Select Page

Both sides need to stop the political violence bs

Both sides need to stop the political violence bs

President Trump recently used the word “bloodbath” if he does not win the November presidential election.   Ever since January 6, 2021, Democrats have been predicting political violence from Trump supporters.

While Team Trump says that the use of “bloodbath” was only an expression used in terms of the impact on the auto industry if he does not win.  As with so much of Trump’s language, its pugnacious nature is easily open to interpretation.  For more than three years, warnings of rightwing violence have been a mainstay in the Democrats’ political narrative.

Despite the Democrats crying wolf about pending violence coming from the right – and despite Trump’s maladroit and provocative language – there has been little evidence to support claims of pending violence.  In fact, considering the emotional character of the 2024 campaigns, there has been amazingly little political violence.

If we look at political violence from a historical perspective, we will see periods of political violence far surpassing anything we see today.  There is the Civil War, of course.  But we can also see the labor-related violence of the early Twentieth Century.

And then we have the 1960s – the worst era of political violence since the Civil War.  In that decade alone, we suffered the assassinations of a President … a senator and presidential candidate … and the most important civil rights leader of the era.  Another presidential candidate was shot and crippled. 

Anti-war forces carried out bombings in a number of cities.  Large swaths of America’s ghettoes were torched in violent and deadly riots.  The National Guard had to be called out on a regular basis in one city after another.  A rioting student was shot and killed during a protest on a college campus.  The Democratic National Convention was held under siege in Chicago, with protestors and police violently clashing on the streets.

In the decades that followed, there were two assassination attempts on President Ford and President Reagan was seriously wounded in yet another.  The mayor of San Francisco and a city supervisor were assassinated.

By comparison, the first quarter of the Twenty-First Century has been remarkably devoid of political violence.  The single most violent political event was the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill.  This despite repeated – and baseless — warnings and predictions from Democrats that supporters of President Trump were gearing up for a violent takeover of the government.

All their wolf-crying predictions of specific violence failed to materialize.  You will recall how they predicted an outbreak of violence at the Capitol and around the country on the first anniversary of the Capitol Hill riot.  Unlike January 6, 2021, predictions of violence on the anniversary had House Speaker Pelosi calling for the National Guard and building a perimeter fence around the Capitol.  And what happened?  Nothing.  Approximately 200 people appeared on the Capitol grounds – with a permit – gave a few speeches and went home. No violence.

Again Democrats – with the help of their media allies – had spread the fear of violent eruptions if Trump was indicted. Trump, himself, suggested that possibility.  And again … nothing happened.  There was hardly even a notable level of protest – other than a few folks who gathered outside Mar-a-Lago.

With Democrats pushing the violent uprising so hard, you might expect the leftwingers in Hollywood to chime in – and you would be right.  It is a movie titled “Civil War” – a fictional account of a civil war that breaks out after the assassination of the President.

Los Angeles film critic Scott Mantz appeared on CNN with Abby Phillips to promote the movie.  Mantz gave it his highest praise – and tied it to the political situation today.  He connected the move with the current presidential campaign.   He said such a civil war in America is “plausible,” and that it “could happen” as soon as this November.  Both Mantz and Phillips proffered the notion that America is already “close to the brink of civil war.”  

At times, it has been difficult to discern if Democrats and the leftwing media were predicting violence or hoping to encourage it.  And one would be sorely mistaken if you think Trump’s bellicose language – bad as it can get — is a precursor to political violence. 

The Democrats’ and Trump’s language may be seen as reckless.  But if you monitor the pulse of the public – and examine the recent history — there is no evident interest in taking up pitchforks and torches now or in the future – whether Trump wins or loses.

Democrats and Trump would be better served – as would the American people – if they stop making baseless predictions of violence or gratuitously using provocative language.

We are not on the verge of pervasive political violence – and most certainly not a Civil War. Be calm.  The Republic is safe and secure.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

24 Comments

  1. Warren hylton

    The left keeps stirring the pot.

    Reply
  2. FRANK STETSON

    From my reading:

    – political violence, after a dip, is increasing, more from the right than the left
    = it’s shifting to “grabbag” violence rather than from large groups in protests
    – acceptance of political violence, especially against oponents is at an all-time high
    – if Trump loses, he has said it will be a bloodbath, if he wins he promises to be dictator-for-a-day for revenge and retribution
    = threats of violence are even posted, and allowed apparently, on PBP

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … Glad you noted that our post is from your reading. Yes … I have read those reports. You accept those narratives at face value. The commentary calls for objective thinking. Where is the hard evidence of all this massive violence? The American people are very divided — and the language can reflect that — but where is all that violence. You seem to mistake speech for violence — even figures of speech are seen as literal by snowflakes and those pushing the false narrative of pervasive violence. To make the case for violence, those on the left — no strangers to real political violence — convert words to violence. THAT is dangerous because their solution is to ban free speech. We already have laws against slander and inciting riots — and even disturbing the peace. And what is “grabbag” violence? The mobs running through stores grabbing the latest Louis Vuitton handbags? LOL Minimally, violence should involve physical contact, injury, death or destruction. It is best understood in the old saying that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” It is a child’s refrain, but does explain the difference between violence and speech – something you on the left are trying politicize as a means of control. Words only hurt those who see themselves as the victims. You got your undies in a bunch when Charles Barkley said he would punch a Black person wearing a Trump t-shirt. That is NOT violence. Just words. Just a figure of speech. Same with Trump using he word “bloodbath.” Same as when Mike f saying he would like to meet me and punch me. Just words. Soooo … where is all that REAL violence that we hear about in media reports? That was the point of the commentary. Your rebuttal does not answer that. It is …. just words.

      Reply
  3. James Mcdonald

    I agree with the author’s comparison of the 21st century to the 60s. The Activist vs. the Reactionary in American life was totally identified in the 1960s and 1970s. The Activist was due to the loss of faith in the American leadership surrounding the Vietnam debacle. In no other time in history had America been drawn into a long, drawn out, boondoggle of conflict caused by incompetent leadership. The “Guns And Butter” leadership under LBJ, and it’s continuation under Nixon (Due in part to the American habit of “Stay the course” of previous leaderships) created a massive reaction to the embedded leadership. (Known as the Inside the Beltway Mindset). We devolved to two separate nations. One “In the Know” and one “Outside the beltway”. I disagree with Frank’s belief that the “Right” is becoming more violent. The Leftist violence has receded with the Biden administration, and the right (Or reactionary) has only given mild response. With the single exception of Trump. Who is first and last a creature of the Media. There is no filter between his mind and his mouth. And he has a typical New Yorker talent for saying the most abusive form of any opinion he has. And the Media loves it. Which is why the Image of rebellion is far more widespread than the Facts of rebellion. I don’t see Armed conflict becoming widespread except in strongholds of California and New York. I do see armed reactions in places like Cur’d Lane, Idaho, where BLM protesters were met throughout the town by quiet, peaceful, and Fully Armed Townsfolk. There was no Bloodbath due to the quiet but ready visible townsfolk, and the BLM Reloaded their busses and moved on. “Nothing to see. Nothing to show on the National scene”
    I predict that When Biden Loses, the law fare will step up a lot, and the charges and counter charges will intensify in the press. But the American reaction will be subdued. Because most of America is Jason Alden’s story. No Major Press coverage.

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      James McDonald … Nice post. I would only make one observation. It was Nixon who campaigned on pulling us out of Vietnam — and he did.

      Reply
  4. Patrick Joseph King

    These remarks are pretty disingenuous. The January 6th Insurrection was the CULMINATION of four years of posturing and political violence, far from the “single most violent political event.” Are you just dismissing Charlottesville and the murder of Heather Heyer? How about Cesar Altieri Sayoc and his pipe bombs mailed to prominent Democrats in October of 2018? Consider the El Paso Walmart shooting in which 23 people died in 2019 at the hands of Patrick Crusius with his anti-immigrant manifesto, all Trump inspired rhetoric. I could go on for quite some time citing violence from Trump supporters during his four years in office. There’s nothing “crying wolf” about this. Trump’s supporters have, by and large, shown themselves to be obsessed and maniacal. These people do not acknowledge that any other opinion except their own has any validity and they certainly think they have the right to kill people who don’t agree with them. Far from “crying wolf,” if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck!

    Reply
    • Harold blankenship

      Who said that republicans did the shooting st Walmart Or mailed anything to anyone? The left has been known to do shit and blame republicans. Shall we talk about the so called antifa thugs and the violent bastards looting and burning during the riots? Don’t try this in a small town.

      Reply
    • Tom

      Amen!!! Good writing Patrick!

      Reply
    • larry Horist

      Patrick Joseph King … I am not defending the guy, but your ARE referencing a nut case who sent “bombs” there were never intended to explode –and never did. You forget about the leftwing Unabomber whose bombs actual exploding maiming and killing people. I have expressed my opinion in the past that I believe that the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans are good people. So your broad-brush smear suggests hyper partisanship. Stereotyping of any kind is not the mark of an intelligent person.

      Reply
  5. Richard

    Stop the steal

    Reply
  6. Tom

    This article is rated at Stop the Spin STS-3. Here’s why:

    1) Larry’s definition of violence is very monolithic, but he has been consistent in his limited narrow minded thinking. He does not consider communicating threats to be violence, yet in NC, and I am sure in many other states, “communicating a threat” is considered violence and can get you jail time. Forms of communicating a threat that can land you in jail are: Verbally, In writing, Electronically, Through a third party, and Non-verbal body language.

    2) Emotional abuse is also a form of violence but Larry says not. He makes the victim the problem, not the abuser – and Larry has bragged about abusing a lady in a blog response and how she was the one with the problem, not him.

    3) Larry might do well to read his own state’s (Florida) A. Section 836.05 – Threats to Kill or Do Bodily Injury. This statute makes it a crime to threaten someone with death or serious bodily injury, either verbally, in writing, or by electronic communication. Violation of this statute can result in felony charges. Larry, read this site, *https://www.muscalaw.com/blog/understanding-florida-criminal-threats-statutes-laws-offenses-punishments-and-defenses*

    4) Sort of surprised that Larry did not mention all of the George Floyd riots and the billions of dollars in damage. He bragged about how all of these violent demonstrations with billions of dollars in damage were all in Dem cities! Do you remember Larry?

    5) “Hang Pence” was violence even though it did not rise to Larry’s standard. He probably easily excuses this one as “just words”.

    6) Chasing down immigrants at the border with horses is violence and those border agents were prosecuted. It was the immigrants fault for getting in the way of the horse is what Larry probably says.

    7) Larry’s article is based on a “feeling” not actual statistics. The number of mass shootings since 2000 is way up, see *https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/* According to the American Acadamy of Pediatrics, they say the following, “School shootings have risen in frequency in the recent 25 years and are now at their highest recorded levels.” If you check the statistics they post, the rise began in 2016 – who was POTUS then?

    8) Larry forgets about a Republican businessman seeking his party’s nomination to face Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) in the fall has released a new Western-style TV ad in which the candidate, dressed as a sheriff, fires a gun at actors portraying Kelly, President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

    9) I suppose Larry does not consider “flash mobs” smashing store windows and attacking stores to be violence worthy of mention.

    At least in the 1960’s the violence was because of the horrible treatment of Blacks and a very unpopular war that young people did not want to go fight, so we protested – but we did not shoot and kill. Except for the Ohio Nat’l Guard shooting and killing three students at Kent State. Larry, the first 25 years of the 21st century have been extremely violent. Since Trump has been president, he has inspired violence not to mention his bragging about digital rape and being able to fondle any woman. His protection of gun rights at the expense of the citizenry has also promoted this violence.

    Larry, maybe you need to open your eyes to all of the violence, or better yet, sensitize yourself to all of the violence!

    Reply
    • larry Horist

      Tom … I see you have joined the Snowflakes of America — and engaging in petty insults and ignorance. First of all, I mentioned the fact that we already have laws on the books to deal with harmful language. Your suggestion that I am unwire of such laws is blatantly untrue. Either you are fibbing or you did not comprehend what you read. You and others conflate a range of violence that is not the type of political violence the commentary deals with. Race violence is a different category than the alleged rise of rightwing violence. You mention the flash mobs. Is that political or just criminal. You and others talk about the culture of mass shootings. Is that political violence or a matter of mental illness? Are the race riots examples of rightwing violence? Is police abuse and unwarranted shooting a political issues or a racial issue largely confined to police under the authority of Democrat administrations. Does that make it political? The death in Charlotteville was an act of one deranged person — not part of a grand right wing conspiracy. Still I would count it as a political act — but not part of a huge epidemic of political violence — and surely not designed to overthrow the government as the left alleges. No one has been more critical of the oppressive violence against Blacks. No one is more opposed to violence of all sorts than me. I am just not willing to surrender my right of free speech on the alter of feint-hearted self victimization .And you have not refuted my claim that the 1960s was a much more politically violent era than today — perhaps because the facts are too obvious. You need to apply your silly rating system to your own writing. I think it reflects pomposity more than public service as you like to allege.

      Reply
      • Tom

        Larry, I hope one day your comprehension will grow and you will be able to understand what I write. You apply such razor thin narrow minded definitions to things like political violence. You only talk about parties, but the decisions those parties make are causing much violence. Thus all that I mentioned as violence had a political component at its root. Much of the violence I mentioned is caused by failed policy. And if you want to be razor thin in your thinking, I still think the past 25 have been more violent than the 25 before it. What can be more violent than Mitch your boy stating that the GOP’s focus will be to make Obama a one term president, that is just plain hostile. Or the congressman that drew an cartoon of Pelosi getting either shot or hung, I forget which it was. And the commercial for the GOP fellow running for Senator shooting Dems. Nothing like this happened from 1975 to 1999. I think the violence is much worse today than in the 1960’s whether you use your razor thin definition of parties only or look at their failed policies.

        You call my rating system silly because it holds you accountable. And I will rate every article of yours that I read and call out your spin and lies. And do not think that it is not noticed that when you are caught in a lie nobody is noticing. We see when you don’t answer because you did not research! We see when you lie and do not answer.

        Reply
        • larry Horist

          Tom … If I have not drawn the comparison before, I cannot help but see you and Frank like Statler and Waldorf on the Muppets — two old angry men raging and whining at the world in mutual harmony — and always with self-expressed correctness. The only difference is that they have an audience beyond themselves.

          I find it delusional when you say your silly rating system holds me accountable. To whom? Frank?. And I see pompous arrogance when you claim that YOU are some sort of superior person to judge anyone — and when you ridiculously and repeatedly imply that YOU are the voice of independent voters. And again when you have the audacity to assume you know me, my character and motivations. You are nothing more or less than a person with opinions — mostly wrong in MY opinion. You and Frank like to express them as personal attacks on me. I am okay with that. I do not see it as violence. Just trash talk,

          And you warn me that when I am caught in one of your claimed lies, others are noticing. Really? Like who? LOL First, a different opinion is not a lie. That is presumptuous on your part. Part of that arrogance and superiority thing you have. And you calling on imaginary people for support is pathetic.

          You think the violence today is much worse than assassinated a President, a senator a civil rights leader, crippling a presidential candidate… burning down major sections of cities … bombs going off at universities and government facilities, deadly riots in major cities … rioter attempting to shut down the Dem convention. That is just not factually correct. It is nutty.

          You also say ridiculous things. You say that McConnell wanting to make Obama a one term President is “hostile.” You put it in a category of “violence.” Was McConnell supposed to be working to get Obama reelected? LMAO. I did not see Schumer and Pelosi joining the effort to get Trump reelected. In fact, Democrats started a resistance movement against Trump the moment he got elected. It is called politics. Both parties work to stop the other party from being elected or reelected. And that is okay. It is what they do. Duh! I find it curious that a person of your self-acclaimed intellect could make such an obviously stupid statement.

          Yes … I see you and Frank as Statler and Waldorf. Your only impact on me — despite your wishful thinking — is to make me laugh — like they do — at two old grumpy men expressing their cranky opinions from their private balcony. But mercifully, they get the job done in much fewer words.

          So carry on with your puffed up view of yourself and your overstated importance — and with your silly rating system. You are a testimony to the importance of free speech. And if I did not poke back at you occasionally, you would have a lot less to write about — fewer opportunities to express you self importance. You welcome.

          Reply
    • Richard

      Your silence is deafening about antisemitism and the abuse by the left. And why not protect gun rights? Nobody gets to ban a damned thing that I have. So skip Trump and elect a demented dictator and watch us lose our country. Go ahead!!!! I double dog dare you. Because a great number of us ain’t willing to surrender our rights and country to Marxist assholes.

      Reply
      • larry Horist

        Richard … It is undeniable that antisemitism is a very significant part of the pro-Palestinian (pro-Hamas) demonstrations. Biden and Schumer are — wittingly or unwittingly — responding to that for pragmatic political reasons. Regardless of any of Netanyahu’s faults, throwing him under the bus over the war on Hamas is a reversal of American policy … and actually supports Hamas propaganda and Hamas terrorism. Biden should not be telling Israel how to carry out the war (which he initially said he would not do)… and Schumer is totally inappropriate for promoting regime change. They are not only speaking against Netanyahu, but against the coalition government and the expressed will of the people of Israel. I would not accuse Schumer of being antisemitic, but in my opinion he is putting the interests and wellbeing of the Jewish State and Jewish people behind his desire to protect the electoral interests of the Democratic Party in this year’s election.

        Reply
  7. FRANK STETSON

    I think Horist may have missed the forest for the trees. Trumpism, Covid denial, Nationalism, Bidenism, Green war, whatever, the right is not alone as Antifa attacks groups and individuals alike, often without warning, and with the intent to stop or destroy, not change ideas and policy. But the trees are different now, it’s not so much about big groups, big protests, big riots, as it is about what Frank Reagan fears the most, the individual actor with no connections, just low tech and a desire to destroy. Like mass shooters, they can affect the national psyche as much or more, in numbers, than any riot.

    In the end, these are people who fight because they have given up the legal fight. They are frustrated at not getting what they want, don’t think they will prevail with legal methods, and so they lash out physically to make their point. Or they are just sociopaths —- and these are also in these gangs and groups for sure.

    But, we, as Americans, have changed too and now many more of us accept political violence as an approved manner of getting the job done. Ask PBP if they are more ameniable to political violence. IMO, condoning the violence is worse than perpetrating it. And those who condone are growing in numbers, from both sides, every day. This is just a statistic as found in valid surveys on the subject. JFGI.

    We are a nation of laws. Our laws stem from the people, are controlled by the people, and the people submit to following the laws or facing the consequences. So far, the guardrails have held. However, every war begins with one memorable shot, attack, or some form of violence. Just a spark ignites the flame.

    Today, “Active Clubs,” Neo Nazi gangs that talk violence trash and love brawls have sprung up in most of the States in our country. There was one Active Club before 2016. Over 50 today. I have one now in NW NJ, something like “Fight Drinking,” where the idea is they drink a lot and then fight. I laughed when I saw his leathers and asked if he was against alcohol — and got that answer with a strange glare. Thank God he was sober because he was certainly weird. Not really new, who hasn’t been in a street fight growing up.

    Over 500 incidences of political swatting over the past year seems like an increase in what used to be used gamer on gamer, not political and legal figures. Each of these cost tens of thousands to taxpayers.

    From Reuters: “King identified the shooter as her neighbor in the small Ohio town of Okeana. “His name is Austin Combs,” she stammered. “He’s come over, like, four times confronting my husband because he thought he was a Democrat.” Reuters identified hundreds of political attack cases two years out from 1/1/21 with 39 people dead. This is not the total number, but just what they found.

    In May of 22, a white supremacist killed 10 blacks in an Acme because he wanted a race war. He spoke of politics, not just race.

    In August of 2023 from Time: “This week’s confrontation that ended with FBI agents fatally shooting a 74-year-old Utah man who threatened to assassinate President Joe Biden was just the latest example of how violent rhetoric has created a more perilous political environment across the U.S.”

    Continuing: “Six days earlier, a 52-year-old Texas man was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for threatening to kill Arizona election workers. Four days before that, prosecutors charged a 56-year-old Michigan woman for lying to buy guns for her mentally ill adult son, who threatened to use them against Biden and that state’s Democratic governor.

    The Capitol Police last year reported that they investigated more than double the number of threats against members of Congress as they did four years earlier. Driven by former President Donald Trump’s lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him, threats against election workers have exploded, with one in six reporting threats against them and many seasoned election administrators leaving the job or considering it.”

    The National League of Cities said in 2021 that 81% of local elected officials reported receiving threats. If Trump tweets about you, you will be deluged with physical threats. If you are lucky.

    In 2017, a Democrat opened fire on GOP House members as they practiced for a charity baseball game, severely wounding now-House Majority Leader Steve Scalise.

    Paul Pelosi and all that seemed political.

    A man was arrested with knives, a pistol and zip ties outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh over abortion. It’s not just the right.

    An armed Ohio man in body armor who had been at the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was shot and killed after trying to enter an FBI office following that agency’s search last summer of Trump’s Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago. He said he was a “MAGA Trumper” and had posted threats against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and New York Attorney General Letitia James, all of whom have been targets of Trump’s own attacks on social media. Trump’s Truth Social network was the first to warn the FBI about him after Robertson in March posted a threat to kill Bragg, the first prosecutor to file criminal charges against Trump.

    About two thirds of the cases identified were individual “grab bag” acts, a third were group acts. There were also 6 car ramming’s and a lot of property damage identified. They were about politics, often the spark was ignited by something, someone in power said. Horist is right, when some PBP poster claims he will snipe me, it’s a hoot. I got my Star Tavern pizza, he did not show up. But when the strongest, most important person in the world says it: this shit matters. It legitimizes the actions that have become more prevalent in our current time. We let the loonies out from under the rocks, our leader said it was OK, and we have grown comfortably number to political violence as a rational tool, Bad ju ju folks. We need to break the chain starting as of 1/6/2021.

    Gary LaFree, a University of Maryland criminologist said: “Political violence surged for nearly a decade starting in the late-1960s – 1970 alone saw more than 450 cases, LaFree said. But it had become relatively rare by 1980. There were a few spikes in the 1990s, including the 1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombing that killed 168 people, in what the Federal Bureau of Investigation describes as the nation’s worst act of homegrown terrorism. Political violence started to climb again in 2016, LaFree added, and “it doesn’t seem like we’ve hit the top of the wave yet.”

    Rachel Kleinfeld, who studies political conflict and extremism at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank said: “In the early 1970s, American political violence was perpetrated more often by radicals on the left and focused largely on destroying property, such as government buildings. There were many, many bombings, but usually at night, or after called-in warning. The goal was not to kill people; it was to affect decisions by policymakers. In contrast, much of today’s political violence is aimed at people – and most of the deadly outbursts tracked by Reuters have come from the right. Of the 14 fatal political attacks since the Capitol riot in which the perpetrator or suspect had a clear partisan leaning, 13 were right-wing assailants. One was on the left. The recent violence coming from the right is focused on stopping people or ending people’s lives.”

    Bottom line: Horist says it best, we will get through it, we always have, it has been worse. Although, IMO, it was different, I am not sure it has been worse than the grab bagging we are seeing today. I will commit a view on that in 1/1/25.

    So, bring it on. We took you at the State Capitols in 2019-2020, we stopped you in Michigan, we crucified you at the Capitol, and now we are coming for your gang leader, Mr. Bloodbath, Mr. Revenge and Retribution. And if you get upset about that or if you get upset about honest election results, decide the fantasy of the steal is real, take action, and then: “Say hello to my little friend,” the law.

    Reply
    • Josea barcella

      Thanks for the shoutout to patriots Lol

      Reply
  8. Frank stetson

    Not a problem Josea. You know of more? Still got room in the jails and the court backlog is dropping down.

    Were you there? Got your patriot sticker from that day of an insurrection hidden inside a violent Republican riot hidden inside a vociferous protest hidden inside a Trump rally that began the entire fun day. Any selfies of you there?

    Reply
    • Josea barcella

      I’m above the law. Untouchable

      Reply
    • Jim wampler

      Nude pictures of your daughter.

      Reply
  9. Scott Norris

    95+ percent of actual ‘political violence’ is perpetrated by one party, Democrats (aka Socialists, Communists, Progressives, Liberals). Odd that there was no chronicle of the BLM/Antifa riots, arsons, acts of violence from the day Trump was elected. The article treats Trump’s words about the automobile industry’s collapse the same as extreme violence and destructive riots by BLM and Antifa.

    Reply
  10. FRANK STETSON

    “95+ percent of actual ‘political violence’ is perpetrated by one party” is not proven by Scott.

    Here’s mine, from Reuters, deemed unbiased and factual as a media outlet, that concludes “95+ percent of actual ‘political violence’ is perpetrated by one party.” It’s the Republicans, it’s mostly grab-bag now, not larger protests. It’s mostly putting pain against a person, not a protest against ideas or policies as they target liberals to personally attack.

    *https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-violence/*

    “As Kristen King’s husband lay dying in their yard from three gunshots to his head, the 911 operator asked her: Did she know who killed him – or why? Sobbing, King identified the shooter as her neighbor in the small Ohio town of Okeana. “His name is Austin Combs,” she stammered. “He’s come over, like, four times confronting my husband because he thought he was a Democrat.”

    Let’s see what’s in your wallet, Mr. Norris.

    Reply
  11. larry Horist

    Frank Stetson … I took a couple minutes to read you Reuters story. You say that Reuters is “deemed unbiased and factual as a media outlet.” LMAO. Who deemed it? Where is your evidence? In my opinion, Reuters has the same biases as many other news outlets with predominantly Democrat editors and writer. You personal imprimatur is laughable. Furthermore the stories do not live up to your claims based on facts and an obvious bias in the reporting. The articles are based mostly on carefully selected one-sided anecdotal examples. I can can think of other “examples” that tell a different story. It is problem proffering a general argument on anecdotal examples. The conclusions were hardly the product of a real unbiased investigation or examination. You are showing that typical leftwing attitude. If you believe it, it is a fact. You really blew this one. Maybe you were hoping no one would actually read the Reuters’ articles. LOL

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *