Was the January 6 riot/insurrection defensible?

Yeah, all of which is just opinion, none of it means anything

No, I've already won.

 

Were it Trump's fault, they wouldn't have felt the need to embed who knows how many FBI and FBI assets like apparently Ray Epps.
And TC writes of lost personnel. There were no lost personnel. One person died during the great trespass and that was Ashley Babbit.
Next TC will tell us Trump was colluding with Russia that helped Trump steal the 2016 election.

If there were any truth to any of that, Trump would already have been convicted and put in prison. They're after him for anything and everything.
Given the microscope he is under while members of the cathedral get away with open and despicable crimes speaks to his being a far better, law abiding person than we might imagine.

 

If that is your opinion of your opinion, even if the empirical data differs, so be it.

 

If being painfully wrong is the goal, you're killing it.

You've basically ignored all of the evidence, data and testimony and offered your own RW regurgitation as "fact". Good job, my "winning" chum.

 

If the US government can be overthrown by the occupation of ONE BUILDING by a disorganized, unarmed bunch of protesters, then we're in deep trouble. This was a protest at best. An insurrection would require thousands of armed, organized personnel from coast to coast taking over communications centers, transportation hubs, police facilities and setting in place state replacement governors, et al. It would have a whole new replacement government ready to step in from the President to the VP to the Pentagon to the CIA and more. Calling the occupation of one building for a few hours an "insurrection" is kinda silly.

 

The goal was for the Orange Traitor to declare martial law, and then attempt to use the powers of a President under the law to keep himself in office.

It's "silly" that you're trying to apologize for and trivialize the crimes of 1/6.

Why do you guys ignore newer evidence and instead continue to recite these lame claims?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/16/politics/william-olson-donald-trump-memo-martial-law

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/media/stelter-trump-martial-law/index.html

 

I have not understood their apathy about what he actually did to illegally retain the seat.

However, them overlooking the theft of classified documents (that have probably been sold to our enemies) and the last J6 hearing in which we learned that he openly admitted that he knew his lost in private but still incited that mob with that lie, didn't do anything for 3+ hours in the hope that the turncoat SS could find Pence to assassinate him is much more than dirty politics.

 

The "goal" was to declare martial law and keep himself in office? Do you get that from tea leaves? Clairvoyence? Tarot cards?
If you think the entire US government can be overthrown by a disorganized, unarmed bunch of protesters occupying ONE BUILDING for a few hours, then you obviously have no idea how huge and stable the US government actually is.
Trump mentioned martial law when Pelosi, who actually has the responsibility for the security of the Capitol Building, refusedto accept the presence of National Guard units. Trump was amazed she refused the assistance of the Guard and considered martial law if things got out of hand.

 

If you'd bother to take your "valuable" time to read the links, and do the bare minimum research on the issue, you'd see (but never admit) that this was Trump's ill-advised goal. And it was both quite stupid and treasonous.

 

Dem good, Orange man bad.... the propaganda mill hard at work. We get it. And what I research and read says your stance is based on propaganda... nothing more.

 

No, my deflecting and non-responsive chum. I posted sources, which also contained sources. Thus in sharp contrast to that post of yours.

Attempting to label my post as "orange man bad" is ridiculously off-base and exceptionally weak. It is the Pewwee Herman approach that the RW takes far too often.

While the Orange Incompetent is bad, your refusal to address facts may be even worse.

 

if you believe trump plays all his "supporters" for fools, then yes the riot was not the supporters fault

 

Your "links" are cnn... even communists view those as so radical as to be ludicrous. CNN and MSNBC are the worst propaganda mills since Goebbels left the scene.

 

You haven't given me any data, as I've pointed out, just opinion you'd desperately like to believe.

I don't need to "kill it", you're the master of "being painfully wrong". You haven't given me ANY evidence or data and the testimony us largely just partisan opinion. Here's a fact for you, refute it if you will;
On Jan 6th Donald Trump told his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard".

 

If you are impotent in the ability to accept the 2020 presidential election's official result, certified by all fifty states after all recounts, audits and dozens of court challenges affirmed it, you must have many suspects - Republican as well as Democratic masterminds, coordinators, and operatives throughout America, and how the dastards pulled off their monumental caper while leaving no evidence, as well as why even the weirdest of Trump worshiping Republican senators, congressmen, state officeholders, and prosecutors have all abandoned all legal challenges.

Vice President Pence Announces President Biden's Victory

​

If you need to pretend that the goon attack upon outnumbered police defending democracy on January 6, 2021 has not been well-documented by videotape, sworn testimonies, and court adjudications including convictions and confessions, your denial of reality is very powerful, indeed.

Capitol Riot Arrests: Updated List of Who Has Been Arrested

​

 

Perhaps the question should be, "Is any riot defensable?" I think not.

 

I disagree. Slave riots, rebelling against actual oppressive governments, etc. is perfectly defensible. This? Nah, this was just the Gravy Seals pitching a violent hissy fit that their God Emperor lost.

 

But I do accept the election result and I've always condemned the rioters. Have you not read my posts?

 

If you bring your pitbull to a park, and sick on a crowd, who are doing something that you don't like, then you are responsible for the harm that ensues.

 

And here, @Lil Mike , is what @Nemesis was talking about-- people who don't necessarily support the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, but who want to minimize it as much as possible, want to portray it as unimportant, relative to other things, just want us to not think, or talk, or focus any of society's attention upon, this part of Trump's practice attempt, at taking over our government.


EDIT: Interesting side note-- as their are 3 respondents, answering, "what riot?," in addition to two, who do not fully condemn people for overrunning our Capitol, because those people were simply "misguided;" versus 24 of us, who voted for unequivocal condemnation; that makes the five, out of our group, who are less firmly against the rioters, represent approximately 1/6.

 

Who did that?

 

I suspect that the "What riot?" votes are just jokes, like "What, me worry?" Did anyone actually post here saying there was no riot?

 

The crowd at the Trump rally-- which Trump called together from around the country, to meet at that particular time, and who he then riled up, by speaking against those in Congress (among Republicans) who didn't have the bravery to "do the right thing," as well as questioning the sympathies of Vice President Pence, and then, who he pointed at the Capitol-- are the pitbull, in my analogy.

 

*LOL*

Umm, that's not a factual claim, Rob. He's using a literary device.

You really couldn't figure that out?

 

I rise in support of Rob, because the pitbull analogy is flawed. Trump did not "sick" [sic, in two senses] the rioters on anyone.

To "sic" a dog on someone means to order an animal, especially a dog, to attack someone: The police will sic their dogs on you if they have to. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sic-on

Cf. Trump, who, as has been noted, actually said:

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."

The president did mention walking to the Capitol in a peaceful manner. Those who defend the president also point to a call to vote out members of Congress who do not agree with Trump.

"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."

He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."

"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-say-peacefully-patriotically-march-capitol-1561718