The moderates over at /r/politics promotes the destruction of private property

73  2018-04-01 by nameuser4321

94 comments

...are....are you the new snappy?

I am only a medium. She can't hear you or me. It's a one way portal.

What happened to snappy anyway? I'm not a nolife scum so I must have missed it.

Never forget that the Boston Tea Party is one of our most celebrated points in the fight for justice and freedom. And that boiled down to theft, vandalism, and destruction of private property.

oof

They legitimately believe that they are revolutionaries, it's cute.

Truly the Ohio Four of our generation

The only reason those four matter is that Young made a really great song about them

Did you know he's an environmentalist AND Canadian?

The more you know (:

Nobody's perfect

I wish that violent revolution was never justified so that these retards would stop trying to start one

screeching about blumpf on twitter is basically a modern version of the american revolution

I mean... he’s not wrong.

All events are the same, context and history does not matter

The number of degenerate leftists I've seen comparing their Facebook posts to the civil rights movement is way more than zero, and that's completely fucked.

Hi, here is that article you didn't want to read before:

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116

Sorry for being a "degenerate leftist" by providing it.

Your post is right. So is his.

Welcome to the uncomfortable reality where tribal political sides are both fallible. You don't see it much on the internet.

I'm not specifically responding to his post in this thread. He asked for evidence in another thread that anything in the dossier was real, and he whined and muted me immediately. So now I'm just having some fun with it.

Literally none of it is true. There is no evidence in that link, other than Trump having dealings with foreign businessmen. Which is as shocking as finding out water is wet.

Literally none of it is true


Some of the things in it are true

Pick one

The truth is that there's some smoke but no fire. Looks like a couple people in his campaign wanted to collude (or at least had the connections to do so) but so far the only indictments have been for unrelated shit AFAIK.

The truth is that there's some smoke but no fire

That's not really a thing. The saying is literally "where there's smoke, there's fire."

You understand what I mean though. In this case the goal is to prove Trump lit a fire and no one can do that yet. It's probably not going to happen.

I don't know that definitive proof will ever come either, but I was talking more specifically about the dossier. If parts of it have been corroborated that suggests it may be more than a fabricated hit piece like some would like to believe.

Assuming that some parts were true, the dossier has been so tainted by its funding and source that it makes Democrats and the media look way worse than Trump. The memo was the final nail in that coffin.

Its initial funding by the GOP you mean?

Well in general it makes a lot of anti-Trump factions look bad, including the never-Trump GOP establishment. Since much of the party has more or less endorsed Trump (at least his policies) since then, the party doesn't face any real consequences from this going into future elections.

Look, in the age of "post-truth" and all of the wacko coverage of the dossier, it's not hard to understand why people doubt it. I mean it was first leaked by Buzzfeed and then the mainstream media focused on alleged Trump peepee tapes for the next month. It's not just a combination of the sources and funding that make it questionable to a lot of people. It's the fact that at least large portions of it are made up or otherwise unconfirmed. What is confirmed, arguably isn't that damning--at least not to the extent that warrants impeachment proceedings.

Yes, Nunes' memo was credible on some points but clearly it was slanted against the dossier and took the position that all of it was untrue.

You do realize the hypocrisy of saying that people have to be pretty indoctrinated to be told a document's contents are true and then attack the source who provided it while simultaneously doing just that with the Nunes memo, right?

Well in general it makes a lot of anti-Trump factions look bad, including the never-Trump GOP establishment (which later pawned off the "opposition research" to Democrats and their PACs). Since much of the party has more or less endorsed Trump (at least his policies) since then, the party doesn't face any real consequences from this going into future elections.

It makes Trump's opponents look bad that they sought out opposition research on him? Why even put it in quotes like that? That's clearly what it is. They were looking for dirt on Trump so they paid someone to find dirt on Trump. The credibility of that dirt is still under review, of course. Were you under the impression that this was the first time a political party has ever sought out opposition research?

Look, in the age of "post-truth" and all of the wacko coverage of the dossier, it's not hard to understand why people doubt it. I mean it was first leaked by Buzzfeed and then the mainstream media focused on alleged Trump peepee tapes for the next month. It's not just a combination of the sources and funding that make it questionable to a lot of people. It's the fact that at least large portions of it are made up or otherwise unconfirmed. What is confirmed, arguably isn't that damning--at least not to the extent that warrants impeachment proceedings.

I completely understand why people doubt it, but I don't know to my knowledge that any parts have been shown to be "made up." Care to elaborate on which parts you are referring to?

You do realize the hypocrisy of saying that people have to be pretty indoctrinated to be told a document's contents are true and then attack the source who provided it while simultaneously doing just that with the Nunes memo, right?

One is opposition research released by an outside party, at one point funded by both major political parties.

The other is a hasty conclusion reached after an investigation that failed to follow all of its leads, released by a member of the Trump transition team despite protests from the other members of the House intelligence committee. Even Trey Gowdy said it shouldn't be taken seriously.

If you think those two situations are completely analogous, I don't know what to tell you. They're not.

It makes Trump's opponents look bad that they sought out opposition research on him?

By employing foreign agents that have ties to Russia? Uh, yeah dude. It makes them look bad.

I completely understand why people doubt it, but I don't know to my knowledge that any parts have been shown to be "made up." Care to elaborate on which parts you are referring to?

Many were. We could start with the Russian hookers and pissing on the bed the Obama's once used.

One is opposition research released by an outside party, at one point funded by both major political parties.

Tell me what about Nunes' memo is wrong. Be specific.

By employing foreign agents that have ties to Russia? Uh, yeah dude. It makes them look bad.

TIL a former MI6

By employing foreign agents that have ties to Russia? Uh, yeah dude. It makes them look bad.

TIL a former MI6 agent is a Russian spy. Who knew?

Many were. We could start with the Russian hookers and pissing on the bed the Obama's once used.

You seem to confuse a claim being unproven as meaning that it is automatically fake.

You said that it was "shown to be made up" so I assume you have evidence that that is the case, right? Do you mind sharing?

Tell me what about Nunes' memo is wrong. Be specific.

Closed the investigation early and didn't bother investigating dozens of leads. Led by a member of the Trump transition team. There is a reason why even other Republicans aren't taking it seriously.

Imagine if the Clinton e-mail investigation was handled in the House by Nancy Pelosi, and she released a memo on it clearing Clinton of all wrongdoing. Would you take that memo seriously?

Degenerate inbreeders think they will instigate a civil war if something happens to mr. Dave "DINDU NUFFIN" Dennison so it's safe to say 🦄👞 theory is proven once again.

where’s the lie though?

There is no lie? Right wingers here think my comment is in their support. Hence the upsnozzles. Little do they know that my point of typing "off" below the quote was to emphasize that the guy who said made a really spicy 🌶 point.

Sure the red paint thing doesn't do much but the larger idea surrounding it is still valid. We have celebrated violent protests in the past. DDF needs to remind itself that lol

destruction of property is normally a good thing anyway

I think people like to pretend that them not paying attention in history means that it never got brought up once ever in school

I hope this is downvoted, it's not nearly shrill and extreme enough for that sub

I mean, I'm not saying this event is justified, but he isn't really wrong.

Some of the greatest movements in our countries history amount to nothing more than the destruction of private property and Vandalism. It isn't always wrong.

i'm all for rising up and violent resistance, but only when its done with some "intelligence". I don't really see what splattering paint on a golf course will do.

Like the difference between destroying police cars to show that protesters don't need or want police officers, and looting candy from a 711.

Like the difference between destroying police cars to show that protesters don't need or want police officers,

When has anyone ever done this for any reason other than "I hate cops because they arrest me when I commit crimes"

pretty often

idk i guess im speaking in general terms. atleast with the boston tea party there was a well thought out plan, instead of just "lets have some fun and burn some shit."

Sometimes it’s “I hate cops because they always stop me on the street”

or “I hate cops because they got the wrong address when pursuing a crack dealer, busted in and shot my dad and his dog”

Well, sometimes it's appropriate to burn cop cars because the Eagles lost.

Well you're not wrong, but the usefulness and political wisdom of destroying private property is almost impossible to tell in real time. I have no clue how the Boston tea Party people thought they'd be remembered, but we have dozens of counterexamples in just the last decade of people doing actual harm to their movements because they like to smash glass Starbucks logos.

It's not only the Boston tea party though. And the people you see screeching about stuff like this are the same people that also throw a tantrum when peaceful protest happens.

The destruction isn't why they hate these movements, that's just a convenient excuse.

Good examples of this are the NFL kneeling fiasco and civil rights movement.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-whites-nfl-anthem-protests-20170927-story.html

In a poll, whites were asked whether the NFL players kneeling in protest during the national anthem are helping or hurting the cause of racial justice. No fewer than 85 percent said they are hurting it.

Clearly, this offense to the anthem and the American flag is the worst possible way to change minds. Blacks need to find a less divisive means to register their discontent.

Oh, wait. I’ve got that wrong. Those figures don’t come from a new poll. They come from a survey taken in 1966 asking whites whether “the demonstrations by Negroes on civil rights have helped more or hurt more in the advancement of Negro rights.”

Only 15 percent of whites surveyed thought those peaceful protests would advance the cause of integration and equality. Martin Luther King Jr. and his nonviolent methods are honored even by conservatives today, but in 1967, half of whites said he was harming blacks, with only 36 percent disagreeing.

In many respects, the country has changed a lot since then — partly because of those unpopular demonstrations. What has not changed is that whites generally resent organized efforts by African-Americans to raise grievances and seek change. Last year, a Reuters poll found that 63 percent of whites disapproved of NFL players kneeling during the anthem — compared with 17 percent of blacks.

The Black Lives Matter movement is also unpopular among whites. Only 35 percent hold a positive view of it, according to a recent Harvard-Harris poll, compared with 83 percent of blacks. The negative opinions could be attributed to the noisy, disruptive marches the group has held or to the occasional outbreaks of violence that have resulted. The killing of five Dallas police officers at a Black Lives Matter demonstration last year (by a gunman unconnected to the group) also alienated a lot of people.

But if you don’t like how Black Lives Matter pursues its agenda, you should welcome the NFL players’ approach. It’s silent; it’s not disruptive; and it’s entirely nonviolent. It doesn’t block traffic, occupy police or frighten bystanders.

Critics say it’s disrespectful to the flag, but no flags are harmed — and it could be taken as a form of respect for the flag to mutely signal your belief that the ideals it represents are not being realized.

That the display evokes so much fury and disgust among whites, from the president on down, confirms what was evident 50 years ago. The problem is not how blacks raise their complaints about American society; it’s that they raise them.

And the people you see screeching about stuff like this are the same people that also throw a tantrum when peaceful protest happens.

Not me nigga. I thank Christ every day that the modern left still favors broken glass and symbolic period blood.

As for the rest of your post, I think it's very well documented that the shift from militant "letters from a birmingham jail" to the moderate, fluffy "we are all one" strategy (explicitly crafted by people like Julian bond to never shit on America or patriotism) was the reason for the public perception of mlk and the civil rights movement generally.

As for the NFL protests, it's my own view that that whole fiasco set back criminal justice reform by 5 or 10 years.

As for the NFL protests, it's my own view that that whole fiasco set back criminal justice reform by 5 or 10 years.

Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you run around saying absurd shit like this?

Only you, bby.

"Holy shit, this tart is uttering sensible points!"

As for the NFL protests, it's my own view that that whole fiasco set back criminal justice reform by 5 or 10 years.

Can't silence the voices inside for so long, I guess.

Oh no daddy’s🧔🧔🧔 porch was painted red 😱😱😱😱why are leftists so violent smh 😑😑😑

THE INTOLERANT (((LEFTOIDS))) STRIKE AGAIN

Leftists are so intolerant, this is why we need

THE SECOND AMMENDMENT

That's it. I'm moving to liberty island with the MRAs, bitcoiners, polygamists and the racists.

Sorry no roasties allowed

Fuck.

🦆

Agreed and upboated

Yes!

No thots, only 2D flat goddesses

I'm disappointed, your impression of me is rather poor.

*no women allowed at all

Us racists wouldn't be caught dead living with those degenerate polygamists.

u/BossRedRanger you should try to remember that the Founding Fathers had real problems such as actual lack of political rights and representation, and weren't just pitching a crybaby fit because there was an election and the guy you didn't like won.

We don't teach true history in schools. We still celebrate Columbus as some noble explorer instead of a greedy invader who murdered thousands of indigenous people. We treat slavery as a sustained labor dispute and never teach about the rape and torture and establishment of institutional racism.

What kind of garbage schools did you attend /u/BossRedRanger? Clearly it’s time to dismantle the ineffective public school system and institute private schools to meet the ancap’s wet dream.

It's almost like r/politics users willingly lie to themselves and others like they have a mental illness, who knew?

While it is almost like that, this isn’t almost like that

literally any public school below the mason-dixon line

"Moderates"

They would be considered center-right in Europe, or so I've been told.

noam chomsky is a centre-right academic

Maybe that's just because is so cucked left 🤔

In France burqas are banned, American bankruptcy laws are more liberal than in all of Europe, and in one part of Switzerland swords are a form of voter ID. Europe isn't a monolith.

No one says it is, but neither is the US, New Hampshire and South Caronlina differ in the same way as Sweden and Hungary, in politics, food, culture and climate.

That’s just because France is super racist

France is far from the only super racist country in Europe.

Swords are a valid ID for anything, everywhere, if you're willing to get your hands dirty.

Its pretty galling that people are comparing the Boston tea party to splashing paint on Drumpfs property.

[deleted]

in what sense?

Wasting delicious tea vs improving the property value of some hack business man

To be honest, the founding fathers were libtard antifa cucks.

Is it too early to advocate for eating the rich?

Nope

why does everyone think I'm you?

What's your angle here? I can tell you the truth or lie about it but I'm not sure which one to do rn

I can absolutely handle the truth without flying into a fit of rage

I would prefer the poor. You won't need to bring salt.

And there you have it, folks. That's the motivation behind 99% of all of this sanctimonious protesting and whining you see all across the country and the internet - it's about being "a part of something big" like that night when the undertaker threw mankind off hell in a cell and he plummeted sixteen feet through an announcer's table.

See how that dildo compares this childish move to the Boston Tea Party? That's literally how they all see themselves. Every stupid whiner you see online saying that mansplaining is an issue thinks they're Rosa Parks standing up for some injustice because they'll become part of the history books for fighting against The Man! Because in 2018 people are so comfortable and complacent that they just can't stand thinking that they're not going to be a part of a FIGHT against something. No matter what that something is.

And no matter how childish and stupid their actions are, like splattering paint on a golf course that some poor shlub has to clean up that has nothing to do with any of it.

fake and gay

big if tru

nice effortpost faggot

Wait, what wasn’t childish and stupid about the Boston Tea Party? It’s one of the stupidest events in America’s short history, despite all that stiff competition

Whoa guys being edgy is all fun and games but BREAKING LAWS? Pouring PAINT on stuff?? Making a MESS? That is just over the line and I cannot control my rage at these terrorists.

The top post there right now is people jerking over a fantasy within a fantasy.

I played that mission a few days ago and even looking out for references I didn't catch anything even remotely referencing Trump, unless they're saying "sex tape" is something that could only reference him and wasn't just a generic joke about politicians with dirty laundry. Is the derangement so bad they can't picture jokes about anybody else?

RENT FREE

Everyone should know about the Haymarket affair or the Railroad Strike of 1877 but strangely they're not taught in schools

/u/magitciteWar Where exactly did you go to school? This was covered at least a couple of times where I grew up in a semi-rural part of the Deep South.

For some reason, the powers that be don't want us learning about workers fighting for their own basic human rights, and being killed for it by management/governmant.

Yeah, it's all a giant "governmant" conspiracy. Right up there with the grammer conspirasy.

The Boston Tea Party was a bunch of smugglers trying to shut down legit tea trading operations after the British government cut down the tea tax. These morons are glorifying crime.

Whoa guys being edgy is all fun and games but BREAKING LAWS? Pouring PAINT on stuff?? Making a MESS? That is just over the line and I cannot control my rage at these terrorists.

/r/politics promotes destruction of private property

"iMagIne MaI sHoCk"