How is it not what you said? You said they tried to insurrect but they failed so it wasn’t an insurrection. How is that not a fair description of what you wrote?
I didn't say they "tried to insurrect but failed". I said they rioted, with some wanting to detain politicians and halt the process but luckily they weren't able to get that far.
To use your metaphor, the comparable situation would be "If you are in a group of people who enter a bank, and some might have even wanted to rob the bank but don't get any further than getting to the register, is that entire group now bank robbers?"
You are arguing that because some might have taken the opportunity to try and insurrect had they been given the opportunity, that there was an insurrection.
I'm arguing that because they didn't get far enough to even attempt an insurrection, there was no insurrection. There was a riot, and while I'm completely fine with labeling those who would have tried to insurrect had they been given the opportunity as "would-be insurrectionists", I'm not going to label the event as it unfolded as being an insurrection.
Since when does an insurrection have to be successful in order to be an insurrection? Most insurrections fail. This one, thankfully, failed.
insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
I didn't say they "tried to insurrect but failed". I said they rioted, with some wanting to detain politicians and halt the process but luckily they weren't able to get that far.
To use your metaphor, the comparable situation would be "If you are in a group of people who enter a bank, and some might have even wanted to rob the bank but don't get any further than getting to the register, is that entire group now bank robbers?"
You are arguing that because some might have taken the opportunity to try and insurrect had they been given the opportunity, that there was an insurrection.
I'm arguing that because they didn't get far enough to even attempt an insurrection, there was no insurrection. There was a riot, and while I'm completely fine with labeling those who would have tried to insurrect had they been given the opportunity as "would-be insurrectionists", I'm not going to label the event as it unfolded as being an insurrection.
Since when does an insurrection have to be successful in order to be an insurrection? Most insurrections fail. This one, thankfully, failed.
insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
It was clearly an insurrection.
It happened.
I never once said an insurrection needs to be successful in order for there to be an insurrection. I said they were never in position to attempt an insurrection.
Let me put it this way:
At what point does a riot become an insurrection?
I would argue it becomes an insurrection once the rioters are capable of an attempt to overthrow the government. The rioters are not capable of attempting to overthrow the government without first getting to politicians or the electoral college voters in order to halt the process or force things to go their way. Since the rioters were never able to get to politicians or the electoral college voters, they could not attempt to overthrow the government, and thus there was no insurrection that was attempted.
Instead, there was a riot, where among the rioters there were would-be insurrectionists who would have probably attempted an insurrection had they had the opportunity.
Name a peaceful protest where 10% of those arrested were brought up on weapons charges. And we know a lot more than that had weapons. Almost all were arrested later where they could only be charged with weapons if it showed up on video.
A lot of these people who stormed the capitol were there to fight a battle. They wanted to kill Mike Pence and they got very close to their goal.
The idolators were ready to kill and be killed for their orange god.
Where did I ever say January 6 was a peaceful protest?? I very clearly said it was a protest that devolved into a riot.
Are you trying to challenge whether there has ever been another riot where 10% of those arrested were brought up on weapons charges?
If it started as a peaceful protest, why did so many bring weapons? Why were there large caches of weapons stashed nearby?
Some came for a peaceful protest. But many came prepared to bring down the government by force.
They came with the goal to kill the Vice President. They said so loud and clear.
I never once said an insurrection needs to be successful in order for there to be an insurrection. I said they were never in position to attempt an insurrection.
Let me put it this way:
At what point does a riot become an insurrection?
insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
It became an insurrection the moment it became a violent uprising against the government.
They violently entered the capitol of the government with the intention of killing the Vice President and stopping the government from declaring a new president.
It fits the definition perfectly. You couldn't make up a situation that fit the definition of insurrection any better.
I didn't say they "tried to insurrect but failed". I said they rioted, with some wanting to detain politicians and halt the process but luckily they weren't able to get that far.
To use your metaphor, the comparable situation would be "If you are in a group of people who enter a bank, and some might have even wanted to rob the bank but don't get any further than getting to the register, is that entire group now bank robbers?"
You are arguing that because some might have taken the opportunity to try and insurrect had they been given the opportunity, that there was an insurrection.
I'm arguing that because they didn't get far enough to even attempt an insurrection, there was no insurrection. There was a riot, and while I'm completely fine with labeling those who would have tried to insurrect had they been given the opportunity as "would-be insurrectionists", I'm not going to label the event as it unfolded as being an insurrection.
Since when does an insurrection have to be successful in order to be an insurrection? Most insurrections fail. This one, thankfully, failed.
insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
It was clearly an insurrection.
It happened.
Not violent. Not insurrection. Not anything. A protest that went awry.
actually, I should say "once the rioters are capable of an attempt and then actually attempt to overthrow the government"
I just don’t buy this argument , so we’ll have to leave it there.
the goal was to stop the electoral count so pence could throw it to the House which would have elected trump.
and in fact the rioters did stop the count. If pence had played along they might have won the day. Coming possibly one guy away from a coup is too close to be passed off as not being very close to success.
As for the people wandering around aimlessly in the capitol not battling the US Government…they were not insurrectionists, no. Bad, but not insurrectionists.
Where did I ever say January 6 was a peaceful protest?? I very clearly said it was a protest that devolved into a riot.
Are you trying to challenge whether there has ever been another riot where 10% of those arrested were brought up on weapons charges?
If it started as a peaceful protest, why did so many bring weapons? Why were there large caches of weapons stashed nearby?
Some came for a peaceful protest. But many came prepared to bring down the government by force.
They came with the goal to kill the Vice President. They said so loud and clear.
Are you saying it didn't start peacefully? Are you saying the BLM protests weren't initially peaceful because there were those who participated that armed themselves with weapons?
A protest becomes a riot when violence is introduced. At the start, January 6 was a peaceful protest much like the BLM protests from the summer of 2020. It became a riot when people started using violence, just like the BLM protests became riots when people started using violence.
I clearly specified that there were 120,000 protestors, so if 78 were arrested for possessing weapons, that's only 0.065%. I then said that when talking about those who were arrested and how many of those were charged for possessing weapons, yes it's around 10% which isn't much different than other riots.
You are the only one that brought up the idea that it was a peaceful protest with your strawman argument.
Many never engaged in peaceful protest. Many came prepared for violence from the very beginning. They were organized and they planned their assault. They brought weapons and stashed more nearby.
This was an attack. They used the peaceful protesters as cover.
I never once said an insurrection needs to be successful in order for there to be an insurrection. I said they were never in position to attempt an insurrection.
Let me put it this way:
At what point does a riot become an insurrection?
insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
It became an insurrection the moment it became a violent uprising against the government.
They violently entered the capitol of the government with the intention of killing the Vice President and stopping the government from declaring a new president.
It fits the definition perfectly. You couldn't make up a situation that fit the definition of insurrection any better.
Without the capacity to attempt to do something, it's hard to argue there is an attempt to do something.
That's like arguing a non-US citizen, who wants to enter the US illegally but is stopped by a giant wall at the border and they don't have the capacity to find a way to bypass it, an illegal immigrant before they enter the US. They don't at that time have the capacity to do so, let alone are they able to make an attempt. They are a would-be illegal immigrant, just like those who wanted to insurrect but were unable to get to the point where they could attempt an insurrection are "would-be insurrectionists" and not insurrectionists.
At no point were the would-be insurrectionists capable of reaching politicians. There was a barrier in the way, as well as security guards. The only person that even got as far as trying to cross that barrier was shot and killed on site, so even they sure weren't within reach of being capable of detaining or harming any politician that day.
Without the capacity for the would-be insurrectionists to insurrect, there was no attempted insurrection, and thus no insurrection.
It was a riot that included would-be insurrectionists.
Many never engaged in peaceful protest. Many came prepared for violence from the very beginning. They were organized and they planned their assault. They brought weapons and stashed more nearby.
This was an attack. They used the peaceful protesters as cover.
Interesting. I've never heard a leftist try to claim that BLM protests weren't initially peaceful but rather that they started as riots.
That's not a claim I can agree with. Protests don't become riots until violence is introduced.
And yet you're still not addressing the meat of my response to your post, but instead focusing on your own strawman.
So to get back to it: 10% of the protestors were not charged with possessing weapons, and 10% of people who are arrested being charged with possessing weapons isn't really any different from other riots.
insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
It became an insurrection the moment it became a violent uprising against the government.
They violently entered the capitol of the government with the intention of killing the Vice President and stopping the government from declaring a new president.
It fits the definition perfectly. You couldn't make up a situation that fit the definition of insurrection any better.
Without the capacity to attempt to do something, it's hard to argue there is an attempt to do something.
That's like arguing a non-US citizen, who wants to enter the US illegally but is stopped by a giant wall at the border and they don't have the capacity to find a way to bypass it, an illegal immigrant before they enter the US. They don't at that time have the capacity to do so, let alone are they able to make an attempt. They are a would-be illegal immigrant, just like those who wanted to insurrect but were unable to get to the point where they could attempt an insurrection are "would-be insurrectionists" and not insurrectionists.
At no point were the would-be insurrectionists capable of reaching politicians. There was a barrier in the way, as well as security guards. The only person that even got as far as trying to cross that barrier was shot and killed on site, so even they sure weren't within reach of being capable of detaining or harming any politician that day.
Without the capacity for the would-be insurrectionists to insurrect, there was no attempted insurrection, and thus no insurrection.
It was a riot that included would-be insurrectionists.
some of what you wrote is not true. I don't think you have all the information. And again, if bank robbers have no chance to get in a vault, are they not still bank robbers?
not true: At no point were the would-be insurrectionists capable of reaching politicians
- if they had turned one way instead of the other they would have had politicians in their grasp.
Plus, again, they stopped the electoral count. They did. They stopped it. Temporarily, but they stopped it. They did not fail. They succeeded.
Without the capacity to attempt to do something, it's hard to argue there is an attempt to do something.
That's like arguing a non-US citizen, who wants to enter the US illegally but is stopped by a giant wall at the border and they don't have the capacity to find a way to bypass it, an illegal immigrant before they enter the US. They don't at that time have the capacity to do so, let alone are they able to make an attempt. They are a would-be illegal immigrant, just like those who wanted to insurrect but were unable to get to the point where they could attempt an insurrection are "would-be insurrectionists" and not insurrectionists.
At no point were the would-be insurrectionists capable of reaching politicians. There was a barrier in the way, as well as security guards. The only person that even got as far as trying to cross that barrier was shot and killed on site, so even they sure weren't within reach of being capable of detaining or harming any politician that day.
Without the capacity for the would-be insurrectionists to insurrect, there was no attempted insurrection, and thus no insurrection.
It was a riot that included would-be insurrectionists.
some of what you wrote is not true. I don't think you have all the information. And again, if bank robbers have no chance to get in a vault, are they not still bank robbers?
not true: At no point were the would-be insurrectionists capable of reaching politicians
- if they had turned one way instead of the other they would have had politicians in their grasp.
Plus, again, they stopped the electoral count. They did. They stopped it. Temporarily, but they stopped it. They did not fail. They succeeded.
Oh, I thought you were done with this discussion. Otherwise I would have responded to your earlier post.
To your first point (that they were one wrong turn away from getting to a politician): I hadn't heard that, so if true can you provide the source?
To your second point (stopping the electoral count): Pence decided to halt the process. He was not forced to do so, and it did resume. At what point were the rioters able to stop it on their own? They were never physically able to reach the room in which the electoral count was taking place.
If they try to take money from the bank that does not belong to them, they are bank robbers. If they don't try to take money that doesn't belong to them from the bank, they are not bank robbers, even if they wanted to rob the bank but merely lacked the capacity to attempt to do so.
some of what you wrote is not true. I don't think you have all the information. And again, if bank robbers have no chance to get in a vault, are they not still bank robbers?
not true: At no point were the would-be insurrectionists capable of reaching politicians
- if they had turned one way instead of the other they would have had politicians in their grasp.
Plus, again, they stopped the electoral count. They did. They stopped it. Temporarily, but they stopped it. They did not fail. They succeeded.
Oh, I thought you were done with this discussion. Otherwise I would have responded to your earlier post.
To your first point (that they were one wrong turn away from getting to a politician): I hadn't heard that, so if true can you provide the source?
To your second point (stopping the electoral count): Pence decided to halt the process. He was not forced to do so, and it did resume. At what point were the rioters able to stop it on their own? They were never physically able to reach the room in which the electoral count was taking place.
huh? the rioters invaded the House. They count the votes in the House. The rioters were in exactly the room in which the electoral count was taking place. The rioters stopped the count. Where exactly do you think the electoral votes were being counted?
You are just way off when you claim the rioters were not close to politicians. Way off in many directions. Maybe you ought to read and watch the NYT video on the day, or at least read the wikipedia entry on the day.
Here's just one, but there were many. Pence missed contact by a minute or two. "At one point, Goodman arrives at a landing and looks to a hallway to his left. A door in that hallway led to the Senate chambers, Wilson wrote in a tweet. Goodman then leads the rioters to the right, away from the Senate chambers – and their “targets,” Wilson said."
- Again, you do not have a command of the facts of the case. Sorry, but you do not. -
If they try to take money from the bank that does not belong to them, they are bank robbers. If they don't try to take money that doesn't belong to them from the bank, they are not bank robbers, even if they wanted to rob the bank but merely lacked the capacity to attempt to do so.
they literally stopped the count of electoral votes. Literally they did that.
Oh, I thought you were done with this discussion. Otherwise I would have responded to your earlier post.
To your first point (that they were one wrong turn away from getting to a politician): I hadn't heard that, so if true can you provide the source?
To your second point (stopping the electoral count): Pence decided to halt the process. He was not forced to do so, and it did resume. At what point were the rioters able to stop it on their own? They were never physically able to reach the room in which the electoral count was taking place.
huh? the rioters invaded the House. They count the votes in the House. The rioters were in exactly the room in which the electoral count was taking place. The rioters stopped the count. Where exactly do you think the electoral votes were being counted?
You are just way off when you claim the rioters were not close to politicians. Way off in many directions. Maybe you ought to read and watch the NYT video on the day, or at least read the wikipedia entry on the day.
Here's just one, but there were many. Pence missed contact by a minute or two. "At one point, Goodman arrives at a landing and looks to a hallway to his left. A door in that hallway led to the Senate chambers, Wilson wrote in a tweet. Goodman then leads the rioters to the right, away from the Senate chambers – and their “targets,” Wilson said."
- Again, you do not have a command of the facts of the case. Sorry, but you do not. -
sorry cancel that they got into the House chamber. That may be wrong. Sorry.
Oh, I thought you were done with this discussion. Otherwise I would have responded to your earlier post.
To your first point (that they were one wrong turn away from getting to a politician): I hadn't heard that, so if true can you provide the source?
To your second point (stopping the electoral count): Pence decided to halt the process. He was not forced to do so, and it did resume. At what point were the rioters able to stop it on their own? They were never physically able to reach the room in which the electoral count was taking place.
huh? the rioters invaded the House. They count the votes in the House. The rioters were in exactly the room in which the electoral count was taking place. The rioters stopped the count. Where exactly do you think the electoral votes were being counted?
You are just way off when you claim the rioters were not close to politicians. Way off in many directions. Maybe you ought to read and watch the NYT video on the day, or at least read the wikipedia entry on the day.
Here's just one, but there were many. Pence missed contact by a minute or two. "At one point, Goodman arrives at a landing and looks to a hallway to his left. A door in that hallway led to the Senate chambers, Wilson wrote in a tweet. Goodman then leads the rioters to the right, away from the Senate chambers – and their “targets,” Wilson said."
- Again, you do not have a command of the facts of the case. Sorry, but you do not. -
I remember rioters getting into the Senate Chamber, I don't remember them getting into the House Chamber.
huh? the rioters invaded the House. They count the votes in the House. The rioters were in exactly the room in which the electoral count was taking place. The rioters stopped the count. Where exactly do you think the electoral votes were being counted?
You are just way off when you claim the rioters were not close to politicians. Way off in many directions. Maybe you ought to read and watch the NYT video on the day, or at least read the wikipedia entry on the day.
Here's just one, but there were many. Pence missed contact by a minute or two. "At one point, Goodman arrives at a landing and looks to a hallway to his left. A door in that hallway led to the Senate chambers, Wilson wrote in a tweet. Goodman then leads the rioters to the right, away from the Senate chambers – and their “targets,” Wilson said."
- Again, you do not have a command of the facts of the case. Sorry, but you do not. -
sorry cancel that they got into the House chamber. That may be wrong. Sorry.
Well, one of us may or may not be right. I thought they only got into one of the chambers (the one that wasn't being used at that time), and that everyone else was blocked by the barrier and security from getting to the chamber that the politicians actually were in.