J.C.MacSwell

I prefer opinion, but fine, my fantasy as debated by DC judges as to the extent of it. 93% without violence not 96 without incident (I have no doubt it was at least in part a typo, no biggie) 100%. What do you feel is acceptable? Is Jan 6 acceptable if you combine it with 99 Ghandi like protests? Actually I think it does. Demonstrate some honesty in what they can readily see and maybe credibility is gained in what they can't. Or just lie to them and let Trump and his ilk take advantage... “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota,” Harris tweeted on June 1, just days after the Memorial Day death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Kamala Harris June 2020 Do you need more? Or perhaps you feel Harris's tweet only referred to those that feel they might be arrested unfairly, after doing nothing illegal? Well actually no. My statement should not require that.

Just making sure no one sees all this as my justifying Trump's actions due to any fog of their emotional bias...not that you would ever do that...

From one of Peterkin's links: link 1: "Amnesty International has documented 125 separate incidents of police violence against protesters in 40 states and the District of Columbia between 26 May and 5 June 2020. " Amnesty International does important work. I have no doubt of the validity if it came from them,though I might be sympathetic to the police in some of those situations with the difficult position they were put in (compare with ANTIFA or the extreme right wilful involvement or planning...or any the other bad actors ) link 3. "Violent rightwing actors were responsible for 41 politically motivated attacks and plots this year, while “far-left” actors were responsible for 12, according to analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), who have assembled a database of domestic terror attacks going back to 1994." Doesn't seem to be addressing the BLM protests but at a glance that would seem 41 to 12 for politically motivated attacks. Were there just 53? Why are the right wing actors referred to as violent but the "far left" actors not? My sense without seeing the actual data is that all of the right wing attacks are included in the 41, and only "unjustifiable" ones included in those on the left. But how would I know? It can certainly be read as I described. link 2: https://kevinjshay44.medium.com/right-wing-provocateurs-likely-inflaming-protest-violence-bcf1c48e1d40 Opening statement: (my bold) "In a ten-week period during the “Freedom Summer” of 2020, almost 9,000 Black Lives Matter protests occurred across the country. Many people believe most of those protests contained burning buildings, vandalized and looted businesses, and physical confrontations between police and demonstrators. The truth is that such violence was confined to only 7 percent of those protests" Pretty obvious attempt to downplay the violence...and who wouldn't applaud the 8.000 + peaceful protests in the name of racial equality? The problem is the 600+ BLM protests that lead to violence, and the condoning and encouragement from the left that went with it. Not that that justifies any violence from the right (I shouldn't even have to add that but some pretty smart people can become pretty thick when their biases are lead by emotion) And of course it doesn't justify Trump's actions leading up to Jan 6...but I think there is another thread on that.

So you're telling me that Jan 6 would have been okay if grouped in with thousands of peaceful GOP meetings? Or would they have had to be holding signs saying "defund the police"? In other words...stop trying to hide the violence using percentages. In absolute terms violence at BLM protests exceeded that of Jan 6...and I'm not defending Jan 6. Nor have I ever. In fact of said from the start (back in January 2020) that it can't be compared to the equivalent protest violence due to the danger it represents. (If it sounds to you like I have...check your bias meter) Yes. Thank you. That was what I suggested...as a possible contributing factor...not as the main cause (due to what I considered OT...and I didn't think it was that controversial a point...or hard to understand) Sure. Highlight your fantasy...we will never know for sure as unlikely as that seems...I think Trump et al would have found it more difficult to recruit useful idiots...but who knows? The truly dangerous ones might have been left more exposed.

In your biased mind yes. Literally no. If I had wanted to blame all of it on the BLM protesters I would have said so. Some of the protests were allowed to become violent, These are the ones that have been compared in terms of violence to Jan 6, not the 93% that remained peaceful. The distinct difference for Jan 6 is the threat to the capitol, and I would guess that most of the protesters there were there to protest and got carried away as a mob in the same manner as many of the BLM protesters. Some of the worst of the riots were from the presence of ANTIFA or right wing extremists, or both. None of this excuses any of the violence, or especially those taking advantage of it, or hoping or planning to. But to Mistermacks point, it's important to not just hold the bad actors accountable, it's important to make it well known that will be the case going forward, and with appropriate security where possible. Anything to back that up. (and please read it first, and note if it's based on justifying some of the violence and condemning other violence)

Did a quick google. Apparently my "nebulous idea" was actually debated by DC judges with regard to severity of sentencing for some of those found guilty for the Jan 6 insurrection. Most rejected any justification, as have I. (in the very part you claimed to take issue with) Don't package my "they may have been emboldened" with any type of justification. I know you can't help yourself in your rush to polarize and judge...but don't make implications that are not true.

What is "the wrong way round" about "violence however intended"? That covers all of it. All of the violence, which didn't all come from the militant right fringe. If it had, why would some from the "left" have offered to pay legal fees for some of the perpetrators? Take off the polarised glasses.

That also. Pick and choose at your peril.

Right. Emboldened by everything else...but not that. Quite the perspective.

@Peterkin How is it that you are quoting me saying "he is unfit for office and issues that are going on around the world , look at the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan for example"? I did not post that.

If you left thinking otherwise, the answers here would have done you a disservice.

I certainly wouldn't dissuade a decent candidate from running based on having dealt with skin cancer. I do wonder if the withdrawal from Afghanistan was in any way related to the expectation or intelligence reports with regard to Russia attacking Ukraine. (or China sabre rattling against Taiwan) Biden seemed pretty determined to get out. Welcome to the Forum!

So you believe they were not emboldened? Your explanation sounds more like they shouldn't have been emboldened...and of course I would agree with that. No amount of, violence however intended, Media and Politicians behaving badly, and mostly peaceful protesters holding up "defund the Police" signs, justifies attacking the capitol...but of course I didn't claim it did.

One would expect...but... INow would know the details much better than I, but in some States this is allowed. Both non card carrying voters, and card carrying members of the opposite party can vote in either parties primary if I understand correctly. You may be right. He might simply not want to appear a lame duck POTUS for most all of his only term.

INow has correctly pointed out that it wasn't just card carrying Dems that put him in that position...most seem now to be fairly adamant that they don't want him running again in 2024. Hopefully each Party finds someone new...or a new moderate party offers a decent option. Just wanted to make sure Peterkin. Not everyone follows all the posts as razor sharply as yourself.

Have I made it clear yet that I'm not one of them? My use of "questionable" was toward those who put him up against Trump, as the best they could find among the 35+ year old Americans born in that country.

To some degree I think they may have been emboldened by the the degree some of the Black Lives Matters protests were allowed to become violent, with much of that violence overlooked, condoned, and even sometimes encouraged by the media and some politicians. Some of the violence was as bad or worse, less threatening only because it was not an assault on the capitol. I agree there should be some signal that enough is enough, with better stated boundaries as to what is an acceptable act in a protest.

Pigeons Unlimited.

Sounds like "drain the swamp...dredge...build sewage lagoon"

A couple of things here. I never claimed it would be easy, I just think it can be done by some reasonable common sense centrist. He or she would also have to no doubt have the charisma and oratory skills of a Kennedy, Obama, Bill Clinton, or Reagan. Sanders could have been that guy if not so far "Left" economically. I don't see the overall positions of either Party being particularly advantageous. It seems more they hope to get everyone to hate the positions of the "other side"...enough to get them to get out and vote for something most don't really want. Might look like "no man's land" in the middle, but I think most are getting tired of the sometimes absurd positions of the fringes, the corruption, and the lobbying that makes money count more than their votes. No wonder most know the moon landing was faked...no obvious sign of cheese on set...and if they can't even get that right...

You are resilient!

Point taken. (but no +1)

Point taken. +1

I still think most Americans are reasonably centrist...but the politicians seemed to have done the Lemming thing, so your point is of course valid.

The questionable part was the Dems putting him on the ticket, well past his prime, when he really never was capable enough at any point in his career. The only thing Trump had to do with that was the Dems being afraid they would lose to Trump with anyone else. I will certainly admit he was not as pathetic a choice as Trump. You have 300+ million people...