What's the latest on your Secret Service witnesses coming forward to refute her testimony under oath? They sure seem to be taking their sweet time about it.4th and Inches said:
LoL at highlighting Hutchinsons testimony.. utter nonsense
"Only you can save us while I go do something else"
The Fox Gagle
31,673 Views |
808 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by 4th and Inches
they adjorned the Jan 6th theater club.. I think season 2 was canceled.Sam Lowry said:What's the latest on your Secret Service witnesses coming forward to refute her testimony under oath? They sure seem to be taking their sweet time about it.4th and Inches said:
LoL at highlighting Hutchinsons testimony.. utter nonsense
"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.’ “
Sam Lowry said: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/
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
"Play dumb, run in circles, deny facts, giggle."
I'll give you the Sam Lowry treatment;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/
"DERRR, Trump was just talking about election reform! Can't blame Trump for incitement cuz he has always been for election reform!"
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
I'll give you the Wangchung treatment:Wangchung said:I'll give you the Sam Lowry treatment;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/
"DERRR, Trump was just talking about election reform! Can't blame Trump for incitement cuz he has always been for election reform!"
"Trump is on video expressly calling for death and destruction. Oh, and riots too."
You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
“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.’ “
Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
There are facts and your narrative.Wangchung said:Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Well, YOUR narrative, anyway. Somehow Trump is responsible for the riot because he STARTED a speech at 1:10pm and 3 hours and 7 minutes later he told the rioters to go home. In between that time was his speech, the march to the capitol, the escalation from a protest to riot, then the tour of the capitol building by the rioters. I don't see your window of time between the start of his speech and when he called for everyone to go home as evidence of anything other than desperation to push your narrative. You stop beating your girlfriend yet?Osodecentx said:There are facts and your narrative.Wangchung said:Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
he sent out texts that were deleted as well as his video being removed. The time frame of silence was orchestratedWangchung said:Well, YOUR narrative, anyway. Somehow Trump is responsible for the riot because he STARTED a speech at 1:10pm and 3 hours and 7 minutes later he told the rioters to go home. In between that time was his speech, the march to the capitol, the escalation from a protest to riot, then the tour of the capitol building by the rioters. I don't see your window of time between the start of his speech and when he called for everyone to go home as evidence of anything other than desperation to push your narrative. You stop beating your girlfriend yet?Osodecentx said:There are facts and your narrative.Wangchung said:Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
More political theater
“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.’ “
4th and Inches said:he sent out texts that were deleted as well as his video being removed. The time frame of silence was orchestratedWangchung said:Well, YOUR narrative, anyway. Somehow Trump is responsible for the riot because he STARTED a speech at 1:10pm and 3 hours and 7 minutes later he told the rioters to go home. In between that time was his speech, the march to the capitol, the escalation from a protest to riot, then the tour of the capitol building by the rioters. I don't see your window of time between the start of his speech and when he called for everyone to go home as evidence of anything other than desperation to push your narrative. You stop beating your girlfriend yet?Osodecentx said:There are facts and your narrative.Wangchung said:Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
More political theater
Link for deleted texts telling rioters to go home?
The entire narrative is like that of a child aged liar. The lie is so obvious to an adult but the child will adamantly declare it is truth. "The dog really did draw all over the walls!" Meanwhile, the rest of us, including the dog, know what happened.4th and Inches said:he sent out texts that were deleted as well as his video being removed. The time frame of silence was orchestratedWangchung said:Well, YOUR narrative, anyway. Somehow Trump is responsible for the riot because he STARTED a speech at 1:10pm and 3 hours and 7 minutes later he told the rioters to go home. In between that time was his speech, the march to the capitol, the escalation from a protest to riot, then the tour of the capitol building by the rioters. I don't see your window of time between the start of his speech and when he called for everyone to go home as evidence of anything other than desperation to push your narrative. You stop beating your girlfriend yet?Osodecentx said:There are facts and your narrative.Wangchung said:Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
More political theater
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Pretty sure he meant tweets, not texts.Osodecentx said:4th and Inches said:he sent out texts that were deleted as well as his video being removed. The time frame of silence was orchestratedWangchung said:Well, YOUR narrative, anyway. Somehow Trump is responsible for the riot because he STARTED a speech at 1:10pm and 3 hours and 7 minutes later he told the rioters to go home. In between that time was his speech, the march to the capitol, the escalation from a protest to riot, then the tour of the capitol building by the rioters. I don't see your window of time between the start of his speech and when he called for everyone to go home as evidence of anything other than desperation to push your narrative. You stop beating your girlfriend yet?Osodecentx said:There are facts and your narrative.Wangchung said:Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
More political theater
Link for deleted texts telling rioters to go home?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung 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.
The issue is that the vast majority of the protests were completely peaceful. And given the historical importance of the peaceful protest, all it has accomplished in America even before throwing tea in an ocean, this blatantly unfair attempt to paint the BLM protests as riots has to be shot down every time it surfaces.
Fewer than 10% did turn into riots, which is still a pretty good number, given how many weren't afraid to say "black lives matter" out loud.
But by any stretch of the imagination, you can't characterize a movement as violent when you can only point to a few cities where things really got out of hand, and under 10% at that.
It's completely dishonest which of course is your whole brand of politics. All that matters is equating Jan 6 with the BLM so you can both discredit BLM and pretend Jan 6 was just normal. Nothing to see there.
Porteroso said:Wangchung 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.
The issue is that the vast majority of the protests were completely peaceful. And given the historical importance of the peaceful protest, all it has accomplished in America even before throwing tea in an ocean, this blatantly unfair attempt to paint the BLM protests as riots has to be shot down every time it surfaces.
Fewer than 10% did turn into riots, which is still a pretty good number, given how many weren't afraid to say "black lives matter" out loud.
But by any stretch of the imagination, you can't characterize a movement as violent when you can only point to a few cities where things really got out of hand, and under 10% at that.
It's completely dishonest which of course is your whole brand of politics. All that matters is equating Jan 6 with the BLM so you can both discredit BLM and pretend Jan 6 was just normal. Nothing to see there.
Did BLM condemn the BLM violence?
It actually started a few minutes before he left the stage.Wangchung said:The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
FIFYWangchung said:Somehow Trump is responsible for the riot because he ENDED a speech at 1:10pm and 3 hours and 7 minutes later he told the rioters to go home.Osodecentx said:There are facts and your narrative.Wangchung said:Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Well, Trump's presentation opened with a video tribute to J6, complete with images of the riot, set to stirring, sentimental music, ending with a dedication to the persecuted defendants.Osodecentx said:There are facts and your narrative.Wangchung said:Hate to break it to you but there is no "your truth" or "my truth", only reality and facts.Osodecentx said:Truth is now a "narrative"?Wangchung said:You and anyone else parsing his speeches to take out the calls for peaceful demonstration in order to paint your narrative. The riot at the capitol didn't happen as soon as Trump left the stage. Pretending the time it took to march there and the time it took for all activities to be reported back to Trump was a split second is dishonest.Osodecentx said:Who's lying?4th and Inches said:choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it is a flat out lie and you know it.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Will you be armed at the Waco rally?
Wangchung and Mothra would have loved it.
LOL none of those comments are remarkable, certainly not a call to riot much less insurrection. The quote about sending EVs back to states to recertify categorically refutes the allegation of insurrection.Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Hilarious. Keep posting it. Does a lot of harm to your case.
Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Yes.Mothra said:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Osodecentx said:Yes.Mothra said:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Osodecentx said:You post fiction.whiterock said: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.
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Trump's comments can only be considered irresponsible within context that Republicans do not have a right to protest like everyone else does. At time he made them, he made it clear that the protests should be peaceful, and when it was obvious to him they had gotten out of hand, he issued a personal call for the rioters to go home.Mothra said:Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Quote:Yes.Quote:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Quote:You post fiction.Quote:
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Harris, by contrast, made her comments in the middle of weeks which turned in to months of very violent protests which destroyed billions of dollars of property and cost dozens of lives. Not only did she make no effort to de-escalate, she earnestly encouraged them to continue.
The difference is quite stark.
whiterock said:Trump's comments can only be considered irresponsible within context that Republicans do not have a right to protest like everyone else does. At time he made them, he made it clear that the protests should be peaceful, and when it was obvious to him they had gotten out of hand, he issued a personal call for the rioters to go home.Mothra said:Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Quote:Yes.Quote:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Quote:You post fiction.Quote:
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Harris, by contrast, made her comments in the middle of weeks which turned in to months of very violent protests which destroyed billions of dollars of property and cost dozens of lives. Not only did she make no effort to de-escalate, she earnestly encouraged them to continue.
The difference is quite stark.
Whiterock defends Trump??? OMG!!
Harris did condemn riots, as shown above. Trump called for riots to stop only when it became obvious they weren't going to help him.whiterock said:Trump's comments can only be considered irresponsible within context that Republicans do not have a right to protest like everyone else does. At time he made them, he made it clear that the protests should be peaceful, and when it was obvious to him they had gotten out of hand, he issued a personal call for the rioters to go home.Mothra said:Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Quote:Yes.Quote:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Quote:You post fiction.Quote:
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Harris, by contrast, made her comments in the middle of weeks which turned in to months of very violent protests which destroyed billions of dollars of property and cost dozens of lives. Not only did she make no effort to de-escalate, she earnestly encouraged them to continue.
The difference is quite stark.
It was never shown that Kamala condemned the blm riots. In fact, the opposite has been proven. She encouraged them while they were going on. At this point, after all this evidence has been shown proving she bailed out rioters during the riots and made public speeches encouraging more riots, your attempt to just blatantly lie is a little pathetic. Expected, but pathetic.Sam Lowry said:Harris did condemn riots, as shown above. Trump called for riots to stop only when it became obvious they weren't going to help him.whiterock said:Trump's comments can only be considered irresponsible within context that Republicans do not have a right to protest like everyone else does. At time he made them, he made it clear that the protests should be peaceful, and when it was obvious to him they had gotten out of hand, he issued a personal call for the rioters to go home.Mothra said:Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Quote:Yes.Quote:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Quote:You post fiction.Quote:
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Harris, by contrast, made her comments in the middle of weeks which turned in to months of very violent protests which destroyed billions of dollars of property and cost dozens of lives. Not only did she make no effort to de-escalate, she earnestly encouraged them to continue.
The difference is quite stark.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Right back at ya.Wangchung said:your attempt to just blatantly lie is a little pathetic. Expected, but pathetic.Sam Lowry said:Harris did condemn riots, as shown above. Trump called for riots to stop only when it became obvious they weren't going to help him.whiterock said:Trump's comments can only be considered irresponsible within context that Republicans do not have a right to protest like everyone else does. At time he made them, he made it clear that the protests should be peaceful, and when it was obvious to him they had gotten out of hand, he issued a personal call for the rioters to go home.Mothra said:Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Quote:Yes.Quote:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Quote:You post fiction.Quote:
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Harris, by contrast, made her comments in the middle of weeks which turned in to months of very violent protests which destroyed billions of dollars of property and cost dozens of lives. Not only did she make no effort to de-escalate, she earnestly encouraged them to continue.
The difference is quite stark.
which would be another lie, and again, expected.Sam Lowry said:Right back at ya.Wangchung said:your attempt to just blatantly lie is a little pathetic. Expected, but pathetic.Sam Lowry said:Harris did condemn riots, as shown above. Trump called for riots to stop only when it became obvious they weren't going to help him.whiterock said:Trump's comments can only be considered irresponsible within context that Republicans do not have a right to protest like everyone else does. At time he made them, he made it clear that the protests should be peaceful, and when it was obvious to him they had gotten out of hand, he issued a personal call for the rioters to go home.Mothra said:Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Quote:Yes.Quote:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Quote:You post fiction.Quote:
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Harris, by contrast, made her comments in the middle of weeks which turned in to months of very violent protests which destroyed billions of dollars of property and cost dozens of lives. Not only did she make no effort to de-escalate, she earnestly encouraged them to continue.
The difference is quite stark.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Watch the video.Wangchung said:which would be another lie, and again, expected.Sam Lowry said:Right back at ya.Wangchung said:your attempt to just blatantly lie is a little pathetic. Expected, but pathetic.Sam Lowry said:Harris did condemn riots, as shown above. Trump called for riots to stop only when it became obvious they weren't going to help him.whiterock said:Trump's comments can only be considered irresponsible within context that Republicans do not have a right to protest like everyone else does. At time he made them, he made it clear that the protests should be peaceful, and when it was obvious to him they had gotten out of hand, he issued a personal call for the rioters to go home.Mothra said:Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Quote:Yes.Quote:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Quote:You post fiction.Quote:
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Harris, by contrast, made her comments in the middle of weeks which turned in to months of very violent protests which destroyed billions of dollars of property and cost dozens of lives. Not only did she make no effort to de-escalate, she earnestly encouraged them to continue.
The difference is quite stark.
FIFY. And we know, we can tell.Sam Lowry said:I didn't watch the video.Wangchung said:which would be another lie, and again, expected.Sam Lowry said:Right back at ya.Wangchung said:your attempt to just blatantly lie is a little pathetic. Expected, but pathetic.Sam Lowry said:Harris did condemn riots, as shown above. Trump called for riots to stop only when it became obvious they weren't going to help him.whiterock said:Trump's comments can only be considered irresponsible within context that Republicans do not have a right to protest like everyone else does. At time he made them, he made it clear that the protests should be peaceful, and when it was obvious to him they had gotten out of hand, he issued a personal call for the rioters to go home.Mothra said:Indeed, I am. Sounds like we are on the same page. I think they both were, and have always thought that.Quote:Yes.Quote:Would you agree that Harris was irresponsible in her comments in the same way Trump was?Quote:You post fiction.Quote:
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.
Trump told people to come to Washington on Jan 6. "It'll be wild"
Trump had knowledge on the morning of Jan. 6 that these demonstrators were armed.
Trump told the demonstrators to go to the Capitol and "I'll go with you". Then he told the Secret Service detail to take him to the Capitol.
He summoned the mob, he knew the crowd was armed, and he told the crowd to "fight like hell". Other speakers urged "trial by combat" and asked the crowd to sacrifice "their blood, their sweat, their tears" and even perhaps their very lives.
When the attack was under way, he inflamed the crowd by tweeting that "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary."
"All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president and you are the happiest people," he told his supporters.
As the mob assaulted the Capitol, Trump sat in his dining room off the Oval Office, watching the violence on television and choosing to do nothing for hours to stop it.
Are you saying Trump was irresponsible in his Jan 6 remarks?
Harris, by contrast, made her comments in the middle of weeks which turned in to months of very violent protests which destroyed billions of dollars of property and cost dozens of lives. Not only did she make no effort to de-escalate, she earnestly encouraged them to continue.
The difference is quite stark.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?