Maybe you'd like to try to redeem yourself by responding with intelligence to this:
IMPORTANT OPINION: A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BIDEN REFUSED TO ANSWER, AND FOR GOOD REASON. _____________ Vox.com Joe Biden’s most surprising, and possibly important, answer of the debate by Ezra Klein President Donald Trump’s performance at the first debate was bizarre, cruel, and at times, truly dangerous. For all those reasons, it probably had the net effect of making it likelier that Joe Biden wins the presidency — that’s certainly what the betting markets thought, and what the snap polls suggest — and Democrats take back the Senate. So it’s worth noting a particularly surprising and consequential answer Biden gave early on Tuesday night, one that may shape the course of his presidency.
Throughout the debate, Trump demanded Biden decry things he has already decried, or disavow policies he has already disavowed. And Biden did so eagerly. Asked to say “law and order,” he said it. Challenged to speak positively of law enforcement, he did. Pushed to denounce violent protesters, he called for their prosecution. Attacked for his plans to defund the police, pass a $100 trillion Green New Deal, and abolish private insurance, Biden said he opposed all of those ideas. “He just lost the left,” Trump muttered angrily.
Which made it all the more notable that when moderator Chris Wallace asked Biden to “tell the American people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court,” Biden refused. “Whatever position I take on that, that will become the issue,” he replied.
On the merits, this is a dodge. Those are consequential questions of governance, and Biden is running for president. His views are supposed to become flashpoints in the election.
But in the context of all the sharp positions Biden did take, both for and against controversial policies, it was telling. Biden could have dismissed both ideas. At another time, he doubtlessly would have dismissed both ideas. That he refused to do so now reflects how far he’s moved, how far he believes his party has moved, or both.
Biden’s answers track what you’re hearing from moderate Senate Democrats these days. The conservative National Review, for instance, has been trying to get moderate Democrats on the record on both issues, and finding that the voices who were once reliable opponents to these ideas are increasingly leaving the door ajar.
Asked about filibuster reform, for instance, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), once a strong opponent, said, “I still support the filibuster, but, like I said, we’ll see what happens with the other side. Who knows what’s going to happen?”
Asked about court-packing, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) said, “I think we’ve got to wait to get through the election.”
Biden’s refusal to foreclose his options for making ambitious legislative governance possible again, both by returning to a Senate where a simple majority can pass legislation and to a Supreme Court balanced between liberal and conservative justices, reflects a sea change occurring among Senate Democrats more broadly. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has disabused even moderate Democrats of their more hopeful notions of how governance might work, and there’s a growing recognition that polarized parties can no longer furnish the bipartisan coalitions necessary to pass even modest legislative agendas. Democrats face a choice between their agenda or the Senate’s current rulebook, and increasingly, they know it.
The question shadowing Biden’s campaign is whether his oft-voiced nostalgia for the Senate that was will render him paralyzed by the Senate that is; whether he will be too attached to a past era in American politics to make the decisions necessary to govern well in this one. Early in the campaign, I was reasonably sure it would. I’m less so now. ____________
JAMES SAYS: IOW, we have now reached such an impasse in governing, that it may be incumbent on the Democrats finally to take some severe positions they would prefer not to have to take. But the GOP, in its callous unprincipled actions, may have pushed them to it.
What is this bullshit that you don't condemn ideas? Because that's what Joe Biden is saying: I won't condemn it because it's "just an idea."
But ideas are the one thing we're supposed to condemn. There is a social admonition against denouncing people or groups. Sure, we do do it, but generally we're supposed to say we hate an idea, not the actual people who believe it.
There are exceptions. You can hate some people (the people the media says it's righteous to hate).
But we can always hate hateful ideas. There has never been an ethic that we should refrain from condemning ideas.
Why is Biden refusing to condemn the hateful idea of antifa? Where is the precedent stating that in America, we do not denounce or condemn ideas?
You know what's also "an idea"? Naziism.
There is (or was) also a Nazi Party, but our attitudes about Naziism, the "idea," are not dependent on whether there is a heirarchically organized group associated with that idea.
There is obviously no longer any real, WW2 Nazi Party. There are neo Nazi groups, of course, but that's not the genuine 1940s article.
If someone refused to condemn Naziism claiming the technicality that the WW2 Nazi Party, we'd think he supported Naziism, right?
I mean, what other reason would there be? That very logic is what is animating the "Trump won't condemn white supremacism so he must favor white supremacism."
Now, Trump has in fact condemned white supremacists and white supremacism, so that is a flawed syllogism. But the logic is fine -- the fault is in false premises.
So if Trump supposedly is a white supremacist because he won't denounce white supremacism (spoiler: He has denounced it, many times), what can we say about Joe Biden and antifa?
Whether it's an "idea" or an "organization" or both (spoiler: it's both), Joe Biden refuses to condemn it.
Trump should try retracting his condemnation of white supremacism, stating that it's "just an idea." (Spoiler: It obviously it.)
I wonder if the leftwing (including Chris Wallace) would then absolve Trump, noting that "ideas shouldn't be condemned."
The same media which keeps telling us that the mere idea that "the media is the enemy of the people" is too dangerous to utter and must be condemned until people no longer say it is simultaneously telling us that the alleged "mere idea" of antifa does not need condemnation.
Why look at that -- the media are making up bullshit illogical syllogisms to defend their violent paramilitaries again.
Joe Biden refuses to condemn antifa because 1, he supports antifa and 2, antifa supports Joe Biden. It's that simple.
And by the way:
It's a fucking organization.
And also:
The Proud Boys also have no central coordinating structure, but are just local groups animated under similar banners.
Why is it the media and Democrats can condemn the idea of the Proud Boys, but suddenly start making excuses for antifa?
I will reply to rat in an attempt to carry on genuine dialogue, that I do not see why I or Biden should condemn "antifa" if it is composed of people committed to the idea of being "anti fascist."
I myself am committed to all dictatorship, whether it be communistic or fascistic or goes by some other label.
As for the Proud Boys, it's difficult to see how they can legitimately claim not to be white supremacist when they have so many associations with white supremacists and with people committed to white supremcism.
But what I really would like to see here on this thread is a reasoned response to the article I put up there, perhaps by Ch.
And again, I would hope we could avoid the usual jibber jabber.
Let me go on record saying that I agree with the ideas expressed in posts 12:34 and 12:37 and am prepared to respond with reasoned argument to any reasoned attack on those ideas.
that I do not see why I or Biden should condemn "antifa" if it is composed of people committed to the idea of being "anti fascist."
and there's the lie.
antifa IS, in FACT, FASCIST.
they burn, they attack, they destroy, they assault, they murder and attempt murder, and they are ORGANIZED. they are an organized group, funded by those who would seek to sow discord and anarchy in American cities.
the same with BLM, whose acknowledged leaders are avowed marxists.
Biden is being given a huge pass on this, and anyone who can fog a fucking mirror and is HONEST can see it.
As for the Proud Boys, it's difficult to see how they can legitimately claim not to be white supremacist when they have so many associations with white supremacists and with people committed to white supremcism.
perhaps it's because of the NON-WHITES in their ranks?
oh, and also because of what they truly stand for vs. the lies the left is working overtime to tell about them.
Thank you. That is well expressed. (You could omit the f'n, but it is your right to say that.)
I will simply reply that you know as well as I do that there are fanatical fringes in most groups that do the things you list, and that is too bad.
Also, right here in Bloomington-Normal we have people, white and black, who identify with BLM (many have BLM signs in their yards) who, believe me, are not Marxists. I know them. I suppose some of the leaders of BLM are, but I can assure you that the vast majority here in this town are not. I even wonder if ANY of the locals are.
Anyway, I've now spoken on that subject. So have you. Now could we try speaking on posts 12:34 and 12:37 above?
A former top FBI official on Thursday proposed that a “bipartisan commission” be created to vet presidential candidates so people like President Trump can never be elected again.
“We got this wrong, and this can’t happen again,” said Frank Figliuzzi, who was briefly the assistant director of the FBI under President Obama.
During a discussion on MSNBC about Trump’s taxes Thursday morning, Figliuzzi opined that the president’s supposedly dire financial situation made him “vulnerable” to certain entities like {{{Russia}}}.
“He is the most vulnerable president in our history in terms of compromise and potential exposure to those who want to help him dig out of this financial pit in return for a price,” Figliuzzi said. “And that’s where the national security problem comes in.”
The former G-man added—without evidence—that the president was “entangled with Russia and the former Soviet Block,” therefore he was potentially involved with Russian organized crime figures too.
“We need to have a national discussion about how we vet a presidential candidate,” Figliozzi declared. “We screwed this up.”
He suggested that the media in 2016 didn’t dig “deeply enough” to find dirt on Trump, and added “it’s time to have a discussion about a bipartisan committee that demands tax returns. Make that a requirement.”
Figliozzi said the task of the committee would be to expose “financial pictures” of the candidates.
“We got this wrong, and this can’t happen again,” he concluded.
Rat, I am not a fascist, but that does not mean I am not concerned, as many of my fellow Americans are, that we have a president who has such extensive financial holdings and financial involvements in Russia, and who seems willing to bend over backward to believe what Putin tells him over and above things that our own intelligence agencies assure him of.
That concerns me deeply. It does not make me a fascist.
The Cuomo [nursing home massacre] is an example of what awaits the entire country under absolute Democrat rule. The media will spend its time attacking anyone who notices their blunders. Dissent will be the only political crime in the eyes of the press.
It will be much worse than it was under Obama. Biden, and the radicals he brings into power, will need even more media protection and cover than Obama did. The media is objectively far worse than it was in 2008, and it's haunted by the memory of Trump's shocking 2016 win.
FBI Director Says Antifa Is an Ideology, Not an Organization.
Therefore it is protected by the first amendment rights of free speech .
We look at Antifa as more of an ideology or a movement than an organization. To be clear, we do have quite a number of properly predicated domestic terrorism investigations into violent anarchist extremists, any number of whom self-identify with the Antifa movement. And that’s part of this broader group of domestic violent extremists that I’m talking about, but it’s just one part of it. We also have the racially motivated violence extremists, the militia types, and others.
Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a group or an organization, it’s a movement or an ideology, maybe one way of thinking of it, and we have quite a number and I’ve said this consistently since my first time appearing before this committee, we have any number of properly predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists. Some of those individuals self-identify with Antifa.
…we have seen individuals, I think I’ve mentioned this in response to one of the earlier questions, identified with the Antifa movement, coalescing regionally into what you might describe as small groups, or nodes. And we are actively investigating the potential violence from those regional nodes, if you will.
I want to be clear that by describing it as an ideology or movement, I by no means mean to minimize the seriousness of the violence and criminality that is going on across the country. Some of which is attributable to that people inspired by, or who self-identify with that ideology and movement. We’re focused on that violence on that criminality. And some of it is extremely serious.
Trump is trying to declare it is a terrorist organization.
His ignorance of the Constitution is stunningly stupid
Thank you, Cali. You gave us a name. I looked at the picture of him and cannot say whether he would identify with black or brown (Afro or Latino) but the name sounds Latino. I also noticed there were no blacks in the rest of the picture that I could easily identify.
So I googled him and this is what I found: ------------- In a Ballotpedia survey he filled out before ending his run for Congress, Tarrio said he was born in Miami to Cuban-American parents and owns several small businesses in the security and surveillance industry. At the time, he was also a state director in Florida for Latinos for Trump and an organizer of political events.
He said he studied at Miami Dade College and the University of Miami. According to public records, he continues to live in Miami-Dade County.
According to public records, Tarrio also has a history in the courts that includes theft charges. In 2013, he was also sentenced to 30 months in federal prison for re-branding stolen medical devices and reselling them across state lines, according to federal records.
Tarrio could not be reached for comment Wednesday. ___________
Now, let's continue to keep this civil, but that is what I found, simply by googling.
Anonymous Caliphate4vr said... Then you shouldn’t be on the thread pedo
Tough Proud Boy mouth of the south showing us his lack of intellect to post a cogent thought of his own,....Toss in Proud Boy Ch and his disinformation campaign is completely distressing!!!!!! bwaaaaaapaaaaaa
Maybe rat and his minions can provide a mailing address and the name of the head of Antifa!!!!!!!!!! A web address could be a 300 lb trump slurping asshole in his mothers basement like the goat fucker!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLO
31 comments:
Are you reduced to this, Ch?
Maybe you'd like to try to redeem yourself by responding with intelligence to this:
IMPORTANT OPINION: A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BIDEN REFUSED TO ANSWER, AND FOR GOOD REASON.
_____________
Vox.com
Joe Biden’s most surprising, and possibly important, answer of the debate
by Ezra Klein
President Donald Trump’s performance at the first debate was bizarre, cruel, and at times, truly dangerous. For all those reasons, it probably had the net effect of making it likelier that Joe Biden wins the presidency — that’s certainly what the betting markets thought, and what the snap polls suggest — and Democrats take back the Senate. So it’s worth noting a particularly surprising and consequential answer Biden gave early on Tuesday night, one that may shape the course of his presidency.
Throughout the debate, Trump demanded Biden decry things he has already decried, or disavow policies he has already disavowed. And Biden did so eagerly. Asked to say “law and order,” he said it. Challenged to speak positively of law enforcement, he did. Pushed to denounce violent protesters, he called for their prosecution. Attacked for his plans to defund the police, pass a $100 trillion Green New Deal, and abolish private insurance, Biden said he opposed all of those ideas. “He just lost the left,” Trump muttered angrily.
Which made it all the more notable that when moderator Chris Wallace asked Biden to “tell the American people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court,” Biden refused. “Whatever position I take on that, that will become the issue,” he replied.
On the merits, this is a dodge. Those are consequential questions of governance, and Biden is running for president. His views are supposed to become flashpoints in the election.
But in the context of all the sharp positions Biden did take, both for and against controversial policies, it was telling. Biden could have dismissed both ideas. At another time, he doubtlessly would have dismissed both ideas. That he refused to do so now reflects how far he’s moved, how far he believes his party has moved, or both.
Biden’s answers track what you’re hearing from moderate Senate Democrats these days. The conservative National Review, for instance, has been trying to get moderate Democrats on the record on both issues, and finding that the voices who were once reliable opponents to these ideas are increasingly leaving the door ajar.
Asked about filibuster reform, for instance, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), once a strong opponent, said, “I still support the filibuster, but, like I said, we’ll see what happens with the other side. Who knows what’s going to happen?”
Asked about court-packing, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) said, “I think we’ve got to wait to get through the election.”
Biden’s refusal to foreclose his options for making ambitious legislative governance possible again, both by returning to a Senate where a simple majority can pass legislation and to a Supreme Court balanced between liberal and conservative justices, reflects a sea change occurring among Senate Democrats more broadly. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has disabused even moderate Democrats of their more hopeful notions of how governance might work, and there’s a growing recognition that polarized parties can no longer furnish the bipartisan coalitions necessary to pass even modest legislative agendas. Democrats face a choice between their agenda or the Senate’s current rulebook, and increasingly, they know it.
The question shadowing Biden’s campaign is whether his oft-voiced nostalgia for the Senate that was will render him paralyzed by the Senate that is; whether he will be too attached to a past era in American politics to make the decisions necessary to govern well in this one. Early in the campaign, I was reasonably sure it would. I’m less so now.
____________
JAMES SAYS:
IOW, we have now reached such an impasse in governing, that it may be incumbent on the Democrats finally to take some severe positions they would prefer not to have to take. But the GOP, in its callous unprincipled actions, may have pushed them to it.
Biden was smart to refuse to answer.
Let this thread be for intelligent comment.
Not the usual jibber jabber.
Then you shouldn’t be on the thread pedo
Copy and pasting is not intelligent commenting
Let's pretend antifa is just "an idea."
What is this bullshit that you don't condemn ideas? Because that's what Joe Biden is saying: I won't condemn it because it's "just an idea."
But ideas are the one thing we're supposed to condemn. There is a social admonition against denouncing people or groups. Sure, we do do it, but generally we're supposed to say we hate an idea, not the actual people who believe it.
There are exceptions. You can hate some people (the people the media says it's righteous to hate).
But we can always hate hateful ideas. There has never been an ethic that we should refrain from condemning ideas.
Why is Biden refusing to condemn the hateful idea of antifa? Where is the precedent stating that in America, we do not denounce or condemn ideas?
You know what's also "an idea"? Naziism.
There is (or was) also a Nazi Party, but our attitudes about Naziism, the "idea," are not dependent on whether there is a heirarchically organized group associated with that idea.
There is obviously no longer any real, WW2 Nazi Party. There are neo Nazi groups, of course, but that's not the genuine 1940s article.
If someone refused to condemn Naziism claiming the technicality that the WW2 Nazi Party, we'd think he supported Naziism, right?
I mean, what other reason would there be? That very logic is what is animating the "Trump won't condemn white supremacism so he must favor white supremacism."
Now, Trump has in fact condemned white supremacists and white supremacism, so that is a flawed syllogism. But the logic is fine -- the fault is in false premises.
So if Trump supposedly is a white supremacist because he won't denounce white supremacism (spoiler: He has denounced it, many times), what can we say about Joe Biden and antifa?
Whether it's an "idea" or an "organization" or both (spoiler: it's both), Joe Biden refuses to condemn it.
Trump should try retracting his condemnation of white supremacism, stating that it's "just an idea." (Spoiler: It obviously it.)
I wonder if the leftwing (including Chris Wallace) would then absolve Trump, noting that "ideas shouldn't be condemned."
The same media which keeps telling us that the mere idea that "the media is the enemy of the people" is too dangerous to utter and must be condemned until people no longer say it is simultaneously telling us that the alleged "mere idea" of antifa does not need condemnation.
Why look at that -- the media are making up bullshit illogical syllogisms to defend their violent paramilitaries again.
Joe Biden refuses to condemn antifa because 1, he supports antifa and 2, antifa supports Joe Biden. It's that simple.
And by the way:
It's a fucking organization.
And also:
The Proud Boys also have no central coordinating structure, but are just local groups animated under similar banners.
Why is it the media and Democrats can condemn the idea of the Proud Boys, but suddenly start making excuses for antifa?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/390593.php
Anonymous Caliphate4vr said...
Then you shouldn’t be on the thread pedo
Copy and pasting is not intelligent commenting
____________
Then I guess Rat shouldn't be here either.
At least we put up articles containing and inviting real thought, unlike so many of your comments.
Everything and I mean everything you c&p is monotonous and boring old man
James said...
Are you reduced to this, Ch?
what's the matter pederast?
antifa.com = joebiden.com
it really is THAT simple.
and you know what else it is?
THAT'S RIGHT PEDERAST!
IT'S KNEE-SLAPPINGLY, KNEE SLAPPING, SLAPPING OF THAT BIG OL' FUCKING KNEE...
...FUNNY!!!
i think this is where BWAA would insert a -
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Both of you shut up with that kind of crap.
I will reply to rat in an attempt to carry on genuine dialogue, that I do not see why I or Biden should condemn "antifa" if it is composed of people committed to the idea of being "anti fascist."
I myself am committed to all dictatorship, whether it be communistic or fascistic or goes by some other label.
As for the Proud Boys, it's difficult to see how they can legitimately claim not to be white supremacist when they have so many associations with white supremacists and with people committed to white supremcism.
But what I really would like to see here on this thread is a reasoned response to the article I put up there, perhaps by Ch.
And again, I would hope we could avoid the usual jibber jabber.
Let me go on record saying that I agree with the ideas expressed in posts 12:34 and 12:37 and am prepared to respond with reasoned argument to any reasoned attack on those ideas.
correction:
I left out something above
I myself am committed CONDEMNING all dictatorship, whether it be communistic or fascistic or goes by some other label.
TO CONDEMNING
that I do not see why I or Biden should condemn "antifa" if it is composed of people committed to the idea of being "anti fascist."
and there's the lie.
antifa IS, in FACT, FASCIST.
they burn, they attack, they destroy, they assault, they murder and attempt murder, and they are ORGANIZED. they are an organized group, funded by those who would seek to sow discord and anarchy in American cities.
the same with BLM, whose acknowledged leaders are avowed marxists.
Biden is being given a huge pass on this, and anyone who can fog a fucking mirror and is HONEST can see it.
As for the Proud Boys, it's difficult to see how they can legitimately claim not to be white supremacist when they have so many associations with white supremacists and with people committed to white supremcism.
perhaps it's because of the NON-WHITES in their ranks?
oh, and also because of what they truly stand for vs. the lies the left is working overtime to tell about them.
Thank you. That is well expressed. (You could omit the f'n, but it is your right to say that.)
I will simply reply that you know as well as I do that there are fanatical fringes in most groups that do the things you list, and that is too bad.
Also, right here in Bloomington-Normal we have people, white and black, who identify with BLM (many have BLM signs in their yards) who, believe me, are not Marxists. I know them. I suppose some of the leaders of BLM are, but I can assure you that the vast majority here in this town are not. I even wonder if ANY of the locals are.
Anyway, I've now spoken on that subject. So have you. Now could we try speaking on posts 12:34 and 12:37 above?
Anyone?
here's your fucking fascism, straight up -
A former top FBI official on Thursday proposed that a “bipartisan commission” be created to vet presidential candidates so people like President Trump can never be elected again.
“We got this wrong, and this can’t happen again,” said Frank Figliuzzi, who was briefly the assistant director of the FBI under President Obama.
During a discussion on MSNBC about Trump’s taxes Thursday morning, Figliuzzi opined that the president’s supposedly dire financial situation made him “vulnerable” to certain entities like {{{Russia}}}.
“He is the most vulnerable president in our history in terms of compromise and potential exposure to those who want to help him dig out of this financial pit in return for a price,” Figliuzzi said. “And that’s where the national security problem comes in.”
The former G-man added—without evidence—that the president was “entangled with Russia and the former Soviet Block,” therefore he was potentially involved with Russian organized crime figures too.
“We need to have a national discussion about how we vet a presidential candidate,” Figliozzi declared. “We screwed this up.”
He suggested that the media in 2016 didn’t dig “deeply enough” to find dirt on Trump, and added “it’s time to have a discussion about a bipartisan committee that demands tax returns. Make that a requirement.”
Figliozzi said the task of the committee would be to expose “financial pictures” of the candidates.
“We got this wrong, and this can’t happen again,” he concluded.
https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/01/former-fbi-official-proposes-bipartisan-commission-to-vet-presidential-candidates-like-trump/
My Uncle Lynn Amick fought fascism in WWII, and died in combat in Italy. Was he Antifa?
Absolutely true! He was a very handsome man, he was only 34 years old when he died.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10164695951885647&id=890775646
One more little point: Can you name any black members of the Proud Boys? I suppose you can, but I would like to see their names.
But again, any remarks on 12:34 and 12:37?
Fake News Robotics inc.
https://www.insider.com/proud-boys-chairman-says-members-run-for-office-election-2020-9
Enrique Tarrio
Pedo
Rat, I am not a fascist, but that does not mean I am not concerned, as many of my fellow Americans are, that we have a president who has such extensive financial holdings and financial involvements in Russia, and who seems willing to bend over backward to believe what Putin tells him over and above things that our own intelligence agencies assure him of.
That concerns me deeply. It does not make me a fascist.
The Cuomo [nursing home massacre] is an example of what awaits the entire country under absolute Democrat rule. The media will spend its time attacking anyone who notices their blunders. Dissent will be the only political crime in the eyes of the press.
It will be much worse than it was under Obama. Biden, and the radicals he brings into power, will need even more media protection and cover than Obama did. The media is objectively far worse than it was in 2008, and it's haunted by the memory of Trump's shocking 2016 win.
https://twitter.com/Doc_0/status/1311656117727105025
Under oath FBI director Wray
FBI Director Says Antifa Is an Ideology, Not an Organization.
Therefore it is protected by the first amendment rights of free speech .
We look at Antifa as more of an ideology or a movement than an organization. To be clear, we do have quite a number of properly predicated domestic terrorism investigations into violent anarchist extremists, any number of whom self-identify with the Antifa movement. And that’s part of this broader group of domestic violent extremists that I’m talking about, but it’s just one part of it. We also have the racially motivated violence extremists, the militia types, and others.
Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a group or an organization, it’s a movement or an ideology, maybe one way of thinking of it, and we have quite a number and I’ve said this consistently since my first time appearing before this committee, we have any number of properly predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists. Some of those individuals self-identify with Antifa.
…we have seen individuals, I think I’ve mentioned this in response to one of the earlier questions, identified with the Antifa movement, coalescing regionally into what you might describe as small groups, or nodes. And we are actively investigating the potential violence from those regional nodes, if you will.
I want to be clear that by describing it as an ideology or movement, I by no means mean to minimize the seriousness of the violence and criminality that is going on across the country. Some of which is attributable to that people inspired by, or who self-identify with that ideology and movement. We’re focused on that violence on that criminality. And some of it is extremely serious.
Trump is trying to declare it is a terrorist organization.
His ignorance of the Constitution is stunningly stupid
Thank you, Cali. You gave us a name. I looked at the picture of him and cannot say whether he would identify with black or brown (Afro or Latino) but the name sounds Latino. I also noticed there were no blacks in the rest of the picture that I could easily identify.
So I googled him and this is what I found:
-------------
In a Ballotpedia survey he filled out before ending his run for Congress, Tarrio said he was born in Miami to Cuban-American parents and owns several small businesses in the security and surveillance industry. At the time, he was also a state director in Florida for Latinos for Trump and an organizer of political events.
He said he studied at Miami Dade College and the University of Miami. According to public records, he continues to live in Miami-Dade County.
According to public records, Tarrio also has a history in the courts that includes theft charges. In 2013, he was also sentenced to 30 months in federal prison for re-branding stolen medical devices and reselling them across state lines, according to federal records.
Tarrio could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
___________
Now, let's continue to keep this civil, but that is what I found, simply by googling.
FBI Director Says Antifa Is an Ideology, Not an Organization.
with all their energy being focused on palace coup's over the past few years i can see why they can't even begin to understand this.
disband the FBI, fire them all and cancel every single pension.
traitorous cocksuckers deserve to starve.
round up all the cocksuckers who believe the way rrb does, line them all up against a wall, and shoot them all dead
Well, I can see reasoned argument is a dead cause here. LOL
So let me again call for reasoned, intelligent commentary by challenging Ch or anyone to respond in such a way to posts 12:34 and 12:37 above.
Anyone?
Anonymous Caliphate4vr said...
Then you shouldn’t be on the thread pedo
Tough Proud Boy mouth of the south showing us his lack of intellect to post a cogent thought of his own,....Toss in Proud Boy Ch and his disinformation campaign is completely distressing!!!!!! bwaaaaaapaaaaaa
Maybe rat and his minions can provide a mailing address and the name of the head of Antifa!!!!!!!!!! A web address could be a 300 lb trump slurping asshole in his mothers basement like the goat fucker!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLO
Post a Comment