The "long hot summer" was 159 violent leftist riots in 1967.

I mean, how the ****ing **** can you not agree with the statement that the vast majority of political violence post WW2 in the USA was clearly, adamantly, based on leftist ideology ?

https://newrepublic.com/article/1808...resident%20who

There's links to the study in the article. It's pretty straight forward data honestly.

You know the race riots in the 40s and 50s were white people attacking black people right?

No. You missunderstand what I am saying. I'm not talking about your ability to do math correctly or w/e. I'm commenting on your posting output in this forum which is all I've got to base an opinion on. And my opinion based on that parameter is you are full of ****.

So link number 1) has no confirmation, umbrella man is still unknown afaik and in late 2022 they were still trying to identify him. Even if he was rightwing, the violent people were still leftwing so it wouldn't qualify anyway. Still, you are linking to purported hypotheticals, nothing proven.

2) has no actual list of actual riots done by "accelerationists". Just a long word salad, no actual masses of right wing people doing mass political violence (unlike the many hundreds of such occasions transparently motivated by leftism).

3) is one but identified. If leftist people are so horrible they can be instigated by a single rightwing person, it's still leftist people doing leftist motivated political violence, with the aggravating factor they are ****ing dumb as well, which make them worse human beings, not better ones with excuses

4) and 5) are corroboration of 3).

6) is a single individual again.

Where the **** are the rightwing crowds pillaging for political reasons, like hundred leftist cases that same year?

If your rebuttal is "some people on the right are bad", Yoh need to find 100 crowds of angry rightwing people ravaging neighborhoods just to break even with BLM. Then 800-900 more in the preceding decades to make up with all the other race riots + the unions and students riots

It's known data that has 0 to do with who is president AND isn't 2x/x0.5 depending on the president party. In fact crime goes down with bush jr., because that was the trend in time.

And crime went up a lot with Johnson but only a very low IQ person would claim that was Johnson fault

So now we're talking about riots, or political violence? I have no doubt w/o even looking at the data, that most political rioting has been leftist, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES BEING SUPRESSED.

If you're not suppressed, you have ZERO reason to riot. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

Do we need to go back to the powerpoint and explain that left wing protests that turned to violence first started with many attempts, over many years, to obtain basic rights peacefully. And when all of those attempts failed, then came riots.

VS

Right wing violence, that just begins and ends in violence.

Don't confuse the two.

But it's hard to take you serious when you say things like this"
"And what you call rightwing pre WW2 like fascism and Nazism was leftist as well."

?

The data is very straight forward. Look:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...m_medium=email

Politically motivated riots are political violence.

If your legal attempts don't get you what you want you suck it up. You accept it as the democratic will. and wait till you can legally get what you want.

Or you are a violent, anti democratic leftist and use violence. Which you justify because you are eversive as every leftist is deep inside.

The right waited decades to reverse roe and get actual 2a rights confirmed by scotus without needing 500 ****ing violent riots.

ffs


YOU SAID CAUSED YOU BUFFOON. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY, INSTIGATING IS CAUSING.

And newsflash, mashed potato brain, BLM doesn't equal leftist or democratic. Plenty of conservative people attended those rallies. White supremacy is conservative by nature. Opposing police brutality is not.

I'm not misunderstanding. I think I could be an an objective juror because it's rules based and I can apply the rules fairly... I know Trump won in 2016. I honestly don't think you can because you're moron and think Trump won in 2020. It's just the difference in culture between conservatives and normal people.

@Lucion, The rights' approach to seizing the levers of power was more insidious, as they sell you a communist plot.

Good news, all those years of stoic suffering under Roe v Wade, its abolition is gonna see a massive blue wave

If the People want constitutional rights to abortion they can amend the constitution.

And, note, they are doing that in many states. If enough people want to, they can do it for the federal constitution as well.

If the cost of applying the actual law as it is is a blue wave, let's have a blue wave. Roe v Wade was juridical horror, a monstrous decision which invented a right that never existed.

If the People want that right they can get it with the tools provided by the constitution itself.

Roe vs Wade reversal is about SCOTUS not having the right to invent things, not about abortion.

Every decent person should love the idea SCOTUS can't invent stuff, and people on the left should like it more today that SCOTUS is rightwing.

If rightwing judges worked like leftist ones they would have completely warped the fabric of society already with 6 votes. They can literally rule anything as unconstitutional, and invent any number of rights about anything, if they want to and approach the matter as leftists do.

Monstrosity!

"Egregiously wrongly decided" is the legal term

Just trying to see the big picture.

Maybe transferring it all to the states will hasten the fracturing

Would be interesting strategery to uh.. relocate enough population as activism, Soros-funded, to get the necessary electoral votes in perpetuity, since you guys haven't won the popular vote in a while lol. Could rustle a lot of people

Texas got net internal immigration while California got net emigration since roe was reversed but go on

Sparsely populated states

I don’t know about the past 100 years but if we go by recent history it would seem the most violent times we’ve seen is during trump. However, blaming him for the blm riots that were widely supported by dems and almost 0 repubs would be quite the take.

Do u think blm asking not be shot by police for no reason is a solely democrat issue ?

Are u actually against police repression that isn’t call for ?
Or because it’s about black , u agree with any kind of police repression even the unwarranted ones ?

Citation needed on "almost 0 republicans." It's very transparent this renaming the protests to "the BLM riots." They were universally known as the George Floyd protests or protests against police brutality at the time. I know the ones I attended had nothing to do with the BLM organization. It was people that were against police brutality, and it wasn't divided by political party. I live in an extremely conservative area, and there was absolutely no sense that it was mostly left-leaning people at the protests.

Are you opposed to police brutality or do you support it?

Preserve self.

Don't you mean they were blowing up abortion clinics, killing physicians and assaulting the pregnant women.

When he posted what he posted, I think he meant what you posted, jjjou

Killing in the name of

You changed the topic... which is fine, we can talk about riots.


Only people who are in a position to benefit from the suppression, would say what you're saying. If people are being killed or dying because of unjust systems, you change the system by rising up against it, AFTER you've tried all reasonable forms of compromise and justice through the courts.

How do you think America was born?

As far as waiting for decades to protect zygotes and fetuses... you must be forgetting about all the abortion clinic bombings, doctors and nurses that were killed by right-wing abortion extremist.