Capitol Riots 2

tempo_n_groove · September 2022

I don't recall the Shaman being violent. That's one at least.

mace1229 · September 2022

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Carried over from the Biden thread:

HughFreakingDillon said:
well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment.
From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc.

This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?

As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons.

You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do.

That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.

mace1229 · September 2022

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

some here seem to have a difficult time processing the difference between defending someone and stating an opposing viewpoint of events as they unfolded/not assuming what's going on in someone's mind based on who they are affiliated with.

mace has not been defending them.

Calling people who breached police barricades en route to invading the capitol building, in an effort to stop the certifying of our election "average joes" is akin to defending them in my opinion. Sorry Hugh. I have no sympathy for anyone who approached the capitol building that day.....including the republican nominee for governor in my state. I think he represents the type of people who were there perfectly. No evidence that he set foot in the capitol, but he was there and he is certifiably crazy and a direct threat to the future of our country.

I’m not defending those people. All I’m saying is I don’t believe the majority of those people are really wanting a civil war, willing to take up arms or personally inflict violence on government officials.
It looked like a couple hundred attacking police, then 2000 more just followed and roamed around an empty Capitol taking selfies. They let the mob mentality take over.
Thats not defending them. I don’t feel sorry for anyone being arrested who entered the building. They’re getting what they deserve. My comment is simply arguing against the idea that millions are willing to take up arms against the government and that Jan 6 is proof of that.

My average Joe comment wasn’t that they were all average joes who just showed up, but that more of the people there (the average person in the crowd) wasn’t there to start a civil war.

The Juggler · September 2022

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Carried over from the Biden thread:

HughFreakingDillon said:
well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment.
From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc.

This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?

As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons.

You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do.

That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.

It's not like these people exist in a vacuum. It's relatively easy to form opinions based on the other decisions they made that put them there in the first place. So while nobody knows exactly what is going on in someone else's brain, I don't think these are people deserving of the benefit of the doubt. They're not "average joes" who got caught up in a riot. They chose to attend a "stop the steal" rally. They participated in a march to the capitol building at the exact date and time the election was being certified. They chanted about killing the vice president and taking back the country. They broke through police barricades. They physically assaulted as many of the outnumbered police that were there until there was nobody left to assault. Then they posed for pictures and did the typical touristy thing once they broke into the building. No big deal. Just a lil coup attempt before grabbing dinner.

The Juggler · September 2022

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

some here seem to have a difficult time processing the difference between defending someone and stating an opposing viewpoint of events as they unfolded/not assuming what's going on in someone's mind based on who they are affiliated with.

mace has not been defending them.

Calling people who breached police barricades en route to invading the capitol building, in an effort to stop the certifying of our election "average joes" is akin to defending them in my opinion. Sorry Hugh. I have no sympathy for anyone who approached the capitol building that day.....including the republican nominee for governor in my state. I think he represents the type of people who were there perfectly. No evidence that he set foot in the capitol, but he was there and he is certifiably crazy and a direct threat to the future of our country.

I’m not defending those people. All I’m saying is I don’t believe the majority of those people are really wanting a civil war, willing to take up arms or personally inflict violence on government officials.
It looked like a couple hundred attacking police, then 2000 more just followed and roamed around an empty Capitol taking selfies. They let the mob mentality take over.
Thats not defending them. I don’t feel sorry for anyone being arrested who entered the building. They’re getting what they deserve. My comment is simply arguing against the idea that millions are willing to take up arms against the government and that Jan 6 is proof of that.
My average Joe comment wasn’t that they were all average joes who just showed up, but that more of the people there (the average person in the crowd) wasn’t there to start a civil war.

There were only a couple hundred police to attack. After the mob assaulted them, there was nobody else for them to assault except members of congress who had just gotten away.

Over 50% of Republicans believe a Civil War is on the horizon. You can keep denying these things if you want. But these people are out there and they are a threat to our country's future.

mace1229 · September 2022

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

some here seem to have a difficult time processing the difference between defending someone and stating an opposing viewpoint of events as they unfolded/not assuming what's going on in someone's mind based on who they are affiliated with.

mace has not been defending them.

Calling people who breached police barricades en route to invading the capitol building, in an effort to stop the certifying of our election "average joes" is akin to defending them in my opinion. Sorry Hugh. I have no sympathy for anyone who approached the capitol building that day.....including the republican nominee for governor in my state. I think he represents the type of people who were there perfectly. No evidence that he set foot in the capitol, but he was there and he is certifiably crazy and a direct threat to the future of our country.

I’m not defending those people. All I’m saying is I don’t believe the majority of those people are really wanting a civil war, willing to take up arms or personally inflict violence on government officials.
It looked like a couple hundred attacking police, then 2000 more just followed and roamed around an empty Capitol taking selfies. They let the mob mentality take over.
Thats not defending them. I don’t feel sorry for anyone being arrested who entered the building. They’re getting what they deserve. My comment is simply arguing against the idea that millions are willing to take up arms against the government and that Jan 6 is proof of that.
My average Joe comment wasn’t that they were all average joes who just showed up, but that more of the people there (the average person in the crowd) wasn’t there to start a civil war.

There were only a couple hundred police to attack. After the mob assaulted them, there was nobody else for them to assault except members of congress who had just gotten away.

Over 50% of Republicans believe a Civil War is on the horizon. You can keep denying these things if you want. But these people are out there and they are a threat to our country's future.

Just because 50% think it’s likely to happen doesn’t mean they want it to or are willing to die so Trump can get back in office. I can’t think of a single person I know that I believe would pick up their gun and jump into a battle. If that was really the case, statistically I’d know a few dozen. The number of people who are wanting and willing to make that happen are very few, despite how many people think it is likely.
A civil war isn’t going to happen. Republicans aren’t going to forcefully take over. Millions of people aren’t going to take up arms against this country. That’s part of the fear spreading to make us hate each other even more.

gimmesometruth27 · September 2022

tempo_n_groove said:

I don't recall the Shaman being violent. That's one at least.

he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?

The Juggler · September 2022

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

some here seem to have a difficult time processing the difference between defending someone and stating an opposing viewpoint of events as they unfolded/not assuming what's going on in someone's mind based on who they are affiliated with.

mace has not been defending them.

Calling people who breached police barricades en route to invading the capitol building, in an effort to stop the certifying of our election "average joes" is akin to defending them in my opinion. Sorry Hugh. I have no sympathy for anyone who approached the capitol building that day.....including the republican nominee for governor in my state. I think he represents the type of people who were there perfectly. No evidence that he set foot in the capitol, but he was there and he is certifiably crazy and a direct threat to the future of our country.

I’m not defending those people. All I’m saying is I don’t believe the majority of those people are really wanting a civil war, willing to take up arms or personally inflict violence on government officials.
It looked like a couple hundred attacking police, then 2000 more just followed and roamed around an empty Capitol taking selfies. They let the mob mentality take over.
Thats not defending them. I don’t feel sorry for anyone being arrested who entered the building. They’re getting what they deserve. My comment is simply arguing against the idea that millions are willing to take up arms against the government and that Jan 6 is proof of that.
My average Joe comment wasn’t that they were all average joes who just showed up, but that more of the people there (the average person in the crowd) wasn’t there to start a civil war.

There were only a couple hundred police to attack. After the mob assaulted them, there was nobody else for them to assault except members of congress who had just gotten away.

Over 50% of Republicans believe a Civil War is on the horizon. You can keep denying these things if you want. But these people are out there and they are a threat to our country's future.

Just because 50% think it’s likely to happen doesn’t mean they want it to or are willing to die so Trump can get back in office. I can’t think of a single person I know that I believe would pick up their gun and jump into a battle. If that was really the case, statistically I’d know a few dozen. The number of people who are wanting and willing to make that happen are very few, despite how many people think it is likely.
A civil war isn’t going to happen. Republicans aren’t going to forcefully take over. Millions of people aren’t going to take up arms against this country. That’s part of the fear spreading to make us hate each other even more.

Yeah. It doesn't take millions, dude. Please stop taking posts so literal. I'm in a suburb of a blue state and I have clearly seen people I used to be friends with go off the deep end on facebook and would not be surprised to see them jump to action if the time comes.

Roe V Wade will never be overturned either, right? It's just a states issue, right? Like I said, keep downplaying these things.....they're lurking on the horizon whether you choose to believe or not. The longer these far right politicians keep stoking the flames the worse things will get...

Judging by your lack of response, I think we have common ground on the violence on Jan 6th though. At least we're getting somewhere!

Halifax2TheMax · September 2022

Is Moscow Mitchy Baby going to encourage his caucus to vote “no?” From WaPo:

The House voted Wednesday to pass an electoral reform bill that seeks to prevent presidents from trying to overturn election results through Congress, the first vote on such an effort since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.

The bill passed on a 229-203 vote, with just nine Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in supporting the measure.

The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), explicitly cites the Capitol attack as a reason to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, “to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.”

“Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump’s refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was,” Cheney said Wednesday during House debate on the measure. “In our system of government, elections in the states determine who is the president. Our bill does not change that. But this bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the president itself.”

mickeyrat · September 2022

Halifax2TheMax said:

Is Moscow Mitchy Baby going to encourage his caucus to vote “no?” From WaPo:

The House voted Wednesday to pass an electoral reform bill that seeks to prevent presidents from trying to overturn election results through Congress, the first vote on such an effort since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.

The bill passed on a 229-203 vote, with just nine Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in supporting the measure.

The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), explicitly cites the Capitol attack as a reason to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, “to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.”

“Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump’s refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was,” Cheney said Wednesday during House debate on the measure. “In our system of government, elections in the states determine who is the president. Our bill does not change that. But this bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the president itself.”

its believed there are 10 gop senators supporting a senate version...

Halifax2TheMax · September 2022

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Is Moscow Mitchy Baby going to encourage his caucus to vote “no?” From WaPo:

The House voted Wednesday to pass an electoral reform bill that seeks to prevent presidents from trying to overturn election results through Congress, the first vote on such an effort since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.

The bill passed on a 229-203 vote, with just nine Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in supporting the measure.

The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), explicitly cites the Capitol attack as a reason to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, “to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.”

“Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump’s refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was,” Cheney said Wednesday during House debate on the measure. “In our system of government, elections in the states determine who is the president. Our bill does not change that. But this bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the president itself.”

its believed there are 10 gop senators supporting a senate version...

Still begs the question, yes?

mickeyrat · September 2022

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Is Moscow Mitchy Baby going to encourage his caucus to vote “no?” From WaPo:

The House voted Wednesday to pass an electoral reform bill that seeks to prevent presidents from trying to overturn election results through Congress, the first vote on such an effort since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.

The bill passed on a 229-203 vote, with just nine Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in supporting the measure.

The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), explicitly cites the Capitol attack as a reason to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, “to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.”

“Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump’s refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was,” Cheney said Wednesday during House debate on the measure. “In our system of government, elections in the states determine who is the president. Our bill does not change that. But this bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the president itself.”

its believed there are 10 gop senators supporting a senate version...

Still begs the question, yes?

yes, its not real til it passes.

mickeyrat · September 2022

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Is Moscow Mitchy Baby going to encourage his caucus to vote “no?” From WaPo:

The House voted Wednesday to pass an electoral reform bill that seeks to prevent presidents from trying to overturn election results through Congress, the first vote on such an effort since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.

The bill passed on a 229-203 vote, with just nine Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in supporting the measure.

The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), explicitly cites the Capitol attack as a reason to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, “to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.”

“Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump’s refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was,” Cheney said Wednesday during House debate on the measure. “In our system of government, elections in the states determine who is the president. Our bill does not change that. But this bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the president itself.”

its believed there are 10 gop senators supporting a senate version...

Still begs the question, yes?

yes, its not real til it passes.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-presidential-constitutions-congress-ba742c9f4c67c5189a6a6c9f8531721e

2022 Midterm elections Elections Donald Trump Presidential elections Constitutions Election 2020 Congress Government and politics

What's in the House, Senate bills overhauling Jan. 6 count

By MARY CLARE JALONICK

2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The central idea behind House and Senate bills to reform an arcane federal election law is simple: Congress should not decide presidential elections.

The bills are a direct response to the Jan. 6 insurrection and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to find a way around the Electoral Count Act, a 19th century law that governs, along with the U.S. Constitution, how states and Congress certify electors and declare presidential election winners. The House passed its version of the legislation on Wednesday, and a Senate committee will consider its bipartisan bill next week.

While the House bill is more expansive, the two bills would make similar changes, all aimed at ensuring that the popular vote from each state is protected from manipulation by bad actors or partisans who want to overturn the will of the voters.

House Administration Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a lead sponsor of the House bill, says people who wanted to overturn the 2020 election took advantage of ambiguous language “to have Congress play a role that they really aren’t supposed to play.”

Supporters in both chambers — Democrats and some Republicans — want to pass an overhaul before the start of the next Congress and ahead of the 2024 presidential campaign cycle, as Trump has signaled that he might run again. Ten GOP senators have backed the legislation, likely giving Democrats the votes they need to break a filibuster and pass their electoral bill in the 50-50 Senate.

CAPITOL SIEGE

Virginia Thomas agrees to interview with Jan. 6 panel

Trial opens for QAnon follower who chased officer at Capitol

Michigan man gets 5 years in prison for role in Capitol riot

Rioter who wore 'Camp Auschwitz' sweatshirt gets jail term

A look at what the two bills would do:

CLARIFY THE VICE PRESIDENT’S ROLE

Lawmakers and legal experts have long said the 1887 law is vague and vulnerable to abuse, and Democrats saw Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, as a final straw. Supporters of the former president attacked the Capitol that day, echoing his false claims of widespread election fraud, interrupting the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory and calling for Vice President Mike Pence’s death because he wouldn’t try to block Biden from becoming president.

Both the House and Senate bills would clarify that the vice president’s role presiding over the congressional certification every Jan. 6 after a presidential election is “ministerial” and that he or she has no power to determine the results of the election — an effort to make that point emphatically in the law after Trump and some of his allies put massive pressure on Pence. He resisted those entreaties, but many lawmakers were concerned that the law wasn’t clear enough on that point.

The Senate bill states that the vice president “shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors.” The House bill has similar language and adds that the vice president “shall not order any delay in counting or preside over any period of delay in counting electoral votes.”

MORE DIFFICULT TO OBJECT

The two bills would also make it more difficult for lawmakers to object to a particular state’s electoral votes. Under current law, just one member of the Senate and one member of the House need to lodge an objection to automatically trigger votes in both chambers on whether to overturn or discard a state’s presidential election results. Both bills would significantly raise that threshold, with the House bill requiring a third of each chamber to object and the Senate bill requiring a fifth of each chamber to object.

The House bill goes even further, specifying very narrow grounds for the objections, such as if certain electors are ineligible under the law or if a state submitted too many votes.

Brookings Institution Fellow Norm Eisen, a legal expert who consulted with lawmakers writing the legislation, said the House bill puts tighter parameters around “opportunities for mischief” by lawmakers who may be taking sides.

NO FAKE ELECTORS

Both bills would ensure that there is one “single, conclusive slate of electors,” as senators put it, a response to Trump allies’ unsuccessful efforts to create alternate, illegitimate slates of Trump electors in states that Biden narrowly won in 2020.

Each state’s governor would be required to submit the electors, which are sent under a formal process to Congress and opened at the rostrum during the congressional session on Jan. 6 after every presidential election. The House and the Senate bills would also establish legal processes if any of those electors are challenged by a presidential candidate.

'CATASTROPHIC EVENTS'

The House and Senate legislation would also revise language in current law that wasn’t challenged during the 2020 election, but that lawmakers think could be vulnerable to abuse. The law now allows state legislatures to override the popular vote in their states by calling a “failed election,” but the term is not defined under the law.

The Senate bill says a state could only move its presidential election day if there are “extraordinary and catastrophic” events that necessitate that to happen. House lawmakers and legal experts like Eisen have argued that the Senate language is still too vague, and the House bill would only allow such a delay if a federal judge agrees that there has been a genuine catastrophic event affecting enough ballots.

The House bill would also limit such a move to the affected geographic area and would require the extension to last no longer than five days after Election Day.

CERTIFYING ELECTIONS

The House bill would add language to try to prohibit state or local officials from refusing to count valid votes in a presidential election or refusing to certify a legitimate election — an attempt to assuage some lawmakers' fears that the next presidential candidate will follow Trump's lead and try to pressure lower-level officials to overturn the results. Presidential candidates could go to court to force such a count.

The Senate bill has no such language.

___

Follow the AP's coverage related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege.

Merkin Baller · September 2022

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Carried over from the Biden thread:

HughFreakingDillon said:
well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment.
From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc.

This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?

As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons.

You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do.

That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.

It's not like these people exist in a vacuum. It's relatively easy to form opinions based on the other decisions they made that put them there in the first place. So while nobody knows exactly what is going on in someone else's brain, I don't think these are people deserving of the benefit of the doubt. They're not "average joes" who got caught up in a riot. They chose to attend a "stop the steal" rally. They participated in a march to the capitol building at the exact date and time the election was being certified. They chanted about killing the vice president and taking back the country. They broke through police barricades. They physically assaulted as many of the outnumbered police that were there until there was nobody left to assault. Then they posed for pictures and did the typical touristy thing once they broke into the building. No big deal. Just a lil coup attempt before grabbing dinner.

Nor did 1/6 happen in a vacuum, but never mind all that. The majority of the poor souls who were there are just victims of circumstance who got caught up in the moment.

mickeyrat · September 2022

Merkin Baller said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Carried over from the Biden thread:

HughFreakingDillon said:
well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment.
From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc.

This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?

As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons.

You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do.

That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.

It's not like these people exist in a vacuum. It's relatively easy to form opinions based on the other decisions they made that put them there in the first place. So while nobody knows exactly what is going on in someone else's brain, I don't think these are people deserving of the benefit of the doubt. They're not "average joes" who got caught up in a riot. They chose to attend a "stop the steal" rally. They participated in a march to the capitol building at the exact date and time the election was being certified. They chanted about killing the vice president and taking back the country. They broke through police barricades. They physically assaulted as many of the outnumbered police that were there until there was nobody left to assault. Then they posed for pictures and did the typical touristy thing once they broke into the building. No big deal. Just a lil coup attempt before grabbing dinner.

Nor did 1/6 happen in a vacuum, but never mind all that. The majority of the poor souls who were there are just victims of circumstance who got caught up in the moment.

that "moment" was at a minimum from fucksticks first statements about a rigged election , how many months before Nov 2020? Or even further back from the aggrieved politics from fuckstick and others during his administration or even further back by the fearmongering politics of that party and talk radio, fox news and the like..

Like drug addicts , seeking out their drug of choice i.e. fox news etc they may not be responsible for becoming addicts in the first place but they are certainly responsible and accountable for their actions while "under the influence".

Merkin Baller · September 2022

mickeyrat said:

Merkin Baller said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Carried over from the Biden thread:

HughFreakingDillon said:
well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment.
From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc.

This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?

As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons.

You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do.

That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.

It's not like these people exist in a vacuum. It's relatively easy to form opinions based on the other decisions they made that put them there in the first place. So while nobody knows exactly what is going on in someone else's brain, I don't think these are people deserving of the benefit of the doubt. They're not "average joes" who got caught up in a riot. They chose to attend a "stop the steal" rally. They participated in a march to the capitol building at the exact date and time the election was being certified. They chanted about killing the vice president and taking back the country. They broke through police barricades. They physically assaulted as many of the outnumbered police that were there until there was nobody left to assault. Then they posed for pictures and did the typical touristy thing once they broke into the building. No big deal. Just a lil coup attempt before grabbing dinner.

Nor did 1/6 happen in a vacuum, but never mind all that. The majority of the poor souls who were there are just victims of circumstance who got caught up in the moment.

that "moment" was at a minimum from fucksticks first statements about a rigged election , how many months before Nov 2020? Or even further back from the aggrieved politics from fuckstick and others during his administration or even further back by the fearmongering politics of that party and talk radio, fox news and the like..

Like drug addicts , seeking out their drug of choice i.e. fox news etc they may not be responsible for becoming addicts in the first place but they are certainly responsible and accountable for their actions while "under the influence".

Yup.

tempo_n_groove · September 2022

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I don't recall the Shaman being violent. That's one at least.

he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?

Not violent though.

mickeyrat · September 2022

tempo_n_groove said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I don't recall the Shaman being violent. That's one at least.

he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?

Not violent though.

did not his "staff" have a pointed object affixed to the top? he had a weapon . used or on his person in the commission of a crime.

tempo_n_groove · September 2022

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I don't recall the Shaman being violent. That's one at least.

he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?

Not violent though.

did not his "staff" have a pointed object affixed to the top? he had a weapon . used or on his person in the commission of a crime.

Every video shown has him not using that staff. The AG or whatever wanted to use that tidbit though, the tip of it as a weapon and rightly so, it is a weapon, but he never wielded it as one.

So, still not violent.

mickeyrat · September 2022

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I don't recall the Shaman being violent. That's one at least.

he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?

Not violent though.

did not his "staff" have a pointed object affixed to the top? he had a weapon . used or on his person in the commission of a crime.

Every video shown has him not using that staff. The AG or whatever wanted to use that tidbit though, the tip of it as a weapon and rightly so, it is a weapon, but he never wielded it as one.

So, still not violent.

ok, apologist. he was part of the larger whole that was violent.

Capitol Riots 2

Comments

Categories