[flagged]
Your original question:
> When was the last time the US Capitol was stormed by organized revolted people
Want more? October 2023. Protest broke out causing police to shut down roads outside the Capitol. And they did ASSAULT COPS.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/10/19/israel...
https://nypost.com/2023/10/18/chaos-erupts-as-pro-palestinia...
The military would have taken back that building in 10 seconds, and the process can be postponed till the next day or the next week. Nothing was at danger, that is not how a country functions. You need an armed militia or at least half of the military to take over.
No, and I don't know anybody who thinks like this, because it's a misrepresentation of the insurrection that happened. The danger was never that some random person sits down in a government chair and suddenly becomes the new government.
> The military would have taken back that building in 10 seconds, and the process can be postponed till the next day or the next week.
And that's what the republicans counted on - they wanted the election process to be interrupted, which would (according to their reading) have allowed Pence to count the fake electors they provided. And who could have stopped them? The supreme court they stacked? That's the insurrection. Do you disagree with any of this? All of it is quite well documented.
> Nothing was at danger, that is not how a country functions. You need an armed militia or at least half of the military to take over.
If not for the actions of a few individuals, the sitting president would have literally overturned the election results. That's absolutely a huge danger to the country. You don't need an armed militia if half the politicians are working together with the insurrectionists.
I'm trying to understand, you are saying that the military would have showed up and forced Pence to overturn the election? Or what did I miss?
I'm saying even if the protesters would have taken the building, the national guard takes it back immediately, and the electors get certified the next day in another building. In this scenario the national guard is not joining in on the effort in any way. It would just delay it.
I could see how it could be a real threat to the election if there was proof of a large coordinated effort with firearms, by which I mean people conspired to actually takeover the building and launched a plan to do it, as oppose to a large mob with bad actors.
No, where did you come up with the military? Trump wanted to force Pence to overturn the election. He manufactured a scenario in which their reading of the constitution would allow Pence to choose which electors to count. Where does the military come into play?
> I'm saying even if the protesters would have taken the building, the national guard takes it back immediately, and the electors get certified the next day in another building. In this scenario the national guard is not joining in on the effort in any way. It would just delay it.
And the republicans specifically counted on this happening, as it would give Pence plausible cause to count fake electors. The delay is an essential part of the insurrection.
The terrorists storming the Capitol did their job. They only had to delay the counting. The rest of the attempted insurrection was done by the sitting president and their party. I don't know how to be more clear than this. If you only look at the actions of the terrorists, and ignore the actions of the politicians, of course the whole thing looks like a hap-hazard attempt at taking over power - you're literally ignoring the most important parts!
> I could see how it could be a real threat to the election if there was proof of a large coordinated effort with firearms, by which I mean people conspired to actually takeover the building and launched a plan to do it, as oppose to a large mob with bad actors.
How is that a real threat to the election, while the sitting president attempting to force their vice president to count fake electors is not?
I don't think that would have changed Pence's mind, I think that's where I disagree then. Pence was going to do what he was going to do regardless. A delay wasn't going to make people change their minds.
It seems more plausible to me that Trump actually thought (and still thinks) it was rigged and was supporting a protest just like any other and then things got out of control. He was a bad president in that moment, which would have affected him negatively if it was just left alone.
Trump attempted to change Pences mind multiple times, including tweets painting a target on his back while the terrorist attack was underway. Trump was aware of the attack going on, and instead of making statements to discourage violence, he directed the terrorists at Pence while he still perceived a chance for things to go his way.
A delay wasn't going to make people change their minds, but direct threats of violence (remember the chants and the gallows?) stoked by the sitting president sure could have.
> It seems more plausible to me that Trump actually thought (and still thinks) it was rigged and was supporting a protest just like any other and then things got out of control. He was a bad president in that moment, which would have affected him negatively if it was just left alone.
This is what I can't understand - the sitting president and their party put the country in a position where, if one person had bowed to their pressure, the election would have been overturned. Many of these people specifically worked towards this goal, sending fake electors - and the president explicitely supported this whole scheme, while everyone was telling him that there was no evidence for the election being rigged.
How are any citizens supposed to be okay with this? Even if Trump fully believed his own lies, it doesn't make this one bit better. The government was almost overthrown by the sitting president, and he's just going to run again, only this time his stacked courts have given him far wider-reaching powers and have removed ways to hold them accountable. How are you not all extremely scared of the consequences for your country?
Just for the record, here are some tweets (all before any public statement discouraging the attack):
January 6, 2021 06:00:50
> If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency. Many States want to decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State Legislatures (which it must be). Mike can send it back!
January 6, 2021 13:17:22
> States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!
January 6, 2021 19:24:22
> Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!
I think it's fair to say Trump incited a riot and was directing the energy at Pence, because that was the legal option left. He could have instead demanded a recount and have the entire crowd protest the entire election instead of that specific move of the electoral certification. An intent to actually overthrow the government would have been a bigger coordinated effort instead of plausible deniable acts that failed rather quickly. At worst Trump is an opportunist here and that doesn't seem enough to call it an insurrection.
> A delay wasn't going to make people change their minds, but direct threats of violence (remember the chants and the gallows?) stoked by the sitting president sure could have.
There was a time that Trump had to take cover in a bunker because of some riots (link below), and that was never called an insurrection. And of course there have been lots of threats directed at Trump since 2016. The only difference in J6 was that it had to do with election results, but in theory that should be something that can be protested, and as a result it can devolve into a riot.
> This is what I can't understand - the sitting president and their party put the country in a position where, if one person had bowed to their pressure, the election would have been overturned.
I just don't think this can be coerced by force. It's not like you point a gun at Pence and he signs some papers and democracy is over. Everybody would need to witness Pence changing his mind willingly. It works through legal means and political consensus. If it becomes obvious that Pence did something against his own will, then it's a criminal matter that delays the process, and there is no way Pence would be coerced AND also pretend like everything is alright.
All of those tweets are talking about the process itself and what legal paths to take. If there was a real intention to overthrow the government, there is no need to stick to the legal paths. I can grant that the tone of the tweets is careless and also expected of Trump, but in my opinion the four years of getting attacked relentlessly by the media and political establishment contributes to this.
> How are you not all extremely scared of the consequences for your country?
The constitution and the branches of government are structured in a way that prevents this type of corruption. The track record of no dictators is evidence of this, compared to Europe who had so many dictators in the 20th century. Additionally Trump is old and there is no way he can go on for another term anyway.
*https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-george-f...
Yes, it was his only legal option left to overturn the election and stay in power. This means that he attempted to overturn the election and stay in power. Our whole discussion should end here, but somehow his attempt is supposed to be acceptable, because it relies on a never-before used reading of documents, which coincidentally could have been allowed by the same courts he stacked?
> An intent to actually overthrow the government would have been a bigger coordinated effort instead of plausible deniable acts that failed rather quickly. At worst Trump is an opportunist here and that doesn't seem enough to call it an insurrection.
But there was a bigger coordinated effort. Fake electors were actually sent and stood ready. Republicans coordinated with leaders of multiple organizations, including the Proud Boys, and organized the rally close to the Capitol. Dozens of people worked to make the whole plot possible, and only a few individuals stopped it by not going along, which Trump attempted to coerce via indirect threats of violence.
I won't engage in discussions on your second paragraph - you're completely misrepresenting the situation, and I don't think that this point was brought up in good faith. There was no coordination by Democrats with members of supporting organizations, or anything comparable to fake electors, during the situation you mentioned. You're once again ignoring all of the actions taken behind the scenes, which I've mentioned before - why are you ignoring it again?
Because it was about taking the available legal paths, and going into the details of that is already stretching the definition of insurrection. It could be a bad faith attempt at bending the rules, but that is still within the bounds of the system. Also every president will appoint judges that are favorable to their side, all the other presidents did the same.
The larger coordination that you mention is mostly due to a combination of two things. Trust in the institutions is extremely low, and Trump has been running on narrative of being the victim of those who represent those institutions (aka the establishment). This motivates large unstructured groups that can only coordinate indirectly (through action/reaction), and since they all share the same perspective it might seem more coordinated than it is.
In short I see dirty politics and bending the rules on both sides creating a vicious cycle. Trump won 2016 unexpectedly by doubling down on bad rhetoric, then the Democrats and media thought he deserved to be relentlessly attacked along with his supporters for four years (for saying mean things, or saying the wrong things). This incentivized his supporters to go along with Trump's attempt at bending the rules and causing a riot over losing the election, which then made Democrats throw the entire book at him with all kinds of charges, which inevitably looks like they are going after him for political reasons, cementing the narrative that the establishment is corrupt (whether or not it is, it creates the perception).
Hopefully it's not too late for each side to reflect on how they contributed to this cycle. Whoever wins in November isn't going to end the country, unless people actually believe it and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But feel free to prove me wrong - you could for example show me concrete steps taken by Obama to keep the presidency for the Democrats in 2016, maybe some fake electors he sent to the counting. I don't think such examples exist, but I might be wrong.
> Kennedy eventually was declared the winner in the Hawaii recount by 115 votes, but the two sets of certifications were waiting when the joint session of Congress convened. Democrats, including Rep. Daniel K. Inouye, were ready to lodge an objection if the GOP slate was counted, but the presiding officer — the Senate president, who also is the vice president: i.e., Nixon — pushed the issue aside.
2000
> Nixon wasn’t the first vice president who had to preside over the opening of electoral votes that declared his opponent the winner, and he wasn’t the last. The most recent was Al Gore, who had conceded the 2000 election after the Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida, effectively handing the state’s electoral votes, and the presidency, to George W. Bush.
I think those were the precedents that were used in 2020. There are definitely good reasons to think they are not good parallels to 2020, however the context of this entire conversation is how Trump incited an insurrection, which I think is overblown given that he was exploring his legal paths available like a few other instances in the past. Let's say he's still wrong, but it wasn't a "threat to democracy".
https://rollcall.com/2020/10/26/we-the-people-what-happens-w...
What is a bigger threat to democracy than a sitting president overturning an election and staying in power? Again, you're acting like it's totally normal for a president to abuse loopholes for this purpose. It's literally the end of democracy, because the government is no longer democratically elected.
I don't understand why you keep arguing against that point. A democracy only stays a democracy when election results are followed. Trump tried to stay in power even though he lost. Had he succeeded, democracy would have ended. You were incredibly close to that happening. It was only individuals, possibly only one, that kept your democracy alive - all else had failed.
Not totally normal... just not an insurrection. Again, it's not that it was a great honorable thing to do, just that calling it an overthrow of the entire government is hyperbolic and has been pushed as a narrative for political purposes. You cannot take over by coercing politicians with a protest or a riot, you need at least part of the military on your side to enforce it as well.
> Trump tried to stay in power even though he lost.
Yes, this has happened before, Kennedy, Bush, and I'm sure a few others. The difference is literally who this person is. It's a bias against this specific person that used to be in entertainment business, appeared in movies and was a normal celebrity UNTIL he decided to run for office... if this guy is such a giant threat to democracy why are politicians like Obama, Biden etc., showing their concern after his attempted murder? Does Obama not understand he will end the country? You have to see the hyperbolic narrative when the same people who pushed this narrative are also now very concerned that people are acting on it. They don't believe that, they do not think Trump will really take over, they just say that to rally their base and win elections. Otherwise the same court ruling that expanded the powers of the president can be used by Biden to end this threat... why isn't Biden acting on it?
Why? Say Pence saw a legitimate danger to his own life or his family, and he counted fake electors. What stops Trump from becoming president? The constitution doesn't specify that this would be illegitimate. The only option left is the supreme court he stacked.
And say you're right - why did Trump even try convincing Pence until the last minute? Why did he paint that huge target on his pack while supporters were building gallows and shouting "Hang Mike Pence"? Why did he attempt all of this, when it could never have worked?
Once again, the military, who are sworn in to protect the constitution. If Pence felt physically threatened, the national guard steps in. This would only work if Trump had the backing of the military in order to prevent them from acting or enforcing the law.
> Why did he attempt all of this, when it could never have worked?
Maybe because he is a wreckless fool. That does not mean it was an insurrection. Ironically, using J6 for political gain and calling it an insurrection in order to prosecute him has backfired and made him more popular, just like all the other instances of going after Trump for things that clearly have been done by other presidents.
He has risen in popularity precisely because of this political double standard, when he could have faded into oblivion back in 2016 (let's not forget he was called racist, fascist even before J6).
Ah, so the military would have to remove the constitutionally appointed president from office (remember, the constitution doesn't specify the VP can't be threatened, and Pence would have to weigh publicly stating that he was threatened against danger to his life and his family). The military would be going against their CoC. How healthy would that be for your democracy? What if they aren't courageous enough to do it?
I know you'll probably say that the constitution doesn't have to explicitly say the VP can't be threatened - remember that the only reason for this whole mess is that the constitution doesn't explicitly say the VP has to count the real electors. You can't read things into the constitution you're not 100% sure the stacked supreme court would also read.
> This would only work if Trump had the backing of the military in order to prevent them from acting or enforcing the law.
No, he doesn't need backing, he only needs them not to explicitly back his opponents. for democracy?
> Maybe because he is a wreckless fool. That does not mean it was an insurrection.
So Trump tried everything in his power to overturn the election, and the Republican party tried everything to overturn the election, but it could have never worked and they were simply fools. It did almost work if one individual had decided differently, but it could have never worked. Am I understanding this correctly?
You know that it is impossible to punish people for a SUCCESSFUL insurrection, right?
Questions like this are the rational basis for Democrats to claim that Trump, and more broadly, Republicans, represent an existential threat to democracy.
And honestly, what kind of defense is that? "Yeah, the sitting president attempted to overturn the election and stay in power, but theoretically this never-before used procedural loophole could give his VP the right to ignore the election results due to the terrorist attack committed by the presidents followers" - you can't seriously think this is acceptable behavior for your leaders, right?
No matter how you put it: Trump attempted to stay in power after he lost the election. There is no world in which this isn't an attempted coup.
Democratically speaking, Al Gore had won the popular vote. And he might have won the electoral college vote too, if SCOTUS hadn't shut his push for a recount down in a partisan 5-4 decision. In fact, there are still voices on the left who call the 2000 election a "judicial coup d'état". If American democracy survived one coup, why couldn't it survive another?
Of course, you can argue that the popular vote isn't what really counts, it is the electoral college vote. However, if you are going to put process ahead of the people's will in that way – isn't the various attempts to manipulate the electoral college counting which arguably occurred in 2020 and 2000 (and even happened or almost happened in 1960–what if Nixon had been in a less generous mood?) just taking the same "process over popular will" a step further? If the electoral college isn't in itself a coup, what makes pushing its technicalities a coup?
I'm not saying that what either Bush or Gore in 2000 did is exactly the same as what Trump did in 2020. But it certainly seems like 2000 – at least to some degree – created a precedent for what happened 20 years later, and also for many of the narratives (on one side or the other) that would be invoked 20 years later
Trump didn't ask Pence to delay certification, he asked him to count the fake electors prepared by Republicans instead.
What is the end of democracy, if not the loser of an election staying in power by abusing loopholes? Had Trump stayed in power, democracy would have ended. Trump and the Republicans attempted many avenues to keep him in power.
Wow this is an amazing conspiracy theory.
Trump and his team were putting together slates of false electors, but they weren't all in place yet. They needed Pence to refuse to certify the election or for the certification to be delayed. Trump told Pence to refuse to certify, but Pence wasn't going along with it.
The constitution says that the vote count happens on a specific day chosen by law. The law says that it happens on that day. "The next day" opens a legal challenge similar to the one in Bush v Gore where the process is not allowed to be postponed until the next day or week. Instead, the constitutional backstop kicks in and the election goes to the state delegations, where the GOP had a majority at the time.
Some people died that day
But the real problem is to miss the multilayered nature of this operations.
People dying as part of 'protest'/civil unrest/whatever is disgusting. It shouldn't be downplayed.
My argument/point is that what pulled me in nears propaganda. The same sense I get here. Humanity, please. Jan 6th was a bit beyond what was stated, is all.
Not interested in seeing how deep the rabbit hole goes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_January_6_Unit...
Since you seem to possess a significant amount of knowledge on this subject, so I have a question for you: who was charged with organizing and staging insurrection? From what I know about the US penal code, it is a very serious crime
Why are you asking me this question on a completely unrelated comment? Since my comment didn't touch on this subject at all, and since it's much faster to look this up yourself than to ask me, you must have some specific reason to ask me. What is it?
Now, you are saying that it is an insurrection, which is a gravely serious crime, and you have zillion reasons to prove that it was.
Consequently, I'm asking you: who was charged with insurrection? You can't have an insurrection without insurrectionists, right?
If you want to discuss points I've made somewhere else, please do so as replies to those comments. Also, if you have an argument to make, just make it - everything else unnecessarily draws out the discussion and makes your point appear weaker.
Regarding your point, formally even two provocators with a gun would qualify as "there were people carrying firearms", but this is obvious misdirection and demagoguery, if we're talking about insurrection, which did not happen, as you agreed, and further proven by the fact that the vast majority of protesters were unarmed.
Regarding your other point, "that you are just fighting the spread of information", it is rather obvious, that the intent of my original comment was extreme scepticism directed about nonsense insurrection claims. And my position is very well supported by the fact that there were no people actually charged with insurrection.
This is my final message in this discussion, thank you for participating.
You can't claim half of the country is supporting a dictator and compare him to Hitler and not realize that that is civil war level rhetoric. The logical conclusion is to use any means necessary to prevent that... yet ironically that distorted reality is what is causing it. Let's hope things cool down.
I'll never understand how all of this was memory-holed to such a degree, and in such a short span of time (six months), that the pearl-clutching over Jan 6 didn't seem completely ridiculous and hypocritical to most people.
neither is acceptable, one was attempting to usurp the transfer of power. the other, was to express anger with society.
https://www.courthousenews.com/two-charged-in-murder-of-oakl...
Not the Floyd protests but there is your fellow traveler who attacked Polosi's husband with a hammer.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/man-who-attacked-pelosis-hu...
There is the conservative who planned on killing people at the ACLU and tides foundation.
I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but having had to deal with taking care of my aging, disabled parents in 2020 in a city heavily affected by the riots (and COVID), I was and remain bitter about the media inciting the riots, and then the media and progressive politicians enabling and excusing the rioters ("mostly peaceful protests"), all before memory-holing everything for the sake of political expediency.
(And before someone "corrects" that - four people died at the capitol, but, two were natural causes and one was from drugs. Given the number of people was easily in the high hundreds K, statistically that's less than should generally be expected.)
Ie it's possible to make a case for some of the deaths occuring during the time as "caused by", or "happened during". And those wanting to spin it one way will as suits their particular goal.
I'm going with a middle ground, which is against what I'd think is likely, given what I watched unfolding on livestreams - from people there, versus minimising reporting from the media. Major US cities being randomly set on fire is not "peaceful protest".