There is no reason to have 25,000 troops in DC.

There was no credible evidence there was going to be violence on any scale (beyond the 'normal' violence we see in Democrat-run cities every day), let alone the scale that would require 25,000 troops to stop the violence.

let alone the scale that would require 25,000 troops to stop the violence.

The US did not have this many troops guarding DC when it was at War, including during the Civil War.

The presence of this many troops has nothing to do with the riots, it is a show of force on the part of Democrats.

 President for a very short time.

None of your points are relevant to the concern that the military presence was meant to stifle American's ability to exercise their first amendment right to protest. The United States is not China. The threat of a few extremists committing violence is not a reason to prevent Americans from voicing their concerns. The Chinese government used the actions of a few violent extremists many years ago to suppress the rights of their citizens, including the right to privacy, and to think freely (the violent extremists have been used as the basis for sending millions of minorities to concentration/reeducation camps).

They are competent, why exactly?


No, they are exactly the same thing. Out for a jog, out jogging, literally synonymous. He was a fleeing criminal, not out jogging. The initial reports were that he was lynched while out for a jog which obviously turned out not to be true so they're reporting the initial info that was wrong. It's like saying school shooter is just going to class, perhaps an evading felon in a police chase is just going for a drive. He wasn't out jogging, he was fleeing after he was caught trespassing and probably stealing.



From your own report that you cited, this is the exact quote:


This is completely 100% false. She was not sleeping, and it was not the wrong home. Taylor's name was on the warrant. Can you please explain to me why you're not getting this? It's like you're refusing to acknowledge they got the facts wrong. It doesn't matter what they cite -- their assertion is wrong.



I've noticed that you keep ignoring AOC's tweet on "peaceful" protests or that Nancy Pelosi sided with antifa/BLM rioters by calling DHS officers "stormtroopers "for the crime of guarding a federal court house, perhaps no good answer on that?

But set that aside - my argument is this: Democratic politicians and disingenuous liberals completely ignored months of rioting by BLM over a fentanyl junkie that would have died anyways because they were too woke for their own good. Every republican is firm on condemning the capitol riots. Trump condemned it, Ted Cruz condemned it, and not a single elected US Republican (to my knowledge at least) has came out and endorsed those riots. Democrats, on the other hand, would rather play this "mostly" peaceful semantics game to white wash the months of riots, lootings, burning of apartment buildings, assaults of police officer, ect. Instead of recognizing that violence is bad regardless of what the ends are, they continue to normalize it while in the same breath accusing Trump of inciting the capitol riots. Meanwhile, you had Kamala Harris posting a link to the Minnesota freedom fund which was designed to bail out rioters that were charged on riot related offenses. Maybe I'm not getting this, but you explain to me how this is reasonable because I'm all ears.

My argument is basically -- be consistent, like normal people, and be outraged when you see violence regardless of what the cause is. The capitol riots were terrible and it's a bad look for conservatives when a bunch of hillbillies with diabetes storm the capitol. ALSO, it is terrible when BLM riots burn cities for months with democratic politicians turning the blind eye or actively encourage them. Fair enough?

Quick note on Trump and the riots - I think Trump is responsible for raising the temperature and so were Republicans who tried to contest the election results in the house/senate. Could you make the argument that had they not done this, the capitol riots wouldn't have happened? Absolutely -- I would probably agree. But, as soon as the violence struck, Republicans were all pretty much on board that this was terrible and that everyone involved should get the book thrown at them. So why do dems feel the need to be so trepidatious when it comes to BLM rioting? Well, probably has to do with the wokeness that's laced inside the modern democratic platform. Just a guess.  

I think the purpose was to prevent any kind of protests against Biden during his inauguration, and obviously, this is concerning.

Nope.

None of that is happening, ever.

It never had a chance of happening, not even for one second.

We're witnessing the last death throes of Trumptards still in denial.

Answer me this -- if someone can be so incompetent to not even do the most basic research into two high profile killings (The ACLED, that is), why in the world would I take anything they have to say seriously?

They can regurgitate two falsehoods without even reading in two pages about the Ahmaud Arbery shooting where they falsely claim he was just out for a jog,

and the Breonna Taylor shooting where they falsely claim the police had executed the wrong search warrant.

what is your credible source that has demonstrated to you that I am wrong when I say "the vast majority of BLM protests had zero violence".  

You don't have one, do you?  I've looked, genuinely tried to disprove myself, but It's just outrage media that's politically convenient for those who make pwning the libs a priority to believe.

White House Hides Biden Inauguration Stream After Massive Downvotes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGuH381Fr6w

Because it's a terrible take to assign arbitrary percentages

I've read that data before and immediately assumed it was a left wing think tank.

The capitol hill riot was a singular event, BLM riots went on for months unchecked and then legitimized by democratic politicians lmao. As if it could not get worse.

Ladies and gentleman of the forum, refer hereby to what I said previously about liberals’ attempts to rationalize me away.

In fact, as a perspicacious observer with no political party attachments, I myself independently reached my above-quoted conclusion.  I actually have not seen anyone else saying what I said; I am the first and only, to the best of my knowledge.  If anyone else said the same thing, I must have missed it.  But no—that cannot be!—it is impossible!  I must be regurgitating agitprop from some mysterious dark force, vaguely identified as “right-wing media”.

Just remember that I am the same nullius whose cultural and political forum oeuvre more usually consists of neoclassical nude statues of Phryne, Nietzschean condemnations of Christianity, rage against American world-police invasions of countries that are not America, and anti-feminist tirades that squarely blame men for inventing feminism.  (Because I know history.  Feminism is men’s fault, and men need to take responsibility for that.)  Surely, I am one to parrot whatever the “right-wing media” (!) brainwashed me to say.  

Gold

Joe there is a price to collect, will you dare entering, or do a runner and retire on a Chinese beach?

No need to leave, Joe Biden cancelled inaugural parade.

He wont no reason to leave, trust blockchain tech.

He can not step down until this election is legally settled fair and square.

Is this sufficient security for a little ceremony?

Who will be brave enough to enter?

Steve Bannon got pardoned. Ulbricht, Assange, Snowden - no.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grants-clemency-012021/

Newsflash:  As of 20 January 2021, Rasmussen Reports has Trump at 51% approval.  Although their index of his approval is still negative, they measure him as having the approval of a majority of Americans, with approval now (barely) exceeding disapproval by a statistically significant amount.

I observe that as the Biden inauguration has approached, Trump’s numbers have slowly increased by a statistically significant amount.

I would have said the same thing a couple of months ago. But now seeing how desperately Trump is trying the create a narrative of election fraud when there is none, I wouldn't be surprised if he calls on his supporters to create a "CHAZ" (WHAZ?) around the White House to defend him.

Pfft, amateur numbers. Try 5 dead cops by a BLM radical in 2016 in the span of an hour or over 30 dead during summer BLM riots. But don't worry, that was legitimized by democrats so terrorism only works one way. I'm not saying the rioters didn't deserve it. The TSA is useless posturing. If you told me what the chance was of a capitol rioter blowing up a plane was, anything other than zero would be shocking. TSA doesn't exist to protect anyone, just as a deterrent. Probably put them on a no fly-list so they wouldn't flee perhaps. Or, they could be a security risk. Who knows, that wasn't my main point.

We're lucky that he inherited a stable economy and didn't run it into the ground. The economy by most metrics (GDP, employment, etc) was growing at roughly the same pace from 2010 through 2019. It didn't need tax cuts. It needed a budget surplus and room to cut interest rates for dealing with the next crisis. Instead he started a trade war he couldn't win.