Was the January 6 riot/insurrection defensible?

That's not "rising". You're smarter than that.

 

What?

 

It means that you're lowering yourself in support of a guy who can't communicate. And is always the opposite of reasonable.

 

Hmmm, that's pretty insulting. You know we're not supposed to do that, right?

Anyway, I independently think the pitbull analogy is inapt.

 

So you think the issue is not supporting the riot but minimizing it? That's totally different than the topic of this thread. If the best you can do is find people who "want to minimize it as much as possible, want to portray it as unimportant, relative to other things," then I would say you have totally failed in finding J6 riot supporters.

 

I disagree entirely.
I just don't hear all this fuss from left wingers about BLM riots and Antifa riots.

I'm sorry but I never hear one word of condemnation for these from the left.
I do not hear people condemning BLM on the left.
Do not hear it at all.

Quite the opposite. They are lauded openly.
"Peaceful protests" is how they are typically described. 28 murders and billions of $ damage later.

It's not a principled discussion at all. It is pure partisan nonsense.

 

Frankly this pushes the boundaries of my definition of "riot" too.
Also "attack" for that matter.

I assume that there was argy bargy at the front of the crowd.
I believe a crowd barrier was pushed over.

That really is quite normal behaviour in protests.
Do I condone it?
No. That's not my thing.
Am I going to scuffle with the police line at the front of a protest?
No. Never.

Would I barge into the houses of parliament to make my own protest?
No. Never.

Nor am I surprised that when people in America did it, one of them got shot for his trouble.

I have never been in a protest, let alone a riot. I've seen them on television.
I didn't see any riot footage from Jan 6. None at all.

I saw images of people wandering around in the Capitol building. Protestors. Some guy in a silly hat.
Something akin to a pitch invasion at the end of a football match only more restrained.
I didn't see anyone or anything being attacked.

With the caveat that some sort of argy bargy must have occurred at some point. But as far as I can see it is much drama over nothing.
Just another desperate and ludicrous attempt to paint Trump Hitler from the same people who have spent so many years making ludicrous attempts to paint Trump Hitler.

There is very little indeed to be taken seriously in this story.
It is extremely ridiculous. About the same standard of debate as "Trump said drink bleach".

 

Strike One!

Strike Two!

Strike Three!

Even though this is only your first paragraph, I'm going to stop reading after your fourth strike. There was nothing, at all, "normal" about January 6th. And it most certainly was an "attack." Any reasonable person, who had an inkling of what went on, would also accept the term "assault," on the Capitol. But "protest?" No, sir, that is evidence of only one's cluelessness; buttressed by the further evidence that you must "assume" there was an argy-bargy, at the front of the crowd (despite all the available video, detailing the what had occurred), and that you only "believe" that "a crowd barrier was pushed over."

It is my suspicion, that you are only making such stupendously ignorant statements, in order to get a rise out of me. But I will not waste more of my time, energy, or emotion, on someone pretending to be so clueless.

Then again, it can be shocking, just how detached from reality, are some people's irrational delusions.

 

Even if I agreed, which I don't, not condemning something is not the same as condoning it

 

So Baff didn't see broken windows, overturned desks, furniture in disarray, running through hallways, trying to enter barricaded offices, crazy screaming people with flagpoles.
He must have been watching Blankety blank.

It really is quite simple. The Constitution calls for the peaceful handover of power. It is important in that it prevents a coup d'etat.
Trump knew his base, loaded the crowd with his right wing cults, and told them what he knew would incite them. Trump said he would meet them at the Capitol...it was only his driver who stopped him.
Now we won't know what hw was planning to do if he had arrived there, but clearly the crowd was out of control without him.
What is more important however is that the crowd went there expecting trouble. Arms stashed in Virginia, people up trees armed with assault rifles, the armed crowd behind the building. Hardly circumstance.

As for comparing it to BLM demos, no BLM demo threatens to hijack the Constitution and take over the country.

Finally, I can't help but wonder what Trump's long term plan was. There is no way he would have succeeded because the military would not have backed him. He would have been taken down and there would have been far more glaring proof of his treason against the state.
Frankly the man needs to be taken to a secure location and kept away from sharp instruments.

 

In what way was it an attack? An assault?

Who was attacked?
Who was assaulted?

A protesting crowd went into a government building.
Civil disorder.

It's pretty common for political protests to end in civil disorder.
Quite normal.

We have riot squads exactly because this kind of behaviour is expected.
Is so normal.

You can try and paint this as an attempted coup.
But it wasn't one.

Just another protest descending into civil disorder like most of them do.


Only this one is different.
This one was protesting in support of a politician that you viscerally hate.

So you want us to treat it as an extreme event.
Because you feel extreme feelings towards the movement that it was in support of.




What you want is to do is what Putin does.
And have all your political opposition arrested on trumped up charges.

If it is a civil war that you want, you are certainly doing everything in your power to provoke one.
Must these people take you seriously?

 

Who is "you"?

 

Doesn't the same point apply to those who don't wax lyrical about the evils of the Jan 6 riot?

Which is my point.

This is a cynical attempt to apply a double standard to ones political opposition. And it is easily recognisable as such. Which is why so few people are willing to take it seriously. Only the highly partisan.




Let's put it into context. Trump said Drink Bleach. Trump was Putin's agent. Trump supports white supremacy. Trump attempted a coup.

An unarmed coup. In America! ROFL LMAO.

Reality check.
Some political protestors at a rally after a contentious election had a bit of a minor riot. /Yawn.

 

Well Baff you are sorely needed in the trials of the more than 100 protesters who have been found guilty of trespass into protected public buildings, wilful damage, and other laws pertaining to violent assault.
Some have been fined, some jailed for up to two years.
Many have pleaded guilty to breaking American laws.
So until you know and understand American law, I suggest you keep your powder dry.

 

I asked Baff who "you" is.
IOW is he accusing me of behaving as Putin does, silencing opposition.
I would like to know if he is libelling me.
He may also be accusing me of provoking a civil war.
Now clearly this is a ridiculous lie, since I don't have any connections with anyone who could possibly take part in one , nor could I do so from thousands of miles away .
So I would like to know who Baff is accusing of insurrection and removal of the right to free speech .

 

Moving those goal posts, are we? I did not call it an "attempted coup," though I certainly understand why some do, and I accept that term; but merely "protest," is just too ludicrously false. The word I had used, to which you initially objected, was "attack." If you want to call it an "attack by protestors," that is fine. I also named "assault," as being acceptable. Both of these fall well below "coup attempt," and yet are far more than is suggested by simply the word protest. That is a pretty vast gap, that exists in your vocabulary, if you know of no words, defining anything in-between a protest, and a coup.

Generalized "civil disorder," is too ambiguous a term as well, so that it would typically only be used, to avoid over- repetition of the same word (attack, assault, riot, etc.), after the event it was referring to, had already been more accurately described; or it would be used as a catch-all term, meant to be used to cover a wide variety of events.

You, on the other hand, are using it purely for obfuscation, of the truth.

 

I haven't seen anything that particularly excites me as to this being any more extreme an event than any other of a great many protests that end in some amount of civil disorder.

I haven't seen any footage or images of rioting whatsoever.

I think the portrayal of these events as an attack or an assault is inflammatory nonsense.

Essentially not much of any great note occurred. A political protest got out of hand.
Much as Trumps detractors would like to dramatise this into something ultimately rather sinister. It isn't.

And when taken in the perspective and context of other protests and civil disorder taking place by other American political movements in the same few years is in fact rather mild, tame and frankly polite.

 

So you haven't seen the 6th and last congressional committee hearing widely televised earlier this month.
I suggest you understand what happened before you try to pass judgement.

Now please answer my question. Who are you accusing of insurrection, provoking a civil war? Behaving like Putin and arresting political opposition on trumped up charges.

Who is the "you" in your statement:

What you want is to do is what Putin does.
And have all your political opposition arrested on trumped up charges.

If it is a civil war that you want, you are certainly doing everything in your power to provoke one.
Must these people take you seriously?

Who are you accusing of provoking a civil war?

 

Since that was not what I was attempting to do, it is you who have failed, in your assessment of my "success." It was you who was talking about "supporting" the rioters. I saw @Nemesis specifically tell you that this was not what he had said. But I know this is just how you operate: you choose to define what it is, that the person who you are supposed to be debating, or discussing something with, is trying to prove.

Great. So I failed, by your definition. Unfortunately for you, that means, logically, that it is me, who defines your arguments' objectives...

Bad news, for you Mike: you utterly failed, too, and terribly, to show that Trump was not grievously negligent in fulfilling his duty, as President, to protect the Capitol.


(Better luck, next time-- though not at negating honest, election results).

 

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"?

You didn't respond. Some come on, who did that?

 

Well I admit I don't know what you think I failed in but I DO know what the topic of this thread is. So I'll just have to live with my failure.

 

Typical Trump. One mixed message in a sea of aggressive BS.

Which message did the kooks get loud and clear, (un)Reasonablerob? The one not-so-subtly telling them to attack the Capitol.

You really have no idea what the 1/6 committee uncovered. It's almost like you traveled back in time to post this BS here.

Have you asked yourself, in light of the more aggressive tone of the speeches on 1/6 and Trump's utter failure to do anything about the attack on the Capitol for 3 hours, that the attack is what Trump wanted and planned for?

Of course not. Because that would be the act of someone who's reasonable.

 

He's explicitly telling them not to be violent.
It's not implied. It's explicit.


Now, most anti Trumpers are very much not reasonable people.
That is the reputation associated with Trump haters.

Spewers of abject hate and bollocks.

This is not limited behaviour to people who are anti Trump.
Obama was a birther.

Blah, blah, blah.

I can't take any of you seriously. I doubt many people can.

 

You post this bilge and "can't take" others seriously? *LOL* Then why did he sit on his fat orange ass for 3 hours doing NOTHING?

You plainly haven't been paying attention to, well, any actual evidence of how an attack on the Capitol happened.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...cus-trump-allies-extremist-groups-2022-07-12/



WASHINGTON, July 12 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday accused Donald Trump of inciting a mob of followers to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a last-ditch bid to remain in power fueled by a chaotic meeting with some of his most ardent supporters.

The House of Representatives committee also produced evidence that aides and outside agitators knew before the riot that Trump would urge thousands of his supporters to march on the Capitol that day.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The panel's seven Democrats and two Republicans have used the hearings to build a case that Trump's efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election constitute illegal conduct, far beyond normal politics.

As the three-hour hearing ended, Republican Representative Liz Cheney said Trump had tried to phone a potential committee witness, raising the possibility he might have illegally tried to influence witness testimony. read more.

In video testimony shown during the hearing, witnesses described a loud late-night six-hour meeting on Dec. 18, 2020, where Trump disregarded White House staffers who urged him to concede the November 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.

Instead, Trump sided with outside advisers who urged him to keep pressing his baseless claims of election fraud.

Committee members said Trump ultimately was responsible for the chaos that followed.

"President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child. ... He is responsible for his own actions and his own choices," said Cheney, the committee vice chairperson.

Committee members said Trump incited the riot through his refusal to admit he lost the election and through comments like his Dec. 19, 2020, Twitter post, shortly after the meeting, for supporters to flock to Washington for a "big protest," saying, "Be there, will be wild."

Trump, a Republican who has hinted he will seek the White House again in 2024, denies wrongdoing and has falsely asserted that he lost only because of widespread fraud that benefited Biden, a Democrat.

'NOT TOUGH ENOUGH'
The committee played recorded testimony from White House aides describing the angry Dec. 18 meeting where a handful of Trump's outside advisers, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, attorney Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne, former chief executive of Overstock.com, encouraged him to fight the election result.

"I don't think any of these people were providing the president with good advice. I didn't understand how they had gotten in," Pat Cipollone, Trump's former White House counsel, said in video testimony.




1/14
Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) sit next to other committee members as they lead the seventh public hearing by the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, U.S., July 12, 2022. Doug Mills/Pool via REUTERS

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democratic committee member, displayed a text from White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who gave explosive testimony last month, saying of the meeting, "The West Wing is unhinged."

Giuliani, who was escorted from the White House grounds, said in video testimony his argument had been: "You guys are not tough enough. Or maybe I put it another way: You're a bunch of *******, excuse the expression. I'm almost certain the word was used."

The attack on the Capitol, following a speech Trump gave at a rally outside the White House, delayed certification of Biden's election for hours, injured more than 140 police officers and led to several deaths.

'A MOB WAS BEING ORGANIZED'
The committee presented evidence that it said showed Trump's call for his supporters to march on the Capitol was not spontaneous but had been planned in advance.

The panel showed an unsent Twitter message about the rally, with a stamp showing Trump had seen it: "Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!"

The committee also played audio testimony from a former employee of Twitter describing his fear after Trump's December tweet and deep concern on Jan. 5 about the possibility of violence on Jan. 6.

"It felt as if a mob was being organized and they were gathering together their weaponry and their logic and their reasoning behind why they were prepared to fight," the Twitter employee said, his voice disguised.

About 800 people have been charged with taking part in the Capitol riot, with about 250 guilty pleas so far.

The hearing also looked at links between right-wing militant groups, including the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and the QAnon internet conspiracy movement, with Trump and his allies. Many Oath Keepers and Proud Boys participated in the Jan. 6 attack.

Two witnesses testified in the hearing room - Stephen Ayres, who has pleaded guilty to a federal charge for participating in the attack on the Capitol, and Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers.

Ayres said he joined the march because he believed Trump, and that he had since lost his job, sold his house and no longer believes Trump's "Big Lie" that the election had been stolen. "It changed my life, you know, definitely not for the good."

Trump and his supporters - including many Republicans in Congress - dismiss the Jan. 6 panel as a political witch hunt, but the panel's backers say it is a necessary probe into a violent threat against democracy.

 

Hmm. Yet another one with the "Teehee! Attacking the Capitol is not a big deal!".

@Le Chef