Trump and Clinton were both impeached too. Neither were convicted, but Nixon wasn't convicted either (he quit before that could happen.)

Very true, but to your point, it was a given Nixon was leaving. With Clinton and Trump it was more political than a done deal.

He's already been impeached. He wouldn't be indicted. There's so many better things to go over now like the actual cause of the protests.

> A First Amendment violation might be harder for some Republican senators to stand behind.

Not really, as senators their first loyalty is to the voters who elect them. Polls show trump has >80% loyalty from GOP voters, who are the ones who control senators via primary elections.

Even a single GOP senator voting against trump in the first trial was a shocking and unexpected result, it’s likely if impeachment was done again the Senate would simply vote to ignore it and not hold a trial (as they have done in the past re: certain judicial impeachments). The only reason the first ‘trial’ was held was to provide political cover for certain moderate senators in their 2020 races.

I seem to have missed the police setting buildings on fire and beating up shopowners.

Not to say that the police haven't committed a ton of violence in these protests, but it's not all them.

There are looters and then there are protestors.

Well, sure. But if you define "protestor" as "no violence, no looting, no arson", of course the protesters won't do those things.

Yes, yes. The "No True Protestor/Scotsman" argument.

> but it's not all them.

Sure, and the other ones look the other way. Totally "good" guys just lettin' bad guys be bad guys. Until the "good" guys start going after and punishing the "few bad ones", they are all bad.

If we're going to use the "just some bad apples" argument, then it might be prudent to apply it to the protestors, too?

At this point it's borderline ignorant to be unaware of the ongoing police brutalities. And if one -is- aware, it's disingenuous to compare what they're doing to some stores being set on fire- turns out people really, really care about property damage suddenly. [0] [1]

[0]: https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/blob/master/repor...

[1]: https://github.com/2020PB/police-brutality/blob/master/repor...

> > but it's not all them.

> Sure, and the other ones look the other way. Totally "good" guys just lettin' bad guys be bad guys. Until the "good" guys start going after and punishing the "few bad ones", they are all bad.

You seem to have misread "not all the violence comes from police" as "not all of the police are bad", here.

It looks like I did misread it. However I still think it's not intellectually honest to say "not all violence comes from police".

Yeah, sure. So most of the violence comes at the hands of the police, and somehow decades of abuse is comparable to a week's worth of rioting.

The post I replied to was saying that 2020's riots were different than LA or Orlando because this time "protestors aren't the ones engaging in violence, the cops are". Which seems pretty inaccurate from where I'm standing - earlier riots also included police brutality, and these riots include violence from the side of the rioters.

Are you trying to say that the LA riots didn't include police brutality? Or just that the violence from the rioters was more extreme than this year's?

I'm saying you have not a damn clue how terrifying and violent the LA and Miami riots were.

18 people died during the Miami riots and 63 people were killed during the LA riots. Friend of mine spent four days being sheltered in a black families house during the Miami riots. In the LA riots looters were driving up into the LA hills to loot wealthy houses.

Meanwhile 2020 'riots' you have people taking their children to protests. And a few Walmarts and other shops got looted.

No comparison at all.