The democrats call for violence yet again....

quote:

Top Democrat Vows Street Violence
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has called for riots by Democrats to try to frustrate the will of the majority of Americans. This is especially pertinent since, if the Democrats pick up a few House seats in 2026, as history suggests they may, Jeffries will be the Speaker of the House, one of Washington’s most powerful figures and next in line to the presidency after the vice president:



There is no ambiguity about Jeffries’ call to “fight it [the majority of voters] in the streets.” This is a call for George Floyd-style riots, which caused many billions of dollars in damages and killed more than 30 people.

It is truly ironic that the Democrats have wailed non-stop about the January 6, 2021, demonstration which did indeed get out of hand, but which was, as reporters like to say, mostly peaceful. But now, Democrats pledge to fight our lawfully elected administration in the streets.

President Trump quickly called on Jeffries to apologize for his call for violence:



Of course Jeffries has not apologized, nor will he do so. Nor will any other Democrat try to distance himself from Jeffries’ disgusting call for street violence. This is typical of the Democratic Party: seize power by any means necessary, and maintain a desperate grip on power by any means necessary. Street violence? It’s A-OK! Lies and cheating? Hey, that’s why we have a party apparatus! Murders of dozens of people, as in the George Floyd riots? You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs!

The Democratic Party is utterly contemptible. It should be shunned by all normal Americans.

This is a bit rich!

Your current zombie in the WH did it 4 years ago!

Jim,
It’s fffiiiinnnnneeeeee as long as you are a Democrat or a person of color to make those statements — didn’t you get the memo.

Jeffries wants to be 0bama 2.0: “If they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun.”

I think 0bama and his race baiting was put to bed this fall. Hopefully, that will carry over to Jeffries.

strange, trump was impeached over saying "fight" -- well, thems the rules, and the dems set the precedent --

I don't believe the OP.

This is probably some Fox BS.

You friggin far rightists get your panties in a wad easily. Believing in lies doesn't help the nation.

Anyway, show your source and prove your claims.

The OP article clearly makes a lot of inferences and is written for rightists.

BTW, IMO street violence is not a solution, yet, and is not going to be helpful.

The fascists tried a violent and well-planned insurrection and that didn't work well, so they did a soft-insurrection through the system with spin and lies.

The fascist takeover is in at least phase two, from the inside. Phase three will be in the streets after Trump's loyalist storm troops are in place.

You actually did not post a quote for us to accesses.

If he called for violence, the House should expel him.

Unless you provide the whole quote, I’ll refrain from making an assertion.

I did a search on "fight it in the streets"

results:

https://www.google.com/search?...fTYQ&sclient=gws-wiz

The source of the OP was Fox News

Note there are several articles in the search results basically parroting Fox, from far right sources. NewsMax chimed in.

I picked one that seems more rationally accurate, with no skewed inferences, lots of quotes, no seizing on something to spin and foment hate, and shows an obvious attempt at truth, like real journalism should.

https://thehill.com/homenews/h...eting-trump-actions/

Democrats leave ’emergency’ meeting vowing ‘street fight’ in response to Trump actions
by Mike Lillis - 01/29/25 6:03 PM ET

House Democrats launched a multilateral effort Wednesday to combat the flood of executive actions from President Trump, vowing to punch back through legislation, lawsuits and a blitz of counter-messaging.

In a virtual meeting of the House Democratic Caucus — conducted on Zoom because the House is in recess — party leaders and Democratic committee heads laid out the contours of their strategy, which will lean heavily on efforts to inform voters of the real-world effects of Trump’s actions.

It was an “emergency” discussion sparked by the Trump administration’s move — since rescinded — to freeze trillions of dollars for federal grants and loans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told his troops to pursue all avenues of opposition — and take that fight to the streets, according to several Democrats who participated in the meeting.

“I don’t want to speak for the leader,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said afterward, “but it was a broad call for action — and a vigorous one.”

“House Democrats are now fully engaged. The bell has rung. I think we see this for the constitutional test that it is, and we’re going to be aggressively pushing back,” echoed Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.).

“Leader Jeffries described it as a legal fight, a legislative fight and a street fight. And I couldn’t put it better.”

The Democrats have a challenging road ahead as they seek to block Trump’s aggressive agenda, which features a broad dismantling of the federal government and how it operates.

On the legislative front, Republicans control both chambers of Congress, leaving Democrats virtually powerless to bring bills to the floor.

And as a legal matter, the courts have already ruled that congressional lawmakers lack the standing to challenge presidents when they refuse to spend federal dollars as Congress directed. That’s the controversy at the center of the White House’s move this week to freeze federal spending on hundreds of programs while agency officials weed out diversity initiatives and other efforts that don’t align with Trump’s priorities.

Still, Democrats are hardly powerless in the debate, even from the minority.

That’s because House Republicans have a historically slim majority, and GOP leaders are already struggling to unify their feuding conference for the sake of passing Trump’s ambitious legislative agenda. That will lend Democrats plenty of voice in the coming fights over must-pass legislation like funding the government and raising the debt ceiling, and they say they intend to use it.

So we do not have the quote.

Good job Fox News. The marks popped.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
So we do not have the quote.

Good job Fox News. The marks popped.

here you go, bubba
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bgGdNuoKvT8

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I don't believe the OP.

This is probably some Fox BS.

You friggin far rightists get your panties in a wad easily. Believing in lies doesn't help the nation.

Anyway, show your source and prove your claims.

The OP article clearly makes a lot of inferences and is written for rightists.

BTW, IMO street violence is not a solution, yet, and is not going to be helpful.

The fascists tried a violent and well-planned insurrection and that didn't work well, so they did a soft-insurrection through the system with spin and lies.

The fascist takeover is in at least phase two, from the inside. Phase three will be in the streets after the storm troops are in place.

the complex google search i used
hakeem jeffries fight
very hard to come up with

now, eat your words
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bgGdNuoKvT8

Why did you seize on "in the streets"?

Looked to me his emphasis was legislatively, and legally, with the down tone when he referred to "streets", like an after-thought.

And, it's YOUR inference that he was calling for street riots. He didn't say that - Fox did and you were led to the inference and then another and so forth like a castrated boar hog with a leash on his nose ring.

O do not see a claim for violence.

MLKjr fought segregation in the streets. That was non-violent.

I would have used a different word, phrase. However, it is not’ “I am calling on citizens to use violence to disrupt…”

You can read it as a call for violence as framed by the OP. That would be unreasonable. His tone of voice is not even directing anger to action.

I sure hope these unconstitutional power grabs by this President are fought in the courts and w legislation.

I hope folks get out and peacefully but disruptively demonstrate against these unconstitutional power grabs and violations of federal law concerning civil servants.

I good march, set in, non violent strike. I am all for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Why did you seize on "in the streets"?

Looked to me his emphasis was legislatively, and legally, with the down tone when he referred to "streets", like an after-thought.

And, it's YOUR inference that he was calling for street riots. He didn't say that - Fox did and you were led to the inference and then another and so forth like a castrated boar hog with a leash on his nose ring.

wow, the copium -- excuses excuses -- did he say FIGHT and bring it to the streets --
poor little maggie

He did. And folks who are weak minded, not in a legal sense, can seize upon it for violence.

He and we need to do better, speak better.

He did not call for violence.

quote:

did he say FIGHT and bring it to the streets

He didn't say that.

You are trying to justify your inferences, based on prior inferences, maybe projecting.

Stay in context.

Think of inferences as a blank slate, where we fill in the blank with whatever context we make up.

Within the whole sentence he used the word "fight" in three contexts and "in the street" being one context.

How many inferences could be made from the word "fight" and "in the street"? Several, of course.

Why did you default to the inference that you chose, violence, and take it out of context?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He did. And folks who are weak minded, not in a legal sense, can seize upon it for violence.

He and we need to do better, speak better.

He did not call for violence.

so, trump's second impeachment was baseless? got it

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

did he say FIGHT and bring it to the streets

He didn't say that.

You are trying to justify your inferences, based on prior inferences, maybe projecting.

you are precious - and here i thought it was just your reading ability/vocabulary was impaired -- you might talk to your doctor about your loss of hearing

Thanks for making my point with your continued skewed inferences.

quote:

originally posted by M.E:
You are trying to justify your inferences, based on prior inferences, maybe projecting.

Stay in context.

Think of inferences as a blank slate, where we fill in the blank with whatever context we make up.

Within the whole sentence he used the word "fight" in three contexts and "in the street" being one context.

How many inferences could be made from the word "fight" and "in the street"? Several, of course.

Why did you default to the inference that you chose, violence, and take it out of context?

And, he didn't use the word "fight" stand-alone. He said, "fight it". The "it" is Trump's and team's over-reach and goals to defeat the Founding principles.

In the next sentence he used the word "demonstrated", as a contextual word.

My inference is that your cognitive bias is interfering with your reading and deciphering abilities in a very negative way.

simplypsychology.org
https://www.simplypsychology.org › cognitive-bias.html
What Is Cognitive Bias? Types & Examples - Simply Psychology
Oct 24, 2023 · Cognitive bias is a systematic error in thinking, affecting how we process information, perceive others, and make decisions. It can lead to irrational thoughts or judgments and is often based on our perceptions, memories, or individual and societal beliefs.

I see that out of concern for me that you recommend getting help.

So, likewise, I recommend that you see a psychiatrist, that is unless you are okay with being all fucked up.

Face it, he said "Fight it in the streets"

You progressives have a way of making any and all excuses for what the left says, yet looking for hidden meanings and "dog whistles" in everything a Republican says or does.

I guess Schumer didn't actually say what he said. I guess we will see what the courts say.

Remember...no one is above the law.

https://x.com/defense_civil25/.../1885700926041731221

Oooooopsie.... There are the direct words of hakim.....


In the words of one of your own......you are cultists and will,make excuses for anything the democrats do.

But we know y'all will excuse leftist violence!

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He did. And folks who are weak minded, not in a legal sense, can seize upon it for violence.

He and we need to do better, speak better.

He did not call for violence.

How else would you fight in the streets if not with violence?
Verbosity like that has a great effect on the poor and uneducated masses to riot = violence, similar to what happened in the streets of Paris a few months ago.

Or does the phrase "civil unrest" sound more appealing?

and let's not forget, quemala said "fight" either 28 or 38 times during her "concession" speech -

come on lefties, if the word is bad, it's bad ... oh, wait.. lefties and consistency? who am I kidding

There's this too:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

I guess Schumer didn't actually say what he said. I guess we will see what the courts say.

Remember...no one is above the law.

https://x.com/defense_civil25/.../1885700926041731221

I did a search on that. Apparently, the shock and awe hasn't subsided yet in MSM. Even Fox hasn't hit the $$$ buttons yet.

Any you have the gall to use the word "law" in a false equivalence.

The "law" of retribution and weaponization, per Trumpism is not the same "Law" that Schumer was referring to.

I'm beginning to see how this is gonna go forth, in the third phase of Trumpism/fascism.

You sick people are primed for when Trump unleashes the military on the streets, martial law.

And apparently Schumer was wrong. Since he said that things have changed. Trump is above the law, per SCOTUS.

Reasonable people would know better than to give a Dark Triad monster like Trump impunity from the rule of law. That's equivalent to sanctioning carte blanche to rule of man.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

I guess Schumer didn't actually say what he said. I guess we will see what the courts say.

Remember...no one is above the law.

https://x.com/defense_civil25/.../1885700926041731221

I did a search on that. Apparently, the shock and awe hasn't subsided yet in MSM. Even Fox hasn't hit the $$$ buttons yet.

Any you have the gall to use the word "law" in a false equivalence.

The "law" of retribution and weaponization, per Trumpism is not the same "Law" that Schumer was referring to.

here you go, honey - shesh, it's like bottle feeding a calf
https://www.cnn.com/videos/pol...bortion-lead-vpx.cnn

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He did. And folks who are weak minded, not in a legal sense, can seize upon it for violence.

He and we need to do better, speak better.

He did not call for violence.

so, trump's second impeachment was baseless? got it

Trump’s impeachment was about him refusing to accept the results of the election and defend the Capitol, Congress, and the Constitution from violence.

Trunk gave his VP a constitutional directive to not certify the election. That alone was sufficient.

I think there's legal precedence protecting Schumer's speech on the floor of congress. Some lawyer will have to clarify that.

But if DOJ is doing this, and apparently is, I'm sure they have a plan to test the precedence. But the lawfare may be good enough to send the message. Bullies and monsters love shots across the bow.

You Rightist sickos always claimed, or parroted, that Biden was giving directions to DOJ, lawfare inferred with no evidence.

Now, it's obvious who is directing DOJ to lawfare and retribution. You think that's okay.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He did. And folks who are weak minded, not in a legal sense, can seize upon it for violence.

He and we need to do better, speak better.

He did not call for violence.

so, trump's second impeachment was baseless? got it

Trump’s impeachment was about him refusing to accept the results of the election and defend the Capitol, Congress, and the Constitution from violence.

Trunk gave his VP a constitutional directive to not certify the election. That alone was sufficient.

Funny, Nancy takes responsibility for the failed security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtHUYpyi5-Y

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I think there's legal precedence protecting Schumer's speech on the floor of congress. Some lawyer will have to clarify that.

But if DOJ is doing this, and apparently is, I'm sure they have a plan to test the precedence. But the lawfare may be good enough to send the message. Bullies and monsters love shots across the bow.

You Rightist sickos always claimed, or parroted, that Biden was giving directions to DOJ, lawfare inferred with no evidence.

Now, it's obvious who is directing DOJ to lawfare and retribution. You think that's okay.

Hahahaha. When we claimed lawfare, you guys all made jokes and claim "rule of law"

Time to be on the other side of the table now.

But Trump never took responsibility for taking advantage of weak security, the damage, injuries, deaths, nor his plot to overthrow.

I don't get it, why shouldn't Jefferies call for violence in the streets to achieve a political goal?
Not only it may work, but there's precedent that it can garner broad acceptance to the point of presidential pardons with the favorable political party in office.

It's possible that the most time Jefferies could serve as punishment for his alleged or insinuated crimes is less than four years.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
But Trump never took responsibility for taking advantage of weak security, the damage, injuries, deaths, nor his plot to overthrow.

Deaths?

you mean Ashly Babbit?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I think there's legal precedence protecting Schumer's speech on the floor of congress.

blah blah blah - chuckie wasn't in the floor of the senate (senators RARELY speak in the house -- together, those are congress -- words matter, honey) he was OUTSIDE of the senate when threatening SCOTUS - and no matter where he was, threatening SCOTUS is illegal -- 100% ... unless it's against GOP nominated judges, then libbies are fine with it

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

Hahahaha. When we claimed lawfare, you guys all made jokes and claim "rule of law"

Time to be on the other side of the table now.

It was no joke.

And you have helped make my point.

Hahahaha for one thing. Other side of the table for another.

Showing satisfaction for retribution is clear. What is the "other side" of the rule of law?

This farce is serial. Where it starts is hard to pin down, or trace. I'm sure it hides/lurks somewhere in each individual. But it's manifested in deeds and beliefs in-mass. But one interim place is Trump's lies, especially the BIG LIE. All the justifications flow from there. We are just witnessing the trajectory of fascism.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I don't get it, why shouldn't Jefferies call for violence in the streets to achieve a political goal?
Not only it may work, but there's precedent that it can garner broad acceptance to the point of presidential pardons with the favorable political party in office.

It's possible that the most time Jefferies could serve as punishment for his alleged or insinuated crimes is less than four years.

violence to achieve political gains is a definition of terrorism -- i don't want the guy hung, i want him to walk back his words -- they are inflammatory --

if ANY conservative said the same words, CNN and libbies would be calling for a lynch mob

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
But Trump never took responsibility for taking advantage of weak security, the damage, injuries, deaths, nor his plot to overthrow.

Deaths?

you mean Ashly Babbit?

He just exploited her death trying to make her a martyr.

I said injuries and deaths. That includes officers. Nor did I say on that day, just in case you go there.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
i want him to walk back his words -- they are inflammatory --

if ANY conservative said the same words, CNN and libbies would be calling for a lynch mob

You are inflammatory. And you make false inferences.