8 ms·

It also seems odd, that they were unable to protect the capitol. It was not a storm out of nowhere. A bit orchestrated? To show the less radical Trump support

It also seems odd, that they were unable to protect the capitol. It was not a storm out of nowhere. A bit orchestrated? To show the less radical Trump supporters, this is what your president is responsible for, chaos and anarchy in the capitol. Disturbing the democratic process. But I guess, don't assume evil, what can be explained with incompetence.

dandanua 6y ago
Don't assume incompetence at the top of the most powerful military country.
- mda 6y ago
  I don't think anyone is exempt from Hanlon's razor.
  - tim333 6y ago
    Certainly not the current president.
    - lldbg 6y ago
      trump stupid!
scoopertrooper 6y ago
Trump had a lot of levers he could have pulled in order to ensure the security of the Capitol building. Should I take the fact he didn't pull them to mean that he sought to discredit his own movement?
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  I am not a US resident, so lack detail knowledge, but I did not know, securing the capitol is the job of the president? Aren't those seperate sectors? He can certainly influece it, but did he? If not, who is responsible for the lack of defensive preparations, the local police? The FBI?
  - paulgb 6y ago
    > I did not know, securing the capitol is the job of the president? Aren't those seperate sectors? DC is not a state, it’s a district under federal control. There is a mayor and a police department, but responsibilities that would normally fall to a state-level government are handled federally. This is a contentious issue in the US right now, because it means that the residents do not have representation in the house and senate.
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    Primary policing duties are conducted by the Capitol Police, which are controlled by the Congress. However, they aren't really equipped for managing armed insurrections. So, in situations such as these they depend on the executive branch to provide support which may come from the FBI, national guard, or other agencies, which generally requires authorisation from the President.
    - throwaway316943 6y ago
      I find the weasel word insurrection is being inserted quite a lot. It was suspiciously absent when other federal buildings were breached and vandalized earlier in the year. Calling it an armed insurrection is stretching it pretty far considering none of the videos show any armed conflict between the protesters and capital security... except for the unarmed woman who was shot in the neck and killed by security. It reeks of narrative building.
      - scoopertrooper 6y ago
        Find me an example of something happening on this scale at any point in 2019. We're talking about the Capitol building being taken over by a violent mob during a join session of Congress while the Vice President was presiding. Further, the insurrectionists were definitely armed, at least five guns were seized from among those arrested. https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/13-arrested-5-weapons-recovered-at-u-s-capitol-riot/ https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/13-arrested-5-weapons-reco...
      - alistairSH 6y ago
IkmoIkmo 6y ago
Well, Trump denied requests to send in the national guard multiple times according to reports. Pence later did when Trump didn't, and that's when things got under control. This could've been prevented if the president (1) didn't incite this and (2) didn't deny national guard to step-in. So what's left is the capitol police facing a mob invited by the president, without backup. And they stated they had two choices, barricade the capitol and prevent entry, or evacuate the people inside. It could've gotten ugly if the people in the capitol got overrun, e.g. Pelosi facing people that think they're sent by Q to fight off a satanic coup by Pelosi, but they got evacuated to safety. Apparently capitol police chose to evacuate rather than to barricade, in hindsight that's clearly the least risky option to human health. If they break through with nobody inside, that's not as bad if they break through anyway with people inside. A bunch of idiots roaming the capitol building isn't a threat per se, shameful and sad yes, but not one that should've been met with violent force from a small number of capitol police at the expense of (and risk of not) evacuating the people inside.
- antris 6y ago
  >A bunch of idiots roaming the capitol building isn't a threat per se, shameful and sad yes, but not one that should've been met with violent force from a small number of capitol police at the expense of (and risk of not) evacuating the people inside. Of course, if the mob were leftists or had any significant amount of minorities mixed in, there would have been rivers of blood outside the Capitol.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 6y ago
    All evidence to the contrary. We recently saw months of protests by leftists without "rivers of blood", even when the protestors declared autonomous zones, occupied police stations, and burned down, or tried to burn down, thousands of businesses and government buildings. Where's the evidence for your hypothesis? And what's up with downvoting this entirely factual statement in favor of the unsupported theory above?

dandanua 6y ago

Don't assume incompetence at the top of the most powerful military country.

mda 6y ago
I don't think anyone is exempt from Hanlon's razor.
- tim333 6y ago
  Certainly not the current president.
  - lldbg 6y ago
    trump stupid!

scoopertrooper 6y ago

Trump had a lot of levers he could have pulled in order to ensure the security of the Capitol building. Should I take the fact he didn't pull them to mean that he sought to discredit his own movement?

hutzlibu 6y ago
I am not a US resident, so lack detail knowledge, but I did not know, securing the capitol is the job of the president? Aren't those seperate sectors? He can certainly influece it, but did he? If not, who is responsible for the lack of defensive preparations, the local police? The FBI?
- paulgb 6y ago
  > I did not know, securing the capitol is the job of the president? Aren't those seperate sectors? DC is not a state, it’s a district under federal control. There is a mayor and a police department, but responsibilities that would normally fall to a state-level government are handled federally. This is a contentious issue in the US right now, because it means that the residents do not have representation in the house and senate.
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  Primary policing duties are conducted by the Capitol Police, which are controlled by the Congress. However, they aren't really equipped for managing armed insurrections. So, in situations such as these they depend on the executive branch to provide support which may come from the FBI, national guard, or other agencies, which generally requires authorisation from the President.
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    I find the weasel word insurrection is being inserted quite a lot. It was suspiciously absent when other federal buildings were breached and vandalized earlier in the year. Calling it an armed insurrection is stretching it pretty far considering none of the videos show any armed conflict between the protesters and capital security... except for the unarmed woman who was shot in the neck and killed by security. It reeks of narrative building.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      Find me an example of something happening on this scale at any point in 2019. We're talking about the Capitol building being taken over by a violent mob during a join session of Congress while the Vice President was presiding. Further, the insurrectionists were definitely armed, at least five guns were seized from among those arrested. https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/13-arrested-5-weapons-recovered-at-u-s-capitol-riot/ https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/13-arrested-5-weapons-reco...
    - alistairSH 6y ago

IkmoIkmo 6y ago

Well, Trump denied requests to send in the national guard multiple times according to reports. Pence later did when Trump didn't, and that's when things got under control. This could've been prevented if the president (1) didn't incite this and (2) didn't deny national guard to step-in. So what's left is the capitol police facing a mob invited by the president, without backup. And they stated they had two choices, barricade the capitol and prevent entry, or evacuate the people inside. It could've gotten ugly if the people in the capitol got overrun, e.g. Pelosi facing people that think they're sent by Q to fight off a satanic coup by Pelosi, but they got evacuated to safety. Apparently capitol police chose to evacuate rather than to barricade, in hindsight that's clearly the least risky option to human health. If they break through with nobody inside, that's not as bad if they break through anyway with people inside. A bunch of idiots roaming the capitol building isn't a threat per se, shameful and sad yes, but not one that should've been met with violent force from a small number of capitol police at the expense of (and risk of not) evacuating the people inside.

antris 6y ago
>A bunch of idiots roaming the capitol building isn't a threat per se, shameful and sad yes, but not one that should've been met with violent force from a small number of capitol police at the expense of (and risk of not) evacuating the people inside. Of course, if the mob were leftists or had any significant amount of minorities mixed in, there would have been rivers of blood outside the Capitol.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- leereeves 6y ago
  All evidence to the contrary. We recently saw months of protests by leftists without "rivers of blood", even when the protestors declared autonomous zones, occupied police stations, and burned down, or tried to burn down, thousands of businesses and government buildings. Where's the evidence for your hypothesis? And what's up with downvoting this entirely factual statement in favor of the unsupported theory above?