Unfortunately, in general, the republican base is not going to protest anything, preferring to settle things legally and in court. The main exception was Jan 6, which we've been taught to believe is apparently worse than the civil war. And yes, the sentiment to free assange is currently very common on the right.
Taught? We don't need anyone to teach what happened, it was on national television. We have perfectly good eyes and ears.
The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol.
I think the same is true of other domestic terror violence we've seen. The Civil War is still the worst domestic insurrection in history. The two are not even comparable. That this comparison is even humored shows a major problem.
> The only teaching necessary is some history: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol.
I'm sorry you're being ridiculous. The US capitol has been bombed and parts destroyed by domestic terror groups in living memory. Those attacks were way worse than this.
US congressmen have been shot at by radicalized domestic terrorists as well.
Considering (1) Jan 6 resulted in minimal property destruction (certainly no structural damage) and (2) no politician killed (the only person dying directly as a result being Ashli Babbett, a rioter), it's safe to say that the bombings were worse (due to worse property destruction) and the shootings were worse (due to imminent potential of death to the victims)
Perhaps you have some learning to do.
It makes sense not to charge the main characters, only if some of those people most combative and leading the charge, were in fact FBI informants, as has been alleged on the house floor. Subversion of a political movement, to discredit the movement by the government is a common tactic. Just hasn't been seen in the US before, other than maybe during the civil right movement.
Louie Gohmert making the allegation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCHL2GEO9hw
Agent provocateur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
Weird how this person making these allegations would vote against the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the very claims he's making.
Not weird at all though if he were making the allegations in bad faith.
The one person who died violently in the "sack" was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot.
>Taught? We don't need anyone to teach what happened, it was on national television. We have perfectly good eyes and ears.
Let me guess: You "saw" a police officer being hit by a fire extinguisher, right?
Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>).)
The one difference between what happened at the Capitol that day and the attempted assault on the White House during the George Floyd riots (serious enough for the Secret Service to take Trump to a secure bunker) was that the former was allowed to enter its target.
The New York Times retracted its story on officer sicknick. They agreed with the autopsy. He died of natural causes.
The capitol is broken into quite often, for example, during Kavanaugh's confirmation.
Original point: even in the darkest hours of the civil war, the enemies of the Constitution never managed to sack the US capitol.
Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made]
This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive.
For the past year, I've been hearing about how police often times help right-wing protestors. Now I'm being told they never do and such a suggestion is offensive. Which is it?
Anyway, if this is about sacking the Capitol, then why bring up the Civil War. In that case, Jan 6 would be the worst thing since the War of 1812, not the Civil War. Since apparently simply protesting in unauthorized areas of capitol buildings (like has happened countless times before Jan 6 since 2016 and before[1]) is basically equivalent to sacking DC. This is why I think there's hyperbole.
[1] and there have been several bombings as well, orchestrated by people who are now well-accepted as political pundits in the mainstream, such as Bill Ayers and Susan Rosenberg. In fact, the current DA of San Francisco is the adopted son of Bill Ayers and the bio son of a convicted terrorist and doesn't believe his bio dad did anything wrong. We accept such terrorism as completely mainstream. Any attempt to question is met with accusations of racism or hyperbole. This is ridiculous. It seems as if only one capitol riot is ever seen as meriting such strong condemnation, despite the constant barrage of attacks on the capitol for many years that have occured with impunity [2] [3].
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-protests-escalate-... -- unlawfully entered the capitol rotunda. Entered the office of a senator without permission.
[3] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arrests-violence-flares-part... -- definitely people storming the area around the capitol in an attempt to apparently overthrow an election. They just weren't very good at it I guess
I was unaware that the Capitol had been torched after being emptied of its treasures and nubile women, as opposed to being invaded by morons who were more focused on taking selfies than sacking.
>Response (paraphrased): So?, only one person died violently, [various unrelated distraction arguments attacking claims not made]
You and I both know that the media has done a very good job of convincing the public that multiple police officers were killed during the "sack", when (as I said) the only person who died violently was an unarmed rioter.
>This poster also advances the controversial (I'd call it a howler) claim that 'the former was allowed to enter its target' as if the Capitol Police intended for a sack of the Capitol to happen. Most people find these arguments downright offensive.
What else would you call a fully armed force not using armed force to prevent rioters (all but a handful unarmed) from entering a prohibited area? Remember, said rioter who died was killed after force was finally used (better late than never). If the Capitol Police had chosen/been allowed to do so, no rioter would have ever entered the building.
Let me repeat: The only difference between what happened at the Capitol and what almost happened at the White House the preceding June is that the rioters did not get inside in the latter case.
I've seen no evidence for that 'all but a handful unarmed' claim. I have seen interviews with Capitol Police saying they were afraid to use their firearms because they believed they were massively outgunned and would be killed if a serious gunfight broke out.
Even allowing for that hypothetical though, the allegedly unarmed mob a massive tactical advantage[1]:
> “We weren’t battling 50 or 60 rioters in this tunnel,” he said in the first public account from D.C. police officers who fought to protect the Capitol during last week’s siege. “We were battling 15,000 people. It looked like a medieval battle scene.”
> Rioters swarmed, battering the officers with metal pipes peeled from scaffolding and a pole with an American flag attached, police said. Both were struck with stun guns. Fanone suffered a mild heart attack and drifted in and out of consciousness.
> All the while, the mob was chanting “U.S.A.” over and over and over again.
> “We got one! We got one!” Fanone said he heard rioters shout. “Kill him with his own gun!”
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police...
Oh my, the Capital building was bombed in 1980? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female...
What should we do about this terrorist? Put her on the Board of Directory of Thousand Currents, sponsor of the Black Lives Matter movement, of course. Oh hold on, Snopes protests..."In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism." But everybody who protested in Jan. 6th is a "terrorist" correct?
How about Bill Ayers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers, with his Bombing...ahem..."activism" as Wikipedia calls it? In 1971 Bill Ayers bombs the US Capitol building. What happens to him? Why he is deeply associated with community leader cum President Barack Obama for decades. Let's make him an esteemed Professor at the University of Chicago for his crimes...
Now January 6. Perhaps your eyes & ears can tell me who died during the protest? Oh yeah, Ashli Babbitt who was shot by a police office despite not attacking anybody or presenting any imminent danger. Did she really deserve to be shot? Is this "justice", where the punishment depends on politics?
Sure, how justice is served does depend on politics, but should it be this way?
I’ve only seen that claim made in very narrow contexts (e.g., insurrectionists actually occupying the Capitol), in which it was central to the context of the comparison with the Civil War on the narrow dimension that it was universally understood that the Civil War was generally worse.
Also seen some “not since the Civil War” comparisons (e.g., billeting troops in the Capitol for its security), but those aren't even narrow-dimension “worse than” comparisons.
Jan 6 is about as bad as the Bundy nonsense in Oregon.
People died. The insurgents erected gallows and carried plastic handcuff-strips.
They were flying the Confederate flag INSIDE the US Capitol. That didn't even happen during the Civil War.
They tried to interfere with the appointment of the president.
And worst of all, the response by the national guard was delayed, and the Capitol police force's equipment was limited, by order of the DOJ Barr, who is appointed by the losing president.
This WAS the worst incident, since the Civil War, not perpetrated by foreigners.
No need 'to teach' anyone that fact. It was apparent and visible to everyone who isn't a part of the Trump cult.