They smeared feces, stole laptops, broke windows, killed a police officer and got one of their own killed. People with bullhorns directed their fellows to the next target.

It was an insurrection attempt by incompetents and LARPers, but absolutely an insurrection attempt.

It was idiot rioters just like we had over the summer. Not some well planned out attempt to actually overthrow the govt. It was a disrespectful day and they did accomplish that.

At least these rioters showed up at the right place. Breaking into the capital was beyond dumb, but it makes a lot more sense than breaking into a Gucci store.

I think that the right place to protest to the government would be at a government building (such as the capitol) rather than a Gucci store.

People marched into the capitol with handguns, zip ties, and an intent to award the presidency to the loser. I'm not waiting for someone to actually succeed before I declare them insurrectionists, and I don't know why you want to minimize the threats made against Congress, which did not stop that day: https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-siege/no-bail-for-qanon-...

If you want to compare it to something, I would recommend the fall conspiracy to capture the Michigan governor, put them on a mock trial and then publicly execute them for their "crimes": https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/fbi-plot-michigan-go...

> an intent to award the presidency to the loser

How would they have done that? Nobody would listen to a bunch of hooligans pronouncing orders from the House rostrum. In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders, providing actual institutional power to the usurpers.

There was no institutional power behind these people -- do you think some general at Andrews was waiting for the phone call to signal his support for the guy in the viking hat?

This was an act of vandalism, and maybe burglary or "home" invasion robbery.

> How would they have done that?

Attempted murder is still a felony, even if's a very dumb attempt. The same is true for coups.

> In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders, providing actual institutional power to the usurpers.

The Q folks think this is exactly what the military is going to do.

The line I responded to was about "awarding the contest to the loser," that means transferring institutional power. Not just killing people on TV.

In order for a coup to be successful, institutions need to endorse the new order or have their heads replaced with loyalists. Capturing the symbolic seat of power, or even killing elected representatives doesn't accomplish that. In this scenario there would've needed to be a body of bureaucrats and officers in every branch and every agency who would see the house leader lynched on TV and then said, yes I'm ready to do the bidding of the usurping administration.

This would be hundreds of people, if not thousands, in the highest ranking civilian positions who would all have to endorse or be arrested. Then because this is a federalist system, local governments would all have had to endorse the new system or be replaced. Also, the judiciary. Also, all branches of the military.

Unless you believe we were on the precipice of this happening, it wasn't a coup, and if you do think we were anywhere close to seeing this happen, you're insane and wrong. It was at best a bumbling terrorist attack. More accurately IMO, it was mob violence resulting from an epic failure of crowd control.

> How would they have done that?

There were a number of different, complementary means envisioned, the simplest of which was reflected in the chant “Hang Mike Pence”, which existed because the pro-coup political intelligentsia had proposed that the Vice President could and should simply refuse to open the certificates from selected states, denying the Democrats a majority of counted EVs, or alternatively could choose unilateral to accept “alternate” slates of electors from some of those states, an approach Mike Pence rejected. Removing Pence would result in a different presiding officer who might be more amenable to the plan.

And, sure, that still seems like a pretty dumb plan, but an insurrection doesn't stop being an coup attempt because the plan is stupid.

> In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders.

You’re thinking of a coup in favor of a faction that doesn't already hold the cheif executives office. An auto-coup, which is what was intended, usually involves some mechanism to provide a pretext to either extend power beyond it's lawful limits or extend it beyond it's legal term, not to seize it from the current holder. The only person you need to ready to do anything is the existing executive, who just needs to accept the offered pretext to retain power. Which Trump already announced his support for this theory and his anger at Pence for refusing it, which was a major contributor to the insurrection.

They should be punished to the full extent of the law.

In the meantime, people who continuously talk about insurrection seem to be living in a fantasy land. Just as you say, without the military the "insurrection" means nothing.

Not lost on me that the government these people are claiming needs to be overthrown violently because it's tyrannical is treating them with kid gloves compared to most governments. And frankly the relatives of those that stepped over the line and will go to prison should be really happy they live in the US and not another country where people get punished because of mere association. Because that's totally a thing in other countries. But not here.

>How would they have done that?

Kill enough congress members so the election can’t be certified. Elect Trump speaker of the house (speaker doesn’t need to be a member of congress). Since the election wasn’t certified, the constitution declares the speaker (now Trump) becomes President on the 20th.

I don't know how you can be so confident that there wasn't a general who would have thrown in if he had a chance. Given the statistics, there must be at least a few high-ranking generals who believe Trump's claims that he won the election.

Their intent to intimidate the lawmakers into leaving Trump in power. Trump absolutely wanted them to do so, and was very strategic in staying just on one side of the line.

They didn't need a general waiting in the wings, they just needed the President who was already sitting in the WhiteHouse.

Like every single riot over the past year? How do you justify the destruction, assaults, murders, deaths, and overall chaos there? Hold these assholes accountable 100%.. but let's also stop pretending people who want to hold the left accountable as well aren't crazy.. and maybe see it as just as damning.

I don't see anyone defending the other rioters. I certainly wasn't in the message you are responding to.

No one is pretending that the crazies on the left don't need to be accountable. There are those, of course, who believe that. But you are arguing against a point that hasn't been made--and most definitely one I did not make.

I'll say it myself, just to be clear: Anyone who riots (or foments an insurrection) needs to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law after a fair trial.

I apologize that it appears I targeted you, you're correct you didn't state that and i'm not intentionally addressing you as an individual. My response is by and large to the media and the large population of people espousing that view (including in this thread). In response I'm addressing the same, not you directly so I don't mean to direct ill will or harm, i'm simply trying to project a perspective that is frustrating and often times ignored or belittled.

I watched my friends businesses burn last summer, as well as many other businesses near my home. The common response was " "we're doing this because we have this right, we're frustrated at the system that did X or Y". None of my friends caused any real or perceived in-equality towards anyone, none of them are racist, all of them as well as I, support the right for individuals to love and marry whomever they want. They were by and large allies, yet someone arbitrarily determined that because their business was there, Insurance would cover and they could loot and burn it. They decided that when they responded in public days later, that they were white males and even if they weren't bad, it was retribution for whatever grievance someone held. Anyone that doesn't believe that those actions, that persisted for months, weren't abhorent and just as destructive to democracy and our country, then you're not being honest with yourselves.

The point is, the media is choosing to doom and gloom this situation when I would argue half of America has had this same perspective for a year. I'm not arguing the merits of either sides grievances, though I think both have many valid points.

That part was responding to the GP claim that they stayed between the velvet ropes and left when they were asked. They did none of those things. As far as insurrection, even someone as dim a bulb as Elizabeth from Knoxville thought it was “a revolution.” That is the very definition of insurrection.

https://www.wvlt.tv/2021/01/07/who-is-elizabeth-from-knoxvil...

> If stealing a laptop is "insurrection"

Stealing a laptop from a federal government facility while attempting to overturn an election's results and possibly assassinate elected officials, is an "insurrection".

Except nobody "attempted to overturn" anything and assassinate anybody. How would they even do it - would the buffalo guy strike them with his horns and then declare himself The Supreme Ruler?

Probably more like stab them with the spear he was carrying, or probably some of the people who were carrying guns, or potentially the noose hanging outside. Gaddafi wasn't shot with a gun. He still seemed to die when a crowd of people who hated him got a hold of him. A cop was beaten to death in front of the Capitol. You don't need a gun to commit violence.

And that's what the point of this was. Terrorism to push more of Congress to not certify the election.

Yeah I imagine the headline in the New York Times next morning - "Horned Viking Guy stabs 435 members of Congress with a spear and crowns himself King of the United States. All Hail our new King!".

> or probably some of the people who were carrying guns, or potentially the noose hanging outside

Or you just inventing this whole thing out of thin cloth. Because the only shooting was done by very much armed - with handguns and riles - Capitol Police, who we see aplenty on the videos, and who used these guns to shoot a women that didn't pose any threat. Now this needs justification so we hear tall tales about stabbing Congressmen with a spear (good thing he didn't have a fully semiautomatic longbow!)

> A cop was beaten to death in front of the Capitol.

He wasn't "beaten to death". He was hit with on the head once (presumably, it's still not known what exactly happened, and AFAIK no medical documents had been published), returned on his own to the headquarters, and then later developed a blood clot and suffered a stroke (presumedly due to the injury), which ultimately lead to his death. This is still despicable - nobody should attack cops, and the person who did it should be prosecuted for it, but it's not likely whoever struck him even intended that outcome. Even less sense makes to pretend like the people that were at Capitol intended to tear everybody they meet apart and stab them with spears. Surely, some of them clashed with the police - which has been routine circumstance at "mostly peaceful" protests the whole year, most unfortunately - but making it into some kind of SEAL Team 6 aiming at assassinating the Congressmen is pure baloney. It is just fascinating what nonsense people are ready to believe in when their partisan views demand it.

> Terrorism to push more of Congress to not certify the election.

The word you looking for is "protest". If you work for the media, then "mostly peaceful protest". That happened many times in US history - including occupying government buildings in the process. In Wisconsin, State Capitol was occupied for 17 days in 2011. And yes, they did it to change the actions of legislators. Nobody called it "terrorism" or "insurrection" - because it wasn't, neither then not now.

Well, I imagine he wouldn't have stabbed 435 of them as over one hundred were doing exactly what he wanted -- not certifying the election. And you're right, murdering a few members of Congress isn't likely to just completely overturn the government. It'll certainly continue to destabilize things though, I don't think I'll have to try and explain why murdering members of Congress while they move to certify an election would be destabilizing to political processes but maybe I will judging by how this conversation is going.

I'm also not inventing the whole thing out of thin cloth. People were arrested with caches of firearms near the Capitol. There is video evidence of gallows being constructed out front. You're ignoring reality to suggest these things never happened. These aren't fake reports, these are some of the few indictments which have so far been unsealed. I don't watch cable news, I don't get all my news from blogs. I read court documents. I read actual statistics. Go read the real, raw data.

As for the cop, it seems like you'd also argue car accidents don't kill people its the internal hemorrhaging that happens from completely unknown causes. Clearly the people beating the cop didn't intend to cause him harm, that's just how they say hello! You seriously think the protesters beating him with metal pipes didn't intend to cause him harm and potentially kill him? Do you go around being friendly and start hitting people in the head with metal pipes?

Given that they killed one police officer, and injured dozens more, I think it is safe to say that they had the means to kill people if they came to a position to do so.

Anybody has means to kill people. You can kill people with bare hands. What they didn't have is intent to kill any people.

Which is why Capitol Police Officer Michael Fanone, who was pinned to the ground by the crowd, had to beg for his life to the crowd where members were shouting, "Kill him with his own gun". Seems pretty clear intent to me.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/15/police-offic...

We're taking about a mob attempting to topple the actual seat of government by an incursion onto the floor of Congress. What does that have to do with Target?

> We're taking about a mob attempting to topple the actual seat of government by an incursion onto the floor of Congress

They weren't trying to “topple the seat of government” in a destructive, undirected manner, they were trying to redirect the process being executed there of officially determining the winner of the Presidential election to their preferred outcome, and to retaliate against opponents (including the Vice President) who failed to play the role the mob and the President they saw themselves serving preferred they should in that process.

> by that bar looting a Target - which we witnessed the whole 2020

You’re exaggerating and it’s deliberate, which revels the intent of your argument is dishonest.

Well-documented events in the summer of 2020 kicked off unrest. There was no mass-looting before that.

> Well-documented events

Was is it? Did George Floyd have a lethal amount of fentanyl in his system at time of death? Did the medical examiner not mention any damage to Floyd’s neck? Did the video show Floyd asking to be put on ground after resisting getting in the vehicle like the police asked? Did Keith Ellison do everything he could to keep the video of the arrest from coming out? Was Breanna Taylor‘s name on the warrant at her active address? And despite it being authorized to be a no-knock rate, did the police announce themselves? Did CNN use the literal chevron “fiery but mostly peaceful protests“?

“Well documented” is a very misleading way to describe this summer’s violent unrest.

> “Well documented” is a very misleading way to describe this summer’s violent unrest.

I’d say the murder of George Floyd was well-documented. That was my meaning.

Did the velvet ropes extend all the way into the senate chamber? Or up the steps where that cop led the rioters? Your comment is so stupid I almost can’t believe I’m responding to it, but I fear that if you don’t get any refutation you’ll continue to believe the nonsense you wrote down.

They did get messed up as the day went on

So this is a reference to a popular meme/photo in a certain section of the building if its over your head. Its not a literal claim that they at all times stayed within roped areas. Can take it down a notch.

A poor execution does not make it less seditious. The goal was to undermine or intimidate a democratic process entwined with the leadership of our nation. I would argue that's pretty clearly insurrection.

Like when the white house was stormed over the summer and the pres went into a bunker? Was that an attempted overthrow?

No, because that “storming” only happened in your imagination. The protests were hundreds of feet away and the violence started when the police tried to clear the public park for Trump to have a photo op. If you look at the footage from the journalists who were assaulted, there was nothing like a risk to the White House perimeter:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/channel-7-journalists...

If the Trump supporters had similarly stayed outside of the gates, nobody would even remember the protest as more than a bit of trivia.

(Edit: I added “storming” to the first sentence to avoid any confusion about whether I was referring to the well-publicized bunker trip)

No, he's right. The secret service took Trump to his bunker. What you're describing happened the day after the attempt to breach the White House and it was to prevent another attempt.

No, he’s still deliberately misrepresenting events to draw a false equivalence. The White House was never “stormed” – the Secret Service made the decision to move him into the bunker when some protesters went around temporary barriers in the park space by the Treasury Department but at no point did the protests come closer than the gates to the White House complex. Neither the White House nor the Treasury security perimeters were breached at any point:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-moved...

For people who aren’t familiar with the area, this area is normally open and there are often protests. I bike or walk through regularly and you’ll almost always see someone at the fence with a sign about something.

This is in sharp contrast to the coup attempt where the insurgents quickly blew through areas which are never open to the public – think about how many of the videos have alarms ringing in the background.

Note also that I’m not faulting the Secret Service – it’s not hard to imagine someone trying to breach the gate and it’s their job to protect the President. My objection is entirely due to presenting these as equivalents.

Whoever made decision to move him into the bunker doesn’t change the fact that the protesters did not go past the gates or otherwise do anything which was unusual from decades of protests – which happen all of the time in DC. You are clearly desperate to portray a false equivalence but that simply doesn’t fit the facts.

So what about rioters burning the entrance and exit to Ted Wheelers home in Portland (which he wasn't even present at)? Would you agree the actions there were also attempts at murder and destruction of property of a duly elected official?

To act like the past year has had nothing in comparison to insanity .. is well insane. Theses Capital idiots are just that Idiots and they'll see time in court. What's not clear is why all of a sudden people that were supportive of aggravated protest to prove a point all of a sudden are surprised when the other side used the same tactics.

Maybe Ted Wheeler shouldnt have gassed peaceful protesters, passing drivers, and literally just entire neighborhoods

You are given a justification for "insurrection" activities.

The other person was merely saying that such "insurrection" activities happened.

If you want to agree that they happened, but you simply think they were justified, well you are not disagreeing with the original statement.

I mean aside from exaggerating, yes riots did happen in portland.

My point was to point out the absurdity of comparing a riot after months of gassings of protestors and innocent civilians and all that happened was some property damage, versus where the police treated the rioters with kid gloves and they still beat a cop to death

I was referring to the specific claim being made in the comment I replied to, and in particular the attempt to present an attempt to use violence to prevent an important government function as no more significant than a street protest. The attack on the Congress was trying to prevent recognizing the legitimate winner of an election, not just drawing attention to a cause in a public place.

From that you could easily draw the conclusion that I don’t approve of any use of violence or threats of violence against elected officials but I don’t expect you to since you’re pretty obviously more interested in playing whataboutism games.

Call this an insurrection and lambast the crazies for attempting to do whatever it is they were doing, but equally admonish the same that has been transpiring for months. This is no greater a risk or threat than the ongoing actions we've been subjected to for months.

It's all chaos and it's chaos that will be used as a means to reign in more control on freedoms and rights.

> This is no greater a risk or threat than the ongoing actions we've been subjected to for months.

When did non-right-wing protesters invade a seat of government? When did they brandish guns while threatening political violence against politicians? When did they reject the results of an election? When did they invade a legislature trying to prevent normal government activities?

More importantly, compare the reactions: when that idiot in Portland started a fire in the street, did they get widespread support? Did pundits and politicians praise them? They faced rejection from local up to national officials: Biden condemned non-peaceful protests but Trump & his allies incited them.

It is obvious you're choosing to selectively argue. The riots made attempts at government, people stormed buildings in Seattle, many others. The bottom line is, you are choosing to argue one side is horrible the other is just. I am arguing that both sides have been horrible. Until you can acknowledge that the same actions have been occurring for a year it's not worth engaging further.

Should you feel the need to argue against something I actually said, you’re welcome to read the thread more carefully. You’ll learn that I do not approve of violence but also do not approve of people conflating different levels of bad activity in service of a misleading “both sides” narrative.

>>>>A poor execution does not make it less seditious

Can’t have a poor execution without an attempt. There’s no credible evidence that there was any plan to do more than protest outside. Crowds can change, of course, but that never happened.

And the media made fun of it.

"stayed between the red velvet ropes once inside" This is a lie.

They constructed a gallows and were calling for the death of your Vice President. They beat a police officer to death.

Why even bother to post something like this?

There’s plenty of video evidence contradicting the rosy picture you paint.

It was not nearly as vanilla as you make it sound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uSYhyFao4

It's pretty long since it covers the build up and call for violence the day prior, but if you want a TL;DW, skip straight to 59:02

They also had guns, but I notice you glossed right over that.

Also what do you think the guy brought zip ties for? There had never been an airplane hijacked by some guy with a box cutter until it actually happened.

You clearly did not watch any videos of the event unless it was on a certain news network ???.