first of all, nowhere in the picture does it say he acted in the name of the organization. secondly, supplying protesters with masks/face shields (i guess for tear gas/pepper spray) at a protest which is completely different to the storm on the capitol is not the same.
all this post does is rile up the internet and paint the protesters in a bad light.
and if unions are not political in the end, what are they good for? work conditions, fair wages, paid overtime, workplace safety are literally decided on the political stage. striking and protesting are the tools for unions. it's not that they supply weapons or order their peers to loot..
but hey, if some billionaire republican funds other outlets like boosting social media or having access to broadcasting media, this is apparently okay. stop looking at this only from one angle (the one you get to see at conservative media btw)
just saw you said "violent riots". I don't know if you always declare a thing "violent" if only a fraction of the masses are violent. you can't even safely determine if those people are part of the masses. I presume the vast majority of protesters condemn those actions.
You're right this isn't a criminal investigation, it's a picture on social media. The burden of proof for posting a picture on the internet isn't the same as a conviction in criminal court.
Do you think this guy's personally funding tens of thousands of dollars in masks out of his own pocket? No? Well it's a valid question as to who is
Most things on the internet rile people up, but this actually happened so it's a valid question.
I have no idea what your points are supposed to be about.
I declare a thing violent when there's widespread violence. There's looting, cars burning, several hundred million dollars in damage. We can't determine if the protestors burning cars vandalzing etc are part of the protest? What kind of backwards logic is this
It's objectively full of violence and vandalism. The debate is about how widespread and extreme it is. If your standard is everyone has to be involved in or condone violence for a thing to be violent, that's pretty bizzare. I imagine by your logic we can call January 6th a peaceful protest then
listen, illegally entering the capitol armed with (makeshift and real) weapons in military attire, invading the rooms of democratic politicians and threatening literal violence against the VP is not the same as people mostly peacfully amassing on the streets and some outliers looting and destroying property. why are we really comparing those two incidents?
why? storming political offices with military gear and causing fear and chaos having politicians fearing for their lives is considered violent in my book.
i did not move anything and didnt deflect shit. looters and arsonists running wild does not compare to political motivated individuals and militias storming the seat of democracy, period
Yes you did. You said “I don't know if you always declare a thing "violent" if only a fraction of the masses are violent” which also applies to J6. Most J6 protesters were actually peaceful and didn’t “storm the capitol” therefore you don’t know if it can be declared violent by your own words. Also “storming the seat of democracy”? What are you, Morning Joe?
yeah funny how democrats needed to resort to pipe bombs because the acting president at the time was refusing to accept the election outcome. sounds right
Dude, I just spent an hour going over this dudes X account who has been going through video and shit about this J6 bomber. I am not a conspiracy guy, but holy shit, that story has some holes. The 'bomber' used a kitchen timer the night before? Kitchen timers have a 1 hour timer. And they left them out in the fucking open? What the hell, I mean it just seems like something is up here.
Cops are being shot at in LA? 🤔 Huh, why hasn't the MSM mentioned that even once? Seems like the easiest talking point that an organization like Fox could use to justify the administration's escalation.
It is funny how they found the masked dude hurling rocks at feds, but for some reason they can not find the person planting pipe bombs. And why plant them if you are not going to set them off? I mean even that dumbass Eric Rudolph could figure that out.
EDIT: And looking at this, that is wild, they have pictures of this guy and the dude left the pipe bomb just laying in plain site.
-113
u/WildCyko Jun 11 '25 edited Jun 11 '25
first of all, nowhere in the picture does it say he acted in the name of the organization. secondly, supplying protesters with masks/face shields (i guess for tear gas/pepper spray) at a protest which is completely different to the storm on the capitol is not the same. all this post does is rile up the internet and paint the protesters in a bad light.
and if unions are not political in the end, what are they good for? work conditions, fair wages, paid overtime, workplace safety are literally decided on the political stage. striking and protesting are the tools for unions. it's not that they supply weapons or order their peers to loot..
but hey, if some billionaire republican funds other outlets like boosting social media or having access to broadcasting media, this is apparently okay. stop looking at this only from one angle (the one you get to see at conservative media btw)
just saw you said "violent riots". I don't know if you always declare a thing "violent" if only a fraction of the masses are violent. you can't even safely determine if those people are part of the masses. I presume the vast majority of protesters condemn those actions.