A protest that went too far killing police at the capital?
And this is why your team should never be in charge of the levers of censorship. It's a bold and repeated lie that a police officer was killed. Of the seven deaths "connected" to the Jan. 6 riot only Ashley Babbit was actually killed by an intentional act. 2 other civilians died of natural causes - heart attack and stroke that were most likely aggravated by the events, and 1 civilian died of a drug overdose and may have been trampled.
3 officers died. 2 killed themselves after that day and the only one actually reported as killed during the protest died from a series of strokes. It was never the case that any of them were killed during the riot.
So no, it's active disinformation on your part to push that angle.
A protest that went too far erecting gallows and saying they were going to hang the vice president and speaker of the house?
Symbolism. Do I need to go back and find old posts made on this board about such classic "legitimate" protests as Kathy Griffith with Trump's severed head? Or how about all the times Trump or another Republican have been hung in effigy? What makes one thing political speech and the other your form of a nightmare? Heck, it only takes a second to pull up hundreds of such images on google. Yet, I've NEVER ONCE heard you call for banning anyone who has shared them on social media. Seems to me that the only difference in content you don't have a problem with and that which is terrifying demonstrates a clear need to erase the rights of the people is which team generated it.
A protest that lowered the American flag to raise a Trump flag over the capital?
That's an obscure reference. I find one article on it that says a flag was torn down from a balcony and that an attempt to replace it occurred. I'm not struck by any particular feeling that this was even remotely the most egregious thing that's happened to a flag at a legitimate protest let alone a riot. In fact there are thousands of images of worse happening to flags at left wing protests that you've never condemned.
Sounds like this is just part of a laundry list compiled by someone else.
A protest fueled by rage generated by lies that the President told?
I agree, but Biden wasn't yet the President at that time, so I'd rephrase it as lies a candidate told. Maybe that's a little too generous, Biden's senile, its really the lies of his handlers.
Yes all those things concern me.
No they don't, if they did, you'd have a consistent position when they occur based on the events themselves, but that's not the case. You have no problem with worse acts being ignored, endorsed or even amplified if they come from the proper team.
Impeaching Trump was the least that should be done to that demagogue.
Impeachment was an abuse of political power by Pelosi and her gang. It's diminished us all to impeach a President twice without a basis in a high crime or misdemeanor. In fact, it was beyond an abuse to impeach Trump for the high crimes of Biden and his son.
There is a direct logical chain from his lies, his rally, his call to march to the capital, to fight to keep from losing your country to the violence at the capital that day.
There's a direct logical chain from creating a system of voting that is susceptible to fraud, impossible to verify, impossible to challenge and impossible to overturn, to creating distrust in the results of the elections held by those votes. There's a direct logical chain extending from efforts of one party to maximize the opportunities to commit fraud and eliminate any ability to catch fraud and people in the other party determining the elections are suspect.
There's no logic at all for anyone that claims they want to have fair elections to oppose efforts to make it verifiable that they were fair. Yet that's where we find ourselves, the party that claims its impossible for cheating to influence an election will fight to the death to make it impossible to catch cheating.
In any event, Trump had and has every right to claim he was cheated. He'll never be able to prove it because there is no way to verify the fraud. There's also NO WAY to verify that the results were legitimate but this all about burden shifting. There's more than enough evidence of illegal influence on the election, of illegal voting and even of systematic activities that would be capable of generating a fraudulent result, but there will never be any proof and in our system the, generally, impossible burden is on the person that loses the official election.
McConnel and Graham saw it that day calling Trump morally and practically responsible for what happened.
"Practically responsible" I love that part of the criminal code. You've found guilty beyond the shadow of.. oh wait.. I mean you're "practically responsible," so we'll roast you alive. Nothing Trump said even remotely approaches the legal standards for incitement, which is the only even barely plausible basis such a claim.
And McConnel and Graham, and really most all politicians, are in the same boat. They know the elections are not secure, but their own power is only created by those elections. In admitting the truth they'd be admitted to the risk that none of them are exercising legitimate authority. Don't get me wrong, most would still be in power with a verified legitimate election, but none of them are really sure they'd be part of the "most" and I'm sure many of them already know they wouldn't be.
Prison for incitement would be reasonable. I know incitement is almost impossible to prove in America but he caused death with his words that day.
His words weren't even close to incitement. This is just you calling for the imprisonment of political prisoners. Congrats on advocating openly for becoming a banana republic.
It's also a lie that his words caused death. Even if you wanted to run with such a crazy theory, there are many many people more directly responsible, including Pelosi - without whose decisions the riot never gets passed being a protest; the media - whose lies and manipulations tilted the election and without which it was probably Trump being inaugerated that day - granted more people may have died in that circumstance because the left would have openly advocated for violence (and you'd have been on here telling us how it was justified and not how its so scary that your own opinions as a member of the left need to be permanently banned from social media).
What scares me is that when you let people form their own information bubbles online all the crazies can find each other and form self reinforcing groups.
Given some of the nonsense you repeated above, you may be more unaware of when an information bubble has formed than you think. A lot of your claims are contrary to reality or even known to be debunked, yet they keep re-appearing from the those bubbles.
Getting those 10,000 most extreme people together on one day with the most extreme of those having planned for breaching the capital led to the violence we saw.
Lol. Seriously, most of the people involved were less extreme than the average left wing protestor. Some were very extreme, but even they are far less extreme than the molotov cocktail and rock throwing anit-fas that are a constant hallmark of the riots endorsed by the left, let alone the actual insurrectionists that set up the CHAZ-CHOP in Seattle.
Without those self reinforcing extremist bubbles most of those people would have never shown up or if they had would have never thought to storm the capital. The same thing is possible on the left if they start going all out on misinformation.
The delusion here is amazing. The left is the party of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. I mean honestly, the left immediately and falsely labelled this an "insurrection." That's an active disinformation claim - it was obvious from the start that it was a rally that turned into a generally low energy riot. Nothing but inadequate security kept it from getting out of hand as there was absolutely no evidence of planning to invade the capital by the crowd as a whole. The left - including the media - has repeatedly labelled Trump's claims about the election as a Big Lie - they're not, they're an opinion that is more reasonable than they'd like to admit. What is a Big Lie is the medias false claims about the election itself. They didn't verify it's legitimacy, because the truth is they CAN'T do it either. No one can. Leftists are right now passing around intentional disinformation about what's in the SC opinion overturning Roe, what it means if Roe is overturned (i.e., telling people that abortion becomes illegal rather than a decision of the state) and literally calling for direct action against and even violence targeting the SC to try and illegally interfere with their judgement.
The left is literally doing exactly what they claimed Trump was doing, but that Trump didn't do.
Imagine a hypothetical super extremist wing of BLM, ones that say the police are at war with people and they need to respond with a war on the police.
That's actually just mainstream BLM for the most part. Did you want to create something even more extreme?
Parts of BLM have been suspended on twitter for walking too close to that line and its a good thing.
And yet the Southern Poverty Law Center is still used as a trusted source for moderation decisions.
Having those self reinforcing information hate bubbles is dangerous on the right and the left.
True, but this isn't a both sides do it problem for the most part. Its a problem of the left that's magnified by their overwhelming control of the media and social media. Being a Democrat is the ultimate in "priviledge" when it comes to expressing opinions and hearing opinions you want to hear. If we had balance in the market place of ideas the ideas of the left would have to have merit to win the day, instead they just look to clear the field so they're all that's left.
