Trump threatens to "send in feds" to Chicago

[EnglishPete]

Here's an short documentary video talking about related tactics in Germany, the way the government there uses state licenced far left violence effectively licensed against political opponents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bM5rMmeh1g

[EnglishPete]

Yeah, I think it's awesome that the people of Chicago refused to let Trump speak. One of the best things the city's done all year.

Like I say at least you're honest about which direction your moral compass points in.

I would just remind that the Democratic Party's rentamob is not the same thing as "the people of Chicago". I know you lefties like to think that every rentamob you see is somehow representative of 'the people' but it really isn't. In reality it will be representative of whoever is in charge of paying and directing the organisers. If Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel and other Democratic party bosses had decided for whatever reasons that they wanted Trump's rally to go ahead smoothly it would have gone ahead smoothly. There would have been a much smaller demonstration that the police would have easily controlled. The riot happened because Clinton, Emmanuel and other party bosses wanted it to happen and they controlled the city police. 'The people of Chicago' had no say in deciding the outcome.

lol this wasn't Rahm's people. Not by a long stretch.

Just to make it absolutely clear for the hard of thinking this is how this particular tactic for political repression works.

Ingredient 1. Democratic Party bosses coordinate with street activism organisers to organise a large scale demonstration and riot. The actual rank and file demonstrators and rioters are most likely not  Rahm Emmanuel/Hillary Clinton supporters but that does not matter. The organisers job is to gather together an excitable mob, not to tell the useful idiots in the mob who is really running the show.

Ingredient 2. Democratic party bosses in local government give orders for the police to stand down in order to ensure the riot gets out of control.

Ingredient 3. Media allies of the first two help them spread the idea that it was the target to blame for the violence

exactly the same tactic was used in San Jose, this isn't a new tactic.

lmao, you're delusional. There is no vast conspiracy among "Democratic party bosses" to start a riot, because this isn't the 60s and, for good or ill, Rahm is no Daley. I know the "street activism organizers" involved, and they're a lot of the same folks who were working for Chuy and Bernie. Send Trump back to the West Side, with no Clinton campaign, and you'd get exactly the same result.

Its true that many of the organisations that were involved in setting up the riot were aligned with the Bernie campaign. From Wikipedia

"Among those who took part in organizing the protest included members of the UIC faculty, People for Bernie, the Fearless Undocumented Association, Black Lives Matter, Assata's Daughters, BYP100, College Students for Bernie, and Showing Up for Racial Justice"

So that's a lot of Bernie supporters, including, no doubt, the ones you know. But who were the big bosses, the ones who actually made the decision to have a riot? After all this kind of large scale politically directed riot never just happens spontaneously, someone high up makes the decision for it to happens and then the orders are given to organisers for it to go ahead. Now perhaps it was the heads of these various Bernie sympathising groups who made the decision all by themselves.

But then the curious question arises where was the connection with Rahm Emmanuel and the CPD and their decision to encourage the riot to get out of control by giving 'stand down' orders to the police. Was that just pro-Clinton Chicago police chiefs and mayor grabbing hold of an opportunity that presented itself? Well that's certainly possible, if only there were some other evidence that could shed more light on the matter.

Oh look, such evidence does exist. It comes in the form of straight from the horses mouth confessions/boasts coming from professional protest organisers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/

The mystery is solved. A clear link between the riot organisers and the DNC. The DNC in turn, of course, have close links to Rahm Emmanuel and other Chicago Democratic Party bosses

[parochial boy]

P-dubs, you don't live in the real world, do you?

[EnglishPete]

P-dubs, you don't live in the real world, do you?

Damn the delusions that you have are staggering. 

lmao, you're delusional.

Good grief. This is the typical leftist response to accusations of this sort of organised criminality from leftist groups and political parties. First deny it. Then when presented with sold evidence that the accusations are actually true respond by engaging crude insults and weak attempts at gaslighting.

I think a lot of lefties are emotionally invested in the idea that left wing mobs are somehow representative of 'the people'.

[parochial boy]

Because it is impossible to argue with a conspiracy theorist such as yourself.

There is absolute no proof for anything that you are saying, it is just emotional conjecture, and as such is absolutely impossible to disprove.

[Person Man]

Because it is impossible to argue with a conspiracy theorist such as yourself.

There is absolute no proof for anything that you are saying, it is just emotional conjecture, and as such is absolutely impossible to disprove.

Talk about gaslighting.

[EnglishPete]

There is absolute no proof for anything that you are saying, it is just emotional conjecture, and as such is absolutely impossible to disprove.

Nice bit of projection coming from you there. As I said I think a lot of lefties are emotionally invested in the idea that left wing mobs are somehow representative of 'the people'. So when presented with evidence to the contrary, evidence that such mob violence is planned and directed by political bosses they can't stand to see such evidence and they come out with these emotional outbursts in response, like you've just done.

Its not that there isn't any evidence, there is plenty of it and I've just presented some of it in this thread. Its that people like you are incapable of emotionally handle such evidence as it would harm your political self image. So you get irritated and angry and start throwing out insults

[parochial boy]

See, what you call evidence isn't actually evidence, you are committing a fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc, whereby, because x follows y ("angry leftists" followed "rahm emmanuel") the the latter must have caused the former.

In actual fact, you have not provided any evidence that there is some leftist conspiracy to commit organised violence, beyond what exists in your imagination

[EnglishPete]

See, what you call evidence isn't actually evidence, you are committing a fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc, whereby, because x follows y ("angry leftists" followed "rahm emmanuel") the the latter must have caused the former.

In actual fact, you have not provided any evidence that there is some leftist conspiracy to commit organised violence, beyond what exists in your imagination

See what I mean.

There's solid evidence that there was a planned riot at the Trump rally in Chicago and solid evidence that the top organisers of the riot were linked to the DNC. There is also solid evidence that CPD were given orders from their Democrat aligned bosses to stand down and that this allowed the riot to get out of control. In addition the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the later fact is linked to the first two facts.

What is the response from "parochial boy"? Pure denialism. People like parochial boy are deeply wedded to the leftist fantasy that politically oriented riots like the one seen in Chicago last March are simply the spontaneous outpouring of popular anger. Whenever presented with evidence to the contrary, no matter how compelling, they always immediately resort to denialism about it.

[JerryArkansas]

See, what you call evidence isn't actually evidence, you are committing a fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc, whereby, because x follows y ("angry leftists" followed "rahm emmanuel") the the latter must have caused the former.

In actual fact, you have not provided any evidence that there is some leftist conspiracy to commit organised violence, beyond what exists in your imagination

See what I mean.

There's solid evidence that there was a planned riot at the Trump rally in Chicago and solid evidence that the top organisers of the riot were linked to the DNC. There is also solid evidence that CPD were given orders from their Democrat aligned bosses to stand down and that this allowed the riot to get out of control. In addition the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the later fact is linked to the first two facts.

Execpt you gave no such facts.  You only post the delusions of those who are consumed with Trumpism and nothing more.  You get why most people think you talk out the ass.

[parochial boy]

See, what you call evidence isn't actually evidence, you are committing a fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc, whereby, because x follows y ("angry leftists" followed "rahm emmanuel") the the latter must have caused the former.

In actual fact, you have not provided any evidence that there is some leftist conspiracy to commit organised violence, beyond what exists in your imagination

See what I mean.

There's solid evidence that there was a planned riot at the Trump rally in Chicago and solid evidence that the top organisers of the riot were linked to the DNC. There is also solid evidence that CPD were given orders from their Democrat aligned bosses to stand down and that this allowed the riot to get out of control. In addition the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the later fact is linked to the first two facts.

What is the response from "parochial boy"? Pure denialism. People like parochial boy are deeply wedded to the leftist fantasy that politically oriented riots like the one seen in Chicago last March are simply the spontaneous outpouring of popular anger. Whenever presented with evidence to the contrary, no matter how compelling, they always immediately resort to denialism about it.

You're having hysterics Petey boy.

What you seems to believe is "solid proof" is actually only solid proof if you sign up to the logic of your conspiracy addled mind.

It requires you to accept links that do not actually exist, or to place people in levels of influence far beyond what they have.

This is why it impossible to argue with your likes, because you have created a sort of logic in your mind that is true because it must be true for your theory to work.

Seriously, you think the police who allegedly murder black people in cold blood, on a daily basis, are simultaneously leftist conspirators? Do you not see the complete inconsistency there?

You and anybody else, left or right, who thinks they can tell other people what they think, just can't contribute to any sort of discussion, because it always comes down to you deciding what both sides believe or do, regardless of what the other side actually do think.

[Dr. Arch]

How long? What if people start dying there?

start?

     Given the situation in Chicago, something ought to be done about the high levels of violence there. Obviously it's bad if Trump occupies the city (pretty unlikely), but there isn't really a case to be made that doing nothing there is an acceptable response. The city of Chicago should be the entity doing something, but if they fail to act do we really just want to leave the bodies piling up? I would hope not.

Why single out Chicago, other than it's Obama's hometown?

Seriously, I think it was the Democratic Party directed riot at his planned rally last March. I suspect he holds a grudge against Emmanuel for that and frankly I don't blame him.

So you support sending in federal control and military force of a local government expicitly as political payback?

You are an un apologetic Fascist thug, in every literal sense.

I have no doubt whatsoever you and "reformed " white supremacist Sanchez and avowed white supremacist Krazen, if given the opportunity to "defend conservatism" from vaious "left wing agitators and troublemakers", you folks would happily curbstomp some folks bloody. Mostly people of a multihued variety of skin colors. All the while proudly bellowing "white power" I'm sure..

Hey, whine about it if you want, but your obsession with this mythical threat of large scale "organized left wing violence" (which you are apparently unable to distinguish from some college anarchist twit breaking a Starbucks window), along with palpable racism and Islamophobia. Oh, and every single word you've ever posted here. Sorry, but it makes a compelling case.

[EnglishPete]

See, what you call evidence isn't actually evidence, you are committing a fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc, whereby, because x follows y ("angry leftists" followed "rahm emmanuel") the the latter must have caused the former.

In actual fact, you have not provided any evidence that there is some leftist conspiracy to commit organised violence, beyond what exists in your imagination

See what I mean.

There's solid evidence that there was a planned riot at the Trump rally in Chicago and solid evidence that the top organisers of the riot were linked to the DNC. There is also solid evidence that CPD were given orders from their Democrat aligned bosses to stand down and that this allowed the riot to get out of control. In addition the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the later fact is linked to the first two facts.

What is the response from "parochial boy"? Pure denialism. People like parochial boy are deeply wedded to the leftist fantasy that politically oriented riots like the one seen in Chicago last March are simply the spontaneous outpouring of popular anger. Whenever presented with evidence to the contrary, no matter how compelling, they always immediately resort to denialism about it.

You're having hysterics Petey boy.

What you seems to believe is "solid proof" is actually only solid proof if you sign up to the logic of your conspiracy addled mind.

It requires you to accept links that do not actually exist, or to place people in levels of influence far beyond what they have.

This is why it impossible to argue with your likes, because you have created a sort of logic in your mind that is true because it must be true for your theory to work.

Seriously, you think the police who allegedly murder black people in cold blood, on a daily basis, are simultaneously leftist conspirators? Do you not see the complete inconsistency there?

You and anybody else, left or right, who thinks they can tell other people what they think, just can't contribute to any sort of discussion, because it always comes down to you deciding what both sides believe or do, regardless of what the other side actually do think.

[EnglishPete]

Here's an short documentary video talking about related tactics in Germany, the way the government there uses state licenced far left violence effectively licensed against political opponents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bM5rMmeh1g

And of course its not just Germany, this tactic is used by both the establishment and specifically establishment left wing politicians and government to attack opposition

Here's some examples of this tactic being used in the UK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr_twoXsF6Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ4kwYuZKTw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbDF2t4711U