CDZ Many Things can be true at once

[Utilitarian]

He didn't incite violence

You do realize that the most common defense those arrested for this are using is "tRump told me to", right?

Son of Sam said his neighbor's dog told him to commit murder. A disturbed person's ramblings don't count as evidence against someone else.

 

[Utilitarian]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

This is just another attempt to excuse the inexcusable and let tRump and his fellow insurrectionists off the hook.

If you're on board with imprisoning every Antifa member, BLM member, and Democratic politician that has endorsed violence that later led to riots and destruction, then sure, we can charge Trump.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If you're on board with imprisoning every Antifa member, BLM member, and Democratic politician that has endorsed violence that later led to riots and destruction, then sure, we can charge Trump.

I've not much run into folks on the left who desire to hold consistent standards. Two people can do the same thing, and it's the most unprecedented, horrific, front-page news worthy issue if "They" do it, and either fine, or not really a big deal or to be discussed if "we" do it.

 

[d0gbreath]

Actually all "things" are true. It's when we start to talk about them that it gets funny. Remember that lie that "A man's word is everything"? That never actually happened. We've been a nation of liars from the start.

 

[forkup]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

I will split my answers into 2 parts to answer both your premises.

1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.

1.I will need specific examples of what you claim are holes in our election process and how they are "proven by this election cycle" A generic statement like that requires backing up. I also want to know what specific measures you are suggesting.

The reason for it is simple. If you can say for instance "look 5 people in S-Carolina committed voter fraud and therefore I suggest a measure that would drive the turnout down by a few hundred thousand" I would have a problem.

2.

2. He didn't incite violence.

Can you tell me why violence committed in the name of a cause that Trump personally plugged. For his personal advantage. After a rally he personally plugged. At the place, he personally directed them to go. Is not his personal fault?

Even if you could tie something Bernie or Obama said to violence (something you can't I believe) it STILL wouldn't make Trump any less responsible for claiming he lost the election because of fraud and that stopping the certification of Biden by congress was the way to do it enough, so people would be willing to use violence to do so.


-

 

[forkup]

If you're on board with imprisoning every Antifa member, BLM member, and Democratic politician that has endorsed violence that later led to riots and destruction, then sure, we can charge Trump.

I've not much run into folks on the left who desire to hold consistent standards. Two people can do the same thing, and it's the most unprecedented, horrific, front-page news worthy issue if "They" do it, and either fine, or not really a big deal or to be discussed if "we" do it.

This is BS Friscus. We had a similar conversation not even a week ago. And I SHOWED you not just that I was willing to hold Biden to standards I hold Trump to (standards, by the way, you rejected because you felt some other politician did something sort of, kinda, maybe similar) but that I applied standards 4 years ago that were politically damaging to Hillary.

Standards aren't measured by what justification you give for NOT holding them. But they are measured by the willingness you show to hold on to them even if they aren't to your advantage.

I've yet to see any proof from you that you are willing to hold anybody on your side to any standard.

 

[candycorn]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

Trump did incite violence.
Nobody has been censored (the hint here is that we know about their claim)
Trump bears a greater responsibility as President

We do need to standardize the voting rules across the nation. Mail-in voting needs to be expanded and become the norm. Early voting should be standardized for a month before Election Day. States should be able to triage ballots well ahead of Election Day. Primaries need to be re-vamped to prevent the first two or three contests from destroying candidates chances. So much more.

 

[Utilitarian]

I've not much run into folks on the left who desire to hold consistent standards. Two people can do the same thing, and it's the most unprecedented, horrific, front-page news worthy issue if "They" do it, and either fine, or not really a big deal or to be discussed if "we" do it.

This is BS Friscus. We had a similar conversation not even a week ago. And I SHOWED you not just that I was willing to hold Biden to standards I hold Trump to (standards, by the way, you rejected because you felt some other politician did something sort of, kinda, maybe similar) but that I applied standards 4 years ago that were politically damaging to Hillary.

Standards aren't measured by what justification you give for NOT holding them. But they are measured by the willingness you show to hold on to them even if they aren't to your advantage.

I've yet to see any proof from you that you are willing to hold anybody on your side to any standard.

I can't speak for Friscus, but I think his observation is very true regarding riots and violence. To have so much of the left freak out over the Capitol Protests while downplaying or ignoring the riots in Minneapolis, Kenosha, or Portland is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[forkup]

I've not much run into folks on the left who desire to hold consistent standards. Two people can do the same thing, and it's the most unprecedented, horrific, front-page news worthy issue if "They" do it, and either fine, or not really a big deal or to be discussed if "we" do it.

This is BS Friscus. We had a similar conversation not even a week ago. And I SHOWED you not just that I was willing to hold Biden to standards I hold Trump to (standards, by the way, you rejected because you felt some other politician did something sort of, kinda, maybe similar) but that I applied standards 4 years ago that were politically damaging to Hillary.

Standards aren't measured by what justification you give for NOT holding them. But they are measured by the willingness you show to hold on to them even if they aren't to your advantage.

I've yet to see any proof from you that you are willing to hold anybody on your side to any standard.

I can't speak for Friscus, but I think his observation is very true regarding riots and violence. To have so much of the left freak out over the Capitol Protests while downplaying or ignoring the riots in Minneapolis, Kenosha, or Portland is the height of hypocrisy.

-The riots in the summer were started because a cop sat on a black man's neck for nine minutes while that man and bystanders pleaded for his life. The Capitol riots started because the president of the United States said the elections were stolen from him even AFTER the courts shot him down. A narrative by the way he STILL holds on to.

-The reaction to the riots in the summer by lawmakers was that they didn't condone violence. Trump's original reaction as the impeachment made clear is that he didn't even want to send the national guard to protect congress AFTER it was breached.

-My personal reaction to the riots in summer was that I made it clear on this board that rioting is not a legitimate form of protests, that those that did so should be prosecuted AND I even went as far as saying that protesting like in summer was stupid because of the risk of spreading Corona.


And even if none of this was true. Hypocrisy by one side is NOT a justification for bad behavior from the other side. It's something a kid learns in kindergarten. Something you probably believe in in your personal life. And apparently, something that is promptly forgotten when it comes to holding politicians accountable.

 

[Utilitarian]

-The riots in the summer were started because a cop sat on a black man's neck for nine minutes while that man and bystanders pleaded for his life. The Capitol riots started because the president of the United States said the elections were stolen from him even AFTER the courts shot him down. A narrative by the way he STILL holds on to.

Well, if we're going to analyze narratives, the Floyd one was false. After the cop body cam footage was made available, it painted a very different picture from the one that the media presented. Floyd was clearly high, acting violent, and was having trouble breathing before the knee technique was used. After the cops tried several times to get him into the car, they put him on the ground at his own request. He still put up a struggle again, and the knee technique was used.

Now, was the knee technique right? Probably not. But it was also an approved technique that the cops were told to use and were trained in. The majority of the culpability would seem to be on the part of management. Also, the cops did not mock him as was reported. They had immediately called in medical support as he was restrained. It apparently didn't arrive in enough time.

It's doubtful that Chauvin will get a murder charge. He may not get any charge because the prosecution has to prove he intended to kill Floyd. Involuntary manslaughter is possible, but even that is doubtful. Of course, the masses will likely riot some more after acquittal.

-The reaction to the riots in the summer by lawmakers was that they didn't condone violence. Trump's original reaction as the impeachment made clear is that he didn't even want to send the national guard to protect congress AFTER it was breached.

Yet some of them funded legal defenses that defended those charged with violent offenses during said riots. Maybe they didn't voice support for violence but they surely funded the support.

-My personal reaction to the riots in summer was that I made it clear on this board that rioting is not a legitimate form of protests, that those that did so should be prosecuted AND I even went as far as saying that protesting like in summer was stupid because of the risk of spreading Corona.

Fair enough, but the disparity in media response between the Capitol Protests and the BLM/Antifa ones was very revealing.

And even if none of this was true. Hypocrisy by one side is NOT a justification for bad behavior from the other side. It's something a kid learns in kindergarten. Something you probably believe in in your personal life. And apparently, something that is promptly forgotten when it comes to holding politicians accountable.

Sure. My position on this is that it's all smoke and mirrors to keep people distracted from what the elites are doing in the background. As annoying as BLM and Antifa are, they're nowhere near as much of a threat to our society as the unelected interests that run our system regardless of party "control." The Capitol protesters aren't a big threat either, but I'm sure they'll be treated as such to fit the narrative.

They could execute Trump at this point and still find a way to keep him in the headlines for another year or two.

 

[forkup]

-The riots in the summer were started because a cop sat on a black man's neck for nine minutes while that man and bystanders pleaded for his life. The Capitol riots started because the president of the United States said the elections were stolen from him even AFTER the courts shot him down. A narrative by the way he STILL holds on to.

Well, if we're going to analyze narratives, the Floyd one was false. After the cop body cam footage was made available, it painted a very different picture from the one that the media presented. Floyd was clearly high, acting violent, and was having trouble breathing before the knee technique was used. After the cops tried several times to get him into the car, they put him on the ground at his own request. He still put up a struggle again, and the knee technique was used.

Now, was the knee technique right? Probably not. But it was also an approved technique that the cops were told to use and were trained in. The majority of the culpability would seem to be on the part of management. Also, the cops did not mock him as was reported. They had immediately called in medical support as he was restrained. It apparently didn't arrive in enough time.

It's doubtful that Chauvin will get a murder charge. He may not get any charge because the prosecution has to prove he intended to kill Floyd. Involuntary manslaughter is possible, but even that is doubtful. Of course, the masses will likely riot some more after acquittal.

-The reaction to the riots in the summer by lawmakers was that they didn't condone violence. Trump's original reaction as the impeachment made clear is that he didn't even want to send the national guard to protect congress AFTER it was breached.

Yet some of them funded legal defenses that defended those charged with violent offenses during said riots. Maybe they didn't voice support for violence but they surely funded the support.

-My personal reaction to the riots in summer was that I made it clear on this board that rioting is not a legitimate form of protests, that those that did so should be prosecuted AND I even went as far as saying that protesting like in summer was stupid because of the risk of spreading Corona.

Fair enough, but the disparity in media response between the Capitol Protests and the BLM/Antifa ones was very revealing.

And even if none of this was true. Hypocrisy by one side is NOT a justification for bad behavior from the other side. It's something a kid learns in kindergarten. Something you probably believe in in your personal life. And apparently, something that is promptly forgotten when it comes to holding politicians accountable.

Sure. My position on this is that it's all smoke and mirrors to keep people distracted from what the elites are doing in the background. As annoying as BLM and Antifa are, they're nowhere near as much of a threat to our society as the unelected interests that run our system regardless of party "control." The Capitol protesters aren't a big threat either, but I'm sure they'll be treated as such to fit the narrative.

They could execute Trump at this point and still find a way to keep him in the headlines for another year or two.

Well, if we're going to analyze narratives

You aren't really analyzing narratives, you are justifying 1 narrative, while completely ignoring the premise. The premise is that the riots of last summer would have happened regardless of what ANY person on the left would have said. The capitol riots happened because of something Trump said. (That the election was stolen from him).

Yet some of them funded legal defenses that defended those charged with violent offenses

Link that please. I'm aware that Harris plugged an NGO that posts bail for offenders. I'm not aware of any lawmaker picking up a tab.

the disparity in media response between the Capitol Protests and the BLM/Antifa ones was very revealing.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason for the riots has something to do with it? Race riots have a long and sad history in the US. A president actively trying to stop the transfer of power after an election loss and after all legal option have been explored has no history in the US.

The Capitol protesters aren't a big threat either

At the moment polls suggest that about half of Republicans still believe the election was stolen from them. Quite a few are frustrated enough to feel that violence is justified to rectify that imagined injustice. That is dangerous. It is dangerous for how the US is perceived abroad. You nor I can really assess what damage the capitol riots have done. As I said racial violence in the US is nothing new and as such the effects can be predicted.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

1.I will need specific examples of what you claim are holes in our election process and how they are "proven by this election cycle" A generic statement like that requires backing up. I also want to know what specific measures you are suggesting.

Sure.

HOLE 1. Voting machines were connected to the internet. That's not supposed to happen, and a massive opening for manipulation.

Experts find more than 30 U.S. voting systems connected to internet

A team of election security experts used a “Google for servers” to challenge claims that voting machines do not connect to the internet and found some did.

www.nbcnews.com

HOLE 2. SCOTUS rules unmarked, false votes will be counted in Pennsylvania:

Supreme Court Allows Extension for Mail-In Ballots in Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to disturb a ruling by Pennsylvania’s highest court that extended the battleground state’s deadline for accepting mail-in ballots.

www.wsj.com

The last line is the most important. Even if there is an illegible postmark, you're counted. Thus, people can send in ballots post-election and possibly have it counted.

By definition, setting the table for fraud and corruption. If an Election is to be decided by X, accept votes by X. Or, ensure the postmark is legit (which can still be manipulated) or it's void...

HOLE 3: Statistical facts from this study:

Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night

votepatternanalysis.substack.com

Late in the evening on election night, there were 4 massive voting dumps in the A.M.

The four vote updates in question are:

1. An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump
2. Ann update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump
3. A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump
4. An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump

So in Michigan, during a 147,000 vote dump, Joe Biden got 96% of the votes, and Donald Trump got 4% of the votes. These are all statistically highly improbable for even the most heavily Democrat areas in the country. By any statistical analysis, it stinks to high heavens. If all 4 of those dumps occurred within statistical norms of the other near 9,000 voting dumps analyzed, from all sorts of counties, Trump wins all 4 states.

Meanwhile, notice, this isn't the possibility of "widespread" fraud, just massive vote dumps into 4 spots that could possibly flip the election. Also, these vote dump totals are way higher than what norms are as far as what is possible in counting votes. All of these were an impossible massive jump in productivity.

Here's the conclusion of the Study:

This report studies 8,954 individual updates to the vote totals in all 50 states and finds that four individual updates — two of which were widely noticed on the internet, including by the President — are profoundly anomalous; they deviate from a pattern which is otherwise found in the vast majority of the remaining 8,950 vote updates. The findings presented by this report [28]suggest that four vote count updates — which collectively were decisive in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and thus decisive of a critical forty-two electoral votes — are especially anomalous and merit further investigation.

HOLE 4. There are also many examples of verified votes that came from vacant lots, non-addresses, warehouses, etc. He literally looked up the voter registration behind votes and went to the addresses. It's verifiable, and yet, he was still censored by Big Tech because it's clearly the wrong narrative, which is a scary power play by Big Tech

Steven Crowder Revealed Voter Fraud This Past Week on His Show "Louder with Crowder" So Twitter Banned Him

Steven Crowder held two shows this week where he reported on voter fraud. He must be right on target because he was banned on Twitter. Steven Crowder spent two shows this week going over voter fraud that he and his staff personally proved. He went to hundreds of addresses across several swing...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

So Yes, those are holes in our domestic voting process, among many others, that can clearly be exploited, and affect tens to hundreds of thousands of votes. Notice, I'm not saying the election WAS stolen. Big claims require big evidence. However, any honest individual has to admit, especially given the razor thin margins we're dealing with, It's possible some of these holes were exploited enough to cause the outcome of the election to be different than it genuinely was, but there's not enough evidence to make that claim. Scientifically, it's entirely possible. It's not some "attack on Democracy" to consider the notion, hell, Democrats and Hillary Clinton said the 2016 election WAS stolen for years, and Hillary still claims it to this day. Oddly, this wasn't labeled an "attack on Democracy", but Trump is. Those are inconsistent standards, and obviously just political expediency.. Thus, it's dishonest, false virtue, and that needs to be identified here. The constant crusade to make Trump and Conservatives unprecedented in anything that happens can nearly always be proven false. And if the left is going to do X, and/or usmessageboard warriors are going to stand idly by or support as X happens, and then freak out when Trump or the GOP do X, they aren't to be trusted, and hold zero credibility.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

At the moment polls suggest that about half of Republicans still believe the election was stolen from them.

It's possible it was, even if it's not provable. There's no reason to trust Democrats and leftists given their recent track record with dishonest crusades of Russian Collusion, stealing the 2016 election, Brett Kavanaugh witch trials, etc.

Quite a few are frustrated enough to feel that violence is justified to rectify that imagined injustice.

I have to say that's very dishonest language by you. I've yet to see a prominent conservative or GOP justify the violence. I've yet to see many people in our country do so. It sounds like you're trying to make a mountain out of molehill. Probaby 0.001% think it was justified.

Meanwhile, guess what. The left did the exact same thing in 2016-2017. In this poll, nearly half of Democrats thought the 2016 election was rigged and stolen:

Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was 'Rigged'

According to a new poll, Democrats no longer think it's nuts to claim the election was rigged. Forty-three percent told YouGov the 2016 election was rigged.

thefederalist.com

Was that "dangerous"? Did you say as such then? Did the media freak out and oppose it? The answer to those, of course, is no. Thus, double standards... and dishonest freak outs.

You nor I can really assess what damage the capitol riots have done.

It turns out not much. The Senate was able meet in the Capitol Building that very evening and get back to work. Only leftist fear porn remains.

As I said racial violence in the US is nothing new and as such the effects can be predicted.

Which only further proves the hypocrisy in reactions to it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Can you tell me why violence committed in the name of a cause that Trump personally plugged. For his personal advantage. After a rally he personally plugged. At the place, he personally directed them to go. Is not his personal fault?

You're being so dishonest here. Trump never plugged any sort of violence. The rally was planned to be a tradition protest, was it not? (Yes, it was, and Trump said as such).

See, I hold a consistent standard. I acknowledge that, in comparison, the BLM had a peaceful beginning aspect to their "Police are Racist" movement (a controversial stance). Then, they had a major militant violent wing that manifested on cities across our nation, causing unprecedented damage in modern examples of domestic terrorism and violence. Likewise the "Stop the Steal" (a controversial stance) was also peaceful, and then had a small militant violent niche of a few hundred people that manifested at the Capitol building. Both movements were peaceful, but then violence sprung from them. It has to be mentioned that BLM provided FAR, near infinitely larger cells of violence. So, if you're going to paint the entire Stop the Steal rally as some violent practice, and then have a far more tame reaction to the BLM violence, you're being dishonest and merely politically expedient.

Even if you could tie something Bernie or Obama said to violence (something you can't I believe) it STILL wouldn't make Trump any less responsible for claiming he lost the election because of fraud and that stopping the certification of Biden by congress was the way to do it enough, so people would be willing to use violence to do so.

Here is where you keep getting it wrong.

Nobody is saying by pointing out the Obama and Sanders examples that Trump was fine for raising the temperature. the point is.. it's not unprecedented, rather common in today's politics, and anyone or institution that gets mad and freaks out when Trump does it, but stands idly by or supports when Obama or Sanders does it.. They are the frauds, and support the violence in the name of their cause. I hold a consistent standard and hold all three not accountable for inciting something directly. Individual followers make their own choices. Personal responsibility, a Conservative staple. Meanwhile, Frauds would say Trump is wrong for being inflammatory at an unprecedented level, but Obama and Sanders are "whataboutisms".[/QUOTE]

 

[Utilitarian]

Well, if we're going to analyze narratives

You aren't really analyzing narratives, you are justifying 1 narrative, while completely ignoring the premise. The premise is that the riots of last summer would have happened regardless of what ANY person on the left would have said. The capitol riots happened because of something Trump said. (That the election was stolen from him).

That's a rather convenient interpretation when considering the leftist rhetoric of the last 30 years or so that has claimed police are racist.

Yet some of them funded legal defenses that defended those charged with violent offenses

Link that please. I'm aware that Harris plugged an NGO that posts bail for offenders. I'm not aware of any lawmaker picking up a tab.

So you don't think "plugging" implies funding as well?

the disparity in media response between the Capitol Protests and the BLM/Antifa ones was very revealing.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason for the riots has something to do with it? Race riots have a long and sad history in the US. A president actively trying to stop the transfer of power after an election loss and after all legal option have been explored has no history in the US.

What's occurred to me is that the left will make any and every excuse for hypocritical behavior.

The Capitol protesters aren't a big threat either

At the moment polls suggest that about half of Republicans still believe the election was stolen from them. Quite a few are frustrated enough to feel that violence is justified to rectify that imagined injustice. That is dangerous. It is dangerous for how the US is perceived abroad. You nor I can really assess what damage the capitol riots have done. As I said racial violence in the US is nothing new and as such the effects can be predicted.

It's only dangerous because people finally realize that the system is rigged.

They mistakenly think it was a recent thing, however. It's been rigged for at least 20 years, probably more.

And revolution is the only thing that would likely change that. It's one of the few things I agree with Antifa on.