CoolUsername:


It won't have been the first protest at capitol hill. There have been countless protests scheduled there. This particular one spiraled out of control. But it is disingenuous to claim that the mere act of organising a protest is a call to violence. Whether you agree with the reason or not, protests are a legal right.

You mean to tell me that in the 246 years of US history, there had been protests inside The Capitol building? References please.

You mean Trump inviting his supporters to the capitol on the day the Congress was to certify the results and then telling them " We will never give up; we will never concede, We will stop the steal. We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol…We’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones…the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country" is not a call to violence?

Did senior republicans tell Trump supporters to break into the capitol? You feel republicans are responsible for Jan 6 because of their rhetoric but you won't extend that logic to democrats. Show me where Trump told people to break into capitol hill.

Watch his speech again and tell me he is not inciting his supporters to violence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD2UmS4i69Q

How were they supposed to "give the weak ones the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country"? From outside the capitol building?

Trump's did not call for a protest, he called for an insurrection to stop Mike Pence (who told him a day earlier that he had no powers to reject the results) and the Congress from certifying the election results. He also instructed his followers never to give up.

You're missing my point. Why are democrats allowed to support a protest that turns violent, one that, mind you, led to the burning down of a federal courthouse and dozens of deaths. Why do we then clutch our pearls when republicans do the same? The sheer hypocrisy is astounding.
Besides, the violent protests stopped the government from doing its legal duty, keeping citizens safe. But it doesn't help the narrative to care about that, does it?

You Trump cultist supporters make stupid false equivalence. We are talking about a well planned civilian coup and you are talking about a protest over police brutality. You might as well use the @endsars protest in your false equivalence. Most protests have the tendency to turn violent. Even in communist controlled Hong Kong, anti government protests in the streets turned violent.

Once again the BLM protests were not about overturning the election of Trump but about police brutality against blacks.

Is you can't prove guilt, then the accused is innocent. They can't prove that Trump colluded with the Russians the same way Trump can't prove widespread election fraud. However, the media tells us that one is a reasonable concern but the other is an attack on democracy. The real answer is that both sides are dirty liars that would do anything to discredit their opposition.

Another stupid false equivalence. How can someone compare the Mueller investigations which is part and parcel of the democratic process to an attack on the very symbol of American democracy? It seems you are ignorant that the major difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is the legislature.

You are also highly ignorant on the difference between a criminal trial and civil trial. Proving a criminal cases requires much more evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) than a civil case. Mueller simply said he did not have enough evidence to pursue a criminal case. O.J. Simson was acquitted in a criminal trial but guilty in the civil trial.

wirinet:

You mean to tell me that in the 246 years of US history, there had been protests inside The Capitol building? References please.

Where did I mention inside? There have been marches to capitol hill and I took the pains to mention that breaking inside was illegal, didn't I? Why are you arguing against a point I didn't make?

wirinet:

You mean Trump inviting his supporters to the capitol on the day the Congress was to certify the results and then telling them " We will never give up; we will never concede, We will stop the steal. We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol…We’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones…the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country" is not a call to violence?

Watch his speech again and tell me he is not inciting his supporters to violence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD2UmS4i69Q

How were they supposed to "give the weak ones the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country"? From outside the capitol building?

Trump's did not call for a protest, he called for an insurrection to stop Mike Pence (who told him a day earlier that he had no powers to reject the results) and the Congress from certifying the election results. He also instructed his followers never to give up.

You keep saying this but nothing here unambiguously threatens violence. How is saying "let's stop the steal" different from saying "let's end police brutality"? Unless you think the second sentence means we should kill every police member. Saying "we will never give up", has never been a call to violence. It's basically par for the course in any organized protest.

The "giving congressmen the pride and boldness to stop the steal" line actually works against your point. How were they supposed to vote in favour of Trump if the process was interrupted?

wirinet:

You Trump cultist supporters make stupid false equivalence. We are talking about a well planned civilian coup and you are talking about a protest over police brutality. You might as well use the @endsars protest in your false equivalence. Most protests have the tendency to turn violent. Even in communist controlled Hong Kong, anti government protests in the streets turned violent.

Funny you call me a Trump cultist because that's what every Twitter user calls people who disagree with them. You're just parroting the same labels they use. Not to mention, you're the third person to try to correct my "wrong take" on Trump's impeachment trial. And I'm supposed to be the cultist.

To address your point, though. You believe that most protests have a tendency to turn violent, you just said that but the violence in this particular one at the capitol hill must have been planned from the get go by Donald Trump, right?

Why is it Trump's protest that must have been violent by design?

[quote author=wirinet post=98673490]
Once again the BLM protests were not about overturning the election of Trump but about police brutality against blacks.

You do realize that freedom of speech and assembly allows people to protest for whatever they want, right? The protest doesn't automatically become illegal because you don't agree with the cause. Likewise, violence isn't acceptable just because you do.

wirinet:

Another stupid false equivalence. How can someone compare the Mueller investigations which is part and parcel of the democratic process to an attack on the very symbol of American democracy? It seems you are ignorant that the major difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is the legislature.

You are also highly ignorant on the difference between a criminal trial and civil trial. Proving a criminal cases requires much more evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) than a civil case. Mueller simply said he did not have enough evidence to pursue a criminal case. O.J. Simson was acquitted in a criminal trial but guilty in the civil trial.

The fact still remains that they couldn't prove it. To quote the actual report:

"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The bottom line is that the two-year investigation couldn't prove that Trump committed a crime. Mueller didn't recommend any charges. All this started from a dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign, but you don't seem to care.

Likewise, didn't hear any case of election fraud from the Trump team because Trump couldn't prove it.

Spiderman pointing at spiderman.

Both sides tried to cast doubt on the democratic process for their own selfish reasons. You only want to admit it for one side, though.

Crimrburster:
I got the likes but you got nothing, loser. Buhari footstool.

imagine you have achieved it in life with the useless likes. Congrats.

brightalo1010:
imagine you have achieved it in life with the useless likes. Congrats.

your father, buhari is the most useless animal under heaven. Idiots.

Crimrburster:
your father, buhari is the most useless animal under heaven. Idiots.

Yet he ruled your useless father as a military, now ruling you and him as a civilian,your useless father can't even rule as community head.son of a worthless father who celebrates NL likes. Shame on you.