Peaceful protests versus violent mobs: A primer

Its easy being Ollie. Its all mindless assertion with no analyses.
He says he present evidence by only asserting that he presents evidence. Would he make it through cross examination, NO, A first year barrister would clean his clock nicely.

Your characterization of me is a lie.

You aren't capable of defending your demented ideology using facts or logic so all you can do is lie about people.

Your characteriztion of Oralloy is spot on.

That's a lie. I'm always happy to provide cites to back up all of my facts.

You really do have no honor and no integrity.

Everything you say is right, but I want to add one fact, which should add some perspective. The violence in the capitol on the 6th, while absolutely wrong, is dwarfed into insignificance by the riots all summer. Furthermore, what about the shooting of congressman Steve Scalise and others by a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter? Should Sanders have been thrown out of the Senate. What about the violence and destruction on the day of Trump's inauguration? What about the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings when Kavanaugh opponents roamed the halls of the capitol freely accosting senators in hallways and elevators?

Your theoretical statements are true, but, in fact, Trump and his supporters are being treated in a grossly different manner than liberals who do the same things or worse.

You are making very weak comparisons

1) If Bernie Sanders called for people to go to Steve Scalise and fight, then you would have a case. I don't believe that happened.

2) What Trump did is different than what any Democrat has done. There is no comparison. Trump, as elected leader, pushed conspiracy theories, riled up a crowd and called them to fight. If any Democratic president had done the same, I would be just as critical.

Compare Trump to Gore (who also contested an election he felt was unfair... but with no violence).

3) In one case people who are legally admitted into congress and who have been through security checkpoints are shouting and congressmen. In the other case a mob attacked police, pushed through security broke windows and ransacked offices. There is no comparison.

4) What happened on December 6th was unique and shocking. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Five people died. It is true that other riots are also unique and shocking... that is irrelevant.

I thought we'd been through this. Give me the quotation in which Trump told anyone to invade the capitol building. In fact, not only did he not tell them to do it, he told them to stop and condemned it. And, for the benefit of the peanut gallery, I'm talking to maxdancona and I won't read anyone else's comments.

He told them to go wild.

What does that mean to you, get face painted to look like a lion?

Because it didn’t mean that to the rioters. It meant assault the capitol, and that’s what they did.

Brandon, you are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that Trump told anyone to "invade the capitol building". The charge is "incitement" and an incitement is different than a command. (When someone yells "fire" in a theater they aren't telling anyone to trample other people).



You are also factually incorrect. The order of events was this...

1) The angry pro-Trump mob pushed passed police lines.
2) Trump said nothing.
3) The rest of the country was upset
4) Trump said nothing. As people were trying to bust into the capitol changes and there were deaths.
5) People started blaming trump.
6) Trump posted a video praising his supporters and telling them to go home.
7) The siege ended
8) Trump posted another tweet praising the actions of his supporters
9) People got really angry.
10) The day after... Trump condemned his supporters for entering the capitol building.

Trump did tell his supporters to "go home" as he was praising them. At no point did he condemn the assault on the capitol building until the day after it happened (and he was facing condemnation from people in his own party).

Notice the tweet above. It was posted at 11:00pm... after the capitol had been invaded, police had been attacked, the offices had been ransacked and people had died. He is still praising his "great patriots" for what had happened.

You said he praised his supporters. All politicians praise their supporters. Now show me the quotation where he praised the actions of the people who invaded the capitol building.

Even if he had praised the people who had gone into the capitol building (which he most certainly did not), it would have been after the fact and, therefore, not incitement. Taking 24 hours to condemn something is not incitement.

What you're really saying is that you have concluded that the general tenor of his words suggests tacit approval, despite explicit condemnation.

You claim to be a big supporter of free speech, yet somehow you tend to want people punished for their political speech, and, even more objectionable, things they did not say but you feel are vaguely suggested.

We are arguing opinion now. Tweet I posted above, and the video were (in my opinion) highly inappropriate and offensive. I posted in in part as a response to your claim that he condemned the attack.

Let separate the facts from my opinions.

The facts.

1) Trump had a speech where he told people to march to the capitol, to fight, and to stop the the legislators from certifying the vote.

2) Trump never directly told people to force their way into the capitol or to attack police or to smash window.

3) Directly after Trumps speech, a crowd of his supporters marched to the capitol where they attacked police, forced their way into the capitol, smashed windows and people died.

4) Trump never condemned these actions until the day after the attacks. In several occasions he praised his supporters giving them thanks and calling them "great patriots".

5) Late in the day... after then damage had been done. Trump told his supporters to "go home" as he was praising them.

Now my opinions

1) Trump's words directly led to the attack on the capitol. In fact, he should have known that his words would lead to violence.

2) Trump's video and tweet praising his supporters as "great patriots" after the attack had taken place was inappropriate and obscene. This happened after his supporters had led to damage, put elected officials at risk and led to deaths.

3) Trumps condemnation of the violence in the day after the attack was cowardly and contradictory. He has yet to show any remorse.

I thought we were talking about a legal case for committing a crime, not whether you agree with him. If person X tells supporters, go protest an action we consider unjust, and then, during the protest, some people commit a crime, person X cannot be held responsible unless he told them to commit the crime. People have an absolute right to protest things they consider unjust and they have an absolute right to talk about it and to plan protests. Merely telling people to protest to show their point of view is never a crime.

Furthermore, there was immense violence on many occasions during the summer and numerous liberals winked at it. Often they said things basically like, "Well, we can't condone violence, but their cause was just." Do you see us out there trying to prosecute them for not condemning the violence convincingly enough?

Incitement is a crime. Consider the following three cases.

Incitement: If Trump had said "Let's go storm the capitol and kill the Democrat traitors". That would clearly be incitement. I assume in this case you would agree it was a crime.

Not Incitement If Trump had said "Let's stand outside the capital and peacefully express our support". That would clearly not be incitement.

The problem is that what Trump said was In between. It was pretty close to the line between incitement and not incitement. Whether this is incitement or not will likely be decided in a courtroom.

Let me see if I've got this straight. Trump tells followers to go protest and says, "You have to show strength" and you're asserting that's a crime?

It isn't. It's Constitutionally protected speech. The only thing that might be a crime is if he told them to commit an illegal act.

The fact is that what Trump said caused violence. If what he said was either

1) intended to cause violence
2) reasonably expected to cause violence

Then it was legally incitement. Whether this is the case will be answered in court.

Do you have that straight now?

Outlawing the Democratic Party will put a stop to these abuses of power.

Thatll never happen unless you are saying you want to put your money on a fascist government in the US.
You really have to do away with the Constitution .
Dont be an idiot with this unholy crap, you want us to respect your intelligence or not??

It s not an you know it. I think that youre just sending up stupid bubbles to see whether people would buy your ignorant statement

Nope. You're a liar and you lied about me. I always provide cites upon request and you know it. You are also the only stupid person here.

There is no requirement to do away with the Constitution in order to outlaw the Democratic Party. All it takes is a vote in the legislature and the signature of the President.