3 ms·

> American civil life has been defined by conflict. How many times has the Capitol been stormed? How many times has it been possible for a party representing a

> American civil life has been defined by conflict. How many times has the Capitol been stormed? How many times has it been possible for a party representing a clear minority of citizens (however defined) to gain or hold on to power via gerrymandering, rejection of votes, or state-legislative nullification of results? When, in the past, has it been possible and to a large extent legal for corporations and hostile foreign powers to influence our elections in a significant way? At least some things that are happening now are unprecedented (even if we disagree on the exact set). Also, please note that the authors have actually studied what other changes act as precursors to civil war throughout the world. Perhaps we shouldn't put our own intuition above that, without at least considering the evidence they present.

areyousure 5y ago
> How many times has the Capitol been stormed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_violent_and_dangerous_incidents_at_the_United_States_Capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_violent_and_danger...
- notacoward 5y ago
  So, not many. I didn't use "stormed" by accident. It means an armed group forcing their way past defenders into contested territory. A lone crazy doesn't count. An internal altercation doesn't count. Those are violent, but not storming, and AFAICT the last incident of that was 1814. Thanks for proving my point about how exceptional January 6 was.
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    None of the people who entered the Capitol were armed, at least according to the charges brought by prosecutors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_in_the_2021_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_in_the_2021_U...), and the only person shot that day was a rioter. I don't blame you for having misconceptions though, legacy media coverage of this topic has been absolutely abysmal.
    - notacoward 5y ago
      None of them had firearms you mean. The claim that they weren't armed is a transparent lie. There is a lot of video showing them carrying and using weapons of various sorts.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > None of them had firearms you mean At least one person is charged with both having a firearm at the riot and disorderly conduct in Capitol building, so even that is wrong.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > None of the people who entered the Capitol were armed False: (1) several people were charged for having and using weapons within the Capitol [0], and (2) Even if none were specifically charged with using weapons, that would not support “None were armed...according to charges” only “None were charged with being armed” [0] from: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases Zachary Jordan Alam with Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon, and with Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon; Christopher Michael Alberts with both firearms offenses and disorderly conduct within a Capitol Building (note that while some of the firearms offenses were in the initial complaint and statement of facts, the full combination including disorderly conduct inside the Capitol is in the Second Superceding Indictment—the third version of the charges based on additional information.) ...and that's not even the whole way through the A’s.
      - pseudo0 5y ago
        When I said armed, it's pretty clear by context that I was referring to firearms. And fair enough, the Wikipedia page appears to be out of date, as it does look like Alberts and Ibrahim were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds. Although Ibrahim was a DEA agent who was charged for LARPing and doing a photoshoot of himself in front of the Capitol with his DEA badge and gun, so that's going to be an entertaining one for the government to explain. Still, your characterization of this as an "armed group" is also false, as a couple individual idiots bringing firearms to a riot is obviously entirely different than an organized squad "storming" the Capitol. One shot was fired during the entire event, and one person was killed, and that was a rioter, not a cop or a politician. I don't have much sympathy for that crowd of idiots, but it is concerning how this event has been exaggerated into 9/11 2.0, providing an excellent excuse to crack down on civil liberties just as the justification of Islamic terrorism has receded.
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    It's possible to wordsmith a anything into a tiny set of just one truly unique thing. People do this with subjects such as intelligence, gods, and favorite athletes all the time. While this rhetoric tugs on my heart, it has no effect on truth value of any claim.
raxxorrax 5y ago
If you blame everything that is bad on your political opponent as a group, you make yourself a tool for others to be exploited. And political parties will do that in any case. Not because they are evil, this is just the dynamics of public relations, elections or not, democracy or not.

areyousure 5y ago

> How many times has the Capitol been stormed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_violent_and_dangerous_incidents_at_the_United_States_Capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_violent_and_danger...

notacoward 5y ago
So, not many. I didn't use "stormed" by accident. It means an armed group forcing their way past defenders into contested territory. A lone crazy doesn't count. An internal altercation doesn't count. Those are violent, but not storming, and AFAICT the last incident of that was 1814. Thanks for proving my point about how exceptional January 6 was.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  None of the people who entered the Capitol were armed, at least according to the charges brought by prosecutors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_in_the_2021_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_in_the_2021_U...), and the only person shot that day was a rioter. I don't blame you for having misconceptions though, legacy media coverage of this topic has been absolutely abysmal.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    None of them had firearms you mean. The claim that they weren't armed is a transparent lie. There is a lot of video showing them carrying and using weapons of various sorts.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > None of them had firearms you mean At least one person is charged with both having a firearm at the riot and disorderly conduct in Capitol building, so even that is wrong.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > None of the people who entered the Capitol were armed False: (1) several people were charged for having and using weapons within the Capitol [0], and (2) Even if none were specifically charged with using weapons, that would not support “None were armed...according to charges” only “None were charged with being armed” [0] from: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases Zachary Jordan Alam with Remaining in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon, and with Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building with a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon; Christopher Michael Alberts with both firearms offenses and disorderly conduct within a Capitol Building (note that while some of the firearms offenses were in the initial complaint and statement of facts, the full combination including disorderly conduct inside the Capitol is in the Second Superceding Indictment—the third version of the charges based on additional information.) ...and that's not even the whole way through the A’s.
    - pseudo0 5y ago
      When I said armed, it's pretty clear by context that I was referring to firearms. And fair enough, the Wikipedia page appears to be out of date, as it does look like Alberts and Ibrahim were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds. Although Ibrahim was a DEA agent who was charged for LARPing and doing a photoshoot of himself in front of the Capitol with his DEA badge and gun, so that's going to be an entertaining one for the government to explain. Still, your characterization of this as an "armed group" is also false, as a couple individual idiots bringing firearms to a riot is obviously entirely different than an organized squad "storming" the Capitol. One shot was fired during the entire event, and one person was killed, and that was a rioter, not a cop or a politician. I don't have much sympathy for that crowd of idiots, but it is concerning how this event has been exaggerated into 9/11 2.0, providing an excellent excuse to crack down on civil liberties just as the justification of Islamic terrorism has receded.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  It's possible to wordsmith a anything into a tiny set of just one truly unique thing. People do this with subjects such as intelligence, gods, and favorite athletes all the time. While this rhetoric tugs on my heart, it has no effect on truth value of any claim.

raxxorrax 5y ago

If you blame everything that is bad on your political opponent as a group, you make yourself a tool for others to be exploited. And political parties will do that in any case. Not because they are evil, this is just the dynamics of public relations, elections or not, democracy or not.