Most of the demonstrations and riots occurred in Democratic areas. In some cases they went on for weeks and the local politicians declined to use more force e.g. Seattle CHAZ and Portland.

I said at the time it was ridiculous that the protestors were complaining about Trump who legally is not responsible for local policing and they ignored the fact that the Democrats were in power and were accountable for policing in those areas.

Still orange man bad.

It suited the Democrats to let those cities burn otherwise why would they reject Trumps offer of assistance and in some cases threaten legal action if he sent in the national guard.

Disgraceful dereliction of duty which I can only put down to politics, how many decent people lost their businesses or even their lives.

Now that the Democrats have won the BLM are no longer needed, more fool them for not going after the right people.

It has nothing to do with what I say. It only has to do with what Trump and his inner circle say and do. That is the evidence. It self evidently exists for all.

What conclusions are drawn as a consequence obviously varies, although I am confident that a large majority would agree with the thrust of my own opinions.

So Eisenhower was making it all up was he?

Of course. He was only the president. What did he know.

We should all come to you for information.

Apparently the difference is that the "Proud Boys" are often openly aggressive with their language and incitement.....but weirdly enough the groups that have particulated in violence, looting and the burning down of businesses and intimation haven't been.

Maybe you are unaware of, or too busy only reading the right-wing press, to have heard the allegations that at least some of violence was actually caused by right-wing activists in an attempt to discredit genuine protests. I have no more proof of that than you don't have. So unless and until any investigations result in charges and convictions perhaps it might be better to suspend uninformed judgements. That Trump made the same assumptions is only par for his course but you seem to be making a habit of imitating him.

So the Democrats won't criticise them as they just aren't that aggressive enough with their language, even though their members are the drivers behind the rioting.

For the umteenth time those involved in rioting had nothing that directly connected them to the Democrats. That they all opposed Trump and his corrupt administration is NOT a connection. All people with an ounce of integrity share that view. The Democrats spoke out against the violence and called for restraint by all sides. However the important point is that were not in power at the time. Trump was and it was his job to deal with the local officials, whatever their political affiliation might be. The Democrats had no official role to play.

Honestly You couldn't make some of his stuff up and keep a straight face.

WE's contentions are so full of holes that even your council would be too embarrassed not to fill them in.

If you find the truth funny then I actually feel sorry for you as you are obviously so deep in your own hole as to be unable to see the reality outside of it. My contentions are actually the material that fills in the holes of your deeply flawed reasoning which can then allow normal life to flow smoothly again, without society having to take different routes around them.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Dec 2020 3.46pm)