Rioting for me, but not for thee

And that's relevant to this topic how?

 

I'm definitely not "sedicious" but I do thank you for the laugh!

 

Motivation? It was a mob.

And you're not even thinking. How would interfering with the objections to the electoral vote count, which was happening in Congress at the time, help "overturning the elections?"

Think McFly!

 

Just checking..........are you serious?

 

The mob's intent (along with some congressional Repubs) was to invalidate Biden's election. You aren't paying attention.

 

Hmmm and we know that by...what?

 

I really don't think that you can prove that anti-black violence has been mostly a Democratic thing in the post civil rights act period of US history. However, it can most certainly be shown that in that period Republicans have tried to leverage racist sentiments in whites to their advantage. Because that is the case, you point lacks contextual relevance.

No the point here is that although you may try and pontificate down an edict that states that what I posted does not demonstrate the point that the riots at the capitol were the result of Republicans pandering to racist sentiments in whites, what was posted does indeed pass the test for the following reasons:

1. It demonstrates that Republicans have pandered to white racism.
2. It demonstrates that Republicans have sought to create an image of their party as being the party of the white man.
3. It demonstrates that Republican strategists saw value in exploiting white resentment to advances made by blacks as the result of passage of the civil rights act.
4. It demonstrates that Republican strategists created ways of exploiting racist sentiments in whites without directly using overtly racist language.
5. It demonstrates that the modern Republican party is seen by some of it supporters as the party of the white man.
6. It demonstrates that white nationalists view the election of Trump as a chance for whites to take back the country.
7. It demonstrates that when Trump said you are not going to take back the country with weakness, that it is possible that it was viewed as a call for some of his supporters to take back the country for white people with the violence that occurred at the capital.

White racists in the south used the slogan 'the south shall rise again.' You know who else said 'the south will rise again?' None other than Ronald Reagan in a speech in around 1984 in I think Macon, Georgia.

 

Really? I'm flabbergasted that you, of all people, would say that.

So you believe that Trump rallied a mindless mob that had no purpose whatsoever to march and take over the Capitol...

Can't say I agree, but it's interesting that you would come up with that explanation.

 

You still have not demonstrated one iota of evidence that white racism was behind the Capitol Hill riots. I've been asking for proof and since all you've done is filibuster is apparent you have none and have no intention of even trying to make your case.

Grade: F

 

Not the rally, the rally was a rally. It was a mob that attacked the capitol.

 

when you are right, you're right

 

the attack on the White House was an attempt to overthrow the government. the attack on the capitol was an attempt to seize power.

 

The self appointed pontiff has spoken. If a white person says it, it must be true!

The south has risen again folks!

Damn, I'm glad my mom put that thing in me to read when I was young.

 

Who kills the most black people? Black people. Just Look at Chicago run by Democrats.

Who kills the most black babies? Planned Parenthood run by Democrats.

Who has injured or killed the most cops this year? The Democratic summer riots.

More unarmed white men die every year from cops than black men.

The data and facts support that.

You were saying?

 

You can't back up your claim after you were called out on it. I think it's time for you to give up.

 

Of course! But I asked you for what you believe the motivation for all of this was. And most especially by the main instigator of this event: Donald Trump.

I already gave you an example in the case of BLM. I'll repeat it. The motivation for the rallies was to stop police from disproportionately killing and arresting black people. Rioters were people who went over the top. There were probably among them some who were troublemakers. And authorities reported that some were even infiltrators paid by far-right groups. But most are people who fear systemic racism. They fear for their lives, and they fear for the lives of their family and friends. They have been victims or know victims of systemic racism, and want it to stop. Nobody of consequence supports rioting as a tactic. Certainly nobody on this forum. But we do understand that that was pretty much the objective.

What is the objective for THIS event?

If the purpose of this thread is to actually find out why some consider BLM more acceptable, you have to start by understanding why they were there in the first place. What is the goal each was seeking to accomplish. I know a bit more about the goal of BLM, because I support the goal (not the riots). But if the purpose was simply to throw a smokescreen on the events of January 6 (and I suspect that it is), then I understand your refusal to answer a simple question.

 

There is no reason to be snarky to me about your failure to back up a claim that had nothing to with this thread anyway. If you have some evidence that there was a white racist angle to this, you're free to post it, however 1957 National Review articles don't really qualify.

 

Observation of objective reality.

 

What attack?

 

The purpose of this thread wasn't about whether BLM is more or less "acceptable," whatever that means. Peaceful protests for whatever reason are OK. If you are asking what the purpose of the rally was, it was to support the representatives in Congress who were objecting to the electoral count. The thing is, what difference does it make what the purpose of a peaceful rally is? You seem to keep wanting to conflate protests with mob behavior. I guess you are trying to make a point but I can't figure out what it is.

 

It means "Rioting for me, but not for thee"

But if you weren't actually expecting a response, fine...

 

When you purposely edit my response, it kind of makes responding to you a pointless exercise.

 

On what basis? Other than the lies I mean.

 

Top GOP Staffer On Armed Services Resigns In Disgust With Election Lies

"Jason Schmid, a top GOP aide in the House Armed Services Committee has resigned citing his disgust for the 147 Republican lawmakers who backed President Donald Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election after it fueled the U.S. Capitol’s deadly insurrection last week.

In a blistering resignation letter first obtained by Politico, the longtime congressional aide rebuked House Republicans who objected to President-elect Joe Biden’s electoral victory during the Jan. 6 joint session, which was abruptly paused as Trump’s supporters raided the building in an attack that sent lawmakers under desks and into bunkers to shelter in place and ultimately left five people dead."
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...ervices-resigns-in-disgust-with-election-lies

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...es-arrested-desperate-bid-stop-Kavanaugh.html