"Inaccurate" is an oxymoron, regarding the claims you make in your article: you are expressing your opinions as if they were proven facts. The massive difference between your opinion of Trump's motives, goals, and the actions he has been accused of, and provable facts, defines your article. Facts are verifiable and testable. Nobody in yo…
"Inaccurate" is an oxymoron, regarding the claims you make in your article: you are expressing your opinions as if they were proven facts. The massive difference between your opinion of Trump's motives, goals, and the actions he has been accused of, and provable facts, defines your article. Facts are verifiable and testable. Nobody in your bubble has even attempted to prove any of it.
There are some inaccuracies, in verifiable statements that you never verified. Trump never said he "likes to grab them by the pussy." He said that, when someone is famous enough, they can grab women and the women let them.
Trump was not in the United States of America, much less New York, when the alleged rape took place in New York.
Trump was not convicted of rape or sexual assault in a civil court. Civil courts do not determine criminal guilt. He was found liable for slander, by claiming he was innocent and the woman, who Trump has never met, accused him of. She also said, "getting raped (in a department store)" is "every woman's dream."
Zero people were seriously injured or killed by protesters, even the few who admit to minuscule acts of violence, on 1/6. The worst act of violence I can find, from a protester, was throwing "a spear without a point," (a stick) at a police man and doing zero damage. Zero policemen were checking into the hospital on 1/6. That is a fact. See the difference.
Only one court looked at evidence of fraud from the 2020 election. Wisconsin Supreme court ruled, 4-3 with a scathing dissent, not to throw out the election and have a new one.
I am of the opinion that use of the word "insurrection," about the actions of MAGA protesters on 1/6 is a left wing projection hoax: they are hysterical about smearing someone else with the exact same war on civil rights, freedom, and democracy which they accuse their target. That is my opinion on the intent behind their smear campaign. I can not prove that the left is guilty of evil intent, because crimes of intent are difficult to prove. See the difference?
So, if you are trying to persuade readers that your opinions are facts, you may have some support from people who already share your opinions, but I doubt you will persuade anyone to change their minds on anything.
Thanks for your reply. I am stating my opinion and backing my opinion with facts. I have provided citations for those facts. This is a common way in which op eds are written. I could have used the first person singular to help readers discern my opinion from cited facts. I will consider that for future op Ed's.
You are right that Trump did not explicitly state that he likes grabbing women. However, I think one can reasonably surmise from the fact that he was having a jovial conversation (spun as "locker room talk") that Trump was at least positively impressed by the idea that sexual assault of that sort is possible to get away with when famous. If we are going to play the game of sussing out 'what Trump actually meant to say' then I don't think it is unreasonable to guess that Trump was expressing positive sentiment about grabbing women. That is why I framed his statement the way I did.
As for whether Trump was convicted of rape or not, please see the source I cited, specifically this section:
"The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1 As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
Please provide a source for that quote by Carroll. Implying that such a statement somehow justifies a rape is not a good argument.
Regarding your claims about January 6th, I would encourage you to watch the videos of the event if you haven't seen them yet. I tend to believe what I see, and what I saw that day was violence. At the very least, the pushing, shoving, swinging and throwing of projectiles, weilding of weapons and shields, and physical altercations in general on Jan 6 were uncharacteristic of nonviolent political actions, historically. Most nonviolent political actions do not include those kinds of tactics. If you disagree, please explain why the video evidence of the violence happening are so often misunderstood by common viewers like myself.
Thanks for sharing your opinions. I respectfully disagree, and I encourage you to take liberals and leftists at their word when they make claims about Jan 6 being an insurrection. I can honestly report that the liberals and leftists I know share my views broadly. There is no hoax or attempt to deceive. I could easily say the same thing about the right. I could say that the right projects onto the left about election meddling when in fact the right is interfering with elections (see Trump's fake electors plot, Trump's phone asking to find votes in georgia, the recent revelations about Giuliani's election meddling, the many Republicans who have been caught in voter fraud schemes over the years, etc.). But this would not be productive because it is too easy to accuse the other side of projection. The truth is that the other side is not projecting. The truth is that the other side believes what they are saying, and to argue against the other side well, it is prudent to take them at face value.
Thanks again for reading and leaving your comments.
You are not “backing (your) opinion with facts.” There are, literally no facts in your post. It’s almost incredible. Please find me one salient fact, and I will apologize.
You are attempting to “prove” you opinions are facts, by citing the opinions and interpretation of others who believe the narrative they are given as readily as you do. Left wing, post-democracy fascists believe what they are saying…because they are protected from reality.. They call Trump a liar, but they do not even try to prove that Trump has ever lied. They pretend that an exaggeration or an understatement is a glaring lie, but you have no idea what Trump believed at the time. Maybe Trump was shocked that women let famous men grab them by the genitals. Maybe lots of things. It is very hard to prove state of mind or “true intent.” You have not even offered an argument or attempted a proof of anything.
There are Thousands of hours of footage which were kept buried for years about 1/6. Almost of that footage was peaceful and much of it showed officers peacefully opening doors for protesters. The brief moments of violence, much of it in self-defense, was all released to the main stream media. Officers inviting them in…on orders from who? Crickets.
You were shown a sliver of the story and anyone who disagrees with you is an insurrectionist. I suspect you believed the “fine people hoax” because you saw Trump say “good people on both sides.” That video was also cropped to hide the fact that President Trump fully denounced all white supremacists and hate groups three separate times. You can not “reasonably surmise” anything when you only have a sliver of the story.
I am not interested in the style of your line of discourse about opinions and facts. You are being uncharitable to me. I can't really discuss jan 6th or any other topic further with you unless you are willing to be a more charitable debater. It would be a waste of time for both of us.
If you want to discuss how opinion articles like mine and Maxim's are written, where arguments are built on premises, that could be an interesting conversation. The first section of my essay about the economy is structured as an syllogism, for instance.
Uncharitable? What gift were you looking for? Reading this article is subject to the premise that your opinions are facts? Assuming you believe none of this and are just presenting one perspective? "Not interested in the style" is almost certainly cognitive dissonance: you can not structure an argument to refute anything or persuade, so you get defensive and call me names.
I can see there may have been some misunderstandings, so let me clarify my intentions. When I mentioned "uncharitable," I didn’t mean to imply I was looking for special treatment—just that I hoped we could both approach each other’s arguments with a bit more generosity and openness. My goal is not to assume agreement but to explore ideas constructively, where each person genuinely considers the other's perspective.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, I can see how my choice of words might come across as defensive, but I assure you that wasn’t my intention. My point about not engaging with certain topics further was more about finding common ground to have a meaningful dialogue, especially around the structure of arguments and the role of premises and logic, which I find fascinating and worthwhile to discuss.
If I came across as dismissive, that wasn't my intent, and I apologize for that. Let’s focus on where we can have an enriching conversation if you're open to it.
By what standard do you define "seriously injured"? Page 8 of this report by the US government accountability office lists 114 police officers as suffering injuries on page 8.
No police officers, or government officials, were hospitalized and held overnight or returned later to the hospital for injuries sustained on 1/6. That is a fact. All of their “violent crimes” were alleged crimes of evil intent, and nobody even tried to prove their intent. They just smeared them and buried them in litigation and threats and smears.
As for your '“data,” which agency is lying, the US government accountability office and/or The Atlantic monthly with its consistent agenda?
That article was published on January 11, 2021 when reports were still coming in. The GAO report was written the following year. It would be surprising if they matched. You may not have noticed that since you didn't look at the article to see that it was from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not the Atlantic.
Of course, none of this makes sense of the idea that the distinguishing factor to determine whether or not the event was violent is whether or not someone was admitted as an inpatient or just treated in the emergency room.
On the topic of crimes, you can read the indictment of Enrique Tarrio and the other Proud Boys below. It details how the five defendants, along with several dozen other Proud Boys, were in a group chat well in advance of the event planning to storm the capital and cause a "revolution". I think that spending weeks planning to do something with several other people, and then doing that thing, is pretty strong evidence of intent.
One officer went to the hospital and was released that night. Nobody, was charged with insurrection. Even the TDS DOJ couldn’t sell an insurrection to hand picked hate trump judges. None of the protesters brought any deadly weapons. You are pitching a consensus argument: if all of the court cases charged the same thing, it must be true. Instead they destroyed lives and drove people to suicide for nothing. You have been lied to. The opinions of people who agree with you are not data points in a causal argument.
If your argument is specifically that nobody was hospitalized AND held overnight, sure, that's my bad for not reading more carefully. Personally, I'm unsure what that should change in terms of our evaluation. The problem with January 6th isn't that the protestors injured a bunch of people.
I don't know when deadly weapons came up? Did I say that?
I'm not pitching a consensus argument, my argument is the content of the indictment, which indicates that the protestors planned in advance to break into the capital and stop the certification of the election. Do you agree or disagree that the content of the indictment says this?
Your argument is an accusation of thought crime: planning an insurrection while not having enough evidence to change anyone with "insurrection?" There is no evidence of what the protesters planned before, because there was no official organization or organized plan.
If the election was rigged, then this peaceful protest was part of the democratic process. It was also democratic to protest if they only believed the eleciton was rigged. The fascist left never tried to prove anything was fair, they just called it "most fair election ever" and prosecuted anyone who disagreed. That is fascism.
Please prove that the police were not more violent towards the peaceful protesters than they one or two protesters who slightly injured police in self-defense. The police intended to injure protesters until a few protesters responded violently. There's a premise. Prove that premise true or false, pls.
Confused that this argument took you two weeks to come up with.
I am not sure why you said there is no evidence of protestors planning. I just told you in the indictments of the proud boys, their chat logs are detailed. These logs include them detailing plans to storm government buildings and interrupt the certification of the election. They then went on to storm government builidings and interrupt the certification of the election. That's not a thought crime, that's just a crime.
I wouldn't say that it was an insurrection because, as you say, nobody was convicted of insurrection. I would say it was an act of seditious conspiracy because several people were charged with seditious conspiracy. I do not expect you to respond to any of these arguments, because they are inconvenient to you, and you will probably just bring up an unrelated point.
I disagree that the protest was justified, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to believe there was outcome-determinative voter fraud.
I don't understand how this last point is related to my argument. Even if the police were violent towards protestors, tha doesn't give them the right to violently storm into the capital. If the police are violent to BLM protestors, that doesn't give them the right to turn around and firebomb a Walmart.
Policemen held doors open and guided protesters into the building. Protesters are still in jail for nothing more violent than trespassing. Which protesters entered violently? Who decides they were violent, when they hurt nobody? A court of law? No. Almost none of them were prosecuted for violent crimes.
The logs detailed plotting with president trump to overthrow the government? The proud boys were full of FBI plants. How many of the alleged planning texts were government ordered texts?
So, the first amendment only protects protest when the protesters have enough evidence to prevail in a court of law? It's a shame they are cancelling any lawyers who work for Trump too.
You disagree that the protest was justified? So, what? Your opinion is noted. Nobody was even accused of insurrection in any indictment, yet that is what you are arguing for. An unarmed lady was murdered by a Capitol policeman. I don't believe that murder was justified. He is not in jail.
The rule of law has been corrupted and that is a far greater threat to democracy than any Orange man who loves his family, peace, and the first amendment.
If the police were seriously worried about the protestors entering the building, instead of opening doors for them, should they have attempted to stop them with deadly force?
What are you talking about? They shot and killed a woman. Imagine if police had opened fire, anywhere, on BLM protesters...who were actually killing people. The DNC is fascist and you support fascism.
"Inaccurate" is an oxymoron, regarding the claims you make in your article: you are expressing your opinions as if they were proven facts. The massive difference between your opinion of Trump's motives, goals, and the actions he has been accused of, and provable facts, defines your article. Facts are verifiable and testable. Nobody in your bubble has even attempted to prove any of it.
There are some inaccuracies, in verifiable statements that you never verified. Trump never said he "likes to grab them by the pussy." He said that, when someone is famous enough, they can grab women and the women let them.
Trump was not in the United States of America, much less New York, when the alleged rape took place in New York.
Trump was not convicted of rape or sexual assault in a civil court. Civil courts do not determine criminal guilt. He was found liable for slander, by claiming he was innocent and the woman, who Trump has never met, accused him of. She also said, "getting raped (in a department store)" is "every woman's dream."
Zero people were seriously injured or killed by protesters, even the few who admit to minuscule acts of violence, on 1/6. The worst act of violence I can find, from a protester, was throwing "a spear without a point," (a stick) at a police man and doing zero damage. Zero policemen were checking into the hospital on 1/6. That is a fact. See the difference.
Only one court looked at evidence of fraud from the 2020 election. Wisconsin Supreme court ruled, 4-3 with a scathing dissent, not to throw out the election and have a new one.
I am of the opinion that use of the word "insurrection," about the actions of MAGA protesters on 1/6 is a left wing projection hoax: they are hysterical about smearing someone else with the exact same war on civil rights, freedom, and democracy which they accuse their target. That is my opinion on the intent behind their smear campaign. I can not prove that the left is guilty of evil intent, because crimes of intent are difficult to prove. See the difference?
So, if you are trying to persuade readers that your opinions are facts, you may have some support from people who already share your opinions, but I doubt you will persuade anyone to change their minds on anything.
Still happy?
Thanks for your reply. I am stating my opinion and backing my opinion with facts. I have provided citations for those facts. This is a common way in which op eds are written. I could have used the first person singular to help readers discern my opinion from cited facts. I will consider that for future op Ed's.
You are right that Trump did not explicitly state that he likes grabbing women. However, I think one can reasonably surmise from the fact that he was having a jovial conversation (spun as "locker room talk") that Trump was at least positively impressed by the idea that sexual assault of that sort is possible to get away with when famous. If we are going to play the game of sussing out 'what Trump actually meant to say' then I don't think it is unreasonable to guess that Trump was expressing positive sentiment about grabbing women. That is why I framed his statement the way I did.
As for whether Trump was convicted of rape or not, please see the source I cited, specifically this section:
"The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1 As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
Please provide a source for that quote by Carroll. Implying that such a statement somehow justifies a rape is not a good argument.
Regarding your claims about January 6th, I would encourage you to watch the videos of the event if you haven't seen them yet. I tend to believe what I see, and what I saw that day was violence. At the very least, the pushing, shoving, swinging and throwing of projectiles, weilding of weapons and shields, and physical altercations in general on Jan 6 were uncharacteristic of nonviolent political actions, historically. Most nonviolent political actions do not include those kinds of tactics. If you disagree, please explain why the video evidence of the violence happening are so often misunderstood by common viewers like myself.
Thanks for sharing your opinions. I respectfully disagree, and I encourage you to take liberals and leftists at their word when they make claims about Jan 6 being an insurrection. I can honestly report that the liberals and leftists I know share my views broadly. There is no hoax or attempt to deceive. I could easily say the same thing about the right. I could say that the right projects onto the left about election meddling when in fact the right is interfering with elections (see Trump's fake electors plot, Trump's phone asking to find votes in georgia, the recent revelations about Giuliani's election meddling, the many Republicans who have been caught in voter fraud schemes over the years, etc.). But this would not be productive because it is too easy to accuse the other side of projection. The truth is that the other side is not projecting. The truth is that the other side believes what they are saying, and to argue against the other side well, it is prudent to take them at face value.
Thanks again for reading and leaving your comments.
You are not “backing (your) opinion with facts.” There are, literally no facts in your post. It’s almost incredible. Please find me one salient fact, and I will apologize.
You are attempting to “prove” you opinions are facts, by citing the opinions and interpretation of others who believe the narrative they are given as readily as you do. Left wing, post-democracy fascists believe what they are saying…because they are protected from reality.. They call Trump a liar, but they do not even try to prove that Trump has ever lied. They pretend that an exaggeration or an understatement is a glaring lie, but you have no idea what Trump believed at the time. Maybe Trump was shocked that women let famous men grab them by the genitals. Maybe lots of things. It is very hard to prove state of mind or “true intent.” You have not even offered an argument or attempted a proof of anything.
There are Thousands of hours of footage which were kept buried for years about 1/6. Almost of that footage was peaceful and much of it showed officers peacefully opening doors for protesters. The brief moments of violence, much of it in self-defense, was all released to the main stream media. Officers inviting them in…on orders from who? Crickets.
You were shown a sliver of the story and anyone who disagrees with you is an insurrectionist. I suspect you believed the “fine people hoax” because you saw Trump say “good people on both sides.” That video was also cropped to hide the fact that President Trump fully denounced all white supremacists and hate groups three separate times. You can not “reasonably surmise” anything when you only have a sliver of the story.
I am not interested in the style of your line of discourse about opinions and facts. You are being uncharitable to me. I can't really discuss jan 6th or any other topic further with you unless you are willing to be a more charitable debater. It would be a waste of time for both of us.
If you want to discuss how opinion articles like mine and Maxim's are written, where arguments are built on premises, that could be an interesting conversation. The first section of my essay about the economy is structured as an syllogism, for instance.
No apology needed. Thanks.
Uncharitable? What gift were you looking for? Reading this article is subject to the premise that your opinions are facts? Assuming you believe none of this and are just presenting one perspective? "Not interested in the style" is almost certainly cognitive dissonance: you can not structure an argument to refute anything or persuade, so you get defensive and call me names.
You can apologize now. Thanks.
I can see there may have been some misunderstandings, so let me clarify my intentions. When I mentioned "uncharitable," I didn’t mean to imply I was looking for special treatment—just that I hoped we could both approach each other’s arguments with a bit more generosity and openness. My goal is not to assume agreement but to explore ideas constructively, where each person genuinely considers the other's perspective.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, I can see how my choice of words might come across as defensive, but I assure you that wasn’t my intention. My point about not engaging with certain topics further was more about finding common ground to have a meaningful dialogue, especially around the structure of arguments and the role of premises and logic, which I find fascinating and worthwhile to discuss.
If I came across as dismissive, that wasn't my intent, and I apologize for that. Let’s focus on where we can have an enriching conversation if you're open to it.
Thanks.
By what standard do you define "seriously injured"? Page 8 of this report by the US government accountability office lists 114 police officers as suffering injuries on page 8.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/d22104829.pdf
This article from The Atlantic says that 60 officers were injured, and 15 were hospitalized.
https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-2-capitol-hill-police-officers-suspended-over-riot/XHWWHNA7EZHSNF32QREJROESQI/
Where did you hear there were no serious injuries?
No police officers, or government officials, were hospitalized and held overnight or returned later to the hospital for injuries sustained on 1/6. That is a fact. All of their “violent crimes” were alleged crimes of evil intent, and nobody even tried to prove their intent. They just smeared them and buried them in litigation and threats and smears.
As for your '“data,” which agency is lying, the US government accountability office and/or The Atlantic monthly with its consistent agenda?
Rioting is violent.
Pretty Orwellian. Who labled it a "riot?"
That article was published on January 11, 2021 when reports were still coming in. The GAO report was written the following year. It would be surprising if they matched. You may not have noticed that since you didn't look at the article to see that it was from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not the Atlantic.
Also on January 11, 2021, the D.C. police said "that one District officer remained hospitalized," see here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-capitol-injuires-trump/2021/01/11/ca68e3e2-5438-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html
Of course, none of this makes sense of the idea that the distinguishing factor to determine whether or not the event was violent is whether or not someone was admitted as an inpatient or just treated in the emergency room.
From a cursory google search, at least 1 police officer was hospitalized. Do you think NBC made this guy up?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/police-officer-injured-capitol-riot-heckled-jan-6-committee-hearing-rcna39627
On the topic of crimes, you can read the indictment of Enrique Tarrio and the other Proud Boys below. It details how the five defendants, along with several dozen other Proud Boys, were in a group chat well in advance of the event planning to storm the capital and cause a "revolution". I think that spending weeks planning to do something with several other people, and then doing that thing, is pretty strong evidence of intent.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1510791/dl?inline
One officer went to the hospital and was released that night. Nobody, was charged with insurrection. Even the TDS DOJ couldn’t sell an insurrection to hand picked hate trump judges. None of the protesters brought any deadly weapons. You are pitching a consensus argument: if all of the court cases charged the same thing, it must be true. Instead they destroyed lives and drove people to suicide for nothing. You have been lied to. The opinions of people who agree with you are not data points in a causal argument.
If your argument is specifically that nobody was hospitalized AND held overnight, sure, that's my bad for not reading more carefully. Personally, I'm unsure what that should change in terms of our evaluation. The problem with January 6th isn't that the protestors injured a bunch of people.
I don't know when deadly weapons came up? Did I say that?
I'm not pitching a consensus argument, my argument is the content of the indictment, which indicates that the protestors planned in advance to break into the capital and stop the certification of the election. Do you agree or disagree that the content of the indictment says this?
Your argument is an accusation of thought crime: planning an insurrection while not having enough evidence to change anyone with "insurrection?" There is no evidence of what the protesters planned before, because there was no official organization or organized plan.
If the election was rigged, then this peaceful protest was part of the democratic process. It was also democratic to protest if they only believed the eleciton was rigged. The fascist left never tried to prove anything was fair, they just called it "most fair election ever" and prosecuted anyone who disagreed. That is fascism.
Please prove that the police were not more violent towards the peaceful protesters than they one or two protesters who slightly injured police in self-defense. The police intended to injure protesters until a few protesters responded violently. There's a premise. Prove that premise true or false, pls.
Also, apology accepted.
Confused that this argument took you two weeks to come up with.
I am not sure why you said there is no evidence of protestors planning. I just told you in the indictments of the proud boys, their chat logs are detailed. These logs include them detailing plans to storm government buildings and interrupt the certification of the election. They then went on to storm government builidings and interrupt the certification of the election. That's not a thought crime, that's just a crime.
I wouldn't say that it was an insurrection because, as you say, nobody was convicted of insurrection. I would say it was an act of seditious conspiracy because several people were charged with seditious conspiracy. I do not expect you to respond to any of these arguments, because they are inconvenient to you, and you will probably just bring up an unrelated point.
I disagree that the protest was justified, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to believe there was outcome-determinative voter fraud.
I don't understand how this last point is related to my argument. Even if the police were violent towards protestors, tha doesn't give them the right to violently storm into the capital. If the police are violent to BLM protestors, that doesn't give them the right to turn around and firebomb a Walmart.
In the indictmwent?? Well then...
Policemen held doors open and guided protesters into the building. Protesters are still in jail for nothing more violent than trespassing. Which protesters entered violently? Who decides they were violent, when they hurt nobody? A court of law? No. Almost none of them were prosecuted for violent crimes.
The logs detailed plotting with president trump to overthrow the government? The proud boys were full of FBI plants. How many of the alleged planning texts were government ordered texts?
So, the first amendment only protects protest when the protesters have enough evidence to prevail in a court of law? It's a shame they are cancelling any lawyers who work for Trump too.
You disagree that the protest was justified? So, what? Your opinion is noted. Nobody was even accused of insurrection in any indictment, yet that is what you are arguing for. An unarmed lady was murdered by a Capitol policeman. I don't believe that murder was justified. He is not in jail.
The rule of law has been corrupted and that is a far greater threat to democracy than any Orange man who loves his family, peace, and the first amendment.
If the police were seriously worried about the protestors entering the building, instead of opening doors for them, should they have attempted to stop them with deadly force?
What are you talking about? They shot and killed a woman. Imagine if police had opened fire, anywhere, on BLM protesters...who were actually killing people. The DNC is fascist and you support fascism.