Trump is now full on Q'Anon

Post Reply New Topic

!	The_Walrus wrote:
	Merged a number of similar threads, most of which got few or no responses. Please avoid creating low-effort threads about topics which already exist. We don’t need separate threads for every pundit’s thoughts about Trump.

BLM, Antifa, Socialism, Communism.. Also, Satanism.

I was referencing the never-ending minimizing, dismissing, and gaslighting of the BLM-inspired riots. The 1/6 MAGA horror occurred in 2021, not 2020.
Critic: "The BLM riots were really bad"
Apologist: "Mostly peaceful protests"
Apologist" "A few broken windows"
Apologist: "But it was for a good cause, not a coup"
Apologist: "You feel that way because you are a racist"
Apologist: "You are sheep for racist talking points"

I think it's important to understand that the BLM protests were designed to be peaceful with the intention of highlighting a real social justice issue. While the intention behind the protests were legitimate and most of the protestors were indeed peaceful, I do acknowledge a minority of protestors vandalised property and some (not all) organisers stole donations.

But aren't democrats also guilty of rioting based on what leaders say as well? For example when Nancy Pelosi, told people to wreak havoc to convince the jury in the Chauvin trial to render a guilty vertict, and they wreaked havoc, isn't that the same thing?

It seems like both sides are doing whatever their leaders say, unless I am wrong? Aren't democrats contradictory for not liking Trump for being a shepherd, when they are sheep to a shepherd too?

I'm not even certain that nancy pelosi example is accurate, but, assuming it is.. that's One single example where a left/democrat leader figure told people to protest for justice in a murder trial.

That's a hugely different thing compared to the orange guy's constant lies and stochastic terrorism. One little tiny apple to ORCHARDS full of rotten oranges different. pelosi told ppl to call for justice, trumplestiltskin is trying to get his radicalized cult members to attack the USA - again - as he already tried to get them to overthrow the US government back on J6. How is that one single, very different, nancy pelosi example remotely comparable to what trump has done and is doing?

As Chauvin was convicted, we'll never know. And I'd say at least acquitting that murderer Chauvin would have been the cause of legitimate outrage, compared to the white grievances and conspiracy theories that inspired the January 6 riot.

That's true but Pelosi told people to riot to intimidate a jury to giving a certain verdict, which is not the same as being outraged from an event. She was calling for people to manipulate the event.

Evidence?

I don't recall pelosi instructing people to riot in order to intimidate a jury into giving a certain verdict.

Nor do I recall that.

I apologise, my mistake, I got mixed up. It was Maxine Waters who made threats, not Pelosi. She does it at 1:35 into this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejJ3GlPFbsM

But why is it that Maxine Waters is allowed to make threats saying things like we need to get more confrontational and she that we business, and that is acceptable, in the democrats' cause, but if Trump says fight to get back the country, that is considered totally different for a republican cause?

Seems to me that the rioters of the Chauvin trial were prepared to do what Waters said they were going to do to intimidate the jury, since they already caused other damage. But it seems both sides are following shepherds, and not just one can be blamed for being sheep.

Racism and racial injustice against black Americans are very real phenomenons. Protesting for equality in society and under the law; for cop murderers of black Americans to go to jail for their crimes are very real and valid things to make some noise about an ensure society, police, and the judicial system (and media) all pay attention and listen. These are real issues, civil/human rights issues - that actually exist and are valid and important to a properly functioning society.

trumplestiltskin is a lying troll. He lost the election. There is no injustice or election fraud or stolen country to fight to take back. The entire thing is a ruse made up in the mind of one mentally ill narcissistic pathological liar who’s hell bent on manipulating his cult followers into committing acts of stochastic terrorism at his suggestion.

Can you not see the differences between these people, events, and their words?

But I feel that there is a contradiction or hypocrisy possibly here. The democrats are telling people that they should respect the voting system and not try to overthrow it.

Then the democrats threaten to riot of a jury does not vote a certain way. So the democrats demonize people for wanting to overthrow the votes, when they themselves threaten to overthrow a vote.

So either they are for voting systems or they are not, but we cannot have it both ways, just because one issue is different than the other. The voting system is still the voting system. You are either for it or you or not. You can't just say that you are only for the voting system if it's voting on a meaningful cause, compared to a non-meaningful one.

Wut?

Not all votes are the same.

An election is a democratic vote, where the will of the people - their votes - should determine the outcome of an election. That’s what Democrats are trying to preserve.. democracy. A system of governance that’s shaped by the will of the people, not just some dickhead authoritarian deciding he’s going to be ruler/king or whatever.

Judges voting on something isn’t a democratic vote to elect anyone or anything into a position of power. It’s to decide the outcome of a court case and in the American judicial system is to follow the rule of law as well as settled case precedent. It was clear as day that Chauvin was guilty as sin of murder and anything less than a vote by the courts to convict him would have been horribly biased and not applying the rule of law nor past precedent equally to the defendant.

Wtf? Of course it’s just for people to protest the courts to follow the law and do what is right vs deviate from it and let a murderer go free for any number of reasons - mainly potentially police/racial supremacy in this case.

I for sure think Chauvin should have been voted guilty, as well, but I thought that shoudl be left up to the jurors witout intimidation though, because that is the point of having a jury. But if democrats do not believe a jury should vote for however, they want, then are democrats against the jury system in that case then, and would rather the court decided on someone's guilt based on the court of public opinion?

Wtf do judge or jury votes have to do with elections?

In both cases democrats want the systems to be upheld vs rigged or manipulated.

Free and far democratic elections, unbiased judicial decisions based on the rule of law and settled case precedent.

So, if you insist on comparing the two and how democrats interact with them, democrats are being consistent in campaigning for things to be done properly in both cases.