So here's the learning moment for me in all of this.

It's been obvious that law enforcement will roll over in front of left-wing rioters. But I always figured they would crush right-wing rioters.

I was wrong.

#1

Did the Trump administration do that in Portland?

I know that the city and state did not.

"So maybe you should explain your "law enforcement will roll over in front of left-wing rioters" in the context of what is said in that article?"

In Portland, the DA elected not to prosecute the vast majority of cases-about 66% of them.

"The protesters are angry ... and deeply frustrated with what they perceive to be structural inequities in our basic social fabric, and this frustration can escalate to levels that violate the law," Schmidt said. "This policy acknowledges that centuries of disparate treatment of our black and brown communities have left deep wounds and that the healing process will not be easy or quick."

The policy drops charges against people who were arrested for interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer, disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, escape, harassment and riot -- unless they were accompanied by some other charge of physical violence or property damage."

I wonder if FEDGOV will chart a similar path with these right wing protesters who appear to be equally outraged as what they see as the lack of fair play? And this is important, because in both cases, the outrage is subjective. So do prosecutors take into account how an individual perceives a situation when determining whether or not they be prosecuted? So if they really thought the election had been stolen, then their anger and violence is then justified, and should be taken into account by the prosecutor?

"We are upset because this was an attack on democracy. We are upset that a group of Americans attempted to overthrow our government. If you can't see the difference between that the the protest over the summer, you are an ignorant ass."

Do you think these guys were champions of Democracy?

Or these guys?

I've been clear from the start. I have no tolerance for rioters, left or right. As far as I'm concerned, and I hope this is the case, the pipe hitters and their domestic counterparts have started some sort of COINTELPRO-type effort with all these communities. Just like MyChrystal did in Iraq, you map out the terrorist networks, and then dismantle them.

Where I see the friction emerging, is that activists on both left and right will argue that the violent types were a small majority that overshadowed the activities of otherwise peaceful protesters. Which is the argument you would want to make if you wanted to continue to conceal the violent activities of those with whom you shared a common goal.

"Whatabout Antifa!"

Why would you prosecute far right rioters if you don't prosecute their cousins on the far left?

"Why would you talk about what happened in the Capitol when you can talk about something else?"

I am talking about what happened in the Capitol.

Honestly, I think the right-wing rioters in DC took their cues from the left-wing rioters that came before them.

"You literally can't discuss the topic without equivocating. Why do you think that is?"

Because it's relevant.

Unless you think that what the left was rioting against was objectively more valid that what the right was rioting against.

Frankly, I think it's a bit strange that you could disassociate them. From my vantage point, they're the same. The only difference is in their motivations, which in my mind shouldn't matter.

Do you disagree?

OK.

So then are you able to objectively separate the motives of those who stormed the Capitol with those who stormed the various government buildings in Portland? Was one justified while the other was not?

"You simply can't discuss this little slice of history, without also mentioning Portland."

Of course not.

It's just another instance in an ongoing continuum where one event feeds another.

"Fffk off with your support for the terrorists who attacked the capitol building yesterday."

Support?

YGBFSM.

I think they should be crushed. The difference between you and I is the belief that these rioters should be crushed, while barely acknowledging the rioters is Portland-presumably because you agree with them.

That makes you as undemocratic as the rioters who stormed the Capitol.

"There were good people on both sides."

Or...maybe...there are just bad people on both sides.

That's probably more likely.

"Storming the government because they are executing citizens without trial is not the same as storming the government because a lifelong con man told you a bunch of lies about an election being stolen from him."

They were storming the government because the Democratic party has sought to work with foreign governments to undo a democratic election as a means of implimenting socialism and cultural Marxism in the United States.

...it's as much -------- as the notion that the government is executing citizens without trial. None of it passes the smell test objectively.

It is? Have you ever heard od Breonna Taylor?

Execution implies an intentional act. If you think that Breonna Taylor was executed, you're as delusional as the idiots who think that the election was stolen by Democrats.

Actually, you're delusional anyway...this would just be par for the course.

"I want some of whatever it is you're smoking. Or maybe not, since it obviously causes paranoia."

Oh, I don't believe that. I'm just pointing out that both ideas are objectively silly, whether you think that the government is executing people, or that the Dems are trying to create a socialist country.

"If they set foot in the house or senate chamber send them to the gas chamber."

Does the US have a gas chamber?

Maybe the better answer is to establish a special paramilitary force assigned to find these people, at which point they could be summarily executed. There are several great historical examples that could be used as a template

Then, at least, you don't have to spend the money to build a gas chamber. Unless the intent was to use them on undesirables in the future.

"This event wasn't fed by BLM. Stop trying to blame your party's crimes on the other party."

"My" party?

What exactly is "My" party?

"This is the essential problem with the modern republican - they think their delusional fantasies deserve equal consideration with real issues."

I think that the vast majority of people would agree with you in totem...only you would be the one with the delusional fantasies that you think felt were on par with real issues.

This is why you're really no different than they are.

"I want that shaman put away for 20 years."

Is 20 years a random number, or is there something behind it?

And is it just because it was the Capital, or should anyone who storms a government building get 20 years?

"I would have gone straight for the shaman or that creepy crawlie with confederate flag."

I guess you didn't see the guy in the "Camp Auschwitz" shirt.