In other words? You can't handle how they correctly indicate how democrats are collaborate with the republicans?

@William_Mary No, in other words, the author is a fuckin' idiot.

@ChestRockfield well that only leaves 3 other areas to confront in regards of who could be an idiot then. You either didn't read the entire article, you're incapable of comprehending what you read, or you only took from the article what you wanted to to fit a false narrative. Being the writer clearly added the republicans to the narrative along with democrats.

@William_Mary No, I saw that. It's the fact that they are trying to shift any of the blame for Jan 6th to the Democrats that's the ridiculously stupid part.
In his reasoning for shifting some blame he states, "the Democratic Party refused an offer by union officials from nearby Philadelphia to send thousands of armed construction workers to clear the mob, in the military’s absence." If you think it's feasible or appropriate in ANY way to essentially deputize a mob of armed CITIZENS to engage in what would clearly result in a street war with another mob of armed citizens, you're one of the dumbest fuckin' people I've ever talked to because that's easily one of the dumbest fuckin' things I've ever heard for so many reasons I can't even begin to write them all out. If you're too dumb to figure any of those reasons out on your own, you're too dumb for me to bother talking to.

@ChestRockfield conveniently to change the narrative substance you left out

"In the 2022 book This Will Not Pass, reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns relate that the"

There's 2 he's there. Writers of a book. And the articles author is showing how some are willing to use the same divisional tactics to divide rather than legally. At no time have I ever seen any article or member of WSWS or SEP suggest violence at any degree. I've never seen a protest of theirs that was or reported of becoming violent. And they organize a lot of them. Especially union protest.

@William_Mary The author of the article quoted the passage from that book directly after saying the following, "The Democratic Party made no attempt to oppose Trump’s coup, either in its lead-up or as it was taking place. As the coup was unfolding, then-President-elect Joe Biden made a statement encouraging the coup’s leader to address the nation on live television. No leading Democrat even issued so much as a tweet calling on defenders of democracy to come to Washington" as if it was support for that claim. The article's author places blame on the Democratic Party for not doing anything to stop it and then quotes an instance of something they could have done but "refused". Furthermore, the article's author did not denounce it as irrational, dangerous, and highly fucking illegal. (You do know that's super fucking illegal, right?) So now you DEFINITELY have seen a WSWS article suggest violence because otherwise the failure to carry out such an act would not be morally blameworthy.

@ChestRockfield I recognize the pattern of democrats being accomplices with the republicans. It's part of what I do here. I recognize the spoken agenda of WSWS and SEP.

What I don't know is the context in which the quote was taken from the book. Sincerely, the context of the articles writer for not doing a better job of using it and expressing that.

I also don't like the attitude you have in the way you addressed me. You're a rude foul mouthed piece of shit which I don't want seen in this group. Quite frankly, it's rather hypocritical for you to express such condonation on this issue while expressing the same manor in a debate verbally.

@William_Mary How the fuck is my foul language even in the same ballpark as quoting, and at minimum, tacitly condoning inciting a riot between two groups of armed citizens by deputizing one of the groups WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO?
If "you have a potty mouth" is the best comeback you can muster to the evidence of WSWS condoning violence, you ought to look at what you're supporting and sharing.