519

The January 6 Attack was an Insurrection (reason.com)

submitted 6 months ago by HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 116 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Um...duh? I fucking watched it live. I always hate people saying that the media somehow pushed a narrative. Maybe they did, I don't watch broadcast or cable TV. But I literally watched the event unfolding live on the TV above my desk. I watched Trump supporters match on the capital AS INSTRUCTED.

Let's just hope the orange turd never returns to the Whitehouse...

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 63 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

People keep calling it a riot, we all know what happened but that subtle rebranding does a lot to subconsciously change how people feel about it.
A riot is when a crowd spontaneously becomes violent and starts breaking shit.
People don't bring zip ties and build gallows at riots, they don't plan and rehearse for riots, people don't get guided tours from insiders of the place they're planning to riot in a few months.
That's why it needs to keep being said loudly that it was an insurrection and why people should be careful to never call it a riot.

[-] Thecornershop@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Imagine spontaneously building a gallows, like where the fuck would you even find the wood at in the capital?? Who randomly thinks "I should take multiple 12 foot lengths of 2x4 to hear the person who lost the election speak?

Who else thinks a big old fat length of rope is what I should take with me to see the peaceful transfer of power for myself?

Fuck those cunts.

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

I saw the gross trash in person a few blocks away....it looked like the worst trash of Winston era NASCAR fandom decided to put their foot down.....I was in DC for work not treason and was disgusting looking at the lot of them.

Please note that Winston cup NASCAR wasn't all full of trash but all country trash was fans of NASCAR.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

I watched it live being streamed by the insurrectionists themselves. There were tons of aggregation streams on Twitch showing several different angles from inside the crowd, just switching between the ones with interesting things happening. I'd say that's about the most non-mainstream source to see it through possible, and even through that lense, it was obvious that it was an insurrection.

[-] Blade9732@lemmy.world 59 points 6 months ago

It was an insurrection in 1861, and an insurrection in 2021.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

The full clause also contains “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” They’ve held socialists out of Congress in war time just for giving speeches that gave “comfort” to the enemies.

[-] DreamAccountant@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

An insurrection, not a riot.

[-] ZeDespo@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

¿Por qué no los dos?

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Because it's important to distinguish that it was an insurrection and to not water it down with other terms.

[-] ZeDespo@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

That's what I thought too, but the author made an interesting point:

Calabresi suggests that the January 6 attack fits the definition of a "riot." Perhaps so. But "riot" and "insurrection" aren't mutually exclusive concepts. An event can be both at the same time. Indeed, that's a common occurrence in history.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

A riot attacking the seat of government, attempting to overthrow the government, is an insurrection

Edit: NO, for any pedants trying with say what about BLM, protesting abuse of power is not the same thing

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Today is the third anniversary of the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, intended to keep Donald Trump in power after he lost the 2020 election

We have an attack on center of government intending to overthrow a lawful election and keep the losing candidate in power. We have intent of an insurrection, location of an insurrection, and targets to make it an insurrection. How does the ultimate success or failure, or the type of weapon change the crime?

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 25 points 6 months ago

For context, this article is from the conservative/libertarian Reason.com, and it addresses some conservative counter-arguments.

[-] ZeDespo@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

A conservative professor made a counter post saying how Jan 6 was not an insurrection. Quite frankly I think this guy's false equivalencies are equal parts scary and hilarious. Jan 6th wasn't an insurrection because not enough people died, then he made a bunch of whataboutisms. The party of family values needs to learn empathy.

[-] KreekyBonez@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

they respect values for specifically white, christian, heteronormative, American families with money.

they want a fascist ethnostate, and there's really nothing else to it

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 21 points 6 months ago

Normally I am extremely hesitant to believe anything Reason or other libertarians say, but yeah it sure was an insurrection.

[-] los_chill@programming.dev 18 points 6 months ago

No shit. What, are people calling the militant takeover of our Nation's Capitol a "protest" again?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

The cons are, and have never really stopped. Sometimes, they like to throw in "peaceful" as some kind of hyuk-hyuk jab at them-thar BLM protests (since most of the BLM protests were entirely peaceful, a fact the hard right cannot handle)

[-] NateX@mastodon.world 14 points 6 months ago

@HLMenckenFan Let's hope the Orange Monster never returns to the White House.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Why keep writing these articles. It's a fact, and you're only feeding the trolls by continuing to debate a fact with them. They don't care about truth, they just want to bog you down and keep you arguing over facts, while they make off with the country

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This is the Koch brother funded Reason magazine/website. The Kochs have tossed their 1 billion+ of donor network money behind Nikki Haley, so of course their mouthpieces attack her competition.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works -3 points 6 months ago

That's not fair to Reason. Unlike some other Koch funded enterprises they've long since corrected their stance on climate change. They've consistently covered police corruption and overreach as well.

[-] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The are like a drunk driver climbing out of the wreckage of an accident they caused and acknowledging drunk driving is bad.

The damage is already done.

Fuck them.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works -2 points 6 months ago

I didn't say you had to like them. I said it's not fair to accuse them of toeing the line for Koch.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

Preponderance of evidence

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago

In a related story: the sky is made of air.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Id call it a terrorist attack but white people can't be terrorists.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Fucking clearly. And the sc will allow trump to remain on ballots.

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

They'll likely rule that there needs to be a conviction, but that means they won't be able to pull Biden in red states either.

[+] Kaleunt17@lemmy.world -24 points 6 months ago

ok, that is your opinion, right?

As the trial about this Jan 6 event has not even started he is innocent until proven guilty, right?

[-] riskable@programming.dev 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The problem with that argument is that the 14th amendment doesn't require any findings of guilt (by a court of law). It only requires that the individual "engaged" in insurrection:

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

A court of law (Colorado Supreme Court) found that Trump did engage in an insurrection against the United States. From the perspective of the 14th amendment, he was found guilty in a court of law.

[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Even if we ignore those facts entirely... I'd argue that impeachment is an equivalent trial for a sitting President.

The House of Representatives found he did do it and impeached him, the Senate chose not to punish him. That's not the same as being found innocent or having charges dropped. That's like eing found guilty and the Judge sentencing someone to time already served.

this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024

519 points (96.4% liked)

politics

18075 readers

2996 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News