The democratic leaders is hyprocrites

[Sunstone]

So that made it ok?

I think he meant the protests were ok, not the violence that sometimes accompanied the protests.

The last time there was a protest in America by either side that did not at least run some risk of violence was when the Shriners showed up one day to demand their right to wear their tassels on whichever side of their hats they felt like. It's only mentioned in the history books because it was the only day the nation as a whole ever took the afternoon off to nap.

To put the BLM protests in much needed context and realism, there were at least 200 American cities that saw one or more protests by a group of any size. Violence took place in fewer than two dozen cities, although it was recurring in a few of them. I'm going by memory there from stats I found at the time, so take that into account.

In contrast to the actual level of violence, at least one popular media outlet through-out the summer ran video of some of the worst of the violence every few minutes. Pretty much the same scenes, repeated 'constantly' for months. Judge the significance and impact of that according to your understanding.

We Americans do love our entertainments. It even amuses us to call our entertainments 'becoming informed', although it seems possible that might be self-flattery at work.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's very helpful to know. Thank you. I'm so glad you have never failed to object to hypocrisy on the right. And you have always stood by your staunch criticisms of polarizing and inflammatory language on the left. And.. and.. and...

I'll be happy to provide an example....

Republicans talk about the precious values of freedom and the American way, but they are undisputed kings of the industrial law enforcement / prison complex, making this country the most harshly sentenced and incarcerated on the face of the entire freakin planet.

So much for the land of the free.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Violence in and of itself is not a bad thing, unless no violence whatsoever is your axiom. Context matters. Violence is acceptable especially when it comes to self defense.

Imagine if people and nations didn't defend themselves with violence in certain cases. Often times counter-violence has saved innocent people.

I think justified violence should never be associated with offensive actions. As long as there is good reason, violence can serve as a useful means to an end, but tempered at the same time.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think justified violence should never be associated with offensive actions. As long as there is good reason, violence can serve as a useful means to an end, but tempered at the same time.

Do you mean pre-emptive violence?

Violence innevitably gets out of control unless there is a societal rule behind what is acceptable and what is not, such as what is the honourable way to commit violence or not. Unfortunately those rules have been thrown out of the window after WW1.

 

[Altfish]

I keep forgetting about the center.
Those guys are so quiet.

Unfortunately the disenfranchised tend to be quiet; it is the same in the UK.

 

[74x12]

The democratic leaders outraged about the Capitol but not about six months worth of riots and deaths BLM is behind. Thats so strange.. I thought the democrat leaders was against violence, but they are apparently not against violence when BLM and anfita is behind it?? Thats very very hypocrisy

Yes it's politics as usual. The right does similar political moves and get away with it.

Both parties have done these things. As the Podesta emails said We’ve conspired to ‘produce an unaware and compliant citizenry’

They want us stupid so we'll keep voting for them.

 

[oldbadger]

The democratic leaders outraged about the Capitol but not about six months worth of riots and deaths BLM is behind. Thats so strange.. I thought the democrat leaders was against violence, but they are apparently not against violence when BLM and anfita is behind it?? Thats very very hypocrisy

No friend..... you've got that wrong.
It's a very sad fact that very large demonstrations full of very angry people will always have a small % of individuals within who will erupt in to violence, damage, noise and more.
We've seen it here in UK demonstrations.
It's happening now in some European cities.

It happened on 1/6 (thank you @Sunstone..... I think 1/6 should be the title from now on)

OK? But BM marchers were very very angry....... because Blacks get killed, mistreated and put down all the time. There was a black woman on BBC television the other night.... When a youth she was homeless and became very friendly with a homeless white girl. They got up to some mischief and were picked up by the police.

Guess what? She got 12 months in a young offenders institution where she got beaten, bullied, sexually assaulted and more. Guess where the white girl went? The Police put her in a police car and took her home!

You see? BLM marchers were very very angry, and they were confrontyed by very very violent law enforcement.

On 1/6 I watched police officers having their pics taken with White intruders.

Time to rethink, Meandflower.

 

[Polymath257]

So that made it ok?

The protests last summer were MOSTLY peaceful. The aspects that were not peaceful were NOT OK.

The riot on the Capitol was *sedition*, which is a MUCH worse crime than just breaking and entering (20 years vs 1 year).

 

[Polymath257]

So the mobs in Russia that overthrew the monarchy, a monarchy that oppressed the peasants were justified? Violence is violence.

Those who attempt sedition and succeed are patriots. Those who fail are traitors.

In the case of Russia, we have mobs overthrowing a dictatorship. In the case of the US last week, we have mobs attempting to overturn a legitimate election they disagreed with.

Yes, that makes a difference.

 

[Jainarayan]

Absolutely. The tsarist regime was a brutal one that crushed people under its foot and repressed in blood any protests against it. Millions died in its inept wars and management of the economy, it was the last slaver State of Europe and hundreds of thousands suffered regularly of famine under its rule while the clergy and the nobility were living in guilded palaces. While the regime that finally replaced it was scarcely better, the violent death of tsarist Russia was well deserved just as the death of all absolutist monarchy, all in the blood of revolution, were a good thing.

And how many innocent citizens died in that revolution, as collateral damage? And how has history judged the Soviet Union, Stalin’s purges? Have you ever read Animal Farm by George Orwell? Scarcely better? No, not better at all, scarcely or otherwise.

Mao and his communist minions killed how many innocent Chinese by starvation or outright murder and execution? Because the imperial system was corrupt?

So where is the justification of that violence in any of those?

 

[Jainarayan]

Those who attempt sedition and succeed are patriots. Those who fail are traitors.

In the case of Russia, we have mobs overthrowing a dictatorship. In the case of the US last week, we have mobs attempting to overturn a legitimate election they disagreed with.

Yes, that makes a difference.

Nice justifications.

I agree that sedition is sedition and a crime, I never said otherwise. I don’t support the protesters. Look at Russian history to see which dictatorship is the lesser of the two evils.

 

[epronovost]

And how many innocent citizens died in that revolution, as collateral damage? And how has history judged the Soviet Union, Stalin’s purges? Have you ever read Animal Farm by George Orwell? Scarcely better? No, not better at all, scarcely or otherwise.

Mao and his communist minions killed how many innocent Chinese by starvation or outright murder and execution? Because the imperial system was corrupt?

So where is the justification of that violence in any of those?

And the Soviet Union regime, murderous and oppressive, was also challenged violently several times. Violence in the name of freedom, against oppression is justified in my opinion, especially if peaceful protests and mechanism were ignored which was the case in tsarist and later soviet Russia.

 

[Polymath257]

Nice justifications.

I agree that sedition is sedition and a crime, I never said otherwise. I don’t support the protesters. Look at Russian history to see which dictatorship is the lesser of the two evils.

And I agree. Both Lenin and Stalin should never have been close to the levers of power. Neither should Mao. And neither should Trump.

If the allies had not pushed Karensky to stay in the war, we might have had a very different 20th century.

I see the Capitol protestors as being more similar to the bolsheviks against the Provisional government as opposed to those against the tsar.

 

[Jainarayan]

In contrast to the actual level of violence, at least one popular media outlet through-out the summer ran video of some of the worst of the violence every few minutes. Pretty much the same scenes, repeated 'constantly' for months. Judge the significance and impact of that according to your understanding.

Which supports the claims that the media are manipulating all of us, always have and always will. No one remembers the Newark NJ riots of July 1967. A black man was taken into custody for a traffic violation that escalated into him being beaten at the Springfield Ave. police station. When he was released he exited by a back exit. The mob that gathered on the street did not see the man come out, someone started a rumor that he died in police custody, the media picked up on that and ran with it.

Over the next few days (July 12-17) a good portion of the downtown area was in flames and ruins, from which the city has never really recovered. About half the population of Newark, including some very big companies, moved out over the following years.

So, between the media and “righteous outrage” having no basis in truth, the largest city in NJ is a shadow of its former self. And those riots were not confined to Newark. They spread as far south as Asbury Park.

 

[Polymath257]

Nice justifications.

I agree that sedition is sedition and a crime, I never said otherwise. I don’t support the protesters. Look at Russian history to see which dictatorship is the lesser of the two evils.

One problem is that you never know where revolution will lead. If those who challenged Louis XVI knew that Robespierre would rise and a reign of terror be initiated, would they have done what they did? And was what they did justified because they gave the Declarations of the Rights of Man?

Would those protesting Japanese involvement in China during the May 4 movement have been pleased with the Communists that ended up profiting from it?

How about the CIA's training of Castro to overthrow Batista? or its support of Pinochet over Allende?

It is always easier to look backwards than it is to look forward.

 

[Jainarayan]

And I agree. Both Lenin and Stalin should never have been close to the levers of power. Neither should Mao. And neither should Trump.

If the allies had not pushed Karensky to stay in the war, we might have had a very different 20th century.

I see the Capitol protestors as being more similar to the bolsheviks against the Provisional government as opposed to those against the tsar.

Just my guess that without the instigation of the Bolsheviks the monarchy might have fallen. I don’t think Nicholas was evil, just inept. He might have abdicated, but we’ll never know.

I was probably more stunned than anything else at the Capitol storming. Regardless of what Trump said or didn’t say, no one held a gun to those protesters heads to do what they did. The biggest concern I have, and I see it even on RF is that there’s always finger pointing, blaming, “it’s not my fault”, and justification for doing things people shouldn’t, no one takes responsibility for their actions.

I’m neither a fan nor detractor of Trump, and I’m not overjoyed with Biden, Harris, and especially Pelosi, nor am I hopeful that we’ll do any better. But it is what it is. I hope I’m wrong, because I’ve been through and am still going through enough **** in NJ, I don’t need any more curveballs.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

The democratic leaders outraged about the Capitol but not about six months worth of riots and deaths BLM is behind. Thats so strange.. I thought the democrat leaders was against violence, but they are apparently not against violence when BLM and anfita is behind it?? Thats very very hypocrisy

Those are very good points. I've identified 3 faulty ways of thinking that are common among politicians.

1. There are some that don't care about logic and evidence. This is clearly seen in my thread regarding Trump's second impeachment, where some are okay with the process being rushed before all of the facts are in or fairly considered just as they are in some past impeachments.

2. There are some that are one -sided or only consider the evidence that supports their side. This is obviously biased because a rational person would consider all relevant/available evidence.

3. Then there are those who are able to consider all of the evidence but they do so selectively or on a case-by-case basis. That's a standard that's supposed to apply in all cases. Usually politicians would engage in double standards in terms of their thinking and decision making when they know their case is weak or they just want to go on politics rather than principle. This applies to your point about politicians inciting or encouraging BLM, while trying to condemn Trump for doing the same. I've found that both Republicans and Democrats are capable of applying double standards.

The more Democrats and Republicans become aware of this then the more people will probably jump to the independent side.