(August 3, 2021 at 6:57 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: According to ""The Democratic Dictionary" -
The events in Washington DC earlier this year - where an inflated body count of 7 people including suicides 6 MONTHS LATER and a few hundred thousand dollars damage were done -
Is an " insurrection".
And the events in Detroit in 1967 where there were 43 dead, over 1100 injured - with 7200 arrests and an estimated $45 million damage (1967 dollars) -
Was an "uprising".
Let's all sing Kumbya now......
There are valid reasons for using historical events as a reference or for precedent, but it's a hilarious stretch to compare the 1967 riots to the 1/6 capitol insurrection. About the only thing they both have in common is that violent mobs rioted and did a lot of damage. Comparing the extent of the damage is not relevant. Comparing the intent and potential outcome of the rioting is irrelevant because no one in 1967 had the intent or potential to overthrow the federal government and install a despot. This is how countries transition from republics to dictatorships. That is precisely what the 1/6 insurrection was about, an attempted coup. Ham-fisted it was and unlikely to succeed, but I don't recall ineptitude being an excuse for breaking the law.
Quote:Hillary was poison.
The GOP could have ran a dead squirrel against Hillary and won - the LOGICAL choice would have been BIDEN. But noooooo... The Dims had to go with "You OWE ME Hillary" and got us stuck with the worst president in 100 years......
Way to go....
That's not even close to accurate. Clinton polled very popular just a few years before 2016 and led most polls against projected Democrat AND Republican contenders. It wasn't a matter of Democrats having to have Hillary so much as Hillary running an extremely strong campaign, so much so that many qualified Democrats hesitated to join the race. Hillary's real Achille's heal was Bernie and the under 30 voters, who saw her as too entrenched.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller