How long should the so-called oath keepers have to go to jail for? what about the BLM rioters?

[jbander]

Thank you for your concern about the future of the GOP. I share it.

The summer 2020 rioters were your people -- they weren't Republican voters. They were your people in two senses:

(1) The ghetto lumpens who came out to steal things, if they bother to vote, will vote Democratic. (They're usually too drugged up to go down to the polling station, thus the big push for mail-in ballots which can be harvested.)

(2) Young white radicals, "AntiFa", much cossetted by liberals. They're the ones whose more deranged members murder conservatives, to the cheers and laughter of the others and the public approval of leftist academics.

Of course any high-profile national Democratic politician with a working survival instinct is not going to come out and openly endorse rioting, or even 'defunding the police': they're not stupid. They'll arrange for bail money to be sent to the rioters, they'll call for continuing 'unrest' in the streets, they'll threaten Republican political figures with being mobbed at restraunts ... but they won't openly say, "Burn down those Korean shops!"

But 'the Left' is more than national Democratic politicians.

We have to look at local Democratic politicians and political figures, to see their reaction to criminality and "threats to democracy"..among their voting base and supporters.

And there we see a different picture.

We need to look at liberal academics when they write their books and papers about AntiFa, praising them.

Or as the liberal professoriate watch approvingly when radical leftist students break up conservative meetings on campus. The silence of liberal journalists of mainstream magazines about what has now become routine on American campuses is also a statement.

We have to look at the District Attorneys in liberal areas -- although if they go a bit too far in their lenient attitudes towards criminals, and unleash mass shoplifting mobs on the upscale stores of their liberal voters, they'll get recalled, as happened in San Francisco.

And if we do that, we see a different story. Toleration of violence carried out by an important component of the Left's base.

But ... I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy. Both of us say, if someone from our side has committed a crime, let the law take its course, so long as it's fair. The 6 January rioters will have to accept their punishment -- whether or not they were lured into a trap, or just stepped into it with eyes open, they did it and there are consequences.

But they're our own, so we will support them, just like your side sees the earlier rioters, or the campus Red Guards attacking conservative speakers, as your own, and takes the same attitude.

We're not yet openly at war, when, as the saying goes, the laws go silent. Our civil war is still a 'cold' one so far. But neither side is going to repudiate its supporters when they do anti-democratic things. It's just the logic of the situation.

You wasted all that time and all those words on one of the most stupid post of the day. They people who tried to bring down our democracy to force in a piece of shit for a dictator are scum , as is their followers , bottom feeding scum. , They are traitors and traitors should be put to death in this country.

 

[schmidlap]

Thank you for your concern about the future of the GOP. I share it.

The summer 2020 rioters were your people -- they weren't Republican voters. They were your people in two senses:

(1) The ghetto lumpens who came out to steal things, if they bother to vote, will vote Democratic. (They're usually too drugged up to go down to the polling station, thus the big push for mail-in ballots which can be harvested.)

(2) Young white radicals, "AntiFa", much cossetted by liberals. They're the ones whose more deranged members murder conservatives, to the cheers and laughter of the others and the public approval of leftist academics.

Of course any high-profile national Democratic politician with a working survival instinct is not going to come out and openly endorse rioting, or even 'defunding the police': they're not stupid. They'll arrange for bail money to be sent to the rioters, they'll call for continuing 'unrest' in the streets, they'll threaten Republican political figures with being mobbed at restraunts ... but they won't openly say, "Burn down those Korean shops!"

But 'the Left' is more than national Democratic politicians.

We have to look at local Democratic politicians and political figures, to see their reaction to criminality and "threats to democracy"..among their voting base and supporters.

And there we see a different picture.

We need to look at liberal academics when they write their books and papers about AntiFa, praising them.

Or as the liberal professoriate watch approvingly when radical leftist students break up conservative meetings on campus. The silence of liberal journalists of mainstream magazines about what has now become routine on American campuses is also a statement.

We have to look at the District Attorneys in liberal areas -- although if they go a bit too far in their lenient attitudes towards criminals, and unleash mass shoplifting mobs on the upscale stores of their liberal voters, they'll get recalled, as happened in San Francisco.

And if we do that, we see a different story. Toleration of violence carried out by an important component of the Left's base.

But ... I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy. Both of us say, if someone from our side has committed a crime, let the law take its course, so long as it's fair. The 6 January rioters will have to accept their punishment -- whether or not they were lured into a trap, or just stepped into it with eyes open, they did it and there are consequences.

But they're our own, so we will support them, just like your side sees the earlier rioters, or the campus Red Guards attacking conservative speakers, as your own, and takes the same attitude.

We're not yet openly at war, when, as the saying goes, the laws go silent. Our civil war is still a 'cold' one so far. But neither side is going to repudiate its supporters when they do anti-democratic things. It's just the logic of the situation.

Your personal, undocumented opinions are taken for what they are worth.

Your attempt to conflate/equate a partisan mob attacking outnumbered police in an unprecedented attempt to overcome the will of the People with random incidents of violence amidst social protests with no incitement by any politician or party affiliation failed.

In any case, all perpetrators of violence should be punished, despite, in the matter of the attack on the U.S. Congress, the lying politician who incited them saying that he would pardon his convicted goons if given the opportunity.

Trump says he would pardon Jan. 6 rioters if he runs and wins​

​

 

[Ropey]

Trump says he would pardon Jan. 6 rioters if he runs and wins

 

[Doug1943]

Your personal, undocumented opinions are taken for what they are worth.

Your attempt to conflate/equate a partisan mob attacking outnumbered police in an unprecedented attempt to overcome the will of the People with random incidents of violence amidst social protests with no incitement by any politician or party affiliation failed.

In any case, all perpetrators of violence should be punished, despite, in the matter of the attack on the U.S. Congress, the lying politician who incited them saying that he would pardon his convicted goons if given the opportunity.

Trump says he would pardon Jan. 6 rioters if he runs and wins​

View attachment 767010

​

What you refuse to acknowledge is that the Left in America today does not believe in democratic rights. And of course they don't condemn AntiFa and similar rioters, even if they might think that these people are doing something tactically unwise.

Conservative speakers on campus are routinely howled down, even physically attacked.
Our liberal intelligentsia, with a few honorable exceptions, remain silent. this is a new development, something that would never have happened a generation ago.

Yes or No? Do you accept my description of the trend on American college campuses? Do you approve of it? (So far as I know, all the other Leftists posting here do. If I am mistaken, let them say so.)

Since your side no longer believes in one of the pillars of democacy -- free speech -- where it has control, on the college campuses, don't expect my side to be goody-goodies and remain restricted by the rules that your side ignores.

As I have said, 6 January was a huge gift to the Left, boneheaded stupidity, and should never have happened. The people involved will have to face the consequences. (Even if the election had been stolen, so long as the majority of people believe it wasn't, we have to abide by the results.)

But I understand the people who no longer trust 'official' sources on critical issues: if they lie about the origins of a deadly virus, they can lie about the results of an election. (I don't think they did, in this case, but I understand the people who do think that.)

Another question for you: had the 6 January invasion of Congress aimed at an indefinitely prolonged occupation, would you still have condemned it?

 

[Doug1943]

You wasted all that time and all those words on one of the most stupid post of the day. They people who tried to bring down our democracy to force in a piece of shit for a dictator are scum , as is their followers , bottom feeding scum. , They are traitors and traitors should be put to death in this country.

Of course this is what your side believes. You would like to put us all to death. And it's not just words! You've already started, when you killed Aaron Danielson.

Please don't be shy about expressing your side's view on how we should all be killed. Bring this up in every thread. A lot of people on my side are complacent. Some of them believe we have all the people with guns, and that your side are little weedy transgendered nothings, (except for the ghetto Blacks, who mainly kill each other). But they're wrong.

So, please, let us know in exquisite detail, how you'd like to exterminate us. Hanging? Electrocution? Firing squads (the traditional Leftist way of dealing with opponents). Lethal injection?

Proclaim your intentions throughout the land! Patriots, are you listening?

 

[Doug1943]

One side protested over their ignoring of their civil rights being violated for years while the other side protected over the lies of a poor loser.

Yes, one side is defendable.

I see you've re-defined the verb " to protest". Now we can say, "He was caught in a house protest and died from smoke inhalation." Or "She was in a severe auto protest, and had to be rushed to hospital." Or "A person seeking early reparations protested the convenience store owner, who unfortunately was not wearing a bullet-proof vest."

Well, actually, it's not you doing the re-defining. The mass media did that in the summer of 2020, with their "mostly peaceful protests", which implies that part (the complement of "mostly") of the protests were, er, not "peaceful".

So, yes, you're right: "The poor innocent people whose civil rights were being violated for years protested the man's shop after looting it, and the fire department was unable to prevent it from being completely destroyed."

 

[pknopp]

I see you've re-defined the verb " to protest". Now we can say, "He was caught in a house protest and died from smoke inhalation." Or "She was in a severe auto protest, and had to be rushed to hospital." Or "A person seeking early reparations protested the convenience store owner, who unfortunately was not wearing a bullet-proof vest."

Well, actually, it's not you doing the re-defining. The mass media did that in the summer of 2020, with their "mostly peaceful protests", which implies that part (the complement of "mostly") of the protests were, er, not "peaceful".

So, yes, you're right: "The poor innocent people whose civil rights were being violated for years protested the man's shop after looting it, and the fire department was unable to prevent it from being completely destroyed."

I did not define protest. Thomas Jefferson did.

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

 

[Doug1943]

I did not define protest. Thomas Jefferson did.

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Interesting! That quote -- or its last sentence -- is very often quoted by my side. This is the first time I've seen a Leftist reference it. Well done! (Although I don't think Thomas Jefferson would have mis-spelled "it's", which doesn't have an apostrophe if used as a possessive.)

And anyway, isn't Mr Jefferson, a slaveowner, being cancelled by your side now?

"After more than a century, the New York City Council is removing a statue of Thomas Jefferson from its chamber. The decision, which was made by the New York City Public Design Commission, was unanimous...."
[ Canceling Thomas Jefferson | National Review ]

Okay, your side is repudiating Mr Jefferson, along with much else in American history.

My side will be happy to take custody.

 

[pknopp]

Interesting! That quote -- or its last sentence -- is very often quoted by my side. This is the first time I've seen a Leftist reference it. Well done! (Although I don't think Thomas Jefferson would have mis-spelled "it's", which doesn't have an apostrophe if used as a possessive.)

And anyway, isn't Mr Jefferson, a slaveowner, being cancelled by your side now?

"After more than a century, the New York City Council is removing a statue of Thomas Jefferson from its chamber. The decision, which was made by the New York City Public Design Commission, was unanimous...."
[ Canceling Thomas Jefferson | National Review ]

Okay, your side is repudiating Mr Jefferson, along with much else in American history.

My side will be happy to take custody.

"My side". I reject your attempt to dismiss from my positions.

Is violence sometimes necessary?

 

[Doug1943]

"My side". I reject your attempt to dismiss from my positions.

Is violence sometimes necessary?

I apologize if I mischaracterized your political stance. Are you not on the Left? (I'm on the Right.) Of course, neither 'Left' nor 'Right' are monolithic blocs. All human life is there. But I thought you were generally a Leftist.

"Is violence sometimes necessary?" Well, of course. Anyone can imagine a situation in which "violence is necessary". The American Revolution -- it was necessary to use violence to get free of Britain. The Civil War. It was necessary to use violence to crush the slavocracy.

And not just state violence. When I was in college, I raised money for an organization called "The Deacons for Defense and Justice", to be used for ammunition. Our slogan was "Every dime buys a bullet!" Delivered it in person to the head of that organization, Charles Sims, in Bogalusa, Louisiana. (Drove the liberals wild.) After my partner and I had been chased by white racists (we were doing voter registration work in Tennessee in the summer of 1964), we got a .22 rifle from the Black family we were staying with, and carried it in our car. (Not a wise decision, I see now. But when you're young, you're dumb.)

So, yes, for sure. As an abstract proposition, violence is sometimes necessary. I was all for violence being used aganst the rioters in the summer of 2020. I'm sorry our murdered comrade Aaron Danielson wasn't able to use violence against the AntiFa slime that shot him. And I hope all policemen, when the next riot comes, will follow the "Ashli Babbitt Rule": if a rioter is trying to get through a door or window ... shoot 'em dead!

Old Bismarck had it right: "All the great questions facing mankind are settled, not through parliamentary majorities, but by iron and blood."

 

[pknopp]

I apologize if I mischaracterized your political stance. Are you not on the Left? (I'm on the Right.) Of course, neither 'Left' nor 'Right' are monolithic blocs. All human life is there. But I thought you were generally a Leftist.

I find it incredibly sad when people generalize that you have to be on the "left" to defend Constitutional rights and condemn the government violations of such rights.

"Is violence sometimes necessary?" Well, of course. Anyone can imagine a situation in which "violence is necessary". The American Revolution -- it was necessary to use violence to get free of Britain. The Civil War. It was necessary to use violence to crush the slavocracy.

And not just state violence. When I was in college, I raised money for an organization called "The Deacons for Defense and Justice", to be used for ammunition. Our slogan was "Every dime buys a bullet!" Delivered it in person to the head of that organization, Charles Sims, in Bogalusa, Louisiana. (Drove the liberals wild.) After my partner and I had been chased by white racists (we were doing voter registration work in Tennessee in the summer of 1964), we got a .22 rifle from the Black family we were staying with, and carried it in our car. (Not a wise decision, I see now. But when you're young, you're dumb.)

So, yes, for sure. As an abstract proposition, violence is sometimes necessary. I was all for violence being used aganst the rioters in the summer of 2020. I'm sorry our murdered comrade Aaron Danielson wasn't able to use violence against the AntiFa slime that shot him. And I hope all policemen, when the next riot comes, will follow the "Ashli Babbitt Rule": if a rioter is trying to get through a door or window ... shoot 'em dead!

Old Bismarck had it right: "All the great questions facing mankind are settled, not through parliamentary majorities, but by iron and blood."

So you are for violence when it comes down to putting down those protesting the violations of their civil rights. Generalize if you wish but whatever side you are on, count me out.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

View attachment 732717

Pictured Above is Jessica Watkins who is a so-called insurrectionist. So she is going to take our country over? So that’s it, those are the big bad wolf? We’re supposed to be scared of them? Come on now looks more like she and her cohorts had some mental issues. Appears that some of these “insurrectionists” couldn’t handle a job at McDonald’s let alone take over a country.

This can’t be reality right folks. I would hope that we could all see that the idea that these few dozen people had any sort of an ability to overturn the election is fraudulent. Bc in order to overtake a country one needs tanks and jets, A military. The idea that these “oath keepers “were somehow capable of overthrowing the election is absurd. They are about as much of a threat as the angry old white man who is still racist against blacks…

She faces a 20 year maximum prison sentence that she’s already been convicted guilty of the crime she was charged with. As far as I know she illegally walked into the Capitol building on Jan . I don’t think she attacked anyone. As a Catholic the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Maybe she should get a few weeks in jail?

What about the BLM rioters burn down the Minnesota police station? That’s a government building it’s the same thing folks it is a official government building. And that was literally burn down. But guess what a January 6 the government building was not burned down. So what’s going on here this is clearly hypocrisy where are the trials for the BLM rioters?

The other end of it was considering some sort of a blanket immunity for BLM rioters and the January 6 rioters. Thinking of a way to bring the country together. Have Donald Trump and Joe Biden shake hands with each other. Seriously it’s about unity it’s about common sense the most violent offenders where the BLM rioters or January 6 rioters who are for example in fist fights with cops violently attacking people they should go to jail for more than a year but simply entering a government building illegally that does not wa? rrant a 20 year prison sentence.

"How long should the so-called oath keepers have to go to jail for? what about the BLM rioters?"​

Can you explain what one has to do with the other?

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Fact check: Democrats have condemned violence linked to BLM​

Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned protest-related violence​

8 times Biden, Obama et al. condemned Black Lives Matter violence​

Philando Castile: Black Lives Matter Condemns Violence​

Black Lives Matter 757 speaks out against riots​

Random violence that had marred peaceful protests in various locales was neither incited by nor affiliated with any political party or politician.

Loser Trump's January 6 goon attack on democracy was, obviously, an entirely different matter without parallels, current or ever in America's history.

View attachment 766890​

Sorry my friend the name Black Lives Matter alone is extremely racist and divisive. Why don’t you post pictures of our country on fire or the billions of dollars of damage from Black Lives Matter riots in 2020 or the brutal assaults on innocent people. And the 25 murders by blm rioters in 2020. You were talking about violence and there’s still no comparing the violent BLM rioters to the violent January 6 rioters in terms of how they were treated by the law system. The violence of BLM, Democrats, anti-abortion people it is perhaps 1000 times greater than that of one day one single event “January 6 “ there is no comparing far left violence, far left racism to anything on the right .

People like you can try and change the conversation or move the goalposts all you want it doesn’t mean anything. Some people don’t even respond to the facts they just keep peddling far left propaganda. Nobody at all defends attacking a police officer whether it’s a BLM person or January 6 person attacking a cop.

I and other people are not talking about violent BLM rioters or January 6 rioters…. we are talking about people who have not used violence ie assaulted police officers …
We are talking about those who have simply walked into a government building aka trespassing whether it was a BLM protester or January 6 protester.

So what the democrat politicians have “condemned” anything that means nothing. Tell me this what BLM protesters who illegally trespassed into a building(like the Minnesota police station or the many government buildings over the summer of 2020.) having languishing in jail for multiple years like how for example of number of the j 6 protesters have like the shaman guy. Now there’s another man who did nothing but walked in to the capital building for 60 seconds this was shown on tucker Carlson a few days ago. This was a Trump supporter who literally walked around the capitol building for 60 seconds and then he was asked by a police officer to leave and so he left. Now he’s facing one year in jail. jail. This is Barbaric …. it’s something from the devil it has nothing to do with Christianity

And so here is the point that you and one single Democrat has ever been able to address…. maybe you could respond to it that would be wonderful we will see what kind of American you are.



A BLM protester who illegally trespassed into a government building should get may be a few weeks im jail if that same thing with a January 6 protester. That’s it that’s it game over none of you Biden guys have ever addressed this. Please stand up for what is right show mercy also show Common sense and stand up to the barbaric and corrupt prosecutors who are the January 6 committee. People who think that the shaman or anybody who simply walked around the capitol building on January 6 should go to jail for four years is a monster and they are certainly against Christianity.

Thank you have a nice day brother

 

[Doug1943]

I find it incredibly sad when people generalize that you have to be on the "left" to defend Constitutional rights and condemn the government violations of such rights.




So you are for violence when it comes down to putting down those protesting the violations of their civil rights. Generalize if you wish but whatever side you are on, count me out.

No, please don't distort what I said. If people are protesting peacefully, then of course no violence should be directed at them. I was in more anti-war [Vietnam] marches than I can count ... peaceful ones.

But when the protestors start throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails and torching businesses and police cars and courthouses ... then, yes, violence must be used against them. But you don't agree? You think the people looting shops and burning police cars should have just been left to get on with it???

The Left does not believe in Constitutional Rights. Start at the very beginning: Free Speech. (The Constitution is aimed at limiting the government from doing things like violating the right to free speech -- but the general principle applies to everyone.)

Your side routinely breaks up conservative meetings on American campuses, sometimes even violently attacking the speaker.

Do you not know this? Do you approve of this, or condemn it?

 

[pknopp]

No, please don't distort what I said. If people are protesting peacefully, then of course no violence should be directed at them. I was in more anti-war [Vietnam] marches than I can count ... peaceful ones.

But when the protestors start throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails and torching businesses and police cars and courthouses ... then, yes, violence must be used against them. But you don't agree? You think the people looting shops and burning police cars should have just been left to get on with it???

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson along with I and many others disagree.

The Left does not believe in Constitutional Rights. Start at the very beginning: Free Speech. (The Constitution is aimed at limiting the government from doing things like violating the right to free speech -- but the general principle applies to everyone.)

I have no desire to argue your arguments against some group or another. You are discussing this with me.

Your side routinely breaks up conservative meetings on American campuses, sometimes even violently attacking the speaker.

Do you not know this? Do you approve of this, or condemn it?

I have never advocating stopping someone from speaking. I believe that doesn't give you a right to say whatever you want though without them being able to respond.

 

[Doug1943]

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson along with I and many others disagree.




I have no desire to argue your arguments against some group or another. You are discussing this with me.




I have never advocating stopping someone from speaking. I believe that doesn't give you a right to say whatever you want though without them being able to respond.

Okay, then you condemn the attacks against conservative speakers on campus?

You imply that, however, violence would be justified if people in the audience didn't have the right to respond.

I disagree with you there. If some group wants to have a public meeting, and does not choose to have a question-and-answer session after the talk, they should have the right to. I think that's generally a mistake, it makes for a more interesting meeting, but it's their right.

Now, I suspect strongly that these conservative meetings would have question-and-answer sessions after the main speaker. It's routine. But the Leftist stormtroopers couldn't care less about that ... they're not into debating, just in shutting down those with whom they disagree.

Anyway, can I take that you condemn these attacks by Leftists on free speech? And similarly, if some group chooses to have a march or rally, they should have the right to do so? They shouldn't be violently attacked?

 

[pknopp]

Okay, then you condemn the attacks against conservative speakers on campus?

Not allowing them to speak at all? Yes.

You imply that, however, violence would be justified if people in the audience didn't have the right to respond.

I disagree with you there. If some group wants to have a public meeting, and does not choose to have a question-and-answer session after the talk, they should have the right to. I think that's generally a mistake, it makes for a more interesting meeting, but it's their right.

Now, I suspect strongly that these conservative meetings would have question-and-answer sessions after the main speaker. It's routine. But the Leftist stormtroopers couldn't care less about that ... they're not into debating, just in shutting down those with whom they disagree.

Anyway, can I take that you condemn these attacks by Leftists on free speech? And similarly, if some group chooses to have a march or rally, they should have the right to do so? They shouldn't be violently attacked?

I don't support violence ever outside of return violence.

 

[Doug1943]

Not allowing them to speak at all? Yes.




I don't support violence ever outside of return violence.

Okay, good. It cheers me up to hear that! You're a tiny minority, at least of Leftists who post things, but let us thank heaven for small favors.

Every other Leftist I've put this question to, on this site, has dodged it, or simply remained silent. (Which, I suppose, is better than their outright affirming it. It shows they're somewhat embarrassed by the behavor of their supporters.)

I agree with you. So long as we have a functioning democratic republic, non-defensive violence has no place in it.

When the ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie Illinois, many years ago, they did the right thing. I fear that now, they would not do that. America is changing, unfortunately.

 

[pknopp]

Okay, good. It cheers me up to hear that! You're a tiny minority, at least of Leftists who post things, but let us thank heaven for small favors.

Every other Leftist I've put this question to, on this site, has dodged it, or simply remained silent. (Which, I suppose, is better than their outright affirming it. It shows they're somewhat embarrassed by the behavor of their supporters.)

I agree with you. So long as we have a functioning democratic republic, non-defensive violence has no place in it.

When the ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie Illinois, many years ago, they did the right thing. I fear that now, they would not do that. America is changing, unfortunately.

The protests were in response to violence against the people by the government. The very thing Jefferson condemned.

You say that needed put down or in other words, people just needed to accept the violence against them and the violations of their rights.

 

[Doug1943]

The protests were in response to violence against the people by the government. The very thing Jefferson condemned.

You say that needed put down or in other words, people just needed to accept the violence against them and the violations of their rights.

No, I didn't say that. I said that peacefully protesting was fine. Not 'just accepting the violence against them'.

So ... I think you're saying you support the violent riots? Because they were justified? Other Leftists here have said that, so you would be in line with your side's view, but I thought you said you were against all but defensive violence. (Or are you using the word 'defensive' in a broader sense?)

Can I assume that you DO support, in retrospect, the violent riots of the summer of 2020?