We've banned this account for political flamewar. That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it regardless of which politics they're battling for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. This is a site for thoughtful, curious conversation on topics of intellectual interest—not bashing enemies.
He says things that resonate with their beliefs. America is great, America is good in the world, a strong America is a good thing, get out of foreign wars, get out of bad trade deals, bring back jobs, cut taxes. He did a lot of these things. He was completely unlike any other politician. He didn't try to waffle on both sides of every issue. He spoke his mind, in a brash, rude, blue-collar New York kind of way. He called people names. I never heard real hate in the things he said, though if you wanted to hear it, I'm sure you did.
Thanks for this. I suppose the reason people follow him is often because of his politics, not all of which I disagree with. But I think the hatred he inspires is packed into his rhetoric, and that's what I take issue with.
And he'd have had zero supporters at that point. He'd already lost the VP, who refused his request to reject the votes. Absolutely nobody would have stood with him on extending his term as a result of a violent interruption of this ceremony in the Congress.
130 Republicans in the House voted to overturn two states' election results, not to mention he has an undeniable popular following. I seriously doubt he would have trouble with finding support with a lot of people if he had taken advantage of this. His supporters will follow him no matter what. If storming the capitol wasn't crossing the line, quite frankly, nothing is for them.
It would be a big problem, but I don't think so. It wasn't in the realm of possibility on January 6, but for sake of argument.... Say the entire Sentate and House is wiped out somehow. They are not essential for day to day governance. State Governors would make emergency appointments to replace them as a first response. It would be hugely disruptive and chaotic, but I think the republic would survive. The republic is the states. The people in Washington are just the representatives.
They wouldn't wipe out the entire US House and Senate. They would wipe out only those who didn't agree to object to the certification of the Biden's election. They would eliminate Senators and Representatives until Trump was appointed. Now you have an illegitimate president. As you say, the republic is the states, and I don't see how e.g. the Republic of California continues in the Union at that point.
> They are not essential for day to day governance.
Remember that states are not allowed to print their own money as the federal government is. States are now spending vast amounts of money to combat Covid. The federal government is funding these efforts by literally printing dollar bills. If the federal government fails to prop up states, you're looking at states unable to fund hospitals, police, teachers, utilities, etc. If the entire House is eliminated, there's no one to vote on federal budgets, and governors cannot just appoint Representatives as they can Senators -- Representatives must be elected in a special election in their districts according to the constitution. Meaning money from the federal government would just dry up without the House. Obviously the framers never anticipated this edge case.
Because if there was one thing it wasn't, it wasn't an "existential threat to the republic." Hyperbole like this make it hard to talk about the rest of it reasonably. It was a protest gone off the rails, with a few bad actors, and an embarrasing lack of preparedness by the Capitol Police on that day of all days, given what has been going on all year.
That "protest gone off the rails, with a few bad actors" would have absolutely executed a member of Congress or the Vice President if given the chance. And they got unbelievably close to being able to do that. They had weapons, armor, bloodlust, restraints, and smaller organized extremist groups.
How can you not see that as an "existential threat to the republic"?
> How can you not see that as an "existential threat to the republic"?
I'm pretty high up the spectrum of taking the riot seriously rather than "a protest gone bad", but how would this extreme worst case be "an existential threat to the republic"? The republic is explicitly designed to rout around the death (incl assassination) of the President, let alone more minor political figures. Was Gabbie Giffords' tragic attack an existential threat to the republic?
I'm a hardliner on political violence and want to see the book thrown at everyone who stormed the Capitol, but that's down to the need to set a Schelling fence; it's not even close to "existential".
> Was Gabbie Giffords' tragic attack an existential threat to the republic?
Somebody also compared this to the Scalise shooting. Neither are comparable. This was a mob executing the whim of the sitting President, trying to prevent the legal counting of the votes of the incoming President. Not to mention the symbolic nature of it taking place at the US Capitol, while the entirety of Congress was in session. This is not comparable to lone wolf attacks against singular targets.
I don't think it would have been actually republic ending -- but it sure would have set us on an extremely dangerous path towards increasing levels of extremism, violence.
> How can you not see that as an "existential threat to the republic"?
Because it’s not. Our representatives are not the republic. There isn’t some clause that dissolves government if enough representatives die.
The civil war in which states receded was an existential threat. A bunch of dead Congress members is horrific terrorism but it’s nowhere near an existential crisis. The beauty of our structure is that individuals do not matter in the gran scheme of things.
This has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, but it's not about the individuals dying. It's about the potential for escalating violence and power grabs that come in its wake.
A MAGA mob that managed to kill Senators would likely cause protests and riots to erupt across the country. Likely worse than we saw last summer. Then you have a major danger of counter protesting, and escalating violence between the groups. Then there's the danger of the possible ways in which the government reacts. We already saw Trump last summer threatening to deploy military on domestic soil. The dominos can continue to fall from there, as violence continues, and power consolidates.
Would that have definitely happened, and would that have definitely threatened to end the republic? I don't know. But it's a threat, nonetheless.
But that’s all fantasy. The country has the national guard for protests in cities which frequently gets deployed and would be used in these scenarios as well. There is no special power grab that can happen legally so he would need a bunch of life long military generals to agree to a coup, in which case the congress protester attack is irrelevant anyway.
Are we talking about guns? I didn't see any report that any of these people had a single gun. Yes you can qualify a broom stolen from the janitors cabin as a weapon, but give me a break...
> armor
Wearing a pair of camouflage pants and a bicyle helmet does not qualify as armor
> Wearing a pair of camouflage pants and a bicyle helmet does not qualify as armor
Above article mentions at least one case where the police charge explicitly mentions a bulletproof vest, and on various photos you can see "tactical helmets" (which could be unarmored, true) and plate carriers
Because in trying to imagine the worst possible outcome, I still see no way Joe Biden is not sworn in on January 20. I grant you some of the people there may have been under delusions that they could stop it, but it wasn't going to happen. I mean god forbid they killed the VP or the Speaker. The rest of the Congress, the military, the states, are all going stand aside and say "OK well, nothing we can do now, it's President Trump for life!"
It's not just about whether Biden becomes President on the 20th. Because there's not really any way they could have stopped that. It's about how much further that could have escalated extremism and violence.
I suggest you read more history. Sudden violent events have, time after time, been used to increase authoritarian control. I can absolutely see a line that starts with "we need to get the Senate safe, also we're going to give emergency powers to the president." Followed by attempts to prevent the Senate from meeting, increasing police and national guard presence. Protests start nationwide. Protests lead to riots and conflict. Suddenly there's an incentive to use a little force to get everything "in order". And maybe just hold on a bit before handing over power.
> we need to get the Senate safe, also we're going to give emergency powers to the president.
There is an actor in your sentence that doesn’t exist in the US government. There is no “we” that would give emergency powers to the president against the will of the congress.
What if the violence ends in everyone who opposes the President losing their lives? They get rid of all Democrats in Congress, and Republicans vote to give Trump emergency powers.
Not true at all. First and foremost, "the whole number of the House has long been viewed as the number of Members elected, sworn, and living". So if they murdered all of the Democrats the remaining Republicans would have enough members to maintain a quorum.
All Dems murdered would be catastrophic circumstances and would require the 72 hour window with the failure to reach quorum report. That’s plenty of time for states to re-appoint all of the senators and prevent the take over of the upper house.
Who is the "we" that is giving him more powers? Trump is viscerally hated by the Speaker (2nd in line) and most of the House (they already impeached him once) and a significant portion of the Senate. No way he's getting any emergency powers, if the Constitution would even allow it.
For a more competent autocrat-hopeful, the military. Trump's biggest mistake (and our biggest boon in such a situation) is that he spent 4 years making enemies of the top brass. You don't become a dictator when the heads of the military hate you.
How in the world did you get that from my post? No, that is not fine. I don't support rioting at all, certainly not the deaths of random innocents, whether it was BLM or what happened at the Capitol.
Why would you attribute that belief to me, something I gave exactly zero reason for?
I'm old enough to remember when a Bernie Sanders supporter shot a Republican congressman at a baseball practice. Is that an existential threat to the republic that should be laid at the feet of Bernie supporters?
You can't see the difference between a single lone wolf attack at a baseball game, and an entire mob instigated by the President of the United States, at the US Capitol? Taking place while Congress counted the votes of that President's political opponent?
> Most of the people at the Capitol were there for peaceful protest.
Okay, but there were many there that explicitly wanted violence, came prepared for it, and used the mob as cover.
> Trump did not tell them to kill politicians
Trump doesn't have to explicitly say "kill these politicians" to make the implication perfectly clear. He repeatedly told them he needed them to "fight" for him.
> His rhetoric was extreme, but arguably so is Bernie's
Bernie never incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building, while Congress ratified the votes for his political opponent.
> Bernie never incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building, while Congress ratified the votes for his political opponent.
His supporters most certainly include a fringe of people prepared for violence. I've even seen video evidence of such people working for his presidential election campaign.
Bernie Sanders also endorsed the (thankfully failed) Portland mayoral candidate who was an open Antifa supporter and worshiper of Stalin and Mao.
The question, for any political movement that has violent fringe, to what extent can the responsibility for that violent fringe be set at the feet of either the members of the movement or the politicians who lead it?
Bernie and his followers have never been broadly considered responsible for his radicals, despite his extreme rhetoric.
All summer long we had "mostly peaceful" BLM protests that included a significant minority of violent radicals (both BLM and Antifa) and yet no one took responsibility. In many cases people weren't even prosecuted.
Consider this: on election day, D.C. was boarded up, and it wasn't in preparation for rioting Trump supporters. These are people who generally speaking don't want to over through the existing order. They just want to see the existing order working.
Were they a part of a mob swarming the baseball practice? If so, then yes, they were all complicit for not stopping an escalation of violence. If not, then no, it was a single actor. It's not that hard to apply a tiny amount of critical thinking to avoid false equivalency.
Great, so am I! But I have been hearing people (both here and from the very politicians threatened on the 6th) excusing and downplaying the violent rioting that occurred over the summer.
This "gotcha" is an attempt to see whether one is dealing with someone that has a consistent set of principles.
Bernie didn't tell him to do what he did, and he was just one guy. This was a large mob, and Trump had just instructed it to do 90% of what it did. The possibility that violence could occur was clear. That's not at all a valid comparison.
Nope, because they weren't interfering with the ratification of a Presidential election. It's one thing to burn out a Target and another to ransack The Capitol while it is in session doing critical constitutional duties.
Okay, putting the ideals of the two events aside, the fact is the police (and national guard) presence was great enough during the BLM protest to make breaching the perimeter essentially impossible, as opposed to the much lighter presence on the 6th.
I'm not sure why you ask, but this seems like a potential bad faith attempt at whataboutism. I don't support any form of rioting. I also don't think what happened outside of the White House was in any way a riot. Certainly not in any way comparable to what happened this week at the Capitol.
I ask because it makes you think and hopefully prevent overreaction. Banning apps because of extremists and poor police presence is stupid. I think these people should have been treated the same as the second day of protest where Capitol police were stationed outside after the church was set on fire. There was a lot more time to plan for these event as it was less spontaneous and had many hundreds of thousands planning attendance. I think not having a bigger police presence was pathetic and it was likely political.
Not an answer to your question, but a few interesting data points nonetheless:
"From @YouGov poll: among Republican voters, 45% approve of the storming of Capitol, 30% think the perpetrators are 'patriots', 52% think Biden is at least partly to blame for it, and 85% think it would be inappropriate to remove Trump from office after this. This is not a fringe."
https://twitter.com/SMerler/status/1347089854958596098?s=20
>It was a protest gone off the rails, with a few bad actors, and an embarrasing lack of preparedness by the Capitol Police on that day of all days, given what has been going on all year.
Those "few bad actors" had weapons and tried to interrupt the certification of the new president. They may be idiots because of their poor planning but their intent was obvious to anyone who hasn't drank the kool-aid.
I don't think anyone (certainly not me) is denying some intent of at least a core of instigators to create a disruption, at minimum. They should be identified, charged with their crimes, and stand trial.
I really find it fascinating how the US media finds the exception and pretends it's the norm. It's something out of psy-ops.
ONE demonstrator had zip ties, therefore "they had zip ties".
Sure, many were armed and who fired the sole single lethal shot that day? Law enforcement. How is that for peaceful?
The "four people died" narrative is also very telling. One demonstrator was shot by police. One law enforcement officer died of injuries - although details have been very vague. The other two deaths? One heart attack and one unrelated condition. At this point I expect the US media to attribute every single death in DC on that day to these demonstrations just so they can pretend it was an extremely lethal event.
The people "stormed the Capitol" and what did they do once they had it? They took selfies and then left peacefully. That's not a coup or an insurrection, that's a disorganized demonstration that went too far because Capitol police could apparently not keep doors closed.
But I understand. The US media has been priming people for 5 years for this. They've been running influence campaigns and promoting violence the minute Trump won. They spent 3 years talking about Russian collusion and then didn't say a thing when it was proven false. Could you imagine if the Russian collusion narrative had been treated the same way the electoral fraud narrative has been treated?
In a pragmatic way, you are right. This could have ended up much worse than it did. But let's not fool ourselves, the intent of these people was to intimidate officials into disrupting a peaceful transition of power.
They didn't do so because of any actual evidence that the transition was fraudulent, but out of loyalty to one person and a cult of personality. It all just reeks of dictatorship-like behavior to me.
I disagree largely because you're extrapolating the exception to be the rule. There were hundreds of thousands of people there and 99% of them never even entered the Capitol buildings.
I think the most telling part of intent is coming from the arrest data. There have been less than a handful of arrests due to firearms. Two of them were alarming (one had mason jar IEDs, one was making assassination threats at Pelosi). I am sure we will get more of what I would agree with you were "people with an intent to intimidate officials", but they are going to make up less than 99.5% of the hundreds of thousands of people that were there to demonstrate. The bulk of arrests have been curfew related - no surprises there.
I think it helps to put ourselves in the mindset of the people there, regardless of what side you're on. These people were upset that while the "fraud" of 2016 (the Russian collusion narrative) was thoroughly investigated and proven to be false after 3.5 years of dragging the President through the mud, the 2020 "fraud" allegation feels like it's being completely ignored.
And look I do not think there was enough fraud to change the results (I assume that in any election with no voter ID there will be some fraud, period). What I think is problematic is when instead of investigating allegations to appease 70 MM of your constituents, you instead say "no investigation and if you even ask about this you must be de-platformed, banned from the internet, and are probably a terrorist". That response is extremely dictatorial and not the sign of someone acting with good intentions. That's what scares me much more than anything than the fraction of a percent of demonstrators did.
I think I see what you're saying, but it seems like we are focusing on two different aspects of the event. I'm perfectly comfortable with people taking issue and protesting the de-platforming. I personally think it was the right move, but I fully support that others be able to think differently and try to affect change.
But the ban is not dictatorial. It is fully within these private companies' rights to refuse service to the president. And most importantly, this is not the government suppressing the people, it's the people suppressing the government. I can hardly imagine a stronger example of true liberty. Surely in actual dictatorship that would never be allowed to happen.
What these corporations are saying is not "no investigation and you're banned". They're saying they believe Trump purposefully incited people to take action so he could retain power despite the results of the election.
Yeah, this is honestly the best response to the above comment. It was an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power, at the behest of a wannabe autocrat, fueled by lies and conspiracy theories. The fact that it was incompetent and disorganized, and that not everyone there shared that goal, doesn't change anything.
The vast majority of the people there were LARPers who didn't intend any violence.
How does that change the fact that there were multiple armed groups and individuals, many of whom had very clear intentions. Given the chance, they would have absolutely taken hostages, or killed a Senator or the Vice President. And they were able to literally walk right into the Capitol, almost completely unimpeded.
Why does the fact that the majority of them were LARPing change that fact?
> How does that change the fact that there were multiple armed groups and individuals,
I have heard this statement thrown, but have not seen any good photos, videos or any source material proving it. I suspect this is largely because firearms are banned within the Capitol and you would be insta-arrested if you tried. The Capitol is not an open carry or even a concealed carry area, and as we saw from the one death at the hands of law enforcement, they are not shy about using lethal force on even unarmed individuals when you cross certain lines.
I am also extrapolating from the arrest data that there were clearly almost no armed individuals at all. There have been two firearm arrests. That's two out of hundreds of thousands of individuals and in both cases the individuals had their firearms in their vehicles, not on their person - so they were most definitely not "armed groups and individuals".
I'm genuinely curious, where do you get your news?
What are your information filters that can allow you to believe something like Russian collusion not only was "proved false" but didn't even happen?
Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Richard Pinedo, Alex van der Zwaan, and Konstantin Kilimnik were all indicted, most convicted and imprisoned due to their role in the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents. What do you think happened to these people?
I have to assume you arguing entirely in bad faith. "Couldn't keep the doors closed"? There were hundreds of people shoving to get in, screaming racial slurs at black police officers and calling them traitors saying they deserved to be executed for not arresting the liberal politicians.
Also, that officer who died who you kind of just dance around? The mob ripped a fire extinguisher off the wall and beat his head in.
I also love making threats on social media then flying across the country and taking weapons into buildings where they’re not allowed so I can definitely not use them for anything.
I think there’s a legitimate question as to whether you’re just making this up on the spot because you’re angry, or if there’s any actual evidence of this that you’d care to share.
Other reports from the field indicate he died by “tasing himself in the balls” while “stealing a portrait of Tip O’Neill”, which could probably be verified with a livestream if you want to watch someone die, which I don’t.
Your epistemological standards and justifications are much different than mine, and really speak to the epistemological challenge we humans face in an age with an increasing volume of information.
None what happened over the summer violently broke into the second most important building in our country and disrupted one of the most important processes fundamental to our democracy, destroying the US's record for peaceful transfer of power.
If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.
Not an arbitrary line. You seem to think I wouldn't support criminal charges for the rioters over the summer. I do. I think they should all be prosecuted for any crimes committed.
But there are lines to be drawn, and It's certainly not an arbitrary line when it's drawn between the severity of crimes & their impact on society & the foundation of our government.
Are you telling me you don't see a difference between rioters that disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between Presidents? Between the a rioters that burned down a Wendy's compared to rioters that planned to assassinate the Vice President?
Sure, prosecute everyone who breaks the law, destroys property, etc. But I have no idea how you can say there is not a significant difference, a clear line to be drawn, between the impact of the Capitol rioters and those over the Summer.
It's the equivalent of you saying that a thief breaking into the house next door is no different than a thief breaking into the second most important building in the country. The later has a much larger implication for society, undermines society at a deeper level.
Facebook and Twitter provide accountable moderation. Parler doesn't and instead claims to assign moderation to random unaccountable users instead. This is according to their CEOs own interview earlier this week.
You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.
Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable?
Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.
I'd have to read up on the exact extents of 230, but it's largely related to lawsuits and does not preclude platform TOS from holding things to a higher code of conduct.
Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230.
Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that.
With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions.
Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.
What calls for violence, that weren't moderated?
What organized looting?
What riots that weren't instigated by police brutality?
Did any of these try and overthrow the Democratic process?
Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.
Politicians, including the incoming VP, did encourage and even bailed out the rioters, and did nothing to curb the violence directed at innocent civilians.
Let me be clear, even if you believe police brutality is a real problem, there can be no justification for the torching of homes and livelihoods done last summer.
Escalating to violence at the capitol was wrong, but I have little sympathy for the politicians that did not use their influence to curb that massive harm done communities across the country by the riots.
The rioters that were bailed out, were they involved in said looting and violence? What were they guilty of? Do you have links to people who took part in criminal activities that were bailed out by the VP or other politicians?
Two of the three listed people are for crimes unrelated to the protest.
The only one related to the protest has no body cam footage made available. It's currently an allegation and should be treated as such, especially given the protests revolve around police brutality and several events of police fabricating events (Breonna Taylor).
Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?
This is a clear shifting of goalposts and false equivalencies between a (then senator) donating to a charity and a current president and his affiliates fomenting violence.
Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
> Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?
She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump.
> Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.
With regards to Trump, you may consider his words as a way to quell the crowd, but only if you view them in isolation. He provided no condemnation of the act, most of his statement centered around reiterating his unproven conspiracy that caused the mob. He withheld support from the national guard as well.
> You're taking Kamala's comments out of context. She has, even at the time, disavowed rioting and looting, but encouraged peaceful protest
Only after the protests had been raging for months. Nor did she call out the specific groups responsible for the violence.
And in any case, actions speak louder than words, and her bail efforts fall into that category. Now, you've questioned whether those bail funds went to the rioters. Let's be clear: the organization that she was donating to explicitly doesn't filter who they bail out based on the circumstances of the arrest. This was not an effort to merely help the peaceful protesters unlawfully arrested by authoritarian cops (which no doubt there was some of that) it was for everyone. There is no way rioters weren't included in that group. And it's clear that the politicians and celebrities who donated to that fund didn't care.
> To compare the two is highly disingenuous.
It is not at all. Democratic politicians and public figures have been providing cover for rampant criminal behavior for months. AOC brushes it off as "making people uncomfortable". Chris Cuomo of CNN asked "Where is it written that protests have to be polite or peaceful?" live on air. Joe Biden only really started condemning the violence after Don Lemon and others pointed out that the rioting was hurting the Democrats in the polls.
Neither Biden nor Trump actively incited riots. Though both were wishy washy about their respective riots, generally supporting "protestors" and giving generic statements disavowing violence.
None of what you said is incitement to riots, so I'm a bit confused why you are saying I'm wrong given you don't seem to disagree with me. :S
Also, he never disavowed the protestors, just the people who were breaking in and being violent (who were a small minority). And he certainly didn't "get himself banned from Twitter" by "back peddling" given he just said:
> The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!
And
> To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.
We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're fighting for. We don't have a choice, because it destroys what this site is supposed to exist for.
I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've been doing this for a super long time. But please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site in the intended spirit: thoughtful, curious conversation across differences. If you can't do that, that's understandable of course, but then please don't post until you can.
HN's rules have been designed to try to preserve this place as somehow interesting, not the scorched earth that internet forums usually descend to. The rules don't stop applying because someone else is wrong or you feel they are, and it's not ok to break them because you're right or you feel you are. Actually those are the cases where they apply the most.
there is only one side with a president. If you had asked differently, you couldnt be so biased anymore because many many democrat politicians were quite explicitly encouraging more riots and even harassment of politicians. While police stations were burned down. Meanwhile a bunch of Trump supporters casually walked into the senate laughing and smiling and giving thumbs up to the camera. If you cant see which one is worse, nobody can help you
They were chanting "Hang Pence", they had guns, they killed a police officer, they setup a fucking gallows. They were seeking hostages and a few guards and chair barricade were the only thing preventing them from stopping the certification process for the the first time in our countries history.
Are you really this disconnected from what is actually happening right now or do you have you head so far up your ass that you can't see the difference between civil rights protests and an armed coup at the capitol of the United States?
What do you mean? The Supreme Court sided with the baker.[0] So why shouldn’t AWS be allowed not to host Parler if the baker can choose not to make a gay wedding cake?
In one case it's a message of love. In the other it's a message of hate. You're personally welcome to treat them both the same, but I think you'll find most of society will treat the messages very differently.
If you can't understand why I'd imagine you're going to spend a lot of your life being extremely confused, angry and frustrated.
(I can't see the flagged post that's at the top of this subthread so if this is a bit out of context that is why)
If the baker thinks it's a message of sin, then what? It's not like selling them a room at a hotel or any other standard thing. This is a custom crafted item and message that they are being asked to help propagate, and one that they disagree with.
What exactly is your point? I would hope a baker would treat someone who they feel is sinning by being in love with the "wrong" person, differently than they treat someone who is advocating for the elimination of an entire group of people due to their race or religion. ESPECIALLY given that the baker believes in sin because of their own religion...
The fact you're equating the two is actually disturbing.
The various "big provider X boots conservative platform/person Y" are all popping on and off the front page fairly quickly. The comments are mostly what you would predict.
Dr. King was quite perceptive.