Wide spread election fraud 2020

[byco42]

Sure, but BLM is way bigger than this guy. If the vast majority of BLM marchers haven't heard of this guy, then marching with BLM is no reason to expect they agree with these statements.

BLM was founded by three women. It has chapters all over the US. But it's the same organization. It's pretty transparent about its goals and motives.

And the BLM sticker on the football helmets? The BLM logo. It's not just a slogan; it's a promotion of the BLM organization.

This event? BLM-driven, with the same language and urgencies as the BLM website.

 

[Gulo Blue]

BLM was founded by three women. It has chapters all over the US. But it's the same organization. It's pretty transparent about it's goals and motives.

And the BLM sticker on the football helmets? The BLM logo. It's not just a slogan; it's a promotion of the BLM organization.

This event? BLM-driven, with the same language and urgencies as the BLM website.

I very much doubt the football players wearing those logos would say they are Marxist. In June, Pew found that 2 out of 3 Americans supported BLM. It's not for the Marxism.

 

[byco42]

I very much doubt the football players wearing those logos would say they are Marxist. In June, Pew found that 2 out of 3 Americans supported BLM. It's not for the Marxism.

My point is that BLM thinks that it is.

?We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ?villages? that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.?

This was removed from the BLM website, but not from its objectives. Note the absence of the term "fathers."

 

[Gulo Blue]

My point is that BLM thinks that it is.

?We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ?villages? that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.?

This was removed from the BLM website, but not from its objectives. Note the absence of the term "fathers."

I think it would be unnecessarily decisive if you were to look at a group of BLM protesters and think that that's what they're protesting rather than police accountability. When 2/3 of Americans say they support BLM, they're thinking about police accountability, not disrupting nuclear families.

 

[byco42]

I think it would be unnecessarily decisive if you were to look at a group of BLM protesters and think that that's what they're protesting rather than police accountability. When 2/3 of Americans say they support BLM, they're thinking about police accountability, not disrupting nuclear families.

I do not think that matters to BLM the organization.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I do not think that matters to BLM the organization.

It matters to what they will be able to accomplish. They're not going to turn people Marxist, they'll just lose people in proportion with the degree they try to push it.

 

[byco42]

It matters to what they will be able to accomplish. They're not going to turn people Marxist, they'll just lose people in proportion with the degree they try to push it.

Cullers:

“I do believe in Marxism. It’s a philosophy that I learned early on in my organizing career. We were taught to learn about the systems that were criticizing capitalism. We were taught to understand why there were philosophies that were criticizing capitalism.” We were...taught? By ...whom?

“But I do believe that we can get to a place where there is a socio-economic system that doesn’t oppress some groups of people and only uplifts a few,” she later added. “We can’t allow for fear to dictate how we understand what’s possible.”

That is the essence of communism, the form of economics that Marx championed. I don't think Cullers cares much about whether or not people will resist being "turned" into Marxists. Compliance is all that is required, not assent.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't think they care about that.

I don't see why I should care what they think if it's not going to amount to anything.

 

[Spartanmack]

You mean like hitting reporters and their camera men in the back with riot shields and shooting them with rubber bullets for absolutely no reason whatsoever? They were not rioting, that were simply filming and reporting.

It's beyond stupid to post something like this

You're mistaken, they were clearly defusing a bomb.

it's certainly beyond stupid to think that is more aggressive than a cop shooting an unarmed peaceful rioter in the neck and killing her for what likely amounts to trespassing

 

[Spartanmack]

We're different people. I made a general statement about a general statement.

no. your general statement was about my specific response in response to a specific statement by your boyfriend. I guess you were missing that pretty obvious context - afterall, I was quoting his post when I said it.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't see why I should care what they think if it's not going to amount to anything.

It doesn't matter that people don't know what they're supporting. They also don't denounce those specific parts of it - whether they're aware of it or not. Even if it's born out of ignorance, that's not going to matter as they cede power to these people and amplify their voices. When will they realize what they're supporting, after they've elected BLM members to local, state or federal office?

 

[byco42]

I don't see why I should care what they think if it's not going to amount to anything.

Because they will care that you don't care. "Silence is violence."

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's certainly beyond stupid to think that is more aggressive than a cop shooting an unarmed peaceful rioter in the neck and killing her for what likely amounts to trespassing

Do you really think anybody thinks that?

 

[Gulo Blue]

no. your general statement was about my specific response in response to a specific statement by your boyfriend. I guess you were missing that pretty obvious context - afterall, I was quoting his post when I said it.

Guess whatever you want. It's always wrong.



You picked a specific point to over-generalize from. I replied about the over generalization being overly general. You wish I said something else so you argue that, but I didn't.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Because they will care that you don't care. "Silence is violence."

There are a lot of people out there that think things I don't though. But either way, when someone says BLM, I think of the masses of people saying something about police, not the few talking about nuclear families. For the purposes of talking about BLM , I think if saying BLM adds some unintended anti-nuclear family context, that hurts the chances of understanding and being understood.

 

[Spartanmack]

Do you really think anybody thinks that?

Like I said before, anyone who thinks the response to the mostly peaceful riots was more aggressive than the response to the mostly peaceful insurrection is out of their mind. The response to the former was to stand down and watch precincts, federal buildings and businesses burn, police get assaulted and counter-protestors murdered. Sure there were a few instances where police roughed some people up - police were assaulted for 7 months while the media and elected officials lauded and cheered them when they weren't running cover for them by calling the riots mostly peaceful. The response to the capitol insurrection was nowhere near that passive or permissive.

 

[byco42]

Originally Posted by Spartanmack View Post it's certainly beyond stupid to think that is more aggressive than a cop shooting an unarmed peaceful rioter in the neck and killing her for what likely amounts to trespassing

What is a "peaceful rioter?" One thing I know: Do not step in front of the juggernaut. This woman did about 999 things wrong in succession to place her in the way of an armed Federal agent with the authority to shoot to kill. Which makes her death especially tragic.

Trespassing? You consider these people as "trespassers?" THEY FORCED THEIR WAY INTO THE CAPITOL BUILDING.

Do you really think anybody thinks that?

I'm not sure what Spartanmack thinks much of the time.

 

[Michchamp]

I haven't read everything Trump has said, but I suspect he hasn't met any legal definition of incitement. But to some degree it's like the description of porn about knowing it when you see it. He knows he has supporters hanging on crazy conspiracy stories talking about violent overthrow and given the chance to denounce it, he wouldn't; he just kept saying the stuff that encouraged them. But then again, my impressions is that you don't need to meet any legal definitions when it comes to impeachment.

I think a more apt description would be "a crowded theatre, filled with angry patrons begging their dear leader to ask them to riot and commit violence and property destruction in his name," and instead of saying "no, please don't riot" the leader is smiling, and coyly encouraging them further.

I also think it's possible to be seriously concerned by how things are going (particularly Pelosi's bizarre statement that the military assure her the president cannot launch a nuclear strike right now, or whatever), and Twitter & facebook having monopolized & privatized a significant "public space," coordinating (obviously) with someone in government to ban Trump now... and also on the other hand admitting that Trump has been intentionally fanning the flames of this, his conduct is beyond the pale unacceptable, and he's not fit to be president.

Also: he never was fit to be president in the first place.

 

[Spartanmack]

Guess whatever you want. It's always wrong.



You picked a specific point to over-generalize from. I replied about the over generalization being overly general. You wish I said something else so you argue that, but I didn't.

It wasn't a guess and it wasn't wrong.

No, he picked a bullshit, incorrect point (a few actually) to over-generalize from and got called out for it - I could have addressed all of his examples, like this gem here

...and the cops also assassinated that guy in Portland OR who allegedly killed a Trump supporter.

where he accuses cops of "assassinating" an armed murder suspect who tried to shoot cops attempting to arrest him. But even if I had addressed each of these egregious and profoundly stupid lies, that wouldn't satisfy you either because you have a pathological need to disagree with me and an equally pathological need to try to bail out your idiot buddy, but of course you just ended up fixating on and nit picking a single point, again.

 

[byco42]

There are a lot of people out there that think things I don't though. But either way, when someone says BLM, I think of the masses of people saying something about police, not the few talking about nuclear families. For the purposes of talking about BLM , I think if saying BLM adds some unintended anti-nuclear family context, that hurts the chances of understanding and being understood.

There is nothing, IMO, that is "unintentional" about BLM's objectives, which, on the surface, are supportable. But the ultimate objective, IMO, of "eradicating white supremacy" has a matrix that resets a lot more than that.

And I do not support defunding the police.