⚖ Proud Boys member Alan Swinney arrested on 12 charges

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThinkingSapien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that 19 of 20 cities with the highest murder rates are run by Democrat mayors.

I noticed that many of these cities are located in very solid Republican states. Why do cities tend to elect Democrat mayors even when they are pretty solidly Republican? Anyone know why?
 
The left as you like to call them aren’t producing these accusations ex-nihilo.

There is a basis to their claim.

There are white supremacists that are part of the Republican Party and I am particularly disturbed by the unwillingness of Trump to denounce the more radical elements of the Republican Party.
 
Pattylt said:
I noticed that many of these cities are located in very solid Republican states. Why do cities tend to elect Democrat mayors even when they are pretty solidly Republican? Anyone know why?
Click to expand...
That’s a question I’ve had myself. Here’s the political map for my home state from 2016. Note that 50% of the state’s population is within the cluster of blur areas closer to the northern part of the state.

It isn’t unusual for democrats to win the popular vote while not winning an election.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This book might have some answers.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Cities-L...eywords=why+cities+lose&qid=1601581069&sr=8-1

A prizewinning political scientist traces the origins of urban-rural political conflict and shows how geography shapes elections in America and beyond

Why is it so much easier for the Democratic Party to win the national popular vote than to build and maintain a majority in Congress? Why can Democrats sweep statewide offices in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan yet fail to take control of the same states’ legislatures? Many place exclusive blame on partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression. But as political scientist Jonathan A. Rodden demonstrates in Why Cities Lose , the left’s electoral challenges have deeper roots in economic and political geography.

In the late nineteenth century, support for the left began to cluster in cities among the industrial working class. Today, left-wing parties have become coalitions of diverse urban interest groups, from racial minorities to the creative class. These parties win big in urban districts but struggle to capture the suburban and rural seats necessary for legislative majorities. A bold new interpretation of today’s urban-rural political conflict, Why Cities Lose also points to electoral reforms that could address the left’s under-representation while reducing urban-rural polarization.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
Did you read the article in the OP? The Proud Boy was arrested for shooting paintballs that injured others, and pointing his gun into the crowd at a rally. (guns are not permitted at rallies, a condition of permits I think)
Click to expand...
If he did these things, he should be punished for it. Likely he did them and will be punished.
RidgeSprinter said:
Sounds like the FBI doing damage control on the earlier report a month ago of
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s true. The gist of the article seems to be that there was a conflict between what the sheriff’s office told the publication versus what the FBI told them. The latter was that the FBI had not classified the Proud Boys as any particular kind of group.
Pattylt said:
I noticed that many of these cities are located in very solid Republican states. Why do cities tend to elect Democrat mayors even when they are pretty solidly Republican? Anyone know why?
Click to expand...
Probably because the cities are Democrat. My state is like that. St. Louis and Kansas City are Democrat. The rest of the state is Republican except for Boone County where the U of Mo is. It’s not entirely an ethnic phenomenon, but very largely is.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
RidgeSprinter:
My only conclusion from this this is that he wants them to raise hell if he loses.
Click to expand...
You mean like Biden voters In Antifa and BLM have been doing for months, and he won’t even condemn them by name for months of violence, largely against people of color in our inner cities.
Click to expand...
This is worth a read:


A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.

Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database.
 
The urban/rural divide is older, more fundamental than the Republican/Democrat divide. When the parties develop, they start looking for support and align with urban or rural voters, and the rural folk become Republicans, the urban Democrats. The parties help the voters advocate for their particular issues, like farm policy in rural areas or environmental policies in the cities.(water quality, sewers, smog)
 
Theo520 said:
looks like that writer is ethically challenged.
Click to expand...
He was temporally challenged. The research was done before July 2020, the antifa murder, prominently labeled first of its kind, did not happen until August 29, 2020.

It is not hard to see why it was not included in his research.
 
Thbolt said:
Hmmm, you would think that the FBI would think they are an organization then.
Click to expand...
All they have to do is watch tv, or ask speakers whom they’ve canceled on campus with violence.
They may not be an organization in the proper sense, but they are organized, and they have funding, and they actually exist.
 
Dovekin said:
It is not hard to see why it was not included in his research.
Click to expand...
Plenty of other links,


And it’s a bit of a straw man to limit the analysis just to murder. Much of their violence is just below that bar. I’ll take a an attack by a paint ball gun any day over exploding gas cylinders 😉

 
Last edited:
this is 3 yrs old. It’s true their focus is on violence short of murder.

 
Theo520 said:
Plenty of other links,

Antifa's Deadly Year Shows the Extremism on the Far Left | Opinion
Click to expand...
I think you need to read your own link. The only one killed was the Antifa member. He may have attempted to kill someone, but as Sideshow Bob said, “They don’t give Nobel Prizes for attempted Chemistry.” And the incident had nothing to do with Antifa or its movement. It was over a custody battle for his own daughter. So far all you’ve got is the one incident on Sept 1, 2020.
And it’s a bit of a straw man to limit the analysis just to murder.
Click to expand...
If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to limit it to murder. The stats on right-wing violence were on murders only. Just to remind you, the count you need to equal is 329. If you want to move the goalpost, then you need to count all the right-wing incidents of harassment and threats of violence. I don’t know if there is any systematic count of that, but I can see why it would be advantageous for you to switch the discussion away from murders to something harder to count.
 
Last edited:
Thbolt said:
I guess the FBI is wrong then.
Click to expand...
Wrong if they think it is only an idea. Obviously, it is more than that, far more violent than that.
If you want to condemn some alt-right group that is violent, I’m not going to say it’s just an idea. I’m going to condemn their idea and actions. It isn’t just the violence. Some ideas should be condemned, too.
Communism
Fascism
Racism
Anti-semitism
Socialism

There are more. Ideas worthy of condemnation should be condemned, too.
 
That may be changing as the Democrats start moving to the suburbs if they haven’t already.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
If you want to condemn some alt-right group that is violent, I’m not going to say it’s just an idea. I’m going to condemn their idea and actions. It isn’t just the violence. Some ideas should be condemned, too.
Click to expand...
Do you think Trump was wrong to ask for the name of a specific group of white supremacists to condemn? CW tried to keep it to the vague “white supremacists”, but Biden offered a group. And when he was asked to condemn antifa, he started asking for a specific group, just as Trump had.
 
I guess the “new database” isn’t counting any of the deaths in 2020 at the hands of leftists who, I am sure, would characterize themselves as “anti-fascists”. Regardless, the FBI characterizes 49% of the killings as not right wing. Apparently they do not share the Guardian’s point of view.

The “329” killings by “white supremacists and other rightwing extremists” is not detailed in the article itself. But over half of them were the Oklahoma City bombing by one man, Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was a self-styled “anti-fascist”, “animal rights” meth-head, paranoid who cannot really be described as political in any meaningful sense.

As to the other 49% of “right wing extremists” who and what were they? Some, we know, were “incel” whose main thing is being anti-female, and whose exact politics, if any, aren’t part of their self-identification.

It really is a shame that so much anymore is political propaganda. It could be interesting or useful to know who the political killers really are. But in today’s climate it’s probably not possible to know very much because so many things are re-molded to serve as anti-Trump propaganda.
 
Dovekin said:
antifa, he started asking for a specific group, just as Trump had.
Click to expand...
No. He denied that Antifa was a group at all, and refused to respond otherwise.

Trump actually answered Wallace, but Wallace pursued him further, to which Biden added his voice. Trump seemed to think he had answered and acted as if he was being unnecessarily badgered, which he was. All of it turning the thing into chaos and an unseemly display. Since Wallace didn’t accept Trump’s answer, Trump asked what Wallace was asking for, specifically. Biden took over Wallace’s role and volunteered “Proud Boys”. Trump then said “stand down and stand by”. That’s assuming he was trying to respond to Biden or Wallace’s more general question. Trump says next day he was unfamiliar with Proud Boys.

Not the end of the world, of course, and to anti-Trumpers it would have been a delight. But to see a president of the U.S. hounded like that, and particularly by the purported moderator in concert with his opponent was, in my mind, disgusting. Wallace should have let it go after Trump answered, regardless how much Wallace wanted to drive him into some “gotcha” trap.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
This is worth a read:
Click to expand...
So are these.



I have no political kinship with racist or fascist groups. They embody the exact opposite philosophy that I hold. Individual rights inherent from our creator or by natural law, and limited government.
I do not feel an obligation to defend them. They are no different from the extremists like Antifa and BLM. I view all tyranny with contempt, all forms of identity politics with disgust.
Do you agree with me?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top