Sensationalism. There were no guns, which an insurrection would have.
> A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal.
Even your language: 'advance on Congress and stop the steal' is vague and non-specific, and could refer to a protest. They organized a protest that got out of hand. Sensationalism.
I'm not really going to spend time debating your extreme views. You're demonizing these people.
The protesters were wrong in entering the capitol and should be punished just like the BLM folks who damaged the federal building in Vegas.
But this is not close to an insurrection.
This pushing of sensationalized agendas and 'demonization of the other' is the problem magnified by the media.
We live in information bubbles.
Here's a joke for you:
Before the internet:
> I want to have sex with toasters
> Don't be an idiot, grow up, get a life.
After the internet:
>I want to have sex with toasters
>Google and find a community with 1000+ members about people wanting to have sex with toasters
>Hate anyone who tells you and friends that sex with toasters is a bad idea and shut down rational discussion about it
>Mess up your life
This is identity politics in America.
Both halves of this sentence are wrong: there were guns, which an insurrection need not have.
> I'm not really going to spend time debating your extreme views.
Viewing the insurrectionists as insurrectionists isn't an extreme view.
---quote---
Half of Iowans say the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in an effort to derail the election certification process was an insurrection and a threat to democracy, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows.
That includes 93% of Democrats, 50% of independents and 20% of Republicans.
---end quote---
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-p...
---quote---
Most Americans believe the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol can be described as an "insurrection" but remain divided on how it should be investigated, according to a new Monmouth University poll.
Fifty-six percent of respondents said it is appropriate to call what happened on Jan. 6, when a mob of former President Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol, an insurrection, while an even larger majority - 72 percent - say it could be appropriately described as a "riot."
In contrast, only one-third of respondents said that they see the events of Jan. 6 as a "legitimate protest," according to the Monmouth poll.
---end quote---
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/558918-poll-majority-s...
No. Identity politics is (for instance) being incredibly pedantic about the usage of a word because you take (glaringly obvious, btw) personal offense to its usage. We have all gathered you are some form of right-leaning conservative at this point. No one else would be as defensive as you have been about this topic. Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?".
The overall context of course was that many of these people believed themselves that they were there to prevent the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly.
But I'm also against lies and propaganda.
And the narrative here is a perfect example of how identity politics are damaging to the country as a whole.
This is equivalent to conservatives demonizing liberals for being 'communists'.
Its inaccurate, wrong, polarizing, and the media and the people in power benefit while the rest of us hate each other a little more.
> Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?".
> The overall context of course was that many of these people believed themselves that they were there to prevent the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly.
By protesting or by....insurrection?
> Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?".
As much as the BLM damaging the federal building in Vegas was an 'attack on democracy'?
That's a sensationalist interpretation.
It's most likely average people doing emotional things while angry and things got out of hand, not some organized conspiracy.
It's your ideology that wants to look for reasons to demonize them instead of just be understanding of them.
If we looked at everyone more charitably , even people we disagree with, I think we would advance much farther as a species.
For what it's worth, you should try assuming good faith when you debate people here. It's in the rules first off, but it leads to better and more interesting discussion.
> the electoral college votes from being counted by the joint assembly. > By protesting or by....insurrection?
Fucking what? Just answer the question. By any method available including but not limited to straight up grabbing the ballot box and destroying them. If that is by "protest" or by "insurrection" is so irrelevant to my question. Are you even talking to me? Or some fictitious embodiment of all the internet people who disagree with you?
> It's most likely average people doing emotional things while angry and things got out of hand, not some organized conspiracy.
I did not ask if it was an organized conspiracy and I don't think it was. I asked if it was an attack on democracy. I mean that in the most literal sense and when I ask that I'm referring explicitly to the efforts to find and destroy the electoral ballots.
> If we looked at everyone more charitably , even people we disagree with, I think we would advance much farther as a species.
My interpretation of the events was that those people have basically been screwed over by decades of bad federal policy in the US, including by Trump. But Trump gave them an outlet for that rage. Anyone who broke the law should have their day in court but no, I don't think those people are somehow innately evil/horrible. Please stop assuming.
> As much as the BLM damaging the federal building in Vegas was an 'attack on democracy'?
Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism? Because this is about as low-hanging as the fruit gets for whataboutism and it's an argument I've seen re-iterated ad infinitum. It's different because of the things I said (which you didn't care to respond to) - namely, that the joint assembly was confirming the electoral ballots in the case of the Capitol in DC.
> Fucking what? Just answer the question.
----
It's not an insurrection or an attack on democracy or any sensationalized label you want to attach to it.
I'm sorry your argument lacks any evidence other than subjectively trying to determine 'intent' and one off wingnuts whose significance is being blown out of proportion, with no hard objective facts to support this being an confirmed insurrection.
If you want to believe it was an insurrection or attack on democracy and demonize your fellow citizens, despite the lack of objective evidence, go right on ahead!
Have a nice life.
> you should try assuming good faith when you debate people here. It's in the rules first off, but it leads to better and more interesting discussion.
> you are insecure and uninformed about your own opinions.
>We have all gathered you are some form of right-leaning conservative at this point. No one else would be as defensive as you have been about this topic
> Again, no one forced you to talk to that person
>you still seem like you're a bit too frustrated to have a pleasant debate with.
>Fucking what? Just answer the question
> If you don't have anything constructive _and_ pleasant to say, then please wait for your mood to simmer before commenting.
>Consider taking some time away from commenting - this is my go-to strategy when I'm hot-headed.
> At no point did you treat the opposition with respect
> I tried being reasonable but you don't want to listen to reason.
>Did you at least learn something new here?