3 ms·

Fair point. I shouldn't have made a silly joke about the name of that group when my real point was about the much bigger left-wing protest movement that peaked

Fair point. I shouldn't have made a silly joke about the name of that group when my real point was about the much bigger left-wing protest movement that peaked in 2016. The best example is perhaps the occupation of the Wisconsin state capital: > Thousands of protesters rushed to the … Capitol Wednesday night, forcing their way through doors, crawling through windows and jamming corridors...thousands of pro-union activists — many bused in from out of state — rampaged through the historic building in an effort to stop a vote on collective bargaining reform legislation. ... > during the course of the occupation, Walker received a steady stream of death threats against him and his wife, including one that promised to “gut her like a deer” and one threatening to kill his sons. Police found dozens of .22-caliber bullets scattered across the Capitol grounds. The occupiers drew chalk outlines of fake dead bodies etched with Walker’s name on the floor, and carried signs that read “Death to tyrants,” “The only good Republican is a dead Republican” and one with picture of him in crosshairs with the words, “Don’t retreat, Reload.” ... > House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued “to stand in solidarity” with the union activists. In other words, Democrats were for occupying capitols before they were against it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/14/democrats-were-occupying-capitols-before-they-were-against-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/14/democrats...

lapcat 4y ago
> my real point was about the much bigger left-wing protest movement that peaked in 2016. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning 2016? The Wisconsin protests were also in 2011. Anyway, in Wisconsin they were protesting a proposed bill. It wasn't a coup attempt. I'm actually a Wisconsinite, so I'm very familiar with this. If you read the linked Wisconsin State Journal article, you'll see that the protests were peaceful. "Police and protesters continued to get along, with no incidents reported and no arrests." It wasn't actually a "break-in". What happened was that there were already some protesters who had been inside the Capitol for some time, and then a much larger crowd showed up that night and wanted to get in, because there was a vote on the bill scheduled soon. The police were initially reluctant to allow the larger crowd to enter but decided to allow them. There was no violence. https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_260247e0-4ac4-11e0-bfa9-001cc4c03286.html https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article... Again, the issue isn't really protesting legislation in Capitol buildings. In general, that's a legitimate democratic activity. The issue is the safety of the members of Congress and the VP from a crowd on January 6 who wanted to overturn the results of the election that was about to be legally certified.
- leereeves 4y ago
  That article includes quite a few quotes from union leaders and protestors, none from supporters of the bill. The same journal published several articles opposing the bill. Its bias is obvious and undeniable. And that bias is probably why it fails to mention the death threats, violent rhetoric, chalk outlines, forcing lawmakers to flee, etc. All that in order to stop, not merely protest, passage of the bill. If we're to believe that lawmakers in Washington were in danger on January 6th, despite the complete absence of any violence against lawmakers, we should also believe the lawmakers in Madison were in danger. Death threats should be taken seriously regardless of partisanship.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > That article includes quite a few quotes from union leaders and protestors, none from supporters of the bill. Its bias is obvious and undeniable. > And that bias is probably why it fails to mention the death threats, violent rhetoric, chalk outlines Heh. It was an article published Thursday morning about the events that happened Wednesday evening. Of course it doesn't mention everything in the grand context. Do you not understand how news works? I would also note that this is the article linked from the Washington Post article that you linked. > forcing lawmakers to flee I'm not sure what you mean by this. Democratic lawmakers voluntarily, intentionally left Wisconsin for Illinois in order to prevent a quorum. > All that in order to stop, not merely protest, passage of the bill. Heh, this is just a bizarre statement. Why would you protest a bill if you weren't trying to stop its passage? Of course they were trying to stop its passage. Aren't there bills that you don't want passed? > If we're to believe that lawmakers in Washington were in danger on January 6th, despite the complete absence of any violence against lawmakers Another bizarre statement. There was no violence against lawmakers because the lawmakers were evacuated from the building while the Capitol police were trying to hold back the crowd. > we should also believe the lawmakers in Madison were in danger for the same reason No, because protesters were actually in the Wisconsin Capitol when the bill was passed. There was booing, but no violence. > Death threats should be taken seriously regardless of partisanship. Agreed, and the police do investigate them. But a lot of politicians of both parties get death threats, and most of them are just rhetoric. There were no assassination attempts on Scott Walker, and he personally wasn't even in the Capitol, as he was the Governor and not a legislator.

lapcat 4y ago

> my real point was about the much bigger left-wing protest movement that peaked in 2016. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning 2016? The Wisconsin protests were also in 2011. Anyway, in Wisconsin they were protesting a proposed bill. It wasn't a coup attempt. I'm actually a Wisconsinite, so I'm very familiar with this. If you read the linked Wisconsin State Journal article, you'll see that the protests were peaceful. "Police and protesters continued to get along, with no incidents reported and no arrests." It wasn't actually a "break-in". What happened was that there were already some protesters who had been inside the Capitol for some time, and then a much larger crowd showed up that night and wanted to get in, because there was a vote on the bill scheduled soon. The police were initially reluctant to allow the larger crowd to enter but decided to allow them. There was no violence. https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_260247e0-4ac4-11e0-bfa9-001cc4c03286.html https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article... Again, the issue isn't really protesting legislation in Capitol buildings. In general, that's a legitimate democratic activity. The issue is the safety of the members of Congress and the VP from a crowd on January 6 who wanted to overturn the results of the election that was about to be legally certified.

leereeves 4y ago
That article includes quite a few quotes from union leaders and protestors, none from supporters of the bill. The same journal published several articles opposing the bill. Its bias is obvious and undeniable. And that bias is probably why it fails to mention the death threats, violent rhetoric, chalk outlines, forcing lawmakers to flee, etc. All that in order to stop, not merely protest, passage of the bill. If we're to believe that lawmakers in Washington were in danger on January 6th, despite the complete absence of any violence against lawmakers, we should also believe the lawmakers in Madison were in danger. Death threats should be taken seriously regardless of partisanship.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > That article includes quite a few quotes from union leaders and protestors, none from supporters of the bill. Its bias is obvious and undeniable. > And that bias is probably why it fails to mention the death threats, violent rhetoric, chalk outlines Heh. It was an article published Thursday morning about the events that happened Wednesday evening. Of course it doesn't mention everything in the grand context. Do you not understand how news works? I would also note that this is the article linked from the Washington Post article that you linked. > forcing lawmakers to flee I'm not sure what you mean by this. Democratic lawmakers voluntarily, intentionally left Wisconsin for Illinois in order to prevent a quorum. > All that in order to stop, not merely protest, passage of the bill. Heh, this is just a bizarre statement. Why would you protest a bill if you weren't trying to stop its passage? Of course they were trying to stop its passage. Aren't there bills that you don't want passed? > If we're to believe that lawmakers in Washington were in danger on January 6th, despite the complete absence of any violence against lawmakers Another bizarre statement. There was no violence against lawmakers because the lawmakers were evacuated from the building while the Capitol police were trying to hold back the crowd. > we should also believe the lawmakers in Madison were in danger for the same reason No, because protesters were actually in the Wisconsin Capitol when the bill was passed. There was booing, but no violence. > Death threats should be taken seriously regardless of partisanship. Agreed, and the police do investigate them. But a lot of politicians of both parties get death threats, and most of them are just rhetoric. There were no assassination attempts on Scott Walker, and he personally wasn't even in the Capitol, as he was the Governor and not a legislator.