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

[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.

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.

Here you go, dumbfuck
terrorism - the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
This shit wasnt terrorism until a few days ago. Weird how that works, huh?

 

[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?

Possibly.

Depends on the political ideology of candidate who got screwed?

 

[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.

Depends on the political ideology of candidate who got screwed?

No, it depends on the facts.

 

[d0gbreath]

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

Republican victim-hood.