The facts, as we know them, indicate that Trump told his followers in the 'Jan 6' crowd to go to the Capitol and vigorously protest against certification of the election, and to be loud and ugly about it. It was very reckless, careless, and stupid, but that appears to be exactly what Trump did, in FACT. There is no evidence that he told anybody to smash up anybody's office, steal anyone's documents or property, and threaten violence against anyone. The crowd's rowdy leaders did that themselves, while Trump was being whisked away from the whole thing. Now -- if Trump himself had gotten out in front of the crowd, led them into the Capitol, and started attacking Capitol police, legislators, and so on, then it would be clear case of incitement, at the very least. Thoughtful question: have any of you ever been in a country where there was an actual, no-bullshit "insurrection"...? If you have, then you know (KNOW) that this laughable 'Jan 6' idiocy was not (NOT) an "insurrection". . THIS is what an "insurrection" looks like....
I'm largely with you, but let me play devil's advocate and ask (of myself) whether the failure of the riot to qualify as an insurrection was due to the numbers, the lack of military involvement, or the quality of the people? Would we characterize it differently if thousands instesd of hundreds had gone in and one arsonist had set fire to the building and gutted it? Or if they had had a rope and hanged Mike Pence? Assassinations do occur, and I imagine the worst of them would have cheerfully lynched Pence. What would have made it more serious in terms of a threat to the Republic? Or suppose that they had done 100 times the damage, coerced Pence into refusing to certify? (That last one is hardest to imagine because Pence has integrity and at least appears to be fearless.) The other side has to acknowledge -- though they cannot -- that most of those who marched towards the Capitol not only did not go in, they even urged their own colleagues to not go in. And most of those who did go in marched right back out. Pretty weak beer.
It's probably a matter of assessing both the "tonnage" involved, as you suggest... but also the result! If the result is a successful overthrow of a government, then the action is surely hailed as a "glorious revolution" or something like that. If the action fails, then it is probably castigated as being some kind of abusive, treasonous "insurrection". Winners always get to write the history. In this 'Jan 6' thing, a Capitol cop shot and killed a woman, and I think a cop had a heart attack later and died, and there were a couple of suicides...(?). Using the "tonnage" criterion I mentioned, this sad fiasco fell way, WAY short of anything that a rational person would describe as an "insurrection".
I actually wonder whether Trump even tried to contact anyone in the military to enlist his aid, as happened in the movie 7 Days in May, involving a conspiracy among the joint chiefs to install a dictator. I suspect he did not, but I don't know. He likes a spectacle, not violence. What triggers my questioning about all this is actually psychology. I and people like me tend to understate the danger of EVERYTHING (except bears and sharks), and others overstate the danger of everything. I don't say that's good. It's sorta irresponsible. People who see an insurrection in the Jan. 6 fiasco are the same kind of people who see a "War on the Working Class" whenever a suggestion is made that maybe social security has to be adjusted, or a "War on Women" when it is suggested that later term pregnancies should not be aborted, an impending theocracy when anyone points out that a wall of separation does not exist in the constitution, a war on gays when anyone proposes that marriage means one man, one woman, a war on transgenders when someone opposes breast surgery on 12 year old girls. It's just maybe a mode of thinking that prevents me from seeing political danger as it encouragesothers to see it everywhere. I would have been on the first boat back to England in 1776, because I would not have viewed King George III as Ivan the Terrible. I can't stand AOC and her ilk, though I don't see her as dangerous. If she's elected president some day, I'll live with it.
"anything other than a Republic is fascism, right?' Not strictly germane here but that's a-historic. Fascism fits quite happily into Republics or monarchies or anything else. You're not safe just because you have a democracy (or a "democratic republic")
I agree generally with your views on this, and can only add that if the sun ever rises on a sad, sick day when "We, the People" elect any of the 'woke' trash, AOC among them, to the presidency, we're probably already living our last days as a nation before ruin and oblivion overtakes us. OH, WAIT... I forgot -- we did elect Geriatric Joe and Kamala-la-la. Joe's about as nutty as King George III was supposed to have been, and Kamala-la-la? Well, I suppose she's good for, uh, whatever it is that she's good for.... . "Kamala? Oh, yeah, she good! She real, real good...."
I can understand that position, to a point. I thought the emphasis on the hearsay story about Trump in the SUV, was gratuitous. But I do see there being a need in keeping the public informed, especially because: 1) most Republicans were not participating, & some were even badmouthing the investigation (which criticisms would've seemed to've had all the more credibility, if it had appeared that the Committee was only operating in the shadows); and 2) there was a vast amount of misinformative counter-narrative, online (about the January 6 attack being led by the FBI, or by ANTIFA, for example). I had been too young, to have watched any of the Watergate hearings, but the public clearly, in that instance, had wanted to know what had gone on, as much as did our Senators. And, again, I think people had the right to know. But to pick up the track of our conversation before you brought up the J6 Committee, I had asked if our legislators did not deserve to feel safe & protected, in the Capitol-- why should that be affected by your disapproval of the J6 Committee? Also, this is nothing new: there was just as much of a to-do, over Benghazi. So it seems a bit of the pot, calling the kettle black.
Well I respect a person having consistency, in their views. Likewise, I had no problem with a Benghazi hearing; I even watched (and did not trust everything HRC said). Though, apparently, Republicans had gone overboard, on all of their investigations, over this. But it was something, that the public was entitled to know about-- if there had been negligence, among our top officials. As far as Hillary's emails, I had even applauded Comey's negative appraisal of Clinton-- until I later found out, that this was in direct contradiction, of FBI policy (which Comey did follow, regarding the Trump investigation). Again, it comes down, for me, to consistency.
I would doubt that the reason that any German was prohibited from owning a firearm, was merely for being a "Reichsbürger" follower-- how would the govt. even know that, in each individual's case? That said, I know that Germany's regulation of firearms-- like those of basically all countries-- are more restrictive, than our own. I know that authorities did take guns from some in that movement: I just don't believe that their simply being in that movement, in itself, was the cause (or certainly not fully). You wouldn't have a link, would you?
You are right. Germany cannot prohibit a group to own guns. But courts can prohibit that a individual can own guns. Gun owner ship permit is extremely difficult to get. It is a for gone conclusion, that 90% of the firearms found are illegal, from the black market.
Bears and sharks are dangerous creatures. You have to watch snakes too, but only if they're poisonous, fortunately they're possibly the animals most terrified of people.
This is why I ask: what the heck is going on? The anti-democratic-- or anti-majoritarian, for those who insist on differentiating between those we elect to make decisions for us, and how we elect them-- wave continues today, after passing through Germany & Peru, to roll through Brazil! https://www.reuters.com/world/ameri...nvade-federal-police-headquarters-2022-12-13/ Bolsonaro supporters are clashing with police, and tried to invade federal police headquarters. This is after Bolsonaro never acknowledged his election loss, but recently told his supporters that his own fate would be determined, not by Brazilian law, but by their actions. He added that the way the Brazilian "armed forces go," would also depend on his supporters. Yesterday's violence occurred on the day of the certification of Brazil's Presidential election results, in which Bolsonaro was defeated by Lula. The symmetries between this situation, and our own January 6th, are too striking for anyone, not wanting to be regarded as an idiot, to deny. <Snip> SPARKED BY ARREST The violence in Brasilia came after Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has led probes into Bolsonaro and his allies, on Monday ordered the temporary arrest of José Acácio Serere Xavante for allegedly carrying out anti-democratic acts. Xavante, an indigenous leader, is among the Bolsonaro supporters who have protested in defiance of the Oct. 30 election result. "I cannot accept criminals reigning in Brasil," Xavante tweeted last month. "Lula cannot be certified." Last week, Bolsonaro broke weeks of post-election silence to say that his situation "hurts my soul." "Who decides where I go are you. Who decides which way the armed forces go are you," Bolsonaro told his supporters at the gates of the presidential residence on Friday. In a statement, the Supreme Court said Moraes "decreed the temporary arrest, for 10 days, of the indigenous José Acácio Serere Xavante, due to evidence of the commission of crimes of threat, persecution and violent abolition of the Democratic State of Law." It said Xavante had led protests across Brasilia and had used "his position as chief of the Xavante people to enlist indigenous and non-indigenous people to commit crimes," threatening Lula and Supreme Court justices. Xavante had "expressly summoned armed people to prevent the certification of elected" politicians, the statement added.
