| | | I think it is hilarious that none of you used the term violence to refer to the violent riots all around the country in predominantly Democrat held areas.
You continue to miss the point focusing on violence. Relative violence is only at issue with you because you equate protests with insurrections.
People at protest marches, whatever their behavior, are there to draw attention to some issue. They are expressing their anger. They express, perhaps make a mess, but then they go home. Rinse and repeat. No intended outcome beyond group solidarity and public conscience raising. Protests are inherently legal.
People at the Capitol were also expressing their anger. Some were just trying to draw attention to the issue of the election. They intended to express, perhaps make a mess, and then go home.
But the underlying purpose of the event was to actively disrupt a constitutional process and stop the newly elected president from taking office, which, is at a minimum, seditious and illegal, arguably the key thrust of an attempted auto-coup. That is both a legal and a national security matter.
In comparing the two based on level of violence you are setting up a false equivalence. It's like comparing a wedding ring and a tortilla or a Frisbee based on how round they are. It quite misses the point that they are different things with different intended outcomes. Protests and coups are entirely different things. |
|
