Riots in DC outside capitol building

[Sparko]

So a protester was shot. Very much unlike what happened during the leftwing riots where antifa or BLM goons shot and killed the pair of black teens in Seattle as they approached the CHAZ/CHOP barricade and the 8 year old girl in Atlanta as her mother tried to make a U-turn in front of barricades or where the guy hid in the dark and shot and killed the pro-Trump counter-demonstrator in an ambush.

Btw, I'm going to edit the link for now so it can be discussed. It is fairly graphic

I don't think the liberals here realize that we have over four years of evidence to throw in their face when they try to gaslight us regarding normalizing violence.

[seer]

There is a legitimate distinction between those protesting injustice, as MLK and BLM did, and those who riot on the basis of lies told to them by right wing media and Trump.

The violence that is the subject of this thread is what happened yesterday - the insurrection that attacked and vandalized the Capitol building during the Electoral College count. The main person who enabled that violence is Trump. See if you can justify that without resorting to phony whataboutism.

You mean like the lie of systemic police racism (the inordinate killing of black men) which I have disproved a number of times Jim?

[CivilDiscourse]

The Constitution protects the right to assembly and protest, and few BLM protests included violence.

The issue I have is that your side somehow thinks it is the fault of Biden or Harris if their employees support causes that the right wing does not approve of.

I believe the claim is that they promoted them, or paid into them themselves. In that case it's irrelevant where the staff donated.

[kccd]

If you think I'm trying to compare justifications you truly are missing the point.

I'm pointing out that all the justification of left-wing violence, rioting, and looting, legitimized the tactic. It let the genie out of the bottle. And, what happens is that the other side now feels justified in using it too.

It's like nuclear weapons. One side feels justified in launching them, but they know once they do, there's nothing stopping the other side from using theirs, regardless of whether there's a valid reason for it.

No one on the left is justifying looting, violence and actual rioting.
The left argues that demonstrations are an appropriate response to documented unfair treatment by police and the judicial system.

There is no justification for the actions taken yesterday in response to lies about "stolen elections".

[casaba]

In my case, I have simply come to recognize that violence as a means to promote political agendas is now viewed as legitimate in the US by ALL parties and condemning it is now pointless and useless.

This logic is really failing me. Not all political agendas are equal.

If someone is enslaved in an authoritarian regime and a guard is killed to gain that persons freedom, justifications could be presented for that act of violence.

If a country has unfair tax laws and someone bombs the Tax Revenue collectors offices, justifications could be presented for that act of violence.

Both of these involve violence as a means to promote a political agenda, but that does not make them both equally justified. It all depends on context. It is possible that the second example is in fact more justified the than the first, maybe the inverse. We cannot judge without first analyzing the justifications.

This idea that because some writers provided justifications for the violence seen during the protests across the country earlier this year, that this automatically justifies the violence seen yesterday is nonsensical.

[CivilDiscourse]

No one on the left is justifying looting, violence and actual rioting.
The left argues that demonstrations are an appropriate response to documented unfair treatment by police and the judicial system.

There is no justification for the actions taken yesterday in response to lies about "stolen elections".

Go back to where I showed citation after citation of the left justifying looting, rioting, violence. Just follow the quote links you'll see that they did indeed justify those.

[mossrose]

No one on the left is justifying looting, violence and actual rioting.
The left argues that demonstrations are an appropriate response to documented unfair treatment by police and the judicial system.

There is no justification for the actions taken yesterday in response to lies about "stolen elections".

Who says they are lies? The pragmatic society that says there is no absolute truth? "What's truth for you is not truth for me!" Stolen elections in 2016 were truth to Clinton and the Dems. Why is a stolen election not valid truth to Reps now?

The left calling everything Trump and Reps does lies doesn't hold water in the no absolute truth culture that they themselves have allowed and used to their own benefits.

[Gondwanaland]

The GOP have already packed the court, by preventing Obama from appointing justices in order to hold those positions open. Including one SCOTUS opening.

Maybe you should look up what court packing means. Because it sure as hell ain't that.

[Gondwanaland]

No one on the left is justifying looting, violence and actual rioting.

[Sparko]

No one on the left is justifying looting, violence and actual rioting.

Where have you been for the last 10 years?

In Defense of Looting
https://thenewinquiry.com/in-defense-of-looting/

Poll: Younger And Wealthier Americans Most Likely to Defend Looting
https://freebeacon.com/issues/poll-y...efend-looting/

Here Are 31 Times the Media Justified or Explained Away Rioting and Looting After George Floyd’s Death
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/09/...-floyds-death/

There is a legitimate distinction between those protesting injustice, as MLK and BLM did, and those who riot on the basis of lies told to them by right wing media and Trump.

No, there is no. Using violence to protest is not justified in this country. You seem like the type who claims it is "justice" when the issue is one you agree with and not when it's an issue you disagree with.

[casaba]

No one on the left is justifying looting, violence and actual rioting.
The left argues that demonstrations are an appropriate response to documented unfair treatment by police and the judicial system.

There is no justification for the actions taken yesterday in response to lies about "stolen elections".

I disagree, kccd. If you read the links that CD presented, yes, the authors do find justifications for violence, including looting and rioting. Similarly, the stolen election claim is a justification for the violence in DC yesterday.

The question, as I see it, is which justifications are more convincing?

We make justifications for violence all the time--and equally important is that just because justifications exist does not make the action 'justified'.

We live in a nuanced world with very few cases which can be defined as clearly 100% right or 100% wrong. Each of us must determine for ourselves, in each case, if in that particular case a particular action is justified.

Isn't that, in a general sense, what discussion is for, to explore our justifications for our actions and decide if our justifications are valid? This is what I am looking for here, some justifications of the violence seen yesterday which compare to the justifications notes in the links provided by CD.

[kccd]

Nope, that is not what packing the court means. The Dems want to add justices to the Supreme court.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/court-packing



It was the Dems who first ended the filibuster for Judges, but I was speaking of the filibuster for passing law.



If they make both states it will be one party rule in the Senate going forward. And if it is so important what haven't Democrat presidents, with a Democrat congress done it in the past?



https://www.statesman.com/news/20200...g-to-take-guns

The GOP unfairly added 2 justices to the Supreme Court - the first was stolen from Obama with a bogus excuse, and the second was made by ignoring the excuse they used to deny Obama's appointment.
And yes, some Dems want to add justices to SCOTUS, but 1) the Constitution does not set the size of SCOTUS which has changed over the years, and has not changed significantly in response to the increased size of the US population and legal complexity, and 2) Biden is not in the group that wants to increase the size of SCOTUS.

So it matters who went first? The fact is that Republicans also eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. In any case, the filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution, so why is it sacred?

Actually, I think the 2 of the last 5 governors of Puerto Rico have been Republicans.

The important thing about representation is that it represent the people it is meant to represent. If people favor Dems and Dem policies, then Dems should hold elected office. If your positions do not appeal to the majority of voters, you should not be elected. There is no rule that an unpopular party has to have equal representation. In many states, Republicans hold majorities although most votes are cast for Democrats, and this is due to gerrymandering, which should be abolished.

[Charles]

LOL. So you want to characterize years of leftist violence as Christian's fault and you claim that me saying you have excused 4 years of such actions a lie? Go on, pull the other one.

It is a lie no matter how many times you would like to claim so. You will not be able to show any post where I support it, liar.

[CivilDiscourse]

The GOP unfairly added 2 justices to the Supreme Court - the first was stolen from Obama with a bogus excuse, and the second was made by ignoring the excuse they used to deny Obama's appointment.
And yes, some Dems want to add justices to SCOTUS, but 1) the Constitution does not set the size of SCOTUS which has changed over the years, and has not changed significantly in response to the increased size of the US population and legal complexity, and 2) Biden is not in the group that wants to increase the size of SCOTUS.

So it matters who went first? The fact is that Republicans also eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. In any case, the filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution, so why is it sacred?

Actually, I think the 2 of the last 5 governors of Puerto Rico have been Republicans.

The important thing about representation is that it represent the people it is meant to represent. If people favor Dems and Dem policies, then Dems should hold elected office. If your positions do not appeal to the majority of voters, you should not be elected. There is no rule that an unpopular party has to have equal representation. In many states, Republicans hold majorities although most votes are cast for Democrats, and this is due to gerrymandering, which should be abolished.

Only one of those can be unfair. If the excuse was bogus, then ignoring the excuse is legitimate. If the second is unfair, then the first was valid.

[seer]

Isn't that, in a general sense, what discussion is for, to explore our justifications for our actions and decide if our justifications are valid? This is what I am looking for here, some justifications of the violence seen yesterday which compare to the justifications notes in the links provided by CD.

The riots this summer were largely based on the systemic police racism - i.e. particularly the inordinate killing of black men by police. Which is a falsehood. Just as "hands up don't shoot" was a falsehood.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...-police-racism