We also have what happened that morning – Trump (and others) speaking to the crowd, telling them to go to the Capitol and “show strength” and whatever. Maybe not all of the crowd intended from the beginning to break windows and assault cops, but once the tip of the spear of that crowd started doing that, anyone who remained and crawled through that broken glass can quite reasonably be assumed to have been onboard with these activities.
And yet you keep bringing up George Floyd over and over and over again, instead of discussing the January Insurrection.
How many people does it take to injure a police officer? One guy with pepper (or bear) spray can do a lot. I mean, I’m not suggesting it was only three guys or something, but that it was a small minority of the crowd.
Probably most. As I said, it’s 4 1/2 months.
OK, IMHO that’s a dubious assumption. (Similarly, I wouldn’t assume anyone present at a George Floyd riot was onboard with looting.)
That is not what happened, and you know that is what happened.
How is that a dubious assumption? I’d make the same assumption for the rare violence at or around a George Floyd protest – if someone breaks windows and starts to loot, then I’ll assume anyone else who crawls through those broken windows is also okay with breaking windows/looting. If someone wasn’t comfortable with this, they would have left/stayed away.
Here are your words-Have you forgotten them already?
I’m not sure I understand your point. But yes, Chauvin would have been convicted if there had been no violent protests.
Would he have been? There’s a huge thread in the Pit about cops misbehaving and getting away with it until called out. The calling out has ramped up exponentially with the advent of cell phones that can take videos and social media to broadcast said videos.
You really don’t see an important distinction between someone simply being present in a crowd where some people are breaking the law and crawling through a broken window, and going through police barricades, to storm the capitol? Come on now.
I want to be respectful because it’s great to have someone here advocating for the Republican position, because, as disingenuous as it is, plenty of Americans are fooled by this stuff, and it’s good to fully talk it out. But I’m finding it hard to believe you really think these things are the same.
To avoid this hijack further I’ve created a new thread here: Would Chauvin have been convicted of anything if the BLM protests hadn't involved violence?
There’s a huge distinction between those two things. But that’s not what’s being compared.
What we’ve been discussing in this thread is that - per the OP - there is also video of people entering the capitol “just walking between the ropes and stanchions”. It’s those people who are more comparable to demonstrators in an also-violent George Floyd rally.
Right, those people who walked through broken doors and broken police barricades. You really think some people walked in without noticing the commotion?
What’s your basis for this claim?
Please. Stop this.
You keep bringing up the completely unrelated events of the summer, which were precipitated by the murder of a man by police officers, and presenting those events to somehow justify the Capitol riot.
It doesn’t even make sense. It’s merely an attempt to distract and deflect.
It should be beneath you.
Seriously? Have you not seen the video of people smashing windows and climbing through them?
Providing a cite in response to your question would be like providing a cite for the claim that the sun comes up in the morning.
Why are you even doing this? Do you actually think you’re going to persuade anyone?
Seriously. I don’t get it. What are you trying to do?
That’s a strawman, the OP was NOT making a point about there being video of people in the capitol that were just walking around between the ropes and stanchions. The point he was making, or rather the question he was asking was who would actually believe that this person [that he quoted] is telling the truth.
To paraphrase another poster. It would be showing a video of 9/11 and suggesting it was ‘just a normal day in NY’…as long as you just saw 2 minutes of footage from early in the morning.
Now why would you bring that up after very, very clearly stating, and I’ll quote:
You can’t keep bringing up George Floyd, but then ask why everyone else keeps bringing him when they reply to you.
Again, this is arguing in bad faith.
You’re certainly not going to change any minds this way. If anything, people will simply dig their heels in further.
I never argue in bad faith, and have not done so here. But as indicated above, once you think I’m arguing in bad faith, then there’s no point in continuing to discuss the issue. Which is a shame because I think you’re a cut above most posters here - which is why I addressed your earlier post - but so it goes.
There’s just no time to address the actual point of why it appears that you’re arguing in bad faith.
There’s time, but that’s not my thing. If someone asks about ostensible discrepancies in things I’ve said, I’m always glad to explain, but once I’m assumed to be arguing in bad faith, then there’s no real point.
But speaking of time, do you have the time to back up your claim that all those who entered the capitol did so through broken doors and broken police barricades? It seemed important at the time you made the claim.