In ANY spectrum you have people in the middle and people on the extremes. Political ideology is LEFT and RIGHT. You then have moderates who sit in the middle. That’s the spectrum. People who are all in and extreme on the left are far left. Same goes for the Right. You my dear are far right. But you obviously lack self awareness so it’s no mystery why you are making this horribly illogical argument.They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....Are you saying you don’t have a link or anything showing that this was a policy or order from the Mayor? So did you just lie about it?My bad I must have missed the policy or order that the mayor gave to the police chief. Can you post a link, I can’t find info on that .Empty words? Not really... your critique is that he stood by the decision of his police chief and that somehow is supposed to prove what exactly?? You said the Mayors never spoke out against the violence. I showed otherwise.This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?Which mayor? Can you give me a name?Ahhh right, you’re probably stuck in the right wing media bubble. Here is the leader of the Dems condemning violence... Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned protest-related violence all summerHaha, ok so my examples just don’t count. I could give more but I guess those wouldn’t count either. Why do I bother. You’re hopeless.Your point is absolute bullshit. There has been violence from the right wing forever just as there has been from the left wing. At trump rallies in 2016 he had supporter punching protesters in the face, he encouraged it......Haha, this is the best one yet. So since the left is violent it inspired the right to be violent? You really want to go with that? Has the lefts push for big government also inspired the right to support big government? Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber.Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?Oh ok, well I agree that people can be correct through luck. I don’t think that’s the case here, I just think I was more perceptive because what Trump was doing had a painfully obvious effect which I could see coming from a mile away.... you on the other hand were cause blindsided so you obviously didn’t see it.Where in that statement was a clear sentence stating what the hell you’re talking about?! Nowhere!!! If you’ve been so clear then just copy and paste it. I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. I think you got schooled and are just trying to confuse things to distract from the fact you lack a solid argument.Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?You admitted that you were surprised at the riot. I said it was obvious and easy to see coming. I’m not lying about that, If you think I’m lying then why don’t you tell me what really happened. What am I getting wrong?What do you think I lied about. What I observed was obvious and predictable... yet it surprised you. Gee, let’s think about that for a secMy stated reasons weren’t true yet I was right. So I must have seen something that you didn’t see. Your Perceived reality was wrong and left you blindsided. That should tell you somethingWell this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.I was right for the right reasons. Because I can see the effects that a con man has on his followers. The question is why couldn’t you see it coming?Mine was based on common sense. You can’t use historical precedent when you have a president that breaks all the norms. My observations were correct. I called my family before the riot to tell them there was about to be a riot. How did I know?! Because it was obvious. The real question you should be asking yourself is why you were surprised and why you couldn’t see it coming when it was so easy to see what Trump was doing.I wasn't... I literally called my family while Trump was giving his speech and told them to tune in because shit was about to go down. I told them Trump just threw Pence under the bus and there is a mob of angry people that are about to go mess things up. It was clear and obvious what Trump was doing and what was about to happen. If you couldn't see that then you have blinders on. But you support Trump so I guess the blinders are a givenExactly, it was foreseeable, which makes Trump and his puppets lies about the election fraud so much worse. It wasn't political hyperbole, it was incitement to violence which is what it lead to. He made false claims many of which can be directly disproven and the others he was never able to verify, yet he keeps saying them, his idiot followers believe them, and the nutters are acting on them.If my country had a fraudulent election to the scale of November 2020, and the Nation's Intel agencyy refused to investigate, and the media ignored it, and people who peacefull protested were censored and attacked....
I'd see it as a coup and would probably be attacking my Parliament as well
I did not see it coming. Generally conservatives are pretty mild. I expected the demonstration to just stand there and make some noise and be forgotten.
I was surprised when the riot broke out.
My expectation of a peaceful demonstration was based on decades of observation of demonstration conservatives who, even when pissed off, almost always obeyed the law and demonstrated peacefully and then went home.
What was yours based on?
Trump did not break all the norms.
His style was odd. He was disagreeable and vulgar. But his policies and actions were measured and restrained.
So, you were right, but for the wrong reasons. That happens. Like the way I was initially attracted to my wife because of her, well, never mind.
I asked what you based your conclusion on, and the reasons you gave were not true.
THus, you were right for the wrong reasons.
Hey, better than being wrong for the right reasons.
YOur spin is dismissed.
No one is prefect. Being wrong once does not mean that my judgement is valueless.
YOur stated reasons were not true. Thus you were right for the wrong reasons.
People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
If I found that I was consistently wrong, then your point that I should reexamine my perceptions would be correct.
BUt so far, this was a one off.
People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
I fully explained what you were lying about. YOur pretense of confusion is you lying again.
Your need to avoid being honest about what I say, how can that not be a red flag for you?
Nope. Your tactic of pretending to misunderstand a clear statement to then ask stupid questions, is an odd game, but one I am willing to play.
Pretend to be too retarded to understand a simple sentence again, and I will call you on your lying again.
I'm not sure of the point, but I am sure that I am kidding your ass.
I don't believe that you are so retarded that you did not understand it initially.
I am willing to consider that you might be stupid enough to have forgotten since it has been several posts so here it is again.
People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
now you are able to look at things in hindsight. If you think what I’ve said was wrong then state why... see this is how normal debate works. It shouldn’t take pages and me explaining it like to a third grader.
I already explained my reasoning. DECADES of watching conservatives protest, even angry, but obeying the law and being peaceful.
THe violence and destruction has almost solely been on the left..
So, this change up was a surprise.
IN HINDSIGHT. it is less surprising considering the normalization of violence by five years of riots by antifa and blm.
Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.
Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.
That is my point. I made it very clear. YOu don't need to restate it using your own words. (and thus adding your own spin, dishonestly).
ADDRESS MY POINT OR DON'T POST.
there I directly addressed your point. Now you address mine. Don’t distract
Punching a HECKLER, is a pretty minor example to lead off with, considering the 5 years of riots from your side. Charlettosville was the FAR right, not conservatives.
Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.
That is my point.
I can play that game though... the summer riots were just the FAR Left not liberals. So they don’t count either. How’s that for ya?
not bad. The actual rioters, imo, were far left.
The support they got from elected dem officials, that were not denounced by the dem party as a whole, though that is more troubling.
Interesting. I clearly was discussing not the violence, but the support of the violence by dem mayors.
DId Biden ever denounce the mayors that ordered the cops to stand down so that rioters could riot, loot and kill?
Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.
Portland Mayor Wheeler condemns violence during riot downtown
PORTLAND, Ore. – Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler denounced the violence during an overnight riot downtown where demonstrators pulled down statues and broke the windows of the Oregon Historical Society. The mayor was joined by Police Chief Chuck Lovell, Oregon Representative Tawna Sanchez, and Oregon...katu.com
lol, you really do love those empty words, don't you?
Ted Wheeler, Portland mayor, stands by decision to allow Antifa to block traffic
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.www.washingtontimes.com
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, October 14, 2018
"Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.
“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene,” he said at a press conference. “This whole incident will be investigated.”
The video posted by journalist Andy C. Ngo showed protesters, including members of antifa and Black Lives Matter, blocking an intersection and attempting to direct traffic at while officers on motorcycle watched from a block away.
At one point, the activists chased down 74-year-old Kent Houser after he made a right turn against their wishes, pounding on his silver Lexus and breaking a window. The car sustained thousands of dollars in damage, he told the Oregonian.
Even so, Mr. Wheeler insisted that “motorists should feel completely safe coming into downtown Portland.”
Demonstrators did not obtain a permit before holding the Oct. 6 march...
The mayor has been accused of taking a kid-gloved approach to the protests that routinely roil the liberal enclave, such as the summer occupation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, which saw Portland police refuse to assist the immigration-enforcement officers unless they were in physical danger."
Police chiefs don't set policy, they follow it. That the mayor shifted teh blame for his policies onto his police chief is him being a democrat, nothing more.
The police stood by while the rioters rioted. and people were assaulted.
That the mayor was too much of a democrat to admit that he ordered that, is to be expected.
Even dem mayors are smart enough to LIE about that. But the results are clear. THe cops stand down while antifa and/or blm riot though the streets.
I'm saying that ted wheeler has been on the side of the mob, for the last several years. THe few empty words he says to the contrary of his actions are just put out there for the really stupid to swallow.
He is one example of that.
"... lies from the far right....."
There is no Far Right in this country.....only a Far Left.
I'll use you to prove it.
As documented in a number of threads, there is no Far Right in America, but certainly is a Far Left, radicals who have taken over one of the parties….the Democrats. A reminder: To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center. American traditions, values, and history represent that center. The Right, represented by the Republican Party, has no radial positions not consistent with America’s heritage…..but the Democrats sure do!
Subservient to the master they serve, that fire and brimstone guy, the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
Talk about “Far”!!!!
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.
When you can't find any 'far' positions on the right, you will have proved your acceptance of Democrat propaganda.
Let's check.
You put 'funny' on this challenge.....now I'll put you in your place.
There is no Far Right in this country.....only a Far Left.
I'll use you to prove it.
As documented in a number of threads, there is no Far Right in America, but certainly is a Far Left, radicals who have taken over one of the parties….the Democrats. A reminder: To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center. American traditions, values, and history represent that center. The Right, represented by the Republican Party, has no radial positions not consistent with America’s heritage…..but the Democrats sure do!
Subservient to the master they serve, that fire and brimstone guy, the Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
Talk about “Far”!!!!
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.
When you can't find any 'far' positions on the right, you will have proved your acceptance of Democrat propaganda.
Your post, of course, is one more Leftist version of this:
A reminder: To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center. American traditions, values, and history represent that center. The Right, represented by the Republican Party, has no radical positions not consistent with America’s heritage…..but the Democrats sure do!
So you are unable to come up with any 'Far Right' position.
Excellent.
Just because you make up a definition of “far” doesn’t make it true. I laid out exactly how extremes work within a spectrum. I made my explanation very simple so that even a grade schooler could understand. I’m very sorry that you still don’t get it.
I made nothing up.
I simply provided the accurate definition.
And it left you tap-dancing, essentially admitting that there are no 'far' or radical position on the Right......only on the Left.
. Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.
Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always menant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY
How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com
So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.
A reminder: To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center. American traditions, values, and history represent that center. The Right, represented by the Republican Party, has no radical positions not consistent with America’s heritage…..but the Democrats sure do!
So you are unable to come up with any 'Far Right' position.
The reason you feel stupid right now.....is because you are.
Uhh no you didn’t... you made up a definition and it’s not correct. You are mixing up positions on a spectrum with the impact and extremity of their policy ideas. You can say that you think far left policies are more destructive than far right. That’s a fine opinion to have. But you can’t say there is no such thing as far right. That just makes you sound ignorant
Her examples were pretty convincing.
What is the "far right" position on gay marriage?
Or any far right position?
Far right position on gay marriage is that it should not be permitted or accepted in this country because it is wrong and perverted
Except as politicalchic pointed out, that is and has been teh norm until just very recently.
So, you can't call that radical.
Here I elaborated... don’t add the word radical in there. that’s was never part of the discussion
——-
Far right position on gay marriage is that it should not be permitted or accepted in this country because it is wrong and perverted.
Far Left is let people love who they want and have the same right as everybody else.
Moderate would suppprt civil unions but not label it as marriage
So, when Obama won the Presidency in 2008, and opposed gay marriage he was "far right"
I know plenty of gays who oppose gay marriage.
Slade is sort of making Political Chic's point.
Am I now?!
When your position that what was complete normal and the law of the land, just ten years ago, is now supposedly radical, ie far right?
Yes.
Perhaps another example might work better for you.
I never used the word radical... that’s you. You can call the policies radical all you want. You can say far left policies are more radical than far right. I’d probably agree. But you can’t say there is no such thing as the far right
I kind of agree that there IS a far right, but in my opinion they are an irrelevant fringe of no importance.
Hell, some of my views are pretty radical.
The point I think will become obvious if we examine this line of argument, is that the far left has co-opted the left AND the center due to it's domination of education, pop culture and media.
Not to mention massive use of various types of bullying.
while the Right has by default been saddled with all moderate and right positions.