Gun-toting Trumptards from Virginia arrested in Philadelphia based on a tip from the FBI re potential threat to election counting

[Dan Druff]

Except it's not just looting.

The 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Los Angeles) had some looting following it. It didn't have any rioting, arson, or violence. Notice how it differed from the LA Riots two years earlier, which did have rioting/arson/violence.

Were this only looting, you'd have a point. However, it isn't. It's a full scale of violent protest combined with looting. In fact, some places like Portland have relatively little looting, but tons of violence/arson/vandalism.

Simply put, you're full of shit when you make this comparison.

Yea there's a reason why my reply was ONLY about LOOTING. You were successful in countering a point i didn't make.

This part of the thread was about common criminals being responsible for most of the looting. For unknown reasons you decided to go on a diatribe about the Left doing all of the things.

If you're confused why left is responsible for some protests turning into riots there's all sorts of reasons for that. The biggest reason is conflict escalation.

And don't worry you can find plenty of riots that have nothing to do with the Left, with all of the things (arson/violence/vandalism/looting). The biggest reason why the Right doesn't have much history in US with riots in the last 60ish years is mostly because your protests have been tiny. You know that amazing debunk of 93% of protests being peaceful because most of them were small. Let's just run with that, to waste least amount of time.

Look up The Troubles, if you're interested in protests turning into riots and how conflict escalation works. I assume that's at least something you've heard about.

You only replied about looting because you were able to find other instances of looting during other times of disaster and unrest, but not of mass rioting/arson/vandalism/assault.

So you just went with the looting to make your point, hoping nobody would notice that it failed to answer why all of these other things also "coincidentally" happened at the same time as left wing protests.

There have been a number of right-wing protests which were large in size in modern US history, yet they never seemed to break out into violence. Even the ones where "guns are brandished" (meaning carried around) never results in a bit of violence.

I'm enjoying all of the bending, dodging, and weaving you're doing in order to avoid admitting that the left has it in their culture to lash out and violently protest, whereas the right does protest without hurting anyone or anything.

I know this makes leftists upset, because they like to see themselves as the logical, smarter, more grounded side, but the truth is that a large number of you turn into violent thugs when you don't get your way. And then the apolitical violent thugs join the party when they see that your feckless politicians won't let the police stop anyone.

[Dan Druff]

The left is just terrible and law and order. They always have been, and always will be. Unfortunately, much of their philosophy is rooted in always defending what appears to be the underdog, rather than looking at the facts as to whether the underdog is worth defending. They focus too much on rehabilitation and the understanding of the worst members of society, rather than simply accepting that some people are evil, and society must be protected from them. The recent obsession with identity politics makes it that much worse, as now you have another layer of excuse-making which must be slathered upon the usual bleeding heart ideology.

The average American simply wants to be safe, wants his/her family safe, and doesn't want to hear excuses. They don't care about the background of the criminals who are committing horrible crimes. They just want these people arrested, convicted, and punished appropriately. When the left starts screaming about systemic racism and defunding the police, all the average swing voter hears is, "We care more about the criminals than you and your family."

Any election in modern US history which has largely been a referendum on violent crime has never gone well for the Democrats.

I can only pray they stay the course.

[Dan Druff]

gimmick: "Right wing protests don't spiral into violence because they're always tiny."

Reality: As recently as March 2020, there was a gun rights protest in Virginia, attended by 22,000 people -- many of whom were carrying high-powered weaponry. There were ZERO incidents of violence: https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...n-Rights-Rally


Left-wing protesters always have a contingent of irrational, violent freaks who want to hurt people, break things, and burn things, and the left doesn't have the balls to lift a finger to stop it. That's the reality.

[gimmick]

Yea there's a reason why my reply was ONLY about LOOTING. You were successful in countering a point i didn't make.

This part of the thread was about common criminals being responsible for most of the looting. For unknown reasons you decided to go on a diatribe about the Left doing all of the things.

If you're confused why left is responsible for some protests turning into riots there's all sorts of reasons for that. The biggest reason is conflict escalation.

And don't worry you can find plenty of riots that have nothing to do with the Left, with all of the things (arson/violence/vandalism/looting). The biggest reason why the Right doesn't have much history in US with riots in the last 60ish years is mostly because your protests have been tiny. You know that amazing debunk of 93% of protests being peaceful because most of them were small. Let's just run with that, to waste least amount of time.

Look up The Troubles, if you're interested in protests turning into riots and how conflict escalation works. I assume that's at least something you've heard about.

You only replied about looting because you were able to find other instances of looting during other times of disaster and unrest, but not of mass rioting/arson/vandalism/assault.

So you just went with the looting to make your point, hoping nobody would notice that it failed to answer why all of these other things also "coincidentally" happened at the same time as left wing protests.

Sure that's one take. Or you know page 3 of this thread that was almost only related to looting. Or that quite different people are involved in looting vs arson/violence.

I already answered your question why "all of these other things also "coincidentally" happened at the same time as left wing protests". I gave you a simple example from recent history. It's fairly well known in most parts of the West.

[gimmick]

gimmick: "Right wing protests don't spiral into violence because they're always tiny."

Reality: As recently as March 2020, there was a gun rights protest in Virginia, attended by 22,000 people -- many of whom were carrying high-powered weaponry. There were ZERO incidents of violence: https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...n-Rights-Rally

You don't say 22k. The upper bound for estimates of Left's protests in the last 6 months is 26 million. Tiny. Nothing.

I guess you also didn't pick up anything i said about escalation. It's a thing that happens over time. That's why Seattle and Portland are what they are. There's bad blood from 10-15 years of protests, counter-protests and police reaction to that.

[gimmick]

When Left is looking to get political they join a random protest movements. When Right is looking to get political they join a militia.

[Dan Druff]

gimmick: "Right wing protests don't spiral into violence because they're always tiny."

Reality: As recently as March 2020, there was a gun rights protest in Virginia, attended by 22,000 people -- many of whom were carrying high-powered weaponry. There were ZERO incidents of violence: https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...n-Rights-Rally

You don't say 22k. The upper bound for estimates of Left's protests in the last 6 months is 26 million. Tiny. Nothing.

I guess you also didn't pick up anything i said about escalation. It's a thing that happens over time. That's why Seattle and Portland are what they are. There's bad blood from 10-15 years of protests, counter-protests and police reaction to that.

lol escalation

Minneapolis, Kenosha, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, and tons of others got violent right away.

22k for one protest is large. You said that right wingers don't riot because their protests are "tiny". I pointed out a recent one which was very large, and you try to reason that 22k isn't large? What?

It's okay, gimmick. You can admit the US left is violent in protest without giving up any of your long-held political beliefs. No need to lie and make excuses.

[gimmick]

You don't say 22k. The upper bound for estimates of Left's protests in the last 6 months is 26 million. Tiny. Nothing.

I guess you also didn't pick up anything i said about escalation. It's a thing that happens over time. That's why Seattle and Portland are what they are. There's bad blood from 10-15 years of protests, counter-protests and police reaction to that.

lol escalation

Minneapolis, Kenosha, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, and tons of others got violent right away.

22k for one protest is large. You said that right wingers don't riot because their protests are "tiny". I pointed out a recent one which was very large, and you try to reason that 22k isn't large? What?

It's okay, gimmick. You can admit the US left is violent in protest without giving up any of your long-held political beliefs. No need to lie and make excuses.

You can't think of why BLM protest in LA could have some built in animosity towards the police or why police would react in a manner that would escalate things? Chicago or Philadelphia ? Those are the piss easy ones. I don't care enough to go through history of Minneapolis or Kenosha.

22k is nothing. One day, no history and no previous incident to spark anything.

We can go with your retarded premise that 5 man protests are something that are used to come up to 93% peaceful number. How big are the BIG violent protests that make up the 7% when the total number of protestors is say 20 million?

Let's start with 93 5-man protests and we get 465. Then subtract that from 20 million and we get 19,999,535. Divide that with 7 and we get 2,857,076. That's the size of the 7 BIG violent protests when we assume that small ones had 5 people in them.

Now let's replace the 5-man protests with 22k protestors. 93*22k=2,046,000. 20,000,000-2,046,000=17,954,000. 17,954,000/7=2,564,857. When the small peaceful protests are 22k. The BIG violent protests are 2,564,857 people a piece.

You can play with those numbers how ever you like, but two things stand out, 22k is nothing and there never was 7 protests with 2,5m people.

Most protests were pretty fucking peaceful and those protests had huge variation in participation numbers.

[duped_samaritan]

Left-wing protesters always have a contingent of irrational, violent freaks who want to hurt people, break things, and burn things, and the left doesn't have the balls to lift a finger to stop it. That's the reality.

It's incredible that after everything gimmick has pointed out, and all the data available, and all the critical thinking skills you've demonstrated you are capable of, you would say something that can be so easily proven false.

This thread is the most glaring example of how out of touch with reality the media has dragged you.

I thought your problem was that you over estimated your ability to analyze things because you put too much weight into your personal experiences and little or no effort into checking your own natural bias. (Climate change views based on the temperature where you live, systemic racism because you saw poor white people and rich black people, etc.) But all your info on protests, like most of us, is through the media. And you're arguing that the most sensationalized coverage of these protests represents what happens at all protests.

You're wrong. Gimmick has proven you wrong better than anyone else has so far (impressive work gimmick). All you're doing now is making a bigger fool of yourself.

[Walter Sobchak]

It's very cute when les pretends to understand America from his small town in BC.

Often people who are removed from the situation are the best observers of it.

[nightmarefish]

It's very cute when les pretends to understand America from his small town in BC.

Often people who are removed from the situation are the best observers of it.

Not in this case. Les is a retarded racist living as far away from black people as he can. He’s obsessed with the United States while consistently bashing it out of some bizarre jealousy. Similar to Jimmy who religiously watches Fox News and constantly complains about it. Les is a pathetic, depressed drunk who deep down really wants to be an American.

[duped_samaritan]

It's very cute when les pretends to understand America from his small town in BC.

Often people who are removed from the situation are the best observers of it.

I think this is just another example of Druff lashing out at anyone he disagrees with. I bet les living in another country was just the first thing that popped into his head.

I agree though, especially with something like systemic racism. Your personal experiences will almost always cause your views to be biased, even if you're conscious of the bias (which Druff clearly is not).

[limitles]

Often people who are removed from the situation are the best observers of it.

Not in this case. Les is a retarded racist living as far away from black people as he can. He’s obsessed with the United States while consistently bashing it out of some bizarre jealousy. Similar to Jimmy who religiously watches Fox News and constantly complains about it. Les is a pathetic, depressed drunk who deep down really wants to be an American.

Last thing I want to be is an American. I'm good
What this bone head can't grasp is that the last four years of
insanity from your highest elected office is world news.

i have never cared about who you yahoos elect. Never.
So sure over the last four years I admit to being focused on
the problem at hand. This applies to people world wide.

[Dan Druff]

Left-wing protesters always have a contingent of irrational, violent freaks who want to hurt people, break things, and burn things, and the left doesn't have the balls to lift a finger to stop it. That's the reality.

It's incredible that after everything gimmick has pointed out, and all the data available, and all the critical thinking skills you've demonstrated you are capable of, you would say something that can be so easily proven false.

This thread is the most glaring example of how out of touch with reality the media has dragged you.

I thought your problem was that you over estimated your ability to analyze things because you put too much weight into your personal experiences and little or no effort into checking your own natural bias. (Climate change views based on the temperature where you live, systemic racism because you saw poor white people and rich black people, etc.) But all your info on protests, like most of us, is through the media. And you're arguing that the most sensationalized coverage of these protests represents what happens at all protests.

You're wrong. Gimmick has proven you wrong better than anyone else has so far (impressive work gimmick). All you're doing now is making a bigger fool of yourself.

gimmick hasn't "proven" anything. As usual, when arguing with him, he just endlessly spouts contrarian nonsense until you get tired of going back and forth with him.

I keep asking for proof, and I'm not provided any.

He makes statements like, "Right wingers don't riot because all of their protests are tiny", and then I point out a 22k-person right wing protest in March with zero violence (despite the very high presence of powerful guns), and he says that 22k isn't large. Just LOL stuff from the guy.

Not to sound like dwai, but it's not surprising that the person who believed Jussie is convinced that the left wing wasn't violent in their 2020 protests.

We've seen plenty of examples of mass left-wing rioting and violence in 2020. Now let's see the evidence that the right is just as violent. Kyle Rittenhouse and other lone-wolf weirdos don't count. I'm talking about massive groups of right wingers who resort to violence when protesting. It simply doesn't happen.

Oh, and don't try to point to white supremacist rallies. White supremacists rallies aren't right wing rallies. They are a racial supremacy fringe group which happens to also vote Republican for the most part. I'm talking about actual right wing political rallies which end in violence perpetrated by the right. It just doesn't tend to happen.

For example, the COVID lockdown protests were all peaceful.

The Virginia Gun Rally was completely peaceful, despite left-wing hysteria that it was going to turn into a bloodbath.

I'm sorry, duped, but I'm just going by the facts right in front of everyone's faces. The left has the market cornered on violent political protest, just as Jussie had the market cornered on white supremacist victimhood at 2am in -20 degree Chicago.

[gimmick]

It's incredible that after everything gimmick has pointed out, and all the data available, and all the critical thinking skills you've demonstrated you are capable of, you would say something that can be so easily proven false.

This thread is the most glaring example of how out of touch with reality the media has dragged you.

I thought your problem was that you over estimated your ability to analyze things because you put too much weight into your personal experiences and little or no effort into checking your own natural bias. (Climate change views based on the temperature where you live, systemic racism because you saw poor white people and rich black people, etc.) But all your info on protests, like most of us, is through the media. And you're arguing that the most sensationalized coverage of these protests represents what happens at all protests.

You're wrong. Gimmick has proven you wrong better than anyone else has so far (impressive work gimmick). All you're doing now is making a bigger fool of yourself.

gimmick hasn't "proven" anything. As usual, when arguing with him, he just endlessly spouts contrarian nonsense until you get tired of going back and forth with him.

I keep asking for proof, and I'm not provided any.

He makes statements like, "Right wingers don't riot because all of their protests are tiny", and then I point out a 22k-person right wing protest in March with zero violence (despite the very high presence of powerful guns), and he says that 22k isn't large. Just LOL stuff from the guy.

Not to sound like dwai, but it's not surprising that the person who believed Jussie is convinced that the left wing wasn't violent in their 2020 protests.

We've seen plenty of examples of mass left-wing rioting and violence in 2020. Now let's see the evidence that the right is just as violent. Kyle Rittenhouse and other lone-wolf weirdos don't count. I'm talking about massive groups of right wingers who resort to violence when protesting. It simply doesn't happen.

Oh, and don't try to point to white supremacist rallies. White supremacists rallies aren't right wing rallies. They are a racial supremacy fringe group which happens to also vote Republican for the most part. I'm talking about actual right wing political rallies which end in violence perpetrated by the right. It just doesn't tend to happen.

For example, the COVID lockdown protests were all peaceful.

The Virginia Gun Rally was completely peaceful, despite left-wing hysteria that it was going to turn into a bloodbath.

I'm sorry, duped, but I'm just going by the facts right in front of everyone's faces. The left has the market cornered on violent political protest, just as Jussie had the market cornered on white supremacist victimhood at 2am in -20 degree Chicago.

So can we also remove the far-left from the equation? Or is that not fair?

[gimmick]

Also what proof do you want?

Care to comment how the math works with 93% of all left wing protests being peaceful is only because those were the small ones, while at the same time a one off 22k protest is MASSIVE.

Protesting for gun rights in Virginia is about the same as protesting for walking anywhere else. Fun fact is that they did ban all weapons from the rally area.

"The emergency declaration will mean road closures around the Capitol and limited access to the grounds, including a security checkpoint with metal detectors. "

[duped_samaritan]

It's incredible that after everything gimmick has pointed out, and all the data available, and all the critical thinking skills you've demonstrated you are capable of, you would say something that can be so easily proven false.

This thread is the most glaring example of how out of touch with reality the media has dragged you.

I thought your problem was that you over estimated your ability to analyze things because you put too much weight into your personal experiences and little or no effort into checking your own natural bias. (Climate change views based on the temperature where you live, systemic racism because you saw poor white people and rich black people, etc.) But all your info on protests, like most of us, is through the media. And you're arguing that the most sensationalized coverage of these protests represents what happens at all protests.

You're wrong. Gimmick has proven you wrong better than anyone else has so far (impressive work gimmick). All you're doing now is making a bigger fool of yourself.

gimmick hasn't "proven" anything. As usual, when arguing with him, he just endlessly spouts contrarian nonsense until you get tired of going back and forth with him.

I keep asking for proof, and I'm not provided any.

He makes statements like, "Right wingers don't riot because all of their protests are tiny", and then I point out a 22k-person right wing protest in March with zero violence (despite the very high presence of powerful guns), and he says that 22k isn't large. Just LOL stuff from the guy.

Not to sound like dwai, but it's not surprising that the person who believed Jussie is convinced that the left wing wasn't violent in their 2020 protests.

We've seen plenty of examples of mass left-wing rioting and violence in 2020. Now let's see the evidence that the right is just as violent. Kyle Rittenhouse and other lone-wolf weirdos don't count. I'm talking about massive groups of right wingers who resort to violence when protesting. It simply doesn't happen.

Oh, and don't try to point to white supremacist rallies. White supremacists rallies aren't right wing rallies. They are a racial supremacy fringe group which happens to also vote Republican for the most part. I'm talking about actual right wing political rallies which end in violence perpetrated by the right. It just doesn't tend to happen.

For example, the COVID lockdown protests were all peaceful.

The Virginia Gun Rally was completely peaceful, despite left-wing hysteria that it was going to turn into a bloodbath.

I'm sorry, duped, but I'm just going by the facts right in front of everyone's faces. The left has the market cornered on violent political protest, just as Jussie had the market cornered on white supremacist victimhood at 2am in -20 degree Chicago.

Cool, keep spreading lies about me. Imagine how stupid I would look if I actually did try to argue that Jussie was innocent, and then after everything came out I just kept doubling down and attacking people for unrelated issues because they disagreed with me...that's how you look right now.

Here you go, again, proof that most BLM protests are not violent: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/dem...r-summer-2020/

Oh wait, you'll have to call bullshit because the ACLED is funded through Princeton University, one of those places they brainwash people into believing stuff like climate change.

[Dan Druff]

gimmick hasn't "proven" anything. As usual, when arguing with him, he just endlessly spouts contrarian nonsense until you get tired of going back and forth with him.

I keep asking for proof, and I'm not provided any.

He makes statements like, "Right wingers don't riot because all of their protests are tiny", and then I point out a 22k-person right wing protest in March with zero violence (despite the very high presence of powerful guns), and he says that 22k isn't large. Just LOL stuff from the guy.

Not to sound like dwai, but it's not surprising that the person who believed Jussie is convinced that the left wing wasn't violent in their 2020 protests.

We've seen plenty of examples of mass left-wing rioting and violence in 2020. Now let's see the evidence that the right is just as violent. Kyle Rittenhouse and other lone-wolf weirdos don't count. I'm talking about massive groups of right wingers who resort to violence when protesting. It simply doesn't happen.

Oh, and don't try to point to white supremacist rallies. White supremacists rallies aren't right wing rallies. They are a racial supremacy fringe group which happens to also vote Republican for the most part. I'm talking about actual right wing political rallies which end in violence perpetrated by the right. It just doesn't tend to happen.

For example, the COVID lockdown protests were all peaceful.

The Virginia Gun Rally was completely peaceful, despite left-wing hysteria that it was going to turn into a bloodbath.

I'm sorry, duped, but I'm just going by the facts right in front of everyone's faces. The left has the market cornered on violent political protest, just as Jussie had the market cornered on white supremacist victimhood at 2am in -20 degree Chicago.

Cool, keep spreading lies about me. Imagine how stupid I would look if I actually did try to argue that Jussie was innocent, and then after everything came out I just kept doubling down and attacking people for unrelated issues because they disagreed with me...that's how you look right now.

Here you go, again, proof that most BLM protests are not violent: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/dem...r-summer-2020/

Oh wait, you'll have to call bullshit because the ACLED is funded through Princeton University, one of those places they brainwash people into believing stuff like climate change.

First off, LOL at "93% peaceful" being a good statistic.

October 1, 2017 (the day of the Paddock shooting) was also over 90% peaceful, because the shooting didn't start until 10pm. See how absurd that is?

If 7% of BLM protests are breaking out into violence, that's a big problem. That's not something to be celebrated. That's why everyone laughs at you lefties when you say "mostly peaceful" or "93% peaceful".

Furthermore, this article points out ACLED's own 93% number, saying that their own data would indicate a violence rate of almost 10%, not 7%: https://www.texaspolicy.com/mostly-p...real-violence/

Additionally, look at this map from ACLED:




What do we see here? If you examine nearly every big city where there were protests, there were also riots! Seriously! Look at it!


But anyway, 93% peaceful is cool to you, right?

So is it okay if cops are 93% non-brutal?

Or if 93% of cops don't act racist?

Or if 93% of black people are treated fairly in encounters with police?

I have a feeling none of those numbers would be satisfactory to you. But somehow 93% of protests not having violence is okay? But as I said, it's not 93%. Look at the large metro areas, and almost all of them with protests also had significant rioting this year.

Also, as pointed out in that article I linked, the term "peaceful" is being played with, to where non-peaceful is only defined as rioting or destruction/theft of property. A protest where people are threatened or harassed is considered "peaceful". A protest where roads are illegally blocked for 10 hours, trapping people (including emergency vehicles) is "peaceful".

It's a bullshit study by a biased organization. Still, even using their own data and map, it shows that the left is violent.

So thank you.

[duped_samaritan]

First off, LOL at "93% peaceful" being a good statistic.

You act as if I claimed that violence and looting is ever acceptable. I haven't, and it's not.

I'm not arguing that it's not a problem. I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen more often in big cities. I'm not arguing that there are no left wing violent protestors. I never claimed it was a 'good statistic'.

I'm arguing that the vast majority of BLM protests are non violent and it's idiotic to label someone a criminal or someone that supports crime, or someone that is responsible for crime simply because they support the BLM movement.

Also, as pointed out in that article I linked, the term "peaceful" is being played with, to where non-peaceful is only defined as rioting or destruction/theft of property. A protest where people are threatened or harassed is considered "peaceful". A protest where roads are illegally blocked for 10 hours, trapping people (including emergency vehicles) is "peaceful".

Replace 'peaceful' with 'non-violent'.

Also, as pointed out in that article I linked, the term "peaceful" is being played with, to where non-peaceful is only defined as rioting or destruction/theft of property. A protest where people are threatened or harassed is considered "peaceful". A protest where roads are illegally blocked for 10 hours, trapping people (including emergency vehicles) is "peaceful".

It's a bullshit study by a biased organization. Still, even using their own data and map, it shows that the left is violent.

So thank you.

You should put a little more effort into the report.

Like every other time you've given an example followed by "peaceful protest", they aren't - and nobody said they were.

[gimmick]

Cool, keep spreading lies about me. Imagine how stupid I would look if I actually did try to argue that Jussie was innocent, and then after everything came out I just kept doubling down and attacking people for unrelated issues because they disagreed with me...that's how you look right now.

Here you go, again, proof that most BLM protests are not violent: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/dem...r-summer-2020/

Oh wait, you'll have to call bullshit because the ACLED is funded through Princeton University, one of those places they brainwash people into believing stuff like climate change.

Furthermore, this article points out ACLED's own 93% number, saying that their own data would indicate a violence rate of almost 10%, not 7%: https://www.texaspolicy.com/mostly-p...real-violence/

93% refers to various BLM protests. The 10% "violence" rate refers to all protests. There were other protests besides BLM related. Such as various counter protests that turned violent 12% of the time. Do you wish to guess who was behind these counter protests? Also random covid lock down related protests and other stupid shit.