By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official Protest Thread

SpokenTruth said:
Immersiveunreality said:

You are not refuting what i say because i currently have no means to join them,if i was wanting to join them i would probably try to connect with them through social media.

Ah, good.  So...let's find an Anti-Fa member and ask to join.  You do know some members, don't you?  Or how to find them?

Through one of their local websites.

This is a one for the netherlands: https://antifautrecht.nl/

This one too: http://www.afanederland.org/  

Belgium has a facebook group for them and this is one of the sites: https://antifaantwerpen.noblogs.org/

Twitter for a London one: https://twitter.com/northlondonaf

They have meetings and set dates to go protest and counterprotest,that seems to be pretty organised imo.

There are mostly options to contact them on the pages,so like i said it is a fractured organisation going from well meaning people to straight up extremists depending on what part of them you seek.



Around the Network


sundin13 said:

That's so fucked up, it's almost like satire. Also, the audio seems to indicate his ribs were broken, not his wrist as said in the tweet. Any bones breaking is painful, but ribs are among the worst. Just bruising them is pretty bad.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

sundin13 said:

What the hell,had a hard time to believe that was real.



RolStoppable said:
SpokenTruth said:

Quite a lot of change already and more in the pipeline.

Confederate statues and other symbols of glorification (Confederate battle flag) are being removed from public and private spaces and institutions.

(...)

The amount of things that have changed in the past 2 weeks in almost unprecedented.  NASCAR banned the Confederate Flag...that should tell you everything you need to know about how much things just changed.

I can't help but laugh about these two particular points. Given the history of the confederates, it would be like Germany being fine with Nazi memorials and symbology from 1945 until today.

US politics are seemingly a neverending source of entertainment where reality and satire keep blending together and are almost indistinguishable.

There difference is significant. Were there large quantities of Nazis that hated the persecution of Jews? If so that would be interesting to note and study.

With the Civil War here in America, there were a lot of Southerners who either couldn't afford slaves and didn't care about it or were against it, and there were likewise Northerners who were supportive of the notion that whites are superior. But none of them wanted people from another part of the country that had a totally different lifestyle to come barging in making demands. The fact that the south lost and slavery ended (which was a great thing to end, slavery was and is terrible!) Had unintended consequences. Back then the states more or less handled their own stuff and stayed out of each other's business by comparison to today, and look where that has got us?

Liberal states HATE when a conservative federal government takes over and imposes laws that condemn homosexuality, transgenderism, promote the second amendment, and support the rights of the unborn from being brutally murdered without their consent.

Conservative states HATE when a liberal federal government takes over and imposes laws that promote homosexuality, encourage transgenderism, limits or tries to eliminate 2nd amendment, and supports the right of the mother to end the life of the baby without the baby's consent.

If we had the old system still in place, every state would be doing what it thought was right (outside of slavery) and people would probably be a lot more content with minding their own business. Instead, we always have a federal government that is ticking off the population because either half the country is disenfranchised or, in the case of split governments like Obama had most of his Presidency, nothing gets done and that also ticks people off. We are just angry all the time now and the solution, in my mind, is to let the East and West coast liberal states do what they want and the conservative south and Midwest states to do what they want and for the Rust belt states to keep not knowing what they want. Then everyone minds there own business exception international issues and we all are more content.

We are 50 nation's joined together, not 1. We are only 1 nation, and should be, for trade, alliances, and for when we need to go knock sense into people who mess with us.



Around the Network
Dulfite said:

There difference is significant. Were there large quantities of Nazis that hated the persecution of Jews? If so that would be interesting to note and study.

With the Civil War here in America, there were a lot of Southerners who either couldn't afford slaves and didn't care about it or were against it, and there were likewise Northerners who were supportive of the notion that whites are superior. But none of them wanted people from another part of the country that had a totally different lifestyle to come barging in making demands. The fact that the south lost and slavery ended (which was a great thing to end, slavery was and is terrible!) Had unintended consequences. Back then the states more or less handled their own stuff and stayed out of each other's business by comparison to today, and look where that has got us?

Liberal states HATE when a conservative federal government takes over and imposes laws that condemn homosexuality, transgenderism, promote the second amendment, and support the rights of the unborn from being brutally murdered without their consent.

Conservative states HATE when a liberal federal government takes over and imposes laws that promote homosexuality, encourage transgenderism, limits or tries to eliminate 2nd amendment, and supports the right of the mother to end the life of the baby without the baby's consent.

If we had the old system still in place, every state would be doing what it thought was right (outside of slavery) and people would probably be a lot more content with minding their own business. Instead, we always have a federal government that is ticking off the population because either half the country is disenfranchised or, in the case of split governments like Obama had most of his Presidency, nothing gets done and that also ticks people off. We are just angry all the time now and the solution, in my mind, is to let the East and West coast liberal states do what they want and the conservative south and Midwest states to do what they want and for the Rust belt states to keep not knowing what they want. Then everyone minds there own business exception international issues and we all are more content.

We are 50 nation's joined together, not 1. We are only 1 nation, and should be, for trade, alliances, and for when we need to go knock sense into people who mess with us.

A federal government which allows states to decide on issues of human rights is a federal government which has failed to protect its people from oppression and discrimination. If the "conservative south" wants to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, their sexual preference or their gender identity, kindly fuck what the "conservative south" wants. This isn't a solution, it is cowardice.



sundin13 said:
Dulfite said:

There difference is significant. Were there large quantities of Nazis that hated the persecution of Jews? If so that would be interesting to note and study.

With the Civil War here in America, there were a lot of Southerners who either couldn't afford slaves and didn't care about it or were against it, and there were likewise Northerners who were supportive of the notion that whites are superior. But none of them wanted people from another part of the country that had a totally different lifestyle to come barging in making demands. The fact that the south lost and slavery ended (which was a great thing to end, slavery was and is terrible!) Had unintended consequences. Back then the states more or less handled their own stuff and stayed out of each other's business by comparison to today, and look where that has got us?

Liberal states HATE when a conservative federal government takes over and imposes laws that condemn homosexuality, transgenderism, promote the second amendment, and support the rights of the unborn from being brutally murdered without their consent.

Conservative states HATE when a liberal federal government takes over and imposes laws that promote homosexuality, encourage transgenderism, limits or tries to eliminate 2nd amendment, and supports the right of the mother to end the life of the baby without the baby's consent.

If we had the old system still in place, every state would be doing what it thought was right (outside of slavery) and people would probably be a lot more content with minding their own business. Instead, we always have a federal government that is ticking off the population because either half the country is disenfranchised or, in the case of split governments like Obama had most of his Presidency, nothing gets done and that also ticks people off. We are just angry all the time now and the solution, in my mind, is to let the East and West coast liberal states do what they want and the conservative south and Midwest states to do what they want and for the Rust belt states to keep not knowing what they want. Then everyone minds there own business exception international issues and we all are more content.

We are 50 nation's joined together, not 1. We are only 1 nation, and should be, for trade, alliances, and for when we need to go knock sense into people who mess with us.

A federal government which allows states to decide on issues of human rights is a federal government which has failed to protect its people from oppression and discrimination. If the "conservative south" wants to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, their sexual preference or their gender identity, kindly fuck what the "conservative south" wants. This isn't a solution, it is cowardice.

Well certainly if it was that widespread, but I'm in one of those conservative Midwestern states, I see black people all around, and I talk to them kindly and they talk to me kindly and they participate in things just like I do. They don't have separate restaraunts, places of work, bathrooms. We exist and function in the same society. Obviously there are racists still out there, but it isn't like it was in the 1900's or earlier. It has improved significantly from slavery and it will continue to do so over time.

Is it any different than how conservative states view liberal ones when it comes to human rights. I could say people that are okay with pre birth murder of a human being should be regulated by the federal government because that is a human rights issue. That is just as much of a human rights atrocity to me as slavery is. We have condoned mass murder for decades now as lawful because to let the baby live would inconvenience someone who didn't mean to get pregnant or changed her mind. Life is more important than convenience.



Dulfite said:
sundin13 said:

A federal government which allows states to decide on issues of human rights is a federal government which has failed to protect its people from oppression and discrimination. If the "conservative south" wants to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, their sexual preference or their gender identity, kindly fuck what the "conservative south" wants. This isn't a solution, it is cowardice.

Well certainly if it was that widespread, but I'm in one of those conservative Midwestern states, I see black people all around, and I talk to them kindly and they talk to me kindly and they participate in things just like I do. They don't have separate restaraunts, places of work, bathrooms. We exist and function in the same society. Obviously there are racists still out there, but it isn't like it was in the 1900's or earlier. It has improved significantly from slavery and it will continue to do so over time.

Is it any different than how conservative states view liberal ones when it comes to human rights. I could say people that are okay with pre birth murder of a human being should be regulated by the federal government because that is a human rights issue. That is just as much of a human rights atrocity to me as slavery is. We have condoned mass murder for decades now as lawful because to let the baby live would inconvenience someone who didn't mean to get pregnant or changed her mind. Life is more important than convenience.

Yeah, but we have a federal government which prevents discrimination.

So what exactly do you think that the fact that you see and talk to black people proves?

As for your point about abortion, how does that say anything about state rights? What is your point?



Dulfite said:

Well certainly if it was that widespread, but I'm in one of those conservative Midwestern states, I see black people all around, and I talk to them kindly and they talk to me kindly and they participate in things just like I do. They don't have separate restaraunts, places of work, bathrooms. We exist and function in the same society. Obviously there are racists still out there, but it isn't like it was in the 1900's or earlier. It has improved significantly from slavery and it will continue to do so over time.

Is it any different than how conservative states view liberal ones when it comes to human rights. I could say people that are okay with pre birth murder of a human being should be regulated by the federal government because that is a human rights issue. That is just as much of a human rights atrocity to me as slavery is. We have condoned mass murder for decades now as lawful because to let the baby live would inconvenience someone who didn't mean to get pregnant or changed her mind. Life is more important than convenience.

This is not the place to discuss pros and cons of abortion. Your previous post already made your bias clear.

This thread is about how the police faces the public. That needs to be handled on a national level, same training, same standards, same laws, no silly state jurisdiction nonsense. Maybe the USA first needs to decide what it is, a union or a country.



SpokenTruth said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Bolded:I think we should stop misnaming them as anti-fascists,it is not what they do but only what they claim to do.

I'm sure they have people with good intentions and people that are misleaded in almost religious ways,like any destructive group.

Then we should first stop grouping everybody who wears black and shows up to a protest as Anti-Fa.  There is no centralized organization.  No membership.  No leadership. 

kirby007 said:
I dont follow the news really on this subject but have the protests amounted to a substantial change in our society yet?
or its forgotten within the next month like this is occupy2.0

Quite a lot of change already and more in the pipeline.

Confederate statues and other symbols of glorification (Confederate battle flag) are being removed from public and private spaces and institutions.

Police reform in dozens, if not hundreds, of cities.

Vestiges of racism, oppression, etc...are being removed by dozens of companies.  Product policy changes are being addressed.  Hiring practices are changing. 

Countless CEO's, politicians and other leaders have resigned or been fired.

The sports and entertainment worlds have started to own up to their past racial mistakes.

The amount of things that have changed in the past 2 weeks in almost unprecedented.  NASCAR banned the Confederate Flag...that should tell you everything you need to know about how much things just changed.

Yep, statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, are being vandalized all over the country.  Even Hans Christian Heg who was an abolitionist who died fighting the Confederacy.