Man Shot To Death At Political Demonstation In Denver; Police Assure The Public It Wasn't Antifa - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15128261


Matthew Dolloff has finally been charged with second degree murder.

Denver DA to charge security guard with second-degree murder in 9News Shooting


A 30-year-old security guard will face a charge of second-degree murder for allegedly shooting and killing a participant in a “Patriot Rally” in downtown Denver on Saturday, prosecutors announced Thursday.

If convicted, Matthew Robert Dolloff could face up to 48 years in prison in connection to the shooting, which his family’s attorney has said was an act of self-defense. Dolloff was working as a security guard for journalists at Denver television station 9News when he opened fire.

Denver District Attorney Beth McCann announced she’ll formally file the charges against Dolloff on Monday. Police had arrested Dolloff on suspicion of first-degree murder.

The arrest affidavit for Dolloff released Tuesday states that Lee Keltner, the 49-year-old demonstrator who was killed, became involved in a dispute with Dolloff and a 9News producer, whom Dolloff was guarding. Keltner, who was holding a can of pepper spray, slapped Dolloff in the side of the head, according to the affidavit, and Dolloff then drew a gun from his waistband.



Why is the Denver Post protecting the identity of the 9News producer? He was named in the affidavit, which is publicly available. Here he is again, reporting on Twitter that he showed up with antifa and the police wouldn't let him past the barricade.



It's also interesting to see that the 9news producer hasn't been active on Twitter since the incident.

Dolloff fired the gun as Keltner discharged the pepper spray, according to the affidavit.

Beyond criminal charges in the shooting, Denver officials say Dolloff could face additional criminal or civil action for working in Denver without the city’s required municipal security guard license.

Dolloff was working as a contractor for Pinkerton, which 9News had contracted with for security. Management at the television station said Tuesday that they requested an unarmed guard and did not know Dolloff had a gun on Saturday until he opened fire.

Pinkerton said in a statement Monday that Dolloff was not an employee, but “a contractor agent from a long standing industry vendor” that the company would not name.

Dolloff worked as a security contractor for more than a year, his family attorney said, including at a debate Friday between senatorial candidates John Hickenlooper and Cory Gardner.

Under Colorado law, a person can use deadly force in self-defense only if that person reasonably believes using other, lesser force won’t be sufficient to stop an immediate threat against themselves or others.
#15128293
ckaihatsu wrote:Why are you just making bullshit up?

You *suck* at fearmongering -- try mongering something else.

Fascists are notorious for not liking communists. It's nice to see that you are not afraid.

ckaihatsu wrote:you're ignoring that fascists are *pro*-capitalist while far-leftists are *anti*-capitalist.

I'm not ignoring it. I specifically said that they aren't coming after me. I'm capitalist. You are anti-capitalist. It seems that they don't like you.

ckaihatsu wrote:You should consider fighting the Nazis because they all want to violently attack and victimize social minorities, and have done it historically. Remember the Holocaust?

I was born well after that.

ckaihatsu wrote:FBI Director Christopher Wray Says A Majority of Domestic Terrorism Cases are Motivated by White Supremacist Violence

Christopher Wray sucks. One only needs to look at the last year of rioting to see that's clearly not the case.

ingliz wrote:The day before the rally, the organiser John "Tig" Tiegen was interviewed on The Steffan Tubbs Show on 710 KNUS, a Denver radio station. When asked if he was afraid the 'muster' would likely turn violent, he said, "I’m going to be prepared to do violence."

What do you think "I'm going to be prepared to do violence" means?

It means he's not an idiot, and realizes that antifa will likely attack them, which they did.

ingliz wrote:It appears that neither you nor Miss Malkin can be bothered to read the affidavit.

"Both men yelled and postured"

It seems that the shooter is being charged with second degree murder.
#15128297
blackjack21 wrote:
Fascists are notorious for not liking communists. It's nice to see that you are not afraid.



The *problem* is that the *state* defends the far-right at any given rally. They would readily beat-up and even kill social minorities, and *have* done that, yet they're *defended* by the police. Tell me the math on *that*, if you can.


blackjack21 wrote:
I'm not ignoring it. I specifically said that they aren't coming after me. I'm capitalist. You are anti-capitalist. It seems that they don't like you.



You're not helping. You're making them sound like the *protagonist*, when they're demonstrably violent and murderous, and should be preemptively *curtailed*, with the RICO Act used against them.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You should consider fighting the Nazis because they all want to violently attack and victimize social minorities, and have done it historically. Remember the Holocaust?



blackjack21 wrote:
I was born well after that.



You're digressing away from the *politics* here -- we have a *track record* for the kinds of actions, and *atrocities* of the far-right, and all *you* want to talk about is your own birthdate.


blackjack21 wrote:
Christopher Wray sucks. One only needs to look at the last year of rioting to see that's clearly not the case.



More-to-the-point are these *recent* acts of far-right domestic terrorism:



4.19 Charleston church shooting (2015)

4.20 San Bernardino shooting (2015)

4.21 Orlando nightclub shooting (2016)

4.22 Congressional baseball shooting (2017)

4.23 Charlottesville car attack (2017)

4.24 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (2018)

4.25 Escondido mosque fire and Poway synagogue shooting (2019)

4.26 El Paso Walmart shooting (2019)

4.27 Vehicle attacks against racial justice protesters



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_ ... ted_States
#15128304
blackjack21 wrote:It seems...

It seems you can't be arsed to read the affidavit, either.

'Both men' is a reference to Lee John Keltner and Jeremiah Elliot, not the shooter. He came later... not much later but later.

the shooter is being charged with second degree murder.

Manslaughter? Seems fair.

That's not the answer you were expecting, I expect.


:lol:
#15128311
Imagine how much of a hate filled dork you have to be to be part of a racist militia on the weekends. Also, imagine the even bigger dork who identifies with this loser politically and feels compelled to defend them. What a fucking loser that person would be. At least the first loser gets outside to do racisms.
#15128312
The *problem* is that the *state* defends the far-right at any given rally. They would readily beat-up and even kill social minorities, and *have* done that, yet they're *defended* by the police. Tell me the math on *that*, if you can.

The police have to protect innocent people. That's their job. If Antifa comes and starts fights, naturally those instigating violence will get arrested.

You're making them sound like the *protagonist*, when they're demonstrably violent and murderous, and should be preemptively *curtailed*, with the RICO Act used against them.

There has to be a crime committed first. RICO is generally used against organized crime. It doesn't apply to individual actors within a group. For example, most murderers vote Democrat. That's why the Democrats want felons to be able to vote. With 2M people in prison, the Democrats could reasonably expect to get probably 80% of that voter base. Democrats are far more violent than Republicans. Why shouldn't we use RICO to prosecute the Democrats then?

You're digressing away from the *politics* here -- we have a *track record* for the kinds of actions, and *atrocities* of the far-right, and all *you* want to talk about is your own birthdate.

Well, obviously I cannot remember something when I was not alive to witness it. I can only go by reports.

More-to-the-point are these *recent* acts of far-right domestic terrorism:

First, they're not all far right. The Charleston shooter was a lone shooter. It wasn't an organized attack. The San Bernardino shooters were Muslims, not Nazis. The Orlando shooter's father was a Hillary Clinton supporter. That guy was a Muslim too, not a Nazi. The Congressional baseball shooter was a Bernie Sanders fan. Not exactly right wing. The Charlottesville car attack was a single guy with a history of mental health problems. He was sympathetic with Nazism. So finally you've got one. The Pittsburg synogogue shooter was anti-Trump. Escondido mosque fire and shooting was an anti-Semite. So you've got two now. El Paso shooter was anti-immigrant. So you've got three. Vehicle attacks? How does that make someone a right winger. Generally, protesting in the street without a permit is unlawful, and so is attacking motorists. So in your list of 9 examples, only 3 of them meet the criteria of some sort of white supremacist neo Nazis.

Yet, we just saw a Trump supporter shot and killed in Denver. One shot an killed in Portland. One shot and killed in Milwaukee. A 7 year old kid attacked for wearing a MAGA hat. We have seen teenagers on bicycles with "Teens for Trump" run off the road by Biden supporters. We've seen multiple conservative reporters attacked. We've seen a 34-year old man attack a 15-year old Trump fan. We've seen Trump supporter threatened by cane sword wielding man. We seen GOP voter registration tents plowed into by another insane Democrat. I mean the number of attacks against anyone wearing a MAGA hat--I mean that list is long. Democrats are frankly very violent people. I mean when you look at the list of violent crimes by registered Democrats, that's a very, very long list. They are the single most dangerous group in the United States.

ingliz wrote:It seems you can't be arsed to read the affidavit, either.

'Both men' is a reference to Lee John Keltner and Jeremiah Elliot, not the shooter.

What difference would the affidavit make to the charging decision?

ingliz wrote:Manslaughter? Seems fair.

That's not the answer you were expecting, I expect.

From you, it is a little surprising, but that's about the looks of the crime anyway.
#15128313
Blackjack given that you're a Flynn supporter do you just have an instinctual need to find and worship the dumbest people alive in between sessions of jacking off to black people being murdered?

Also why are you such a huge racist when you are proof that honkeys are not uber men?
#15128320
ckaihatsu wrote:
The *problem* is that the *state* defends the far-right at any given rally. They would readily beat-up and even kill social minorities, and *have* done that, yet they're *defended* by the police. Tell me the math on *that*, if you can.



blackjack21 wrote:
The police have to protect innocent people. That's their job. If Antifa comes and starts fights, naturally those instigating violence will get arrested.



But who protects people from *fascist violence*?

The fascists have a *much* larger list of domestic terror attacks, and killings, and the police have *thousands* of killings to *their* name. Far-leftists are single-digits, and that's all now in 2020.

So the government political priorities are *clear* -- the government should be treating fascists as a *racketeering* organization, busting them *in advance* due to *criminal intent*. Since they're *not* doing that, groups like BLM and Antifa have simply been filling in the political void.


blackjack21 wrote:
There has to be a crime committed first. RICO is generally used against organized crime. It doesn't apply to individual actors within a group. For example, most murderers vote Democrat. That's why the Democrats want felons to be able to vote. With 2M people in prison, the Democrats could reasonably expect to get probably 80% of that voter base. Democrats are far more violent than Republicans. Why shouldn't we use RICO to prosecute the Democrats then?



You're just talking about *political marketing* here -- the Democratic machine itself isn't *calling* for racist violence, it's *opportunistically* looking for voters among felons. Fascists have *criminal intent* as an integral part of their political *ideology*. That's *racketeering*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're digressing away from the *politics* here -- we have a *track record* for the kinds of actions, and *atrocities* of the far-right, and all *you* want to talk about is your own birthdate.



blackjack21 wrote:
Well, obviously I cannot remember something when I was not alive to witness it. I can only go by reports.



BJ, you're continuing to *squirm* instead of just addressing the *politics* in front of you -- why don't you simply acknowledge that there's a profound, *genocidal* historical record of fascists intentionally mass-murdering millions of people, and that they'd like to do it all over again, and worse, if society lets them?


blackjack21 wrote:
First, they're not all far right. The Charleston shooter was a lone shooter. It wasn't an organized attack. The San Bernardino shooters were Muslims, not Nazis. The Orlando shooter's father was a Hillary Clinton supporter. That guy was a Muslim too, not a Nazi. The Congressional baseball shooter was a Bernie Sanders fan. Not exactly right wing. The Charlottesville car attack was a single guy with a history of mental health problems. He was sympathetic with Nazism. So finally you've got one. The Pittsburg synogogue shooter was anti-Trump. Escondido mosque fire and shooting was an anti-Semite. So you've got two now. El Paso shooter was anti-immigrant. So you've got three. Vehicle attacks? How does that make someone a right winger. Generally, protesting in the street without a permit is unlawful, and so is attacking motorists. So in your list of 9 examples, only 3 of them meet the criteria of some sort of white supremacist neo Nazis.



Are you on the fascist *payroll*? Do you want to be associated with the fascist *cause*, here, because that's the road you're on. Don't say you haven't been warned.


blackjack21 wrote:
Yet, we just saw a Trump supporter shot and killed in Denver. One shot an killed in Portland. One shot and killed in Milwaukee. A 7 year old kid attacked for wearing a MAGA hat. We have seen teenagers on bicycles with "Teens for Trump" run off the road by Biden supporters. We've seen multiple conservative reporters attacked. We've seen a 34-year old man attack a 15-year old Trump fan. We've seen Trump supporter threatened by cane sword wielding man. We seen GOP voter registration tents plowed into by another insane Democrat. I mean the number of attacks against anyone wearing a MAGA hat--I mean that list is long. Democrats are frankly very violent people. I mean when you look at the list of violent crimes by registered Democrats, that's a very, very long list. They are the single most dangerous group in the United States.



And Trump backed the Michigan militia kidnappers, among so much other expressed fascist-sympathizing from the White House. Do you *countenance* this kind of politics, or should it be pre-emptively *forestalled*, as from -- *sure* -- a faction of the Democrats, or whatever?

And why are you starting with the *Democrats*, of all groupings -- unless you mean killer cops and *war crimes* -- when there's such a long list of political / ideological violence and murders from the *fascist* side of the political spectrum? Why not start *there*?
#15128375
ckaihatsu wrote:But who protects people from *fascist violence*?

Police if we don't defund them, and people themselves, provided they can keep and bear arms.

ckaihatsu wrote:The fascists have a *much* larger list of domestic terror attacks, and killings, and the police have *thousands* of killings to *their* name.

So you are calling the police fascists now?

ckaihatsu wrote:Far-leftists are single-digits, and that's all now in 2020.

Trying to burn down court houses and police precincts is not peaceful protesting.

ckaihatsu wrote:So the government political priorities are *clear* -- the government should be treating fascists as a *racketeering* organization, busting them *in advance* due to *criminal intent*.

What business are they using illicitly? RICO is for racketeering, which involves businesses. I'm not following your argument here at all.

ckaihatsu wrote:Since they're *not* doing that, groups like BLM and Antifa have simply been filling in the political void.

BLM is corporate, and focuses on police violence against blacks. They otherwise do not care about black people. Antifa just violently opposes anybody that isn't far left. By definition, their criminal behavior is intended to have a political effect. Therefore they are terrorists.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just talking about *political marketing* here -- the Democratic machine itself isn't *calling* for racist violence, it's *opportunistically* looking for voters among felons.

Many Democrats have openly encouraged rioting, while simultaneously calling for defunding the police.

ckaihatsu wrote:Fascists have *criminal intent* as an integral part of their political *ideology*.

It's not criminal if you get to make the laws.

ckaihatsu wrote: That's *racketeering*.

No. Racketeering is using a business for criminal purposes. For example, using a dry cleaning store to launder money. BLM could be considered racketeering in so far as they use 501(c)(3) orgs to collect money and then to organize riots. That could be racketeering. I'm not seeing the business angle here. So I'm guessing you don't understand the meaning of the word "racketeering."

ckaihatsu wrote:BJ, you're continuing to *squirm* instead of just addressing the *politics* in front of you -- why don't you simply acknowledge that there's a profound, *genocidal* historical record of fascists intentionally mass-murdering millions of people, and that they'd like to do it all over again, and worse, if society lets them?

That is the case for the NSDAP, but it isn't true for all fascists.

ckaihatsu wrote:Are you on the fascist *payroll*?

I wasn't aware they had a payroll.

ckaihatsu wrote:Do you want to be associated with the fascist *cause*, here, because that's the road you're on.

I'm not a socialist. I'm not a big fan of authoritarianism either. Since fascists are a problem for you, it's really your issue to fight them. I don't see why I should have to fight on behalf of a left wing ideology I don't believe in anyway.

ckaihatsu wrote:And Trump backed the Michigan militia kidnapper

How so?

ckaihatsu wrote:Do you *countenance* this kind of politics, or should it be pre-emptively *forestalled*, as from -- *sure* -- a faction of the Democrats, or whatever?

Frankly, I seriously doubt Trump directed anybody to kidnap a governor. I think that is just so much Trump Derangement Syndrome. The FBI had already infiltrated this group, and probably suborned them to commit a crime. The group was arrested. Seems that law enforcement is doing just fine.

ckaihatsu wrote:And why are you starting with the *Democrats*, of all groupings

Most violent crime is committed by Democrats.
#15128407
blackjack21 wrote:What difference would the affidavit make to the charging decision?

None, but it puts the kibosh on 'it was the big boy (Antifa) made me do it' excuses the far right are peddling.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 19 Oct 2020 18:39, edited 2 times in total.
#15128408
ingliz wrote:None but it puts the kibosh on it was 'the big boy (Antifa) made me do it' excuses the far right are peddling.


:lol:


It's always projection. Reactionaries are violent, so they call their enemies violent.

They also believe in elaborate pedophile conspiracies and call their enemies pedophiles and, well... the President of the United States of America used to walk in on the dressing rooms of Miss Teen USA pageant contestants.
#15128414
blackjack21 wrote:From you, it is a little surprising

Why? I only said what he is charged with seems fair.

Prosecution precedent...

"Court may give an initial aggressor instruction if there is an inference that defendant initiated the physical conflict by using or threatening the imminent use of unlawful force. Although defendant’s initial confrontation was insufficient to make defendant an initial aggressor, returning to the argument with a gun was sufficient."

— People v. Griffin, 224 P.3d 292 (Colo. App. 2009).

The defense argument is going to be centred around whether a reasonable person would feel justified in using deadly force after being slapped round the head by a victim armed with a pistol and bear spray. If they can successfully argue that, after being slapped around the head, in the confusion, said 'reasonable person' believed the victim was going for his pistol not the bear spray, even if mistaken, he might get off.

The law...

18-1-704(2) . Use of physical force in defense of a person.

"Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate"

Defense precedent...

Right of self-defense is not lost if danger develops from mild argument.

"The mere fact that one has interjected himself into a crowd or into a mild situation, does not deprive him of the right of self-defense if the situation beginning with only an argument, develops to a point where he is being subjected to or threatened with such physical violence that he might have to resort to justifiable homicide to protect his person.

— Vigil v. People, 143 Colo. 328, 353 P.2d 82 (1960).


:)
#15128423
I'm the antifa security guard hired by a local ABC affiliate news team who is also vaguely involved with the Pinkertons through some kind of security contract exchange. Nobody is redder than I am.

I'm such a hardcore anarcho-communist that the Pinkerton agency won't even comment on me except to say that I'm not a direct employee. My Antifa credentials are unparalleled.
#15128425
SpecialOlympian wrote:My Antifa credentials are unparalleled.

That's settled, then.

48 years* in the pokey for you.


* Murder in the second degree is a class 2 felony, punishable by a presumptive minimum prison term of 8 years and a maximum term of 24 years with 5 years parole. Since second degree murder is a violent crime, however, the highest possible sentence could be 48 years in prison.


:lol:
#15128496
blackjack21 wrote:
Police if we don't defund them, and people themselves, provided they can keep and bear arms.



Are you *sure*? The cops tend to *protect* the fascists, who ideologically want to do harm to others. So what's your objection to antifa -- the 'people themselves' -- if they can physically shut-down the fascists since the police do such a shitty job of that. Here's some background reading:



https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... -necessary


Antifa activists say violence is necessary

BY KATIE BO WILLIAMS - 09/14/17 06:30 AM EDT 10,330

Anti-fascist activists, or “antifa,” increasingly mobilized in the wake of President Trump’s election, are unapologetic about what they describe as the necessary use of violence to combat authoritarianism.

While both experts on the movement and activists within it emphasize that not everyone who participates in anti-fascist activism engages in violence, they say the use of force is intrinsic to their political philosophy.

“The justification [of the use of violence] is that Nazi ideology at its very core is founded on violence and on wielding power by any means,” said Mike Isaacson, one of the founders of Smash Racism D.C., an antifa organization in Washington.

Isaacson is unequivocal in his defense of violence as a legitimate tool to combat the creeping threat of what he deems authoritarianism.

“There is the question of whether these people should feel safe organizing as Nazis in public, and I don’t think they should,” said Isaacson.

“I don’t think anyone should think that someone who is intent on politically organizing for the sake of creating a state-sponsored genocide — I don’t think is something that we should protect,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Antifa activists justify their use of violence as self-defense against “the inherent danger of fascists organizing,” according to Mark Bray, a Dartmouth historian and author of a recent book on the movement.

“The argument is that it needs to be stopped immediately, because if you let it grow, that poses a danger to society,” Bray said.

Dubbed the “alt-left” by President Trump, antifa has increasingly been making their presence known after his victory in the 2016 election was openly embraced by white supremacists.

On Sunday, antifa protesters hurled glass bottles and bricks at police officers monitoring a far-right march in Portland, Ore.

And the University of California, Berkeley, is bracing for the possibility of more violent clashes on Thursday, when conservative political commentator and former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak.

There is no central organizing committee governing antifa, and different affiliated groups have different priorities and governing principles, making it impossible to gauge the growth of the movement in the wake of the election.

But activists and law enforcement sources say anecdotally that their numbers have almost certainly swelled. Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest law enforcement union, told The Hill that he has “for sure” seen rising interest in the movement since Trump’s election, noting that six months ago he had never even heard of antifa.

As early as 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI warned state and local officials that antifa had become increasingly confrontational and were engaging in “domestic terrorist violence.”

While Bray says antifa focuses mostly on nonviolent activities, such as researching white supremacists and disrupting their efforts to organize, the movement’s more violent methods — and its use of so-called black bloc tactics, where activists wear black masks and clothing to conceal their identity — have drawn fierce criticism from the right and divided the left.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), for example, has condemned antifa’s use of violence.

Liberal activist Cornel West, in contrast, said that antifa activists saved him and other counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Va., from “being crushed like cockroaches” by "alt-right" demonstrators.

The antifa movement traces its roots to militant leftists who combated fascism in the streets of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The movement saw a revival in response to neo-Nazi activity in the U.K. and Germany in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

The philosophy was first transposed to the U.S. in the 1980s by anti-racist activists in Minneapolis, according to Bray, and while its popularity has ebbed and flowed since then, there are several current groups that have been around for almost 10 years. Rose City Antifa in Portland, Ore., for example, was established in 2007.

If the loosely affiliated network of far-left activists can be said to have a creed, it is to combat what it sees as fascism wherever it occurs.

Rose City Antifa defines fascism as “an ultra-nationalist ideology that mobilizes around and glorifies a national identity defined in exclusive racial, cultural, and/or historical terms, valuing this identity above all other interests (ie: gender or class).”

Antifa also tend to be deeply mistrustful of the police and often overlaps ideologically with anarchism, a political philosophy that Isaacson defines as a society built on cooperation and mutual aid. Isaacson, who is an anarchist, argues that in order to be successful, anti-fascism has to operate outside of government.

“Getting state involved in this is no better than letting the Nazis go free,” he said, pointing to the Virginia State Police response to the violence at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, which many protesters and counterprotesters criticized as too slow.

Activists, including Isaacson, claim that police departments and the military have been infiltrated by Nazis and “have them kind of on their side.”

Pasco insists that police officers are agnostic as to whether a person committing a crime is antifa or "alt-right."

“We don’t really have a perspective on [antifa] because it’s not really a movement — it’s kind of an amorphous group of people,” Pasco said.

“Nobody gets policed unless they need policing — there are just not enough police officers in the United States to satisfy the vanity of those who believe they are under constant surveillance,” he said.

Others see evidence of a disproportionate police response to antifa activists, such as those who criticized law enforcement in Portland for firing rubber bullets and stun grenades into a crowd of antifa protesters on Sunday.

“The way law enforcement has reacted to the protests far exceeds the amount of danger involved, particularly when we talk about violence at far-right protests — because there is a long and deep history of murderous violence coming out of the far-right movements that continues up to today that far exceeds anything associated with antifa,” said Mike German, a former FBI agent who works on law enforcement issues at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.

Antifa’s use of violence continues to dominate the national conversation. In January, shortly after a black-clad protester attacked the far-right activist Richard Spencer, The New York Times mused: “Is it OK to punch a Nazi?”

Isaacson, for his part, has not engaged in the use of violent tactics himself, “if for no other reason than I’m rather slight of frame,” he said with a chuckle.

“I’m not so good in a fight,” he said.


LOAD TEXT COMMENTS (10,330)

THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX

THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE ©2020 CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING CORP., A SUBSIDIARY OF NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



---


blackjack21 wrote:
So you are calling the police fascists now?



More background material:



https://itsgoingdown.org/how-police-are ... f-fascism/


Jun 5, 17

How Police Are Complicit In The Rise Of Fascism

Filed Under: Anarchist Movement, Anti-Fascist, Critique, Featured, Police, Publication, Repression, The State

— CrimethInc. Ex-Workers Collective
CrimethInc. Ex-Workers Collective


Share This:


In May, Jeremy Christian, an alt-right proponent of so-called “free speech,” murdered two people on a commuter train in Portland who were responding to his attacks on two teenage women of color. In response, far-right organizers promoted a rally in favor of “free speech” to take place in downtown Portland on June 4. Portland Police, Oregon State Police, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and a host of other state forces mobilized to protect these “patriots” from the consequences of promoting hatred and violence. In response, we have prepared a poster articulating how police and fascists work together to hasten the rise of totalitarianism. Please print these out and deploy them everywhere.

Download Poster: “The Two Faces of Fascism”

Image

The events in Portland reflect a classic model we have already seen police and fascists employ in Berkeley. Police disarm and disempower demonstrators so fascists can attack them with impunity. In the aftermath of the clashes that took place in Berkeley on April 15, police carried out a series of raids in the Bay Area utilizing intelligence that had been provided to them by far-right internet trolls. This two-pronged assault enables reactionaries embedded in the state to disavow the elements of their agenda that are perceived as too extreme, while utilizing a variety of tactics to crush attempts at self-determination and self-defense.

In creating a space for nationalists to promote violence and seizing weapons from those who need to be able to defend themselves from attacks like the one carried out by Jeremy Christian, Portland police are complicit in the rise of fascism. On June 4, police attacked demonstrators bearing banners reading MOURN THE DEAD and FIGHT LIKE HELL FOR THE LIVING. They utilized a variety of less-lethal weaponry to break up demonstrations against the far-right organizers, in order to preserve a space for the far right to continue recruiting.

Image

Fascists and other nationalists support the police, in turn, by spreading narratives justifying their violence against those opposing the rise of fascism. Anyone who has experience in demonstrations knows that police manufacture their own propaganda to justify whatever they do. Yet reactionaries who consider CNN and the New York Times “fake news” are willing to believe anything they read on a police twitter account. This is the mindset that supports fascism: independent reporting and critical inquiry are derided, while the narratives spread by the authorities are swallowed whole.

All this is part of a broader pattern in which police and fascists reinforce each other’s activities. Here’s how it works, in a nutshell. Fascist groups promote racist, sexist, and nationalist violence. Individual bigots carry it out—attacking people in the streets, shooting people in churches, stabbing people on trains. The authorities use these attacks as an excuse to increase control, promising to protect a fearful population. But the greatest threat is not individual fascists: it is the state itself. It is the state that deports and imprisons millions, that suppresses dissent, that imposes the tremendous imbalances of power that characterize this society.


Image
The state stands on a foundation of violence; fascism is never far away.

If we count on the authorities to control fascist activity, granting them resources and legitimacy in hopes that they will protect us, it is only a matter of time until a more reactionary government takes power and uses those resources and legitimacy to carry out even more violence.

This is why only grassroots resistance can stop the rise of fascism. We salute the courage of those who took the streets in Portland to oppose racist violence and the rise of fascism. In the end, if we want to put an end to all racist violence, we will have to come to grips with the state itself. We have to become capable of defending our demonstrations and communities from police as well as fascists.

While you’re here, we need your support. To continue running the website, we need support from community members like you. Will you support It’s Going Down, and help build independent media?...so donate?

Share This:
CrimethInc. Ex-Workers Collective

CrimethInc. Ex-Workers Collective
Crimethink is everything that evades control: the daydream in the classroom, the renegade breaking ranks, the spray-painted walls that continue to speak even under martial law. It is the persistent sense that things could be otherwise, that there is nothing natural or inevitable about the prevailing social order. In a world optimized for administration, everything that cannot be classified or displayed on a screen is crimethink. It is the spirit of rebellion without which freedom is literally unthinkable.

Please Donate To Bitcoin Address:
1HW1EHS9CevbEAHS8GkSXV7R6wZNSbuvhy

It’s Going Down is a digital community center for anarchist, anti-fascist, autonomous anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movements. Our mission is to provide a resilient platform to publicize and promote revolutionary theory and action.



---


blackjack21 wrote:
Trying to burn down court houses and police precincts is not peaceful protesting.



No, it's not. Have the police been defunded yet?


blackjack21 wrote:
What business are they using illicitly? RICO is for racketeering, which involves businesses. I'm not following your argument here at all.



Okay, I misspoke -- I mean more of the legal definition of 'conspiracy':



A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it. In a political sense, conspiracy refers to a group of people united in the goal of usurping, altering or overthrowing an established political power. Depending on the circumstances, a conspiracy may also be a crime, or a civil wrong.[2] The term generally implies wrongdoing or illegality on the part of the conspirators, as people would not need to conspire to engage in activities that were lawful and ethical, or to which no one would object.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy



---


blackjack21 wrote:
BLM is corporate, and focuses on police violence against blacks. They otherwise do not care about black people. Antifa just violently opposes anybody that isn't far left. By definition, their criminal behavior is intended to have a political effect. Therefore they are terrorists.



No, Antifa is *not* terrorist, because they're doing a *job*, on a *volunteer* basis, that the police are *not* doing, that of opposing fascism. Anti-fascism is an important task, for the sake of society. See the first article, above.

Also, what happened to:


blackjack21 wrote:
Police if we don't defund them, and people themselves, provided they can keep and bear arms.



The 'people themselves' is Antifa.


---


blackjack21 wrote:
Many Democrats have openly encouraged rioting, while simultaneously calling for defunding the police.



Okay, party politics aside, that's valid politics, or strategy, because the *defunding* hasn't happened yet, the police are *still* becoming killer cops, and the fascists are being *protected* by the cops and the government.


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image



---


blackjack21 wrote:
It's not criminal if you get to make the laws.



So you're calling for more referendums, then? (Maybe try to be more specific.)


blackjack21 wrote:
No. Racketeering is using a business for criminal purposes. For example, using a dry cleaning store to launder money. BLM could be considered racketeering in so far as they use 501(c)(3) orgs to collect money and then to organize riots. That could be racketeering. I'm not seeing the business angle here. So I'm guessing you don't understand the meaning of the word "racketeering."



Yes, corrected -- I mean 'conspiracy'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
BJ, you're continuing to *squirm* instead of just addressing the *politics* in front of you -- why don't you simply acknowledge that there's a profound, *genocidal* historical record of fascists intentionally mass-murdering millions of people, and that they'd like to do it all over again, and worse, if society lets them?



blackjack21 wrote:
That is the case for the NSDAP, but it isn't true for all fascists.



Yes, it *is* -- that's why they're called *neo-Nazis*.


blackjack21 wrote:
I wasn't aware they had a payroll.



Could've fooled me.


blackjack21 wrote:
I'm not a socialist. I'm not a big fan of authoritarianism either. Since fascists are a problem for you, it's really your issue to fight them. I don't see why I should have to fight on behalf of a left wing ideology I don't believe in anyway.



Then do me a favor, and stop *defending* the "civil rights" of fascists to say and do things that promote their hatred and violence against others. You may think that the U.S. Constitution covers people across the entire political spectrum, but that's not quite how it works. The Constitution is more of a *nationalist* thing, and those on the far-right aren't interested in civil-rights-type nationalism for all -- they're only interested in their own demographic, and that's about it, period.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And Trump backed the Michigan militia kidnapper



blackjack21 wrote:
How so?



Whitmer blasts Trump's 'appalling' response to her after feds foiled kidnap plot

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... l-n1243535


Gretchen Whitmer accuses Donald Trump of inciting domestic terror

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... tic-terror


blackjack21 wrote:
Frankly, I seriously doubt Trump directed anybody to kidnap a governor.



That's *hyperbole* -- I didn't *accuse* Trump of directing anyone.


blackjack21 wrote:
I think that is just so much Trump Derangement Syndrome. The FBI had already infiltrated this group, and probably suborned them to commit a crime. The group was arrested. Seems that law enforcement is doing just fine.



What about all of the *other* domestic terrorism:



4.19 Charleston church shooting (2015)

4.20 San Bernardino shooting (2015)

4.21 Orlando nightclub shooting (2016)

4.22 Congressional baseball shooting (2017)

4.23 Charlottesville car attack (2017)

4.24 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (2018)

4.25 Escondido mosque fire and Poway synagogue shooting (2019)

4.26 El Paso Walmart shooting (2019)

4.27 Vehicle attacks against racial justice protesters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_ ... ted_States



---


blackjack21 wrote:
Most violent crime is committed by Democrats.



And *what kind* of violence is that, exactly? To stop killer cops? To defund the police? To criminalize fascists?

You're just being party-politics *partisan* here, and *de-politicizing* 'violence', as though it's all happening on some tit-for-tat basis only, as if these were rival sports teams, or something.
#15128536
ckaihatsu wrote:Are you *sure*? The cops tend to *protect* the fascists, who ideologically want to do harm to others. So what's your objection to antifa -- the 'people themselves' -- if they can physically shut-down the fascists since the police do such a shitty job of that.

As a practical matter, you cannot initiate violence. Antifa routinely initiates violence against people who aren't physically harming others. In fact, their communist equivalents back in the 1920s is why the Nazis developed the SA and later the SS.

Further, such a self-serving license to initiate violence does nothing to address the harms of progressivism itself--the 35M people who died of HIV/AIDS in the promotion of hedonistic sexual licentiousness for example. One only needs to look at cities providing hypodermic needles to drug addicts, rather than addiction treatment, to see the disaster of leftist policies.

ckaihatsu wrote:Have the police been defunded yet?

In many cases, yes. A friend of mine is a police officer, and they have cut quite a few programs that impact the community and impact him financially.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, Antifa is *not* terrorist, because they're doing a *job*, on a *volunteer* basis, that the police are *not* doing, that of opposing fascism.

The police are not organized to oppose fascism. They are organized to protect people and maintain order by arresting perpetrators after the fact. They cannot arrest people simply because they have nasty ideas running around in their heads. Antifa similarly cannot go around assaulting people, because it thinks a person has nasty ideas running around in their heads.

ckaihatsu wrote:Anti-fascism is an important task, for the sake of society.

That's a factional position. Fascists similarly think anti-communism is an important task for the sake of society. Do you think it's okay for fascists to run around attacking communists on the very same premise?

ckaihatsu wrote:The 'people themselves' is Antifa.

Initiating violence is not defense.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, party politics aside, that's valid politics, or strategy, because the *defunding* hasn't happened yet, the police are *still* becoming killer cops, and the fascists are being *protected* by the cops and the government.

NYPD has already disbanded their crime prevention unit. This is already happening. Defunding doesn't necessarily mean shutting down the police completely.

ckaihatsu wrote:So you're calling for more referendums, then?

Are communists criminals when they steal your property and they are in power? No. It's no longer considered theft. Similarly, if the fascists are in power, are they violating your rights? No. You no longer have rights. It's remarkable frankly how many people are okay with emergency powers exercised by our nation's governors right now. They willingly forsake their own rights if they think the party that's doing it is their friend. Yet, there is plenty of that happening already.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, it *is* -- that's why they're called *neo-Nazis*.

The NSDAP was very particular and did quite a few things that weren't nearly the case in Mussolini's Italy, or Franco's Spain. It's no surprise that the Nuremberg Trials were all about trying Nazi Party members specifically.

ckaihatsu wrote:Then do me a favor, and stop *defending* the "civil rights" of fascists to say and do things that promote their hatred and violence against others.

They are not civil rights. They are constitutional rights. The state has no authority to abgrogate them.

ckaihatsu wrote:You may think that the U.S. Constitution covers people across the entire political spectrum, but that's not quite how it works. The Constitution is more of a *nationalist* thing, and those on the far-right aren't interested in civil-rights-type nationalism for all -- they're only interested in their own demographic, and that's about it, period.

The constitution wasn't intended to cover everyone. It was intended to cover free born white men. It has since expanded that role to include blacks, women, native Americans, people in unincorporated territories, homosexuals, etc. A lot of that expansion happened by ultra vires use of SCOTUS powers.

ckaihatsu wrote:Whitmer blasts Trump's 'appalling' response to her after feds foiled kidnap plot

Whitmer has far exceeded her authority under the constitution and laws of Michigan, and behaved in a thoroughly arbitrary and capricious manner. The kidnap plot is likely criminal, but given her abuse of power, it's understandable why such plots would get hatched in the first place.

ckaihatsu wrote:Gretchen Whitmer accuses Donald Trump of inciting domestic terror

Accusations aren't necessarily dispositive of fact. Trump criticizes her arbitrary and capricious behavior in imposing statewide lockdowns--not allowing people to go to a secondary residence (except her husband), not allowing people to buy paint, so they can paint their walls why locked down, etc.

ckaihatsu wrote:That's *hyperbole* -- I didn't *accuse* Trump of directing anyone.

Well Whitmer's behavior is hyperbole too, and her actions have been declared unconstitutional.

ckaihatsu wrote:What about all of the *other* domestic terrorism:

I already addressed that before. Muslim extremists are not neo-Nazis or racialists. They are religionists.

ckaihatsu wrote:And *what kind* of violence is that, exactly? To stop killer cops? To defund the police? To criminalize fascists?

Standard gun violence, standard assaults, standard gang violence, standard property crimes, etc. It's mostly Democrats who do these things when you get right down to it. That's what makes Trump so effective, and yet keeps his approval ratings down. Most people know what Trump is saying is true, but they disagree with him for saying it.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're just being party-politics *partisan* here, and *de-politicizing* 'violence', as though it's all happening on some tit-for-tat basis only, as if these were rival sports teams, or something.

I spent many years of my life as a Republican, and I frankly got tired of lily-livered people like Jeff Flake and even George W. Bush simply taking it on the chin constantly and never delivering a counter punch. Trump delivers a counter punch, and I'm not even a big fan of his position on health care or spending. Yet, it shouldn't be hard to point this stuff out and yet for most Republicans they just can't seem to do it. Where are all these fascist cops killing people? In big cities, directed and controlled by the Democrat party and their labor unions. Where is most of the violent crime taking place, in big cities populated by Democrat voters. This is not rocket science. It's just that we finally have one person pointing it out that is in elected office.
#15128547
@blackjack21

Have you ordered your uniform?

If not...

Boss used to make a pretty one in black with silver accents - The original and still the best, if you can find one. Trouble is I don't know if it's still available in their catalogue. There's not been that much call for them except as novelty wear at fancy dress parties for some years now, but it's coming back in fashion, so you never know. My advice is call customer care and don't be tempted by cheap knockoffs. You want to look your best on the big day, don't you.

Oh and don't forget jackboots are de rigueur.


:up:
#15128585
blackjack21 wrote:
As a practical matter, you cannot initiate violence. Antifa routinely initiates violence against people who aren't physically harming others. In fact, their communist equivalents back in the 1920s is why the Nazis developed the SA and later the SS.



You seem *confused* -- why aren't you denouncing the *authoritarianism* of the *far right*?



When Benito Mussolini debuted the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, the precursor to his fascist party, on Mar. 23, 1919, in Milan, he wasn’t inventing the idea of violent authoritarianism. But he put a name on a new and terrible breed of it. Under his leadership, squads of militants attacked, beat and killed fellow Italians; later, once he had become the authoritarian ruler of Italy, he oversaw brutality in Ethiopia, an alliance with Hitler and the persecution of Italy’s Jewish population and others, among other crimes.

The Descent: Inside Hitler's Bunker
SharePlay Video

Yet even a century later, during a new era of strongmen, his idea remains sadly powerful. “Fascism is a disease,” former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told TIME last year, “and there are symptoms. So I think it’s important to warn about that.”



https://time.com/5556242/what-is-fascism/



---


blackjack21 wrote:
Further, such a self-serving license to initiate violence does nothing to address the harms of progressivism itself--the 35M people who died of HIV/AIDS in the promotion of hedonistic sexual licentiousness for example. One only needs to look at cities providing hypodermic needles to drug addicts, rather than addiction treatment, to see the disaster of leftist policies.



Why are you against the 'pursuit of happiness' / 'hedonism', as a *political* matter?

What do you consider to be 'addiction treatment', instead of simply providing clean needles to those who use hard drugs?


blackjack21 wrote:
In many cases, yes. A friend of mine is a police officer, and they have cut quite a few programs that impact the community and impact him financially.



Where was that? (What city?)


blackjack21 wrote:
The police are not organized to oppose fascism. They are organized to protect people and maintain order by arresting perpetrators after the fact. They cannot arrest people simply because they have nasty ideas running around in their heads. Antifa similarly cannot go around assaulting people, because it thinks a person has nasty ideas running around in their heads.



Thank you for acknowledging that there's a power void -- if police are unable to address fascist threats, beginning with the group displays of their hatred in public, then why are you objecting to Antifa *filling* that power void? Why are you defending the "civil rights" of *fascists*?

And do you really think that the Antifa violence is *baseless*? This very thread has been covering the details of the Dolloff event, and Keltner was 'a participant in a “Patriot Rally” in downtown Denver', according to prosecutors.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Anti-fascism is an important task, for the sake of society.



blackjack21 wrote:
That's a factional position.



Anti-fascism is *not* a 'faction' within *fascism*. Anti-fascism is *opposed* to fascism.


blackjack21 wrote:
Fascists similarly think anti-communism is an important task for the sake of society. Do you think it's okay for fascists to run around attacking communists on the very same premise?



Do *you*?


blackjack21 wrote:
Initiating violence is not defense.




In the criminal law of many nations, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. Except for a few statutory exemptions and in some medical cases[1] there is no corresponding defense in English law for murder.[2]

For example, a drunk driver might contend that they drove their car to get away from being kidnapped (cf. North by Northwest). Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm they sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct they are charged with; (b) they had no reasonable alternative; (c) they ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) they themselves did not create the danger they sought to avoid. Thus, with the "drunk driver" example cited above, the necessity defense will not be recognized if the defendant drove further than was reasonably necessary to get away from the kidnapper, or if some other reasonable alternative was available to them.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)



---


blackjack21 wrote:
NYPD has already disbanded their crime prevention unit. This is already happening. Defunding doesn't necessarily mean shutting down the police completely.



Also in Nigeria, though, at this point, I think *community* policing and oversight is more appropriate, given that *government*-controlled policing is looking to be unreformable:



The Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) was a Nigerian Police Force unit created in late 1992 to deal with crimes associated with robbery, motor vehicle theft, kidnapping, cattle rustling, and firearms. It was part of the Force Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department (FCIID), headed by Deputy Inspector General of Police Anthony Ogbizi.[1]

SARS was controversial for its links to extrajudicial killings, extortion, torture, framing, blackmail, kidnapping, illegal organ trade, armed robbery, home invasions, rape of men and women, child arrests, the invasion of privacy, and polluting bodies of water by illegally disposing of human remains. After widespread protests in Nigeria and worldwide under the motto "End SARS",[2][3] the unit was disbanded on 11 October 2020. Inspector General of Police M.A. Adamu said that a new unit, the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), would replace the SARS.[4] He said that SARS personnel would report to police headquarters for debriefing and examination. Within hours of the announcement, some Nigerians took to Twitter with the hashtag #EndSWAT,[5] and demonstrations continued amid fears that police reform will not materialize.[6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_A ... bery_Squad



---


blackjack21 wrote:
Are communists criminals when they steal your property and they are in power? No. It's no longer considered theft.



Oh, you mean *Stalinists* who have state power.


blackjack21 wrote:
Similarly, if the fascists are in power, are they violating your rights? No. You no longer have rights. It's remarkable frankly how many people are okay with emergency powers exercised by our nation's governors right now. They willingly forsake their own rights if they think the party that's doing it is their friend. Yet, there is plenty of that happening already.


blackjack21 wrote:
The NSDAP was very particular and did quite a few things that weren't nearly the case in Mussolini's Italy, or Franco's Spain. It's no surprise that the Nuremberg Trials were all about trying Nazi Party members specifically.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Then do me a favor, and stop *defending* the "civil rights" of fascists to say and do things that promote their hatred and violence against others.



blackjack21 wrote:
They are not civil rights. They are constitutional rights. The state has no authority to abgrogate them.



Well, this, then, is the *crux* of the problem -- the *bourgeois* approach to civil society is obviously too linear and *reductionist* in its politicization. There's that caption on the graphic from one of the articles I included previously -- it says, speaking from the position of the cops, that 'Personally, I don't support racist stabbings, but I will defend to the death your right to recruit for them.'


blackjack21 wrote:
The constitution wasn't intended to cover everyone. It was intended to cover free born white men. It has since expanded that role to include blacks, women, native Americans, people in unincorporated territories, homosexuals, etc. A lot of that expansion happened by ultra vires use of SCOTUS powers.


blackjack21 wrote:
Whitmer has far exceeded her authority under the constitution and laws of Michigan, and behaved in a thoroughly arbitrary and capricious manner. The kidnap plot is likely criminal, but given her abuse of power, it's understandable why such plots would get hatched in the first place.



So, what, according to you, was *laudable* about the kidnap plot?


blackjack21 wrote:
Accusations aren't necessarily dispositive of fact. Trump criticizes her arbitrary and capricious behavior in imposing statewide lockdowns--not allowing people to go to a secondary residence (except her husband), not allowing people to buy paint, so they can paint their walls why locked down, etc.



What was Whitmer's 'arbitrary and capricious behavior', according to you?


blackjack21 wrote:
Well Whitmer's behavior is hyperbole too, and her actions have been declared unconstitutional.



Who declared Whitmer's actions to be unconstitutional, and what were those actions?


blackjack21 wrote:
I already addressed that before. Muslim extremists are not neo-Nazis or racialists. They are religionists.



Do you mean 'ISIS', specifically? (You should *say* 'ISIS', instead of the broader 'Muslims'. Also try 'Islamists'.)


---


blackjack21 wrote:
Most violent crime is committed by Democrats.



ckaihatsu wrote:
And *what kind* of violence is that, exactly? To stop killer cops? To defund the police? To criminalize fascists?

You're just being party-politics *partisan* here, and *de-politicizing* 'violence', as though it's all happening on some tit-for-tat basis only, as if these were rival sports teams, or something.



blackjack21 wrote:
Standard gun violence, standard assaults, standard gang violence, standard property crimes, etc. It's mostly Democrats who do these things when you get right down to it.



Oh, okay, what you're doing is *politicizing* acts that are primarily *economic* -- it's a preoccupation with *demographics*, that just because those doing street crime happen to be *Democrats*, you're *overgeneralizing*, to indict Democrat Party politics for these actions which are *economic*, and *not* political at all in anyone's intentions.


blackjack21 wrote:
That's what makes Trump so effective, and yet keeps his approval ratings down. Most people know what Trump is saying is true, but they disagree with him for saying it.



*I* happen to disagree with Trump for his anti-immigrant policies, sanctions on other countries, and support of fascist provocations.


blackjack21 wrote:
I spent many years of my life as a Republican, and I frankly got tired of lily-livered people like Jeff Flake and even George W. Bush simply taking it on the chin constantly and never delivering a counter punch. Trump delivers a counter punch, and I'm not even a big fan of his position on health care or spending. Yet, it shouldn't be hard to point this stuff out and yet for most Republicans they just can't seem to do it. Where are all these fascist cops killing people? In big cities, directed and controlled by the Democrat party and their labor unions. Where is most of the violent crime taking place, in big cities populated by Democrat voters. This is not rocket science. It's just that we finally have one person pointing it out that is in elected office.



Allow me to point out that simply being *contrarian* really isn't *sufficient* for a cohesive politics.

You may not like how extra-legal politics is playing out at the moment (BLM, Antifa, etc.), but that's happening that way only because the *legal* system isn't addressing any of the actual problems / issues themselves, like killer cops, fascist public events, Trumpian authoritarianism, etc.

Extending this line to *geopolitics*, there's *no way forward* out there right now, and I don't support simplistically *separatist* actions or movements just because they're anti-China (Uighurs, Hong Kong, Taiwan), or anti-Russia (Ukraine). The world's development is at an *impasse*, and going *backwards*, to *reaction*, is no better than staying at the status quo.
#15128590
ckaihatsu wrote:You seem *confused* -- why aren't you denouncing the *authoritarianism* of the *far right*?

I've already said I'm not a fan of neo-nazis or the KKK. However, they aren't in power in the US today. The neoconservatives and the neoliberals are the authoritarian warhawks with deep hooks in the establishment.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why are you against the 'pursuit of happiness' / 'hedonism', as a *political* matter?

Hedonism can be very destructive.

ckaihatsu wrote:What do you consider to be 'addiction treatment', instead of simply providing clean needles to those who use hard drugs?

Detox. Therapy. Etc.

ckaihatsu wrote:Where was that? (What city?)

SFPD. San Francisco Mayor London Breed announces cuts to police in new city budget

ckaihatsu wrote:Thank you for acknowledging that there's a power void -- if police are unable to address fascist threats, beginning with the group displays of their hatred in public, then why are you objecting to Antifa *filling* that power void? Why are you defending the "civil rights" of *fascists*?

They have the right to peaceably assemble. Everyone does. Even Antifa. They don't have the right to initiate violence against people they don't like.

ckaihatsu wrote:And do you really think that the Antifa violence is *baseless*?

Pretty much.

ckaihatsu wrote:This very thread has been covering the details of the Dolloff event, and Keltner was 'a participant in a “Patriot Rally” in downtown Denver', according to prosecutors.

There's nothing wrong with participating in a patriot rally.

ckaihatsu wrote:Do *you*?

No. They have the right to peacefully assemble and protest communists. They do not have the right to a communist rally and start attacking people.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, you mean *Stalinists* who have state power.

Yes, back to semantics. When the communists do something you don't like, suddenly they aren't communists anymore.


ckaihatsu wrote:Well, this, then, is the *crux* of the problem -- the *bourgeois* approach to civil society is obviously too linear and *reductionist* in its politicization. There's that caption on the graphic from one of the articles I included previously -- it says, speaking from the position of the cops, that 'Personally, I don't support racist stabbings, but I will defend to the death your right to recruit for them.'

That's classical liberalism.

ckaihatsu wrote:So, what, according to you, was *laudable* about the kidnap plot?

I didn't say it was laudable. I said it was understandable, given her unconstitutional use of power. It's also likely criminal.

ckaihatsu wrote:What was Whitmer's 'arbitrary and capricious behavior', according to you?

I just laid it out for you. If you live in Michigan, you can't go to your vacation house. However, Whitmer's husband can, because his wife is the governor. As I said, she also did things like preventing people from buying paint, etc. so that they could at least do something constructive to their houses while they were stuck at home. There was no constitutional authority for this, and it wasn't reasonable.

ckaihatsu wrote:Who declared Whitmer's actions to be unconstitutional, and what were those actions?

The supreme court of Michigan.

Michigan Supreme Court Confirms Whitmer’s Orders Are Out

ckaihatsu wrote:Do you mean 'ISIS', specifically? (You should *say* 'ISIS', instead of the broader 'Muslims'. Also try 'Islamists'.)

I think you can glean that from Muslim extremists. Obviously, that means extremists with a Muslim background, and not all Muslims.

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, okay, what you're doing is *politicizing* acts that are primarily *economic* -- it's a preoccupation with *demographics*, that just because those doing street crime happen to be *Democrats*, you're *overgeneralizing*, to indict Democrat Party politics for these actions which are *economic*, and *not* political at all in anyone's intentions.

And if the government endorses outsourcing of jobs, and imposes lockdowns, and enables illegal aliens to drive down wages, is that not primarily economic? Are people complaining about such things all right-wing extremists, or are they addressing an economic issue?

ckaihatsu wrote:You may not like how extra-legal politics is playing out at the moment (BLM, Antifa, etc.), but that's happening that way only because the *legal* system isn't addressing any of the actual problems / issues themselves, like killer cops, fascist public events, Trumpian authoritarianism, etc.

Pretty much the Democrats control the so called killer cops. So the people doing the protesting are typically also the people putting those people into positions of political power.

ckaihatsu wrote:Extending this line to *geopolitics*, there's *no way forward* out there right now, and I don't support simplistically *separatist* actions or movements just because they're anti-China (Uighurs, Hong Kong, Taiwan), or anti-Russia (Ukraine). The world's development is at an *impasse*, and going *backwards*, to *reaction*, is no better than staying at the status quo.

In North America and Europe, huge numbers of people have had enough of the globalist policies. They aren't necessarily looking for global development, but rather a restoration of social cohesion in their own societies.

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C[…]

So it comes to this.

The degree of vituperation in our political comme[…]

Well economies have forever been changing, and ye[…]

Activists Confront Officers As They Evict Squatter[…]