6 ms·

I think this is overplayed at this point. You must concede one of only two possibilities. 1) The capitol building has all along been an easy soft target that c

I think this is overplayed at this point. You must concede one of only two possibilities. 1) The capitol building has all along been an easy soft target that could have been infiltrated by a small contingent of terrorist. 2) The police purposefully stood down and allowed this to happen while doing the minimum to make it seem like they tried. Neither option is a good look for our country. Now compound that with using this event as a popular excuse to restrict free speech, when the correct reaction should be to improve security at the capitol for any enemy. If you think this goes away becuse big tech takes even moderate voices down, you don't understand what's going on.

eyeball 6y ago
"2) The police purposefully stood down and allowed this to happen while doing the minimum to make it seem like they tried." seems likely that the trumpers gave that order so their mob could get in
newacct583 6y ago
> big tech takes even moderate voices down Can you cite some "moderate voices" that have been taken down by big tech? They're all still up as far as I can see. Trump incited an attack on congress. He got banned. Parler deliberately cultivated an extreme community of violent rhetoric (they really did, have you looked at that site?). They got banned. Who else? Seems like only people reasonably identifiable as extremists are affected. I remain horrified at the right wing community's ability to rationalize violence. The President directed an attack on Congress last Wednesday to prevent his opponent's certification. And... what people really want to talk about is Parler losing their hosting? (Edit to note that you refused to answer the question and jumped off on a WHATABOUTBLM?! tangent instead. In fact, contra your hyperbole, no moderate right wing voices have been censored or silenced.)
- IanDrake 6y ago
  "Trump incited an attack on congress." Evidence of Trump telling people to storm the capitol? "I remain horrified at the right wing community's ability to rationalize violence" We'll, I'm right of center and I condemn it. Just like I'm sure there is a history of you condemning this entire year of BML and Antifa burning and looting cities across the US. I remember what Como said on CNN. "who said protests need to be peaceful". Of course CNN is the bastion of right wing extremists... Oh wait.... We have to condemn all political violence.
  - Causality1 6y ago
    If you spend a whole year burning and looting a city and the city is still there you weren't very good at it.
    - IanDrake 6y ago
      I haven't tried, I make things, not destroy other people's things.
      - Causality1 6y ago
        Don't get me wrong, there's definitely a double standard at work. I recall every news outlet spending bottles of ink explaining how massive BLM protests somehow weren't spreading covid but now the capitol protests are. However I think there's a fundamental difference between breaking into a Target and looting it and attacking the capitol of the United States. Of particular concern are all of the side details. The detail that a threat assessment was not done for this protest despite knowing about it weeks in advance. The fact the police responded less strongly to this attack than they did to a protest by disabled veterans in wheelchairs and later took selfies with the attackers. The fact that insurgents carrying blue lives matter flags beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The detail that the person speaking to this crowd just a few hours earlier was the president of the United States.
        newacct583 6y ago
        > I recall every news outlet spending bottles of ink explaining how massive BLM protests somehow weren't spreading covid but now the capitol protests are It's actually been reported that a covid-positive individual was clustered with members of congress during the evacuation. I don't know why you think that isn't correct to report.
        Causality1 6y ago
        It is correct to report. My point was that any large crowd of people is likely to spread covid.
pii 6y ago
These can both be true
- IanDrake 6y ago
  Really? Can a weak man lose an arm wrestling match to a stronger opponent and truly say "I let you win?" Either the authorities were capable of repulsing an hundred unarmed civilians or they were not. I'm unclear how both can be true, but I'm open to ideas.
flippinburgers 6y ago
I dont see reason for people to downvote you: I find it exceptionally hard to believe that the capital building does not have a proper response to a small group of people trying to storm the building. Here is my theory: the "coup" was such an utter non-threat that those in charge did not want to give an ounce of evidence regarding how they could respond in order to prevent legitimately threatening bad actors from understanding the possibilities. The side effect of being able to move towards more restricted speech is just icing on the cake.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > Here is my theory: the "coup" was such an utter non-threat that those in charge did not want to give an ounce of evidence regarding how they could respond in order to prevent legitimately threatening bad actors from understanding the possibilities. Six people died! How is that an "utter non-threat"? The mental revisionism is out of control. How is it that people are so unwilling to condemn the most obvious kind of political violence imaginable?
  - gfodor 6y ago
    You can condemn it, be fearful of it, and be specific with regards to the threat it presents. It presents threats. I assume the specific threat the poster was refuting (which I won’t throw my 2c on here) is that it posed a threat to materializing a new government in the United States, which is typically the top of mind threat when talking about coups. So citing the number of deaths is neither here nor there in assessing the validity that it was a legitimate threat to creating a new government and ending the previous one.
- woah 6y ago
  After seeing thousands of soldiers with machine guns in full military gear with armored vehicles protecting the Capital from Black Lives Matter, your statement sounds ridiculous.
  - IanDrake 6y ago
    Perhaps a history of burning and looting might have had some influence in that difference. Sometimes I wonder, and serious question here, when the reporter on TV stands in front of a burning building and exclaims the protest is mostly peaceful, do you see the building in background on fire? I mean, I see the capitol building being broken into and think "that needs to stop, bring in the military if necessary".
dougmwne 6y ago
I worked on Capitol Hill for years. The Capitol is not a soft target. Its security measures are taken very seriously. Multiple agencies are responsible for its protection. Multiple strategies are in play from intelligence ops to deadly force. These agencies handle crowd control for dozens of very large protests every year. They are world experts in preventing violence, terrorism, and rioting. The Capitol is the very center of our government and the most powerful symbol of democracy in the world. Some things went very wrong. It should not have been possible for a loosely organized mob to breach the perimeter, let alone get inside. There must have been some complicity or even permission. On the other hand, some things went exactly as they should have. Lawmakers were rapidly taken to safety. No VIPs were injured. Bloodshed was kept to a minimum through careful deescalation. Overall I think we came to within inches of a major tragedy. It was avoided through a mix of competence and incompetence. We were lucky and we should consider ourselves warned.
skinkestek 6y ago
Other explanation: Republicans have mostly posted online, rallied with Trump etc while BLM and friends has been torching cities, looting etc. Basically the police weren't expecting anything near this from this crowd and it took them by surprise. Disgusting anyways.
- vmh1928 6y ago
  The white supremacists and other violent right wing groups (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc.,) had been planning for a while. In plain view of anyone paying attention. There was plenty of warning. So, the fact that no preparation beyond the waist high barriers was done is surprising, no? https://www.propublica.org/article/capitol-rioters-planned-for-weeks-in-plain-sight-the-police-werent-ready https://www.propublica.org/article/capitol-rioters-planned-f... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/trump-rioters-planned-online https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/trump-ri...
  - IanDrake 6y ago
    Yes, it was clear security was needed. But this wasn't any of those groups.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      That's simply wrong. Representatives of all of those groups were seen breaking into the capitol. The Oath Keepers in particular seem to have had a large and heavily militarized detachment. There is a video of a line of them in full body armor marching up the steps past the throng to enter the building. Likewise known Proud Boys and 3%'ers were present, etc... This was the Place to Be for all militant right wingers, and those who couldn't be in DC were staging protests elsewhere. IIRC there were violent actions on the same day at both the Oregon and Kansas state houses. Everyone Knew they were going to be there. Everyone Knew they had the potential to be violent. And Everyone Knew that Trump's rhetoric was inciteful. None of this was a surprise. And it finally boiled over into real violence. There's no excusing or downplaying that. We could absolutely have seen this coming, and lots of people did.

eyeball 6y ago

"2) The police purposefully stood down and allowed this to happen while doing the minimum to make it seem like they tried." seems likely that the trumpers gave that order so their mob could get in

newacct583 6y ago

> big tech takes even moderate voices down Can you cite some "moderate voices" that have been taken down by big tech? They're all still up as far as I can see. Trump incited an attack on congress. He got banned. Parler deliberately cultivated an extreme community of violent rhetoric (they really did, have you looked at that site?). They got banned. Who else? Seems like only people reasonably identifiable as extremists are affected. I remain horrified at the right wing community's ability to rationalize violence. The President directed an attack on Congress last Wednesday to prevent his opponent's certification. And... what people really want to talk about is Parler losing their hosting? (Edit to note that you refused to answer the question and jumped off on a WHATABOUTBLM?! tangent instead. In fact, contra your hyperbole, no moderate right wing voices have been censored or silenced.)

IanDrake 6y ago
"Trump incited an attack on congress." Evidence of Trump telling people to storm the capitol? "I remain horrified at the right wing community's ability to rationalize violence" We'll, I'm right of center and I condemn it. Just like I'm sure there is a history of you condemning this entire year of BML and Antifa burning and looting cities across the US. I remember what Como said on CNN. "who said protests need to be peaceful". Of course CNN is the bastion of right wing extremists... Oh wait.... We have to condemn all political violence.
- Causality1 6y ago
  If you spend a whole year burning and looting a city and the city is still there you weren't very good at it.
  - IanDrake 6y ago
    I haven't tried, I make things, not destroy other people's things.
    - Causality1 6y ago
      Don't get me wrong, there's definitely a double standard at work. I recall every news outlet spending bottles of ink explaining how massive BLM protests somehow weren't spreading covid but now the capitol protests are. However I think there's a fundamental difference between breaking into a Target and looting it and attacking the capitol of the United States. Of particular concern are all of the side details. The detail that a threat assessment was not done for this protest despite knowing about it weeks in advance. The fact the police responded less strongly to this attack than they did to a protest by disabled veterans in wheelchairs and later took selfies with the attackers. The fact that insurgents carrying blue lives matter flags beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The detail that the person speaking to this crowd just a few hours earlier was the president of the United States.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        > I recall every news outlet spending bottles of ink explaining how massive BLM protests somehow weren't spreading covid but now the capitol protests are It's actually been reported that a covid-positive individual was clustered with members of congress during the evacuation. I don't know why you think that isn't correct to report.
        Causality1 6y ago
        It is correct to report. My point was that any large crowd of people is likely to spread covid.

pii 6y ago

These can both be true

IanDrake 6y ago
Really? Can a weak man lose an arm wrestling match to a stronger opponent and truly say "I let you win?" Either the authorities were capable of repulsing an hundred unarmed civilians or they were not. I'm unclear how both can be true, but I'm open to ideas.

flippinburgers 6y ago

I dont see reason for people to downvote you: I find it exceptionally hard to believe that the capital building does not have a proper response to a small group of people trying to storm the building. Here is my theory: the "coup" was such an utter non-threat that those in charge did not want to give an ounce of evidence regarding how they could respond in order to prevent legitimately threatening bad actors from understanding the possibilities. The side effect of being able to move towards more restricted speech is just icing on the cake.

newacct583 6y ago
> Here is my theory: the "coup" was such an utter non-threat that those in charge did not want to give an ounce of evidence regarding how they could respond in order to prevent legitimately threatening bad actors from understanding the possibilities. Six people died! How is that an "utter non-threat"? The mental revisionism is out of control. How is it that people are so unwilling to condemn the most obvious kind of political violence imaginable?
- gfodor 6y ago
  You can condemn it, be fearful of it, and be specific with regards to the threat it presents. It presents threats. I assume the specific threat the poster was refuting (which I won’t throw my 2c on here) is that it posed a threat to materializing a new government in the United States, which is typically the top of mind threat when talking about coups. So citing the number of deaths is neither here nor there in assessing the validity that it was a legitimate threat to creating a new government and ending the previous one.
woah 6y ago
After seeing thousands of soldiers with machine guns in full military gear with armored vehicles protecting the Capital from Black Lives Matter, your statement sounds ridiculous.
- IanDrake 6y ago
  Perhaps a history of burning and looting might have had some influence in that difference. Sometimes I wonder, and serious question here, when the reporter on TV stands in front of a burning building and exclaims the protest is mostly peaceful, do you see the building in background on fire? I mean, I see the capitol building being broken into and think "that needs to stop, bring in the military if necessary".

dougmwne 6y ago

I worked on Capitol Hill for years. The Capitol is not a soft target. Its security measures are taken very seriously. Multiple agencies are responsible for its protection. Multiple strategies are in play from intelligence ops to deadly force. These agencies handle crowd control for dozens of very large protests every year. They are world experts in preventing violence, terrorism, and rioting. The Capitol is the very center of our government and the most powerful symbol of democracy in the world. Some things went very wrong. It should not have been possible for a loosely organized mob to breach the perimeter, let alone get inside. There must have been some complicity or even permission. On the other hand, some things went exactly as they should have. Lawmakers were rapidly taken to safety. No VIPs were injured. Bloodshed was kept to a minimum through careful deescalation. Overall I think we came to within inches of a major tragedy. It was avoided through a mix of competence and incompetence. We were lucky and we should consider ourselves warned.

skinkestek 6y ago

Other explanation: Republicans have mostly posted online, rallied with Trump etc while BLM and friends has been torching cities, looting etc. Basically the police weren't expecting anything near this from this crowd and it took them by surprise. Disgusting anyways.

vmh1928 6y ago
The white supremacists and other violent right wing groups (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc.,) had been planning for a while. In plain view of anyone paying attention. There was plenty of warning. So, the fact that no preparation beyond the waist high barriers was done is surprising, no? https://www.propublica.org/article/capitol-rioters-planned-for-weeks-in-plain-sight-the-police-werent-ready https://www.propublica.org/article/capitol-rioters-planned-f... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/trump-rioters-planned-online https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/trump-ri...
- IanDrake 6y ago
  Yes, it was clear security was needed. But this wasn't any of those groups.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    That's simply wrong. Representatives of all of those groups were seen breaking into the capitol. The Oath Keepers in particular seem to have had a large and heavily militarized detachment. There is a video of a line of them in full body armor marching up the steps past the throng to enter the building. Likewise known Proud Boys and 3%'ers were present, etc... This was the Place to Be for all militant right wingers, and those who couldn't be in DC were staging protests elsewhere. IIRC there were violent actions on the same day at both the Oregon and Kansas state houses. Everyone Knew they were going to be there. Everyone Knew they had the potential to be violent. And Everyone Knew that Trump's rhetoric was inciteful. None of this was a surprise. And it finally boiled over into real violence. There's no excusing or downplaying that. We could absolutely have seen this coming, and lots of people did.