3 ms·

The difference between - an illegal mob ransacking Congress in an attempt to overthrow an election, and - a constitutional arrest of a criminal president (e.

The difference between - an illegal mob ransacking Congress in an attempt to overthrow an election, and - a constitutional arrest of a criminal president (e.g. by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, or by the FBI under Mike Pence’s and the Cabinet’s order via the 25th Amendment) should not need an explanation.

Miner49er 6y ago
I never mentioned the Capitol protest? I'm talking about this tweet by China. This is state sanctioned violence (by China) and so is arresting someone. Twitter is clearly drawing a line somewhere about what violence is okay, and what violence isn't, and it's not particularly clear where it is and if there is any bias.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  I was referring to your comment about arresting Trump - Twitter’s line is clearly about “legal” state violence. This wouldn’t be murder or forced sterilization or a coup d’etat. But it could be a legal (or even legally murky) military action, and certainly the arrest of someone like President Trump, who is subject to many good-faith allegations of serious violent crimes, and should be arrested to face trial for them. It is worth noting that “state-sanctioned” violence does not always mean legally-sanctioned violence, since state actions can easily be criminal, or at least lawless. - The Capitol Hill mob was illegal violence, albeit state-sanctioned (by endorsement of the president) - Arresting the president (either under Congressional authority or the 25th amendment) would be legal state-sanctioned violence - Although nominal Chinese law is somewhat authoritarian with regard to ethnic minorities and Muslims, the reason the Xi regime is so desperate to cover up and propagandize the concentration camps is that they are illegal under Chinese and international law
  - wwtrv 6y ago
    In what way was the Capitol mob “state sanctioned”? The president has a constitutionally defined role and ordering angry mobs to sack government buildings is not part of it (and in any case he didn’t explicitly tell them to do it)

Miner49er 6y ago

I never mentioned the Capitol protest? I'm talking about this tweet by China. This is state sanctioned violence (by China) and so is arresting someone. Twitter is clearly drawing a line somewhere about what violence is okay, and what violence isn't, and it's not particularly clear where it is and if there is any bias.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
I was referring to your comment about arresting Trump - Twitter’s line is clearly about “legal” state violence. This wouldn’t be murder or forced sterilization or a coup d’etat. But it could be a legal (or even legally murky) military action, and certainly the arrest of someone like President Trump, who is subject to many good-faith allegations of serious violent crimes, and should be arrested to face trial for them. It is worth noting that “state-sanctioned” violence does not always mean legally-sanctioned violence, since state actions can easily be criminal, or at least lawless. - The Capitol Hill mob was illegal violence, albeit state-sanctioned (by endorsement of the president) - Arresting the president (either under Congressional authority or the 25th amendment) would be legal state-sanctioned violence - Although nominal Chinese law is somewhat authoritarian with regard to ethnic minorities and Muslims, the reason the Xi regime is so desperate to cover up and propagandize the concentration camps is that they are illegal under Chinese and international law
- wwtrv 6y ago
  In what way was the Capitol mob “state sanctioned”? The president has a constitutionally defined role and ordering angry mobs to sack government buildings is not part of it (and in any case he didn’t explicitly tell them to do it)