Why is it that the left is allowed to express themselves through protest and civil disobedience but the right can't plant bombs and try to kidnap senators when they don't like the outcome of an election?
/s
How about we just prosecute everyone who breaks the law?
I said nothing of the sort and I don't know how you would interpret my words that way.
From the poster I responded to:
> The other kind of insurrectionists seem to also have little to fear from the law
My response was about the notion that protesters and rioters this summer were "insurrectionists", they were not. At least not as a general rule. Some of them, maybe, probably always are in political protests. But most of them were there to either create havoc (rioters) or protest for change to the way policing is conducted in the US (the protestors).
The people who went into the US Capitol Building on 6 January, 2021 were intending to prevent the carrying out of a legal process to certify the results of a democratic election and, in their minds, prevent the succession of the presidency. That makes them insurrectionists, not just protestors anymore, at least as regards the US Constitution and democratic process.
Besides, protestors and rioters in 2020 were prosecuted. And it's moronic or ignorant to say they weren't.
That some people were prosecuted doesn't negate the overall acceptance by the left of the violent activity as legitimate political activism because it was in support of particular favored political opinions. The very clear message was that as long as you were spouting the approved political mantras the violent activities were OK.
Attempting to discern who is or who isn't an "insurrectionist" is a distraction. Trespassing, breaking and entering, looting, vandalism, destruction of property, arson, assault are all crimes that should be prosecuted and not excused if you are committing them while having the correct political thoughts.
BTW, yesterday's opportunists have to be the saddest lot of "insurrectionists" I've ever seen. They seemed more interested in posting selfies than overthrowing anything. They should be mocked mercilessly and prosecuted vigorously.
No, they were threatening and intimidating lawmakers that were in session to try to manipulate the election. This is an enormous difference.
Also pipe bombs shouldn't be ok. Not sure why this is being ignored.
Sure, it is a difference -- as in not identical. But what do you conclude from that difference? That crimes that are less serious than this should be excused when committed as an act of protest but these crimes are different and should not be excused?
The assertion is that there is a double standard between these types of events. That some riots are excused and yesterday's are not. You seem to be asserting that there isn't a double standard because the events were different in the way that you described and so it sounds like you are saying the different treatment is justified. No one is excusing yesterday's rioters but you seem to be excusing previous incidents of rioting because they were different.
That would be a novel and very welcome thing in America.
You're suggesting that an arsonist, for example, should be treated differently if they burned a building down based on their political ideology?
How do you think the victims of these crimes are going to feel about your notion of "justice"?
I also think the same thing needs to happen to the antifa flavored anarchists we were witness to throughout the summer. The endless attacks on businesses (big and small), federal buildings, lawlessness, looting, storming police precints, portland city council buildings, and general destruction should also result in as many felonies as possible.
Both groups "think" that sheer muscle and raw emotionalism in the street is a legitimate way to bully your preferred changes through. It's the same evil mindset and it needs to be called out and punished regardless of what flag they appear to operate under.
There is video of the rally prior where Trump, his son, Rudy Giuliani and others were inciting the mob to violence.
If you can’t see both sides of the coin, why play around at flipping it?
What we saw yesterday will be properly charged as entering a restricted building, violent entry and disorderly conduct on capitol grounds, in limited cases assault on a federal law enforcement officer, and in a single digit number of cases, second degree murder.
No charges will be laid for sedition, treason, or insurrection. Despite what you might read on CNN.
I would say the same thing for all the rioting that happened last year. Even though city blocks were illegally cordoned off and occupied for weeks. Just my prediction.
2. I disagree that those are proper charges. Context matters. A mob showing up at the capitol and smashing a few windows from the outside when nothing of note is happening is disorderly conduct.
A mob showing up at congress in the middle of a certification of an election, spurred on by cries that the election is stolen, and we need to do something, where members of the mob think they are participating in a revolution... Is a coup.
It's a naked attempt to prevent a lawful transfer of power. Just because it's a failed coup doesn't make it anything less than a coup.
1. Police stations were burned to the ground. Federal courthouse under sustained assault for months. $2 billion in property damage, thousands of police injured.
2. Those are what people have actually been charged with yesterday. Similarly, just because a BLM protestor is screaming kill all cops! while throwing rocks at a police car, it doesn’t make an attempted murder charge appropriate. Nor should everyone standing around chanting the same thing in the vicinity be charged with attempted murder.
All I ask is for a little logical consistency instead of the absurd political flame war.
He literally spoke to them right before the event, and insinuated they should take direct action, then waited for hours until he asked them to leave (while still claiming fraud and that their country was being stolen).
It's really annoying to have to point out this obvious context over and over to the people who are minimizing what happened.
The word “coup” doesn’t mean what you think it does. Interrupting a political process is not a coup. Protesting an election result is not a coup. Trespassing in the Capital building is not a coup. Posing for selfies and stealing Peliso’s lecturn is not a coup. And doing all 4 of these things at once is not a coup.
What it is? Mostly? Just extremely embarrassing for the people in power and the people who were supposed to protect them.
Calling it a coup mostly just covers for the raging embarrassment of being owned by Half Naked Viking Man.
All you did was drop your standards to the ground.
I hope you are proud of what you are defending.
I am against any form of violent protest, and as a matter of scale, I’m much more offended by the dozens killed, hundreds maimed, and billions of dollars of damages over the summer than what happened yesterday.
The framing of this particular riot as a coup is nothing but a duplicitous political flame war, and I see the politicization of this riot is a coup versus that riot is a mostly peaceful protest as a dangerous gaslighting of the American people.
I was commenting on your use of the term insurrection to describe what were, mostly, protests against police brutality (which were often met with acts of police brutality) and trying to establish that those actions were not the same as literally storming the Congress to prevent/delay the presidential election process (a much clearer act of insurrection, even if it was completely moronic and doomed from the start)>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...