3 ms·

Because they think they're the good guys: > “This is not America,” a woman said to a small group, her voice shaking. She was crying, hysterical. “They’re shoot

Because they think they're the good guys: > “This is not America,” a woman said to a small group, her voice shaking. She was crying, hysterical. “They’re shooting at us. They’re supposed to shoot BLM, but they’re shooting the patriots.” * https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/capitol-trump-insurrection-explosions/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/capitol-trump-ins... * https://archive.is/tZVFs https://archive.is/tZVFs (paywall) See also John Wilkes Booth: > He had spent so much time among like-minded people who hated Lincoln, and he had read so many accounts denouncing Lincoln as a tyrant bent on destroying the Constitution and "personal liberty" that he expected to be hailed as a hero. * https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/status/1347229880635645952 https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield/status/134722988063564595...

jonnycomputer 6y ago
This is the sad truth. And it is for this reason that those who instigated the riot, who lied to them, be held accountable. (the Proud Boys, Nazis, right wing militias etc. who were involved have no such sympathy from me. but the people who showed up because they believed the election was stolen do--I cannot blame them for their credulity, and ignorance, our society has failed them. democracy does have to be defended, after all)
- chillwaves 6y ago
  How is over throwing an election "defending democracy"? Biden got over 6 million more votes.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    1. U.S. elections aren't decided by popular vote. 2. Biden won narrowly in swing states. 3. The dispute is whether or not the votes cast were legitimate.
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house, that Trump would have to overturn the results in multiple states, that said states have Republican leadership overseeing the election. But here we are. Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence?
      - disgrunt 6y ago
        > You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? The Constitution sets no statute of limitation under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? > Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Are you not entertained? > Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence? Almost all of these court cases were dismissed for procedure, jurisdiction or standing reasons and not for the merits of the case. Is that your evidence? [0] But since you asked, here's an exhaustive compilation. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... [1]: https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com
        jonnycomputer 6y ago
        >> That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... >How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? Given the non-linearity of the Electoral College, Trump's historically low approval numbers, the difference in geographic and institutional levels between Presidential and House elections, and over-the-top gerrymandering, I don't think that its so unlikely to be suspicious. In the last 100 years, only four or five incumbents lost re-election, so empirically there just isn't enough data to establish a frequency (and even then, lots has changed, in the last 100 years, so who knows, right?). So what you really have is a mental model that says if a party wins in Congress they should win in the Presidential too. Well, in 1960, John Kennedy won, but the Democrats lost 21 House seats, and in 1992 Bill Clinton won the White House and the Dems lost 9 seats in the house, and in in 2000 George Bush won the White House and the Republican Party lost 2 seats in the House, in 2016 Donald Trump won, and the Republican Party lost six seats. I might also mention all those Republican governors in blue states... I know what you are going to say. That doesn't match the exact scenario where an incumbent lost but their party gained seat. But you need to justify why that particular scenario is relevantly different than ones that have already been known to have occurred.
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    To understand why people do the things that they do, it is necessary to consider things from their point of view. It seems that you think I am disputing the outcome of the election. I am not. I am merely pointing out that different people see things differently, that differences in belief can be sincere, that acting on those beliefs can be honorable, even if those beliefs are mistaken. And finally, I made the point that Trump, his enablers in Congress and in his administration and in the media, perpetrated this lie and must be held accountable. For they turned what is a noble impulse--to defend democracy--into a threat to our democracy. (I also wanted to distinguish these people from the organized extremists who appear to have been carrying out a planned operation with the probable intent to carry out violence)

jonnycomputer 6y ago

This is the sad truth. And it is for this reason that those who instigated the riot, who lied to them, be held accountable. (the Proud Boys, Nazis, right wing militias etc. who were involved have no such sympathy from me. but the people who showed up because they believed the election was stolen do--I cannot blame them for their credulity, and ignorance, our society has failed them. democracy does have to be defended, after all)

chillwaves 6y ago
How is over throwing an election "defending democracy"? Biden got over 6 million more votes.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  1. U.S. elections aren't decided by popular vote. 2. Biden won narrowly in swing states. 3. The dispute is whether or not the votes cast were legitimate.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house, that Trump would have to overturn the results in multiple states, that said states have Republican leadership overseeing the election. But here we are. Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence?
    - disgrunt 6y ago
      > You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? The Constitution sets no statute of limitation under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? > Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Are you not entertained? > Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence? Almost all of these court cases were dismissed for procedure, jurisdiction or standing reasons and not for the merits of the case. Is that your evidence? [0] But since you asked, here's an exhaustive compilation. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... [1]: https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com
      - jonnycomputer 6y ago
        >> That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... >How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? Given the non-linearity of the Electoral College, Trump's historically low approval numbers, the difference in geographic and institutional levels between Presidential and House elections, and over-the-top gerrymandering, I don't think that its so unlikely to be suspicious. In the last 100 years, only four or five incumbents lost re-election, so empirically there just isn't enough data to establish a frequency (and even then, lots has changed, in the last 100 years, so who knows, right?). So what you really have is a mental model that says if a party wins in Congress they should win in the Presidential too. Well, in 1960, John Kennedy won, but the Democrats lost 21 House seats, and in 1992 Bill Clinton won the White House and the Dems lost 9 seats in the house, and in in 2000 George Bush won the White House and the Republican Party lost 2 seats in the House, in 2016 Donald Trump won, and the Republican Party lost six seats. I might also mention all those Republican governors in blue states... I know what you are going to say. That doesn't match the exact scenario where an incumbent lost but their party gained seat. But you need to justify why that particular scenario is relevantly different than ones that have already been known to have occurred.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  To understand why people do the things that they do, it is necessary to consider things from their point of view. It seems that you think I am disputing the outcome of the election. I am not. I am merely pointing out that different people see things differently, that differences in belief can be sincere, that acting on those beliefs can be honorable, even if those beliefs are mistaken. And finally, I made the point that Trump, his enablers in Congress and in his administration and in the media, perpetrated this lie and must be held accountable. For they turned what is a noble impulse--to defend democracy--into a threat to our democracy. (I also wanted to distinguish these people from the organized extremists who appear to have been carrying out a planned operation with the probable intent to carry out violence)