You didn’t read that article did you? What is with you right-wing clowns not reading your own damn cites?
I read the article. They at times, struggled to accurately describe what happened that day.
Insurrection was the word most chose to use, but not all, and some begrudgingly. They were not all in lock-step agreement. There is room to interpret the events based on what methods and reasoning you subscribe to without a complete breakdown of decorum. This board, is unfortunately unable to do that anymore. I did enjoy some of the upthread comments. I DO have a sense of humor. Cheers.
That article is a roundtable of people who are deciding between first- and second-degree murder, but who – taken as a group – basically agree on Murder.
I would agree that it does NOT support your position on this issue.
ETA:
I didn’t say it did support my position. I posted it as an example of differing opinions coming together and discussing the topic. You guys have made up your minds months ago and have been over this several times, probably. I can see how i might have scratched a scab off.
You see, that’s why it is so important not to post a bare link. Use your words!
Murder? What link are you reading?
Is that something you have made your mind up about?
You can only blame yourself when you post a bare link.
Own up to a shitty post and move on.
I think the evidence presented at the Congressional hearings helped solidify people’s opinions. So, no “scab” really. Just a firmly held belief based on evidence.
I’m making an analogy.
Another would be: “We’ve already decided what you are. Now, we’re just haggling about price.”
ETA: yet another one:
If we all watch a man kill his wife on live TV, but then Tucker Carlson shows you videotape of the couple’s joyous wedding day, 25 years ago, will you believe that the husband is innocent?
Of course. It’s Uncommon Sense!
It is also worth noting as well that the article was written in August of 2022. The final J6 report didn’t come until December (I think). The final report makes it pretty clear that there were two attempted coups that day. One with no chance of succeeding but providing cover for the other.
Nice…
That it’s Tucker Carlson in all the videos changing nothing of course.
It’s hard for me to imagine people losing sight of the fact that the haggle over the proper nomenclature (in that Politico article) argument is, at its core, a discussion of rebellion, insurrection, sedition, and (self-) coup – essentially, a Goodness of Fit argument.
It’s hard for me to imagine that the level of nuance involved in this article – really quite analogous to dickering between first- and second-degree murder – can make us lose sight of What We All Saw Happen on that day.
It’s hard for me to imagine that anybody who IS aware of the larger story can sincerely question the profound historic significance and to-the-core shock of what took place on that day, and the rest of the iceberg – below the surface – that gave rise to it.
It IS the kind of thing that enables the slippery slope to Holocaust Denial. It IS the kind of ignorance that the SDMB has, as its very charter, to fight. It IS a textbook example of “those who are ignorant of history are destined to repeat it.”
It isn’t as charming or benign as you might like it to be.
Right, of course we know this now. What would you say was the percentage of people that day that had “take over the government” as the reason for showing up that day (prior to the rioting) I would guess maybe 5 percent. How many of them thought they would be inside the Capitol that day? I would guess 1 percent.
Which explains why only a small handful were charged with, and convicted of, Seditious Conspiracy.
But as I said on the other thread, if you have an orchestrated marketing campaign designed to bring thousands of angry and passionate folks TO the casino to enable you TO rob it, they may not be charged with the robbery directly, but they were a (bunch of useful idiots) means calculated to help you achieve that end.
How many of the people gathering in the streets of Paris in the morning of July 14 1789 thought they would incite a revolution? So the French Revolution never happened, q. e. d.
You seem to believe that the word or words used to describe a thing changes the nature of that thing. They don’t. You can call it a tea party or an attempted coup. Only one of those terms is an accurate descriptor. The facts and evidence about the nature of the coup attempt are well established.
Here’s another word you might want to understand the nature of: Sealion. Because we understand the nature of those, too, as the facts and evidence establish.
Dude, I was so numb to rioting at this point that i wasn’t as concerned at the time as i probably should have been.