Who is saying that riots and civil disorder is a good thing? Comparing the BLM protests to the attack on the US Capital aimed at over-turning the election result is classic Trump 'whataboutism'. It's not going to go unchallenged. — Wayfarer

Hmm.. As noted, they are not analogous, but they both intended to upend institutional power systems, they both resulted from essentially conspiratorial thinking fanned by politicians (who actually took part, for BLM), to take power FOR those politicians.. including burning courthouses and they both resulted in net-negatives for the USA in huge ways. There is a good argument that the BLM protests were far worse.

I think the other thing to note is that anyone speaking this way is partaking in the culture war. In that case, I think the comparison IS apt. They represent polar opposite demographics, and the mechanisms were very similar.

It's no attempt to ignore Jan 6 and its implications and resulting effects on society. But the comparison is not as ill-apt as you seem to posit.

There is a good argument that the BLM protests were far worse. — AmadeusD

They were civil disobedience. And I don't accept that there is a 'moral equivalence' between those protests, and the Trump insurrection. That is part of the spin that MAGA has put on it to try and whitewash the insurrection. So it's not 'a good argument', but a value judgement, that I don't believe has merit.

They were civil disobedience. And I don't accept that there is a 'moral equivalence' between those protests, and the Trump insurrection — Wayfarer

No, not at all, they aren't equivalent. The BLM protests are morally worse on your account by way of resulting in more damage, more death and more net-negative for society.

That is part of the spin that MAGA has put on it to try and whitewash the insurrection. — Wayfarer

This hits me as viscerally ironic... You're defending death and destruction because its on the side you agree with? Both are civil disobedience, so im not sure what empirical difference you intend to use to make the moral difference obvious.

The facts remain. Yes, rioters died. I said they didn’t kill anyone.

The riot I was speaking about in particular was the assault on the whitehouse, and the occupation of entire city blocks by rioters, something that resembles an insurrection far more than a 3 hour riot at the capitol building.

So it appears you should check your own facts.

The riot I was speaking about in particular was the assault on the whitehouse — NOS4A2

Which one? Super-unclear if you're cryptically referring to something other htan Jan 6.

The riot I was speaking about... — NOS4A2

The passage I quoted from you began:

That’s to say nothing of Jan 6th protesters.... — NOS4A2

The end of May 2020. It’s when they burned down that famous church and defaced multiple monuments as they attacked the Whitehouse. The president had to be taken to the underground bunker it got so bad. Curfews, arsons, looting, all that good stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Washington,_D.C.

The passage I quoted from you began:

And?

There is no article at your link. No idea why, as it's there under the same title

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Washington,_D.C.#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.%2C%20the%20capital%20of,Floyd%20riots%20in%20Washington%2C%20D.C.

Henceforth I intend to fact-check anything you write in this thread. — Wayfarer

He hopes you will do that to further fuck with you. He has accepted that it is just a game for him:

I’m just passing the time. — NOS4A2

I copy and pasted the link. No clue.

Not only that, but the protesters got a huge settlement from the DOJ, just another example of the two-tiered justice system.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna24325

Paine’s projections reveal that everything he does to pass the time is a game.

You admitted it yourself.

The "I know i am but what are you" is straight from Pee Wee Herman.

You’ve never done anything besides playing games to pass the time?

Yeah. But the absolute best case you can possibly make, given the facts (and let's assume Wayfarer is being naive here.. I know you do, but I don't) is that the entire system is fucked, no one likes it, and we're bound to have these events under such a divisive and intense social milieu. I fail to see how there's any appreciable difference here.

Which I'd agree with. I see "BLM riots X Jan 6" as a coin with heads on both sides. They relevant demos hate each other, and act accordingly. It only makes sense they would be comparable and equally illegitimate, undesirable and clearly dangerous.

I live in a place and have lived in places where the result of the game is consequential. You appear to reside in a bunker where all the results are equally important or not.

Settle down folks, much more squabbling and this thread will be locked for cool-off.

To whom are you directing this remark?

I can appreciate your view. But Had the rioters on Jan 6th pointed their ire at the public or on private businesses, and looted wherever they went, destroying the livelihoods of regular Americans, I would be more even handed.

I do think that's fair.

But can you not see that a direct attack on the Whitehouse (literally storming it, occupying political offices and stealing government intel - lets leave aside whether Trump wanted that) is absolutely a serious, serious problem that raises it to a similar level of undesirability?

@Wayfarer Oh come on, the sandbox is fun!! LOL. No. I agree with you. The insults aren't good.

fuck this place.
Nosferatu has been playing it for years to satisfy his pleasure and he just admitted that was the case.
He is your bitch.
Time to spend more time reading and shaping materials.

[Edited at mod's request]

But can you not see that a direct attack on the Whitehouse (literally storming it, occupying political offices and stealing government intel - lets leave aside whether Trump wanted that) is absolutely a serious, serious problem that raises it to a similar level of undesirability?

I’m afraid I can’t. As stupid and belligerent as the affair might have been, the political class has been largely insulated from the pathologies they have unleashed on the country. For a few hours on January 6th they weren’t.

I’m afraid I can’t. As stupid and belligerent as the affair might have been, the political class has been largely insulated from the pathologies they have unleashed on the country. For a few hours on January 6th they weren’t. — NOS4A2

Fair enough. I guess i'll take you describing Jan 6 as pathological as a win though lol. To note: that's exactly how BLM proponents feel.

He hopes you will do that to further fuck with you. He has accepted that it is just a game for him: — Paine

:up:

US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump’s lawyer argues

Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity would cover the U.S. president ordering political rivals to be assassinated by SEAL Team Six.

During a hearing at a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Trump’s lead lawyer John Sauer made a sweeping argument for executive immunity, essentially saying that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress could be criminally prosecuted. Therefore, Sauer argued, the former president should be shielded from criminal prosecution.

One of the judges asked Sauer: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first... there is a political process that would have to occur.”

So if he were to resign before being impeached? He'd get away with it? Because, at least according to Mitch, former Presidents can't be impeached.

Or, hell, what if he has Seal Team Six kill off Congress? Then he can't be impeached even as President.

Essentially the argument is, if the president slowly encourages anti-constitutional / democratic practices, they are immune if the legislative branch gives it a pass. The irony being, when the legislative branch uses as its excuse (for those who might not have appreciated the attempt), "This is for the courts to figure out". Whereby the courts point back to the legislature AFTER they already acquitted him. Bravo.

It’s such an outlandish scenario that would never happen, but if it did, It would no doubt lead to a constitutional crisis.

At least their wild thought experiment runs parallel to a more realistic scenario. What if the president sent the DOJ or some AG to prosecute his political opponents in the lead up to an election?

At any rate, none of it applies in Trump’s case. The constitution provides a mechanism to sort it out, and he was acquitted through this mechanism.

At least their wild thought experiment runs parallel to a more realistic scenario. What if the president sent the DOJ or some AG to prosecute his political opponents in the lead up to an election? — NOS4A2

Or a real scenario: what if the President tried to prevent the legitimate certification of a Presidential election that he lost?

The constitution provides a mechanism to sort it out, and he was acquitted through this mechanism. — NOS4A2

The Constitution provides a mechanism to fire a President. He wasn't fired. It doesn't then follow that he can't later be criminally prosecuted.

Or a real scenario: what if the President tried to prevent the legitimate certification of a Presidential election that he lost?

It was all above board. I say this because it is exactly what some Dems did in 2016. The only difference is that House members in 2021 had the backing of a Senator, as per the rules.

The Constitution provides a mechanism to fire a President. He wasn't fired. It doesn't then follow that he can't later be criminally prosecuted.

They have the power to try and convict of high crimes and misdemeanors. The firing is just the punishment for that process. He was acquitted.

They have the power to try and convict of high crimes and misdemeanors. — NOS4A2

They have the power to fire a President if he commits a crime. They don't have the power to try and convict an actual criminal case which is why he wouldn't have been jailed if found guilty by the Senate.

The firing is just the punishment for that process. — NOS4A2

Yes, and the only punishment. But someone who does things like kill or steal military secrets should be punished by more than just being fired. They ought be criminally prosecuted and jailed if found guilty.

He was acquitted. — NOS4A2

From being fired, yes. That doesn't preclude subsequent criminal prosecution.