White supremacists march through Philadelphia, get chased away by angry onlookers.

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  gsquared  •  3 months ago  •  177 comments

By:   Daniel Politi (Slate Magazine)

White supremacists march through Philadelphia, get chased away by angry onlookers.
Some 150 members of the Patriot Front took part in the demonstration late Saturday night.

The Neo-Fascist base of the Trumpist Republican Party took to the streets of Philadelphia on Saturday night, throwing smoke bombs, attacking citizens and chanting "the election was stolen".  Their hatred for America, the American people and the American way of life is open and obvious.  They are a menace to our society.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Around 150 white supremacists marched in front of Philadelphia City Hall late on Saturday night. The marchers were part of the Patriot Front, a known white supremacist group based in Texas, and they wore white face coverings while waving flags and shields. Some also carried signs that read "Reclaim America" and chanted "the election was stolen" while they marched. Police said none of the marchers were from Philadelphia.

It seems the white supremacists had their march cut short by angry onlookers who made their feelings clear about having white supremacists openly espousing their views on the streets of Philadelphia. The onlookers started yelling at the protesters and there were a few scuffles with the white supremacists. A witness said the marchers often tossed smoke bombs and then used that as a cover to hit and kick counterprotesters. Although police were present, they apparently didn't get really involved as counterprotesters and white supremacists traded blows.

Police said the onlookers eventually chased the white supremacists away. "They started engaging with citizens of Philadelphia, who were none too happy about what they were saying. These males felt threatened, and at one point somebody threw a smoke bomb to cover their retreat, and they literally ran away from the people of Philadelphia," police officer Michael Crum told local ABC affiliate WPVI. Police later pulled over the trucks the white supremacists were traveling in for safety reasons.

The Anti-Defamation League defines the Patriot Front as "a white supremacist group whose members maintain that their ancestors conquered America and bequeathed it solely to them." Patriot Front members are known to organize "localized flash mob demonstrations," which is what appears to have taken place in Philadelphia on Saturday night.

Even though the march didn't last long, experts who monitor extremist groups say it's troubling that such a large group of Patriot Front members descended on Philadelphia during a holiday weekend. They say it demonstrates how the group has become increasingly active in Pennsylvania and likely took to the streets in a bit to not only spread its message but also recruit new members. "It's like they're saying, 'We're here. We're nearby,'" Shira Goodman, the regional director of the Anti-Defamation League's Philadelphia chapter, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "The danger is always there. We know these groups have become more emboldened in recent years, and that things that have been in the shadows of the internet have come off-line."

 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
1  seeder  Gsquared    3 months ago

Neo-Fascist Trumpists took to the streets of Philadelphia Saturday night.   The people of Philadelphia chased them away.  The fascists must not be allowed to impose their dictatorship over our country.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @1    3 months ago

... and the trumpster klan picked philly for this stunt? like more proof of their ignorance is required.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago

They were celebrating their role in the founding on the 4th of July in Philadelphia. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago
and the trumpster klan picked philly for this stunt?

I for one do not put my trust in one person, but, in the majority of the American people as a whole.

Those who seek to destroy our democracy and America do not know yet who their true enemy is. The one that will surely see their end.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
1.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.2    3 months ago

Were now dealing with a large segment of conservatives that through Trump have embraced Neofascism.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.3    3 months ago
large segment of conservatives that through Trump have embraced Neofascism

Very true. Trump has made the Republican party the political enemy of America. That is not to say that ALL Republicans are like that, but, those that are have torn their party apart. And until the saner Republicans stand up and take back their party to the basics of their party, it will continue to fall from respectability. That will cause the Republicans that are true Americans, and not Putin ass kissers like Trump, to retake their party, or, create a new party based on the true values and beliefs of what was once the true Republican party.

And that day may not be too far away.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.3    3 months ago

Alleged 'conservatives'.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1    3 months ago

The gqp is now the Anti-America party.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @1    3 months ago

Nice to see there is at least some semblance of sanity somewhere in this country.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
1.4  arkpdx  replied to  Gsquared @1    3 months ago
Trumpists took to the streets of Philadelphia Saturday night. 

As long as they are peaceful they have every right to "take to the streets"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.4    3 months ago

Peaceful?  These thugs?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
1.4.2  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.4.1    3 months ago

They tend to be more peaceful than the BLM and antifa crowd. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 months ago

How many Trump signs and flags among them? Doubt it was zero. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    3 months ago

The MAGA bots chanted that, "The election was stolen."  Yeah, the election was stolen in 2016.  Everything the MAGAs claim happened in 2020 absolutely happened in 2016.  Except this time, in 2020 our INTEL was able to thwart most of it.  Fifteen million of Trump's 73 million votes in 2020 were fraudulent.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @3    3 months ago
Fifteen million of Trump's 73 million votes in 2020 were fraudulent.

Care to provide a credible source

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    3 months ago

what good would that do for birthers, teabags and Q-nuts?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    3 months ago

Helsinki.  Find out what happened behind those closed doors and you will know.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
3.1.3  bugsy  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1.2    3 months ago

You made the claim. Show us the proof, or are you just going to demand we show proof it isn't true?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @3.1.3    3 months ago
Show us the proof, or are you just going to demand we show proof it isn't true?

His personal lawyer has all the evidence. 

It's down here somewhere.....  Just a little more digging.....

33c7aaf1acdc99398a056a8e64b6824e3c-giuliani-borat.rsquare.w700.jpg

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
3.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.4    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @3.1.5    3 months ago
Do us all a favor and stop posting bullshit you can't prove.

I can prove it, it's just down a little deeper.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
3.1.7  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.6    3 months ago

So you can't

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
3.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.6    3 months ago

Then price it already. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @3.1.7    3 months ago
So you can't

Found a shirt tail, getting closer.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.9    3 months ago

Still hasn't found his balls, he gave them to trumpturd a long time ago

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
4  seeder  Gsquared    3 months ago

People need to get serious about what is going on in this country.  January 6th was a terrorist attack perpetrated by fascist extremists incited and led by Trump.  There is a continuum from the Oklahoma City bombing to Charlottesville to the January 6th insurrection.  Dylann Roof and other murderous thugs are related to this situation.  What happened in Philadelphia on Saturday night was another manifestation of the fascist threat.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
4.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Gsquared @4    3 months ago

We've seen Sinclair Lewis's statement countless times..... It bares repeating:

When fascism comes to America it will be "wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Now just what the hell will we do about it......?  In my mind, it will get evermore violent.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
4.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1    3 months ago

Now just what the hell will we do about it......?

Oh, maybe sic a bunch of BLM, Antifa, and illegal immigrant punks and thugs on them.

The sad thing is that so many supposedly educated and bright people buy into the paranoid hysteria about so called 'white supremacy ' and the fake 'fascism' propaganda bullshit

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
4.1.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.1    3 months ago

Well Greg, those whom align themselves with white supremacists and fascists, they are really challenged to see the problem they are a part of.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1    3 months ago

"Evermore" is a beautiful album by Taylor Swift.

As far as fascism.  My father was in The Normandy Invasion, second wave.  They killed or captured every fascist they came across.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.4  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.1    3 months ago

Of all the six hundred criminal traitors who have been arrested for violently trying to overthrow the United States of America on January 6th, how many were BLM or ANTIFA?

ANSWER - ZERO ZIP NADA NONE OF THEM!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @4.1.4    3 months ago

And exactly how many of those 600 have been charged with treason?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
4.1.6  bugsy  replied to  JBB @4.1.4    3 months ago

We've been through this several times before and you have never been able to show proof that every single arrested person was a Trump supporter.

You've made the claim so many times now, you probably actually believe it, so maybe now you can prove it?

(Not holding my breath)

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
4.1.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @4.1.6    3 months ago

How about all the trump flags, shirts, QAnon merch, etc? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    3 months ago
And exactly how many of those 600 have been charged with treason?

Doesn't matter, a majority of the time criminals are not charge with all possible crimes they committed. 

What was their own stated purpose for the Jan. 6th insurrection?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    3 months ago
And exactly how many of those 600 have been charged with treason?

Strawman. JBB didn't say a word about treason Tex. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.6    3 months ago
We've been through this several times before and you have never been able to show proof that every single arrested person was a Trump supporter.

You've made the claim so many times now, you probably actually believe it, so maybe now you can prove it?

(Not holding my breath)

Another strawman. JBB didn't say a fucking word about Trump supporters either. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
4.1.11  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.7    3 months ago

What about them?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
4.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.10    3 months ago
JBB didn't say a fucking word about Trump supporters either. 

Well, gee, Dulay, who the fuck do you think he was talking about? Little princesses in pink tutus? Of course he was talking about Trump supporters. Ever heard of context? Hell, I don't know how many times on here I've been told by a loon leftist on here to look at the context of a post.

I've also challenged him to prove every time he posts something similar and he has never been able to do it.

Maybe you can continue to be a part of his defense crew and show that proof?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.13  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.12    3 months ago
Well, gee, Dulay, who the fuck do you think he was talking about?

Well gee bugsy, it looks like you are assuming that 'all the six hundred criminal traitors' are Trump supports.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
4.1.14  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.1.13    3 months ago

Sorry, Dulay, I don't assume a fucking thing. [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.14    3 months ago
Sorry, Dulay, I don't assume a fucking thing.

Except that JBB is talking about Trump supporters. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.9    3 months ago

Oh, you want to play your little word games--again.

Is it at all reasonable to you that traitors would commit treason?

I would hope you could agree to that much, at least.

Because of this, of course:

Treason vs Traitor - What's the difference? | WikiDiff

Traitor   is a related term of   treason .

As nouns the difference between   treason   and   traitor

 is that  treason  is the crime of betraying one’s own country while  traitor  is one who violates his allegiance and betrays his/her country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.

As a verb   traitor   is

 to act the traitor toward; to betray; to deceive.

As a adjective   traitor   is

 traitorous.

And here is his exact words which I responded TO --which makes your claim of a strawman asinine at BEST :

Of all the six hundred criminal traitors who have been arrested for violently trying to overthrow the United States of America on January 6th, how many were BLM or ANTIFA? ANSWER - ZERO ZIP NADA NONE OF THEM!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @4.1.12    3 months ago
Ever heard of context? Hell, I don't know how many times on here I've been told by a loon leftist on here to look at the context of a post.

Apparently, context has a conservative bias.

ROFLMAO!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.16    3 months ago
As a verb   traitor   is  to act the traitor toward; to betray; to deceive.

As a adjective   traitor   is traitorous.

And here is his exact words which I responded  TO  --which makes your claim of a strawman asinine at  BEST  :

What's asinine is that you don't even seem to recognize that you posted definitions of 'traitor' that do NOT include a fucking thing about TREASON. 

Thanks so much for making my point that your comment was a strawman Tex. 

Oh and BTFW, in the sentence you quoted, the word 'traitor' is a NOUN! jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.18    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.19    3 months ago
Removed for context - sandy

Thanks for the 'I'm rubber, you're glue' reply Tex. Typical

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.20    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.21    3 months ago

Let's see how receptive YOU are Tex. 

Answer ONE simple yes or no question about English grammar. 

Is 'traitor' a NOUN in that sentence? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.22    3 months ago

I am not interested in childish little word games. You'll have to find another partner willing to put up with it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.8    3 months ago

Just because you call someone something has no relation as to what they actually are.

JBB called them traitors. Traitors commit treason. Where are any charges of treason?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.24    3 months ago
JBB called them traitors. Traitors commit treason.

Well gee Tex, your comment is just a childish little word game. 

Your own posted definitions prove that one can be a traitor without committing treason. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.25    3 months ago
is that  treason  is the crime of betraying one’s own country while  traitor  is one who violates his allegiance and betrays his/her country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.

I'll let others come to their own conclusions after reading this.

Treason is the crime that traitors are charged with.

Spin it all you want, the definition is pretty clear.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.26    3 months ago
I'll let others come to their own conclusions after reading this.

Why truncate it Tex? 

Let's read the statement from the beginning. 

As nouns the difference between treason and traitor

See the NOUN thingy there Tex? 

How about the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN part? 

Your own link states clearly that there is a DIFFERENCE between treason an traitor. So WHY THE FUCK do YOU continue to conflate the two NOUNS? 

is that  treason  is the crime of betraying one’s own country

Your source SHOULD have said that the betrayal has to be during a time of war which is the predicate for codifying it as a crime. 

while  traitor  is one who violates his allegiance and betrays his/her country

Or a person who betrays a friend, country, principle...

Treason is the crime that traitors are charged with.

One cannot be charged with treason UNLESS the US is at war Tex.

One can still be a traitor to their country in a time of peace. 

Spin it all you want, the definition is pretty clear.

I don't need to spin anything Tex. I just used YOUR spin to refute your posit. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.27    3 months ago

Spin, spin, spin!!!

2n9rm3.jpg2n9rm3.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.28    3 months ago

Sadly, that is the most clear comment you have posted. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.30  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.9    3 months ago

He did say there were traitors arrested. That means that treason was committed. So now either you or JBB can answer how many of the January 6 protesters were charged with treason?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.31  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.27    3 months ago
One cannot be charged with treason UNLESS the US is at war Tex.

Do show where it specifically says that it has to be in times of war please. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.32  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.30    3 months ago
That means that treason was committed.

No, NO it doesn't. I'd encourage you to look it up for yourself but I doubt you actually give a shit about facts. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.33  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.31    3 months ago
Do show where it specifically says that it has to be in times of war please. 

Look it up yourself. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.34  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.32    3 months ago

Do tell us how one can be a traitor without committing treason.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.35  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.34    3 months ago

Okay then, call them "insurrectionists" instead of traitors. Of the almost six hundred insurrectionists arrested for violent crimes during Trump's January 6th Insurrection against Congress, how many were BLM or ANTIFA? The answer is zero. None of those arrested were BLM or ANTIFA. Not even one...

Put that into your MAGA pipe and smoke it!

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.36  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.33    3 months ago

So like I thought, your making things up again. If you weren't you would not be telling people to look it up but would post the answer your self. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.29    3 months ago
Sadly, that is the most clear comment you have posted. 

Even sadder is it also is probably the only one that was fully understood.

Sometimes pictures are helpful to some.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.30    3 months ago

Logic is lost on this topic.

It is far easier to brand someone a traitor without proof, I guess.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.31    3 months ago
Do show where it specifically says that it has to be in times of war please.

He is unable to because it simply isn't true.

As we know, of course.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
4.1.40  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.38    3 months ago
It is far easier to brand someone a traitor without proof, I guess.

You do realize Tex, one can betray someone, and thus be-a-traitor without it being about a country. Trump beatraitor from day one, and his actions and words, incited others to betray US, and our rules of Law, and since you seem hell bent on this parsing of words thingy, lets see if we can't do

likewise, till doust to despies, cause i like this game, will see if parsing words , does not bring at least one of us shame, cause i have not much, and automatically i double clutch, in situations, and you'll be helped found, possibly a little frustration, cuz i N joy Almonds and Mounds of candy, whence i take from a big baby, baby, so c'mon and parse, cause i can't except , candy, from you baby i will deliver, till onions shed tears, crying over all the peeled back layers, asz u juke n jive like a Gal Sayers, saying not much n such, so i'll attempt to stay numb, from your touch, as i'll be a crutch, for your broken foot, that enjoys kicking habits and teeth, cause rated, Beyond Belief, cause who don't Luv themselves a little Miss Chief...?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.40    3 months ago

I refuse to read any more word salads.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
4.1.42  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.41    3 months ago

it's okay Tex, just toss em'

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.43  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.36    3 months ago
So like I thought, your making things up again.

You're wrong. 

If you weren't you would not be telling people to look it up but would post the answer your self. 

I encouraged you to do your own research and educate yourself. It would take you the same amount of time that it took you to post that comment. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
4.1.44  Bob Nelson  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.42    3 months ago

  That's awful! 

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.42    3 months ago

Naw, I just ignore it.

Life is too short to have to read nonsense.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.46  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.34    3 months ago
You're done. You're so done you should drop out of this thread. 
traitor
[ˈtrādər]
NOUN
  1. a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc..
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.47  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @4.1.35    3 months ago

There is nothing wrong with calling them traitors. 

Are people so lazy now they cant spend ten seconds looking up  a definition?

(Im not talking about you JBB. )

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
4.1.48  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.47    3 months ago
Are people so lazy now they cant spend ten seconds looking up a definition?

Partly laziness... but above all, they don't give a shit. 

Muddying the waters, making truth indistinguishable from lie, sabotaging logic and reason, ... These are not errors. They are intentional.

Ruining intelligent discussion is essential preparation for the Big Lie. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.39    3 months ago
He is unable to because it simply isn't true. As we know, of course.

I'm quite ABLE to Tex. I merely prefer to encourage you and yours to look it up and educate yourselves. 

Are you afraid to look up and read the statute for yourself because it will prove you woefully uninformed? 

At this point, if you don't look it up for yourself, you're not just woefully uninformed, you're also willfully uninformed. 

Oh and once you DO read it, I'm sure you'll come back and post a mea culpa. /s

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
4.1.50  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @4.1.49    3 months ago
At this point, if you don't look it up for yourself, you're not just woefully uninformed, you're also willfully uninformed. 

Being willfully uninformed is meritorious among Republicans American Fascists.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.51  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.46    3 months ago

According to the Constitution, Article III, section 3 ,clause 1,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

None of the January 6th protestors did any of that Actually it sounds more like the BLM rioters who's leaders claimed that they were going to burn this country down if they didn't get there way 

Also the official definion of a traitor is someone who commits treason. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.52  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.51    3 months ago

Also the official definion of a traitor is someone who commits treason. 

Which would include trumpturd and his mob and their failed coup on 1/6/21.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.53  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.52    3 months ago

Do tell what parts of Article III, section 3 clause 1 did they break?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
4.1.54  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.45    3 months ago
Life is too short to have to read nonsense.

as many of us oh so do understand

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.54    3 months ago

I will be willing to believe that when I see some evidence of it.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.56  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.55    3 months ago

Hey Tex, did you read 4.1.51? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.56    3 months ago

Sure did, which is why I am usually the one asking the yahoos who are bandying the words traitor and treason around, because they obviously don't have a fucking clue what either is.

Did you see where I provided the quotes you wanted?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.49    3 months ago

hey, I have no problem with people who don't know what treason is or what traitors are.

I can provide definitions, but I can't understand them for others.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.59  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.49    3 months ago
I'm quite ABLE to Tex.

I'll believe THAT when I see evidence of it.

I'm moving on.

Already did, which is why I know you couldn't provide proof for what you claimed. Which is evidenced by the fact you have failed to produce anything to support your claim.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.49    3 months ago
Are you afraid to look up and read the statute for yourself because it will prove you woefully uninformed? 

Not at all.

BTFW, perhaps you can tell the world what war America was fighting in 1795 when John Mitchell and Phillip Weigel were convicted of treason?

Or maybe you can tell the world what war America was fighting in 1799 when John Fries was convicted of treason??

I mean, according to you (not the LAW, of course) that treason can only be charged when the acts occur during war time. So please, explain these convictions---IF YOU CAN.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.61  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.59    3 months ago
I'm moving on.

Who are you block quoting there Tex? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.62  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.60    3 months ago
Not at all.

Then you should acknowledge that the statute n treason adheres quite closely to Article III, section 3 clause 1.  

Oh and perhaps you should try to understand the "shall consist only in levying War against them" part of Article III, section 3 clause 1.

Now, based on Article III, section 3 clause 1, how about YOU explain why you keep asking why none of the 1/6 insurrectionist have been charged with treason. 

Is it your posit that they violated Article III, section 3 clause 1?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.63  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.62    3 months ago

So you have nothing to say about the people I listed that were convicted of treason when we weren't at war, which kind of destroys your "claim" that treason can only be charged in wartime.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.64  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.63    3 months ago
So you have nothing to say about the people I listed that were convicted of treason when we weren't at war, which kind of destroys your "claim" that treason can only be charged in wartime.

How many times do your comments need to be proven obtuse Tex? 

Oh and I see that you failed to explain WHY you keep asking about charges of treason after it's been explained to you, more than once, that their actions do NOT qualify under the Constitution OR the statute.

It's also been proven to you that one can be a 'traitor' WITHOUT if having anything to do with treason. Yet you persist in denying that fact. 

BTW, WHO were you block quoting Tex? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.64    3 months ago

You claimed that treason could only be charged in times of war. I just debunked your false claim and proved it to you whether you choose to admit it or not.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.66  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.65    3 months ago
You claimed that treason could only be charged in times of war.

Please cite the comment from this seed Tex. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.67  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.66    3 months ago
One cannot be charged with treason UNLESS the US is at war Tex.

From your comment 4.1.27

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.68  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.67    3 months ago
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

From the Constitution. What part of that don't you understand? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.69  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.68    3 months ago

See the word "or" in there? It is quite possible to have enemies and not be at war. You as still wrong. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.70  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.68    3 months ago

WE understand it correctly, it is you who seemingly can't read it right.

Your claim was that it could only be charged in times of war That is FALSE, and i fucking proved it to you whether you ever admit it or not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.71  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.69    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.69    3 months ago
It is quite possible to have enemies and not be at war.

The meaning of the word ' enemy ' in this context is a nation in which we are engaged in war.

Time of war. Treason by aiding the enemy can't be committed during peacetime ; there must be an actual enemy for the traitor to aid. The requisite enemy designation typically requires a formal declaration of war.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.73  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.69    3 months ago
See the word "or" in there? It is quite possible to have enemies and not be at war. You as still wrong. 

Actually, the USC includes a LEGAL definition of 'enemy/enemies'. Care to educate yourself or do you need me to hold your hand? 

BTFW, while very few have actually been found guilty of treason, there have been Supreme Court cases of people charged with treason whose convictions were overturned specifically because the US was NOT 'at war'. An example of that is:

in which the court states

" an essential element therein is aid and comfort to ‘enemies’ and Germany did not become  a statutory enemy  until December 1941.” 

So while the defendant did indeed give 'aid and comfort' to Nazi Germany from 1933 - 1940, there was no evidence that he did so once we were 'at war' with Germany. While the US sure as hell opposed Nazi Germany from 1933 - 1940, the were not LEGALLY 'enemies' until war was declared. 

If you and yours insist on bandying about the Constitution, LEGAL terms and LEGAL charges based on United States Code of Laws, I suggest you invest the time to properly educate yourselves before you start flapping your gums. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.74  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.71    3 months ago
Not all of us can understand English.

Yet SOME can understand the LAW and both of you have proven that you don't. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.75  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.74    3 months ago

Your false claim that treason can only be charged in times of war has been thoroughly debunked.

Move on!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.76  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.75    3 months ago

Your comment is utterly delusional. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.77  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.76    3 months ago

Uh, huh, sure.

That must be why you couldn't answer my questions in post 4.1.60 and ignored it because it proved you wrong in your FASLE claim that we must be at war.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.78  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.77    3 months ago
Uh, huh, sure. That must be why you couldn't answer my questions in post 4.1.60 and ignored it because it proved you wrong in your FASLE claim that we must be at war.

I replied to that post and answered your questions by suggesting that you review the "shall consist only in levying War against them" part of Article III, section 3 clause 1" Tex. 

BTFW, YOU ignored MY question in that reply. Got an answer? 

Oh and I'm still wondering who the fuck you were block quoting because it sure as hell wasn't me. Though you DID state that YOU had moved on. Guess that was a FALSE claim. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.78    3 months ago

You didn't answer my questions.

Why fib?

I asked specifically for you to list what wars we were in when those people were convicted of treason.

You skipped over it because even YOU would end up having to admit that your claim that it had to be in wartime was FALSE, so why are you deflecting again???

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.80  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.78    3 months ago
Your source SHOULD have said that the betrayal has to be during a time of war which is the predicate for codifying it as a crime. 

There is YOUR FALSE CLAIM.

Own it, don't keep running from it.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.81  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.79    3 months ago
You didn't answer my questions.

Why fib?

I asked specifically for you to list what wars we were in when those people were convicted of treason.

Why continue posting OBTUSE comments Tex?

They were convicted of treason for 'levying War against' the US. The 'war we were in' was an 'insurgency' of THEIR own making. If you want to know what 'war' they 'levied', I suggest that you repeat the practice of looking it up and educate YOURSELF. 

Here, I'll give you a hint to get you started: The Whiskey Rebellion. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.82  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.81    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.80    3 months ago

Do you understand that treason (by aiding an enemy) cannot exist unless there is an enemy for the traitor to aid?   

Do you understand that in the context of treason, an enemy is defined as that with whom the USA is at war (whether or not officially declared)?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.84  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.80    3 months ago

What did the men that you cited DO Tex? Do you even know or care? 

It amazes me that right after you admit that you 'looked up' FACTS, you changed your position yet you seem incapable of doing so now. The men you named 'levied war' against the US causing a 'time of war'. For BOTH events, the POTUS sent troops to quell the insurrection, George Washington actually led the militia in the first instance. 

I can't explain it more provincially. If you don't get it by now, you never will. That's on YOU. Own it.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.85  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.82    3 months ago

Why post another obtuse comment Tex? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.86  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.84    3 months ago

We weren't at war when they were convicted of treason.

Which you claimed was a requirement.

Falsely, of course.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.86    3 months ago
We weren't at war when they were convicted of treason.

The trial and conviction does not have to take place while at war.   The crime of treason, however, can only be committed (the aiding part) by aiding an enemy which is defined as that with which the USA was at war (formal or informal).

Simply stated:  aiding treason can only be committed against an enemy and thus can only be committed during a time of war (formal or not).    The trial is another thing entirely.

This is basic stuff.   Why protest with nuh'uh rebuttals and similarly foolish comments?

You are dead wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.88  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.87    3 months ago

I know what the law is.

Thanks anyway.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.89  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.88    3 months ago

You clearly do not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.90  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.89    3 months ago

I do, and really don't give a shit if you think so or not--it is completely immaterial to me.

Perhaps you would be better served actually reading all the comments.

Dulay claimed the act HAD to occur during a time of war.

That is false.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.91  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.90    3 months ago
Dulay claimed the act HAD to occur during a time of war.

The act of treason (the aiding part) can only occur against an enemy and an enemy (as defined) is one with which the USA is at war (formal or informal).   Thus Dulay's comment is accurate.

You continue to just ignore this and pretend as though you are correct.

You are not;  you are wrong.   Pretending otherwise is foolish.

Note, the other form of treason (levying war against the USA) is where those committing treason are part of the enemy.   Same definition of enemy (i.e. formal or informal declaration).

You two can resolve this by simply agreeing that treason can only occur when there is an enemy and that enemy is either a nation with which we have formally or informally declared war or a nation or group that is levying war (even if not officially declared) against the USA.

If so, you will be agreeing on that which is true.    Give it a try.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.92  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.86    3 months ago
We weren't at war when they were convicted of treason.

Which you claimed was a requirement.

Falsely, of course.

You've block quoted my comment so you KNOW that is FALSE Tex. I said CHARGED. 

Secondly, unless and until you can get through your bias and recognize the FACTS of the cases that YOU cited, I can't help you and you've proven yourself unworthy of further explanation. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.93  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.91    3 months ago
If so, you will be agreeing on that which is true. 

I have been stating what is true all along. As you stated, Tex refuses to acknowledge that truth. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.94  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.88    3 months ago
I know what the law is. Thanks anyway.

Tex, I'm sure you know what the WORDS are but you have proven that you do NOT know what the law MEANS. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Masters Participates
4.1.95  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.1.92    3 months ago
You've block quoted my comment so you KNOW that is FALSE Tex. I said CHARGED. 

In order to convicted one must be charged first. Quit played word games. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.96  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.95    3 months ago
In order to convicted one must be charged first. 

Wow, that's some revelatory shit right there. /s

Quit played word games.

Quit posting obtuse bullshit. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
4.1.97  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.87    3 months ago
Why protest with nuh'uh rebuttals... 

Stirring the pot. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
4.1.98  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @4.1.92    3 months ago
I can't help you

You're still assuming good faith... 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.99  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @4.1.93    3 months ago
I have been stating what is true all along.

I know.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.100  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.97    3 months ago

I suspect it is more like Trump denying he lost the election.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.101  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @4.1.95    3 months ago
In order to convicted one must be charged first.

Yeah, arkpdx, that is correct.  Pointing out the obvious (as if someone made an error) shows that you are not following the logic.  The phases are commit charge convict.

One can be charged with treason for giving aid to an enemy and then be convicted of treason later after the enemy no longer is an enemy.   This may blow your mind, but one can even be charged with treason during peace time.   Here is how:

  1. USA has active enemy X (war)
  2. Treason committed by Fred with enemy X (war)
  3. X ceases to be an enemy of the USA (peace)
  4. Fred charged with treason he committed while X was an enemy (peace)

See how that works?   One can be charged and/or convicted of treason during peace time; but one cannot commit treason during peace time because peace time means there is no enemy with which to commit treason.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
5  Bob Nelson    3 months ago

The cops just stood and watched. 

Of course. The protesters were White. White people can do pretty much whatever they want. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Bob Nelson @5    3 months ago

If they had a permit to march and were not physically attacking someone, all LE could do is stand by and watch.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1    3 months ago

No permit. It was like a flash mob thingy. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @5.1.1    3 months ago

Then it should have been deemed an unlawful assembly and them being removed from the area.  It would appear that the locals took care of that though.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
5.2  dennis smith  replied to  Bob Nelson @5    3 months ago

Of course the protestors and rioters in dem run cities last year were huge majority of blacks. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6  Kavika     3 months ago
Some also carried signs that read "Reclaim America" and chanted "the election was stolen" while they marched.

Ya think they might be Trumpettes?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
6.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @6    3 months ago
"Reclaim America"

NAs?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
6.2  bbl-1  replied to  Kavika @6    3 months ago

Or Putinettes.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.1  JBB  replied to  bbl-1 @6.2    3 months ago

Vlad And The Putinettes opened for Ku Klux Donnie And The Klanners at CPAC...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
7  bugsy    3 months ago

Ooooooooooooo.

150 white supremacists. That's scary s/

Biggest threat to America my ass.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1  Hallux  replied to  bugsy @7    3 months ago
150 white supremacists.

In matching uniforms. My mother came of age in Thessaloniki, Greece during WWII, she would have feared them as reincarnated ghosts from the past far more than any present day Antifa/BLM crowd. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hallux @7.1    3 months ago

I bet your mom saw Hell up close and personal. I understand the Nazis committed many atrocities in Greece

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.1    3 months ago

The civil war that followed WWII in Greece was brutal. 

I would recommend the movie Eleni.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @7.1.2    3 months ago

Thanks! I always appreciate a recommendation for a historical film

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.1    3 months ago

That the Nazis did and were very careful to blame it on the Italians who were not boy scouts either. At the end of the war she was chased by the communists in the north to Athens were she met my father and he whisked her off to England and later here to Canada. Why did the communists chase her? She came from a wealthy family and German officers were billeted in her house which made her a sympathizer. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Kavika @7.1.2    3 months ago

Much of Eleni's story was my mother's also.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hallux @7.1.4    3 months ago

How horrible! She didn't choose to born to a wealthy family and it probably wasn't her idea to billet German soldiers

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.7  Hallux  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.6    3 months ago

You were not asked, you were told.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hallux @7.1.7    3 months ago

Yes, very sorry. You're right

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Kavika   replied to  Hallux @7.1.5    3 months ago

The stories that your mother could tell. 

In the 1980's and part of the 90s I spent a lot of time in the old Yugoslavia and in Greece. My wife and I rented a cabin from a greek couple that also owned a restaurant. We spent the best part of the two weeks discussing WWII the Greek Civil war and all things connected to it. We ate dinner every night in their home not the restaurant with their extended family. It was a time that I won't soon forget. 

The town was Tourlos just outside of Mykonos.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.10  Hallux  replied to  Kavika @7.1.9    3 months ago

As with most people who experienced WWII, my Dad fighting through N. Africa, into Sicily and then through Italy, both my parents only mentioned the very rare 'funny' moments. My Mom mostly about my Dad chasing her through Athens with a basket of melons and she running just fast enough for him to catch her. Her goal was to get the fuck out of Europe and he was her means.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.11  Hallux  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.8    3 months ago

Absolutely no reason to be sorry.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.12  Kavika   replied to  Hallux @7.1.10    3 months ago
My Mom mostly about my Dad chasing her through Athens with a basket of melons and she running just fast enough for him to catch her. Her goal was to get the fuck out of Europe and he was her means.

I love it.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
7.1.13  bugsy  replied to  Hallux @7.1    3 months ago
In matching uniforms

Sorry, but I see a ragtag group of idiots wearing khakis, some with pockets, some without, blue shirts, some long sleeve, some short, some carrying back packs and others wearing backpacks. Probably not a two of them wearing the same thing. Not exactly matching.

I know boy scout groups that had better uniform discipline then these guys.

Nothing to be afraid of here.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
7.1.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @7.1.12    3 months ago

Thank you all for a fun thread. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.15  Hallux  replied to  bugsy @7.1.13    3 months ago

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
7.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Hallux @7.1.15    3 months ago

Sorry, not uniforms, just a small group of idiots trying to look official. I'm curious...does cargo pants and blue shirts trigger some?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.17  Hallux  replied to  bugsy @7.1.16    3 months ago

In as much as black hoodies trigger others.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
7.1.18  bugsy  replied to  Hallux @7.1.17    3 months ago

Just depends on what those in the black hoodies are doing.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
7.1.19  dennis smith  replied to  Hallux @7.1    3 months ago

Opinion only

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
7.1.20  bugsy  replied to  dennis smith @7.1.19    3 months ago

So you are OK with BLM and ANTIFA burning and looting?

Sounds like you are.

Let me guess.

Whitey deserves it.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.1.21  Split Personality  replied to  bugsy @7.1.16    3 months ago

No but marching in uniforms, in formation,

with white masks, the same "uniform" hats, chanting some racist BS might trigger some.

The fact that every non flag bearer or banner bearer had a shield and bulging cargo pants pockets

apparently triggered even more people.

384

Did they have a permit to parade?  Apparently not.

They were trolls, nothing more or less and lucky to escape Philly in one piece.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8  Trout Giggles    3 months ago
It seems the white supremacists had their march cut short by angry onlookers who made their feelings clear about having white supremacists openly espousing their views on the streets of Philadelphia. The onlookers started yelling at the protesters and there were a few scuffles with the white supremacists. A witness said the marchers often tossed smoke bombs and then used that as a cover to hit and kick counterprotesters. Although police were present, they apparently didn't get really involved as counterprotesters and white supremacists traded blows. Police said the onlookers eventually chased the white supremacists away. "They started engaging with citizens of Philadelphia, who were none too happy about what they were saying. These males felt threatened, and at one point somebody threw a smoke bomb to cover their retreat, and they literally ran away from the people of Philadelphia," police officer Michael Crum told local ABC affiliate WPVI. Police later pulled over the trucks the white supremacists were traveling in for safety reasons.

So the big bad Texans ran away from the puny, squishy Yankees*, eh?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

*clarification in case for the sarcasm disabled: I knew a lot of tough Yankee boys growing up. They could kick ass and wouldn't bother with names later

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
8.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @8    3 months ago

Ever been to an Eagles Game ? Philly Fellows and Females, aren't to be messed with, Hell, we pelt Santa with Snow Ballz. A violent unruly bunch when need be, and this was a time where need be was warranted , imho

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.1    3 months ago

I grew up out side of Pittsburgh in a very rural area. But I did go to college with Eagles fans. I thought Steelers fans were bad....

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.1    3 months ago

No one was as bad as the Flyers or their fans.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
8.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.1    3 months ago

Philly fans are often considered to be among the worst in sports. I remember where a dude intentionally made himself puke beer all over a girl supporting the opposing team. She was like 12 years old. Philly fans in a nut shell lol. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1.4  JBB  replied to  Thrawn 31 @8.1.3    3 months ago

Nearly worst maybe, but a University of Oklahoma fan once ripped the scrotum off of a Texan for wearing a UT hat into a bar...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @8    3 months ago

They're all a bunch of pussies once confronted.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
9  seeder  Gsquared    3 months ago

Reading through the comments above, what is most notable is that the "conservatives"/right wing types are either in denial about, dismissive of and/or supportive of the very real threat posed by the white supremacists, neo-fascists, neo-Nazis and anti-government militias.  It's not a good look for them and clearly demonstrates why our democracy is in grave danger.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
9.1  pat wilson  replied to  Gsquared @9    3 months ago
our democracy is in grave danger.

It is and what's sad is that if we lose it it will be due to wide-spread, abysmal stupidity.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.1  dennis smith  replied to  pat wilson @9.1    3 months ago

It will all be due to Bidet, Calamity Hairless, Scummer and Pelostit

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @9.1.1    3 months ago

How mature!  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Kavika   replied to  dennis smith @9.1.1    3 months ago
It will all be due to Bidet, Calamity Hairless, Scummer and Pelostit

Sounds like the ranting of a [deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @9.1.1    3 months ago

Yet another comment from you that is devoid of reasoned commentary and is nothing more than childish name mangling.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
9.1.5  dennis smith  replied to  Kavika @9.1.3    3 months ago

Spoken like someone with [deleted]

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Participates
11  Colour Me Free    3 months ago

Reading the comments has been interesting ...

I do not agree with the ideology of the 'white supremist' ... not wild about anyone claiming they are superior to others - it does not take a white supremist or Neo Nazi to fit into the 'we are superior' category ..

Let us break this down .. in 2019 there were roughly 3k to 8k members of the KKK - in the '20s the membership were around 4 million strong, 25k of which marched on DC ... whereas there were roughly 500 to 600 tiki torch carrying jackasses in the most notorious supremacy gathering of our time .. Atom Waffen is somewhere around 80 to a 100 members .. there are supposedly 900 something hate groups in the US .. is that too many?  YES!

These groups have marched for multiple decades - were even marching in SC when the federate flag was banned and came down from the capitol building of that state [where was the opposition that day to their presence?].. did Trump 'embolden' said groups..?  perhaps .. but honestly by how much?  These groups of individuals have always been present, vote - have always voted .. it is nothing new that started in the 2016 election cycle..

The attention given to said groups is disproportionate to the influence these groups actually have - all the hype of how evil these groups are is a recruiting tool for the misunderstood and neglected among us - these individuals [young people] are seeking family, acceptance and understanding .. most have been bullied belittled and have no support at home, they become vulnerable to these groups just as the occult sucks so many more in than supremist groups do..

It comes down to the supremist marching in the street is less threatening than the supremist hiding in the shadows!

Rant rave and gnash teeth - I am just expressing my opinion on the subject - I will not be back to respond to any comments!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Dulay


28 visitors