J.C.MacSwell

Either side can bitch and complain about a lot of things with regard to election fairness (including how many citizens are not just disallowed to vote while incarcerated, on parole, or even after serving their time; because apparently we wouldn't want any of them to buy in to the collective agreement and obligation...but that's probably off topic)... but the results were the results, with no remaining doubts significant enough to come close to indicating a win for Trump. When Gore lost to Bush it was many orders of magnitude closer and eventually for the good of the country he moved on...where Trump, for the good of Trump...still carries on. Not totally surprising. Why some do it with him...to everyone but Trumps detriment...is more than a little puzzling to me.

Gotta like Bill Maher. Good sense of humour and cuts through the BS.

If Trump gets the 2024 GOP ticket, God forbid, I hope it doesn't embolden (note: doesn't mean justify) any more leftward cliff jumping...because you just know they will be bound (bungee cord perhaps?) and determined to make the election closer than it should be. Good move. A reminder to everyone to be sure to vote...holding nose if necessary.

No. Nor did Kamala tweet anything like that to qualify her tweet. How astute of you. Nice to see you can recognize that...like everyone else in the thread. Welcome to the club. See if you can recognize a "more subtle" version in K Harris's tweet.

Sorry. I hate to say it but with that evaluation I'm being pretty conservative.😀 To put it more kindly my impression also includes all that is good about Democrats.

Exactly. Tweeting to offer bail for future arrests? I think you might see it more for what it is if Republican had offered it. Clearly you don't understand what a balanced view is. A balanced view is being able to look at what Kamala Harris tweeted and recognizing it as wrong, and looking at what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 and recognizing it as much, much worse. A ridiculously imbalanced view would be claiming Kamala's tweet was fine because 93% of her other posts were fine (just an example pulled out of thin air...I realize no one here would make that claim)

LOL. Must be hard to argue with a moderate with a balanced view. I mean how can I get upset when you dump on the Republicans?...there every bit as bad as the Dems... Hang on I'll do it for you: Balanced view! You think it's balanced? That's a false equivalency!

Someone claiming that was the case?

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.