[proc0]

We'll just have to disagree on those points. For the most part I think one has to interpret all those events with the worst intentions and biases against Trump in order to arrive at such extreme conclusions (that Trump is such a threat and so evil etc).

> So what if it was?

It shows the gigantic double standard that only anti-establishment conservatives are scrutinized by the establishment and persecuted into oblivion. There were many riots that were condoned by the Left with fires and people getting injured. We had a several groups take over several blocks in multiple cities, and then declare themselves independent from the union (CHAZ), and that was not called an insurrection? Nobody was jailed, or charged, and the mainstream media downplayed as "mostly peaceful", with politicians even celebrating it... meanwhile for J6 they locked up people who were just trespassing or were in the wrong place at the wrong time, including some older people. They went after people for years, opened investigations, etc.

I simply don't buy the demonization of everything Trump, which started many years before there was any "insurrection". Before J6 he was still the most hated person by the establishment and those who trust the establishment.

[ecjhdnc2025]

> It shows the gigantic double standard that only anti-establishment conservatives are scrutinized by the establishment and persecuted into oblivion

No it doesn't. It shows that opposition research is done on everyone, and Trump (who already had an unprecedented reputation for lying, racism, sharp business practices, infidelities, bankruptcies, bullyig lawsuits and dubious associations) maybe got more.

Everyone in business and politics has always known Trump is a shady, thin-skinned bullying narcissist. Of course the opposition research on him was going to be a field day.

> Before J6 he was still the most hated person by the establishment and those who trust the establishment.

Because he's a shady, narcissistic bully with an unprecedented record of dodgy dealings.

[proc0]

> who already had an unprecedented reputation for lying, racism, sharp business practices, infidelities, bankruptcies, bullyig lawsuits and dubious associations

And other politicians are much better? It shows a double standard. Let's be hypercritical about every detail in this celebrity's entire life, even though politicians have abused power and have done much worse.

> Of course the opposition research on him was going to be a field day.

They had to lie over and over, and then years later admit they were lies. It's just nonsensical that Trump is somehow the greatest evil ever and somehow his political opponents knew this even before he got elected. How convenient.

> Because he's a shady, narcissistic bully with an unprecedented record of dodgy dealings.

Believing any of it is "unprecedented" is a clear sign of bias here, or at least ignorance of what other politicians have done, from sexual affairs to warmongers that don't value human life.