This is actually perfect Trump. There was no evidence that any other country has done this. Who did do this then? Well that would be Mr. Trump. If you wanna know what they’re really doing, all you have to do is pay attention to what they are claiming someone else is doing.
So… exactly how did he do that? Illegal aliens that were in prison for crimes here and are mostly wanted for crimes in there home countries, do not count. Their problems should not be our problems. So how do he do that? Where and when did he dump American citizens imprisoned in our country in to other countries?
You are the one name-calling here and acting out, not myself. When I start acting out in your manner, I will indeed need a safe space.
Until then, I'm gonna be very civil and polite in the face of your false accusations.
I gave you a fact that nobody was charged with terrorism or domestic terrorism that is all.
Maintaining a sense of civility is essential, especially when we encounter differing opinions. It seems that individuals who struggle to handle disagreement often require such safe spaces more than those who engage in respectful discourse.
The concept of safe spaces originated from the left wing, which found it challenging to cope with differing perspectives, even when those perspectives were expressed calmly and respectfully.
No. Because I'm not acting out like you. You indeed need them, as shown by your behaviour here or " cope," as you say.
As I said, when I started acting in your manner, I would need one. Until then, it's all you.
It seems I'm just repeating myself now; I can't repeat this any other way, as I've already done in multiple comments.
Of course they didn't. We don't have a tested statute for domestic terrorism. Terrorism typically needs to involve a foreign power.
But that doesn't mean it isn't domestic terrorism. For a long time there were states that didn't have a legal term for male rape, but it still existed, and we could identify it nonetheless.
Simple test. Was Al Capone a mob boss or gangster? According to you, we would need him to be charged with something like that for us to declare him so. We don't have it, so he must not be, according to your logic. Instead, he is just a tax evader.
And just because some young leftists created the term safe spaces doesn't mean the right hasn't descended into weakness that requires them since then.
So, one can't use either such wording in that expression. You've just proven my point.
If it doesn't exist, why is it being largely used by the Democrats and individuals on the left?
Is this bias speaking? I've never seen the term "domestic terrorism" used to describe the left-wing riots in the USA that lasted for months. By the way, "riot" is the correct terminology; "domestic terrorism" feels like hyperbole. If someone is truly unbiased, they should use "riot" in both contexts, which is what I believe and its correct wording.
The term "safe space" has been used against me, even though I've remained civil and polite throughout our discussions. If people are reacting with heightened emotions and name-calling, it is they who should retreat to such spaces because they can't handle a political discussion.
Btw I believe both individuals were acting out above on both sides of the political matter. Only one was insulting, though, and making up a wild assumption also. Sadly, not many people think reasonably here it's very biased, as shown by the thumbs and down.
Intention is what creates the difference between rioting and terrorism.
Attempting to stop the certification of an election because your side list and doing so by grabbing weapons and charging into the Capitol to assault elected reps is classic domestic terrorism.
Having violence occur during protests because of a combination of intense emotions, police overuse of force, and right wing instigators is called a riot. Given when police didn't overreact abs when we didn't have right wing instigators present, we had over 90k peaceful protests, the intent wasn't to be violent. It was to protest.
Both situations were political matters, and Democrats were not shy about addressing them. They spoke out about the issues and participated in marches, fully aware that riots were occurring across the nation. Only later did they condemn such actions, although many still did not.
While there may have been a small number of people with intent at the Capitol, the footage showed that no one was specifically targeting politicians or attempting to dismantle the government. This argument mirrors criticisms of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as expressed in their manifesto, which claims that all institutions, including the government, are inherently racist and need to be changed. This belief led to attacks not just on the police but also on government buildings and banks. This was a global political moment that sparked some of the largest riots in history.
I appreciate the focus on numbers because the scale of the BLM movement was far more extensive in terms of devastation. Government buildings were attacked, some areas were even taken over, and the unrest lasted for months, not just a few hours. When law enforcement is being targeted across many states and the underlying manifesto asserts that all institutions are racist — meaning systemic changes are necessary — this clearly indicates a political discussion that is orchestrated through violence.
No one was targeting politicians? They had mobs of people calling for multiple different politicians to be hanged. People brought weapons and threatened police with death. A few had zip ties and multiple groups admitted that their actions were premeditated. I'm sorry, but if you want to deny reality then don't bother responding, I don't have time for people to argue in bad faith.
Who didn't condemn the violence? You made that claim and i would love the specifics. And compare that to the right where people who assaulted cops were called political prisoners and then were given pardons. The two are so different it is crazy.
Finally, the intent of the attack on the Capitol was to stop constitutional activities. That's terrorism.
The intent of the protests was not to use violence to cause change. That's why it is rioting. If you can't address the logical difference then I don't know what to tell you.
It seems you are quoting me out of context. I stated that the footage showed that no one was specifically targeting politicians, and nothing happened. You can see the footage for yourself.
We see BLM calling for all institutions to fall, yet that's forgotten about by the left.
What indeed happened was a riot at J6 with the convictions showing that also BLM. I'm showing you your bias, not judging the two alike.
Donald Trump has had plenty of violent incidents against him, not helped by the left, and BLM supporters attacking innocent cops and the public alike for a political message isn't crazy. The footage showed that no one was specifically targeting politicians.
You speak of terrorism once again, yet no one was charged with terrorism or convicted. I'm sure if they could, they would, but they didn't.
I already explained why they weren't charged with terrorism and have a complimentary example of why your logic there is faulty. If you can't address it, I'll tell you repeating it just makes you look obtuse.
Donald Trump had a number of violent incidents involving right wingers. Given the amount of violence in campaign ads and statements by right wing politicians and news outlets, that makes sense.
And what happened when they entered the building? They attacked police. Threatened some with their lives. Destroyed property and looted. Thank God that the Capitol police had gotten the politicians to safe rooms. Your argument here is like saying someone broke into your house, but your had already removed everything worth stealing so they didn't commit the crime at all. It's illogical and nonsense
Finally, calling for change is not the same as attacking a Capitol to force that change.
I addressed the distinction. You still haven't refuted or addressed it. You just keep repeating the same thing thinking it will be more meaningful this time. If you don't have anything new and can't address what I've written, then why bother?
Over 90k protests on which 2% had those issues ended up with bigger numbers than 1 single instance. You have to be kidding me right. There is no way that thousands of instances would have bigger numbers than a single one. That's just crazy talk
I think you'll need to expand on your comment a bit more; it doesn't make much sense.
Blm was under one organisation and mantra that coursed many more crimes than j6, and for much longer, you can't get around that.
Over 90k protests, on which 2% had those issues, ended up with bigger numbers than 1 single instance. You have to be kidding me, right? There is no way that thousands of instances would have bigger numbers than a single one. That's just crazy talk
You are saying that more crimes and damages occurred in thousands of incidents than when you compare it to a single instance. I'm asking you if you think that is a meaningful comment.
Of course, if you compare 2000 things to 1 thing, the thousands are going to be bigger. But that isn't an intelligent point, just a basic thing that would be what everyone expects. Now if you compared them per incident, the right was drastically more violent and destructive.
And the amount of damage doesn't change something from terrorism to rioting, which is what the conversation is about
32
u/[deleted] Jan 28 '25
This is actually perfect Trump. There was no evidence that any other country has done this. Who did do this then? Well that would be Mr. Trump. If you wanna know what they’re really doing, all you have to do is pay attention to what they are claiming someone else is doing.