241–250 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this is just a rally that got out of hand, harmless. I wonder - would you stand up for them if the crowd was a BLM crowd, and the outcomes the same? Would you stand up for them if it were a Muslim crowd, and the outcomes the same? If you would then that's admirable and consistent, so fair enough
I don't understand why you think I'm standing up for any of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think sometimes we judge events based on the outcomes not on the intent. If one of those people who got inside the building gained access to one of the members of Congress or Vice President Pence and took them hostage or harmed them, would you think that it were closer to a coup attempt? There were reports of how the National Guard seemed to be getting delayed because of not having the approval of, I believe, the P…
There is no "what if" in history, you just cannot argue from that position. There were events and there are facts about those events and participants. That's what matters and it should be investigated, tried in court and punished accordingly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
50% isn't really the right number, is it? Where did you get it? If you're counting people's political beliefs, the popular vote is a good estimator.
The popular vote is still ~50% in terms of party split — are you questioning the accuracy or precision of the parent’s 50% figure? Edit: I wish people downvoting this question would explain. I literally don’t understand and am asking for clarification.
Most conservatives, like most liberals, never run afoul of the content rules of the major platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be very clear: Trump did not "incite" an "insurrection". The dude was trying to hold a rally. Shit got out of hand much like in the George Floyd riots, but to a much lesser degree. In spite of the relative magnitudes of the death and destruction in those events, the insane leftist media has somehow decided to paint the George Floyd riots as understandable at worst and freaking obligatory at best. At the same ti…
This is a very programmery viewpoint. Trump didn't literally say "hey guys, go wreck up the Capitol", so his hands are clean. But... the real world is not a computer program. People can read between the lines. In this case, Trump planned a rally on the exact day of the congressional certification of the election results. He spent the previous two months telling his supporters the election was a fraud, and that they n…
My honest opinion is that Trump wanted a BIG rally to demonstrate that he had a lot of support to make the idea that he lost to Biden seem absurd. He used this reasoning over and over again, even in his call with the GA SoS.
Occam's Razor makes that far easier to believe than that he wanted people to take over the capitol building. Beyond just sounding like crazed conspiracy, it doesn't even make any sense to do. What is he gonna do with a building? Like, what if they managed to take congresspeople or senators hostage? How in the world would that lead to maintaining his hold on power?
Sorry, it just sounds like a bunch of conspiratorial claptrap to me, along the lines of the stuff I hear from the right with their Q and Lin Wood nonsense. The crazy thing is that it's become institutionalized on the left in the MSM. It's bonkers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here's a pointed question for you: Which was worse and by what measure, the BLM/Antifa riots of last year or the capitol building riot? I'm gonna say that the mob attack on the United States' entire line of succession over false claims of fraud is worse than overwhelmingly peaceful protests over the murder of an unarmed, compliant man in police custody.
I see it's graduated from "mostly peaceful" to "overwhelmingly peaceful". The craziest part of your spin is that by applying it, you're greatly increasing the odds of actually getting it.
If 15+ million people were rioting, we wouldn't have a single structure left standing in the country. A fraction of a percent of the protesters were bad actors, and nobody is defending them so I will leave you to abuse that strawman in peace.
100% of the people who invaded the US Capitol were rioters.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
” When, as the capitol is being ransacked, you double down on the lie and continue to say the election was stolen, and to say you love them, you are continuing the riot and you are trying incite nationwide unrest.” You conveniently leave out the fact that he explicitly and clearly told them to stop doing it ”go home”. Yet this was again censored by the big tech. I don’t like Trump either, but let’s stop lying about ”…
If Trump said one sentence that "be peaceful go home" but wrapped it in two sentences "the election was stolen" why shouldn't we assume he means the thing he says more often and ignore stuff he says less often? And he repeated "it was stolen" many times before, too. To point that out is not a censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very programmery viewpoint. Trump didn't literally say "hey guys, go wreck up the Capitol", so his hands are clean. But... the real world is not a computer program. People can read between the lines. In this case, Trump planned a rally on the exact day of the congressional certification of the election results. He spent the previous two months telling his supporters the election was a fraud, and that they n…
You believe Trump was making some kind of insurrection suggestion with his invitation to a rally in the capital. I don't. You think there's something between the lines of his words, but that's just speculation. If you're going to make a claim so grand as the sitting president was inciting insurrection, you need more than speculation. My honest opinion is that Trump wanted a BIG rally to demonstrate that he had a lot…
He wasn't trying to win a rhetorical debate, he was serious as a heart attack about overturning an election that had been thoroughly litigated and decided by the states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> continue to say the election was stolen, and to say you love them You left out the last sentence, which was (paraphrasing) "Go home, go in peace."
Hours later after the plot had already failed.
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Frankly I find your dishonesty unacceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see it's graduated from "mostly peaceful" to "overwhelmingly peaceful". The craziest part of your spin is that by applying it, you're greatly increasing the odds of actually getting it.
> Polls estimate between 15 million and 26 million people participated in the United States, making these protests potentially the largest movement in terms of participation in U.S. history.[1] If 15+ million people were rioting, we wouldn't have a single structure left standing in the country. A fraction of a percent of the protesters were bad actors, and nobody is defending them so I will leave you to abuse that st…
Entire books were written in their defense, one infamous title being "In defense of looting".
MSM talking heads were besides themselves defending the rioters. For months!
> 100% of the people who invaded the US Capitol were rioters.
This is so blatantly twisted that I am forced to believe you're being intentionally deceptive. Everyone knows a tiny fraction of the protesters went into the capitol building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, a mob drunk on falsehoods trying to intimidate representatives. Like those protests above I linked. Glad we finally agree. :)
George Floyd being murdered was real, and the overwhelmingly peaceful protests with bipartisan support were wholly justified. A vast conspiracy at all levels of state, local, and federal government, involving shadowy corporations, Venezuela, George Soros, spanning both political parties and involving thousands of conspirators, and none of whom leaked a single detail, is a right-wing fantasy.