6 ms·

No they were banned for going against the democrat-left establishment. After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the

No they were banned for going against the democrat-left establishment. After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.

Daishiman 6y ago
There were no endless attacks on federal property, and there was no organized movement to disturb the peaceful transition of power, nor overthrowing a democratically elected government. Don't peddle lies.
- rvz 6y ago
  > There were no endless attacks on federal property It is still happening in 2021 and has been documented previously for months, even after the election. Typical examples here [0][1]. Many more found on Twitter. So are you now going to stop gaslighting and peddling lies? [0] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347157489456975872 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347157489456975872 [1] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=281450 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=28145...
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    I'm not seeing these people trying to kidnap Senators. I'm not seeing an organized movement to stop a democratic transition of power, nor incitement by the President in favor of such actions, not people walking with guns threatening the lives of others. Vandalism, sure? Are you going to stupidly compare one thing with another?
    - refurb 6y ago
      Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority? “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office? The mayor of Portland was being accosted at his home (so much so he moved) and while out in public having dinner (just this past week). Is that not intimidating and threatening our elected leaders? The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it. Why the double standard? Why is arson and looting by Antifa given the benefit of the doubt and called “protesting”, while, when the right riots and causes disruption we go right to using words like “coup” and “sedition” and suddenly need to start creating new laws to stop it?
      - Daishiman 6y ago
        > Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority? Were people actually concerned that this movement was going to blow out into a full-on anarchist revolt? Was this based on an idea of an all-out violent revolution? This is the only example where they may be a slight point and even so I'm not seeing an explicit call to join into this being amplified. > “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office? Were they coming in with guns? Did they organize multiple days in advance with the idea of kidnapping legislators? This sounds like infrequent but very much run-on-the-mill instance of protesting. > The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it. This is not true, and I'm the sort of person that consumes news from people who are not in favor of the current system. The critique was the violent overreaction of police forces and the fact that while they're getting rubber bullets in the head, actually seditious traitors that stormed the Capitol get coddled and kindly asked to leave. _That_ is the double standard. The US has a history of allowing violence by white majorities, visible and obvious in the favorable treatment by police forces and legislators, while disproportionally repressing other forces. The deescalation is reserved for seditionists and white supremacists.
    - rvz 6y ago
      The context of the grandparent's comment: > ...After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new. You (What I quoted): > There were no endless attacks on federal property... You have just lied in that first claim after the fact that the grandparent comment was referencing the summer violence of last year that still continues to this day and that is what I quoted in my comment which is still happening today. Never began to compare anything or started to. So before you gaslight everyone again, are you now going to stop peddling lies?
      - Daishiman 6y ago
        There were millions of people in the streets, and the number of violent events was disproportionately small, and was an _excuse_ used by unaffiliated people to loot. To this date there is no association between BLM protesters at large and any willful intent to cause damage at scale or destabilize democracy.

Daishiman 6y ago

There were no endless attacks on federal property, and there was no organized movement to disturb the peaceful transition of power, nor overthrowing a democratically elected government. Don't peddle lies.

rvz 6y ago
> There were no endless attacks on federal property It is still happening in 2021 and has been documented previously for months, even after the election. Typical examples here [0][1]. Many more found on Twitter. So are you now going to stop gaslighting and peddling lies? [0] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347157489456975872 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347157489456975872 [1] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=281450 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=28145...
- Daishiman 6y ago
  I'm not seeing these people trying to kidnap Senators. I'm not seeing an organized movement to stop a democratic transition of power, nor incitement by the President in favor of such actions, not people walking with guns threatening the lives of others. Vandalism, sure? Are you going to stupidly compare one thing with another?
  - refurb 6y ago
    Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority? “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office? The mayor of Portland was being accosted at his home (so much so he moved) and while out in public having dinner (just this past week). Is that not intimidating and threatening our elected leaders? The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it. Why the double standard? Why is arson and looting by Antifa given the benefit of the doubt and called “protesting”, while, when the right riots and causes disruption we go right to using words like “coup” and “sedition” and suddenly need to start creating new laws to stop it?
    - Daishiman 6y ago
      > Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority? Were people actually concerned that this movement was going to blow out into a full-on anarchist revolt? Was this based on an idea of an all-out violent revolution? This is the only example where they may be a slight point and even so I'm not seeing an explicit call to join into this being amplified. > “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office? Were they coming in with guns? Did they organize multiple days in advance with the idea of kidnapping legislators? This sounds like infrequent but very much run-on-the-mill instance of protesting. > The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it. This is not true, and I'm the sort of person that consumes news from people who are not in favor of the current system. The critique was the violent overreaction of police forces and the fact that while they're getting rubber bullets in the head, actually seditious traitors that stormed the Capitol get coddled and kindly asked to leave. _That_ is the double standard. The US has a history of allowing violence by white majorities, visible and obvious in the favorable treatment by police forces and legislators, while disproportionally repressing other forces. The deescalation is reserved for seditionists and white supremacists.
  - rvz 6y ago
    The context of the grandparent's comment: > ...After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new. You (What I quoted): > There were no endless attacks on federal property... You have just lied in that first claim after the fact that the grandparent comment was referencing the summer violence of last year that still continues to this day and that is what I quoted in my comment which is still happening today. Never began to compare anything or started to. So before you gaslight everyone again, are you now going to stop peddling lies?
    - Daishiman 6y ago
      There were millions of people in the streets, and the number of violent events was disproportionately small, and was an _excuse_ used by unaffiliated people to loot. To this date there is no association between BLM protesters at large and any willful intent to cause damage at scale or destabilize democracy.