5 ms·

Huh? You're really trying to compare what some randos do on Twitter to what the President of the United States did on Wednesday? Really think about it: the Pre

Huh? You're really trying to compare what some randos do on Twitter to what the President of the United States did on Wednesday? Really think about it: the President of the United States incited a mob to attack the Capitol to prevent the certification of the vote of his political opponent. He did this by pushing constant lies and propaganda for months, and urging his followers to "fight" for him. Go watch his speech and then try to tell me he didn't know exactly what he was doing. > Trump saying to head down the street I'm honestly flabbergasted that you can see the culmination of Trump's actions from the past year (or however long he's claimed the election would be rigged) as just saying "head down the street".

camhart 6y ago
Do you honestly believe Trump was trying to overthrow the government? Had that been his real intent I'm fairly certain it would have had a more significant outcome beyond people stealing random envelops and podiums. It was a protest that went too far. We've seen plenty of this occur from both sides in the past year.
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  He was trying to overthrow the election, yes. The same thing he's been trying to do since November 4th. The fact that it was an incompetent attempt (like all of his attempts) makes no difference.
  - Rapzid 6y ago
    Rudy and Trump were busy calling members of congress DURING the lock down to get them to object to the count in order to delay the process.. For reasons. I'm not sure what they were hoping to do by just delaying everything.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Do you honestly believe Trump was trying to overthrow the government? Yes, just like I think that was the US’s goal in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs. And just as with the Bay of Pigs, the active agents that were sent off were expendable and abandoned once it didn't work. > Had that been his real intent I'm fairly certain it would have had a more significant outcome beyond people stealing random envelops and podiums. Murder of a law enforcement officer is a more significant thing than stealing random envelopes and podiums, as is a mob being stopped from harming Congressional staffers and members at several points by only seconds (and in one case by application of deadly force.) > It was a protest that went too far. The people involved said online they were going to seize and kill security officers and members of Congress to achieve their goals, they did the first and were forcibly prevented from being able to do the second. It was a violent insurrection that went less far than planned.
  - camhart 6y ago
    The officer was killed with a fire extinguisher. I don't mean to downplay the tragedy of his death. But using a fire extinguisher certainly sounds a lot more like a protest gone too far than a president trying to over throw the government. Do I need to remind you that Trump encouraged the protest to be peaceful? Then released a video telling everyone to go home, peacefully? Those involved in the violence are being arrested. "People" online have held up bloody Trump heads, wished for Trump to die. The extreme left isn't this super peaceful always tolerant group. The extreme right isn't either.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    The Bay of Pigs is a good example of an actual coup attempt with military training and small arms. Can you see the difference between that and what happened at the Capitol Building?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The Bay of Pigs is a good example of an actual coup attempt with military training and small arms. The Bay of Pigs wasn’t a coup attempt, though it was an attempt to replace the government. It was an invasion, support for which was cancelled when the expendable, superficially deniable spearhead force did less well than planned. And, yes, there are lots of differences between it and coup attempt at the Capitol, which is why I didn’t say they were similar generally, only specific, identified points.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        Perhaps we should turn to the academic papers on the topic if we are to argue semantics. https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even-close https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even... >"In their article “Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset,” authors Jonathan M. Powell and Clayton L. Thyne provide a definition: A coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive. There are two key components of this definition. The first is that it is illegal. Powell and Thyne note that this “illegal” qualifier is important to include "because it differentiates coups from political pressure, which is common whenever people have freedom to organize." In other words, protests, or threats of protest don’t count as coups. Neither do legal efforts such as a vote of no confidence or an impeachment. But an even more critical aspect of Powell and Thyne’s definition is that it requires the involvement of elites." http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/powell-thyne-JPR-2011.pdf http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/powell-thyne-JPR-2011.pdf >"Nonetheless, we should not be surprised that the media has rushed to apply the term to the riot. This phenomenon was examined in a November 2019 article titled “Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research?,” by Leiv Marsteintredet and Andres Malamud. The authors note that as the incidence of real coups has declined, the word has become more common but with modifiers attached." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321719888857 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321719888857
- pmiller2 6y ago
  He was trying to overturn the result of a democratically conducted election. You don't get to "both sides" this.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    Democrats tried to disrupt the electoral college vote in 2016, and there were many faithless voters. They failed, but they tried. Not to mention four years of telling their base the election was stolen or hacked, followed by a pointless impeachment. This is the new norm. And both sides are indeed complicit and escalating.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      You failed to mention that Clinton lost 5 electoral votes as a result of those shenanigans, while Trump lost 2. None of the faithless electors voted for the other major candidate. How does that constitute "Democrats" trying to overturn the election? What's more, Clinton herself was not the one trying to supposedly "disrupt the electoral college vote." If you're going to make up a story, at least make it consistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016... Edit: Also: > “What the Committee did find however is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-statement-on-senate-intel-release-of-volume-5-of-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...
Rapzid 6y ago
I would like to add too that it's no coincidence that all these extremist groups were at Trump's rally. He has been talking to these people using coded language and rhetorical devices for years. Lots of gross rhetoric at every rally, for years and it's all recorded for people to go back and pour over now. Then there was the great idea to hold a rally down the road from the capital building on that very day, actively invite a bunch of extremist groups you've been courting for years, whip those people up using inflammatory rhetoric and your greatest hits about the the election being stolen, tell them "Because you'll never take back our country with weakness, because you have to show strength and you have to be strong", and then invite them to walk down to the capital building with you.. And let's tweet this during the assault on congress for good measure: Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution I'm not sure it mattered if Trump meant for this to happen. He's toxic, and he's dangerous.
aww_dang 6y ago
I think the poster's point was that you can cherry pick extreme examples from either side to support a desired narrative. If you believe that most of the Capitol Building protesters were peaceful this makes sense. Even if you disagree, take that as a hypothetical and work backwards from there to understand this view. Several media outlets are highlighting the worst behavior and generalizing from there. Of course the media has every incentive to be sensationalist. There's also a question of bias outside of the motive of sensationalism.

camhart 6y ago

Do you honestly believe Trump was trying to overthrow the government? Had that been his real intent I'm fairly certain it would have had a more significant outcome beyond people stealing random envelops and podiums. It was a protest that went too far. We've seen plenty of this occur from both sides in the past year.

Trasmatta 6y ago
He was trying to overthrow the election, yes. The same thing he's been trying to do since November 4th. The fact that it was an incompetent attempt (like all of his attempts) makes no difference.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  Rudy and Trump were busy calling members of congress DURING the lock down to get them to object to the count in order to delay the process.. For reasons. I'm not sure what they were hoping to do by just delaying everything.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Do you honestly believe Trump was trying to overthrow the government? Yes, just like I think that was the US’s goal in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs. And just as with the Bay of Pigs, the active agents that were sent off were expendable and abandoned once it didn't work. > Had that been his real intent I'm fairly certain it would have had a more significant outcome beyond people stealing random envelops and podiums. Murder of a law enforcement officer is a more significant thing than stealing random envelopes and podiums, as is a mob being stopped from harming Congressional staffers and members at several points by only seconds (and in one case by application of deadly force.) > It was a protest that went too far. The people involved said online they were going to seize and kill security officers and members of Congress to achieve their goals, they did the first and were forcibly prevented from being able to do the second. It was a violent insurrection that went less far than planned.
- camhart 6y ago
  The officer was killed with a fire extinguisher. I don't mean to downplay the tragedy of his death. But using a fire extinguisher certainly sounds a lot more like a protest gone too far than a president trying to over throw the government. Do I need to remind you that Trump encouraged the protest to be peaceful? Then released a video telling everyone to go home, peacefully? Those involved in the violence are being arrested. "People" online have held up bloody Trump heads, wished for Trump to die. The extreme left isn't this super peaceful always tolerant group. The extreme right isn't either.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  The Bay of Pigs is a good example of an actual coup attempt with military training and small arms. Can you see the difference between that and what happened at the Capitol Building?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The Bay of Pigs is a good example of an actual coup attempt with military training and small arms. The Bay of Pigs wasn’t a coup attempt, though it was an attempt to replace the government. It was an invasion, support for which was cancelled when the expendable, superficially deniable spearhead force did less well than planned. And, yes, there are lots of differences between it and coup attempt at the Capitol, which is why I didn’t say they were similar generally, only specific, identified points.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      Perhaps we should turn to the academic papers on the topic if we are to argue semantics. https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even-close https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even... >"In their article “Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset,” authors Jonathan M. Powell and Clayton L. Thyne provide a definition: A coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive. There are two key components of this definition. The first is that it is illegal. Powell and Thyne note that this “illegal” qualifier is important to include "because it differentiates coups from political pressure, which is common whenever people have freedom to organize." In other words, protests, or threats of protest don’t count as coups. Neither do legal efforts such as a vote of no confidence or an impeachment. But an even more critical aspect of Powell and Thyne’s definition is that it requires the involvement of elites." http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/powell-thyne-JPR-2011.pdf http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/powell-thyne-JPR-2011.pdf >"Nonetheless, we should not be surprised that the media has rushed to apply the term to the riot. This phenomenon was examined in a November 2019 article titled “Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research?,” by Leiv Marsteintredet and Andres Malamud. The authors note that as the incidence of real coups has declined, the word has become more common but with modifiers attached." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321719888857 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321719888857
pmiller2 6y ago
He was trying to overturn the result of a democratically conducted election. You don't get to "both sides" this.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Democrats tried to disrupt the electoral college vote in 2016, and there were many faithless voters. They failed, but they tried. Not to mention four years of telling their base the election was stolen or hacked, followed by a pointless impeachment. This is the new norm. And both sides are indeed complicit and escalating.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    You failed to mention that Clinton lost 5 electoral votes as a result of those shenanigans, while Trump lost 2. None of the faithless electors voted for the other major candidate. How does that constitute "Democrats" trying to overturn the election? What's more, Clinton herself was not the one trying to supposedly "disrupt the electoral college vote." If you're going to make up a story, at least make it consistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016... Edit: Also: > “What the Committee did find however is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-statement-on-senate-intel-release-of-volume-5-of-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...

Rapzid 6y ago

I would like to add too that it's no coincidence that all these extremist groups were at Trump's rally. He has been talking to these people using coded language and rhetorical devices for years. Lots of gross rhetoric at every rally, for years and it's all recorded for people to go back and pour over now. Then there was the great idea to hold a rally down the road from the capital building on that very day, actively invite a bunch of extremist groups you've been courting for years, whip those people up using inflammatory rhetoric and your greatest hits about the the election being stolen, tell them "Because you'll never take back our country with weakness, because you have to show strength and you have to be strong", and then invite them to walk down to the capital building with you.. And let's tweet this during the assault on congress for good measure: Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution I'm not sure it mattered if Trump meant for this to happen. He's toxic, and he's dangerous.

aww_dang 6y ago

I think the poster's point was that you can cherry pick extreme examples from either side to support a desired narrative. If you believe that most of the Capitol Building protesters were peaceful this makes sense. Even if you disagree, take that as a hypothetical and work backwards from there to understand this view. Several media outlets are highlighting the worst behavior and generalizing from there. Of course the media has every incentive to be sensationalist. There's also a question of bias outside of the motive of sensationalism.