ex-President Trump

At the RNC convention in 2020 They passed a one page resolution which basically stated that there was not going to be a new platform, and that it was now all about supporting Trump and it was decided to hold no discussion on programs, so you posted neither a lie nor a mistake.

It is true that some months prior to the convention they passed the 2016 program as is. Which amusingly contained lines like "all international executive agreements and political arrangements entered into by the current Administration must be deemed null and void as mere expressions of the current president's preferences".

Given blunders like that, I think we can be reasonably certain that it wasn't really a continuation of the 2016 program, as much as it was that they no longer cared about platforms or programs.

turns out this was the only blatant lie

No, but keep going

Yeah, this seems to have caused you real problems with your 62 posts in 24 hours - for a guy who said he probably wouldn't be around much, you've certainly been busy!

20 years for what appears to have been repeated aggravated assault against police officers (+ trespassing with malicious intents and so on) seems reasonable

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/09...

But, and this is an important but, the same should have been attempted when trying other rioters in other cases, when they waged violence against police

So I googled "in BLM riots were there attacks on the police" and this came up in wikipedia

"There have been many incidents of police violence during the George Floyd protests, an ongoing series of protests and demonstrations against police brutality and racism in policing. The protests began on May 26, 2020,[1] following the murder of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, by Derek Chauvin, a 44-year-old white man employed as a Minneapolis police officer, who knelt on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds during an arrest the previous day.[2]

Lawyer T. Greg Doucette and mathematician Jason Miller compiled a list of videos posted on Twitter showing evidence of alleged police brutality, which as of July 26, 2020 contained more than 830 videos.[3][4][5] Investigative journalism website Bellingcat documented over 140 police violence incidents against journalists during the protests.[6] The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker found there were almost as many press freedom violations in one week as for the entire year in 2019.[6]"

Here is another one

"The majority of the George Floyd protests, a series of protests and unrest which began in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on May 26, 2020, in response to the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police Department officer Derek Chauvin, were peaceful; an estimated 93%–96.3% of demonstrations were peaceful and nondestructive, involving no injuries or no property damage.[14][15][16] However, police made arrests in about 5% of protest events (deploying chemical irritants in 2.5% of events); 3.7% of protest events were associated with property damage or vandalism (including damages by persons not involved in the actual demonstration); and protesters or bystanders were injured or killed in 1.6% of events.[15] Clashes and other forms of violence were at various times initiated by protestors, by counterprotestors, and by police,[15] and were usually driven by opportunistic criminals rather than organized extremist groups.[17]

There have also been numerous reports and videos of aggressive police actions using physical force including "batons, tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets on protesters, bystanders and journalists, often without warning or seemingly unprovoked."[18] These incidents have provoked "growing concern that aggressive law enforcement tactics intended to impose order were instead inflaming tensions."[18] The police responded that such tactics are necessary to prevent vandalism and arson, and that police officers have been assaulted with rocks and water bottles.[18] Amnesty International issued a press release calling for the police to end excessive militarized responses to the protests.[19][20]"

A NY Times article based on multiple rep...:

"The reports repeatedly blamed police departments for escalating violence instead of taming it. At times, police looked as if they were on the front lines of a war. They often treated all protesters the same, instead of differentiating between peaceful protesters and violent troublemakers. In part, the reports acknowledged, that was because of the chaos. But it was also because the protests pitted demonstrators against officers, who became defensive and emotional in the face of criticism, some reports said."

Another article

"The Department of Justice announced today that more than 300 individuals in 29 states and Washington, D.C., have been charged for crimes committed adjacent to or under the guise of peaceful demonstrations since the end of May."

"Approximately 35 individuals have been charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer and related offenses. One of these cases was charged in Massachusetts; the rest of these individuals were charged in Oregon. The assaults have targeted local and federal law enforcement officers. "

There was no indication of the trial or sentencing of the people who attacked police officers. But the thing is there were 35 out of the millions of protestors nationwide. In the one Jan 6 riot at the capitol there have been over 1,400 people arrested and 900 already sentenced. Most of the people who were found guilty of assaulting police officers did have the prosecution asking for long sentences (some 20 years) but very few have received long sentences.

Looking at the 1st article's quote that said there were 830 police brutality videos it seems that the problem at the BLM riots wasn't protestors attacking the police but it was the police attacking protestors and journalists.

Here is a google quote:

"In the 43 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,488 individuals have been charged in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including nearly 550 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, a felony. The investigation remains ongoing."

How many people in Portland alone, among the 100s who assaulted police, got sentenced for 10 + years?

I mean i read 35 arrests nationwide of BLM rioters for assaulting police, there were more than that in portland alone; they waged urban warfare for weeks around federal buildings, setting them on fire even.

Yes in jan 6 they tracked down everyone whose face was visible in videos. For the BLM riots, they didn't. That's exactly what i am talking about. Tens of thousands should have been arrested for the BLM riots nationwide, if the same intensity of prosecution was applied. It was 50 jan 6

Yes many were states matters, not federal. A choice of those states to not prosecute heinous criminals enough because they were politically complicit with the violence, with the current presidential candidate for president gathering funds to defend the rioters, the arsonists, the police assaulters.

This ones still funny . People could have been murdered on camera and CNN would be calling it mainly peaceful

Id be curious to see how many actual prosecutions took place

you accused somebody of making a "blatant lie" when you, knowingly, had zero information to prove or categorize that persons statements as lies, let alone blatant.

therefore, you blatantly lied.

it's from your upbringing and love for mussolini

What I am getting from the articles is that the violence in the ~5% of the BLM rallies/protests were more related to destruction of property, fires, and theft than specifically attacking police officers. And that a lot of the police related violence was not initiated by the protesters themselves. A lot of it was caused by the way the police felt about being called into question for their behavior against black people and also how the police tried to control the crowds.

I couldn't find any of the convictions of violence against police officers so I don't know whether or not any of the 35 charged explicitly with trying to harm police officers (according to the article) got 20 years or any years really.

people who violently stormed the U.S. capitol with congresspeople inside were prosecuted and sentenced more harshly than portlanders who vandalized or burned empty buildings at night?

The RNC in 2020 just kept the same platform they had in 2016. Simple as that. Mr Rick acknowledged that as well.

Inflating the denominator is irrelevant, you write this as if "5%" was a small number, given there were thousands of BLM protests, we are talking 50+++ violent riots.

Some of those violent riots had urban guerrilla going on for hours, BLM militia going to war against police. Every single participant in those events (the violent urban guerrilla riots, not the protests) should get the 20 years. You don't wage warfare against police.

As you well know, many if not most of the violent rioters were white antifa, as those killed by rittenhouse and many others were.

In portland especially, which possibly saw the most vicious and violent riots, and the longest ones for sure, it was mostly white people rioting.

You are racist to even presume this was about blacks.

Antifa which stands for Anti-Fascist would not attack police officers. They would however attack Fascist militia groups. Or defend black people who would be attacked by white supremacists.

I get that the Trump administration was making claims that the violence was all antifa based. But Trump does lie about just about everything. And in the end the evidence wasn't really there.

[URL="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748"]Here is an article that outright says very few of the violent rioters were antifa
[/URL]

"Very few of those charged appear to be affiliated with highly organized extremist groups, and many are young suburban adults from the very neighborhoods Trump vows to protect from the violence in his reelection push to win support from the suburbs."

"Some of those facing charges undoubtedly share far-left and anti-government views. Far-right protesters also have been arrested and charged. Some defendants have driven to protests from out of state. Some have criminal records and were illegally carrying weapons. Others are accused of using the protests as an opportunity to steal or create havoc.

But many have had no previous run-ins with the law and no apparent ties to antifa, the umbrella term for leftist militant groups that Trump has said he wants to declare a terrorist organization."

Now here is a quote from a blatant liar:

“I know about antifa, and I know about the radical left, and I know how violent they are and how vicious they are, and I know how they are burning down cities run by Democrats,” Trump said at an NBC town hall."

There is also a 3 page graph of why people were arrested that shows 33 arrested for assaulting officers/officials. And one for harassing/stalking a federal employee.

Here is another article that says Antifa...:

"As protests against police violence spread to every state in the U.S. and dramatic images flooded in from cities across the country, President Donald Trump and his attorney general spun an ominous story of opportunistic leftists exploiting a national trauma to sow chaos and disorder. They were the anti-fascists known as “antifa”, and according to the administration they were domestic terrorists who would be policed accordingly.

But while the White House beat the drum for a crackdown on a leaderless movement on the left, law enforcement offices across the country were sharing detailed reports of far-right extremists seeking to attack the protesters and police during the country’s historic demonstrations, a trove of newly leaked documents reveals."

"German argued that the impulse to paint both sides of the political spectrum with the same brush, despite the fact that only the far right is actively killing people, is among the most dangerous features of modern American law enforcement. In his review of the documents produced in response to the recent protests, German said purported “threats” from antifa were routinely overblown, often framed vandalism as terrorism and were typically absent of concrete evidence of serious criminal activity."

'Yet the leaked materials show that on May 29, two days before Trump tweeted that antifa would be labeled a terrorist organization and Barr issued his DOJ statement, the president’s own DHS analysts issued an open source intelligence report detailing how a white supremacist channel on Telegram, an encrypted messaging service, was encouraging followers to capitalize on the unrest by targeting the police with Molotov cocktails and firearms.

“The use of firearms greatly influences the scale and intensity of these events,” a source in the group, titled “National Accelerationist Revival,” wrote on May 27, advising followers to break police lines “with cocktails, chainsaws, and firearms.” At the time, DHS reported, the group included more than 3,400 subscribers. “Looting and shoplifting are both cool and whites should be doing it way more,” the source went on. “When the laws no longer benefit you, break them for personal gain. If you don’t feel like buying something, steal it. If you don’t feel like driving slow, drive fast. If you don’t like someone, hurt them.” '

mr rick your own source goes :

Of more than 300 arrested, there are about 286 defendants, others had charges dropped. Some live in cities like Portland and Seattle where local prosecutors declined to bring some protest-related charges.

And here "protest-related" means riot related as well.

My claim was exactly that, thanks for providing a leftist source confirming my claim. Prosecutors didn't bring charges to violent eversive terrorists waging urban guerrilla in places like Portland, for months.

No it doesn't

You can believe what you want. I get why right wingers want to believe that Antifa was the cause of the violence. They wanted to eliminate what at the time was a real threat to groups like the Proud Boys and all other Fascist organizations.

In the BLM protests 95% were peaceful. I get that you want to focus on the ones that weren't. It suits you. Of the 5% that weren't peaceful there were many reasons why they weren't. None of them started with Antifa. There was a lot of theft, looting, fires started, and a lot of angry mob that pushed back and embarrassed the police, and a lot of police officers that were either scared of what was happening or offended for being lumped with the officer that killed Floyd or both. There were also right wing violent groups some of which were racist that wanted to have the BLM protests fail.

If you were alive in the 1960's you would understand why the 5% of the protests went haywire. The black protests in the 60's were in the inner cities and basically went out of control quickly. There were fires, looting, destruction of property, etc. The people at the protests were unbelievably angry about the racism that had prevailed in the US for hundreds of years.

But the difference was, white neighborhoods weren't affected in the 1960's. The rallies and riots were confined mostly to black neighborhoods (by the police and likely National Guard in some states). The destruction and violence was far greater than what we saw with BLM protests. The 95% completely peaceful BLM protests are a significant factor as to why things are different today. That is why I focus on the 95% peaceful BLM protests.

A lot of riots were basically like this: BLM protesters peacefully do their thing during the day. Small or nonexistent violence, largely peaceful.

At night antifa terrorists come and start burning things down. This is what happened many times in Portland for example. Not sure why you deny this, this was uncontroversially admitted by all at the time.

You keep saying the 95% as if that meant "almost nothing happened". Lol jfc even a single riot is an exceptional bad event which should be crushed by all means necessary with every single participant being treated like jan 6 participants!!!! no 1 should even think he can riot without having his life ruined forever!

Rioting shouldn't even exist as an option in the mind of anyone.

it's funny because i never understood why "BLM" was such a controversial thing when i was abroad

then in my travels back home in USA#1 i have gone across country visiting my friends who are spread out all over (doing it again starting tomorrow) it took me to various cities

it's interesting because about half the time we'd be out someplace and we'll drive through a neighborhood or we'll sit down for a meal and they'd mention "this place only recently re-opened and i'm really glad it's back it's my favorite lunch joint" to which i'd say something like "oh covid shut them down that long?" but then the answer was always - no it was destroyed during a BLM protest

so now i get it why some people hate blm, it's not anything racial - it's they don't think it's right to excuse away looting and destruction

it was very eye opening because before i previously had no direct interaction, only read about it in the news and pretty much thought anyone who had anything negative to say about the movement was a hateful racist

if there was a "rickroll is the greatest poster on 2p2" movement but it led to all my favorite places getting burned down then despite that i agree with their viewpoing entirely, i wouldn't agree with their methods and would probably not look very kindly on the rgp2 movement either

As long as you personally don't go around burning anything down, we shouldn't be in much danger of that happening.

That isn't what Antifa did. Nor were they terrorists. That's what Trump wanted to use to unite the right against the BLM protests and to protect his Proud Boys (and be popular with all right wing fascist groups)

Antifa only responded to fascists up to that point.

The people who were burning things down at night could have been angry protesters, could have been right wing fascists who wanted BLM protests to be ridiculed and held accountable for the fires, or it could have been crazy violent arsonists who saw an opportunity. But Antifa people did not burn things down. Its not who they were or what they were about.

antifa has 100% been wrongly villainized

but let's call a spade a spade, they are no different from groups like the proud boys or oath keepers - just representing the other side of the spectrum

you don't decide to put on a balaclava and go to do a counter-protest and just coincidentally bring things that can make improvised weapons unless you're itching for action

proud boys are actually really interesting, obviously this is from the viewpoint of the founder he may have fibbed/left out some details:

there was this brooklyn hipster who was one of the founders of vice who formed a drinking social group where they jokingly chose to call themselves the most effeminate thing they could possibly think of

the name is from this

this group started growing quite organically and people loved it so much they began forming informal chapters elsewhere (ie your buddy from boston comes to to visit nyc and you take him to a proud boys party, he finds it fun and starts a proud boys group in boston)

and then he started going on conservative speaking tours and on those tours he would sometimes have protestors attempt to physically block his entrance to the venue and they sometimes got violent with him - so he started asking his fellow proud boys "hey i'm going to speak here this friday, can you guys please come as bodyguards" and then this was obviously a terrible decision and disaster because then you had two different groups of people both looking for action and fistfights would often break out and all he did was end up ramping up the violence

proud boys then kind of continue to keep growing, by this point it's no longer "his drinking club" but becoming more of a national movement

they eventually drift more into what they are now and the brooklynite vice founder leaves the group he founded

i imagine antifa are no different - a bunch of like minded people who are all kind of itching to "do more" and a few of them see an opportunity to "do more" and go ahead and do it

re: they just want action

i visited boston in 2021 when there was a pretty decently sized covid outbreak going on - there was a pharmaceutical conference planned and the person who i was visiting was an activist who was helping organize a protest of the conference - they were protesting the idea of hosting an international conference during the midst of a covid outbreak

i asked them if they were worried about covid spreading, then wouldn't getting a bunch of people together to protest just make it worse?

they said this was about the greater good, and the increased risk of having protestors outdoors & wearing masks was a small price to pay to prevent the greater damage that the conference was doing - that there was no reason why they couldn't postpone, do at another location, or do it online

towards the end of my trip my host was very upset, the reason was he learned that the conference had indeed been postponed due to covid concerns - he should have been ecstatic as that's what he supposedly had wanted - but he was upset that he didn't get to protest the evil pharma companies and covid safety protocols was just the excuse

some people just want action and antifa is too extreme for that guy - the extreme outliers that join a group like antifa are those exact people who like kyle rittenhouse, are just itching for an opportunity to act

I will start such a group, only after I win the Powerball lottery. I will also be leaving the group immediately upon its formation.