No, not "everyone knows" that "the left" is the "violent faction" in the US today. Not everyone knows it because it's just not a factual.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DOrwkRXDTYe/
"On Friday, The Economist published an analysis of data from the Prosecution Project, an open-source database that catalogues crimes that seek “a socio-political change or to communicate.”
The findings reaffirm what has been found in previous studies: That “extremists on both left and right commit violence, although more incidents appear to come from right-leaning attackers.”"
You know what's interesting? The gov't's OWN sources for this kind of data found the same thing and that data was online at the DOJ... until it was removed recently, presumably by the Felon in office.
And from Time, citing data from the conservative Cato Institute:
Excluding the 9/11 attacks, over the same period, terrorists inspired by right-wing ideology are responsible for 63% of deaths from political violence during that time, compared to 10% for left-wing attacks. Since 1975, there have been 391 deaths caused by right-wing terror attacks in the United States, and 65 deaths from left-wing terror attacks.
And don't try to just blow this research and data off. IF you think it's problematic, then show the data that makes you think in your head it's problematic. But merely citing your "gut" or intuition will not be taken seriously, nor will just ignoring and deleting the data you don't like.
Rational, moral adults expect this and rightly so.
Everyone with half a brain and a functioning source of news is very aware of the source of violence since at least 2014. Unlike you, I can drive by and see the scars left by the violence of the Summer of Love, I can see the dead and wounded from the leftist who shot up Annunciation. I can see the victims of multiple mass shootings in the past several days.
The problem with the "both sides" argument is that it weights the distant past more than the present, at least some of the metrics include Muslim terrorists and prison gangs as "right wing", and they minimize the results of the riots, CHAZ/CHOP, since 2014.
By all means, let's look at the most recent data to draw conclusions about what's happening now.
That the "both sides" argument is the best y'all have as left wing violence continues to grow, speaks volumes about how much y'all care about stopping it.
This is NOT a both sides argument. Your perverted felon is claiming that all the violence is coming from the Left. The data literally shows the opposite.
This is saying that your pervertfelon is just making another stupidly false claim again, as he has endlessly for years and as he has built his career upon. This is saying that we should trust the data, not known criminals and conmen and perverted sexual predators.
Do you disagree that we should look at data and NOT just your EMPTY and unsupported claim that "anyone with half a brain" should agree with you on... (even when you do nothing to support the stupidly false claim)?
Here's the sad reality you who engage in false and unsupported claims will have to live with: Rational, moral adults will NOT simply bend the knee and follow your felon, just because he and you make stupidly false and unsupported claims - claims contrary to the data. Cowards and the uninformed might go along with such nonsense, but not rational adults.
I don't believe Dan ever truly takes time to research "the research" he presents to back up his criticisms of our posts. I haven't the time to investigate "the Prosecution Project", but given the bio of the lead professor, I'm not confident I'll find the research to be as unbiased as it needs to be. As Craig suggests, there's likely a great deal of subjectivity involved in how they choose to label a person or event "right-wing".
We're seeing a constant replay of the comparison between reactions to the death of thug, George Floyd and the reactions to the death of Charlie Kirk. This alone is enough to highlight the difference between left and right. Two, actually:
1. Conservatives don't respond violently except in self-defense. 2. Conservatives don't protest the death of thugs.
And of course there's...
3. Conservatives don't celebrate the death of anybody.
Any analysis of political violence that includes J6, but excludes the riots from 2014 to the present, excludes the various bombings and violence during the '60s, cannot be accepted. The notion that political violence can only be measured by "killings" is simply crap. To pretend as if "the right" "killing" less than 400 people (including OKC) is somehow worse than the rioting and destruction from the left is absurd.
1992 LA riots 57-63 deaths, 2000 people injured, over $1,000,000,000 in damage. 2015 Baltimore, over 130 shot, and between $9 and $20,000,000 in damages 2014 Ferguson, 12-25 Buildings destroyed @60 people injured, 2020 Summer of Love, at least 25 deaths and $2,000,000,000 in damages. 2023 CHAZ/CHOP At least 2 deaths, 48 violent assaults, Unknown damages
Two assassination attempts on Trump Shooting of ICE agent in TX Softball practice attack Attempted assassination of Justice Kavenaugh State Dept bombing and Induction center attempted bombing '75 25 Bombings claimed by the Weather Underground also 1975 SLA kidnappings and robberies
These are just a few of the examples of political violence which don't make the cut when the only focus is on deaths.
Of course, how does one categorize the Kirk shooting, the Annunciation shooting, and the Nashville Christian school shooting? They were all carried out by left wing actors, but might not have been explicitly political.
In short, if you manipulate the data to exclude left wing violence, you get skewed results.
Nice job, I guess that the billions of dollars in damage and hundreds of injured weren't from violence. Of course you can manipulate the data to get the desired result. It seems like excluding property damage, and those injured paints an incomplete picture.
I'm not playing by your rules and dismissing data. I am providing data to show that only measuring the problem by "deaths" is to exclude significant amounts of relevant data. FYI the only death on j6 was a protester killed by authorities.
The simple reality is that the majority of RECENT political violence has been from the left. The other reality is that when using deaths as the only metric of political violence, you exclude decades of left wing political violence.
Neither side is perfect, but this constant narrative that all of the violence is on the "right" is bullshit unless you screw with the data to exclude metrics that measure left wing violence/ Or, do a Dan, and pretend that the Summer of Love riots were not driven by the left at all.
While not violent, the $100,000,000 BLM grift was a shining moment for the left.
Dan's cherry picked data only tracks deaths. It excludes bombings, arson, robbery, looting, rape, and wounding because those apparently aren't violent.
You see, unlike you, I do not presume guilt of people not found guilty, clearly.
There was a great deal of rioting that happened (albeit a TINY minority of the total of protesters resulting from the police abuse in ~2000). We know that. What we don't know - what you LITERALLY DO NOT KNOW - is the political motivation (If any) of those who engaged in looting. From the data I've seen and from just plain common sense, it seems that most of those were likely just opportunists. That is, these were not likely liberals looting to protest. These were looters looting to loot.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF otherwise, and to try to impugn liberals writ large for these misdeeds is just wrong on your part.
Be a better person, Craig.
You see, there is a difference - a great chasm of difference - between looking at a man who has boasted about sexually assaulting women and children, laughing about it publicly and how he can get away with it because his wealth and power! - all facts... who has 20+ accusations of rape and sexual assault against him, who has been found liable in a court room of sexual assault, who has a history of criminal activity, including literally being a felon with 40+ convictions... between noting that such a man is very much likely a criminal deviant and making the accusation that all or most of the misdeeds done during rioting in the 2000s were done by "liberals" WITH NO PROOF. There are no convictions (Well, maybe one? Two??) of liberals who did that with a liberal motive. There are no tapes of liberals saying "We're going to loot their ass! and we can get away with it because we're poor liberals!!"
We DO have proof that showed that at least SOME of the misdeeds were done by literal conservatives seeking to blame liberals. But we - YOU - have no convictions to speak of to offer as any kind of proof that "liberals" were doing the looting and other misdeeds AS liberals for promoting liberal causes.
You are just seeing people of color in the areas where looting happened and presuming that they're guilty and liberal.
Be better. You literally have NO PROOF of this. Just admit it.
And of course there's always the problem with defining "right-wing", as it is not at all uncommon to falsely label an action as by a "right-wing" actor, when it's never established what that means.
Take the case of this guy who shot the politicians in MN. There's been evidence which points in both directions. When it gets down to who he votes for, it seems he voted GOP. But there's no evidence of any specific political activity beyond voting. So we can say this guy leaned right...maybe by a lot given his Christian background...but we don't know much about his motivations because he's given multiple conflicting stories. At best, that case must be set aside as "unknown motivation".
I would also point out that the OKC bombing hasn't yielded a definitive description of McVeigh's politics. He's often regarded by the left as a Christian extremist when he called himself agnostic and libertarian. As to the latter, they are often considered on the right side of the political divide, but many are basically lefties who don't want the government to take their stuff.
As I noted in another post, the definition of "right wing" seems flexible at best. It can mean anything anyone wants in this context.
Yeah, the MN shooter's motives point to crazy as much as anything right now, despite the desperate attempts of some to claim otherwise.
I agree that McVeigh's motives were not necessarily "right wing" but I'm not going to argue too much about that without more definitive information.
I don't support political violence in any way. I do think that accurately tracking and including actions other than murder in the data collection is a good thing. Now it seems clear that the data being collected and cited is hardly the best.
When you start out with a bald faced lie, you automatically lose credibility.
I am regularly aware of how much rioting was happening. I literally see the remaining damage.
This "we don't know" crap is simply bullshit. Certainly from the standpoint of assigning the damage along the left/right spectrum. It is absolutely insane to argue that a demographic that votes 90+% liberal can magically be transformed into a bunch of "right wing extremists". If your argument is that there were opportunists who looted and burned for no particular political reason, that may have a bit of validity. The problem, of course, is that had the left wing extremists not started protesting/rioting there would have been no opportunistic looting.
In any case, if one is going to accurately measure political VIOLENCE, then there is no way to pretend that the riots post 2104 are not on the left side of the ledger. To pretend that BLM, and the Floyd beatifiers who started the riots (and the previous anti police riots in MPLS) were not on the left side of the spectrum is simply to deny reality.
I get it, I really do. You desperately need this to be a both sides narrative. Y'll need this so badly that you fix the acceptable data to be measured to exclude left wing violence, even though it's been much more prevalent since the '60's.
You claim to have "PROOF", but don't provide that "PROOF", so I call bullshit.
Yes, I did see plenty of video of "people of color" looting, rioting, burning, throwing chunks of concrete at cops, threatening more violence. Also yes, as you gleefully note when you think it helps, 90+% of people of color vote liberal. Simple math tells us that at least 90% of the rioters of color were voted left.
How about if you be better? Stop pretending that the 2020 Summer of Love riots weren't driven by left wing issues and organizers. Stop pretending that the ASPL doesn't have a long history of violence. Stop pretending that the only "political violence" that's worthy of counting is "political murder". Stop pretending like that every single murder assigned to a "right wing" person is actually politically motivated in the data the ADL cherry picked?
When the MSM refers to the Summer of Love as the "BLM riots", you need to stop pretending that it wasn't billions of dollars of destruction and multiple deaths and injuries that should be counted on the left side of the violence ledger.
You be a better person and stop with the bullshit.
"There was a great deal of rioting that happened (albeit a TINY minority of the total of protesters resulting from the police abuse in ~2000)"
Note the attempt to minimize the destruction and death resulting from protests which were actually the result of exploiting the death of a thug while in the custody of police to perpetuate the lie that there's some overwhelming assault on the black community by law enforcement. The pervert goes on:
"What we don't know - what you LITERALLY DO NOT KNOW - is the political motivation (If any) of those who engaged in looting."
Dan later mentions that "you are just seeing people of color in areas where looting happens" and assume their political affiliation. Well, first of all, I don't know that Craig ever mentioned race. And while we all know that those rioters were comprised of white people, too, they are all acting from the same exploitative basis. If Dan had any actual reasoning ability above that of a small child with cognitive challenges, it wouldn't be a stretch at all to presume the high probability that the vast majority of these protesters and rioters were not Republican voters, if they voted at all.
But Dan's comments also are indicative of the subjective nature of how his "sources" decide when to consider political motivations, when just as much a factor is the leanings of a given person and that person's probability of acting badly.
Also, to suggest that the low conviction rate of those known to have participated in the rioting is also a result of leftists in position to prosecute and the very low probability that they would. We've seen lefties like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris step right up to the line of encouraging rioting and/or violent protests. We've seen Maxine Waters encourage "getting in the faces" of conservatives/Republicans.
And of course, this deviant, Christ-hating fake Christian liar can't post a comment without another Trump-hating diatribe, listing all which is unproven and all which was the result of a clearly kangaroo court...that is to say, attacks on a far better human being that Dan could ever hope to be. This, too, is common among the left...to speak the worst of a political opponent which can't help but incite the worst considerations by the most disturbed among them. This is a more than fair conclusion given how much this putz of a vile cretin, Dan Trabue, whines about the impact of using words he wants to insist cause harm.
What an incredible piece of shit Dan is. It's always been thus, and it seems it likely always will be.
Give him a break, he probably still believes that the BLM/St Floyd/Summer of Love riots were "mostly peaceful". He has to cling to that fiction because otherwise a big part of his worldview will crumble. As noted elsewhere, left wing political violence has been a legacy since the '60s. Hell P-BO's buddies got away with blowing shit up, and Dan didn't care.
While the vast amounts of destruction and death/injuries from the 2014 Ferguson (really the 1992 LA riots) riots until today has been significant. However, as long as you ignore it when compiling stats on "political violence", you can make the narrative say what you want. I freaking watched my insane left wing friends and family live stream them selves playing protesters and seeking donations to help the rioters. I freaking watched the entire left side of American political and entertainment figures support the riots. Of course, I also watched white, suburban people drive into MPLS and clean up the mess after the rioters, and saw the blacks of boarded up buildings and burned out shells. To say that we don't know the motivation behind the riots is simply to choose not to exist in reality.
Again, of course they rioters weren't going to be punished. Left wing rioters, in left wing cities, run by left wing politicians and prosecutors, what could possibly go wrong?
Hell, Dan's probably convinced that the destruction wreaked on cities by left wing rioters since 1992 is the moral equivalent of Jesus cleansing the temple.
Literally every conversation Dan involves himself in ends up in one of three places.
1. PSA is a lie from the pit of someplace. 2. Trump is the cause of all evil. 3. Gay sex.
Just a few of the left wing's greatest hits, that'll never show up in any survey of political violence.
"1992 LA riots 57-63 deaths, 2000 people injured, over $1,000,000,000 in damage. 2015 Baltimore, over 130 shot, and between $9 and $20,000,000 in damages 2014 Ferguson, 12-25 Buildings destroyed @60 people injured, 2020 Summer of Love, at least 25 deaths and $2,000,000,000 in damages. 2023 CHAZ/CHOP At least 2 deaths, 48 violent assaults, Unknown damages
Two assassination attempts on Trump Shooting of ICE agent in TX Softball practice attack Attempted assassination of Justice Kavenaugh State Dept bombing and Induction center attempted bombing '75 25 Bombings claimed by the Weather Underground also 1975 SLA kidnappings and robberies"
Dan has an opportunity to gain a shred of credibility here, by acknowledging that political violence includes more than political murder, and the the left has more than their fair share of non-murder political violence. I personally would include threats of violence as well, but the left will never allow that.
I could have put this under your Free Speech post, but I thought this goes to lefty violence, too. This wouldn't be counted in Dan's self-serving list because there were no deaths, but intimidation is a form of violent behavior, and to stifle speech...another common lefty trait...and to force opponents to give up the cause is the hoped for result.
"political violence includes more than political murder, and the the left has more than their fair share of non-murder political violence."
OF COURSE, political violence includes more than murder. It includes arson, it could include looting, it includes policies that cause harm and dehumanizes people, it includes masked vigilantes, armed and literally abducting people off the streets with very little by way of explanation.
HELL YES! There are a myriad of ways to engage in abuse and violence beyond just murder..
I call your idiotic bluff and raise you: will YOU condemn the myriad of ways that political violence is done, including all the terrorism of conservative doctrine?
But then, we know the answer to that, don't we?
And people on the left HAVE engaged in violence way too much. We don't want to be confused with the violent actors on the right, after all.
But don't BEGIN to suggest that people who might claim to be liberal even begin to compare with the violent actors from the Right for the past half century (at least).
Yet, you are the one posting the CATO graph that is limited to "political murders", that's being presented as if it's "political violence", not to mention that some of the "right wing" examples used are hardly definitively "right wing political".
Arresting criminals is NOT "political violence", but you can pretend all you want.
What about threatening political violence in order to effect legal proceedings? Does that count?
You just can't do it, can you? You absolutely need to add qualifications because you think it helps you somehow.
I already have condemned "political violence" in this thread and in others, I see no reason to do so again because you demand it. "Conservative doctrine" is not "terrorism", and I won't condemn some bullshit you made up. So yes, we do know that answer and the answer is that I'm ahead of you again.
What a magnanimous concession. Two decades of leftist violence in the '60s and '70s, thousands of rioters and billions of dollars of destruction since 1992, Two unsuccessful assassination attempts against Trump, Charlie Kirk, The Annunciation and Nashville shooters, and you're willing to concede "some". Try living in the real world some time.
Again, this is why I've suggested that actually coming up with a metric to accurately measure political violence and categorize it as correctly as possible is a good thing. For example one of the "stats" being tossed around includes prison gangs in their tally of "right wing political violence", and intentionally excludes every left wing riot/occupation since 1992 while including J6.
I've noted the reality that left wing political violence goes back to the '60s and has a robust history since then.
What's interesting about the violent left wing radicals from the '60s is that they ended up getting rewarded with positions in the academy, and political clout with DFL politicians. No wonder the left hasn't renounced violence.
Finally, it's not political violence, but the BLM $100,000,000 grift based on false narratives is not exactly a shining moment for the ASPL.
I am really tired of Dan's one HUGE political lie: looking at a man who has boasted about sexually assaulting women and children, laughing about it publicly and how he can get away with it because his wealth and power!
It the quote by Trump, nothing was said about children -- it's a lie from the pit of hell. Have up actually heard the conversation, Danny BOY? Trump was joking about, because of who he is, that he could grab a woman by the p..sy and get away with it. He never said he did so--he was responding some other "jokes" about women and that was his joking response. So Danny BOY, give it up.
Dan lies again. He might want to cite one or two (maybe three) examples of absolutely, no doubt about it right wing murders rather than citing "studies" he's never actually studied himself simply because they say the right are more responsible for violence.
That goes without saying. He randomly picks stuff that he thinks will help him, without actually going into the details. He probably doesn't care about the methodology as much as the perceived win.
FYI, the Miami gay nightclub shooting was a Muslim attacking gays for religious reason. The Denver gay nightclub shooting was a closeted gay dude. Much like we regularly see people who are clearly no white, get labeled as white in arrest reports, these studies default to "right wing extremist" no matter what.
Again, because Dan is stupid. If actual unbiased and accurate study of "political violence" shows that "right wing extremists" are really the problem, I'll be first in line to lock them up. But when "political violence" as an old lady peacefully protesting outside and abortion clinic, it's just bullshit.
Much like those attacking Kirk, Dan has gotten huge mileage out of taking a couple of Trump quotes out of context and misrepresenting what was said.
Not to defend what Trump actually DID say, which was unsavory to say the least, but it seems like having to take so much out of context in order to push a narrative is a sign that you've already lost the argument.
26 comments:
No, not "everyone knows" that "the left" is the "violent faction" in the US today. Not everyone knows it because it's just not a factual.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DOrwkRXDTYe/
"On Friday, The Economist published an analysis of data from the Prosecution Project, an open-source database that catalogues crimes that seek “a socio-political change or to communicate.”
The findings reaffirm what has been found in previous studies: That “extremists on both left and right commit violence, although more incidents appear to come from right-leaning attackers.”"
https://truthout.org/articles/stephen-miller-vows-to-dismantle-the-left-after-charlie-kirk-assassination/
You know what's interesting? The gov't's OWN sources for this kind of data found the same thing and that data was online at the DOJ... until it was removed recently, presumably by the Felon in office.
https://mynews13.com/fl/orlando/politics/2025/09/16/trump-vance-charlie-kirk-left-wing-violence-deleted-doj-report
By all means, let's look at data and not rely upon empty and false (and stupidly false) claims trying to conjure an alternative reality.
And from Time, citing data from the conservative Cato Institute:
Excluding the 9/11 attacks, over the same period, terrorists inspired by right-wing ideology are responsible for 63% of deaths from political violence during that time, compared to 10% for left-wing attacks. Since 1975, there have been 391 deaths caused by right-wing terror attacks in the United States, and 65 deaths from left-wing terror attacks.
https://time.com/7317383/political-violence-america-trump-crackdown-right/
Data, data, data.
And don't try to just blow this research and data off. IF you think it's problematic, then show the data that makes you think in your head it's problematic. But merely citing your "gut" or intuition will not be taken seriously, nor will just ignoring and deleting the data you don't like.
Rational, moral adults expect this and rightly so.
Everyone with half a brain and a functioning source of news is very aware of the source of violence since at least 2014. Unlike you, I can drive by and see the scars left by the violence of the Summer of Love, I can see the dead and wounded from the leftist who shot up Annunciation. I can see the victims of multiple mass shootings in the past several days.
The problem with the "both sides" argument is that it weights the distant past more than the present, at least some of the metrics include Muslim terrorists and prison gangs as "right wing", and they minimize the results of the riots, CHAZ/CHOP, since 2014.
By all means, let's look at the most recent data to draw conclusions about what's happening now.
That the "both sides" argument is the best y'all have as left wing violence continues to grow, speaks volumes about how much y'all care about stopping it.
This is NOT a both sides argument. Your perverted felon is claiming that all the violence is coming from the Left. The data literally shows the opposite.
This is saying that your pervertfelon is just making another stupidly false claim again, as he has endlessly for years and as he has built his career upon. This is saying that we should trust the data, not known criminals and conmen and perverted sexual predators.
Do you disagree that we should look at data and NOT just your EMPTY and unsupported claim that "anyone with half a brain" should agree with you on... (even when you do nothing to support the stupidly false claim)?
Here's the sad reality you who engage in false and unsupported claims will have to live with: Rational, moral adults will NOT simply bend the knee and follow your felon, just because he and you make stupidly false and unsupported claims - claims contrary to the data. Cowards and the uninformed might go along with such nonsense, but not rational adults.
https://www.professorwatchlist.org/professor/michaelloadenthal
I don't believe Dan ever truly takes time to research "the research" he presents to back up his criticisms of our posts. I haven't the time to investigate "the Prosecution Project", but given the bio of the lead professor, I'm not confident I'll find the research to be as unbiased as it needs to be. As Craig suggests, there's likely a great deal of subjectivity involved in how they choose to label a person or event "right-wing".
We're seeing a constant replay of the comparison between reactions to the death of thug, George Floyd and the reactions to the death of Charlie Kirk. This alone is enough to highlight the difference between left and right. Two, actually:
1. Conservatives don't respond violently except in self-defense.
2. Conservatives don't protest the death of thugs.
And of course there's...
3. Conservatives don't celebrate the death of anybody.
Any analysis of political violence that includes J6, but excludes the riots from 2014 to the present, excludes the various bombings and violence during the '60s, cannot be accepted. The notion that political violence can only be measured by "killings" is simply crap. To pretend as if "the right" "killing" less than 400 people (including OKC) is somehow worse than the rioting and destruction from the left is absurd.
1992 LA riots 57-63 deaths, 2000 people injured, over $1,000,000,000 in damage.
2015 Baltimore, over 130 shot, and between $9 and $20,000,000 in damages
2014 Ferguson, 12-25 Buildings destroyed @60 people injured,
2020 Summer of Love, at least 25 deaths and $2,000,000,000 in damages.
2023 CHAZ/CHOP At least 2 deaths, 48 violent assaults, Unknown damages
Two assassination attempts on Trump
Shooting of ICE agent in TX
Softball practice attack
Attempted assassination of Justice Kavenaugh
State Dept bombing and Induction center attempted bombing '75
25 Bombings claimed by the Weather Underground also 1975
SLA kidnappings and robberies
These are just a few of the examples of political violence which don't make the cut when the only focus is on deaths.
Of course, how does one categorize the Kirk shooting, the Annunciation shooting, and the Nashville Christian school shooting? They were all carried out by left wing actors, but might not have been explicitly political.
In short, if you manipulate the data to exclude left wing violence, you get skewed results.
Nice job, I guess that the billions of dollars in damage and hundreds of injured weren't from violence. Of course you can manipulate the data to get the desired result. It seems like excluding property damage, and those injured paints an incomplete picture.
I'm not playing by your rules and dismissing data. I am providing data to show that only measuring the problem by "deaths" is to exclude significant amounts of relevant data. FYI the only death on j6 was a protester killed by authorities.
The simple reality is that the majority of RECENT political violence has been from the left. The other reality is that when using deaths as the only metric of political violence, you exclude decades of left wing political violence.
Neither side is perfect, but this constant narrative that all of the violence is on the "right" is bullshit unless you screw with the data to exclude metrics that measure left wing violence/ Or, do a Dan, and pretend that the Summer of Love riots were not driven by the left at all.
While not violent, the $100,000,000 BLM grift was a shining moment for the left.
Dan's cherry picked data only tracks deaths. It excludes bombings, arson, robbery, looting, rape, and wounding because those apparently aren't violent.
You see, unlike you, I do not presume guilt of people not found guilty, clearly.
There was a great deal of rioting that happened (albeit a TINY minority of the total of protesters resulting from the police abuse in ~2000). We know that. What we don't know - what you LITERALLY DO NOT KNOW - is the political motivation (If any) of those who engaged in looting. From the data I've seen and from just plain common sense, it seems that most of those were likely just opportunists. That is, these were not likely liberals looting to protest. These were looters looting to loot.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF otherwise, and to try to impugn liberals writ large for these misdeeds is just wrong on your part.
Be a better person, Craig.
You see, there is a difference - a great chasm of difference - between looking at a man who has boasted about sexually assaulting women and children, laughing about it publicly and how he can get away with it because his wealth and power! - all facts... who has 20+ accusations of rape and sexual assault against him, who has been found liable in a court room of sexual assault, who has a history of criminal activity, including literally being a felon with 40+ convictions... between noting that such a man is very much likely a criminal deviant and making the accusation that all or most of the misdeeds done during rioting in the 2000s were done by "liberals" WITH NO PROOF. There are no convictions (Well, maybe one? Two??) of liberals who did that with a liberal motive. There are no tapes of liberals saying "We're going to loot their ass! and we can get away with it because we're poor liberals!!"
We DO have proof that showed that at least SOME of the misdeeds were done by literal conservatives seeking to blame liberals. But we - YOU - have no convictions to speak of to offer as any kind of proof that "liberals" were doing the looting and other misdeeds AS liberals for promoting liberal causes.
You are just seeing people of color in the areas where looting happened and presuming that they're guilty and liberal.
Be better. You literally have NO PROOF of this. Just admit it.
And of course there's always the problem with defining "right-wing", as it is not at all uncommon to falsely label an action as by a "right-wing" actor, when it's never established what that means.
Take the case of this guy who shot the politicians in MN. There's been evidence which points in both directions. When it gets down to who he votes for, it seems he voted GOP. But there's no evidence of any specific political activity beyond voting. So we can say this guy leaned right...maybe by a lot given his Christian background...but we don't know much about his motivations because he's given multiple conflicting stories. At best, that case must be set aside as "unknown motivation".
I would also point out that the OKC bombing hasn't yielded a definitive description of McVeigh's politics. He's often regarded by the left as a Christian extremist when he called himself agnostic and libertarian. As to the latter, they are often considered on the right side of the political divide, but many are basically lefties who don't want the government to take their stuff.
As I noted in another post, the definition of "right wing" seems flexible at best. It can mean anything anyone wants in this context.
Yeah, the MN shooter's motives point to crazy as much as anything right now, despite the desperate attempts of some to claim otherwise.
I agree that McVeigh's motives were not necessarily "right wing" but I'm not going to argue too much about that without more definitive information.
I don't support political violence in any way. I do think that accurately tracking and including actions other than murder in the data collection is a good thing. Now it seems clear that the data being collected and cited is hardly the best.
When you start out with a bald faced lie, you automatically lose credibility.
I am regularly aware of how much rioting was happening. I literally see the remaining damage.
This "we don't know" crap is simply bullshit. Certainly from the standpoint of assigning the damage along the left/right spectrum. It is absolutely insane to argue that a demographic that votes 90+% liberal can magically be transformed into a bunch of "right wing extremists". If your argument is that there were opportunists who looted and burned for no particular political reason, that may have a bit of validity. The problem, of course, is that had the left wing extremists not started protesting/rioting there would have been no opportunistic looting.
In any case, if one is going to accurately measure political VIOLENCE, then there is no way to pretend that the riots post 2104 are not on the left side of the ledger. To pretend that BLM, and the Floyd beatifiers who started the riots (and the previous anti police riots in MPLS) were not on the left side of the spectrum is simply to deny reality.
I get it, I really do. You desperately need this to be a both sides narrative. Y'll need this so badly that you fix the acceptable data to be measured to exclude left wing violence, even though it's been much more prevalent since the '60's.
You claim to have "PROOF", but don't provide that "PROOF", so I call bullshit.
Yes, I did see plenty of video of "people of color" looting, rioting, burning, throwing chunks of concrete at cops, threatening more violence. Also yes, as you gleefully note when you think it helps, 90+% of people of color vote liberal. Simple math tells us that at least 90% of the rioters of color were voted left.
How about if you be better? Stop pretending that the 2020 Summer of Love riots weren't driven by left wing issues and organizers. Stop pretending that the ASPL doesn't have a long history of violence. Stop pretending that the only "political violence" that's worthy of counting is "political murder". Stop pretending like that every single murder assigned to a "right wing" person is actually politically motivated in the data the ADL cherry picked?
When the MSM refers to the Summer of Love as the "BLM riots", you need to stop pretending that it wasn't billions of dollars of destruction and multiple deaths and injuries that should be counted on the left side of the violence ledger.
You be a better person and stop with the bullshit.
Look at how Dan lies:
"There was a great deal of rioting that happened (albeit a TINY minority of the total of protesters resulting from the police abuse in ~2000)"
Note the attempt to minimize the destruction and death resulting from protests which were actually the result of exploiting the death of a thug while in the custody of police to perpetuate the lie that there's some overwhelming assault on the black community by law enforcement. The pervert goes on:
"What we don't know - what you LITERALLY DO NOT KNOW - is the political motivation (If any) of those who engaged in looting."
Dan later mentions that "you are just seeing people of color in areas where looting happens" and assume their political affiliation. Well, first of all, I don't know that Craig ever mentioned race. And while we all know that those rioters were comprised of white people, too, they are all acting from the same exploitative basis. If Dan had any actual reasoning ability above that of a small child with cognitive challenges, it wouldn't be a stretch at all to presume the high probability that the vast majority of these protesters and rioters were not Republican voters, if they voted at all.
But Dan's comments also are indicative of the subjective nature of how his "sources" decide when to consider political motivations, when just as much a factor is the leanings of a given person and that person's probability of acting badly.
Also, to suggest that the low conviction rate of those known to have participated in the rioting is also a result of leftists in position to prosecute and the very low probability that they would. We've seen lefties like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris step right up to the line of encouraging rioting and/or violent protests. We've seen Maxine Waters encourage "getting in the faces" of conservatives/Republicans.
And of course, this deviant, Christ-hating fake Christian liar can't post a comment without another Trump-hating diatribe, listing all which is unproven and all which was the result of a clearly kangaroo court...that is to say, attacks on a far better human being that Dan could ever hope to be. This, too, is common among the left...to speak the worst of a political opponent which can't help but incite the worst considerations by the most disturbed among them. This is a more than fair conclusion given how much this putz of a vile cretin, Dan Trabue, whines about the impact of using words he wants to insist cause harm.
What an incredible piece of shit Dan is. It's always been thus, and it seems it likely always will be.
Give him a break, he probably still believes that the BLM/St Floyd/Summer of Love riots were "mostly peaceful". He has to cling to that fiction because otherwise a big part of his worldview will crumble. As noted elsewhere, left wing political violence has been a legacy since the '60s. Hell P-BO's buddies got away with blowing shit up, and Dan didn't care.
While the vast amounts of destruction and death/injuries from the 2014 Ferguson (really the 1992 LA riots) riots until today has been significant. However, as long as you ignore it when compiling stats on "political violence", you can make the narrative say what you want. I freaking watched my insane left wing friends and family live stream them selves playing protesters and seeking donations to help the rioters. I freaking watched the entire left side of American political and entertainment figures support the riots. Of course, I also watched white, suburban people drive into MPLS and clean up the mess after the rioters, and saw the blacks of boarded up buildings and burned out shells. To say that we don't know the motivation behind the riots is simply to choose not to exist in reality.
Again, of course they rioters weren't going to be punished. Left wing rioters, in left wing cities, run by left wing politicians and prosecutors, what could possibly go wrong?
Hell, Dan's probably convinced that the destruction wreaked on cities by left wing rioters since 1992 is the moral equivalent of Jesus cleansing the temple.
Literally every conversation Dan involves himself in ends up in one of three places.
1. PSA is a lie from the pit of someplace.
2. Trump is the cause of all evil.
3. Gay sex.
Just a few of the left wing's greatest hits, that'll never show up in any survey of political violence.
"1992 LA riots 57-63 deaths, 2000 people injured, over $1,000,000,000 in damage.
2015 Baltimore, over 130 shot, and between $9 and $20,000,000 in damages
2014 Ferguson, 12-25 Buildings destroyed @60 people injured,
2020 Summer of Love, at least 25 deaths and $2,000,000,000 in damages.
2023 CHAZ/CHOP At least 2 deaths, 48 violent assaults, Unknown damages
Two assassination attempts on Trump
Shooting of ICE agent in TX
Softball practice attack
Attempted assassination of Justice Kavenaugh
State Dept bombing and Induction center attempted bombing '75
25 Bombings claimed by the Weather Underground also 1975
SLA kidnappings and robberies"
Dan has an opportunity to gain a shred of credibility here, by acknowledging that political violence includes more than political murder, and the the left has more than their fair share of non-murder political violence. I personally would include threats of violence as well, but the left will never allow that.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/09/leftists_counter_protesters_throw_tantrum_as_parents_demand_school_reform.html
I could have put this under your Free Speech post, but I thought this goes to lefty violence, too. This wouldn't be counted in Dan's self-serving list because there were no deaths, but intimidation is a form of violent behavior, and to stifle speech...another common lefty trait...and to force opponents to give up the cause is the hoped for result.
Craig...
"political violence includes more than political murder, and the the left has more than their fair share of non-murder political violence."
OF COURSE, political violence includes more than murder. It includes arson, it could include looting, it includes policies that cause harm and dehumanizes people, it includes masked vigilantes, armed and literally abducting people off the streets with very little by way of explanation.
HELL YES! There are a myriad of ways to engage in abuse and violence beyond just murder..
I call your idiotic bluff and raise you: will YOU condemn the myriad of ways that political violence is done, including all the terrorism of conservative doctrine?
But then, we know the answer to that, don't we?
And people on the left HAVE engaged in violence way too much. We don't want to be confused with the violent actors on the right, after all.
But don't BEGIN to suggest that people who might claim to be liberal even begin to compare with the violent actors from the Right for the past half century (at least).
Reality is what reality is.
Yet, you are the one posting the CATO graph that is limited to "political murders", that's being presented as if it's "political violence", not to mention that some of the "right wing" examples used are hardly definitively "right wing political".
Arresting criminals is NOT "political violence", but you can pretend all you want.
What about threatening political violence in order to effect legal proceedings? Does that count?
You just can't do it, can you? You absolutely need to add qualifications because you think it helps you somehow.
I already have condemned "political violence" in this thread and in others, I see no reason to do so again because you demand it. "Conservative doctrine" is not "terrorism", and I won't condemn some bullshit you made up. So yes, we do know that answer and the answer is that I'm ahead of you again.
What a magnanimous concession. Two decades of leftist violence in the '60s and '70s, thousands of rioters and billions of dollars of destruction since 1992, Two unsuccessful assassination attempts against Trump, Charlie Kirk, The Annunciation and Nashville shooters, and you're willing to concede "some". Try living in the real world some time.
Again, this is why I've suggested that actually coming up with a metric to accurately measure political violence and categorize it as correctly as possible is a good thing. For example one of the "stats" being tossed around includes prison gangs in their tally of "right wing political violence", and intentionally excludes every left wing riot/occupation since 1992 while including J6.
I've noted the reality that left wing political violence goes back to the '60s and has a robust history since then.
What's interesting about the violent left wing radicals from the '60s is that they ended up getting rewarded with positions in the academy, and political clout with DFL politicians. No wonder the left hasn't renounced violence.
Finally, it's not political violence, but the BLM $100,000,000 grift based on false narratives is not exactly a shining moment for the ASPL.
I am really tired of Dan's one HUGE political lie:
looking at a man who has boasted about sexually assaulting women and children, laughing about it publicly and how he can get away with it because his wealth and power!
It the quote by Trump, nothing was said about children -- it's a lie from the pit of hell. Have up actually heard the conversation, Danny BOY? Trump was joking about, because of who he is, that he could grab a woman by the p..sy and get away with it. He never said he did so--he was responding some other "jokes" about women and that was his joking response. So Danny BOY, give it up.
Dan lies again. He might want to cite one or two (maybe three) examples of absolutely, no doubt about it right wing murders rather than citing "studies" he's never actually studied himself simply because they say the right are more responsible for violence.
That goes without saying. He randomly picks stuff that he thinks will help him, without actually going into the details. He probably doesn't care about the methodology as much as the perceived win.
FYI, the Miami gay nightclub shooting was a Muslim attacking gays for religious reason. The Denver gay nightclub shooting was a closeted gay dude. Much like we regularly see people who are clearly no white, get labeled as white in arrest reports, these studies default to "right wing extremist" no matter what.
Again, because Dan is stupid. If actual unbiased and accurate study of "political violence" shows that "right wing extremists" are really the problem, I'll be first in line to lock them up. But when "political violence" as an old lady peacefully protesting outside and abortion clinic, it's just bullshit.
Much like those attacking Kirk, Dan has gotten huge mileage out of taking a couple of Trump quotes out of context and misrepresenting what was said.
Not to defend what Trump actually DID say, which was unsavory to say the least, but it seems like having to take so much out of context in order to push a narrative is a sign that you've already lost the argument.
Post a Comment