Bear in mind these people are very much pro-gun and believe the 2A is there to protect against the govt. If they had intended to violently overthrow the govt, it would have been very apparent. Yet not a single bullet was fired from the protestors. As you pointed out, the only ones doing the shooting was from the police towards the pro-trump people. That lady was unarmed, and was shot while climbing thru a window. (Considering this [1] was the standard for 'peaceful protests' at the time.) Hardly qualifies as self defense, and had this been any other situation the policeman would be stripped of his badge and jailed. But of course, Biden's DOJ declined to prosecute.
Let me tell you about Belgium in 1830. It got attached to the Netherlands, and their king would not listen to the locals. Things got completely out of hand until we got huge protests. All the while, the idea at the Belgian side was things would calm down once their king would stop being so bloody minded and make some concessions. Well, the Dutch king didn't, the revolution succeeded, and we more or less accidentally liberated ourselves. France couldn't invade yet, and there was a general air of: whoops,we created a country, now what? Belgium is a country to this day, for no real reason.
You can start an armed revolt, but you have no idea what's going to happen afterwards.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>Accepting a pardon is a formal admission of guilt. You literally cannot pardon an innocent person. That's the whole point.
Wrong. Pleading guilty is an admission of guilt. Being convicted is not the same as admitting guilt. That is why there are things called appeals. Pardons can be a tool to overcome miscarriage of justice. And that's exactly what happened there. A partisan conviction by the regime they were protesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon
>And again, justifying or excusing political violence guarantees that more will come, which is why I'm particularly angered by what you're doing.
Strawman after strawman with you. Nowhere at all am I justifying political violence, because what happened was a mostly peaceful protest. I'm particularly angered by YOUR rhetoric, and it is amusing there isn't a shred of self awareness with that statement. If you haven't noticed, YOUR narrative has led to multiple high profile assassination attempts by leftists convinced Trump is a fascist or something. It hasn't merely guaranteed political violence, it has already happened. Multiple times.
> Wrong. Pleading guilty is an admission of guilt. Being convicted is not the same as admitting guilt.
You either pardon a person declared guilty by a judge and jury or a person who pled guilty themselves.
> Pardons can be a tool to overcome miscarriage of justice. And that's exactly what happened there.
I don't like this game and I'm not going to play it. Political violence spirals, and anyone who seeks to excuse it because it's their side, and their side can't be the violent ones, is childish at best and malevolent at worst.
> Nowhere at all am I justifying political violence
no you're just saying there was a bunch of grandmas and they were let in by the police and yes people die but it wasn't their fault and the guy organized the whole thing couldn't have possibly foreseen it becoming violent and then when it did he was in the white house so it's not like he could have pulled out his phone at any time and tweeted for them to go home to stop the whole thing.
I get that you need this to make sense in your head, but just understand not a single person is convinced by your babbling.
Who gives a shit? You're trying to say that because they were pardoned, they didn't do anything wrong. They were convicted of crimes in a court of law.
> You sought to pin political violence from 'your side' onto the opposition.
I don't even know what you're attempting to reference here. Your repeated attempts to excuse real political violence on January 6th is disgusting and dangerous.
So you can carry on trying to change the subject and confuse the matter. It won't accomplish anything.
> 77 million people would like to have a word with you.
Yes as i said in the beginning of this conversation Americans made a grave mistake returning a man to power who has no intention of ever leaving peacefully. as you pointed out January 6th could have been a lot worse, I pray the Republic survives whatever attempt is coming in 2028.
Although I'm sure you're preparing all of your excuses for why whatever happens won't be that bad.
