15 ms·

A portion of your citizens were called to storm your nations capital by a President who refuses to accept the results of a democratic election. The very foundat

A portion of your citizens were called to storm your nations capital by a President who refuses to accept the results of a democratic election. The very foundation of your democracy has been eroded. Do not pretend the people who are frightened of these actions are overreacting. Democracy is a fragile thing, and you have a portion of your population who attempted to take a hammer to it. Don't pretend this is a narrative presented by the elite, I don't listen to your news, I don't read the opinions of your celebrities and newscasters, I watched the videos, I saw the discourse. I am not from your nation, and only have what I have seen from the people who were there and the videos they willingly uploaded to the internet, and the unedited footage of the speeches and the words of your president. Your nation is in severe distress.

mistermann 6y ago
Can you articulate a plausible (does not rely on significant speculation or hypotheticals) series of events at the Capitol incident that could have resulted in democracy being legitimately lost in America? I am unable to come up with one.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  People were similarly dismissive of the Nazis after the Beer Hall Putsch. Aside: Asking for a hypothetical that doesn’t involve hypotheticals seems… off.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > Aside: Asking for a hypothetical that doesn’t involve hypotheticals seems… off. Comments like this on a computer programming forum, where one would expect logic (and an understanding of the importance of dependencies) to prevail, also seems "off". I wonder, what might explain this apparent paradox, and the substantial quantities of it that can be found right here on HN? Does academia have any prior knowledge and study into this general phenomenon? Which domain would we search within to find answers to questions like this?
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  This is an obviously impossible burden to load on someone, and I think you know that. If democracy is legitimately lost in America, it will happen via a series of events that we today cannot conceive of. It is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy, and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > t is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy, and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess. What are you willing to give up politically to heal societal schisms?
    - polka_haunts_us 6y ago
      I wonder if one of the big issues is that lately control of government is so flip floppy that no one gives up anything because they figure they'll have control soon enough. From the mid 30s to late 70s, Democrats had full control of congress for all but 4 years. The national Republican party had to change A LOT in that time to be relevant. Since HW Bush the longest period has been I dunno, 4 years? 6 years?
    - enraged_camel 6y ago
      What is the argument you're trying to make?
      - rayiner 6y ago
        I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?
        enraged_camel 6y ago
- geofft 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189... No hypotheticals - this one actually happened, and the resulting undemocratic government was seen as legitimate and retained power. (To be clear, democracy once lost can be regained, but it was unambiguously lost.)
  - mistermann 6y ago
    In your assessment, are the attributes (a significant number of the plausibly impactful ones, not just one or two insignificant ones that happen to match) of that event highly similar to the event at the US Capitol in 2021?
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    This is fascinating, thanks for posting. These are serious white supremacists. Simmons summarized the party's platform when he stated: North Carolina is a WHITE MAN'S STATE and WHITE MEN will rule it, and they will crush the party of Negro domination beneath a majority so overwhelming that no other party will ever dare to attempt to establish negro rule here. They form organizations called the "White Government Union" and such. There is a trumped-up issue of black men raping white women: Many newspapers published pictures and stories implying that African-American men were sexually attacking white women in the city. A suffragist said in a speech that, of all the threats farm wives face, there was none greater than "the black rapist", due to the failure of white men to protect them. She advocated that white men should resort to vigilante justice ... "if it needs lynching to protect woman's dearest possession from the ravening human beasts – then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary." Then, In response to Felton's speech and the danger it imposed upon black men, 32-year-old Alexander Manly wrote an editorial, refuting it and asserting that white women have consensual sex with black men. And: Within 48 hours, white supremacists, aided by newspapers across the South, used Manly's words – though reprinting incendiary distortions of them – as a championing catalyst for their cause. Waddell, and other orators, began inciting white citizens with sexualized images of black men, insinuating black men's uncontrollable lust for white women, running newspaper stories and delivering speeches of "black beasts" who threatened to deflower white women. On deplatforming: Prior to this editorial, The Daily Record had been considered "a very creditable colored paper" throughout the state, that had attracted subscriptions and advertising from blacks and whites alike. However, after the editorial, white advertisers withdrew their support from the paper, crippling its income. His landlord, M. J. Heyer, then evicted him. For his own safety, Manly was forced to relocate his press in the middle of the night. ... He had planned to move to Love and Charity Hall (aka Ruth Hall), on South Seventh Street, but it declined to take him as a tenant because his presence would have greatly increased the building's insurance rate. Then there's a rally of 300 "Red Shirts", with Waddell giving a speech ending thus: We will never surrender to a ragged raffle of Negroes, even if we have to choke the Cape Fear River with carcasses. A few days later, there's an event with 8000 attendees, with several speakers: Waddell followed by accusing blacks of "insolence", "arrogance", which he claimed was overshadowed only by their "criminality" [etc....] Once again, he concluded his speech assuring them that white men would banish blacks, and their traitorous white allies, even if they had to fill the Cape Fear River with enough black dead bodies to block its passage to the sea. Followed by violence: Waddell's speech so inspired the crowd that the Red Shirts left the convention and started terrorizing black citizens and their white allies, in the eastern part of the state, right away. They destroyed property, ambushed citizens with weapon fire, and kidnapped people from their homes and whipped them at night, with the goal of terrorizing them to the point where Republican sympathizers would be too afraid to vote, or even register to do so. On November 1, 1898, Dowling led a parade of 1,000 men, mounted on horses, for ten miles, through the black neighborhoods ... The next day, Dowling led a "White Man's Rally". Every "able-bodied" white man was armed. Escorted by Chief Marshal Roger Moore, a parade of men began downtown, again marched through black neighborhoods – firing into black homes and a black school on Campbell Square – and ended at Hilton Park where a 1,000 people greeted them with a picnic and free barbecue. Leading up to the election, these gatherings became daily occurrences; the white newspapers announced the time and place of meetings. Free food and liquor were provided for the vigilantes... Eventually: The day before the election, Waddell excited a large crowd at Thalian Hall when he told them: "You are Anglo-Saxons. You are armed and prepared and you will do your duty ... Go to the polls tomorrow, and if you find the negro out voting, tell him to leave the polls and if he refuses, kill him, shoot him down in his tracks. We shall win tomorrow if we have to do it with guns." To the election: Most blacks and many Republicans did not vote in the November 8 election ... as Red Shirts had blocked every road leading in and out of the city, and drove potential black voters away with gunfire. The governor came by to try to calm things down. However, when his train arrived, Red Shirts swarmed his train car and tried to lynch him. When the day was over, Democrats won 6,000 votes, overall, which was sizable given that the Fusion Party won 5,000 votes just two years prior. Likely due to the intimidation tactics plus fraud (cited article "M. F. Dowling Swears To it" says he, in a deposition, confessed to: stuffing the election board with Democrat party members, improperly erasing hundreds of Republicans from the registration lists, instructing election officers "how to deposit Republican ballots so they could be replaced", and more). They publish a "White Declaration of Independence", part of which demanded for Manly and his press to leave the city. Manly had already shut his press down and left town when he was alerted, by a white friend, that the Red Shirts were going to lynch him that night. ... Waddell's "Committee of Twenty-Five" summoned the Committee of Colored Citizens (CCC), a group of 32 prominent black citizens, to the courthouse at 6:00 pm. They told the CCC of their ultimatum, instructing them to direct the rest of the city's black citizens to fall in line. When the black men asked to reason with them, and pleaded that they could not control what Manly did, or what any other black person would do, Waddell responded that the "time had passed for words." They give a member of the CCC a deadline for a written response to deliver in person. He put it in Waddell's mailbox. When Waddell and the Committee did not receive a response by 7:30 a.m. on November 10 (it is unclear when Waddell checked his mailbox), about 45 minutes later, he gathered about 500 white businessmen and veterans to the Wilmington's armory. After heavily arming themselves with rifles and the Gatling gun, Waddell then led the group to the two-story publishing office of The Daily Record. They broke into Manly's building, vandalized the premises, doused the wood floors with kerosene, set the building on fire, and gutted the remains. At the same time, black newspapers all over the state were also being destroyed. ... Following the fire, the mob of white vigilantes swelled to about 2,000 men. A rumor circulated that some blacks had fired on a small group of white men a mile away from the printing office. White men then went into black Wilmington neighborhoods, destroying black businesses and property and assaulting black inhabitants ... The governor calls in the Wilmington Light Infantry and the federal Naval Reserves, taking them into Brooklyn to quell the "riot". They intimidated both black and white crowds with rapid-fire weapons, shooting and killing several black men. ... As the violence spread, Waddell led a group to the Republican Mayor, Silas P. Wright. Waddell forced Wright, the board of aldermen, and the police chief to resign at gunpoint. The mob installed a new city council that elected Waddell to take over as mayor by 4 p.m. that day. Waddell later wrote an article for Collier's Weekly, denying everything bad (to hilarity). We wrecked the [newspaper] house. I believe that the fire which occurred was purely accidental; it certainly was unintentional on our part ..., Since this trouble many negroes have come to me and said they are glad I have taken charge ... , There was no intimidation used in the establishment of the present city government. The old government had become satisfied of their inefficiency and utterly helpless imbecility, and believed if they did not resign they would be run out of town ... , etc. The success of the coup: Subsequent to Waddell's usurping power, he and his team were re-elected in March 1899 to city offices. Waddell would hold the mayorship until 1905. Four of those involved became Governor of the state, one became a senator, etc. Also: Although individuals of both races pointed to Democrat-backed violence as the driver behind the incident, the national narrative largely cast black men as aggressors, legitimizing the coup as a direct result of black aggression. For example, The Atlanta Constitution justified the violence as a rational defense of white honor, and a necessary response against the "criminal element of the blacks", furthering stereotypes of black violence. DARVO, always DARVO. There's a lot of interesting stuff in there. Now, I've only given a brief glance at a couple of secondary sources, and since it seems there is an alternate narrative, it would be responsible to do further research before taking it 100% seriously. Still, assuming it's true... One takeaway: fake news riling up a mob into violence is not new. (With a population of 25,000, it's likely there was at least one real case of a black man attempting to rape a white woman, but it seems some newspapers blew it way out of proportion.) Another takeaway: there were many explicit calls to violence—"lynching", creating "dead bodies"—and many occasions of actual violence, which escalated from one to the next.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  Enough democratic members of congress are killed that the election doesn’t become certified. The remaining members elect a new republican speaker of the house. The constitution declares that if no winner to the Presidential election is declared the speaker of the house becomes President on Jan 20th. The speaker of the house doesn’t have to be a member of congress so the remaining republicans could have voted Trump speaker, keeping him in office another 4 years. And that is how democracy dies in America.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    That has a pretty healthy dose of speculation in it, but provided this is consistent with the entirety of formal procedures, it's not bad. Except this part: > And that is how democracy dies in America. Where does that part come in? Assuming your scenario did transpire, is there something in the procedures where elections are no longer held on a go forward basis? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm no expert on the matter - so, I ask you.
- sanderjd 6y ago
  This is a very easy exercise: instead of cowering while letting other people take risks in his name, President Trump walks over to the Capitol. With him at the head of the column, many more people storm the building (the Capitol police likely don't put up a fight because nobody told them to fight the President), they occupy the building and take representatives hostage. At this point in time there is no longer a democracy in the US. What happens after that is anybody's guess; by my lights, probably the military leaders don't the President, their troops mostly follow their orders, they retake the Capitol, restore power to Congress, and install Pence as President, followed by democracy being restored not long after by a quick 25th amendment or impeachment and removal. But it would be plausible that some number of the military's leaders choose to back the President instead, or that an insufficient number of the troops follow their orders, resulting in either a successful coup or a protracted civil war. The only thing that saved us from this was Trump's cowardice.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    I'd hate to see that put to the test but what you describe could well have happened.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    This is a legitimately good description of an arguably plausible (but still plausible!) scenario. But I must note that democracy is not lost in this scenario...unless you'd like to explain: > At this point in time there is no longer a democracy in the US. If we were to attach a debugger and step through the code, what state (variables and their values) would represent a valid scenario of democracy no longer existing in the United States? Or I suppose we could just look at the implementation of IsDemocracy(), assuming the designer of this shitty simulation is reasonably organized. > The only thing that saved us from this was Trump's cowardice. Well, that and other things that you haven't considered. I don't say these things because I think these morons are righteous, or Trump is a good president, or because I think this event is insignificant, but the opposite: I think this scenario is extremely significant - so significant that I suggest we discuss it with the same rigorous precision that is usually reserved only for discussing topics like computer programming. I think a decent argument could be made that the welfare of the country inside of which we write computer code should command at least as much respect during conversations (even if begrudged) as we enthusiastically heap upon coding arguments. But of course, this is just my opinion. And to be fair, if shit really does ever hit the fan, most everyone in this forum is well off enough to get the hell out of dodge to some other country that hasn't gone down the drain, where we can start the process all over again.
trident5000 6y ago
A bunch of rednecks who broke into a building after a protest event ended, stayed between the red velvet ropes once inside, and left hours after being told to do so with no shots fired at security. Id hardly call that much of an insurrection attempt. "but they had zip ties" there has never been a gov overthrow fought by some guy who brought zip ties.
- spr3zi 6y ago
  A poor execution does not make it less seditious. The goal was to undermine or intimidate a democratic process entwined with the leadership of our nation. I would argue that's pretty clearly insurrection.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Like when the white house was stormed over the summer and the pres went into a bunker? Was that an attempted overthrow?
    - acdha 6y ago
      No, because that “storming” only happened in your imagination. The protests were hundreds of feet away and the violence started when the police tried to clear the public park for Trump to have a photo op. If you look at the footage from the journalists who were assaulted, there was nothing like a risk to the White House perimeter: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/channel-7-journalists-assaulted-police-george-floyd-protesters/12312056 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/channel-7-journalists... If the Trump supporters had similarly stayed outside of the gates, nobody would even remember the protest as more than a bit of trivia. (Edit: I added “storming” to the first sentence to avoid any confusion about whether I was referring to the well-publicized bunker trip)
      - trident5000 6y ago
        Yes the secret service made the call to take the president into a bunker because it never happened. Just wanted a little adventure that day.
gthaman 6y ago
Don't be flippant - both sides of the political spectrum work together under the facade of opposing sides. Now Trump just pulled a pied piper and led these people into the capital with which both sides will now try to use this manufactured situation to consolidate power. How is it that everyone here is all about game theory except when it matters ? And yes, America is in distress.
nickysielicki 6y ago
> The very foundation of your democracy has been eroded. Anyone who has studied American history knows that there's been a fairly recent revisionist movement to convince everyone that our republic is actually a democracy. The truth is that this country has always been a republic. The founders of our government hated tyrannical democracy. Hamilton: "It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." John Adams: "Democracy, will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure and every one of these will soon mold itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues, and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." Adams again: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Ben Rush: "A simple democracy is the devil's own government." Madison: "Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure." Madison again: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." I could go on and on. The point I'm trying to make here is that the left has fully endorsed this. Trump lost because turnout was high -- because the left shoehorned executive actions through elections commissions and governors under the guise of COVID. They increased turnout by mailing everyone a ballot. The left fired up their base and increased turnout by promising direct checks into voters bank accounts. They increased turnout by promising free healthcare. The left wants to double down and provide citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens, forever increasing their voter base. And finally, most brazenly, they want to abolish the electoral college to ensure that their coastal majorities can never be overridden. So no, democracy isn't dying in the US. We're more democratic than we've ever been, and there's no sign of it stopping. It's the republic that's in danger.
- geofft 6y ago
robin21 6y ago
Did he say storm the capital?
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  No, he did not.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    You know we know for sure? If he did, it would be on CNN playing in a loop.
- tibbydudeza 6y ago
  The word is incitement. First Rudy with his trial by combat nonsense and then Trump with his "we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give -".
  - koolba 6y ago
    > First Rudy with his trial by combat nonsense and then Trump with his "we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give -". I encourage you to look up these quotes so you can appreciate them in context rather than repeating garbage lines from left wing cable news. For example, if you watch Rudy’s speech or read the transcript you’ll be enlightened to realize he’s talking about putting his and Trump’s reputations up against Biden’s. You might think the notion of either have a reputation worth wagering is silly, but to interpret it as a suggestion to viewers to commit violence is beyond disingenuous. If we’re going to eliminate all flowery speech and metaphor we might as well stop talking altogether.
    - 7v3x3n3sem9vv 6y ago
      Yes, read the transcript. Don't watch the video which clearly shows the true anger and sentiment behind the speech. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. "Hey guys, there's a fire", said in a dull sarcastic tone is not the same as screaming it at the top of your lungs with a frightened look on your face. But yes, encourage people to read the transcript and not watch the video with their own eyes.
smsm42 6y ago
> The very foundation of your democracy has been eroded. That would be a crappy democracy if it could be eroded by a bunch of idiots taking an unauthorized Whitehouse tour. Fortunately, absolutely nothing happened to the democracy and it proceeded on its course. What could actually erode the democracy is nation giving up on free speech. That'd be a real sign of nation in severe distress. > I don't listen to your news Maybe you should, then you'd know nothing happened to the democracy.
- stolen_biscuit 6y ago
  >> I don't listen to your news >Maybe you should, then you'd know nothing happened to the democracy. >>> because of TV picture and a bunch of talking heads on TV and Twitter that told them there was an "insurrection" Which is it?
- slg 6y ago
  I can't believe this needs to be said, but the fact it failed doesn't mean the danger wasn't real. Some members of the mob were actively looking to kill the people who were 2nd and 3rd in line for the presidency. Let's not pretend that there was zero danger to democracy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > I can't believe this needs to be said, but the fact it failed doesn't mean the danger wasn't real. The danger is unreal not because it failed, but because it was obviously going to fail. We're talking about a bunch of delusional LARPers. If some foreign intelligence unit tries and fails to overthrow your country's government, that's insurrection. If it's the doofus who stole the podium or the guy with face paint and a horned fur hat, not so much. Note that the factual crimes are already plenty bad--they don't need to be exaggerated. > Some members of the mob were actively looking to kill the people who were 2nd and 3rd in line for the presidency There were murderers and arsonists at BLM riots as well; that doesn't impugn the legitimate protesters. Similarly, these few actual insurrectionists don't make the MAGA trespassers, rioters, even murderers into insurrectionists. > Let's not pretend that there was zero danger to democracy. There is a danger to our democracy in that a sitting president undermining democracy by spreading lies about election fraud. More generally, the media and tech companies are deliberately cultivating division and mistrust among the American people. These are real, credible dangers to democracy. The MAGA LARPers were not a credible threat to our democracy.
gjs278 6y ago
lmao. keep your opinion to whatever worthless country you currently reside in. america is fine.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
smichel17 6y ago
Without commenting on anything else, I don't think there's anything in the gp comment that implies smsm42 is American. (Actually, I read into the explicit "American society" that they are not American)
gfodor 6y ago
Your first paragraph and second paragraph cannot both be true at the same time. Trump never called for people to storm the capitol. He did, however, show a disasterous level of negligence that arguably was criminal by not taking steps to prevent it, since it was obviously being planned. If I’m wrong, I will happily retract my claim if you can provide a quote telling his supporters to storm the capitol, not march to the capitol and remain peaceful, which is what I believe he did say. (And, my understanding is the violence was already underway at this point.) Given your claim to be basing your opinion entirely on his own words and not media narratives finding evidence to prove your claim should be trivial.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Trump never called for people to storm the capitol. Did he do so literally and overtly, no. Was his call to march to the Capitol and give courage to members allied with his cause and prevent a failure of courage taken that way, and intended to be? Certainly, quite a number of the people who engaged in the riot claimed to do so at his direction, and “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest” style direction from leaders is not exactly a novel concept.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    Sure, but that wasn’t the claim. The claim is falsifiable. Yours isnt, but may be true.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Sure, but that wasn’t the claim. The claim was that he called on people to storm the capitol. Doing so with coded language where his audience would understand his true meaning while he could maintain superficial deniability if the uprising failed would still be such a call.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        There is a difference between saying it was a call, and saying you believe it was a call. There is evidence to the contrary, so we at best cannot be sure without some kind of due process. People are free to believe what they want, of course. If someone is going to claim they are not trumpeting a narrative and are making fact based claims, and not opinions based on their interpretation of words and events, then I will hold them to that standard.
sanderjd 6y ago
They are trolling. Downvote and move on.
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
3 years ago a bunch of women with pink pussy hats stormed the Capitol and no one cared. Don’t pretend people thought the democracy was going to end that day. It is true that people are easily duped. The problem is that without democracy it is even easier, especially when media giants have similar interests and push the same narrative.
- ink_13 6y ago
  Holding a protest on the National Mall is not the same thing as storming the Capitol, and it is foolish and facile to hold them up as equals.

mistermann 6y ago

Can you articulate a plausible (does not rely on significant speculation or hypotheticals) series of events at the Capitol incident that could have resulted in democracy being legitimately lost in America? I am unable to come up with one.

ceejayoz 6y ago
People were similarly dismissive of the Nazis after the Beer Hall Putsch. Aside: Asking for a hypothetical that doesn’t involve hypotheticals seems… off.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Aside: Asking for a hypothetical that doesn’t involve hypotheticals seems… off. Comments like this on a computer programming forum, where one would expect logic (and an understanding of the importance of dependencies) to prevail, also seems "off". I wonder, what might explain this apparent paradox, and the substantial quantities of it that can be found right here on HN? Does academia have any prior knowledge and study into this general phenomenon? Which domain would we search within to find answers to questions like this?
enraged_camel 6y ago
This is an obviously impossible burden to load on someone, and I think you know that. If democracy is legitimately lost in America, it will happen via a series of events that we today cannot conceive of. It is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy, and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > t is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy, and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will look like in the future is anybody's guess. What are you willing to give up politically to heal societal schisms?
  - polka_haunts_us 6y ago
    I wonder if one of the big issues is that lately control of government is so flip floppy that no one gives up anything because they figure they'll have control soon enough. From the mid 30s to late 70s, Democrats had full control of congress for all but 4 years. The national Republican party had to change A LOT in that time to be relevant. Since HW Bush the longest period has been I dunno, 4 years? 6 years?
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    What is the argument you're trying to make?
    - rayiner 6y ago
      I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?
      - enraged_camel 6y ago
geofft 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189... No hypotheticals - this one actually happened, and the resulting undemocratic government was seen as legitimate and retained power. (To be clear, democracy once lost can be regained, but it was unambiguously lost.)
- mistermann 6y ago
  In your assessment, are the attributes (a significant number of the plausibly impactful ones, not just one or two insignificant ones that happen to match) of that event highly similar to the event at the US Capitol in 2021?
- waterhouse 6y ago
  This is fascinating, thanks for posting. These are serious white supremacists. Simmons summarized the party's platform when he stated: North Carolina is a WHITE MAN'S STATE and WHITE MEN will rule it, and they will crush the party of Negro domination beneath a majority so overwhelming that no other party will ever dare to attempt to establish negro rule here. They form organizations called the "White Government Union" and such. There is a trumped-up issue of black men raping white women: Many newspapers published pictures and stories implying that African-American men were sexually attacking white women in the city. A suffragist said in a speech that, of all the threats farm wives face, there was none greater than "the black rapist", due to the failure of white men to protect them. She advocated that white men should resort to vigilante justice ... "if it needs lynching to protect woman's dearest possession from the ravening human beasts – then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary." Then, In response to Felton's speech and the danger it imposed upon black men, 32-year-old Alexander Manly wrote an editorial, refuting it and asserting that white women have consensual sex with black men. And: Within 48 hours, white supremacists, aided by newspapers across the South, used Manly's words – though reprinting incendiary distortions of them – as a championing catalyst for their cause. Waddell, and other orators, began inciting white citizens with sexualized images of black men, insinuating black men's uncontrollable lust for white women, running newspaper stories and delivering speeches of "black beasts" who threatened to deflower white women. On deplatforming: Prior to this editorial, The Daily Record had been considered "a very creditable colored paper" throughout the state, that had attracted subscriptions and advertising from blacks and whites alike. However, after the editorial, white advertisers withdrew their support from the paper, crippling its income. His landlord, M. J. Heyer, then evicted him. For his own safety, Manly was forced to relocate his press in the middle of the night. ... He had planned to move to Love and Charity Hall (aka Ruth Hall), on South Seventh Street, but it declined to take him as a tenant because his presence would have greatly increased the building's insurance rate. Then there's a rally of 300 "Red Shirts", with Waddell giving a speech ending thus: We will never surrender to a ragged raffle of Negroes, even if we have to choke the Cape Fear River with carcasses. A few days later, there's an event with 8000 attendees, with several speakers: Waddell followed by accusing blacks of "insolence", "arrogance", which he claimed was overshadowed only by their "criminality" [etc....] Once again, he concluded his speech assuring them that white men would banish blacks, and their traitorous white allies, even if they had to fill the Cape Fear River with enough black dead bodies to block its passage to the sea. Followed by violence: Waddell's speech so inspired the crowd that the Red Shirts left the convention and started terrorizing black citizens and their white allies, in the eastern part of the state, right away. They destroyed property, ambushed citizens with weapon fire, and kidnapped people from their homes and whipped them at night, with the goal of terrorizing them to the point where Republican sympathizers would be too afraid to vote, or even register to do so. On November 1, 1898, Dowling led a parade of 1,000 men, mounted on horses, for ten miles, through the black neighborhoods ... The next day, Dowling led a "White Man's Rally". Every "able-bodied" white man was armed. Escorted by Chief Marshal Roger Moore, a parade of men began downtown, again marched through black neighborhoods – firing into black homes and a black school on Campbell Square – and ended at Hilton Park where a 1,000 people greeted them with a picnic and free barbecue. Leading up to the election, these gatherings became daily occurrences; the white newspapers announced the time and place of meetings. Free food and liquor were provided for the vigilantes... Eventually: The day before the election, Waddell excited a large crowd at Thalian Hall when he told them: "You are Anglo-Saxons. You are armed and prepared and you will do your duty ... Go to the polls tomorrow, and if you find the negro out voting, tell him to leave the polls and if he refuses, kill him, shoot him down in his tracks. We shall win tomorrow if we have to do it with guns." To the election: Most blacks and many Republicans did not vote in the November 8 election ... as Red Shirts had blocked every road leading in and out of the city, and drove potential black voters away with gunfire. The governor came by to try to calm things down. However, when his train arrived, Red Shirts swarmed his train car and tried to lynch him. When the day was over, Democrats won 6,000 votes, overall, which was sizable given that the Fusion Party won 5,000 votes just two years prior. Likely due to the intimidation tactics plus fraud (cited article "M. F. Dowling Swears To it" says he, in a deposition, confessed to: stuffing the election board with Democrat party members, improperly erasing hundreds of Republicans from the registration lists, instructing election officers "how to deposit Republican ballots so they could be replaced", and more). They publish a "White Declaration of Independence", part of which demanded for Manly and his press to leave the city. Manly had already shut his press down and left town when he was alerted, by a white friend, that the Red Shirts were going to lynch him that night. ... Waddell's "Committee of Twenty-Five" summoned the Committee of Colored Citizens (CCC), a group of 32 prominent black citizens, to the courthouse at 6:00 pm. They told the CCC of their ultimatum, instructing them to direct the rest of the city's black citizens to fall in line. When the black men asked to reason with them, and pleaded that they could not control what Manly did, or what any other black person would do, Waddell responded that the "time had passed for words." They give a member of the CCC a deadline for a written response to deliver in person. He put it in Waddell's mailbox. When Waddell and the Committee did not receive a response by 7:30 a.m. on November 10 (it is unclear when Waddell checked his mailbox), about 45 minutes later, he gathered about 500 white businessmen and veterans to the Wilmington's armory. After heavily arming themselves with rifles and the Gatling gun, Waddell then led the group to the two-story publishing office of The Daily Record. They broke into Manly's building, vandalized the premises, doused the wood floors with kerosene, set the building on fire, and gutted the remains. At the same time, black newspapers all over the state were also being destroyed. ... Following the fire, the mob of white vigilantes swelled to about 2,000 men. A rumor circulated that some blacks had fired on a small group of white men a mile away from the printing office. White men then went into black Wilmington neighborhoods, destroying black businesses and property and assaulting black inhabitants ... The governor calls in the Wilmington Light Infantry and the federal Naval Reserves, taking them into Brooklyn to quell the "riot". They intimidated both black and white crowds with rapid-fire weapons, shooting and killing several black men. ... As the violence spread, Waddell led a group to the Republican Mayor, Silas P. Wright. Waddell forced Wright, the board of aldermen, and the police chief to resign at gunpoint. The mob installed a new city council that elected Waddell to take over as mayor by 4 p.m. that day. Waddell later wrote an article for Collier's Weekly, denying everything bad (to hilarity). We wrecked the [newspaper] house. I believe that the fire which occurred was purely accidental; it certainly was unintentional on our part ..., Since this trouble many negroes have come to me and said they are glad I have taken charge ... , There was no intimidation used in the establishment of the present city government. The old government had become satisfied of their inefficiency and utterly helpless imbecility, and believed if they did not resign they would be run out of town ... , etc. The success of the coup: Subsequent to Waddell's usurping power, he and his team were re-elected in March 1899 to city offices. Waddell would hold the mayorship until 1905. Four of those involved became Governor of the state, one became a senator, etc. Also: Although individuals of both races pointed to Democrat-backed violence as the driver behind the incident, the national narrative largely cast black men as aggressors, legitimizing the coup as a direct result of black aggression. For example, The Atlanta Constitution justified the violence as a rational defense of white honor, and a necessary response against the "criminal element of the blacks", furthering stereotypes of black violence. DARVO, always DARVO. There's a lot of interesting stuff in there. Now, I've only given a brief glance at a couple of secondary sources, and since it seems there is an alternate narrative, it would be responsible to do further research before taking it 100% seriously. Still, assuming it's true... One takeaway: fake news riling up a mob into violence is not new. (With a population of 25,000, it's likely there was at least one real case of a black man attempting to rape a white woman, but it seems some newspapers blew it way out of proportion.) Another takeaway: there were many explicit calls to violence—"lynching", creating "dead bodies"—and many occasions of actual violence, which escalated from one to the next.
ABeeSea 6y ago
Enough democratic members of congress are killed that the election doesn’t become certified. The remaining members elect a new republican speaker of the house. The constitution declares that if no winner to the Presidential election is declared the speaker of the house becomes President on Jan 20th. The speaker of the house doesn’t have to be a member of congress so the remaining republicans could have voted Trump speaker, keeping him in office another 4 years. And that is how democracy dies in America.
- mistermann 6y ago
  That has a pretty healthy dose of speculation in it, but provided this is consistent with the entirety of formal procedures, it's not bad. Except this part: > And that is how democracy dies in America. Where does that part come in? Assuming your scenario did transpire, is there something in the procedures where elections are no longer held on a go forward basis? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm no expert on the matter - so, I ask you.
sanderjd 6y ago
This is a very easy exercise: instead of cowering while letting other people take risks in his name, President Trump walks over to the Capitol. With him at the head of the column, many more people storm the building (the Capitol police likely don't put up a fight because nobody told them to fight the President), they occupy the building and take representatives hostage. At this point in time there is no longer a democracy in the US. What happens after that is anybody's guess; by my lights, probably the military leaders don't the President, their troops mostly follow their orders, they retake the Capitol, restore power to Congress, and install Pence as President, followed by democracy being restored not long after by a quick 25th amendment or impeachment and removal. But it would be plausible that some number of the military's leaders choose to back the President instead, or that an insufficient number of the troops follow their orders, resulting in either a successful coup or a protracted civil war. The only thing that saved us from this was Trump's cowardice.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  I'd hate to see that put to the test but what you describe could well have happened.
- mistermann 6y ago
  This is a legitimately good description of an arguably plausible (but still plausible!) scenario. But I must note that democracy is not lost in this scenario...unless you'd like to explain: > At this point in time there is no longer a democracy in the US. If we were to attach a debugger and step through the code, what state (variables and their values) would represent a valid scenario of democracy no longer existing in the United States? Or I suppose we could just look at the implementation of IsDemocracy(), assuming the designer of this shitty simulation is reasonably organized. > The only thing that saved us from this was Trump's cowardice. Well, that and other things that you haven't considered. I don't say these things because I think these morons are righteous, or Trump is a good president, or because I think this event is insignificant, but the opposite: I think this scenario is extremely significant - so significant that I suggest we discuss it with the same rigorous precision that is usually reserved only for discussing topics like computer programming. I think a decent argument could be made that the welfare of the country inside of which we write computer code should command at least as much respect during conversations (even if begrudged) as we enthusiastically heap upon coding arguments. But of course, this is just my opinion. And to be fair, if shit really does ever hit the fan, most everyone in this forum is well off enough to get the hell out of dodge to some other country that hasn't gone down the drain, where we can start the process all over again.

trident5000 6y ago

A bunch of rednecks who broke into a building after a protest event ended, stayed between the red velvet ropes once inside, and left hours after being told to do so with no shots fired at security. Id hardly call that much of an insurrection attempt. "but they had zip ties" there has never been a gov overthrow fought by some guy who brought zip ties.

spr3zi 6y ago
A poor execution does not make it less seditious. The goal was to undermine or intimidate a democratic process entwined with the leadership of our nation. I would argue that's pretty clearly insurrection.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Like when the white house was stormed over the summer and the pres went into a bunker? Was that an attempted overthrow?
  - acdha 6y ago
    No, because that “storming” only happened in your imagination. The protests were hundreds of feet away and the violence started when the police tried to clear the public park for Trump to have a photo op. If you look at the footage from the journalists who were assaulted, there was nothing like a risk to the White House perimeter: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/channel-7-journalists-assaulted-police-george-floyd-protesters/12312056 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/channel-7-journalists... If the Trump supporters had similarly stayed outside of the gates, nobody would even remember the protest as more than a bit of trivia. (Edit: I added “storming” to the first sentence to avoid any confusion about whether I was referring to the well-publicized bunker trip)
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Yes the secret service made the call to take the president into a bunker because it never happened. Just wanted a little adventure that day.

gthaman 6y ago

Don't be flippant - both sides of the political spectrum work together under the facade of opposing sides. Now Trump just pulled a pied piper and led these people into the capital with which both sides will now try to use this manufactured situation to consolidate power. How is it that everyone here is all about game theory except when it matters ? And yes, America is in distress.

nickysielicki 6y ago

> The very foundation of your democracy has been eroded. Anyone who has studied American history knows that there's been a fairly recent revisionist movement to convince everyone that our republic is actually a democracy. The truth is that this country has always been a republic. The founders of our government hated tyrannical democracy. Hamilton: "It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." John Adams: "Democracy, will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure and every one of these will soon mold itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues, and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." Adams again: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Ben Rush: "A simple democracy is the devil's own government." Madison: "Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure." Madison again: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." I could go on and on. The point I'm trying to make here is that the left has fully endorsed this. Trump lost because turnout was high -- because the left shoehorned executive actions through elections commissions and governors under the guise of COVID. They increased turnout by mailing everyone a ballot. The left fired up their base and increased turnout by promising direct checks into voters bank accounts. They increased turnout by promising free healthcare. The left wants to double down and provide citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens, forever increasing their voter base. And finally, most brazenly, they want to abolish the electoral college to ensure that their coastal majorities can never be overridden. So no, democracy isn't dying in the US. We're more democratic than we've ever been, and there's no sign of it stopping. It's the republic that's in danger.

geofft 6y ago

robin21 6y ago

Did he say storm the capital?

commandlinefan 6y ago
No, he did not.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  You know we know for sure? If he did, it would be on CNN playing in a loop.
tibbydudeza 6y ago
The word is incitement. First Rudy with his trial by combat nonsense and then Trump with his "we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give -".
- koolba 6y ago
  > First Rudy with his trial by combat nonsense and then Trump with his "we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give -". I encourage you to look up these quotes so you can appreciate them in context rather than repeating garbage lines from left wing cable news. For example, if you watch Rudy’s speech or read the transcript you’ll be enlightened to realize he’s talking about putting his and Trump’s reputations up against Biden’s. You might think the notion of either have a reputation worth wagering is silly, but to interpret it as a suggestion to viewers to commit violence is beyond disingenuous. If we’re going to eliminate all flowery speech and metaphor we might as well stop talking altogether.
  - 7v3x3n3sem9vv 6y ago
    Yes, read the transcript. Don't watch the video which clearly shows the true anger and sentiment behind the speech. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. "Hey guys, there's a fire", said in a dull sarcastic tone is not the same as screaming it at the top of your lungs with a frightened look on your face. But yes, encourage people to read the transcript and not watch the video with their own eyes.

smsm42 6y ago

> The very foundation of your democracy has been eroded. That would be a crappy democracy if it could be eroded by a bunch of idiots taking an unauthorized Whitehouse tour. Fortunately, absolutely nothing happened to the democracy and it proceeded on its course. What could actually erode the democracy is nation giving up on free speech. That'd be a real sign of nation in severe distress. > I don't listen to your news Maybe you should, then you'd know nothing happened to the democracy.

stolen_biscuit 6y ago
>> I don't listen to your news >Maybe you should, then you'd know nothing happened to the democracy. >>> because of TV picture and a bunch of talking heads on TV and Twitter that told them there was an "insurrection" Which is it?
slg 6y ago
I can't believe this needs to be said, but the fact it failed doesn't mean the danger wasn't real. Some members of the mob were actively looking to kill the people who were 2nd and 3rd in line for the presidency. Let's not pretend that there was zero danger to democracy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > I can't believe this needs to be said, but the fact it failed doesn't mean the danger wasn't real. The danger is unreal not because it failed, but because it was obviously going to fail. We're talking about a bunch of delusional LARPers. If some foreign intelligence unit tries and fails to overthrow your country's government, that's insurrection. If it's the doofus who stole the podium or the guy with face paint and a horned fur hat, not so much. Note that the factual crimes are already plenty bad--they don't need to be exaggerated. > Some members of the mob were actively looking to kill the people who were 2nd and 3rd in line for the presidency There were murderers and arsonists at BLM riots as well; that doesn't impugn the legitimate protesters. Similarly, these few actual insurrectionists don't make the MAGA trespassers, rioters, even murderers into insurrectionists. > Let's not pretend that there was zero danger to democracy. There is a danger to our democracy in that a sitting president undermining democracy by spreading lies about election fraud. More generally, the media and tech companies are deliberately cultivating division and mistrust among the American people. These are real, credible dangers to democracy. The MAGA LARPers were not a credible threat to our democracy.

gjs278 6y ago

lmao. keep your opinion to whatever worthless country you currently reside in. america is fine.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

smichel17 6y ago

Without commenting on anything else, I don't think there's anything in the gp comment that implies smsm42 is American. (Actually, I read into the explicit "American society" that they are not American)

gfodor 6y ago

Your first paragraph and second paragraph cannot both be true at the same time. Trump never called for people to storm the capitol. He did, however, show a disasterous level of negligence that arguably was criminal by not taking steps to prevent it, since it was obviously being planned. If I’m wrong, I will happily retract my claim if you can provide a quote telling his supporters to storm the capitol, not march to the capitol and remain peaceful, which is what I believe he did say. (And, my understanding is the violence was already underway at this point.) Given your claim to be basing your opinion entirely on his own words and not media narratives finding evidence to prove your claim should be trivial.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Trump never called for people to storm the capitol. Did he do so literally and overtly, no. Was his call to march to the Capitol and give courage to members allied with his cause and prevent a failure of courage taken that way, and intended to be? Certainly, quite a number of the people who engaged in the riot claimed to do so at his direction, and “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest” style direction from leaders is not exactly a novel concept.
- gfodor 6y ago
  Sure, but that wasn’t the claim. The claim is falsifiable. Yours isnt, but may be true.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Sure, but that wasn’t the claim. The claim was that he called on people to storm the capitol. Doing so with coded language where his audience would understand his true meaning while he could maintain superficial deniability if the uprising failed would still be such a call.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      There is a difference between saying it was a call, and saying you believe it was a call. There is evidence to the contrary, so we at best cannot be sure without some kind of due process. People are free to believe what they want, of course. If someone is going to claim they are not trumpeting a narrative and are making fact based claims, and not opinions based on their interpretation of words and events, then I will hold them to that standard.

sanderjd 6y ago

They are trolling. Downvote and move on.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago

3 years ago a bunch of women with pink pussy hats stormed the Capitol and no one cared. Don’t pretend people thought the democracy was going to end that day. It is true that people are easily duped. The problem is that without democracy it is even easier, especially when media giants have similar interests and push the same narrative.

ink_13 6y ago
Holding a protest on the National Mall is not the same thing as storming the Capitol, and it is foolish and facile to hold them up as equals.