4 ms·

How do people without guns inside a government building control anything exactly?

by ekianjo 4y ago

HeyItsMatt 4y ago
- rswail 4y ago
  Sorry, it wasn't and isn't a "media narrative" that is relevant here. Neither is there anything related to the trope of the "MSM" or power of the FAANGS. There was obvious collusion and conspiracy to cause the properly cast and certified electoral college votes to be questioned. There was also obvious collusion and conspiracy to a) riot, and b) attempt to occupy the Capitol, and c) stop the actual process of counting the electoral college votes, both real and fake. So there were two different, but intertwined, especially at the top, conspiracies to stop the process of the transfer of power.
  - HeyItsMatt 4y ago
mulmen 4y ago
By force. The same way they broke down the locked doors and windows and overwhelmed the police.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  You don't control a country by controlling a single building. And worst case, you send the military and the crisis is over in a few hours. If you believe that this was an insurrection, that was the most peaceful insurrection ever in History.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    > You don't control a country by controlling a single building. This isn't some random building, it's literally the Capitol, with Congress in attendance. This was also not an isolated incident. In 2020 Ammon Bundy of Malheur standoff fame led an armed mob which forced its way past the State Patrol into a session of the Idaho State House of Representatives. After occupying the gallery above the House they were "allowed" to stay and observe the session, with their guns. On January 6th itself an armed mob forced its way past the gate at the governors house in Washington state. Also on January 6th attempts were made to enter the capitols in California, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oregon. Some of these involved armed mobs and gallows. On January 9th an armed mob showed up outside the Kentucky State Capitol. Consider the connection between Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City to see how this escalates. > And worst case, you send the military and the crisis is over in a few hours. That worst case involves the mob actually reaching the representatives, killing them and claiming power. In that case the military can't just magically set everything right. If hostages are involved nothing is getting done "in a few hours". The military isn't going to undo any damage. A successful attack on Congress that incapacitated, killed, or persuaded enough representatives absolutely could lead to control of the country. > If you believe that this was an insurrection, that was the most peaceful insurrection ever in History. A woman was killed by the Secret Service after breaching a barricade in pursuit of the Vice President. Members of the mob used chemical weapons on police. Call it whatever you want but it wasn't peaceful and it wasn't innocent.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > killing them and claiming power. Even if that did happen, that would not be enough to take over the country. You'd elect new representatives after the crisis. A small group of people would never be able to resist the power of the US Military for very long. > A woman was killed by the Secret Service after breaching a barricade in pursuit of the Vice President. Members of the mob used chemical weapons on police. Call it whatever you want but it wasn't peaceful and it wasn't innocent. "Most peaceful" does not mean there were no incidents. In the history of actual insurrections, that was the most peaceful one ever, if you even consider it one. Insurrections cause massive death of civilians and police/authorities, and this was clearly not it.
rswail 4y ago
By the force of their numbers occupying the seat of government and forcing the elected representatives and the chain of government (VP, Speaker, President of Senate) to be isolated. No one knew whether or not the rioters were armed or not. Therefore, the assumption had to be that they were, or that there were those that were hidden in the crowd. Until they were cleared from the Capitol buildings, they controlled the electoral process and disabled the counting of the electoral college votes. That delayed the part of the transfer of power between one POTUS and the next.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > No one knew whether or not the rioters were armed or not Ever heard of secret services? Even the FBI has admitted they had undercover agents among the participants. > they controlled the electoral process and disabled the counting of the electoral college votes So what? It would never have lasted more than a day until security or the army took over. There was no risk at all of a coup d'etat or something.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    > Ever heard of secret services? Even the FBI has admitted they had undercover agents among the participants. Ok so then they were considered to be a legitimate threat? > So what? It would never have lasted more than a day until security or the army took over. The history of domestic standoffs does not support this claim. > There was no risk at all of a coup d'etat or something. The military was deliberately held back from responding. There absolutely was a risk and this is exactly how such an attempt would look.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > Ok so then they were considered to be a legitimate threat? You put informants to know what's happening. They knew they did not carry weapons (only very few did). > The history of domestic standoffs does not support this claim. Oh yeah? When was the country taken over by a small group of people in the past? > There absolutely was a risk (of a coup d'etat) Please explain me how things would have turned after more than a day, and how the country would have been run by a bunch of guys with viking hats with 300 million other people not doing anything about it.

How do people without guns inside a government building control anything exactly?

HeyItsMatt 4y ago

rswail 4y ago
Sorry, it wasn't and isn't a "media narrative" that is relevant here. Neither is there anything related to the trope of the "MSM" or power of the FAANGS. There was obvious collusion and conspiracy to cause the properly cast and certified electoral college votes to be questioned. There was also obvious collusion and conspiracy to a) riot, and b) attempt to occupy the Capitol, and c) stop the actual process of counting the electoral college votes, both real and fake. So there were two different, but intertwined, especially at the top, conspiracies to stop the process of the transfer of power.
- HeyItsMatt 4y ago

mulmen 4y ago

By force. The same way they broke down the locked doors and windows and overwhelmed the police.

ekianjo 4y ago
You don't control a country by controlling a single building. And worst case, you send the military and the crisis is over in a few hours. If you believe that this was an insurrection, that was the most peaceful insurrection ever in History.
- mulmen 4y ago
  > You don't control a country by controlling a single building. This isn't some random building, it's literally the Capitol, with Congress in attendance. This was also not an isolated incident. In 2020 Ammon Bundy of Malheur standoff fame led an armed mob which forced its way past the State Patrol into a session of the Idaho State House of Representatives. After occupying the gallery above the House they were "allowed" to stay and observe the session, with their guns. On January 6th itself an armed mob forced its way past the gate at the governors house in Washington state. Also on January 6th attempts were made to enter the capitols in California, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oregon. Some of these involved armed mobs and gallows. On January 9th an armed mob showed up outside the Kentucky State Capitol. Consider the connection between Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City to see how this escalates. > And worst case, you send the military and the crisis is over in a few hours. That worst case involves the mob actually reaching the representatives, killing them and claiming power. In that case the military can't just magically set everything right. If hostages are involved nothing is getting done "in a few hours". The military isn't going to undo any damage. A successful attack on Congress that incapacitated, killed, or persuaded enough representatives absolutely could lead to control of the country. > If you believe that this was an insurrection, that was the most peaceful insurrection ever in History. A woman was killed by the Secret Service after breaching a barricade in pursuit of the Vice President. Members of the mob used chemical weapons on police. Call it whatever you want but it wasn't peaceful and it wasn't innocent.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > killing them and claiming power. Even if that did happen, that would not be enough to take over the country. You'd elect new representatives after the crisis. A small group of people would never be able to resist the power of the US Military for very long. > A woman was killed by the Secret Service after breaching a barricade in pursuit of the Vice President. Members of the mob used chemical weapons on police. Call it whatever you want but it wasn't peaceful and it wasn't innocent. "Most peaceful" does not mean there were no incidents. In the history of actual insurrections, that was the most peaceful one ever, if you even consider it one. Insurrections cause massive death of civilians and police/authorities, and this was clearly not it.

rswail 4y ago

By the force of their numbers occupying the seat of government and forcing the elected representatives and the chain of government (VP, Speaker, President of Senate) to be isolated. No one knew whether or not the rioters were armed or not. Therefore, the assumption had to be that they were, or that there were those that were hidden in the crowd. Until they were cleared from the Capitol buildings, they controlled the electoral process and disabled the counting of the electoral college votes. That delayed the part of the transfer of power between one POTUS and the next.

ekianjo 4y ago
> No one knew whether or not the rioters were armed or not Ever heard of secret services? Even the FBI has admitted they had undercover agents among the participants. > they controlled the electoral process and disabled the counting of the electoral college votes So what? It would never have lasted more than a day until security or the army took over. There was no risk at all of a coup d'etat or something.
- mulmen 4y ago
  > Ever heard of secret services? Even the FBI has admitted they had undercover agents among the participants. Ok so then they were considered to be a legitimate threat? > So what? It would never have lasted more than a day until security or the army took over. The history of domestic standoffs does not support this claim. > There was no risk at all of a coup d'etat or something. The military was deliberately held back from responding. There absolutely was a risk and this is exactly how such an attempt would look.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > Ok so then they were considered to be a legitimate threat? You put informants to know what's happening. They knew they did not carry weapons (only very few did). > The history of domestic standoffs does not support this claim. Oh yeah? When was the country taken over by a small group of people in the past? > There absolutely was a risk (of a coup d'etat) Please explain me how things would have turned after more than a day, and how the country would have been run by a bunch of guys with viking hats with 300 million other people not doing anything about it.