It's pretty telling that Twitter and Facebook, at long last, feel they have no choice but cut off Trump's platform because they can be almost certain allowing him back on would lead to incitement to violence, when they've pandered to him every step of the way thus far. At this point, it's the right call. The man needs to be, at bare minimum, isolated from decision-making and not able to use social media as a mega-phone for the next 14 days. This should ideally be done in an official capacity, by impeachment or the 25th, but barring that, those who have the power to do so must constrain him in every way possible.
What an epic failure by the Capitol police. You didnt have to be Nostradamus to predict this riot but it looks like they didn't do anything at all to prepare for it. What a load of incompetents...
To be perfectly honest, @WarChiefZeke, the protestors didn't seem to prioritize peacefulness. There's a big difference between holding hands and singing Kumbaya and wearing bullet proof vests while carrying guns. You might object by saying that the vests and the guns are merely for protection, and that there's nothing wrong with exercising your Second Amendment rights, even in, and especially in, the context of a protest. Fair enough. But using violence to defend yourself is still using violence, and the same goes for the mere threat of it: it's still a threat to use violence, even if it's in self defense. I'm not saying that all protests should be peaceful, I believe that there are some extraordinary cases in which violent protests are justified, for example when the goal is to overthrow a dictator. And you might say that the storming of the Capitol falls into that category, although I don't believe it does. But even if that was the case, then it wouldn't be accurate to describe it as peaceful.
If I'm in the middle of a negotiation with you, and I produce a gun and place it on the table while we're negotiating, you can't assume that my intentions are 100% peaceful, even if we're just talking.
The competition is no longer even about fiscal policy or international security or environmental concerns. It's about whether votes matter, whether votes are valid, whether democratic elections are how we decide things.
The GOP believes that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. They've made that very clear, from decades of Second Amendment posturing to ominous threats of civil war to literally shooting liberals protestors like Kyle Rittenhouse to storming the Capitol building. All pretensions have fallen.
We on the left accepted Trump's victory in 2016, as much as we hated it, even though we knew for a fact that Comey had tipped the scales and the Russians had selectively leaked information to hurt us and we won the popular vote. But Trump supporters refused to accept Biden's victory even after 50+ attempts to invalidate our votes in court failed, even with a crushing popular vote margin, because they believed social media rumors that told them the reality in front of them was fake.
These are absolutely the current stakes. I think it's helpful and instructive that a fascist fellow traveler has come here and posted that they found the people who stormed the capitol with Confederate flags "uplifting". It's an extremely useful reminder for everyone inside that large tent that spans from AOC to Joe Manchin about our current political situation.
There is a sizable bloc of voters who are not satisfied with even being able to win with electoral systems slanted in their favor. Even when they lose, they will reject democracy itself. There is a sizable bloc of voters whose only goal is power for themselves, at all costs.
One has to wonder what that blockade was actually for as there were other people on the other side of it already. It wasn't like they were holding open the door to a government building.
This is what de-escalation looks like. 'Ya, I will pose with you for a picture but then I am going to have to ask you to leave,' sorta deal. This was also after they all were ushered out of the building as other cops are standing around in the background. That police officer's job, the one mingling with the protestors is to keep them calm and prevent them from storming the building again.
You also have to remember these events took place after police shot and killed a protestor in the building. If they didn't de-escalate then, things could have been a lot worse.
It's mighty interesting when de-escalation tactics are used are when they aren't. Quite the mystery, I don't know how we're ever going to be able to discern the reason it was used today and not a single time over the summer. I don't know, maybe it's because the windows at Foot Locker are a more pressing issue than the entire Legislative Branch of the United States being held captive for 6 hours in an effort to stop the certification of electors.
I'm for de-escalation. SELECTIVE de-escalation does nothing but further the already chasm-sized gap between the justice certain people receive and others don't. So until that is rectified (which likely means never), these treasonous fucks can face the same consequences anyone else who isn't of their particular race and political persuasion do. But they won't. For most of them, that shipped sailed when they were leisurely escorted out the front door and told to have a nice day.
During all the protests this summer, was any protestor killed at the hands of police officers?
The amount of videos people filmed of people being brutalized by police for simply being in the same vicinity of where protests were taking place could fill the Disney Vault. And this wasn't a "protest", this was an act of (temporarily successful) sedition, attempting to overthrow the results of an election, directed by the President of the United States on one of the two other branches of government.
Did I ask about that? Why are you moving the goalposts.
A unarmed woman was killed by someone (I want to say police, could have been security). A single shot was fired into a narrow hallway. To make sure this woman could get medical treatment that hallway had to be cleared, or you’d have these people realizing what had happened and getting aggravated over it.
To de-escalate, they let the crowd through, move backed the lines and attempt to clear them out later. It is either that, or pushing them back outside with force and having potentially more death’s on their hands.
I think a picture of some bloke holding up a used envelope is better than a picture of a hallway with mowed down protesters/rioters/alleged fascists.
And to address your point, de-escalation did happen during the summer. It happened when of on-duty officers took knees while holding the lines, police chiefs meeting organizers and saying they know it is not them vandalizing. It is allowing the protesters to take up an entire part of a city such as Seattle.
Yes, there was still police brutality during these protests, yes these people were protesting police brutality and calling for reform. But in this situation, here in Washington, another person was killed at the hands of police. If it wasn’t for the police actions after that point, it could have been worse.
I also don’t like giving people trial by media. I am not going to pretend I know anyone’s motive. Did these people break the law? Yes. Do they deserve jail time for the actual actions that they committed? IMO, no. Did one of them deserve to die because of their actions? Once again, no.
Do I think that people on the right, whom these people follow religiously should stop lying to them about the events? Absolutely. But all this is much larger than the actions that happened yesterday.
It’s reform that starts with the Democrats proving their policies won’t turn the nation into Venezuela and a puppet of China. It’s holding ALL involvements of death by police accountable, regardless if the victim is Ashli Babbit or Dolan Idd.
Really ominous poll here. I don't know how we reverse this trend. This doesn't look sustainable.
The one killed person whose name we know is Ashli Babbit. Not sure if she was armed at the time, visibly or otherwise, but apparently she was shot when attempting to climb through a broken window during the police's last stand in defending the chamber where the legislators were hiding from the mob.
I want to fault the police for resorting to lethal force as a matter of principle but it's not like they had the option of walking away or de-escalating the situation, and given how fast it happened it's not like they could have grabbed beanbag rounds. The fascists had already breached every other barrier to Congress and were about to break into the chamber. Being actively attacked, by an entire crowd, which you know is armed, is one of the few situations where lethal force by police actually could be justified. She wasn't a bystander; she was an active participant in the attempt to break the last barrier between the fascists and any legislators they wanted to capture or kill.
That doesn't make the killing justified, and in a situation where the police were in control that should only mean an arrest. But the police and the other folks they were there to protect were genuinely in danger here.
One has to wonder what that blockade was actually for as there were other people on the other side of it already. It wasn't like they were holding open the door to a government building.
This is what de-escalation looks like. 'Ya, I will pose with you for a picture but then I am going to have to ask you to leave,' sorta deal. This was also after they all were ushered out of the building as other cops are standing around in the background. That police officer's job, the one mingling with the protestors is to keep them calm and prevent them from storming the building again.
You also have to remember these events took place after police shot and killed a protestor in the building. If they didn't de-escalate then, things could have been a lot worse.
It's mighty interesting when de-escalation tactics are used are when they aren't. Quite the mystery, I don't know how we're ever going to be able to discern the reason it was used today and not a single time over the summer. I don't know, maybe it's because the windows at Foot Locker are a more pressing issue than the entire Legislative Branch of the United States being held captive for 6 hours in an effort to stop the certification of electors.
I'm for de-escalation. SELECTIVE de-escalation does nothing but further the already chasm-sized gap between the justice certain people receive and others don't. So until that is rectified (which likely means never), these treasonous fucks can face the same consequences anyone else who isn't of their particular race and political persuasion do. But they won't. For most of them, that shipped sailed when they were leisurely escorted out the front door and told to have a nice day.
During all the protests this summer, was any protestor killed at the hands of police officers?
The amount of videos people filmed of people being brutalized by police for simply being in the same vicinity of where protests were taking place could fill the Disney Vault. And this wasn't a "protest", this was an act of (temporarily successful) sedition, attempting to overthrow the results of an election, directed by the President of the United States on one of the two other branches of government.
It’s reform that starts with the Democrats proving their policies won’t turn the nation into Venezuela and a puppet of China. It’s holding ALL involvements of death by police accountable, regardless if the victim is Ashli Babbit or Dolan Idd.
If that's the case then what Democrats are starting from is trying to convince people they aren't caricatures out of right-wing media narratives. And, to paraphrase Mitt Romney yesterday, you are NEVER going to convince them they aren't going to turn the nation into Venezuela or that they aren't puppets of China, anymore than you can convince them Biden won the election. At a certain point, the power of persuasion isn't useful when people are arguing the moon is made out of green cheese. A large portion of the people you are talking about won't even admit those who stormed the building yesterday are Trump supporters.
To be perfectly honest, @WarChiefZeke, the protestors didn't seem to prioritize peacefulness. There's a big difference between holding hands and singing Kumbaya and wearing bullet proof vests while carrying guns. You might object by saying that the vests and the guns are merely for protection, and that there's nothing wrong with exercising your Second Amendment rights, even in, and especially in, the context of a protest. Fair enough. But using violence to defend yourself is still using violence, and the same goes for the mere threat of it: it's still a threat to use violence, even if it's in self defense. I'm not saying that all protests should be peaceful, I believe that there are some extraordinary cases in which violent protests are justified, for example when the goal is to overthrow a dictator. And you might say that the storming of the Capitol falls into that category, although I don't believe it does. But even if that was the case, then it wouldn't be accurate to describe it as peaceful.
If I'm in the middle of a negotiation with you, and I produce a gun and place it on the table while we're negotiating, you can't assume that my intentions are 100% peaceful, even if we're just talking.
I agree. Even under the most charitable interpretation, taking guns and body armor into the Capitol must be seen as very provocative. As for building a gallows, or hooded people bringing along zip ties, my imagination fails as to how that could be considered 'peaceful protesting'.
Here's a quote I've just seen from the running BBC coverage: Jesse from Wisconsin told us he was on the steps of the Capitol yesterday but didn’t go inside.
Citing Trump's unsubstantiated claims of "fraudulent ballots", he tells me: “I guess it is sort of shaping up to be a war, but the war was declared when they stole the election.
"And the fact they don’t even want to look at the evidence testifies to the fraud that there is.
"So yeah, it got a little bit out of hand but, boy, if they don’t want to do anything it might get worse.”
His friend Steve, who is also from Wisconsin, says he rejects those that entered the building yesterday.“We are disheartened because of the people that did want to go into the Capitol. We didn’t think that was necessary," he says.
"I think our intent was peaceful protesting. And tear gas and these sorts of things didn’t need to be used. People didn’t need to break windows or run inside the Capitol. That’s how I feel.”
I'd feel much more comfortable about being charitable about that sort of action. Yes it would be breaking the law, but if the only intent was to make a peaceful political point I wouldn't make much of it - however misguided I thought that point was. The actual protests though were not simply making a political point. I don't think it can be seriously argued that at least some of those involved were deliberately terrorizing the occupants of the Capitol with the intention of undermining or overthrowing democratic decisions.
I have mixed views about the legitimacy of that type of action in situations where there is no democratic process (a point which is rapidly being reached in Hong Kong for instance), but that is not the case in the US. Those like the people being quoted above may feel their concerns about the conduct and outcome of the election have not been addressed, but that's objectively not the case. Just to give a few examples:
- the election monitor specifically appointed by Trump said there was no evidence of significant fraud and multiple intelligence agencies have confirmed that.
- over 60 legal cases alleging fraud, many presided over by judges appointed by Trump, managed a single partial success (and that wasn't in relation to fraud, but a technical issue about the extent to which the legislature was able to change the law in relation to counting late votes).
- no evidence of significant fraud was found by any of the recounts or state investigations, including those being run by Republicans.
- all the alleged fraudulent activities have been repeatedly explained and debunked. For instance, one allegation is that thousands of dead people voted in Georgia. Despite that allegation being founded on very poor evidence it was thoroughly investigated. Almost all cases were due to incorrect matching of people on databases, with only 2 genuine cases where votes were registered by dead people (neither the result of fraud, one was an error by a son who returned his father's form and the other where a son correctly returned his own form, but the tellers mistakenly recorded it as his father's).
All that evidence may understandably have little or no impact on people who source news only from a very narrow range of sources. My main criticism would not be of them, but those who peddle what they know is misinformation in order to seek money or power. Trump is obviously a particularly egregious example of that, but sadly there are plenty of others who think that's a good way to get ahead.
A few semi related things to the capitol police and comparing their behavior to the police departments during the BLM protests.
First - I do think there is no way around saying there is a clear double standard applied. I do think the reaction of the capitol police as compared to the police in the many marches was meaningfully different. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one that I havent seen and which should be addressed is: The reason for the protest.
The BLM marches were specifically targeting police brutality. The police being the instrument used to suppress the marches meant that they were explicitly the target of the ire of the protests being held. I absolutely believe the fact that the police had "skin in the game" so to speak upped the ante in terms of their behavior and predisposed them to being more brutal.
Comparatively - The riot at the capitol were directly their ire towards lawmakers and government officials and not the police. The police where supposed to protect the lawmakers in this case, but because they werent the "enemy" of the riot, I believe they did not react nearly as aggressively.
The other reasons (The racial/age make up of the protests, the predisposition of the police to be conservative, etc) all also played a part, but I think the issue is multifaceted.
I should make this crystal clear. The reason I don't think these people should be given slaps on the wrist like normal protestors is because I don't believe it was a protest at all. It was an attempt to essentially destroy American democracy based on conspiracy theories. Doomed to fail?? Yes. Moronic?? Undoubtedly. Short lived?? Definitely. But their intentions were made clear for months, and they executed that plan. It's not my or anyone else's false their goal was so telegraphed and obvious. And their brazen attitude, literally showing off things they stole from the office of the Speaker of the House, doesn't do anything to inspire sympathy or a hope for leniency.
It's one thing to engage in criminal behavior in the heat of the moment swept up in a crowd. It's another to brag about it afterwards and walk around like you're untouchable. It's what happend in Michigan (which we warned about at the time) and this was the next step. What's next??
Wasn’t this guy brought up on here a few months ago as a credible source?
His other quote yesterday was mocking AOC for simply tweeting she was ok and insinuating she was comparing herself to someone who escaped the Twin Towers on 9/11, which was such an amazing strawman you almost have to give him credit. Also is only a public figure because he once accused Maxine Waters of assaulting him when she raised her hand up to gesture he should go away and she accidentally grazed his body with the side of her hand. And has spent a portion of everyday since pretending that wasn't what he was insinuating. It's the contrarian left, whose only purpose is to give right-wingers supposed liberals to point to and say "see, even your own side disagrees with you".
Moreover, it wasn't just members of Congress in that building. It was the Vice President and the Vice-President elect. These people are lucky the Secret Service wasn't at the door to those chambers, because way more than one person would have been shot. They don't fuck around. These people (and their defenders) don't seem to have any sense of the seriousness of what they were engaged in. Ignorance is not a legal defense.
Moreover, it wasn't just members of Congress in that building. It was the Vice President and the Vice-President elect. These people are lucky the Secret Service wasn't at the door to those chambers, because way more than one person would have been shot. They don't fuck around. These people (and their defenders) don't seem to have any sense of the seriousness of what they were engaged in. Ignorance is not a legal defense.
My uncle is in the Secret Service. Can confirm, they do NOT screw around.
A few semi related things to the capitol police and comparing their behavior to the police departments during the BLM protests.
First - I do think there is no way around saying there is a clear double standard applied. I do think the reaction of the capitol police as compared to the police in the many marches was meaningfully different. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one that I havent seen and which should be addressed is: The reason for the protest.
The BLM marches were specifically targeting police brutality. The police being the instrument used to suppress the marches meant that they were explicitly the target of the ire of the protests being held. I absolutely believe the fact that the police had "skin in the game" so to speak upped the ante in terms of their behavior and predisposed them to being more brutal.
Comparatively - The riot at the capitol were directly their ire towards lawmakers and government officials and not the police. The police where supposed to protect the lawmakers in this case, but because they werent the "enemy" of the riot, I believe they did not react nearly as aggressively.
The other reasons (The racial/age make up of the protests, the predisposition of the police to be conservative, etc) all also played a part, but I think the issue is multifaceted.
In some videos we've seen the PD basically escorting rioters in. In others, like this, they basically had a melee until overrun.
This video is exactly what I said probably happened. Two or three officers breaking the line and them streaming through that way.
It wasn’t a sinister plot by the police to allow them to storm the building. The police weren’t on the protesters side. They were understaffed however, and that is also clear in the video and it may have to do with them not having federal agents at their disposal this time.
I’ll be waiting for the full investigation into the actions of the day.
A few semi related things to the capitol police and comparing their behavior to the police departments during the BLM protests.
First - I do think there is no way around saying there is a clear double standard applied. I do think the reaction of the capitol police as compared to the police in the many marches was meaningfully different. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one that I havent seen and which should be addressed is: The reason for the protest.
The BLM marches were specifically targeting police brutality. The police being the instrument used to suppress the marches meant that they were explicitly the target of the ire of the protests being held. I absolutely believe the fact that the police had "skin in the game" so to speak upped the ante in terms of their behavior and predisposed them to being more brutal.
Comparatively - The riot at the capitol were directly their ire towards lawmakers and government officials and not the police. The police where supposed to protect the lawmakers in this case, but because they werent the "enemy" of the riot, I believe they did not react nearly as aggressively.
The other reasons (The racial/age make up of the protests, the predisposition of the police to be conservative, etc) all also played a part, but I think the issue is multifaceted.
In some videos we've seen the PD basically escorting rioters in. In others, like this, they basically had a melee until overrun.
This video is exactly what I said probably happened. Two or three officers breaking the line and them streaming through that way.
It wasn’t a sinister plot by the police to allow them to storm the building. The police weren’t on the protesters side. They were understaffed however, and that is also clear in the video and it may have to do with them not having federal agents at their disposal this time.
I’ll be waiting for the full investigation into the actions of the day.
Honestly - I think it was a bit of a mix of both. There are also clearly videos of the police just letting everyone through. What we lack at the moment is sufficient context to understand how and why those decisions were made.
Edit - I need to be clearer. I also agree I dont think it was a "sinister plot". However, I do think there is potential that it was just plain negligence on their part that allowed this to happen. I'm not absolving the PD of all potential mistakes here.
If the Police were supposed to keep an entire area clear, and one flank of the barricade breaks, then it makes sense for the PD to ask all of their officers to fall back. That could explain the videos of them letting people through. Just as easily, that could be the reason why everyone else fell back is because some officers just let the crowd by when they werent supposed to.
We'll need to see a lot more reporting on this before we can take it fully at face value, but I dont think anyone is surprised to hear that Trump might try to pardon himself. Of course, he's also being targeted by plenty of state crimes, so it's not clear this will do him any good (it's also not clear that our country has the fortitude to actually prosecute a president under any circumstance, unfortunately).
I can't wait to hear "constitutional conservatives" make the argument that the pardon power was meant to be used on yourself, preemptively. I'm gonna need a whole kitchen full of popcorn for that one.
"At" a government building?? No. Protests "at" a government building are the stuff you see outside the Supreme Court every time a major decision is about to come down. These people were "in" a government building, and they were "in" that building because they literally broke into the Senate and House chambers to stop the electoral vote certification. Successfully. Which you continue to purposefully ignore because it shatters the rest of your arguments. To which you are just gonna respond "I don't believe the democracy in the US is legitimate anymore" and, to be honest, we don't need to be told that at this point, so you might as well save yourself the hassle of typing the extra sentence.
It didn't take me more than 5 minutes to find examples of protests within very recent memory within government buildings. With the intent to delay proceedings, no less. Just say that you have different standards because you hate them. There is virtually no meaningful distinction.
I should make this crystal clear. The reason I don't think these people should be given slaps on the wrist like normal protestors is because I don't believe it was a protest at all.
Refreshingly honest. The double standard exists because liberals can't see their opposition as anything less than dangerous animals at worst and budding tyrants at best. There is no good moral reason, no decent political axiom. It really is as simple and banal as rank prejudice and ignorance.
Remove Trump before he can pardon himself. Pence can pardon him then and be the hero of all these anti-american insurrectionists that are following Trump. Too bad Trump had burned that bridge like everything he does.
Refreshingly honest. The double standard exists because liberals can't see their opposition as anything less than dangerous animals at worst and budding tyrants at best. There is no good moral reason, no decent political axiom. It really is as simple and banal as rank prejudice and ignorance.
Hard to compare two cases and decide it's a total double standard when it's also a total false equivalency. Sorry - but you can spend as many 5 minute increments as you want posting protests at government buildings, they arent the same as a mob incited to violence attacking the seat of government for the sake of preventing the operation of democracy and overturning the results of a fair and free election.
To be perfectly honest, @WarChiefZeke, the protestors didn't seem to prioritize peacefulness. There's a big difference between holding hands and singing Kumbaya and wearing bullet proof vests while carrying guns. You might object by saying that the vests and the guns are merely for protection, and that there's nothing wrong with exercising your Second Amendment rights, even in, and especially in, the context of a protest. Fair enough. But using violence to defend yourself is still using violence, and the same goes for the mere threat of it: it's still a threat to use violence, even if it's in self defense. I'm not saying that all protests should be peaceful, I believe that there are some extraordinary cases in which violent protests are justified, for example when the goal is to overthrow a dictator. And you might say that the storming of the Capitol falls into that category, although I don't believe it does. But even if that was the case, then it wouldn't be accurate to describe it as peaceful.
If I'm in the middle of a negotiation with you, and I produce a gun and place it on the table while we're negotiating, you can't assume that my intentions are 100% peaceful, even if we're just talking.
No, you aren't the victim of violence or intimidation merely because you walked by someone holding a gun.
I was actually flabbergasted at this comment because it was hard for me to believe it was saying was it is saying. Possession of a gun, or merely being in the proximity of a large group of people, maybe a handful of which have guns, makes you by definition not peaceful? It was so obviously prima facie absurd I felt like it would be uncharitable of me to interpret the comment in that way. But I can't see any other way it can be interpreted.
I reject the "willingness to defend yourself = not peaceful" argument because it's a semantic game with no meaning, and can apply to virtually anyone anywhere who would be willing to defend themselves from unjust bodily harm, which I can assume to be most people on the planet. The clear definition of peaceful in the context of the conversation is the unwillingness to be the aggressor, and not a lack of motivation to defend oneself from attack.
This entire thing serves to muddy the waters. Probably intentionally, because let's face it, if we are making silly cases like this one, there isn't really much to criticize regarding their behavior. As an aside, I didn't see a single person inside the Capitol with any sort of weapon and I highly doubt it happened because it would have been blasted on social media. Maybe they were a few guys outside with them, I didn't see them, but I believe it happened if you say it did.
Refreshingly honest. The double standard exists because liberals can't see their opposition as anything less than dangerous animals at worst and budding tyrants at best. There is no good moral reason, no decent political axiom. It really is as simple and banal as rank prejudice and ignorance.
Hard to compare two cases and decide it's a total double standard when it's also a total false equivalency. Sorry - but you can spend as many 5 minute increments as you want posting protests at government buildings, they arent the same as a mob incited to violence attacking the seat of government for the sake of preventing the operation of democracy and overturning the results of a fair and free election.
Fascism is a hell of a drug.
I missed the part where the Kavanaugh hearings were delayed, or these people literally broke into the building. I think I was there. I do remember disabled people being treated more harshly than the people yesterday during ACH protests.
"Budding tyrants" is a generous description of the fascists who stormed the Capitol.
No, they are in fact fundamentally different from an ordinary protester, both in terms of what they want to achieve (subverting a democratic with) and their methods (assault on police officers, breaking and entering, and looting, to say nothing of the gallows they didn't get a chance to use).
I gave these people the benefit of the doubt for 4 years. I am done refraining from judgment. It's high time I actually judged people by their words and deeds.
These people are not ordinary folks with a different opinion. They are violent criminals, they are wannabe rebels (they even fly the Confederate flag, just to drove that point home), they are proudly anti-democratic fascists, and they want to force their will on the rest of the country through violent means.
They already started doing so. And they are not done. If they're not arrested, they will do it again, and they will be more violent and less restrained.
Trying to assault Congressional representatives and stop the certification of electors is not a protest. It's a violent act of treason. These people are traitors.
I no longer care about trying to cushion my words. Eventually, you have to tell it like it is. These people are violent fascists, and at this point, the entire Trumpist movement is a rebellion against American democracy.
We will not survive as a democratic country if fascism is not crushed. Its leaders must lose power and its foot soldiers must be prosecuted whenever they break the law.
"Different opinion" is just an excuse. This is American fascism in action.
If that door didn't hold, lawmakers would be dead now. I have zero faith in the self-restraint of the people who stormed the Capitol.
A few semi related things to the capitol police and comparing their behavior to the police departments during the BLM protests.
First - I do think there is no way around saying there is a clear double standard applied. I do think the reaction of the capitol police as compared to the police in the many marches was meaningfully different. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one that I havent seen and which should be addressed is: The reason for the protest.
The BLM marches were specifically targeting police brutality. The police being the instrument used to suppress the marches meant that they were explicitly the target of the ire of the protests being held. I absolutely believe the fact that the police had "skin in the game" so to speak upped the ante in terms of their behavior and predisposed them to being more brutal.
Comparatively - The riot at the capitol were directly their ire towards lawmakers and government officials and not the police. The police where supposed to protect the lawmakers in this case, but because they werent the "enemy" of the riot, I believe they did not react nearly as aggressively.
The other reasons (The racial/age make up of the protests, the predisposition of the police to be conservative, etc) all also played a part, but I think the issue is multifaceted.
In some videos we've seen the PD basically escorting rioters in. In others, like this, they basically had a melee until overrun.
This video is exactly what I said probably happened. Two or three officers breaking the line and them streaming through that way.
It wasn’t a sinister plot by the police to allow them to storm the building. The police weren’t on the protesters side. They were understaffed however, and that is also clear in the video and it may have to do with them not having federal agents at their disposal this time.
I’ll be waiting for the full investigation into the actions of the day.
This is what gets me. There are usually two lines of officers in situations like this. The first line holds the protesters back and the second line arrests any protesters that is able to break free.
That first person through waving the flag behind the line showed everyone else that there was repercussions for breaking the line which caused more people to steam through.
This is a management blunder. Other videos lack context and actual time. For example, that selfie one I can be pretty certain was taken after the cops got the building under control. Anything other, such as police letting protesters through lack a significant amount of context to actually determine what is happening and what is being said at the given time.
Social media is ripe with this sort of thing and one shouldn’t take anything they see at face value.
To use a phrase I've long hated, I'm tired of political correctness. After 4 years, I'm making my judgment. Trumpism is a fascist movement at its core.
Not at the fringe. Down to the core. And yes, supporting it makes you complicit, and it doesn't matter if you think you're doing the right thing. Ignorance is not an excuse if it is willful.
Enforce the law. Prosecute them. They were caught on tape.
"Budding tyrants" is a generous description of the fascists who stormed the Capitol.
No, they are in fact fundamentally different from an ordinary protester, both in terms of what they want to achieve (subverting a democratic with) and their methods (assault on police officers, breaking and entering, and looting, to say nothing of the gallows they didn't get a chance to use).
I gave these people the benefit of the doubt for 4 years. I am done refraining from judgment. It's high time I actually judged people by their words and deeds.
These people are not ordinary folks with a different opinion. They are violent criminals, they are wannabe rebels (they even fly the Confederate flag, just to drove that point home), they are proudly anti-democratic fascists, and they want to force their will on the rest of the country through violent means.
They already started doing so. And they are not done. If they're not arrested, they will do it again, and they will be more violent and less restrained.
Trying to assault Congressional representatives and stop the certification of electors is not a protest. It's a violent act of treason. These people are traitors.
I no longer care about trying to cushion my words. Eventually, you have to tell it like it is. These people are violent fascists, and at this point, the entire Trumpist movement is a rebellion against American democracy.
We will not survive as a democratic country if fascism is not crushed. Its leaders must lose power and its foot soldiers must be prosecuted whenever they break the law.
"Different opinion" is just an excuse. This is American fascism in action.
If that door didn't hold, lawmakers would be dead now. I have zero faith in the self-restraint of the people who stormed the Capitol.
I mean, everyone here (including me) is skipping over the fact that at least TWO pipe bombs were diffused yesterday. It seems this should be a more relevant part of the story, and it isn't even among people who think it was nothing less than an assault.
Hard to compare two cases and decide it's a total double standard when it's also a total false equivalency. Sorry - but you can spend as many 5 minute increments as you want posting protests at government buildings, they arent the same as a mob incited to violence attacking the seat of government for the sake of preventing the operation of democracy and overturning the results of a fair and free election.
Fascism is a hell of a drug.
It's a little game we play. You express wildly different sentiments about the exact same type of events, with no meaningful moral differences, I call you out on it, you say false equivalency. It's a game that never gets old, because there are an endless series of abstractions, minor details, or other minutae you can use to pretend that there is a semblance of consistency here. I know very well convincing you isn't a possibility. After all, in your eyes i'm a fascist, barely worthy of human rights, to be exterminated at the first convenient possibility. Dialogue is impossible in such circumstances.
Comments
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29C0R5
If I'm in the middle of a negotiation with you, and I produce a gun and place it on the table while we're negotiating, you can't assume that my intentions are 100% peaceful, even if we're just talking.
These are absolutely the current stakes. I think it's helpful and instructive that a fascist fellow traveler has come here and posted that they found the people who stormed the capitol with Confederate flags "uplifting". It's an extremely useful reminder for everyone inside that large tent that spans from AOC to Joe Manchin about our current political situation.
There is a sizable bloc of voters who are not satisfied with even being able to win with electoral systems slanted in their favor. Even when they lose, they will reject democracy itself. There is a sizable bloc of voters whose only goal is power for themselves, at all costs.
Did I ask about that? Why are you moving the goalposts.
A unarmed woman was killed by someone (I want to say police, could have been security). A single shot was fired into a narrow hallway. To make sure this woman could get medical treatment that hallway had to be cleared, or you’d have these people realizing what had happened and getting aggravated over it.
To de-escalate, they let the crowd through, move backed the lines and attempt to clear them out later. It is either that, or pushing them back outside with force and having potentially more death’s on their hands.
I think a picture of some bloke holding up a used envelope is better than a picture of a hallway with mowed down protesters/rioters/alleged fascists.
And to address your point, de-escalation did happen during the summer. It happened when of on-duty officers took knees while holding the lines, police chiefs meeting organizers and saying they know it is not them vandalizing. It is allowing the protesters to take up an entire part of a city such as Seattle.
Yes, there was still police brutality during these protests, yes these people were protesting police brutality and calling for reform. But in this situation, here in Washington, another person was killed at the hands of police. If it wasn’t for the police actions after that point, it could have been worse.
I also don’t like giving people trial by media. I am not going to pretend I know anyone’s motive. Did these people break the law? Yes. Do they deserve jail time for the actual actions that they committed? IMO, no. Did one of them deserve to die because of their actions? Once again, no.
Do I think that people on the right, whom these people follow religiously should stop lying to them about the events? Absolutely. But all this is much larger than the actions that happened yesterday.
It’s reform that starts with the Democrats proving their policies won’t turn the nation into Venezuela and a puppet of China. It’s holding ALL involvements of death by police accountable, regardless if the victim is Ashli Babbit or Dolan Idd.
The one killed person whose name we know is Ashli Babbit. Not sure if she was armed at the time, visibly or otherwise, but apparently she was shot when attempting to climb through a broken window during the police's last stand in defending the chamber where the legislators were hiding from the mob.
I want to fault the police for resorting to lethal force as a matter of principle but it's not like they had the option of walking away or de-escalating the situation, and given how fast it happened it's not like they could have grabbed beanbag rounds. The fascists had already breached every other barrier to Congress and were about to break into the chamber. Being actively attacked, by an entire crowd, which you know is armed, is one of the few situations where lethal force by police actually could be justified. She wasn't a bystander; she was an active participant in the attempt to break the last barrier between the fascists and any legislators they wanted to capture or kill.
That doesn't make the killing justified, and in a situation where the police were in control that should only mean an arrest. But the police and the other folks they were there to protect were genuinely in danger here.
If that's the case then what Democrats are starting from is trying to convince people they aren't caricatures out of right-wing media narratives. And, to paraphrase Mitt Romney yesterday, you are NEVER going to convince them they aren't going to turn the nation into Venezuela or that they aren't puppets of China, anymore than you can convince them Biden won the election. At a certain point, the power of persuasion isn't useful when people are arguing the moon is made out of green cheese. A large portion of the people you are talking about won't even admit those who stormed the building yesterday are Trump supporters.
I agree. Even under the most charitable interpretation, taking guns and body armor into the Capitol must be seen as very provocative. As for building a gallows, or hooded people bringing along zip ties, my imagination fails as to how that could be considered 'peaceful protesting'.
Here's a quote I've just seen from the running BBC coverage:
Jesse from Wisconsin told us he was on the steps of the Capitol yesterday but didn’t go inside.
Citing Trump's unsubstantiated claims of "fraudulent ballots", he tells me: “I guess it is sort of shaping up to be a war, but the war was declared when they stole the election.
"And the fact they don’t even want to look at the evidence testifies to the fraud that there is.
"So yeah, it got a little bit out of hand but, boy, if they don’t want to do anything it might get worse.”
His friend Steve, who is also from Wisconsin, says he rejects those that entered the building yesterday.“We are disheartened because of the people that did want to go into the Capitol. We didn’t think that was necessary," he says.
"I think our intent was peaceful protesting. And tear gas and these sorts of things didn’t need to be used. People didn’t need to break windows or run inside the Capitol. That’s how I feel.”
I'd feel much more comfortable about being charitable about that sort of action. Yes it would be breaking the law, but if the only intent was to make a peaceful political point I wouldn't make much of it - however misguided I thought that point was. The actual protests though were not simply making a political point. I don't think it can be seriously argued that at least some of those involved were deliberately terrorizing the occupants of the Capitol with the intention of undermining or overthrowing democratic decisions.
I have mixed views about the legitimacy of that type of action in situations where there is no democratic process (a point which is rapidly being reached in Hong Kong for instance), but that is not the case in the US. Those like the people being quoted above may feel their concerns about the conduct and outcome of the election have not been addressed, but that's objectively not the case. Just to give a few examples:
- the election monitor specifically appointed by Trump said there was no evidence of significant fraud and multiple intelligence agencies have confirmed that.
- over 60 legal cases alleging fraud, many presided over by judges appointed by Trump, managed a single partial success (and that wasn't in relation to fraud, but a technical issue about the extent to which the legislature was able to change the law in relation to counting late votes).
- no evidence of significant fraud was found by any of the recounts or state investigations, including those being run by Republicans.
- all the alleged fraudulent activities have been repeatedly explained and debunked. For instance, one allegation is that thousands of dead people voted in Georgia. Despite that allegation being founded on very poor evidence it was thoroughly investigated. Almost all cases were due to incorrect matching of people on databases, with only 2 genuine cases where votes were registered by dead people (neither the result of fraud, one was an error by a son who returned his father's form and the other where a son correctly returned his own form, but the tellers mistakenly recorded it as his father's).
All that evidence may understandably have little or no impact on people who source news only from a very narrow range of sources. My main criticism would not be of them, but those who peddle what they know is misinformation in order to seek money or power. Trump is obviously a particularly egregious example of that, but sadly there are plenty of others who think that's a good way to get ahead.
First - I do think there is no way around saying there is a clear double standard applied. I do think the reaction of the capitol police as compared to the police in the many marches was meaningfully different. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one that I havent seen and which should be addressed is: The reason for the protest.
The BLM marches were specifically targeting police brutality. The police being the instrument used to suppress the marches meant that they were explicitly the target of the ire of the protests being held. I absolutely believe the fact that the police had "skin in the game" so to speak upped the ante in terms of their behavior and predisposed them to being more brutal.
Comparatively - The riot at the capitol were directly their ire towards lawmakers and government officials and not the police. The police where supposed to protect the lawmakers in this case, but because they werent the "enemy" of the riot, I believe they did not react nearly as aggressively.
The other reasons (The racial/age make up of the protests, the predisposition of the police to be conservative, etc) all also played a part, but I think the issue is multifaceted.
Consider the following video:
In some videos we've seen the PD basically escorting rioters in. In others, like this, they basically had a melee until overrun.
Pelosi is calling for Pence to remove Trump or impeachment will begin - justice should be seen to be done
Hmmm, any ideas?
It's one thing to engage in criminal behavior in the heat of the moment swept up in a crowd. It's another to brag about it afterwards and walk around like you're untouchable. It's what happend in Michigan (which we warned about at the time) and this was the next step. What's next??
Wasn’t this guy brought up on here a few months ago as a credible source?
His other quote yesterday was mocking AOC for simply tweeting she was ok and insinuating she was comparing herself to someone who escaped the Twin Towers on 9/11, which was such an amazing strawman you almost have to give him credit. Also is only a public figure because he once accused Maxine Waters of assaulting him when she raised her hand up to gesture he should go away and she accidentally grazed his body with the side of her hand. And has spent a portion of everyday since pretending that wasn't what he was insinuating. It's the contrarian left, whose only purpose is to give right-wingers supposed liberals to point to and say "see, even your own side disagrees with you".
https://www.foxnews.com/us/protests-us-washington-statehouses-lawmakers-evacuated
My uncle is in the Secret Service. Can confirm, they do NOT screw around.
This video is exactly what I said probably happened. Two or three officers breaking the line and them streaming through that way.
It wasn’t a sinister plot by the police to allow them to storm the building. The police weren’t on the protesters side. They were understaffed however, and that is also clear in the video and it may have to do with them not having federal agents at their disposal this time.
I’ll be waiting for the full investigation into the actions of the day.
Honestly - I think it was a bit of a mix of both. There are also clearly videos of the police just letting everyone through. What we lack at the moment is sufficient context to understand how and why those decisions were made.
Edit - I need to be clearer. I also agree I dont think it was a "sinister plot". However, I do think there is potential that it was just plain negligence on their part that allowed this to happen. I'm not absolving the PD of all potential mistakes here.
If the Police were supposed to keep an entire area clear, and one flank of the barricade breaks, then it makes sense for the PD to ask all of their officers to fall back. That could explain the videos of them letting people through. Just as easily, that could be the reason why everyone else fell back is because some officers just let the crowd by when they werent supposed to.
I'm interested in an investigation as well.
In other news:
We'll need to see a lot more reporting on this before we can take it fully at face value, but I dont think anyone is surprised to hear that Trump might try to pardon himself. Of course, he's also being targeted by plenty of state crimes, so it's not clear this will do him any good (it's also not clear that our country has the fortitude to actually prosecute a president under any circumstance, unfortunately).
It didn't take me more than 5 minutes to find examples of protests within very recent memory within government buildings. With the intent to delay proceedings, no less. Just say that you have different standards because you hate them. There is virtually no meaningful distinction.
Refreshingly honest. The double standard exists because liberals can't see their opposition as anything less than dangerous animals at worst and budding tyrants at best. There is no good moral reason, no decent political axiom. It really is as simple and banal as rank prejudice and ignorance.
Hard to compare two cases and decide it's a total double standard when it's also a total false equivalency. Sorry - but you can spend as many 5 minute increments as you want posting protests at government buildings, they arent the same as a mob incited to violence attacking the seat of government for the sake of preventing the operation of democracy and overturning the results of a fair and free election.
Fascism is a hell of a drug.
No, you aren't the victim of violence or intimidation merely because you walked by someone holding a gun.
I was actually flabbergasted at this comment because it was hard for me to believe it was saying was it is saying. Possession of a gun, or merely being in the proximity of a large group of people, maybe a handful of which have guns, makes you by definition not peaceful? It was so obviously prima facie absurd I felt like it would be uncharitable of me to interpret the comment in that way. But I can't see any other way it can be interpreted.
I reject the "willingness to defend yourself = not peaceful" argument because it's a semantic game with no meaning, and can apply to virtually anyone anywhere who would be willing to defend themselves from unjust bodily harm, which I can assume to be most people on the planet. The clear definition of peaceful in the context of the conversation is the unwillingness to be the aggressor, and not a lack of motivation to defend oneself from attack.
This entire thing serves to muddy the waters. Probably intentionally, because let's face it, if we are making silly cases like this one, there isn't really much to criticize regarding their behavior. As an aside, I didn't see a single person inside the Capitol with any sort of weapon and I highly doubt it happened because it would have been blasted on social media. Maybe they were a few guys outside with them, I didn't see them, but I believe it happened if you say it did.
I missed the part where the Kavanaugh hearings were delayed, or these people literally broke into the building. I think I was there. I do remember disabled people being treated more harshly than the people yesterday during ACH protests.
No, they are in fact fundamentally different from an ordinary protester, both in terms of what they want to achieve (subverting a democratic with) and their methods (assault on police officers, breaking and entering, and looting, to say nothing of the gallows they didn't get a chance to use).
I gave these people the benefit of the doubt for 4 years. I am done refraining from judgment. It's high time I actually judged people by their words and deeds.
These people are not ordinary folks with a different opinion. They are violent criminals, they are wannabe rebels (they even fly the Confederate flag, just to drove that point home), they are proudly anti-democratic fascists, and they want to force their will on the rest of the country through violent means.
They already started doing so. And they are not done. If they're not arrested, they will do it again, and they will be more violent and less restrained.
Trying to assault Congressional representatives and stop the certification of electors is not a protest. It's a violent act of treason. These people are traitors.
I no longer care about trying to cushion my words. Eventually, you have to tell it like it is. These people are violent fascists, and at this point, the entire Trumpist movement is a rebellion against American democracy.
We will not survive as a democratic country if fascism is not crushed. Its leaders must lose power and its foot soldiers must be prosecuted whenever they break the law.
"Different opinion" is just an excuse. This is American fascism in action.
If that door didn't hold, lawmakers would be dead now. I have zero faith in the self-restraint of the people who stormed the Capitol.
This is what gets me. There are usually two lines of officers in situations like this. The first line holds the protesters back and the second line arrests any protesters that is able to break free.
That first person through waving the flag behind the line showed everyone else that there was repercussions for breaking the line which caused more people to steam through.
This is a management blunder. Other videos lack context and actual time. For example, that selfie one I can be pretty certain was taken after the cops got the building under control. Anything other, such as police letting protesters through lack a significant amount of context to actually determine what is happening and what is being said at the given time.
Social media is ripe with this sort of thing and one shouldn’t take anything they see at face value.
Not at the fringe. Down to the core. And yes, supporting it makes you complicit, and it doesn't matter if you think you're doing the right thing. Ignorance is not an excuse if it is willful.
Enforce the law. Prosecute them. They were caught on tape.
I mean, everyone here (including me) is skipping over the fact that at least TWO pipe bombs were diffused yesterday. It seems this should be a more relevant part of the story, and it isn't even among people who think it was nothing less than an assault.
It's a little game we play. You express wildly different sentiments about the exact same type of events, with no meaningful moral differences, I call you out on it, you say false equivalency. It's a game that never gets old, because there are an endless series of abstractions, minor details, or other minutae you can use to pretend that there is a semblance of consistency here. I know very well convincing you isn't a possibility. After all, in your eyes i'm a fascist, barely worthy of human rights, to be exterminated at the first convenient possibility. Dialogue is impossible in such circumstances.