Is there a difference between Capitol incident and Wisconsin protestors ransacking state Capitol?

The difference is that the protesters were pushed out of the US capitol after a few hours but the protesters were allowed to occupy the Wisconsin capitol for many days.

Were they permitted to be in the Washington Capitol or was it that they refused to leave?

Neither group was permitted in either capitol.

Similar but one difference is that the president instigated one of these acts and then called the perpetrators freedom fighters and special.

It's a huge difference whether the rhetoric is from a hollywood celebrity or from the president.

The difference is that the teachers actually had demands and were fighting for their right to collectively bargain. The Trumpers were just out to vandalize and take selfies.

pauluewalnuts12 wrote:

Is there a substantial difference between the current situation and that one and if so, what is it?

Trumpers set up gallows outside the U.S. Capitol with the intent to execute Mike Pence for being disloyal. They also defecated and urinated in congressional offices and spread their poop on the inside walls of the building.

The difference is that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection, aimed at overturning the duly elected Federal government. It was a coup attempt that failed, instigated by the POTUS, who wouldn't accept the transfer of power. A minor difference, really - in your world of false equivalences.

The first standard of whether direct action is warranted is to be correct about what you're protesting. The second is whether the issue is important to enough people.

I don't remember Wisconsin 2011 but from brief research 100,000 people turned up in opposition to an actual legislative bill. There was even a recall election. It was both true and important.

In contrast there's still no evidence of voter fraud.

The Wisconsin protestors were justified and DC protestors were not.

How many police officers did the Wisconsin protesters kill? Answer that question or get the *&^*&^ out.

Precious Roy wrote:

The difference is that the teachers actually had demands and were fighting for their right to collectively bargain. The Trumpers were just out to vandalize and take selfies.

Tatar wrote:

The Wisconsin protestors were justified and DC protestors were not.

So using lawless force to intimidate duly elected representatives into doing your bidding is cool as long as what you're asking them to do is, in your opinion, fair and good? If that's your position, then you are hostile to democracy.

The difference is that those were liberals and we like liberals and orange man bad.

coach wrote:

Similar but one difference is that the president instigated one of these acts and then called the perpetrators freedom fighters and special.

It's a huge difference whether the rhetoric is from a hollywood celebrity or from the president.

How did he instigate it? Give me one quote of him telling protesters to break into the capitol. Just one, please.

Tatar wrote:

The Wisconsin protestors were justified and DC protestors were not.

The Wisconsin protestors were liberal and the DC protestors were not*

Fixed it for you.

Paradoxical wrote:

How did he instigate it? Give me one quote of him telling protesters to break into the capitol. Just one, please.

Pretending to be incapable of abstract thought to OWN the libs!!

Paradoxical wrote:

How did he instigate it? Give me one quote of him telling protesters to break into the capitol. Just one, please.

He shared the stage with Rudy who called for a 'trial by combat'.

Harambe wrote:

Paradoxical wrote:

How did he instigate it? Give me one quote of him telling protesters to break into the capitol. Just one, please.

Pretending to be incapable of abstract thought to OWN the libs!!

So there are none then. Why even waste your time making a post?

Capitalism School wrote:

Paradoxical wrote:

How did he instigate it? Give me one quote of him telling protesters to break into the capitol. Just one, please.

He shared the stage with Rudy who called for a 'trial by combat'.

'trial by combat' = legal battle

Nice try, you really thought you had me when you took 3 words out of context AND spoken by someone other than Trump, didn't you? Any more evidence? If so, please just include it all, since there must be so much of it, as it is all liberals seem to talk about.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The difference is that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection, aimed at overturning the duly elected Federal government. It was a coup attempt that failed, instigated by the POTUS, who wouldn't accept the transfer of power. A minor difference, really - in your world of false equivalences.

^This...I do not even need to add more.

800 dude wrote:

So using lawless force to intimidate duly elected representatives into doing your bidding is cool as long as what you're asking them to do is, in your opinion, fair and good? If that's your position, then you are hostile to democracy.

Sit-ins are a legitimate protest in a democracy (in my opinion). I never said anything about intimidating representatives. It's still extraordinary to occupy a government building so yes, make sure your reasons for doing so are true.