J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period.
BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.
Nick Shirley and other indie journalists did investigations and found you can easily fraud election in places with no voter ID like Cali. But don't let distracted by the facts.
>BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.
Yeah, all those innocent businesses and property deserved to get looted and torched because a cop killed a guy breaking the law high on fentanyl. It's totally acceptable and tolerant. If something from the government bothers you, you are now legally and socially allowed just rob a Nike store and brn down some cars in the city center.
Didn't say any of that should be legal. Anyone arrested for that deserved it. And anyone pardoned, should not have been. Do you agree?
If Biden had told those people directly that he loved them, and they should keep up the good work, I'd be on here objecting to it just as much.
Agree butt...
>attempting to overthrow a government.
J6 Storming the capital is not the same thing as overthrowing a government. It's more like cosplaying to overthrow the government while the actual government watches and laughs. You can't overthrow any government until you have the full support of the military. Why can't democrat supporters see and analyze anything else happening in their back ayrd besides being forever stuck on J6? Everyone agrees it was bad, now can we move on to the present issues at hand?
>"deductive reasoning" does not actually prove anything
Deductive reasoning is everything. If there's loopholes that allow crimes to happen in theory, then crimes will 100% happen in practice. Do you agree? Pretending it's not actual evidence, is how criminals(and governments) get away with crime, because they never investigate those issue, when their exploitation benefits them. Same like with the Minnesota somali childcare fraud. Isn't it convenient that we can't consider it fraud until the government investigates itself and it rarely does and when it does it finds nothing because they're in cahoots with the scammers as they all get kickbacks?
Since when did I bring in BLM?
>J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period.
So your only objection to Jan 6th was that the person inciting political violence was a government official and/or there wasn't "evidence" (whatever that means)? Nothing about violence itself? I guess a non-government official calling for the CEO of JPM or Ben Bernanke to be decapitated, citing some gini coefficient graphs is fine?
You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM, people seeing, with their own eyes, blatant abuse of power, and acting, sans "leader". We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it.
> So your only objection...
People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but, since I can see why the roles played by government officials requires special consideration (extraordinary powers, supposedly granted by "The People", checks and balances, and such), if Biden had done even 1 of the hundreds of things Trump had, I would still be on the same side of this argument. Would you be?
So saying that political violence is bad, and pointing out an example where the other side did political violence is "both-sides"?
>We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it.
Again, you haven't answered my question. It sounds like you wouldn't have any issue with Jan 6th if Trump wasn't involved, and it was just grassroots election denialism.
>People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but
No, I specifically referring to "veiled reference to the french revolution", which implies some sort of political violence, not just something like BLM protests.
