😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
In under 1 minute they blame Jan 6 on Pelosi. You’ve got to try a new lie, dummy. This long ago debunked nonsense only flies with delusional cultists, it turns real Americans away from the “not my fault” party because we all know better. We’ve known better for years and years.
Disgraced Tucker!?! That’s your “news” source now? 🤦‍♂️ 😂 You’ll just believe any stupidity as long as there’s no evidence to back it up, won’t you?

As Speaker of the House, Pelosi does not direct the National Guard, neither did McConnel. Pelosi was not a chair or administrator of any committee supervising the Capitol Police at the time of the insurrection. Further, as the Capitol came under attack, she and the Senate Majority leader called for military assistance, including the National Guard. Trump overrode the request and no help came.

*lies
*debunked

Maybe if Republicans had cared to investigate they might know some facts, but nope, you wanted no investigation, no facts made public, definitely no trials. The republicans on the committee have debunked these, and a thousand other nonsense claims, and the maggots just ignore them.
Now Trump is lying again by claiming the entirety of the Jan 6 investigation has been erased, with no evidence or testimony available, nothing at all….another 100% lie, his lawyers are actually refusing to accept it because they don’t want to have to keep it in a SCIF away from Trump, who they know will immediately post snippets from it on social media despite court orders against it, likely getting him put in jail for contempt and adding more espionage charges.

Now the crimes you just deny are coming home to fuck your world, and I’m so here for every single second with a huge bag of kettle corn laughing my ass hole shut!

Where’s the rest of the footage that proves there was no violence at all and that all the brutal preplanned violence was perpetrated by BLM and the FBI to trick poor nonviolent innocent Trumpists into trying to lynch the vp and murder police? Where is it, Bob? Why’s disgraced Tucker hiding it and allowing hundreds of MAGgot convictions he could prevent?

You have to make a Hell of a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion. 1) that he has no camera. 2) that the victim/witness wouldn't be believed. 3) that physical evidence wouldn't prove it was a good shooting. 4) that there weren't other cameras.
It's possible, but not the most likely outcome. Abandoning a black woman leaving her to be murdered on camera is FAR more likely to spark riots and accusations that he would have stayed and protected a white woman.

Edit:police scanner traffic does provide some information. A dispatcher indicates that a man “pointed the gun at (a) mother and (a) father multiple times” and was in the stairwell when police were called.
It should not have been a surprise when the responding officer encountered a man with a gun.

3 people are killed by police every single day. There aren't riots every single day over it. It's not an honest position to claim every time a black man is shot by police it's cause for a riot. That's total nonsense intended to delegitimize a legitimate movement against inappropriate police violence...that's not ALL police violence. Sometimes police violence is necessary...just not >half the times it's used, and usually not to the extent (like shooting someone 142 times).

There's a middle ground between swat teams going in shooting over a nonviolent mental health call and a cop abandoning a victim to run like a coward from an armed attacker.

Maybe if he shot, but not to kill, outcomes could be better....or tried non lethal methods first. Maybe if he followed policy and didn't go to a domestic violence call alone. The one thing certain to not work is turning his back (probably making his vest useless) and running away from the victim and armed attacker. That put him at the most danger of being shot in the back and her being murdered, and it violated his oath, and it indicates black victims won't be protected.

In many cases last summer, there was no rioting, but still orders to disperse quickly followed with violence before any opportunity for the command to be heard by most, much less followed.

Portland excluded, most BLM marches, 97%?, had no violence at all, and half the 3% was violence against them...reportedly 1/2 of the remaining 1.5% was by opportunists not involved with the March but using it as cover for crimes. BLM isn't blameless, but they are targets more often than perpetrators. It's hardly fair to charge them with the violence perpetrated against them.

The reporters I watched be beaten were 1) asking police where they wanted him to go when beaten mercilessly and 2) sitting on the sidelines well back from any order to disperse given to a peaceful crowd and trying their hardest to comply as soon as they heard an order, punched in the face and bloodied and shoved hard repeatedly breaking their camera while offering zero obstruction and attempting compliance. I didn't see any intentionally refusing to follow orders.

I'm going by what their representative said. It wasn't over one person, it was over fear of accountability, because they cannot do that job without violating people's rights, they don't have the patience or restraint.

Portland isn't a BLM issue, it's what happens when outsiders take over a popular nonviolent protest.

Those are decent points, but have absolutely zero to do with the mass abandoning of their positions. It was 100% due to one of their own being charged after beating nonviolent protesters. They originally admitted exactly that, and now that they aren't being supported in their walkout, they are coming up with excuses that didn't matter to them the day before the officer was charged.

I think they should have to pay for the training and equipment they now refuse to use.

What are you talking about? You think budget cuts caused time off to be cancelled?! It costs double to not rotate in other officers, because you pay those on duty overtime, it doesn't make it cheaper. Budget cuts were not the issue when these cops were doing crowd control, only now that they're suddenly called to account for their own actions. No time off temporarily, because of extreme circumstances, was not an issue until one of their own was charged. It's certainly not abnormal, and absolutely not because of budget cuts, it costs more.

No prosecutions is the norm, if I recall, over 98% of charges levied at protesters have been dismissed nation wide, mostly because police had no evidence to back the charges they brought. You might note, as described in the article, "Mr. Schmidt immediately announced that he would focus on prosecuting cases of violence or vandalism; protesters who simply resisted arrest or refused to disperse after a police order would not necessarily be charged." They are taking a stand against anarchic violent protesters, but not the peaceful protesters with a legitimate gripe about violent, racist, deadly police acting as an anarchist gang that believes rules only apply to you, not them.

There are few prosecutions in large part because police declare riots when all participants are peaceful and not causing damage, and police are almost always the one's giving the orders to remove the people they declared "rioters", and in most cases they have zero evidence to back up their declarations, and are as violent as possible, beating peaceful videographers and reporters who were trapped and could not disperse, then charging them with refusal to disperse and resisting arrest, even violence against police for attacking police batons with their faces.
(Edit: remember the freeway shutdown when they marched on the freeway, and police blocked them from exiting or continuing while a second group of police came from behind, forcing them into a small fenced in area with no exit, then charged them all with refusal to disperse and the few that tried to disperse were charged with attacking police officers who blocked every escape route, violently attacking anyone trying to leave...all on live tv?)
Many peaceful protests became riots only after police moved in to violently disperse protests, fully 1/2 were riots because counter protesters and bad right wing actors like proud and boogaloo boys were planting bombs, shooting crowds, starting fires, driving through crowds, and murdering police in an effort to paint protesters as violent anarchists. That is verified fact directly from the DOJ investigation.

It's not a Portland only thing, police abandoning their communities because, as they indicated to the DA, "“It was like, ‘There’s our team and there’s their team, and you are on their team and you’re not on our team. And we’ve never had a D.A. not be on our team before,’” Police assume they are on a team against citizens, and won't do their jobs if, by doing them wrong with bias and malice, they might be prosecuted. They are used to immunity, and don't know how to do their jobs without it because they are abusers of power.

One day after charges were levied they quit in solidarity with the criminal abusive cop, and came up with fake excuses later.

You seem to have missed "the Justice Department said that the city’s Police Bureau was violating its own use-of-force policies during crowd-control operations, and that supervisors were not properly investigating complaints." part.

If YOU would like some truth......my source is the Department of Homeland Security, not a disgraced propaganda site.
Right wing domestic terrorism is the most dangerous issue in America today besides the Trump pandemic.



The Department of Homeland Security issued a warning Wednesday to alert the public about a growing risk of attacks by “ideologically-motivated violent extremists” agitated about President Biden’s inauguration and “perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”

DHS periodically issues such advisories through its National Terrorism Advisory System, but the warnings have typically been generated by elevated concerns about attacks by foreign governments or radical groups, not domestic extremists.

"violent riots have continued in recent days and we remain concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances and ideological causes fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence,” the statement read.

The most recent bulletins DHS has issued — both this month — warned the public about an elevated threat from Iran. No other bulletin in recent years has been issued to alert Americans about violence by domestic extremists.

“Throughout 2020, Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) targeted individuals with opposing views engaged in First Amendment-protected, nonviolent protest activity,” the bulletin states. “DVEs motivated by a range of issues, including anger over covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force have plotted and on occasion carried out attacks against government facilities.”

It added: “DHS is concerned these same drivers to violence will remain through early 2021 and some DVEs may be emboldened by the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. to target elected officials and government facilities.”

The new bulletin will remain in place through April 30.

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

Very analogous to Westboro Baptist "church" stooges. They (ab)use their constitutionally protected rights to free speech to say the most offensive and provocative crap that they can come up with, specifically with the intention to incite a (violent) reaction against them. Why? Because pretty much the entire Phelps family are lawyers, and they know that they can generally win any assault case that they can provoke people into. All that hate they spew boils down to a stupid, petty moneymaking scam.

Is the Seattle Nazi that devious and cunning? I doubt it. Probably just a crazy / fucked up guy, as Maher said. That doesn't excuse his fuckwittery, but it does reinforce Maher's argument that punching the guy is NOT the best response.

Morello is awesome, with RATM and Audioslave, and now Prophets of Rage, etc. But he's dead wrong on this issue, and comes across as a bit of an "internet tough guy". Outside of just ignoring them, I kinda think the only way to one-up these people is to know the law, what constitutes assault etc., and essentially beat them at their own game (ie. provoke them into doing something to you). On the other hand, there's something to be said for using using passive-aggressive snark to mock / humiliate them in a nonviolent way, ala the Foo Fighters:

not a surprising response as violence begets violence.

“The philosophy of nonviolence which I learned from Dr. Marin Luther King, Jr., during my involvement in the civil rights movement was first responsible for my change in diet…Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to nonviolence, and I was convinced that nonviolence meant opposition to killing in any form. I felt the commandment ‘Thou Salt not kill’ applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other – war, lynching, assassination, murder and the like – but in their practice of killing animals for food or sport. Animals suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain…the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life.” – Dick Gregory

Congratulations! Your video, The Shocking Move to Criminalize Nonviolent Protest, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 3 Badge!

Your video, The Shocking Move to Criminalize Nonviolent Protest, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I see your point, and mostly agree, except with the caveat that police only have the right to use REASONABLE and NECESSARY force, and that only when it's required to gain compliance. That was absolutely not the case here. I think that's why such quick action has been taken against him.

When an officer uses unreasonable and/or unnecessary force, they have gone from upholding the law to breaking it themselves. When they do it against children, particularly against calm, nonviolent children, they have become outrageous child abusers rather than peace officers, and should be treated as such. At least, that's how I see it.
Perhaps I'm biased because at 4 years old I was lifted by the neck and thrown clear across the room for saying "no" to an adult. Looking back at that, it was definitely child abuse, but it did teach me the lesson that if you defy authority, even if authority is 100% in the wrong, you'll pay a price. A lesson worth learning, but a terrible way to teach it.

I do agree, disregarding his lawful command was a crime. I don't see how it required any violence to remedy, and I'm given hope by the fact that the school board and police have seen his actions as completely undefendable and have already taken steps to ensure at least HE doesn't repeat them, at least not with the authority of a badge.

Here come the champions of nonviolence themselves! Raise a gun in toast and point it at a disabled person!

As always, commanding our respect with their good example.

Oh, but we got it wrong: We're supposed to respect them BEFORE they can respect us. How? Oh! You meant FEAR.

It's funny but the stereotype seems a bit off to me, I never thought of Jews as being nonviolent almost to a fault. They're quite good at kicking ass and taking names when they need to.

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, all cops uphold laws, many of which are simply unjust. For example, almost anything to do with the "war on drugs" makes criminals out of nonviolent offenders, ruining families, destroying lives. Cops also follow protocols that give them license to do what would land a civilian in jail, like shooting dogs at their discretion (the endless YouTube videos of this happening is nauseating). So, the profession itself involves doing things that, while "legal," are unethical and dangerous to the public.

Whatever good they may do -- bringing justice for victims and such -- is a separate issue from the not-so-good they do, like pursuing an immoral "war on drugs" that damages way too many innocent victims, destroys far too many lives, to be justified as "good." However good of a person someone is, the reality is that cops have a job that involves things like arresting and/or shooting people for victimless crimes.

The "accident" that happened in the situation in this article, for example (in which a police officer attempted to shoot a family's dog, but missed, thus killing a woman in front of her 4 year old child, instead) would never have happened if cops didn't have crazy protocols like shooting dogs at whim.

If any civilian had taken a shot at a neighbor's dog and killed the neighbor instead, however, no one would be dismissing it as an "accident." Why, then, should cops get a free pass on such things by simply claiming that their immoral and indefensible activity is "by the book?"

(Of course, the purpose of this comment is not to be hurtful to anyone. But to serve as a wake up call that police services in this country have been getting out of control, just like the rest of the state apparatus.)

As of 2014, there are more black Americans (African Americans) serving time in prison for nonviolent drug offenses than there were slaves in 1850.