All things Trump

[MinionZombie]

When you storm the very heart of government, when you're hunting for political figures (calling for their blood, calling for their public execution), after months and months of drip-fed rhetoric about a "stolen election" (Trump, knowing he was likely facing a real battle in the election, was prepping the ground for his followers to not believe the results of the election unless it was a victory for him, from several months ahead of November 2020) ... then that ain't a riot any more. That's far beyond and falls into an attempt to disrupt the democratic process (which is why January 6th was chosen) and overturn one's own elected government.

[Neil]

When you storm the very heart of government, when you're hunting for political figures (calling for their blood, calling for their public execution), after months and months of drip-fed rhetoric about a "stolen election" (Trump, knowing he was likely facing a real battle in the election, was prepping the ground for his followers to not believe the results of the election unless it was a victory for him, from several months ahead of November 2020) ... then that ain't a riot any more. That's far beyond and falls into an attempt to disrupt the democratic process (which is why January 6th was chosen) and overturn one's own elected government. Understood, but when the people with those supposed serious goals are dressed as buffalo shamen and armed with little more than flags, how serious are those threats? Especially when the FBI have reported there was no plot or premeditated plans etc? Do you really think that the idiots involved in anyway had any real intent or ability of taking any serious control of Capital Hill? Against hundreds of armed police? Heck just one officer managed to stop a crowd with the (unjustified) shooting of Ashley Babbit. The notion that Captial Hill was ever under serious threat is farcical. Indeed the riot was so serious... the events in the house were only delayed a few hours... The other problem is, when the media is intent on selling you this image of events:- Gallows to kill people... But the reality is:- A weak as pi$$ mock up that couldn't hang a cat and is basically a joke. So, as awful as the events of Jan 6th were, they were in truth a minor riot by basically fringe idiots, with many other people entering Capital Hill simply because gates/doors were open and police were even ushering them in at times etc. And as previously discussed in this thread, far worse riots occurred in the months before Jan 6th, at times egged on and financed by key Democrats, funding individuals to be bailed after being arrested to go out and riot again and again. But these can't be compared for some reason...? And I could easily dress up the far bigger and more coordinated DC riot that lasted for days, where far more damage was done, and resulted in agents having to evacuate a president to safety, in dramatic, "democracy under threat," insurrection language... But I suspect once again, that can only happen in one direction. The Jan 6th riot is now being milked and politically weaponised out of all proportion. eg: We now see basically veiled untruths about officers being killed during the riot, and it compared (and I actually face palmed when I read this) to Pearl Harbour and 9/11. Which is deeply insulting to those events IMHO. Yes, it was an appalling event, but the actions of those idiots did not match the request "to peaceably and patriotically make your voices heard" of Trump, which the vast majority of individuals did do. The gathering by Trump was a poor choice and indeed his rhetoric leading up to it was even more piss poor. But the actions of a minority of idiots on Jan 6th is being blown out of all logical proportion for political gain... There will be a reason why no one will be charged with insurrection or anything like that. There's a reason why people will only be charged with minor offenses such as assault, trespass, disorderly conduct or criminal damage... Because there was only assault, trespass, disorderly conduct and damage.

[JDP]

A couple of clarifications here: 1- Donald Trump was more than just advocating "peaceful" protest, the language he used on several occasions while addressing his followers was inflammatory: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN29B24S Trump knows very well what many of his followers are capable of from prior violent public clashes. He certainly must have known that many among his followers would not march "peacefully", especially not after he himself also used such language as "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." 2- More than one person died in that riot: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/u...ng-attack.html Officer Brian Sicknick's death, which was later on found to allegedly have been "natural", was also accompanied by a remark that "all that transpired played a role in his condition" by the same source.

[shootemindehead]

Not at all.... I'm highlighting how disproportionate a view is which considers one riot OK, and another not OK. ie: How objective and considered is such a view? You're the only one trying to bring that to the thread Neil and the reason is to deflect away from the events of Jan 6th and Trump's part in it. As said, if you want to open a thread in BLM, do so. But has nothing to do with either Jan 6th 2021. The fact of the matter that the only things that these events share was a tendency to become violent and in that respect there's commonality with much riotous behaviour. But beyond that they don't belong in the same discussion. It's like a having discussion on the Battle of Hastings and someone says, "Yeh, well what about the Battle of Stalingrad?"

[Neil]

1- Donald Trump was more than just advocating "peaceful" protest, the language he used on several occasions while addressing his followers was inflammatory: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN29B24S These sort of reports risk being akin to the picture of the gallows example above. People report a crop of a sentence, which is not fair to the broader aspect of it. So I'm very wary of words and sentences being quoted as hit bytes. ie: The word "fight" only means physical if you wish to construe it that way, especially if you make no attempt to include other things he said at the time:- "Everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capital Hill building to peaceably and patriotically make your voices heard." "Please support our Capital Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful!" If he was trying to inflame a crowd, why state things utterly to the contrary? "Stay peaceful!" At the end of the day we can cut and paste comments back and forth, but unless a statement specifically/clearly calls for violence or a riot? HOWEVE, I'm happy to concede the entire gathering was a bad idea. Trump shouldn't have had it, or at least not there. Trump knows very well what many of his followers are capable of from prior violent public clashes. He certainly must have known that many among his followers would not march "peacefully", especially not after he himself also used such language as "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." I might comment that after X hundred riots in the months before Jan 6th, with hundreds of millions of damage done, thousands of officers injured, and a number of people killed, key Democrats clearly understood that BLM/Antifa riots were destroying buildings and injuring and killing people, yet they did little to condemn them, and even at times went out of their way to promote and even fund their continuation. ie: If we're going to level these sort of judgements of politician's words/actions being responsible for resultant riots, shouldn't we point out even more clear examples of it? 2- More than one person died in that riot: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/u...ng-attack.html Officer Brian Sicknick's death, which was later on found to allegedly have been "natural", was also accompanied by a remark that "all that transpired played a role in his condition" by the same source. Indeed more than one person died. But I've tried to be more specific hopefully as I used the work kill. A number protestors died seemingly from natural causes. And although it was reported and implied Sicknick had been beaten with fire extinguishers, he spoke to his brother on the evening of the 6th and said he was fine and had just caught a bit of pepper spray. He died of natural causes (a stroke) the next day, as reported by the DC Medical Examiner. But let's not overlook how much (fake) mileage Sicknick's death got. The New York Times reported at the time, "He [Sicknick] Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump mob." The New York Times knew about Sicknick's cause of death when running this article, but they went with the above headline and the article is still viewable to this day. Does that seem fair, proportional and reasonable reporting? Or the mileage from say Elizabeth Warren's (senator) recent treet, "One year ago today, Donald Trump incited a mod of domestic terrorists to attack our Capital and try to overturn an election. I'm thinking of the famillies who lost loved ones defending the Capital..." Seem fair, proportional and reasonable? Other reports said, "Brian Sicknick, was fatally injured in the riot." Which of course is just a lie. Seem fair, proportional and reasonable? And this capitalisation and basically false narative (some people may use the work lies) goes on and on to the extend even suggesting multiple officers died (were killed by the Jan 6th rioters). ie: Biden implying Sicknick and Officer Billy [William] Evans were killed by the rioters. "They lost their lives defending the capital." Charlier Baker (Governor) stated about the Jan 6th riot, "One of those officers who lost his life that day was William Evans". The problem is, William Evans was killed April 2nd by an Islamic attacker at a check point. So the only officer mentioned, who was actually killed last year, was William Evans. But he actually died April 2nd, but is now being piled into Jan 6th to basically "sex it up"? So, a question out of interest... Can you actually read the above (and there's so much more like that) and not end up scratching your head why there's such a concerted effort to not just bend the truth unfairly, but even just outright lie? Really? And do you not then just wonder, if that's being done as regards just police officer deaths, what similar tactics are at play in other areas of Jan 6th? Ultimately, Jan 6th is being milked for all it's worth for every ounce of polical weaponisation/power possible. A mild riot over in a few hours doing little damage and killing no one is being built up as something it was not. And if this means dressing up the facts or even just lying to create the necessary smear, that's fine. Because many people will simply absorb/accept the 'information' with little/no question.

[JDP]

These sort of reports risk being akin to the picture of the gallows example above. People report a crop of a sentence, which is not fair to the broader aspect of it. So I'm very wary of words and sentences being quoted as hit bytes. ie: The word "fight" only means physical if you wish to construe it that way, especially if you make no attempt to include other things he said at the time:- "Everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capital Hill building to peaceably and patriotically make your voices heard." "Please support our Capital Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful!" If he was trying to inflame a crowd, why state things utterly to the contrary? "Stay peaceful!" At the end of the day we can cut and paste comments back and forth, but unless a statement specifically/clearly calls for violence or a riot? HOWEVE, I'm happy to concede the entire gathering was a bad idea. Trump shouldn't have had it, or at least not there. I might comment that after X hundred riots in the months before Jan 6th, with hundreds of millions of damage done, thousands of officers injured, and a number of people killed, key Democrats clearly understood that BLM/Antifa riots were destroying buildings and injuring and killing people, yet they did little to condemn them, and even at times went out of their way to promote and even fund their continuation. ie: If we're going to level these sort of judgements of politician's words/actions being responsible for resultant riots, shouldn't we point out even more clear examples of it? Indeed more than one person died. But I've tried to be more specific hopefully as I used the work kill. A number protestors died seemingly from natural causes. And although it was reported and implied Sicknick had been beaten with fire extinguishers, he spoke to his brother on the evening of the 6th and said he was fine and had just caught a bit of pepper spray. He died of natural causes (a stroke) the next day, as reported by the DC Medical Examiner. But let's not overlook how much (fake) mileage Sicknick's death got. The New York Times reported at the time, "He [Sicknick] Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump mob." The New York Times knew about Sicknick's cause of death when running this article, but they went with the above headline and the article is still viewable to this day. Does that seem fair, proportional and reasonable reporting? Or the mileage from say Elizabeth Warren's (senator) recent treet, "One year ago today, Donald Trump incited a mod of domestic terrorists to attack our Capital and try to overturn an election. I'm thinking of the famillies who lost loved ones defending the Capital..." Seem fair, proportional and reasonable? Other reports said, "Brian Sicknick, was fatally injured in the riot." Which of course is just a lie. Seem fair, proportional and reasonable? And this capitalisation and basically false narative (some people may use the work lies) goes on and on to the extend even suggesting multiple officers died (were killed by the Jan 6th rioters). ie: Biden implying Sicknick and Officer Billy [William] Evans were killed by the rioters. "They lost their lives defending the capital." Charlier Baker (Governor) stated about the Jan 6th riot, "One of those officers who lost his life that day was William Evans". The problem is, William Evans was killed April 2nd by an Islamic attacker at a check point. So the only officer mentioned, who was actually killed last year, was William Evans. But he actually died April 2nd, but is now being piled into Jan 6th to basically "sex it up"? So, a question out of interest... Can you actually read the above (and there's so much more like that) and not end up scratching your head why there's such a concerted effort to not just bend the truth unfairly, but even just outright lie? Really? And do you not then just wonder, if that's being done as regards just police officer deaths, what similar tactics are at play in other areas of Jan 6th? Ultimately, Jan 6th is being milked for all it's worth for every ounce of polical weaponisation/power possible. A mild riot over in a few hours doing little damage and killing no one is being built up as something it was not. And if this means dressing up the facts or even just lying to create the necessary smear, that's fine. Because many people will simply absorb/accept the 'information' with little/no question. More clarifications are in order: 1- Trump only RELUCTANTLY posted that "stay peaceful" remark AFTER the riots had already started: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/polit...y-6/index.html Trump is not as dumb as many think. He was trying to cover his behind, just in case things kept on escalating to more violence, something he was really pleased with. The fact is that his speeches and tweets also had inflammatory language. Trump knows about the more fanatic among his followers and what they are capable of from previous incidents. When you insert inflammatory remarks like those he made, you can certainly expect that at least some of them will react accordingly. Trump is manipulating his followers much in the style of a cult leader. 2- It was the very medical examiner who pronounced officer Brian Sicknick's death as "natural" who also remarked that "all that transpired played a role in his condition". So, it seems like he considered that the attacks did have an effect on what eventually happened to him.

[Neil]

More clarifications are in order: 1- Trump only RELUCTANTLY posted that "stay peaceful" remark AFTER the riots had already started: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/polit...y-6/index.html Trump is not as dumb as many think. He was trying to cover his behind, just in case things kept on escalating to more violence, something he was really pleased with. The fact is that his speeches and tweets also had inflammatory language. Trump knows about the more fanatic among his followers and what they are capable of from previous incidents. When you insert inflammatory remarks like those he made, you can certainly expect that at least some of them will react accordingly. Trump is manipulating his followers much in the style of a cult leader. 2- It was the very medical examiner who pronounced officer Brian Sicknick's death as "natural" who also remarked that "all that transpired played a role in his condition". So, it seems like he considered that the attacks did have an effect on what eventually happened to him. First - Thanks for the polite/concise posts RE (1) - Yes, you are correct, but it seemed to continue the narrative of comments from earlier. eg: "marching over to the Capital Hill building to peaceably make your voices heard" etc. In short there's no true call for violence or a riot, and in fact at times quite the opposite. There's only what appears to be selective editing and interpretation to suggest a request for violence. I'd add to this, the violence played 100% into Democrat hands, so it makes no sense Trump wanted it. The violence only seriously damaged Trump's position. Surely not the actions of someone "not as dumb as many think" RE (2) - Understood, so by that standard any and all police officers who died to similar questionable reasons in the riots prior to Jan 6th could be tied to the Democrats who egged those riots on? Or those Democrats who helped raising money used to bail rioters, some of whom went out to reoffend, and some injure/kill/murder? Shouldn't those people and officers who died directly or indirectly from those riots be considered in the same way then? Shouldn't we be consistent? I do hope you understand my stance on this entire matter? I in no way support the Jan 6th riot. I think Trump's rally before it was a pi$$ poor decision and his general rhetoric about the "stolen election" equally poor. BUT, I'd say I try and pride myself on trying to be objective, so when I see what appears to be a small short riot by a bunch of idiots being blown out of proportion by the media and political figures, seemingly for financial and policial gain, at times backed up by questionable assertions/narratives and at other times basically by falsehoods, it concerns me. And to this, I notice your "clarifications" didn't include my "question out of interest" which sort of highlighting this very matter? Note: And the reason why I keep mentioning the riots which took place pre Jan 6th is because many of those were far worse, resulting in days of destruction, violence and numerous deaths, but for some reason the action of some idiots on Jan 6th is portrayed as being worse and now even akin to Pearl Harbour? ie: Doesn't seem fair, reasoned and objective IMHO. - - - Updated - - - You're the only one trying to bring that to the thread Neil and the reason is to deflect away from the events of Jan 6th and Trump's part in it. As said, if you want to open a thread in BLM, do so. But has nothing to do with either Jan 6th 2021. The fact of the matter that the only things that these events share was a tendency to become violent and in that respect there's commonality with much riotous behaviour. But beyond that they don't belong in the same discussion. It's like a having discussion on the Battle of Hastings and someone says, "Yeh, well what about the Battle of Stalingrad?" No, I'm simply highlighting how skewed the assessment of similar riots may appear. ie: How objective is that assessment, so therefore how objective are conclusions which come from it? (A) The DC riot:- * Lasted numerous days. * Injured numerous police. * Numerous buildings burned/looted. Arson attempts on some including national monuments. * Resulted in a curfew. (B) The Capital Hill riot:- * Lasted a few hours. * Injured numerous police. * No buildings burned/looted. Not only can't we seem to agree the events in riot (A) were basically worse riot than in (B), but we seem to be in the position where the events can't be compared because (A) is somehow labelled acceptable/noble, while (B) is not? So again, the problem is this could suggest a rather subjective approach to evaluating events. It's like discussing two apples sitting on a table, and just as we're about to compare them, someone strangely pins a label reading "orange" on one, because they prefer one of the apples more. And as this little point is just the first step of the entire notion of the fair assessment of the Jan 6th riot, and we can't even agree on that, we appear to be at a loggerhead. Which is fine. Maybe you're right... Maybe I am...

[MinionZombie]

Whether or not some of them 'looked silly' has little bearing on whether or not they're capable of criminal acts or outright murder. Regardless of the structural and practical integrity of the gallows built outside the Capitol building, the very act of erecting that within that highly charged context inspires and approves of extreme ideas and violent actions. Sure, just a bunch of yahoos meanin' no harm ... ... until they drag an officer, who's pleading for his life, into their mob and start screaming "kill him with his own gun!" Just because some people 'did the right thing' after he begged for his life (and stated he had children), there is absolutely no excuse for what went on. What went on that day was horrifying. Using fear and violence for political means ... what might you call that? It certainly wouldn't be 'a bunch of silly billies who had one too many soda pops and got a bit carried away'. I'm not keen on comparing the Insurrection to 9/11 or Pearl Harbour, as they're all quite different events in quite different contexts for one thing, but I'm also not keen (to say the least) on diminishing the events of Jan 6th 2021.

[Neil]

Whether or not some of them 'looked silly' has little bearing on whether or not they're capable of criminal acts or outright murder. Regardless of the structural and practical integrity of the gallows built outside the Capitol building, the very act of erecting that within that highly charged context inspires and approves of extreme ideas and violent actions. Sure, just a bunch of yahoos meanin' no harm ... ... until they drag an officer, who's pleading for his life, into their mob and start screaming "kill him with his own gun!" Just because some people 'did the right thing' after he begged for his life (and stated he had children), there is absolutely no excuse for what went on. What went on that day was horrifying. Using fear and violence for political means ... what might you call that? It certainly wouldn't be 'a bunch of silly billies who had one too many soda pops and got a bit carried away'. I'm not keen on comparing the Insurrection to 9/11 or Pearl Harbour, as they're all quite different events in quite different contexts for one thing, but I'm also not keen (to say the least) on diminishing the events of Jan 6th 2021. Agreed all horrible things. These violent idiots were just that. But I'd also suggest they formed the minority of the protestors on the day. "Regardless of the structural and practical integrity of the gallows built outside the Capitol building, the very act of erecting that within that highly charged context inspires and approves of extreme ideas and violent actions." - We for example have seen Trump effigies being regularly hanged, burned and beaten during protests. Is this to inspire extreme ideas and violent actions? Heck, we've even seen dismembered prime minister heads in the hands of 'musicians' on the BBC. What extreme ideas and violent actions is that intended to achieve? Why view one example in one way and other differ? "I'm not keen on comparing the Insurrection to 9/11 or Pearl Harbour" - It was Harris doing a Jan 6th anniversary speech, and I'd suggest underlines my point of the Jan 6th riot simply being weaponised beyond all point of reason. To liken a few hour riot to Pearl Harbour and 9/11? With the gaul that Harris basically egged on and financially supported the hriots in the months before, resulting in far more damage and death. Riots that saw thousands of civilians and police officers injured and some even killed. Indeed, her bail fund put rioters back on the streets to continue their damage, violence and potentially even killing. Why are a string of riots causing immense damage and death across the entire of the US, and even against the White House, not comparible to 9/11 or Pearl Harbour? Indeed far too much of the Jan 6th anniversery was seemingly used to leverage as much as possible politically from the riot, even if it meant questionable assertions or basically complete falsehoods. eg: I mentioned above Officer William Evans being lumped in as a supposed Capital Hill riot victim, when he died in a completely different event. Do these sort of antics feel like a fair and reasonable treatment of the riot? Or (further) evidence of it being blown out of proportion for weaponisation? But I'll repeat what I said to JDP earlier:- I do hope you understand my stance on this entire matter? I in no way support the Jan 6th riot. I think Trump's rally before it was a pi$$ poor decision and his general rhetoric about the "stolen election" equally poor. BUT, I'd say I try and pride myself on trying to be objective, so when I see what appears to be a small short riot by a bunch of idiots being blown out of proportion by the media and political figures, seemingly for financial and policial gain, at times backed up by questionable assertions/narratives and at other times basically by falsehoods, it concerns me. Note: And the reason why I keep mentioning the riots which took place pre Jan 6th is because many of those were far worse, resulting in days of destruction, violence and numerous deaths, but for some reason the action of some idiots on Jan 6th is portrayed as being worse and now even akin to Pearl Harbour? ie: Doesn't seem fair, reasoned and objective IMHO. There was no insurrection on Jan 6th IMHO. It was a minor riot lasting a few hours. There was no way the rioters could achieve any such thing, especially with hundreds of (heavily) armed officers in the way. Would insurrectionists turn up to an insurrection with flags instead of guns? The reason for pitching it as an insurrection is simply to garner as much political leverage and mileage from it as possible...

[MinionZombie]

Agreed all horrible things. These violent idiots were just that. But I'd also suggest they formed the minority of the protestors on the day. As would be the case with the BLM protests you keep bringing up, surely? "Regardless of the structural and practical integrity of the gallows built outside the Capitol building, the very act of erecting that within that highly charged context inspires and approves of extreme ideas and violent actions." - We for example have seen Trump effigies being regularly hanged, burned and beaten during protests. Is this to inspire extreme ideas and violent actions? Heck, we've even seen dismembered prime minister heads in the hands of 'musicians' on the BBC. What extreme ideas and violent actions is that intended to achieve? Why view one example in one way and other differ? When have I said anything about effigies, or that I view them differently? Indeed, I find burning effigies quite distasteful and I don't support it. Note: And the reason why I keep mentioning the riots which took place pre Jan 6th is because many of those were far worse, resulting in days of destruction, violence and numerous deaths, but for some reason the action of some idiots on Jan 6th is portrayed as being worse and now even akin to Pearl Harbour? ie: Doesn't seem fair, reasoned and objective IMHO. Do you think I excuse rioting? Because I don't. I find it utterly disgusting how countless protests have ended up in violence and destruction. Sometimes it's mob mentality that kicks it off (e.g. the 2011 Riots in England), sometimes it's generations of hatred or victimisation brought to boiling point (e.g. the L.A. riots in the early 1990s), sometimes it's a self-obsessed, narcisistic nutjob bully boy rich kid stirring the shit because he lost a popularity contest. Sadly, the capability for that sort of extreme reaction is within more of us than we'd care to admit. There was a documentary on the 2011 riots featuring interviews with rioters, who got swept away in the frenzy and just said 'fuck it' and joined in as easy as that. There was no insurrection on Jan 6th IMHO. It was a minor riot lasting a few hours. There was no way the rioters could achieve any such thing, especially with hundreds of armed officers in the way. Would insurrectionists turn up to an insurrection with flags instead of guns? The reason for pitching it as an insurrection is simply to garner as much political leverage and mileage from it as possible... "Small" and "minor" are not words I'd use to describe the events of January 6th 2021. I'd say that "Insurrection" is a fitting word for what took place. Flags with "Trump" emblazoned all over them, as well as symbols, slogans, and imagery associated with QAnon, White Supremacy, Neo-Nazism, Far Right Militia groups etc. And a quick image search finds numerous pictures of goons at the Capitol with assault rifles and wearing full blown tactical gear.

[shootemindehead]

And as this little point is just the first step of the entire notion of the fair assessment of the Jan 6th riot, and we can't even agree on that, we appear to be at a loggerhead. Which is fine. Maybe you're right... Maybe I am... We've been at a loggerhead since you tried to draw an equivalence between two events that aren't equivalent in anything other than their riotous behaviour.

[Neil]

As would be the case with the BLM protests you keep bringing up, surely? Absolutely... Protest and riots are totally different things and surely should not be confused? And I suspect with most of the riots, the people involved have totally different drivers/intentions/goals to any protests. ie: The vaste majority of individuals at Capital Hill I suspect were peaceful protestors. And undoubtably the vaste majority of folks at BLM protests (not the HUNDREDS of serious often multiple day long riots) were peaceful protestors. When have I said anything about effigies, or that I view them differently? Indeed, I find burning effigies quite distasteful and I don't support it. Point being, with a minature effigy of a gallows on Jan 6th vs an effigy of Trump handing from a noose, why mention one specifically as likely to "inspire extreme ideas and violent actions?" There's nothing unusual about these things and they're common across protests? They're little more than cartoon expressions... "Small" and "minor" are not words I'd use to describe the events of January 6th 2021. I'd say that "Insurrection" is a fitting word for what took place. Flags with "Trump" emblazoned all over them, as well as symbols, slogans, and imagery associated with QAnon, White Supremacy, Neo-Nazism, Far Right Militia groups etc. Clearly this is where we differ significantly then. A bunch of idiots with no plan or coordination cause a few hours of violence, who were basically unarmed, faced by hundreds of heavily armed police who could have easily stopped them at any moment should it have been needed? How is that in anyway a viable attempted insurrection? There was no way these disorganised idiots could have carried out an insurrection, let alone intended to. Why attempt an insurrection bringing little more than some flags to combat the guns aimed at you? The fact it all only lasted a few hours shows how concerted (or not) the effort was. And when on the contrary, we have hundreds of riots in the months before, openly damaging property and people in effect as to 'threaten' the US for political reaons, and even threating the White House such that the president had to be vaccinated, all supported by influential Democrats, and yet these do not register on the same scale and therefore count as insurrection attempts? And a quick image search finds numerous pictures of goons at the Capitol with assault rifles and wearing full blown tactical gear. And yet if an insurrection was taking place, wouldn't such folks with assault rifles have been useful rather than flag poles? Again, the assertion being made here is a disorganised bunch of basically unarmed idiots were trying to carry out an insurrection against a heavily armed force? To me at least that sounds unrealistic. And didn't we see exactly the same, if not worse, (goons with guns) at countless riots pre-jan 6th? Indeed for example with the taking of autonmous zones (by force)? Here's an image of goons who took an area of the US by force, denying the access of police and other services. Question, if that had been "Trump goons" who had taken city blocks by force would it have been treated the same? Why is taking an area and impossing your own laws by force not an insurrection?   A 'goon' helping hold an area of the US as an autonomous zone, basically by force, including all premises, people and business in it. Resulting in violence, intimidation, rape and death. Does not deserve 'Pearl Harbour' or 9/11 rhetoric though?   Protestors (father and teenage daughter) at the Kenosha court. Jan 6th was a bunch of disorganised idiots rioting for just a few hours, who in truth simply posed no threat to Capital Hill. It was not an insurrection. If we truly do want to label it an insurrection because of what happened there, then the countless worse riots in the months before against authority or government should be consider as the same, if not worse. How else can you describe trying to force political goals by violence, or attacking and killing police officers, which repeatedly happened in those riots? Describing Jan 6th as an insurrection is just weaponising the event for polical gain. And we can see the language and indeed facts being used around the Jan 6th riot demonstrating this IMHO. - - - Updated - - - We've been at a loggerhead since you tried to draw an equivalence between two events that aren't equivalent in anything other than their riotous behaviour. My point exactly - What else is required when comparing different riots, other than the riotous behaviour that took place? Hence me pointing out, had the idiots at Capital Hill simply instead been carrying BLM flags, it appears the result would seem to be, we should then look at that Jan 6th riot differently? And if this is the case, where we strangely deem one riot for polital cause "X" worse than a far larger riot for polical cause "Y", there seems to be subjectivity at play based on alleged political causes. And if that is the case, how objective are the opinions/conclusions that follow...

[shootemindehead]

My point exactly - What else is required when comparing different riots, other than the riotous behaviour that took place? If you don't know this, then I can't help you Neil.

[Kaos]

None of the riots or protests for BLM threatened the peaceful transition of power. Not a single one could topple the continuance of representative democracy. January 6th was exactly that... a blatant attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power allowing a sitting president who has willful disregard for democracy to stay in power after unambiguously losing an election. Rioters encouraged by (and partially planned by) the sitting president to do so. The event is unique in our history. When the rioters successfully raid your Parliament (or Buckingham Palace) with nooses and firearms, Neil, you can come back and talk to us about it. Until then, you haven't a clue about what you are talking about.

[Neil]

None of the riots or protests for BLM threatened the peaceful transition of power. Not a single one could topple the continuance of representative democracy. January 6th was exactly that... a blatant attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power allowing a sitting president who has willful disregard for democracy to stay in power after unambiguously losing an election. Rioters encouraged by (and partially planned by) the sitting president to do so. The event is unique in our history. When the rioters successfully raid your Parliament (or Buckingham Palace) with nooses and firearms, Neil, you can come back and talk to us about it. Until then, you haven't a clue about what you are talking about. I understand your point, but I think we clearly differ on, (1) the intent of the protestors there, (2) the intent of the rioters there, and (3), what even the ability of the protestor and rioters was to achieve/carry out. (1) The vast majority of individuals there were peaceful protestors. Indeed there's plenty of footage of many protestors simply larping around, with police officers letting them in and chatting to them. (2) The violent rioters were just that. Idiots, many of whom were there at the outset of the day, and not even at the Trump rally. Some clearly had 'issues'. These rioters should be charged and no doubt will be... But I have little doubt it will be with criminal damage and assault etc. ie: Not anything akin to 'insurrection' or the like has been (or I suspect will be) leveled against a single individual. Why? (3) For all the rherotic and dramatic terms, the matters of the house were delayed just a few hours, and at no point was there any realistic threat from a bunch of unarmed individuals given the hundreds of armed officers around them. ie: I'd argue not for one second was there any suggestion of "toppling the continuance of representative democracy". To achieve that rather significant goal, why was there no organised planning? And again, the suggestion is an attempt to overtake the capital, in a country with the most guns per head in the world, by individuals using... no guns, against trained individuals with lots of guns? You don't see something significant with this? IMHO - The matter is being milked (weaponised) for all it's worth for political gain (by the same individuals/organisations who behaved in much the same way for numerous years before). "None of the riots or protests for BLM threatened the peaceful transition of power." - As neither did the Jan 6th riot I'd argue for the couple of hours it lasted. But the HUNDREDS of BLM riots did cause billions in damage. Injured thousands of police officer. Kill and murder numerous civilians and officers. Put countless small businesses out of business. Annexed areas by threat of force (resulting in murders, rapes and extortion). And caused days of destruction and violence in Washington such that the president had to be moved... Much of this I'd argue can and should be construed as domestic terrorism given the continued threat and enactment of destruction and violence for a political outcome, which of course is not something to be taken lightly. Especially when acting key politicians are endorsing these events and even helping fund criminals to be released to carry on rioting. But I suspect our views will differ on this too... I'd suggest the BLM riots were a far more serious and destructive effort to affect a political outcome (by undemocratic means). And if you feel I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about, fair enough... That's not an accusation I would feel comfortable leveling at someone... Maybe best if we just agree to disagree