Bringing weapons and homemade bombs in addition to some canvasing. There was some planning but my guess is they crazies lost their nerve, especially after that woman was shot or they had no idea what to do once they were inside (like a dog actually catching a car). I do agree it certainly wasn't planned well, that's for sure.The reason there wasn't more damage and loss of life is because this wasn't a planned insurrection. If a crowd that size was anything close to organized and intent on stopping legislative proceedings or "taking over the government" they'd still be cleaning up the blood that got spilled.
I'm just trying to get an idea of how many troublemakers are needed before it's a "movement". Some people have been perfectly content to lump everyone even tangentially involved into the same pot and you seem to have an idea that isn't necessarily the case so I just want you to fill us in on where critical mass between "a few troublemakers" and a "movement" occurs.Is there a point to your statement? If it were one person do you think that one person would have made it past the capitol police and do all that damage on their own. Your attempt to defend these insurgents is appalling.
There is a 90 minute video posted below that follows one guy's documentation of the storming of the Capitol. It starts before the breach, shows the beginning of the breach (at one location), shows what happened after the breach and as protesters were inside the Capitol. The video isn't particularly narrated and, personally, I have a hard time figuring out if the guy running the camera is pro-Trump or pro-riot. He certainly seems to be drawn to "spicy" activities, to use his term.
The video does show the Ashli Babbit shooting and one of the more common clips going around of the shooting is excerpted from this video. Just so anyone that chooses to watch this thing knows, that incident is in here. The language is often rather vulgar as well so, all things considered, this probably isn't something you want to watch while at work.
I also want to comment a little about this. Like I wrote in another thread, I view this "insurgency" as kind of a college kegger that got way out of hand. This video doesn't change that opinion one bit. For the first 20 minutes or so the cameraman is making his way to the Capitol building and protesters are just wandering the streets. As he approaches the Capitol the crowd becomes a LOT more boisterous but even at that there is a large percentage of the crowd that's peaceful. Even after the pushing starts there are still a whole lot of people trying to calm the crowd and push back. Unfortunately, those that were bent on getting into the building made it next to impossible for those around them to escape or avoid moving with the wave.
If you watch the video you'll see cops generally trying their best to maintain control and you'll see protesters that generally just get caught up in what's happening behind them. You will see agitators, to be sure. You'll hear calls for violence and you'll hear calls for calm. What you won't hear or see is any kind of coordinated effort to kidnap congressmen or to take over the government. You'll see chaos. It's all kind of like the dog that finally catches the car and has no idea what to do next.
To be fair, the whole thing kind of breaks my heart. The attack accomplished absolutely nothing. Yeah, it was a political statement but it wasn't an organized, coherent statement in any way, shape or form. Even after the people got inside the building the sense is more "We did it! What now?" than anything else. The guy with the camera seems to be as much interested in getting something "historical" on film than on actually accomplishing anything beneficial and I can't help but think that most of the other "insurgents" were feeling the same way.
If the video shows anything meaningful it's just a view of what America looks like when our primary concern is "Likes", "retweets" and "viewer count". There is nothing "majestic" in what was done and all the messages on both sides simply drown each other out. For those on the left, this wasn't the "Trump fueled insurrection" you want the nation to believe it was. For those on the right, it wasn't "Standing up for the principles of liberty".
It was a mess and that's all that it was. High ideals require strong foundations to support them and there is no foundation in anarchy.
I for one will acknowledge that a large majority of the crowd at the protest that day did not participate in any crimes, nor did they ever plan to.If you actually watch the video you will likely see what you want to see. If you watch it objectively you'll see that there were a lot of people caught up in the emotion of the moment and a handful of agitators quite literally pushing from behind.
It shows the "terrorists" planned the attack all out in advance, and had absolutely nothing to do with the President's speech.
Well, evidently your party thinks otherwise. The only evidence they cited was one sentence out of the speech and the phone call to that douchbag Raffensperger .
I'm just trying to get an idea of how many troublemakers are needed before it's a "movement". Some people have been perfectly content to lump everyone even tangentially involved into the same pot and you seem to have an idea that isn't necessarily the case so I just want you to fill us in on where critical mass between "a few troublemakers" and a "movement" occurs.
Perhaps you should read your party's Article of Impeachment.That is false. There is a ton of evidence other than this.
Sure it does.That doesn't invalidate incitement.
Only if you think the mob was a singular hive mind making a completely binary decision based on the presence, or lack of, a singular command from Trump. It would also require you to think nobody could possibly anticipate Trump's actions.Sure it does.
Articles of Impeachment are not a comprehensive account of all evidence and arguments. Did you think they were?Perhaps you should read your party's Article of Impeachment.
Trump was impeached for inciting the riot. He was impeached because he told people to march to the Capitol and peacefully protests so, obviously, if you read between the lines, that means "storm the joint!"....except that those words couldn't have "incited" a crowd that was already prepared to storm the joint.
If you actually watch the video you will likely see what you want to see. If you watch it objectively you'll see that there were a lot of people caught up in the emotion of the moment and a handful of agitators quite literally pushing from behind.
I view this "insurgency" as kind of a college kegger that got way out of hand.
I view this "insurgency" as kind of a college kegger that got way out of hand.
I view this "insurgency" as kind of a college kegger that got way out of hand.
I view this "insurgency" as kind of a college kegger that got way out of hand.
I view this "insurgency" as kind of a college kegger that got way out of hand.
Trump was impeached for inciting the riot. He was impeached because he told people to march to the Capitol and peacefully protests so, obviously, if you read between the lines, that means "storm the joint!"....except that those words couldn't have "incited" a crowd that was already prepared to storm the joint.
If you actually watch the video you will likely see what you want to see. If you watch it objectively you'll see that there were a lot of people caught up in the emotion of the moment and a handful of agitators quite literally pushing from behind.
You have to know Trump was giddy watching his war dogs storm the capitol and probably only acted after his underlings begged and pleaded for him to do SOMETHING. But perhaps it was easy for him to not appreciate what was going on given that it was 800 yards from his back door?I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of Trump’s culpability in inciting this lynch mob, Lutherf. But the sake of argument, let me take what you say as read that these putschists were not incited by Trump’s words. That their violence was pre-planned and no matter how carefully Donald Trump chose his words, many in that throng would have attacked the Capitol regardless.
Even assuming the forgoing, Donald Trump is still culpable for allowing this attack to carry on for over an hour and sit by with depraved indifference watching the attack on our House of Government continue unabated. Even if he did not whip up the mob into a furor, standing by and letting a mob of thousands break in and potentially confront, assault, batter, maim and murder our nation’s legislators is inexcusable. At best, it is complete and total incompetence. At worst it was a malicious Hail Mary pass to try and overturn the election. Neither of which merit his ability to hold federal office again.
Haha Trump wanted his people to keep fighting. They were yelling we want Trump, as they were cloaked in their Trump shirts, hats and flags. They are a Global embarrassment as the chant for the Grifter.It shows the "terrorists" planned the attack all out in advance, and had absolutely nothing to do with the President's speech.
Like I wrote in another thread, I view this "insurgency" as kind of a college kegger that got way out of hand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?