4 ms·
Do you actually believe that graffiti and a couple small fires rise to the same level of criminality as an armed takeover of federal land? It's fully possible t
by chowells 6y ago
Do you actually believe that graffiti and a couple small fires rise to the same level of criminality as an armed takeover of federal land? It's fully possible to believe the federal government should put a stop to armed takeovers of federal land and not be involved in graffiti on non-federal property without it being a partisan thing.
The problem is that people believe the protests in Portland are violent riots. They aren't. As long as people are manipulated so easily, I guess real policy discussions aren't going to happen.
- aww_dang 6y agoI'm not looking for equivalency in that sense. On one hand you have arsonists seeking to destroy federal property. On the other you had armed (not specifically violent) men occupying federal property. One of these men was shot. The equivalence is the partisan hypocrisy. There are several sources citing violence in Portland. Even left leaning sources acknowledge this. When you dismiss someone's view you disagree with as "manipulated", you illustrate the larger point I was making.