The Violence From The Left Thread

Quote: AZDuffman

Liberals here like to deny violence from the left, time to start noting it similar to The Election Fraud Thread which they also deny.

Bloody brawl breaks out as agitators protest TPUSA event at UC Berkeley in California

Berkeley, of course, is perhaps the most leftist place in the USA. But the "tolerant left" decided they did not want a permitted event they did not like to go forward.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: AZDuffman

Liberals here like to deny violence from the left, time to start noting it similar to The Election Fraud Thread which they also deny.

Bloody brawl breaks out as agitators protest TPUSA event at UC Berkeley in California

Berkeley, of course, is perhaps the most leftist place in the USA. But the "tolerant left" decided they did not want a permitted event they did not like to go forward.

From the guy who supports voting for criminals. YOU.

Quote: SOOPOO

By the way AZ, really poor 1st example of ‘violence from the left’. There are thousands of better examples you could have used. I’d have started with Kirk’s murder.

Quote: SOOPOO

When Letitia James gets convicted of mortgage fraud, will you say that disqualifies her from future public office?
When the plethora of low level Democrat lawmakers plead no contest to disorderly conduct, will you say that disqualifies them from future (or present!) public office.?

Your attack on AZ doesn’t pass muster. AZ has made it clear that he does not consider Trump a criminal, but rather the victim of Lawfare prosecutions. You know, kind of like what Trump is doing now!

By the way AZ, really poor 1st example of ‘violence from the left’. There are thousands of better examples you could have used. I’d have started with Kirk’s murder.

Quote: rxwine

First of all, THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF LAWFARE. There are all kinds of legal ways a case can be overturned. None of them apply to making Trump not a felon.

I don't care how many times someone says lawfare. So, second of all correct your own ignorance.

And I realize you probably don't follow all of my posts. But I've said over and over that if you can convict anyone of crimes, then convict. That includes all Democrats. I've never made an exception.

Furthermore, Trump also believes a bunch of things about being innocent. So, you dismiss facts because Trumps said so and Duffman also? Letica James will get whatever she gets, and that's the way it is.

Quote:

While the term "lawfare" is widely used in legal and political commentary to criticize legal actions as politically motivated, it is not a formal legal term used by a U.S. judge as the explicit legal basis for dismissing a case.
Judges dismiss cases based on established legal principles, rules, and procedures, such as lack of evidence, lack of jurisdiction, procedural errors, or failure to state a claim. The term "lawfare" describes a political or strategic phenomenon (the use of law as a weapon of warfare or political harassment), not a recognized legal standard or a specific motion for dismissal under U.S. law.
Discussions and news reports mention lawyers and politicians using the term to describe cases they believe are unfounded or politically motivated, but this is a characterization of the prosecution or lawsuit, not the legal reasoning provided in a judge's official ruling to dismiss. For instance, one U.S. judge's decision to dismiss a case was followed by a congressman issuing a statement claiming the ruling proved the "lawfare campaign" was failing, but the judge's actual legal opinion focused on statutory interpretation and the power of the purse, not the term "lawfare" itself.
In sum, a judge might dismiss a case for reasons that people outside the court might label "lawfare," but the term itself is political commentary and not the formal, legal ground for dismissal in a judicial opinion.

Quote: Gandler

What in the idiocy is this? 2 people were arrested, 1 wearing a MAGA hat and 1 unknown affiliation (probably safe to assume leftist?) They were fighting, and no confirmation on who started the fight?

Quote:

Yes, this is a prime example of leftist violence.... 2 drunk idiots got arrested for fistfighting at a packed college event, what even is the point here? And, some reports indicate the red hat doofus initiated physical contact (this is usually the case statistically...)

Quote:

There is violence from the left, it is less that the right. And, this is not a good example of any kind of political volence.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is pretty safe to assume the leftist started the fight. It is a regular thing of leftists on college campuses to disrupt events they do not like. It is unlikely a person doing the event would start, TPUSA is a peaceful group.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is exactly an example of leftist violence. See above on leftists and groups on campus they do not like.

Quote: AZDuffman

You keep claiming this, but the facts do not support you. Sorry, but it is 100% political. TPUSA giving a peaceful message just burns leftists up, they cannot handle being intellectually challenged.

Quote: Gandler

Disrupting events is different from throwing a first punch. If the leftist was protesting and making crude comments about Charlie Kirk or about his wife being pregnant or whatever people are saying now to trigger Charlie Kirk fanboys, and the MAGA person threw the first punch, that is right wing violence. Speech cannot provoke violence.




The only confirmed violence is two males in a fist fight. We don't know for sure that either of them are leftists.

Protesting an event is not violence.





TP does not intellectually challenge anyone, people don't like them because they promote backwards viewpoints (their organization is literally based on Christianity.)

The facts do support this. More people on the right commit confirmed political violence resulting in death of the victim than leftists. If you count Muslims groups as right-wing (I do,) the number is overwhelming for the right. Property damage, lootings, property crimes, etc .. are not violence by any ethical, legal, or commonly used phrase definition.... Only you think protests and looting are relevant when discussing violence (when they legally are not violence.)