Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[GMDino]

(03-23-2024, 12:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: That might be understandable enough, call them fanatical, but the issue I have with it is that they are not fanatical about Democrats specifically. You, imho, can not count them as firmly in their side's camp as you have to put the Capitol stormers into Trump's camp. The BLM protesters, fanatic and violent or not, would not listen to any democrat as devoutly as all the Capitol folks would have listened to Trump. I'd even argue most of them merely see democrats as the lesser evil of the two alternatives around, that this is the whole basis of any real party affiliation. Which imho is why a BLM protest does not look like a democrat party event, unlike the Capitol storm that quite visibly was 100% in Trump's name.



I can't go with "both sides suck", not that I want to disagree in principle, as the only viable answer, for one because in any comparison like that, it sure inherently matters to me if the equivalency is fair or who is actually worse. And when it comes to that, imho it's not that black and white, there's still different variations of grey. I most certainly don't call all democrats blameless, but the most influential liberal politicians did not endorse violence, most certainly the presidential candidate did not. While the other candidate, the one that dominates his party, "loves" the capitol rioters, calls them incredible patriots and whatnot. And as long as there's no important democrat (not just some isolated backbencher) calling a stone-throwing, car-burning BLM rioter something akin to that, I feel the comparison falls flat already. And that's not even considering the whole coup aspect.



Oh sure, and I would agree that there's a lot of downplaying around that seems uncalled for, indeed on both sides. But that can not be the basis to declare democrats equally at fault for BLM riots as Trump is for the Capitol storm. That, to me, is just as much of an unreasonable simplification as claiming one side is totally spotless would be.

Just as a personal observation I think most people, on both sides, say the marching and protesting are fine...maybe even good in some case, and denounce the violence and rioting.  There was no violence at the Women's March right after Trump took office.  

Personally, of course, I think protesting the preventable death of a citizen is better than trying to stop congress from legally certifying the election results.  Neither should have been violent.  We can't say for sure any violence during a BLM protest was about police violence.  We CAN say for sure the Jan 6th violence was because of the election and Trump.

Just as those on the left say it was "a few bad apples" that used the Floyd and BLM protests as cover for destruction I also say not everyone there on January 6th was violent and destructive.  But the ones that were were being led by President Donald John Trump to do it.  They were ALL there because he told them it would be "wild" and to support him.