╌>

Left-wing violence rears its ugly head in Sacramento. But don’t you dare criticize it

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  3 years ago  •  65 comments

By:   Gil Duran (The Sacramento Bee)

Left-wing violence rears its ugly head in Sacramento. But don’t you dare criticize it
They’re angry, delusional and driven by disinformation. They consider violence a legitimate tool for pushing their fringe radical politics.

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners


But, but, but ...

Joe Biden chided that this is an idea, not an organization.  And democracy is the marketplace of ideas.  

So, whose idea was this?  And why aren't they held accountable?


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



They’re angry, delusional and driven by disinformation. They consider violence a legitimate tool for pushing their fringe radical politics.

I’m not talking about anti-vaxxers, Proud Boys or Trump Republicans this time. I’m talking about Sacramento’s increasingly destructive leftist anarchist-socialist set. On Saturday, a group of them terrorized Mayor Darrell Steinberg and his wife at their home. They hurled rocks and chanted the names of the Steinbergs’ children.

A community would normally respond by denouncing such violence. Yet some of the loudest voices in Sacramento politics remained ominously silent on Monday. After I called out this silence on Twitter — and specifically asked outspoken Democratic Socialist Councilwoman Katie Valenzuela for comment — I learned why.

Leftist trolls swarmed my account, hurling middle-school insults and accusations. Some called for The Sacramento Bee to fire me. I laughed and started taking notes for a column. But not everyone has a thick skin and a big platform.

Later on Monday, a local activist named Caity Maple denounced the violence on Facebook.

“Last night the Mayor’s home was vandalized and his family threatened,” she wrote. “I don’t always agree with our elected officials on policy, but I respect them as human beings. If I disagree with their performance, I will organize and vote them out.”

“This is not the way,” she added.

Her post drew over 140 likes. Then out came the leftist bully brigade.

“Protesting is supposed to be invasive, otherwise it’s too easy to ignore,” wrote Micah Kearns.

“He should be in prison for manslaughter,” wrote David FM Jackson. “Hard to muster much sympathy for him.”

“He’s lucky they didn’t bulldoze it,” wrote Paul Porter.

“I feel like ‘violence’ requires a living target, and that vandalism isn’t violence,” wrote Michelle McNeill.

“(N)ot this liberal ass status,” wrote Ayotunde Khyree Ikuku.

Most stunning, however, was the response from Dr. Flojaune Cofer, chair of the Measure U Advisory Committee. The committee, whose members are appointed by the City Council, makes recommendations about how the city should spend the proceeds of a sales tax increase Steinberg won in 2018.

“I think those of us with extreme privilege should be very careful about telling other folks what is the ‘right way,’” wrote Cofer in a 269-word response to Maple. “Candidly put: that isn’t our place.”

Cofer compared criticism of the vandals who stormed Steinberg’s home to criticism leveled at abolitionists and civil rights activists in past eras.

“We have to be very careful not to tone police the oppressed,” wrote Cofer, effectively shushing Maple.

The effort to re-educate Maple was complete. The pressure forced her to genuflect to the absurd dictates of a weaponized wokeness in which denouncing violence is now an offensive expression of “privilege.” She updated her post with a preface that softened her statement and thanked Cofer for correcting her.

Never mind that the people who stormed the mayor’s house were likely not homeless. Never mind that public officials can be challenged through democratic means. Never mind that attacking anyone’s home is a crime. When the shock troops of the loose-screw left terrorize the city’s top leader, you’d best just keep your mouth shut.

What a joke. In a city where Steinberg just got re-elected with 77% of the vote, he — not the local chapter of the Junior Maoists of America — represents public consensus. Like January’s Trumpist assault on our democracy, the attack on Steinberg’s home represents a disturbing new political trend: extremist factions using violence and intimidation to undermine democracy.

“This was not protest,” said Steinberg in a statement. “This was anarchy. You want to challenge me, challenge me at City Hall. Challenge me in the community. Challenge me at the ballot box. Violence and destruction has never been and never will be acceptable.”

Right-wing extremists pose a bigger threat on the national level, but this small Sacramento faction has become increasingly dangerous. Former Councilman Steve Hansen, who lost the District 4 seat to Valenzuela last year, said activists had previously harassed him at his home and put a threatening note in his mailbox. In June, black-clad vandals hijacked Black Lives Matter protests and tore a path of destruction through central Sacramento. In July, vandals set off firecrackers and threw red paint on the homes of City Council members Angelique Ashby and Jay Schenirer.

It’s not unusual for radical groups to do shocking things. It’s disturbing, however, when seemingly normal people suddenly defend this as acceptable behavior — or remain silent about it.

When Republicans stormed the U.S. Capitol last month, I blasted GOP legislators for their silence. That’s why I felt it was important to ask Councilwoman Valenzuela, who is openly allied with Cofer and Sacramento’s leftist groups, for comment. The lefty Twitter squad assailed my inquiry as sexist and unprofessional, but I persisted.

Most of the other council members I contacted readily decried the attack. Yet Valenzuela — who regularly calls out perceived wrongs, slights or microaggressions — had little to say.

After someone tweeted a picture of offensive graffiti in a local park on Thursday morning, Valenzuela responded within 20 minutes, calling it “abhorrent.” But when I asked her on Monday for a comment on the violence targeting Steinberg, she replied after a few hours to say she did not have a “prepared statement.”

When I asked why a public official needed a prepared statement to denounce violence, she responded: “Of course I don’t think violence is ever OK.”

It was her only public acknowledgment of the incident. If not for my question, I doubt she would have mentioned it at all. After all, she doesn’t want to get mobbed like Maple — or upset her political base.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Nerm_L    3 years ago

Just another normal day in America with another impressive display of democracy in the marketplace of ideas.

“Protesting is supposed to be invasive, otherwise it’s too easy to ignore,” wrote Micah Kearns.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @1    3 years ago

Well, one of three things will probably happen.

1. The source will be attacked and the actual story ignored in favor of saying it is fake or

2. The usual suspects will claim right wing agitators are at fault for the actions of leftist radicals or

3. Both 1 and 2 will occur.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    3 years ago

Left wingers get violent while protesting? No, say it isn't so! (Sarc)

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
2  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     3 years ago

Yes it's sad even horrible that some people have taken to violence to try to get their way.

Some people need to be lead away from this type of getting their way.

trump is included.

trump was supposedly a leader of men. IMO: he blew it ! 

And Shit always rolls downhill. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @2    3 years ago
trump was supposedly a leader of men. IMO: he blew it ! 

These are far left protesters.  When has the far left listened to Trump?

And Shit always rolls downhill. 

Violent protests, such as this one, began on Obama's watch.  Remember the violent Ferguson protests in 2014?

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
2.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    3 years ago
Violent protests

Began America. Yep Violent protests, they've been around long before trump or Obama were even born. 

Once we the people established a nation with our own constitution as far as I know we have never had a leader this much involved with a violent uprising or protest as trump was in what happened on the 6th.  

When leaders ... the president is involved in violent uprisings that is an example many will follow. 

Unfortunately, I look for this crap to continue from both irrational far wing radicals on both the left and the right.

It sucks cause I'm mix of both, an independent moderate so I don't agree with the violence of either right or left wing nutjob radicals. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    3 years ago

Oh for god's sake Nerm, didn't you teach history?

When did violent protests begin?  Please answer honestly without modern partisan BS.

The article is a bitch fest by an angry writer.

He's so angry he missed the point of the protest.

Even though Sacramento homeless deaths dropped below 100 in 2020,

two recent deaths were the focal point when city officials failed to open emergency shelters in a major winter storm.

City officials in Sacramento, California, came under fire this week after they didn’t open an emergency warming shelter during a massive rainstorm and two unhoused people died.

On Tuesday night, after the National Weather Service warned of “strong and damaging winds,” city officials did not open warming shelters, as the standard for opening those was cold weather reaching below 33 degrees .

Overnight on Tuesday, as blasting winds and torrential rains tore through the region, homeless residents’ tents were battered, soaked and destroyed . At least two unhoused people were found dead the next day. 

On Wednesday, following outrage from homeless advocacy groups, the City Council held an emergency meeting . Mayor Darrell Steinberg declared a local emergency, enabling the city to open a warming center starting Wednesday, amid ongoing adverse weather, and keep it open through the winter. 

“It’s not enough — yet,” City Council member Katie Valenzuela told HuffPost, noting that the city is also working to secure vouchers to open up more hotel rooms for homeless residents for the months to come, hopefully using newly available federal funding to cover the costs.

People were pissed. Conservatives and liberals alike.  Email traffic and text messages to the Bee prove nothing except the writer's bias.

Violent protests, such as this one, began on Obama's watch.

In a weekend fill of stupid comments about the Impeachment,

yours takes the cake for being the most ludicrous.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @2.1.1    3 years ago
Began America. Yep Violent protests, they've been around long before trump or Obama were even born. 

Even the American Revolution was violent protest by the political left.  Throughout American history hasn't the political left been responsible for more violent protest than the political right?

When leaders ... the president is involved in violent uprisings that is an example many will follow. 

When leaders ignore violent protests, aren't they complicit in allowing the violence to escalate and encouraging acceptance of the violence as normal political activity?  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.4  CB  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @2.1.1    3 years ago

Steve, hold to your stance. You are in balance. It is these 'incendiary language" provocateurs who only seek to 'say' enough to slant news that are the real problem. What this jerk who penned the original content using political "hate" rhetoric cares about the whole story is in the low percentages. These people just throw "excited rhetoric" at the public.

Check out the video @4, please. I am not fully comprehending this loosely put together issue. But, every little bit helps in getting closer to a fuller understanding.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
2.1.5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.3    3 years ago
Even the American Revolution was violent protest by the political left. 
Yes, liberal ideology is responsible for forming America as we know it. 
Some conservatives probably helped.
Throughout American history hasn't the political left been responsible for more violent protest than the political right?
Probably, liberal people gather more to advance their agenda.
On the other hand there have been notably more individual domestic terrorists from the radical right.  
Thankfully neither usually reach their objective and many get punished for their violence. 
 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
2.1.6  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.3    3 years ago
When leaders ignore violent protests, aren't they complicit in allowing the violence to escalate and encouraging acceptance of the violence as normal political activity?

IMO: YES

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
2.1.7  zuksam  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @2.1.5    3 years ago
Yes, liberal ideology is responsible for forming America as we know it.

What was considered liberal ideology 240 years ago would be far right today.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
2.1.8  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  zuksam @2.1.7    3 years ago

True to a degree but reality also has changed since.  

And I for one still are not of the mind that I want a president who tells me he is president instead of the voters controlling who is the president. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3  Thomas    3 years ago

It is obviously Bidens fault that Sacramento did not open their warming center....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @3    3 years ago
It is obviously Bidens fault that Sacramento did not open their warming center...

And yet, no one even hinted that it was Biden's fault.

Now, someone did manage to drag Trump into it in a weak and rather pathetic attempt to lay some of the blame on him.

But no one blamed Biden even in part.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    3 years ago
But no one blamed Biden even in part.

I'm guessing that the sarcasm was lost on you

after  Nerm blamed Obama for the invention of "violent protest" which is far more ridiculous.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    3 years ago
I'm guessing that the sarcasm was lost on you

I can't stop you from guessing whatever it is you want to guess about.

after  Nerm blamed Obama for the invention of "violent protest" which is far more ridiculous.

Obviously you read something I didn't.

Here is what he actually wrote:

"Violent protests, such as this one, began on Obama's watch.  Remember the violent Ferguson protests in 2014?"

I just can't find where he claimed Obama invented anything at all.

Perhaps you could share where you read it at?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    3 years ago
after  Nerm blamed Obama for the invention of "violent protest" which is far more ridiculous.

Obviously Obama didn't invent violent protests.  These destructive protests began on Obama's watch, that's a fact.  What did Obama do to prevent escalation of the violence?  How did violent, destructive protest by the political left become a normal political activity?

If the political left can engage in violent protest without repercussions then why would it be surprising that the political right would engage in the same sort of violent protest?  Violent protest has become an accepted, normal political activity.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.4  CB  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.3    3 years ago

Non-sequitur. Perhaps you need a 'referee' on this thread?

Just for shits and giggles let me remind you of something:

The protests that take place on the streets of this nation come with police officers and staff with riot gear in hand—including what minorities "endearingly" refer to as "an adorable pair of shit-kicking boots."

However, assuming Blue Lives Matter conservatives were going to defy the intelligence pouring in about January 6, 2021 violence off the scale, police took to single-filed guardrails as a defense against a mob that arrived intent on taking off heads and spitting down their necks over the "big lie" told by the biggest liar on this planet: Donald Trump.

Don't believe it? Just watch the tape and observe that as soon as RIOT POLICE entered the picture, the whole tenor of the Capitol riot fell into reverse. Riot police come to kick ass and take names!

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
3.1.5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.3    3 years ago
Violent protest has become an accepted, normal political activity.

IMO: Not to a true American it isn't, hasn't and won't ever be normal.

Most Americans actually have little appetite in our society for violence.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.3    3 years ago
Obviously Obama didn't invent violent protests. 

Thank you for that bit of honesty.

These destructive protests began on Obama's watch, that's a fact.

Wow, that did not last long.

What did Obama do to prevent escalation of the violence?  How did violent, destructive protest by the political left become a normal political activity?

Ask the British Crown of the late 1700's?  The Boston massacre, the Boston tea party, Lexington & Concorde?

Following the Revolutionary War

19th century

1800–1849

1850–1859

1860–1869

1870–1879

The New York Orange Riot of 1871, between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants.

1880–1889

1890–1899

20th century

1900–1909

1910–1919

continued...

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.6    3 years ago

continued

1920–1929

1930–1939

1940–1949

1950–1959

1960–1969

1970–1979

1980–1989

1990–1999

21st century

2000–2009

All apparently without any knowledge of who Obama was...

If the political left can engage in violent protest without repercussions then why would it be surprising that the political right would engage in the same sort of violent protest? 

It isn't.  It's baked into our DNA regardless of party.

Violent protest has become an accepted, normal political activity.

Which has diddly squat to do with left/right or Obama living rent free in yer head.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.7    3 years ago

Hey! You left out the storming of the Bastille!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.7    3 years ago

Thanks for the truth instead of whatever this is that Nerm posted.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.10  Thomas  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    3 years ago

From Nerm_L's Comment section above the article:

But, but, but ...

Joe Biden chided that this is an idea, not an organization.  And democracy is the marketplace of ideas.  

So, whose idea was this?  And why aren't they held accountable?

I am not really certain what he means by this. Maybe he can add some clarification? 

I am certain, however, that violence has not become the way that we solve problems here in the USA.  I  can say that I condemn violence, as I believe the overwhelming majority of people do. If violence is committed, then the perpetrators of the violence need to be dealt with as per law. This is a basic truism of society.

That said, riots do not just spring, fully formed, from the pavement. There needs to be some perception of inequity or unfairness that precedes the riot. We, as members of society, need to understand these perceptions and try to alleviate the roots of them so that they do not continue to cause unrest in our societies.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  Thomas @3.1.10    3 years ago
There needs to be some perception of inequity or unfairness that precedes the riot

Even more important: there needs to be anger. Trump incites anger. He encourages his followers to feel oppressed, to be angry.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.12  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Thomas @3.1.10    3 years ago
I am not really certain what he means by this. Maybe he can add some clarification? 

The narrative from the political left is protest represents a protected form of political speech that advances democracy.  That political language is consistent with support for other protests around the world; such as Arab Spring protests and the Hong Kong protests.

Something has changed.  Somehow vandalism, destruction, and violence has become protected forms of political speech.  Violence does not advance democracy because violence is used to achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner.  Violence is a threat to intimidate and subvert democracy.  That's the fundamental complaint about the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.  The complaint is that the Capitol rioters attempted to use violence to subvert democracy and achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner.

How is the riot at the Capitol any different than riots in cities around the country over the last six years?  Over the last six years vandalism, destruction, and violence have been employed to achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner.  The political left recognizes that the so called protests over a variety of issues are not acceptable because the political left attempts to shift blame elsewhere.  

If the political left is allowed to pursue political ends in an undemocratic manner then we should not be surprised that the political right would do the same.  And, as we have seen, that has begun.  We are now at the point where government is losing its ability to exert control over the situation; government has become a target of vandalism, destruction, and violence from both the political left and political right.  

Why are we, as a country, allowing these political left protests to continue to subvert democracy and pursue political ends in an undemocratic manner?  Why aren't these political left ideas that result in violence banned from social media?  The social media companies have demonstrated that would not be difficult since they've accomplished that with political right ideas.

So whose idea was this to allow vandalism, destruction, and violence becoming acceptable forms of political speech?  And why aren't they held accountable?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.13  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.11    3 years ago
Even more important: there needs to be anger. Trump incites anger. He encourages his followers to feel oppressed, to be angry.

So, who is inciting anger on the political left?  And why aren't they held accountable?  The political left isn't doing Trump's bidding.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.13    3 years ago
So, who is inciting anger on the political left? 

No one.

I see nothing comparable to ''Lock her up!''

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.14    3 years ago

Of course you don't. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.16  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.14    3 years ago
I see nothing comparable to ''Lock her up!''

'Fuck the police' isn't comparable?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.17  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.12    3 years ago
The narrative from the political left is protest represents a protected form of political speech that advances democracy.  That political language is consistent with support for other protests around the world; such as Arab Spring protests and the Hong Kong protests.

Well, I believe this is one of the founding principles of American democracy, not simply in the sole possession of the left or the right. 

Something has changed.  Somehow vandalism, destruction, and violence has become protected forms of political speech. 

If one uses these methods, the police can and should arrest and charge you. They are not protected.

(Political) Violence does not advance democracy because (political) violence is used to achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner.  (Political) Violence is a threat to intimidate and subvert democracy.  That's the fundamental complaint about the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.  The complaint is that the Capitol rioters attempted to use violence to subvert democracy and achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner.

The complaint is that they overan the Capitol Police and ransacked the Capitol in an attempt to change the outcome of the election and achieve a political end, which is, by definition, undemocratic. The first part of this they did and are in the process of being prosecuted for their crimes. Luckily they missed the brass ring of the second part. While it is doubtful that they could have actually changed the outcome of the election, they could have seriously upset (more so than they already had) the normal workings of the constitutional government.

How is the riot at the Capitol any different than riots in cities around the country over the last six years? 

It is different because of the intended purpose of the riot, which was to replace the certified electors with electors that would vote for Trump and thereby crown him king. The likely hood of this happening is next to none, even if they had gained control of the Capitol and the congresspeople, but it would have been a far more messy cleanup, but the mere fact of their presence within and attempt to control the Capitol and it's occupants is far more serious of crime in the scope of change that they wanted to achieve. The rioters were not simply attacking any statehouse as a symbol, they were attacking the seat of the United States Congress at the behest of of the sitting PotUS, while Congress was in session. This is worlds different than burning tires in the street or your own neighborhood. 

Over the last six years vandalism, destruction, and violence have been employed to achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner. 

What political end? I think you will be hard pressed to fnd any person who condones the use of violence to achieve political ends. 

The political left recognizes that the so called protests over a variety of issues are not acceptable because the political left attempts to shift blame elsewhere.

This sentence does not make sense. Are you saying that the left accepts the violence? Why would they do that?

If the political left is allowed to pursue political ends in an undemocratic manner then we should not be surprised that the political right would do the same.  And, as we have seen, that has begun.

Oh! I get it! This is a big whataboutism rant built strawman style. You are claiming that the left has been allowed to act violently undemocratically (where?) so it is little wonder that the right, in the guise of Trumps Army should be violent and undemocratic in their methods (Provable fact).  Conflation and non sequitur.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1.18  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.16    3 years ago

I don't remember any political rallies where that was shouted.

Perhaps you could be more precise?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.19  CB  replied to  Thomas @3.1.17    3 years ago

Whataboutism is a mechanism that allows some conservatives to reorient the discussion away from Donald. It is a tactic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.19    3 years ago
Whataboutism is a mechanism that allows some conservatives to reorient the discussion away from Donald. It is a tactic.

Wouldn't whataboutism be someone dragging Trump into an article that had nothing to do with him? You know, to reorient the discussion away from the topic?

Its a tactic.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.21  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Thomas @3.1.17    3 years ago
(Political) Violence does not advance democracy because (political) violence is used to achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner.  (Political) Violence is a threat to intimidate and subvert democracy.  That's the fundamental complaint about the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.  The complaint is that the Capitol rioters attempted to use violence to subvert democracy and achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner.

Rewriting my comment is dishonest.  The political left is engaged in violence against a civilian population; that's not political violence.

The incident described in the seeded article consists of vandalism against the residence of the mayor of Sacramento.  The mayor's residence is not part of government.  The mayor's family is not part of government.  And the neighbors in that residential area are not part of government.  

The political left is using vandalism, destruction, and violence against a civilian population to achieve a political end.  Vandalizing, looting, and burning private businesses is not political violence; that's violence against the civilian population.  Accosting people on the street is not political violence; that's violence against a civilian population.  Vandalizing and destroying private property is not political violence; that's violence against a civilian population.

The complaint is that they overan the Capitol Police and ransacked the Capitol in an attempt to change the outcome of the election and achieve a political end, which is, by definition, undemocratic. The first part of this they did and are in the process of being prosecuted for their crimes. Luckily they missed the brass ring of the second part. While it is doubtful that they could have actually changed the outcome of the election, they could have seriously upset (more so than they already had) the normal workings of the constitutional government.

Adding word salad to repeat what I said doesn't change anything.  Yes, the rioters at the Capitol engaged in violence to achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner; that's what I said.  The distinction is that the rioters at the Capitol engaged in violence against the government and not violence against a civilian population.  That doesn't make the violence any more acceptable but the Capitol riot is closer to political violence than what the political left is doing.

Oh! I get it! This is a big whataboutism rant built strawman style. You are claiming that the left has been allowed to act violently undemocratically (where?) so it is little wonder that the right, in the guise of Trumps Army should be violent and undemocratic in their methods (Provable fact).  Conflation and non sequitur.

How can it be whataboutism when the topic of discussion is how the political left is using vandalism, destruction, and violence to achieve political ends through undemocratic means?  The seeded article isn't about the Capitol riot.  The seeded article is about how the political is left attacking a civilian population for political purposes.

I'm not using the Capitol riot to deflect attention away from the topic of discussion or using the Capitol riot to justify violence by the political left.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.22  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.18    3 years ago
I don't remember any political rallies where that was shouted. Perhaps you could be more precise?

Isn't a protest a political rally?  Wasn't Al Sharpton's march on Washington last August a political rally?  Isn't the Women's March in Washington each year a political rally?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.23  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.20    3 years ago

In general, discussions are fluid. Reorienting them or "capping" or "quenching" discussion is a tactic. And for the record, Donald Trump just left office and blew up a lot of shit and people's office space and lives - "H" yeah we're going to talk about Donald, and his supporters too if you get in the way.

And you can try to make "leaky" comparisons or 'chide' or redirect or throw 'sliders' in discussion all you want to your heart's content, it won't matter to the larger scheme.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.23    3 years ago
In general, discussions are fluid. Reorienting them or "capping" or "quenching" discussion is a tactic. And for the record, Donald Trump just left office and blew up a lot of shit and people's office space and lives - "H" yeah we're going to talk about Donald, and his supporters too if you get in the way.

Seems you think you know what "whataboutism" is, but simply choose not to acknowledge it occurs right here on an article that has nothing to do with Trump because ya'll just HAVE to vent about him.

There is no shortage of "I Hate Trump"-like articles on here without ya'll corrupting other articles with your nonsense.

It IS mighty hypocritical, though.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1.25  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.22    3 years ago

You really don't know the difference?

You are amazing...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.26  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.24    3 years ago

And there is no shortage of some conservatives hating 'leftist' and producing bull patty they hope to 'carry the day' on faraway nuance situations around the country.

Liberals, in general, are not responsible and/or necessarily supportive of ever situation that spirals out of control in our society. Anymore than some conservatives. For example, once it was spoken of plainly and credibly some conservatives were CLEARED of the actions of the Conspirator-in-Chief Donald Trump and the insurrectionists he knew were coming to the White House and he, himself, pointed to the Capitol. Even gave them the false notion (or 'ghost') of him marching with them down to the Capitol to fight! Liberals modified how they spoke about those conservatives who did not enter and ransack the Capitol.

But here some conservatives complaining about a faraway local mayor and his constituents who are upset about deaths from freezing weather and locked shelter places as if what happened in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 is comparable to a few "bushes" being thrown over. The rhetoric being used is hypebolic (by Nerm).

Nerm sees violence, political intrigue, and wreckage at the mayor's house tantamount to desecration, piss and shit smeared on Capitol walls, and blood-stained slippery floors, and bullet holes at the Capitol.

Finally, and not once does Nerm or you indicate the cause for the effect: Homeless people were left out to die - and so a few did unmercifully.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.26    3 years ago

All YOUR whataboutisms are duly noted.

And remain hypocritical.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.28  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.27    3 years ago

Let's just say we're done at this point. This is not helping the discussion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.28    3 years ago

You decide when you are done.

You don't decide for me.

Remember that in the future.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.30  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.25    3 years ago
You really don't know the difference? You are amazing...

Then what is the point of protesting?  People rally and protest for some reason, don't they?

Protests have become organized events, too.   And I doubt the purpose of organizing a protest is to throw a block party or sell T-shirts. 

Al Sharpton's march on Washington last August was announced in advance as an organized event.  Wasn't that rally political?  Otherwise why was the rally held in Washington D.C.?  Why not New York or Chicago or Baltimore or Atlanta?  Sharpton's march on Washington is an example of a peaceful political rally organized independently from political organizations.  I haven't heard any complaints about Sharpton's rally.  Have you?

I don't see myself as the one displaying ignorance.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.31  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @3.1.26    3 years ago
And there is no shortage of some conservatives hating 'leftist' and producing bull patty they hope to 'carry the day' on faraway nuance situations around the country.

Just as there is no shortage of those on the political left hating the political right in an aggressive manner.

Liberals, in general, are not responsible and/or necessarily supportive of ever situation that spirals out of control in our society.

I think we have arrived at general agreement that vandalism, destruction, and violence for political purposes is unacceptable regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum.  Violence to achieve a political end is simply wrong.  Period.

That's common ground across the political spectrum.  The political left and political right agree that vandalism, destruction, and violence is an unacceptable form of political activity and is not protected by the Constitution.

You aren't advocating for the use of vandalism, destruction, and violence to achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner, are you?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.32  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.29    3 years ago

Okay. Apparently we are not done with this. The liberals who went to this mayor's house should not have gone. Maybe they can do an investigation, "Lessons Learned," or local/county commission to see what happened that has caused the unrest and the activist to activate.

What say you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.32    3 years ago

I say it is high time you addressed the article instead of whining about Trump on it. Kudos for that at least.

Of course the assholes shouldn't have gone and vandalized the mayor's house-no matter whatever it is they wanted.

Not much of an investigation needed--assholes went to mayor's house, assholes vandalized mayor's house.

Pretty much wraps it up.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.34  CB  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.31    3 years ago
I think we have arrived at general agreement that vandalism, destruction, and violence for political purposes is unacceptable regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum.  Violence to achieve a political end is simply wrong.  Period.
You aren't advocating for the use of vandalism, destruction, and violence to achieve a political end in an undemocratic manner, are you?

And yet it happens all too often. Politics often results in violence that makes the local news in bars, clubs, organizations, gangs, and yes-family units. Violence, that is striking out or striking back seems to be something people for varying reasons (or unreasonableness) people do as a first or usually 'last resort.'

We see it all the time. That said, I am not a violent person generally.

The question you ask above is moot.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.35  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.33    3 years ago

Alrighty then. I'm good if you are good. You good?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.35    3 years ago

You decide when you are done.

You don't decide for me.

Remember that in the future.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1.37  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.30    3 years ago
I don't see myself as the one displaying ignorance.

You are amazing...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.38  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.37    3 years ago
You are amazing...

Why, yes, I am.  Thank you for noticing.

Care to answer any of the amazing questions I've been posing?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.1.39  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.38    3 years ago

Oh, no! 

Your explanations are... too amazing...

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.40  Thomas  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.21    3 years ago

We seem to be having a problem with word definitions.

If the violence is intended to achieve a political purpose, the violence is, by definition, political violence, whomever the violence is perpetrated by or against. 

Violence is violence. In the words of Hari Seldon, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." All instances where violence is resorted to are unfortunate, because it means that dialog has not worked (or not been tried). Violence indicates a breakdown in communication. 

I think that you are drawing distinctions were none exist and not drawing distinctions were some should be. So, we need to define terms and agree on those definitions before we can go much further. Else, we will just be talking past each other.

Political violence : Political violence is violence which is perpetrated by people or governments in order to achieve political goals. Or Political violence is defined as hostile or aggressive acts motivated by a desire to affect change in the government.

Both of these definitions work for me. 

Rewriting my comment is dishonest.  

No, rewriting your comment is the only way it makes sense to me.

The political left is engaged in violence against a civilian population; that's not political violence.

Yes, it is. See the definitions above. 

If you want the violence against anyone to stop, you need to find out why that violence is happening. Just what do the people who are being violent hope to gain from the violence? In order to stop violence you need to have some other outlet for the people who are being violent and the best replacement is communication.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4  CB    3 years ago
Sacramento Homeless Seeking Shelter From Strom

This is the 'aftermath' decision following the incident you are 'reporting' on. Sorry, for the deaths and activity at the mayor's home.

Mayor's home pics:

1000-31.jpeg?resize=610%2C406

1000-29.jpeg?resize=610%2C407 1000-30.jpeg?resize=610%2C406

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4    3 years ago

Too bad those peaceful protesters didn't each take in a homeless person or two or three instead of choosing to engage in vandalism.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.1  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    3 years ago

Sounds presumptuous to me. BTW, have you taken in any homeless in your haven, village, town, community, city, or metropolis?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.2  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    3 years ago

For the record, California has "warming centers" and/or shelters for in-climate (deadly) weather conditions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.1.1    3 years ago
Sounds presumptuous to me. BTW, have you taken in any homeless in your haven, village, town, community, city, or metropolis?

Nope, I donate to certain charities that do however.

Also, I don't engage in vandalism when I don't get my way about things.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.4  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    3 years ago

@4.1.2

For the record, the reason there are state-sponsored California services is so that people are NOT prejudged and biased when trying to enter. The rules, whatever they are, land the same for everyone there.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.1.2    3 years ago
For the record, California has "warming centers" and/or shelters for in-climate (deadly) weather conditions.

As do other states.

Was that in dispute and I missed it or something?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.6  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    3 years ago

Thanks for sharing that about other states. I don't keep up with them, per se.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  Tessylo    3 years ago
"They’re angry, delusional and driven by disinformation. They consider violence a legitimate tool for pushing their fringe radical politics."
Sounds like the supporters of/and the former occupant of the White House.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
5.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tessylo @5    3 years ago
"They’re angry, delusional and driven by disinformation.''

The key may be the anger, more than the delusion. Without the anger, they wouldn't consider violence a legitimate option.

 
 

Who is online





95 visitors