Are Republicans pro-terror?

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

So you admit he was found to have perjured himself. Now we're getting somewhere.  Glad we can agree on something. Now, should he face consequences for his perjury?

 

Hoax.  I admitted no such thing.  I noted that some people at the FBI concluded there was perjury.  The problem, for them and for you, is that it was never proven.  Instead, the DOJ concluded McCabe was wrongfully terminated.   So, it looks like we didn’t get anywhere.  Sorry. 

[aristocrat]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  I admitted no such thing.  I noted that some people at the FBI concluded there was perjury.  The problem, for them and for you, is that it was never proven.  Instead, the DOJ concluded McCabe was wrongfully terminated.   So, it looks like we didn’t get anywhere.  Sorry. 

 

Merrick Garland your guy says he lied. https://denvergazette.com/news/merrick-garland-says-doj-stands-by-conclusion-andrew-mccabe-lied-despite-reversing-his-firing/article_47357d01-455a-5284-b9e2-3a75ec6e7bf5.html

 

So is Garland lying there?

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Merrick Garland your guy says he lied. https://denvergazette.com/news/merrick-garland-says-doj-stands-by-conclusion-andrew-mccabe-lied-despite-reversing-his-firing/article_47357d01-455a-5284-b9e2-3a75ec6e7bf5.html

 

So is Garland lying there?

 

Hoax.  Merrick Garland did not reject a report with respect to the matter prepared, to my recollection, during a prior adminsitration.  Different kettle of fish.  

[aristocrat]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  Merrick Garland did not reject a report with respect to the matter prepared, to my recollection, during a prior adminsitration.  Different kettle of fish.  

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department continues to stand by the findings of the DOJ watchdog that fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied under oath to investigators during a leak investigation despite the Biden DOJ reversing his firing and settling his lawsuit against it with a big payout.

[SectionC3]

11 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department continues to stand by the findings of the DOJ watchdog that fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied under oath to investigators during a leak investigation despite the Biden DOJ reversing his firing and settling his lawsuit against it with a big payout.

I don’t see a quote there.  Looks like another one of your hoaxes. 

 

Anyhow, you’re arguing over a small point.  Or maybe it’s that you want to defund the FBI because of what Andrew McCabe allegedly said (or didn’t say).  I think protecting Americans from international terror is more important than feeding a spiteful MAGA agenda.  You don’t.  Looks like we disagree.  

 

And, I’ll add, by your logic, any time a cop lies (assuming McCabe did here), we necessary should destroy the institution. If that’s the rule of thumb, get ready for anarchy.  If a judge suppresses evidence based on a cop’s bogus story (it happens with some frequency), then Aristocrat would destroy that law enforcement institution.  That seems like a good plan.  Hoax.  

[aristocrat]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t see a quote there.  Looks like another one of your hoaxes. 

 

Anyhow, you’re arguing over a small point.  Or maybe it’s that you want to defund the FBI because of what Andrew McCabe allegedly said (or didn’t say).  I think protecting Americans from international terror is more important than feeding a spiteful MAGA agenda.  You don’t.  Looks like we disagree.  

 

And, I’ll add, by your logic, any time a cop lies (assuming McCabe did here), we necessary should destroy the institution. If that’s the rule of thumb, get ready for anarchy.  If a judge suppresses evidence based on a cop’s bogus story (it happens with some frequency), then Aristocrat would destroy that law enforcement institution.  That seems like a good plan.  Hoax.  

 

So your hoax is that I want the FBI closed?  I've only said they should do their job better. If it means an agent gets fired fine. They have thousands more. Get rid of the one's taking away the credibility of the FBI.  Seems pretty reasonable right?  Get rid of bad cops as well. Don't get rid of all of them.  Why do you want to keep defending a guy who clearly lied under oath?  BTW you ignored all the other large ***** ups the FBI has had and instead defend this guy to the death for some odd reason despite all the evidence in the world he was lying under oath. 

[SectionC3]

4 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

So your hoax is that I want the FBI closed?  I've only said they should do their job better. If it means an agent gets fired fine. They have thousands more. Get rid of the one's taking away the credibility of the FBI.  Seems pretty reasonable right?  Get rid of bad cops as well. Don't get rid of all of them.  Why do you want to keep defending a guy who clearly lied under oath?  BTW you ignored all the other large ***** ups the FBI has had and instead defend this guy to the death for some odd reason despite all the evidence in the world he was lying under oath. 

It’s not a hoax.  Your first post in this thread suggests that you wish to defund the FBI.  If you’re simply attacking the FBI, that’s fine.  (I guess.  I actually think it’s kind of screwed up but, then again, a lot of MAGA positions are shifty and incomprehensible.)  But you should clarify your position so that there’s no confusion.  We need to know whether you wish only to attack, rather than back, the blue, or if you wish to defund (that is, in this context, shutter) the FBI.  

7 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

So your hoax is that I want the FBI closed?  I've only said they should do their job better. If it means an agent gets fired fine. They have thousands more. Get rid of the one's taking away the credibility of the FBI.  Seems pretty reasonable right?  Get rid of bad cops as well. Don't get rid of all of them.  Why do you want to keep defending a guy who clearly lied under oath?  BTW you ignored all the other large ***** ups the FBI has had and instead defend this guy to the death for some odd reason despite all the evidence in the world he was lying under oath. 

 

It’s nice that you want to be like me.  Imitation is the best form of flattery.  Thank you!

[aristocrat]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

It’s not a hoax.  Your first post in this thread suggests that you wish to defund the FBI.  If you’re simply attacking the FBI, that’s fine.  (I guess.  I actually think it’s kind of screwed up but, then again, a lot of MAGA positions are shifty and incomprehensible.)  But you should clarify your position so that there’s no confusion.  We need to know whether you wish only to attack, rather than back, the blue, or if you wish to defund (that is, in this context, shutter) the FBI.  

 

It’s nice that you want to be like me.  Imitation is the best form of flattery.  Thank you!

 

My first post in no way whatsoever suggested such a thing.  You want it to so that you can just be argumentative. Since then I've said a bunch of times they simply need to do their job better. Is this how you have conversations with people in real life?  Cause it's a very odd way to have a conversation with a person. Just avoid reality. Accuse them of things they clearly haven't said etc. It's strange. 

[SectionC3]

4 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

My first post in no way whatsoever suggested such a thing.  You want it to so that you can just be argumentative. Since then I've said a bunch of times they simply need to do their job better. Is this how you have conversations with people in real life?  Cause it's a very odd way to have a conversation with a person. Just avoid reality. Accuse them of things they clearly haven't said etc. It's strange. 

 

Hoax.  You brought up Waco, right?  That occurred, I don’t know, 29 years ago.  Seems like you’re taking on the agency as a whole when there’s a strong possibility that the vast majority of the agents involved in that mess have retired.  

 

Now, later, you’re all twisted up in knots trying to say that your focus is just on McCabe and the removal of bad agents.  Which, I note, was not an articulated concern prior to the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at the Mar a Lago compound.  So it seems that your concern with respect to the efficacy of the FBI is driven by fealty, rather than objectivity.  That is troubling. 

[aristocrat]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  You brought up Waco, right?  That occurred, I don’t know, 29 years ago.  Seems like you’re taking on the agency as a whole when there’s a strong possibility that the vast majority of the agents involved in that mess have retired.  

 

Now, later, you’re all twisted up in knots trying to say that your focus is just on McCabe and the removal of bad agents.  Which, I note, was not an articulated concern prior to the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at the Mar a Lago compound.  So it seems that your concern with respect to the efficacy of the FBI is driven by fealty, rather than objectivity.  That is troubling. 

 

what other events did I bring up? Wasn't just Waco and it wasn't just McCabe. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, aristocrat said:

 

what other events did I bring up? Wasn't just Waco and it wasn't just McCabe. 

Give it up. When the gestappo raids HIS home he’ll be singing a completely different tune. 

[SectionC3]

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Give it up. When the gestappo raids HIS home he’ll be singing a completely different tune. 

Ahh the gestapo.  Nice reference.  Analogizing the FBI to Nazis.  A bit hyperbolic, and a bit of a tip of the cap to some OG fascists.
 

 Maybe, just maybe, the FBI did the right thing here and we should all just *gasp* shut up and let it play out.  (I’d note that Trump also should shut up because he’s in it deep and it would be a good plan for him to shut his cheeseburger hole.) 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Ahh the gestapo.  Nice reference.  Analogizing the FBI to Nazis.  A bit hyperbolic, and a bit of a tip of the cap to some OG fascists.
 

 Maybe, just maybe, the FBI did the right thing here and we should all just *gasp* shut up and let it play out.  (I’d note that Trump also should shut up because he’s in it deep and it would be a good plan for him to shut his cheeseburger hole.) 

I know you don’t like it, or refuse to accept it, but that man you hate so much was the actual President of the United States. 

[SectionC3]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I know you don’t like it, or refuse to accept it, but that man you hate so much was the actual President of the United States. 

I don’t like the term, but it does seem like you’re gaslighting a bit there.  I don’t think anyone is challenging the validity of his election in 2016.  Unless it’s a Freudian thing on your part, which would be weird.

 

So again, I return to the point that, in the olden days (per-2015), when we all worked from iPhone 4 models and Razor phones, we as a society would let this kind of thing play out, assess the facts, and take it from there.  Instead, now, the MAGA crowd basically tries to destroy any institution that doesn’t give it its way (e.g., the Constitution, the Electoral College, numerous Boards of Election, and now the FBI).   This is not a good approach to preserving the republic. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by SectionC3

[T master]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Sigh.  Hoax.  

 

A few violent actions do not support your characterization of the whole of the protests.  It would be like saying that everyone who wears a red hat is a traitor because of what a few hundred or thousand people did on January 6.  Are the Capitol invaders traitors?  Damn straight they are.  But not everyone who supports MAGA or who wears a MAGA hat is a traitor.  

 

I hope that you also have a pleasant day. 

 

A few ?? There were months dam near a year of the same stuff going on and as you said to which i agree not all that were protesting were doing so to insight violence just some were the cause & more than likely those few could have flew all over the country to insight that violence & so much was in fact said to be true .

 

Then there were those in power such as many mayors of certain large cities that would not intervene even when some were being shot or worse of course until the protesters showed up at their door step which just goes to show their privileged/bias way of thinking . Which that's a politician for you !! 

 

Also the fact that during that time the amount of people that were screaming from the hill tops defund the police while those that were under the guise of racial injustice went out & looted businesses as shown in the links i provided . Even as the one women said that they supported the cause yet became a victim .

 

So what i am getting at is basically the same thing you have said not all folks involved in this had the intentions of doing bad things but the few that used this as a avenue to do bad things under those conditions were the ones that got the most publicity & the actual reasons for the protest seemed to be secondary .

 

There were those too in some way to advantage of the situation to make things look other than the original intentions of the actions to invoke yet a different reaction from others to serve a agenda, which in all could in your opinion be considered a hoax but was more than likely a intentional action to invoke the reaction that they wanted .

 

Just some food for thought .

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

A few ?? There were months dam near a year of the same stuff going on and as you said to which i agree not all that were protesting were doing so to insight violence just some were the cause & more than likely those few could have flew all over the country to insight that violence & so much was in fact said to be true .

 

Then there were those in power such as many mayors of certain large cities that would not intervene even when some were being shot or worse of course until the protesters showed up at their door step which just goes to show their privileged/bias way of thinking . Which that's a politician for you !! 

 

Also the fact that during that time the amount of people that were screaming from the hill tops defund the police while those that were under the guise of racial injustice went out & looted businesses as shown in the links i provided . Even as the one women said that they supported the cause yet became a victim .

 

So what i am getting at is basically the same thing you have said not all folks involved in this had the intentions of doing bad things but the few that used this as a avenue to do bad things under those conditions were the ones that got the most publicity & the actual reasons for the protest seemed to be secondary .

 

There were those too in some way to advantage of the situation to make things look other than the original intentions of the actions to invoke yet a different reaction from others to serve a agenda, which in all could in your opinion be considered a hoax but was more than likely a intentional action to invoke the reaction that they wanted .

 

Just some food for thought .

This seems like a hoax but I have a hard time understanding what you’re saying.  So I’ll call this a suspected hoax and leave it at that. 

[Tiberius]

 

[Orlando Tim]

On 8/15/2022 at 3:20 PM, SectionC3 said:

Thank you for the compliment.  Also, I’m the one who asks the questions here.  I don’t believe you answered the question whether Republicans are pro-terror.  You also didn’t deny the point, so readers can take from that what they wish.  

To answer your question the Republicans would like an organization that actually stops terrorism, not misses all of the people about to shoot up a school so they can create a political advantage by pretending there is a kidnapping plot. Clearly you are pro terrorism because you want to keep things the way they are 

[JaCrispy]

On 8/15/2022 at 2:06 PM, SectionC3 said:

I wish this was a hoax.  I wish I didn’t have to leave retirement from these parts to make this point.  But my hand has been forced.  

 

To defund the FBI is to dilute, or maybe even destroy, an organization charged with preventing terrorist attacks on our country.  It is disgusting that the cultists who believe that, because its mission of enforcing the law and protecting our country inconvenienced Donald Trump, that agency should be dismantled.  I thought it was bad to rush to judgment.  I thought it was bad to attack the “blue.”  Apparently Republicans feel differently.  How sad that it has come to this.  

Didn’t the FBI also try to kidnap the Michigan governor, just to try and blame it on other people? 🤔

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

In spite of the headline, S3 and “hoax” is one of my favorite thematic threads on PPP.    

[Buffarukus]

 

12 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

An FBI team concluded that there was perjury.  The issue never went to trial, and the point was never established in a court of law.   In significant part because it would have been extremely difficult to prove the case.  And then a different DOJ team determined that McCabe was fired in an act of unlawful retaliation.  So, once again, hoax.  

 

For what it’s worth, I’ll bet donuts to donuts that you never gave the FBI a second thought until it executed a search warrant on a home of FPOTUS.  Then, suddenly, you bought into the far-right’s hoaxes about defunding the FBI and investigatory overreach.  Basically the kind of thing that pops up when a guy like Chris Collins gets pinched and looks to blame somebody else for what he did wrong.  

 

So, enough of the hoaxes already.  Let the investigation run its course.  I’ll close with the point that Merrick Garland is not a guy that I’d want to eff with.  Smart and careful.  Trump is way up ess creek with this guy on the job. 

 

Sigh.  Hoax.  

 

A few violent actions do not support your characterization of the whole of the protests.  It would be like saying that everyone who wears a red hat is a traitor because of what a few hundred or thousand people did on January 6.  Are the Capitol invaders traitors?  Damn straight they are.  But not everyone who supports MAGA or who wears a MAGA hat is a traitor.  

 

I hope that you also have a pleasant day. 

 

who the hell said all blm supporters were violent rioters? no the issue is blm supporters and leadership did not denounce the violence as it continued to spread even after CHILDREN were murdered. secoriea turner!!!! i will cont to scream that little girls name on this board and not let her be forgotten. that was very early and it just kept going and going. collecting innocent victims! summer of looove! another young victim. nothing but talking points to advocate more violence. "riots are the voices of the unheard". "looting is repreations". sending federal help to try to keep rioters from burning people alive in a fed building is fascism and gestapo tactics!! beating innocent people. RIOTERS were getting revolving door. bailed out by dem leadership who started funding campaigns for them with slaps on the wrist and cops who were told to let it happen. so do black lives matter yet? where? now that street violence is skyrocketing? good thing you got police out of the way. 

 

just a sigh and a "hoax" prob from your suburban house. you put up a black square on instagram..did your part. 

 

meanwhile rep leaders came out day after and condemned 1/6 rioters! noone on here thinks those who committed violence was right for doing so. they are all in prison to this day waiting severe punishment. no revolving door for THAT violence? hmm. 1/6 is what you got after YEARS of telling these people they are the biggest threat? that was it? that was the buildup of the constant "racist" "terrorists" for years. now the libs want to keep prodding and calling them terrorists further? hunter labtop, lie. russia gate, lie. kicking in doors of project veritas off of a, you guessed it, lie. locking up parks, villianizing people and closing small buisnesses that never returned for YEARS, lies. they still keep emergency powers on you fools lol. so here is a new door kicked in...believe us this time. these people are the REAL threat!! yeah sure. ill look into that whenever they give full info..prob around elections.

 

eventually youll get your wish, which i think is the goal here. you can't be completely biased and condemning people with fed backing without a reaction at some point. i certainly hope not but dont act like deep down its not what you always wanted. a reason to say, see told ya, now lets round em all up.

 

our society is very sick because noone sees the OBVIOUS double standard as wrong. call it for what it is or your just another pom pom cheerleader to authoritarianism. but that's nothing new.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Buffarukus

[SectionC3]

20 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

 

who the hell said all blm supporters were violent rioters? no the issue is blm supporters and leadership did not denounce the violence as it continued to spread even after CHILDREN were murdered. secoriea turner!!!! i will scream that little girls name on this board and not let her be forgotten. that was very early and it just kept going and going collecting innocent victims! summer of looove! another young victim. nothing but talking points to advocate more violence. "riots are the voices of the unheard". "looting is repreations". sending federal help to try to keep rioters from burning people alive in a fed building is fascism and gestapo tactics!! beating innocent people. RIOTERS were getting revolving door bailed out by dem leadership who started funding campaigns for them all while with slaps on the wrist and cops were told to let it happen. so do black lives matter yet? where? now that street violence is skyrocketing? good thing you got police out of the way. 

 

just a sigh and a "hoax" prob from your suburban house. you put up a black square on instagram..did your part. 

 

meanwhile rep leaders came out day after and condemned 1/6 rioters! noone on here thinks those who committed violence was right for doing so. they are all in prison to this day waiting sever punishment. no revolving door for THAT violence. hmm. 1/6 is what you got after YEARS of telling these people they are the biggest threat? that was it? that was the buildup of the constant "racist" "terrorists" for years. now the libs want to keep prodding and calling them terrorists further? hunter labtop, lie. russia gate, lie. kicking in doors of project veritas off of a, you guessed it, lie. locking up parks villianizing people and closing small buisnesses that never returned for YEARS, lies. they still keep emergency powers lol. so here is a new door kicked in...believe us this time these people are the REAL threats!! yeah sure. ill look into that whenever they give info..prob around elections.

 

eventually youll get your wish which i think is the goal here. you can't be completely biased and condemning people with fed backing without a reaction at some point. i certainly hope not but dont act like deep down its not what you always want. a reason to say, see told ya now lets round em all up.

 

our society is very sick because noone sees the OBVIOUS double standard as wrong. call it for what it is our your just another pom pom cheerleader same as you accuse.

 

 

Hoax. 

[Buffarukus]

16 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax. 

 

lol thanks for showing your real intention. 

 

lets let this bs thread sink now.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Buffarukus

[BillsFanNC]

This thread and the OP are like @ChiGoose on steroids.

 

Sometimes I don't remember why I put certain posters on ignore after they make their return after a long hiatus.

 

This one however is clear as day.

[Tenhigh]

48 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

This thread and the OP are like @ChiGoose on steroids.

 

Sometimes I don't remember why I put certain posters on ignore after they make their return after a long hiatus.

 

This one however is clear as day.

Hoax?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3, am I doing this right?

[Big Blitz]

Did someone open fire on the Democrats congressional softball team?

[SectionC3]

10 hours ago, Tenhigh said:

Hoax?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

C3, am I doing this right?

No.  Hoax is a statement, not a question.  Try this:

 

Hoax. 

11 hours ago, DRsGhost said:

This thread and the OP are like @ChiGoose on steroids.

 

Sometimes I don't remember why I put certain posters on ignore after they make their return after a long hiatus.

 

This one however is clear as day.

 

I'm glad I'm on your ignore list.  You now have more time to ponder Flynndicated.  

13 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

 

lol thanks for showing your real intention. 

 

lets let this bs thread sink now.

 

 

 

My intention is to back the blue, particularly the FBI, because I don't like terrorists and I definitely don't like terror attacks in the United States of America.  If you'd like to attack the blue, or defund the FBI, or worse, then there's not much that I can do about that. 

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Did someone open fire on the Democrats congressional softball team?

This is kind of the point, crazy people don't need to be encouraged to commit violence, yet there is the GOP and Fox giving the green light to attack American law enforcement 

[Big Blitz]

 

[aristocrat]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

This is kind of the point, crazy people don't need to be encouraged to commit violence, yet there is the GOP and Fox giving the green light to attack American law enforcement 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers

 

What's that about greenlight to attack law enforcement?  How many other cops got killed?

Edited August 17, 2022 by aristocrat

[Buffarukus]

5 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

No.  Hoax is a statement, not a question.  Try this:

 

Hoax. 

 

I'm glad I'm on your ignore list.  You now have more time to ponder Flynndicated.  

 

My intention is to back the blue, particularly the FBI, because I don't like terrorists and I definitely don't like terror attacks in the United States of America.  If you'd like to attack the blue, or defund the FBI, or worse, then there's not much that I can do about that. 

 

this is your only intention, blue as in democrat establishment. you don't mind terrorism as long as your sides the one doing it. i laid it out pretty clean and you have no response. the second "the blue" tells you the fbi is a threat or commits ANOTHER act of terrorism you will flip and advocate it. its that simple. 

[SectionC3]

18 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

this is your only intention, blue as in democrat establishment. you don't mind terrorism as long as your sides the one doing it. i laid it out pretty clean and you have no response. the second "the blue" tells you the fbi is a threat or commits ANOTHER act of terrorism you will flip and advocate it. its that simple. 

 

Hoax. 

[Andy1]

This is something I have been thinking about for a while. First, let me preface this by saying that by no means do I think that all republicans support violence. I know plenty, including gun owners, that are fine people. Second, I support the right to own guns, with limits. Third, all political violence is wrong, regardless of which side is doing it. However, there is a significant and apparently growing segment of the R party, including politicians, who promote the symbols of violence in their messaging. Others are actively forming alliances with violent groups. This is beyond the usual political rhetoric of “fighting” for a cause. Specific things I am referring to include:

Politicians using assault weapons in political messages on all media platforms 

Politicians holding guns, talking of “hunting down” their opponents

Armed right wingers with assault weapons occupying public spaces at political events

Politicians forming alliances with militia thugs like Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc. or white supremicist groups 

Politicians mixing guns with religion, like “Christmas photos of our armed family”, Flags saying God, Guns and Trump, etc.

Death threats against Fauci

Death threats against Dominion Voting CEO

Death threats against J6 committee 

Death threats against J6 witnesses

Death threats against election administrators and volunteers

Death threats/ violence against FBI

Death threats against anyone who speaks out against Trump

 

All of this is normalizing the idea of using violence to achieve political goals. While there has certainly been instances of violence or excessive rhetoric on the left, there really isn’t a comparison to how the right is using guns in political messaging. Examples of such messaging are here https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/guns-and-political-violence-play-central-role-in-maga-republican-campaign-ads/

Politicians need to debate issues without using guns to enhance their macho factor. Get the guns out of politics! Nothing good is going to happen if politics follows this path.

 

 

 

[aristocrat]

30 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

This is something I have been thinking about for a while. First, let me preface this by saying that by no means do I think that all republicans support violence. I know plenty, including gun owners, that are fine people. Second, I support the right to own guns, with limits. Third, all political violence is wrong, regardless of which side is doing it. However, there is a significant and apparently growing segment of the R party, including politicians, who promote the symbols of violence in their messaging. Others are actively forming alliances with violent groups. This is beyond the usual political rhetoric of “fighting” for a cause. Specific things I am referring to include:

Politicians using assault weapons in political messages on all media platforms 

Politicians holding guns, talking of “hunting down” their opponents

Armed right wingers with assault weapons occupying public spaces at political events

Politicians forming alliances with militia thugs like Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc. or white supremicist groups 

Politicians mixing guns with religion, like “Christmas photos of our armed family”, Flags saying God, Guns and Trump, etc.

Death threats against Fauci

Death threats against Dominion Voting CEO

Death threats against J6 committee 

Death threats against J6 witnesses

Death threats against election administrators and volunteers

Death threats/ violence against FBI

Death threats against anyone who speaks out against Trump

 

All of this is normalizing the idea of using violence to achieve political goals. While there has certainly been instances of violence or excessive rhetoric on the left, there really isn’t a comparison to how the right is using guns in political messaging. Examples of such messaging are here https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/guns-and-political-violence-play-central-role-in-maga-republican-campaign-ads/

Politicians need to debate issues without using guns to enhance their macho factor. Get the guns out of politics! Nothing good is going to happen if politics follows this path.

 

 

 

the riots that the blm which was unquestionably supported by the left caused how many billions in damage and dozens killed just during the riots and more after. Could you name one instance of that done by the right that compares? 

[Andy1]

23 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

the riots that the blm which was unquestionably supported by the left caused how many billions in damage and dozens killed just during the riots and more after. Could you name one instance of that done by the right that compares? 

Unfortunately, America has a history of race related riots. Tulsa massacre, Detroit, etc. No, there is no comparison on the right though Tulsa was plenty bad. Democrat leaders opposed the violence too.

[aristocrat]

2 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Unfortunately, America has a history of race related riots. Tulsa massacre, Detroit, etc. No, there is no comparison on the right though Tulsa was plenty bad. Democrat leaders opposed the violence too.

They did in no way oppose the violence. They started bail funds to get them out of jail. 

[JaCrispy]

3 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

They did in no way oppose the violence. They started bail funds to get them out of jail. 

And many of the Dem politicians flat out called for, and incited more violence, themselves (Maxine Waters, Rashida Talib, etc)

[Orlando Tim]

I think the question for @SectionC3 is why are the Democrats against people doing their jobs? Right now in Florida all the liberals are up in arms over DeSantis suspending someone who stated directly he would not do his legally prescribed job. 

[Andy1]

I do remember Waters who did not act appropriately. Any incitement of violence is wrong. Can we agree on that?
 

The Dems went on to choose Biden, who is about the least radical politician they could find. 

My comment really pertains to the messaging politicians are sending to their followers. Many Republicans are following a bad path.

[TH3]

On 8/15/2022 at 2:06 PM, SectionC3 said:

I wish this was a hoax.  I wish I didn’t have to leave retirement from these parts to make this point.  But my hand has been forced.  

 

To defund the FBI is to dilute, or maybe even destroy, an organization charged with preventing terrorist attacks on our country.  It is disgusting that the cultists who believe that, because its mission of enforcing the law and protecting our country inconvenienced Donald Trump, that agency should be dismantled.  I thought it was bad to rush to judgment.  I thought it was bad to attack the “blue.”  Apparently Republicans feel differently.  How sad that it has come to this.  

GOP leaders starting with Reagan and the Lee Attwater rat*****ers grew a strain of scared and aggrieved voters that has grown beyond imagine. Now they are nihilists…and something is going to end…them ….or the republic