whiterock said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Can reasonable people disagree on the characterization of events? You call Jan. 6th a "riot" or "insurrection," even though the vast majority of people who attended did not enter the capitol or engage in violence, and BLM "protests" despite the fact that more than a handful of people who attended engaged in violence and looting (it was in fact far more deadly and destructive than anything that happened on Jan. 6th).
Let's say Republicans had publicly supported a fund to bail out those arrested on Jan. 6th. Would you have a problem with that, or describe their actions as merely engaging in "bail reform"?
I would submit you are just as guilty as what you accuse others of engaging in.
I don't remember objecting to the use of "protest" in reference to J6. 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.
"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."
I would also submit that if you take issue with the euphemisms used to describe Jan. 6th as "whitewashing," you are likewise guilty of the exact same conduct when you describe the BLM protests of 2020 as mere "protests." $2 billion in property damage, and thousands arrested on burglary, looting, arson, and assault charges say otherwise.
As for January 6th, it can be likewise said, "A small percentage were violent, but the vast majority were in fact peaceful." I would submit that your lack of consistency on these two events damages your credibility significantly.
As for Harris, as I stated above, let's be clear - she wasn't asking for support of a fund to bail out mere "peaceful protestors," but those accused of going beyond mere protesting to the point of getting arrested. And we know that only a fraction of those guilty of such conduct were actually arrested. The police were overwhelmed.
If say, Senator Cruz had come out and said that he wished for the Jan. 6th protests to continue, and that they would not stop, and had called for financially supporting bailing out those arrested on Jan. 6th, we all know you would have been all over him. You lack consistency.
I would appreciate you linking those threads (from Jan. 2021, I think is what you mean).
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.
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).
Whether Kamala has been engaged in civil rights issues in the past is irrelevant to the discussion. What we know is she publicly supported bail for people who were arrested. As I pointed out above, once a "protestor" has been arrested, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, their conduct has gone far beyond mere protesting. I think even you would agree with that. Thus, we know the fund was not used to bail out people who were protesting lawfully. Instead, it was used to bail out people who had been accused of something beyond mere "protesting," such as people accused of committing some violation of the law, and let them back on the street at a time when police and communities were devolving into chaos. As stated above, we know that more than 10k people who participated in the BLM "protests" were arrested, and that many of the protests contained a violent element. We also know that of that group, thousands of people were charged with burglary, looting, arson and assault. And we know that a handful have been charged with attempted murder.
Once again, we seemed to have devolved into an argument regarding semantics. You think the general characterization regarding the BLM protests as not being peaceful or turning into riots is apparently not accurate because only 568 of the protests actually turned into riots. What's odd to me is your insistence that this characterization is somehow an objectively provable fact, when it's of course an opinion. I tend to believe the general characterization of the BLM protests as riots is apropos, given the amount of destruction left in their wake. The difference between us is I believe reasonable minds can differ on the characterization, and won't dismiss a person's argument simply because he calls it a riot instead of a protest (or vice versa). But you seem to want to die on that hill.
Finally, I think your reasoning regarding Jan. 6th, when only a fraction of the people engaged in violence or entered the capitol, is not consistent by your own standards (i.e. levels of participation in violent acts defining the protest/movement). But I can generally agree with you that it turned into a riot. I would simply argue that so did BLM, even by your own standards.
If you mean J6 was only a protest, I would definitely disagree. I'm confused as to why you keep bringing it up if you think it's just a semantic argument, though.
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.
You post fiction.
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.