Antifa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who “don’t exist,” these people certainly appear to exist (and all have been indicted)

And for “just an idea, not an organization,” this Antifa cell managed to organize at least 16 of its members and inspire them to commit violence against innocent government workers.

Sixteen people under indicted for a violent attack seems like a lot (for an organization which doesn’t exist).

Of those sixteen, they only have one that allegedly fired shots, and a total of 3 to 5 who may have some kind of speculative "accomplice" role. Of the remainder most of them don't even have much of any connection to the shooter nor do police have any solid evidence whatsoever to link them.

But they have to make it look like a big huge group conspiracy. Oooga Booga.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who “don’t exist,” these people certainly appear to exist (and all have been indicted)

And for “just an idea, not an organization,” this Antifa cell managed to organize at least 16 of its members and inspire them to commit violence against innocent government workers.

Sixteen people under indicted for a violent attack seems like a lot (for an organization which doesn’t exist).

Of those sixteen, they only have one that allegedly fired shots, and a total of 3 to 5 who may have some kind of speculative "accomplice" role. Of the remainder most of them don't even have much of any connection to the shooter nor do police have any solid evidence whatsoever to link them.

But they have to make it look like a big huge group conspiracy. Oooga Booga.

“Oooga Booga” is precisely the sort of response one would expect from someone of your exceptionally stunted mental ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who “don’t exist,” these people certainly appear to exist (and all have been indicted)

And for “just an idea, not an organization,” this Antifa cell managed to organize at least 16 of its members and inspire them to commit violence against innocent government workers.

Sixteen people under indicted for a violent attack seems like a lot (for an organization which doesn’t exist).

Of those sixteen, they only have one that allegedly fired shots, and a total of 3 to 5 who may have some kind of speculative "accomplice" role. Of the remainder most of them don't even have much of any connection to the shooter nor do police have any solid evidence whatsoever to link them.

But they have to make it look like a big huge group conspiracy. Oooga Booga.

“Oooga Booga” is precisely the sort of response one would expect from someone of your exceptionally stunted mental ability.

Just going ignore all the substance that contradicts what you want to believe, huh?

[Anonymous]

Ive been watching FOX to try and understand what is happening and they literally silence anyone who tries to explain reality. Either by cutting them off or only repeating what the other person said and ignoring that there was a slight rebuttal from pundit B to what pundit A proclaimed.
For example, they had some lady from Portland who was talking about how Antifa is well organized and always apparent in Portland and how DHS/ICE are going to save them and also then slipped in how Seattle is also at risk so they should go there next. Pundit B started to make the point that Antifa is difficult to address because its not an organization - it doesnt have a headquarters, theres no monetary center/collection- and that its an idea. Ideas are hard to systematically quelch.
The two women started looking at each other (host and pundit A) and then the host interrupted pundit B to say well yes but they are dangerous and armed. And clearly a risk. And then starts directing the conversation only to pundit A.
Pundit B looks around like wtf just happened? And then realizes quickly,....oh thats not the party line. He was actually trying to be both partisan and truthful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ive been watching FOX to try and understand what is happening and they literally silence anyone who tries to explain reality. Either by cutting them off or only repeating what the other person said and ignoring that there was a slight rebuttal from pundit B to what pundit A proclaimed.
For example, they had some lady from Portland who was talking about how Antifa is well organized and always apparent in Portland and how DHS/ICE are going to save them and also then slipped in how Seattle is also at risk so they should go there next. Pundit B started to make the point that Antifa is difficult to address because its not an organization - it doesnt have a headquarters, theres no monetary center/collection- and that its an idea. Ideas are hard to systematically quelch.
The two women started looking at each other (host and pundit A) and then the host interrupted pundit B to say well yes but they are dangerous and armed. And clearly a risk. And then starts directing the conversation only to pundit A.
Pundit B looks around like wtf just happened? And then realizes quickly,....oh thats not the party line. He was actually trying to be both partisan and truthful.

Everyone knows that this antifa business is manufactured red meat for the morons. Well, everyone but the morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is antifa?! I would have thought they would be out causing problems in DC with the national guard. Antifa is a RWNJ fantasy.

Ah - the old, spurious “Antifa does not exist” routine.

Answer us this:

- what’s the harm in designating it a terrorist organization if it does not actually exist?

If they fabricate an organization what’s to stop them from fabricating a member list?

- or to stop you from speculating about another ridiculous conspiracy theory?

It’s clearly not a conspiracy. The current confederacy of dunces in the White House are the ones babbling on about cracking down on a non existent organization.

If Antifa is “non existent” as you claim, why does it matter WHAT it is designated?

+1. And how does this affect you personally in any way, PP ? How ??

It matters in part because even if it does exist, the president has no authority to label domestic groups as terrorists.

So he is breaking the law on a non existent organization which shows how stupid and insane he is.

Hope that helps.

I have no idea if their funding comes from or is washeed through overseas entities.

His declaration gives them the authority to go further in investigations.

Not really. there is no statutory basis for the declaration. Whatever authority he has, the declaration does not change it. There is a statute related to foreign terrorist groups and state sponsors of terrorism.

As for investigations, what do you mean? This is going to allow them to inspect our public library activities, our church membership, our bank activity, our online shopping, our email? Not legally. And where a crime is involved, there is already a framework for investigating that which requires warrants etc.

[Anonymous]

👀

[Anonymous]

That guy is actually an actor. I guess he is on Jesse Watters' payroll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who “don’t exist,” these people certainly appear to exist (and all have been indicted)

And for “just an idea, not an organization,” this Antifa cell managed to organize at least 16 of its members and inspire them to commit violence against innocent government workers.

Sixteen people under indicted for a violent attack seems like a lot (for an organization which doesn’t exist).

Of those sixteen, they only have one that allegedly fired shots, and a total of 3 to 5 who may have some kind of speculative "accomplice" role. Of the remainder most of them don't even have much of any connection to the shooter nor do police have any solid evidence whatsoever to link them.

But they have to make it look like a big huge group conspiracy. Oooga Booga.

“Oooga Booga” is precisely the sort of response one would expect from someone of your exceptionally stunted mental ability.

You misread. "Ooga booga" was clearly mocking the people who see "Antifa" everywhere and think Portland is a "war zone."

As such you might want to reconsider your own mental abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That guy is actually an actor. I guess he is on Jesse Watters' payroll.

Yep. FOX News busted for employing ACTUAL "crisis actors" and phony shills for advancing the right wing's narratives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Antifa is totally not an organization. Who is their leader? Who are their board members? How do you join?

They will define it. We may be called members for voting a certain way or posting certain ideas. I think that's next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ive been watching FOX to try and understand what is happening and they literally silence anyone who tries to explain reality. Either by cutting them off or only repeating what the other person said and ignoring that there was a slight rebuttal from pundit B to what pundit A proclaimed.
For example, they had some lady from Portland who was talking about how Antifa is well organized and always apparent in Portland and how DHS/ICE are going to save them and also then slipped in how Seattle is also at risk so they should go there next. Pundit B started to make the point that Antifa is difficult to address because its not an organization - it doesnt have a headquarters, theres no monetary center/collection- and that its an idea. Ideas are hard to systematically quelch.
The two women started looking at each other (host and pundit A) and then the host interrupted pundit B to say well yes but they are dangerous and armed. And clearly a risk. And then starts directing the conversation only to pundit A.
Pundit B looks around like wtf just happened? And then realizes quickly,....oh thats not the party line. He was actually trying to be both partisan and truthful.

Wait! I think I saw that same interview!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ive been watching FOX to try and understand what is happening and they literally silence anyone who tries to explain reality. Either by cutting them off or only repeating what the other person said and ignoring that there was a slight rebuttal from pundit B to what pundit A proclaimed.
For example, they had some lady from Portland who was talking about how Antifa is well organized and always apparent in Portland and how DHS/ICE are going to save them and also then slipped in how Seattle is also at risk so they should go there next. Pundit B started to make the point that Antifa is difficult to address because its not an organization - it doesnt have a headquarters, theres no monetary center/collection- and that its an idea. Ideas are hard to systematically quelch.
The two women started looking at each other (host and pundit A) and then the host interrupted pundit B to say well yes but they are dangerous and armed. And clearly a risk. And then starts directing the conversation only to pundit A.
Pundit B looks around like wtf just happened? And then realizes quickly,....oh thats not the party line. He was actually trying to be both partisan and truthful.

Wait! I think I saw that same interview!

Found it! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9r2o5ZnSHo

[Anonymous]

Guardian reports Rutgers professor moving to Europe after Turning point USA wrongly labeled him antifa:

https://apple.news/AU4-aCMEsRQ6lmcI74Ohpsg

This is intolerable. No one should have to flee the USA just because tpusa decides to be ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guardian reports Rutgers professor moving to Europe after Turning point USA wrongly labeled him antifa:

https://apple.news/AU4-aCMEsRQ6lmcI74Ohpsg

This is intolerable. No one should have to flee the USA just because tpusa decides to be ridiculous.

This was Charlie Kirk’s raison d’etre from the beginning - shutting up professors whose speech he didn’t like. It’s wholly absurd that he’s being held up as some icon of free speech.
https://www.professorwatchlist.org/