Kamala Harris said,
> "They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop," she added. "They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day."
> "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not," she concluded.
I believe neither group are terrorists, but one side cannot be labeled a terrorist without implicating the other under the exact same label.
In Portland, in Seattle, in D.C.
The only difference is the scale of damage and death, which is orders of magnitude higher on one side.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fac...
That's why this censorship ordeal is scary. Both sides deserve to be heard so people can listen, hear both sides, sift through the bullshit and decide for themselves.
This “fact check” is the kind of laughable gaslighting that got us here. The YouTube videos speak for themselves. The death toll speaks for itself.
> Colbert: ”I know there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States, I'm just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks,"
The “protests” were violet mobs which destroyed property and killed people. The media made up a narrative of “fiery but mostly peaceful protest” while buildings (and people’s livelihoods) literally burned in the background.
$2 billion dollars of damage.
> This isn’t going to stop.
Police shot in the head, doused with gasoline, government buildings burned into the ground.
> This is a movement I’m telling you.
City capitol buildings invaded. Throngs calling for the removal of the elected leader of Seattle. City blocks occupied for days by an armed insurgent force.
> they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not," she concluded.
Ted Wheeler seems to be finally coming around to this, god knows how it took him so long;
> “My good-faith efforts at de-escalation have been met with ongoing violence and even scorn from radical Antifa and anarchists,” Wheeler said in a New Year’s Day press conference. “In response, it will be necessary to use additional tools and to push the limits of the tools we already have to bring the criminal destruction and violence to an end.”
Like I’ve been saying for the last two days, you can either say people like Kamala are inciting violent protest that was actively ongoing when they made these statements, and you can hold Trump to the same standard yesterday. Or you can let Kamala off the hook, but then you let Trump off at the same time.
You can’t hold Trump to one standard and Kamala to another. You can’t call yesterday an insurrection and last year a summer of love.
Quote from Harris: “It’s no wonder people are taking to the streets and I support them. We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protestors. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.”
We agree the BLM riots were bad. The Seattle insurrection especially. But Kamala Harris did not encourage them. Trump did encourage an insurrection against our government. There is a massive difference.
Trump followed up with an almost identical statement. You understand what he said differently because you believe different things about Trump.
It’s OK. It’s politics.
In the end all I want is people to be consistent in how they describe violent mobs.
Personally I don’t think these violent mobs in the summer or yesterday are terrorists. I think they are simply violent mobs that were allowed to get out of control through lack of policing and bad politics. I blame both sides.
The meta problem I have is the rapid political capitalization by Democrats (including Harris) and the media following one violent mob after granting persistent cover and gaslighting readers for months over the significantly worse BLM/antifa mobs going off all summer.
By this reasoning there is no such thing as a meaningful statement in a human language.
Anyway. I think we'll agree to disagree. Pleasure chatting with you, and stay safe.
Harris says verbatim that the protests are not going to let up, and should not. Even though they are violent, and people have died. You chose to interpret that as her saying that they would not stop (a warning) but not an endorsement. I see it clearly as a warning and an endorsement. Would not and should not.
But I recognize that Trump talks and suddenly maybe I’m in your shoes and you’re in mine.
Maybe I think the transcript irrefutably supports my position, but it’s Ok if you disagree. I don’t think either of us are fascists because of it.
The result isn’t words have no meaning, it’s whether you will respect people enough to let them answer you and clarify and believe them when they do.
So Trump says “there were fine people” and people say, wait did he just complement literal nazis, and you check the transcript and you realize, oh, “and I’m not talking about the nazis, they should be condemned totally”.
But the media doesn’t allow Trump to say “and I’m not talking about the nazis”. They cover their ears at that point and say, “la la la, Trump just said nazis are fine people!”
And that’s what’s wrong with this picture. They did it in Charlottesville, they did it to cover for horrible rioting by BLM/Antifa, and they are doing it today.
But... sorry, a direct attack on a joint session of congress that forces the lawmakers and VP to be evacuated is WORSE than what happened in Portland.
This country can tolerate another bunch of fires and broken statues outside the Portland Federal Courthouse. I don't think anyone serious can imaging the idea of congress being sacked again.
Actually in a way it's good that it happened; exposed some major security holes. Not good that they shot an unarmed woman, though.
Then why was congress evacuated? Why are multiple people on camera screaming "Where is Pence?!" and threatening to hang him? Why was that cop killed?
That's ridiculous, sorry. It was a chaotic attack, sure. And surely there were some people there who just wandered in with the crowd and didn't want to hurt anyone. But this is an attack on congress. Be real.
Certainly didn't last as long, it cost less in property damage, less people died, and less neighborhoods burnt down.
Maybe we can ban both sides from social media and have no Twitter.
They also seriously injured another FPS Officer during the first attack.
It was exactly an attack
> it was a bunch of protesters, trespassing into the building during a very important session.
No, it was a large armed mob targeting legislators; as well as many of them stating that legislators were their targets (some saying that they would be back for them), this is clearly shown in the video of the context around Ashli Babbitt getting shot, where the violence of mob at the barricades entrance to the Speakers office escalates with shouts of “They're leaving” as the legislators and staffers visible through the windows depart through another exit, shortly before the officers being threatened on the same side of the barricades as the mob withdraw toward the tactical team advancing up the nearby stairs and the crowd begins breaking through the barricades.
> Not good that they shot an unarmed woman, though.
She was part of an armed, violent mob breaking through the last physical barrier keeping them from a large group of high government officials with only small number of armed security forces who could not possibly protect the officials from the mob in the event of a general breakthrough; even so, the security forces waited as long as they could before shooting to prevent a breakthrough (and if they'd had only a few more seconds it's likely that the arriving tactical team would have turned back that particular arm of the mob.)
There are no firearms visible in the mob in the video; there are weapons in active use in the video (against the barricades, but if you are responsible for protection of life you can't assume that that will be abandoned once the barricade is down).
> much less training it on the police.
The police aren't the main people that the police were protecting. (That some of them were acting as literal human shields at the barricades makes that clear.)
What would you have had them do? Allow a breakthrough, reassess the intention of the mob, and if it was still an active threat start firing then, without the passive defense of th barrier? As well as endangering the lives they ought to be protecting most urgently (the ones not engaging in a violent crime), and their own lives, unless the crowd instantly became pacific after breaking through the barricade, that would have resulted in a whole lot more dead insurrectionists, because there would be no choice but to fire as fast as aim can be switched to a new target until the crowd stopped.
If they make their own platform like we tell them to, we'll just ban that too, haha.
It's about having a voice. It's about the main argument being "it's a private company" then going and banning the alternatives.