You (and others) are lumping protesters in with rioters. Way to go.
It just make you all look like angry folk, looking to blame and generalize a huge number of people doing what is completely their right.
I thought the subject of this was about rioters. Not even sure if that term is accurate, but open for another (if even needed) for those who get off on burning shit, breaking shit, spray-painting shit, treating others like shit.
You (and others) are lumping protesters in with rioters. Way to go.
It just make you all look like angry folk, looking to blame and generalize a huge number of people doing what is completely their right.
I thought the subject of this was about rioters. Not even sure if that term is accurate, but open for another (if even needed) for those who get off on burning shit, breaking shit, spray-painting shit, treating others like shit.
Of America's 320-million-odd residents, only about three-quarters are eligible to vote (mostly because they're over the age of 18). Of the group that could vote in the presidential election, the U.S. Election Project's Michael McDonald estimates that about 58.1 percent did — meaning that 41.9 percent of eligible Americans didn't vote last week.
I wonder if voters simply didn't vote because the media convinced them the election wouldn't be close? Polls, 539.com, NYT saying Hilliary had 93% chance of winning.
Of America's 320-million-odd residents, only about three-quarters are eligible to vote (mostly because they're over the age of 18). Of the group that could vote in the presidential election, the U.S. Election Project's Michael McDonald estimates that about 58.1 percent did — meaning that 41.9 percent of eligible Americans didn't vote last week.
I wonder if voters simply didn't vote because the media convinced them the election wouldn't be close? Polls, 539.com, NYT saying Hilliary had 93% chance of winning.
this is something I theorized yesterday. I stil think the turnout would have been low, but I think the media convinced so many people that trump had no chance, so that many more people didn't vote (on both sides, both sides thinking "what's the point if it's already foregone?")
Of America's 320-million-odd residents, only about three-quarters are eligible to vote (mostly because they're over the age of 18). Of the group that could vote in the presidential election, the U.S. Election Project's Michael McDonald estimates that about 58.1 percent did — meaning that 41.9 percent of eligible Americans didn't vote last week.
I wonder if voters simply didn't vote because the media convinced them the election wouldn't be close? Polls, 539.com, NYT saying Hilliary had 93% chance of winning.
this is something I theorized yesterday. I stil think the turnout would have been low, but I think the media convinced so many people that trump had no chance, so that many more people didn't vote (on both sides, both sides thinking "what's the point if it's already foregone?")
Take it a step further, did the media want low turnout to help trump win? He was a ratings cash cow from when he first announced and the media covered him almost exclusively until the conventions.
Of America's 320-million-odd residents, only about three-quarters are eligible to vote (mostly because they're over the age of 18). Of the group that could vote in the presidential election, the U.S. Election Project's Michael McDonald estimates that about 58.1 percent did — meaning that 41.9 percent of eligible Americans didn't vote last week.
I wonder if voters simply didn't vote because the media convinced them the election wouldn't be close? Polls, 539.com, NYT saying Hilliary had 93% chance of winning.
this is something I theorized yesterday. I stil think the turnout would have been low, but I think the media convinced so many people that trump had no chance, so that many more people didn't vote (on both sides, both sides thinking "what's the point if it's already foregone?")
Take it a step further, did the media want low turnout to help trump win? He was a ratings cash cow from when he first announced and the media covered him almost exclusively until the conventions.
I highly doubt that. unless you factor in they might think their ratings would skyrocket for 4 years straight because of his potential buffoonery. But I just can't see democratic leaning news agencies trying to influence the election of a republican president.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
To clarify: armed people occupy a government building and damage property in protest are freedom fighters worthy or your support. Protesters who occupy the street and damage property are terrorists?
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
To clarify: armed people occupy a government building and damage property in protest are freedom fighters worthy or your support. Protesters who occupy the street and damage property are terrorists?
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
To clarify: armed people occupy a government building and damage property in protest are freedom fighters worthy or your support. Protesters who occupy the street and damage property are terrorists?
Yes.
well at least you openly admit your blatant hypocrisy.
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
To clarify: armed people occupy a government building and damage property in protest are freedom fighters worthy or your support. Protesters who occupy the street and damage property are terrorists?
Yes.
well at least you openly admit your blatant hypocrisy.
I know. I can't even come back with a snarky, snappy reply. Well played unsung.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
To clarify: armed people occupy a government building and damage property in protest are freedom fighters worthy or your support. Protesters who occupy the street and damage property are terrorists?
Yes.
well at least you openly admit your blatant hypocrisy.
They were not funded by a leftist billionaire nor were they destroying private property because they didn't get their way when the chosen one got thumped in an election.
If the rioters are being paid as rumored, wouldn't the person funding them be funding terrorism?
To clarify: armed people occupy a government building and damage property in protest are freedom fighters worthy or your support. Protesters who occupy the street and damage property are terrorists?
Yes.
well at least you openly admit your blatant hypocrisy.
They were not funded by a leftist billionaire nor were they destroying private property because they didn't get their way when the chosen one got thumped in an election.
BTW: acquitted.
Prosecuters picked the wrong charges on that case. And any proof of Sorors buying rocks for the rioters, or you read a "rumor" and desperately want it to be true?
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
no. buying civil unrest sets a very dangerous precedent.
Assuming there is no agreement between paid protesters and the person paying them to start riots or cause violence, there is nothing anyone could do about it. Is it even true btw? Does anyone even know what role paid protesters actually played in anything if it is?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You (and others) are lumping protesters in with rioters. Way to go.
It just make you all look like angry folk, looking to blame and generalize a huge number of people doing what is completely their right.
I thought the subject of this was about rioters. Not even sure if that term is accurate, but open for another (if even needed) for those who get off on burning shit, breaking shit, spray-painting shit, treating others like shit.
You (and others) are lumping protesters in with rioters. Way to go.
It just make you all look like angry folk, looking to blame and generalize a huge number of people doing what is completely their right.
I thought the subject of this was about rioters. Not even sure if that term is accurate, but open for another (if even needed) for those who get off on burning shit, breaking shit, spray-painting shit, treating others like shit.
You (and others) are lumping protesters in with rioters. Way to go.
It just make you all look like angry folk, looking to blame and generalize a huge number of people doing what is completely their right.
I thought the subject of this was about rioters. Not even sure if that term is accurate, but open for another (if even needed) for those who get off on burning shit, breaking shit, spray-painting shit, treating others like shit.
You (and others) are lumping protesters in with rioters. Way to go.
It just make you all look like angry folk, looking to blame and generalize a huge number of people doing what is completely their right.
I thought the subject of this was about rioters. Not even sure if that term is accurate, but open for another (if even needed) for those who get off on burning shit, breaking shit, spray-painting shit, treating others like shit.
I didn't see violence committed by anyone other than the government when they were shooting the vehicles with women in them.
That's because you are biased. You rail on the government for it's threat of force but forgive the Bundys. A hillbilly wannabe sniper with his sights trained on a federal agent is an act of violence in the exact same way that an officer drawing his weapon and pointing it at you,is an act of violence.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Comments
https://tolerantleft.com
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/a-lot-of-non-voters-are-mad-at-the-election-results-if-only-there-was-something-they-could-have-done/
I wonder if voters simply didn't vote because the media convinced them the election wouldn't be close?
Polls, 539.com, NYT saying Hilliary had 93% chance of winning.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Yes.
www.headstonesband.com
BTW: acquitted.
Are you ok with it if true?
www.headstonesband.com
Is it even true btw? Does anyone even know what role paid protesters actually played in anything if it is?
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I'd say it fits like a glove.
In your utopian anarchy, what would you do if your neighbor grazes your land?