3 ms·

Arguing that it was a poor insurrection attempt does not negate what it was. Arguing that it could have been worse doesn't change the fact that five people died

Arguing that it was a poor insurrection attempt does not negate what it was. Arguing that it could have been worse doesn't change the fact that five people died. The unarmed lady was shot climbing through a window you didn't say what window it was the window dividing a violent mob from congress people sheltering in place. And making excuses for political violence guarantees that there will be more in the future. It should never be tolerated.

pfannkuchen 1y ago
There aren’t some kind of magic levers inside of the building. To perform an insurrection you need military support. Do you think all of the people involved were just so dumb that they thought they could take over by simply being inside the building? The reality candidate where they intended to delay the proceedings by protesting on site makes massively more sense. Certainly one can disagree with the method there and say it wasn’t appropriate, but there is a lot of hysteria over it and I don’t really get why people are sucked in by it.
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  The plan was, according to the special counsel who had researched it, to buy time for the Eastman memo's plan of sending fake electors to create a constitutional crisis, whereas then the House needs to vote on who is president. The attack on the Capitol wasn't meant to overthrow the government itself. It was meant to stop the certification, which it did, so that the rest of the plan could take place. Under no circumstances take my word for it all of this is freely available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    Okay, that isn’t an insurrection or an attack though. It’s some attempt at a legal loophole via targeted protest, right? Insurrectionists typically don’t rely on legal mechanisms to achieve their goals.
    - pfannkuchen 1y ago
      This sounds like moving the goalposts. Sorry, I don’t intend to move the goalposts. What I mean is - yes, the document you linked seems quite plausible, I hadn’t read about that before. But, based on the reaction I see to January 6th from the public, I have trouble believing that the public reaction is driven by an understanding of the alleged plot and not from media driven hysteria. Are we saying that the media is drumming up hysteria based on the actual plot, but since the common man doesn’t actually understand such things typically that the media doing so is justified? Like to me an authentic negative reaction to reading about the plot would be something like disappointment that the type of legal strategizing that happens in courtrooms has made its way into politics. And I think even you personally are using the language “insurrection” and “attack”, which doesn’t really line up with the alleged plot at all, does it? This is what I’m confused about.
pdt409231 1y ago
That is a strawman argument, or perhaps you misunderstand the comparison. Nowhere did I say it was a poor insurrection attempt. I said it was not an insurrection at all. They were set up and led into the capitol for the cameras, in a ploy to frame it as an insurrection. And ultimately, that's what happened. To this claim that "5 people died" - how many were shot by the "violent insurrectionists"? The answer: none. 1 policeman had a stroke and 4 committed suicide. You cannot blame the J6ers for the policemen's pre-existing conditions or suicidal tendencies. None of the suicides were coerced. The only person who was killed was the aforementioned pro trump woman.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  You can't blame them for anything, it seems. Just a stroll, seeing the sights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs You do know they were convicted in court?
  - pdt409231 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - throwawayq3423 1y ago
      In crowd control, if your line is broken, you fall back. That's why rioters were allowed to walk through the Capitol. The police had no ability to stop them once their forward line was broken. "The police were giving them a tour." I'm sorry, what did you expect them to do? Go home? Not try to keep an eye on what was happening? > You do know they were subsequently pardoned? Accepting a pardon is a formal admission of guilt. You literally cannot pardon an innocent person. That's the whole point. And again, justifying or excusing political violence guarantees that more will come, which is why I'm particularly angered by what you're doing.
      - actionfromafar 1y ago
        He is probably eager for it.

pfannkuchen 1y ago

There aren’t some kind of magic levers inside of the building. To perform an insurrection you need military support. Do you think all of the people involved were just so dumb that they thought they could take over by simply being inside the building? The reality candidate where they intended to delay the proceedings by protesting on site makes massively more sense. Certainly one can disagree with the method there and say it wasn’t appropriate, but there is a lot of hysteria over it and I don’t really get why people are sucked in by it.

throwawayq3423 1y ago
The plan was, according to the special counsel who had researched it, to buy time for the Eastman memo's plan of sending fake electors to create a constitutional crisis, whereas then the House needs to vote on who is president. The attack on the Capitol wasn't meant to overthrow the government itself. It was meant to stop the certification, which it did, so that the rest of the plan could take place. Under no circumstances take my word for it all of this is freely available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos
- pfannkuchen 1y ago
  Okay, that isn’t an insurrection or an attack though. It’s some attempt at a legal loophole via targeted protest, right? Insurrectionists typically don’t rely on legal mechanisms to achieve their goals.
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    This sounds like moving the goalposts. Sorry, I don’t intend to move the goalposts. What I mean is - yes, the document you linked seems quite plausible, I hadn’t read about that before. But, based on the reaction I see to January 6th from the public, I have trouble believing that the public reaction is driven by an understanding of the alleged plot and not from media driven hysteria. Are we saying that the media is drumming up hysteria based on the actual plot, but since the common man doesn’t actually understand such things typically that the media doing so is justified? Like to me an authentic negative reaction to reading about the plot would be something like disappointment that the type of legal strategizing that happens in courtrooms has made its way into politics. And I think even you personally are using the language “insurrection” and “attack”, which doesn’t really line up with the alleged plot at all, does it? This is what I’m confused about.

pdt409231 1y ago

That is a strawman argument, or perhaps you misunderstand the comparison. Nowhere did I say it was a poor insurrection attempt. I said it was not an insurrection at all. They were set up and led into the capitol for the cameras, in a ploy to frame it as an insurrection. And ultimately, that's what happened. To this claim that "5 people died" - how many were shot by the "violent insurrectionists"? The answer: none. 1 policeman had a stroke and 4 committed suicide. You cannot blame the J6ers for the policemen's pre-existing conditions or suicidal tendencies. None of the suicides were coerced. The only person who was killed was the aforementioned pro trump woman.

actionfromafar 1y ago
You can't blame them for anything, it seems. Just a stroll, seeing the sights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHIJkZZAs You do know they were convicted in court?
- pdt409231 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwawayq3423 1y ago
    In crowd control, if your line is broken, you fall back. That's why rioters were allowed to walk through the Capitol. The police had no ability to stop them once their forward line was broken. "The police were giving them a tour." I'm sorry, what did you expect them to do? Go home? Not try to keep an eye on what was happening? > You do know they were subsequently pardoned? Accepting a pardon is a formal admission of guilt. You literally cannot pardon an innocent person. That's the whole point. And again, justifying or excusing political violence guarantees that more will come, which is why I'm particularly angered by what you're doing.
    - actionfromafar 1y ago
      He is probably eager for it.