From: nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com   
      
   On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 21:23:30 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Jan 28, 2026 at 12:40:53 PM PST, "shawn"    
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 20:05:19 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> A leftist mob swarms a random car in Minneapolis just because they suspect   
   >>> the   
   >>> driver is conservative, and they become so violent that the driver has to   
   >>> speed away in fear.   
   >>>   
   >>> Literally no reason... just instant violence. This isn't a protest, it's a   
   >>> hunting party.   
   >>>   
   >>> And the legacy corporate media shamelessly does an absolute cover‑up of   
   it   
   >>> all.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2013609805424832512/vi   
   /avc1/1228x720/_aoRokY1NhWCuATW.mp4   
   >>   
   >> I don't know what led them to go after the guy but he clearly had done   
   >> something earlier that upset the group. They were saying "That's him!   
   >> That's him" which is what I expect when someone did something that   
   >> upset the group.   
   >   
   >Yes, it turns out he used his 1st Amendment right to say conservative things.   
   >That's all it takes to have a mob surround your car and try and drag you out   
   >by the feet in 2026 Minneapolis. And even though it's documented on video, you   
   >won't see a word about it on CNN or BSNBC or any of the broadcast networks.   
   >They'll hold requiems for a nutbag who died trying to run over a cop, but   
   >shrieking lunatics surrounding cars in street, trying to drag out the   
   >occupants and do who knows what to them? Not a peep.   
   >   
   >It's too bad none of them were run over when the car sped away.   
   >   
   >> Much more so than him just being conservative.   
   >   
   >Why would you say that?   
   >   
   >Two people are dead and a third has been injured over the last three weeks in   
   >Minneapolis alone because leftists cannot accept the idea that the other side   
   >gets a say in how this country is governed, even when they lose an election.   
      
   They are dead because the federal government didn't bother to do the   
   necessary training to teach those agents how to properly manage   
   crowds. The protestors had every right to protest as a   
   Constitutionally protected right to free speech. The two deaths   
   occurred because the officers involved over reacted to a situation in   
   which no lives were at risk and while the Renee Good killer might have   
   an argument that protects them I don't see how this latest guy (or   
   maybe both of the shooters) don't end up charged with at least   
   manslaughter. The nurse never attacked an officer, wasn't even facing   
   one when shot, never went for his weapon and didn't even have it on   
   him when they shot him ten times. Hard to think of that as anything   
   but a crime.   
      
   Both sides have a right to protest if they don't like how the country   
   is governed. Both sides have a right to legally bear arms. Neither   
   side should end up dead because they attended a protest or were   
   carrying a legal weapon.   
   >They genuinely believe they can just do whatever they want, and if they engage   
   >in enough moral outrage and petulant acts of violence, they can force their   
   >desired outcome as a fait accompli.   
   >   
   >The "Trump is very dangerous for our democracy" crowd equates literal mob   
   >violence to democracy and have constructed a metaphysical fantasy in their   
   >heads where they get to always be in charge regardless of election outcomes   
   >because they're on the "right side of history" and their hearts are with the   
   >angels or something.   
   >   
   >The Left always denies legitimacy to any actual exercise of power on the   
   >right. Always. Sometimes this is on the path to civil war (Spain 1936; Finland   
   >1918). Sometimes they succeed for a long time (modern Europe). Sometimes it's   
   >right here on RAT where I actually once was able to get FPP to admit that he   
   >believes certain powers of the presidency are only legitimate when wielded by   
   >Democrats.   
   >   
   >We are only seeing this bald-faced display of leftist arrogance now because   
   >the supposed representative of the American Right, the Republican Party, for   
   >decades has meekly agreed to never exercise real power whenever they win the   
   >ability to wield it. For the first time, there's a right-leaning president in   
   >office who isn't afraid to exercise the powers the Constitution gives him. We   
   >see the Left increasingly turning to violence because a change in this status   
   >quo is intolerable to them.   
   >   
   >How can you share a country with these people? How can we possibly maintain   
   >societal order with one side that refuses to accept the legitimacy of the   
   >other even when it wins elections via the democracy they're constantly saying   
   >needs to be saved?   
   >   
   >We can't.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)