444

The question before us was do they initiate violence? Libs here have asserted that they do because they are frequently involved in violence (without ever considering who dealt the first blow.) If being involved in violence makes one violent, then Martin Luther and his movement were violent … and so are victims of muggings.

1 Like
445

I don’t know who you’re referring to when you say “Libs”, but I’m asserting that the Proud Boys initiate violence because they do in fact initiate violence - not just because they’re “involved” in it.

446

where is your evidence that they initiate violence? Provocative is not initiating, it is baiting.

447

Yes, I have. In fact, you and I appear to be tied as the top posters in this thread.

But I’m not here to defend against your strawman “Libs”. I have made my position quite clear.

448

Sorry, I edited that post as you were responding.

But to your response, pointing out the position taken by you and the other libs in this thread is not a stawman, it is all right there for everyone to see. Libs have designated the Proud Boys as violent because they routinely defend themselves from violence. By that standard anyone who is physically attacked can potentially be called violent, even you.

449

It is a strawman, because as I have repeatedly stated in this thread, the Proud Boys are not “innocent bystanders” in this. They actively seek and instigate violence - it doesn’t just happen to them.

I can assure you that I have more actual experience with this than you, or anyone else here has. I have been present at numerous Proud Boy rallies. I have been assaulted by the Proud Boys. At no point did I “initiate” any violence against them.

450

History will forget Hillary. History won’t forget Trump. Right now I’d place him somewhere between Bill Clinton and Nixon. He still has plenty of time to match and surpass Nixon though.

Things Trump will be remembered for:

  1. Impeachment
  2. Questionable management of pandemic
  3. Tax cuts with marginal economy and extreme deficit
  4. Caustic personality

There are plenty of other things such as affair cover ups, Russian investigation, Twitter rants, border wall, poor leadership during civil unrest, but those will probably be overshadowed.

The real wildcard will be how the rest of his election loss plays out. My guess is he’ll continue to lash out and make a fool of himself and a mockery of the election process. Could easily be number one in the end.

The other wildcard is what happens after his presidency. With the amount of litigation and debt apparently awaiting him, that could also make it to the top spot.

Supporters will say how wrong I am and give their accolades. History remembers extremes. Trump has many easily identifiable negative extremes. He has no positive extremes.

1 Like
451

Nah. You go ahead and Prove to us that they don’t initiate violence.

452

No need to ask someone to prove a negative. Proud Boys have been proven to initiate violence by the courts and have served sentences. Examples in Oregon and New York were already given. The problem is people giving the Proud Boys a free pass, making a blanket statement such that any violence on the part of the Proud Boys is provoked and justified. People in this thread have already stated that if future violence were to occur, the Proud Boys will not be at fault under any circumstance.

2 Likes
453

Come on now. How is driving hundreds of miles, armed, specifically to confront protestors inciting violence? They’re just provoking the other people to get the Proud Boys and RW militias to shoot them with their guns. Come on man!

454

Your experience is better than the generalities, but even that does not rebut the notion that the PBs initiate violence. It may have been initiated against you from your perspective, but it very well could have been set off by one or more of them being assaulted by someone on your side of the fence.

455

Its too soon to say how they will be remembered or what for. And you are not qualified to predict it any more than I am.

1 Like
456

Well, they do. I’ve seen (and felt) it with my own eyes.

I was not on any “side of the fence”. I was present only as a spectator.

457

I never said that they haven’t. But your ilk has made the accusation that they’re an overtly violent group a centerpiece of your argument … with no evidence at all.

458

That some of them have been arrested and convicted in no way proves that they started the violence. All it means is that they were the arrested party … probably because they destroyed some ANTIFA attacker.

1 Like
459

Qualified to predict? Uh…sure.

460

Nope. They literally instigated things.

Oregon is a perfect example. Two Proud Boys in a car yelled at a pedestrian. The pedestrian yelled back, then the Proud Boys assaulted him. One of the Proud Boys then tried to flee the country and was arrested at the airport.

Let me guess, the victim was responsible because he shouldn’t have yelled back at the Proud Boys?

In NYC where you had 9 convictions or guilty pleas by Proud Boy members (none on the ANTIFA side) there was video evidence of instigation.

Let me guess, the video is inconclusive (even though it was literally the only thing used in court as ANTIFA members refused to testify) and it was ANTIFA’s fault.

This “Proud Boys are just innocent bystanders” schtick in the light of objective information to the contrary reeks of ulterior motive.

3 Likes
461

I assume there is a reason their emblem is a ■■■■

image

462

Yes … But you are certainly not qualified to know what historians will say about the politics of today. None of us are; not even the historians. They must wait until history moves on before they can analyze what it was in the past.

463

You are doing an awful lot of guessing there.