Trump is an insurrectionist

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 335
#181
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I never worked at Dennys. I told you at one time that I managed a fast food place and apparently your bigotry extends to all people who also work fast food. That's fine. You can repeat the insults about the working class adnauseum whether it is about substitute teachers, food service workers. I am sure that will bring people to your cause and help them to agree with you
#182
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,462
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Is this hatred because Dave Thomas was a big donor to the republican party?
#183
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Russia can ‘do whatever the hell they want’!
#184
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,162
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The problem is that statute probably has these things called definitions in them. It's harder to rewrite legal history with stuff like that.
No wonder Dems are stuck relying on partisan Secretaries of State to remove him from the ballot
#185
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
So can the deep state when they remove Biden from a democratic election process.

Live by the deep state, die by the deep state. Protect your scoundrels!
#186
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Cherry picked quotes clearly meant to be metaphorical. You fight through legal means not by physical combat.
In most cases yes, that's what it means. But in order to understand what words mean you have to put them in context. In any example you can pull up of politicians telling their supporters to fight it's under the context that or democracy and rule of law works. Trump had just spent the prior two months telling his base that the election had literally been stolen from them. You do not fight people through legal means once you become convinced that they have illegally hijacked your entire political system.

Also having the opinion that the election was stolen is not illegal. Hillary thought the 2016 election was stolen, and by the way saying the election was stolen was something Al Gore also said and it could mean any number of things.
Yes, it could mean a number of things, which is why context matters. The Clinton example is one that highlights the absurdity of this comparison. Clinton argued that Trump's victory was illegitimate because it came with Russia's involvement. That's a perfectly reasonable position. Russia did in fact launch a coordinated campaign to help Trump win that election, and the Trump campaign was in fact aware of Russia's involvement, welcomed it, and at the very least attempted to coordinate their campaign with it (remember the Don Jr meeting?).

But there is absolutely no comparison between accusing the other side of willingly accepting the assistance of a foreign advasary to win, and literally stealing the election. That's like arguing that the guy who says the home team lost because the referees made some bad calls, is the same as the guy who says the home team lost because the visiting team hacked the scoreboard into reflecting points that didn't happen.

he months long effort by Trump to convince his supporters that the country was being stolen from them and his clearly violent rhetoric on the 6th do not get cancelled out because Trump slipped in the words "peacefully and patrioticly" in one sentence of his speech. One of these things is clearly not like the others. And you know who understood that? His supporters.
Dumb interpretation of his words. I took it to mean that he didn't want his words to be misinterpreted as meaning to be violent.
Then you took a meaning out of his words that are self contradictory and therefore self defeating as I just explained in detail.

The secret service would not have allowed him to wear a uniform and go down there to police the situation himself.
He was the president genius. He didn't have to suit up, he could have instead done what every other high ranking official within the federal government was doing - making phone calls, authorizing actions, and coordinating responses between agencies. That's literally why we have a president.

By the way, I am sure you are not a partisan hack so what footage released by tucker carlson that painted an alternate vision of that day did you think was the most compelling? 

Why do you think a lot of the footage he released seemed to contradict CNNs narrative?
It didn't. Showing footage of people not rioting does not cancel out the footage showing people rioting. That's basic common sense.
Topic's author
#187
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
If you abhor bigotry, why are you with the party of bigots which is led by a bigot? 

I would have thought you were a big supporter of bigotry.
#188
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If any member of Congress spent months telling black people "the police in that station over there are killing black people, so on [insert date here] I want you to meet me next to [insert police station here], WILL BE WILD!", and then went on to hold a rally right outside of that police station on that date full of all their followers where he pointed to the station and said "you have to go over there and fight like hell or you're not going to have a community anymore", but then ended it by saying "peacefully and patrioticly make your voices heard"...
Well subtract the 'peacefully' part and you basically have Maxine Waters.
Great, now show me the crowd of supporters who attacked a government facility because Maxine Waters told them to. Show me where and how she assembled them, and explain the context which leads to the conclusion that she was directing them to physically attack it.

The floor is yours...

So what was your argument again defending his speech?
It's speech. It's supposed to be a free country
Yelling "bomb" on a plane is also speech, doesn't mean it gets first amendment protection.

Do you have any other defense of his speech then since we agree that it was contradictory for him to argue he wanted them to be peaceful, and since the first amendment does not protect against incitement of a riot?

Why should he be responsible for stopping the riots that might act in his interest when the other side doesn't stop their rioters (indeed letting them run rampant for months on end)?
Because first of all, two wrongs don't make a right. But I'm at least glad we agree that Trump was wrong here, so that's some progress.

Regarding "the left", I'm sorry to tell you but "the left" did not hold any elected office because "the left" doesn't actually exist as a person or entity you can hold accountable. Show me the individual who wrongfully allowed neighborhoods or other buildings to burn down and I would be right there with you. That is of course irrelevant to this topic though (see prior paragraph).

There were certainly figureheads. You just don't apply your theory of incitement so you have no idea who they are.
I don't apply "my theory" of incitement to whatever you're talking about because what you're talking about defies common sense.

Trump is guilty of incitement (at least colloquially) because he primed his base beforehand, assembled them, and then unleashed them. There is not a single person anywhere on the left you can say this about, so instead you keep talking about "the left" which is a completely meaningless term. If the best you can do is point to some vague ideology (and misrepresenting it) as the counter to Trump's actions and demonstrated intent that should scream to you that you have nothing here.

Looks like 4 links isn't enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo96_nfW_Qw
100 false equivalences don't equal one valid example.

1.) Trump cares about justice, the left-tribe politicians don't care about their pawns.
2.) Nobody can be pardoned for the summer of love riots (or their bombs, plots to derail trains, etc...) because nobody was arrested because left-tribers don't believe in the rule of law
3.) The fascist crackdown against Jan 6 protestors has been remarked upon around the world. The imprisoning of people who weren't violent, weren't there, and the leniency shown when they renounced their political beliefs make it easy for someone who doesn't believe political violence was justified at that time to support pardons.
1. The idea that Trump cares about justice is laughable. Trump cares about Trump, everyone knows this.

2. The "summer of love" riots are non analogous to this. You're talking about a national civil uprising with rioting that took place in about 200 cities all over the country with each municipality deciding for itself how to handle it (I thought you guys were all about states rights?). Yet still, there were over 14,000 arrests, each dealt with on its own merits which is exactly how the law is supposed to work.

3. Bullshit. The world is looking upon us because they can't believe half of our country is stupid enough to think what happened on J6 was not that big a deal. You're comparing civil unrest all across the country over the way an entire race within our society is treated with an attack on the US Capitol incited by the President of the United States. They don't compare.

Again, the J6 arrests are dealt with exactly how they're supposed to be dealt with; on an individual level based on the facts and merits of each individual case. This nonsense picture you're painting of grannies getting lost and finding themselves being arrested for sedition because they accidentally wandered into the capitol as the officers waived them is is ridiculous.

It was not a baseless claim. It kept happening. It got worse. Then they started throwing out poll workers, lying about pipes bursting, covering windows, shutting down voter info APIs (which were obviously public records), fighting audits at every level, making absurd claims (most secure election in history), lied to the public and sometimes on the stand, etc... etc...
A national election takes place throughout every precinct in every county in every state all throughout the country. Like any major event you will always find coincidences and things that look nefarious if you squint the right way, that is not how you make a reasonable case of coordinated wrongdoing. Your logic here is no different than that which is used to support every bonkers conspiracy theory throughout our society's history, 9/11 trutherism being the most analogous.

Not a single thing on your list is remotely valid as evidence of conspiracy. This is a bullshit case which is why every high level official in Trump's cabinet told him the election wasn't stolen. The only reason this became anything more than fodder on the dark corners of the internet is because it was propagated by the President of the United States.

Count the authentic ballots. Stop counting the potentially fraudulent ballots. The immediate remedy depended on the kind of cheating those desperate to GET TRUMP were using.
Right, and apparently this nationwide effort to steal the election for Biden involved massively different plans all across the country. 

Or, a far more reasonable conclusion is that the conspiracy theorists were just seeing whatever they needed to see in order to justify their accusation at the outset that "the left" was going to cheat and was now relying on ad hoc justifications to hold onto that belief.
Topic's author
#189
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
We know you are a classist, any more prejudices to confess?
It’s so sad how the Republican Party has become the party of white grievance.

All the losers who are white but are unable to make a middle class life for themselves and their families (if they have one) are so busy scapegoating immigrants and blacks for their troubles that they don’t recognize the real issues causing their low status in American society.

The decline of the middle class began with Reagan

He raised taxes on workers and cut them dramatically for rich people
He made it easy for corporations to send manufacturing jobs overseas 
He undermined the power of labor unions
He made it much more expensive to go to college
He tripled the National Debt
He deregulated Wall Street
He convinced the country that “government is the problem”
He decreased wages for workers 
He blamed it all on “welfare queens”
#190
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

The decline of the middle class began with bla bla bla....
#191
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Great, now show me the crowd of supporters who attacked a government facility
Why would it need to be a government facility?


Do you have any other defense of his speech then since we agree that it was contradictory for him to argue he wanted them to be peaceful
"we" I never agreed to that. I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.

That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)


Because first of all, two wrongs don't make a right.
Responding to escalating violence/deception/breach of duty in kind is not a wrong. So it's one wrong and then a right.

Like say Putin sends a tank to shoot your house. And then you fire a HEAT warhead at the tank. That's not two wrongs. It's just one wrong. It matters who started it.


But I'm at least glad we agree that Trump was wrong here, so that's some progress.
I did not agree.



Regarding "the left", I'm sorry to tell you but "the left" did not hold any elected office because "the left" doesn't actually exist as a person or entity you can hold accountable. Show me the individual who wrongfully allowed neighborhoods or other buildings to burn down and I would be right there with you.
Mayor Durkan

The "right" doesn't exist as a person, but you people pretend Donald Trump is that person.


Trump is guilty of incitement (at least colloquially) because he primed his base beforehand, assembled them, and then unleashed them. There is not a single person anywhere on the left you can say this about, so instead you keep talking about "the left" which is a completely meaningless term.
It's just hard for me to lie as effectively as you people do. "unleashed" it's stretches the limits of my brain (which is accustomed to logical checks) to figure out what that is supposed to mean.


Looks like 4 links isn't enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo96_nfW_Qw
100 false equivalences don't equal one valid example.
A hundred false denials don't remove one example. Each one of those is, what did you call it? "priming the base". Having a protest permit would be "assembling". "unleashing" still working on that, does it have something to do with telepathy? Or does the magic of "context" come in? Is the "OK" hand gesture white supremacist and using it means "Activate my nazi children!"


2. The "summer of love" riots are non analogous to this.
True, they're much worse. They attacked civilians and not just governments (making them terrorists). They destroyed property for the sake of destroying property (as opposed to trying to gain entry). They stole. They held territory in explicit secession from the US government for nearly a month, they did it with guns, and they shot people who penetrated their lines.

Can you imagine if that had been Jan 6? That they had brought a bunch of guns, and they stayed in that building till February 3rd? Shooting people in the mean time. What if instead of complaining about elections not being free and fair enough they declared that the union held no sway in DC (with large text)?

I can imagine all of this, but ridiculously the rhetoric would hardly need to be escalated since they were called insurrectionists and terrorists in the absence of all this the left-tribe had already done with the encouragement and cover of politicians and media propagandists.

Now imagine that after holding the capitol building for nearly a month, and shooting people, they were all allowed to walk away. Let's say they wore black-block and the FBI decided to just shrug. "What can we do, we don't have their faces?"

Then Trump called it the whole thing a "month of patriotism".

How you would react to that, that's how the right-tribe feels and felt before Jan 6, and it simmered. It still enrages me to think about. Your system is not my system. Your idea of the rule of law, is not something I want any part of or owe any obedience to.


Yet still, there were over 14,000 arrests, each dealt with on its own merits which is exactly how the law is supposed to work.
"Dealt with on its own merits" You mean like Joe Biden not being charged. Like Hunter Biden getting sweetheart deals. Like Clinton not being charged. In each case the elements of the crime were alleged and the prosecutor just couldn't bring themselves to recommend charges for such lovely sweet people. "They didn't mean to your honor, their hearts are as pure as the driven snow. Who can really say they haven't tried to destroy evidence when they heard of an incoming investigation."

I've seen what you people call justice and it makes me sick.

So, 14,000 arrests you say. The deep state goons were bragging about the 900 people sentenced to prison over Jan 6.

SHOW ME THE 14,000 PRISON SENTENCES.

Richard Barnett: 54 months in prison NON VIOLENT

Lonnie Leroy Coffman: 46 months in prison NON VIOLENT

Jacob Anthony Chansley: 41 months in prison NON VIOLENT

Cleveland Meredith, Jr.: 28 months in prison NON VIOLENT

Gracyn Dawn Courtright: 1 month in prison NON VIOLENT

SHOW ME THE NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING TIME FOR BEING IN THE CHOP/CHAZ.


The world is looking upon us because they can't believe half of our country is stupid enough to think what happened on J6 was not that big a deal.
They're mocking us for having the audacity to bomb other countries for their lack of democracy and the way our deep state uses coups as a tool and an excuse while clearly being no master of democracy at home. They don't assume the rioters are in the wrong. They sneer at the way the prisoners were forced into fawning political confessions because they always knew that Americans were just as corrupt as everyone else and they're pleased to see it proved.

Many people in India and Europe know English. You can go look for yourself.


You're comparing civil unrest all across the country over the way an entire race within our society is treated with an attack on the US Capitol incited by the President of the United States.
I'm comparing actions. If you want to compare motives saving democracy is a much better reason to get violent than the propaganda induced delusion that cops like killing black people.


They don't compare.
..well for you, I know; that's why you're going to ignore all the points of comparison I just made.


Again, the J6 arrests are dealt with exactly how they're supposed to be dealt with; on an individual level based on the facts and merits of each individual case.
Right.... trust the system... trust your juries... denying crimes is defamation... Biden willfully retained documents and his associate destroyed evidence but he's just too honest to have meant anything by it.

G T F O


This nonsense picture you're painting of grannies getting lost and finding themselves being arrested for sedition because they accidentally wandered into the capitol as the officers waived them is is ridiculous.
Yet also fact. Two tiered justice systems intent on political victory do ridiculous things. https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-breach/idaho-woman-69-gets-jail-time-after-needlessly-distracting-police-on-jan-6/

"Prosecutors say that when police offered to help her, Hemphill exaggerated her injuries in an effort to distract officers from more violent protestors."

It is a clown world of your making, you make it by twisting your mind in whatever way you're told to (Like failing to realize 4 > 1,  thinking denying a crime can be defamatory, and ignoring the fact that Joe Biden willfully retained classified documents)


that is not how you make a reasonable case of coordinated wrongdoing
You are no judge of what is reasonable Mr. "Context means I don't have to give examples" "I can post a link describing four cases of voter fraud and claim it supports the notion that (secret) audits disproved widespread voter fraud" "Biden didn't destroy evidence" "News articles claimed accusations were made therefore it happened"


Your logic here is no different than that which is used to support every bonkers conspiracy theory throughout our society's history
At the rate conspiracy theories are being proved that doesn't mean much anymore.


Not a single thing on your list is remotely valid as evidence of conspiracy.
Your notions of validity are proven to be unreliable.


The only reason this became anything more than fodder on the dark corners of the internet is because it was propagated by the President of the United States.
Then if he accomplished nothing else, he accomplished that; and boy did we need it.


Right, and apparently this nationwide effort to steal the election for Biden involved massively different plans all across the country. 
Almost like they weren't coordinated by some master plan, because the master plan was to open the door to small scale action.


Or, a far more reasonable conclusion
You are no judge of what is reasonable Mr. "Context means I don't have to give examples" "I can post a link describing four cases of voter fraud and claim it supports the notion that (secret) audits disproved widespread voter fraud" "Biden didn't destroy evidence" "News articles claimed accusations were made therefore it happened"


that the conspiracy theorists were just seeing whatever they needed to see in order to justify their accusation at the outset that "the left" was going to cheat and was now relying on ad hoc justifications to hold onto that belief.
What conspiracy theorists see or don't see doesn't make election officials lie on the stand about actions that almost certainly affected the outcome of elections.
#192
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why would it need to be a government facility?
It doesn't, you just unsurprisingly decided to focus on one term I uttered so you could ignore the challenge I issued you because you know you couldn't fulfill it.

"we" I never agreed to that. I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.
Yes, which was my point that we seem to agree on.

If it follows that violence is the only remaining response to the actual theft of an election, and Trump has been telling his people the election was stolen, then telling them to "peacefully" make their voices heard is logically absurd. And when in that same exact speech he also told them to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore", the only sensible take away from that speech all things considered is that he wanted his supporters to physically attack the Capitol.

That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)
Once again, context matters, which is why these examples are complete false equivalences. No one was claiming in 2000 or 2016 that republicans were engaged in some nationwide conspiracy to steal the election by faking ballots.

This is where the rule of law conversation comes in, despite disagreeing with the outcome, we recognized that this is the outcome our system produced so we respected it as the lawful result. Trump is arguing that the system itself was hijacked by nefariously intended criminals, and you are justifying actual violence on that basis. To claim these are the same is ridiculous.

Because first of all, two wrongs don't make a right.
Responding to escalating violence/deception/breach of duty in kind is not a wrong. So it's one wrong and then a right.

Like say Putin sends a tank to shoot your house. And then you fire a HEAT warhead at the tank. That's not two wrongs. It's just one wrong. It matters who started it.
You seem to have forgotten what conversation you are engaged in. The question you asked which started this is why should Trump be responsible for protecting the US Capitol when "the left" failed to stop the BLM riots. Please tell me your answer is seriously not "the left started it, therefore Trump was justified to do nothing as the US Capitol was being attacked".

The "right" doesn't exist as a person, but you people pretend Donald Trump is that person. 
Not a single argument I've made is based on that notion.

It's just hard for me to lie as effectively as you people do. "unleashed" it's stretches the limits of my brain (which is accustomed to logical checks) to figure out what that is supposed to mean.
Happy to help you understand what these words mean; unleashed here is being used metaphorically which fits because of the emotional state of Trump's mob. Again, he lead the charge to convince them the election was stolen, then he called upon them to DC. So by the time he directed them to the Capitol, many of them were already itching to attack. So in this context, "unleashed" is referring to the emotional state of these individuals who may have felt compelled to hold off till Trump spoke finally being able to do what they came there to do.

Many of course didn't even wait, they had been too riled up to sit and listen to Trump speak. They came there for action, and it was waiting right there for them.

How you would react to that, that's how the right-tribe feels and felt before Jan 6, and it simmered. It still enrages me to think about. Your system is not my system. Your idea of the rule of law, is not something I want any part of or owe any obedience to.
Because you have so badly contorted it you have nothing in your mind but a caricature of my world view.

Let's start by putting your question in it's proper context; studies showed that something like 93% of the BLM riots had no incidents of violence or property crimes. So what you're really asking is: imagine if we took an entire summer of nationwide riots which took place in about 200 cities, cherry picked all of the worst incidents that occurred throughout that entire period, and compressed them all into one day in one location which just happens to be the seat of our federal government, and did so right as the United States Congress was certifying the presidential election.

Yeah, that sounds pretty damn fucked up. It's also a ridiculous comparison.

Again, regardless of whether you agree with my position at least represent it for what it is:

BLM riots: A civil uprising incited by a viral video calling attention to a problem the black community has been screaming from the mountaintops about for decades, which lead to multiple violent incidents, billions in property damage and an intense nationwide debate over policing in America.

J6: The culmination of a months long effort by the sitting president of the United States to illegally hold onto power and effectively end the American experiment where he assembled, incited, and unleashed a mob of angry followers on attack the United States Capitol.

These are not the same thing, not even close. To the latter, there is no individual primarily responsible, to the former there absolutely is. To the latter, our democracy and rule of law itself were never endangered, to the latter it was. 

So at the end of the day you're comparing nationwide violence to an effort by the sitting president to hijack our political system. No, these are not the same thing.

But to your implied question... Anyone who looted, burned down a building or attacked a police officer (which btw includes a lot of right wingers pretending to be BLM rioters) should have been or if they are ever found should be prosecuted and locked the fuck up. I'm not defending any of those actions, just pointing out how irrelevant this is to the conversation and how silly it is to compare an ideology to an actual sitting president and current frontrunner for the job again.

"Dealt with on its own merits" You mean like Joe Biden not being charged. Like Hunter Biden getting sweetheart deals. Like Clinton not being charged. In each case the elements of the crime were alleged and the prosecutor just couldn't bring themselves to recommend charges for such lovely sweet people.
Yeah, that's because in our system of justice there is this thing you need to produce which is called evidence.

Show me the evidence that Biden, Clinton, Hunter, or anyone else ordered their attorneys to attest to knowingly false statements, ordered the evidence of their crimes moved from one location to another, and ordered the security footage of their crimes deleted, and I'll show you an arrest right on par with Trump's.

SHOW ME THE 14,000 PRISON SENTENCES.
Show me the cases against them and we can go though it to see if a prosecution was warranted. You know they're innocent until proven guilty right?

And hell, let's just skip all the way to the end where you find one cherry picked example where you are absolutely right and justice was not served, then explain what this has to do with the idea that we have a two tiered justice system that somehow favors the left even though the overwhelming majority of people in law enforcement bringing these charges are right wing.

And here's just a thought, imagine all of these individuals instead of being engulfed in crowds in random streets in random cities all throughout the country were, you know, wandering around the US Capitol on camera and posting themselves on social media? Imagine if there wasn't a nationwide effort by everyday ordinary citizens to call the FBI and say hey, I recognize that guy, here's his name and address... It doesn't take a genius to figure out why one side faced far more prosecutions and prison sentences. Does that make it right? No of course not, but it does make clear why this notion of nefarious left wing shadow forces tilting the scales towards prosecuting right wingers is silly.

I'm comparing actions. If you want to compare motives saving democracy is a much better reason to get violent than the propaganda induced delusion that cops like killing black people.
I think most black people would disagree.

I don't disagree with you though that if our democracy was actually hijacked, violence would be justified.But it is useful to compare these two different claims on the grounds that they're both delusional using the but/for test.

But for Donald Trump refusing to concede the election, but for Donald Trump spending months telling the country the election was stolen, but for Donald Trump calling his supporters to the Capitol on January 6th, J6 does not happen. Period.

But for [who?] The BLM riots don't happen.

Fill in that blank with someone ideologically relavent (someone besides Floyd himself or Shovin, etc.). You can't because the belief we're talking about here is one that has been embedded within the black community since slavery. Nearly every black person out there can personally attest to this, so while this belief that police are killing black people might be (for the sake of argument) delusional, there is not a single individual anywhere that could make a dent on the widespread belief itself nor the pent up frustration that lead to these riots. Your enemy here is an ideology, not an actual person. These are again, not remotely the same thing.

Way too much remaining, will address the rest later.
Topic's author
#193
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
The decline of the middle class began with bla bla bla....
Do you have a point? No? Well, better to remain silent than lie and spread misinformation 

#194
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
If it follows that violence is the only remaining response to the actual theft of an election, and Trump has been telling his people the election was stolen, then telling them to "peacefully" make their voices heard is logically absurd.
Yet that is what he did and no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise you will never mutate that "peacefully" into "violently".


That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)
Once again, context matters
Once again what you call context will consist only of you pointing out irrelevant differences and then hoping someone cares. There is no one here to care about your irrelevant differences.


No one was claiming in 2000 or 2016 that republicans were engaged in some nationwide conspiracy to steal the election by faking ballots.
Their theory of the crime was ridiculous so they are let off the hook? Doesn't work like that. They said what they said. They rejected electors.


Trump is arguing that the system itself was hijacked by nefariously intended criminals

"Stolen" "illegitimate" "Trump didn't actually win, lost, put into office because the Russian interference"

Now are they claiming those "Russians" weren't criminals?

"Deliberate fraud" 2000 AD

"Own 80% of the voting machines in the US, therefore it would be easy to hack them"


To claim these are the same is ridiculous.
Again, I did not claim they were the same. Again the left-tribe are worse because they took all the actions you call incitement with no theory of illegitimacy (fake ballots, election day delays as voter suppression).


The question you asked which started this is why should Trump be responsible for protecting the US Capitol when "the left" failed to stop the BLM riots. Please tell me your answer is seriously not "the left started it, therefore Trump was justified to do nothing as the US Capitol was being attacked".
Well I could point out there was nothing to be done at the moment, or I could point out that he offered beforehand, but no I'll go with the left started it. That's more honest.


Happy to help you understand what these words mean; unleashed here is being used metaphorically which fits because of the emotional state of Trump's mob. Again, he lead the charge to convince them the election was stolen, then he called upon them to DC. So by the time he directed them to the Capitol, many of them were already itching to attack. So in this context, "unleashed" is referring to the emotional state of these individuals who may have felt compelled to hold off till Trump spoke finally being able to do what they came there to do.
So they were on leashes because they wanted to hear Trump's speech... and when he finished his speech they were "unleashed"?

Guess he should have kept talking forever? Well Maxine Waters and in fact every democrat who ever made a speech, at one one, stopped speaking *gasp*, unleashing their minions!


Let's start by putting your question in it's proper context; studies showed that something like 93% of the BLM riots had no incidents of violence or property crimes.
I'm saving that one to the hard drive. Your own little "fiery but mostly peaceful" moment. If there was no violence or property crimes, it wouldn't be a riot would it?

Now didn't you say somewhere it would be "ridiculous" to claim Jan 6 rioters weren't being violent because most protestors weren't violent?

Ah yes, right here in this thread:
You sit here talking about peaceful people as if those who were peaceful cancel out those who weren't. Never once have I ever seen you use that logic when it came to the summer riots, because you know it's a stupid argument.

Well now you've seen it used on the summer riots.


These are not the same thing, not even close.
I've already explained how the insurrection at CHOP was worse, in very objective terms, recap: actual secession, armed soldiers, shooting people


To the latter, there is no individual primarily responsible, to the former there absolutely is.
Even if that was true, why do you think it matters?


To the latter, our democracy and rule of law itself were never endangered, to the latter it was. 
It was danger to our democracy that caused Jan 6. It could have been avoided by following election laws and going above and beyond to facilitate poll watching, audits, and eliminating the appearance of impropriety.

Your concept of "the rule of law" is an abomination.


So at the end of the day you're comparing nationwide violence to an effort by the sitting president to hijack our political system. No, these are not the same thing.
I'm comparing violence to violence and you are desperately trying to make me understand how important it is that an orangeman is was only on one side of the scale so duh that's the badies.

You have failed to win on comparing violence so you're trying to compare motive. Pearl clutching attempted: FAILED


which btw includes a lot of right wingers pretending to be BLM rioters
Yep, just like those antifa/FBI infiltrators.


should have been or if they are ever found should be prosecuted and locked the fuck up
Well they weren't. So either the left-tribe rioters are professional criminals and know how to hide from authorities or there was no witch hunt which was so draconian that non-violent 69 year olds got remanded.

I think a mixture of both explanations is correct.


I'm not defending any of those actions
I do defend violence against the government if it has a chance of working, but its your standards (or the lack thereof) that is being discussed.


just pointing out how irrelevant this is to the conversation and how silly it is to compare an ideology to an actual sitting president and current frontrunner for the job again.
I'm not comparing an ideology to Trump, I'm comparing the left-tribe violence to the right-tribe violence and pointing out that your theory of incitement hardly leaves left-tribe leaders guiltless since they have claimed the same things Trump has claimed, made assertions about American society which could only be rationally met with violence just as Trump did, and in fact unlike Trump did not clarify that they weren't telling anyone to be violent.

The purported vice president Kamela Harris implied she would kill her political rivals in an elevator. Do you hear about that as often as you hear about Trump's joke about killing 'someone' on a street? No, not from the propaganda you absorb.


Yeah, that's because in our system of justice there is this thing you need to produce which is called evidence.
Guess what happens when you don't investigate? Guess what happens when you don't threaten associates with jail time to obtain testimony against your target?


ordered the evidence of their crimes moved from one location to another
ROFL

Hold on....

ROFL AGAIN

Biden moved his boxes of classified documents. oohhhhh spookey "moving evidence of crimes"

Here it comes again: ROFL


and ordered the security footage of their crimes deleted
Why did Biden's ghostwriter delete the recordings?


wandering around the US Capitol on camera and posting themselves on social media?
We'll wear skimasks next time, don't worry.

What about their text messages pulled? You think there weren't text messages at the CHAZ? We don't know them because they were never pulled because of "nefarious left wing shadow forces tilting the scales towards prosecuting right wingers"


ordinary citizens
Indoctrinated fascist-collaborators. I didn't see any CHOP insurrectionists on FBI wanted billboards.


I think most black people would disagree.
The evidence disagrees with anyone who would disagree.


Fill in that blank with someone ideologically relavent (someone besides Floyd himself or Shovin, etc.). You can't
Sure I can, it would be like a hundred people.

If you were honest you would admit you could also fill in like 30 people instead of just "Trump".

In both cases media personalities and politicians delivered the message and the people got angry because they believed it. In both cases the average believer would say they had good reasons to believe it besides hearing it from a politician.
#195
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If it follows that violence is the only remaining response to the actual theft of an election, and Trump has been telling his people the election was stolen, then telling them to "peacefully" make their voices heard is logically absurd.
Yet that is what he did and no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise you will never mutate that "peacefully" into "violently".
If it is a logically absurd message, then it is not a message at all. The only rational take away in that case is that he didn't actually mean it when he used the word "peacefully".

This is basic human communication. When someone is sending you a mixed message where 99% of what they have conveyed to you lines up with one takeaway, and 1% of what they have conveyed lines up with the opposite takeaway... The 1% can be reasonably written off as a misspeak or otherwise unexplained comment (or in a criminal context, an obvious false exculpatory).

Here's an example; girl tells you she's not interested in you. She also smiles at you in a way she doesn't with anyone else, she touches you constantly, she stairs at you with direct eye contact, she tells you she's feeling horney, she tells you she wonders what a night with you would be like, she tells you she'll be home alone later and invites you to spend the night... Are you bringing a condom with you or you gana hold onto that one line where she told you she's not interested? This question is of course, rhetorical. The answer is obvious.

No one was claiming in 2000 or 2016 that republicans were engaged in some nationwide conspiracy to steal the election by faking ballots.
Their theory of the crime was ridiculous so they are let off the hook?
No genius, they weren't alleging the election was stolen through some vast conspiracy. That's the difference, and that difference matters to anyone who cares about logic and reason.

Alleging that the home team lost because of a bad call by the umpire and alleging that the home team didn't actually lose at all but rather that the scoreboard was hacked and changed by the visiting team to reflect runs that were never scored... Are two very different things. And different things get treated... Differently.

Do you understand?

Again the left-tribe are worse because they took all the actions you call incitement
And yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd.

The question you asked which started this is why should Trump be responsible for protecting the US Capitol when "the left" failed to stop the BLM riots. Please tell me your answer is seriously not "the left started it, therefore Trump was justified to do nothing as the US Capitol was being attacked".
Well I could point out there was nothing to be done at the moment, or I could point out that he offered beforehand, but no I'll go with the left started it. That's more honest.
Well your first two are factually and logically fallacious so I would certainly understand why you wouldn't go with those, but thank you for being honest and making absolutely clear that you don't actually give a rats ass about democracy, the rule of law, or the concept of a responsible government being run by responsible people. Politics is nothing more to you than some WWE style culture war dick measuring contest between the patriotic right and the evil libs. It's utterly pathetic. But thank you for making that clear, it really says allot about this conversation.

Well now you've seen it used on the summer riots.
Yes, except the point being made in each case is entirely different, so thank you for once again demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what we're even talking about when we bring up the violence that occurred on January 6th.

Do you know what stochastic terrorism is? If not please Google it and then take a moment to think about how that is absolutely relavent to the charge with regards to January 6th and completely irrelevant when it comes to the BLM riots.

To the latter, there is no individual primarily responsible, to the former there absolutely is.
Even if that was true, why do you think it matters?
Because that determines what we are actually dealing with and what can be done to fix it.

No individual is primarily responsible for the BLM riots because the underlying issue is one that has been heavily baked into the general world view of the black community and spread to other communities as well over the course of decades, which were then triggered by a real thing that really happened which called attention to those decades worth of grievances... So what we are dealing with is the unfortunate but natural result of a society in turmoil over a deeply contentious issue for which there is no practical solution.

If one individual is primarily responsible for January 6th, then what we all witnessed that day with our own eyes in real time was the unatural result of one man's actions, a man who only had that platform in the first place because we the people gave it to him, a man whose job it was to ensure such an event was prevented at best and addressed immediately at worst, and this issue is compounded by the fact that this very same man is now arguably the frontrunner fort that job again (no such thing can be said about the former example).

The difference here is not arbitrary. Why do you think 9/11 or the Hamnas attacks drew international anger and condemnation, yet we saw nothing like that when thousands were killed in the earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Japan. Why do right wingers care nothing about the guy who was shot and killed in Nashville but the guy who was killed in El Paso by an illegal immigrant becomes a national story?

We do not treat atrocities that occurred through natural means the same as those which were artificially crafted.

This is also why I take such issue with this constant reference to "the left". Right wingers love to talk about "the left" as if it were some person or an entity (left wingers do the same thing as well). They also do this with "the media". By painting this contorted picture of a made up boogyman it becomes much easier to smuggle in the notion of some artificial cause to our issues ("the left is lying about police violence, they're to blame!") instead of seeing the issue for what it actually is; an ideology that has taken hold throughout our society built upon the collective experiences of those who believe in it.

Again, too much here will address the rest later.
#196
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
This question is of course, rhetorical. The answer is obvious.
Of course it is. No means no. Everyone has to attend those seminars.

Or you could gaslight people into thinking no actually means yes and see how that goes for them.....

And yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd
No, the left-tribe violently protested other days, most recently over Joe's Gaza genocide.

This is also why I take such issue with this constant reference to "the left". Right wingers....
You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Not all people that were violent on Jan 6 were even Trump supporters, and not all Trump supporters were violent, but don't let that stop you from being hypocritical about mislabeling groups and people in the most demagoguery partisan hack fashion....
#197
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The difference here is not arbitrary. Why do you think 9/11 or the Hamnas attacks drew international anger and condemnation, yet we saw nothing like that when thousands were killed in the earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Japan. Why do right wingers care nothing about the guy who was shot and killed in Nashville but the guy who was killed in El Paso by an illegal immigrant becomes a national story?
And who decides what stories the mass media shows? You are right, it is not arbitrary. Very rich people pay a lot of money to manufacture outrage and to make sure the public isn't TOO upset about actual problems that they might be exposed to outside of that well constructed propaganda.

Topic's author
#198
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Not all people that were violent on Jan 6 were even Trump supporters,
That is more bullshit. Why were they there then? Why were they violent? Trump invited his MAGA MORONS to a “wild” rally and you think non Trumpers showed up to crash the party. 

Very rich people pay a lot of money to manufacture outrage and to make sure the public isn't TOO upset about actual problems that they might be exposed to outside of that well constructed propaganda.
You are talking about FOX NEWS. “Too upset” is why the MAGA MORONS stormed the capital. I guess they miscalculated. But they did get to pay nearly a billion dollar settlement for spreading lies about Dominion.


#199
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Lol, Bezos has spoken.
#200
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, Bezos has spoken.

Truth is truth irrespective of who states it.

You fear of any truth about Trumpet that shows his lack of moral integrity.

MAGA = Orange Grey Parrot on steroids
#201
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Yes, trust Bezos. The best truth money can buy.
Topic's author
#202
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Bezos has spoken.
No work again today? So sad

#203
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, trust Bezos. The best truth money can buy.

Hope you can get back to work soon.

Out of work is not helping you intellectual or moral integrity.

MAGA = OGP = Trumpet is God rise evangelicals and make Trumpet great again.

#204
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Lol, trust Bezos for accurate doxxing information. 

The best Ad Homs money can buy!
#205
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, trust Bezos for accurate doxxing information.
Trumpet = lack of moral integrity.
Ergo, MAGA = lack of moral integrity, ergo,
OGP = lack of moral integrity.

Working or not is irrelevant to OGP's moral integrity? I dunno.

Maybe -Iroosvelt can speak to that better than I can. I dunno
#206
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
He only says what Bezos wants him to say. At least you have a few more neurons at work and working.
#207
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

which btw includes a lot of right wingers pretending to be BLM rioters
Yep, just like those antifa/FBI infiltrators.
This conspiracy theory never ceases to amaze me. Do you believe January 6th was a violent day that Americans should care about?

If yes, then you contradict every argument you've made here excusing it.

If no, then how does this "plot" make any sense at all?

So either the left-tribe rioters are professional criminals and know how to hide from authorities or there was no witch hunt which was so draconian that non-violent 69 year olds got remanded.
Once again, the circumstances here are entirely different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you are far less likely to get arrested breaking windows at an AutoZone in Tulsa Oklahoma during the middle of a riot than you are breaking into the US Capitol. Do I really need to explain to you why? HINT: it's not because of your political affiliation.

I do defend violence against the government if it has a chance of working, but its your standards (or the lack thereof) that is being discussed.
What's being discussed is why we are looking at the exact same thing and seeing completely opposite pictures. But the answer to that seems clear, you're a hypocrite. You sit here railing against the BLM rioters while saying out loud that you defend violence against the government of it has a chance of working. And that's not the first time you have endorsed an action that if done against the side you agree with would be sitting here also railing against. Meanwhile you have no real criticisms of my position other than to strawman them or deny basic ideas that you accept in any other area of your life, like the idea that context matters when it comes to understanding what words mean.

The purported vice president Kamela Harris implied she would kill her political rivals in an elevator.
My god this is so incredibly stupid.

She made a joke. And do you know how we know it was a joke? By putting it in context. Not a single person who listened to her took that as anything else, and here's the crazy part... If a Kamala Harris supporter, say at a rally, ever took her seriously and implied they would "help her out with that" Kamala would have instantly stopped the rally and spend the next five minutes at least lecturing to the crowd about how physical violence is never an acceptable outlet for political discourse.

Any politician would do this. Any normal human being would do this.

But has anyone ever seen Trump do this? No I'm not talking about Trump swatting away an interview question by giving the answer he knows he's supposed to give (by contradicting earlier statements with no explanation), no I'm not talking about him giving lip service to these ideas with a smile on his face as his supporters giggle because they all know he's just saying what he needs to say to keep the liberal media off his back... No I'm talking about him actually, forcefully, clearly, unequivocally, conveying to his supporters that physical violence is not acceptable? No, no one has ever seen this, which is even more remarkable given that his supporters are notoriously more likely to issue death threats then that of any other politician.

He knows full well what's going on yet not only does he do absolutely nothing to stop it, he continues to invoke it. No reasonable person can claim this man is not intentionally relying on physical violence as a means of getting what he wants. The same cannot be said of any other prominent figure on the left.

If you were honest you would admit you could also fill in like 30 people instead of just "Trump".

In both cases media personalities and politicians delivered the message and the people got angry because they believed it. In both cases the average believer would say they had good reasons to believe it besides hearing it from a politician.
Yes, and every single one of them was taking the lead from Donald Trump. We've seen how this plays out; Trump makes an absolutely ridiculous claim (like 3,000 illegals voted on CA in 2016) and then right wing media outlets repeat it, the base grabs hold of it, so the media and now republicans treat it as a credible allegation, which gives it legitimacy, which leads to more people believing it.

This works because Trump has a superpower no other politician in our lifetime has ever had; he gets to spout completely baseless bullshit and it doesn't hurt him because his supporters don't care about facts and reality. It's all a game.
#208
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
This works because Trump has a superpower no other politician in our lifetime has ever had; he gets to spout completely baseless bullshit and it doesn't hurt him because his supporters don't care about facts and reality. It's all a game.
Trump's superpower is that he is the only person not calling his supporters "deplorable" or "ultra MAGA extremists"

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, and there are a lot of blind people ignoring half the country in DC.
#209
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Of course it is. No means no. Everyone has to attend those seminars.

Or you could gaslight people into thinking no actually means yes and see how that goes for them.....
Nothing I just argued has anything to do with whether one accepts "no", my point was entirely about what conclusion one would draw from the full exchange in context.

What is it with you Trump defenders who can't even understand how basic English and human communication works?

And yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd
No, the left-tribe violently protested other days, most recently over Joe's Gaza genocide.
Completely irrelevant to the conversation.

You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Not all people that were violent on Jan 6 were even Trump supporters, and not all Trump supporters were violent, but don't let that stop you from being hypocritical about mislabeling groups and people in the most demagoguery partisan hack fashion....
Do you know what a generalization is? Do you understand the role that it plays in conversations about large groups?

And who decides what stories the mass media shows? You are right, it is not arbitrary. Very rich people pay a lot of money to manufacture outrage and to make sure the public isn't TOOupset about actual problems that they might be exposed to outside of that well constructed propaganda.
Again, completely irrelevant to the conversation. Why do you even bother?

To your question, the media covers stories that the people will tune into. Why you need that explained to you I don't know...
#210
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Trump Once Declared In A Victory Speech, 'We Won With The Poorly Educated. I Love The Poorly Educated'