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.