FBI Director says no evidence ANTIFA was at Capitol riot

[PoliticalChic]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

Those on the right, agree that their stated reasons do not justify the hundreds of riots, or the thousands of "protests" that often blocked roads or otherwise caused serious issues for millions of people over the last 5 years.




AFter 5 years of such constant provocations, that there was only ONE riot from the Right, so far, is a testimony to our incredible forbearance.


Considering the state of race relations in this country today, bragging on the civil rights movement is a weak argument.

Why do you put yourself on the opposite side of race relation issues?? See that why I have such a hard time relating with the Right despite my desire for small government low taxes and low regs. Y’all take horrible positions on these social issues.

You missed my point. Racial protests and the unacceptable violence that criminals engaged in as a result are very different than an insurrection based on lies from a president. We always have had and always will have protests in this country it’s a constitutional right. But the ugly elements that lead to an insurrection is a different beast. You really can’t see the difference?

no, i got your point. I disagree with it. That the rioters from both sides felt justified does not excuse their violence.

That wasn’t my point. Nothing excuses violence from either side

The way that you lefties always have to point out that the rioters, sorry, the "mostly peaceful demonstrators" were rioting, sorry, "demonstrating" in favor of "social justice" or " racial equality",


kind of makes it seem like that is exactly what you are doing, ie excusing or at least justifying their violence.

It was their shock troops, part of their assault on America.....along with the overblown Wuhan Red Death hoax, and mail-in voting.


But.......it worked, very much as Brutus's knife in Caesar's back worked.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

"Far" must be distant from something.

Politically, it is distant from the heritage, tradition, history, value that came before.

There are no "Far" positions on the Right.



But on the Left.......



1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?

2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.



3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.



Starting to see a pattern?



4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,



LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.

5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..



6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.



A radical and Progressive position.



He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."



7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...



Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



8. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,

"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.



Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???



Oh...wait....he did build concentration camps for innocent civilians....his own citizens.



9. How about The Far Left's Gender-Agenda., versus the Right's stand for tradition and reality: "Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington's New Transgender Bathroom Rules"



Really....could there be a more pertinent example of the radical, insane Far Left's corruption of tradition and history???



Could there?



10. The corruption of the press by the Far Left: the JournoList Scandal: hundreds of Leftist journalists plotted to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties. They plotted to smear the other side with lies. Peter Zenger....spinnning in his grave.

A clear affront to the honor bestowed on the press by the first amendment.



And don't forget this winner......men can menstruate and have babies and women can become men.
And you vote for this.



And several times, I've presented this challenge: 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.







Still waiting.

Why do you waste so much space with your long rants. You know I don’t read them. I give you a few sentences and that’s it.

Her point is valid.


What is the far right position on national defense?

Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin adage translated as "If you want peace, prepare for war".



March 27, 1794 The House of Representatives passed an act authorizing the creation of a US Navy, with the “procurement of six frigates.”

Four of the ships would be classified as the 44 gun Frigate Class and two would be of the 38 gun Frigate class:
USS United States 44 guns Built in Phila. Launched May 10, 1797
USS Constellation 38 Balt. Sept. 7, 1797
USS Constitution 44 Bost. Oct. 21, 1997
USS Chesapeake 38 Gasport, Va. June 20, 1799
USS Congress 44 New Hamp. Aug. 15, 1799
USS President 44 New York April 1, 1800


The Democrats got us into the Civil War…Jefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWI….FDR, WWII……Truman, Korean War….VietNam, JFK and LBJ…..yet they want to weaken our military.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

Those on the right, agree that their stated reasons do not justify the hundreds of riots, or the thousands of "protests" that often blocked roads or otherwise caused serious issues for millions of people over the last 5 years.




AFter 5 years of such constant provocations, that there was only ONE riot from the Right, so far, is a testimony to our incredible forbearance.


Considering the state of race relations in this country today, bragging on the civil rights movement is a weak argument.

Why do you put yourself on the opposite side of race relation issues?? See that why I have such a hard time relating with the Right despite my desire for small government low taxes and low regs. Y’all take horrible positions on these social issues.

You missed my point. Racial protests and the unacceptable violence that criminals engaged in as a result are very different than an insurrection based on lies from a president. We always have had and always will have protests in this country it’s a constitutional right. But the ugly elements that lead to an insurrection is a different beast. You really can’t see the difference?

no, i got your point. I disagree with it. That the rioters from both sides felt justified does not excuse their violence.

That wasn’t my point. Nothing excuses violence from either side

The way that you lefties always have to point out that the rioters, sorry, the "mostly peaceful demonstrators" were rioting, sorry, "demonstrating" in favor of "social justice" or " racial equality",


kind of makes it seem like that is exactly what you are doing, ie excusing or at least justifying their violence.

I think the consensus of the left is that racial issues in their country especially given our disgusting past are unacceptable and should be squashed with an overwhelming voice and support from both sides of the aisle. That’s why the protests are supported.... not the violence/looting.

The insurrection in the other hand was a March in the capital and then an attempted violent take over to stop an election from being certified. It was all based on lies. This is why BOTH the premise of the protest “stop the steal” and the ensuing violence which was provoked by our President, are being slammed so hard.

 

[Correll]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

Those on the right, agree that their stated reasons do not justify the hundreds of riots, or the thousands of "protests" that often blocked roads or otherwise caused serious issues for millions of people over the last 5 years.




AFter 5 years of such constant provocations, that there was only ONE riot from the Right, so far, is a testimony to our incredible forbearance.


Considering the state of race relations in this country today, bragging on the civil rights movement is a weak argument.

Why do you put yourself on the opposite side of race relation issues?? See that why I have such a hard time relating with the Right despite my desire for small government low taxes and low regs. Y’all take horrible positions on these social issues.

You missed my point. Racial protests and the unacceptable violence that criminals engaged in as a result are very different than an insurrection based on lies from a president. We always have had and always will have protests in this country it’s a constitutional right. But the ugly elements that lead to an insurrection is a different beast. You really can’t see the difference?

no, i got your point. I disagree with it. That the rioters from both sides felt justified does not excuse their violence.

That wasn’t my point. Nothing excuses violence from either side

The way that you lefties always have to point out that the rioters, sorry, the "mostly peaceful demonstrators" were rioting, sorry, "demonstrating" in favor of "social justice" or " racial equality",


kind of makes it seem like that is exactly what you are doing, ie excusing or at least justifying their violence.

I think the consensus of the left is that racial issues in their country especially given our disgusting past are unacceptable and should be squashed with an overwhelming voice and support from both sides of the aisle. That’s why the protests are supported.... not the violence/looting.

The insurrection in the other hand was a March in the capital and then an attempted violent take over to stop an election from being certified. It was all based on lies. This is why BOTH the premise of the protest “stop the steal” and the ensuing violence which was provoked by our President, are being slammed so hard.

You justify your side's violence while getting hyperbolic about your enemies' and you undermine your supposed message of being against violence from both sides.


That is a good way to get more violence.


Do you want more violence moving forward or less?

 

[Slade3200]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

Except what you call far right was completetly normal, just a few years ago.


How can something that was completely normal and the law of the land just a few years ago, be "far" anything?

Well because times change. Slavery used to be the norm. It’s basic history and civics

I doubt Lincoln would deny that his change was a radical change. The history I have read, the radical republicans knew the changes they were pushing were radical.


Radical changes can be made into law or made to stick. That does not mean they are not still radical.

In time, yes, but not immediately.

Any movement for change is going to be called radical by some and necessary by others. The nature of the ideology is that conservatives oppose most change and progressives push for change. So the spectrum is always in motion. That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as the far right. There is always a far left and a far right... even on a dynamic spectrum

I’m not making a partisan political argument here this is basic logic and common sense

So give a counter example.


I will try to help.

What is the far left, left, moderate, right, far right position on immigration.

Far left open borders, far right closed borders, moderate functioning border

And no one other than me, is pushing a closed border. Thus the Far Right is insignificant.

Haha, just like an insignificant amount on the Left are pushing a completely open border. It’s all hyperbole

When we have literally millions and millions of illegals living in this country, and EVERY FUCKING TIME someone wants to send them home, the left cites how ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER, "scapegoated a minority group too",


then OPEN BORDER is the mainstream Left position.

That’s not what an open boarder is. Sorry. It’s just not

 

[Slade3200]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

You lying asshole.....the protest on Jan. 6 wasn't about over throwing the government....that is why no one in the Capitol building during the protest had a gun......

again...

600 million guns in America....

over 19.4 million Americans with the legal ability to carry guns for self defense....

Over 100,000 Trump supporters...

About 200 people entered the capitol building...

They had Zero guns.........

You do not over throw a government without guns...you mindless moron.......

The Trump supporters wandered the halls and took selfies......antifa and blm plants in the crowd vandalized the place and fought with some of the police......

Hahahhahahaha. Are you shitting me?! The whole point of the riot was to stop the steal and they tried to do so by force. That is literally overthrowing our system of government... the definition of an insurrection. Wake up

The stop the Steal campaign was about preserving democracy, demanding audits, free and fair elections.
It was a Human Rights protest by Pro Democracy activists.
The coup happened on November 3rd.

Haha. No the stop the steal campaign was a bunch of poor sport losers who couldn’t handle getting whooped at the polls and they were led by the worst of them all Trump

The leader of stop the Steal is a black muslim.
The election was unconstitutional and rigged.
Time magazine even admitted a secret cabal of pwerful people rigged it in the weeks and months prior.
Deal with it.

The courts disagree with you... sorry but that’s how our system works.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

You lying asshole.....the protest on Jan. 6 wasn't about over throwing the government....that is why no one in the Capitol building during the protest had a gun......

again...

600 million guns in America....

over 19.4 million Americans with the legal ability to carry guns for self defense....

Over 100,000 Trump supporters...

About 200 people entered the capitol building...

They had Zero guns.........

You do not over throw a government without guns...you mindless moron.......

The Trump supporters wandered the halls and took selfies......antifa and blm plants in the crowd vandalized the place and fought with some of the police......

Hahahhahahaha. Are you shitting me?! The whole point of the riot was to stop the steal and they tried to do so by force. That is literally overthrowing our system of government... the definition of an insurrection. Wake up

How is it overthrowing the system when you yourself admitted it was a Steal.

They thought it was a steal because they were lied to. It obviously was not stolen. Our elections systems have too many safeguards working independently of each other for that to happen

No system is any better than the people making it up. And dems have shown that they will lie and cheat and abuse ANY power they are given.

Yup, so have the Republicans. Power corrupts

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

Except what you call far right was completetly normal, just a few years ago.


How can something that was completely normal and the law of the land just a few years ago, be "far" anything?

Well because times change. Slavery used to be the norm. It’s basic history and civics

I doubt Lincoln would deny that his change was a radical change. The history I have read, the radical republicans knew the changes they were pushing were radical.


Radical changes can be made into law or made to stick. That does not mean they are not still radical.

In time, yes, but not immediately.

Any movement for change is going to be called radical by some and necessary by others. The nature of the ideology is that conservatives oppose most change and progressives push for change. So the spectrum is always in motion. That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as the far right. There is always a far left and a far right... even on a dynamic spectrum

I’m not making a partisan political argument here this is basic logic and common sense

So give a counter example.


I will try to help.

What is the far left, left, moderate, right, far right position on immigration.

Far left open borders, far right closed borders, moderate functioning border

And no one other than me, is pushing a closed border. Thus the Far Right is insignificant.

Haha, just like an insignificant amount on the Left are pushing a completely open border. It’s all hyperbole

When we have literally millions and millions of illegals living in this country, and EVERY FUCKING TIME someone wants to send them home, the left cites how ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER, "scapegoated a minority group too",


then OPEN BORDER is the mainstream Left position.

That’s not what an open boarder is. Sorry. It’s just not

Of course it is, you liar.


All comers....walk right in.


Not only are illegals welcome.....but Democrats promise them free welfare, just come in and vote Democrat.



Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally

A Spanish-language leaflet that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided to the Mexican Embassy in Washington advises border-crossing Mexicans that they can collect taxpayer-funded food stamp benefits for their children without admitting that they're illegal immigrants.

Underlined and in boldface type, the document tells immigrants who are unlawfully in the United States that, 'You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.'

Read more: Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook





"Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico"
Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico - Breitbart







"Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally."
Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally | Daily Mail Online






They lie about everything.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

"Far" must be distant from something.

Politically, it is distant from the heritage, tradition, history, value that came before.

There are no "Far" positions on the Right.



But on the Left.......



1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?

2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.



3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.



Starting to see a pattern?



4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,



LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.

5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..



6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.



A radical and Progressive position.



He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."



7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...



Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



8. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,

"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.



Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???



Oh...wait....he did build concentration camps for innocent civilians....his own citizens.



9. How about The Far Left's Gender-Agenda., versus the Right's stand for tradition and reality: "Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington's New Transgender Bathroom Rules"



Really....could there be a more pertinent example of the radical, insane Far Left's corruption of tradition and history???



Could there?



10. The corruption of the press by the Far Left: the JournoList Scandal: hundreds of Leftist journalists plotted to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties. They plotted to smear the other side with lies. Peter Zenger....spinnning in his grave.

A clear affront to the honor bestowed on the press by the first amendment.



And don't forget this winner......men can menstruate and have babies and women can become men.
And you vote for this.



And several times, I've presented this challenge: 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.







Still waiting.

Why do you waste so much space with your long rants. You know I don’t read them. I give you a few sentences and that’s it.

Her point is valid.


What is the far right position on national defense?

How many times do we need to go through this?! National defense... far right wants a strong national defense and heavily funded military. The far left wants less military funding and intervention. Moderates fall in the middle

 

[Slade3200]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

"Far" must be distant from something.

Politically, it is distant from the heritage, tradition, history, value that came before.

There are no "Far" positions on the Right.



But on the Left.......



1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?

2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.



3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.



Starting to see a pattern?



4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,



LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.

5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..



6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.



A radical and Progressive position.



He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."



7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...



Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



8. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,

"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.



Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???



Oh...wait....he did build concentration camps for innocent civilians....his own citizens.



9. How about The Far Left's Gender-Agenda., versus the Right's stand for tradition and reality: "Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington's New Transgender Bathroom Rules"



Really....could there be a more pertinent example of the radical, insane Far Left's corruption of tradition and history???



Could there?



10. The corruption of the press by the Far Left: the JournoList Scandal: hundreds of Leftist journalists plotted to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties. They plotted to smear the other side with lies. Peter Zenger....spinnning in his grave.

A clear affront to the honor bestowed on the press by the first amendment.



And don't forget this winner......men can menstruate and have babies and women can become men.
And you vote for this.



And several times, I've presented this challenge: 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.







Still waiting.

Why do you waste so much space with your long rants. You know I don’t read them. I give you a few sentences and that’s it.

It's possible that the length represents our individual levels of education and intelligence.

Henceforth, your posts should be noting more than a comma, or an exclamation mark.


Then you could go right back to your blanket fort and coloring book.

haha, it’s possible but not true in this case. You may be trying to present that you’re smart but when you copy and paste a bunch of verbal diarrhea and totally disrail the focus of the conversation it shows your lack of intelligence.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

Those on the right, agree that their stated reasons do not justify the hundreds of riots, or the thousands of "protests" that often blocked roads or otherwise caused serious issues for millions of people over the last 5 years.




AFter 5 years of such constant provocations, that there was only ONE riot from the Right, so far, is a testimony to our incredible forbearance.


Considering the state of race relations in this country today, bragging on the civil rights movement is a weak argument.

Why do you put yourself on the opposite side of race relation issues?? See that why I have such a hard time relating with the Right despite my desire for small government low taxes and low regs. Y’all take horrible positions on these social issues.

You missed my point. Racial protests and the unacceptable violence that criminals engaged in as a result are very different than an insurrection based on lies from a president. We always have had and always will have protests in this country it’s a constitutional right. But the ugly elements that lead to an insurrection is a different beast. You really can’t see the difference?

no, i got your point. I disagree with it. That the rioters from both sides felt justified does not excuse their violence.

That wasn’t my point. Nothing excuses violence from either side

The way that you lefties always have to point out that the rioters, sorry, the "mostly peaceful demonstrators" were rioting, sorry, "demonstrating" in favor of "social justice" or " racial equality",


kind of makes it seem like that is exactly what you are doing, ie excusing or at least justifying their violence.

I think the consensus of the left is that racial issues in their country especially given our disgusting past are unacceptable and should be squashed with an overwhelming voice and support from both sides of the aisle. That’s why the protests are supported.... not the violence/looting.

The insurrection in the other hand was a March in the capital and then an attempted violent take over to stop an election from being certified. It was all based on lies. This is why BOTH the premise of the protest “stop the steal” and the ensuing violence which was provoked by our President, are being slammed so hard.

You justify your side's violence while getting hyperbolic about your enemies' and you undermine your supposed message of being against violence from both sides.


That is a good way to get more violence.


Do you want more violence moving forward or less?

I’ve never justified the lefts violence, I’ve only condemned it. Why do you need to lie like that?

 

[Slade3200]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

Except what you call far right was completetly normal, just a few years ago.


How can something that was completely normal and the law of the land just a few years ago, be "far" anything?

Well because times change. Slavery used to be the norm. It’s basic history and civics

I doubt Lincoln would deny that his change was a radical change. The history I have read, the radical republicans knew the changes they were pushing were radical.


Radical changes can be made into law or made to stick. That does not mean they are not still radical.

In time, yes, but not immediately.

Any movement for change is going to be called radical by some and necessary by others. The nature of the ideology is that conservatives oppose most change and progressives push for change. So the spectrum is always in motion. That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as the far right. There is always a far left and a far right... even on a dynamic spectrum

I’m not making a partisan political argument here this is basic logic and common sense

So give a counter example.


I will try to help.

What is the far left, left, moderate, right, far right position on immigration.

Far left open borders, far right closed borders, moderate functioning border

And no one other than me, is pushing a closed border. Thus the Far Right is insignificant.

Haha, just like an insignificant amount on the Left are pushing a completely open border. It’s all hyperbole

When we have literally millions and millions of illegals living in this country, and EVERY FUCKING TIME someone wants to send them home, the left cites how ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER, "scapegoated a minority group too",


then OPEN BORDER is the mainstream Left position.

That’s not what an open boarder is. Sorry. It’s just not

Of course it is, you liar.


All comers....walk right in.


Not only are illegals welcome.....but Democrats promise them free welfare, just come in and vote Democrat.



Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally

A Spanish-language leaflet that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided to the Mexican Embassy in Washington advises border-crossing Mexicans that they can collect taxpayer-funded food stamp benefits for their children without admitting that they're illegal immigrants.

Underlined and in boldface type, the document tells immigrants who are unlawfully in the United States that, 'You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.'

Read more: Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook





"Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico"
Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico - Breitbart







"Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally."
Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally | Daily Mail Online






They lie about everything.

An open border wouldn’t have checkpoints, would t have deportations and wouldn’t have a patrol. This isn’t complicated

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

"Far" must be distant from something.

Politically, it is distant from the heritage, tradition, history, value that came before.

There are no "Far" positions on the Right.



But on the Left.......



1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?

2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.



3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.



Starting to see a pattern?



4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,



LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.

5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..



6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.



A radical and Progressive position.



He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."



7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...



Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



8. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,

"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.



Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???



Oh...wait....he did build concentration camps for innocent civilians....his own citizens.



9. How about The Far Left's Gender-Agenda., versus the Right's stand for tradition and reality: "Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington's New Transgender Bathroom Rules"



Really....could there be a more pertinent example of the radical, insane Far Left's corruption of tradition and history???



Could there?



10. The corruption of the press by the Far Left: the JournoList Scandal: hundreds of Leftist journalists plotted to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties. They plotted to smear the other side with lies. Peter Zenger....spinnning in his grave.

A clear affront to the honor bestowed on the press by the first amendment.



And don't forget this winner......men can menstruate and have babies and women can become men.
And you vote for this.



And several times, I've presented this challenge: 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.







Still waiting.

Why do you waste so much space with your long rants. You know I don’t read them. I give you a few sentences and that’s it.

Her point is valid.


What is the far right position on national defense?

How many times do we need to go through this?! National defense... far right wants a strong national defense and heavily funded military. The far left wants less military funding and intervention. Moderates fall in the middle

There is no 'Far Right."

American tradition, from George Washington on, has favored a strong military.

Try to stop lying....you'll fee better about yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

"Far" must be distant from something.

Politically, it is distant from the heritage, tradition, history, value that came before.

There are no "Far" positions on the Right.



But on the Left.......



1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?

2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.



3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.



Starting to see a pattern?



4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,



LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.

5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..



6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.



A radical and Progressive position.



He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."



7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...



Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



8. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,

"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.



Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???



Oh...wait....he did build concentration camps for innocent civilians....his own citizens.



9. How about The Far Left's Gender-Agenda., versus the Right's stand for tradition and reality: "Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington's New Transgender Bathroom Rules"



Really....could there be a more pertinent example of the radical, insane Far Left's corruption of tradition and history???



Could there?



10. The corruption of the press by the Far Left: the JournoList Scandal: hundreds of Leftist journalists plotted to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties. They plotted to smear the other side with lies. Peter Zenger....spinnning in his grave.

A clear affront to the honor bestowed on the press by the first amendment.



And don't forget this winner......men can menstruate and have babies and women can become men.
And you vote for this.



And several times, I've presented this challenge: 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.







Still waiting.

Why do you waste so much space with your long rants. You know I don’t read them. I give you a few sentences and that’s it.

It's possible that the length represents our individual levels of education and intelligence.

Henceforth, your posts should be noting more than a comma, or an exclamation mark.


Then you could go right back to your blanket fort and coloring book.

haha, it’s possible but not true in this case. You may be trying to present that you’re smart but when you copy and paste a bunch of verbal diarrhea and totally disrail the focus of the conversation it shows your lack of intelligence.

I proved it with documentation, while you have simply become our best source of greenhouse gases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

Except what you call far right was completetly normal, just a few years ago.


How can something that was completely normal and the law of the land just a few years ago, be "far" anything?

Well because times change. Slavery used to be the norm. It’s basic history and civics

I doubt Lincoln would deny that his change was a radical change. The history I have read, the radical republicans knew the changes they were pushing were radical.


Radical changes can be made into law or made to stick. That does not mean they are not still radical.

In time, yes, but not immediately.

Any movement for change is going to be called radical by some and necessary by others. The nature of the ideology is that conservatives oppose most change and progressives push for change. So the spectrum is always in motion. That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as the far right. There is always a far left and a far right... even on a dynamic spectrum

I’m not making a partisan political argument here this is basic logic and common sense

So give a counter example.


I will try to help.

What is the far left, left, moderate, right, far right position on immigration.

Far left open borders, far right closed borders, moderate functioning border

And no one other than me, is pushing a closed border. Thus the Far Right is insignificant.

Haha, just like an insignificant amount on the Left are pushing a completely open border. It’s all hyperbole

When we have literally millions and millions of illegals living in this country, and EVERY FUCKING TIME someone wants to send them home, the left cites how ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER, "scapegoated a minority group too",


then OPEN BORDER is the mainstream Left position.

That’s not what an open boarder is. Sorry. It’s just not

Of course it is, you liar.


All comers....walk right in.


Not only are illegals welcome.....but Democrats promise them free welfare, just come in and vote Democrat.



Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally

A Spanish-language leaflet that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided to the Mexican Embassy in Washington advises border-crossing Mexicans that they can collect taxpayer-funded food stamp benefits for their children without admitting that they're illegal immigrants.

Underlined and in boldface type, the document tells immigrants who are unlawfully in the United States that, 'You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.'

Read more: Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook





"Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico"
Omnibus Spending Bill Continues Funding Food Stamp Ads in Mexico - Breitbart







"Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally."
Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they're in the country illegally | Daily Mail Online






They lie about everything.

An open border wouldn’t have checkpoints, would t have deportations and wouldn’t have a patrol. This isn’t complicated

Why give illegal aliens free food stamps, and then tell them to go and vote?








Transcript:



RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting.

[And that is who she is speaking for!]

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
[Who would come for legal citizens voting?????????]
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

[Just like you.....a bald-faced liar!]

And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.

[Meaning: 'Go ahead and vote....no one will be the wiser!']



The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

[Meaning, I guess....if you are living with lots of other illegals...well, heck, at least some of you should go vote! After all....Trump is trying to get rid of you illegals!]

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

Those on the right, agree that their stated reasons do not justify the hundreds of riots, or the thousands of "protests" that often blocked roads or otherwise caused serious issues for millions of people over the last 5 years.




AFter 5 years of such constant provocations, that there was only ONE riot from the Right, so far, is a testimony to our incredible forbearance.


Considering the state of race relations in this country today, bragging on the civil rights movement is a weak argument.

Why do you put yourself on the opposite side of race relation issues?? See that why I have such a hard time relating with the Right despite my desire for small government low taxes and low regs. Y’all take horrible positions on these social issues.

You missed my point. Racial protests and the unacceptable violence that criminals engaged in as a result are very different than an insurrection based on lies from a president. We always have had and always will have protests in this country it’s a constitutional right. But the ugly elements that lead to an insurrection is a different beast. You really can’t see the difference?

no, i got your point. I disagree with it. That the rioters from both sides felt justified does not excuse their violence.

That wasn’t my point. Nothing excuses violence from either side

The way that you lefties always have to point out that the rioters, sorry, the "mostly peaceful demonstrators" were rioting, sorry, "demonstrating" in favor of "social justice" or " racial equality",


kind of makes it seem like that is exactly what you are doing, ie excusing or at least justifying their violence.

I think the consensus of the left is that racial issues in their country especially given our disgusting past are unacceptable and should be squashed with an overwhelming voice and support from both sides of the aisle. That’s why the protests are supported.... not the violence/looting.

The insurrection in the other hand was a March in the capital and then an attempted violent take over to stop an election from being certified. It was all based on lies. This is why BOTH the premise of the protest “stop the steal” and the ensuing violence which was provoked by our President, are being slammed so hard.

You justify your side's violence while getting hyperbolic about your enemies' and you undermine your supposed message of being against violence from both sides.


That is a good way to get more violence.


Do you want more violence moving forward or less?

I’ve never justified the lefts violence, I’ve only condemned it. Why do you need to lie like that?

"I’ve never justified the lefts violence,"

Of course you have, liar......you vote for the Democrats.

 

[Faun]

Why give illegal aliens free food stamps, and then tell them to go and vote?








Transcript:



RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting.

[And that is who she is speaking for!]

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
[Who would come for legal citizens voting?????????]
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

[Just like you.....a bald-faced liar!]

And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.

[Meaning: 'Go ahead and vote....no one will be the wiser!']



The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

[Meaning, I guess....if you are living with lots of other illegals...well, heck, at least some of you should go vote! After all....Trump is trying to get rid of you illegals!]

You're still lying about that?? How sad. In reality, Obama told illegals they can't legally vote; and he told "Latino citizens" to vote because their vote matter for illegals.

...what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself. You're speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard."​

 

[Correll]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

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.

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.

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

Except what you call far right was completetly normal, just a few years ago.


How can something that was completely normal and the law of the land just a few years ago, be "far" anything?

Well because times change. Slavery used to be the norm. It’s basic history and civics

I doubt Lincoln would deny that his change was a radical change. The history I have read, the radical republicans knew the changes they were pushing were radical.


Radical changes can be made into law or made to stick. That does not mean they are not still radical.

In time, yes, but not immediately.

Any movement for change is going to be called radical by some and necessary by others. The nature of the ideology is that conservatives oppose most change and progressives push for change. So the spectrum is always in motion. That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as the far right. There is always a far left and a far right... even on a dynamic spectrum

I’m not making a partisan political argument here this is basic logic and common sense

So give a counter example.


I will try to help.

What is the far left, left, moderate, right, far right position on immigration.

Far left open borders, far right closed borders, moderate functioning border

And no one other than me, is pushing a closed border. Thus the Far Right is insignificant.

Haha, just like an insignificant amount on the Left are pushing a completely open border. It’s all hyperbole

When we have literally millions and millions of illegals living in this country, and EVERY FUCKING TIME someone wants to send them home, the left cites how ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER, "scapegoated a minority group too",


then OPEN BORDER is the mainstream Left position.

That’s not what an open boarder is. Sorry. It’s just not

If any discussion of border security gets you compared to ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER, then yes, yes it is.


The "Far Right" is, on this one, the voice of reason. Even the RIGHT is not "moderate" on this one. The Left? The Far Left?


Howling at the moon bat shit crazy radical.



Politichic's argument is doing quite well.


You pick teh next one.

 

[Correll]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

You lying asshole.....the protest on Jan. 6 wasn't about over throwing the government....that is why no one in the Capitol building during the protest had a gun......

again...

600 million guns in America....

over 19.4 million Americans with the legal ability to carry guns for self defense....

Over 100,000 Trump supporters...

About 200 people entered the capitol building...

They had Zero guns.........

You do not over throw a government without guns...you mindless moron.......

The Trump supporters wandered the halls and took selfies......antifa and blm plants in the crowd vandalized the place and fought with some of the police......

Hahahhahahaha. Are you shitting me?! The whole point of the riot was to stop the steal and they tried to do so by force. That is literally overthrowing our system of government... the definition of an insurrection. Wake up

The stop the Steal campaign was about preserving democracy, demanding audits, free and fair elections.
It was a Human Rights protest by Pro Democracy activists.
The coup happened on November 3rd.

Haha. No the stop the steal campaign was a bunch of poor sport losers who couldn’t handle getting whooped at the polls and they were led by the worst of them all Trump

The leader of stop the Steal is a black muslim.
The election was unconstitutional and rigged.
Time magazine even admitted a secret cabal of pwerful people rigged it in the weeks and months prior.
Deal with it.

The courts disagree with you... sorry but that’s how our system works.

Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Your point is basically MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.


That really all you have to defend your position? Cause that is basically admitting that you are wrong.

 

[Correll]

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

Exactly, 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.

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.

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 given

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

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.

My 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 something

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.

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 sec

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.

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?

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?

Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.

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.

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.

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......

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.

Haha, 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.

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.

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 summer

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?

Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.

This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?

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."

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

says the person who swallows lies from the far right every day of his/her/its life.....

"... 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.

They don’t get much dumber that politicalchic .... it’s like basic knowledge and logic are completely out the window.

Said the man asking for proof about the last 5 years off riots.

Haha. Can you show where I asked for proof about 5 years of riots?

Can you do anything other than dodge and weave?


For 5 years we have had riots in teh streets from the far left, with the support, of varying degrees from the mainstream left,

and that is just sort of accepted, while you people are pretending to be absolutely outraged over the ONE riot from the right.

Im not dodging a thing, just calling out your BS. You say these things but when pressed fail to back them up. Besides maybe the cherrypicked outcast whom you haven’t shown, I haven’t seen anybody in leadership, no Mayors or congressmen or media supporting the riots. You make these claims and then can’t back them up. It’s a nice distraction to avoid talking about Trump and the Jan 6 riot which is the actual topic of the thread... but you’re not fooling anybody.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. I've been happy to discuss Trump and the 1/6 riot.

YOu are the one that wants to invent reasons to ignore the hundreds from your side over the last 5 years.

What do you think I’m ignoring?! I’m just pointing out the dishonest things you’ve been claiming. The fact you can’t show proof to back up the things I’ve questioned you about shows that.

You've been playing word games to deflect, minimize, or confuse the part of the issue that is the hundreds of riots from YOUR side of the partisan divide.


YOu want to just talk shit about my side, and the ONE riot we have to our "credit", to smear us and marginalize us, and thus justify your next round of escalation,

while ignoring the context of your side's violence.

I don’t really have a side. I dislike dem policies but respect their goals when it comes to social issues. I think Republicans are horrible at messaging, most are an embarrassment, but I support more of their fiscal policies. I think both parties are corrupt. But my personal views don’t matter to this debate, so let’s get back to it shall we??

I see you being dishonest and I’m calling out yoir dishonesty it’s as simple as that. We were talking about the capital riot and now we are talking about the summer riots. That’s because of you. That’s the distraction. But I’m fine going there, the summer riots were wrong and bad. But stop lying about dem support that doesn’t exist

Talking about a riot in isolation, ignoring the fact that it took place during a period of civil unrest makes it impossible to have any real insight into the riot or the forces behind it or what it meant.

Who is ignoring the fact it happened during a time of civil unrest?! I’d be the first to admit that we are living in a extremely polarized and tense time politically. Another great gift from Mr Trump

The vast majority of the riots came from the Left. ONly one of them were from teh right.


Seems this period of political unrest is a gift from the Left.


It is really worth noting that hte one righty riot you want to talk about, came at the END of Trump's administration.

Well the riots on the left were centered around millions of people protesting for racial equality. That doesn’t excuse those who acted out but that’s what it was. There were many riots during the civil rights movement in the 60s and I bet the majority of Americans would agree that cause was righteous. The Jan 6 riot was an attempt to overthrow our government in order to stop what they were lied to and told was a stolen election. They also wanted to kill our VP because trump lied and said he had the ability to stop the certification. These are two very very very different things. I don’t understand why people like you keep trying to compare them as similar situations.

You lying asshole.....the protest on Jan. 6 wasn't about over throwing the government....that is why no one in the Capitol building during the protest had a gun......

again...

600 million guns in America....

over 19.4 million Americans with the legal ability to carry guns for self defense....

Over 100,000 Trump supporters...

About 200 people entered the capitol building...

They had Zero guns.........

You do not over throw a government without guns...you mindless moron.......

The Trump supporters wandered the halls and took selfies......antifa and blm plants in the crowd vandalized the place and fought with some of the police......

Hahahhahahaha. Are you shitting me?! The whole point of the riot was to stop the steal and they tried to do so by force. That is literally overthrowing our system of government... the definition of an insurrection. Wake up

How is it overthrowing the system when you yourself admitted it was a Steal.

They thought it was a steal because they were lied to. It obviously was not stolen. Our elections systems have too many safeguards working independently of each other for that to happen

No system is any better than the people making it up. And dems have shown that they will lie and cheat and abuse ANY power they are given.

Yup, so have the Republicans. Power corrupts

FALSE. Republicans are far from perfect. Indeed, they are pretty fucked up. But you dems have abused every single iota of power you have been given from The fucking President(s) down to the school teachers lying to their students.