" with Trump literally promising to pay for legal fees for conservatives at his rallies to assault reporters or protesters."
While ignoring Kamala Harris shilling for donations to an organization that was literally getting rioters out of jail after the burning of Lake Street.
It's OK for libs, not for Trump. It's horrible when Trump says he'll do something, not horrible when libs actually do something.
14 comments:
While ignoring Kamala Harris shilling for donations to an organization that was literally getting rioters out of jail after the burning of Lake Street.
When you post these vague, unsupported allegations, it's just about meaningless except as another empty attack against political opponents.
But by all means, show me where Veep Harris asked for donations specifically to get arsonists out of jail? Do you recognize the reality, the distinction that MANY people were arrested during those months who were NOT violent or arsonists? That Harris may (almost certainly) supported getting peaceful protesters bond money raised, but that doesn't mean she supported arson or violence?
Empty allegations are the tool of useful idiots of a fearmongering pervert prince telling his useful idiots what to believe and how high they should jump.
Don't be a tool for a dangerous idiot.
WHEN you refer to some specific situation, provide support for any claims you make.
Otherwise, it will come across as just another bit of empty fearmongering by the modern "conservative" movement.
On the other hand, Trump LITERALLY offering to pay legal fees for violent actors... Trump LITERALLY saying he will free the Jan 6 rioters who were part of an insurrection that harmed hundreds of cops... that is a whole other matter, isn't it.
Will you not condemn HIM for such promises? Instead of making up some vague and unsupported allegations of what you think in your head that VP Harris may have done, in your imagination, why not FIRST condemn the overt and clear threats of the pervert prince you keep voting for?
First, remove the log from your own eye.
"When you post these vague, unsupported allegations, it's just about meaningless except as another empty attack against political opponents."
When you use this bullshit to pretend that a specific, well reported, event is somehow obscure it makes you look hopelessly partisan, or ignorant.
"But by all means, show me where Veep Harris asked for donations specifically to get arsonists out of jail? Do you recognize the reality, the distinction that MANY people were arrested during those months who were NOT violent or arsonists? That Harris may (almost certainly) supported getting peaceful protesters bond money raised, but that doesn't mean she supported arson or violence?"
If you can't use Google on your own to confirm a well reported fact, and if you can't bother to accurately refer to what I actually said, I just can't help you. It's either hyper partisan blindness or ignorance. When you make shit up and argue against those straw men, I just see no value in wasting my time.
"Empty allegations are the tool of useful idiots of a fearmongering pervert prince telling his useful idiots what to believe and how high they should jump."
You should know, you engage is this behavior so often.
"WHEN you refer to some specific situation, provide support for any claims you make."
You don't, why demand that I do what you refuse to do? Is the Google too challenging for you?
"Otherwise, it will come across as just another bit of empty fearmongering by the modern "conservative" movement."
From someone who's taken fearmongering to new heights recently, I can't see how referencing a well reported news story without guiding you by hand to some link from some news source that you'll acknowledge even approaches your heights of fearmongering.
"On the other hand, Trump LITERALLY offering to pay legal fees for violent actors... Trump LITERALLY saying he will free the Jan 6 rioters who were part of an insurrection that harmed hundreds of cops... that is a whole other matter, isn't it."
Well, since you missed the point, I'll spell it out for you. The issue is NOT high political figures paying legal fees. It's you getting apoplectic because Trump said he'd do something, while ignoring that fact that Harris actually DID what Trump hasn't done. It's you for your idiotic insistence that words are more significant than actions. Really "hundreds of cops". I guess you've finally realized that the "cops killed" narrative you pushed was bullshit. But your silence on the cop killing an unarmed, female, nonviolent protester just reinforces your hyper partisan bias.
"Will you not condemn HIM for such promises?"
Well, I'll take a page out of yoru playbook here and simply say that in the absence of proof of your claims, it's merely you making empty allegations about some vague and unspecified incident.
"Instead of making up some vague and unsupported allegations of what you think in your head that VP Harris may have done, in your imagination, why not FIRST condemn the overt and clear threats of the pervert prince you keep voting for?"
Well, since your ignorance, partisanship, and inability to Google have you stuck on your straw man, I'll simply not waste time with more obfuscation bullshit. It seems as though if we're talking "first" then Harris actions of 4 years ago should take priority over Trumps alleged words. I know you buy into the words and actions are equivalent, but that's because your fragile narrative demands it.
"First, remove the log from your own eye."
Again, demands that I do what you refuse to do. Thanks Mr Rationality.
I have to compliment you on your complete and total miss on the actual point of this post. In a world where you regularly miss things, this is an major achievement. But for someone who's so comfortable with living a double standard and demanding from others what you will not demand of yourself, maybe it's not so surprising that you chose to miss the point.
I don't believe Trump was suggesting that anyone go ahead and act violently without those actions being necessary to defend one's self. This is what Dan is suggesting without factual basis. Lefties were going out of their way to confront peaceful right-wing protesters, marchers or rally-goers and Trump spoke on helping out those who defended themselves.
As to Jan 6, video evidence shows how few violent actors there were, and most languishing in Washington jails were not violent or even law-breakers, but merely among many who existed in the area at the time corrupt lefty politicians and prosecutors determined for the purpose of persecuting their political opponents. Even among the violent, many if not most were incited to violence in response to unjustified actions of the Capitol police. This too is supported by video evidence as well as the testimonies of those present.
Dan works hard to project the contemptible character of his kind onto better people. He's doing it again here. In the meantime, as you stated, Harris did indeed call for donations for rioters legal defense. Dan pretends she's specifically referring to unjustly arrested people, without any evidence any of those arrested in those unjustified protests were innocent of illegal behaviors. It's the reverse of Dan's usual tactic of guilt by virtue of accusation. Here, he's suggesting there were innocent people simply because he insists arrested people were innocent.
"I don't believe Trump was suggesting that anyone go ahead and act violently without those actions being necessary to defend one's self. This is what Dan is suggesting without factual basis. Lefties were going out of their way to confront peaceful right-wing protesters, marchers or rally-goers and Trump spoke on helping out those who defended themselves."
I think that Dan heard someone say something about this topic and that he's just accepted what he heard second/third hand as gospel. He's not interested in Truth, specificity, or nuance, just in attacking Trump while excusing Harris.
"As to Jan 6, video evidence shows how few violent actors there were, and most languishing in Washington jails were not violent or even law-breakers, but merely among many who existed in the area at the time corrupt lefty politicians and prosecutors determined for the purpose of persecuting their political opponents. Even among the violent, many if not most were incited to violence in response to unjustified actions of the Capitol police. This too is supported by video evidence as well as the testimonies of those present."
Compared to the rest of the "peaceful" protests of 2020, the J6 showed almost a complete lack of violence or destruction. Only in Dan's tiny brain could he turn a couple hundred idiots running around the capitol into a bigger deal that multiple cities (including DC) on fire from leftist rioters.
"Dan works hard to project the contemptible character of his kind onto better people. He's doing it again here. In the meantime, as you stated, Harris did indeed call for donations for rioters legal defense. Dan pretends she's specifically referring to unjustly arrested people, without any evidence any of those arrested in those unjustified protests were innocent of illegal behaviors. It's the reverse of Dan's usual tactic of guilt by virtue of accusation. Here, he's suggesting there were innocent people simply because he insists arrested people were innocent."
Dan lives in a fantasy world where progressives all slavishly believe in his pollyannaish, rose colored dreams about what being progressive means. Everything bad is always the responsibility of an evil "right wing extremist". Where a couple hundred unarmed, peaceful protesters actually protesting in the right place, are much worse the cities being burned and looted in the name of criminals. It's all about slinging bullshit, fighting straw men, lying about everyone else, and demonizing anyone who disagrees.
" with Trump literally promising to pay for legal fees for conservatives at his rallies to assault reporters or protesters."
While ignoring Kamala Harris shilling for donations to an organization that was literally getting rioters out of jail after the burning of Lake Street.
And...
I have to compliment you on your complete and total miss on the actual point of this post.
? The point APPEARED to be that you believed in your head that Harris has done something worse than Trump. I've never heard of this ridiculously false accusation and I googled it and came up with nothing and, as already noted, YOU provided NOTHING in way of support for whatever it is you believe that Harris did.
So, what point am I missing exactly? That you imagine in your head that Harris has done much worse than Trump? No, I GET that is what you imagine in your head. But since YOU provided nothing by way of support for your silly little claim (and maybe it's true, I don't know, no one CAN know with out SOME reference to what in the name of all that's good and worthwhile you're talking about), then the STARTING point would be for you to clarify what you mean, what "claim" it is you think you're making that you think in your head that Harris has done that's worse than Trump actually promising to pardon the insurrectionists and people to commit crimes on his behalf.
We KNOW what Trump has done. It's common knowledge. It's out there.
What we DON'T know is whatever it is in your fevered imagination that you think Harris has done.
That's on you to make clear what it is you're speaking of.
I suspect you hang out in echo chambers (Q-anon, maybe??) where this "claim" is "common knowledge," but it's not common knowledge to me and I've tried searching.
Dan lives in a fantasy world where progressives all slavishly believe in his pollyannaish, rose colored dreams about what being progressive means. Everything bad is always the responsibility of an evil "right wing extremist". Where a couple hundred unarmed, peaceful protesters actually protesting in the right place, are much worse the cities being burned and looted in the name of criminals.
Says the man who can't point to EVEN ONE supported case of a documented liberal "burning cities" as you feverishly imagine, AT THE SAME TIME, ignoring the actually documented case of a riot by hundreds of conservatives (documented) harming hundreds of police officers (documented) in an attempt to stop/slow down an election (documented) because they didn't like the outcome because they believed in the fantasy lies of a convicted felon that the "election was stolen" when it was clearly not (documented.)
I don't know what to do with your feverish imaginations or what you pretend happens in your head or what the people in your far right echo chambers are telling you that your pervert prince has told you to believe, but I CAN point to the things above that are common knowledge and documented.
Just for one: Do you REALLY not know that dozens (sorry, I said "hundreds" earlier going by memory) of law enforcement officials were harmed in the insurrection that took place on J6?
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) believes more police officers were injured in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol than officially reported, a prosecutor said Thursday.
U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves for the District of Columbia said the attack was likely “the largest single-day, mass assault of law enforcement officers in our nation’s history.”
"One hundred and forty officers guarding the Capitol that day reported physical injury. But we know from talking to the hundreds of officers guarding the Capitol that day that this 140 number undercounts the number of officers who were physically injured, let alone those who have suffered trauma as a result of the day’s events,” said Graves, who was speaking at a press conference commemorating the third anniversary of the insurrection....
Of the convictions, 149 people have been convicted of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 41 of which have been convicted of using a deadly or dangerous weapon for causing bodily injury to an officer, he said.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4391205-prosecutor-says-many-more-police-officers-likely-injured-on-jan-6-than-reported/
Are you unaware of this or do you just not care about conservatives attacking cops?
And just to repeat: You can't/haven't pointed to ONE documented case of a liberal causing harm in the riots after the Floyd murder by police officers.
"As to Jan 6, video evidence shows how few violent actors there were, and most languishing in Washington jails were not violent or even law-breakers"
I repeat the reality, as documented in actual news reports and in actual convictions of the violent thugs arrested and convicted for causing harm:
“One hundred and forty officers guarding the Capitol that day reported physical injury. But we know from talking to the hundreds of officers guarding the Capitol that day that this 140 number undercounts the number of officers who were physically injured, let alone those who have suffered trauma as a result of the day’s events,”
...The attorney said nearly 900 people have been convicted of crimes committed on Jan. 6. Of the convictions,
149 people have been convicted of
assaulting,
resisting or
impeding officers or employees,
41 of which have been convicted of using a
deadly or dangerous weapon for causing bodily injury to an officer,
he said.
More than 80 people are still wanted and need to be identified for their acts of violence on that day, Graves said. The FBI is releasing a list of individuals most wanted.
If you think dozens of conservative extremists harming dozens of police officers is "how few violent actors there were..." I'd just have to ask how many does it need to be to raise a concern or for you to condemn them for their attacks on the free elections in our democracy and their attacks on the police?
As long as it's not TWO hundred violent rightwing fanatics, you're okay with it and write it off as "nothing..."?
Lord, have mercy.
"The point APPEARED to be that you believed in your head that Harris has done something worse than Trump. I've never heard of this ridiculously false accusation and I googled it and came up with nothing and, as already noted, YOU provided NOTHING in way of support for whatever it is you believe that Harris did."
Thank you for confirming that you missed the point. The POINT was that Trump may have talked about doing something, while Harris actually did something. Action is more significant than words. I'm sorry you're confused and unable to work Google.
"So, what point am I missing exactly?"
That focusing on Trump's words, while ignoring Harris' actions demonstrates how screwed up and blinded by partisanship you really are.
"That you imagine in your head that Harris has done much worse than Trump?"
No. It's that Trump might have talked, while Harris actually did.
"No, I GET that is what you imagine in your head. But since YOU provided nothing by way of support for your silly little claim (and maybe it's true, I don't know, no one CAN know with out SOME reference to what in the name of all that's good and worthwhile you're talking about), then the STARTING point would be for you to clarify what you mean, what "claim" it is you think you're making that you think in your head that Harris has done that's worse than Trump actually promising to pardon the insurrectionists and people to commit crimes on his behalf."
Excellent, really excellent. Dan is unable to google something that was widely reported at the time and because of his inability to find something he automatically concludes that he couldn't possibly be wrong or incapable. The pride, hubris, and level of conceit is truly impressive, and not Christlike in the least.
"We KNOW what Trump has done. It's common knowledge. It's out there."
No, we hear what you said that Trump has SAID, you've offered no proof that Trump had DONE what Harris has DONE. It's your childish desire to conflate words with actions, at the root of the problem, compounded by your blindness driven by your partisanship which leads to your casual embrace of the double standards you live by.
"That's on you to make clear what it is you're speaking of."
After the few arrests stemming from the 2020 MPLS riots, Harris shilled for a nonprofit which raised money to bail rioters out of jail, among those were people charged with violent felonies.
"I suspect you hang out in echo chambers (Q-anon, maybe??) where this "claim" is "common knowledge," but it's not common knowledge to me and I've tried searching."
That's because you always project your own situation on others, and because your pride can't accept the possibility that you could ever be wrong.
"Says the man who can't point to EVEN ONE supported case of a documented liberal "burning cities" as you feverishly imagine, AT THE SAME TIME, ignoring the actually documented case of a riot by hundreds of conservatives (documented) harming hundreds of police officers (documented) in an attempt to stop/slow down an election (documented) because they didn't like the outcome because they believed in the fantasy lies of a convicted felon that the "election was stolen" when it was clearly not (documented.)"
This notion that, in the midst of well covered and documented riots in multiple cities all of which were in the name of racial/liberal causes, all of which featured actual damage (to the tune of billions of dollars), actual harm to others, actual physical assaults on the police, the results of which (at least here) are still visible today, that the looting and burning just happened magically is absurd. As Dan is fond of pointing out, @90% of American blacks are liberal/DFL. Yet somehow Dan's fevered imagination has conjured up a scenario where thousands of American blacks rioted for extended periods of time in multiple cities, none of THOSE blacks were liberal/DFL. It's like things like statistical reality just get swept away when the Narrative needs to be protected from reality. The amount of willful blindness to pretend that the riots from 2014-present were not almost all based on left wing issues and filled with left wing rioters is staggering.
"I don't know what to do with your feverish imaginations or what you pretend happens in your head or what the people in your far right echo chambers are telling you that your pervert prince has told you to believe, but I CAN point to the things above that are common knowledge and documented."
Yes, there is planty of film of what happened J6 which belies your claims, just like there is plenty of film that documents the destruction wreaked by the left from 2014-present over multiple riots/occupations/antisemitic takeovers and the like by leftists.
"Just for one: Do you REALLY not know that dozens (sorry, I said "hundreds" earlier going by memory) of law enforcement officials were harmed in the insurrection that took place on J6?"
Harmed is such a vague and imprecise word, isn't it? It covers such a broad range of things, that it's easy to throw out "harmed" to make something seem worse than it was, isn't it? But even it that were True, how many LEO were harmed or killed from 2014-present at the various left wing riots/occupations/takeovers? How many building were burned, how many stores were looted, how much damage was done, how many immigrants lost their livelihoods?
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) believes more police officers were injured in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol than officially reported, a prosecutor said Thursday."
One more "stat" you can't actually prove.
"U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves for the District of Columbia said the attack was likely “the largest single-day, mass assault of law enforcement officers in our nation’s history.”
Repeating someone's opinion doesn't make that opinion fact, nor does it account for the carnage the left engaged in from 2014-present.
"Are you unaware of this or do you just not care about conservatives attacking cops?"
I have to hand it to you, your commitment to "The other guys did it." to excuse or ignore what the left does is impressive. Your commitment to drawing a false equivalence between the multiple riots between 2014-present from the left, and ONE mostly peaceful protest from the right is also impressive. Your blindness to the harm and destruction sowed in places like MPLS, by the left is kind of scary.
"And just to repeat: You can't/haven't pointed to ONE documented case of a liberal causing harm in the riots after the Floyd murder by police officers."
Your right. The fact that the city/state managed to do a crappy job handling, arresting, and prosecuting the rioters gives you this very convenient fig leaf to hide behind. As I said, statistics tell us that @90% of the black rioters were liberal, my experience and local knowledge tells me that 100% of the rioters I know personally were liberals, and the political makeup of the Twin Cities is overwhelmingly liberal, but that doesn't matter because no one polled the rioters as to their political affiliation. They were rioting over a liberal cause celebre, they were rioting under the "banner" of an organization that is so far left that it's principles were actual communists, but they none of this means a thing to you.
It must be interesting to live in a world where you can rationalize and wish away so much actual harm and damage on your side of the political spectrum, while obsessing and fearmongering based on so little on the right. OHHHHHHHHHHHHH, some randos on the internet said something mean and scary, we must fear every single "right wing extremist" because they might, someday< do something on 100th as bad as the string of left wing riot/occupations/takeovers from 2014-present.
I applaud the commitment it takes to blind oneself to reality in service to a Narrative.
"If you think dozens of conservative extremists harming dozens of police officers is "how few violent actors there were..." I'd just have to ask how many does it need to be to raise a concern or for you to condemn them for their attacks on the free elections in our democracy and their attacks on the police?"
Yes, I think that if one compares the "dozens" from J6, to the thousands spread across a decade from 2014-2024, and the vast difference in the amount of damage done, that the relative threat is pretty clear,
"As long as it's not TWO hundred violent rightwing fanatics, you're okay with it and write it off as "nothing..."?"
Well, when everything else fails, I guess lying about your opponent is all you have left. That's the difference between us, I quickly and consistently condemned the actions of the J6 protesters and still do. The fact that I point out the comparisons between the ONE time event of J6, and the multiple left wing riots from 2014-2024, doesn't mitigate that actual actions of those few protesters on J6. Neither does pointing out the oppressive nature of their overcharging and over sentencing.
"Lord, have mercy."
On those of your political persuasion who've wreaked havoc on American cities since 2014.
Post a Comment