The last 3 things you linked:

1. Given BLM was protesting mistreatment and institutionalised racism (especially in the police), do you not think it’s at all plausible that the police response would be racially-charged in how they respond to the protests?

2. The headline it’s literally says “one authors controversial view...”: it is entirely reasonable to entertain an idea for the purposes of analysing it without actually advocating it.

3. “In defence of destroying property”: this is inherently ideological I think, I for one place human lives above that of mere materials, and if people need to smash some windows in order to make their voices heard that is ok: we can repair windows, we can bring unjustly-murdered people back from the dead. Maybe a better way of framing this particular one is in reverse: “why is a window shop-front more valuable/important than someone’s life and human rights?”

Edit: Twitter thread: conflating “we wish to overthrow the government and kill our opposition” with “please stop killing us; we will make these protests more uncomfortable until we are heard” is disingenuous at best, and a flat-out mischaracterisation at worst. Nelson Mandela spent time in prison as well: does that mean nothing he said has any value?

The only one of these links which focuses on Democrats is the first one. Assuming the highly-edited video fairly represents the speakers’ contexts, they are calling for street demonstrations. If the events on the 6th had remained in the streets, we would be in a very different place. None of your links has anyone, much less a democrat, calling for the forcible occupation and disruption of a major part of the government.

I do think some of the rhetoric from some Democrats was unwisely heated over the summer. This week was different.

> Please provide a source for your claim that Democrats encouraged riots.

That was the question I answered. I've showed that the left, which is most of the media and the democrats, encouraged the riots and set the precedent of using violence to achieve political goals.

(Local) democrats demonized the police as enemy of the people. Kamala Harris encouraged her millions of Twitter followers to donate to a Minnesota crowd-funding effort that paid bail for accused rioters. Both local and national media rigidly only referred to the far-left rioters as “protesters.” The Associated Press, which sets guidelines for journalists, amended its stylebook to discourage use of the word “riot,” given protesters’ “underlying grievances.” It took months before Biden condemned the riots and he only did it when he started to drop in the polls. In Portland BLM/Antifa rioted for months and they even tried to storm into a federal courthouse downtown several nights in a row. The respons of the mayor wasn't to condemn the riots but to tell Trump to take his “troops” and leave. Those showing righteous indignation now only months or weeks ago argued that the riots were “mostly peaceful” and that vandalism and looting don’t count as violence.

And it seems people have forgotten it's not the first time government building have been occupied to prevent a vote.

https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/134710749813463040... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests

My point isn't to defend what happened but to point out the hypocrisy and double-speak.