I mean, this is like Philosophy survey course shit. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies

Most famously approximated in recent times as "What may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

Sure I'll hear some arbitrary details about him but who cares about shit like party affiliation?  That sounds like rampant deflection 

Then you have to disavow all other evidence regarding personality, presence, chooses, etc....  You cannot debate motive or intent if you're just going to ignore parts you don't like. 

We know 1 thing that cannot be denied, he shot at Donald Trump in a manner that could have been lethal.  Everything else at this point is biased speculation. 

FBI has stated they found a hidden social media account that may have belonged to the shooter featuring extreme content, including antisemitic, anti-immigrant, and politically violent rhetoric. Hasn't been confirmed yet.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-thomas-matthew-crooks-may-162801971.html

They just need to take responsibility for their rhetoric.  If people call out trump for his dumb shit they need to tell democrats they said a bunch of dumb shit for years too or at best they're the same level as trump

1. Pick a lane.  Either claim to be the 'party of personal responsibility' or accept that Trump incited Jan 6.  You can't have both.

2. But that would be dishonest.  See line 1. 

Speaking of deflection, you ignored my reply, and keep pretending that it's 'liberal rhetoric' when we've heard these things from his own party. From his own running mate even. The difference is that Republicans stopped doing it once he became the party nominee. And the concerns about him being a threat to democracy became validated after telling his supporters to fight like hell at the capitol after lying to them about the election being stolen, and that Mike Pence could stop the votes. Both unsubstantiated lies, in order to incide mass chaos.

Again, no rhetoric is needed.

In this thread we've had dozens of examples of violent Republican rhetoric by Republican officials, Trump himself, Trump's sons, Trump's VP, etc, straight up ignored. I've been whined at by angry Christians for making a joke out of a Republican's quote, more than the Republican who said it, I'm 100% convinced some are straight up ignoring all evidence of violent Republican rhetoric and willingly sticking their head in the sand so they can shout about how the Democrats called Trump, Hitler.

It's a common tactic, Republicans will spew such hateful and violent shit out 24/7 but the moment a Democrat fires back they'll fake recoil in horror and say "Wow! Look at how intolerant the Left are!" and then pretend they never did anything wrong. It's happening with the weird comment too, Republicans getting their panties in a twist because of Harris calling them weird, after spending the past 8 years saying how Democrats are weirdos and freaks, especially the LGBTQ+ community.

Fake outrage is part of the playbook.

Oh, any they can never use the fascist/Hitler point again since many of their own people, including the VP nominee, have called him the same thing.

Yeah the riot was awful, but they were mostly peaceful just like the summer of love.  I condemn both parties and their riots!