Will Musk be the next Trump?

[L'Emmerdeur]

As for tactics, there are excitable boys and girls who'll do just about anything for a thrill. Regarding the Tesla vandalism, many have a political motive but for some mayhem is reason enough in itself.

It's only the left who will excuse political violence such as vandalism.

The insight there is breathtaking. When Trump gave blanket pardons to the entire lot who smashed their way into the Capitol and proceeded to smear shit on the walls, he showed what a leftist he is. You've outdone yourself with that one.

Some of them will even try to pretend that the 'BLM' riots were not the left.

It's like Schroedingers left!

You never know which side is violent, or what their real motives were

You've thoroughly demolished your imaginary feckless leftist interlocuter.

As for me, I don't deny that there are idiots on the left, just as there are on the right. Such an idiot might think it's clever to deny that the left broadly supports the concept of peaceful mass demonstrations. Which the vast majority of the BLM protests were, whether you're willing to acknowledge that or not.

As you say, some may for whatever reason disavow BLM, but in my opinion acknowledging the humanity of black people and demonstrating against police killing black people is certainly not anything to do with American conservatives. By default it's in the purview of the left, and always will be.

[Cunt]

As for tactics, there are excitable boys and girls who'll do just about anything for a thrill. Regarding the Tesla vandalism, many have a political motive but for some mayhem is reason enough in itself.

It's only the left who will excuse political violence such as vandalism.

The insight there is breathtaking. When Trump gave blanket pardons to the entire lot who smashed their way into the Capitol and proceeded to smear shit on the walls, he showed what a leftist he is. You've outdone yourself with that one.

It's probably a rational response to the J6 committee burning their evidence, then being given pardons.

Some of them will even try to pretend that the 'BLM' riots were not the left.

It's like Schroedingers left!

You never know which side is violent, or what their real motives were

You've thoroughly demolished your imaginary feckless leftist interlocuter.

As for me, I don't deny that there are idiots on the left, just as there are on the right. Such an idiot might think it's clever to deny that the left broadly supports the concept of peaceful mass demonstrations. Which the vast majority of the BLM protests were, whether you're willing to acknowledge that or not.

Peaceful mass demonstrations, eh? That's a fun way to frame it.

The insurance claims volume, or burning cities provide a different framing. As do the deaths and biased media coverage.

'Mostly Peaceful Protest' lol

As you say, some may for whatever reason disavow BLM, but in my opinion acknowledging the humanity of black people and demonstrating against police killing black people is certainly not anything to do with American conservatives. By default it's in the purview of the left, and always will be.

The acknowledging of humanity wasn't a problem. Nobody wanted police killings to increase. Who were they protesting against?

And more importantly, BLM got a HUGE pile of donations, and were publicly roasted for pissing it away on commie mansions ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... rutinized/ )

Surely the right, being motivated by destroying an organization (and slogan!) that deserved respect, are wrong here.

Care to say where all that money went? Did it hire more police officers of colour? Hospitals for victims of racial police shootings?

Or is the 'BLM = Buy Large Mansions' their legacy?

[L'Emmerdeur]

The insight there is breathtaking. When Trump gave blanket pardons to the entire lot who smashed their way into the Capitol and proceeded to smear shit on the walls, he showed what a leftist he is. You've outdone yourself with that one.

It's probably a rational response to the J6 committee burning their evidence, then being given pardons.

Your claim that 'only the left' excuses political violence is ridiculous and trying to deflect by parroting the Trumpist narrative about the January 6 committee doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

I know that Trump likes to claim that evidence was disappeared. He knows perfectly well that's a lie. Sensitive material has been archived and is not available to the public, in part to protect witnesses. See clause 3(b)(2) of House of Representatives Rule VII:

An investigative record that contains personal data relating to a specific living person (the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), an administrative record relating to personnel, or a record relating to a hearing that was closed under clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI shall be made available if it has been in existence for 50 years.

When the accusation of 'destroying or hiding' evidence was first made by the inveterate bozo Loudermilk it was promptly answered: The January 6 committee complied with Rule VII. It also issued a report of about 850 pages and voluminous associated material, including transcripts of interviews.

Later, Trump's lawyers filed a motion in which instead of claiming destruction of evidence they claimed 'certain records [of the January 6 committee] weren’t archived or transferred to the Committee on House Administration, such as video recordings of transcribed interviews, depositions and intelligence information. The Trump motion said he wanted "to determine if these records have been lost, destroyed, or altered."'

Note that in court where spouting lies doesn't work out so well, there was no positive claim that any records were actually destroyed or hidden. The judge denied the motion because it wasn't based on any actual information, called it a 'fishing expedition' in fact.

You could easily discover all this information yourself if you cared about the truth but instead you apparently prefer to regurgitate Trump's lies.

Some of them will even try to pretend that the 'BLM' riots were not the left.

It's like Schroedingers left!

You never know which side is violent, or what their real motives were

You've thoroughly demolished your imaginary feckless leftist interlocuter.

As for me, I don't deny that there are idiots on the left, just as there are on the right. Such an idiot might think it's clever to deny that the left broadly supports the concept of peaceful mass demonstrations. Which the vast majority of the BLM protests were, whether you're willing to acknowledge that or not.

Peaceful mass demonstrations, eh? That's a fun way to frame it.

The insurance claims volume, or burning cities provide a different framing. As do the deaths and biased media coverage.

'Mostly Peaceful Protest' lol

Two independent studies of the protests came back with remarkably similar results.

In [Crowd Counting Consortium] data collected from May 2020 to June 2021, 94% of protests involved no participant arrests, 97.9% involved no participant injuries, 98.6% involved no injuries to police, and 96.7% involved no property damage.

[source]

[Time period late May 2020 to early 2021.]

• Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.
• In the remaining 6%, it is not clear who instigated the violent or destructive activity. While some cases of violence or looting have been provoked by demonstrators, other events have escalated as a result of aggressive government action, intervention from right-wing groups or individual assailants, and car-ramming attacks.
• In contrast, demonstrations involving right-wing militias or militant social movements have turned violent or destructive over twice as often, or nearly 14% of the time.

[source]

As you say, some may for whatever reason disavow BLM, but in my opinion acknowledging the humanity of black people and demonstrating against police killing black people is certainly not anything to do with American conservatives. By default it's in the purview of the left, and always will be.

The acknowledging of humanity wasn't a problem. Nobody wanted police killings to increase. Who were they protesting against?

Feigned ignorance has always worked so well for you, hasn't it? If you don't even know what the protests were about why are you so sure you know anything at all about them? Taking you at your word, nothing you say has any basis in fact--you're just trolling.

And more importantly, BLM got a HUGE pile of donations, and were publicly roasted for pissing it away on commie mansions ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... rutinized/ )

Surely the right, being motivated by destroying an organization (and slogan!) that deserved respect, are wrong here.

Care to say where all that money went? Did it hire more police officers of colour? Hospitals for victims of racial police shootings?

Or is the 'BLM = Buy Large Mansions' their legacy?

I'm in agreement with you regarding the apparent greed of some of the people who claimed to represent the movement. It is indeed discrediting. Discrediting of those greedy people, not of the many thousands who demonstrated peacefully all across the country in protest of police disproportionally killing black people.

[Cunt]

Note that in court where spouting lies doesn't work out so well, there was no positive claim that any records were actually destroyed or hidden. The judge denied the motion because it wasn't based on any actual information, called it a 'fishing expedition' in fact.

You could easily discover all this information yourself if you cared about the truth but instead you apparently prefer to regurgitate Trump's lies.

I've been laughing at the media lies. Like 'insurrection'. How many insurrection convictions - oh right, they were all pardoned.

How many in the FOUR YEARS they kept hundreds locked up?

How about the police shooting during the fracas? That a 'good shoot'? Or more upsetting police violence?

Which the vast majority of the BLM protests were, whether you're willing to acknowledge that or not.

• Approximately 94% of all pro-BLM demonstrations have been peaceful, with 6% involving reports of violence, clashes with police, vandalism, looting, or other destructive activity.

We may have different interpretations of 'mostly peaceful'

Feigned ignorance has always worked so well for you, hasn't it? If you don't even know what the protests were about why are you so sure you know anything at all about them? Taking you at your word, nothing you say has any basis in fact--you're just trolling.

Not trolling at all. They were protesting against police. Wanted to 'defund the police' (though of course some politicians denied supporting it later)

The police were not doing the killing most people thought they were, but that's neither here nor there.

The riots were extremely damaging and accomplished little aside from that damage/destruction, and enormous public support/donations.

I'm in agreement with you regarding the apparent greed of some of the people who claimed to represent the movement. It is indeed discrediting. Discrediting of those greedy people, not of the many thousands who demonstrated peacefully all across the country in protest of police disproportionally killing black people.

The people donating to reduce police violence on people of colour were trying to achieve very positive things. What I was trying to see, is what did all that effort amount to?

Better race relations? Better police training? Or is the BLM legacy the Canadian former commie mansion and a huge uptick in insurance claims?

I don't think they will have any success they can acknowledge. Don't know why, but I think that kind of news, even if it exists, would not appeal to any of the newspeddlers. One would think it would be important to those who supported the charlattans, but I guess that's up to those who feel aggrieved.

[Brian Peacock]

... One would think it would be important to those who supported the charlattans, but I guess that's up to those who feel aggrieved.

L'Emmy said that those who made a personal profit from BLM donations were a discredit to the 10s of 1000s who went out on the street during the global pandemic to protest the police's historic mistreatment of non-white citizens. Protests which started spontaneously around the world after a man, who was not resisting arrest, was filmed being summarily executed on the street by a cop in broad daylight. So who is it exactly who's not thinking that isn't important? It can only be the people who actually took to the streets, right? Every single one if them.

But do you really believe that? That where some of the donations ended up should be the most important thing we consider when thinking about the protests; that because some people personally gained financially then the concerns of, and the solidarity shown by, all those people on the streets raising their fists and chanting 'black lives matter' are less important, unimportant, or even illegitimate and fundamentally wrong?

This question should help you focus in on what you're actually trying to say, so a straight answer would be much appreciated.

[Tero]

Musk hates liberals now. It was fine when we funded electric cars. But above all he hates Xavier.
https://www.threads.net/@brittainforsen ... wMh7U-rxVQ
Vivian Jenna Wilson
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/xa ... 07345.html

[Cunt]

... One would think it would be important to those who supported the charlattans, but I guess that's up to those who feel aggrieved.

L'Emmy said that those who made a personal profit from BLM donations were a discredit to the 10s of 1000s who went out on the street during the global pandemic

RIGHT - I forgot about that.

Everyone was under house arrest because virus, but those protests were ok because social justice. lol

to protest the police's historic mistreatment of non-white citizens. Protests which started spontaneously around the world after a man, who was not resisting arrest, was filmed being summarily executed on the street by a cop in broad daylight.

That sounds like the words of a man who didn't know what happened during the arrest, but instead was informed completely by a trial. Or perhaps reports on a trial by a few sincere authors.

So who is it exactly who's not thinking that isn't important? It can only be the people who actually took to the streets, right? Every single one if them.

Who's thinking that it isn't important? Those who donated, but don't express an interest in where their money went, I guess. Plus those people who were rioting, burning or looting rather than protesting.

But do you really believe that? That where some of the donations ended up should be the most important thing we consider when thinking about the protests; that because some people personally gained financially then the concerns of, and the solidarity shown by, all those people on the streets raising their fists and chanting 'black lives matter' are less important, unimportant, or even illegitimate and fundamentally wrong?

This question should help you focus in on what you're actually trying to say, so a straight answer would be much appreciated.

Straight answer to someone who doesn't understand the real disagreements between the two sides? Gee, do you have a straight question?

I've got one - who first verbalized that Floyd should be on the ground?

Do you know of any difference between the two autopsies?

Best of all, do you know what was said about Chauvins racism by the prosecutors during the trial?

[Tero]

[Brian Peacock]

... One would think it would be important to those who supported the charlattans, but I guess that's up to those who feel aggrieved.

L'Emmy said that those who made a personal profit from BLM donations were a discredit to the 10s of 1000s who went out on the street during the global pandemic

RIGHT - I forgot about that.

Everyone was under house arrest because virus, but those protests were ok because social justice. lol

to protest the police's historic mistreatment of non-white citizens. Protests which started spontaneously around the world after a man, who was not resisting arrest, was filmed being summarily executed on the street by a cop in broad daylight.

That sounds like the words of a man who didn't know what happened during the arrest, but instead was informed completely by a trial. Or perhaps reports on a trial by a few sincere authors.

So who is it exactly who's not thinking that isn't important? It can only be the people who actually took to the streets, right? Every single one if them.

Who's thinking that it isn't important? Those who donated, but don't express an interest in where their money went, I guess. Plus those people who were rioting, burning or looting rather than protesting.

But do you really believe that? That where some of the donations ended up should be the most important thing we consider when thinking about the protests; that because some people personally gained financially then the concerns of, and the solidarity shown by, all those people on the streets raising their fists and chanting 'black lives matter' are less important, unimportant, or even illegitimate and fundamentally wrong?

This question should help you focus in on what you're actually trying to say, so a straight answer would be much appreciated.

Straight answer to someone who doesn't understand the real disagreements between the two sides? Gee, do you have a straight question?

I've got one - who first verbalized that Floyd should be on the ground?

Do you know of any difference between the two autopsies?

Best of all, do you know what was said about Chauvins racism by the prosecutors during the trial?

Coward.

[Cunt]

is that your way of bowing out because you didn't like the questions? I'll stop asking you. Sorry BP

[Brian Peacock]

Nah. It was a comment on your lack of response.

[Tero]

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/smea ... l-security

[Cunt]

Nah. It was a comment on your lack of response.

That's funny. I'll retract the questions anyway.

Plus, I've instructed my autopen to issue you a pardon for calling me a coward for avoiding questions, while you do the same.

[Cunt]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1904065163407368212

The legacy media never mentions white genocide in South Africa, because it doesn’t fit their narrative that whites can be victims

Will legacy media defend the 'Kill the boer' songs? Or is that too far even for them?

[Cunt]

Is someone drumming up a bunch of tesla sales among republicans?

The tesla terrorism seems to be making some people start liking electric cars...maybe I'm a bit cynical...