When you make vague, unsourced, non specific claims like this you look like a hypocrite.
If you are referring to the attack in San Diego, that was carried out by two “trans” folx (one more “trans/“trans adjacent violent attacks of late.
Coming from someone who’s been silent on the vast amount of violence being perpetrated by Muslims in Europe and the US (let alone the legalization of involuntary child marriageable in Afghanistan) the fact that I haven’t posted on some mystery atrocity (among a multitude of other things I haven’t posted on over the holiday weekend), isn’t the evil thing you seem to think it is.
Given the recent research, which I have posted about and linked to multiple times, it’s not particularly surprising that you as a leftist have remained silent on one more instance of political violence against Trump. I guess I’m wondering how many times Trump has to be attacked before you’ll condemn it.
It's sadly a too common theme among the "progressive" left to wish death upon conservatives...or more accurately...non-"progressives". I've face such wishes against myself many times on social media during confrontations with leftists of one kind or another. Even Dan, who pretends that "his tribe" are nothing if not loving, grace-filled Christians, has on more than one occasion expressed how things will be better when those like me die off. Thus, I'm sure he'd defend himself by suggesting looking forward to some no longer existing is somehow different than wanting them to die. With this in mind, combined with his well-known hate of our president, it's not surprising he'd do and say absolutely nothing should news come about of another attempt on Donald Trump's life. At best, he'll write such attackers off as "outliers", and will regardless of how more common it might become over how common it already is.
As I noted above, and have posted about many times, the acceptance of political violence among the left is staggeringly high. It’s not a surprise that there have been multiple assassination attempts against Trump, the problem is that they don’t fit the narrative and therefore leftists don’t whale and mash their teeth about them.
re: "one more violent attack" by a "leftist..." Are you talking about the incident today where I guy claiming to be Jesus Christ was killed in a shootout with the feds? So, you're thinking Jesus is a leftist? Or you think someone who is mentally ill and delusional has partisan allegiances?
I’m speaking of the 4th or 5th attack directed at Trump in the last several years.
As noted above, the “DATA” tells us that the attacker is more likely to be a leftist, and the possibility of mental illness also points to him being a leftist. Obviously the target of the attack also points to him being a leftist.
I understand your need to divert attention from the obvious, but the topic of this post is your failure to say anything about one more attack, which left people wounded or dead, against Trump. Your silence on this, as on the vast amount of violence perpetrated by Muslims against innocent people in Europe, speaks much louder than your pathetic attempt to divert attention from yourself.
We see you ignoring the murder of innocent Muslims by people on your side. We see you ignoring the data that shows that right-wing extremist violence is the greatest threat in our nation, greater than foreign attacks and greater than left-wing attacks. We're looking at the data.
Yes now that extremists have been put in power, right-wing extremism and their violence has slowed down a little and left-wing violence has picked up a little. The point being, you remain silent when it's right-wing attacks on Muslims whereas I'm consistently opposed to all violence against all innocents.
The sheer audacity of you making these vague, unsupported claims with not confirmation from real media is absolutely freaking hilarious.
The “DATA” you worship has been debunked based on incredibly flawed methodology, but you cling to it so you can ignore the present reality.
It’s amazing how easily you blame others for your silence on the political violence against Trump specifically and conservatives in general.
Whats the most disgusting is how hard you work to ignore the political/religious violence covering Europe in addition to your silence on recent events.
Just like Dan in this thread. Push the narrative regardless of things like facts and details.
Given his vagueness I’m left to conclude that he believes that a couple of “trans” kids are magically “right wing” Islamophobes.
FWIW, if I was “trans” I’d be very concerned about how Muslim homo/“trans”phobia would harm me and might not be irrational for engaging in a preemptive attack.
It’s the old phobia hierarchy conflict. When one protected class attacks another.
Rather contradictory, isn't it? The left has been shown to approve of political violence...that "sometimes it's OK". The idea being that if one is pushing back against oppression/oppressors (ostensibly Trump), calling them Hitlerian, then to exact preemptive strikes is justified. If those who shot up the mosque were LGBTQ, then how are they not likewise justified given islam's many instances of murdering LGBTQ people? Are the muslims throwing homosexuals off of roofs somehow less oppressive?
Of course it’s contradictory, these are the same folx who turned Mangione into a folk hero and walk around in Che t-shirts and Mai caps.
This sort of contradiction is inherent in the left wing coalition where they rely on groups (Muslims/ABC folx, labor/greens) who are diametrically opposed to each other. Especially when one of those constituencies is bent on killing another.
Maybe a "Marxist Lite". It's hard to tell when so much of the ASPL wears Marxism (or Marxist icons) as a fashion statement. That they revere someone as vile and evil is Che enough to wear his face on merch, tells me that it shouldn't surprise anyone when they adapt the tactics of Che or make excuses for the Kirk shooter or Mangione.
In the face of another set of far-right extremist deadly shootings and murderers, you're going to ignore it in the first place and then engage in homophobia with an attack on trans people with your stupidly false claim? You're going from evil onto evil.
Will you retract your stupidly false claim and apologize for listening to far-right conspiracy theories and passing them on as if they were facts?
Well, we finally find out what Dan's been hinting at and his one big source doesn't actually prove what he claims t does. No where does it state unequivocally that they were not "trans" (whatever that even means now0, only that they were not a "couple". Further it makes the following claim "It’s become common after mass shootings for some social media users to spread the misleading claim that transgender people are more prone to violence than others." with no actual proof or even evidence that their representation is accurate.
Finally, the piece literally concludes by saying that they have no evidence one way or the other.
Until we actually see evidence, maybe it's premature to makes these absurd demands. As always, if I am wrong, I'll acknowledge it,
Far-right extremists remain the most persistent and deadly domestic terror threat in the US, but research from 2025 and 2026 shows a complex shifting landscape where left-wing and anti-state violence has simultaneously risen.Far-Right ExtremismThe Deadliest Threat: Historically and presently, far-right extremists (such as white supremacists and anti-government militias) are responsible for the vast majority of ideologically motivated homicides and large-scale terrorist plots in the United States.Tactical Shifts: Recent data indicates a shift away from older, highly structured groups toward decentralized networks and lone actors. Researchers note these extremists frequently target government personnel, immigration facilities, and law enforcement.Intelligence Assessment: The 2026 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (ATA) points out that white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups maintain the most persistent transnational connections with like-minded international networks.
I've posted the links to the studies multiple times, you chose to ignore that information then and now pretend like it doesn't exist.
Likewise for the recent studies showing that leftists are much more accepting of political violence than the right.
That's cool. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to spoon feed you the data I've already provided.
Based on your quote, it's almost like your sources don't differentiate between the threat of potential violent action, and actual violent action. Personally, I'd be concerned about the actual violence and about fixing the methodological problems with the data than trying to score cheap points. But that's me.
If I'm not mistaken, AI takes all it can find on a subject and reports it as is. Thus, if the vast majority of leftist sources repeat the claims about "right-wing extremism", AI will repeat those claims without dissecting it for context and accuracy.
Nonetheless, I would regard AI as a "better source" than PBS any day of the week.
I'm gonna note the obvious here. Dan is more obsessed with clinging to his narrative that to acknowledging the reality that there have been more violent attacks aimed at Trump, by leftists, than against any other recent president. Still noting denouncing these attacks. Just smoke and obfuscation.
If it'll make you happy, I will gladly condemn the mosque attack, regardless of the motives of the attackers. Just like I condemn the synagogue and church attacks over the past few years and the burning of many churches, including some very beautiful and historic buildings, in Europe, the US, and Canada. I'll go further and harshly condemn the large scale massacres of Christians in Africa and the Middle East.
In recent years, the United States has seen an increase in the number of left-wing terrorism attacks and plots, although such violence has risen from very low levels and remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers. So far, 2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing terrorist attacks outnumber those from the violent far right. Despite its decline this year, right-wing terrorism could easily return to previous high levels.
Took a quick look at this link until about three paragraphs in it mentioned "right-wing" violence in the same breath as "jihadist" violence, as if they're two birds of a feather. I didn't bother studying it any further knowing full well that Dan likely didn't even read it beyond the title.
It IS awful that left-wing violence increased so much last year in light of this administration's attacks on human rights for so many. That does NOT excuse the violence nor does it excuse y'all ignoring the data for all the other years before this year.
Will you unequivocally condemn the right-wing violence and acknowledge that, yes, of course, the data shows that right-wing violence has been much, much, much significantly more of a problem over the last two or three decades at least? Will you acknowledge that?
You see, if you only acknowledge the data when in an off-year, left-wing violence rises according to the data... But then, if you are also ignoring the data showing the significantly more deadly violence from the right-wing in the years before, that'sa rational and moral problem for you all. Right?
Or as Glenn says falsely about the Left, do facts mean nothing to you all?
I should note, Craig, that you recently posted something about someone who had used anti-Semitic language running for office in the Democratic Party. You should note that that person was repudiated by Democrats. Unlike y'all, who vote for white nationalists and sexual predators. Facts do indeed matter.
Hell, the GOP in Texas just voted for a known serial adulterer and corrupt politician who abused his office and was impeached by his own GOP party, and y'all just elected him to be your candidate in next fall's election in Texas. Will you condemn Ken Starr as an unfit candidate?
Look in that link I just sent at the second chart. There are literally hundreds of attacks and plots to do violence by right-wing extremists over the last 20 years. There are literally a few dozen by left-wing extremists over the same time period. Last year 2025, the number was down significantly for right-wing extremists but still roughly equal to left-wing extremists, who are up a whole lot. Do you understand? If you're going to look at data, you have to look at all the data, not just pick and choose what pleases you and what tickles your ears. The data shows, the facts show that right-wing violence has been a significant problem over the last 20 to 40 years. Left-wing violence has paled in comparison.
Do facts matter or not to you? If facts matter then right here, right now, admit that right-wing violence has been a serious problem in the US for decades and is shameful. It's also shameful that last year left-wing violence ticked up but clearly the more significant problem is right-wing violence according to data.
I have to admire your commitment to the bit and your refusal to say anything negative about the multiple violent attacks against Trump. I also admire your attempt to justify the attacks against Trump, hidden inside your acknowledgment of increasing actual left wing violence.
That is, of course, a bullshit lie. I have clearly condemned any violence against anyone, including the fat idiot hedonist in the White House. Now it is a given, of course, that I'm opposed to any such violent attacks. As I've made clear endlessly. That's not the question. That is something where we know the answer to because I've been quite clear about it all and consistently.
No. The question to you is, given the data, given the known facts as I've just pointed out yet again, will you or will you not agree that the facts are the facts and that right-wing violence has been much more of a problem for decades? You want to pick the one year when liberals have had more violent actions and look at that data and cite it but you don't get to do that unless you ALSO look at ALL the data and condemn clearly and unequivocally the right-wing violence that has been way more violent and deadly.
Will you? Or is this another question you will dodge and instead make a bullshit claim about me that is just patently and observably false?
This is a great example of the Dan “I’m not going to specifically condemn these attacks, but I’ll hide behind a vague, general, condemnation while simultaneously hinting that these attacks are justified because Trump is Hitler” or some nonsense.
Given what I’ve seen (and posted about) regarding the highly slanted methodology of the two primary sources for these claims, and that the comparison seems to be between actual incidents and talking about potential incidents, I’ll pass on this absent objective proof.
As usual, I answer. Unless it’s the same question asked (and answered) multiple times.
Danny boy, what I said about the LEFT is 100% fact. Examples, "Climate Change" hoax, "Transgenders," More than one gender? What is a woman? Abortion is not the murder of a baby, etc, etc, etc.
AND YET, you ignore the cited, documented, and data-driven facts about conservative violence. You run and hide from answering reasonable questions and thereby expose your cowardice and your lack of reason and your detachment from facts and reality.
You want to be taken seriously? Answer reasonable questions directly and clearly.
Until you do you're just a coward and a joke, someone to not be taken seriously. Just an emotionally ham-strung advocate of superstitious nonsense and conspiracy theories, and not a serious adult reasoner.
No I’m not ignoring anything, I’m pointing out the flawed methodology used to compile the data you worship.
If YOU want to be taken seriously, hold yourself to the standard you demand of others. In another post you bitch because I answered too specifically and directly, now this. I’m done playing this game where you ask the same question over and over then ignore or forget the answer so you can bitch about this BS.
“There has been a strong presumption among many that while left-wing and right-wing ideologies vary a great deal in content, they resemble each other in terms of their willingness to use violence to further their political agenda. However, our analysis shows that right-wing actors are significantly more violent than left-wing actors,” said LaFree, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CCJS) and the founding director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)."
How much data does it take for it to NOT be part of a conspiracy?
Does data only "feel" real to you when it points to your partisan-preferred bad guys?
"The Trump administration deleted a Department of Justice (DOJ) research paper that supported my findings. In fact, the DOJ report found that right-wing terrorists killed 520 people and left-wing terrorists killed 78 since 1990. If the DOJ numbers are to be believed, my research undercounted left-wing politically motivated terrorist killings by 37 and right-wing killings by 168. "
"Right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for 391 murders and 11 percent of the total. The definition here of right-wing terrorists includes those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies.
Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total."
It's just data. DOES the data show that most of the murders/killings done in the last 10-20+ years has been committed by rightwingers or not? Yes, it does.
LAST year appears to have been an exception. For one thing: All killings were way down last year (yay!). And yet, of the murders, most (barely) were done by left wingers. Five, I believe was the number. The only reason they outpaced right wing murders is because right wing murders appear to be WAY down last year.
Researchers will tell you that a number as low as five in one year is not sufficient to establish a trend or declare an absolute conclusion. Now, IF those numbers remain high on the part of violent left wingers for two decades (as it has for right wingers), THEN we can talk about trends and concerns.
BUT, if you're only going to count last year because you are titillated by how the numbers last year reflect badly on left wing extremists, well, that's not how studying data and understanding research works.
LOOK at all the data. IF you have proof that the many researchers are all part of a conspiracy to hide "true" left wing violence, by all means, provide your proof. But you pouting about most of the research and celebrating one year that seems to be different, well, just grow up.
From NBC News:
"From 2011 through 2024, an average of 20 right-wing terror incidents took place each year, compared to an average of nearly three left-wing incidents annually during that same period.
The report also found that the average number of left-wing incidents was two per year from 2011 to 2015, and then an average of four per year from 2016 to 2024."
So, YES, left wing violence ticked up from its average of two killings per year, to four per year to FIVE last year. The data shows that.
BUT, right wing violence has been averaging TWENTY killings a year and only was outpaced by left wing violence last year because the right wing extremists, in an anomaly, DROPPED significantly last year, down below left wing extremist violence.
But if you only want to condemn last year's horrible FIVE killings by left wingers, BUT NOT even acknowledge, much less condemn, the ~20/year by right wingers prior to last year, well, you might be an amoral idiot not having an adult level conversation. More of an emotionally distraught babe and not a rational adult.
So, acknowledge the data and enter into an adult level conversation or continue to ignore it or defend conspiracy theories that dismiss it and show yourself to not be a person to be taken seriously.
You can keep throwing different versions of the same datasets up against the wall as much as you want. If the methodology used to compile the data is flawed or biased, then data has little value.
Data that shows that leftists are more likely to support political violence, you ignore that. Just like you ignore my actual responses/answers.
Heaven forbid I get in the way of your narrative steamroller.
You can keep throwing different versions of the same datasets up against the wall as much as you want. If the methodology used to compile the data is flawed or biased, then data has little value.
Data that shows that leftists are more likely to support political violence, you ignore that. Just like you ignore my actual responses/answers.
Heaven forbid I get in the way of your narrative steamroller.
So, YOU know better than ALL these researchers and their teams who've reviewed this data and YOU ALONE, are the One who knows the REAL TRUTH (TM) about political violence. YOU are the One who knows this, because YOU read "reliable" sources, like the book of Genesis and the book of Revelation and some dude with the handle, TrumpsMyKing/diaperhead Jack??
WHERE in the name of all that is holy and decent do you get the gall to declare yourself and expert and actual researchers are just part of a conspiracy? Did a snake tell you that?
Come on. You can't POSSIBLY be this daft. IF you have actual data to dispute the experts, present it. But you saying "I REALLLLY don't think they did it right!!" is just embarrassing yourself.
Good God in heaven, have mercy!
Son, I'm citing data. You're citing conspiracy theories and superstitions born of your evil human "sin nature." You've got absolutely nothing and the data is what it is, but you're just whining because you don't like the data because it's "mean" to good people like you sinners in your partisan camp.
Stop. Just stop.
Provide data if you can.
Admit you were wrong and that right wing violence IS a real problem, much more so than left wing violence, because that's what the data shows.
Or just stop, to end your grisly embarrassment of conservative religionists everywhere.
For someone who claims to have such an amazing grasp of reading for comprehension, yet a memory so bad that you can't remember what you wrote 3 days ago, this sort of BS is what I expect from you. This habit of taking what I clearly said, and turning that into something else entirely is uniquely you.
So, to answer your idiotic questions simply and directly, in order.
No. No. No.
Your impatience gets old really fast.
1. I've posted on this multiple times and it's not my problem that you are too lazy to do your own research and look at what I've posted. 2. I am only one man with limited time in my day/week. Unfortunately for you, sometimes I have other priorities than fulfilling your impatient demands. I feel like patience is supposed to be a hallmark of Christians, and you have the patience of a squirrel.
Yes you are "citing data", unfortunately the "data" you are "citing" is very likely tainted by some bad methodology. Further the existence of "data" is not some magical shortcut. I've seen people cite "data" that the Holocaust didn't actually happen. "Data" is only as good as the methodology that produced it.
How about if you just stop the hysterical lying and show a bit of patience? I'm working on pulling together some studies and am trying to spoon feed you some pertinent sections because the likelihood of you actually reading them is incredibly low. Unfortunately I am spending my time dealing with the idiocy and lies you keep spewing in the limited time I have.
You can keep throwing different versions of the same datasets up against the wall as much as you want. If the methodology used to compile the data is flawed or biased, then data has little value.
Reality matters, Craig, Glenn. What I am doing is citing the consistent data from multiple sources. You all are saying, on the other hand, "Well, when the data shows that left wing violence was up last year... THAT data is right, but the rest of it is wrong wrong wrong worng wongr!!!!" Without even TRYING to provide alternative data.
We see how you're embarrassing yourselves. You're doing the equivalent of shitting in your pants and trying to blame everyone else in the room for your own stench.
What dataset are your sources drawing from, and what was the methodology used to compile the "data" used?
Look, I understand that it's easier to lash out with ad hom attacks, lies, and BS rather than wait patiently because some people won't reorganize their lives to meet your demands. That you refuse to do your ow n research starting with my earlier posts on the topic strongly suggests that this extended tantrum is not about you wanting "data" as much as you wanting to steamroll anything that doesn't align with your narrative using these absurd tactics.
"Data that shows that leftists are more likely to support political violence, you ignore that. Just like you ignore my actual responses/answers."
Throwing out a red herring claim while dodging the questions put to you? Not an especially clever subterfuge.
To the degree you've thrown this sort of thing out and I haven't responded to it, it's because I'm not familiar with the polling you're referencing. Something like this?
Even if it were true (as with other data, y'all have a history of not trusting polling unless and until you find poll numbers you like), that doesn't change the documented history of actual right wing violence.
I literally provide the recent polling data on this topic in this thread, and I haven't dodged anything, but keep the lies coming. I appreciate the fact that you admit to ignoring data that might conflict with your narrative and use ridiculous excuses to do so.
I "have a history" of looking at polling with the eyes of someone who has actually constructed poll questions and studied how to poll as well as possible. Unlike you, I don't jump on any poll I can find that might make a point and parade it around as if it's objectively True. My "history" on polling is to point out that those like you who treat polling as some sort of highly regarded "gospel", tend to be very selective in your application of respect for polling when it doesn't fit your narrative.
Just what do Dan and his ilk consider "right wing." I would say conservatives (and usually Republicans) are "right wing," which doesn't include those "anti-" whatever and other radical nut-case groups.
Among other things, white supremacist prison gangs are somehow included in the "right wing political violence" category, while the largest and most destructive political violence of the last 25 years is excluded from "left wing political violence".
One more set of actual murders and attacks on Muslims by rabid rightwingers and another week of silence from Craig.
ReplyDeleteYour hypocrisy is blinding.
When you make vague, unsourced, non specific claims like this you look like a hypocrite.
DeleteIf you are referring to the attack in San Diego, that was carried out by two “trans” folx (one more “trans/“trans adjacent violent attacks of late.
Coming from someone who’s been silent on the vast amount of violence being perpetrated by Muslims in Europe and the US (let alone the legalization of involuntary child marriageable in Afghanistan) the fact that I haven’t posted on some mystery atrocity (among a multitude of other things I haven’t posted on over the holiday weekend), isn’t the evil thing you seem to think it is.
Given the recent research, which I have posted about and linked to multiple times, it’s not particularly surprising that you as a leftist have remained silent on one more instance of political violence against Trump. I guess I’m wondering how many times Trump has to be attacked before you’ll condemn it.
It's sadly a too common theme among the "progressive" left to wish death upon conservatives...or more accurately...non-"progressives". I've face such wishes against myself many times on social media during confrontations with leftists of one kind or another. Even Dan, who pretends that "his tribe" are nothing if not loving, grace-filled Christians, has on more than one occasion expressed how things will be better when those like me die off. Thus, I'm sure he'd defend himself by suggesting looking forward to some no longer existing is somehow different than wanting them to die. With this in mind, combined with his well-known hate of our president, it's not surprising he'd do and say absolutely nothing should news come about of another attempt on Donald Trump's life. At best, he'll write such attackers off as "outliers", and will regardless of how more common it might become over how common it already is.
ReplyDeleteAs I noted above, and have posted about many times, the acceptance of political violence among the left is staggeringly high. It’s not a surprise that there have been multiple assassination attempts against Trump, the problem is that they don’t fit the narrative and therefore leftists don’t whale and mash their teeth about them.
Deletere: "one more violent attack" by a "leftist..." Are you talking about the incident today where I guy claiming to be Jesus Christ was killed in a shootout with the feds? So, you're thinking Jesus is a leftist? Or you think someone who is mentally ill and delusional has partisan allegiances?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.indiatoday.in/world/us-news/story/nasire-best-white-house-shooter-identified-believed-he-was-jesus-2916126-2026-05-24
I’m speaking of the 4th or 5th attack directed at Trump in the last several years.
DeleteAs noted above, the “DATA” tells us that the attacker is more likely to be a leftist, and the possibility of mental illness also points to him being a leftist. Obviously the target of the attack also points to him being a leftist.
I understand your need to divert attention from the obvious, but the topic of this post is your failure to say anything about one more attack, which left people wounded or dead, against Trump. Your silence on this, as on the vast amount of violence perpetrated by Muslims against innocent people in Europe, speaks much louder than your pathetic attempt to divert attention from yourself.
We see you ignoring the murder of innocent Muslims by people on your side. We see you ignoring the data that shows that right-wing extremist violence is the greatest threat in our nation, greater than foreign attacks and greater than left-wing attacks. We're looking at the data.
ReplyDeleteYes now that extremists have been put in power, right-wing extremism and their violence has slowed down a little and left-wing violence has picked up a little. The point being, you remain silent when it's right-wing attacks on Muslims whereas I'm consistently opposed to all violence against all innocents.
We see.
The sheer audacity of you making these vague, unsupported claims with not confirmation from real media is absolutely freaking hilarious.
DeleteThe “DATA” you worship has been debunked based on incredibly flawed methodology, but you cling to it so you can ignore the present reality.
It’s amazing how easily you blame others for your silence on the political violence against Trump specifically and conservatives in general.
Whats the most disgusting is how hard you work to ignore the political/religious violence covering Europe in addition to your silence on recent events.
Really. The "right-wing extremist violence" myth is unsupportable with any actual evidence. Liars like Biden pushed it, likely using SPLC data.
DeleteYeah, the flaws in the methodology are such that the conclusions are deeply flawed.
DeleteThe left wing violence that has been excluded, and the non political violence attributed to the right wing are well known and render this claim false.
Except for "progressives" for whom the narrative is far more important than the truth.
DeleteJust like Dan in this thread. Push the narrative regardless of things like facts and details.
DeleteGiven his vagueness I’m left to conclude that he believes that a couple of “trans” kids are magically “right wing” Islamophobes.
FWIW, if I was “trans” I’d be very concerned about how Muslim homo/“trans”phobia would harm me and might not be irrational for engaging in a preemptive attack.
It’s the old phobia hierarchy conflict. When one protected class attacks another.
Blame conservatives.
Rather contradictory, isn't it? The left has been shown to approve of political violence...that "sometimes it's OK". The idea being that if one is pushing back against oppression/oppressors (ostensibly Trump), calling them Hitlerian, then to exact preemptive strikes is justified. If those who shot up the mosque were LGBTQ, then how are they not likewise justified given islam's many instances of murdering LGBTQ people? Are the muslims throwing homosexuals off of roofs somehow less oppressive?
DeleteOf course it’s contradictory, these are the same folx who turned Mangione into a folk hero and walk around in Che t-shirts and Mai caps.
DeleteThis sort of contradiction is inherent in the left wing coalition where they rely on groups (Muslims/ABC folx, labor/greens) who are diametrically opposed to each other. Especially when one of those constituencies is bent on killing another.
Dan IS a marxist.
DeleteMaybe a "Marxist Lite". It's hard to tell when so much of the ASPL wears Marxism (or Marxist icons) as a fashion statement. That they revere someone as vile and evil is Che enough to wear his face on merch, tells me that it shouldn't surprise anyone when they adapt the tactics of Che or make excuses for the Kirk shooter or Mangione.
DeleteCraig...
ReplyDelete"If you are referring to the attack in San Diego, that was carried out by two “trans” folx (one more “trans/“trans adjacent violent attacks of late."
Reality...
https://www.kcra.com/article/san-diego-mosque-shooting-fact-check/71367118
In the face of another set of far-right extremist deadly shootings and murderers, you're going to ignore it in the first place and then engage in homophobia with an attack on trans people with your stupidly false claim? You're going from evil onto evil.
Will you retract your stupidly false claim and apologize for listening to far-right conspiracy theories and passing them on as if they were facts?
Well, we finally find out what Dan's been hinting at and his one big source doesn't actually prove what he claims t does. No where does it state unequivocally that they were not "trans" (whatever that even means now0, only that they were not a "couple". Further it makes the following claim "It’s become common after mass shootings for some social media users to spread the misleading claim that transgender people are more prone to violence than others." with no actual proof or even evidence that their representation is accurate.
DeleteFinally, the piece literally concludes by saying that they have no evidence one way or the other.
Until we actually see evidence, maybe it's premature to makes these absurd demands. As always, if I am wrong, I'll acknowledge it,
AI summary...
ReplyDeleteFar-right extremists remain the most persistent and deadly domestic terror threat in the US, but research from 2025 and 2026 shows a complex shifting landscape where left-wing and anti-state violence has simultaneously risen.Far-Right ExtremismThe Deadliest Threat: Historically and presently, far-right extremists (such as white supremacists and anti-government militias) are responsible for the vast majority of ideologically motivated homicides and large-scale terrorist plots in the United States.Tactical Shifts: Recent data indicates a shift away from older, highly structured groups toward decentralized networks and lone actors. Researchers note these extremists frequently target government personnel, immigration facilities, and law enforcement.Intelligence Assessment: The 2026 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (ATA) points out that white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups maintain the most persistent transnational connections with like-minded international networks.
Better sources agree...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-data-shows
Etc, etc.
But sure get your information from far-right extremists and conspiracy theories. THAT'S rational!
I've posted the links to the studies multiple times, you chose to ignore that information then and now pretend like it doesn't exist.
DeleteLikewise for the recent studies showing that leftists are much more accepting of political violence than the right.
That's cool. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to spoon feed you the data I've already provided.
Based on your quote, it's almost like your sources don't differentiate between the threat of potential violent action, and actual violent action. Personally, I'd be concerned about the actual violence and about fixing the methodological problems with the data than trying to score cheap points. But that's me.
If I'm not mistaken, AI takes all it can find on a subject and reports it as is. Thus, if the vast majority of leftist sources repeat the claims about "right-wing extremism", AI will repeat those claims without dissecting it for context and accuracy.
DeleteNonetheless, I would regard AI as a "better source" than PBS any day of the week.
AI pulls a lot from Wiki and other less than reliable sources for this kind of thing. It’s not useless, but it’s hardly objective Truth.
Deletehttps://yougov.com/en-us/articles/52960-charlie-kirk-americans-political-violence-poll
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna note the obvious here. Dan is more obsessed with clinging to his narrative that to acknowledging the reality that there have been more violent attacks aimed at Trump, by leftists, than against any other recent president. Still noting denouncing these attacks. Just smoke and obfuscation.
ReplyDeleteIf it'll make you happy, I will gladly condemn the mosque attack, regardless of the motives of the attackers. Just like I condemn the synagogue and church attacks over the past few years and the burning of many churches, including some very beautiful and historic buildings, in Europe, the US, and Canada. I'll go further and harshly condemn the large scale massacres of Christians in Africa and the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteFacts mean absolutely nothing to LEFTISTs like Dan. Only feelings matter.
ReplyDeleteFacts, Glenn, not conspiracy theories.
ReplyDeleteLook at the story. Look at the charts.
In recent years, the United States has seen an increase in the number of left-wing terrorism attacks and plots, although such violence has risen from very low levels and remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers. So far, 2025 marks the first time in more than 30 years that left-wing terrorist attacks outnumber those from the violent far right. Despite its decline this year, right-wing terrorism could easily return to previous high levels.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us
Took a quick look at this link until about three paragraphs in it mentioned "right-wing" violence in the same breath as "jihadist" violence, as if they're two birds of a feather. I didn't bother studying it any further knowing full well that Dan likely didn't even read it beyond the title.
DeleteIt IS awful that left-wing violence increased so much last year in light of this administration's attacks on human rights for so many. That does NOT excuse the violence nor does it excuse y'all ignoring the data for all the other years before this year.
ReplyDeleteWill you unequivocally condemn the right-wing violence and acknowledge that, yes, of course, the data shows that right-wing violence has been much, much, much significantly more of a problem over the last two or three decades at least? Will you acknowledge that?
You see, if you only acknowledge the data when in an off-year, left-wing violence rises according to the data... But then, if you are also ignoring the data showing the significantly more deadly violence from the right-wing in the years before, that'sa rational and moral problem for you all. Right?
Or as Glenn says falsely about the Left, do facts mean nothing to you all?
I should note, Craig, that you recently posted something about someone who had used anti-Semitic language running for office in the Democratic Party. You should note that that person was repudiated by Democrats. Unlike y'all, who vote for white nationalists and sexual predators. Facts do indeed matter.
Hell, the GOP in Texas just voted for a known serial adulterer and corrupt politician who abused his office and was impeached by his own GOP party, and y'all just elected him to be your candidate in next fall's election in Texas. Will you condemn Ken Starr as an unfit candidate?
Look in that link I just sent at the second chart. There are literally hundreds of attacks and plots to do violence by right-wing extremists over the last 20 years. There are literally a few dozen by left-wing extremists over the same time period. Last year 2025, the number was down significantly for right-wing extremists but still roughly equal to left-wing extremists, who are up a whole lot. Do you understand? If you're going to look at data, you have to look at all the data, not just pick and choose what pleases you and what tickles your ears. The data shows, the facts show that right-wing violence has been a significant problem over the last 20 to 40 years. Left-wing violence has paled in comparison.
ReplyDeleteDo facts matter or not to you? If facts matter then right here, right now, admit that right-wing violence has been a serious problem in the US for decades and is shameful. It's also shameful that last year left-wing violence ticked up but clearly the more significant problem is right-wing violence according to data.
I have to admire your commitment to the bit and your refusal to say anything negative about the multiple violent attacks against Trump. I also admire your attempt to justify the attacks against Trump, hidden inside your acknowledgment of increasing actual left wing violence.
ReplyDeleteThat is, of course, a bullshit lie. I have clearly condemned any violence against anyone, including the fat idiot hedonist in the White House. Now it is a given, of course, that I'm opposed to any such violent attacks. As I've made clear endlessly. That's not the question. That is something where we know the answer to because I've been quite clear about it all and consistently.
ReplyDeleteNo. The question to you is, given the data, given the known facts as I've just pointed out yet again, will you or will you not agree that the facts are the facts and that right-wing violence has been much more of a problem for decades? You want to pick the one year when liberals have had more violent actions and look at that data and cite it but you don't get to do that unless you ALSO look at ALL the data and condemn clearly and unequivocally the right-wing violence that has been way more violent and deadly.
Will you? Or is this another question you will dodge and instead make a bullshit claim about me that is just patently and observably false?
This is a great example of the Dan “I’m not going to specifically condemn these attacks, but I’ll hide behind a vague, general, condemnation while simultaneously hinting that these attacks are justified because Trump is Hitler” or some nonsense.
DeleteGiven what I’ve seen (and posted about) regarding the highly slanted methodology of the two primary sources for these claims, and that the comparison seems to be between actual incidents and talking about potential incidents, I’ll pass on this absent objective proof.
As usual, I answer. Unless it’s the same question asked (and answered) multiple times.
Given Dan's kind refers to words as weapons, calling his president a "fat idiot hedonist" is violence.
DeleteDanny boy, what I said about the LEFT is 100% fact. Examples, "Climate Change" hoax, "Transgenders," More than one gender? What is a woman? Abortion is not the murder of a baby, etc, etc, etc.
ReplyDeleteAND YET, you ignore the cited, documented, and data-driven facts about conservative violence. You run and hide from answering reasonable questions and thereby expose your cowardice and your lack of reason and your detachment from facts and reality.
ReplyDeleteYou want to be taken seriously? Answer reasonable questions directly and clearly.
Until you do you're just a coward and a joke, someone to not be taken seriously. Just an emotionally ham-strung advocate of superstitious nonsense and conspiracy theories, and not a serious adult reasoner.
No I’m not ignoring anything, I’m pointing out the flawed methodology used to compile the data you worship.
DeleteIf YOU want to be taken seriously, hold yourself to the standard you demand of others. In another post you bitch because I answered too specifically and directly, now this. I’m done playing this game where you ask the same question over and over then ignore or forget the answer so you can bitch about this BS.
“There has been a strong presumption among many that while left-wing and right-wing ideologies vary a great deal in content, they resemble each other in terms of their willingness to use violence to further their political agenda. However, our analysis shows that right-wing actors are significantly more violent than left-wing actors,” said LaFree, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CCJS) and the founding director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)."
ReplyDeletehttps://ccjs.umd.edu/feature/umd-led-study-shows-disparities-violence-among-extremist-groups
How much data does it take for it to NOT be part of a conspiracy?
Does data only "feel" real to you when it points to your partisan-preferred bad guys?
"The Trump administration deleted a Department of Justice (DOJ) research paper that supported my findings. In fact, the DOJ report found that right-wing terrorists killed 520 people and left-wing terrorists killed 78 since 1990. If the DOJ numbers are to be believed, my research undercounted left-wing politically motivated terrorist killings by 37 and right-wing killings by 168. "
https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-terrorist-killings-united-states-answering-critics
"Right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for 391 murders and 11 percent of the total. The definition here of right-wing terrorists includes those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies.
Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total."
https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states
Look at the data.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.axios.com/2025/09/28/left-wing-terrorism-far-right-violence-research
https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/GKVTAHKGRNFCPJILBCP4LJVLQQ.jpg
429 political murders, 2015-2024. 76% killed by right wing extremists.
https://southwest.adl.org/sites/default/files/images/2025-09/Murder-and-extremism-report-chart-5.png
It's just data. DOES the data show that most of the murders/killings done in the last 10-20+ years has been committed by rightwingers or not? Yes, it does.
LAST year appears to have been an exception. For one thing: All killings were way down last year (yay!). And yet, of the murders, most (barely) were done by left wingers. Five, I believe was the number. The only reason they outpaced right wing murders is because right wing murders appear to be WAY down last year.
Researchers will tell you that a number as low as five in one year is not sufficient to establish a trend or declare an absolute conclusion. Now, IF those numbers remain high on the part of violent left wingers for two decades (as it has for right wingers), THEN we can talk about trends and concerns.
BUT, if you're only going to count last year because you are titillated by how the numbers last year reflect badly on left wing extremists, well, that's not how studying data and understanding research works.
LOOK at all the data. IF you have proof that the many researchers are all part of a conspiracy to hide "true" left wing violence, by all means, provide your proof. But you pouting about most of the research and celebrating one year that seems to be different, well, just grow up.
From NBC News:
"From 2011 through 2024, an average of 20 right-wing terror incidents took place each year, compared to an average of nearly three left-wing incidents annually during that same period.
The report also found that the average number of left-wing incidents was two per year from 2011 to 2015, and then an average of four per year from 2016 to 2024."
So, YES, left wing violence ticked up from its average of two killings per year, to four per year to FIVE last year. The data shows that.
BUT, right wing violence has been averaging TWENTY killings a year and only was outpaced by left wing violence last year because the right wing extremists, in an anomaly, DROPPED significantly last year, down below left wing extremist violence.
But if you only want to condemn last year's horrible FIVE killings by left wingers, BUT NOT even acknowledge, much less condemn, the ~20/year by right wingers prior to last year, well, you might be an amoral idiot not having an adult level conversation. More of an emotionally distraught babe and not a rational adult.
So, acknowledge the data and enter into an adult level conversation or continue to ignore it or defend conspiracy theories that dismiss it and show yourself to not be a person to be taken seriously.
You can keep throwing different versions of the same datasets up against the wall as much as you want. If the methodology used to compile the data is flawed or biased, then data has little value.
ReplyDeleteData that shows that leftists are more likely to support political violence, you ignore that. Just like you ignore my actual responses/answers.
Heaven forbid I get in the way of your narrative steamroller.
You can keep throwing different versions of the same datasets up against the wall as much as you want. If the methodology used to compile the data is flawed or biased, then data has little value.
ReplyDeleteData that shows that leftists are more likely to support political violence, you ignore that. Just like you ignore my actual responses/answers.
Heaven forbid I get in the way of your narrative steamroller.
So, YOU know better than ALL these researchers and their teams who've reviewed this data and YOU ALONE, are the One who knows the REAL TRUTH (TM) about political violence. YOU are the One who knows this, because YOU read "reliable" sources, like the book of Genesis and the book of Revelation and some dude with the handle, TrumpsMyKing/diaperhead Jack??
ReplyDeleteWHERE in the name of all that is holy and decent do you get the gall to declare yourself and expert and actual researchers are just part of a conspiracy? Did a snake tell you that?
Come on. You can't POSSIBLY be this daft. IF you have actual data to dispute the experts, present it. But you saying "I REALLLLY don't think they did it right!!" is just embarrassing yourself.
Good God in heaven, have mercy!
Son, I'm citing data. You're citing conspiracy theories and superstitions born of your evil human "sin nature." You've got absolutely nothing and the data is what it is, but you're just whining because you don't like the data because it's "mean" to good people like you sinners in your partisan camp.
Stop. Just stop.
Provide data if you can.
Admit you were wrong and that right wing violence IS a real problem, much more so than left wing violence, because that's what the data shows.
Or just stop, to end your grisly embarrassment of conservative religionists everywhere.
For someone who claims to have such an amazing grasp of reading for comprehension, yet a memory so bad that you can't remember what you wrote 3 days ago, this sort of BS is what I expect from you. This habit of taking what I clearly said, and turning that into something else entirely is uniquely you.
DeleteSo, to answer your idiotic questions simply and directly, in order.
No.
No.
No.
Your impatience gets old really fast.
1. I've posted on this multiple times and it's not my problem that you are too lazy to do your own research and look at what I've posted.
2. I am only one man with limited time in my day/week. Unfortunately for you, sometimes I have other priorities than fulfilling your impatient demands. I feel like patience is supposed to be a hallmark of Christians, and you have the patience of a squirrel.
Yes you are "citing data", unfortunately the "data" you are "citing" is very likely tainted by some bad methodology. Further the existence of "data" is not some magical shortcut. I've seen people cite "data" that the Holocaust didn't actually happen. "Data" is only as good as the methodology that produced it.
How about if you just stop the hysterical lying and show a bit of patience? I'm working on pulling together some studies and am trying to spoon feed you some pertinent sections because the likelihood of you actually reading them is incredibly low. Unfortunately I am spending my time dealing with the idiocy and lies you keep spewing in the limited time I have.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteYou can keep throwing different versions of the same datasets up against the wall as much as you want. If the methodology used to compile the data is flawed or biased, then data has little value.
Reality matters, Craig, Glenn. What I am doing is citing the consistent data from multiple sources. You all are saying, on the other hand, "Well, when the data shows that left wing violence was up last year... THAT data is right, but the rest of it is wrong wrong wrong worng wongr!!!!" Without even TRYING to provide alternative data.
We see how you're embarrassing yourselves. You're doing the equivalent of shitting in your pants and trying to blame everyone else in the room for your own stench.
Stop it.
What dataset are your sources drawing from, and what was the methodology used to compile the "data" used?
DeleteLook, I understand that it's easier to lash out with ad hom attacks, lies, and BS rather than wait patiently because some people won't reorganize their lives to meet your demands. That you refuse to do your ow n research starting with my earlier posts on the topic strongly suggests that this extended tantrum is not about you wanting "data" as much as you wanting to steamroll anything that doesn't align with your narrative using these absurd tactics.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"Data that shows that leftists are more likely to support political violence, you ignore that. Just like you ignore my actual responses/answers."
Throwing out a red herring claim while dodging the questions put to you? Not an especially clever subterfuge.
To the degree you've thrown this sort of thing out and I haven't responded to it, it's because I'm not familiar with the polling you're referencing. Something like this?
https://prri.org/research/political-violence-in-america-public-perceptions-polarization-and-accountability/
Even if it were true (as with other data, y'all have a history of not trusting polling unless and until you find poll numbers you like), that doesn't change the documented history of actual right wing violence.
I literally provide the recent polling data on this topic in this thread, and I haven't dodged anything, but keep the lies coming. I appreciate the fact that you admit to ignoring data that might conflict with your narrative and use ridiculous excuses to do so.
DeleteI "have a history" of looking at polling with the eyes of someone who has actually constructed poll questions and studied how to poll as well as possible.
Unlike you, I don't jump on any poll I can find that might make a point and parade it around as if it's objectively True. My "history" on polling is to point out that those like you who treat polling as some sort of highly regarded "gospel", tend to be very selective in your application of respect for polling when it doesn't fit your narrative.
Just what do Dan and his ilk consider "right wing." I would say conservatives (and usually Republicans) are "right wing," which doesn't include those "anti-" whatever and other radical nut-case groups.
ReplyDeleteOh and white supremacists are not to be included in "right wing". They are not conservative nor Christian. They are outliers.,
ReplyDeleteAmong other things, white supremacist prison gangs are somehow included in the "right wing political violence" category, while the largest and most destructive political violence of the last 25 years is excluded from "left wing political violence".
Delete