Thread by @Neoavatara

Imagine:

Protesters, for weeks on end, set fire and damage a building in a US city. Police and local pols seem to be apathetic to the violence. The protests stop local citizens from using the building.

Now...imagine this was Pro-Life activists in front of an abortion clinic.

The Pro-Life activists violently destroy the outside of the building set fires, place barricades.

Would the Left want a President @JoeBiden to send in federal troops to stop the protests? Apparently Biden believes such action would 'sow chaos'...right?

usatoday.com/story/news/pol…

“We have a president who is determined to sow chaos and division,” said Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee to challenge President Donald Trump on Nov. 3. “To make matters worse instead of better.”

So that would hold in this case too, correct?

I want @JoeBiden, his VP nominee, @SpeakerPelosi and every other Democrat to stand up and say that such protests would be acceptable to them, and that they would refuse to provide federal police or assistance in stopping such violent protests.

I mean...THAT IS THEIR POSITION.

I can already hear the complaints:

"That would invade people's rights!"

Um...yeah. But so are these protests.

"That would be a riot!"

Yes...so are these protests.

"That isn't protected under the 1st amendment!"

Neither are these protests.

I mean, if the Left really believes this...what they are saying is they generally think the atrocious violent pro-life protests of the 80s and 90s...were actually legitimate, and should have been allowed to continue.

That is literally their argument.

Like I said... This was the silly argument you'd get.

As soon as there is violence, it's no longer protected by the 1st amendment.

https://twitter.com/red__RD/status/1286413293586808832?s=19