I'm so relieved that Biden is so on top of the "Trunalimunumaprzure" crisis.
I'm also surprised that there are polls showing Trump with 31% approval among African Americans, while I suspect that the number is high, it does raise the question of what percentage of the black vote signals a loss for Biden. What happens if Trump gets 15% of the black vote?
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/132178428888338841
An unrelated, but interesting piece on white liberals and black success. In this era of lived experience being the be all and end all of everything, I'm not sure how anyone can argue against his points.
https://www.outkick.com/lil-waynes-endorsement-of-president-trump-another-kick-in-the-nuts-to-white-liberals/
If any conservatives did anything nearly destructive as the BLM riots, all media would be savagely ripping them apart limb from limb and buying freezers to save the meat for the next year. It would be wall to wall highest-urgency coverage.
Alex Gaynor
I think that one thing that supports this hunch is the fact that 13 rednecks who got arrested for plotting to kidnap the MI governor are made to sound like hordes of raging white supremacist maniacs ready to overthrow the government. While thousands of rioters in multiple cities are portrayed as peaceful. I'm not suggesting that the idiots in MI shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law or that I somehow support their alleged scheme, I'm pointing out the obvious difference in how the narratives are portrayed.
107 comments:
I'm diggin' this Whitlock guy more and more. He has no delusions about leftists and that alone provokes my respect.
While I wasn't always a fan, he's making a lot of sense recently.
I particularly liked this section.
"My experience with white conservatives has been that they find my skill, value and independence as assets that can be monetized. White liberals look for ways to diminish me. They compete with me. There is no one black who is their equal, and there certainly is no one black more valuable than them. White conservatives look for ways to assist my growth, as long as they, too, can benefit from that growth. My value and skill do not threaten them."
Trump with 31% approval among African Americans, while I suspect that the number is high
Not "I suspect that number is high..." but, "I recognize that number is stupidly high and clearly false. It really undermines Rasmussen's already shaky reputation.
If any conservatives did anything nearly destructive as the BLM riots
More stupidly false and empty claims from someone establishing themselves as firmly in the trumpian empty claim and demonization camp, even if you don't support Trump officially.
How many, exactly, specifically... how many BLM people have been arrested and found guilty of any harmful riot activity? Give me a number.
How concerned is the FBI, Homeland Security or any official reputable law enforcement agencies about BLM? Where are the warnings from the experts about BLM?
What? You have nothing?
Surprising.
On the other hand, you are aware of the treasonous and deadly threat posed by conservative white nationalist types? The arrests made? The research exposing their very real threat? The law enforcement agencies warning about them?
When you ignore real and serious threats by racist and treasonous white nationalists while espousing the Trump con game about the "destructive BLM riots..." you are lending support to actual racists and traitors who are regularly arrested for plotting to overthrow the gov't.
The KKK types WANT a race war. They WANT idiot conservatives to believe the false claims and character attacks against BLM and "the dangerous protesters" and ignore the real threat of those who are playing you like a puppet.
Don't be useful idiots to idiot racists.
Dan,
The poll number is what it is. You can’t wish it away by calling it stupid. I know you don’t like reality to intrude on your fantasy world, but Rasmussen is a respectable organization and they’re reporting 31% in one poll. Wishing it away doesn’t change reality.
But excellent job ignoring the point being made and the questions being asked.
Dan,
Do you know what the word “if” means?
I’m aware that 13 red necks were arrested, while hundreds/thousands of rioters haven’t been.
Are you really suggesting that 13 people is more of a threat than thousands of rioters?
It’s no wonder you don’t prove your claims, apparently you can’t tell the difference between an opinion and a claim.
"Are you really suggesting that 13 people is more of a threat than thousands of rioters?"
I'm stating a few realities.
1. You do not know that one single rioter causing was a serious BLM supporter. You have no data to support such a claim. I asked you to provide the data and you, instead, chose to go on the attack rather than defend your claim with data. Stop it.
2. We do know, because the experts tell us, that white nationalists and other conservative anti-government traitors are a threat.
3. We know that the experts do not identify BLM or antifa as any kind of threat to national security.
4. We know that, in spite of what the experts tell us, you're willing to try to suggest that BLM is some sort of threat. And we know that you do this with no data to support you. We know it's just another racist scaremongering empty claim meant to scare cowardly and intellectually deficient people.
Stop it. Just stop it. Act like a Christian. Or if not a Christian, at least a decent human being. Stop sending support to the racists. Because we do know that what they want is people to be afraid and to encourage during BLM and to encourage a race war. Stop doing their work for them. Stop being a useful idiot.
At the very least, begin with this, post some data, some numbers that show how many BLM-associated people have been found guilty of causing harm. Then, when you can't do that, admit that you have no data on which to place blame on BLM. Zero data. Have that much intellectual integrity and human decency.
For the record, I do suspect that some percentage of violence done at these protests we're done by people who nominally say they support BLM. I suspect some percentage are opportunistic looters not driven by ideology as much as opportunity and anger. And I suspect some of it is contextual. That is, when you have peaceful protesters who are then attacked by the police while peacefully protesting, some percentage of going to get angry and push back. But it's the police violence driving that violence, not the protesters. I repeat, and this is important to understand, it is the police violence itself that is driving that violent response. Not the peaceful protesters.
Nonetheless, I do suspect that some percentage of violence, looting and burning are done by some people who might identify with BLM.
My point is not that there are no BLM people participating in the violence. My point is you have zero, zero, absolutely f****** zero evidence to support the suggestion that BLM is to blame for all or a majority of this violence.
Some portion of it is white nationalists causing trouble making some useful idiots like you to make post like this. Some percentage are opportunistic looters, some percentage are violent responses in response to police violence.
How many, exactly, specifically... how many BLM people have been arrested and found guilty of any harmful riot activity? Give me a number.
It has already been proven and reported that the vast majority of those arrested during got riots are not charges and let back out to do more damage. That's the LEFTIST DAs in these Demokrat run cities. They can't be found guilty when the DAs don't charge them with anything because the DAs are on their sides.
Craig... "The poll number is what it is..."
Yes and what it is is an unbelievable outsider poll, a singular one-time catch that does not align with dozens of other polls or what we can just see in the real world if you're connected to black communities.
You see, for those food study pulling science, they know that a one-time Pole, if it is an outlier, it's just that. An outlier.
That you see so many conservatives hop on this and say, see see?? As if suddenly they started trusting science, it shows that they're not really concerned about science and just about trying impotently to support their preconceived biases.
Craig asked if I understand what the word if means. Of course I do.
"If any conservatives did anything nearly destructive as the BLM riots"
In this case, it means that you were ignoring the real life threat posed by real-life conservatives, racists, traitors... those who would overthrow our nation if they weren't so powerless and pathetic... you're ignoring that real life threat while slandering an innocent group.
Craig... "If any conservatives did anything nearly destructive as the BLM riots..."
In other words, if?! IF?!!
Are you not paying attention? Are you not listening? White conservatives, white nationalist, anti-government types ARE currently posing a real-world threat. Are currently killing people. Are currently plotting to overthrow states. Are currently trying to incite a race war. Do you not understand this?
Stop being a useful idiot.
"How many, exactly, specifically... how many BLM people have been arrested and found guilty of any harmful riot activity?"
More than 17,000 during the first TWO WEEKS of the George Floyd protests. Presumably mire since then. How many of those were card carrying BLM members, isn't recorded.
"How concerned is the FBI, Homeland Security or any official reputable law enforcement agencies about BLM? Where are the warnings from the experts about BLM?"
If the FBI and LE aren't concerned about tens/hundreds of thousands for people rioting, burning, and looting, over an extended period of time, in multiple cities across the country, I'm not sure how much we should trust them. But let's compare 17,000 plus arrests under the BLM banner, 13 under some virtually unheard of white supremacist group. If you choose to ignore the data and the news, I can't help you.
"What? You have nothing?"
Weeks/months of rioting, burning, looting, and destruction with multiple innocent victims is "nothing" to you. Interesting take. FYI, the rednecks got arrested BEFORE they did anything, and they don't have liberal Hollywood millionaires bailing them out either.
"On the other hand, you are aware of the treasonous and deadly threat posed by conservative white nationalist types? The arrests made? The research exposing their very real threat? The law enforcement agencies warning about the threat?"
Yes, I'm aware that there is some "nebulous" threat out there, I'm also aware that those 13 rednecks are a drop in the bucket compared to the tens/hundreds of thousands rallying around the BLM flag. How many billions of dollars of damage have these "white supremacists" caused? how many innocents people have they rendered homeless and without access to food and medication? Yes, I understand that here is some undefined threat, and I believe that LE should investigate, arrest, and prosecute any of these people who commit crimes. I'm not making excuses or justification for their actions, I'm pointing out the double standard on the left and in the media regarding coverage. Do you really think that the pro Trump folks are going to riot to the extent we've seen in 2020? That windows are being boarded up because they are afraid of "white supremacists"?
The KKK types have always wanted a race war, and they haven't gotten one yet.
Look at the damn numbers.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a dramatic increase in the number of white nationalist groups in the U.S., from 100 chapters in 2017 to 148 in 2018.
The Anti-Defamation League reports a 182 percent increase in incidents of the distribution of white supremacist propaganda, and an increase in the number of rallies and demonstrations by white supremacy groups, from 76 in 2017 to 91 in 2018."
Tens/Hundreds of thousands of rioters don't bother you as much as 148 "white nationalist" groups.
That's your problem, not mine.
Glenn... "It has already been proven and reported that the vast majority of those arrested during got riots are not charges and let back out to do more damage."
And those were all BLM advocates? Cite your source.
The fact is, NONE of you Trumpian slanderers can or do support the claims that the white nationalists, racists and traitors are out there pushing. Intentional or not, you are the useful idiots of traitorous racists.
Shame on you.
FYI, if the "KKK types" start a race war, I'll gladly take up arms to protect my black friends and neighbors. I'm sure you'll bravely NVDA them into submission.
"Are you really suggesting that 13 people is more of a threat than thousands of rioters?"
"I'm stating a few realities."
All the while ignoring the reality that filled our TV screens for weeks this summer. Because acknowledging the disparity in actual numbers doesn't help your fantasy world.
"1. You do not know that one single rioter causing was a serious BLM supporter. You have no data to support such a claim. I asked you to provide the data and you, instead, chose to go on the attack rather than defend your claim with data. Stop it."
This is simply absurd. I saw them, I listened to their chants, I saw their signs.
"2. We do know, because the experts tell us, that white nationalists and other conservative anti-government traitors are a threat."
No one is arguing this, I'm just pointing out the disparity in actual numbers, damage, and impact between the two.
"3. We know that the experts do not identify BLM or antifa as any kind of threat to national security."
Really, tens/hundreds of thousands of rioters, billions of dollars in damage, dead people, people without homes and food, are less of a threat that 13 rednecks. OK, maybe some proof of your claims would be good.
"4. We know that, in spite of what the experts tell us, you're willing to try to suggest that BLM is some sort of threat. And we know that you do this with no data to support you. We know it's just another racist scaremongering empty claim meant to scare cowardly and intellectually deficient people."
I'm sure the people who feared for their lives this last summer will be comforted by your assurances that they weren't threatened.
"Stop it. Just stop it. Act like a Christian. Or if not a Christian, at least a decent human being. Stop sending support to the racists."
Either prove this claim or retract it.
FYI, if the "KKK types" start a race war, I'll gladly take up arms to protect my black friends and neighbors. I'm sure you'll bravely NVDA them into submission.
"Are you really suggesting that 13 people is more of a threat than thousands of rioters?"
"I'm stating a few realities."
All the while ignoring the reality that filled our TV screens for weeks this summer. Because acknowledging the disparity in actual numbers doesn't help your fantasy world.
"1. You do not know that one single rioter causing was a serious BLM supporter. You have no data to support such a claim. I asked you to provide the data and you, instead, chose to go on the attack rather than defend your claim with data. Stop it."
This is simply absurd. I saw them, I listened to their chants, I saw their signs.
"2. We do know, because the experts tell us, that white nationalists and other conservative anti-government traitors are a threat."
No one is arguing this, I'm just pointing out the disparity in actual numbers, damage, and impact between the two.
"3. We know that the experts do not identify BLM or antifa as any kind of threat to national security."
Really, tens/hundreds of thousands of rioters, billions of dollars in damage, dead people, people without homes and food, are less of a threat that 13 rednecks. OK, maybe some proof of your claims would be good.
"4. We know that, in spite of what the experts tell us, you're willing to try to suggest that BLM is some sort of threat. And we know that you do this with no data to support you. We know it's just another racist scaremongering empty claim meant to scare cowardly and intellectually deficient people."
I'm sure the people who feared for their lives this last summer will be comforted by your assurances that they weren't threatened.
ave that much intellectual integrity and human decency.
"For the record, I do suspect that some percentage of violence done at these protests we're done by people who nominally say they support BLM. I suspect some percentage are opportunistic looters not driven by ideology as much as opportunity and anger. And I suspect some of it is contextual. That is, when you have peaceful protesters who are then attacked by the police while peacefully protesting, some percentage of going to get angry and push back. But it's the police violence driving that violence, not the protesters. I repeat, and this is important to understand, it is the police violence itself that is driving that violent response. Not the peaceful protesters."
Got it, you just undermined the previous comment, blamed billions of dollars in damage on the police, and tried to justify violent anarchy.
"Nonetheless, I do suspect that some percentage of violence, looting and burning are done by some people who might identify with BLM."
thanks for repeating yourself, stating the obvious, and making my point.
"My point is not that there are no BLM people participating in the violence. My point is you have zero, zero, absolutely f****** zero evidence to support the suggestion that BLM is to blame for all or a majority of this violence."
If you mean that I have no evidence to prove a claim that I haven't made, you'd be correct. Because why would I even try to prove a point or support a claim that you've made up?
"Some portion of it is white nationalists causing trouble making some useful idiots like you to make post like this. Some percentage are opportunistic looters, some percentage are violent responses in response to police violence."
So far they've charged exactly one that I've seen.
The problem is that you're off on your own point, while ignoring the point that the quote I posted was making.
"Yes and what it is is an unbelievable outsider poll, a singular one-time catch that does not align with dozens of other polls or what we can just see in the real world if you're connected to black communities."
Did you actually read the entirety of what I wrote, or did you just assume that you could argue against a straw man without it being pointed out? All I said was that the pool is the poll, the results are the results, and that the actual numbers aren't really the issue. But clearly, you're more interested in imposing your hunches on everyone else, instead of dealing with what I actually said.
"You see, for those food study pulling science, they know that a one-time Pole, if it is an outlier, it's just that. An outlier."
Did you actually look at the link? It's a weekly poll taken every week through October and the results fit with the trend. But, even if it is, that doesn't make my actual point invalid.
"That you see so many conservatives hop on this and say, see see??"
Prove your claim. Read what I actually wrote, respond to that.
"As if suddenly they started trusting science, it shows that they're not really concerned about science and just about trying impotently to support their preconceived biases."
You're really suggesting that polling is science? On the same level as biology?
"In other words, if?! IF?!!"
Not "in other words", in the actual words of the fucking quote you idiot. Are you so blinded by hatred and fear that you have to hide from the reality that someone is presenting a fucking hypothetical opinion?
"Are you not paying attention? Are you not listening?"
Every time I drive down Lake Street, I see the blackened shells of buildings destroyed under the banner of BLM. I can't help but pay attention to the destruction that is still there. I can't help but listen to those who threaten more destruction on top os what's already been inflicted on thousands of innocent people. Weren't you listening to those who said "Burn it down" if Barrett got confirmed? Please point out the "white supremacist" groups threatening more rioting/looting/burning if Trump wins?
"White conservatives, white nationalist, anti-government types ARE currently posing a real-world threat. Are currently killing people. Are currently plotting to overthrow states. Are currently trying to incite a race war. Do you not understand this?"
I do understand that there is some small number of these groups that pose some level of "threat", yet I also understand that there is plenty of folks who support BLM who are threatening to visit more fire and destruction on innocent victims if they don't get the results they want.
"Stop being a useful idiot."
Stop being a useless idiot.
Yes Glenn, by all means do what Dan won't do.
"Again, WHAT numbers, damage and impact has been caused by BLM advocates? Cite some data. Support your claim or admit that you can't."
https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-damaged-looted-after-george-floyd-protests-riots/5
https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html
If you are unaware of the riot damage this year, perhaps you should pay more attention. To pretend that it wasn't caused by those sympathetic to the BLM cause is simply an absurd attempt to create a world where your fantasy reigns.
"We KNOW that the conservative white nationalists and anti-government types are costing us countless dollars in FBI, Homeland Security and law enforcement dollars in preventing them from enacting their traitorous actions. We know that they have killed hundreds of people since the 1990s and harmed many more and attempted to harm many more than that."
If you're going to demand proof, you have to provide proof. Also, how about an apples to apples comparison? How about you compare the damage etc for the same time frame. The BLM affiliated rioting began in 2014. Let's see a comparison on property damage, etc between 2014-2020 instead of the vague reference to the 90's. Proof!!!
"How many people have been killed by BLM advocates?"
At this point that number is unknown.
"Get serious. Can you at least admit the above is a distinct and devastating amount of harm caused by these conservative white supremacists?"
No, because it doesn't include the billions in property damage and thousands of innocent people harmed by the rioters and because it's an absurdly unfair comparison. Comparing 26 years of "white supremacist" data to less than 6 years of BLM and it's supporters is ridiculous. Do a comparison that takes everything into account over the same time frame.
"And that there is NO such corresponding loss of life from BLM?"
The reality is that we don't know, and your "data" is slanted toward the conclusion you want to prove. Of course, limiting your "data" to only one category simply points out your bias.
"That's reality. Can you admit reality?"
The reality to you've manipulated and selectively cherry picked data to support your hunch, yes. The fact that I'm not trying to excuse these "white supremacists". The fact that you want to define reality to suit your self. Yes.
"IF conservatives were causing as much harm..." is a faulty premise, because clearly, in lives, conservatives ARE causing way more harm."
1. It's not a premise, it's a hypothetical.
2. You haven't shown where "conservatives" (of course your assuming "conservatives without proof), have caused any where near the billions of dollars of damage, and harm to thousands of innocents caused by the BLM types.
3. You've moved the goal posts from "white supremacists" to "conservatives" without any factual basis. The problem you have is that "liberals" kill more people in Chicago on a yearly basis, than the carnage you get so upset about.
"I'm sorry, are you talking about PROTESTERS (who have been ~99% peaceful) or rioters?"
Well, since I've consistently used the term, "rioters", what do you think the answer is? Prove your 99% peaceful claim.
"If you're talking about rioters, did these rioters carry signs identifying themselves as BLM members?"
Nice straw man. There is no way to know how many of the rioters were officially "members" of BLM or how many were just supporters. It's interesting that you have absolutely zero problem generalizing ALL of these "white supremacists" as "conservatives", but get dive deep into semantic hell when the rioters are generalized by their association with BLM. To be clear, if I use BLM as a shorthand term for the rioters, I am acknowledging that it's a generalization so that I don't have to list every possible permutation of any possible group affiliation of any possible rioter. The fact that you're obsessing over this idiotic nit, doesn't really help your case.
"Do you recognize the reality that the vast majority of protesters have been peaceful?"
Do you realize the reality that this doesn't matter in regards to the point my original post made? Do you realize that you can't prove this claim? Do you realize that these "peaceful" protesters stood by and did nothing to stop the rioters, looters, and arsonists? Do you realize that the "peaceful" protesters made no attempt to do anything to discourage or prevent the rioters from rioting?
"Do you recognize the reality that the police have been gassing and shooting peaceful rioters with no legitimate cause?"
Provide proof of this claim or retract it. Or go back and watch the news coverage.
"If you don't recognize those realities, then get to the protests. Listen to the people who've been attending. Watch what the police are doing to provoke violence."
What, specifically, are the police doing to provoke violence? Are you suggesting that the violence is justified if "provoked"? Are you suggesting that the violence/destruction is proportional to the alleged "provocation"? Who controls the police in cities like MPLS, Portland, ST Louis, DC and other places where we've seen rioting?
"Watch what the right wing extremists have been doing to provoke violence."
Please prove these claims, don't simply make them without evidence.
"Watch how the white nationalist types get the tacit support of the police while the police harass peaceful protesters."
Again, please prove these claims.
"Watch how hard the BLM organizers fight and organize and work to keep the peace, in spite of the violent provocations of the police and white nationalists."
I watched the BLM types burn down swaths of MPLS, throw Molotov cocktails at a police precinct they laid siege to, and throw chucks of concrete at LEOs who were trying to clear a freeway. I've listened to the chants advocating killing police. The "white nationalist" threat (one more attempt at redefining your terms) that we were warned about never materialized. Again, proof.
"Stop talking about that which you are ignorant of. Is it safe to assume that you've been to none of these rallies/protests in person?"
You'll assume whatever fits your narrative, regardless of the truth. I've been to the aftermath of these "peaceful" protests.
If these protests are peacful, why are buildings in the riot zone covered with pleas for the rioters to spare businesses that are black owned, and buildings with people living in them? If the black, brown, immigrant, and other POC who's neighborhoods were destroyed don't trust these folks, why should I?
I've got to do some work, but I have to note that Dan is supporting/making excuses/rationalizing/not condemning the actions of the rioters/looters/ arsonists etc. I further have to note that he's made numerous claims without providing proof of them, and the one claim where he tried, was comparing a 26 year period to a 6 year period.
Finally, I'll note that he's gone to all this trouble because he doesn't want to acknowledge that a hypothetical opinion might possibly be accurate.
I'll wade through the rest of he bullshit later.
" I'm going to tell you to your face that this is a God-Damned lie and you are a God-Damned liar espousing the lies of idiot racists on your side. WHERE? Where, Craig? WHERE did BLM authorize or encourage destroying buildings?"
Where, where, did I say that BLM as an organization "authorized or encouraged" destroying buildings. If you are simply going to falsely characterize what I've said and argue against your straw man, please stop wasting my time.
"You can't because you are a racist-defending, black people oppressing damned lying piece of shit."
I guess that whole "slander as a sin and bearing false witness" things only comes out when it's convenient. Provide proof or retract.
"I would LOVE to apologize to you."
Then do so for falsely characterizing what I've said and for your malicious slander above.
"I would LOVE for you to show me where BLM has advocated burning down buildings so I could apologize to you. But I won't apologize because YOU won't support your traitorous, filthy, racist, stupidly false God-damned lies. Repent you liar."
Since this entire rant is built on your falsely characterizing what I've said, and constructing a straw man on that false assumption, perhaps it's you who needs to repent.
"You fail to understand words and meanings. I said, I SUSPECT THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE. I did not say that it IS the case, because I don't know. It MIGHT be the case for SOME percentage of harm/damage done."
So, again thanks for acknowledging reality. Would you agree that it's more likely than not that black rioters were not "white supremacists"? That black rioters were to some degree sympathetic to the BLM narrative?
"The difference between my reality and your racist, damnable lies is that I am NOT blaming "billions of dollars of destruction and deaths" on BLM. YOU are the one passing on the fearmongering lies of the KKK types who LOVE it when useful idiots like you make their case for them, try to spread fear of black people and liberals."
To be fair, I'm using BLM as a generalized catch all term because they are the most public and vocal of the groups engaging in what we've seen this summer. The fact that you're trying to parse this to this ridiculous level, and throwing out all sorts of falsehoods simply demonstrates that you don't have anything of substance to offer.
Please, keep the vitriolic, false, ad hom, slanderous attacks coming. Or, prove your claims.
You are being played for an idiot by bad, racist people, traitors to this nation and human decency.
Shame on you.
"The lies never end. Name them. Give me a list of their names and your source for this because I'm calling bullshit. EVERY leader - EVERY leader associated with BLM that I know or have read or have heard about is doing the exact opposite of this. But you WON'T support your racist claim because you CAN'T support your racist claim because it's a racist lie."
This notion that I should bow and scrape to your every demand, while you continue to make ludicrous claims with out even the attempt at justification is patently absurd. If you aren't going to play by the rules you demand of other, why should I?
If you can't give me a "list of names" of those "white nationalists" that are secretly doing all the destruction, why would you expect me to do the same. I guess watching my local news cast show video of actual black folks burning, looting, etc doesn't count.
Your link doesn't actually support your point to the level of detail you expect.
"So far it looks like many, possibly most, of those arrested for the visible crimes associated with riots — such as property damage, arson or vandalism — are not organised under a prevailing ideology other than anti-police anger."
Shocking, I'm sure that the fact that one of BLM's core doctrines is being anti police is just a coincidence.
" They (white nationalists) may have hundreds or thousands of members with leaders who kind of run them," he said."
What are their names? Where are they from? Let's base irrational assumptions on something that "may" be true.
"So far, we haven't seen large groups of white nationalists out on the streets in response to the protests."
Whoops.
"Some scattered vigilante groups show up to protests"
Oh my lord, "scattered" groups, what a crisis.
And so on...
"Good God in heaven have mercy on your soul. You have blinded yourself. You have taken up the cause of racist oppressors and traitors, defended the arguments of racists. You have attacked black people and supported racist. What in the name of all that is Holy is wrong with you? Open your eyes and see. Look at the data. Listen to the experts. Quit listening to those racist and their arguments. Quit defending them. Shame on you. Quit making fake claims that you can't support. Your arguments have been dismantled because you cannot support them. You cannot support them. Do you understand that? You cannot support them. You're making claims that the data does not support. To hell with these attacks on minorities. To hell with your defense of racists and their race war. To help with stupid useful idiots doing the work of racist. Stop it. Repent. Turn around. You are going down a deviant dark evil path. Just stop it. In the name of God in heaven, I rebuke thee."
I'm not going to keep responding to these unhinged rants full of unsupported claims, false characterizations, ad hom attacks, and lies. If you haven't bothered to prove your claims by now, my continuing to treat them as worthy of specific response is pointless. I'll leave them to demonstrate the depravity you've chosen.
"What are the police doing to provoke violence? Get the hell out there and watch. Open your eyes. Watch the news. They're shooting people. They're shooting peaceful protesters with rubber bullets. They're gassing them. How are you missing this? Open your eyes. Repent."
Again, you demand one level of proof, while holding yourself to another. If you've got proof that police attacked (I love how you use the term "shoot" as if to imply lethal force, then slip in that it's non lethal), 100% peaceful/law abiding protesters with absolutely zero provocation, then let's have it.
You seem to be suggesting that it's perfectly reasonable to protesters to burn, loot, and physically attack police officers of "provoked", yet expect the police to stand idly by when they're provoked.
Yes, watch the news. Watch BLM types lay siege to a police precinct and throw Molotov cocktails, rocks etc at the police. Watch BLM types chanting that they want to "fry" the pigs "like bacon". Watch the tens/hundreds of thousands of black folks carrying stolen goods out of stores. Watch and ignore.
"If you're blind to the attacks that the police are doing on Peaceful protesters, perhaps you shouldn't comment. If you're that unaware of reality, perhaps you should learn a bit about reality before trying to comment on reality. Open your eyes. Remove the blinders. For these are a people who have turned a blind eye to the oppression of the poor and the marginalized. They have defended the cause of the rich oppressors. This should not be. How long oh Lord, how long will the rich and the useful idiots and the racist continue to oppress the poor... when wilt thou save the people, oh God of Mercy, when?"
Got it. You'll have to note the reality that this post doesn't contain me commenting on any of this except in response to you bringing it up. You've long been a fan of shutting down disagreement at your blog, now you want to shut down disagreement here.
Of course, just more false piety and false claims.
"“The Lord rises to argue his case; he stands to judge the peoples. The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people: It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor? says the Lord God of hosts” (Isaiah 3:13-15)"
hundreds of comments elsewhere you continually denied the very notion of this sort of judgement, now you throw out some random proof text.
If you took this seriously, you wouldn't be encouraging mere humans to take the role of "The Lord", and announce themselves judge, jury, and mete out punishment.
How many burned down buildings, ruined innocent lives, and people deprived of access to food is a proportional response to tear gas or rubber bullets?
I can't believe that you've chosen to so callously disregard the harm and suffering of innocents caused by those you defend.
How come every photo/video of riots I've seen show people carrying "Black Lives Matter" signs, and if they aren't part of the riot why are they at every riot? And why are they accepting cash support from the Chinese (which has been proven) on top of funds from Soros? (also proven).
"And THERE it is. There it is, Craig admitting that he is ignorant of what is happening at these protests and that he is only seeing what the racists and the liars like Trump want them to see."
No, this would be false.
"You are seeing "scary" images of burnt buildings and boarded-up buildings. But you are not seeing the hundreds of lives killed by racists and violent conservatives."
It's not scary, it's sad. To think that you are suggesting that the destruction of the homes and businesses of the innocent is somehow appropriate because of the actions of some unnamed people from decades ago is absurd on it's face.
"You're seeing and repeating stories of vague unidentified "rioters," who you assume are black and part of BLM, but you assume so in ignorance with no data to support that hunch..."
Well there is the extensive local media coverage of the actual events where it was possible to see with ones own eyes what was happening, but I'm sure they digitally altered people's skin color.
"and you're ignoring or not seeing the conservatives who are plotting to overthrow our nation..."
OHHHHHHHHHH, scary conspiracy theories. Some random tiny groups of whack jobs, are definitely reason to burn down black owned businesses.
"Who are plotting to try to get useful idiots to believe that black lives don't matter and that black people are scary and protesters are terrorists."
Well, I've been quite clear in word and deed that I believe that black lives do matter, I've never even hinted that "black people" as a whole are "scary" (obviously some people of every ethnicity through their appearance and actions will evoke a response of fear, but to judge a group based on some individuals is stupid), nor have I referred to "protestors" as "terrorists". So, now that you've simply piled on a few more lies, what's next?
"You are seeing and believing and repeating what the racists want you to see. Open your eyes."
No, I'm seeing quote clearly with my own eyes, but thinks for making assumptions.
"Side with the poor, with your black brothers and sisters, with women, with the oppressed. Listen to them, see what they are seeing."
You mean like by banding together with others to provide things like diapers, formula, and other things new mothers need to care for their children after all the drug and grocery stores were burned and looted? What a complete moron you've decided to become.
"Read the reports from the FBI, from NSA, from Homeland Security, from law enforcement agencies. The names are there. I don't have time to look them up now, but this is not a secret."
So you're too lazy to look up what you claim is there, but expect me to look through the thousands of arrest records to meet your demands. Hell, you were too lazy to do anything but post a link that wasn't even an accurate comparison.
"It's the FBI telling you that the greatest threat to our nation is not BLM. It is not antifa. It is not protesters. It is white nationalists. Conservative militia and anti-government types."
You mean the people that LE is currently investigating, arresting, and prosecuting. It sounds like they're staying on top of the problem. Of course how much of this threat you allege is from 1994 as opposed to 2020. Since you were too lazy to do your research and provide current data, I guess we'll never know.
"These are your people. People who are voting for and enthused by your president."
They're not my people. But thanks for allowing your prejudice to show. Many people are "enthused" by our president. Many people are enthused for a crazy, rich, old, white, socialist as well. People are crazy, it's just life.
"Read and inform yourself. I'll post you a link or links later, but this is not a secret. Open your eyes. For the love of God, get your head out of your ass and open your eyes and look at the data. God damn useful idiots."
If you were too lazy to do your research until now, I think that tells me all I need to know. But please publish some more links to biased sources that don't really support your claims.
"Are you telling me that after all these years of growing threats posed by conservative White nationalist... posing ever increasing threats to the , reporting being emboldened and empowered by Trump, planning attacks, walking in churches and synagogues and shooting them up, killing people, bombing places, blocking traffic this weekend... after ALL the reports from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies... are you saying you are STILL not familiar with the threat that conservative anti-government white nationalists are posing?"
No. I'm saying that to the extent this is a thing, that they should be investigated, arrested, prosecuted, and punished. I'm also saying that the existence of these fringe groups, doesn't negate the fact that we've seen an increasing number of black, liberals, engaging in increasing amounts of violent, destructive, anti authority/police rampages, and that it's insane to deny this fact or to try to excuse it by saying "whitey did it first".
"Are you not aware set the FBI identified them as the greatest threat to Homeland Security? Please answer."
I'm aware that you claim this to be the case. There, I answered. When will you be answering my questions and proving your claims.
As of 11/2/2020 at 12:29 CST I have responded to/answered virtually every comment/question from Dan.
From here on out, I plan to simply publish his rantings without further comment. It's pointless to continue to identify the falsehoods, the unproven claims, the straw men, ad homs, and slanders, knowing that the likelihood of anything specific being specifically addressed. Let alone any answers, proof, apologies, or retractions.
I fully expect that there will be attempts to goad me into continuing down into the cesspool of Dan's imaginary world. I will try to ignore them.
Glenn,
Aren't you paying attention. Those signs, are simply digitally inserted in post production by the racist, conservative overlords that control every single media outlet in the known world. It's all just one big campaign to fool everyone except those privileged few who know the real Truth, who see behind the facade and who try to enlighten the rest of us.
Who in the world would ever think that "trained Marxists" would actually engage in the Marxists tactics they were trained in? Who'd have thought that the way to get retribution for the police massacring thousands of innocent protesters, was to burn down the homes and businesses of blacks and immigrants. Who'd have thought that depriving low income families of neighborhood grocery stores was the key to revenge from something that a "white supremacist" did in 1994.
Clearly we are not enlightened enough to understand the Truth behind what the media tells us. Clearly, Soros is secretly a tool of the overlords and is just....
Oh, hell. I can't keep making up any more stupidity, just read Dan's comments.
Craig... "You seem to be suggesting that it's perfectly reasonable to protesters to burn, loot, and physically attack police officers of "provoked", yet expect the police to stand idly by when they're provoked."
Other than once or twice, I have not been able to attend the protests because I work with people with compromised immune systems and so I should keep distance for their sake. But I have a whole crowd of friends regularly take part in these rallies. Peaceful people. Quakers and Amish types, as well as non-violent non religious people.
And we've seen the reports of the police just firing on media people who are covering these events. So we have videos and first-hand reports of the police shooting non-lethal rounds at people and gassing people who are peacefully protesting and peacefully covering the protests.
And you are taking comfort in the idea that it's "only" being shot and gassed with non-lethal Force while they're peacefully protesting? Is THAT what you're saying?
If so, what the hell is wrong with you? Let me take some shots at your eye with a non-lethal round. Let's see how that goes for you.
You see, and this nation, we have a right to peacefully protest we have an obligation to peacefully protest. And please don't get the shooting this just because they don't like us peacefully protesting.
On top of that, when they shoot at us when what we're protesting is police violence, they are just undermining themselves and serving to demonstrate that they are indeed violent.
Educate yourself...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/2020/06/what-nonlethal-weapons-can-do-to-the-body-george-floyd
Educate yourself..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3211421001
Dan,
I'd like to clarify something. You listed blocking a bridge as one of the heinous sins of these "white supremacists". Are you saying that blocking bridges is wrong in any and all circumstances, and by any and all groups of people?
Craig... "You listed blocking a bridge as one of the heinous sins of these "white supremacists". Are you saying that blocking bridges is wrong in any and all circumstances"
Actually put that on there because it's one of the hypocrisies of the conservative movement that they complain about protesters blocking streets, until it's their own people doing it.
But generally speaking, no, people should not block streets. Period.
As a form of civil disobedience, it's one option, but that kind of thing should be reserved for when people aren't paying attention and aren't listening to the cause of the oppressed. You know, like when peaceful protests such as kneeling during the national anthem are ignored or attacked, then one might need to elevate to some kind of Civil Disobedience, like blocking streets.
So... as a method of protesting Injustice, it might be in the tool bag. As one option when other efforts are going ignored.
The problem is, conservatives are using it simply because they don't like Biden. There isn't any Injustice that they're protesting. They're just childishly saying we don't like this candidate and so we're going to commit civil disobedience. As a method of complaining about a candidate that they don't like, that does not rise to the level of justified usage of Civil Disobedience like this.
See the difference?
I know I said that I was going to ignore anything else Dan posted, but I need to clarify.
I realize that "non lethal" means of riot control can be lethal under certain circumstances, but that the intent of those measures is to disperse crowds without killing anyone.
Earlier, Dan claimed that police were "shooting" innocent protesters without provocation. Clearly the implication from the word "shooting" is intended to obscure the fact that the "shooting" was with "non lethal" projectiles. This is a situation where Dan has used a statement that is technically true in a manner intended to convey an impression that is false. Which appears to further be an attempt to obscure the fact that he can't provide any instances of vast numbers of police "shooting" protesters without provocation.
For example. The (DFL) governor, the (DFL) mayors, and the (DFL) city councils, enforced a curfew during the riots this summer. At that point, anyone on the streets past the legally enacted (by the DFL) curfew, is breaking the law and shouldn't be surprised when the law is enforced.
But, conveniently ignoring which political party is actually engaging in these sorts of actions is one more inconvenient Truth.
RE bridge blocking. What a self serving,mealy mouthed, namby pamby, double standard, load of crap.
At least you're kind of, sort of, opposed to the blocking of streets, sometimes, when it's mainly about the other guys.
But at least you, kind of, answered a question. Good on ya, mate!
I wonder, Craig, when it turns out, one day, that Trump WAS horrendously disastrous for our nation, and a clear worst choice than either Clinton or Biden...
when it turns out that BLM truly was fighting for justice and those who opposed BLM or mocked them or attacked were, indeed, giving aid and comfort to racists...
when it turns out the climate change was a disaster that we should have been working to prevent and that covid-19 was a health disaster that we should have been working and cooperating together to prevent...
When it turns out that the GOP had become an entirely corrupt and dishonourable and dangerous party and that it should have been obvious to all reasonable people...
When all that is one day made obvious to you and the blinders have lifted, do you think you will have the good sense to be embarrassed? If Jesus himself says to you directly , "Craig, WTF were you thinking?" ...will you be embarrassed? Ashamed?
https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leader-if-change-doesnt-happen-we-will-burn-down-this-system/
https://therightscoop.com/portland-black-lives-matter-leader-openly-advocates-for-murder-of-police-video/
https://nypost.com/2020/08/14/seattle-blm-protesters-demand-white-people-give-up-their-homes/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/tear-them-down-blm-activist-shaun-king-calls-for-destruction-of-jesus-christ-statues-churches-for-white-supremacy-oppression-racist-p
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2020/08/30/watch-blm-leader-calls-for-killing-police-as-supporters-harass-d-c-restaurant-goers-n252935
Took my around two minutes to find and post these links proving the rhetoric and provocation of violence from assorted BLM leaders.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that the Antifa (bowel) movement has been allied with the BLM (bowel) movement to the extent that it's not always clear where one ends and the other begins with regard to all the rioting by peaceful protesters these days. We are seeing more white people join in the looting and destruction and calls for murdering cops and the like. And there's certainly many white people who have bowed down to the movements in hopes they won't be attacked.
I would also say that it should be pretty simple to find examples of unprovoked attacks by cops against "peaceful" protesters, especially given the fawning enabling of the media toward all this nonsense (anyone who can stand in front of burning buildings and suggest protests are peaceful are more than merely "fawning".).
Finally, for now, we've seen dozens of comments by Dan making all manner of assertion without any supportive data or evidence...something that has been banned at his blog (unless he thinks he can score points insulting incomplete representations of points made). It's more of Dan's "do as I say, but don't expect me to do it at all" petulance.
Art,
I appreciate the links, but it’s clear that Dan’s in full out change the topic mode. You know he’ll ignore them. It’s also interesting that virtually every race based event since 2014 is generically referred to as BLM, but Dan’s going to nit pick now.
" It’s also interesting that virtually every race based event since 2014 is generically referred to as BLM, but Dan’s going to nit pick now. "
Well, that's his modus operandi isn't it? He can speak as generally as he pleases...such as his nonsense about right-wing extremism...while insisting absolute accuracy be required to speak of his side of the ideological divide. It's laughable to pretend one must have a membership card or decoder ring of the BLM movement in order to be legitimately considered a part of their activism and "peaceful" protests. I'd also note that we often got drool from him regarding Trump's rhetoric attracting racists (who now seem to support Biden), but the clear expressions of violent retribution for perceived slights apparently has no influence on those who, evidently all by themselves, chose to riot and assault people (particularly cops).
I also notice once again his promotion of the "police brutality" narrative, which has been shown to be less than valid regardless of who espouses it. Again, the hypocrisy is outrageous as he insists violent protests are outliers, while the isolated cases of police misconduct is some sort of systemic problem. And all without evidence to back it up!
Ironically (but not unexpectedly) Marshal cites a bunch of right wing partisan groups with dubious records of accurate reporting citing vague and out of context remarks that appear to be not connected to any actual people.
From Marshall's first source...
"“Let’s be very real,” he told the Fox News host. “Let’s observe the history of the 1960s, when black people were rioting. We had the highest growth in wealth, in property ownership. Think about the last few weeks since we started protesting. There have been eight cops fired across the country.”
As MLK said, "riots are the language of the unheard. "
It's like when an abused wife has reached out for help and her church told her to stay connected to her abuser and her abuser has promised he'll change, at the same time, gaslighting and abusing her... WHEN she finally snaps and kills him, it's a tragedy and it should NOT have happened and she should NOT have killed him.
BUT, if the takeaway is "Wives should not kill their husbands... shame on her..." THEN you have missed the point. The takeaway is, "HUSBANDS should not abuse their wives and churches and society should not support him in that abuse and IF the wife ends up killing the husband, then shame on THE ABUSIVE HUSBAND for pushing her to that point."
Like that. IF you push and oppressed an oppressed minority, IF you have mocked and abused their peaceful protests, THEN you have made violent revolt inevitable. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE caused that situation.
Stop defending racists and attacking the survivors of racism and oppression.
Just stop it.
Understand this: to the degree that SOME protesters take to rioting, YOU are the ones causing rioting. YOU, Marshal. YOU, Craig. YOU, Trump.... and all his defenders and supporters, along with the KKK, the Proud Boys and all those who choose to condemn BLM instead of the racists.
Shame on you.
From Marshal's first link...
"“What is this country rewarding? What behavior is it listening to? Obviously not marching. But when people get aggressive and they escalate their protests, cops get fired, Republican politicians talking about police reform,” he said."
YOU racist defenders are rewarding rioting. YOU are causing rioting.
Stop it and stop blaming those who have pushed back against the oppressors for pushing back.
Dan wonders how we might feel if his fantasies and fictions should magically come to pass. His 4:03 PM comment is hilarious!🤣🤣🤣
Art,
You've already cited more sources than Dan, and he still bitches. Many of his comments can only be met with laughter.
Of course that people who; get in their cars, board public transportation, travel to a different location, break windows and door open, loot, burn, destroy, attack police, lay siege to police stations, throw rocks and concrete at people, threaten to kill people, block highways repeatedly, and render immigrants and poor minority families without access to grocery and drug stores, bear absolutely no responsibility for their actions. Dan's finally had the balls to admit that he thinks that every bit of the destruction wrought at these BLM events is justified. He's finally proven my point. There is no such thing as a pacifist, it's just a matter of what you choose to tip you toward violence.
It's not their fault, it's yours. Look at Portland, it's a liberal bastion, the cops did virtually nothing to the rioters for months. But it's the cops fault.
All that's left is for Dan to admit that virtually all the cities where all of the racial oppression and police randomly attacking innocent people (shooting them), all have one thing in common. Decades of control by one political party. But it's not the fault of the liberals who've built, maintained, run, and protected that racist systems for decades, It's Trump's fault. It's your fault.
That's what's pretty freakin' hilarious.
Art,
I'm not sure what happened to your last comment. All I saw was the first line or so.
I agree that ANTIFA is not necessarily allied with BLM, but I would suggest that they are politically aligned with BLM in many ways. If we grant Dan's unproven point that all of the rioting and the rioters are all the fault of the cops and you, then my point is still valid. If the BLM folks are simply engaging in a justified proportional response to the oppression of their local governments, then the same should hold true for the CHOP/CHAZ/ANTIFA crowd. The problem is that there are so many possible affiliations that it's simply more convenient to lump them together as their goals, and actions are indistinguishable or complimentary.
It's all about absolving individuals of responsibility anyway.
I asked earlier how proportional the destruction of billions of dollars of property and livelihood is to the actual amount of actual harm caused to the rioters. Clearly if it's not proportional, it's not justice.
Demented Dan still tries to insist we somehow support racism. Evidently, pointing out and opposing the violent rhetoric of his angelic activists is in some way tacit approval of those rare cases of racism/brutality of a tiny percentage of law enforcement officers. Maybe someday we'll see rioting provoked by an actual case of a totally unsuspecting, innocent POC being assaulted by actual racist white cops. Until then, we'll just have settle for black thugs dying while violently resisting arrest for committing a crime since there are no such examples which can be used to rationalize unjust mob action.
My comment was meant to posit that the two groups are indeed allied, if not officially then by ideology. They're both far left, both anti-America and akin in other beliefs as well. And they're both more than willing to destroy without any sound plan for improving what they think is wrong with this country that protected their right to speak out...before they chose to destroy, instead. The truth of this isn't in any way mitigated because Dan knows a few Quakers who are down with the false narrative, but haven't themselves thrown a brick.
Dan insists quite a lot of things, unfortunately he rarely proves them to be true.
Marshal... "Dan still tries to insist we somehow support racism."
1. White supremacists in white nationalists and other anti-government conservatives aligned with them are racist.
2. These groups of idiots want other white people to be afraid of black people in general and BLM specifically. They want the White population to not trust black people or BLM, to think that they are violent rioters and dangerous.
3. They want this because they hope to start a race war and kill off a bunch of black people and establish a white supremacist United States, or at least individual white states.
4. When you pass on stupidly false claims about black people and black lives matter and liberals, you foment fear and distrust of these groups. This is what racists want to see happen.
5. Thus, you are lending aid and support to idiot racists who are traitors who want to kill and destroy and overthrow the country. You are very literally supporting their cause by your action. I don't know what about that you are having a hard time understanding. You are supporting plans of violent racists and traitors.
Art,
Don’t you understand. You’re racist because Dan has decided that the fact that he’s decided that his characterization of some groups of people that aren’t you, is the deciding factor. It has absolutely nothing to do with you as an individual or anything you’ve actually done or said, it’s 100% about what random group Dan decides you’re in. He can’t demonstrate by anything you’ve said or done that his accusation is accurate, so he’ll throw shit against a wall and pretend that it sticks.
What a sad, pathetic existence it must be to o seas over whether people one doesn’t actually know are racist if they can be, however counter factually, such attempts are.
Racist, the word that means whatever Dan wants it to mean as long as he decides that there might be a benefit to him.
I’m watching the networks call states for Biden with 0% reporting, but they’re doing gymnastics to avoid calling FL for Trump.
Craig... You’re racist because Dan has decided that the fact that he’s decided that his characterization of some groups of people that aren’t you, is the deciding factor.
I didn't say he is racist. I just pointed out the reality that you and he and Trump are doing the work of racists. The racists will openly tell you that they want to see a race war. They WANT you to distrust BLM, liberals, Antifa, black people, etc. They WANT you to view protesters as all terrorists and a deadly threat.
When you attack BLM with stupidly false claims and encourage people to distrust them and fear them, you are literally doing what the racists want. Just as a point of fact.
If you don't like living in to that reality, stop it. But don't make up stupid shit to defend racists or your own irrational and emotional attacks.
So you want to insinuate racism, but don’t have the balls to man up and say it. Of course, my point, still stands. You have no proof, you’re just playing guilt by presumed association.
You haven’t so far, but I challenge you to find one specific example of my supporting a racist for their views on race.
I don't much care what "they" want, regardless who "they" might be. Few who aren't racist (that leaves out Dan) give them the time of day.
There's nothing I've ever said about BLM or antifa that isn't true. I've never made a single false claim about them, stupidly false or otherwise.
Craig,
I noticed the same thing about states being called with a significant percentage yet to be considered. Florida had 89% reported and they still weren't put in the Trump column. Are those remaining counties massively populated?
I was sitting in a clinic just half an hour ago due to being randomly selected for a drug/alcohol test. They had FoxNews on the tellie. They showed a check mark beside either Trump's or Biden's name depending on if the state had been called for either. At least a couple were called for Biden despite the percentage of the vote showing Trump soundly ahead. I saw no explanation for it. I saw one that did the same for Trump. I don't get it. The only situation that would justify such a thing would be if one was so overwhelmingly ahead even remaining votes couldn't change the outcome if all were for the other guy. The numbers and percentages I saw didn't suggest that.
??? NO. I'm STATING FACTS. You all ARE espousing claims that the racists love and want to see more white useful idiots espouse. They LOVE that you are doing their work and spreading their word for them.
That's just reality. I speak to facts, not to motivations. I don't care if your intentions are to piss out daisies, what you are doing is making the case for racists, making their work for them.
Useful idiots and damned liars.
You haven’t so far, but I challenge you to find one specific example of my supporting a racist for their views on race.
I HAVE done so. YOUR words insinuating that BLM is causing billions of dollars of destruction and are committing acts of violence serves to attempt to make white people scared of black people, of BLM, of liberals... the racists think you doing this work for them will help them start a race war.
That you don't see what is gobsmackingly obvious doesn't mean I haven't given you examples. It just means you've blinded yourself to human decency, honesty, integrity and morality. And reason.
Craig... So you want to insinuate racism, but don’t have the balls to man up and say it.
This is so much nonsense. I don't care if, in his heart of hearts, Marshal and you truly hate black people, as a group. If you do and keep it to yourselves, go for it.
What I DO care about and what truly good and rational people should care about is this: Are these people promoting fear of black people, BLM, liberals, the media, Democrats, etc? Are these people doing the work of racists who want to start a race war.
And you all are doing that, with your words. A truly loving person with the best of intentions who unintentionally/ignorantly being played as useful idiots by idiots like Trump and other racists is STILL causing harm.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that.
Dan,
You keep failing to produce evidence of your claims, which renders them highly unlikely to be facts, and less likely to be reality. You keep calling people liars, with no evidence of lies.
Prove your claims or retract them. Why should I allow you to slander me at my own blog?
Art,
Remember when the DFL habitually bitched about how evil money in politics was? I guess that’s changed. 143 million for a losing senate candidate. Not impressive.
Even if Biden squeaks this our because of mail in ballots in DFL strongholds, this is no mandate or blue wave, and we’ll have gridlock for the next 2 years.
Dan,
My words “insinuating” that BLM has done billions or dollars of damage demonstrate nothing of the sort.
1. I’ve been clear that I’m using BLM as an umbrella to refer to the aggregation of people who’ve flocked to their banner and caused destruction since 2014.
2. As I was looking something up, I realized that multiple news stories in multiple outlets refer to the riots/protests as “BLM” events.
3. Even if my pointing out the reality that BLM and the destruction unleashed on primarily black neighborhoods since 2014 are inextricably linked, does in some tangential way align with some alleged racist, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that every one of the riots since 2014 is connected to BLM.
4. Why is it a shock that “trained Marxists” are following Marx’s playbook and engaging in violent revolt?
5. This guilt by association is simply a bunch of bullshit. You know you can’t use my actual words to prove your point, so you concoct some fanciful connection to some vaguely defined, unidentifiable group that you can cram me into without actually having to acknowledge reality.
"1. White supremacists in white nationalists and other anti-government conservatives aligned with them are racist."
I'd agree that it's reasonable to characterize the first two as "racist", but as for the third, you'd have to provide proof.
"2. These groups of idiots want other white people to be afraid of black people in general and BLM specifically. They want the White population to not trust black people or BLM, to think that they are violent rioters and dangerous."
This nay or may not generally be true, but who cares what a small number of fringe idiots think. It's not like they have any significant influence outside their compounds or are a significant voice in public policy. Furthermore, as US citizens they are welcome to freely express their ideas (repugnant as they are), and if they want to band together on their private property and engage in legal activities, why does anyone care? If they do engage in illegal activities, as you've pointed out, LE is watching them and dealing with them as necessary.
"3. They want this because they hope to start a race war and kill off a bunch of black people and establish a white supremacist United States, or at least individual white states."
If you want to obsess on the rantings of some fringe wackos, you go right ahead. I suspect that there are likely some fringe black groups that would like to do something similar. The difference is that I don't obsess over them, and don't try to paint you with the broad brush because of some possible similarities in your beliefs.
"4. When you pass on stupidly false claims about black people and black lives matter and liberals, you foment fear and distrust of these groups. This is what racists want to see happen."
What specific objectively "stupidly false" claim are you talking about? FYI, your straw man about "BLM specifically ordered damage" or whatever your unhinged brain has conjured up has already been dealt with. Maybe instead of using BLM as shorthand for those involved, I'll just use the term "Biden supporters" or "liberals".
"5. Thus, you are lending aid and support to idiot racists who are traitors who want to kill and destroy and overthrow the country. You are very literally supporting their cause by your action. I don't know what about that you are having a hard time understanding. You are supporting plans of violent racists and traitors."
This is simply literally false and you can't provide any evidence of this at all. Your chain of broad brush, assumption driven, random similarities, intended to achieve guilt by perceived association is in no way representative of any actual objective fact.
Just a quick list of a few of the 66,000+ items that demonstrate that identifying the riots as being associated with BLM is and has been fairly common and is certainly not unusual.
"Local protests began in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area of Minnesota before quickly spreading nationwide and to over 2,000 cities and towns in over 60 countries in support of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.[11][12][13] Polls in summer 2020 estimated that between 15 million and 26 million people had participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making the protests the largest in U.S. history. Protests have continued as of October 2020."
Wikipedia
https://rmx.news/article/article/antifa-and-blm-riots-in-us-caused-between-1-2-billion-in-damage-insurance-companies-report
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/16/study-up-to-95-percent-of-2020-u-s-riots-are-linked-to-black-lives-matter/
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/blm-antifa-far-left-promise-rioting-if-trump-wins/
https://nypost.com/2020/09/13/more-voters-classify-blm-unrest-as-riots-rather-than-protests-poll/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQAXjcEFdDY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQAXjcEFdDY
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/24/i-was-a-civil-rights-activist-in-the-1960s-but-its-hard-for-me-to-get-behind-black-lives-matter/
https://www.fayobserver.com/story/opinion/letters/2020/09/28/breonna-taylor-protests-riots-mindless-based-big-lie/3532178001/
A link to several opportunities for you to interact with black Christians who disagree with your rose colored view of BLM, for you to ignore.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5wb2RjYXN0bWlycm9yLmNvbS9qdXN0LXRoaW5raW5nLXBvZGNhc3Q=
Craig...
"Local protests began in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area of Minnesota before quickly spreading nationwide and to over 2,000 cities and towns in over 60 countries in support of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.[11][12][13] Polls in summer 2020 estimated that between 15 million and 26 million people had participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making the protests the largest in U.S. history. Protests have continued as of October 2020."
So? Protest are good. The protesters are doing the hard work of saving this nation from racist who the FBI identifies as a serious threat. The protesters are not a serious threat. The protesters are the heroes. What about this are you failing to understand? Have you listened to dr. King? Have you listened to your civics class? Protest are good, American, patriotic, Christian. That you continue to try to conflate the protests - which are something like 99% peaceful - with violence or looting is the problem. That is doing the work of racists. What about this are you failing to understand?
If you doubt or are ignorant of the fact that the protests are largely peaceful and that BLM is working hard to keep them peaceful, perhaps you should not speak from a place of utter profane ignorance.
Craig... "If you want to obsess on the rantings of some fringe wackos, you go right ahead. I suspect that there are likely some fringe black groups that would like to do something similar."
So who cares what friends groups think and do? Are you serious? Do you truly not know the answer to that question?
The FBI Carol's. Homeland Security Carol's. Law enforcement agencies care. Experts on security care. Scholars care. Justice organizations care. Reasonable people who are opposed to the oppression of others care.
We've been over all this before.
The experts identify white supremacists - these so-called Fringe elements that you reference - as a great threat to life and Liberty of people here in the US.
The experts do NOT consider BLM or antifa to be a serious threat.
BLM and antifa are not out there plotting race Wars. Conservative white nationalists are.
We are concerned about the group that does a threat, not about the group that is not a threat. What about the experts warnings in good basic reason are you failing to understand?
I get it, in your tiny little brain controlled by fear and partisan biases, you believe on your own that BLM or liberals or antifa are a threat. But just because that's in your cowardly little brain does not make it reality.
Do you acknowledge that the experts do not identify BLM as a threat? Do you acknowledge the reality that the experts do identify white supremacists as a threat?
"So? Protest are good."
Other than you (intentionally?) missing the point, no one is suggesting that "protests" are inherently bad. What is being suggested is that when a BLM protest (and those involved) moves from protest to riot, that it's reasonable to connect the two events.
"The protesters are doing the hard work of saving this nation from racist who the FBI identifies as a serious threat."
Bullshit. The protestors are protesting police misconduct and the "systemic racism" embedded in cities governed by democrats. They aren't doing a damn thing about these fringe "white supremacist" groups. What a load of crap.
"The protesters are not a serious threat. The protesters are the heroes."
Tell that to the people who lost ho,es and business along Lake Street. Tell that to the mothers who couldn't buy food for their infants because the stores are all looted and burned. You're right. The thugs who ran out of Chicago/Lake Liqueur store with cases of Colt 45 under each arm are damn heros, fighting the battle against "white supremacists".
"What about this are you failing to understand?"
Not a damn thing.
"Have you listened to dr. King?"
Yes.
"Have you listened to your civics class? Protest are good, American, patriotic, Christian. "
Really, you are really claiming that my civics class would have taught me that protests are "Christian"? How absurd. But please, tell me where Jesus instructed His followers that protests are an important Christian doctrine?
"That you continue to try to conflate the protests - which are something like 99% peaceful - with violence or looting is the problem. That is doing the work of racists. What about this are you failing to understand?"
That, I'm doing what is commonly done in the media (linking the riots to the BLM cause), is simply a shorthand. The problem is that you've chosen to devalue my lived experience and try to impose your unsupported hunches on others by labeling them "reality".
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that I've made this distinction for years, and that you've chosen your straw man over what I've actually said, tells me that you couldn't give a shit how I answer your questions, you're going to twist anything I say (more likely make shit up out of whole cloth) anyway.
"So who cares what friends groups think and do? Are you serious? Do you truly not know the answer to that question?"
What question? Do you not understand the concept of singular and plural?
If you mean something like, "Am I as concerned about the specific beliefs and actions of the 14 rednecks who wanted to kidnap Whitmer and kill Trump, as I am about thousands of rioters and looters who are threatening more of the same if they don't get there way.", then no I'm not. As you continually harp on and on about, federal and state LE are aware of, watching, and arresting these groups when the break the law. Further, since you haven't provide any "data" that isn't horribly unbalanced. there's really no way to rationally compare. I'll say this, when these "white supremacists" can put together tens of thousands of people and start doing damage, then I'll worry a little more.
"The FBI Carol's. Homeland Security Carol's. Law enforcement agencies care. Experts on security care. Scholars care. Justice organizations care. Reasonable people who are opposed to the oppression of others care."
Then you've ignored what I've said. I'm not saying I don't care, or that LE shouldn't be actively monitoring these fringe groups. I am saying that the risk to me/my family/and my friends from a BLM protest/riot is much higher and more immediate that from a bunch of rednecks in the MI woods. Your problem is that you aren't interested in admitting that it's possible to be concerned about multiple potential threats at the same time and to prioritize them.
"We've been over all this before."
You mean that you can't provide any apples to apples data to prove your case, yes we have.
"The experts identify white supremacists - these so-called Fringe elements that you reference - as a great threat to life and Liberty of people here in the US."
The "experts", blah, blah, blah, same old pablum with no specifics.
"The experts do NOT consider BLM or antifa to be a serious threat."
Really? Look at video of what ANTIFA's been doing in Portland. Just because the mayor and LE in Portland allow them to rampage at will, I'm guessing that those near the rampage might feel threatened. Tell the mothers who can't by food that some unidentified "white supremacist" group is more of a threat that those drawn to the BLM riots. I'm sure they'll be reassured that "the experts" don't see lack of access to food and housing as a threat.
"BLM and antifa are not out there plotting race Wars. Conservative white nationalists are."
If you can't provide objective proof, then stop saying this. Of course, when ANTIFA or BLM folks show up to a "peaceful protest" in armor, they aren't prepared for war.
"We are concerned about the group that does a threat, not about the group that is not a threat. What about the experts warnings in good basic reason are you failing to understand?"
Nothing. I completely understand that you haven't quantified the actual threat/damage/harm done by the "two sides" over a comparable time period which makes your comparison pointless. I completely understand that you repeating some unsupported crap doesn't make it "reality".
"I get it, in your tiny little brain controlled by fear and partisan biases, you believe on your own that BLM or liberals or antifa are a threat. But just because that's in your cowardly little brain does not make it reality."
That is quite the impressive job of stringing together multiple lies. The fact that you can't live up to the standards you expect of others makes you a hypocrite. The fact that you call me a liar with no basis to do so, while lying about me, makes your a lying hypocrite.
"Do you acknowledge that the experts do not identify BLM as a threat?"
Really, are you suggesting that the "experts" make plans and contingencies to deploy LEO, and National Guard troops for something that isn't a threat? Do you believe that the "experts" would advocate proactively erecting barricades, plywood on windows, and other precautions against something that isn't a "threat"? I'd argue that the local experts up here are actively preparing for the threat (already verbalized) of a violent response to the outcome for the trials around the Floyd killing. Hell, do you not realize that the "No Justice, No Peace" chant is by definition a threat?
"Do you acknowledge the reality that the experts do identify white supremacists as a threat?"
Sure, there are some "experts" who do. Are you aware that there are other threats as well?
For example. What's a greater threat to the average person in urban Chicago? Is it a "race war" or getting shot by some random gang banger?
Let's start with your false equivalence in focusing only on deaths, not on any other type of harm.
But, let's look at the risk of death from "white supremacists" compared to other things.
The bast I can tell the highest number of deaths in a year from "white supremacists" (Yhe article didn't specify what they meant by "white supremacist", or give any details of the deaths. They also weren't specific about deaths per specific year.) at 66.
A quick check of publicly available data shows that at least 722 people have been murdered in Chicago, Minneapolis, and St Paul from January 1 through the end of October.
Please tell me, for the average person, is the threat of death greater from "white supremacists" or "the field"?
If you compare that total amount of harm (injury, damage, homelessness, lack of access to groceries, destruction of business, destruction of public property, etc) to the deaths from "white supremacists" since 2014, what is the greater risk to the average person?
Finally, when counting "white supremacist" deaths shouldn't statistics only count those deaths where their "white supremacy" was the primary reason for the murder?
Dan, Craig...
"Do you acknowledge that the experts do not identify BLM as a threat?"
Really, are you suggesting that the "experts" make plans and contingencies to deploy LEO, and National Guard troops for something that isn't a threat?"
They are there in some cases because some RIOTERS might pose some threat. But they are reasonable and do not conflate rioters with BLM. Unlike you. And so, I repeat...
"Do you acknowledge that the experts do not identify BLM as a threat?"
Asked and answered. The fact that the answer doesn’t please you, isn’t my concern. Especially given your lack of proof, answers, honesty, or civility.
Dammit, I had to use the Molotov cocktail gas to mow the leaves this afternoon. I need to fill the can again. Thank goodness I had enough to finish the yard. I wasn’t going to be able to go to the protest if I didn’t get the leaves done.
"Bullshit. The protestors are protesting police misconduct and the "systemic racism" embedded in cities governed by democrats. They aren't doing a damn thing about these fringe "white supremacist" groups. What a load of crap.".
And yet this doesn't tell the whole story of the racism of BLM. They "protest" against a fiction...that white racist cops are targeting black people, and they hold up the deaths of thugs whose own actions led to their own demise to make their false case. They "protest" against a system they can't prove is responsible for the sad state of the black community, and certainly not more responsible than the actions and choices of those in that community. If anyone's stoking a race war, it's BLM for constantly promoting a false narrative that pits one race against another. As such, if anyone is provoking actual white supremacists to welcome a race war, it's the very people Dan defends because of the lies they tell.
So, even if these BLM "protests" didn't descend into riots, destruction of property and assaults by those who now feel justified because of that false narrative promoted by BLM, there's still the false narrative they promote.
Protests are fine. Protesting fiction and insisting the fiction is reality is not. Dan favors falsehood over reality. One might sympathize with a group, but to do nothing to correct the false pretenses under which they operate is to be complicit in the lie they tell...which Dan does eagerly, because he's no Christian.
Dan hangs his pointy hat on what he says the experts say about who is or isn't a threat. To him it means the experts are correct. Given the destruction and intimidation and assaults on cops, the "experts" are incorrect.
I’d suggest that the value of experts to Dan is determined by whether or not they agree with him.
Speaking of living in a fantasy world, to the extent that “white supremacists” are a thing, I suspect that most of them live in a fantasy world where they can overthrow the government or purify the white race. They think that once they start that people will flock to their cause. Of course they’re just as delusional as Dan.
Saying that systemic racism is a "fiction" is ALSO what the racists and the traitorous anti-government white boys say and want other useful idiots to say.
Playing right into the hands of the racists.
At least y'all are consistent.
Much to your shame.
When I’ve done research on the numbers of “white supramacist” groups the thing that strikes me is the fact that every attempt to come up with a number, ends up with estimates and guesses based on numbers of “hate crimes” and the like. It seems as if this is another instance of a term that means pretty much anything anyone wants. Even the fact that Dan can’t come up with one term, demonstrates that.
Again, no one disputes that there are “white supremacist” groups, but this obsession with such a small number of people, who really don’t seem to be able to connect specific groups to specific acts.
I’ve repeatedly said that these groups should be investigated, prosecuted, and punished as appropriate. Yet somehow that gets twisted into me supporting these fringe idiots and all sorts of lies.
I've read about how supremacist crimes are inflated so as to present them as worse than they are. One "hate crime" involving the shooting of one racist by another over a woman. Nothing at all racist about it, but it was added to the list of racist acts perpetrated by racists. There were other examples like it, and each one diminishes the notion they're a real threat greater than, say, black dudes killing each other in Chicago.
Do you recognize and acknowledge that the FBI identifies conservative white extremists (and there are multiple terms because there are multiple similar groups, mainly unified by an extreme conservative and anti-gov't philosophy, oftentimes racist, but not always... also united by hatred for the media, progressives, Democrats, Rinos, etc) as the largest threat to national security... a larger threat than Muslim extremists?
That IS the report over the last several years from the FBI and Homeland Security. I'm just asking you if you recognize that reality? Do you need the links again?
And I'm asking you if you recognize that while the FBI has identified white nationalists as the major threat in the US, they have NOT identified BLM or Antifa as a major threat? They have not pointed to those loose groups and said, "These types are a threat to national security" in the same way they have identified white extremists as a threat? That has not happened in reality, I'm just checking to see if you recognize that reality?
Are you NOT aware that these conservative groups have often identified "starting a race war" as part of their "strategy..." and that maligning demonizing and attacking BLM and other perceived liberal groups is part of that strategy? Do you need links for this? If you're ignorant of these realities, I can provide links (again), but you need to tell me that you're ignorant of it.
Assuming you are at least now aware that starting a race war and encouraging distrust and demonization of BLM is part of their strategy... If YOU are also fostering distrust of BLM by blaming them (with NO evidence) for billions of dollars of damage, do you not see that you are aiding the cause of these extremist traitors?
Also, yes, more people are killed by individuals killing for a wide variety of unrelated reasons than have been killed by these groups of conservatives. And those lives are, of course, important as well. But those are just isolated and unrelated incidents. The reason that the experts identify white extremists as a threat is because they are an ideological GROUP(s) that is actively posing threats to our safety in the US, plotting overthrow, trying to instigate race wars, infiltrating protests to foment violence and blame it on BLM to further their goal of a race war.
And more lives are taken by auto wrecks (by far) than by random murders. But the FBI doesn't identify "cars" as a threat, because there is not an ideological and organized threat by the "car enemy." So, you're comparing apples to oranges when you raise the "more deaths happen in the cities!" canard as a way to defend the racists/white supremacists.
Again: Hundreds killed by conservative white extremists. ZERO killed by BLM.
Who is the greater threat?
cont'd...
From DHS (from Trump's DHS):
"However, I am particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists who have been exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent, targeted attacks in recent years"
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf
And, from the NY Times, reporting on this same DHS report...
" The Department of Homeland Security warned on Tuesday that violent white supremacy was the
“most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland”
in an annual assessment"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/us/politics/homeland-security-white-supremacists-russia.html
And from Congressional hearings on reports from both the FBI and DHS...
"One message came through loud and clear at that hearing:
White supremacists today constitute the most significant threat
of domestic terror in the United States"
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg36828/html/CHRG-116hhrg36828.htm
And a report from NPR about the FBI's report on white nationalists...
"FBI Director Christopher Wray says the agency has made hate-fueled violence a top national security priority, on par with foreign terrorist groups such as ISIS."
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/10/804616715/fbi-announces-that-racist-violence-is-now-equal-priority-to-foreign-terrorism
and this...
"FBI arrests two white supremacists who planned a race war..."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/11/10/fbi-arrest-2-white-supremacists-who-planned-race-war
And I could go on and on, but if you are as informed as I would hope you are, you know all this already. Hell, I've talked about it and cited these reports multiple times... how could you NOT know about it? Unless you're deliberately closing your eyes and playing down the threat posed by conservative white extremists...?
Craig...
"Again, no one disputes that there are “white supremacist” groups, but this obsession with such a small number of people, who really don’t seem to be able to connect specific groups to specific acts."
Do you think that the FBI is "obsessed" with "such a small number..." of killers and potential killers? Do you think you are in a better place to assess the threat posed by white extremists?
Just to address an earlier comment: I cite the FBI and NSA because they are experts, but also because they tend to be pretty conservative, historically. These are the people who gave grief to and spied upon MLK and all "those hippy peace protesters" over the years... who have tended to be pretty law and order. And if CONSERVATIVE leaning experts like those in law enforcement/fbi identify white nationalists as a threat, maybe you all should take it seriously as they do.
Before I start into another round of answering questions and responding to specific points, I'll note that Dan hasn't answered virtually any questions he's been asked, hasn't provided proof of multiple claims, and hasn't apologized for his multiple lies.
"Do you recognize and acknowledge that the FBI identifies conservative white extremists (and there are multiple terms because there are multiple similar groups, mainly unified by an extreme conservative and anti-gov't philosophy, oftentimes racist, but not always... also united by hatred for the media, progressives, Democrats, Rinos, etc) as the largest threat to national security... a larger threat than Muslim extremists?"
Proof and context, please. I recognize that you keep making claims and don't offer proof.
"That IS the report over the last several years from the FBI and Homeland Security. I'm just asking you if you recognize that reality? Do you need the links again?"
What links? The only link I've seen uses data from as far back as 1994.
"And I'm asking you if you recognize that while the FBI has identified white nationalists as the major threat in the US, they have NOT identified BLM or Antifa as a major threat?"
All I can say is that I recognize that you've made this claim. I'll note the obvious, that just because the FBI doesn't identify something as a threat, doesn't mean that it's not a threat. Of course, you haven't explained what you mean by "threat" either. Your problem is that you refuse to understand that I am not saying that WS aren't a threat, I'm saying that it's possible that more than one thing can be a threat.
"They have not pointed to those loose groups and said, "These types are a threat to national security" in the same way they have identified white extremists as a threat? That has not happened in reality, I'm just checking to see if you recognize that reality?""
Please stop asking the same question multiple times in a row. Also, please reference my previous answers to similar questions before you repeat yourself.
"Are you NOT aware that these conservative groups have often identified "starting a race war" as part of their "strategy..." and that maligning demonizing and attacking BLM and other perceived liberal groups is part of that strategy? Do you need links for this? If you're ignorant of these realities, I can provide links (again), but you need to tell me that you're ignorant of it."
Yes, please provide proof of you claims. Of course, no one is arguing that there aren't crazy people out there or that they aren't a threat. If you weren't so intent on ignoring the actual carnage inflicted by those who share your political bent.
"Assuming you are at least now aware that starting a race war and encouraging distrust and demonization of BLM is part of their strategy... If YOU are also fostering distrust of BLM by blaming them (with NO evidence) for billions of dollars of damage, do you not see that you are aiding the cause of these extremist traitors?"
Nope.
"Also, yes, more people are killed by individuals killing for a wide variety of unrelated reasons than have been killed by these groups of conservatives. And those lives are, of course, important as well. But those are just isolated and unrelated incidents. The reason that the experts identify white extremists as a threat is because they are an ideological GROUP(s) that is actively posing threats to our safety in the US, plotting overthrow, trying to instigate race wars, infiltrating protests to foment violence and blame it on BLM to further their goal of a race war."
OK, it's good to know that you understand the relative danger, even if you do minimize the carnage in our DFL ruled cities and over emphasize this tiny number of WS.
"Again: Hundreds killed by conservative white extremists. ZERO killed by BLM."
Let's start with my repeating that "threat" isn't limited to only being killed.
Let's add to that the reality that you artificially limiting the "risk" to only "official BLM", as absurd.
Then let's acknowledge that if BLM organizes a protest, and those same protesters begin to riot, that BLM isn't absolved of responsibility once the situation changes.
According to your link, these WS groups have killed less than 400 people since 1994. That's hardly the scourge you paint it out to be.
Finally, let's acknowledge that I have repeatedly condemned these WS groups, called for them to be investigated, changed, and prosecuted, as appropriate, yet you still keep yammering on. I wonder what would motivate you to beat this particular dead horse.
"Who is the greater threat?"
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by greater threat. Personally, I would say that the likelihood of BLM supporters rioting when the trial of the cops doesn't go the way they want is 100%, while the likelihood of a WS group overthrowing the government (ANY GOVERNMENT) in the same time period is closer to 0%. Do I think that the threat of a bunch of small, unconnected WS groups, with a total number (by one estimate of 25,000) of less than 200,000 overthrowing the government is high? Not particularly.
The problem is that the term "greater threat", is so vague as to be meaningless.
Greater threat to who?
Greater threat of what?
Greater threat during what time period?
I took a look back at the original post, and realized that this entire line of horse beating has no connection to anything in the the original post. This, as usual when you get so determined to drive a conversation down some unrelated detour, raises the question of why. What do you gain by repeating the same unproven claims? What do you gain by trying to force me to agree with you on something of so little consequence, and on which I've repeatedly agreed? what do you gain by trying to minimize, explain away, and excuse the carnage that's been spawned by BLM and ANTIFA?
What do you gain by this twisting of facts, reality and truth?
I have no idea.
Oh, you finally offer links.
I'll note that for someone who holds Trump and his entire administration in the absolute lowest possible esteem, it seems a bit hypocritical for you to cherry pick this one instance to elevate them to the position of divine oracle.
The thread that I see on a quick perusal is that the "threat" is always qualified or limited.
I also find it absurd that you consider "two" WS a greater threat than tens.hundreds of thousands of violent rioters.
The reality is that federal and state LE are aware of and actively pursuing this threat, as well they should be. Yet the existence of this one "threat" doesn't negate the reality that other threats exist. That "lethal" and "threat" aren't synonymous. It certainly doesn't mean that BLM and ANTIFA are absolved from responsibility for the actions of those they mobilize.
But anyone with half a brain knows that the existence of one threat, doesn't negate the existence of other threats. You just somehow think that obsessing on a threat that federal and state LE are focused on and successfully prosecution, provides cover for ignoring other things. It seems strange that much of the "random" killing in DFL controlled cities is the work of gangs. We know that 643 people were murdered in Chicago in the first 10 months of 2020 alone. According to a Chicago Police study the majority of murders in Chicago are gang related. So, if we're generous, that means that 322 of the 2020 Chicago murders were committed by organized gangs. Police estimate that there are over 600 known, organized gangs in Chicago alone. That sounds to me like gangs are a pretty significant threat. How many people were killed by organized WS groups, with the killings motivated by racism, in 2020? If this threat is so severe, you should be able to produce that number quickly.
How many actual coups or race wars have happened since 2014?
How many riots associated with BLM or ANTIFA supporters?
Finally, I know you ignored this earlier, but the criteria around labeling something the work of WS groups, and in estimating the numbers of those groups seems a bit imprecise to me. Extrapolating numbers from subjective reporting of data, may be the only option, but it's certainly not precise. This doesn't even take into account the numbers of "false" reports of "racist" threats or actions.
But none of that will matter to you because you've made your decision and noting will convince you that there are any other options.
"Do you think that the FBI is "obsessed" with "such a small number..." of killers and potential killers?"
No, I think that LE has the capability to deal with multiple threats and investigate/prosecute/convict as appropriate. I think that you are obsessed with this because it diverts attention from the carnage, and threats of carnage, from folks on your side. You need some "conservative" bogyman to obsess over.
"Do you think you are in a better place to assess the threat posed by white extremists?"
In some ways maybe. Anyone with a fifth grade education can realize that of the threats to the average black person (specifically in MPLS) is higher from the coming riots and from gang violence, than from WS. But, I've never claimed that I was.
"Just to address an earlier comment: I cite the FBI and NSA because they are experts, but also because they tend to be pretty conservative, historically. These are the people who gave grief to and spied upon MLK and all "those hippy peace protesters" over the years... who have tended to be pretty law and order."
Do you mean the same FBI that fell for the bogus Steele dossier and diverted millions of dollars, and thousands of man hours into investigating it instead of focusing on the bigger threat of WS?
Where your idiocy comes through is by ignoring the fact that I'm not suggesting that LE ignore WS groups to focus on the BLM/ANTIFA carnage. In reality most of the BLM/ANTIFA carnage is going to be dealt with on the state and local level anyway. The fact that you continue to try to play this "guilt by perceived association" game is absurd and dishonest. The fact that you frame any criticism of BLM/ANTIFA as the equivalent of joing a WS group is a pathetic attempt to hide from asking reasonable, if difficult, questions about both groups.
I've given you links to hear what some black Christians say about BLM, yet you've ignored them repeatedly. I've asked you for specific numbers to make an apples to apples comparison and I haven't found them yet.
If you want to keep beating this dead horse, feel free, but you've made it clear that your goal is to force your opinions on others, and I'm fine with thinking for myself.
"Saying that systemic racism is a "fiction" is ALSO what the racists and the traitorous anti-government white boys say and want other useful idiots to say."
The issue isn't who says it. The issue is whether or not it's true. It is not. At least not to any extent that it impedes the abilities of truly motivated people of color to succeed in this nation, pretty much anywhere in any endeavor.
More importantly, if this objection was aimed at my comments, I can't find where I spoke of "systemic racism". Where I mentioned "fiction" was as follows in complete context:
"They "protest" against a fiction...that white racist cops are targeting black people, and they hold up the deaths of thugs whose own actions led to their own demise to make their false case. They "protest" against a system they can't prove is responsible for the sad state of the black community, and certainly not more responsible than the actions and choices of those in that community."
So, even if you wish to claim the second sentence was your source, it doesn't say "systemic racism" is a fiction, but it speaks of using that term to cover for that which in which it plays no role.
But distorting what I've said is the routine now, as our discussion at your blog clearly proves. I'll be pointing that out there later on. I'm sure you'll be deleting it.
Art,
I think it'd foolish to claim that there is absolutely zero "systemic racism" or that the effects of previous racism aren't currently felt. Yet, that acknowledgement doesn't eliminate to problems with the current "systemic racism" notions.
It's clear and obvious that the Truth of anything is exponentially more important than the source. The problem with the systemic racism folx is that they take any statistical deviation between "races" and automatically attribute that to "systemic racism". For example are black IQ scores lower than white, if so then the answer must be "systemic racism". It also presumes that the remnants of past racist policies are de facto proof of current "institutional racism". I've seen some really good information on this from Wilfred Reilly. He makes the point that simply basing things on assumptions is a waste of time. I'd check him out. It doesn't help that many of these differences between races aren't consistent with in the minority race in question.
The other problem with the "systemic racism", is that if clearly fails to account for who controls and administers the racist system. Most of the "systemic racism" that is protested against is found at the local government level (city/county) as opposed to on the federal level. I'd argue that FDR's enshrinement of racism in home lending is probably the best example of racism at the federal level that has lingering effects today. To the extent that the issues with police misconduct are racially driven (again something assumed, but not proven), this is virtually only seen at the local level. This raises the question of where the protests and riots should be directed, and who is responsible for the systems that are racist. That's a question that doesn't seem to be asked very often, and it's hard to have a serious discussion when one side is threatening violence if they don't get their way.
Finally, this notion of ignoring role of personal responsibility while imputing responsibility to third parties (assumed, not proven) is seemingly damaging and counterproductive.
One last thought on personal responsibility.
One other insidious result of the rush to pin everything on "systemic racism" is that it removes responsibility from the individual within the system.
If Bob the cop is a virulent racist, because he was raised by virulent racists, (and kills someone on duty because of his personal racism) then shouldn't the responsibility lie with Bob not the system? You could argue that the system should weed racists out, but some people are incredibly good at hiding things.
There has to be a way to get past blaming everything on the system without proof of racism and without absolving the individuals that make up the system of responsibility for their actions.
Well, to insist that systemic racism still exists in any way, versus insisting it doesn't to any extent that inhibits the truly determined is two different things. I would suggest that racism is inherent in those policies intended to diminish it...like affirmative action, which is clearly racist. College admissions by quota is racist. But like these two examples, I can't think of any current system that doesn't promote the black community as opposed to restricting them. But beyond it all, the notion is used as an excuse. That's reality whether the master of reality, Dan Trabue, wants to accept it or not.
Marshal... "like affirmative action, which is clearly racist. College admissions by quota is racist."
That people like you don't understand the definition of racism is part of the problem.
Craig... "There has to be a way to get past blaming everything on the system without proof of racism and without absolving the individuals that make up the system of responsibility for their actions."
That people like you don't understand the meaning of "systemic racism" is part of the problem.
And using the term to define itself, isn’t helpful. But thanks for that astute observation.
As is typical of leftists, altering definitions for convenience only validates the leftists as the liars they're known to be. I'm perfectly aware of the definition of what racism is and of what systemic racism is supposed to be.
"But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard."
It occurred to me that Dan used the above quote from MLK JR. to rationalize the destructive and unjustified rioting of BLM activists in response to the lie of black men being unjustly killed by racist cops. At the same time, he dares calls militia groups cowards, and mocks the notion of a "civil war" by the right who are not simply unheard, but purposely stifled by leftist forces in media, social media and elsewhere. I would suggest that when the right gets so fed up over not being heard, they will be unstoppable, yet won't be destroying property, intimidating restaurant patrons, assaulting those wearing hats with left-leaning messages or burning squad cars. That's leftist, "progressive" behavior.
This comment is purposely posted at another thread.
That’s an interesting thought. At what point does a protest become a riot (or protesters rioters), and at what point does a riot become or equate to a rebellion? Is a violent uprising against a government system, especially one intended to replace or dissolve a governmental entity a protest, a riot, or a rebellion?
I’m sure all the right wing rioting we’ve seen over the last two nights will be.... Oh, never mind.
Now that Biden’s been proclaimed the winner, and the plywood starts to come down from the windows, what does that say about which side was feared?
Post a Comment