FBI warns of plans for nationwide armed protests next week | Hacker News Reader

FBI warns of plans for nationwide armed protests next week

seattletimes.com

309 pointsalihm370 comments

I just checked fbi.gov and there is no press release announcing this. If this is truly information from the FBI, why do they not communicate it through official trusted channels?

The article says it was an anonymous leak of information that's normally only distributed among law enforcement

Well there are a lot of possibilites:

1) The story is true but not meant for our eyes, 2) The story is true and meant for our eyes, but they can't officially say so or haven't yet prepared their statement, 3) The story is false and meant for our eyes as a form of propaganda, 4) ... other options

I think the best course of action is to treat the story as if it never happened. I'm utterly exhausted by what appears to be repeated propaganda via the US news media, covering their asses with this very tired "anonymous source" trick. If the source is anonymous it garners zero trust, and you just fool yourself if you think otherwise and choose to believe it because it is exciting/scary/wishful/etc... unless you trust these particular media sources (I don't). I'm fairly sure that most of the anonymous leaks during the Russia Collusion investigation turned out to be false propaganda.

If the government wants to warn us of something, they have to actually do that -- they can't play these games and presume we are going to react (if option 2) because we are exhausted by manipulation. I will take it seriously as soon as (and only if) the FBI takes communicating it seriously.

> The officials were not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Anonymous to readers != anonymous to the journalist. The journalist can verify the source, and also guard his or her anonymity for their safety. This is common practice in journalism.

The problem of "who will guard the guards themselves".

It's "common practice" because it gives unrestricted ability to fabricate any kind of narration without repercussions as nobody can verify it.

Okay, bud. If you're going to make a blanket assertion that the entire journalistic field is nothing but a propaganda machine then there's really nothing I can do for you.

There is a huge reputation problem with the media these days. Bombshell headlines of Trump-Russia collusion evidence comes to mind, driven by anonymous sources.

I wouldn't be worried too much about fabrication by journalists. I assume most of those "leaks" are intentionally dispersed by 3-letter agencies as kind of unofficial press releases.

What are the odds the feds found a 4chan et al poster spoofing an armed protest and are just so on edge they are taking it seriously? Then some unnamed low level official leaks it to his press buddies and all of a sudden our country is in crisis again.

With 2 cops dead after the mob at the Capitol building, maybe the police will take mobs of armed "Protestors" a little more seriously here than they seem to have in the past.

Most if not all armed protests before happen in states with legal open carry laws. If this is true, and armed people show up in 50 states, many of which this would be illegal, it will be a totally different ballgame.

I said as much below, and got downvoted for it. Open carry states are in a different position entirely, though I’m not sure any state police department wants to deal with mass arrests of armed criminals. If they show up in Albany armed, for example, they’re already breaking the law. This could get very ugly.

> breaking the law

Which law? The one that says “shall not be infringed?”

NYS Penal Law 400, but of course you were being facetious.

Those laws are unconstitutional. Open carry in particular is not concealment. I'm not fond of people bringing guns to non-2A protests but there is a document limiting the government's power and every state ratified it.

Under the Heller decision, you do have a right to open carry.

But on a pragmatic basis, not a very smart idea to bring a gun to a protest. Most citizens are going to assume you are there to provoke violence or partake in it. If you end up in front of a jury, a reasonable citizen not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. And if an officer engages you, they will prevail legally.

Bring a sign or a bullhorn to a protest. 2A is for personal self defense when law enforcement is not available or when the state calls on able bodied citizens as a militia.

> But on a pragmatic basis, not a very smart idea to bring a gun to a protest. Most citizens are going to assume you are there to provoke violence or partake in it. If you end up in front of a jury, a reasonable citizen not going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Also, it's kinda bad optics. The kind of people who'd bring a gun to a protest are the kind of people who usually oppose gun control....but having a bunch of yahoos with guns getting worked up with overheated rhetoric is going to push more people over to the gun control side.

Though, the kind of people who are coming to these protests seem to be the kind of people who (incorrectly) think the bill of rights means they get to be irresponsible assholes without experiencing any consequences, political or otherwise.

No, the 2A says nothing about self-defense (or hunting or sporting, for that matter). And, the militia is not for “when the state calls,” but to ensure “the security of a free State.”

2A is there to permit reasonable use of home weapons so you don’t get to be a rusty shot when they muster you into militia, see response to Shay’s rebellion etc

Look at how the Kenosha shooter has been treated. Out on bail for a double murder. An armed protester has as much chance of getting a selfie with the police, as being arrested.

No, the one that says "well regulated"

“Well regulated” simply means “in a good working condition” (like, e.g., a watch).

Yes. It still says "a well regulated militia", which means a well-organized militia, in an effective fighting shape.

We can debate many things about guns, but I think we can agree that for a vast number of gun owners, that's not a statement that applies. No matter if we're textualists or not.

Why leave out the 'well regulated militia?'

Legally, you're allowed to use emergency powers to suspend open/concealed carry. As open/concealed carry is a privilege granted by legislative law, not a right granted by constitutional charter.

Furthermore, most states only permit open/concealed carry if no laws are being broken. So if you're breaking curfew, entering a restricted area, unlawfully assembling, etc, you lose the privilege of carrying.

Real question is whether the governments in those states have the political will to act against carry laws.

It may not just be political will. If you're facing armed protestors that heavily outnumber you, the better part of wisdom might be to not push the point. (On the other hand, if you're the armed crowd, the better part of wisdom might be to not push the point by trying to actually kill government officials. And that's great, but the better part of wisdom has been in short supply lately...)

> the better part of wisdom has been in short supply lately

stems from the mentality of "if you're not with us, you're against us" that has been popular du jour.

> Legally, you're allowed to use emergency powers to suspend open/concealed carry.

No. See for example 42 USC 5207 at the federal level. The southern states I’m familiar with have similar provisions, unsure of others.

Maybe read District of Columbia v. Heller.

    (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Even 42 U.S. Code § 5207 allows for temporary surrender and references "otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law" which implies authorization isn't guaranteed.

I am familiar with Heller.

The temporary surrender under 5207(b) is quite limited both in scope and duration, more than you suggest:

> Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or evacuation.

The reference you make to “otherwise authorized to carry firearms…” (I assume) in 5207(a)(4) is also more limited in scope than you state:

> prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.

I do know of states that relax bearing of arms during an emergency (Florida) and several that largely mirror the federal code. You’ve made a very broad claim that “Legally, you're allowed to use emergency powers to suspend open/concealed carry.” that I don’t think holds across the entire US, and I am skeptical would hold even across a majority of the US. Some concrete examples would be helpful.

Do you have actual evidence or is this a gut feeling of what should be right? There is actual evidence of an armed protest being completely peaceful. Michigan had armed protestors in the Capitol building (which was legal at the time) at the start of the covid protests and nothing criminal happened. Open carry advocates regularly demonstrate at least yearly in many states, and again nothing gets violent. The presence of guns seems to make people understand the gravity of the situation and behave accordingly.

One cop died in the storming at the hands of the mob. One protestor died at the hands of the police.

Three protestors had fatal medical issues, and it's not clear they were related to the violence.

Another cop died of suicide days later. Nobody knows if his suicide is related to the events on the sixth.

A death on one side does not erase a death on the other side. This is not a game.

The OP strongly implied that 2 cops died at the hands of protesters. I think its appropriate to offer corrected info.

OP forgot to mention the 2 pipe bombs, the long guns found and the famous zip tie guy. Also forgot to mention the chants to behead Pence and Pelosi.

Two zip tie guys, one of whom was a retired Lt. Col. in the Air Force, and there’s video of a large group of men with apparent training and in matching tactical gear moving through the crowd towards the Capitol. One of them has an OathTakers shirt.

These were militia.

Oathkeepers / Three Percenters

Don't forget the gallows!

nostromo's comment doesn't seem to be a scorekeeping effort, more a statement of fact (though I will confess to having an initial reaction similar to yours before finishing reading). It's a good idea to keep the facts straight in general, but especially in such a controversial case.

One of the fatal medical issues was a man accidentally tazering himself to death while trying to loot a portrait of Tip O'Neill, so it seems reasonable to infer that one's "related to the violence"

I think this was disproved. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/capitol-riot-taser-death/

Thanks for the link. It is disheartening and disappointing that some people decided to create an imagined instance of narrated mockery of a dead person by spreading a rumour/lie that he had died ‘tazing himself in the balls repeatedly’ causing distress to his bereaved family.

Stripping a deceased person of their dignity via caricature is really a new low. This truly beggars belief and makes me very very sad. I hope the family finds peace.

I certainly agree that it's disappointing that people will so readily believe false and humiliating stories about somebody they don't like.

But describing it as "a new low" against the background of a violent disruption of Congress, with the intent of interfering with the peaceful transition of power... that's not a phrase I'd have thought to use. The mockery is disgusting and disappointing, as is the gullibility of its spread, but both are very common. The violence, by contrast, is genuinely novel.

> The violence, by contrast, is genuinely novel.

The violence is not ‘genuinely novel’. We certainly saw many instances of creative ways of violent destruction in protests by the other side in 2020.

Anyways...my 2c. Ymmv.

If they weren't carrying Biden flags then they're not "the other side".

A joke in poor taste, yes.

However, his social media posts before traveling to DC were enough to strip him of any dignity he may have had.

i havent seen his social media posts. what did they say?

> Stripping a deceased person of their dignity via caricature is really a new low.

Its a low, but I don’t think its actually new, and not very uncommon in situations where there are both strongly divisive emotions and people dying.

can you give another example?

That always sounded like nonsense to me. It doesn't seem likely that a medical practitioner would have specifically reached that assessment and publicly released the information so soon after the event.

It would be silly to not treat the suicide as a consequence of the situation. Either a head injury or simple psychological stress. He lost colleagues at the very least he should have had access to better mental health resources.

They stopped being protestors the second they stormed the capitol looking to kill or kidnap elected officials. They’re insurrectionists, and being charged as such.

There was an insurrection last week. What caused it?

If you took the beliefs of the people involved in the insurrection to be true, you probably would join an insurrection as well. They believe that an election was stolen and that democracy has been destroyed in the United States and replaced with some form of a deep state dictatorship.

Trump supporters believe this because they have been lied to repeatedly for years without corrections they found to be believable. How do we correct these firmly held (but false) beliefs?

We need to hold people who lie accountable. If a talk show host makes a claim that an election was fraudulently stolen, that host needs to be able to provide real evidence to support that claim in a court of law or face civil / criminal penalties for disseminating false information.

Many people on HN hate the removal of Trump from Twitter and Facebook, and the removal of Parler from AWS... but private companies always have the right to choose who they do business with, barring a very limited set of protected classes. "Big Tech" are private businesses that most conservatives would support being able to exercise their freedom to choose who to do business with, and Big Tech made the right decision in removing people and organizations from their platforms who have repeatedly tried to promote harmful lies.

Beyond holding liars accountable, we do need to do a better job of making the truth more easily accessed. Perhaps holding elections in some sort of open source / public format would help... then you could look up your own vote and the votes of your friends to confirm, and also double check the counts across the nation.

> Beyond holding liars accountable, we do need to do a better job of making the truth more easily accessed. Perhaps holding elections in some sort of open source / public format would help... then you could look up your own vote and the votes of your friends to confirm, and also double check the counts across the nation.

Private votes is itself a practice with very strong reasoning behind it, to prevent coercion and such. So I can't really get behind this.

But yes, it points directly at the problem right now: if recounts and audits overseen by agencies run by members of their own political party aren't enough for these people, what would be?

How far should we be asked to go to appease these people?

Could we even reasonably appease them? When others are constantly shouting from their TV that they're being abused?

> appease these people?

appeasement should not be the goal. You do not appease people, or they will just push for a mile given an inch.

There needs to be ground rules set, and punishment for crossing the line. I think the line has been crossed. Society, at least, in the majority, will agree that the line has been crossed, and that those who crossed it shall be punished.

> If you took the beliefs of the people involved in the insurrection to be true, you probably would join an insurrection as well.

This is not an excuse. See below.

> Trump supporters believe this because they have been lied to repeatedly for years without corrections they found to be believable. How do we correct these firmly held (but false) beliefs?

The reason these beliefs don't excuse anything is because they arguably do not believe them in the first place. These people are not stupid -- they do not have a problem thinking things through when it suits them.

The problem here is a culture of impunity. These people thought they could do this and face no consequences. Look no further than their shock and dismay at the (very light) treatment they're getting right now.

Yes, we should hold the liars accountable. But we should be just as harsh on the people who actually stormed the Capitol. We need to break this culture of impunity now -- by meting out harsh consequences -- before they try it again.

It’s naive to think that most of these people don’t actually believe the election was stolen, a huge number of them do.

>If you took the beliefs of the people involved in the insurrection to be true, you probably would join an insurrection as well. They believe that an election was stolen and that democracy has been destroyed in the United States and replaced with some form of a deep state dictatorship

Oh the irony

Another fact that’s quickly forgotten is the media’s role in Trump’s rise. Trump benefitted from millions of dollars of free publicity by being outrageous and creating stories. The media fed that frenzy through the primaries and even into the general election. They should have done a better job of not giving liars a platform to lie from and of not being bated by every manufactured drama.

We already have a mechanism for harm from lies - libel and slander laws. Just expand these laws to make lying to the public about something that if they believe it could cause them harm a tort.

The problem is always who decides what’s a lie and what isn’t. Fake news was a mantra for the left before Trump coopted it and started calling everything he disagreed with fake news.

Elon Musk used his powerful Twitter account to call a cave diving hero a pedophile last summer. The man lost the libel suit and Musk walked free, ironically with L Lin Wood as acting prosecutor.

Trump benefitted from millions of dollars of free publicity

Billions: https://www.thestreet.com/politics/donald-trump-rode-5-billi...

In 2016 most of the left-leaning media saw this as a win-win. Promoting Trump's antics would both boost their ratings and cause the Republican party to lose. Unfortunately they were half right.

> you could look up your own vote and the votes of your friends to confirm

You can't do that because visibility causes voting fraud.

By coercion. If votes can be checked by other people, a very large number of people (enough to change the result) will be forced under threat by someone else to "vote correctly".

The same happens if you can check your own vote, because any mechanism that lets you do that can usually be used by someone else - "give me your phone so I can check you voted for X like I told you to" (while holding a gun).

That's why free & fair elections have secret ballots, without personal identification on the ballots. To prevent coercion fraud.

Were any of the 3 that had heart issues/strokes actually in the Capitol building?

FWIW: the legal tresspass started several hundred feet away from the building proper. There was a police barrier in place that was the first thing violated.

There was a lady with a don't tread on me flag that was trampled to death in a crowd/mob squeeze against the police:

https://www.revolt.tv/news/2021/1/8/22221070/woman-trump-sup...

If it was a heart issue there was a bit more to it than simple heart attack.

There are conflicting reports of how she died.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rosanne-boyland-died-capitol-ri...

The Onionesque headline is apparently too good to fact check though, because lots of media outlets are running with it for laughs.

I think both accounts of he friend that was with her and the detective that contacted the family could easily be simultaneously true: she could have been crushed, pulled out, and then died of cardiac arrest later, and tried to indicate that in my original post where I said more Han a simple heart attack (as in instead a heart attack triggered by trauma, etc.).

Has anyone actually been charged with sedition, treason, or insurrection?

No they've been charged with misdemeanor "entry into a restricted area" and or felony "violent entry into a restricted area and disorderly conduct".

FBI has indicated that they are in the process of putting together a larger case.

Well, unfortunately they can't be charged with the most serious charges until Trump leaves office, as it's highly likely that he would pardon them. If anyone is shocked by this... why? He pardoned mass murderers that were employed by Betsy Devos's family's mercenary company a few weeks ago; pardoning his supporters is what he's hoping to do.

No, they pulled their white privilege get out of jail card.

You've been using HN primarily for political battle. We ban accounts that do that (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), regardless of which politics they're battling for. It's against the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.

I think a lot of people have been using HN for political battle since January 6th, but I stand by my comment history, and I think that I more than earn an ongoing voice in the HN community with my contributions each week.

I don't think it's fair to say I have been using "HN primarily for political battle". When I do post on political threads, I try to do so with reasonable counter-points, logical debate, and appeal to avoid hyperbole and flame wars. I am certainly not perfect, but that is my aim. I'll try to do better.

Over the last 2 weeks I've posted 48 threads, 30 of which were non-political. Some of the highlights;

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684154 (+128) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25585764 (+31) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25697136 (+30) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25589742 (+6 posted late, underrated)

Of my rare political post, which of course have been +3 sigma more frequent since the 6th, here are some that I fully stand behind;

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695844 (+21) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688330 (+10) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691821 (+9) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711604 (+4) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711572 (+1, was in fact disinformation)

And in full disclosure, some that were less substantive;

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25677651 (+3) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25680846 (+1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25710688 (-2) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693504 (-4)

I'm not sure if you took issue with this particular post, which is currently (+12) and a totally fair point to question an incorrect factual claim by throw_m239339, who by the way I usually agree with.

EDIT: I see that you posted a ton of these warnings throughout the site on many profiles, which helps me feel less singled out. Again, I'll try to do better. You have an impossible task the last 6 days.

It's certainly true that a lot of people have been doing that. That will probably settle down somewhat, but I think we need to raise the bar for what counts as acceptable on HN. That's why I've been posting a ton more warnings, and I'm glad that you noticed that I wasn't singling you out!

I take your point that you've been participating in other sorts of discussion too. I look through account histories fairly quickly—that's all there's time for. It's a pattern matching game. If I matched you to the wrong pattern, I'm sorry, but if you'd please err on the side of avoiding political battle and sticking to intellectual curiosity, we'd appreciate it.

As has been said so often in the past year about other protests, they were “mostly peaceful“. It would be very difficult to prosecute on charges such as kidnapping, etc. because they are generally not true and very difficult to prove.

I assume you feel the same way about the antifa and BLM protesters who stormed the houses of the mayor of Seattle, the governor of Washington, and the mayor of Portland?

I'm only familiar with the Jenny Durkan (mayor of Seattle) incident. However, I don't think graffiti on her fence and the street are really the same type of 'storming'. From her public complaint:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13YZiZXv6votoHh_CjhxEUhgth_Z...

"Using her official position to lead a march to my home, despite the fact that it was publicly known I was not there, and she and organizers knew that my address was protected under the state confidentiality program because of threats against me due largely to my work as U.S. Attorney. All of us have joined hundreds of demonstrations across the City, but Councilmember Sawant and her followers chose to do so with reckless disregard of the safety of my family and children. In addition, during or after Councilmember Sawant’s speech at that rally, her followers vandalized my home by spray-painting obscenities. (Photo attached)"

> They’re insurrectionists, and being charged as such.

They are not yet being charged as such (and I’d be surprised if insurrection was a charge, though “seditious conspiracy” seems likely a fairly easy case to make).

Mostly, the charges are much simpler (which is unsurprising; its easy to survive a probable cause hearing for “unlawful entry to a restricted building or grounds”, it takes a lot more evidence for seditious conspiracy, treason, insurrection, conspiracy to impede or injure an officer of the united states, or any of the myriad of less simple but more serious crimes they might end up charged with as further investigation occurs.)

> One cop died in the storming at the hands of the mob

Didn’t they die the following day after returning to duty? I don’t recall, does anyone have a link?

At times like this, we should honor the fallen and remember their name. If only for the short time to honor their duty.

Someone in the mob threw a fire extinguisher at Officer Sicknick's head. Later on the 1/6th, Sicknick collapsed due to a stroke (probably related to the beating he received). A day later on the 7th, he succumbed to his injury and died. I don't believe he ever "returned to duty", but now that we have his name, his story is at least more easily searchable.

The cop was beaten with a fire extinguisher and died later of the injuries sustained.

That is definitely being killed by the mob. They don't get a pass because it took some time before the fatal injury caused death.

Yup. We don't know the full details, and I don't want to speculate any more than I have to, but it needs to be pointed out that subdural/epidural hematomas caused by head injury can take some time to kill you. Remember Natasha Richardson?

In any case, RIP Officer Sicknick.

Nope, no returning to duty. Is this something going around the right-wing social media discussions? Huh.

Don't get your point here.

If the mob (these weren't protestors, they were a mob) hadn't stormed the Capitol, nobody would have died.

That isn’t necessarily true though. Three of the people, regardless of what you call the group they happened to be in at the time, died of medical issues that have not been tied to the events of that day. They may have just as easily died had they gone for a jog that day.

I don't see how continually looping back to semantics and pedantry helps advance this conversation.

One of the three was trampled by the crowd, which rarely happens in non-crowd settings.

It can happen in crowd-but-not-storming-the-Capitol settings, though. A 100% peaceful protest is usually still a crowd.

Ok. What about the other two?

What a inane line of questioning.

"Maybe they didn't die because of the riot?!"

"It was really only 4 dead not 5 becomes someone might have died in their bathtub."

This is the most insensitive fucked up hairsplitting I've ever read.

How is it insensitive to point out that people have strokes, heart attacks, etc. each and every day, whether they are involved in riots or not?

I am not in favor of anything that happened, but in order to have any perspective on any of this, accurate information is important.

One of the medical issues was a trampled protestor... another supposedly had a medical issue unrelated to the riot while going to their car before or during the riot.

https://people.com/politics/family-member-of-woman-who-died-...

Haven’t found a reference for the other.

If the cause of death isn't easy to find that strongly implies the death wasn't direct. Because if it was you'd be hearing way more about it and it would be much more well documented.

I found it ironic that one protestor who died carried a "don't tread on me" flag was trampled to death by fellow protestors.

She might have been a protestor earlier that day but at the time it happened she had become an intruder. This does not mean that she actually deserved to be shot but only that it should not come as a surprise that she was.

> Three protestors had fatal medical issues, and it's not clear they were related to the violence.

Rosanne Boyland was trampled. Certainly that's related to the violence. The other two were a stroke and a heart attack, both of which seem almost certain to have had as a proximate cause the stress of mob violence.

Was it three, including the one that committed suicide?

One attacked during, and one suicide after. 2 total Capitol officers dead.

There were other cops and firemen among those protesting.

None of the people killed were by armed protestors though, they used blunt force. Also one of those two cops committed suicide. I'm more fearful of a McVeigh style attack down the line than I am an immediate response. Outside of the literal neo-Nazis (which I believe came up with the term 'ACAB' and I've always found ironic for the other side using it) most radicals don't want to directly engage cops. They probably will want to target Big Tech and Federal buildings.

Not for lack of trying.

With two pipe-bombs at the DNC and RNC headquarters, as well as a truck full of Syrofoam+Gasoline bombs, there were clearly people who were trying to do major damage at the event.

EDIT: Given the timing of the DNC + RNC pipe bombs, it has been proposed that the pipe-bombs were purposefully placed away from the Capitol to further confuse capitol police before the riot. Capitol Police were too busy checking out the pipe-bombs to notice the crowd encroaching upon the Capitol building itself.

I don't disagree, but those weren't through direct engagement, and afaik no one fired a shot outside of police. I've edited my post to clarify my point that these real threats are people that are smart enough to not directly engage (such as bombers.)

I believe most people (and that includes the mob that attacked) don't want to murder people.

But herein lies the problem: the mob itself is a perfect opportunity to cause real mayhem. Even if the mob is composed of "relatively peaceful" people who aren't trying to kill people, all it takes is one or two bombs to go off at the right time (or one or two actual right-wing terrorists to take advantage of it), to turn a bad situation into a worse one.

Yeah, Timothy McVeigh style attack would be terrible. You know what would be worse? Timothy McVeigh hiding inside of an angry crowd of supporters.

Or hell, TWO Timothy McVeighs. How many angry right-wing extreme nuts are coming to this thing next week?

I really doubt a Timothy McVeigh style attacker would want to kill people that support his cause. A suicide bomber would be more apt to target people he hates than people that support his world view.

I'm not saying a hypothetical terrorist would kill people that support his cause.

I'm saying a hypothetical Timothy McVeigh would kill people (ie: target Mike Pence or Joe Biden), then hide in the mob to prevent police from chasing him.

EDIT: Or any number of "more intelligent" schemes that takes advantage of a rioting mob. I had a bunch of specific examples, but I feel its not moral for me to discuss specifics and help any would-be attackers plan their stuff.

But ultimately, its not very hard to think of ways to take advantage of a mob.

------

The main good news is that the National Guard is deploying in major force: riot shields for protests, and even are equipping themselves with lethal weaponry if things get out of hand.

I don't think it's an important distinction that Officer Sicknick died from the blunt force trauma of a fire extinguisher versus the accute force trauma of a bullet. At the end of it all, he died from his injury.

The post is about "armed" protests (ie people with firearms.) I do feel there is a distinction.

Firearms were confiscated by police at the protest. That's what makes it an "armed" protest (ie people with firearms.)

armed "domestic terrorists"

They didn’t in Seattle after Razz gave out guns and two persons of color were shot.

Given that there are 6200 National Guard members currently in DC, with 10k expected by Saturday and 15K by Inauguration day, I have a feeling that at least the DC government is more than taking it seriously.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/01/11/pentagon-auth...

Specific state capitols are a different story, but the consensus seems to be that they are taking these events very seriously, though response if quite varied.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/11/...

As for the future, I would assume that local officials are very concerned and likely to take seditionists and insurrectionists just as seriously as they had the Women's March previously, if not more so.

15K seem like low numbers. Well, depends on the weapon technologies they bring I guess. Aerial support should be required.

Most of the people who show up to these things don't have the appetite for armed resistance.

They sure do like to tell everyone that it's what they're "preparing for" though.

I remember a Canadian author a few years back (can't remember the name, sorry!) went to a Prepper-Con in the US. He wrote about a lot the classes on survival skills, the ubiquitous barrels of dehydrated corn, and the massive gun fetish. The best part, though, was the end. I'm paraphrasing, but he said that the thing all the other attendees needed wasn't a new hatchet or picatinny rail, rather negative 30 pounds and mile times under 15 minutes.

While I don't sympathise with their point of view you should be careful not to conflate the few loud/visible ones with the majority going there. Some might want civil war, others go for their friends want to take a stance or hope that this will somehow lead to a peaceful handover of power to 'their winner'.

I find myself wondering what happens if they find that appetite. Do I stay away and let others fight them? These mobs could vastly outnumber the defenders, and might pose a real threat to our country.

Would I personally have the conviction to kill someone who is trying to violently take control of the government?

I never thought I'd be asking myself this question, but here I am.

Keep in mind that this is just the Guard. DC's police department (MPD) may be getting mutual aid support from close-in states or states not so close. I just haven't been paying attention to know the details.

The 28th Infantry Division out of Pennsylvania may be a good idea of what to look for. It is ~15K personnel and is commanded by Maj. Gen. Andrew P. Schafer, Jr.

Nicknames for the 28th include: Keystone (Special Designation), Fire and Movement, Iron Division, and Bloody Bucket.

It includes the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Iron Brigade (PA NG)), the 55th Heavy Brigade Combat Team (PA NG), the 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (Independence Brigade (PA NG)) and the Combat Aviation Brigade (28th Infantry Division (Heavy) (PA NG)). The sub-breakdowns of each brigade can be found in the links below, as well as what the mechanized elements each brigade consist of. I'll be honest, it's a lot of very good equipment in what seems to be capable hands.

In modern US military usage, Combat Teams are the atomic unit of independent operations in a theatre. The 28th, as an example has four such units.

Though I do not know what the exact make-up of the Troops are to be in DC, I would not want to be on the wrong side of the barrels of a few Strykers armed with rifles or IEDs. Such encounters have gone the way of the US in the last few attempts. A division's worth of armed and well-trained personnel is a formidable obstacle for any modern military, let alone a group of insurrectionists and seditionists.

All that said, Dear God. That we are talking about such things at all shows the depravity of the moment. Such a moment has occurred before on the Mall with the Bonus Army, but it was a horrible thing then and it remains so now. The thought of US Troops again being used on our fellow citizens is horrific and yet may unfortunately be history soon enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(military)#United_Sta...

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/28th_Infantry_Division_(Unit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Are they still our fellow citizens when they have already shown themselves to be traitors? Citizens in name only.

Biggest difference now is that the "commander in chief" is behind all this, so the army won't interfere.

This whole thing is getting out of hand.

They'll likely have those high frequency crowd dispersion thingies on trucks.

  at least the DC government is more than taking it seriously.

D.C. government has no authority over the D.C. National Guard units.

Depends what colour of skin they have. Remember this is still America- when black panthers started to exercise their 2nd amendment rights shit hit the fan.

The second cop's death was a seemingly unrelated suicide.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/01/10/another...

If you show up at a protest with a gun, you're not protesting, you're intimidating.

The people who stormed into the capitol believe that they were doing so as a part of a fight against fascism, and I am now starting to think that a lot of my left wing friends simply don't understand what these people think. If you want to familiarize yourself with their thinking, I would recommend reading The Gulag Archipeligo. That's the world they think they are working to prevent:

Here are some things that they think

1) Several states changed election process via policy instead of via legislative process. This is illegal, and should be heard by a court. Maybe you think it was! But they don't. They believe in free and fair elections, and believe in the constitutionally layed out process for selecting government officials, as well as a system of arbitration if grievances arise during this process.

2) There is a left-wing authoritarian movement to delegitimize their political philosophy of limited government as racist. It is not racist, and they are not racist, and this is being used as a psychological tool against them.

3) There are powerful forces within the government who will use their power to suppress typical democratic processes to enact their will; usually in the service of overseas wars or profiteering.

Okay. Imagine being in the mindset of these people. You fear authoritarianism, you fear the suspension of democracy, you fear the suspension of constitutional freedoms. In the last couple of days you have seen:

1) The president of the united states effectively silenced.

2) Calls for the imprisonment of you and your family for thoughtcrime.

3) Calls of the forced removal of what you believe to be a duly elected president.

4) Unbounded joy at the idea of parler being hacked, and your personal details being leaked and used to threaten you.

What these people think they're asking for are democratic elections and a return to American democratic norms. Again, you can think that they're wrong or crazy, but that is what they think.

It is with pure terror that I keep seeing what is happening with all of this. At every single turn it seems like everybody keeps making the worst possible decisions. Politicians for supporting violent rioters and arsonists all summer, the mob storming into the capitol on Wednesday, people being put onto terrorism watch lists and banned from travel within their own country, powerful tech oligopolies silencing any form of dissenting opinion (NOT just violent opinions).

I saw a video of a guy being removed from a flight earlier today (posted on twitter of course with a snarky/giddy comment). He was in his 50s it looked like, and crying because he said they called him a terrorist and now he isn't allowed to travel.

Banning that guy from travel will NOT calm him, and it will NOT calm the people in his social and familial circle. It will radicalize them. Cutting off their access to places like twitter will not calm their insanity. It will fuel it when the ONLY voices they are now hearing are the most radical ones. Completely insane people like Lin Wood are now where these people will be getting their information.

I wish people would slow down, step back for a moment and try to choose the paths that will result in deescalation. Not further radicalization. It's extremely frightening and depressing to watch this happen.

The gap between the coastal and flyover cities is too great I'm afraid. What bridge can someone possibly build? Each looks at one another as the enemy of the country and the singular reason for all of their perceived problems with America.

I gotta say, if a divided country was the goal of a foreign adversary, they've exceeded in ways no one ever thought possible.

We have to keep talking to each other, we have to hold each other to a high standard, we have to recognize the profit motives of large media companies and we have to stop trying to demonize groups of people we don't like.

If we keep on this path, it only gets worse.

The people who violently attacked the capitol building had grievances that weren't true. Watch Mitt Romney's speech to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFj2Br8nxoc

> The people who stormed into the capitol believe that they were doing so as a part of a fight against fascism, and I am now starting to think that a lot of my left wing friends simply don't understand what these people think.

I think this is wishful thinking. Somehow I trust more this explanation: https://mobile.twitter.com/SlavaMalamud/status/1347378198359...

Im sorry, but this is a part of the problem. You cannot distill an entire group of people down into a 180 character post on twitter. THAT is what got us into this mess.

Go meet some conservatives in real life. They aren't the monsters those 180 characters describe.

edit: Ahh I see. So white people are all just a bunch of self important demons. I can assure you that "$foo racial group are all illegitimate and if we can reeducate them or get rid of them it will all get better" is not a path that has historically led to peace.

I know a lot of conservatives in real life.

At best, there has been some hand wringing and sheepish questioning of their stance. At worst, a fair few of them have dug in. My own mother is well on the path to becoming, for lack of a better term, radicalized. She's completely lost the ability to think critically.

Being mad is powerful. Not thinking for yourself is easy. Tapping into both of those tendencies is dangerous.

The Republican party (vs "conservatism") is in a slow and gradual decline. It's not an overnight "all republicans are radicals" but the victimization mentality that's been going on for decades in certain sectors, and the "we're in a war for our soul" punditry right-wing echo chamber.

"The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" is one of my go-to references here, that book describes very well what I've seen in my friends and family.

> I can assure you that "$foo racial group are all illegitimate and if we can reeducate them or get rid of them it will all get better" is not a path that has historically led to peace.

For instance, if one were to point out that this was the policy of the US itself for westward expansion, Republicans would likely complain about un-patriotic America-hating because so many people have lost the ability to hold a more nuanced position beyond "AMERICA GOOD."

> The Republican party (vs "conservatism") is in a slow and gradual decline.

Or is it america, especially the younger generation, that is gradually becoming more leftist?

Realize that this movement you see could be due to your own displacement.

The thread is several pages long, not 180 characters.

What's your plan, then? It is clear that some people are so far gone that logic and reason are no longer effective methods of reaching them.

There is now a claim that under sworn affidavit an Italian national has admitted to changing votes via a military satellite (what?!). Never mind that all the sources link back to each other, never mind that any self respecting shadow deepstate would simply disappear someone like that. It doesn't make any sense, and yet.. it's getting traction. Most of the claims that have people whipped up into a frenzy about a stolen election are equally as baseless in the face of literally zero evidence.

And yet, here we are.

The government shouldn’t want to be the thought police. These people are going to keep believing crazy conspiracies and nothing we say is going to change their mind. What we can do is call out lying, take away large platforms for spreading lies, and prevent radicalization by giving everyone the freedom to say what they think and to have a place to do it. Banning these people from Twitter is just going to reinforce their victimhood mentality that the deep state controls the world.

On the whole people these days need to spend less time trying to change other people’s minds and more time trying to understand them, even if what they believe is wrong.

> What we can do is call out lying

Plenty of people and organizations have been doing this the last four years and even before that.

>take away large platforms for spreading lies

... what would you say has been going on the last several days? Are you suggesting we shut down FB, Twitter, etc. entirely? Or, are you suggesting we moderate lie-spreading? Because according to the logic you've laid out, that will just feed into the victim hood mentality

To be frank, I'm coming into this in good faith. I actually have waffled and entertained the thoughts you're suggesting over the last couple of days and while they're worth considering, I don't think they are acceptable solutions.

Some have been calling out the lies and that has helped mitigate the damage. Taking away platforms can mean many different things, but on a personal level it means refusing to interact with clickbait. No solution will fix every issue or create a utopia where everybody believes the truth, I see no evidence that that world is even possible with all we know about human nature.

So what would you suggest? Insurrection cannot be left with no response. Their "movement" is entirely based on lies. I understand that you're trying to get people to "think like them" but it's also paving over the vast gap between reality and delusion that these people have. They have been emboldened to do very stupid things in very public places and that can't be allowed to stand, or society will collapse under their stupidity. Just imagine being on an airplane with a bunch of ravenous Trumpers and they get into some argument with some liberal. Violence is contagious in a big group (as has been proven time and time again. The Capitol riot is a great example, the violence was started by a relatively small few) and people will do despicable things if their social surroundings deem it ok. Society, as a whole, needs to excise this despicable behavior or it will be consumed by it.

You don’t excise it by lumping all “Trumpers” together as a single group, thats part of the point being made. Censoring their thought leader is effectively a manifestation of this dichotomous thinking.

Divide and conquer. Steel man the arguments and destroy them in public. Don’t overgeneralize.

Here are 3 tools to use that don’t involve violence or censorship.

Fully agree. I think the best outcome of this situation would be Biden pardoning all involved and working to bring the country together. I supremely do not want this to turn into some sort of football game whereby the dems now have control of the ball and need to go on the offensive instead of just throwing the ball down and quitting the game. (to be clear, I'm a lifelong democrat, I just don't want 4 more years of the same infighting)

That's not very smart.

Why not?

Can you imagine what an incredible thing it would be if Trump's final act was a speech that basically said:

"Everybody charged with a crime related to rioting during the BLM protests over the summer is pardoned. Additionally, everybody charged with a crime during the Capitol riots is also pardoned. It is a time for our nation to heal, and I hope that this can be a small step in that direction".

It's more likely Trump will only pardon the domestic terrorists. He likes to sow division, remember?

If you pardon the insurrectionists, you guarantee another insurrection. Actions require consequences. You can't have unity and healing without accountability first.

> Actions require consequences.

So what happens when dems launch a counteraction? Well that's an action, it has "action" right in the name. And actions require consequences, so looks like reps are going to have to launch their own counteraction. And so on and so on for all eternity. That's the ball game.

What I'm saying is we need someone in power to drop the ball and leave the stadium. Someone to say "wrongs have been committed but fuck it -- its more important to the country for everyone to get back together than it is to strike back in revenge". And suddenly the reps have no more action enacted against them. And thus no more consequence is required to be enacted from their side.

The idea that we need a spectacle of constant political brawl to keep the public entertained doesn't need to be true.

Thats my endgame. Whats yours?

If the Left were to stop playing the game, the Right would destroy the entire idea of games.

Marginalized people don't have a choice. They don't get to quit and go home. The fact that you see "quit while you're ahead" as an option means your privilege is preventing you from seeing how far behind the majority of the people are.

The paradox of tolerance is that tolerating the intolerant will lead to the destruction of tolerance by the intolerant.

So no, let's not let the insurrectionists get off scot free. Let's crush their intolerance and "supremacy" out of existence.

That's my endgame.

in addition, pardon anyone who participated in riots throughout 2020, unless they killed or maimed someone directly.

I share your interpretations on this and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when talking to anyone who has become too attached to their beliefs and views.

I’m predicting that the paths that seem like the “correct” ones are the ones that actually do cause further division. The stoic intuition of slowdown and evaluate does not seem to be on the table anymore...

I think people understand what they think to some extent, but clearly the "soft glove" approach isn't working. Look at the last 4 years, glaring issue after issue that has been roundly ignored, gaslighted and no compromise has been reached. Election security, Russia, China, any kind of foreign policy decision, any kind of domestic issue. Ideas that should be fundamentals of democracy are being attacked.

These are the discussions that make sense. From there it easily devolves into Soros conspiracies, Pizzagate and 5G brainwashing myths. The QAnon insanity is just the latest of a long line of completely disconnected thinking.

The consequence of not pushing back has done irreparable harm to this country and part of the reason we're in this situation in the first place. Trying to be soft on this insanity is why people are now dead.

Will they be radicalized? Possibly. Will they be thrown in jail if they act out or start a low boil insurgency? Absolutely.

But if they're so far gone that they believe that storming government buildings is "taking back their country" then they need a hard reality check.

edit: I mean look at this: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1348745936499982339

We're so far gone from acceptable societal behavior at this point.

> The consequence of not pushing back has done irreparable harm to this country...

Have you watched mainstream news sources over the last 4 or 5 years? Everything that Trump has done (for better or worse) has been met with constant pushback and criticism.

Even when he does something that everyone should see as a good thing (like multiple Middle-East peace deals), they find something to criticize about.

I don't agree with everything you've said, but I agree with the core idea: that most of the people on the right (maybe not most of the people at the protests, but surely some) are misguided, and not fundamentally evil.

They fundamentally want the same things as the rest of us: peace, freedom, prosperity, etc. Most of them are not racists (even if they end up on the same half of the political spectrum as the racists). They do not desire tyranny, they think they're fighting it.

And finally, there's a fundamental willing-ignorance on the left when it comes to actually understanding these people. Even if you think they need to be stopped - heck, even if you think they are fundamentally evil - you have to be willing to look at where they're coming from, and what's motivating them, if you want to be able to deal with the situation in any remotely effective way. And yet there's this extreme hostility to the very idea that these people could ever be understood as anything more than demons with pitchforks and pointy tails.

They've been pushed and warped by fearful emotions, and economic hardship, and incendiary rhetoric and misinformation (some of which comes from sources that definitely know exactly what they're doing and are not simply misguided). And there's a debate to be had as to how many and to what degree they can be walked back from the brink of extremism at this point. But at the bottom of it all, they are people. And we will never make progress - whether you see progress as unity or simply as the disarming of a movement - until we start trying to understand.

It seems like some on the left think that listening to offensive ideas is the same as endorsing them. People in general are good at pointing out the flaws in others while ignoring the same thing in themselves.

There's endorsing ideas, there's considering ideas, and I would add a third tier: sympathizing with a person's legitimately-felt experiences, despite whatever ideas may have grown on top of them

German people in WW1 and WW2 also thought they were doing the right thing by invading other European countries. I guess they were "misguided", as you say.

These people were well-understood by government, who listened to their imperialist and racist demands.

Well, the rest of Europe defended themselves through alliances and coordinated military planning, and the USA did their job to bomb the authoritarian regime back to their place.

Today's "misguided" Trump extremists are part of a very big group of Trump supporters, who might very well turn the USA into a less-globalist, more authoritarian regime. Perhaps imperialist.

In this case, the best for the world would be to quickly disable US military power, ideally with precise nuclear strikes.

Nobody in this scenario is "fundamentally evil". But that doesn't mean we can solve all conflicts by "understanding these people". This is about which side / ideology has the most power.

Power is what really matters. The USA is seen as the good guys today because they were powerful in WW2. If Germany had gotten their way, they would be the good guys, and USA the evil ones.

Everyone thinks they're the good guy. Even the guy breaking into Congress with weapons and zip ties. Even Sarah Palin claiming this is all an antifa setup to make Trumpists look bad. I'll go further (Edit: is this what's causing the downvotes? Prove me wrong!): even the ISIS henchman slicing heads off, even the suicide bomber walking into a crowded market to blow themselves up, they all think they're the good guy and have (from their pov) great reasons that one should try to understand. And just because you understand their point of view doesn't mean you have to stick to reasonable discussion when dealing with them. Some things demand action.

Uncomfortable, but true. Very few people wake up and seek to do evil.

a) Not everyone thinks they're the good guy; some genuinely don't care. But yes, probably all of the people you mention do think that.

b) Nobody said that understanding, or even compassion, is mutually exclusive with action. I can seek to understand why the goat-herder was pushed to extremism at a systematic level (which could inform policy changes that mitigate the problem at the source), and even feel compassion for that original hardship, without condoning his later actions. I can even do so while supporting the use of force to stop him. These are all separate questions.

I'm reading Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago now and I wholeheartedly recommend people read it as well.

> Politicians for supporting violent rioters and arsonists all summer

Could you link me to politicians that supported violent rioters?

> Cutting off their access to places like twitter will not calm their insanity. It will fuel it when the ONLY voices they are now hearing are the most radical ones. Completely insane people like Lin Wood are now where these people will be getting their information.

I think the primary reason for banning these people is that no sane person wants to see unhinged tweets in their feed on a daily basis. And they don't want these people commenting on their tweets either. Those that are banned should move on and learn from this experience.

> I wish people would slow down, step back for a moment and try to choose the paths that will result in deescalation. Not further radicalization. It's extremely frightening and depressing to watch this happen.

There are plenty of domestic terrorists that never used Twitter. The perceived grievance always runs much deeper than a medium of communication.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg

Kamala Harris on the ongoing riots "Everybody should know that they're not goign to stop. And they should not. And we should not."

AOC and Harris both referred to protests and not riots. The YouTube link you posted is mislabeled. I think you should edit your post if you can't back it up with a source.

I didn’t hear a peep from them about the violence. And silence is complicity right?

I mean Biden kept getting direct questions about the violence and he refused to condemn it until it got so bad it was hurting him in the polls.

Just like the Right is trying to explain away the Capitol Riots the left tried explain away the Antifa riots.

Please point out where AOC promotes violence in those tweets.

The tweet says: "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.

Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows.

To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point."

I don't take this to mean that she supports rioting and looting.

First, just know that I support most of what you're saying in your initial comment on this thread.

In response to:

"Could you link me to politicians that supported violent rioters?"

You provided two links. This is the tweet:

"The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.

Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows.

To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point."

As others have noted, there's nothing there about violence or riots.

However, the more important point is comparing what AOC and others have said with what Trump said at the rally on Tuesday:

"Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down--

We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol--

And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.

We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

He said a lot more, but I don't see anything there about riots or violence.

BUT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. Trump and his enablers have been carefully and meticulously lying about this the election.

I'm not saying AOC and other progressive leaders haven't lied about stuff. I have little doubt that they have.

But there's a fundamental difference in the magnitude and implication here.

While Trump no doubt choose his language very carefully to not cross a particular, bright line, the net effect of everything he and his enablers have done have crossed that bright line.

Completely true that twitter and Facebook were being used as right wing echo chambers. But you fail to mention that's literally by design. Twitter/Facebook etc were completely complicit in all this until recently, their chronic inaction lead to the buildup of right wing radicalism.

It's admirable that you're trying to give HN a glimpse into the actual mind of a MAGApede, rather than the media-constructed caricature.

But you'll find that the people here largely don't want to actually understand. Flyover rubes are to be put against the wall, not heard.

> If you want to familiarize yourself with their thinking, I would recommend reading The Gulag Archipeligo.

Give me a break. These people probably think Solzhenitsyn was a power forward for the Red Wings in the 90’s.

> 1) The president of the united states effectively silenced.

By “silenced” I assume you mean “could step in front of a microphone and have his words broadcast live on every network”?

> 2) Calls for the imprisonment of you and your family for thoughtcrime.

Who is calling for this? People are calling for the rioters to be charged, sure. For crime crime, not thoughtcrime.

> This is illegal, and should be heard by a court. Maybe you think it was! But they don't.

Right, and this is the core of the issue. They were. That's a fact. You're saying "kowtow to people who are unwilling to accept reality and instead grasp onto increasingly violent conspiracy theories". I don't know what to do with that.

Conciliatory approaches haven't worked, in fact they've made things worse as they've allowed people to further radicalize.

> Completely insane people like Lin Wood are now where these people will be getting their information.

He was their source of information prior to any deplatforming. They were already only listening to the most insane voices. That's how we got here.

Removing the most insane elements is deradicalization. Showing people that actions have consequences is deradicalization. Refusing to kowtow is deradicalization. Anything else further emboldens those willing to share the conspiracies.

Really? Which court heard these grievances? The only court with the actual jurisdiction to hear them, The SCOTUS, dismissed the only case brought before them about it on "standing".

And before you claim that it was absurd to even ask the court to hear the case at all: two of the justices, who I can promise have a better understanding of constitutional law than anybody posting on hacker news, argued to hear the case.

It wasn't heard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...

Here's a summary of the cases. I'll note some of the summaries of the various specific cases that were dismissed due to lack of evidence:

- Arizona, Bowyer v. Ducey : The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing; their fraud allegations were vague and implausible, and their evidence was unreliable or irrelevant. The judge singled out the fraud allegations being put forth, writing that they "fail in their particularity and plausibility". The judge ruled that there would be "extreme, and entirely unprecedented" harm to Arizona's 3+ million voters to entertain the lawsuit "at this late date".

- Arizona, Ward v. Jackson: Arizona Supreme Court rejected her appeal, concluding that Ward presented no evidence of misconduct

- Georgia: The judge ruled that no evidence had been produced that the ballots were late

- Georgia: The judge stated that Wood failed to show that he had been harmed, while his proposal would "harm the public in countless ways". The Trump-appointed judge concluded that there was "no basis in fact or in law" to stop Georgia's certification of its election results (in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump) at such a late stage, as this would "breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement"

- Michigan: Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion for injunctive relief on November 6, finding that the plaintiffs did "not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions ... Plaintiffs' allegation is mere speculation. Plaintiffs' pleadings do not set forth a cause of action." The judge noted that "sinister, fraudulent motives" were alleged, but that the "plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible".

- Minnesota: The court's decision to dismiss was based partly on the grounds that petitioners should have filed suit earlier. "Given the undisputed public record regarding the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots, petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020," the ruling states. It goes on to say that "asserting these claims 2 months after voting started, 3 weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable." (Read as: If this was a concern over the law, it should have been filed pre-election, This was only filed because they lost)

- Pennsylvania: The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the board to count over 2,200 ballots that lacked a date or voter address, or were not sealed with secrecy sleeves, claiming the votes are invalid. The lawyers for the Trump campaign have signed an agreement that they "do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots." They also declared that they were not alleging votes from dead people, "misconduct", or "impropriety" related to those ballots, and had no evidence of such happenings.

- Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled 5–2 on November 17 against the Trump campaign, saying Pennsylvania law requires only that observers must be allowed in the room where ballots are counted but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables; local county officials are left to decide.

- Pennsylvania: Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed the case with prejudice on November 21, citing "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations", noting that "[i]n the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state ... [o]ur people, laws and institutions demand more".

Need I continue?

> two of the justices

The same two justices noted that the the relief being requested by the trump campaign weren't possible, so it wouldn't matter anyway.

> The people who stormed into the capitol believe that they were doing so as a part of a fight against fascism

This is wishful thinking. These people are deeply angry and frustrated because they think an overwhelming election win has been stolen from them. They're deeply mired in denial, and in a totally self-serving way. This is crystal clear if you look at what they actually write on their platforms.

At some point, they need to get a clue and realize that further radicalization along these lines will not be helpful to them, and that the worthwhile battle against the new "fascism" they decry should be fought elsewhere, such as by working to restore the values of constitutional, limited government and protection of fundamental freedoms.

This also means actively de-escalating and stepping back from many of their most populist and most irrational political stances - but that's only to be expected.

Your argument would hold more weight if you could show us how to deescalate one person down from "Hang Mike Pence" to "ok yeah I was wrong actually Biden won"; until then, the question is back on you - how do you even deescalate with folks in that "never concede" mindset?

You also have to ask yourself, even if deescalation was possible, at what point do you stop reasoning with people and lay down boundaries? Had the insurrectionists managed to, as some of them were ostensibly prepared for, physically harm elected representatives or the VP, then would you say, I understand this might even radicalize you, but I have to stop you? Or even in the face of exactions would you say, ooh, no, we better not antagonize these people, tech should continue giving them support to organize a violent uprising, etc.?

If your answer is "do nothing" then ask yourself what would cause you to act...

What is particularly difficult here is that the election is not the source of the problem, it was just the straw that broke the camels back (so to speak).

Even if the election results were accepted as 100% correct by everyone, the grievances pre-date the election and even Trump's entire term in office. Trump used those grievances to get elected in the first place. They aren't going away because Trump goes away.

I wish I had some good words of wisdom at this point but the only thing I'm sure of is that if Congress goes ahead and attempts to impeach Trump things will get worse not better, it will make him a figurative martyr.

The best thing that could happen would be for Biden and Trump to somehow suck it up and come out and jointly make a speech urging everyone to take a deep-f*ing breath and perhaps add a joint to go along with everyone's stimulus check.

The answer for de-escalation is not simple. It starts with empathy, and recognizing our common humanity. These are human beings. Genetically, we are all very very similar. We all have similar drives. We need water, food, security. We desire belonging, love. We aspire to have sufficient social status within our communities.

I'm generalizing here, but the purveyors of a lot of this are not society's winners. In mainstream society, they have low social status. They're financially not well off. They are uneducated. They are mocked in mainstream culture, and called 'trash'. They are targeted by urban/educated/white people as the true racists and causes of our problems in this country. Many of these people were not born with the deck in their favor, and society just keeps crapping on them.

The answer isn't to accept or condone anti-social behavior from society's losers. The answer is to empathize with their situation, and figure out how to create a more inclusive society that creates an easier path for those born in the lower classes to find purpose/value/love/status within the communities. To not mock them because it's funny/entertaining to pick on the losers of society to make ourselves feel better.

Failing to hold people accountable for their actions does not radicalize people, but teaches them to correct their behaviors. Maybe if this guy's parents had done it when he was younger he wouldn't have found himself on a no fly list.

Why is it expected of others to be the adult and try to understand these people, to pick up the garbage after these people, etc.?

Thank you for saying this. It is rare in urban/educated/elite circles to have empathy and try to understand this particular group of our fellow humans.

Interesting points and good to hear them. But I have to say it seems to me a bit like whataboutism - let the poor guys go, they aren't so bad and we should all now strive for peace. In Europe if you riot at a football (soccer) game you'll get charges, on a no fly list, on a watchlist, possibly banned from certain cities during contentious games for the coming decade. I don't know how the US handles similar cases, but would you not want a response to those guys? I can storm the house of government and then travel home because it might radicalise my social circle if I face consequences? Sorry but that's just absurd and if you think this logic through I can't see how anyone can come to this conclusion: radicals of any colour should not face consequences for being part of violent acts because it might radicalise them further.

What seems quite obvious from an outside perspective is that these folks just aren't used to seeing consequences. They cheer on when 'the other side' faces them, say protestors at a BLM protest get brutalised by police, even if the individual ones that get beaten/arrested/... did nothing wrong. But they have never experienced what it's like if the state objects to what they are doing. Now they see some rather measured responses and immediately cry foul. And I'd stress measured response as - again looking from the outside with no stake in this fight - the images are so strikingly different. For instance I haven't seen any images of police violence from the capitol attack - total difference to BLM protests where the most vivid images were usually an army of policemen in riot gear and batons advancing towards the protestors. At the capitol it seems the only time police was violent was to prevent entry to the building, which the protestors were trying/ultimately succeeded to enter.

Open carry states might have a rough time.

ETA: maybe a better way to phrase this would be to contrast between open carry states and restricted carry states. IANAL, but in NYS, for example, my understanding is that these people would be breaking the law the second they marched on Albany openly carrying firearms.

ETA2: Downvotes for pointing out reality?

Breaking the law is a storied tradition for protesters. Not historically open-carry laws, granted.

Anyway I'm not sure why that means the state will have a rough time. It may mean they'll have an easier time, as they have a readily-available reason to arrest the protesters.

“Breaking the law nonviolently is a storied tradition for protestors. AKA civil disobedience.”

There, fixed that for ya :);)

Proper civil disobedience is about non-violence. Illegally carrying guns seems to be acting in bad faith.

Maybe you were originally misunderstood? I agree with your point. Getting a mob whipped up into riot level excitement is a completely different situation if the mob all has guns holstered and shouldered.

Likely the downvotes were from people who either open carry themselves or know many other level-headed and law-abiding people who also legally open carry.

As a community, I would argue that those who regularly open carry are much less likely to incite or join a violent protest than those who do not open carry. But perhaps I've spent too much time in the Bible belt.

The responsibility of the vast majority of people who open carry does not change the fact that open carry laws complicate the task of policing the expected armed protests.

(This is not to argue whether open carry laws are, on balance, a good or bad thing for society, that’s a different issue.)

What really got me when I saw the pictures of the insurrectionists of Capitol Hill was the fact that many of them had guns on them.

many were not only carrying arms, but where also wearing armours, like soldiers on a mission.

and with those guns and armours they were trying to seize control of the Parliament.

and to add insult to injury, 5 people died!

where I come from it is unconceivable.

The last time someone died during a protest was 20 years ago, it was a boy protesting the G8 in Genova, killed by a stray bullet shot by a young police officer, too young to have the necessary experience to be there that day.

we still talk about it as a national tragedy and a complete failure of the police forces and as a reminder of the dangers of far right politicians taking control of the forces - that day the ministry in charge was a former member of a fascist party, promoted by Berlusconi.

Luckily few years later he disappeared from the political stage, unfortunately not for reasons related to what he did that day, but for lying about the property of a house in Monte Carlo.

the idea of someone attacking the Parliament guns in hands is terrifying; you would see the army patrolling the streets and people protesting from North to South here.

even more terrifying is the idea that those people are simply "angry citizen" or more accurately "professionals chaos makers" but acted and were equipped like military troops.

I think USA has a violence problem, before the political problem.

that's what makes everything scarier from the point of view of a person living in an allied country of the USA, filled with US military bases, but on the other side of the ocean: the idea that everything could happen and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it.

EDIT: I don't understand if the downvotes are because some people disagree that 5 people dead during an armed attack to a democratic Parliament is an inconceivable display of violence, especially in the greatest democracy in the World or because some people think that an armed attack to a democratic Parliament, in a country that holds atomic missiles, is something we shouldn't worry about...

must be hard for them to realise that in USA it is quite easy to plan and execute something that not even in Iraq or Lybya has ever happened (also because USA bombed them)

“you would see the army patrolling the streets and people protesting from North to South here”

I’m not downplaying the problems the US has, but I’m not sure that having the army patrolling the streets is an upgrade.

I realise now that it came out wrong.

I meant they would be patroling the street to protect the democracy from the insurrectionists.

What happened the other day to the US it already happened to Italy in 1922 when Mussolini took power literally marching on Rome.

There was another (failed) attempted fascist coup d'état (the Borghese coup) in 1970, that Borghese stopped few hours before the final phase (the plan included kidnapping the President, killing the chief of Police, occupying the National TV with the help of members of the CIA and NATO).

it's a very sensitive topic here.

By the looks of things the inauguration is going to be a lot more heavily patrolled by the Army.

Man, I really hope this is a byproduct of law enforcement swinging too far in the, "take everything seriously now" direction after last Wednesday, and not actual credible threats of specific violence in every state...

The FBI has been tracking white supremacist domestic terrorism for a long while. This is just the latest iteration in a decades-long issue. It is not a kneejerk reaction, nor an assumption -- they have good intel and the fact that they are publicly announcing it a week before they expect anything to happen is staggeringly serious.

Who knows what's real anymore, so take this with a grain of salt, but this is what they're worried about: https://web.archive.org/web/20210106072816/https://pafa2021....

I don't know how to assess the credibility of that document, but as a plan to overthrow the government that seems laughable to me except for that fact that a whole lot of people are going to get hurt as it utterly fails.

John Brown was a laughable attempt but it helped stir up sentiments in the South.

People should read some books about how countries can slide into civil war.

A fair point. I think it is a lot easier to start a civil war than it is to successfully replace a government by force.

I'm saddened that we are even talking about those scenarios.

That link is now broken, and that domain no longer works.

"This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."

Now I'm even more concerned!

It will be interesting if the protestors organize using end-to-end encrypted chat apps.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have been pushing for curtailment of end to end encryption. This might be what gives popular support for that.

Yeah, I'm afraid we may see pressure to further erode civil liberties under the guise of stopping the enemy of the day. After all, this enemy is uniquely evil, and we need to stop them in any way we can or society as we know it will be destroyed. (or so goes the story that we replay over and over)

Could this be a diversion for keeping forces away from DC?

and here we are arguing of the slippery road of pulling down posts because it's against freedom of speech. As if the risk to democracy and its people is not higher due to letting all this happen. If the republicans do not come around in the next few years, I fear for America.

Democracy requires freedom of speech, and to abridge that freedom is to destroy Democracy.

A building does not a government make. Whatever people harmed, windows broken, our government is not any worse off functionally than it was the day before. Yet this will be used to pass harmful laws, and like 9/11 it will do infinitely more damage to Democracy than whatever the original attackers did.

Your post reads as if it's downplaying the significance of Wednesday's failed coup attempt, and the incredible ramifications of it.

It is downplaying. What happened was unprecedented political violence and the only reason to make an argument like the parent is because you cannot admit it deserves a serious, judicial response.

> What happened was unprecedented political violence...

Well, there were the little matters of the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. And a few others of varying scope in this incomplete list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_Unit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_Conspiracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%E2%80%93Baxter_War

(This isn't to disagree with you; or to downplay the seriousness or support the events of the sixth.)

Edit: List formatting

Did we lose the Senate? What about the house? Do we have an enemy force occupying our capital? Are our nation's leaders kidnapped? Are there insurgents fighting in the streets?

All three branches of the government are whole (and save the executive, functioning, but the executive wasn't functioning before the coup either) and business is moving on. That doesn't mean we shouldn't respond with physical security, press charges appropriately or react - but calling it a coup attempt is something that not even the NYTimes supports: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/world/americas/what-is-a-...

> Did we lose the Senate? What about the house? Do we have an enemy force occupying our capital? Are our nation’s leaders kidnapped? Are there insurgents fighting in the streets?

I see you understood the word “coup” but the “failed…attempt” surrounding that word.

Attempted murder doesn’t stop being a serious offense because no one died, and attempted coup doesn’t become a minor event because only a handful of people died and the attempt to improperly seize power by force failed.

A successful coup or a failed coup, is still a coup. We can argue semantics but based on what happened it's clear this was a poorly executed attempt to undermine the government and seize political officials.

We didn't lose any branches of government, but the proceedings of the legislature were disrupted for most of a day. I'm sure if they had been working on an emergency thing and not a formality that it could be continued in a bunker but it still feels like a huge deal to me. Maybe it's mostly symbolic, idk.

I agree though, it doesn't seem like a coup since they got in and then had no plan for what to do once there. It was just unfocused anger.

For God’s sake, they were chanting “Hang Mike Pence”, make no mistake this could have been way worse if it wasn’t for the Secret Service and some brave police officer who mislead the mob away from Senate.

Democracy requires people to put a very high value on the preservation of democracy. It requires work, more than any abstract principles. Hiding behind those principles to excuse doing things that directly endanger democracy is shameful.

Speech that incites imminent lawless action is not protected speech, for good reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Do all Western democracies guarantee Freedom of Speech like in the US? I seem to remember reading this is actually a US-centric view that isn’t universally shared. Eg nazi slogans in present day Germany.

Do we actually need to guarantee universal Freedom of Speech to have a democracy?

Mostly what you need is sensible people that value democracy. That's all that's really required. If you have that the rest tends to work itself out, if you don't have that then nothing else matters.

All Democracy's, including the United States, have limits on freedom of speech. Try publishing Harry Potter fanfiction in book stores in America and see what the court system does to you. Try showing female nipples on network television and see what the legal system does to you. Try sticking the Apple logo on your product without Apple's permission and see what the court system does to you.

Free speech= democracy isn't a very nuanced view.

The US does value freedom of speech greater than pretty much every other country on the planet.

Just because it’s not absolute doesn’t mean it’s not true.

> Try showing female nipples on network television

I think this is the US specific part :p.

The rest I all agree with

England has been pretty notoriously abridging the "right to offend" for years now. And as you point out, there's Germany.

> Do we actually need [FoS]?

It probably depends on how much you trust the government to be "self-regulated" in prioritizing the liberty of the people over time. Democracy is not the natural state of things by any means.

Rights and democracy are in conflict.

In a real democracy, the majority could decide to lock you up simply because they didn't like you.

In a rights-driven system, everything is ultimately decided by the courts, which are run by elites.

Confusingly, Bill-of-Rights "Freedom is Speech" is really a right rather than a freedom. You can brazenly violate the live-and-let-live principle and still be safe.

    Do we actually need to guarantee universal Freedom of Speech to have a democracy?

My view, no. If anything the Bill of Rights is the source of the rift that is pulling US democracy apart. Through the bill of rights, the judiciary became an unelected and unwieldy legislative body. US politics has been distilled into a vicious contest about who gets to make Supreme Court appointments. No other country has this dynamic.

In Germany, it is contextualized. You can show a swastika flag in a film or anything remotely educational but not to promote Nazi ideology. So, no, there is no absolute FoS in Germany.

Whether Germany can be ranked as a democracy is debated: the extreme left and right believe it is a US protectorate, QAnon believes it is run by lizard people/Jews/Freemasons/5G chips... If you go by a freedom of press index, human development index, democracy index, it usually ranks below the Scandinavian countries but in a decent place.

The usual paradox of tolerance applies: if you don't censor some speech, you might be the one who will have zero free speech.

> A building does not a government make.

That sounds like something someone in an abusive relationship might say. "Yeah, he burned my wardrobe but I didn't like those clothes anyway". Please seek help.

Freedom of speech != B&E, looting, vandalizing, threatening physical violence.

Freedom of speech protects the expression of beliefs and ideas, and there is a legal line between that and inciting riot.

Punish when the line is crossed, but protect the expression of ideas and beliefs up to that line.

Risk intolerance is behind the fear of letting people close to the line, but that's where we talk about slippery slopes - your risk tolerance is not the same as others, and if you start moving the bar down it happens for everybody (even the most righteous causes) not just the people you hate today.

> if {party people} do not come around in next few years, I fear for America

It's interesting that I've heard that in years past but from my friends on the right talking about Democrats and violent protests. I'm not justifying the actions in the Capitol (I condemn them frequently), but listening to people aligned with either part I do find it interesting that this feels like a [downward] spiral. The question is how to break out of it and reset.

The issue is the storming of the capitol last week is directly related to online disinformation, propaganda and the lack of removal of violent and lying rhetoric, and finally thanks to some real world violence the online companies are starting to crack down just out of fear of culpability and likely eventual regulation.

> It's interesting that I've heard that in years past but from my friends on the right talking about Democrats and violent protests.

The issue with this is one is rooted in reality and one is not. The biggest danger to US citizens right now is due to right wing violence, not left wing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...

> The biggest danger to US citizens right now is due to right wing violence, not left wing.

False dichotomy. You are hyper-focused on the american partisan culture war, that you've lost sight of the bigger picture. I'm guessing you consume a lot of content from the news & entertainment companies, as they do tend to convey this as well.

Let's take your 'right-wing extremists have killed 117 people since 2010' point that was presented in the article. Where does that 117 rank in terms of causes of death since 2010?

If the republicans do not come around in the next few years, I fear for America.

What exactly do you mean by “do not come around”. Come around to what? That suppression of free speech is a good thing? I’m an independent, and I think Trump has a serious amount of responsibility for what happened here. But the suppression of free speech offends me on every level, regardless of who the target of the suppression is. We either have free speech or we don’t.

Republicans need to come around on topics like admitting who won the election, ceasing to lie to their voters about it, and asking themselves why such a large part of their voting base and media ecosystem is based around spreading or believing in obvious bullshit like QAnon.

> Come around to what?

When polls show nearly half of Republicans support the Capitol Insurgents, there are LOTS of things that Republicans need to come around to.

Come "back" around to the belief that the court is the final arbiter of disputes in our country, NOT whoever sends the most maniacs in a frenzied mob.

Come around to the belief that yes, they did in fact lose the 2020 presidential election fairly, as stated by every state and county election official, including the GOP's.

Come around to the belief that the US "peaceful transition of power" during presidential elections was in fact a good thing, not a centuries-old tradition to be thrown away in a futile attempt to install a game show host as dictator-for-life.

Source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/01/07/nearly-h...

> We either have free speech or we don’t.

Perhaps one of the best things Americans could do is throw away demonstrably false dichotomies like this. You have defamation laws, you have copyright & IP law, contract law etc.

Freedom of expression is a right that is balanced against other types of rights and freedoms. No doubt the USA puts more weight on freedom of expression over other rights, but it's by no means the only setting that confers a functioning democracy.

It's entirely valid to discuss where the balance should sit. Indeed it's the _only_ way to discuss it rationally.

No, America has consistently valued free speech is all but the most limited circumstances.

Now isn’t the time to say “well that didn’t work” and roll back a right that is pretty core to the country itself.

You've never had the right to do whatever you want on someone else's private property.

Next few days maybe

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. You don’t want all these people to feel like they don’t have a voice.

Trump, for better or worse, was the voice of half the country. Now, lots of people feel they have taxation without representation. Worse, they’re feeling as if they’re being persecuted.

IMO they should let him have Twitter back. If need be, have them approve his tweets pre viewing. This would lower tensions. It won’t fix the underlying issues, but you want the leader to empathize then disarm.

I also have to say, I haven’t seen where this is being planned. Facebook, Twitter... parler (lol)? I’d like to see evidence of it, not trust the FBI here.

They have a voice. They have a congressional representative, two senators, and a vote in the presidential election.

What they do not have, and will never have in the USA, is the right to overturn an election they lost with violent force.

Where was their voice in court when the courts refused to hear the election case at all on its merits?

You don't get to sue claiming fraud, then say "Well I don't know, check on it". What are you going on about?

I've read the GA and PA lawsuits in full, and was on the conference call to hear the PA court arguments for the motion to dismiss. Your take on it is not even remotely accurate. There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so.

If there was nothing to hide there wouldn't be a need to censor it.

"Uh huh"

"Nuh uh"

"Uh huh"

I too saw (clips of) several of these lawsuits, where Trump advocates were threatened with contempt and finally admitted a complete lack of evidence for claims of fraud.

I also know that elections officials across the country, from both parties, assert there is no evidence of fraud in a systemic manner or in any manner that would change the results of the election.

I also know that the GOP leader of the Senate, the GOP lap-dog Attorney General, and the US intelligence community are in agreement that there is no evidence of the fraud alleged.

https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/

In short, the facts you linked to (ha) don't align with how the legal system works, common sense, or reality.

> There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so.

Can you please share some credible evidence?

Only if your definition of "credible" doesn't coincide with the side you happen to agree with.

So that’s a no?

https://hereistheevidence.com/

Maybe some of this stuff is debunked but they try to catalog it here.

so no?

If the claim is the courts weren't willing to hear the evidence, then why not share this compelling evidence in the court of public opinion?

All I've heard is claims that there is evidence, none of which has been shared. Or when it has been shared is not compelling.

Their voice was claiming there were cases with merits.

There weren't.

Dozens of judges across half a dozen states, many of whom were appointed by Republicans and some even by Donald Trump himself, looked at the cases brought by Trump and Co. and handled them as they saw professionally fit. That is the job of judges. I'm not sure what more "voice" is expected to be given.

Exactly what merit would this be based on?

The cases had no merit, is the many times over proven fact. Having a voice doesn't mean anything you say is cemented truth. Having a voice means you can file a suit. It is either heard or thrown out based on merit. His own appointed judges weren't part of the "deep state" when they threw the cases out.

You're not wrong, but you're missing the point.

So long as those people feel that they don't have a voice, they will earnestly believe they are victims of an oppressive dictatorship.

From their perspective, they're fighting for liberty the same as the Boston Tea Party did way back when.

Their perspective is the result of people lying to them for personal power and profit for years.

Blame those people, not the people trying to figure out maybe-too-late how to stop their victims from burning the whole country down.

I wasn't blaming anybody for anything. I'm trying to provide some perspective to help understand the problem, instead of immediately cast blame. Honestly, your knee-jerk reaction is part of the problem.

Why do you think it's a knee-jerk reaction? This has been happening for decades and I've been worried about it for decades... and I'm worried I wasn't pessimistic enough.

Why aren't you blaming anyone for anything? Do you not think what's happening is bad?

It's a knee-jerk reaction because my comment said nothing about blame, and your response was entirely about who to blame.

Ah, I see, I view it as on-topic for the thread, though, since the thread-starting post from 'lettergram put blame on Twitter, etc, for the feelings of these potential protestors.

Because industrial strength blaming isn't going to get us out of this pickle.

We need to be talking about ways to get everyone to cool down and take a time out.

Instead all I see is efforts to blame, cancel, belittle, and disparage lots of people well beyond Trump and the people actually at the Capitol building. I see lots of careless talk that puts 70 million Americans in the category of "not worth listening to -- ever!". How well do you think that is going to work out?

Lots of people seem to think that the unrest is wholly due to the election results, but the political polarization pre-dates Trump by many years.

You're all missing the point.

How these people feel when they are committing violence in the streets, (and especially in the capitol), is no more relevant to our response than the weather being 'clear' or 'partly cloudy'.

Maybe I need to explain it another way:

Is it relevant how a BLM rioter feels when he's looting a store?

Sure, the black grandma who's at the peaceful BLM protest in the morning? How she feels is important. I definitely have a tendency to listen to that type of protester.

The armed BLM protesters that come only in the dark of night to loot and burn? No. How they feel is irrelevant to my response to them.

Same with these self proclaimed 'patriots'. The ones at unarmed peaceful protests matter. But, quick question for you: How many do you see at unarmed peaceful protests? That pretty much tells you all you need to know.

I'm only ashamed I that I had to see the Capitol fall to realize that how these violent people feel shouldn't matter.

^ Indeed, I’m trying to offer the opposing view.

Remember, currently the left are impeaching the president with 9 days left (literally taking any future office from him). Worse, some elected officials are saying the republicans involved in challenging the election integrity (which is constitutional and unrelated), aided in causing the “insurrection”.

They feel they’re being backed into a corner.

His impeachment seems valid enough to me. 9 days left doesn't matter - if the President acts unlawfully in his last week, it would be Congress' duty to impeach, convict, and ban from a future term.

Democracy has backed them into a corner, now they are rejecting democracy.

But they're not being backed into a corner. They're factually wrong about almost everything that motivated the riots on Jan. 6th. They're self-insulating in a media bubble designed to cater to them. When engaged in dialogue, they're aggressively ignorant and accusatory.

What do you do with a group of people claiming they don't have a voice under those circumstances? What do you do when they're acting out violent insurrectionist fantasies under those circumstances?

And?

Do you know how long I've sat and listened to minority groups complain about being backed into a corner and having no voice?

To my knowledge, none have ever gathered thousands of believers to attack the capitol in an attempt to thwart the implementation of the constitutional order.

Given the number of groups that are backed in a corner in the US, given the number of groups that have no voice in the US, those are tenuous excuses at best.

You want change? Do it the proper way like everyone else has to. Peaceful demonstrations that bring attention so that you can educate the population about your cause. Shortcuts like appealing to arms bring quick results but are doomed to failure long term.

Impeachment also strips him of SOME of the generous privileges ex-presidents receive such as "pension, security detail, and travel allowance."

He does not deserve any of those privileges.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/impeached-president-lose-b...

At this point it's very difficult to assure them they have a voice. Hell, I didn't even vote for Trump but I don't think I have a voice.

As an average citizen, it's our lot in life to be ruled over by the rich an powerful. It's always been that way, and the more I see of our "democracy" the more I believe it will stay that way.

You can vote in local elections, you can vote for a representative for congress, you can vote for a representative for senate, you can vote for local propositions.

What is your expectation? What do you mean by "voice"?

This is a good point. And with the tech giants banning accounts, tightening screws, de-platforming and demonetizing whomever they please, I don't see how those can possibly feel like they do have a voice.

I think it's poignant that the Russian opposition to Putin is up in arms about Twitter banning Trump. Because de-platforming (web, TV and radio) is how the loss of freedom of speech started in Russia after Yeltsin resigned and Putin started getting rid of voices critical of him.

The tech companies banning, deplatforming, etc. is exactly their voice turned back on them. They don't think private companies should have to bake a cake for a gay couple, so, why should they believe private companies should host the President, after he's been given extra special treatment to be allowed to remain, and still managed to fuck that up? Maybe people need to learn to stop voting against their interests. Maybe they need to learn "rules for thee, but not for me" isn't how it ought to work.

The baking company isn't the only game in town. But things like YouTube are factual monopolies. Therefore they should be treated like a utility.

Now, if every bakery in town refused to do a gay cake - that would be a problem.

I found this with a 10 second search on YouTube's parent company's search engine: https://kinsta.com/blog/video-hosting/

Can't conservatives go make their own video hosting platform? We’ve already seen how willing they are to take their ball to their own, private little country club when things get too hot for them. Crying “monopoly” doesn’t ring true here.

What’s the “free market” argument that says a private business should be forced to host hate speech, for free? What’s even the legal argument that YouTube is a monopoly, when DoJ has taken exactly zero action towards breaking it up?

Edit: light rephrasing

> Can't conservatives go make their own video hosting platform?

Can't %group% go make %something%.

Forget conservatives. Anyone who makes their living making video is doing so based on YouTube's whim. If they kick you off, even by mistake as has happened multiple times, you have no recourse. That's what makes them a monopoly. That is why they need to be treated as a utility.

That's not Youtube's fault. They're not stopping anyone from starting and promoting a competing service.

Again, DoJ has done fuck all to break them up, so, why are they considered a monopoly? And why should a private business that isn't a monopoly be forced to host (edit: or link to) anything they don't want to?

Whether I believe this or not, it's a fair argument to use against conservatives here, because that's what they say all the time.

> That's not Youtube's fault

I am not blaming YouTube. In fact, good on them for beating everyone to the punch. Nonetheless, they are in a situation where they are the only game in town and should either act like that or be made to act that way. I mean, if the Edison electric company (they only local power provider) decided to kick me off their grid cause my views don't match theirs or for whatever reason, I'd be screwed. That's why they are treated as a utility, and not just another private company.

> DoJ has done fuck all to break them up

There is no disagreement here - I am just giving you my opinion on the way things should be©. DoJ should be more aggressive, but they are hamstrung by laws written in the days of robber barons. They couldn't even break up Microsoft 20 years ago when it was clear that monopoly position abuses took place on a regular basis.

> it's a fair argument to use against conservatives here

I'll concede this point. However, the well known "first they came for the %group% and I didn't care cause I wasn't a member" applies here. Cause when they come to demonetize you, ain't nobody gonna be around to help.

Well, when they come for the fascists, I'll care. I'll be waving goodbye when they're packed on the train.

As far as Youtube being "the only game in town," that's not relevant as long as they're legally not considered a monopoly.

Edit: Also, why should Youtube unilaterally decide it's a monopoly and start being nice? At what amount of market share is a company required to put the kid gloves on?

Again, I'm more playing Devil's advocate here, but these are the arguments you'll hear from right wingers all the time.

> right wingers all the time

which is a completely legitimate position to be in.

I don’t tolerate this crap from the left, why should I tolerate it from the right?

We’ve got elections up the wazoo at every level of government including positions we just plain shouldn’t be electing at all; and most States have some form of ballot initiative. Both major parties and most of the minor ones are more or less a free for all as to who can join and vote for representatives and policies there.

In other words, everyone has a voice. Some are louder, some are quieter, but feeling like you’re not being heard? That’s the sort of namby-pamby crap you can expect from a college campus full of kids that haven’t figured out their life yet. If college kids stormed the Capitol, you think we should excuse their actions and shouldn’t charge them with insurrection because they’ve mistaken the Capitol for Boston Harbor and 2021 for 1773? Then why should we tolerate it from anyone else simply because they backed the losing candidate?

If you watched the process from October 2020 through January 5th 2021, you saw a fairly thorough stress test of our system of elections from voting, vote collections, ballot tracking, ballot verification, suits in courts of law, the counting process, the canvassing process, the re-canvassing and re-counting process in some cases, the certification of votes, the appointment of electors through Safe Harbor Day, the actual meeting of the electors to cast their votes and finally the final counting of the electors votes by Congress.

Whatever you think of our system, it is thorough, and even Trump appointed judges that gave his campaign their day in court weren’t buying this moat and bailey bullshit the President’s lawyers walked in with. Even during the process of the counting in Congress, objections were raised, and summarily shot down, a process entirely completed by elected representatives.

Now we will complete the transition of power. It may not be as peaceful as before, but the President’s powers have an expiration date. If Biden can’t be sworn in till midnight a week after normal for some unforeseen reason, Trump’s Presidency still expires at a fixed time and a fixed date, not when the next President is sworn in, but at Noon, EST, January 20th 2021.

Insurrectionists can fight for their liberty in a Court of Law. Hopefully they find one with more sympathy than I possess for them.

BLM had all these same things, why wasn't that enough for them?

Ah, another hot take that a summer of protests, mostly peaceful and at times violent, happening across the country against a history of government agents killing and abusing (mostly) minorities, is the same as a group of conspiracy theorists rallying together at the behest of the lame-duck president to invade the capitol building during a session of Congress to certify the results of a fair election.

If we're whatabouting, the capitol-invaders got off mostly scot-free in the moment, compared to hundreds of more-peaceful protesters who were maced, beaten and detained by cops for much less.

https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrectio...

https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/

This entire post is about protesting.... so? It was a rhetorical question, meaning that sometimes 'representation' is really not representation at all, and not a comment on BLM. In fact, I agree with much of what BLM is protesting for.

Yes, all protest at some level is about anger over government action/inaction, a direct voice of the people when they feel unheard. But the first "capitol defender" u/lettergram was suggesting that Trump should have his Twitter back to abuse reality, so his loyalists will feel heard. The person you responded to was making the point that these people can be heard, and have been heard. Their point is invalid.

I don't think we disagree as much as it seems.

Postscript: Check that first link to see why I got rebuttal-happy when you compared it to BLM. A lot of bad-faith or otherwise ignorant actors are trying to draw false equivalence to the movements/actions, and the narrative needs to be challenged.

I don't agree that Trump incited insurrection. If you can't link me to a direct quote of his, then your premise in that first link is flawed.

I'm not doing all your research for you. I'll tell you his speech is available online, it has been covered by a number of outlets, one of which highlighting his bullshit is "On the Media" podcast, as well as "Pod Save America".

So, no direct quote from Trump himself. Got it. Pretty much what everyone already knows.

If there were a policy against bad-faith discussions or rhetorical ineptitude, this would have been your last post on this website.

Silence people who disagree with you, I think that's a popular policy these days. I'm still waiting on that quote, though.

They also have a majority in the Supreme Court.

It’s such an idiotic argument because it’s obvious they have a voice and significant representation at the state and federal level. 75 million of them voted their congresspeople in and now because they lost the presidency we have to tiptoe around their feelings while they foment an insurrection? What?

Part of the threat to them was the potential loss of the court, as well, with the "pack the court" talk.

/r/politics, prior to the election, was in a fervor about how this might be the last "true election" of their lifetime. That they would forever lose their voice, etc. Have their rights stripped.

It's not so wild that the people on the other side would feel the same way, especially when the talk was literally about taking away the ability for Republicans to control any branches and "making sure this can never happen again."

Besides packing the court, other ideas to accomplish that included redistricting, mandatory voting, and adding some left-leaning territories as states.

The r/politics crowd spouting that crap are also fools, just a left wing variant.

The extremes have to convince you “everything lies in the balance” to get you to go along with their kookery. We should indulge neither end of the spectrum with foolish talk or justifications of their outlandish theories and feelings of (unjustified) grievance and fear.

Are any of those things unconstitutional?

If so, take it to court. If not, then suck it up.

I'm tired of apologizing for my country to every group with a grievance and a camera. Especially when they all invariably claim to be loyal citizens and patriots.

Now along comes an aggrieved group that wants even more than my apology, they want me to give up my constitutional order. How 'bout NO.

That attack at the Capitol has put me over the top. You want change? Vote like everyone else and accept the outcome. It's time to stop coddling these people.

I mean, isn't that the fault of the Republican party that they can only maintain control by gerrymandering, having millions of American citizens without representation, supporting anti-democratic institutions, and voter suppression?

If the idea of having more voter participation is antithetical to your political party, perhaps it is time to change your party.

> I mean, isn't that the fault of the Republican party that they can only maintain control by gerrymandering, having millions of American citizens without representation, supporting anti-democratic institutions, and voter suppression?

> If the idea of having more voter participation is antithetical to your political party, perhaps it is time to change your party.

Indeed. The GOP is undoubtedly ultra-right wing, and this sounds mighty authoritarian. We've seen a pretty strong nationalist streak in them recently, as well. Conservatism pretty much is the idea that "everyone has their place, and they should stay in their place." Can anyone tell me how that's not fascist?

Reminder:

> Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions

> Now, lots of people feel they have taxation without representation.

Uh, what? Trump lost according to the rules of the Electoral College and lost the popular vote by millions.

This is just a regular old election loss. Why should it be worse than any other loss in the modern era?

> This is just a regular old election loss. Why should it be worse than any other loss in the modern era?

Twitter, FB, Fox, OAN, etc, have been helping the President spread lies about not actually losing for months (going back to before the election itself). If people believe that, then this is the logical result.

It's astonishing how many people think the more dangerous thing is that the social media companies are rethinking their hands-off approach...

The really dangerous thing is the people fanning the flames for profit and disclaiming responsibility for their actions under the guise of "free speech." "I didn't destroy the country, I just told other people to..."

Trump's voice has hardly been taken from him. He has chosen to be less public in recent months/weeks. Presidents have communicated via TV and radio for much longer than they have via Twitter.

This ^. Trump can post anything he likes on the White House website. He is one of a very small number of people in the country that if he said "I want to address the nation", it would be on every single network and multiple streaming websites. None of the president's normal communication outlets have been curtailed. All that's happened is that some companies have decided to stop blindly quoting him.

> feel like they don’t have a voice

Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate). That will prohibit him from holding public office in the future, so they won't even be able to hope for a do-over in '24. I doubt that will do much to calm them.

> Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate).

That’s not how that works. Conviction in the Senate requires a 2/3 majority vote, which is vanishingly unlikely even with Democratic control.

The first impeachment attempt seemed to have a reasonable chance on paper - but quickly fell apart because Democrats demanded running up the list of charges such that the entire process became a farce.

Unless Democrats can really stick to one well aimed narrow charge, this one will likely fall apart too. They only need to include one ridiculous charge to have Republicans nope out.

There were only two articles of impeachment. How was that "running up the list of charges"

Previous to the articles themselves was an almost 700 page investigative report - and that report came up again, and again, and again. Had it been constrained to the phone call and the facts of that specific case, it would have been a very strong case - but instead that report's other findings were so questioned and interrogated it ruined the entire case.

Trump should have been impeached for that phone call. Drawing any attention away from that was a mistake.

That wasn't the claim being made. There were two charges

1) The Phone Call 2) Obstruction of Justice

The investigative report, you know the evidence, was needed.

Your version of how this went down doesn't make any sense.

I spent several days watching the proceedings as they happened. Yes, formally there were two charges, but because the investigative report mentions other things those topics can be raised.

In attempting to resist impeachment, the Republicans want to call the report into question. That includes both it's direct evidence (attacking sources, resisting subpeonas, etc) and it's other claims. If you claim A and B and I debunk B, it sure feels like I weaken A (that's not logically correct, but people fall for this trick all the time).

RealClearPolitics, which is a Republican heavy source - so note here, they ARE biased - lays out the argument the Republicans used: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/28/democr...!

(and I'm not saying RCP is accurate as a whole, but I'm saying they are accurate as to the Republican argument against impeachment)

> successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate

Conviction requires 2/3 Senate vote, so 17 Republicans will need to vote to convict.

They need more than a simple majority to convict in the senate trial, so it seems unlikely to be successful. The best they can hope for is to force republicans to vote in favor of the insurrection and hope that is still an unpopular choice in 2022.

> Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate).

Democrats do not control the Senate, and will not until after all of Ossoff, Warnock, and Harris (as VP) take office, which will be not earlier than exactly when Trump leaves.

More to the point, it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict, and Democrats will, even after all the newly elected figures relevant take office, have a bare majority due to the VP’s tie breaking vote, not a 2/3 supermajority.

> Now, lots of people feel they have taxation without representation.

That's the phrase used by DC Residents. Which has just been demonstrated:

1. The DC Mayor was powerless to stop the riot. The DC National Guard report to the President (EDIT: and the President took 3-hours 10 minutes before the DC National Guard responded to the break-in. From 2:30 to 5:40, the DC National Guard waited. So needless to say, DC Residents aren't exactly feeling safe about the President's ability to protect them)

2. The DC Residents, where the riot took place, have no Representative nor a Senator to represent them.

3. DC Residents pay taxes, just like everyone else in this country. But without a substantial Representative nor a Senator to carry their voice (on such important issues like: maybe the Mayor should have been in charge of the police forces on 1/6th, instead of Trump).

--------

I presume that those who lost the election still have a Representative, a Governor who controls their own military (a local National Guard and/or militia of some kind), two Senators and more.

DC Residents on the other hand: show the true "taxation without representation". What it actually feels like to not have power over your own city.

> The DC Mayor was powerless to stop the riot.

My understanding is that the Mayor specifically asked other law enforcement agencies to stay away. Draw your own conspiracies from this.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-07/dc-riots-c...

The DC Mayor does NOT control the Capitol Police.

I know its a confusing situation. But your story has nothing to do with the DC Mayor.

EDIT: For yall who are downvoting me. The Mayor controls the DC Metropolitan Police Department. A COMPLETELY different set of officers than the Capitol Police. Furthermore, the DC Mayor has no access to a National Guard militia for backup, and relies upon the President for that. That's just the facts in this matter.

There is literally a letter in which she states:

"To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway."

From her twitter: https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466?r...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-capitol-riot-communications-...

Bowser was part of the group calling for reinforcements at 1:30pm.

As we all know, National Guard (under orders from Pence) didn't arrive until 5:40pm. The National Guard's superiors are the DoD and the President, not the Mayor.

Approval of DC National Guard reinforcements was ultimately a job that was squarely in the Trump Administration's responsibility.

------

It is clear that everyone underestimated the scope of the threat on 1/5th. But virtually everyone who was "near" the Capitol was going full-on panic mode by 2:30 (when the building was fully breached).

Well, everyone except the DoD / DC National Guard for some reason. Hopefully that issue gets further investigated and we figure out what the hell happened there.

There is an ounce of truth and a pound of trash in this. I'll explain.

Truth: In theory, peoples' grievances need to be heard. Trump did not get elected simply because he is a loudmouth contrarian criminal xenophobe. He also got elected over concerns for American manufacturing, a counterbalance to extreme-leftist social changes, the hope for real infrastructure investment, etc.

However, in 2020, the idea of not being heard is pretty crap. "Being heard" doesn't mean "do everything you ask all the time". Trump has spread constant, factual lies, and as the President, incited violence at the Capitol. The people marching currently, the pretext of which is to argue that the free and fair election of Biden is illegitimate because it isn't who they want, is garbage. That grievance does not warrant any more attention than it has been given; that there is no evidence of systemic fraud at any level, and that this is a well-vetted assertion.

Finally, while "primary sources" are nice to have, it is suspicious to me that you don't trust the FBI on this. I'm no blind supporter of LEO (Ha!) but how are you suspicious of the claim, given the behavior and events of the past week/two months? It makes no sense.

While I largely disagree, it’s a fair opinion.

However, to your last point:

> to have, it is suspicious to me that you don't trust the FBI on this. I'm no blind supporter of LEO (Ha!) but how are you suspicious of the claim, given the behavior and events of the past week/two months? It makes no sense.

No one had firearms at the capital, at least so far as I’m aware. Had they brought them that would be a different story. I also built a platform to monitor social networks (check my profile). I haven’t picked anything up like all 50 states protesting. A few surely, but idk not some crazy coordination or anything (honestly seems more from the left). Could be underground, but idk. The capital protest had far more going on.

> No one had firearms at the capital

I assume you mean among the rioters: are you sure? I saw video of a guy pulling up his jacket showing a handgun stuffed in his pants.

>> No one had firearms at the capital, at least so far as I’m aware of.

>> I haven’t picked anything up like all 50 states protesting. A few surely, but idk not some crazy coordination or anything (honestly seems more from the left).

You're wrong about this, and you probably shouldn't be bragging about your platform or credentials if you're this ignorant of what is going on.

> No one had firearms at the capital,

Trivially fact checkable

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/alabama-man-charged-posse...

> and secured one black handgun, one M4 Carbine assault rifle along with rifle magazines loaded with ammunition, and components for the construction of eleven “Molotov Cocktails” in the form of mason jars filled with ignitable substances, rags, and lighters.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-tr...

> hey found a compact Tavor X95 assault rifle, a 9mm Glock 19 handgun and about 100 rounds of ammunition, according to court filings.

What's the "extreme leftist social change" we've seen in the US?

Gay marriage not legal -> gay marriage legal. You may think it's right or wrong, but it's definitely social change, it's definitely in the left direction, and, from the perspective of 2000 (even more, 1950) it's quite extreme.

Is that it? From the perspective of 1950, giving black people civil rights is "radical leftism."

To social conservatives? The swiftness of things like LGBT gaining moral acceptance. The attack on pronouns, cancel culture that attempts to ruin lives if you have ever done anything in the past that by ever-changing current woke standards is offensive.

To be clear on my stance, I'm left and I am pleased overall with the social changes and tolerance being pushed.

Socially conservative people have always existed, and would typically be wary of changes in the world order/society no matter what. Our society on this planet has changed at a much quicker rate than average. Then throw in social media, which allows amplification of the extremes, and things really can feel off the rails.

Their voice, democratically, is more powerful per-vote than your typical Democratic voter due to their geographic distribution (and, in the house, gerrymandering).

I can't find it now, but I saw some data that showed if the votes were split 50/50 Republicans would control the white house, 57 Senate seats, and hold a solid house majority.

Democrats are able to win marginal victories because they are a big tent party that tries to build a more moderate coalition of voters, while pulling in the country's left flank. Joe Biden would be a center-right politician in most western democracies, despite being considered the "left wing" candidate in the United States.

Republicans need to take fewer steps to the center to build a winning coalition. For example, there's a real chance Trump could have won with a 2nd round of COVID stimulus checks, but he was ultimately talked out such measures by conservative economic advisors (despite majority of his own supporters wanted a more robust stimulus plan for COVID) So it would have been a win-win. Unfortunately, by capitulating to a specific niche in his party it cost him popular support and ultimately the election.

The sad truth is, if Trump listened to his own supporters and actually governed as a populist he would have easily won reelection and this whole mess would have been avoided. But instead, he merely communicated like a populist but chose to govern more like a crummy Jeb Bush. If you look at the bills passed by the 115th congress[1] nothing looks particularly populist or even "Trumpian". Branding vs execution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress#E...

This is how it works every election cycle. The candidate with fewer voters loses, and those voters are sad. If you add up all of the races across the country, a large majority of voters got a president/senator/governor they didn't want.

Most of them suck it up and move on with their lives. Some get their feelings in a bunch and can't let go.

Letting this guy whine on twitter about how unfair the world is to him 24x7 sure hasn't lowered the tensions in the past 4 years. It's given us exactly what we have now.

> This is how it works every election cycle. The candidate with fewer voters loses, and those voters are sad.

Except in 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

I don’t know what to think. Per-tweet moderation would be seen as censorship just as well, and would be a pretty interesting exception on Twitter.

But also I don’t blame Twitter for finally putting an end to the misery he caused. I blame them for not doing it sooner, if anything.

One can not appease bad faith actors without being taken advantage of.

The problem is, Trump supporters obviously do have a voice, a very loud one in fact, but their dedicated media sphere constantly tells them they don't. And it will keep telling them that no matter what happens. Being the victim and fighting against the unjust, oppressive 'others' is what sustains the entire movement.

MANY red flags with the Patriot Plan For America (PAFA2021). PAFA2021 went online on 12/15/2020. Significant events concerning Pres Trump and the election that day. The site is registered anon but IP activated connects to Amazon Corporate in Virginia and a small town in Virginia just 30 minutes outside of DC. The site has been taken down but there are mirror sites in Japan and China. One of the mirror sites clearly states that foreign orgs are involved with PAFA2021.

A second site affiliated with PAFA2021 is military.me. Also taken down. Also anon but it's registrant is located in Taiwan.

PAFA2021 in a nutshell says Democrats are corrupt and their ideology must be "exterminated". 8 named groups who the media labels as Q or Trump supporters are allegedly making a step by step, state by state plan, to occupy DC on Jan 16-17 with 15,000 citizen militants. They want Pres Trump to declare martial law and hold criminal trials against both the Dems and the complicit media. If Trump does not act, the org said that their own Militia Union may be forced to act. All this and more explaines in detail on the sites.

One of the named groups issued a public statement that they are NOT involved, disavow PAFA2021, and feel this site is attacking their good name and reputation. They asked their name to be removed.

This site is clearly election interference and psych warfare. It is instigating widespread backlash vs Pres Trump and supporters, even though it's authenticity has not been vetted. It is also eerily similar to the war game exercises used in the Democrat's TIP Project - that predicted a threat if Trump contested the election results (see #4).

Are there any in-depth, not too speculative studies on the interrelationship between the right-wing and law enforcement in the United States?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/why-police-aggression-is-...

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/hidd...

I read this article in fivethirtyeight from Jan 7, which addressed that subject, and it cited a few pieces of research. However, I didn't follow the links to said research articles so I have no idea how speculative or otherwise they are.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polices-tepid-respo...

"The FBI warned for years that police are cozy with the far right. Is no one listening?"[1]

"A Pro-Trump Militant Group Has Recruited Thousands of Police, Soldiers, and Veterans"[2]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/28/fbi-fa...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/right-w...

“Armed protests” is a funny phrase. The reason for bringing weapons is to scare people or fight.

There's a *minuscule* amount of grey area if the protest is specifically about gun rights, but otherwise you are absolutely correct. Using a gun to show how serious you are is just a different way of saying it's for intimidation.

It could be for intimidation, but it could also be to dissuade trivial intimidation or violence by police.

I witnessed a peaceful demonstration in the UK, in which mounted police struck completely non-violent protesters who were sitting on the ground in the head with batons as a way to scare the crowd into moving.

That wouldn’t have happened if the protesters had been armed.

People really need to understand that democracy and free world begins and ends with America. There’s no backstop. If the US falls there’s absolutely no one else out there to stop Russia and China from taking over. This is not fear mongering. It’s a simple calculus based on nuclear weapons. So while this may look like relatively harmless political games being played, it’s a lot more careless and dangerous than we are led to believe.

It's not fear mongering, but it's probably a bit hysterical.

One has to take a contrarian view of one's own anxieties: this is all good for the republic, because it snaps people out of their complacency.

Complacency is what gave us Trump in the first place. The "it'll never happen" attitude pretty much guarantees that at some point someone will purposely or accidentally benefit from it. Now that the cat is out of the bag people are very focused on the issue at hand, which is good.

To believe America will "fall" you have to believe that there is, or there soon could be, a majority of people who believe in dismantling democracy and abandoning the constitution. If that is the case then America has already fallen.

> Complacency is what gave us Trump in the first place.

no, it's not just complacency. In the 2016 vote, he did get a lot of the popular votes (even tho hilary got more). That's a sign that a lot of people in the US do agree with his world view - whether they understand that it's just retoric trump is throwing to get votes, or they do truly feel it, is moot.

Trump _only_ got into power because there's enough people in the USA to get him into power. This isn't a case of a one time bad president - it's the psyche of a nation.

Democracy is why America has already fallen. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". When people asked, "What have you given as Mr.Franklin?" He said, "A REPUBLIC. IF YOU CAN KEEP IT". What if, I am and my friend will decide to beat you up and steal your stuff? It's bad, isn't it? But what if we outvote you and send a senator to steal your stuff, why is this ok? The wealthiest country in the world was built by freedom and supremacy of people's rights (Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of Happiness). None of that exists anymore, America has Democrats(Left) and Republicans(they actually Democrats, today JFK would be Republican).

I don't like the national patriots blood drive.

Considering how Trump is never there for his supporters, I'm surprised he has any left.

I'm skeptical that there will be any more significant protests anywhere in the country. The Capitol mob was a portion of the most hard-core who travelled to D.C. this late after the election to show support for what exactly?

This is wholly independent of the issue of persistently casting doubt on the quality of the election since before the election, which obviously isn't right.

Also the double-standard with more than 100 days of BLM protests -- that were often protests but also were often riots -- is kinda funny. Trump is involved so suddenly it's domestic terrorism even though very little property was damaged, certainly not buildings burnt to the ground and people murdered in the street like we saw before.

The hyperbole on both sides really needs to be dialed down to 1. Noone has behaved themselves well throughout this presidency.

You should consider asking them why.

When I ask that, the only answer I get is "My information bubble tells me everyone loves Trump, so any situation where he genuinely loses is inconceivable."

A bit unfair considering the exact same could be said for another large bubble with 's/loses/wins/'.

To GP, you could add more than snark. The most strongly proclaimed message is that there's a stolen election to be stopped. This is a very bold claim, and while I'm don't disbelieve that there could be election fraud, (1) it's not a square function: the magnitude of the fraud would need to be considered; and (2) some evidence for such a strong claim is needed.

Trump has had 3 years of actual governing to address things like stale voter registries where dead people, say for example, come out and vote in the order of 50,000 (a claim I have heard but can't comment on it's strength). To use that now is disingenuous. But then we're just here guessing what Stop The Steal even means because noone is explaining it sufficiently.

Respectfully, you should consider that the media is probably lying to you in regards to 'what it is that trumps election fraud believers, believe'

Most of the believers I've talked to believe 'the rules were changed in the middle of the game' wrt mail-in voting, and such. These believers also believe that foreign interference distorted the results. (Both parties agree to this, I think)

We will now be in a perverse situation where both sides will think the election results are fraudulent, if their side lost. I think it's an unsolvable problem. Because reform would necessarily be a partisan endeavor, without legitimacy in that party.

We're unrepresentable now, best I can tell.

Hardly surprising, if you legitimately believe the "election was stolen" why would you stop now? If you were willing to storm the capitol building, you're probably going to storm many more buildings. Did people really think that they were going to say, "well we stormed the capitol building and it didn't work, let's just give up?"

The violence we saw is just the start, some parts of the MAGA crowd have been radicalized.

> The violence we saw is just the start, some parts of the MAGA crowd have been radicalized.

What parts aren't radicalized?

I don't think the entire movement is showing up to storm government buildings. Clearly this is a small minority of supporters. The riot at the capitol was maybe a few thousand people.

I guess we would need to define radicalized. I have know people who say, 'Trump was sent by God to save the USA'. These people didn't storm the capital, but they are certainly radicalized. I might agree if you said the whole GOP isn't radicalized, but it seems like all of MAGA has reached that level.

As an aside, I couldn't imagine supporting any politician to that level.

45% of registered Republicans support the storming of the Capitol.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

My definition of radicalized is pushed to violent action, not merely emphasizing support.

If you support radical action, you're radicalized.

According to you.

Not just me. Look around in this thread. You're outnumbered.

Don't make the mistake to believe that both groups are equally vocal.

Doesn't matter. If one person says X, and 3 people say not X, then it's pretty safe to say that reasonable people disagree on X. If I'm among the 3, then it's not just "according to me," either.

Radicalization refers to effects on opinions and worldview. Actions are subsequent to this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com