4 ms·

[flagged]

• _heimdall 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • wat10000 1y ago
    They’re different orders of magnitude. Biden was elected legitimately. Parties can nominate whoever they want, so shenanigans with primaries, while distasteful, are completely legitimate. Likewise, keeping Biden’s mental state from the public is ugly but legitimate. Voters can, and did, punish these actions. Trump tried to cheat his way to keeping power. Even if you don’t blame him for the violent attempt, it’s well established that he made major efforts before that to change the outcome by more peaceful means that were just as illegitimate. Playing stupid games within the system means you lose elections and either reform or get replaced. Playing stupid games subverting the system means you don’t have to worry about elections anymore if you succeed. I’m about a million times more concerned about the latter.
    • _heimdall 1y ago
      Do you not believe Trump was elected legitimately? I totally understand and share many of the concerns over the insurrection and what happened around it, but Trump didn't take office in 2020 and wasn't reelected until 2024.
      • wat10000 1y ago
        He was. Where do you see me saying otherwise?
        • _heimdall 1y ago
          > Biden was elected legitimately. I must have misread you last comment. I read this as a comparison implying that Biden wasn't legitimately elected but you just meant it to set up the point.
          • wat10000 1y ago
            Right, that’s a response to issues with the Democratic primary, not a contrast with Trump’s election.
  • tired-turtle 1y ago
    This is a shameful false equivalency. In the puppet president scenario you outline, the blast radius is, at worst, 4 years? In the case of an insurrection to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, there is a generation or more of democratic order lost.
    • _heimdall 1y ago
      That depends entirely on your context and frame of reference. You're describing the blast radius of what was possible in the past assuming that one president was willing to usurp power but only for one term. In reality, we did go 4 years with a president who wasn't in charge, at least for part of that term, specifically because the public was lied to about his health and some small number of people his the truth. We did not go through 4 years of a presidency after one very much seemed to attempt to take the office despite having lost the election. In both cases I take huge issue with the intent and the potential outcome. In one case, though, the outcome was real and I lived, for a time, in a presumably democraric society ruled by someone(s) who weren't elected while the one who was elected decreased mentally and physically beyond the ability to rule.
• Dig1t 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • wyre 1y ago
    If it’s not an insurrection what it is? What is the organization of thousands of individuals to invade the capital building in protest of election results? Just because it failed, doesn’t mean it wasn’t an insurrection.
    • roenxi 1y ago
      Words like "protest" or "riot" leap to mind. It is more comparable to something like CHAZ in 2020 which could technically be called an insurrection or rebellion, but realistically was more of an unruly protest. An insurrection would traditionally involve a little planning and a little more seriousness in the attempt. Maybe a plan that could conceivably lead to a change in government.
      • tshaddox 1y ago
        It was also a protest and a riot. These things are not mutually exclusive.
        • roenxi 1y ago
          Obviously. All riots are technically insurrections. They're synonyms. And they are usually protests too; it'd be unusual to have a riot while agreeing with the current direction of the government.
          • mathgeek 1y ago
            [flagged]
            • roenxi 1y ago
              [flagged]