350 Commandos were ready to storm the capitol and protect Pence on Jan 6

Politics & Elections
21

You need to dump out of a helicopter, you fast rope. Though a CH 53 K was designed to drop 50 troops at a crack, so you would need fewer helicopters.

Probably. Look how fast it went from a peaceful walk to the buildings for sightseeing with a bunch of our MAGA compatriots to it was them nasty anteeeeefaz pretending to be us.

Problem with that is all the footage that hit the airwaves/internet at the time - and most of them can’t claim it was Antifa when the faces of the people are right there, up front and for the most part unmasked, so they can’t claim that various people were antifa. When I was watching the coverage to see the vote formalization, I thought that somehow they had oopsed and put in some of the 80s era rioting in other countries capitals!

22

I agree that Trump is a moron who’s not capable of formulating and/or executing a plan more complex than “make gesture, expect hamburger.”

At the same time, however, I would assert that it’s well established that Trump surrounded himself with lots of people who were capable of conceiving various plans and acting on them. We have heard repeatedly from insiders that the Trump Way is to bring in people to argue in front of him, and at some juncture he interrupts the argument to point at somebody and say “that, what he said, do that.”

Naturally, because he is incomprehensibly stupid, he hasn’t followed the argument at all, and his decision is not a calculation, it’s a knee-jerk reaction, either because he’s gotten bored or because somebody said or did something that pleased him personally. And, of course, we all know that these decisions could be, and regularly were, rapidly thrown overboard when some other knee-jerk idea presented itself.

In the specific case of the January 6 insurrection, I’ve seen some analysis suggesting that it failed not because it was a bad plan, it failed because there were too many plans. You had Giuliani’s team barking at the courts, you had the rabble-rousers in Congress spreading conspiracy theories, you had the Gorka types quietly reaching out to activate extremists, and on and on. This situation arose because Trump is, again, an idiot, someone who can’t formulate a clear and unified strategy, so he basically gave carte blanche to all the loyalists to “make something happen,” without any kind of coordination. The overall energy was spread thin across the broader effort, and in some cases they crashed into and interfered with one another.

The point is, I disagree with dismissing the idea of a “Trump plan” simply on the basis that Trump is a dumbass who can’t plan, or understand other people’s plans. The conspirators were acting on behalf of Trump, and with his full, albeit necessarily dim, awareness. “The Trump plan” may be semantically imprecise, but it’s easily understood as “the Trump team’s plan,” and any quibbling with the phrase is just that, quibbling.

That being said, if my understanding above is correct, while the plan did not originate from Trump specifically, it certainly failed because Trump himself, sitting at the center of its machinations, is a once-in-a-generation epic-level dummy who simply couldn’t pull the fish into the boat.

23

Yes, thank you, this is what I was getting at.

I don’t think Trump himself masterminded an airtight plan that went awry for want of a horseshoe nail. I think he told a bunch of his gangsters-on “do everything you can”, and they thought of 4-5 different things. In hindsight, the 2 pieces that went missing were Pence hijacking the proceedings, and the appearance of violent leftist counterdemonstrators.

But I don’t think anybody on the Trump pirate ship ever had a clear or coordinated vision of how the master plan would play out beyond: cause some chaos, have Pence speak some magic words, profit.

24

Yep, I’ve said it for years now - Trump isn’t a leader, he’s a boss. He tells you want he wants, and expects you to get it done. He has no sense of how to do it, how long it will take, if it’s a good idea, or if it’s even physically possible.

And we’ve seen public examples of just this.

His phone call with Georgia officials after the election. He wanted them to “find” just enough votes to flip the election. He had no idea how to do that, he just kept repeating, “We just need this many votes”. You guys figure out how to do it.

His pandemic briefing where he suggested bleach and UV light as solutions. “You doctors, figure out how to use bleach to cure people, don’t bother me with the details!”

So yeah, he probably had a meeting where he told them to make sure he stays in office, and didn’t care about any of the details of how they’d do it.

25

"No one ever suggested that there not be a cover-up. "

26

I don’t buy any of it. If they were there, why not have them help the Capitol Police to push back the protestors? If you listen to the Daily Beans podcast, Frank Figluzzi covers this as well in Monday’s episode and makes a strong argument for it being hogwash.

27

Yes, and that is why he is so effective. By expressing the truth and sanity of the left cloaked in the identity of the right, he makes both sides rethink some of their knee jerk stereotypes and allows for a more nuanced conversation. I am quite sure that it is an image he consciously cultivates to help get his message across.

28

That’s the disturbing part; this was a plan that could have actually worked.

I’ve said in the past that the riot never had a chance to succeed as a coup. Even if the rioters had been more successful in their goals, the most they could have achieved was shutting down Congress and killing a bunch of elected officials. But in the aftermath, nobody was going to accept this as a legal act and believe that any government that resulted from it was legitimate. The most the rioters could accomplish was a major terrorist attack not a change in government.

But this is different. If Congress was destroyed and martial law was declared in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack, people might have accepted that. The Trump regime would have described this as just a “temporary emergency” response until the country was safe and order was restored. But they could have kept it going long enough to secure power on an indefinite basis.

29

Be that as it may, when someone drops a 7 minute YouTube link and says “the answer is in here”, experience suggests I should proceed with skepticism. So from there I’m looking for either a familiar name, or at least a shirt with a collar on it. I’m not watching a bearded dude with a T-shirt advertising .303 ammo without a little context as to what he’ll say and why I should see him as authoritative. Isn’t this more or less what any discerning person does?

30

Tucker Carlson ALWAYS wears a shirt with a collar. Just sayin’.

31

Microphones are expensive, please drop it onto the cushion provided.

I find this last exchange very relevant, as it is precisely what inspired the OP. It may be diffiuclt to discern what is truthful or respectable in these days, but it is almost certainly NOT what is presented as truthful or respectable.

32

Indeed. Absent any other knowledge or context, and given the way the video was presented, you are entirely justified in your skepticism. (That being said, Beau is a treasure who is worth your time. That should have been made clear at the outset.)

33

Makes sense if you are unfamiliar with him.

But his videos are cited all over the political threads of the dope so it is not unreasonable for BigT to post the video expecting a significant portion of those reading the thread (not everyone obviously) will instantly know who he is and be interested in what he has to say.

34

I had much the same reaction when I was first introduced to Beau. But watch a few of his videos (this wouldn’t be bad to start with). If you’re anything like me, you won’t be sorry.

35

Alright alright, I get it, I’ll watch Beau. Thanks for the tip.

36

I wonder what any standby troops were thinking when the first reports of gunfire inside the capitol came out.

37

Ah, the wonders of peer pressure. :grin: