If we are going to use serious political terms, they should clarify
reality, not just function as insults for people we disagree with.
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
I have read the OpenSecrets piece, and unless I'm misunderstanding it,
it documents where money came from to support the rally (permits,
staging, logistics, travel), not the Capitol breach itself.
Funding a rally -- even a politically charged one -- is not the same
as funding or directing the illegal actions that happened later. The
article doesn't show money flowing to people who broke into the Capitol,
nor does it establish coordination or intent for violence.
I partially agree, although it could be argued that if the persons who later broke into the Capitol hadn't had their "logistics and travel" to the rally paid, they wouldn't have been in DC at all.
Dumas Walker wrote to JIMMYLOGAN <=-
You're comparing protests against systemic racism with a violent protest attempting to disrupt an election.
I wasn't equating causes or outcomes. My point was simply that violence, arson, and loss of life were broadly tolerated or excused in some protests, while Jan 6 is treated as uniquely defining for everyone present.
You have the difference stated right above your response. Some people
see violent protests against "systemic racism" as somehow productive
uses of time and any collateral damage... arson, looting, death... as unfortunate but necessary.
They seem to totally ignore that no trials had even been held yet or
that justice for George Floyd might later be served (which it indeed
was) without *any* such collateral damage taking place. They also
either ignore, or see as icing on the cake, the fact that those riots
also helped shape (disrupt?) the ultimate outcome of the upcoming election.
They also ignore that the "MAGAs" spent most of the summer watching
people act out without many/any consequences and cannot (or don't want
to) see any link between that and how people might have been mislead to believe that violent actions had become acceptable.
So that all justifies the toleration and excusing of "their" side,
while clutching their pearls about what the other side did.
OTOH, if you look at it without any filters, you see the actions of
*both* groups as *wrong* and wonder how and why anyone was allowed to
get away with those things. You *should* be wondering not only why the government put up with the Summer 2020 rioters, but also why just about everyone tied to January 6th was pardoned.
I partially agree, although it could be argued that if the persons who later broke into the Capitol hadn't had their "logistics and travel" to the rally paid, they wouldn't have been in DC at all.
Very true. But I don't think that equals causation.
That inconsistency was reinforced when high-profile politicians publicly supported bail or legal defense funds for people arrested during the 2020 riots.
Even if the stated intent was due process, the public signal was that certain kinds of political violence would be treated more leniently.
That's a serious failure, and it understandably fed cynicism and mistrust -- worse yet, it widened the already fractured culture.
Where I'm cautious is drawing a straight line from that failure to responsibility for later actions. I think it helps explain confusion and misperception, but it still does not justify or excuse individual choices.
If we are to be consistent, the standard has to be the same across the board: individual accountability; equal application of the law; and zero tolerance for political violenceƒ€”no carve-outs, no exceptions.
| Sysop: | Morningstarr |
|---|---|
| Location: | Mt. Pleasant Nc |
| Users: | 3 |
| Nodes: | 250 (1 / 249) |
| Uptime: | 14:25:10 |
| Calls: | 1 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 498 |
| U/L today: |
498 files (5,172M bytes) |
| D/L today: |
89 files (387M bytes) |
| Messages: | 3,527 |
| Posted today: | 7 |