Trump supporter attacks elderly couple with golf club because their political sign made him angry
| Multiple witnesses dialed 9-11 to report a man assaulting two people with a golf club on Sunday. When police arrived, witnesses told them that the suspect walked up behind the 80-year-old man and a 78-year-old woman and began to swing the golf club at their heads. After the club broke during the attack, the suspect then punched the man in the head.
| Ulsaker then fled the scene in his truck after briefly driving towards the victims. While details are were not given as to the content of the couple’s sign, the incident took place one day after the election was called for Joe Biden.
| Speaking to police, Ulsaker said he is a Trump supporter who was angered by the couple’s sign and “flipped them off” from his truck. After parking his truck and approaching the couple, he confessed that he kicked the sign over and began swinging his club at the woman, hitting her chair and then pushed it over with her in it.
| https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/trump-supporter-s-elderly-couple-with-golf-club-because-their-political-sign-made-him-angry/
| Trump supporters were literally traveling across state lines to shoot at vote counters, but conservatives think thrown milkshakes = violence
| There is violence from all sides so no suprise this happened, hope the culprits get caught
| >>713954
No, peaceful protesting and throwing milkshakes doesn't count as violence. These violent behaviours mentionedin the article are extremely one-sided.
You'll never see Biden supporters lose their shit and attack 90 year old ladies with tire irons because they support Trump.
| >>713954
and as far as I know every single shot that has been fired during the counting has been from Trump supporters(except that one hired security who fired in self-defense).
No other side has done this. But please, keep living in your bubble if it makes you feel better.
| >>713965 as you said: its as far as you know, btw it is way more realistic to say that violence comes from all sides, so sorry, you are the one in the bubble
| >>713976
Nope, no other side has been utilizing violence to stop this election from happening. Only Trump-supporters are doing this, bubble-boy!
>as you said: its as far as you know
Yeah, that means there are 0% evidence and therefor 0 reason to believe that any other sides has been shooting at people.
There have however been numerous confirmed cases of right wing shootings.
Damn, you're so fucking stupid it hurts...
| >>714014 ok...
Because antifa blm and rioters "peaceful protests" that destroyed stores, statues and other properties were not real, the people complining that their relatives were assaulted and their stores were invaded are not real at all, only the right has used violence in history
| >>714182 didnt you see anyone covering the riots and looting, the people who were killed in chaz, or even the people who lost their business in these riots that the midia keeps calling peaceful protests?
| >>714184
But if you like to talk about riots and lootings I want to know another number of you: How big was the damage (in dollars please)
| If I say the numbers(wich would require me to search it up)you will ask who are the inviduals and if I by a miracle find that you will ask if they are actually leftists and not infiltrated right wing terrorists wich will derail the whole conversation and I wouldnt bring me anywhere, you are getting predictable
| >>714219
Well if you say A you should say B.
You have a very ridiculous claim that you can't back up with facts. That's the gist of it.
Stop embarrassing yourself any further. We know you're lying.
| >>714219
Besides, if you don't know the numbers and can't even ballpark it then why do you believe in them in the first place?
| >>714221 by we you mean you, and using the "oh, you know someting?name every case" card is just stupid most of that info you want is classified or just not available
| >>714223 because I saw people crying cuz they lost their business and family members, if there are innocent people complaining about something you have to investigate, and seeing how some of these protests end in riots and vandalism it means that the information matches and if it matches then its most likely true
| >>714226
You saw someone cry on youtube? That's it? That's all the proof you need to "know" that the left are murdering people and the state are covering it up by classifying an hiding the numbers?
You're obviously lying. Everyone can see that.
| >>714227 not youtube, I found people on twitter, instagram, facebook, and the videos go from prople crying, to amateur footage, and messages of people complaining.
The word of the people has more value than the word of the governament and midia, if a 1000 people complain about violence will you ignore it just because the journal didnt report on it?
| >>714230
The source of said videos isn't the problem. The fact that you saw a crying person on facebook being all the proof you need to "know" that the left are murdering people and the state are covering it up by classifying an hiding the numbers is ridicilous and downright retarded.
| >>714263 I never said they were hiding anything, just that they were not covering it, pay more attention
| Regarding 1000 people saying one thing doesn't make it true. 1000 people can be wrong. 1000 people can lie.
So no, I wouldn't put too much stock in 1000 saying one thing that has 0 amount of factual evidence. No one smart would.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
| >>714264
Yes, you did. You claimed they were classified earlier, you liar. In fact you did it right here: >>714224
Practice what you preach and pay some more attention yourself, dumbass.
| >>714265 true cant deny that, tho it would be hard to lie so convincily, have photos, videos and in different places, and its not out of question that there are violent people on all sides
| >>714266 context, the classified info were the identities of aid criminals, they personal life and political status so no I didnt lie, you just missed the point
| >>714268
lol, I missed "the point" that never existed in the first place. Nice try.
>>714267
Except there are no photos, videos etc. If you knew about them you would've posted them by now as proof.
But you're not posting any proof. Because there are none.
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714277
Just give me raw photos and videos that proofs that the left are just as violent as the right. Just use any reputable source, please.
| >>714286 then no, if you dont have a source that you trust then this only means you base validity on your own personal judge and bias, wich means that unless I use somethig you yourself trust I wont be able to get my point across to you, so gimme the sauce
| >>714303 sure just give me a source you trust so you can bullshit ypur way out of it, also try to keep it in one thread mystery pig
| >>714304
Stop stalling and prove your ridicilous claim already!
I'll decide the credibility of your proof after you post them, thank you.
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714306 but thats not fair, if you are as well informed as you seem to be then you must have a source you trust, gimme the name or the link and I will find what we need, and since you trust it, you cant blindly accuse that its fake or not credible, this is fair, I get out of my confortzone and you will have factual evidence, its super fair dont you think?
| Im sorry but I dont trust you enough to belive that you will judge any source I give fairly, so I need it to come from you so we can use facts of your criteria
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714315 you just proved you dont care about truth, congrats you are a narcisistic idiot who procts your willfull ignorance onto a random guy in a niche anonymous board, and when they call you out you just deviate the conversation untill you get bored and tries to make a new thread to see if you can own them
| Mystery pig please stop chassing me outside of /new/ it really makes you seem like a stalker
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714346 spamming the same message doesnt get the point across, continous movent only stacks up in vectors, not give me a source you consider credible so I can show an evidence you cant deny
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714349 for somebody who claims they are just trolling and baiting you put a lot of effort into it huh, too bad you dont put enough to have a source ready that isnt wikipedia
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| If you had proof you would've posted them by now.
| I find it amusing that you go out of your way to find me outsideof /new/ and attempt to start shit there but still complains how I ruin the site
| >>714355
Stop stalling and prove your ridicilous claim already!
I'll decide the credibility of your proof after you post them, thank you.
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714356 hey mods can you check if the rude gurl on https://boards.dangeru.us/u/thread/714200 is this gurl here?
| >>714359
We're allowed to talk in other threads, you know. It's not a breach of rules.
Besides, aren't you embarrased to post that?
| >>714357 I will give a source if you promisse to accept it as fact or give me a source you trust so I can show you the facts by your standarts, you have no right to judge my sources if you cant even judge your own
| >>714361 no not really, there is no reason to, also I never said you broke any rules just that you are acting like a stalker
| >>714364
And it's all in your head. Just because some other asshole in some other thread turned out to be you it doesn't mean that I'm out to get you, you narcisistic freak.
| >>714363 you have no right to do that if the only sources you give is wikipidea pages of random complex words that you learned on "how to win a debate" on youtube
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714365 you ar ethe narcisiste here, you are always attacking people for no apparent reason, and you always try to be the intellectuals but start calling names the moment you feel threatened, you are the narcisist who makes all thread about you! You literally project all that on me when you start calling me the narcisist with the random bullshit of "you dont care about others so you are sick in the head brainlet"
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714373 how about you stop stalling? You can solve this very easely by giving a credible source, and if I dont find anything then you would be right! So chip chop gimme that source
| >>714376
I'll decide the credibility of your proof after you post them, thank you.
Now stop stalling and prove your ridicilous claim already!
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| I have news of a radical leftist attacking a trump supporter with letal intent but failing
| CHAZ patrols killed, Rittenhouse was attacked, Aaron Danielson was shot, ricin was mailed to the White House, etc. I can understand your position, but saying that the left commits "0" violence is just incorrect.
| >>714386 the trump supporter in question is a very important person, Im surprised the midia didnt cover it
| Stop stalling and prove your ridicilous claim already!
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714392 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-latin-america-45451473&ved=2ahUKEwiV1Punrv7sAhXxHLkGHfvdC1MQFjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw0rCyiEF44-QiRa075gkn-t&cf=1
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jair_Bolsonaro&ved=2ahUKEwiV1Punrv7sAhXxHLkGHfvdC1MQFjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3K_90qPfTaN1oqxM21XgKV
| You said any source counts soo...
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.france24.com/en/20180906-brazil-far-right-presidential-candidate-stabbed-bolsonaro-campaigning&ved=2ahUKEwiV1Punrv7sAhXxHLkGHfvdC1MQFjADegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3qJr2hLzYTmqgf4Mmxz1Ad&cf=1
| So your proof that the lefts are just as violent as the right is a single occurence from a completely different country than the one we've been talking about?
I think it's safe beyond any reasonable(and unreasonable) doubt that you've been lying about your claims.
See you in the next installment of "ThE lEfTiSt ArE jUsT aS vIoLeNt BuT i CaN't PrOvE iT"!
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_racial_unrest%23:~:text%3D2020%2520United%2520States%2520racial%2520unrest%2520is%2520an%2520ongoing%2520wave%2520of,the%2520form%2520of%2520police%2520violence.%26text%3DBy%2520the%2520end%2520of%2520June,had%2520been%2520arrested%2520at%2520protests.&ved=2ahUKEwiy8KL2rv7sAhXTHLkGHSKJDx4QFjABegQIAhAE&usg=AOvVaw2FG6slIWycPNnjehyxquCe
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa&ved=2ahUKEwi4isWwr_7sAhX3GbkGHbI-Bk4QFjACegQICxAB&usg=AOvVaw0LOuhqb4f51qEts4rP4i-o&cf=1&cshid=1605231028659
Despite the article saying that there is no violence from the left 8n the headline they show that it does happen and even downplay the issue saying that violence from the left isnt a major concern
| It's not that she can't prove it, idiot. She might not be able to, buy that's not proven. They've asked you, repeatedly, to set the grounds for the evidence to be provided, which you sarcastically denied multiple times, providing nothing constructive.
| Dude LMAO do you not even know how to copy-paste correctly ???
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.csis.org/analysis/who-are-antifa-and-are-they-threat&ved=2ahUKEwi4isWwr_7sAhX3GbkGHbI-Bk4QFjAHegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2nBqUvNssVAaUnBhKGOu65&cshid=1605231028659
Heck another article that says that there is left wing violence but then that proceed to say its not major and downplay the issue
| >>714404
Why is it up to me to set the grounds in any way or form? He made a statement that he can't prove. Why not simply share the information that he himself based his views on?
>>714404
>It's not that she can't prove it, idiot.
Except that's exactly why. He can't prove it. If he could he would've.
Just to summarize: There are still 0 amount of evidence to his claim.
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/5675343002&ved=2ahUKEwiRtd-Gsf7sAhUXGbkGHT_YCgMQFjAIegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw0P93Wqz1jzHY10dr71enqa&cf=1
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dj4aXO0zTi3g&ved=2ahUKEwiRtd-Gsf7sAhUXGbkGHT_YCgMQwqsBMAZ6BAgYEAs&usg=AOvVaw0b4svEc6w-XZY5A_JYeps7
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://rmx.news/article/article/antifa-and-blm-riots-in-us-caused-between-1-2-billion-in-damage-insurance-companies-report&ved=2ahUKEwiRtd-Gsf7sAhUXGbkGHT_YCgMQFjAJegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw2ht30zeeVerQ7qrN2tjKmZ
Antifa and blm riots caused losses
| >>714406
So which part is true according to you? If these are credible sources to your claim then why do you feel the need to make excuses for them?
Do you have _any_ actual proof that you don't have to excuse before sharing?
Because none of these links portrays a reality where left-winged violence occurences are tantamount or even close to right-winged violence occurences.
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/turning-point-black-lives-matter-organizers-wing-backlash/story%3Fid%3D72863444&ved=2ahUKEwiRtd-Gsf7sAhUXGbkGHT_YCgMQFjAPegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0A1wGtHIcLTvNtnZWiPZG2&cshid=1605231691465
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/five-months-blm-protestors-trashed-americas-cities-after-the-election&ved=2ahUKEwiRtd-Gsf7sAhUXGbkGHT_YCgMQFjAOegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2vJ5fqt5YgmqRa9Qs0cN-D&cshid=1605231691465
| >>714409
Cry more willya? It's obvious beyond any doubt that I'm better than he is at figuring out what's true and what's bullshit. I'm not apologising for that.
Why does it bother you anyway? You have an inferiority complex or something?
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx%3FID%3D193484&ved=2ahUKEwjv7NzUsv7sAhXtGLkGHcwtCakQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0xB1XggBNsfn0-cXs4pbB8&cshid=1605231889413 here is some definitions
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/right-and-left-wing-extremists-are-anticipating-election-related-violence-other-side-report-finds/169710/&ved=2ahUKEwjv7NzUsv7sAhXtGLkGHcwtCakQFjAFegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3GSG__BtkUybHCtSMXDH_W&cshid=1605231889413
And here is one that says exaclty what I say, violence from both sides
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/09/16/us/far-left-social-media-violent-messages-trnd/index.html&ved=2ahUKEwjv7NzUsv7sAhXtGLkGHcwtCakQFjAJegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0OHX9kM3r1XSNYpr_nBmFz&cf=1&cshid=1605231996271
Lol even cnn is talking about it in their own way but theyr are
| Can you post them correctly so they're easier to read? IE actually take your time to copy paste them correctly, sort them and preferably label them? Because spamming links and telling me to "do your own research" is flatearth-tier argumentation.
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/10/01/political-violence-424157&ved=2ahUKEwjdo9XDs_7sAhUqGbkGHaifCMYQFjALegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2D-u4CfCZifXD6SmTMnajP&cf=1&cshid=1605232100587
More evidence of violence from both sides
| >>714420 just read the whole thing you have time, dont be petty you asked for it and Im giving to you already
| >>714423
I think both you and I know that I'm not gonna read trough your walls of text. After the first 3 I knew this wasn't leading anywhere.
Not only do I not trust you after stalling for 60 posts. But then suddenly spamming google-urls with the notion "do your own research" is horrible rhetoric for argumenting your claim.
This rhetoric has never worked and never will.
| >>714427 aaaaaaand thats the reason why I was deflcting for 60 posts, you would just not read because you are a hipocritical lazy ass selfish entitled willful ignorant with a superiority complex.
At least read the last 3 aricles, they have SOME of the hardest eveidenc of violence from both sides
| And also it doesnt work because you dont make it work, you ar ethe one dismissing everything as lies and not putting the work to prove that somethig is a lie
| >>714429
As I said, if you actually take your time to copy paste them correctly, sort them and preferably label them then I might read them.
But if spamming literal google-urls(like WTF!?) is your way of proving your claims then I'm just not gonna bother. You still haven't proven anything.
| >>714432 then fuck you! Im not your slave, also " if you actually take your time to copy paste them correctly, sort them and preferably label them then I might read them", how entitled are you? And you have the balls to say you might read them? Go jump of a bridge, people like you are the reason society cant progress, there is nothing worse than people who refuse to try to learn
| Thank god you dont break any rules, the moment the mods see you doing something they will ban you on the spot
| >>714435
Then you don't have the rhetoric to prove your claim. You still have 0 proof.
Spamming 200+ A4 pages(yes, I had a script to count) and telling me to "do my own research" isn't an argument. It is laziness and downright dumb.
| >>714438
A. They won't.
B. They can't. I work in network security and knows how to access a fucking text board from everywhere lmao
C. You still haven't proved anything. You need to work on your rhetoric.
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We still have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
(If any user would like to do this kids work and sort trough his links to find the proof then go ahead. I'm certainly not wasting my time.)
| >>714439 never told you to do your own research(I did it to you), I literally gave a bunch of links you didnt read, you are wrong and you are the liar so you can use that zero as a cock ring
| >>714443
Yes, your rethoric is spamming 200+ A4 pages with the expectation that we should do our own research to find the proof you claim is burried in there somewhere, that you can't bring to the surface yourself to prove your point.
You realize how incompetent this sounds, right?
Based on the colossoal amount of lies you've been telling us before, in this thread and many others, I sincerely doubt that said proof can be found and validated in your links.
| >>714445 ok MisteryPig#2123 go belive that all links are lie in your fantasy land where only you can dictate which articles and studies are real by just looking at the link
| >>714446
The burden of proof is still on you so do the research, present it, and validate your ridicilous claim!
Stop stalling and get to work!
| Also if you call an article a jumble of words and you have to look at a resumed version to see if its real or not then you dont even read real articles or studies, you just see headlines and take them as truth if it falls under your ideals, you are political bubble head, what a loser
| >>714448
Never said anything of the sort, but nice attempt at deflecting.
The burden of proof is still on you so do the research, present it, and validate your ridicilous claim!
Stop stalling and get to work!
| >>714447 racist, you cant dismiss everything a black person says and tell them to do a work that you could very much do in such condecending way, you are racist by the sjw logic
| Your rethoric is spamming 200+ A4 pages with the expectation that we should do our own research to find the proof you claim is burried in there somewhere, that you can't bring to the surface yourself to prove your point.
You realize how incompetent this sounds, right?
| Just to summarize:
We have actual proof of right wingers often utilizing violence in politial ways.
We still have 0 proof of the leftists acting the same.
| >>714450
I think it's safe beyond any reasonable(and unreasonable) doubt that you've been lying about your claims.
See you in the next installment of "ThE lEfTiSt ArE jUsT aS vIoLeNt BuT i CaN't PrOvE iT"!
| >>714453 then why dont you show the propper way to link an article? Then you cant afford to not read it
| >>714460
I never claimed it was a source to any of my arguments. It's just a news article, no more, no less.
Dunno what you're trying to achieve here but you still hasn't prevented any proof of your earlier claims.
| presented*
| >>714410 accordig to the article the antifa and blm protests caused 1 to 2 million dollars in damage
| >>714419 according to CNN the leftist are implying "right wing" terrorist tatics to spread messages
| >>714418 according to this study both the left and the right claims that the opposing side uses violent tatics
| >>714421 this one explains how both sides are saying more and more that they are willing to become more violent if it means defending their ideals
| >>714463
K, still not related to the topic but close enough.
The article doesn't go into detail of who exactly caused the damages though. There were many non-politically aligned rioters and several false-flag operations so the actual number can't be attributed to any single group.
Still not tantamount to attacking 90 year olds with golf clubs.
How does this prove your point exactly?
| >>714402 >>714403 >>714406 all these articles say that while there is left wing wing violence they are minor issues and that right wing violence is the main issue while not giving any recent examples of right wing violence but talking about some cases that happend in antifa and blm protests
| >>714464
This is not violence and therefor not proof of any of your claims. It's downright stupid that you think it is.
| >>714472 rent you the one who says right wingers are violent? If the left is using their tatics then they are becoming more violent duh
| >>714465
Claims aren't proof.
The fact that you think this proves your point is also downright stupid.
| >>714474 but if both sides are claiming violence and it doesnt prove anything then both sides are tellig lies
| So there is evidence of the left becomming more violent
Evidence of both sides claiming violence
Evidence of both sides having liars
Isnt that all what I to prove in the first place? That both sides are, bad, have liars and violence? Guess what I was right
| >>714467
Sounds dangerous, but justifying violence is not the same as actually commiting violence, which was the topic we were "debating".
Besides, the article released an update dismissing its earlier claims. Paragraphed below:
| [Update: Since this article published, we’ve received new polling data that strongly suggests the trend is not as large as originally thought. On the question of justifying violence, new data from the same source as the 2017 to 2019 trend suggests there has not been a significant shift in attitudes since December 2019, though there is still a notable increase from 2017.
| >>714486
cont
On the question of justifying violence in the event of losing a presidential race, there has been a small increase but not as large as the one we originally described. We’re reviewing the new data and will update further.]
| >>714473
They are refering to online posting styles. Did you even read your own links??
How dense are you?
| >>714491 yes I read them duh, the way people speak online is the main way the midia determines who is violent and who is not
| >>714492
You didn't read it either, idiot. For all we know it could summarize left-winged violence as a non-threat.
If you haven't even read it yourself then you can't even know if it proves your point. It's just a desperate attempt.
Try harder.
| >>714494
>the way people speak online is the main way the midia determines who is violent
This is an even more ridicilous claim than your earlier ones.
No, online communication is _not_ violence. It's downright retarded that you even attempted this argument.
| >>714494 adding onto that, dont you know? So many cases of hate speech happen online, that is the how the midia sees the violence, heck thats even their justification for clossing trumps twetts and other things, if you dont consider hate speech as violence then you can already dissmis most cases of right wing violence
| >>714495 I did tho, I just put it ther because it was a definition and a bais it want even meant to be proof look at how I posted it here
| >>714499
I'm reading it now. It's from 20+ years ago so it isn't even relevant today and most of the examples of left wing attacks are older than that when the abstract was written.
Also, it clearly states that right wing violence outnumbered left-wing violence by a huge margin.
I still fail to see how this proves your point but go ahead and explain it, if you think you can.
| >>714502 does it say there is no violence from the left? No, then there still violence that should be accounted
| >>714500
>>714500
Why? You're the one who needs to hear it.
Social media moderators doesn't define what is and what isn't violence and this isn't even related to the topic of the thread. Stop derailing our threads with your ignorant whine already.
| >>714503
It doesn't say anything about current day violence from the left because it was written over 20 years ago.
So no, it doesn't prove your point.
| Either way, to summarize: I'm glad I didn't blindly read your links because most of them wasn't even on topic.
None of them proved your claim that left wing violence occurences is tantamount to right wing violence occurences.
You still have 0 proof of your claim.
| >>714505 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-04/amid-bay-area-looting-hayward-gun-store-robbed-of-29-firearms%3F_amp%3Dtrue&ved=2ahUKEwi6sIumyP7sAhUzILkGHY1tBf0QFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2_tnfAGm__G5TD2evVgiBM&cf=1
Gun shop gets looted during protest
And in the words of the article "peaceful demonstrations devolved into looting and other mayhem, especially on Saturday and Sunday nights."
| >>714508
The article doesn't mentioned who stole the weapons. There's no way of knowing if it was politically motivated or not. It could've been literally anyone.
What is your internal logic when you read stuff like this and it somehow ends up as "left winged-violence"??
| https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests&ved=2ahUKEwiOrrCpyf7sAhV-G7kGHYxUCLEQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0oyCILwxh4KfOXzzYUq-Wk
A wikipidia article(since you like to use it) about some cases of violence in protests
| >>714511
You can stop now. Not a single one of the links I responded to has proven your point. In fact more than two thirds of them isn't even about the topic of violence.
I won't read any more of your lazy google searches. You can't prove your point. Period.
| >>714512 if you click on the "in the US" part you will see stpries that range fro violence from cops to violence from protestors
| If you need to lie, twist and move the goalpost sooo much in order to reach a "conclusion" then why do you even believe in said conclusion in the first place? It's obviously not true.
Seriously, what is the internal logic here?
| >>714514 In Seattle, a 16-year-old boy was killed and a 14-year-old was critically injured in their Jeep Grand Cherokee after being shot in the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) zone.
| In Downtown Austin, 28-year old Garrett Foster was killed in a shooting at a Black Lives Matter protest. The incident happened around 9:52 p.m. near East Sixth Street and Congress Avenue, according to Austin-Travis County EMS. Police said initial reports indicate that Foster was carrying an AK-47 style rifle, and was pushing his fiancée's wheelchair moments before he was killed.
| In Portland, Oregon, Aaron J. Danielson was shot in the chest and killed on the night of August 29, amidst protests and riots in the city. The man who was with Danielson at the time of the shooting claims that Danielson was targeted and killed because of his hat[86] which had an insignia of Patriot Prayer, a far-right group based in Vancouver, Washington that has clashed with protesters in the past.
| >>714518 Michael Forest Reinoehl, responsible for the shooting, who was an anti-fascist activist and self-described supporter of antifa, writing "I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!" in an Instagram post in June,[105] said in an Associated Press video interview earlier in the summer that he had provided security for other protesters.
| >>714513
I am aware. I have read said article several times in the past. It doesn't prove what you claim it proves.
I know, if you have an agenda you definetly want to portray robbers and opportunistic criminals as politically motivated.
But it's a lie, a lie you need in order to denigrate your real opponents.
Sorry, still not proof enough of your claim.
| >>714516 >>714517 >>714518 >>714519
Not a single one of these are "proof" or even mentions of politically motivated violence.
For all we know right-wingers, canadians or even amish people could've done it.
You're really grasping for straws here, aren't you?
| >>714521 not my fault you cant read, there is violence from all sides, you just reduse to accept it you refused to give a source you trusted and when I pulled articles for you nitpicked any excuse to say it was a lie, you did just as I said, again you are too predictable, so I did what you wanted, so how about you give me a cool site to search
| >>714526
I read them and understand them just fine, obviously. They do _not_ claim what you claim they do.
>>714527
Yeah, that's how evidence works. Either you can prove your point using either empirical evidence or intellectual evidence, or, you know, you simply can't.
Stacking falsehoods upon falsehoods doesn't make it any more true. Only brainlets and cultists believes this is how the world works.
| >>714529 the empirical evidence you call hearsay and limited to a single persons life experience, I remember what you said in the threads we talked about racism, despite me having stories of both my self, family member and other black families you dismissed all of it.
In all thread we talked science you claimed I didnt know shit about research and how science worked.
I always see you calling lies but never saw you proving lies nor facts
You really are the brainlet
| Im still waiting for you to provide a source you deem trustworhy
| >>714534
That's not what empirical evidence means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Also, I have never talked with you or anyone else here about racism or someones family. You were definetly talking to a different poster.
Why is this even relevant? As I said, stop derailing our threads with off-topic nonsense already.
| Its not that I cant prove something, you just refuse revice information that doesnt match what you see as truth, wich btw I dont know where you get your truths since you never give sources to your claims
| >>714535
Create a different thread if you want to know danger/u/s trustworthy sites. Don't derail this any more.
| >>714536 ah yes, me being a black person, I have no imperical experience on racism, none of my family members and frinds do
| >>714537
I responded to all your summaries, didn't? If you disagree with them you can respond too, and we'll have a debate.
But you chose not to do that. Instead you chose to go the ad-hominem route.
The truth of the matter is still this: You haven't been able to prove your claim.
In fact, most of your links doesn't even touch the subject of politically motivated violence at all. The one who refuses to recive information is you.
| >>714536 and when you want to avoid a topic you say that there is anothe poster, shut up dude, I know when it is you just like you know when it is me
| >>714542
I have tried to stay on the topic of politically motivated violence all troughout this. You're the one who constantly tries to steer it off-topic(like the post I replied to just now LMAO)
| >>714543
And? An insult isn't ad-hominem. Especially not when you add it at the end of your explanation, retard.
| >>714544 huh you lack the ability to read what is before your own posts, Ive called you many times about you missing context, you really are hopeless
| >>714547
Nope, you have never done that. Maybe you think you do because you seem to strain a lot when it comes to understanding what's on topic and what's not.
If you post something I consider off-topic it's best to not respond too much because you _will_ derail the thread.
But if you disagree please point out which on-topic(politically violence related) post that I missed and I will respond to it.
| >>714550 kill me, are your stupid, you responded to every single post, thats not even what Im talking about, Im talking about how you take certain things out of context and refuses to look back when I tell you to look back
| Also I made the thread, so you can now post your links and evidence
| >>714551
What have I taken out of context?
Please, show me so we can straighten this out. Because I am 100% certain that I have done no such things.
| I wonder if there is a mod watching this and wondering why these 2 idiots fight all the time
Btw I made the thread(saying this so you dont ignore it)
I MADE THE THREAD
| >>714549 >>714552
I have no clue what you're trying to do with that thread. Clearly you misunderstood something...
Also, you sound very salty in it. Didn't you claim that our convos never makes you upset(lmao, yeah right)?
| >>714554
I don't think they bother watching anymore. Maybe they glanced the first time. Frankly, I don't think they care.
As long as we keep it between us I think it's fine. Altough I would stop if they wanted me to.
| >>714553 you are always a 100% certain>>714219 >>714221 >>714224 >>714266 >>714268 here is the whole exchange
| >>714557
*sigh* yeah, I'm not gonna bother...
Your first post is a respons to a different girl. I never asked you about any numbers. That was someone completely different. Learn how this site works already, please.
| >>714558 >>714559
I clearly told you if you wanted to talk about trustworthy news sources you should create a thread and ask dangeru about their preferences so you won't derail this one any furter.
But somehow you did something completely different... and I suspect you're confusing me with another(much more polite) poster from a precious thread.
I still have no idea what your purpose with your new thread is.
| >>714564
Nope, you're wrong. That is someone completely different. Please learn how this community operates.
| >>714565 read the title, you can post trusthworthy sources there its not that hard to see what to do
| >>714569
So you just want me to list my trusthworthy sources since you(incorrectly) called me out in the thread?
Why?
| >>714571
It's a very confusing thread. What points do you want proven exactly?
I suggest the mods just lock it because I'm not gonna touch that mess.
| >>714572 because I want to see your sources, have you forgotenn the 60 posts where you kept spammin the same message?
| >>714579
Yeah, and I asked you to create a thread where _everyone_ can talk about their prefered sites.
Yet you somehow made some salty mess all about you and me. Fuck that.
| >>714577 Im mean I did say the same thing many times and in many different ways(unlike you who just used cntrl C and V), if you didnt remember that and you cant even scroll up to discover it then yes you are dumb, you clearly lack the ratiinal capacity to recive information even trought repetion and also lacks intellect for autonomous action, you are a dumb
| Huh he got so happy to hear that that he us gone, maybe I should just start faking that Im mad so he leaves early, btw I didnt fake today you still got your w
| >>714581
You only need to say it once if it's coherent and true.
Repeating it in many different ways with slight variations never works. It's just jumbling and if people doesn't respond the first time they're not gonna do it any of the other 10 times. Let it go.
As I said earlier, repeating falsehoods doesn't make it true.
| >>714582
Sure there are. I don't see the point of normalizing such lazy shitty threads like that one. Our convos are bad enough as it is for this site(probably).
| >>714587 wow so you really dont remember it, you really are dumb, thats not even the right context
| >>714591
I usually don't finish reading your posts if I see it doesn't go anywhere within the first few letters.
But if this is some kind of problem for you then I suggest you practice what you preach. You rarely if almost never respond to the stuff people tell you.
But I guess you're too narcisistic to notice unless someone points it out.
| >>714592 ok quick corretion, WE dont have standarts for wich threads we appear, self awareness is important
| >>714593 thats something somebody with limed brain capacity would say, no wonders I correct you so much, you cant even understand what people say
| >>714592
I mean, you clearly doesn't even recognize me unless I start calling you retarded or a brainlet(heh) considering that you have confused me with at least 3 different posters in this thread alone.
One of which was nothing but emphatic and polite to you.
You really are clueless.
| >>714597 ah yes saying that they would bully me untill I complied to their standards was so polite, you really are projecting when you me a narcisist
| >>714596
You know, if it's only you and me in this convo, and you're trying to lie, then who are you really lying to?
If you lie to me then you're retarded. I know my actions because they're my actions and you can't sway me by simply stating stuff I never did.
If you lie to yourself you're just sad... but that's probably(definetly) what it's all about. Why is that?
| >>714599
That emphatic polite guy never said that. Boy, you sure are a grade A asshole.
He did however point out that if you're gonna continue to act the way you do, then people will continue to behave the same towards you.
Only your narcisistic brain twisted this into everyone being against you and want to bully you for complience.
That was _never_ what he meant and it was pretty fucking obvious too.
| >>714601 you missed context again, I talking about all of our conversations, including all the 4 threads you made me jump trough also whay are you responding to stuff so way back? Do you have a delay or something?
| >>714603
Well, wouldn't that be YOU missing the context if you jump from one topic to another just like that?
Like, seriously, do you want me to hold your hand and walk you trough our convo and show you where exactly you were wrong?
This thread is closed.
| A self-described Trump supporter used a golf club to assault an elderly couple who sat beside political sign in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, the Twin Cities Pioneer Press reported.
Mark Anthony Ulsaker, 50, was charged with one count of second-degree assault, one count of fourth-degree assault of a peace officer and one count of threats of violence, according to a criminal complaint.