Well, an Idaho state congressman say's it's "plausible". Really? For those that think voters who are uninformed shouldn't be allowed to vote I think I know where y'all can start. We know there are a few here that think Soros orchestrated the event based solely on a Craigslist post. Who else wants to raise their hand to admit they might be crazy?
I'm only surprised that such a theory wasn't promoted earlier, and I'm somewhat surprised that Trump hasn't tweeted anything about it.
I would say that sharing an unsubstantiated theory like that is pretty irresponsible and shouldn't have happened, but based on Obama's history as a community organizer, his ties with ACORN, his please for his people to "get in their faces," I'm missing the part where this isn't "plausible." Why wouldn't Obama go back to what he knows, the tactics he's endorsed and promoted for much of his life? Frankly I'd be surprised if he wasn't involved with some sort of community organizing and protesting. I just assumed that's what he'd go back to doing in his spare time now that he has some.
By plausible you are saying that Obama is capable of recruiting actors to dress as KKK/White Supremacists and the antifa to stage the conflict? Really? If you think that's plausible then even the most rational conservatives have stepped into the deep end of the stupid pool. Sorry, even entertaining that idea is crazy Alex Jone's Infowars level dumb.
No, I'm saying it's plausible that he has a mechanism in place to mobilize protestors whenever there's a potential for volatile confrontations, with the instructions to "get in their faces" and provoke responses. I'm sure some people may go all in on the theory about having the whole thing set up, and I have to admit lately, nothing would surprise me. But I wasn't talking about that extreme example, and I certainly don't believe it happened. Do you doubt there are people - and now I'm not talking about Antifa - who are going to these things trying to start something? When you go up to someone who's holding a sign or wearing a shirt and start shouting in their face, I don't buy that you're doing that to start a dialogue, and I don't think you do that to someone if you're not looking to start a fight without being the "instigator." You can pass it off as unlikely or "one Craigslist ad that proves nothing," but the evidence is mounting that many protestors are being paid, furnished with signs and coordinated in where to go and what to say. I don't see how any of that is a stretch. It's a strategy that more and more works. They just shut down a free speech rally in Boston by claiming it was a White Supremacist meeting, and got 3,000 people to show up and scare people away. That's going to be the playbook from here on out. At some point, the only people who are going to speak out are the ones who ALSO want a fight (i.e. the alt right nazi folks.) So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any conservative protestors in the future won't be "good, upstanding people" because all of them are too scared to get caught up in the violence or to be labeled as a nazi. Nancy Pelosi is trying to get the Parks Department to pull the permit on a prayer rally being held near San Francisco by a right wing group, calling them a white supremacist group, and as far as I can tell the only "evidence" of that is that the SPLO considers them one. And they consider Focus on the Family a hate group. And if they're not actually alt-right, the argument is that some white supremacists will likely attend. SFGate doesn't even bother to hide it and calls them an alt-right group even though most of the speakers and the organizer aren't white. What's funny is that in the SFGate article buried way down in the story is a graph that acknowledges that this probably won't be that big a deal, this guy seems moderate, he invites opposing viewpoints on stage, and typically not that many people show up, anyway. And the mayor, who's theoretically supposed to be keeping things calm, says this: “We are a city of tolerance. We do enjoy free speech. But I suggest to you: There is a difference between free speech and hate speech with the intent of causing violence. That must be distinguished. There is clarity in my mind that people are coming here to commit violence, not to have an academic dialogue, not to have a fire chat on differences of opinion. They’re aiming their guns at our people, and we’re going to stop them.” Do I think it's coincidental that everybody's now on the same page in terms of how to silence conservatives? No, I don't. I don't think they're recruiting people to dress up as alt-right people, because they don't have to. All they have to do is apply the label, and it becomes fact.
Obama has the mechanisms or that some of these organizations have adopted specific strategies with an outcome in mind? That latter I'd agree with but the gigantic leaps to tie any protests, let alone fake paid protesters to Obama is lunacy. Trump derangement syndrome is a common brush to paint others. That would certainly be in the Obama derangement syndrome category. Yes, there are instigators in the antifa movement just as alt-right spokesman like Milo Y are trying to draw instigate a response. It's become a symbiotic relationship. Heck, some posters here are part of that symbiosis. For some reason I think they get satisfaction from it. A sense of superiority maybe? A sense of belonging to a group larger than them? Here is the thing, we have demonstrated examples of right/left extremist faking stories from the other side just to paint their foe as something more nefarious than they already are. Yes, you have people who have faked white supremacist attacks, antifa posters have been faked and on and on. If truly this throng of people were being paid protesters garnered through such a platform as Craigslist wouldn't there be more evidence than some anonymous post on Craigslist? The skepticism should be on the "ad" rather than the much less likely scenario that the ad is real and there are a great many people involved in a conspiracy to fake a protest and they are ALL able to keep it a secret, including money changing hands! You do realize that the "free speech rally" changed it's speaker list due to the media exposure they received. After the media picked it up the organizer dis-invited multiple more extreme speakers to avoid the confrontation. The organizer chose to do this, not the media or those counterprotesters. It's a myth that the initial lineup wasn't more extreme. I can understand why a conservative would not want to show up to participate in an event with the more radical alt-right speakers (who also espouse white supremacist views). That's the media's fault or simply logic? I don't venture to the Seattle protests because the people there are more radical than I am and I don't want to be associated with that. Is that the media's fault too? I know nothing about this event so I can't comment on it. Silence conservatives? Is that an admission that the alt-right and subset of the white supremacists represent "conservatism"? If so, NELLIE BAR THE DOOR!
Staged by the FBI, actually: FBI Informant Created One Of Largest Nazi Groups In American History | ZeroHedge
Time for FBI agents to go to jail for inciting violence and for the FBI to pay for statues of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson to be built or replaced in Charlottesville, plus any other damage caused by it.
