Tech company fires CEO who was charged in federal court after US Capitol siege
chicagotribune.com
chicagotribune.com
That, though not yet criminally proven, sounds like a lot more than innocently walked into a building where he thought he was welcome. Employment actions do not need “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof generally.
Am I correct in assuming the rioting looters and mostly peaceful protests comment refers to the BLM protests earlier this year?
If so, am I understanding correctly that you feel these two protests were similar in their nature? It feels to me that protesting decades of racial injustice is vastly different than protesting because you didn't agree with the outcome of an election?
Again, I am Canadian so I am likely missing some local understanding, but I just don't understand this comparison.
Now that I've thought about this further, another thing to add. If memory serves from the BLM protests, while there was rioting and looting, that was denounced by the majority of the protestors and not the core intent. From what I saw on Wednesday, the rioting and destruction seemed more central to the protest, and I haven't seen anything about the majority of the protestors denouncing the violence and destruction of the capital. It's possible I did miss this, and if it has been denounced by the majority I do apologize.
There were numerous attempts to have the government look into possible cases of voter fraud. Most court cases were thrown out due to issues of standing and not because presented evidence was rejected. There are real irregularities which are either ignored or given the "nothing to see here" response by the people who should be investigated.
For example, these allegations were met with a non-response by the Pennsylvania Department of State: https://wjactv.com/news/local/pa-republican-lawmakers-analys...
You might like this analysis of mail-in ballot discrepancies for the Michigan county where Detroit is: https://mapthefraud.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DATASCIENC/pag....
Similar lawful, expressive conduct should be treated the same, regardless of content. Similar unlawful expressive conduct should be punished the same, regardless of content. (And illegal conduct should be punished the same, regardless of party or contact with the government -- which is why Americans complain about crony pardons).
Many people will say the Capitol building is a special symbol of American democracy, and it is. But the White House and the (Portland) Federal courthouse are also symbols of the democracy. And they were targeted this summer for weeks with fires, some explosives, and physical destruction. They were egged on by groups who say American capital is "fascist," and the New York Times, which published articles characterizing American democracy as really being a slaveocracy founded in the 1600s -- a theme roughly as defensible as American democracy falling to election fraud.
And in response, left-wing politicians and groups opposed the use of federal troops to arrest "their" protestors, claiming a usurpation of local authority, and an overreaction by "facists." The Biden campaign paid bail for some protestors "wrongly" arrested.
So, yes, the nuance is that Americans are sensitive to whether our politicians treat similar expression and misconduct the same, without regard to content or partisanship. Neither the incoming group or the outgoing group is upholding this bedrock principle very well.
People were indeed arrested and fired for looting in protests earlier in 2020.
https://www.wsj.com/video/video-moment-pro-trump-rioters-cla...
The people charged with felonious conduct during the summer riots may or may not have been fired. The absence of coverage in whatever preferred news bubble(s) you have doesn't mean it didn't happen.