Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-whitmer/thirteen-arrested-in-plots-to-kidnap-michigan-governor-incite-unrest-idUSKBN26T2ZF

(Reuters) - Thirteen people, including seven men associated with the Wolverine Watchmen militia group, have been arrested in alleged plots to kidnap the Michigan governor and attack the state capitol building, prosecutors said on Thursday.

Meh, it's 2020.

now where could they have gotten an idea like that? hmmm....

https://i.imgur.com/voLTUaFl.png

lol

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
now where could they have gotten an idea like that? hmmm....

https://i.imgur.com/voLTUaFl.png "Wolverine Watchmen"... Time to stop reading comics Kyle Ri... I mean Walter Mitty's

What a bunch of doofs

Originally posted by Quincy
What a bunch of doofs What pray tell be eth "a doof" Quince?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
the Wolverine Watchmen militia group,

Without looking, I can already guess what they look like.

They will invariably include the following

Several bad facial hair types eg neckbeards and goatees
Eyes too close together or too far apart
China too wide or too narrow
Wonky noses.

Generally a fantastic menagerie of inbred, redneck inceldom.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
What pray tell be eth "a doof" Quince? I don't know who cares, they're doofs

Originally posted by Quincy
What a bunch of doofs

that's something that you call a puppy after it bonks it's head on something. you don't call terrorists "doofs"

Originally posted by Quincy
I don't know who cares, they're doofs Oh yes, we know who they are!Originally posted by Quincy
I don't know who cares, they're doofs Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's something that you call a puppy after it bonks it's head on something. you don't call terrorists "doofs" I like the word "doof" I am using it on the wife now, she doesn't know it either and has asked me what it meant, I replied you. Should be a fun hour!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's something that you call a puppy after it bonks it's head on something. you don't call terrorists "doofs"

All terrorists are doofs but not all doofs are terrorists. Like a square rectangle thing

Doof u

Doof me

Doofus

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's something that you call a puppy after it bonks it's head on something. you don't call terrorists "doofs"

We call them Wolverine Watchmen, they sound like a group of man babies taking their name from a comic character.

Dangerous man babies.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Without looking, I can already guess what they look like.

They will invariably include the following

Several bad facial hair types eg neckbeards and goatees
Eyes too close together or too far apart
China too wide or too narrow
Wonky noses.

Generally a fantastic menagerie of inbred, redneck inceldom.

I can't see the phrase "Wolverine Watchmen" without thinking of an army of hairy canadian midgets with claws and bad attitudes.

Originally posted by Surtur
I can't see the phrase "Wolverine Watchmen" without thinking of an army of hairy canadian midgets with claws and bad attitudes. Dressed as Owlman.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Without looking, I can already guess what they look like.

They will invariably include the following

Several bad facial hair types eg neckbeards and goatees
Eyes too close together or too far apart
China too wide or too narrow
Wonky noses.

Generally a fantastic menagerie of inbred, redneck inceldom.



https://i.imgur.com/9O9ZoX5.png

edit: Found two more winners

https://i.imgur.com/7qnKqaM.png

two dudes in the middle have huge heads compared to the others am the only one seeing this

Originally posted by Surtur
two dudes in the middle have huge heads compared to the others am the only one seeing this

Stop mocking your own people, surt.

Why that dudes ear lobes so low

Originally posted by Surtur
Why that dudes ear lobes so low

Probably because he put metal rings in them

Originally posted by Robtard


https://i.imgur.com/9O9ZoX5.png

edit: Found two more winners

https://i.imgur.com/7qnKqaM.png

I didn't expect to be quite so right.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I didn't expect to be quite so right.



Don't undersell yourself, you were quite literally spot on.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I didn't expect to be quite so right.

**** me... Originally posted by Robtard
Don't undersell yourself, you were quite literally spot on. What a bunch of fugly *****.


What's Shia Lebeouf doing with them?

Originally posted by Robtard


https://i.imgur.com/9O9ZoX5.png

edit: Found two more winners

https://i.imgur.com/7qnKqaM.png

"the master race", ladies and gentlemen

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"the master race", ladies and gentlemen The one in the middle at the top tho, the shape of his head!

If this was D&D they'd have so many negative racial scores

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"the master race", ladies and gentlemen


Behold! Das Goobermensch!

I haven't seen a beard like the first one has since one of the members of Manfred Man and as for the two at the bottom, wtf!

White Supremacists: I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked back

Originally posted by Surtur
White Supremacists: I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked back That's pretty much it. Race really is a social construct, it's culture where the problems lie, and getting out from poverty, white or black is next to impossible without education and the culture and peer pressure these people are under precludes that. The difference between a white supremacist and a gang banger is really the colour of their skin. If they had any brains they would team up and take down the man! I have a friend who I grew up with in London, whose dad didn't work and was a violent thug, he turned round to me and said I will never work a day in my life, he pretended to be mental or perhaps he was mental and had hidden it from us at school and was declared unfit for work on loads of different benefits and drugs he never takes. I sometimes see him when I go back to South London and have a drink he has lived in the same flat the Council gave him since 17 and... it got him out from his abusive father. I would say his plan was genius. What it didn't do was get him out of poverty.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
That's pretty much it. Race really is a social construct, it's culture where the problems lie, and getting out from poverty, white or black is next to impossible without education and the culture and peer pressure these people are under precludes that. The difference between a white supremacist and a gang banger is really the colour of their skin. If they had any brains they would team up and take down the man! I have a friend who I grew up with in London, whose dad didn't work and was a violent thug, he turned round to me and said I will never work a day in my life, he pretended to be mental or perhaps he was mental and had hidden it from us at school and was declared unfit for work on loads of different benefits and drugs he never takes. I sometimes see him when I go back to South London and have a drink he has lived in the same flat the Council gave him since 17 and... it got him out from his abusive father. I would say his plan was genius. What it didn't do was get him out of poverty.

OKRJfIPiJGY

Originally posted by Surtur
OKRJfIPiJGY Now that's my generation!

Indeed

surtur is a stupid bastard

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
That's pretty much it. Race really is a social construct, it's culture where the problems lie, and getting out from poverty, white or black is next to impossible without education and the culture and peer pressure these people are under precludes that. The difference between a white supremacist and a gang banger is really the colour of their skin. If they had any brains they would team up and take down the man! I have a friend who I grew up with in London, whose dad didn't work and was a violent thug, he turned round to me and said I will never work a day in my life, he pretended to be mental or perhaps he was mental and had hidden it from us at school and was declared unfit for work on loads of different benefits and drugs he never takes. I sometimes see him when I go back to South London and have a drink he has lived in the same flat the Council gave him since 17 and... it got him out from his abusive father. I would say his plan was genius. What it didn't do was get him out of poverty.

Maybe it takes a cult?

Get a group that's built around absolute loyalty, stresses education and achievement, and is headed by a genius/geniuses.


That's pretty much what the Smallville Sex Cult was. The mastermind behind the thing was a genuine big brain, had bags of charisma, a plan, and could inspire enough loyalty to run the damned operation from prison.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why that dudes ear lobes so low

Probably had tunnels then seen a documentary about African tribes and took them out cos "darkies" have them.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The one in the middle at the top tho, the shape of his head! it looks like his head might be upside down...I just can't tell

"You know, the fact that after a plot to kidnap and to kill me, this is what they come out with. They start attacking me, as opposed to what good, decent people would do is to check in and say, 'Are you OK?' -- which is what Joe Biden did,"

Originally posted by Robtard


https://i.imgur.com/9O9ZoX5.png

edit: Found two more winners

https://i.imgur.com/7qnKqaM.png

Are these idiots white supremacists or closet Nazi's?

Actual Nazi's would eliminate 30% of America's population. Overweight, lazy, uneducated, and unmotivated. These idiots would have less standing than POC in a German Fourth Reich.

Also, why do these idiots always look like they've never been (a) laid and (b) taken a shower.

I think mandatory military service at 18 or University/college would help the United States A LOT. There's a real identity crisis, especially among young men, and some structure/order would help similar to WW2 when the government actively promoted fitness and regiment at schools.

https://i.redd.it/zatmb8cvgyr51.jpg

*Sigh*

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Are these idiots white supremacists or closet Nazi's?

Actual Nazi's would eliminate 30% of America's population. Overweight, lazy, uneducated, and unmotivated. These idiots would have less standing than POC in a German Fourth Reich.

Also, why do these idiots always look like they've never been (a) laid and (b) taken a shower.

I think mandatory military service at 18 or University/college would help the United States A LOT. There's a real identity crisis, especially among young men, and some structure/order would help similar to WW2 when the government actively promoted fitness and regiment at schools. Some people tried to deny it when i pointed out the links between incels and the right. But the photographic evidence is quite compelling.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
https://i.redd.it/zatmb8cvgyr51.jpg

*Sigh*

THESE FOOLS ARE THE LETZTERMENSCH LOCUSTS OF THE ABYSS AND THE POST TRUMP LAKE OF FIRE PURGE IS COMING TO DROWN THEIR SOULS 😎😈🔥

They are idiots.

If you want to actually revolt against your tyrannical leaders, you need far more than 8 stupid people.

8 people: terrorist plot.


2000 people: revolution.


10,000 people: it's the will of the people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They are idiots.

If you want to actually revolt against your tyrannical leaders, you need far more than 8 stupid people.

8 people: terrorist plot.


2000 people: revolution.


10,000 people: it's the will of the people.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️⚡🌟😎

Lol one of the ringleaders was anti government, anti cop, and anti trump. In videos he made you can see the anarchist flag in the background

But sure let's try to blame trump cuz reasons.

https://mobile.twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314267058339819520

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol one of the ringleaders was anti government, anti cop, and anti trump. In videos he made you can see the anarchist flag in the background

But sure let's try to blame trump cuz reasons.

https://mobile.twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314267058339819520

Didn't Conservatrash blame Bernie when
one of his Supporters went on a killing spree?

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol one of the ringleaders was anti government, anti cop, and anti trump. In videos he made you can see the anarchist flag in the background

But sure let's try to blame trump cuz reasons.

https://mobile.twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314267058339819520

So that's 1 out of 8 who is far more like AntiFa than any Trumper.

But what about the other 7?

deflect, deflect, deflect, deflect, deflect, aaaaaand deflect

Originally posted by dadudemon
So that's 1 out of 8 who is far more like AntiFa than any Trumper.

But what about the other 7?

Not sure, if you read the thread it mentions another guy who seems to hold similar anti government views though.

It would be weird for trumpers to be working with anti trump anti cop anarchists.

I'm curious what evidence there is that the other 6 are trumpers.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Didn't Conservatrash blame Bernie when
one of his Supporters went on a killing spree?

The issue is...were these guys actually trump supporters though?

Originally posted by Surtur
The issue is...were these guys actually trump supporters though?


What this guy said:

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
deflect, deflect, deflect, deflect, deflect, aaaaaand deflect

But I don't know who is doing the deflecting. I don't feel like searching for all this crap for 2 hours to find the answer just to find out I was gaslit.



It makes sense that one of them was an anarchist. The entire plot is clearly anti-government. But what about the rest? There are still 7 other individuals involved.

Originally posted by Surtur
The issue is...were these guys actually trump supporters though? Let's see they are part of a white supremacists' group. They tried to kidnap a Democratic Governor. They have other conservative ideals.

I don't think an Anarchist Flag negates all of that. I mean odds are they would vote conservative.

Originally posted by Newjak
Let's see they are part of a white supremacists' group. They tried to kidnap a Democratic Governor. They have other conservative ideals.

I don't think an Anarchist Flag negates all of that. I mean odds are they would vote conservative.

That doesn't make them Trumpers though.

They seem like the type that wouldn't vote at all.

Originally posted by Newjak
Let's see they are part of a white supremacists' group. They tried to kidnap a Democratic Governor. They have other conservative ideals.

I don't think an Anarchist Flag negates all of that. I mean odds are they would vote conservative.

I don't see the anarchy = conservative take at all.

They are overtly antithetical to each other.

Originally posted by Surtur
That doesn't make them Trumpers though.

They seem like the type that wouldn't vote at all. I mean if we're talking odds they more then likely are then they would not be.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What this guy said:



But I don't know who is doing the deflecting. I don't feel like searching for all this crap for 2 hours to find the answer just to find out I was gaslit.



It makes sense that one of them was an anarchist. The entire plot is clearly anti-government. But what about the rest? There are still 7 other individuals involved.

Questioning whether or not they are trump supporters is not a deflection when people have tried to blame him for this.

If people didnt have TDS he wouldn't have been brought into this, but they do so he has.

I'm not even saying they are on the left or anything. Just that I haven't seen any evidence they support trump, but I have seen some to show at least some were anti trump

Originally posted by Newjak
I mean if we're talking odds they more then likely are then they would not be.

Yet if one wants to declare them as such and blame trump they'd need actual proof.

I'm not saying the proof doesn't exist, but if it does it certainly hasn't been mentioned in this thread.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yet if one wants to declare them as such and blame trump they'd need actual proof.

I'm not saying the proof doesn't exist, but if it does it certainly hasn't been mentioned in this thread.

If only it weren't you know a quick google search away

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8821499/The-chilling-social-media-posts-videos-Trump-loving-13-militia.html

Even shows one of the men in a pro trump hat

Seriously though it isn't that hard to connect these men's messages to conservative movements in this country that have consistently sided with the GOP.

Even if you don't believe their dogma matches what you believe conservativism in America represents.

It's on those making the claim to back it up though

Originally posted by Surtur
It's on those making the claim to back it up though Yes and it's easy enough to prove they fall within the Dogma of modern conservative groups.

Anti government, pro-guns, at this point White Supremacists groups generally support GOP candidates even if they aren't endorsed back.

To think this was a stretch is the laughable idea in this instance.

EDIT:
Even then I just literally posted evidence you should have found in your search if you weren't so keen to try and dismiss and just jump on the first thing you thought proved they weren't.

Seriously an Anarchy flag

I never said they weren't conservative or anything like that.

I said nobody had proven they were trumpers.

See people here have a habit of labeling people trumpers when they are not, same with alt right, etc.. So we absolutely need evidence if the claim is made.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see the anarchy = conservative take at all.

They are overtly antithetical to each other. Of course you don'tOriginally posted by Newjak
Let's see they are part of a white supremacists' group. They tried to kidnap a Democratic Governor. They have other conservative ideals.

I don't think an Anarchist Flag negates all of that. I mean odds are they would vote conservative.

"proud boys, stand back and stand by"

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"proud boys, stand back and stand by"

So from Surtur's and Newjak's points, I can definitively conclude 2 things:

1. One of them is an anarchist.

2. One of them is a Trumper.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see the anarchy = conservative take at all.

They are overtly antithetical to each other.
This is true, but I think there's a lot of conservatives who aren't aware of that. The sort who are convinced that conservatism and freedom are the same thing might be inclined to take up an anarchist flag, as ironic as that might be.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see the anarchy = conservative take at all.

They are overtly antithetical to each other.

The Dude Man makes sense

Originally posted by NewGuy01
This is true, but I think there's a lot of conservatives who aren't aware of that. The sort who are convinced that conservatism and freedom are the same thing might be inclined to take up an anarchist flag, as ironic as that might be.

I think that's down to a lot of people having no real understanding of political science. And that's not meant as a put down, more that like people just don't understand the differences in political philosophy's.

someone hears "anarchy" and they think "revolt and fight the power" which is a shallow interpretation of it.


-----

edit: look at this worthless post of mine saying "things are complicated when you learn them!" Good lord thank god it's friday.

yep

Originally posted by dadudemon
So from Surtur's and Newjak's points, I can definitively conclude 2 things:

1. One of them is an anarchist.

2. One of them is a Trumper.

Correct, so the narrative that this was all trumpers and trump can be blamed is gone.

Not really.

Originally posted by Quincy
The Dude Man makes sense

From the moment Republican President Ronald Regan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help,'" conservativism in American has become ideologically anti-government.

Decades later, Republican Lobbyist Grover Norquist confessed the aim of conservatism is to "reduce the government to the size where I can drown it in the bathtub."

You can see it today in the Trump administration, which has staffed every government agency with conservative lobbyists whose career aim is to dismantle the very agencies they have been appointed to lead.

It is why the FBI determined that far-right, anti-governent extremism is the single greatest domestic terrorism threat in the United States.

In practical terms, Anarchy is the abolition of government. That is precisely what conservatives have been pushing for over 40 years in this country.

So no, he does not sense. He is either playing dumb, or it is not an act.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
This is true, but I think there's a lot of conservatives who aren't aware of that. The sort who are convinced that conservatism and freedom are the same thing might be inclined to take up an anarchist flag, as ironic as that might be. Originally posted by Quincy
I think that's down to a lot of people having no real understanding of political science. And that's not meant as a put down, more that like people just don't understand the differences in political philosophy's.

someone hears "anarchy" and they think "revolt and fight the power" which is a shallow interpretation of it.


-----

edit: look at this worthless post of mine saying "things are complicated when you learn them!" Good lord thank god it's friday.

I think my issue is what Quincy describes. I am expecting people to understand that if they take up the Anarchy Flag (literally), they understand that it is as far left as it can possibly get. It is extreme bottom-left quadrant on the political spectrum. The exact opposite quadrant from the American Conservative Movement who sit in the top right Auth-Right quadrant.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Not really.

Yes, really. It's just not valid.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
From the moment Republican President Ronald Regan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help,'" conservativism in American has become ideologically anti-government.

Decades later, Republican Lobbyist Grover Norquist confessed the aim of conservatism is to "reduce the government to the size where I can drown it in the bathtub."

You can see it today in the Trump administration, which has staffed every government agency with conservative lobbyists whose career aim is to dismantle the very agencies they have been appointed to lead.

It is why the FBI determined that far-right, anti-governent extremism is the single greatest domestic terrorism threat in the United States.

In practical terms, Anarchy is the abolition of government. That is precisely what conservatives have been pushing for over 40 years in this country.

So no, he does not sense. He is either playing dumb, or it is not an act. Worldwide, the right want to destroy all safety nets. What they want for the majority isn't freedom from taxes, but no choice but to serve their masters.

Lol

Even if what Adam said was true, which it isn't remotely, that still wouldn't make conservatives anarchists. Anarchism doesn't just reject government, it rejects hierarchical systems of any kind.

I don't see conservatives as anti-government, they just don't want the government to have too much power.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see conservatives as anti-government, they just don't want the government to have too much power. they are anti government, but they are not anarchists. Anarchy like communism relies on people being able to control themselves as individuals. It frankly goes against a proportion of peoples core need to acquire power over other people. Rightism loves that aspect, it's all about keeping the majority down and projecting power through unequal economic situations. Yes they need consumers, but if those consumers are paying them for everything even water, who needs big government, you use the law to enforce your inequality and link it to deprivation.

They are anti big government, there is a difference.

Originally posted by Surtur
They are anti big government, there is a difference. It depends on if you're talking about from a strictly text book definition or a reality where spectrums and ranges of these concepts exist.

Going by reality where they don't like big government.

Originally posted by Surtur
Going by reality where they don't like big government. Okay but that's probably where a lot of real world anarchists would fall as well.

Could be, and yet it was still correct to ask for proof that any of these people were trumpers.

Originally posted by Newjak
Okay but that's probably where a lot of real world anarchists would fall as well.


I think, by definition, the "big" adjective doesn't matter to an anarchist. You're not an anarchist if you want any government, big or small.

Perhaps they would compromise and state that a small efficient and individual-freedom-supporting government is a million times preferable over a large nanny-state. But that's still not what, by their very definition, an anarchist would want.



But we are obviously all talking about pure anarchy, not the various other government systems which are loosely associated with anarchist schools of thought.


Such as Georgism, mutualism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Primitivism, Anarcho-Egoism, and....a shitload of other things that young ignorant people come up with after reading too much 19th Century political science and philosophy summaries (they don't even read the books or the criticisms of those books - they just read they just read the summaries and like the sounds of the ideas and come up with new political ideologies nevermind the historical context for some of the ideas and how almost all fail).

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see conservatives as anti-government, they just don't want the government to have too much power.


Exactly. We're anti-BIG government, unlike leftists who basically view a centralized big government as the answer to everything.

We recognize that some amount of government is necessary.


And I've learned that at least one of these guys who were behind this kidnapping plot called Trump a tyrant. Not really something a Trumper would say, is it?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Exactly. We're anti-BIG government, unlike leftists who basically view big government as the answer to everything.

That makes you a libertarian-right-winger, not a authoritarian-right-winger.


You're not a conservative. You're some flavor of libertarian.


Conservative Libertarianism is a thing. You're probably that.


Edit - Classical Liberalism is also a thing. Check out both of those and see if either of those two match closer with your beliefs.

Originally posted by Surtur
Going by reality where they don't like big government. It's safety nets that the rightists don't like, they don't like people like me paying more tax than most people. I have no problem with that as it provides services for people less fortunate than me and as a leftist with means for me that's fine. I'm not at the wealth level where I will ever be able to buy a big yacht, nor would I want one. But I am at the wealth level where helping to provide for others is something I feel I should do and whilst I don't pay taxes in Africa, I do on everything I own in the UK, etc. But for good luck and positive circumstances any of us could end up on the street.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It's safety nets that the rightists don't like, they don't like people like me paying more tax than most people. I have no problem with that as it provides services for people less fortunate than me and as a leftist with means for me that's fine. I'm not at the wealth level where I will ever be able to buy a big yacht, nor would I want one. But I am at the wealth level where helping to provide for others is something I feel I should do and whilst I don't pay taxes in Africa, I do on everything I own in the UK, etc. But for good luck and positive circumstances any of us could end up on the street.

I can feel your virtue. It gives you focus, makes you stronger.

Originally posted by Surtur
I can feel your virtue. It gives you focus, makes you stronger. Isn't calling out virtue signalling, virtue signalling? To me what some people call virtue signalling, I call voicing decent values.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Isn't calling out virtue signalling, virtue signalling? To me what some people call virtue signalling, I call voicing decent values.

Am I "water is wet signaling" by saying water is wet?

Originally posted by Surtur
Am I "water is wet signaling" by saying water is wet? I think the entire "virtue signalling", SJW, culture war stuff is what is right now killing the right in the US. People feel the right are trying to stop them being good by mocking decency and the anti Trump backlash is a symptom of this. People don't want 4Chan running real life.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I think the entire "virtue signalling", SJW, culture war stuff is what is right now killing the right in the US. People feel the right are trying to stop them being good by mocking decency and the anti Trump backlash is a symptom of this. People don't want 4Chan running real life.

How long have you had ADHD?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I think the entire "virtue signalling", SJW, culture war stuff is what is right now killing the right in the US. People feel the right are trying to stop them being good by mocking decency and the anti Trump backlash is a symptom of this. People don't want 4Chan running real life.

You may be surprised.

Originally posted by cdtm
You may be surprised. Let's hope not, huh! We need adults back running the world.

That eliminates all the SJW type people, so. I agree.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That makes you a libertarian-right-winger, not a authoritarian-right-winger.


You're not a conservative. You're some flavor of libertarian.


Conservative Libertarianism is a thing. You're probably that.


Edit - Classical Liberalism is also a thing. Check out both of those and see if either of those two match closer with your beliefs.


Sorry, ddd, but libertarians tend to be pro-choice. I am vehemently opposed to abortion. I am a conservative. I agree with libertarians on a lot of things but abortion is not one of them.


I don't know where you get this crazy idea that conservatives are the authoritarians.... that is the Marxist leftists.

Take your f*cking big eared bigotry out of this thread

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Even if what Adam said was true, which it isn't remotely, that still wouldn't make conservatives anarchists. Anarchism doesn't just reject government, it rejects hierarchical systems of any kind.

I did not state that all conservatives are anachists. I stated that anarchy is not ideologically inconsistent with conservatism. These far-right anti-government extremists are evidence of that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think, by definition, the "big" adjective doesn't matter to an anarchist. You're not an anarchist if you want any government, big or small.

Perhaps they would compromise and state that a small efficient and individual-freedom-supporting government is a million times preferable over a large nanny-state. But that's still not what, by their very definition, an anarchist would want.



But we are obviously all talking about pure anarchy, not the various other government systems which are loosely associated with anarchist schools of thought.


Such as Georgism, mutualism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Primitivism, Anarcho-Egoism, and....a shitload of other things that young ignorant people come up with after reading too much 19th Century political science and philosophy summaries (they don't even read the books or the criticisms of those books - they just read they just read the summaries and like the sounds of the ideas and come up with new political ideologies nevermind the historical context for some of the ideas and how almost all fail). I think you're missing my point.

The average American probably doesn't care about this level of detail to the point where someone hanging an anarchy flag automatically removes them from a political ideology because you don't think they mash together.

Or the fact the average person just probably thinks Anarchy sounds cool or they equate it to just fighting the government.

Originally posted by Newjak
I think you're missing my point.

The average American probably doesn't care about this level of detail to the point where someone hanging an anarchy flag automatically removes them from a political ideology because you don't think they mash together.

Or the fact the average person just probably thinks Anarchy sounds cool or they equate it to just fighting the government. This is the common sense stance imo.

Originally posted by Newjak
I think you're missing my point.

The average American probably doesn't care about this level of detail to the point where someone hanging an anarchy flag automatically removes them from a political ideology because you don't think they mash together.

Or the fact the average person just probably thinks Anarchy sounds cool or they equate it to just fighting the government.


Kind of like the way Socialism gets tossed around.


I'm missing the argument though. Are we saying it's ok to call the whack jobs anarchists using the common definition?

Or are we saying anarchism is bad, period, and the naunce doesn't matter?

Because personally, I respect genuine anarchists. I find their beliefs quite compelling, and think the general public has built up a straw man of what they are, which marginalizes them.

Not sure why the anarchist flag triggered people here.

Originally posted by cdtm
Kind of like the way Socialism gets tossed around.


I'm missing the argument though. Are we saying it's ok to call the whack jobs anarchists using the common definition?

Or are we saying anarchism is bad, period, and the naunce doesn't matter?

Because personally, I respect genuine anarchists. I find their beliefs quite compelling, and think the general public has built up a straw man of what they are, which marginalizes them. Yes actually. A lot of conservatives throw around Socialism as a fear mongering tactic because they don't or can't understand the reality of what people like Bernie are actually saying.

Thank you for that fine contribution and tie in

It's more that people were trying argue that because the person had an Anarchist flag this somehow was proof they would never support Trump

Originally posted by Surtur
Not sure why the anarchist flag triggered people here. It wasn't triggering. I find it more humorous people were trying to say because there was an Anarchist flag in the background that proves the person wouldn't support Trump.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yes actually. A lot of conservatives throw around Socialism as a fear mongering tactic because they don't or can't understand the reality of what people like Bernie are actually saying.

Thank you for that fine contribution and tie in

It's more that people were trying argue that because the person had an Anarchist flag this somehow was proof they would never support Trump

It wasn't triggering. I find it more humorous people were trying to say because there was an Anarchist flag in the background that proves the person wouldn't support Trump. Another 10/10 post, again it's the common sense stance. Socialism, really does provide more safety for more people.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yes actually. A lot of conservatives throw around Socialism as a fear mongering tactic because they don't or can't understand the reality of what people like Bernie are actually saying.

Thank you for that fine contribution and tie in

It's more that people were trying argue that because the person had an Anarchist flag this somehow was proof they would never support Trump

It wasn't triggering. I find it more humorous people were trying to say because there was an Anarchist flag in the background that proves the person wouldn't support Trump.

It kinda seems like triggering when you ignore that it was one of multiple things pointed out about the guy to show he wasn't a trumper, most importantly that he said he was anti trump, etc.

Yet you chose to focus on the flag for some reason. This is why it comes off as triggering, and you kept harping on about it too. But if you claim you were laughing at a point nobody made(I never said the flag was proof positive of anything), then okay.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Another 10/10 post, again it's the common sense stance. Socialism, really does provide more safety for more people.

The socialism fear mongering thing reminds me of how the left fear mongers about capitalism because they don't tend to understand it.

Originally posted by Surtur
The socialism fear mongering thing reminds me of how the left fear mongers about capitalism because they don't tend to understand it. For me, fear of the right for the working man in my own country the UK is some what different to your own. The labour party was created by the Unions to give the people a political voice. Prior to that our two parties had been much more right wing like your own and indeed what they did was amazing, however, far left figures who had goals which I'm not sure translate well across the Atlantic went too far from the sixties to the mid eighties and Thatcher was the backlash. The South of the UK with the exception of Kent will never really understand how the dismantling of manufacturing affected the North and non Military areas will never understand what happened to Plymouth, Portsmouth and Gosport. In the end the Thatcher Government lurched too far right with the poll tax and anti gay legislation, leading to Blairs neo liberalism. Blair in turn ****ed up getting in bed with Bush and then the crash happened leading to a lurch to the right again helped by Trump and a rise in popularism, partially hanging over from the Gulf war; but, 000like in the US a backlash to that is taking place. Socialism particularly till the mid late sixties was a driving force for positive change in the UK.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yes actually. A lot of conservatives throw around Socialism as a fear mongering tactic because they don't or can't understand the reality of what people like Bernie are actually saying.

Thank you for that fine contribution and tie in

It's more that people were trying argue that because the person had an Anarchist flag this somehow was proof they would never support Trump

It wasn't triggering. I find it more humorous people were trying to say because there was an Anarchist flag in the background that proves the person wouldn't support Trump.


LOL. Socialism has a long history of failure. It is not fear mongering to state facts, snowflake.

Socialism sucks no matter how much you try to downplay the dangers of it.

You wanna talk about fear mongering? That is what the lying media does on a daily basis by overhyping this Covid virus with their misleading death doubt numbers when Covid in actuality is not very deadly at all.

I would be much more worried about dying from the common flu than dying from covid.

Originally posted by Surtur
The socialism fear mongering thing reminds me of how the left fear mongers about capitalism because they don't tend to understand it.





Yes, they confuse crony capitalism with true free market capitalism.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
LOL. Socialism has a long history of failure. It is not fear mongering to state facts, snowflake.

Socialism sucks no matter how much you try to downplay the dangers of it.

You wanna talk about fear mongering? That is what the lying media does on a daily basis by overhyping this Covid virus with their misleading death doubt numbers when Covid in actuality is not very deadly at all.

I would be much more worried about dying from the common flu than dying from covid. If you want to be fair Capitalism also has a long history of failure. It just tends to happen on the individual level more than the country level. Even though the pain points can spread to the entire country.

And for the big time failures of capitalism it is often the government that has to step in to fix it. Like the coal mine problems of the last century.

But like if they both got into a fight...

Originally posted by dadudemon
So from Surtur's and Newjak's points, I can definitively conclude 2 things:

1. One of them is an anarchist.

2. One of them is a Trumper.

Update with actual facts about this situation:



Daniel Harris was a BLM supporter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/kidnap-plot-whitmer-fox-militia/2020/10/09/ce81751a-0a65-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html

What? You didn't see this covered in the news and now one talked about it?


Okay, next:

Brandon Caserta, one of the ring-leaders of the operation, was anti-Trump. Called him an enemy and a tyrant. Here, you can watch it, here:

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314326553506000897?s=20



And the one who was supposedly a Trumper? He mentioned "Trump" once in all of his writings, rantings, and ravings. This is how the retarded lefties are trying to pin this on Trump.

The TDS is extreme.


I sure hope Creepy-Joe wins so the coronavirus bullshit will magically stop and all problems will magically cease to be Trump's fault.


Naaah, that's wishful thinking. All problems will be blamed on Trump for all 4 years. Like Republicans tried to blame Obama for about 2 years of Trump's presidency.











Anyway, if anyone is wondering, this story quickly died out because it didn't turn out to be Trumper's that did this. I'm finding nothing that says they were white supremacists. At least one was a BLM supporter who actually went out and protested. We were lied to, again. I was correct to be skeptical of any claims. Nick Sandmann, George Zimmerman. George Floyd. etc. I was wrong about Breonna Taylor, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Update with actual facts about this situation:

Daniel Harris was a BLM supporter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/kidnap-plot-whitmer-fox-militia/2020/10/09/ce81751a-0a65-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html

What? You didn't see this covered in the news and now one talked about it?

Okay, next:

Brandon Caserta, one of the ring-leaders of the operation, was anti-Trump. Called him an enemy and a tyrant. Here, you can watch it, here:

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314326553506000897?s=20

And the one who was supposedly a Trumper? He mentioned "Trump" once in all of his writings, rantings, and ravings. This is how the retarded lefties are trying to pin this on Trump.

The TDS is extreme.

I sure hope Creepy-Joe wins so the coronavirus bullshit will magically stop and all problems will magically cease to be Trump's fault.

Naaah, that's wishful thinking. All problems will be blamed on Trump for all 4 years. Like Republicans tried to blame Obama for about 2 years of Trump's presidency.

Anyway, if anyone is wondering, this story quickly died out because it didn't turn out to be Trumper's that did this. I'm finding nothing that says they were white supremacists. At least one was a BLM supporter who actually went out and protested. We were lied to, again. I was correct to be skeptical of any claims. Nick Sandmann, George Zimmerman. George Floyd. etc. I was wrong about Breonna Taylor, though.

It's almost as if this would relate to something like this statement:



Perhaps we could just add the caveat.......lives ruined instead of killed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Update with actual facts about this situation:



Daniel Harris was a BLM supporter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/kidnap-plot-whitmer-fox-militia/2020/10/09/ce81751a-0a65-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html

What? You didn't see this covered in the news and now one talked about it?


Okay, next:

Brandon Caserta, one of the ring-leaders of the operation, was anti-Trump. Called him an enemy and a tyrant. Here, you can watch it, here:

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314326553506000897?s=20



And the one who was supposedly a Trumper? He mentioned "Trump" once in all of his writings, rantings, and ravings. This is how the retarded lefties are trying to pin this on Trump.

The TDS is extreme.


I sure hope Creepy-Joe wins so the coronavirus bullshit will magically stop and all problems will magically cease to be Trump's fault.


Naaah, that's wishful thinking. All problems will be blamed on Trump for all 4 years. Like Republicans tried to blame Obama for about 2 years of Trump's presidency.











Anyway, if anyone is wondering, this story quickly died out because it didn't turn out to be Trumper's that did this. I'm finding nothing that says they were white supremacists. At least one was a BLM supporter who actually went out and protested. We were lied to, again. I was correct to be skeptical of any claims. Nick Sandmann, George Zimmerman. George Floyd. etc. I was wrong about Breonna Taylor, though.

LOL! Embarrassing for anyone who tried to push this as being done by trumpers.

Originally posted by snowdragon
It's almost as if this would relate to something like this statement:



Perhaps we could just add the caveat.......lives ruined instead of killed.

No no, for real, they estimate that we've already killed tens of thousands in future deaths from the lockdowns because of not catching cancer in time. It's that serious.

Actual published and peer reviewed research on this:

Originally posted by dadudemon
And it starts:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768946


Research into cancer and the impacts the policies have had on identifying cancer.

We are already missing tens of thousands of cancer cases due to the lockdowns and fearmongering about "going out."

This doesn't include the uptick in cancer deaths we will see from the economic ruin, which should be around 1-2 million over the next 10 years.

It all makes sense, I'm so intelligent I just know that BLM supporters and anti-trumpers would be moved to kidnap someone cuz trump tweeted "liberate michigan" 6 months ago.

I'm f*cking intelligent baby, yeah!

https://media.giphy.com/media/d3mlE7uhX8KFgEmY/giphy.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
Update with actual facts about this situation:



Daniel Harris was a BLM supporter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/kidnap-plot-whitmer-fox-militia/2020/10/09/ce81751a-0a65-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html

What? You didn't see this covered in the news and now one talked about it?


Okay, next:

Brandon Caserta, one of the ring-leaders of the operation, was anti-Trump. Called him an enemy and a tyrant. Here, you can watch it, here:

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314326553506000897?s=20



And the one who was supposedly a Trumper? He mentioned "Trump" once in all of his writings, rantings, and ravings. This is how the retarded lefties are trying to pin this on Trump.

The TDS is extreme.


I sure hope Creepy-Joe wins so the coronavirus bullshit will magically stop and all problems will magically cease to be Trump's fault.


Naaah, that's wishful thinking. All problems will be blamed on Trump for all 4 years. Like Republicans tried to blame Obama for about 2 years of Trump's presidency.











Anyway, if anyone is wondering, this story quickly died out because it didn't turn out to be Trumper's that did this. I'm finding nothing that says they were white supremacists. At least one was a BLM supporter who actually went out and protested. We were lied to, again. I was correct to be skeptical of any claims. Nick Sandmann, George Zimmerman. George Floyd. etc. I was wrong about Breonna Taylor, though. Your article about the person and BLM doesn't say what you said.

It simply said they showed up to a BLM protest not that they support BLM or advocated for them. In the same article a Sheriff mentions how one of the people came to vent to him about BLM actually. Saying that he wanted to start his own All Lives Matter group.

Did you also miss where one of them was literally wearing a Trump 2020 hat lol.

They also talk about in the article very conservative views from most of the group
So swing and a miss

Originally posted by Newjak
Your article about the person and BLM doesn't say what you said.

It simply said they showed up to a BLM protest not that they support BLM or advocated for them.

W-what? haermm

You serious?

If he showed up to a Trump-rally, pretty sure you'd be quick to point out he was a Trumper.

Showing up to and participating in a BLM protest...and he's not part of BLM?

The suspension of disbelief is too extreme, here, dude. Sorry, your argument is terrible. And I honestly do not think you're arguing in good faith.

Originally posted by dadudemon
W-what? haermm

You serious?

If he showed up to a Trump-rally, pretty sure you'd be quick to point out he was a Trumper.

Showing up to and participating in a BLM protest...and he's not part of BLM?

The suspension of disbelief is too extreme, here, dude. Sorry, your argument is terrible. And I honestly do not think you're arguing in good faith. Well technically BLM isn't running for president so I wouldn't equate attendance at one to mean the same as the other.

For instance it only stated he showed to protest Floyd's death. That doesn't inherently mean he chose to support BLM as an organization. While Presidential rallies are generally to support the rally they are for.

And I see you chose to ignore the rest of it which is funny.

As for arguing in good faith. I mean I think most of this is not arguing in good faith from you guys. You and others jumped to multiple conclusions in this discussion so far.

You also chose to ignore the person in the article they pointed out was explicitly against BLM. Either because you only wanted to read what you thought helped your argument or you decided to omit because you're trying to be deceitful. Which also would be added to a bad faith argument.

Originally posted by Newjak
Well technically BLM isn't running for president so I wouldn't equate attendance at one to mean the same as the other.

For instance it only stated he showed to protest Floyd's death. That doesn't inherently mean he chose to support BLM as an organization. While Presidential rallies are generally to support the rally they are for.

And I see you chose to ignore the rest of it which is funny.

As for arguing in good faith. I mean I think most of this is not arguing in good faith from you guys. You and others jumped to multiple conclusions in this discussion so far.

You also chose to ignore the person in the article they pointed out was explicitly against BLM. Either because you only wanted to read what you thought helped your argument or you decided to omit because you're trying to be deceitful. Which also would be added to a bad faith argument.

I don't think you're being honest at all.


He was literally and overtly an BLM supporter.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-accused-of-hatching-plot-to-kidnap-whitmer-is-blm-supporter-and-made-comments-critical-of-police/ar-BB19UUXD

@Nibedicus

It's not an illogical conclusion to jump to but there is a difference between saying someone supports an organization versus they are supporting a cause that organization also happens to be supporting. I would say someone omitting the difference is arguing in bad faith.

Heck he may not have even known it was a BLM protest. He may have just heard it was a protest. We do know for a fact though one of his co-conspirators was anti-BLM

EDIT: From the MSN article DDM just posted it does sound like he knew it was a BLM protest. Once again though attending the protest doesn't inherently mean he supports BLM.

Originally posted by Newjak
Well technically BLM isn't running for president so I wouldn't equate attendance at one to mean the same as the other.

For instance it only stated he showed to protest Floyd's death. That doesn't inherently mean he chose to support BLM as an organization. While Presidential rallies are generally to support the rally they are for.

And I see you chose to ignore the rest of it which is funny.

As for arguing in good faith. I mean I think most of this is not arguing in good faith from you guys. You and others jumped to multiple conclusions in this discussion so far.

You also chose to ignore the person in the article they pointed out was explicitly against BLM. Either because you only wanted to read what you thought helped your argument or you decided to omit because you're trying to be deceitful. Which also would be added to a bad faith argument.

Like how some jumped to the conclusion that the entire group were right-wing Trump supporters?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like how some jumped to the conclusion that the entire group were right-wing Trump supporters? I mean we know at least one of them is a Trump supporter.

We also know the group they belong to is pretty conservative in most things.

I also think the important thing there isn't that there has to exist a clear cut connection between Trump and this group. It's the fact that Trump said things that could have been construed to people as wishing this to happen.

It's also funny the logical loops conservatives are jumping through to make Trump not look bad for the things he said

Originally posted by Newjak
I mean we know at least one of them is a Trump supporter.

We also know the group they belong to is pretty conservative in most things.

Was that a yes?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Was that a yes? I edited in some additional clarification for you since I knew this was going to be the follow up.

So, was assuming that the entire group was a bunch of right-wing Trump supporters an examples of jumping to conclusions?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, was assuming that the entire group was a bunch of right-wing Trump supporters an examples of jumping to conclusions? Well depend on where you started from. If you saw the guy in the Trump hat and the anti BLM one it wouldn't have been an too much of an assumption.

It also wasn't an illogical conclusion to point out Trump had a tweet that seemed to endorse this type of behavior. In fact Trump has a long history of making comments that don't exactly calm people down.

Originally posted by Newjak
Well depend on where you started from. If you saw the guy in the Trump hat and the anti BLM one it wouldn't have been an too much of an assumption.

It also wasn't an illogical conclusion to point out Trump had a tweet that seemed to endorse this type of behavior. In fact Trump has a long history of making comments that don't exactly calm people down.

Like, it depends on where you started from, if you new that guy attended a BLM protest and agreed with them in regards to police violence. it wouldn't have been too much of an assumption?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like, it depends on where you started from, if you new that guy attended a BLM protest and agreed with them in regards to police violence. it wouldn't have been too much of an assumption? I see you conveniently ignored the part where Trump specifically shot himself in the foot by a posting a tweet that would have seemed to endorse this type of activity

That's the part that makes it seem less illogical then it other wise would be.

@Nibedicus Yes but we aren't talking about those. We are talking about Trump's tweet that would seemed to link him directly to the idea that kidnapping a governor would be okay.

Originally posted by Newjak
I see you conveniently ignored the part where Trump specifically shot himself in the foot by a posting a tweet that would have seemed to endorse this type of activity

That's the part that makes it seem less illogical then it other wise would be.

Like you conveniently ignored that at least one of them called Trump a tyrant?

BTW, Do you have proof that every one of them saw the tweet and agreed with it?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like you conveniently ignored that at least one of them called Trump a tyrant?

BTW, Do you have proof that every one of them saw the tweet and agreed with it? This is where the bad faith arguing is really happening in here.

You're so concerned about removing Trump out the equation you're ignoring how he himself is the reason he actually got put into this conversation.

In fact you guys are so concerned with this you've all made terrible arguments over the span of pages about whether or not conservatism was was so technically opposed to anarchy that someone hanging that flag couldn't be a Trump supporter. That is an illogical jump because of personal beliefs.

At the time these initial Trump connection ideas were happening. The most known knowledge was they belonged to a right wing leaning group and we all saw Trump's tweet.

Heck DDM only recently posted something that showed one of them was definitively anti-trump. While we definitively know one of them is pro Trump.

All this shows is that people here keep missing the main problem of why Trump is mentioned in these conversations. That is he makes stupid Tweets that at face value would seem to least show some endorsement of violent acts like this.

@Nibedicus That's not a good faith argument you presented because it doesn't actually involve the conversation at hand.

It involves you trying to ask me about something that is unrelated.

None of that answered my question. was assuming that they were all right-wing Trump supporters an example of jumping to conclusions?

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of that answered my question. was assuming that they were all right-wing Trump supporters an example of jumping to conclusions? I think it actually more than adequately answered your question.