What She Saw
-
@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:
I think there's a difference between publicly validating events while ignoring their destruction and violence, and trying to gin up support for overturning an election decision.
And there, you and I disagree. Inciting violence, or at least encouraging the continuation of it (cf Harris's comments) is fundamentally no different from what you claim Trump did. The only difference is the circumstances.
Validating events while ignoring destruction is OK.
Ginning up support for overthrowing an election is bad.The methods are the same. The only difference is the motivation.
Are you saying that the end justifies the means?
Condemning one while ignoring the other, well, "These are my standards. If you don't like them, I have others."
@george-k said in What She Saw:
Validating events while ignoring destruction is OK.
Ginning up support for overthrowing an election is bad.I didn't say anything like that. I said the actions were different, which they are.
-
How are the lives and business of everyday Americans less sacrosanct than a governmental function, even an election? Hundreds of thousands of Americans' lives, businesses, property, safety, freedom, bodies and health were jeopardized and threatened by the BLM stuff.
Preserving and protecting those very things are the exact job of Congress. They failed, and in fact used it for political benefit.
Now, tell me which is worse.
@mik said in What She Saw:
Now, tell me which is worse.
Threatening an election is worse than blocking up streets.
Killing a police officer is worse than burning down a building.
Ginning up mass dissent for months by feeding the public with a pack of lies is as bad as giving arsonists a pass.Please love yourself.
-
Oh, come on, you can do better than that.
They are not threatening an election, they are protesting an election they believe was fraudulent. Why didn't you pick graffiti instead of blocking streets? Just as absurd a comparison.
The police officer killed was at least involved. The BLM protests yielded police officers deliberately killed in ambushes while they sat in their cars, nowhere near a protest. Which is worse?
Don't you think the BLM protestors were egged on by ginned up lies?
The argument that 1/6 was SO MUCH WORSE just doesn't wash.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@copper said in What She Saw:
Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.
So it wasn't sponateous? Outside third parties involved? An inside job? Was the POTUS just a muggins?
@renauda said in What She Saw:
@copper said in What She Saw:
Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.
So it wasn't sponateous? Outside third parties involved? An inside job? Was the POTUS just a muggins?
I have no idea, but several seemed to have tools used to break barriers. Maybe they bought them from street vendors near the Capitol.
-
@copper said in What She Saw:
Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.
Who organized the initial protest rally?
@doctor-phibes said in What She Saw:
@copper said in What She Saw:
Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.
Who organized the initial protest rally?
The peace loving president.
-
@mik said in What She Saw:
Now, tell me which is worse.
Threatening an election is worse than blocking up streets.
Killing a police officer is worse than burning down a building.
Ginning up mass dissent for months by feeding the public with a pack of lies is as bad as giving arsonists a pass.@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:
Threatening an election is worse than blocking up streets.
What does that even mean "Threatening an election"?
If the election is crooked I hope it is threatened. Although as I mentioned, I'm not sure what that means.
-
Oh, come on, you can do better than that.
They are not threatening an election, they are protesting an election they believe was fraudulent. Why didn't you pick graffiti instead of blocking streets? Just as absurd a comparison.
The police officer killed was at least involved. The BLM protests yielded police officers deliberately killed in ambushes while they sat in their cars, nowhere near a protest. Which is worse?
Don't you think the BLM protestors were egged on by ginned up lies?
The argument that 1/6 was SO MUCH WORSE just doesn't wash.
@mik said in What She Saw:
They are not threatening an election, they are protesting an election they believe was fraudulent.
The ones who were just hanging out and not breaking any laws are fine; they're precisely as guilty as the peaceful BLM protesters, which is not at all. Are you willing to admit that's true?
Those in particular who broke into the Capitol building, assaulted police and journalists, destroyed a shitload of A/V equipment and a few people died as a result? If you're saying those people were "protesting," then I will not respect that opinion.
Please love yourself.
-
@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:
@loki said in What She Saw:
Imagine what happened at the Capitol was BLM,
Except there were several BLM protests in DC last year and none of them led to Congressmen hiding in undisclosed locations and the suspension of government.
Now it is true that a lot of property was destroyed, but hey, the Capitol invaders have that covered too.
To be clear I am not asserting they are equivalent. Recall the broken windows theory however. Violence has been tolerated and in many cases celebrated in the past year. It’s not okay. Period. Full stop.
@loki said in What She Saw:
To be clear I am not asserting they are equivalent. Recall the broken windows theory however. Violence has been tolerated and in many cases celebrated in the past year. It’s not okay. Period. Full stop.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Who here is saying the destruction of property and violence from the BLM protests was in any way okay? What case even needs to be made that those people need to go to prison? Obviously they do, and there's not a sane person who disagrees.
-
So we can all agree that the capitol raid was bad and that the violent destructive aspects of the BLM protests were bad. Some of you with a history of hating Trump more than others want everybody to admit that the two things have no reasonable analogy. But I don’t see it that way.
-
@renauda said in What She Saw:
@copper said in What She Saw:
Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.
So it wasn't sponateous? Outside third parties involved? An inside job? Was the POTUS just a muggins?
I have no idea, but several seemed to have tools used to break barriers. Maybe they bought them from street vendors near the Capitol.
@copper said in What She Saw:
@renauda said in What She Saw:
@copper said in What She Saw:
Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.
So it wasn't sponateous? Outside third parties involved? An inside job? Was the POTUS just a muggins?
I have no idea, but several seemed to have tools used to break barriers. Maybe they bought them from street vendors near the Capitol.
"Several seemed to have tools used to break barriers". I see. So then I take from your next sentence you are not ruling out the possibility that some enterprising street entrepreneurs saw an opportunity to supply the crowd with specialty hardware along with usual fast food snacks and refreshments. Am I to take then from this that it is also possible that those vendors were selling that hardware out back of their vans and pop ups to attendees so as not to draw too much attention from the authorities? The reason I ask is because the authorities were clearly taken by surprise when the crowd began to storm the Capitol and tear down barriers.
On the other hand, is it not possible that those "several" - and I am sure they were clean cut by all appearances- had much earlier brought those tools from home to the rally and demonstration with the intent to cause mischief?
But I do concur with your opening point, you really do have no idea.
-
@loki said in What She Saw:
To be clear I am not asserting they are equivalent. Recall the broken windows theory however. Violence has been tolerated and in many cases celebrated in the past year. It’s not okay. Period. Full stop.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Who here is saying the destruction of property and violence from the BLM protests was in any way okay? What case even needs to be made that those people need to go to prison? Obviously they do, and there's not a sane person who disagrees.
@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:
@loki said in What She Saw:
To be clear I am not asserting they are equivalent. Recall the broken windows theory however. Violence has been tolerated and in many cases celebrated in the past year. It’s not okay. Period. Full stop.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Who here is saying the destruction of property and violence from the BLM protests was in any way okay? What case even needs to be made that those people need to go to prison? Obviously they do, and there's not a sane person who disagrees.
In many cases they weren’t even arrested much less prosecuted. I have no clue what you are talking about and why you saw fit to take on my comment in the first place. I’m lost.
-
@mik said in What She Saw:
They are not threatening an election, they are protesting an election they believe was fraudulent.
The ones who were just hanging out and not breaking any laws are fine; they're precisely as guilty as the peaceful BLM protesters, which is not at all. Are you willing to admit that's true?
Those in particular who broke into the Capitol building, assaulted police and journalists, destroyed a shitload of A/V equipment and a few people died as a result? If you're saying those people were "protesting," then I will not respect that opinion.
@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:
@mik said in What She Saw:
They are not threatening an election, they are protesting an election they believe was fraudulent.
The ones who were just hanging out and not breaking any laws are fine; they're precisely as guilty as the peaceful BLM protesters, which is not at all. Are you willing to admit that's true?
Those in particular who broke into the Capitol building, assaulted police and journalists, destroyed a shitload of A/V equipment and a few people died as a result? If you're saying those people were "protesting," then I will not respect that opinion.
In neither case are we talking about the peaceful protestors.
-
@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:
@mik said in What She Saw:
They are not threatening an election, they are protesting an election they believe was fraudulent.
The ones who were just hanging out and not breaking any laws are fine; they're precisely as guilty as the peaceful BLM protesters, which is not at all. Are you willing to admit that's true?
Those in particular who broke into the Capitol building, assaulted police and journalists, destroyed a shitload of A/V equipment and a few people died as a result? If you're saying those people were "protesting," then I will not respect that opinion.
In neither case are we talking about the peaceful protestors.
@mik said in What She Saw:
In neither case are we talking about the peaceful protestors
So how then is breaking & entering, assaulting police officers and civilians, destruction of property, and attempting to stop a national election somehow less bad than setting buildings on fire, and assaulting police and citizens?
Please love yourself.
-
@doctor-phibes said in What She Saw:
@copper said in What She Saw:
Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.
Who organized the initial protest rally?
The peace loving president.
@copper said in What She Saw:
@doctor-phibes said in What She Saw:
@copper said in What She Saw:
Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.
Who organized the initial protest rally?
The peace loving president.
It's a bit much blaming Jimmy Carter.
-
If I truly believed that the election was stolen - especially something that was supposed to be a landslide win - if I truly believed it was stolen: I would see armed insurrection as justified.
What other recourse do you have?
The other recourse is to reorganize and act politically, since the effects of a civil war against the common good are far, far more detrimental than a stolen election.
-
@mik said in What She Saw:
In neither case are we talking about the peaceful protestors
So how then is breaking & entering, assaulting police officers and civilians, destruction of property, and attempting to stop a national election somehow less bad than setting buildings on fire, and assaulting police and citizens?
@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:
@mik said in What She Saw:
In neither case are we talking about the peaceful protestors
So how then is breaking & entering, assaulting police officers and civilians, destruction of property, and attempting to stop a national election somehow less bad than setting buildings on fire, and assaulting police and citizens?
It’s not. You were arguing it was worse, which I also disagree with.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
For me it's pretty simple.
Both BLM in the summer of 2020 and MAGA in the last few months have the right to protest, and both were greatly and tragically misinformed.
Both led to associated violence and other criminal acts by a subset of the protesting crowd.
The current focus is on the Capitol invasion, and after months and months of a sitting President inciting his base about a stolen election that we must not accept (which is false), it turns out he tried tipping the proverbial vending machine over one too many times to where it actually fell down and he lost control of his army of protesters. Now he's facing the consequences, both from commercial companies as well as possible punishment from the legislative branch.
...and guess what, if Obama had lost to Romney in 2012 and done what Trump has been doing, you better believe the MAGA mob would be pointing their spears at the white house instead of the Capitol.
Yes, it is completely hypocritical of those (politicians, media, individuals) who supported or encouraged BLM and the associated rage/acts while not supporting the rage/acts of the MAGA crowd.
So, again, for me it is simple. It's not about politics... protest all you want, even if it's from lies and misinformation, just don't let it turn into violence and criminal acts and especially don't encourage it if you're the President.
-
For me it's pretty simple.
Both BLM in the summer of 2020 and MAGA in the last few months have the right to protest, and both were greatly and tragically misinformed.
Both led to associated violence and other criminal acts by a subset of the protesting crowd.
The current focus is on the Capitol invasion, and after months and months of a sitting President inciting his base about a stolen election that we must not accept (which is false), it turns out he tried tipping the proverbial vending machine over one too many times to where it actually fell down and he lost control of his army of protesters. Now he's facing the consequences, both from commercial companies as well as possible punishment from the legislative branch.
...and guess what, if Obama had lost to Romney in 2012 and done what Trump has been doing, you better believe the MAGA mob would be pointing their spears at the white house instead of the Capitol.
Yes, it is completely hypocritical of those (politicians, media, individuals) who supported or encouraged BLM and the associated rage/acts while not supporting the rage/acts of the MAGA crowd.
So, again, for me it is simple. It's not about politics... protest all you want, even if it's from lies and misinformation, just don't let it turn into violence and criminal acts and especially don't encourage it if you're the President.
@89th said in What She Saw:
For me it's pretty simple.
Both BLM in the summer of 2020 and MAGA in the last few months have the right to protest, and both were greatly and tragically misinformed.
Both led to associated violence and other criminal acts by a subset of the protesting crowd.
The current focus is on the Capitol invasion, and after months and months of a sitting President inciting his base about a stolen election that we must not accept (which is false), it turns out he tried tipping the proverbial vending machine over one too many times to where it actually fell down and he lost control of his army of protesters. Now he's facing the consequences, both from commercial companies as well as possible punishment from the legislative branch.
...and guess what, if Obama had lost to Romney in 2012 and done what Trump has been doing, you better believe the MAGA mob would be pointing their spears at the white house instead of the Capitol.
Yes, it is completely hypocritical of those (politicians, media, individuals) who supported or encouraged BLM and the associated rage/acts while not supporting the rage/acts of the MAGA crowd.
So, again, for me it is simple. It's not about politics... protest all you want, even if it's from lies and misinformation, just don't let it turn into violence and criminal acts and especially don't encourage it if you're the President.
You know, I might buy some of that, if you didn't have a long history of posts detailing how much you hate President Trump...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
