I assume that you don't think any of these incidents are examples of right-wing political violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsb...gogue_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle...hurch_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centen...c_Park_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colora...thood_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octobe...mbing_attempts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchi...Michael_Donald

Counterpoint: someone sent a menacing envelope to Marjorie Taylor Greene so there

I mean, it's not like right wing nut jobs are known for their love of stockpiling guns or shooting **** up or anything. That's just an unfair stereotype. Let's talk about what matters here, BLM smashing some windows. The key distinction here, at least per our resident RWNJ, is clearly not the level of violence, but the size of the group.

It's interesting to see that what you guys use to counter / balance with thousands of people pillaging entire neighboorhoods many hundreds of times in decades, is actions of single individuals or very small "teams".

As if there was no almost no rightwing political violence crowd episode out of jan6 in 80 years.

I don't even start to list the single individual crazy leftist who kills other people as political violence, because i thought it was very clear what i had in mind: crowds, large groups of people, rioting, devastating society, organized (from the ground or from the top, doesn't matter much), for a political purpose.

Like jan 6, or the 100+ BLM riots, or the 160 riots in the hot summer and so on.

Moreover, while the episodes (none of them crowd episodes) listed for the right aren't stuff the right actually endorses, the episodes from the left very often are (meaning the political goals are SHARED BY THE ACTUAL GOVERNING LEFT, unlike those of the rightwing people you listed).

But i understand, i am in a place which skews a lot to the left, it's impossible to have you guys admit your side is exceptionally more violent and endorses the use of violence to further political goals structurally

as usual, full denial of the scale of the violence of BLM. That summer alone BLM did more political violence than the right did since 1946 by a large margin. And it was endorsed by the left to the point they said that even during a pandemic they had a right to do that while kids should be forbidden to play in parks.

Unsurprising.

just look at the devastation these disgusting radical leftists did while protesting

Blah blah blah blah you entirely unserious troll

Apparently, the president calling those groups "very fine people" is not "SHARING THEIR GOALS BY THE ACTUAL GOVERNING RIGHT", y'all.

Look, Luciom, sometimes your views come across as plausibly reasonable, even while I don't agree with them, and other times you come across as a disingenuous nut job who is at best trolling and at worst completely deranged. Guess which time this is?

Myabe his nt including the violence when it's by the police. From the fine police force who went onto to handle Hillsborough



https://www.theguardian.com/politics...gh-theresa-may

White Supermacy = not politically motivated
Protest Cops Killing Blacks = politically motivated

Got it.

ffs listen to yourself

the president has called the shooters in the above list very fine people? i didn't remember that. While i remember the candidate for VP (now VP) crowdfunding bail money for the in flagrant arrested BLM people

You should realize that it doesn't matter "what you had in mind." Just because you think there's a difference doesn't mean there is one.

There's no such thing as "BLM riots." There were protests of cops killing black people that sometimes turned into riots when cops and white supremacists instigated.

Yes, the actual governing left being the only ones wanting to stop black people from getting killed by cops isn't the flex you think it is.

You understand literally almost nothing.

What exactly are "BLM people?"

This kind of takes are what i expect around here. Total denial of factual reality to justify extreme, organized, nationwide political violence with no historical counterpart on the other side.

A truly existential threat to any society if these takes are widespread enough. Victor-level "false flag, white supremacy instigated" conspiracy theory.

First it was there were no riots. Then it was only a few, "mostly peaceful". Then it was "ye ok a lot of riots but it's because of white supremacists", denying all agency of black people and other protestors in deciding what to do.

The full manual of the anti-democratic violent left in display.

These are the "very fine people", I am sure they are on some list or another.



You might recognise some of the names, but in any case, I am sure you recognise the imagery.

Also, very odd that these militant leftists called their little rendezvous "Unite the Right". Probably a typo.

Worse than timothy McVeigh?

you can admit youre wrong

Factual? From some of us, yes.

Extreme? Arguable at best. Organized? LOL. Political? Not even a little bit. Laughable.

Complete nonsense, and avoiding every instance of the point in my post.

We'll try this again.

What are "BLM people?"

And do you support or oppose police brutality and cops killing black people?

i mean i know how you guys operate, but relitigating every single fake news instance is fairly boring.

Anyway, this is what he called very fine people

/

Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"

Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

/

Not the nazis, which were only a portion of that crowd. But yes i know, it goes like this every single time. Made up claims, with coverage from a portion of leftist media, become "truth", while the most extreme violence by the left becomes either "mostly peaceful" or if you go really allin like gorgon, it's all white supremacy when blacks riot .

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...sides-remarks/

Considering the talent he had to outdo I’m quite impressed by I loathe Luci’s meteoric rise to resident peak lunatic troll

So, I'm not following, are the very fine people on that poster, or are they other fine people who just saw that poster and decided to show up? Can you clarify once and for all for us who the very fine people on the right are?

I'm as confused as this guy:

The people who protested against the removal of the statue peacefully and didn't explicitly endorse any violence are the fine people, is that hard?

same as you can claim the people protesting peacefully for BLM are fine, while the violent rioters among them are criminals , that's not complicated.

But yeah, I agree in general that taking what Trump says at face value is a pointless endeavour, as even when he is not lying or trying to lie, he is too ****ing re/tarded to string together a coherent sentence.

I see. Can we see the poster that invited them to the event? I've seen only the one for the other fine people.

It's more persistence and prolificness than anything resembling talent.

Failed because of law enforcement? Lol, you are such a bootlicker. He called 911 on himself.