. But for you to demand a blanket acceptance that everything that happened was part of the progressive movement is classic BG disingenuity. It's categorically false and no reasonable person would hold that view.

On top of those ridiculous claims, you make the claims that the capitol riot and insurrection was somehow related to looting and rioting from last summer which is unsupported in the evidence. As we've seen from the court cases, the capitol criminals defendants all seem to reference Trump - not the looting of the patagonia store or the toppling of confederate statues. But, again, no one really doubts that and I don't even think you do - you are just playing your typical partisan games. Trump and other prominent republicans, amplified by right wing media including the number one cable news channel and one of the most powerful media organizations in the country, spent months pushing a false and completely unsupported election fraud narrative which directly led to the insurrection. There is no equivalence with democrats. There is no both sides to this issue, despite your desperate and pathetic claims to the contrary.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, so shove it in his face and make the statement that you condemn ALL political violence.
Then demand that he do the same by keeping the GOP leadership accountable of the same.

---

Tom if someone tells you they won't condemn child abuse unless you condemn some other bad thing, what would you say?

I don't need other people to condemn bad things in order for me to do so. BG demanding other people condemn unrelated things (which he mischaracterized, as is his wont) is a stupid rhetorical device. He is attempting to have us adopt and confirm stupid right wing talking points that don't deserve to be elevated.

---

Actually, I'm just trying to find a principle in your arguments when, sadly, there is none because your partisanships trumps (pun intended) any principle. It is obvious to everyone that left wing political violence is related to right wing political violence - even if they have very different intentions/motivations.

---

The principle is quite simple. Own your opinions and don't allow disingenuous arguments to warp the narrative. If you were genuinely condemning the insurrection, you wouldn't care or demand that anyone else condemn anything else.

Your last statement shows the depth of the rot of your partisanship. The only thing that is obvious is that you fail, or choose not to, see the true predicate of the January 6 insurrection. If you were paying attention you would see that it was far more closely related to the right wing extremism and protests from last summer - including anti-lockdown and anti-mask protests and the plot to kidnap and kill Whitmer - than it was to anything that progressives were involved in. The participants in the insurrection also participated in the right wing protests and outbursts and the same organizations (proud boys, oathkeepers, etc.) were involved.

I originally thought you stopped posting in OT last fall because you realized how wrong you were about the pandemic (and you were very wrong - including your typical misunderstanding of how modeling works) but now that you're back I'm beginning to think that it was completely unrelated.

BearGoggles said:

---

Only a simpleton or partisan would claim violence doesn't beget violence.

---

Let's tell the truth. The RWNJ's are responsible for violence from the start.
#Charlottesville
#HeatherHeyer

They attacked people protesting confederate statues.
And how about the 17 year old who shot protestors in WI following George Floyd.

You act as though your conservative side is holier than though and you are incensed at the fact that black and white people who organize around a theme of Black Lives Matter or Antifascism. And that Jan 6 is a response to what the Left did first?
Give me a break. All you gun-toting wackos, southern racists carry a massive amount of blame!
(You may exclude yourself from my assault on NRA-Southerners if it does not apply - I know, it's a mass generalization.)

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, so shove it in his face and make the statement that you condemn ALL political violence.
Then demand that he do the same by keeping the GOP leadership accountable of the same.

---

Bingo. You win the $1,000,000 prize (sorry I don't have that money to pay you).

Partisanship is arguably defined by wanting to hold ONLY the other side accountable for bad acts and/or ignoring/minimizing when your side does something wrong.

It doesn't mean all things/people are equally bad - we can probably agree that Trump's character is uniquely bad or worse. But Trump only exists because the "bad but less bad" behavior of people like the Clintons was dismissed and justified.

---

How about if you detail for me the violent acts which you have been incensed by.
You seem to be very fixated on acts which require atonement.
I'd like to know what they are.

concordtom said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, so shove it in his face and make the statement that you condemn ALL political violence.
Then demand that he do the same by keeping the GOP leadership accountable of the same.

---

Bingo. You win the $1,000,000 prize (sorry I don't have that money to pay you).

Partisanship is arguably defined by wanting to hold ONLY the other side accountable for bad acts and/or ignoring/minimizing when your side does something wrong.

It doesn't mean all things/people are equally bad - we can probably agree that Trump's character is uniquely bad or worse. But Trump only exists because the "bad but less bad" behavior of people like the Clintons was dismissed and justified.

---

How about if you detail for me the violent acts which you have been incensed by.
You seem to be very fixated on acts which require atonement.
I'd like to know what they are.

---

I've already criticized Jan 6. I support everyone's right to protest peacefully and criticize any violence in connection therewith. I also criticize people who exercise a hecklers veto, albeit that is typically not violent..

I unequivocally condemn white supremacists and other racists, and any acts of violence they engage in. I'm actually part of a minority group that isn't popular with those types. If you point me to something else you'd like me to comment on, happy to do so.

And for the record, I'm not "incensed' at any protestors or activists like Antifa or BLM. I'm angry (not sure I would say incensed, but whatever) that law enforcement and government officials do nothing about the people engaging in violence and property damage. You can draw lines from Tim McVeigh to Chalottsville to to Antifa to White Supremacy to BLM to to Jan 6.

There is a steady stream where violence and property damage have become normalized. That is the connection - not any particular ideology.

dajo9 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, so shove it in his face and make the statement that you condemn ALL political violence.
Then demand that he do the same by keeping the GOP leadership accountable of the same.

---

Bingo. You win the $1,000,000 prize (sorry I don't have that money to pay you).

Partisanship is arguably defined by wanting to hold ONLY the other side accountable for bad acts and/or ignoring/minimizing when your side does something wrong.

It doesn't mean all things/people are equally bad - we can probably agree that Trump's character is uniquely bad or worse. But Trump only exists because the "bad but less bad" behavior of people like the Clintons was dismissed and justified.

---

Trump exists because millions of people love him and love what he represents. You are on their side. It has nothing to do with your fabricated issues with Hillary Clinton. As Rush Limbaugh liked to say, "you are responsible for your own actions".

---

But why do they love him and, more importantly, why do they overlook or excuse his obvious very serious flaws? Keep digging/thinking - you'll figure it out.

It actually has a lot to do with not wanting to hold their guy to a higher standard than the other side applies. And a lot to do with pure partisanship. Some people held their nose and voted for Trump based on the issues. Lots of people voted for a clearly senile and wholly unimpressive Biden simply because they hated Trump.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

I'm going to ask you to join me in condemning all political violence, including the property damage caused by rioters and antifa in places like Minnesota, Portland and Seattle. Do you condemn those people and their tactics unconditionally even if you are perhaps sympathetic to their cause?

Yes or no. I'll wait.

---

Absolutely. I CONDEMN ALL POLITICAL VIOLENCE!!! I have always said as much
I think EVERYONE here condemns ALL political violence.
I'm sure Dajo and everyone else will agree - nobody wants buildings damaged in MN, Portland, Seattle.

I think the only reason you are trying to claim that the Anti-Trumpists, Anti-Jan6'ers on here are Pro-violence is because you are misled by FoxNews and the RWNJ media who asserts as much.

It's all part of their misdirection "what about" campaign.
Don't be so inept as to be led by con artists. They turn the entire dialogue into something it's not. And you follow by simply asking the questions. I've never heard anyone here say "yeah, go burn that stuff down."

---

His request was preposterous. The vast majority of the violence he's talking about was from petty rioters and looters with no connection to any political cause or movement. They were opportunistic violence-seekers. He is buying into the propaganda repeatedly pushed by Fox News that all or a majority of the violence arose out of some progressive cause. The Patagonia store in Santa Monica looted by surfers was not in response to George Floyd's murder or retributive justice - it was people taking advantage of the situation. There were obviously exceptions - I won't say that none of the violence was politically motivated - but Fox played stock footage for weeks of not months to overstate the situation. No one here supported the attacks on the courthouse in Portland last summer (even if we did criticize the government response) and no one defended the looters or rioters. I do believe that many conservatives defended the excessive government force used on peaceful protesters. Imagine if CNN kept playing January 6 footage and saying that cities across the US are under constant attack from radical whitists. That's what Fox News did all last summer. January 6 happened because Donald Trump lit the match and because right wing media poured gasoline on the fire. Not because people took advantage of protests in the wake of the George Floyd murder.

So yea, I see no reason to play BG's dumb game. Just because a bunch of dumb people, spurred on by the Republican Party and their propaganda outlets, tried to prevent the peaceful transition of power does not mean that we have to pretend like what happened last summer is related or just as concerning. They are independent and BG is just trying to gaslight us so that he can justify the conservative insurrection. No dice.

---

You're the best. Don't ever change. Thank you for so eloquently making my point by claiming that left wing violence is "petty rioters and looters with no connection to any political cause." No way are you by any means minimizing left wing violence. How could anyone even think you're doing that . . .

*** is antifa or BLM if not a political movement? Remind me what all those statues were defaced and torn down during protests? Just for fun or perhaps a political motivation?

You're right, absolutely no one defended the mostly peaceful looting and riots protests. LOLZ

Your words "not supporting, not defending" are far short of condemning. Again, all political violence (really all violence) should be condemned. And despite your claim that I'm trying to "justify conservative insurrection" - I will once again unequivocally condemn Jane 6. One of us here is justifying bad behavior - claiming acts of violence/crimes were petty and important. It is not me.

Only a simpleton or partisan would claim violence doesn't beget violence.

---

There is one person here who is intentionally conflating "left wing violence" with other violence. The looting that occurred was not "left wing violence" in any sense. Antifa is not left wing. Other than sharing a common opposition to fascism, which I would hope mainstream right wingers would agree with, Antifa is just not a part of progressive politics. Whatever happened in Seattle with the weird collective was not connected to progressive politics. They don't support the democratic party or Joe Biden and they are not supported by the democratic party or Joe Biden. Democrats and progressives don't promote Antifa. Was some amount of the violence last summer caused by or participated by progressives? Sure, I don't think anyone denies that. But for you to demand a blanket acceptance that everything that happened was part of the progressive movement is classic BG disingenuity. It's categorically false and no reasonable person would hold that view.

On top of those ridiculous claims, you make the claims that the capitol riot and insurrection was somehow related to looting and rioting from last summer which is unsupported in the evidence. As we've seen from the court cases, the capitol criminals defendants all seem to reference Trump - not the looting of the patagonia store or the toppling of confederate statues. But, again, no one really doubts that and I don't even think you do - you are just playing your typical partisan games. Trump and other prominent republicans, amplified by right wing media including the number one cable news channel and one of the most powerful media organizations in the country, spent months pushing a false and completely unsupported election fraud narrative which directly led to the insurrection. There is no equivalence with democrats. There is no both sides to this issue, despite your desperate and pathetic claims to the contrary.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, so shove it in his face and make the statement that you condemn ALL political violence.
Then demand that he do the same by keeping the GOP leadership accountable of the same.

---

Tom if someone tells you they won't condemn child abuse unless you condemn some other bad thing, what would you say?

I don't need other people to condemn bad things in order for me to do so. BG demanding other people condemn unrelated things (which he mischaracterized, as is his wont) is a stupid rhetorical device. He is attempting to have us adopt and confirm stupid right wing talking points that don't deserve to be elevated.

---

Actually, I'm just trying to find a principle in your arguments when, sadly, there is none because your partisanships trumps (pun intended) any principle. It is obvious to everyone that left wing political violence is related to right wing political violence - even if they have very different intentions/motivations.

---

The principle is quite simple. Own your opinions and don't allow disingenuous arguments to warp the narrative. If you were genuinely condemning the insurrection, you wouldn't care or demand that anyone else condemn anything else.

Your last statement shows the depth of the rot of your partisanship. The only thing that is obvious is that you fail, or choose not to, see the true predicate of the January 6 insurrection. If you were paying attention you would see that it was far more closely related to the right wing extremism and protests from last summer - including anti-lockdown and anti-mask protests and the plot to kidnap and kill Whitmer - than it was to anything that progressives were involved in. The participants in the insurrection also participated in the right wing protests and outbursts and the same organizations (proud boys, oathkeepers, etc.) were involved.

I originally thought you stopped posting in OT last fall because you realized how wrong you were about the pandemic (and you were very wrong - including your typical misunderstanding of how modeling works) but now that you're back I'm beginning to think that it was completely unrelated.

---

Antifa is not a leftist group? Ok. And you conveniently left out BLM. Are they right wing too? What about the Bernie supporter who shot all the republican congressman? Or the mob that invaded the capital for the Kavanaugh hearing? A left wing mob literally set a church on fire across from the white house and destroy public property they didn't like (and eventually the white supremacists will no doubt do the same to the MLK memorial)

And, as usual, you completely missed the point. I'm not saying one group reacts directly to the ideology of another. I'm not saying that the Jan 6 rioters had one thought of BLM or Patagonia (or whatever). Clearly they were spun up by Trump and others and had a variety of grievances, both real and imagined.

The question is - WHY DID THEY THINK STORMING THE CAPITAL TO DISRUPT CONGRESS WAS OK? Why was the violence deemed an acceptable option? I already posted on it above, but last years antifa actions/riots/property damage further normalized and escalated these activities (continuing an arc that traces back).

And for the record, I post infrequently around here because I actually have a life off the internet and, quite frankly, its boring in this echo chamber. A few people have fairly consistent principles (Dajo and Sycasey being two that come to mind but their are others) and nuanced thoughts, even though I disagree with them most of the time. Others, like you, just spout talking points, with every third word being Trump, fox news, racist, whitist, or some other woke buzzword you heard/read on Young Turks, Slate or Rachel Maddow.

You are so partisan and self righteous that you refuse to admit the obvious or condemn left wing violence simply because you can't stand to let the other side win on even one issue (and with you, as a partisan, it is zero sum with even the smallest or most obvious thing being win/loss). I'm right center conservative, and I've been on here for years criticizing people you think (often wrongly) are on "my side." I've criticized, among others, Trump ( A LOT), Bush II, Steve King, republican hypocrisy when I perceive it, and bad governance. Yet you never do the same - other than perhaps to criticize people for not being left enough.

Maybe I'm wrong, I invite you to offer any real criticism of Pelosi (hypocrisy in masking), AOC (lots of dumb things she says to chose from), Talib (dumb and anti Semitic), Omar (anti semetic), or Maxine Waters (one of the worst grifters of all time). I'll invite you to criticize and condemn the mobs that targeted for harassment republican politicians while dining (as Waters suggested). Or the financial corruption of people like Pelosi, Feinstein, Ted Lieu and Patrisse Cullors. And offer the criticism without a "but trump" or some other deflection.
I dropped in this week because I was curious who would be defending Biden indefensible policy and clear decline. You and some others did not disappoint.

BearGoggles said:

---

Antifa is not a leftist group?

---

Correct, Antifa is not a leftist group. Antifa has no connection to progressive politics or the democratic party. In comparison to rightwing extremists like the Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, et al. who the republican party caters to and who unabashedly support Trump, Antifa is a small group of weirdos who show up to engage in conflict with right wing whackos. Antifa is not a part of the political conversation - though right wing people like you hope to make them so in order to detract from the very real threat of right wing extremism in this country that the Republican party seems to embrace.

BearGoggles said:

---

And you conveniently left out BLM. Are they right wing too? What about the Bernie supporter who shot all the republican congressman? Or the mob that invaded the capital for the Kavanaugh hearing? A left wing mob literally set a church on fire across from the white house and destroy public property they didn't like (and eventually the white supremacists will no doubt do the same to the MLK memorial)

---

BLM is far more connected to progressive politics and is supported by democrats pretty widely. I have no issue with you saying as much. Where I take issue is with the contention that BLM supported or instigated violence. I won't say that there were no fringe actors in BLM who committed acts of violence, but nowhere near the extent to which FoxNews and other conservative media liked to pretend. I am not aware of leaders of BLM condoning or coordinating violence either. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and other right wing extremists.

BearGoggles said:

---

I've already criticized Jan 6. I support everyone's right to protest peacefully and criticize any violence in connection therewith. I also criticize people who exercise a hecklers veto, albeit that is typically not violent..

I unequivocally condemn white supremacists and other racists, and any acts of violence they engage in. I'm actually part of a minority group that isn't popular with those types. If you point me to something else you'd like me to comment on, happy to do so.

And for the record, I'm not "incensed' at any protestors or activists like Antifa or BLM. I'm angry (not sure I would say incensed, but whatever) that law enforcement and government officials do nothing about the people engaging in violence and property damage. You can draw lines from Tim McVeigh to Chalottsville to to Antifa to White Supremacy to BLM to to Jan 6.

There is a steady stream where violence and property damage have become normalized. That is the connection - not any particular ideology.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And, as usual, you completely missed the point. I'm not saying one group reacts directly to the ideology of another. I'm not saying that the Jan 6 rioters had one thought of BLM or Patagonia (or whatever). Clearly they were spun up by Trump and others and had a variety of grievances, both real and imagined.

The question is - WHY DID THEY THINK STORMING THE CAPITAL TO DISRUPT CONGRESS WAS OK? Why was the violence deemed an acceptable option? I already posted on it above, but last years antifa actions/riots/property damage further normalized and escalated these activities (continuing an arc that traces back).

---

This is just more unsupported conjecture that flies in the face or what we know to be the truth. Violence in this country didn't start last summer. The right wing plot to kidnap and assassinate Gretchen Whitmer had nothing to do with protests against police brutality. The continuing sovereign citizen nonsense led by the Bundys and which has included taking over federal buildings had nothing to do with police brutality, although of course they complained of it after they were treated with kid gloves. The anti-lockdown protests with armed and armored right wing thugs had nothing to do with the protests against police brutality but perhaps taught right wing extremists that they could get away with a lot more than they should. The capital insurrection had nothing to do with protests against police brutality.

The capital insurrection did have everything to do with Trump, his water carriers in the party and right wing media. How do we know this? Just look at what defendants are saying in court and in pleadings. None of them claim that they thought they could participate in a violent conflict with our federal government because there was rioting and looting last summer and they thought it was okay. They are saying that Donald Trump told them it was okay. For you to pretend otherwise is pathetic. If you want to acknowledge that this is part of a growing pattern of right wing extremist violence, happy to have that conversation.


You think that you can gaslight people with your false equivalences into believing that both sides have done something wrong that should be criticized but this isn't like offsetting fouls in basketball. January 6 stands alone and there is no need to pretend that there is some connection between anti-government right wing extremism supported by and in support of Trump and the republican party and bad things that people you don't like.

BearGoggles said:

---

Lots of people voted for a clearly senile and wholly unimpressive Biden simply because they hated Trump.

---

More unsupported conjecture. There were two options for President. Neither of them were of the caliber of our smartest recent presidents - Clinton and Obama. One of them put his pants on backwards, bragged about a dementia assessment, has trouble negotiating shallow ramps and glasses of water. That guy's supporters think he was the smart one lol.

BearGoggles said:

---

Others, like you, just spout talking points, with every third word being Trump, fox news, racist, whitist, or some other woke buzzword you heard/read on Young Turks, Slate or Rachel Maddow.

You are so partisan and self righteous that you refuse to admit the obvious or condemn left wing violence simply because you can't stand to let the other side win on even one issue (and with you, as a partisan, it is zero sum with even the smallest or most obvious thing being win/loss).

---

Lol from the guy who complains about personal attacks. For what it's worth, I have never seen young Turks or Maddow. Everything you wrote above is projection but thanks for playing.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Antifa is not a leftist group?

---

Correct, Antifa is not a leftist group. Antifa has no connection to progressive politics or the democratic party. In comparison to rightwing extremists like the Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, et al. who the republican party caters to and who unabashedly support Trump, Antifa is a small group of weirdos who show up to engage in conflict with right wing whackos. Antifa is not a part of the political conversation - though right wing people like you hope to make them so in order to detract from the very real threat of right wing extremism in this country that the Republican party seems to embrace.

BearGoggles said:

---

And you conveniently left out BLM. Are they right wing too? What about the Bernie supporter who shot all the republican congressman? Or the mob that invaded the capital for the Kavanaugh hearing? A left wing mob literally set a church on fire across from the white house and destroy public property they didn't like (and eventually the white supremacists will no doubt do the same to the MLK memorial)

---

BLM is far more connected to progressive politics and is supported by democrats pretty widely. I have no issue with you saying as much. Where I take issue is with the contention that BLM supported or instigated violence. I won't say that there were no fringe actors in BLM who committed acts of violence, but nowhere near the extent to which FoxNews and other conservative media liked to pretend. I am not aware of leaders of BLM condoning or coordinating violence either. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and other right wing extremists.

BearGoggles said:

---

I've already criticized Jan 6. I support everyone's right to protest peacefully and criticize any violence in connection therewith. I also criticize people who exercise a hecklers veto, albeit that is typically not violent..

I unequivocally condemn white supremacists and other racists, and any acts of violence they engage in. I'm actually part of a minority group that isn't popular with those types. If you point me to something else you'd like me to comment on, happy to do so.

And for the record, I'm not "incensed' at any protestors or activists like Antifa or BLM. I'm angry (not sure I would say incensed, but whatever) that law enforcement and government officials do nothing about the people engaging in violence and property damage. You can draw lines from Tim McVeigh to Chalottsville to to Antifa to White Supremacy to BLM to to Jan 6.

There is a steady stream where violence and property damage have become normalized. That is the connection - not any particular ideology.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

And, as usual, you completely missed the point. I'm not saying one group reacts directly to the ideology of another. I'm not saying that the Jan 6 rioters had one thought of BLM or Patagonia (or whatever). Clearly they were spun up by Trump and others and had a variety of grievances, both real and imagined.

The question is - WHY DID THEY THINK STORMING THE CAPITAL TO DISRUPT CONGRESS WAS OK? Why was the violence deemed an acceptable option? I already posted on it above, but last years antifa actions/riots/property damage further normalized and escalated these activities (continuing an arc that traces back).

---

This is just more unsupported conjecture that flies in the face or what we know to be the truth. Violence in this country didn't start last summer. The right wing plot to kidnap and assassinate Gretchen Whitmer had nothing to do with protests against police brutality. The continuing sovereign citizen nonsense led by the Bundys and which has included taking over federal buildings had nothing to do with police brutality, although of course they complained of it after they were treated with kid gloves. The anti-lockdown protests with armed and armored right wing thugs had nothing to do with the protests against police brutality but perhaps taught right wing extremists that they could get away with a lot more than they should. The capital insurrection had nothing to do with protests against police brutality.

The capital insurrection did have everything to do with Trump, his water carriers in the party and right wing media. How do we know this? Just look at what defendants are saying in court and in pleadings. None of them claim that they thought they could participate in a violent conflict with our federal government because there was rioting and looting last summer and they thought it was okay. They are saying that Donald Trump told them it was okay. For you to pretend otherwise is pathetic. If you want to acknowledge that this is part of a growing pattern of right wing extremist violence, happy to have that conversation.


You think that you can gaslight people with your false equivalences into believing that both sides have done something wrong that should be criticized but this isn't like offsetting fouls in basketball. January 6 stands alone and there is no need to pretend that there is some connection between anti-government right wing extremism supported by and in support of Trump and the republican party and bad things that people you don't like.

BearGoggles said:

---

Lots of people voted for a clearly senile and wholly unimpressive Biden simply because they hated Trump.

---

More unsupported conjecture. There were two options for President. Neither of them were of the caliber of our smartest recent presidents - Clinton and Obama. One of them put his pants on backwards, bragged about a dementia assessment, has trouble negotiating shallow ramps and glasses of water. That guy's supporters think he was the smart one lol.

BearGoggles said:

---

Others, like you, just spout talking points, with every third word being Trump, fox news, racist, whitist, or some other woke buzzword you heard/read on Young Turks, Slate or Rachel Maddow.

You are so partisan and self righteous that you refuse to admit the obvious or condemn left wing violence simply because you can't stand to let the other side win on even one issue (and with you, as a partisan, it is zero sum with even the smallest or most obvious thing being win/loss).

---

Lol from the guy who complains about personal attacks. For what it's worth, I have never seen young Turks or Maddow. Everything you wrote above is projection but thanks for playing.

---

Easy pickens:

• Antifa has just as much connection to left wing politics as the rightwing extremists do to republican politics. Who do you think Antifa folks voted for - Trump or Biden/Bernie/other leftist? And as an aside, who was the last prominent dem leader to condemn Antifa violence (the exact pandering you claim only republicans do). I like how you claim Antifa is "small" but Oathkeepers, Proud Boys are large. Both groups are fringe, small, and sometimes violent. But you only see a problem with one because you're a hopeless partisan.
• To that point, Proud boy membership is "likely several hundred" and Oath Keepers are 1-3,000 (https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/oath-keepers and https://www.adl.org/proudboys).
• According to you, BLM isn't violent except for fringe actors (I would tend to agree to some extent). Yet rather than condemn the fringe actors, -- which notably you still have not done - you blame Fox News (you can't help yourself) for supposedly exaggerating it. But you don't think that liberal news sources (MSNBC, CNN, etc), exaggerate the narrative of tiny groups like the Proud Boys/Oath keepers etc.
• I never said violence started last summer, in fact I said the opposite. It can be traced back decades to people in both extremes.
• Despite what you claim is gaslighting, I have now said at least 4 times that Jan 6 was worse - an escalation. I'm not drawing equivalencies. I'm offering an explanation for why people felt comfortable or justified resorting to violence and pointing out that if violence BY EITHER SIDE is tolerated, it will be met with worse violence.
• You absolutely repeat buzzwords like Trump, fox news, racist, and most recently whitist (which appears to be you're new thing). It is literally a caricature of the typical woke progressive male. And for the record, where do you get your news? Other than fox news which it appears you watch quite a bit, given how much you mention it.

Final question. If Proud Boys were holding a first amendment protected rally (like the Nazis in Skokie) to spew their disgusting hate, do you think its ok for Antifa to show up with the stated intention to use violence to stop the protest? Because that's what Antifa explicitly does and believes is ok. Is that ok - yes or no?