3 ms·

The previous president was banned after he no longer had political power.

woodruffw 4y ago
While literally true, this doesn’t accurately reflect the immediate circumstances that led him to be banned. In other words: it’s not true that his lack of political power was the thing that got him banned.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Also to say he lacks political power is objectively false. While he's no longer in office, for sure, he still wields tremendous political power.
ceejayoz 4y ago
He was a) the current president and b) politically powerful enough to trigger an attack on Congress. It's a little silly to pretend he was somehow a powerless private citizen on Jan 6. The man remains politically powerful today; see his impact on the current Republican primaries as an example.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    This is not a sensible response: the Capitol riot was the closest the US has come to open, widespread political violence in a century and a half. The fact that it was largely ineffective doesn't detract from it any more than the Beer Hall Putsch's failure detracts from, well, you know.
    - dmix 4y ago
      A single gun shot was enough to stop an entire group of unarmed rioters, but they still posed the greatest risk of political violence in 150 years? If the capitol police had properly prepared for the event as if it was a normal DC protest instead of a speaking event then none of it would have happened. The thin line of cops was obviously insufficient. The police response just took some time to organize but it was never under any serious threat of being overwhelmed.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Yes. The fact that it was ultimately impotent doesn't change that fact. Characterizing the riot as being ended by a "single gunshot" is misleading, at best: there is no evidence that the majority of rioters were aware that someone had been shot, much less killed, until hours or days after the Capitol had been cleared. "Insufficient" means a little bit of scuffling outside of our nation's legislature. It doesn't mean breaking into the windows and doors, rifling through the offices of legislators and stealing documents, and forcing an emergency evacuation of both chambers.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        >Characterizing the riot as being ended by a "single gunshot" is misleading, at best: there is no evidence that the majority of rioters were aware that someone had been shot, much less killed, until hours or days after the Capitol had been cleared. That makes it even less dangerous if most of them were disbursed with even less intense measures.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Democrat aligned rioters brought rifles to central Seattle, and then staged an insurrection where they drove police out of a station, set up their own guards, and executed Antonio Mays Jr for joyriding on their turf. That’s just one of several dozen violent attacks the US faced in 2020, “The Summer of Love”. Just yesterday, a Republican teenager was murdered by a Democrat over political differences. [1] Pretending a rowdy protest at the Capitol is anything like that sustained political violence is deeply dishonest. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/north-dakota-man-ran-down-005221620.html https://news.yahoo.com/north-dakota-man-ran-down-005221620.h...
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        > Pretending a rowdy protest at the Capitol is anything like that sustained political violence is deeply dishonest. I'm not. You'll note that any violence that occurred during the 2020 protests was not intended to prevent the peaceful transition of power in this country. Some it, like the Seattle courthouse riots, was clearly political violence. But the overwhelming majority of violence that did occur was not political violence -- most of it was opportunistic, and did not correspond in either personage or physical location to where the political protests were.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Hot topic but I have seen no reason to believe it was close to widespread political violence. It was an unruly riot but no politician was hurt. I would consider the many assassinations of presidents and politicians over that time point much closer.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Just as a point of clarification: "political violence" doesn't mean "doing violence against politicians." It means "using violence to achieve political ends." Storming the Capitol is an intrinsically violent act, one with clear political ends. I'd argue that it's a more serious act of political violence than any assassination has ever been in the US, given that no US political assassination has ever come close to threatening the smooth transition of power.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Does killing a first term president not disrupt the smooth transition of power? How close do you think the storming was to actually preventing Biden from taking office?
        woodruffw 4y ago
        > Does killing a first term president not disrupt the smooth transition of power? It's not good, but so far no presidential assassination has led to a crisis of authority in the US: the VP has always successfully assumed power, and has yielded it if and when they've lost the subsequent election. The closest thing among assassinations would probably be Lincoln's, but that's not exactly a contemporary precedent. It's hard to say how "close" it was. What's easy to say is that it was a naked attempt to subvert the smooth and peaceful transition of power, one that's unprecedented in the modern history of the US.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  Anything he could have done at that moment would simply have been undone by the incoming administration.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    You can't "undo" political violence or political pardons, which are among the numerous things he did in his final days in power.

While literally true, this doesn’t accurately reflect the immediate circumstances that led him to be banned. In other words: it’s not true that his lack of political power was the thing that got him banned.

socialismisok 4y ago
Also to say he lacks political power is objectively false. While he's no longer in office, for sure, he still wields tremendous political power.

ceejayoz 4y ago

He was a) the current president and b) politically powerful enough to trigger an attack on Congress. It's a little silly to pretend he was somehow a powerless private citizen on Jan 6. The man remains politically powerful today; see his impact on the current Republican primaries as an example.

pessimizer 4y ago
- woodruffw 4y ago
  This is not a sensible response: the Capitol riot was the closest the US has come to open, widespread political violence in a century and a half. The fact that it was largely ineffective doesn't detract from it any more than the Beer Hall Putsch's failure detracts from, well, you know.
  - dmix 4y ago
    A single gun shot was enough to stop an entire group of unarmed rioters, but they still posed the greatest risk of political violence in 150 years? If the capitol police had properly prepared for the event as if it was a normal DC protest instead of a speaking event then none of it would have happened. The thin line of cops was obviously insufficient. The police response just took some time to organize but it was never under any serious threat of being overwhelmed.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Yes. The fact that it was ultimately impotent doesn't change that fact. Characterizing the riot as being ended by a "single gunshot" is misleading, at best: there is no evidence that the majority of rioters were aware that someone had been shot, much less killed, until hours or days after the Capitol had been cleared. "Insufficient" means a little bit of scuffling outside of our nation's legislature. It doesn't mean breaking into the windows and doors, rifling through the offices of legislators and stealing documents, and forcing an emergency evacuation of both chambers.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        >Characterizing the riot as being ended by a "single gunshot" is misleading, at best: there is no evidence that the majority of rioters were aware that someone had been shot, much less killed, until hours or days after the Capitol had been cleared. That makes it even less dangerous if most of them were disbursed with even less intense measures.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Democrat aligned rioters brought rifles to central Seattle, and then staged an insurrection where they drove police out of a station, set up their own guards, and executed Antonio Mays Jr for joyriding on their turf. That’s just one of several dozen violent attacks the US faced in 2020, “The Summer of Love”. Just yesterday, a Republican teenager was murdered by a Democrat over political differences. [1] Pretending a rowdy protest at the Capitol is anything like that sustained political violence is deeply dishonest. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/north-dakota-man-ran-down-005221620.html https://news.yahoo.com/north-dakota-man-ran-down-005221620.h...
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      > Pretending a rowdy protest at the Capitol is anything like that sustained political violence is deeply dishonest. I'm not. You'll note that any violence that occurred during the 2020 protests was not intended to prevent the peaceful transition of power in this country. Some it, like the Seattle courthouse riots, was clearly political violence. But the overwhelming majority of violence that did occur was not political violence -- most of it was opportunistic, and did not correspond in either personage or physical location to where the political protests were.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Hot topic but I have seen no reason to believe it was close to widespread political violence. It was an unruly riot but no politician was hurt. I would consider the many assassinations of presidents and politicians over that time point much closer.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Just as a point of clarification: "political violence" doesn't mean "doing violence against politicians." It means "using violence to achieve political ends." Storming the Capitol is an intrinsically violent act, one with clear political ends. I'd argue that it's a more serious act of political violence than any assassination has ever been in the US, given that no US political assassination has ever come close to threatening the smooth transition of power.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Does killing a first term president not disrupt the smooth transition of power? How close do you think the storming was to actually preventing Biden from taking office?
        woodruffw 4y ago
        > Does killing a first term president not disrupt the smooth transition of power? It's not good, but so far no presidential assassination has led to a crisis of authority in the US: the VP has always successfully assumed power, and has yielded it if and when they've lost the subsequent election. The closest thing among assassinations would probably be Lincoln's, but that's not exactly a contemporary precedent. It's hard to say how "close" it was. What's easy to say is that it was a naked attempt to subvert the smooth and peaceful transition of power, one that's unprecedented in the modern history of the US.
towaway15463 4y ago
Anything he could have done at that moment would simply have been undone by the incoming administration.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  You can't "undo" political violence or political pardons, which are among the numerous things he did in his final days in power.