NationStates

Elwher wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:You do understand the difference between criticising institutions and falling back to some form of racist pseudo-science, right?

Or are you just waiting for criticism of any profession to come out and say you hate a certain ethnicity?

No, the point is that there are members of any group who do horrible things, but that does not mean that the entire group endorses the actions or should be tarred by the same brush.

BTW, where is the "racist pseudo-science" in my statement?

The police actively protect their own. The whole system is indeed rotten.

The Rich Port wrote:

Lady Victory wrote:
Jihadist ideology is fundamentally reactionary, conservative, and in many ways cryptofascist. They fit into the Far Right rather splendidly. The difference being they're religious chauvinists, not racial chauvinists.

And even then, some Jihadi fascists indeed do divide themselves along ethnic lines.

A major tenet of pan-Arabism is that the entirety of the Ummah, on top of being united around the Arabic language due to it being the holy language of Islam, should also have Arabics as the dominant culture and ethnicity and that the entirety of the Ummah should delegate it's powers to Arabic centers.

This is of course ignoring that Africa and the Middle East are not predominantly Arabic and the fact that Saudi Arabia holds a monopoly on Muslim holy sites (Mecca and Medinah being the primary ones in the whole religion) leaves many other Arabic and Muslim nation states greedy for more power.

OPEC and the Arabic League only have enough power as the members want it to have after all.

The original pan Arab nationalists weren't jihadists. Despite being a devout Muslim, Gamel Nassar was a secularist who believed in keeping private beliefs and public policy separate. Nassar was fighting for all Egyptians and to a greater extent all Arabs whether Christian or Muslim. Many of the original pan Arab nationalists were in fact Christians.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Did the thread go off the rails again?

We aren't talking Muslim extremists we are talking alt right terrorism.


A traitor has been charged with being a traitor.

If we are talking about "Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right"; in order to make the comparison, we have to talk about other forms of terrorism in order to justify or deride the word mostly.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
And even then, some Jihadi fascists indeed do divide themselves along ethnic lines.

A major tenet of pan-Arabism is that the entirety of the Ummah, on top of being united around the Arabic language due to it being the holy language of Islam, should also have Arabics as the dominant culture and ethnicity and that the entirety of the Ummah should delegate it's powers to Arabic centers.

This is of course ignoring that Africa and the Middle East are not predominantly Arabic and the fact that Saudi Arabia holds a monopoly on Muslim holy sites (Mecca and Medinah being the primary ones in the whole religion) leaves many other Arabic and Muslim nation states greedy for more power.

OPEC and the Arabic League only have enough power as the members want it to have after all.

The original pan Arab nationalists weren't jihadists. Despite being a devout Muslim, Gamel Nassar was a secularist who believed in keeping private beliefs and public policy separate. Nassar was fighting for all Egyptians and to a greater extent all Arabs whether Christian or Muslim. Many of the original pan Arab nationalists were in fact Christians.

Egypt being notable for being the only place I know of where the supreme court had a bar. The fun kind of bar, not the lawyer one.

Elwher wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Did the thread go off the rails again?

We aren't talking Muslim extremists we are talking alt right terrorism.


A traitor has been charged with being a traitor.

If we are talking about "Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right"; in order to make the comparison, we have to talk about other forms of terrorism in order to justify or deride the word mostly.

I guess. And the arugment being made that Muslim terrorists are also far right makes sense.


After all, ISIS did approve of the DC terrorst attack.

If we count the latest 100+ attacks on US Troops in Afghanistan, then yeah the Far right is currently attacking the US both at home and abroad.

Dejado Atras wrote:

Myrensis wrote:This is the opposite of news. Right wing racist assholes have been the biggest source of domestic terrorism and violence for decades. It just usually gets little coverage because the GOP and conservative movement actively cover for and downplay it out of ideological sympathy and/or needing their votes, while the Democrats and the media have largely ignored it partly out of slavish adherence to the status quo, and partly because any time they do bring it up it immediately triggers hysterical screeching from the right about reverse racism and the persecution of poor innocent white patriots.

Actually many Republicans and of course a large chunk of the GOP voter base and relatable parties have condemned/disavowed the far-right extremism. For example while Trump has made some ham-fisted remarks about white supremacists in the past,he has condemned David Duke before.

Anyone who watches the Ben Shapiro show can see him regularly denouncing nazis and white supremacists.

Read this article and you’ll see where Ted Cruz and Dan Crenshaw both have condemned white supremacy. Crenshaw saying it has no place in this world.

Many Republicans such as Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Tim Scott, and Bill Cassidy have called for Trump back when to condemn white supremacy.
I know very few Republicans myself who are onboard the white supremacy/neo-nazi train.
The extreme right wing that is nazism and white supremacy doesn’t have as strong a platform/presence as the left and select centrists like to pretend they do.


As for saying that the left and the DNC and media have “ignored” white supremacy and nazism, that’s a big fat LOL. It’s all that comes out of their mouths these days.

lel.

"When some racist asshole goes out and murders 2 dozen people Republicans don't all commit political suicide by declaring them heroic martyrs of the white master race, that totally proves how opposed they are to white supremacists!"

But yes I know, when Republicans aren't preaching on every outlet they can find about how hard it is to be a white man in an America that always bends over backwards to cater to minorities, or warning about how the (((globalists))) are funding hordes of drug-addled diseased rapist criminal immigrants to overrun America and drive out or replace the 'native' population, Republicans do occasionally talk about how they totally don't like those white supremacist and racists you guys.

Myrensis wrote:

Dejado Atras wrote:
Actually many Republicans and of course a large chunk of the GOP voter base and relatable parties have condemned/disavowed the far-right extremism. For example while Trump has made some ham-fisted remarks about white supremacists in the past,he has condemned David Duke before.

Anyone who watches the Ben Shapiro show can see him regularly denouncing nazis and white supremacists.

Read this article and you’ll see where Ted Cruz and Dan Crenshaw both have condemned white supremacy. Crenshaw saying it has no place in this world.

Many Republicans such as Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Tim Scott, and Bill Cassidy have called for Trump back when to condemn white supremacy.
I know very few Republicans myself who are onboard the white supremacy/neo-nazi train.
The extreme right wing that is nazism and white supremacy doesn’t have as strong a platform/presence as the left and select centrists like to pretend they do.


As for saying that the left and the DNC and media have “ignored” white supremacy and nazism, that’s a big fat LOL. It’s all that comes out of their mouths these days.

lel.

"When some racist asshole goes out and murders 2 dozen people Republicans don't all commit political suicide by declaring them heroic martyrs of the white master race, that totally proves how opposed they are to white supremacists!"

But yes I know, when Republicans aren't preaching on every outlet they can find about how hard it is to be a white man in an America that always bends over backwards to cater to minorities, or warning about how the (((globalists))) are funding hordes of drug-addled diseased rapist criminal immigrants to overrun America and drive out or replace the 'native' population, Republicans do occasionally talk about how they totally don't like those white supremacist and racists you guys.

lol, Biden and the Democrats blame Republicans and President Trump for the leftist violence in Democrat run cities with Democrat Mayors by the minority of leftists who commit leftist violence, many leftists condemn right wing violence but don't condemn leftist violence, I condemn then both. When I have asked them too condemn both violence, only 2 have done so the others refuse to do so. To all Persons on NS Please condemn Right Wing Violence and Leftist Violence Right Now on this Thread with Your Posts?

Alien Overlord wrote:

Vivolkha wrote:More detailed answers to OP's questions:

1. Why is the right so much more violent than the left?
There are several reasons for this. The main one, as I explained in a previous post, is higher support. This translates in higher membership in right-wing terrorist groups, more funding, and in general more capacity to carry out attacks. It translates in other ways too, with white supremacist speech having more visibility than the far-left (obvious example: Trump) and their attacks being condoned more.

Another, significantly less important reason is ideology. Right-wing groups tend to be more supportive of Second Amendment rights (and most terrorist attacks in America are carried out with firearms) and to attack people over corporations and public property.

2. What can be done to reduce the instances of right-wing terrorism?
Generally speaking, the same measures can be applied to far-right and far-left terrorism. The two main reasons fueling them are, in my opinion, the extreme political polarization in the US and the ease of access to firearms.

To address political polarization, the US needs to improve the quality of its local elections and destroy gerrymandering. The drawing of electoral districts should be left to independent commissions, never to state legislatures. Another fundamental flaw is the first-past-the-post electoral system in America, entrenching two-party, "black or white" rule.

The ease of access to firearms can be reduced by introducing increased gun control. Honestly the Second Amendment entirely needs to go, but that would be hugely unpopular in America.

Neither of these reforms are easy to implement in any way, because of their unpopularity, lack of political will, or both. Thus, I expect America's terrorism problem to grow worse in the future.

The 2nd Amendment isn't just a part of our constitution, it's the second item on our Bill of Rights. John Locke once wrote Second Treatise on Government which puts forth ideas that these sorts of rights were god-given, they couldn't and shouldn't be taken away by man. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't just be unpopular, it would be downright treasonous. The federal government would likely lose control over the military if they tried to enforce it, given the military swears it's oath to defend the constitution and not the government.

No the answer isn't to become more radical. The answer to move towards centrist positions and not enflame the right more than it has already has.

Buddy you give the right an inch and they'll take it a mile

United Socialist Territories wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:The 2nd Amendment isn't just a part of our constitution, it's the second item on our Bill of Rights. John Locke once wrote Second Treatise on Government which puts forth ideas that these sorts of rights were god-given, they couldn't and shouldn't be taken away by man. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't just be unpopular, it would be downright treasonous. The federal government would likely lose control over the military if they tried to enforce it, given the military swears it's oath to defend the constitution and not the government.

No the answer isn't to become more radical. The answer to move towards centrist positions and not enflame the right more than it has already has.

Buddy you give the right an inch and they'll take it a mile

To put it in your own words, Buddy you give the leftists an inch and they'll take a mile, this is also a real Fact, lol.

A big contributor to white supremeist violence- not the only contributor- but a big contributor is right wingers who feel as if they have been silenced (whether or not they have been silenced is irrelevant, as long as they feel as if they have). Some people who feel as if they have been silenced, and therefore, feel as if they can't express themselves peacefully will turn to violence to do so. As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across, and that's something that should be addressed when addressing right winged terrorism

Australian rePublic wrote:A big contributor to white supremeist violence- not the only contributor- but a big contributor is right wingers who feel as if they have been silenced (whether or not they have been silenced is irrelevant, as long as they feel as if they have). Some people who feel as if they have been silenced, and therefore, feel as if they can't express themselves peacefully will turn to violence to do so. As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across, and that's something that should be addressed when addressing right winged terrorism

Dude Perfect Example of Leftist Violence in Democrat run cities with Democrat Mayors, as you stated, As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across. Perfect Example of the right wing violence at the Capitol Building by those some who did. I Rest My Case.

Australian rePublic wrote:A big contributor to white supremeist violence- not the only contributor- but a big contributor is right wingers who feel as if they have been silenced (whether or not they have been silenced is irrelevant, as long as they feel as if they have). Some people who feel as if they have been silenced, and therefore, feel as if they can't express themselves peacefully will turn to violence to do so. As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across, and that's something that should be addressed when addressing right winged terrorism

They get that feeling of being silenced purely from reality not bending to their will, and because their own media are constantly telling them that. There is nothing we can do to actually make far righters feel heard.

Greater Miami Shores wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:A big contributor to white supremeist violence- not the only contributor- but a big contributor is right wingers who feel as if they have been silenced (whether or not they have been silenced is irrelevant, as long as they feel as if they have). Some people who feel as if they have been silenced, and therefore, feel as if they can't express themselves peacefully will turn to violence to do so. As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across, and that's something that should be addressed when addressing right winged terrorism

Dude Perfect Example of Leftist Violence in Democrat run cities with Democrat Mayors, as you stated, As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across. Perfect Example of the right wing violence at the Capitol Building by those some who did. I Rest My Case.

Please do.

Greater Miami Shores wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:A big contributor to white supremeist violence- not the only contributor- but a big contributor is right wingers who feel as if they have been silenced (whether or not they have been silenced is irrelevant, as long as they feel as if they have). Some people who feel as if they have been silenced, and therefore, feel as if they can't express themselves peacefully will turn to violence to do so. As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across, and that's something that should be addressed when addressing right winged terrorism

Dude Perfect Example of Leftist Violence in Democrat run cities with Democrat Mayors, as you stated, As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across. Perfect Example of the right wing violence at the Capitol Building by those some who did. I Rest My Case.

You don’t see that Jan 6th was worse then these city riots?

You think the right has only done this on January 6th?

Let’s go back in time to a well known instance at Tulsa Oklahoma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

The Black Forrest wrote:

Greater Miami Shores wrote:Dude Perfect Example of Leftist Violence in Democrat run cities with Democrat Mayors, as you stated, As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across. Perfect Example of the right wing violence at the Capitol Building by those some who did. I Rest My Case.

You don’t see that Jan 6th was worse then these city riots?

You think the right has only done this on January 6th?

Let’s go back in time to a well known instance at Tulsa Oklahoma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

Uh oh, I knew what it was before i even clicked the link.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Greater Miami Shores wrote:Dude Perfect Example of Leftist Violence in Democrat run cities with Democrat Mayors, as you stated, As long as people feel as if they have been silenced, some of them will turn to violence to get their message across. Perfect Example of the right wing violence at the Capitol Building by those some who did. I Rest My Case.

You don’t see that Jan 6th was worse then these city riots?

You think the right has only done this on January 6th?

Let’s go back in time to a well known instance at Tulsa Oklahoma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

The Jan 6 riots caused an estimated 2.5 million in property damage and 5 dead. The summer riots caused at least 19 deaths and in Minneapolis alone left property damage exceeding 500 million. So, no I do not see the Jan 6 riot as worse.

History will show that the left has started many more riots in the US over the past century than the right. On the other hand, there have been more many lone wolf or small group attacks from the right.

Elwher wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
You don’t see that Jan 6th was worse then these city riots?

You think the right has only done this on January 6th?

Let’s go back in time to a well known instance at Tulsa Oklahoma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

The Jan 6 riots caused an estimated 2.5 million in property damage and 5 dead. The summer riots caused at least 19 deaths and in Minneapolis alone left property damage exceeding 500 million. So, no I do not see the Jan 6 riot as worse.

History will show that the left has started many more riots in the US over the past century than the right. On the other hand, there have been more many lone wolf or small group attacks from the right.

How many times did The Left start riots with the specific stated intent of murdering members of Congress and the Vice President, or to overturn the results of a free and fair election because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost?

Vassenor wrote:How many times did The Left start riots with the specific stated intent of murdering members of Congress and the Vice President, or to overturn the results of a free and fair election because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost?

Ah yes, the most free and fair election in history, of which any attempt to audit its legitimacy is met with outrage, and painted as an attack on democracy.
Keep telling yourself there's nothing suspicious about how fervently the relevant officials keep blocking attempts to investigate ballots, even though that would only vindicate their claims of how secure the election was. Why wouldn't I trust results based on a massively higher proportion of mail-in votes than previous elections, that also has a much lower rate of mail-in vote rejections? Plus, all the massive tech/social media corporations steadfastly insist Biden won, and that only dangerous conspiracy theorists would dare to question that; it's not like rich and powerful people have ever lied or colluded with each other for their own benefit.

Also kinda interesting how left-wingers keep harping on about this incident in which members of the elite class were threatened and scared, in an effort to defend demonstrations which repeatedly descend into violent mayhem, resulting in loss of life, loss of livelihood, continual social disruption, and lasting infrastructural + economic damage, directly hurting large numbers of everyday Americans, many of which are members of the same marginalized racial group these demonstrations claim to be in support of, in the midst of a pandemic which exacerbates all of these issues. Way to show who you all really care about.

But to answer your question, did you forget about Hillary supporters rioting in 2016 because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost? Or just how much more excusable wishing (or directly threatening) death upon Trump and his supporters is considered in comparison to anyone else? Or that even in 2020, election officials in contested states were threatened for not immediately ratifying results they didn't trust? Pull whatever semantic bullshit you want, doesn't change the fact that many of you are just selectively outraged tribalists, who are so entrenched in your "left-wing good, right-wing bad" mentality that you'll constantly excuse any wrongdoings associated with the left, while using any wrongdoings associated with the right as a reason to shit on its entirety.

His Excellence wrote:

Vassenor wrote:How many times did The Left start riots with the specific stated intent of murdering members of Congress and the Vice President, or to overturn the results of a free and fair election because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost?

Ah yes, the most free and fair election in history, of which any attempt to audit its legitimacy is met with outrage, and painted as an attack on democracy.
Keep telling yourself there's nothing suspicious about how fervently the relevant officials keep blocking attempts to investigate ballots, even though that would only vindicate their claims of how secure the election was. Why wouldn't I trust results based on a massively higher proportion of mail-in votes than previous elections, that also has a much lower rate of mail-in vote rejections? Plus, all the massive tech/social media corporations steadfastly insist Biden won, and that only dangerous conspiracy theorists would dare to question that; it's not like rich and powerful people have ever lied or colluded with each other for their own benefit.

Also kinda interesting how left-wingers keep harping on about this incident in which members of the elite class were threatened and scared, in an effort to defend demonstrations which repeatedly descend into violent mayhem, resulting in loss of life, loss of livelihood, continual social disruption, and lasting infrastructural + economic damage, directly hurting large numbers of everyday Americans, many of which are members of the same marginalized racial group these demonstrations claim to be in support of, in the midst of a pandemic which exacerbates all of these issues. Way to show who you all really care about.

But to answer your question, did you forget about Hillary supporters rioting in 2016 because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost? Or just how much more excusable wishing (or directly threatening) death upon Trump and his supporters is considered in comparison to anyone else? Or that even in 2020, election officials in contested states were threatened for not immediately ratifying results they didn't trust? Pull whatever semantic bullshit you want, doesn't change the fact that many of you are just selectively outraged tribalists, who are so entrenched in your "left-wing good, right-wing bad" mentality that you'll constantly excuse any wrongdoings associated with the left, while using any wrongdoings associated with the right as a reason to shit on its entirety.

So when did the Women's Marches actively try to overthrow the government? Or is your whataboutism that shallow?

And what is your evidence of massive fraud then? Because right now it's boiling down to "I don't believe that could be possible so there must be fraud".

His Excellence wrote:

Vassenor wrote:How many times did The Left start riots with the specific stated intent of murdering members of Congress and the Vice President, or to overturn the results of a free and fair election because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost?

Ah yes, the most free and fair election in history, of which any attempt to audit its legitimacy is met with outrage, and painted as an attack on democracy.
Keep telling yourself there's nothing suspicious about how fervently the relevant officials keep blocking attempts to investigate ballots, even though that would only vindicate their claims of how secure the election was.

pretty sure there's been investigations dude lmao

Why wouldn't I trust results based on a massively higher proportion of mail-in votes than previous elections, that also has a much lower rate of mail-in vote rejections?

shit dude it's almost like 2020 had the outbreak of a pandemic and one candidate asked people to vote by mail and the other candidate discouraged that

Plus, all the massive tech/social media corporations steadfastly insist Biden won, and that only dangerous conspiracy theorists would dare to question that; it's not like rich and powerful people have ever lied or colluded with each other for their own benefit.

you mean like trump did lmao

But to answer your question, did you forget about Hillary supporters rioting in 2016 because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost?

hard to forget something that didn't happen lmao

Or just how much more excusable wishing (or directly threatening) death upon Trump and his supporters is considered in comparison to anyone else?

oh yeah, they're pure angels who never wish death on anyone after all

Or that even in 2020, election officials in contested states were threatened for not immediately ratifying results they didn't trust?

source?

Pull whatever semantic bullshit you want, doesn't change the fact that many of you are just selectively outraged tribalists, who are so entrenched in your "left-wing good, right-wing bad" mentality that you'll constantly excuse any wrongdoings associated with the left, while using any wrongdoings associated with the right as a reason to shit on its entirety.

idk when did the lefties invade the capitol with the intent to lynch their political opponents

Vassenor wrote:How many times did The Left start riots with the specific stated intent of murdering members of Congress and the Vice President, or to overturn the results of a free and fair election because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost?

As far as defences go "When the left wing riots, we just target small business owners and terrorize ordinary citizens" is not the gotcha you think it is that somehow paints "When the right wing riots, they try and overthrow the government. You know. That thing that actually should be in terror of a popular revolt and the violence of the average citizen and is the only legitimate target for political violence, when political violence is called for." as a worse position.

Yes Vass.

Attempting to burn down some random persons shop because you have a beef with society and a political grievance is *orders of magnitudes worse than trying to murder the vice president*. I'm fucking shocked this needs explaining to you people.

Let me try and explain this in simple terms.

Which of these is a preferable action, if one is to be taken:

1. A man is killed by the police. A riot decides to burn down an old folks home.

2. A man is killed by police. A riot decides to burn down a police station.


Take your time.

If you think it doesn't apply, how about this hypothetical.


Someone has a grievance with a policy that an organization has lobbied for, and have decided to use political violence.

Should they;

A. Target random people they pass on the street, burn down businesses by a particular demographic, and so on.

or

B. Storm the lobby of the institution that engaged in the lobbying in an attempt to take hostages.


https://youtu.be/DykZEOV5wD4

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Vassenor wrote:How many times did The Left start riots with the specific stated intent of murdering members of Congress and the Vice President, or to overturn the results of a free and fair election because they didn't want to accept the reality that their side lost?

As far as defences go "When the left wing riots, we just target small business owners and terrorize ordinary citizens" is not the gotcha you think it is that somehow paints "When the right wing riots, they try and overthrow the government. You know. That thing that actually should be in terror of a popular revolt and the violence of the average citizen and is the only legitimate target for political violence, when political violence is called for." as a worse position.

Yes Vass.

Attempting to burn down some random persons shop because you have a beef with society and a political grievance is *orders of magnitudes worse than trying to murder the vice president*. I'm fucking shocked this needs explaining to you people.

Let me try and explain this in simple terms.

Which of these is a preferable action, if one is to be taken:

1. A man is killed by the police. A riot decides to burn down an old folks home.

2. A man is killed by police. A riot decides to burn down a police station.


Take your time.

Buddy, it was a small portion of the protesters, and What if Trump had a heart attack after they had killed Pence. You do realize the Pelosi would become president?

United Socialist Territories wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
As far as defences go "When the left wing riots, we just target small business owners and terrorize ordinary citizens" is not the gotcha you think it is that somehow paints "When the right wing riots, they try and overthrow the government. You know. That thing that actually should be in terror of a popular revolt and the violence of the average citizen and is the only legitimate target for political violence, when political violence is called for." as a worse position.

Yes Vass.

Attempting to burn down some random persons shop because you have a beef with society and a political grievance is *orders of magnitudes worse than trying to murder the vice president*. I'm fucking shocked this needs explaining to you people.

Let me try and explain this in simple terms.

Which of these is a preferable action, if one is to be taken:

1. A man is killed by the police. A riot decides to burn down an old folks home.

2. A man is killed by police. A riot decides to burn down a police station.


Take your time.

Buddy, it was a small portion of the protesters, and What if Trump had a heart attack after they had killed Pence. You do realize the Pelosi would become president?

It was a small portion of those who protested who stormed the building intent on taking hostages or harming anyone too dude.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

United Socialist Territories wrote:Buddy, it was a small portion of the protesters, and What if Trump had a heart attack after they had killed Pence. You do realize the Pelosi would become president?

It was a small portion of those who protested who stormed the building intent on taking hostages or harming anyone too dude.

Fair point, but among those of us on the left there are the "storming the Capitol is wrong" crowd and the "there are 10000 good reasons to storm the Capitol but installing Trump as dictator isn't one of them" crowd, please don't neglect to acknowledge the latter.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

United Socialist Territories wrote:Buddy, it was a small portion of the protesters, and What if Trump had a heart attack after they had killed Pence. You do realize the Pelosi would become president?

It was a small portion of those who protested who stormed the building intent on taking hostages or harming anyone too dude.

Buddy, They hung up a Noose, Thats never a good sign in a mob