> "They were mostly peaceful."
> The evidence says otherwise. If evidence is
> ignored or not made available or discounted, then
> incorrect conclusions are made. Perhaps these
> images didn't make PMSNBC?
I stand by what I wrote. There were many tens of thousands of protestors and the violent ones numbered in the tens or hundreds. The protests were mostly peaceful.
As for the images you present, yes I have seen them. I repeat what I have said before: anecdote is not data. This is like that time you claimed looters were terrorists and, when challenged that your images showed looting and not terrorists, you replied with an image of a terrorist who was not a looter. In short, the only connection was in your mind.
This is almost as bad. You take some images and act as if they overrule the factual data. As a matter of propaganda, that is correct; as a matter of history, it is false.
> "Kyle Rittenhouse is out on bail provided by
> He stayed in solitary until $1M was raised. One
> reason police are quitting en masse is because
> they see malefactors out on the street the day
> after they've been arrested--repeatedly. Some DA's
> are eliminating cash bail (even for firearm
> offences)(relative to both political and simple
> criminal actions). Others are eliminating cash
> bail. Felonies are downgraded to misdemeanors,
> including domestic violence. And elsewhere,
> well-funded "justice advocates" provide bail
> money. Looters, "street hoods," political
> activists, arsonists, or violent terrorists with
> body armor, all too often they get a pass.
That supports my argument, not yours. You said liberals get off easily because they can raise bail. I noted that Rittenhouse was able to raise bail. You don't dispute that but rather change the topic to the merits of a bail system, implicitly suggesting that Rittenhouse should still be in jail.
The bottom line is you can't complain about liberals and bail when conservative murderers are getting off the same way and presidential pardons are obviating the need even for charging and prosecution. You control the state; you control the pardons.
> "Treason"--The charge is thrown around by both
> sides far too loosely.
This is like the debate over conspiracy theories. The theory rises and falls on the basis of evidence. An invasion of Congress in which some participants want to kill Pelosi, the third in succession to the presidency; and others want to "hang Mike Pence," the second in the line of succession, is by definition treasonous.
Or did you not see the tapes of people chanting "Hang Mike Pence?"
If anybody in the Trumpian
> event advocated the overthrow of the US
> Government, I am not aware of that and denounce
Is it your opinion that attempting to kill the second and third people in line for the presidency is not treason?
> The CHAZ compound, in a weird & amateurish
> way, advocated secession, which is treason. They
> have all the legitimacy of the "State of
> I carefully read what you said, O Worthy
> Adversary. Please note what I did NOT say--I never
> excused or justified the Trumpian invaders. I did
> point out that the damage they caused pales in
> comparison to what the Blue-governance cities
> suffered in 2020. My complaint is that the
> malefactors of the Left face neither the
> vilification or the legal consequences which those
> on the right do.
Other than the black people who were killed and the peaceful protestors who were beaten or blinded, you may be right. I doubt it but do not know the details. I repeat that people who looted and attacked others should be punished.
So too the traitors who have betrayed their country and their constitution, especially when those malefactors are using the offices of the state to overthrow the constitution.