Notice how its terrorism when only certain groups of people are doing it?

[TNHarley]

Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not.

It's not going to stop with the flame out of Trump.

What does that mean?

I believe that was a domestic terrorism threat

 

[pknopp]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Why is one protest different than the other?

I clearly and concisely explained why.

The people complaining about a system they believe is unjust are no better than those complaining about an election they believe was unfair.

If you say so. Obviously that is not how it is playing out is it? We are enacting justice reforms. Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

What you actually said is how someone thinks or believes determines whether their protest is justified.

What someone says determines whether they should have the right to free speech, in your mind.

Destroying a federal courthouse for social justice (communism) is okay, right?

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not.

It's not going to stop with the flame out of Trump.

What does that mean?

I believe that was a domestic terrorism threat

Send the FBI

 

[pknopp]

Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not.

It's not going to stop with the flame out of Trump.

What does that mean?

What I said was very clear.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Why is one protest different than the other?

I clearly and concisely explained why.

The people complaining about a system they believe is unjust are no better than those complaining about an election they believe was unfair.

If you say so. Obviously that is not how it is playing out is it? We are enacting justice reforms. Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

What you actually said is how someone thinks or believes determines whether their protest is justified.

What someone says determines whether they should have the right to free speech, in your mind.

Destroying a federal courthouse for social justice (communism) is okay, right?

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

In other words, they don't get their way, so they commit acts of domestic terrorism. Just like the Capitol protesters, right?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dems want power and Trump knocked over the apple cart. The liberals who vote for Dems are just useful idiots. They are nothing but votes to Dems.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not.

It's not going to stop with the flame out of Trump.

What does that mean?

What I said was very clear.

It was not clear at all. WHAT is not going to stop with the "flame out" of Trump?

 

[pknopp]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Why is one protest different than the other?

I clearly and concisely explained why.

The people complaining about a system they believe is unjust are no better than those complaining about an election they believe was unfair.

If you say so. Obviously that is not how it is playing out is it? We are enacting justice reforms. Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

What you actually said is how someone thinks or believes determines whether their protest is justified.

What someone says determines whether they should have the right to free speech, in your mind.

Destroying a federal courthouse for social justice (communism) is okay, right?

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

In other words, they don't get their way, so they commit acts of domestic terrorism. Just like the Capitol protesters, right?

If that's how you want to look at it. I explained the difference and why the reaction has been different. One side is fighting for a fair and just, justice system. The other is fighting a fair election.

 

[TNHarley]

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

But breaking into a different federal building to bring about a fair election system is not ok? After all, its what they believed...

 

[9thIDdoc]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Actually most of the really big, really deadly riots or protests (depending on who's doing the propaganda) happened during the "Civil Rights" and anti-war movements.

 

[TNHarley]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Why is one protest different than the other?

I clearly and concisely explained why.

The people complaining about a system they believe is unjust are no better than those complaining about an election they believe was unfair.

If you say so. Obviously that is not how it is playing out is it? We are enacting justice reforms. Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

What you actually said is how someone thinks or believes determines whether their protest is justified.

What someone says determines whether they should have the right to free speech, in your mind.

Destroying a federal courthouse for social justice (communism) is okay, right?

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

In other words, they don't get their way, so they commit acts of domestic terrorism. Just like the Capitol protesters, right?

If that's how you want to look at it. I explained the difference and why the reaction has been different. One side is fighting for a fair and just, justice system. The other is fighting a fair election.

Basically, its ok to destroy shit if you believe in the cause. If not, eat cake.

 

[pknopp]

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

But breaking into a different federal building to bring about a fair election system is not ok? After all, its what they believed...

Bring about what already happened?

Trump tried and tried and tried to convince people the elections were unfair. He lost. Protest all you want. I don't care. I'm not the one that will get arrested.

 

[pknopp]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Actually most of the really big, really deadly riots or protests (depending on who's doing the propaganda) happened during the "Civil Rights" and anti-war movements.

And both accomplished changes. When do you suppose the election will be thrown out?

 

[bendog]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't matter if "one side is right and the other is wrong." For a violent act to be terrorism, the intent must to be to strike fear in the majority so as to force some political or social change. And violence is only legally or morally justifiable if it is in self-defense from violence. Neither the ANC nor the Weathermen were justified in their violence.
Neither the Trump insurrection in attacking congress nor BLM or Antifa or Portland are actually acts of terror. TN simply misuses the word in his OP.

Trump and/or his followers committed an act of insurrection, and perhaps even treason.

The LW social protests are either attempts to gain media attention for grievances, similar to but on a lesser scale to race riots of the late 60s or a bunch of intoxicated hooligans, who apparently can find food without working, possibly by stealing it from others. I admit that I don't understand why Portland didn't put an end to the bs right away. But it's Portland, and that may explain the apparent insanity.

 

[pknopp]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Why is one protest different than the other?

I clearly and concisely explained why.

The people complaining about a system they believe is unjust are no better than those complaining about an election they believe was unfair.

If you say so. Obviously that is not how it is playing out is it? We are enacting justice reforms. Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

What you actually said is how someone thinks or believes determines whether their protest is justified.

What someone says determines whether they should have the right to free speech, in your mind.

Destroying a federal courthouse for social justice (communism) is okay, right?

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

In other words, they don't get their way, so they commit acts of domestic terrorism. Just like the Capitol protesters, right?

If that's how you want to look at it. I explained the difference and why the reaction has been different. One side is fighting for a fair and just, justice system. The other is fighting a fair election.

Basically, its ok to destroy shit if you believe in the cause. If not, eat cake.

If you read the original protest thread you will see where I said I supported the people's right to protest. I said I disagreed with what they were protesting.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Why is one protest different than the other?

I clearly and concisely explained why.

The people complaining about a system they believe is unjust are no better than those complaining about an election they believe was unfair.

If you say so. Obviously that is not how it is playing out is it? We are enacting justice reforms. Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

What you actually said is how someone thinks or believes determines whether their protest is justified.

What someone says determines whether they should have the right to free speech, in your mind.

Destroying a federal courthouse for social justice (communism) is okay, right?

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

In other words, they don't get their way, so they commit acts of domestic terrorism. Just like the Capitol protesters, right?

If that's how you want to look at it. I explained the difference and why the reaction has been different. One side is fighting for a fair and just, justice system. The other is fighting a fair election.

I know you believe the election was fair. It looks like your approach is to assume one "truth" and ignore another.

Let's assume that an election in the future is not fair. Would people be justified in acting like the rioters burning a courthouse?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Here is the difference......

Democrats... BLM.... a group founded on multiple lies, organized, funded and supported numerous riots, looting and even organized looting across multiple locations simutaneously and said doing so was "righteous" Democrat response??...... they donated $millions to this organization. Publicly celebrated them. Defended them, praised them at every opportunity to do so.

Republicans.... Qanon.... the majority of Republicans critisized the violence in ONE protest. There are no $millions donated. No corporations are bragging about donating to them, no media taking out full page ads in support of them. No public praise of them. The fact is most Republicans either outright have no support for Qanon... or don't really know that much about them.

AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

 

[pknopp]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't matter if "one side is right and the other is wrong." For a violent act to be terrorism, the intent must to be to strike fear in the majority so as to force some political or social change. Neither the Trump insurrection in attacking congress nor BLM or Antifa or Portland are actually acts of terror. TN simply misuses the word in his OP.

We have "misused" the word terrorism for decades now.

Trump and/or his followers committed an act of insurrection, and perhaps even treason.

The LW social protests are either attempts to gain media attention for grievances, similar to but on a lesser scale to race riots of the late 60s or a bunch of intoxicated hooligans, who apparently can find food without working, possibly by stealing it from others. I admit that I don't understand why Portland didn't put an end to the bs right away. But it's Portland, and that may explain the apparent insanity.

The protests have been country wide. They have made a difference.

Video: Springfield Police officer uses stun gun on pregnant woman multiple times during arrest

This officer is not facing assault charges without the protests.

 

[pknopp]

The protests have been far longer than 4 years. You want to pretend this is all about Trump. It is not. How quickly people forget that people protested out in front of Rahm Emanuels house.

One side protests an unjust justice system. The other a fair election. There is the difference.

Why is one protest different than the other?

I clearly and concisely explained why.

The people complaining about a system they believe is unjust are no better than those complaining about an election they believe was unfair.

If you say so. Obviously that is not how it is playing out is it? We are enacting justice reforms. Trumpism is going down in a ball of flames.

What you actually said is how someone thinks or believes determines whether their protest is justified.

What someone says determines whether they should have the right to free speech, in your mind.

Destroying a federal courthouse for social justice (communism) is okay, right?

Destroying a federal courthouse to bring about a fair justice system? Yes, that is OK with me. It shouldn't take that but that's up to those who have no interest in a fair and equal justice system.

In other words, they don't get their way, so they commit acts of domestic terrorism. Just like the Capitol protesters, right?

If that's how you want to look at it. I explained the difference and why the reaction has been different. One side is fighting for a fair and just, justice system. The other is fighting a fair election.

I know you believe the election was fair. It looks like your approach is to assume one "truth" and ignore another.

Let's assume that an election in the future is not fair. Would people be justified in acting like the rioters burning a courthouse?

Possibly.

 

[Agit8r]