This is why I want immigrants to follow a process to come into the country. We need to make sure they’re compatible with American values.
This is why I want immigrants to follow a process to come into the country. We need to make sure they’re compatible with American values.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bombing
We could play that too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
McVeigh’s beliefs including being pro-gun rights, against paying taxes, hating government regulation and wanting a “civil war” if that sounds familiar. Killed 168 people bombing a federal building.
Timothy was not a Republican nor supported by any Republican. Timothy hated the republicans.
Nobody said he was a Republican, but those are obviously right-wing beliefs. He was a former Republican and member of the NRA but left because they weren’t extreme enough for him.
So you just threw a name out for what reason? You think that’s a way to have a logical discussion.
I picked events that were tied and supported by the democrats. Not just random events.
Ha, right. Not even remotely a ‘random event’, though I can see why you don’t want to admit an anti-tax, pro gun rights, anti ‘deep state’ fanatic killed 168 people in a bombing, since that doesn’t support your loony view that left wingers are terrorists. He was an extreme conservative terrorist. His views fit right into the far right of the MAGA movement of today.
He doesn’t fit the Republican Party at all. Name one republican senator who praised him or house member?
I picked events the democrats praised.
Apples and oranges.
1983?! Sir, I wouldn’t be alive for another 5 years. To say that I support that is ridiculous.
And yeah, I’ll get behind CHOP. As in the article’s case, mob violence is a solution with due process repeatedly fails. And the Republican attack on the rule of law, ironically while touting it
The issue isn’t violence, it’s not like we’re pacifists here. The issue is the justification for it. From my perspective, the right manufactures outrage at social institutions such that it causes people to feel like they only have themselves to rely on for protection. The CIA and FBI are the alleged “Deep State”, after all. In contrast, the left riots and protests violently over state policing murdering minorities. And the murderer almost always face no consequences because of qualified immunity. So, conservatives justify violence based on the false perception of a society in shambles while liberals justify violence based on the lived reality of a society in shambles.
I’m curious as to what you think.
Notice the double standard on display in the answer you receive: Waco and Ruby Ridge are often given as examples of the the brutal government tyrrany that we must protect ourselves from with the 2nd amendment. The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents happened 30 years ago, but the last 30 years worth of minorities dying at the hands of law enforcement is waved away as justified use of force, police rightfully protecting themselves from violent criminals.
Philando Castile gets a mention in passing but it is worth noting that 2 days after he was killed by police the NRA issued a statement saying they were saddened but couldn’t comment on a ongoing investigation. However in 2016 just hours after the shooting of 5 Dallas police officers the NRA’s Wayne Lapierre posted about his " deep anguish" over the event.
The average conservative will perhaps say we shouldn’t draw broad generalizations but deal with issues on a case by case basis. That may be but when I think of the number of minorities -black, brown, gay, trans, etc that have been mistreated and killed by law enforcement or died in custody, only to be dismissively told “cops murdering minorities is a myth” it seems there is a contradiction there when 30 year old events are brought up as somehow more important.
More recently, the law enforcement response to two different events shows a marked disparity in federal interventions: In 2016 when protesters upset about Bureau of Land Management’s control of federal land took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon, federal agents negotiated for 41 days, before the FBI put up a roadblock to stop protesters from coming and going as they pleased.
4 years later, protestors against racial injustice in Portland recieved a quick and brutal response from federal agents. Volleys of tear gas and “less than lethal” rounds were fired into protestors, and more than 40 people arrested in less than 2 weeks. US citizens were snatched by federal agents off the streets of Portland into unmarked cars and taken -where? -charged with what? -are they still in custody? I surely don’t know.
Draw your own conclusions from these facts, but I think there’s a double standard. Liberty and justice for all? Well it turns out, it depends.
While that’s some good analysis with which I don’t disagree, I’ve argued with Neuromancer/Wintermute many times. Their basic rhetorical strategy minimizes concerns they don’t care for and emphasizes concerns they do. More like 40 year old events are more important to them, and demonstrate current problems with Democrats.
I don’t really have a problem with that, though. Nor do I have a problem with double standards or whatever. I’m just trying to understand where these folks are coming from. The fact that double standards and minimization are employed to de-legitimize or reduce the important of some factors over others is what I’m after in the first place.
Chop was an actual rebellion. Jan 6th was not.
The cia and fbi are deep state. There are serious ethical issues with both agencies. Remember Waco and ruby ridge? Randy weaver killed an fbi agent because they were trying to murder his family. It was self defense. Why were they operating as a hit squad? No an obvious disclaimer, I don’t support Randy’s beliefs but I don’t support trying to murder him over trumped up charges.
The myth that the police are murdering minorities is just that a myth. Qualified immunity has nothing to do wit criminal charges. Zero. Zilch. It’s about civil liability. Why doesn’t the left understand basic law ?
Most shooting by the police are fully justified and legal. It’s a face if life. I’ve seen the left protest the shootings in in Salem Oregon. Once you take the time to research them. Almost all of them were people shooting at the police when they were shot. Their facts don’t match the truth.
Now I’m an advocate of police reform but it’s hard to talk about the topic without listing specific cases. Philando is a case I feel was an injustice. I think the officer should have been convicted but once again it nothing to do with qualified immunity. That has zero bearing on a criminal case.
Sorry, but violently attacking and invading the capitol specifically to force a different outcome on an election is absolutely an attempt to overthrow the elected government.
FBI disagrees with you. I’ll take their word over yours.
The FBI said it wasn’t a widely organized attempt, but that groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys did have that goal. Pretty sure Trump did as well.
That’s an issue with the legal profession as a whole. But also, TIL.
Fine, the left riots and protests violent over police killing minorities and being protected from civil charges with qualified immunity while the perceived nature of the profession shields them from criminal charges in most cases.
That there are ethical issues with both agencies doesn’t mean they’re deep state. I agree with the former but reject the latter out of hand. The deep state is manufactured ghost that permits its users to project their fears onto things that simply don’t exist.
Or there was nothing criminal that happened. Police are allowed to use force to make an arrest and deadly force to protect their lives or serious bodily injury. People don’t understand how much force a cop can legally use and it’s a lot by law and case law. It’s much more than you’d think.
And that’s fair. I may be using the word incorrectly. It’s meaning has changed significantly over the years.