Trump outrage of the day

[cerat0n1a]

A lot of police officers should be fired over this. If there is ever a situation that calls for shooting people, it's when a mob storms the U.S. Capitol. If the Secret Service hadn't protected the Senators, Representatives, and Vice President Pence, it could have been an absolute bloodbath. A huge portion of the US government was gathered there with a violent mob breaking into the building.

If the protesters were intent on spilling blood, they didn't seem very well prepared.  This is wild and dangerous speculation.  Also highly discredited by the fact that the protestors killed no one.

The DC Police chief was talking about pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and a long gun for firing those. I struggle to see an explanation for turning up in Washington with those things that doesn't involve spilling blood.

[Montecarlo]

Really? They were breaking down the Chamber doors. They were harping all week about what they were planning.

But, yeah, maybe they wanted to have a quiet chat with the Democrats and "traitorous" Republicans.

So your evidence for intent to murder legislators includes property destruction and social media posts?  Try again.

[Sandi_k]

Would have been a scary sight in DC.

Surprised the police didn't shoot all the protestors. For all of the times that police in the states have been trigger happy, they seemed to use admirable restraint today.

Why are you surprised? These rioters were white.

I'm sure this was the 1st order reason.

The 2nd order reason was probably because the Trumpers were in charge of the police response.

But I think there's a decent chance that it just happened to be the correct strategic response (for non-Trumpers, and therefore non-traitors). So the armed insurrectionists stormed the Capitol and searched the for Congresspeople to murder and waived their confederate flags around and accomplished... nothing. Except showing the entire world exactly WHAT they are, in high definition video. On the other hand if you mow them down you just make martyrs of them to the rest of the cultists.

No, no, no! It was Antifa, disguised as Trumpers. < insert eyeroll here >

[Montecarlo]

A lot of police officers should be fired over this. If there is ever a situation that calls for shooting people, it's when a mob storms the U.S. Capitol. If the Secret Service hadn't protected the Senators, Representatives, and Vice President Pence, it could have been an absolute bloodbath. A huge portion of the US government was gathered there with a violent mob breaking into the building.

If the protesters were intent on spilling blood, they didn't seem very well prepared.  This is wild and dangerous speculation.  Also highly discredited by the fact that the protestors killed no one.

The DC Police chief was talking about pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and a long gun for firing those. I struggle to see an explanation for turning up in Washington with those things that doesn't involve spilling blood.

And yet those weapons were not used.  Look, I am disgusted by those people in the mob, I am disgusted by Trump.  I spent four deployments on a ballistic missile submarine.  To see democracy defaced like that was beyond horrifying.  But the escalating rhetoric has got to stop.  These people got out of control.  They should be arrested and prosecuted.

The baseless speculation about murdering half of congress is inciteful nonsense.

[frugalnacho]

Would have been a scary sight in DC.

Surprised the police didn't shoot all the protestors. For all of the times that police in the states have been trigger happy, they seemed to use admirable restraint today.

Why are you surprised? These rioters were white.

They shot an unarmed woman in the chest.  How much blood do you wish to be spilled in the name of racial equality?

They shot a terrorist that was actively breaching the capital building. 

[frugalnacho]

A lot of police officers should be fired over this. If there is ever a situation that calls for shooting people, it's when a mob storms the U.S. Capitol. If the Secret Service hadn't protected the Senators, Representatives, and Vice President Pence, it could have been an absolute bloodbath. A huge portion of the US government was gathered there with a violent mob breaking into the building.

If the protesters were intent on spilling blood, they didn't seem very well prepared.  This is wild and dangerous speculation.  Also highly discredited by the fact that the protestors killed no one.

The DC Police chief was talking about pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and a long gun for firing those. I struggle to see an explanation for turning up in Washington with those things that doesn't involve spilling blood.

And yet those weapons were not used.  Look, I am disgusted by those people in the mob, I am disgusted by Trump.  I spent four deployments on a ballistic missile submarine.  To see democracy defaced like that was beyond horrifying.  But the escalating rhetoric has got to stop.  These people got out of control.  They should be arrested and prosecuted.

The baseless speculation about murdering half of congress is inciteful nonsense.

I'm sure they all just wanted to give Mitch a peck on the cheek and a pat on the back.  Everyone really needs to lay off these domestic terrorists and give them the benefit of the doubt, because maybe they were storming the capital and breaking in for perfectly non-violent and benevolent reasons. 

[bacchi]

Really? They were breaking down the Chamber doors. They were harping all week about what they were planning.

But, yeah, maybe they wanted to have a quiet chat with the Democrats and "traitorous" Republicans.

So your evidence for intent to murder legislators includes property destruction and social media posts?  Try again.

They brought weapons, bombs, Molotov cocktails, and they wrote that they wanted to murder certain politicians. Those politicians were in the Chambers that they tried to enter by force. Police and Secret Service (Pence was in the room) were on the other side with guns drawn. I'm gonna go with "Yes."

[Montecarlo]

Ah, thanks, I had not read far enough down into this thread to see that you had posted this.

It’s a pretty big deal when the cops shoot a protester/rioter/coup instigator.  I sure wish we would  take it seriously. Funny that this thread is not taking it seriously.

That is not to say that whoever shot her wasn’t justified because I don’t know. Facts of that case will come out later.

I think you might have confused me with someone else.

Here is a video with a very clear angle of her getting shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9oThRuMVs&bpctr=1610041725
I have no idea what the rules of engagement are for the capitol police and if it's considered authorized use of deadly force.  I have my navy training but it's likely only partially applicable

[cerat0n1a]

And yet those weapons were not used.

The bomb outside RNC headquarters was not used because the Bomb Squad detonated it. It seems insane to pretend that people planting bombs at political party buildings don't have murderous intent. Do you seriously expect police in charge of guarding your country's most senior officials to say "oh, it was only a small bomb, was only intended to injure people, not kill them"?

[Montecarlo]

And yet those weapons were not used.

The bomb outside RNC headquarters was not used because the Bomb Squad detonated it. It seems insane to pretend that people planting bombs at political party buildings don't have murderous intent. Do you seriously expect police in charge of guarding your country's most senior officials to say "oh, it was only a small bomb, was only intended to injure people, not kill them"?

So one person plants a bomb and the rest of them are attempted murderers?

You all are LITERALLY using your imagination to come up with this stuff.  Thousands of attempted murderers killed NO ONE.

[dividendman]

What happened to "when the looting starts the shooting starts?"

[Montecarlo]

They shot a terrorist that was actively breaching the capital building.

You say terrorist, I say vandal and miscreant.  But hey, I'm sure your precogs knew exactly what she was going to do.

[Roland of Gilead]

IMO all of these protests that cause destruction of public property and threaten the lives of people in the buildings/area should be dealt with a heavy hand.

You don't get to storm the capital, you don't get to burn down a Wendys or occupy city blocks for weeks.

It isn't a republican or democrat thing, it is obeying the law.

[Montecarlo]

What happened to "when the looting starts the shooting starts?"

Just to clarify, you supported Trump when he said that?

[Montecarlo]

IMO all of these protests that cause destruction of public property and threaten the lives of people in the buildings/area should be dealt with a heavy hand.

You don't get to storm the capital, you don't get to burn down a Wendys or occupy city blocks for weeks.

It isn't a republican or democrat thing, it is obeying the law.

Agreed 1000%

[iris lily]

A lot of police officers should be fired over this. If there is ever a situation that calls for shooting people, it's when a mob storms the U.S. Capitol. If the Secret Service hadn't protected the Senators, Representatives, and Vice President Pence, it could have been an absolute bloodbath. A huge portion of the US government was gathered there with a violent mob breaking into the building.

If the protesters were intent on spilling blood, they didn't seem very well prepared.  This is wild and dangerous speculation.  Also highly discredited by the fact that the protestors killed no one.

The DC Police chief was talking about pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and a long gun for firing those. I struggle to see an explanation for turning up in Washington with those things that doesn't involve spilling blood.

And yet those weapons were not used.  Look, I am disgusted by those people in the mob, I am disgusted by Trump.  I spent four deployments on a ballistic missile submarine.  To see democracy defaced like that was beyond horrifying.  But the escalating rhetoric has got to stop.  These people got out of control.  They should be arrested and prosecuted.

The baseless speculation about murdering half of congress is inciteful nonsense.

Yes. Absolutely this.

[sui generis]

And yet those weapons were not used.

The bomb outside RNC headquarters was not used because the Bomb Squad detonated it. It seems insane to pretend that people planting bombs at political party buildings don't have murderous intent. Do you seriously expect police in charge of guarding your country's most senior officials to say "oh, it was only a small bomb, was only intended to injure people, not kill them"?

So one person plants a bomb and the rest of them are attempted murderers?

You all are LITERALLY using your imagination to come up with this stuff.  Thousands of attempted murderers killed NO ONE.

This is, in fact, pretty much the theory behind the felony murder rule.  So your disbelief at the idea is not comforting.

[frugalnacho]

They shot a terrorist that was actively breaching the capital building.

You say terrorist, I say vandal and miscreant.  But hey, I'm sure your precogs knew exactly what she was going to do.

How is that precog? It's just regular cog. She is actively breaching the capital during a full session with a backpack on and was warned to stop.  That in and of itself warrants deadly force. 

[dividendman]

What happened to "when the looting starts the shooting starts?"

Just to clarify, you supported Trump when he said that?

I do think people can use deadly force to protect their property. I don't think the President should encourage vigilantism. I do think that certain areas are more important and so deadly force can be used (e.g. a mob going into the Congress, Whitehouse, any leadership area, military installation, etc.).

[sui generis]

IMO all of these protests that cause destruction of public property and threaten the lives of people in the buildings/area should be dealt with a heavy hand.

You don't get to storm the capital, you don't get to burn down a Wendys or occupy city blocks for weeks.

It isn't a republican or democrat thing, it is obeying the law.

Equating damage to private property with storming the seat of government of our country and, as an ancillary action, destroying some of its property, is extremely disingenuous.  Enough with the both sides-ism.

[bacchi]

They shot a terrorist that was actively breaching the capital building.

You say terrorist, I say vandal and miscreant.  But hey, I'm sure your precogs knew exactly what she was going to do.

Keep telling yourself that she was only there to carve her initials into a bench.

[Roland of Gilead]

What did the capital look like after the terrorists left?

This is what the streets looked like after the Floyd protest terrorists left it:

[bacchi]

IMO all of these protests that cause destruction of public property and threaten the lives of people in the buildings/area should be dealt with a heavy hand.

You don't get to storm the capital, you don't get to burn down a Wendys or occupy city blocks for weeks.

It isn't a republican or democrat thing, it is obeying the law.

Equating damage to private property with storming the seat of government of our country and, as an ancillary action, destroying some of its property, is extremely disingenuous.  Enough with the both sides-ism.

It's not just storming the seat of government. It was done specifically to stop a Congressional meeting to formally choose the next President. It's an act of insurrection.

[bacchi]

What did the capital look like after the terrorists left?

This is what the streets looked like after the Floyd protest terrorists left it:

We're discussing yesterday's events at the US Capitol.

[sui generis]

IMO all of these protests that cause destruction of public property and threaten the lives of people in the buildings/area should be dealt with a heavy hand.

You don't get to storm the capital, you don't get to burn down a Wendys or occupy city blocks for weeks.

It isn't a republican or democrat thing, it is obeying the law.

Equating damage to private property with storming the seat of government of our country and, as an ancillary action, destroying some of its property, is extremely disingenuous.  Enough with the both sides-ism.

It's not just storming the seat of government. It was done specifically to stop a Congressional meeting to formally choose the next President. It's an act of insurrection.

Absolutely.  In my attempt to be brief in that statement let me not mislead that I think this was anything but an attempted coup that happened to destroy some property.  Not in any way similar to destroying a Wendy's.

[Montecarlo]

How is that precog? It's just regular cog. She is actively breaching the capital during a full session with a backpack on and was warned to stop.  That in and of itself warrants deadly force.

Hold on, do you know the rules of engagement for the Capitol Police?  I sure as hell don't.  I don't know if it was a good shooting or not.  I made no claims about the shooting.  You say terrorist, but I see no evidence she was going to harm anyone.  (I certainly see evidence she was fucking nuts).

[Roland of Gilead]

It was not an attempted coup.  An attempted coup is something like the bay of pigs.  This was in every way similar to the recent BLM protests in that you can incite a mob to do things that a single individual generally would not do on their own.

Mob mentality is a thing.   Trump egged it on.

A coup....lol

[dividendman]

How is that precog? It's just regular cog. She is actively breaching the capital during a full session with a backpack on and was warned to stop.  That in and of itself warrants deadly force.

Hold on, do you know the rules of engagement for the Capitol Police?  I sure as hell don't.  I don't know if it was a good shooting or not.  I made no claims about the shooting.  You say terrorist, but I see no evidence she was going to harm anyone.  (I certainly see evidence she was fucking nuts).

I'm confused, you thought all these people stormed the capitol to what? Have a picnic?

[Montecarlo]

I mean it's kind of a coup.  They were trying to stop Biden becoming the next president.  But it was pretty keystone cops for a coup.

[Montecarlo]

How is that precog? It's just regular cog. She is actively breaching the capital during a full session with a backpack on and was warned to stop.  That in and of itself warrants deadly force.

Hold on, do you know the rules of engagement for the Capitol Police?  I sure as hell don't.  I don't know if it was a good shooting or not.  I made no claims about the shooting.  You say terrorist, but I see no evidence she was going to harm anyone.  (I certainly see evidence she was fucking nuts).

I'm confused, you thought all these people stormed the capitol to what? Have a picnic?

I don't know, to do exactly what they did???  Stop the session, destroy property, make fools of themselves, get on TV, express support for Trump, express outrage about the election results.  Those are things they DID.  So, that's what I think they stormed the Capitol to do.  How is that crazy?

[dividendman]

I mean it's kind of a coup.  They were trying to stop Biden becoming the next president.  But it was pretty keystone cops for a coup.

OK, so if people are breaking in to the capitol, harming police and attempting a coup, what should the response be? Just let them have at it? Being stupid is not a defense.

[Glenstache]

They shot a terrorist that was actively breaching the capital building.

You say terrorist, I say vandal and miscreant.  But hey, I'm sure your precogs knew exactly what she was going to do.

I prefer seditionist in that they: 1) took over federal property, 2) attempted to prevent the lawful certification of the election of the President.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I am glad that there was not more loss of life. That the Capitol police were underprepared and/or supported seems pretty clear in hindsight, especially given the crystal clear messaging of what could be a worst case scenario ("It will be wild." The legions of social media posts about how to get weapons into DC, etc). Trump's response to the rioting was abhorrent, but entirely consistent with years of statements ranging from "very fine people" to "stand by and stand down" and finally to "we love you."

Falling back on whataboutism and false equivalency to the BLM protests of the summer reveals a lot about people and how they view these events. The events of Jan 6 ultimately stand on their own, and no amount of rationalization will make it okay or justifiable, or less than outright attempt to subvert the democratic process central to our nation.

[Montecarlo]

I mean it's kind of a coup.  They were trying to stop Biden becoming the next president.  But it was pretty keystone cops for a coup.

OK, so if people are breaking in to the capitol, harming police and attempting a coup, what should the response be? Just let them have at it? Being stupid is not a defense.

My initial impression is, other than being caught with their pants down, the police handled it admirably.  They bent but didn't break, and all things considered one person dying (not sure if the "medical emergencies" count)... well it could have gotten a lot worse.  They protected the legislators, dispersed the protestors, secured the building, and congress resumed session.

So, I think the response was pretty good all in all.

[Roland of Gilead]

OK, so if people are breaking in to the capitol, harming police and attempting a coup, what should the response be? Just let them have at it? Being stupid is not a defense.

Based on responses to destruction of public property in the past couple of years, yes, let them have at it, after you have moved everyone in the building to safety.  At the end of the day it is just a building and carpets.

Personally I believe that a heavy hand should be applied in all these situations but as a country we are a lot more friendly toward protests.

[frugalnacho]

This is fucking insane.  Trump, the insurrection, the terrorist apologists in this thread.

[Montecarlo]

This is fucking insane.  Trump, the insurrection, the terrorist apologists in this thread.

Who is apologizing for whom?

[Roland of Gilead]

Falling back on whataboutism and false equivalency to the BLM protests of the summer reveals a lot about people and how they view these events. The events of Jan 6 ultimately stand on their own, and no amount of rationalization will make it okay or justifiable, or less than outright attempt to subvert the democratic process central to our nation.

So when should the democratic process be applied?  It is ok to subvert the democratic process when a public statue needs to be taken down or when several city streets and private businesses are illegally occupied for weeks?

I personally think the statues that were torn down were (mostly) offensive (some were side casualties of the general rampage and didn't deserve the treatment) but I was offended that the government just stood around and let it happen without any sort of democratic process.

[bacchi]

This is fucking insane.  Trump, the insurrection, the terrorist apologists in this thread.

It speaks to the lack of true patriotism in the US today. Trying to stop the formal choosing of a President is just an afternoon's lark, ya know?

[Roland of Gilead]

It speaks to the lack of true patriotism in the US today. Trying to stop the formal choosing of a President is just an afternoon's lark, ya know?

Actually a lot of the people in that group probably thought they were being patriotic, believing the lies that Trump and family told them about the election being rigged.

[Montecarlo]

This is fucking insane.  Trump, the insurrection, the terrorist apologists in this thread.

It speaks to the lack of true patriotism in the US today. Trying to stop the formal choosing of a President is just an afternoon's lark, ya know?

You're acting as if there are only two ways to respond:

Complete nonchalance to the point of complicity
OR
Condemn them all as murderous terrorists

Isn't there room for something in between? 

[frugalnacho]

This is fucking insane.  Trump, the insurrection, the terrorist apologists in this thread.

Who is apologizing for whom?

No one.  An apologist argues in defense of controversial position.

[WhiteTrashCash]

There are a ton of terrorist apologists on this thread. A ton of them.

[bacchi]

It speaks to the lack of true patriotism in the US today. Trying to stop the formal choosing of a President is just an afternoon's lark, ya know?

Actually a lot of the people in that group probably thought they were being patriotic, believing the lies that Trump and family told them about the election being rigged.

Those weren't patriots. Patriots would have accepted defeat at the ballot box, the 60+ lower court cases (many by Trump appointees), or the Supreme Court case. They didn't. They wanted to change the election's results.

[Montecarlo]

This is fucking insane.  Trump, the insurrection, the terrorist apologists in this thread.

Who is apologizing for whom?

No one.  An apologist argues in defense of controversial position.

I don't see anyone coming to these peoples defenses.  Every voice on here has expressed outrage over what they did.

[Roland of Gilead]

Those weren't patriots. Patriots would have accepted defeat at the ballot box, the 60+ lower court cases (many by Trump appointees), or the Supreme Court case. They didn't. They wanted to change the election's results.

Never said they were patriots.  I said they *thought* themselves as patriots.

[bacchi]

This is fucking insane.  Trump, the insurrection, the terrorist apologists in this thread.

It speaks to the lack of true patriotism in the US today. Trying to stop the formal choosing of a President is just an afternoon's lark, ya know?

You're acting as if there are only two ways to respond:

Complete nonchalance to the point of complicity
OR
Condemn them all as murderous terrorists

Isn't there room for something in between?

Sure. There's sedition.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

[bacchi]

Those weren't patriots. Patriots would have accepted defeat at the ballot box, the 60+ lower court cases (many by Trump appointees), or the Supreme Court case. They didn't. They wanted to change the election's results.

Never said they were patriots.  I said they *thought* themselves as patriots.

Right, understood.

[Montecarlo]

Sure. There's sedition.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

I prefer seditionist in that they: 1) took over federal property, 2) attempted to prevent the lawful certification of the election of the President.

I think sedition is a fair characterization

[dang1]

deplorables still dumber than a rock now only alot more traitorous

[ender]

It's pretty easy to do a thought exercise and ask yourself:

• How would yesterday have gone if instead of mostly white folks, it was mostly black folks?
• How would yesterday have gone if it was mostly middle eastern folks?

Anyone who thinks it would have been handled the same is completely naive.