Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

That’s awful sporting of you.

thanks mate

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

It is a violent cause. You literally have to punch these people and embarrass them. I am sorry, wearing a pink p*ssy hat isn't going to stop those people.

 

I doubt punching them is going to stop them either.

 

(I miss tshiles post.  I agree.  My fault.)

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

thanks mate

I almost went back and added “mate” to the end of my post before you posted this. Not kidding. Just felt like something that needed “mate” on it.

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You did read @tshile's post saying left-wing groups are "in-line" with right-wing groups and bordering on domestic terrorism? That was him saying they are the same. Me dismissing that was a response to that post.

I said antifa. 

 

And clearly they are. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

11 hours ago, tshile said:

the antifa and militant liberal wing of this country are bordering on domestic terrorists at this point

That's what you said.

[tshile]

Ah yes. Key word militant. 

 

Little different than generic “ left wing groups”

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

And like I said before, wake me up when they have killed people, etc. Wake me up when we see a rise in left-wing violence and terror acts.

 

Somehow Antifa is the group that has people wanting to write bills to class them as Domestic Terrorists while right-wing violent groups are able to say "see, those are the bad guys."

[Larry]

26 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I defend Antifa because they aren't doing anything except countering the right-wing groups attempting to incite violence at rallies or even normal bars like the Proud Boys have done across the west coast.

 

Just pointing out, I bet the cops who attacked the civil rights protesters in the 60s would say that they were merely countering the protester's provocations. 

 

"I punched that political protester because he was trying to provoke me with his protest" is a really tough sell. It ought to be a really high bar to clear. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

 

1

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

2

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Ah yes. Key word militant. 

 

Little different than generic “ left wing groups”

IDK what that means with you when you consider FDR a hard-leftist

 

Anyway, this has all spiraled off-topic. My apologies to everyone for my part in bringing us there.

 

Just now, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, I bet the cops who attacked the civil rights protesters in the 60s would say that they were merely countering the protester's provocations. 

 

"I punched that political protester because he was trying to provoke me with his protest" is a really tough sell. It ought to be a really high bar to clear. 

"Let's beat up those peaceful protestors" is not the same as "those guys said they want to start violence and kick out groups of people, so let's kick their behinds."

 

The problem is you believe they are the same.

[TradeTheBeal!]

As long as we’re doing the “downplaying” thing, how do we feel about comparing a dust-up that resulted in a guy swinging a bike lock to the blood-drenched, murderous Nazi rampage in Charlottesville?  And using this comparison as an example that the right-wing is a victim of unfair persecution by law enforcement?  And doing it with with a straight face?

 

Im not sure “downplaying” quite covers it.

[Larry]

16 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

"Let's beat up those peaceful protestors" is not the same as "those guys said they want to start violence and kick out groups of people, so let's kick their behinds."

 

They're close enough that they could easily be two people describing the identical act.  

 

You know what both descriptions agree on?  "Person X threw the first punch because of Person Y's political views."  

[No Excuses]

Antifa vs. Neo-Nazis is a complete and total distraction from the fact that our healthcare system sucks, public education is suffering, the public debt is exploding and our basic infrastructure is largely outdated and crumbling.

 

Nothing that happens on the streets of Portland will change any of these facts. As much as Fox News is trying to will this into existence as a real issue in the country, it isn't.

[PeterMP]

43 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

As long as we’re doing the “downplaying” thing, how do we feel about comparing a dust-up that resulted in a guy swinging a bike lock to the blood-drenched, murderous Nazi rampage in Charlottesville?  And using this comparison as an example that the right-wing is a victim of unfair persecution by law enforcement?  And doing it with with a straight face?

 

Im not sure “downplaying” quite covers it.

 

The guy was standing there not being violent and no sign of any real violence around him when somebody walked up behind him and hit him in the head with a bike lock.  It wasn't a case where there was a fight, and the one guy just happened to have a bike lock that they used in the fight and even an innocent bystander just go hurt.  It certainly looks like it was complete intent to hurt somebody that wasn't being violent using a bike lock as a weapon in a situation where there wasn't any real already existing violence (at least nearby).

 

And even if you commit a crime at the same place of another crime that doesn't make you responsible for the other crime and ideally (in a just society) it wouldn't affect your penalty so that somebody else murdered somebody else where you've assaulted somebody shouldn't really affect your penalty.

 

The right wing case is really a case where there was a "dust-up" (there was an on going fight) and somebody ran into it and did more damage/violence.

 

(I do suspect he over played the differences in the case.  It looks like in the case of the right wing people there was a lot more evidence.  The left wing case looks a lot more circumstantial and therefore prosecutors were more likely to plea to a lesser deal.)

[LadySkinsFan]

The Right trying to frame the Left as violent is pure projection. Don't get sucked into this falsehood.

 

Remember, fascists and dictators use violence to keep people frightened and in line.  It works because no one wants to get beat up and/or killed.

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The Right trying to frame the Left as violent is pure projection. Don't get sucked into this falsehood.

 

So somebody that associates with left wing groups didn't walk up behind a guy that wasn't being violent and hit him the back of his head with a metal bike lock and end up pleading guilty to battery?

[Bozo the kKklown]

31 minutes ago, Larry said:

They're close enough that they could easily be two people describing the identical act.  

Larry, they aren't. They are not close at all. I have no clue why you want those situations to be similar, but they aren't. One group proactively performing violence on a group that isn't violent while the other scenario is a group countering the violence of another.

 

You attempt to make this comparison goes back to what I am talking with making something both sides when that isn't the case.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Larry, they aren't. They are not close at all. I have no clue why you want those situations to be similar, but they aren't. One group proactively performing violence on a group that isn't violent while the other scenario is a group countering the violence of another.

 

No it wasn't. Not even in your attempt to phrase things as differently as possible. 

 

"Those guys said they want to start violence and kick out groups of people". Your words, my italics. "Said they want to". Speech. 

 

I assume that we all dislike child molesters. But if I show up at a NAMBLA march with a baseball bat, and I take a swing at a marcher, then I'm not defending a child from being raped. I'm committing assault. And "I disagree with what he's protesting for" isn't justification. It's a confession. 

[mistertim]

I think there's a difference between explaining (or in some cases defending) Antifa vis-a-vis the nexus of their group and/or what it's there for, and condoning any violence by their members. Plenty of them are likely people who I would have distinct ideological or policy disagreements with but they're also mostly there as direct counter to the racist white nationalist groups that have either been popping up all over since Trump came to power or who were there already but are now exponentially more emboldened as they have a racist POTUS who more or less openly backs them up. 

 

Again, that doesn't make any violence by them ok (it's not). But I feel like any direct comparison of that left wing group and the right wing groups they're a response to is a false equivalency. And that equivalency has been pushed ad nauseam by conservative/right wing outlets and, unfortunately, sometimes mimicked to an extend within the MSM. 

 

That being said, @BenningRoadSkinis correct when it comes to the massive discrepancy of violent acts between left wing and right wing extremists. Again, no violence is ok (unless it's in self defense) but even putting the violence of those two in the same category is disingenuous IMO and when done usually only serves the purpose of intentional obfuscation and gaslighting, often by the right wing media outlets. One side has been responsible for a large number of murders and mass killings (or attempted mass murders) and the other has been responsible for beating some people up and throwing milkshakes on people. 

 

If the complaint (or observation) is that the media doesn't give enough airtime to talking about Antifa/left wing violence, that's probably because it's simply not as bad as the right wing groups and their violent history and intentions. A news station is probably going to spend more time on a murder than on a battery charge.

[TradeTheBeal!]

32 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

(I do suspect he over played the differences in the case.  It looks like in the case of the right wing people there was a lot more evidence.  The left wing case looks a lot more circumstantial and therefore prosecutors were more likely to plea to a lesser deal.)

 

Trust your suspicions.  The post was an intent to normalize Charlottesville and cast gun-toting Nazis as victims.  Nothing more or less.

[No Excuses]

Interesting thread from someone who was involved in campaigns against David Duke in the 90s when he was running for Senate and Governor in Louisiana. Duke lost both elections but won a majority of white voters each time (60 and 55%):

 

 

[NoCalMike]

Any violence for any side should be condemned, no one is or ever has been arguing that. However, elevating antifa incidents to the level of right-wing extremist violence is the equivalent of people bringing up the 2% of false rape allegations as if it somehow is justification of treating the other 98% of allegations with skepticism.  

 

Sometimes there simply isn't a "both sides" way out of acknowledging how bad a group of people are behaving.  

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Sometimes there simply isn't a "both sides" way out of acknowledging how bad a group of people are behaving.  

 

Yes, but is there a "let's get back on topic" way out of this diversion?     

[PeterMP]

26 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Interesting thread from someone who was involved in campaigns against David Duke in the 90s when he was running for Senate and Governor in Louisiana. Duke lost both elections but won a majority of white voters each time (60 and 55%):

 

Partly, agree.  Winning Trump voters is a waste of time.

 

Though also think you have to talk about issues. 

 

Any debate is the hard thing.  I'd agree trying to talk about the optimal tax policy at a debate is a waste of time.  He doesn't understand tax policy (or any other policy) to have a meaningful debate.

 

I'd be tempted to not do a debate if I'm the democrats.

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Partly, agree.  Winning Trump voters is a waste of time.

 

Though also think you have to talk about issues. 

 

Any debate is the hard thing.  I'd agree trying to talk about the optimal tax policy at a debate is a waste of time.  He doesn't understand tax policy (or any other policy) to have a meaningful debate.

 

I'd be tempted to not do a debate if I'm the democrats.

 

Not debating him will be spun as a sign of weakness, even though debating someone like him is pointless. 

 

I viewed that thread as a pretty good reason to pursue impeachment as well. 2020 needs to be a referendum on his behavior in office and the vile direction towards which he is drawing the country. Impeachment is going to draw people who are otherwise low information voters to pay attention. 

[LadySkinsFan]

26 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Any violence for any side should be condemned, no one is or ever has been arguing that. However, elevating antifa incidents to the level of right-wing extremist violence is the equivalent of people bringing up the 2% of false rape allegations as if it somehow is justification of treating the other 98% of allegations with skepticism.  

 

Sometimes there simply isn't a "both sides" way out of acknowledging how bad a group of people are behaving.  

 

The Right is using violence as a political tool of supression of all kinds.  Using police forces as one of the weapons of violence is obvious.