Right, never mind what it actually was, let's focus on stated intent. You submit your application to Mensa, yetPorteroso said:Wangchung said:Weird that it would be confused with the very obvious topic at hand, then, given the context surrounding when Kamala made her statements about the protest riots and what she subsequently did with her money and fame in helping them raise $35,000,000 to bail out criminals. Most people can see it's just her funding the violent brown shirt wing of the democrat party during nationwide rioting but some let the vast void of coincidence color their rationale so they think otherwise. Maybe it shouldn't be suggested that Trump's words to peacefully protest are a sign he promotes a violent ideology. Maybe it's the height of stupidity to claim Biden's pick of Kamala Harris isn't a sign his administration supports violent ideologies when it gains power for democrats.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:I'm not interested in the separate conversation of bail reform any more than I want to discuss tax reform in this conversation. We are discussing Kamala Harris advertising for and bailing out criminals with an NGO she supports. Some of those criminals she personally helped bail out went on to assault people and kill people. She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting. Facts matter.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?Porteroso said:Mothra said:It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.Sam Lowry said:Two different issues.Wangchung said:Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.Sam Lowry said:You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.Mothra said:The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.Sam Lowry said:I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).Mothra said:The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.Sam Lowry said:
The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.
Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.
I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.
Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?
Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?
You missed the conversation that was going on before. It's ok.
Picking Harris was about 1 thing only, and if you don't know what it is, height of stupidity is sort of a lacking description.
The Fox Gagle
31,665 Views |
808 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by 4th and Inches
Wangchung said:Right, never mind what it actually was, let's focus on stated intent. You submit your application to Mensa, yetPorteroso said:Wangchung said:Weird that it would be confused with the very obvious topic at hand, then, given the context surrounding when Kamala made her statements about the protest riots and what she subsequently did with her money and fame in helping them raise $35,000,000 to bail out criminals. Most people can see it's just her funding the violent brown shirt wing of the democrat party during nationwide rioting but some let the vast void of coincidence color their rationale so they think otherwise. Maybe it shouldn't be suggested that Trump's words to peacefully protest are a sign he promotes a violent ideology. Maybe it's the height of stupidity to claim Biden's pick of Kamala Harris isn't a sign his administration supports violent ideologies when it gains power for democrats.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:I'm not interested in the separate conversation of bail reform any more than I want to discuss tax reform in this conversation. We are discussing Kamala Harris advertising for and bailing out criminals with an NGO she supports. Some of those criminals she personally helped bail out went on to assault people and kill people. She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting. Facts matter.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?Porteroso said:Mothra said:It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.Sam Lowry said:Two different issues.Wangchung said:Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.Sam Lowry said:You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.Mothra said:The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.Sam Lowry said:I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).Mothra said:The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.Sam Lowry said:
The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.
Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.
I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.
Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?
Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?
You missed the conversation that was going on before. It's ok.
Picking Harris was about 1 thing only, and if you don't know what it is, height of stupidity is sort of a lacking description.
What are you blathering about.
Just pointing out the difference between Kamala being picked because she is a black female and her being picked because she supports violent political riots with her money and platform is a moot point when we look at the result; the Biden administration picked a political violence funding and cheerleading candidate forPorteroso said:Wangchung said:Right, never mind what it actually was, let's focus on stated intent. You submit your application to Mensa, yetPorteroso said:Wangchung said:Weird that it would be confused with the very obvious topic at hand, then, given the context surrounding when Kamala made her statements about the protest riots and what she subsequently did with her money and fame in helping them raise $35,000,000 to bail out criminals. Most people can see it's just her funding the violent brown shirt wing of the democrat party during nationwide rioting but some let the vast void of coincidence color their rationale so they think otherwise. Maybe it shouldn't be suggested that Trump's words to peacefully protest are a sign he promotes a violent ideology. Maybe it's the height of stupidity to claim Biden's pick of Kamala Harris isn't a sign his administration supports violent ideologies when it gains power for democrats.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:I'm not interested in the separate conversation of bail reform any more than I want to discuss tax reform in this conversation. We are discussing Kamala Harris advertising for and bailing out criminals with an NGO she supports. Some of those criminals she personally helped bail out went on to assault people and kill people. She advertised the bail fund during the riots while she was also telling rioters they shouldn't stop rioting. Facts matter.Porteroso said:Wangchung said:Are you saying paying for the release of violent criminals who go on to commit more violence is not supporting crime?Porteroso said:Mothra said:It's certainly understandable why you're trying desperately to split them.Sam Lowry said:Two different issues.Wangchung said:Not when you fund the bail of criminals who then go out and commit more crime.Sam Lowry said:You have trouble separating issues. Funding bail and supporting violence are two different ones.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Then what it comes down to is that a lot of you just don't like bail reform. Kamala is no more despicable in that respect than anyone else who supports it.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:I don't disagree with your first statement. The second is extremely unlikely to be true. There are always people getting arrested for non-violent acts of civil disobedience, violating curfew, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.Mothra said:The implication that she didn't know that she was asking for contributions to a fund that bailed out rioters is asinine. The police were only arresting rioters.Sam Lowry said:I agree (see my 4:00 PM post).Mothra said:The distinction without a difference is her personally contributing funds vs. her publicly asking people to do so. The latter is no better than the former, and may even be worse.Sam Lowry said:
The difference is between supporting criminality and supporting a cause that may benefit some criminals. It's an important difference.
Well if you agree with my first statement, then we should stop there and agree Harris' public support of the fund was despicable.
I'm generally ambivalent about bail reform. What I don't like is a politician supporting funding bail to put violent criminals back on the streets during the middle of a riot. No surprise you call it a mere dispute about bail reform. You're regularly obtuse and on the wrong side of most issues.
Are you saying reforming the bail system is the same as supporting violent crime?
Targeting the release of violent criminals has absolutely nothing to do with bail reform. That's a different conversation. Are you really aware of what bail reform is?
You missed the conversation that was going on before. It's ok.
Picking Harris was about 1 thing only, and if you don't know what it is, height of stupidity is sort of a lacking description.
What are you blathering about.
Vice President, so claiming Trump was the violence supporting choice is false.
she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Bingo. The obvious is lost on fools.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
It makes me cringe to think of the logical contortions you must have put yourself through in order to write this. Trump's effect on J6 couldn't have been more obvious. Buffalo Man was literally repeating his orders to the mob when he finally told them to leave.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
I'm open to the argument that Kamala had similar influence, but the arguments have to be truthful. When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.
So you even argue with yourself? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I suspect you would argue water is dry if it suited your purposes.Sam Lowry said:I guess that's one difference between us. Till next time!Mothra said:Sorry, don't argue semantics with obtuse jackasses. Have a nice day.Sam Lowry said:Now you think the difference between a riot and protest is merely semantic? Please elaborate.Mothra said:More buffoonery. If he wants to describe it as a riot as opposed to a protest, that's his right. The evidence certainly supports that the protests in Minnesota could easily be described as riots, given the millions in dollars in destruction that resulted. But you could just agree to disagree.Sam Lowry said:Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.Wangchung said:
I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."
I've never seen someone so willing to debate semantics. Is it possible for you to behave in a non-obtuse manner?
Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I don't know what purpose that would serve, other than racking up some blue stars on the "science" threads.Mothra said:So you even argue with yourself? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I suspect you would argue water is dry if it suited your purposes.Sam Lowry said:I guess that's one difference between us. Till next time!Mothra said:Sorry, don't argue semantics with obtuse jackasses. Have a nice day.Sam Lowry said:Now you think the difference between a riot and protest is merely semantic? Please elaborate.Mothra said:More buffoonery. If he wants to describe it as a riot as opposed to a protest, that's his right. The evidence certainly supports that the protests in Minnesota could easily be described as riots, given the millions in dollars in destruction that resulted. But you could just agree to disagree.Sam Lowry said:Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.Wangchung said:
I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."
I've never seen someone so willing to debate semantics. Is it possible for you to behave in a non-obtuse manner?
Well, we know one poster is always good for a blue star for your inane ramblings.Sam Lowry said:I don't know what purpose that would serve, other than racking up some blue stars on the "science" threads.Mothra said:So you even argue with yourself? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I suspect you would argue water is dry if it suited your purposes.Sam Lowry said:I guess that's one difference between us. Till next time!Mothra said:Sorry, don't argue semantics with obtuse jackasses. Have a nice day.Sam Lowry said:Now you think the difference between a riot and protest is merely semantic? Please elaborate.Mothra said:More buffoonery. If he wants to describe it as a riot as opposed to a protest, that's his right. The evidence certainly supports that the protests in Minnesota could easily be described as riots, given the millions in dollars in destruction that resulted. But you could just agree to disagree.Sam Lowry said:Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.Wangchung said:
I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."
I've never seen someone so willing to debate semantics. Is it possible for you to behave in a non-obtuse manner?
A few supplemental questions to my post above. Let's put aside for a moment your description of BLM as "protests" and Jan. 6th as an "insurrection" or "riot." Let me ask you this:Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Did the bail fund bail out mere "protestors" who were protesting peacefully and lawfully, or did it bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law? We know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested. We also know that of that group, thousands of them were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Did the Minnesota bail fund that Kamala encouraged Americans to contribute to bail out mere peaceful protestors, or did it bail out people accused of committing crimes such as the above-referenced criminal conduct? If Republican politicians had supported a bail fund to bail out the people arrested on January 6th, would they have been merely supporting "bail reform"?
I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind of whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Mothra said:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Florda Mike?Mothra said:Well, we know one poster is always good for a blue star for your inane ramblings.Sam Lowry said:I don't know what purpose that would serve, other than racking up some blue stars on the "science" threads.Mothra said:So you even argue with yourself? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I suspect you would argue water is dry if it suited your purposes.Sam Lowry said:I guess that's one difference between us. Till next time!Mothra said:Sorry, don't argue semantics with obtuse jackasses. Have a nice day.Sam Lowry said:Now you think the difference between a riot and protest is merely semantic? Please elaborate.Mothra said:More buffoonery. If he wants to describe it as a riot as opposed to a protest, that's his right. The evidence certainly supports that the protests in Minnesota could easily be described as riots, given the millions in dollars in destruction that resulted. But you could just agree to disagree.Sam Lowry said:Right, except that you're lying. Anyone who watched the interview knows that "they won't stop and they shouldn't stop" refers to protests, not riots.Wangchung said:
I disagree. If the crime is rioting at protests and the protest riots are ongoing all across the country, at that point a politician is very knowingly supporting and funding bail for the express purpose of keeping protest rioters in the street. "They won't stop and they shouldn't stop."
I've never seen someone so willing to debate semantics. Is it possible for you to behave in a non-obtuse manner?
Paying a criminals' bail isn't supporting bail reform, it's releasing criminals on the street. Only an idiot backed into a corner by their own rhetoric and faulty logic would attempt such a claim. The riots were violent. I know you want to count every virtue signaling BLM yard sign as a peaceful protest so the numbers look better but we saw the reality of it with our own eyes. Violent people who were upset violent criminals got themselves killed went about rioting, looting and murdering for months. Your ridiculous claim that paying the bail of criminals doesn't encourage and enable crime is like saying buying drugs for an addict doesn't encourage and enable drug use.
All riots are violent. You haven't even gotten to square one in terms of following this debate.Wangchung said:
Paying a criminals' bail isn't supporting bail reform, it's releasing criminals on the street. Only an idiot backed into a corner by their own rhetoric and faulty logic would attempt such a claim. The riots were violent. I know you want to count every virtue signaling BLM yard sign as a peaceful protest so the numbers look better but we saw the reality of it with our own eyes. Violent people who were upset violent criminals got themselves killed went about rioting, looting and murdering for months. Your ridiculous claim that paying the bail of criminals doesn't encourage and enable crime is like saying buying drugs for an addict doesn't encourage and enable drug use.
Yes, it's everyone else that cannot understand the debate, just you alone grasp the discussion. You're the conversational equivalent of the "it's been mostly peaceful" reporter standing in front of the blaze set by Biden voters.Sam Lowry said:All riots are violent. You haven't even gotten to square one in terms of following this debate.Wangchung said:
Paying a criminals' bail isn't supporting bail reform, it's releasing criminals on the street. Only an idiot backed into a corner by their own rhetoric and faulty logic would attempt such a claim. The riots were violent. I know you want to count every virtue signaling BLM yard sign as a peaceful protest so the numbers look better but we saw the reality of it with our own eyes. Violent people who were upset violent criminals got themselves killed went about rioting, looting and murdering for months. Your ridiculous claim that paying the bail of criminals doesn't encourage and enable crime is like saying buying drugs for an addict doesn't encourage and enable drug use.
I don't know about that. Mothra is showing signs of comprehension.Wangchung said:Yes, it's everyone else that cannot understand the debate, just you alone grasp the discussion.Sam Lowry said:All riots are violent. You haven't even gotten to square one in terms of following this debate.Wangchung said:
Paying a criminals' bail isn't supporting bail reform, it's releasing criminals on the street. Only an idiot backed into a corner by their own rhetoric and faulty logic would attempt such a claim. The riots were violent. I know you want to count every virtue signaling BLM yard sign as a peaceful protest so the numbers look better but we saw the reality of it with our own eyes. Violent people who were upset violent criminals got themselves killed went about rioting, looting and murdering for months. Your ridiculous claim that paying the bail of criminals doesn't encourage and enable crime is like saying buying drugs for an addict doesn't encourage and enable drug use.
And yet Mothra has repeatedly pointed out the same errors in your logic that I have pointed out to you.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about that. Mothra is showing signs of comprehension.Wangchung said:Yes, it's everyone else that cannot understand the debate, just you alone grasp the discussion.Sam Lowry said:All riots are violent. You haven't even gotten to square one in terms of following this debate.Wangchung said:
Paying a criminals' bail isn't supporting bail reform, it's releasing criminals on the street. Only an idiot backed into a corner by their own rhetoric and faulty logic would attempt such a claim. The riots were violent. I know you want to count every virtue signaling BLM yard sign as a peaceful protest so the numbers look better but we saw the reality of it with our own eyes. Violent people who were upset violent criminals got themselves killed went about rioting, looting and murdering for months. Your ridiculous claim that paying the bail of criminals doesn't encourage and enable crime is like saying buying drugs for an addict doesn't encourage and enable drug use.
I'm not saying he's right, just that he's engaged. I'm hopeful we're at least past the "duhh, what is riots?" phase of the discussion.Wangchung said:And yet Mothra has repeatedly pointed out the same errors in your logic that I have pointed out to you.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about that. Mothra is showing signs of comprehension.Wangchung said:Yes, it's everyone else that cannot understand the debate, just you alone grasp the discussion.Sam Lowry said:All riots are violent. You haven't even gotten to square one in terms of following this debate.Wangchung said:
Paying a criminals' bail isn't supporting bail reform, it's releasing criminals on the street. Only an idiot backed into a corner by their own rhetoric and faulty logic would attempt such a claim. The riots were violent. I know you want to count every virtue signaling BLM yard sign as a peaceful protest so the numbers look better but we saw the reality of it with our own eyes. Violent people who were upset violent criminals got themselves killed went about rioting, looting and murdering for months. Your ridiculous claim that paying the bail of criminals doesn't encourage and enable crime is like saying buying drugs for an addict doesn't encourage and enable drug use.
As long as you keep calling riots "peaceful protests" that conversation will keep coming back up.Sam Lowry said:I'm not saying he's right, just that he's engaged. I'm hopeful we're at least past the "duhh, what is riots?" phase of the discussion.Wangchung said:And yet Mothra has repeatedly pointed out the same errors in your logic that I have pointed out to you.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about that. Mothra is showing signs of comprehension.Wangchung said:Yes, it's everyone else that cannot understand the debate, just you alone grasp the discussion.Sam Lowry said:All riots are violent. You haven't even gotten to square one in terms of following this debate.Wangchung said:
Paying a criminals' bail isn't supporting bail reform, it's releasing criminals on the street. Only an idiot backed into a corner by their own rhetoric and faulty logic would attempt such a claim. The riots were violent. I know you want to count every virtue signaling BLM yard sign as a peaceful protest so the numbers look better but we saw the reality of it with our own eyes. Violent people who were upset violent criminals got themselves killed went about rioting, looting and murdering for months. Your ridiculous claim that paying the bail of criminals doesn't encourage and enable crime is like saying buying drugs for an addict doesn't encourage and enable drug use.
I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Sam Lowry said:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Mothra said:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Mothra said:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Sam Lowry said:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Mothra said:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
Sam Lowry said:If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Mothra said:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Sam Lowry said:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Mothra said:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
No, you still don't get it. Her characterization of the protests is irrelevant, just as yours and mine are. You are the poster hung up on the characterization.
Regardless of whether she describes them as protests, they were violent and resulted in billions of dollars of destruction. Hundreds were injured. The fact she said they need to continue was despicable on her part, any way you slice it.
Well, some of them were. Most of them weren't. I'm not sure where we go if we can't agree on that.Mothra said:Regardless of whether she describes them as protests, they were violent and resulted in billions of dollars of destruction.Sam Lowry said:If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Mothra said:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Sam Lowry said:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Mothra said:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
How many does it take before you realize it's happening? Is the magic number 600 riots? 1,000? Trump takes the blame for inciting Jan 6th despite no previous riots by his supporters after his speeches, as if he should have known the unprecedented would happen, so why shouldn't the average person be expected to see that BLM protests turn into riots at night after SO MANY examples?Sam Lowry said:Well, some of them were. Most of them weren't. I'm not sure where we go if we can't agree on that.Mothra said:Regardless of whether she describes them as protests, they were violent and resulted in billions of dollars of destruction.Sam Lowry said:If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Mothra said:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Sam Lowry said:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Mothra said:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
Sam Lowry said:Well, some of them were. Most of them weren't. I'm not sure where we go if we can't agree on that.Mothra said:Regardless of whether she describes them as protests, they were violent and resulted in billions of dollars of destruction.Sam Lowry said:If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Mothra said:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Sam Lowry said:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Mothra said:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
We can. But when 578 of them result in $2 billion dollars in damage, hundreds injured, and a few deaths, there is a serious problem with the BLM protests in general - a fact you seem to want to continue to ignore. There is a problem with "mostly" peaceful protests that end in that kind of carnage and destruction in the same way there is a problem with a "mostly" peaceful Jan. 6th protest that resulted in what you describe as a riot or insurrection that was one of the greatest threats to democracy in our country's history. You can't have it both ways under your line of reasoning.
She encouraged protests that 538 times turned into riots.Quote:If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Quote:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Quote:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Quote:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Quote:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Quote:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Quote:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.Quote:
she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
Not once did she ask anyone to stop and go home.
Far from it. She did the opposite....positioning it as noble, necessary, and exhorting it onward.
The riots & burings & beatings went on and on and on...overrunning police stations, establishing autonomous zones, hand-to-hand fights with federal officers INSIDE federal property, etc....
Trump encouraged A protest. Exhorted for it to be a "peaceful and patriotic" protest.
And when it got out of hand, he promptly exhorted supporters to go home.
They did.
The difference in the leadership of the two elected officials is profound.
You defend the leader who manifestly promoted and supported 5th column operations.
And not just trash the leader who did the right thing, but actually contort his nobler actions into insurrection.
neverTrumpism is the intellectual equivalent of BSE....it corrodes cognitive function all the way down to involuntary response.
LOLwhiterock said:Trump encouraged A protest. Exhorted for it to be a "peaceful and patriotic" protest.Quote:If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Quote:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Quote:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Quote:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Quote:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Quote:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Quote:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.Quote:
she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
And when it got out of hand, he promptly exhorted supporters to go home.
They did.
It is well document that he did exactly that. There is no documentation that he encouraged the outbreak or exhorted the continuation of any violence. Quite a stark contrast with our VP.Sam Lowry said:LOLwhiterock said:Trump encouraged A protest. Exhorted for it to be a "peaceful and patriotic" protest.Quote:If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Quote:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Quote:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Quote:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Quote:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Quote:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Quote:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.Quote:
she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
And when it got out of hand, he promptly exhorted supporters to go home.
They did.
We understand you are so thoroughly invested in your Reichstag Fire play that you cannot admit your error, by you don't have to keep digging the hole....
What Trump Knew: How the Jan. 6 Committee Is Building a Case Against a Former PresidentWangchung said:How many does it take before you realize it's happening? Is the magic number 600 riots? 1,000? Trump takes the blame for inciting Jan 6th despite no previous riots by his supporters after his speeches, as if he should have known the unprecedented would happen, so why shouldn't the average person be expected to see that BLM protests turn into riots at night after SO MANY examples?Sam Lowry said:Well, some of them were. Most of them weren't. I'm not sure where we go if we can't agree on that.Mothra said:Regardless of whether she describes them as protests, they were violent and resulted in billions of dollars of destruction.Sam Lowry said:If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.Mothra said:I am happy to find them, when I have the time. The reason I know it to be true is I am one of the posters you took issue with. I called it a protest, and you said it was an insurrection. And then of course the thread devolved into a semantics discussion regarding the difference between the two characterizations, as they so often do with you (see this thread).Sam Lowry said:I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).Mothra said:"I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6." Brother, I would ask that you go back and read your posts from January 2020. We had a couple of day long threads on this issue right after is happened, wherein you repeatedly took issue with anyone who described Jan. 6th as a mere "protest."Sam Lowry said:I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. I have objected to "rowdy tourists" and other such euphemisms. In any case, it's absurd to refer to either J6 or a BLM riot as "mostly peaceful." I've made fun of that kind whitewashing many times. The difference is that the 2020 protests weren't one event. A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful. They should have been canceled once the potential for violence was evident, so I disagree with Harris to that extent. But she's looking at it from a very different perspective as a black woman who's been involved with civil rights issues and seen the effects of bad policing up close. Just like most people on this board have a different perspective and more empathy for MAGA issues. For you, when you look at the summer of 2020, riots are the story. For Kamala, the protests are the story. I think that's pretty clear if you watch the interview with an open mind.Mothra said:Let me ask you this: Why have you repeatedly taken issue with posters on this board who have described January 6th as a "protest"? You have repeatedly argued with that characterization, and have described it in terms ranging from "riot" to "insurrection." Yet, I take it you do not dispute that most of the people who showed up that day did not engage in violence or enter the capitol, correct? Only a handful of those who showed up have actually been indicted, correct? Most were peacefully protesting, were they not? And yet, you have repeatedly argued with anyone who called Jan. 6th a mere protest for more than 2 years.Sam Lowry said:When you say she supported riots, and you're citing an interview where riots aren't even mentioned, it's not truthful and not convincing.whiterock said:she wasn't helping bail out protestors. she was helping bail out rioters.Sam Lowry said:The bail fund had no material effect on the extent of the riots. If you fail to show evidence of cause, which you have, then coincidence is all that's left.Wangchung said:Bad judgement? More of that coincidence your narratives cannot exist without, eh?Sam Lowry said:That is part of the context, but it doesn't justify twisting her words. Bad judgment isn't the same as expressly, purposely keeping rioters on the street. And no, that's not splitting hairs. It's the sum and substance of your accusation against her.Wangchung said:Ignoring context like claiming Kamala was innocently discussing bail reform ignores the context of ongoing nationwide protest turned riots by the people she outright supported publicly?Sam Lowry said:You're consistent in one way, at least. You never fail to zero in on a phrase or a sentence while completely ignoring the context.Wangchung said:
Trump should have known telling his people to peacefully make their voices heard would lead to a riot and deserved impeachment despite no Pro-Trump crowd protests turning into anything violent ever before. Kamala had no way of knowing that protest number 300 would turn into riot number 300 when she called for more protests amid the nationwide, highly televised protest turned riots.
If you object to her supporting protests because it was a volatile time and some of those protests might have turned into riots, that's a fair point. It's just very different from the point you think you've been making.
and she was vigorously supporting protests that 568 times turned into violent riots.
You excuse her for that, with logic that is completely at odds with your analysis of J6: "the bail fund had no material effect on the riots" consistent with the meme that some people who had plotted sedition showed up at J6 ergo Trump owns an insurrection?
the hypocrisy is yours.
Own it.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I describe BLM protests as protests and BLM riots as riots. I don't see why that's controversial. I refer to J6 as a riot, which is also a pretty objective description as far as I can see. There's disagreement as to whether it was an insurrection.
Regarding GOP politicians helping J6ers, you're going to hate this answer, but it depends on the politician. With Ted Cruz, I'd be suspicious. Someone like Justin Amash would be a better comparison. I don't know what he may have said about J6, but I know he's a committed constitutionalist and libertarian. If he said we don't support riots, but everyone has rights, and it's not right for these defendants to languish in jail waiting for trial, I could believe he was taking a principled stand. Kamala is likewise a person who's been involved with civil rights issues her whole career. It's why she became a DA in the first place. I think she was a horrible DA, and I don't always agree with how she goes about things. But she does have some credibility.
As for saying the J6 protests should continue, there were no J6 "protests." There was one protest that turned into a riot, so calling for it to continue would obviously be supporting riots. That wasn't the case in 2020. The vast majority of those protests were peaceful.
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
I've said many times that I detest the BLM organization and its leaders, who do represent a violent ideology in my opinion. That doesn't mean all of their supporters or all of the 2020 protesters should be condemned, any more than all Trump voters or MAGA protesters should be condemned. That's a straw man. A lot of good people have been duped on both sides.
The problem isn't so much that you interpret the events a certain way, but that you refuse the same prerogative to others. If reasonable people can disagree, so can Kamala Harris. But you, WC, WR at al. won't accept that. When she says the protests should continue, you insist that she simply must mean to continue the riots. You're the one insisting on your characterization as if it were objective fact.
By Eric Cortellessa and Vera Bergengruen
June 29, 2022 5:47 PM EDT
For the last 18 months, Trump and his allies have adamantly stressed that the deadly Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, was as shocking to them as it was to everybody else. It was spontaneous, they said, a legitimate political protest. The president and his associates did nothing wrong before, during, or after the attack. One senator called it "a debate about election integrity" that simply got out of hand.
During a hastily scheduled hearing on June 28, 26-year-old Cassidy Hutchinson struck a mortal blow to that defense. Over two hours of dramatic live testimony before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, Hutchinson asserted that Trump was repeatedly warned about the legal and practical dangers of encouraging the march to the Capitol that day.
Not only did he urge his supporters to go to the Capitol, he knew the mob was heavily armed and dangerous, according to Hutchinson. Not only did he know they wanted to obstruct the certification of Joe Biden's electoral victory, he tried to join them. And not only did he know his supporters posed grave danger to members of Congress and his own vice president, Mike Pence, he thought they "deserved it."
Even from the outside, there were clear signs that Jan. 6 had a high potential for violence. Far-right groups had been openly preparing for weeks for the day they saw as a "final stand" to keep the President in power. Dozens of the MAGA faithful had already been arrested at precursor "Stop the Steal" rallies. As Trump "continues this incendiary rhetoric, he's inciting his supporters and inflaming the situation," Chuck Hagel, a Defense Secretary under President Obama and former Republican Senator from Nebraska, told TIME on Jan. 5, 2021. "I'm concerned about violence."
This was an assessment that was shared internally by national security and Secret Service officials, who warned senior White House staffers, including Meadows, about intelligence that indicated there was a likelihood of violence and armed protestors on Jan. 6, according to Hutchinson's testimony, as well as concerns that Congress would be a target.
At the same time, Trump was trying to orchestrate a rare presidential visit to the Capitol to be with his supporters that day. On the morning of Jan. 6, White House Counsel Pat Cippolone made a desperate plea to Hutchinson as she was leaving for the rally planned for near the White House. "Please make sure we don't go up to the Capitol, Cassidy," he said. "Keep in touch with me. We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen."
Earlier that morning, she had witnessed White House Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato warning Meadows of the wild array of weaponry the protestors were bringing, everything from knives, pistols, and rifles to bear spray and body armor. "These effing people are fastening spears onto the ends of flagpoles," she recalled him saying. Ornato said he had told Trump the same thing, Hutchinson added.
But when she got to the rally, she overheard Trump concerned not about the potential for violence, but the crowd size. The rally space at the Ellipse was not full, the Secret Service told him, because many of his supporters were armed and didn't want to go through the magnetometers, known as "mags," to gain access. "I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away," he said, according to Hutchinson. "Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here."
Hutchinson testified that Trump wanted to include language promising to pardon his supporters who marched to the Capitol to thwart Biden's election certification, but Cippolone convinced him to leave it out. "I understood, from White House Counsel's Office coming into our office that morning, that they didn't think it was a good idea to include that in the speech," Hutchinson said in pre-taped video testimony.
While Trump and his allies tried to undermine her credibility, several former administration officials vouched for her character and trustworthiness. "I worked with her, I saw her every day in the West Wing. She was front and center, actively a major part of the West Wing operation," Olivia Troye, a former homeland security and counterrorism adviser to Pence, told TIME. "They can try to discredit her," she went on, "the reality is she was Mark Meadows' right-hand person. There is no more credible person than that."
https://time.com/6192383/donald-trump-knew-jan-6-hearings/
Trump Recklessly Warning of 'Death and Destruction' If He's Indicted
By Philip Klein
March 24, 2023
Having already called for protests, Donald Trump is now deliberately raising the threat of "death and destruction" in the event that he is indicted.
In a Truth Social rant posted after 1 a.m., Trump wrote:
What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that no crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA!
Following Trump's initial call for protests, many of his defenders insisted that he obviously meant peaceful protests. Now they'll pivot to the argument that he wasn't saying "death and destruction" would be a good thing, just making this observation about the state of play.
But it's pretty obvious what he's doing here. It's a game he's played before. He's trying to use his ability to whip up supporters into a frenzy as an intimidation tactic to further his own aims while absolving himself from responsibility for anything that happens. He did that in the wake of his 2020 election defeat, and we ended up with the Capitol riot. Instead of taking January 6 as a lesson against using rhetoric so loosely, Trump is instead using people's memories of the event to make his warnings of "death and destruction" more credible.
Once again Trump is acting as a dangerous, destructive force.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-recklessly-warning-of-death-and-destruction-if-hes-indicted/
By Philip Klein
March 24, 2023
Having already called for protests, Donald Trump is now deliberately raising the threat of "death and destruction" in the event that he is indicted.
In a Truth Social rant posted after 1 a.m., Trump wrote:
What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that no crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA!
Following Trump's initial call for protests, many of his defenders insisted that he obviously meant peaceful protests. Now they'll pivot to the argument that he wasn't saying "death and destruction" would be a good thing, just making this observation about the state of play.
But it's pretty obvious what he's doing here. It's a game he's played before. He's trying to use his ability to whip up supporters into a frenzy as an intimidation tactic to further his own aims while absolving himself from responsibility for anything that happens. He did that in the wake of his 2020 election defeat, and we ended up with the Capitol riot. Instead of taking January 6 as a lesson against using rhetoric so loosely, Trump is instead using people's memories of the event to make his warnings of "death and destruction" more credible.
Once again Trump is acting as a dangerous, destructive force.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-recklessly-warning-of-death-and-destruction-if-hes-indicted/
There is a stronger case that neverTrumpers are the dangerous destructive force here, by turning a blind eye to the real culprit posing a far larger threat to constitutional order.Sam Lowry said:
Trump Recklessly Warning of 'Death and Destruction' If He's Indicted
By Philip Klein
March 24, 2023
Having already called for protests, Donald Trump is now deliberately raising the threat of "death and destruction" in the event that he is indicted.
In a Truth Social rant posted after 1 a.m., Trump wrote:
What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that no crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA!
Following Trump's initial call for protests, many of his defenders insisted that he obviously meant peaceful protests. Now they'll pivot to the argument that he wasn't saying "death and destruction" would be a good thing, just making this observation about the state of play.
But it's pretty obvious what he's doing here. It's a game he's played before. He's trying to use his ability to whip up supporters into a frenzy as an intimidation tactic to further his own aims while absolving himself from responsibility for anything that happens. He did that in the wake of his 2020 election defeat, and we ended up with the Capitol riot. Instead of taking January 6 as a lesson against using rhetoric so loosely, Trump is instead using people's memories of the event to make his warnings of "death and destruction" more credible.
Once again Trump is acting as a dangerous, destructive force.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-recklessly-warning-of-death-and-destruction-if-hes-indicted/
Trump is correct in calling out the prosecutorial misconduct. And that misconduct is quite egregious. Who would not be angry to be targeted for such blatant political reasons? And his statements are hardly calling for death and destruction. He is merely noting that the egregious abuse of office could cause protests, and protests occasionally turn into riots, at which time propel and property are often harmed. After the way his supporters were treated at J6, and the naked Reichstag Fire hoax his political opponents conducted against him after J6, it would be irresponsible of him NOT to speak out.
Trump is not causing this crisis.
Bragg is.
Let's watch the polling over the coming days. I suspect his support in the primary will rise, and his support in the general will be no worse than unchanged. If that happens, it means he is correctly reading public opinion.
It is all well & good to criticize Trump's rhetoric here, as long as one is equally critical of the proximate cause of the crisis = Bragg.
LoL at highlighting Hutchinsons testimony.. utter nonsense
"Only you can save us while I go do something else"
"Only you can save us while I go do something else"
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “