6 ms·

Wherein 100 people spilling over a barrier into a government building (and one of them getting shot to death) is somehow worse than the aforementioned billions

Wherein 100 people spilling over a barrier into a government building (and one of them getting shot to death) is somehow worse than the aforementioned billions in property damage and assaults on cops, smashed police cars, passersby attacked, stores looted, fires set... in 12 different cities around the nation?

slg 6y ago
>100 people spilling over a barrier into a government building This isn't a fair representation of what happened and it reveals your bias. For one example, it appears a police officer was murdered with a fire extinguisher. We don't even have to get to what might have happened if the politicians weren't able to get out in time.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  You are correct; a police officer was reportedly struck over the head with a fire extinguisher, and he later died of the injury. I really, really want them to find who did that. I also think the guy who shot that unarmed woman has no business wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon. And if it wasn't 100 people spilling over a barrier (actually, the police pulled the barriers away and literally waved them in - explain that one to me) and entering a government building and disrupting an important session... then what was it?
  - slg 6y ago
    >I also think the guy who shot that unarmed woman has no business wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon. I don't know what you are basing this on. He was apparently the last line of defense between the mob and some of the politicians the mob was trying to attack. Who knows what would have happened if they got through that door and he didn't act. There could have easily been a serious hostage situation. >And if it wasn't 100 people spilling over a barrier (actually, the police pulled the barriers away and literally waved them in - explain that one to me) and entering a government building and disrupting an important session... then what was it? Cops aren't apolitical. I guarantee there were plenty of people involved in security that sided with the insurrectionists. And that is exactly what it was, insurrection. They were trying to and were temporarily able to disrupt the function of the government recognizing the rightful next president.
    - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      So, totally different from people in Portland barricading a Federal building, then trying to set it ablaze with people inside? Did this crowd of "insurrectionists" actually threaten anyone? There are reports someone set a couple of pipe bombs, but not in the building, and the FBI is investigating it and has offered a $50K reward, but inside the building, it was kooks and protesters who were pretty quickly rounded up and arrested. I don't condone what they did at all, but comparing it to burning down buildings like in Portland and Atlanta... the mind boggles at this moral equivalency. True mob violence did not occur on January 6, and thank God for that.
      - slg 6y ago
        The protestors in Portland saw the courthouse as a symbol. They were not trying to take control of the government or harm people. Wednesday's insurrectionists were trying to stop the recognition of the next president and take control by force. You can look through this Twitter thread for examples[1]. People entered the House Chamber armed with some sort of weapon and carrying flex cuffs. These aren't "people spilling over a barrier". They are insurrectionists that attempted to literally take our government hostage. The intent here was drastically more serious than any of the BLM protests. [1] - https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347011413101998080 https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347011413101998080
ecocentrik 6y ago
Yes, context is important. The building is The Capital of a government and their aim was overthrowing that government by disrupting the democratic transfer of power. You can pretend that computers weren't stolen from congressional offices and that bombs weren't planted in the building, but playing dumb is a weak defense.
- jackson1442 6y ago
  Not to mention the cybersecurity implications of what might have been left behind.
systemvoltage 6y ago
Overthrowing the government by force, to infiltrate a congressional electoral process, planning to murder/hold-hostage dissendents and lawmakers, to help the sitting president seize power after a lawful and fair election. Sure, that's the same as people angry when theyre throwing stones at cops after killing them in sleep. I don't support BLM violence, just that your view is showing some bias towards a particular narrative - I think you should see the storming of the US Capitol as massively symbolic thing that has shaken the world.
SquareWheel 6y ago
You know that five people died, right? Bombs were planted, property was stolen. All this to protest a legitimate election.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  To protest a stolen election. You can spin it your way, and I'll spin it my way. You won't persuade me or 75m other people by just asserting that you're right and we're wrong. It doesn't work that way. Well, I take that back. It did work that way for 75 years in a place we used to call the USSR.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Still waiting on Trump's legal team and GOP supporters to show any strong evidence whatsoever to a court of law that would prove that there was sufficient electoral fraud to swing the election. And no, before you copy/paste random twitter accounts, youtube conspiracy theorists, and "sworn" affidavits without corroborating material evidence: such "evidence" is not sufficient. If it did then we'd have to believe that aliens are real, that lizard people are controlling the world, the earth is hollow, the moon is a space station, Nibiru is coming, and the pope worships satan. That's the sort of theories your belief shares evidentiary quality with.
quickthrowman 6y ago
For some historical perspective, the last time the Capitol was stormed, British soldiers burned it to the ground. This was 200 years ago. There have been multiple riots over multiple police-involved killings in multiple locations in the last decade. So yes, what they did was far worse. They claimed to be defending the constitution while in fact they were using force to stop a constitutionally-mandated process: certifying the electoral vote. They were incited to do this by the President of the United States. None of this has ever happened before in America. Over the summer, 8 men were arrested for plotting to kidnap the Governor of Michigan. There were multiple people with zip tie handcuffs in their possession in the Capitol. What do you think their aims were? Open your eyes and see how truly insane Wednesday was, please.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Tone it back a bit. We have lost multiple presidents and other countless politicians to actual assassinations. Breaching the capitol is certainly new but that speaks to the incompetence of the police, not the gravity of the protesters’ intents. > There were multiple people with zip tie handcuffs in their possession in the Capitol. Maybe to tie some people up? Guess what the intent is of the people that have bombs and guns. As Senator Graham pointed out in his speech, the security failure was so catastrophic that it could have been the death of the entire house, the senate, and the Vice President (lots of people with large backpacks inside that could have been loaded with explosives). If there was any serious attempt at an actual overthrow it would have been a much worse day.
pstuart 6y ago
You blame the BLM protesters without acknowledging that outside agitators were involved. So your argument is meaningless.

slg 6y ago

>100 people spilling over a barrier into a government building This isn't a fair representation of what happened and it reveals your bias. For one example, it appears a police officer was murdered with a fire extinguisher. We don't even have to get to what might have happened if the politicians weren't able to get out in time.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
You are correct; a police officer was reportedly struck over the head with a fire extinguisher, and he later died of the injury. I really, really want them to find who did that. I also think the guy who shot that unarmed woman has no business wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon. And if it wasn't 100 people spilling over a barrier (actually, the police pulled the barriers away and literally waved them in - explain that one to me) and entering a government building and disrupting an important session... then what was it?
- slg 6y ago
  >I also think the guy who shot that unarmed woman has no business wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon. I don't know what you are basing this on. He was apparently the last line of defense between the mob and some of the politicians the mob was trying to attack. Who knows what would have happened if they got through that door and he didn't act. There could have easily been a serious hostage situation. >And if it wasn't 100 people spilling over a barrier (actually, the police pulled the barriers away and literally waved them in - explain that one to me) and entering a government building and disrupting an important session... then what was it? Cops aren't apolitical. I guarantee there were plenty of people involved in security that sided with the insurrectionists. And that is exactly what it was, insurrection. They were trying to and were temporarily able to disrupt the function of the government recognizing the rightful next president.
  - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    So, totally different from people in Portland barricading a Federal building, then trying to set it ablaze with people inside? Did this crowd of "insurrectionists" actually threaten anyone? There are reports someone set a couple of pipe bombs, but not in the building, and the FBI is investigating it and has offered a $50K reward, but inside the building, it was kooks and protesters who were pretty quickly rounded up and arrested. I don't condone what they did at all, but comparing it to burning down buildings like in Portland and Atlanta... the mind boggles at this moral equivalency. True mob violence did not occur on January 6, and thank God for that.
    - slg 6y ago
      The protestors in Portland saw the courthouse as a symbol. They were not trying to take control of the government or harm people. Wednesday's insurrectionists were trying to stop the recognition of the next president and take control by force. You can look through this Twitter thread for examples[1]. People entered the House Chamber armed with some sort of weapon and carrying flex cuffs. These aren't "people spilling over a barrier". They are insurrectionists that attempted to literally take our government hostage. The intent here was drastically more serious than any of the BLM protests. [1] - https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347011413101998080 https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347011413101998080

ecocentrik 6y ago

Yes, context is important. The building is The Capital of a government and their aim was overthrowing that government by disrupting the democratic transfer of power. You can pretend that computers weren't stolen from congressional offices and that bombs weren't planted in the building, but playing dumb is a weak defense.

jackson1442 6y ago
Not to mention the cybersecurity implications of what might have been left behind.

systemvoltage 6y ago

Overthrowing the government by force, to infiltrate a congressional electoral process, planning to murder/hold-hostage dissendents and lawmakers, to help the sitting president seize power after a lawful and fair election. Sure, that's the same as people angry when theyre throwing stones at cops after killing them in sleep. I don't support BLM violence, just that your view is showing some bias towards a particular narrative - I think you should see the storming of the US Capitol as massively symbolic thing that has shaken the world.

SquareWheel 6y ago

You know that five people died, right? Bombs were planted, property was stolen. All this to protest a legitimate election.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
To protest a stolen election. You can spin it your way, and I'll spin it my way. You won't persuade me or 75m other people by just asserting that you're right and we're wrong. It doesn't work that way. Well, I take that back. It did work that way for 75 years in a place we used to call the USSR.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Still waiting on Trump's legal team and GOP supporters to show any strong evidence whatsoever to a court of law that would prove that there was sufficient electoral fraud to swing the election. And no, before you copy/paste random twitter accounts, youtube conspiracy theorists, and "sworn" affidavits without corroborating material evidence: such "evidence" is not sufficient. If it did then we'd have to believe that aliens are real, that lizard people are controlling the world, the earth is hollow, the moon is a space station, Nibiru is coming, and the pope worships satan. That's the sort of theories your belief shares evidentiary quality with.

quickthrowman 6y ago

For some historical perspective, the last time the Capitol was stormed, British soldiers burned it to the ground. This was 200 years ago. There have been multiple riots over multiple police-involved killings in multiple locations in the last decade. So yes, what they did was far worse. They claimed to be defending the constitution while in fact they were using force to stop a constitutionally-mandated process: certifying the electoral vote. They were incited to do this by the President of the United States. None of this has ever happened before in America. Over the summer, 8 men were arrested for plotting to kidnap the Governor of Michigan. There were multiple people with zip tie handcuffs in their possession in the Capitol. What do you think their aims were? Open your eyes and see how truly insane Wednesday was, please.

kortilla 6y ago
Tone it back a bit. We have lost multiple presidents and other countless politicians to actual assassinations. Breaching the capitol is certainly new but that speaks to the incompetence of the police, not the gravity of the protesters’ intents. > There were multiple people with zip tie handcuffs in their possession in the Capitol. Maybe to tie some people up? Guess what the intent is of the people that have bombs and guns. As Senator Graham pointed out in his speech, the security failure was so catastrophic that it could have been the death of the entire house, the senate, and the Vice President (lots of people with large backpacks inside that could have been loaded with explosives). If there was any serious attempt at an actual overthrow it would have been a much worse day.

pstuart 6y ago

You blame the BLM protesters without acknowledging that outside agitators were involved. So your argument is meaningless.