yes, nitwit, he's blaming, and accusing, the people who should have 'had more security'...for not taking advantage of the security being made available. Duh. If a woman walks outside without any clothes, who is she going to blame if someone sees her naked and takes a picture of her and puts it on the internet?
seriously? You nudge the goalposts and retreat into inanity instead of answering the simple question that exposes your dimwittedness? I am shocked.
The goalposts were thrown in the ocean when the decision was made... or the loss of brain function... to blame the violence of the crowd and the damage done by the crowd on the lack of security. And, you chose to bolster that bullshit with a scenario where you blame the woman instead of the pervert, for exploiting the woman. Hey! Just look at your avatar! Start'em young! She should have known better!
the only loss of brain function here is yours, when you try to contend that the lack of security was no factor in the riot being contained, or even begun. If you know trouble is likely, and you have the means to avoid it, you definitely are at least partly to blame for what happens if you don't avail yourself of those means. Even Pelosi herself fessed up, leaving you out on your lonely island to flail away at reality. And NO ONE has said that the rioters shouldn't shoulder their share of the blame. That's just you creating fallacious scenarios that support your misguided notions, as usual.
There go the goalposts again!
so it's the kid's fault for exploiting the cheerleader by looking at her! Lock him up. Lock him up. LMAO at your dumb ass.
it is exactly the same, because neither action is beyond his rights, while neither would have happened had she not voluntarily exposed herself to BE exploited. You're done with me simply because you don't want to continue making a fool of yourself.
going out on a limb here I guess, but maybe the people who provided the massive amount of intel forewarning weeks in advance of possible violence?
one difference, such as the argument I'm engaged in with @strummingram, involves the matter of placing blame on a moral basis and not a logical and factual one. I believe that a factual analysis needs to occur before any 'blame' is assigned. Strum wants to play the blame game without benefit of proper reasoning, and his mind has subjectively assigned blame to only one factor, just as some want to place the blame only elsewhere. The simple truth is that blame should be spread around to a number of areas, several of which I linked to articles discussing this. As you say, just because you blame one entity, other entities are not necessarily free of a share of the blame.
Trump was the Pres. It was his gov, his cabinets and appointees. It is laughable that somehow the Dems are blamed for the Capitol being less prepped.
Good link. Who appointed the leaders of the FBI and Dept of homeland security? Oh yeah, Trump did.
Show me the list of roles which give her authority over natty guard? And explain to me how a House member would have more foresight than the FBI and homeland security? She is referencing Natty Guard "not knowing" when she says "I take responsibility" but she definitely doesn't have authority over natty guard. So is it her job to make sure the people who DO control natty guard have their heads out of the asses?
Not really on the killing part. Some, but probably not more, and definitely not a lot more.
how is that pertinent to the gist of my having linked this, which was in response to a poster asking 'who would ever think there would be such idiots?' ? Answer, including linked verification, is that plenty of people did.. . and the danger was finally further disseminated in the days just before Jan6, yet it was not acted upon.
you're hinging an argument on the connotations of the word 'lot' in context, which of course is subjective. The simple indisputable fact, proving the point being made, is that more were killed and more destruction done in antifa/blm riots than were perpetrated at the Capitol. The meaning of the word 'lot' is quantitatively whatever you want it to mean, and only serves here as a distraction....or a deflection if you prefer.Not really on the killing part. Some, but probably not more, and definitely not a lot more.
Check this, for example, from that time period.
At least 25 Americans were killed during protests and political unrest in 2020
Findings from Armed Conflict Location and Event Data raise concerns about continued violence during and after election daywww.theguardian.com
