http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-birgitt-peterson-trump-rally-met-0313-20160312-story.html
That isn't Portia Boulger.
I lost a ninja sanders supporter🙁
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-birgitt-peterson-trump-rally-met-0313-20160312-story.html
That isn't Portia Boulger.
I lost a ninja sanders supporter🙁
Truth comes out about Trump rally crashers: BLM and Bernie Sanders Supporters
But its ok for this kind of behavior on the left.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Truth comes out about Trump rally crashers: BLM and Bernie Sanders Supporters
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This will never get old
No, the Woman Giving a Nazi Salute at a Trump Rally Wasn’t a Sanders Supporter
This is yet another instance of conservatives seizing on information that appears to confirm their pre-existing biases without properly vetting it, and it turning out to be false.
It is no different than when Ted Cruz claimed that Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Lewis Dear was a "transgender leftist activist," which was also false.
You reposted that incessantly too until it was disproved, and you looks just as foolish now as you did then, and for the same exact reason.
It does really get old.
So people from BLM actually showed up at a rally and began attacking people and threatening to rape people. Why would this behavior make people think "well yeah black lives do matter" as opposed to the exact opposite of that?
Then some people defend this with the whole "free speech" thing(not people on this forum hopefully). That is the true insanity here. If attacking and threatening people is "free speech" then a 78 yr. old man punching someone also falls under the "free speech" category. Except the only difference is the old guy didn't actually show up to the Trump rally for the specific purpose of starting shit.
I mean people need to make up their minds. You can't complain about Trumps violent remarks and then turn around and go attack people at a rally.
Originally posted by Surtur
So people from BLM actually showed up at a rally and began attacking people and threatening to rape people. Why would this behavior make people think "well yeah black lives do matter" as opposed to the exact opposite of that?Then some people defend this with the whole "free speech" thing(not people on this forum hopefully). That is the true insanity here. If attacking and threatening people is "free speech" then a 78 yr. old man punching someone also falls under the "free speech" category. Except the only difference is the old guy didn't actually show up to the Trump rally for the specific purpose of starting shit.
I mean people need to make up their minds. You can't complain about Trumps violent remarks and then turn around and go attack people at a rally.
They should all be arrested and jailed for those threats. This was just another domestic terrorist attack from the blm.
I will give some credit to Bernie, he recently was in Chicago and flat out said he doesn't want the mayors support. Usually getting the support of the city can be beneficial, but I can't blame him for not wanting the mayor's support and for thinking he's done a terrible job as mayor.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They should all be arrested and jailed for those threats. This was just another domestic terrorist attack from the blm.
I'm guessing people are going to claim this wasn't really BLM. That seems to be the mantra for whenever the group is tied to a negative act.
I read some were arrested, but I hope they managed to at least arrest everyone who was attacking people.
What's funny though is that they almost want to purposely counter certain things that happen. Like the old man punching the guy at the rally..it made people sympathetic to the cause, at least somewhat sympathetic. But then a few days later people descend upon a rally and begin attacking and threatening people and just like that they ceased to be victims.
So once again we see the community doing harm to their own people..when the BLM movement is supposed to be about the harm *whites* do to the community.
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm guessing people are going to claim this wasn't really BLM. That seems to be the mantra for whenever the group is tied to a negative act.
You know that BLM is an actual organization with leaders and structure at this point, right?
So some people using the slogans, but who's not involved in the organized protests, really is not from the organized movement. It's possible to actually go and see if someone was at the organized protests and such.
The attempts to demonize BLM- a group based around pushing the agenda of not wanting to get killed or harassed- is pretty impressive. Because, y'know, they do actually get killed and harassed disproportionately, and the movement is not linked to violent incidents outside of assholes who aren't members using their slogans (and who, each time, it's come out hasn't actually been at any of their protests), and/or a few incidents where they've been attacked.
Trying to pin incidents on them that the organization doesn't have any links to is inaccurate. The actual movement that's formed have been consistently anti-violence in action and message. Sure, you have some people barging in on politicians and asking questions, but the "Oh, BLM is just a buncha violent thugs, we should discount their arguments and decide black lives don't matter!" is a narrative people are trying to push on it from the outside, but that doesn't make it true.
A lot of people freak out over BLM- and I really do find it pathetic that people like Time are terrified of them.
It's especially impressive that there's more freaking out going on *at* BLM for being 'behind' the disruption of Trump rallies, when more violence has come *from* Trump supporters. And who's oturight encouraging violence, "Protesting like that used to have consequences," blaming the guy who got sucker-punched, etc..
So, yea, you can continue to talk yourself into blaming people who aren't behind it, or you can look at what's going on. Because blaming 'violent, intolerant liberals' like Raizen is doing isn't the same as making organizations into what fits that narrative. In the end, trying to force a narrative on someone else doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by Q99
You know that BLM is an actual organization with leaders and structure at this point, right?So some people using the slogans, but who's not involved in the organized protests, really is not from the organized movement. It's possible to actually go and see if someone was at the organized protests and such.
The attempts to demonize BLM- a group based around pushing the agenda of not wanting to get killed or harassed- is pretty impressive. Because, y'know, they do actually get killed and harassed disproportionately, and the movement is not linked to violent incidents outside of assholes who aren't members using their slogans (and who, each time, it's come out hasn't actually been at any of their protests), and/or a few incidents where they've been attacked.
Trying to pin incidents on them that the organization doesn't have any links to is inaccurate. The actual movement that's formed have been consistently anti-violence in action and message. Sure, you have some people barging in on politicians and asking questions, but the "Oh, BLM is just a buncha violent thugs, we should discount their arguments and decide black lives don't matter!" is a narrative people are trying to push on it from the outside, but that doesn't make it true.
A lot of people freak out over BLM- and I really do find it pathetic that people like Time are terrified of them.
It's especially impressive that there's more freaking out going on *at* BLM for being 'behind' the disruption of Trump rallies, when more violence has come *from* Trump supporters. And who's oturight encouraging violence, "Protesting like that used to have consequences," blaming the guy who got sucker-punched, etc..
So, yea, you can continue to talk yourself into blaming people who aren't behind it, or you can look at what's going on. Because blaming 'violent, intolerant liberals' like Raizen is doing isn't the same as making organizations into what fits that narrative. In the end, trying to force a narrative on someone else doesn't make it true.
ok. so if only a few trump supporters are racist then you can tell bardock, lestov and robtard to stop acting like all trump supporters are racist. do you even see your hypocrisy?
The actual well-known Bernie supporter has different hair, lives in a different state, and we know the ID of the actual saluter.
Originally posted by Raisen
Why are all the libs silent on here?
Eh, pretty much you show no incredulousness to anything that fits your narrative, nor hearing people disagree with your narratives.
Also there's not really much 'just the facts' stuff like state results, but really, what's the fun in hearing yourself talk yourselves up into a tizzy about largely highly misrepresented things?
Bernie supporter didn't actually do the thing she's accused of? Who cares, you certainly aren't going to check, right? BLM accused of 'going around threatening to rape women'? Why look into seeing whether it's real or if it's just a made-up hit piece? Even republican-leaning newspapers I check- and I looked at the coverage from several- have no mention of it, so I'm leaning "made up hit piece"- after all, what is your sources? A random person's youtube channel, no news organization seems to believe it happened.
You don't want to check whether stuff is true, you don't even pay attention to who's saying it, and if we do check, you don't care. So... what's the point?
https://youtu.be/wN0TJ3BG-qE?t=457
Right around 8:29 you can hear on the police scanner that there are vandals in the parking lot with bats and hammers. Which never got mentioned when talking about the protesters.
Originally posted by snowdragon
https://youtu.be/wN0TJ3BG-qE?t=457Right around 8:29 you can hear on the police scanner that there are vandals in the parking lot with bats and hammers. Which never got mentioned when talking about the protesters.
Because they haven't actually been identified at this point? "There were vandals while this was going on, identity unknown," sounds right, but tells us very little about most of what was going on.
Again note the allegations that was being repeated by posters of people going around threatening rape that appears to be entirely made up by some youtube commentor, and how they should all be arrested and jailed from the threats and how it was terrorism from BLM specifically....
All~l that looks false, and all you can bring back is "there were some vandals?". Hey, I agree vandals should be arrested, but pay a little attention to what kind of echo-chamber tizzy was being worked up to based on made-up stuff there, and consider just how readily people were willing to leap to those conclusions with zero fact-checking.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
I think Sanders has a good chance at taking Illinois, Ohio and Missouri. North Carolina and Florida are very likely to go to Clinton.
The polls *on average* have her leading on all of them, but there is a new Sanders-lead poll in Illinois, Missouri has few polls (it's a caucus state after all), and Ohio... well, not as good signs for Sanders, but at least the lead is down to single-digits in some polls.
That said, here's a comment Harry Enten of 538 made:
"Some math on Dem side for Tuesday. Assuming a tie in delegates in IL, MO, OH & Clinton +25 in NC/FL, her overall pledged lead climbs to ~300"
That's the real rub. If those three states merely end up close, it doesn't matter too much on which side they fall. Bernie still needs real substantial wins.
Originally posted by Q99
Because, y'know, they do actually get killed and harassed disproportionately
They also kill each other far more then any other race in the country. But hey these lives matter.
Also I for one am shocked that a race that commits a ton of violent crimes..get harassed disproportionately by those tasked with stopping crimes. It shocks me, does it shock you Q?
and the movement is not linked to violent incidents outside of assholes who aren't members using their slogans (and who, each time, it's come out hasn't actually been at any of their protests), and/or a few incidents where they've been attacked.
Which like I said, everytime this happens it will just be people who "don't represent BLM". This has always been the excuse even before they "organized". It's been that way since the beginning of this group.
Trying to pin incidents on them that the organization doesn't have any links to is inaccurate. The actual movement that's formed have been consistently anti-violence in action and message. Sure, you have some people barging in on politicians and asking questions, but the "Oh, BLM is just a buncha violent thugs, we should discount their arguments and decide black lives don't matter!" is a narrative people are trying to push on it from the outside, but that doesn't make it true.
Like I said, even before they became "organized" you had people trotting out the same excuses for them.
It's especially impressive that there's more freaking out going on *at* BLM for being 'behind' the disruption of Trump rallies, when more violence has come *from* Trump supporters. And who's oturight encouraging violence, "Protesting like that used to have consequences," blaming the guy who got sucker-punched, etc..
Because those people? Just showed up to start shit. That is the difference between that and the old man who sucker punched a dude, etc. They come there to shit start. Which these days is apparently okay: be a shit starter it's fine..show up to places just to disrupt them..it's fine.
Though if Trump encourages violence then I guess he is in some very good company..like Mike Brown's dad for instance. Well hey at least Trump didn't encourage violence against an entire city. Small miracles, right man?
So, yea, you can continue to talk yourself into blaming people who aren't behind it, or you can look at what's going on. Because blaming 'violent, intolerant liberals' like Raizen is doing isn't the same as making organizations into what fits that narrative. In the end, trying to force a narrative on someone else doesn't make it true.
If you're going to go on a rant about how we shouldn't blame liberals, would it maybe sorta be a good idea to quote someone who was blaming liberals? Instead of someone who said "people will just say it's not BLM" which is..exactly what happened, and exactly what has been happening long before they organized?
Oh and hell we both know what would happen if this was shown to be an "official" BLM event, right? We both know the excuses. We both know people would spout stuff about how it was only as small percentage of the group..or how it was people who "infiltrated" the group just to make it look bad. You know how I know this? I've seen it before. That is not a joke, I wish it was. I've seen people say that some blacks infiltrated these groups just to act a fool and make them look bad.
So no matter what? It will never be BLM that does anything wrong, ever. You've heard of diplomatic immunity? Welcome to racial immunity. The ability to do or say whatever and get away with it. Which hey..means they have a lot in common with Trump, who knew?