Congress continues:



A few republican goons are objecting to Pennsylvania's votes

lmao incredible — Maw

Can you explain that?

Can you explain that? — Brett

I could, but I won't

Why not?

Edit: is there something I’m missing in the video?

Amazing to think that the left being full of people calling cops pigs might make some cops unhappy with the left. — Garth

Well, in his political career Biden, for instance, has supported much of the ‘law & order’ politics and adversarial culture of law enforcement. No reason to be unhappy when their funding grows, accountability weakens, and are generally empowered regardless of which party holds the reigns.

I heard Trump is a liar and raped minors! I wouldn't doubt it! Where's the investigation?

Some of the comments here. I feel like banning the shit out of some people just to raise the level of sanity of this thread.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and Congressmen and women”

So violent. The doublespeak has begun.

She was veteran storming the capitol building only to be gunned down by police. It’s tragic. — NOS4A2

A terrorist was shot. Cry me a river.

The USA has, politically speaking, been marching along the edge of the abyss of insanity for four years now, widely supported by almost all politicians of the GOP. Even after Trump's defeat, many Republican senators have backed Trump in pushing falsehoods about a stolen election and voter fraud and protecting themselves and their allies from the consequences of these lies. More than 100 House Republicans backed him in this as well.

This will not end today, it is in the interest for too many politicans to maintain the status quo by keeping the people distracted from any type of policy, anything to do with improving actual conditions for actual people. The Republicans have set the stage for the next round of elections.

If people do not know yet what the "information apocalypse" is I urge you to read up on it. This will only get worse.

A terrorist was shot. Cry me a river. — Olivier5

No, this was certainly not a terrorist. And quite frankly if people honestly believe the election was stolen, this reaction would be totally understandable. The problem is that for any outsider not submerged in the political discourse gripping a large segment of the population this looks like insanity. Inside it this all makes sense, are brave patriots and protecting the USA from a Democratic coup intend on implementing socialism. If the election really was stolen, which it obviously wasn't, I would want all US citizens to march on the Capitol and shoot the fuckers that made it possible.

This is also why some like to draw equivalence between BLM "rioters" and these people. The comparison fails in my view because one have grievances with actual facts (police brutality against minorities) and the others with a lie spun by GOP politicians and Trump. Where the discussion about BLM "rioters" is about the extent to which and how they should protest, the discussion here is whether they should be "protesting" at all.

In my view, there is therefore no moral equivalence between the two. I don't have anything good to say about the posters who imagine otherwise so I'll refrain from commenting directly to them.

Obviously the people. These people shook up the system. I don’t have to like them to see that. — Brett

But what is 'the people' in this case. I always get itchy when 'the people' are mentioned, because it is usually an appropriation by a small group who claims to represent them, see e.g. the People's Republic of China. These people were fighting not to overthrow the powers that be, but to have four more years of it. The people here rallied behind a multi millionaire from a political party that wishes to cut budget on welfare, health care etc. The believe the deck is stacked against them and that Trump is sent to liberate them, but what does that tell you about where they stand?
They feel that a man who incites violence, racism, is under investigation for numerous crimes and shady deals and uses bully like tactics to get his way is in fact their hero. Of course tis this different from '68 or Hong Kong or BLM. We have a group of people fighting for an authoritarianism they think they will profit from. I am not saying their grievances aren't real and that they have been treated fairly but what they are fighting for is not a fairer society it is a more unfair one in which they at least receive a form of cultural and social superiority.

No, this was certainly not a terrorist. — Benkei

Don't most terrorists think that they're doing the things they do for just and righteous political causes? Why would this unfortunate woman's belief likewise absolve her of the label of "terrorist"?

I like that you show sympathy for how these people have been duped and manipulated, since that "war for hearts and minds" really is where the battle needs to be fought; but lots of people fighting for lots of bad causes have been duped and manipulated into thinking they are good causes, and that doesn't make their actions okay.

Why would this unfortunate woman's belief likewise absolve her of the label of "terrorist"? — Pfhorrest

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

I don't think she satisfies condition (A).

*

Obviously the people. These people shook up the system. I don’t have to like them to see that.
— Brett

But what is 'the people' in this case. I always get itchy when 'the people' are mentioned, because it is usually an appropriation by a small group who claims to represent them, — Tobias

You’ve taken that line out of context. The line was in response to frank who asked whose side I was on.

Who's side are you on?
— frank

Obviously the people. These people shook up the system. I don’t have to like them to see that. — Brett

By the people I mean:

Left or right it’s the people against a heartless system. — Brett

[

Was she not participating in an armed mob unlawfully storming the Capitol building? I don't know if she herself was armed or personally threatening violence on anyone, but I would imagine the driver of a getaway car from a different kind of terrorist activity would still be considered to be engaged in that activity.

unlawfully storming the Capitol building? — Pfhorrest

How do you define that? What law are you referring to?

No, this was certainly not a terrorist. And quite frankly if people honestly believe the election was stolen, this reaction would be totally understandable. — Benkei

And that is why Trump and the Republicans kissing his ass are responsible here for everything.

Because for them it's just 2020's political rhetoric. They know they don't mean it for real, which makes all this utterly crazy and in the end a real tragedy. If the election really would be "stolen", then it is totally logical to take up arms, to breach Capitol Hill. But no. Oh how Trump loves his supporters, but "now they have to go home". Just like that. And they shouldn't oppose the police. And mind not destroying or vandalizing anything on the way. Yet just earlier inciting them to walk to the Capitol, which his supporters living in la-la-land aptly did, tells how out of touch this President is from what he is doing.

As I said, this really is as bizarre and delusional as if my country's President would, just to feel vindicated and to get political points, would start accusing that the Russians have invaded the country. And then when reservists would start to gather around military bases to form units and get their weapons, he would the say to them to go home. So the Russians are invading, but no need to really gather up the Russians, mine the channels, form the brigades. That's the messaging here.

This is really the absurd state where the US is now where delusional beliefs not only survive, but cherish. Yes, the information apocalypse is here, as you said. The Trump message is that 1) There democracy has been taken away (that's what stealing elections means), but 2) don't do anything about it, go home now.

In the end, it all just breeds more alienation, polarization and distrust in the democracy of the Republic.

So unjust, when it could have been — Wayfarer

Is it because he’s smoking, or squinting, or just looking, what?

How do you define that? What law are you referring to? — Brett

18 U.S. Code § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds

(a)Whoever—
(1)knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
(2)knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3)knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
(4)knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; 

...

Trump referred to this statute in the tweet I mentioned earlier:

Edit: Michael beat me to it by seconds.

I don't actually know the specifics, but from all the news I've been seeing there seems to be a clear consensus that some crime was committed today, by the people storming the capitol. I would guess that at the very least bringing weapons into a government building like that is probably illegal, and even if not that, that there are restrictions on entry into at least some parts of that building if not the building as a whole, since I sincerely doubt it's lawful for just anyone to rummage through e.g. Pelosi's office.

I think "terrorism" in general is a pretty shitty term that no criminal code should have. It's a political term to paint opponents in a certain light. So BLM protesters are ANTIFA terrorists. And here we have Qanon and Trumptard terrorists. It doesn't help. And the legal definition doesn't help either. If we think a particular intent is worse than others, there's enough freedom for justices to take that in account when establishing the sentence. You don't need a separate crime for it riddled with vague terms.

She was guilty of tresspassing a federal building and possibly some destruction of property. Her intent cannot be derived from the facts we know but let's assume it was to intimidate and coerce senators. Not really the same as mass bombing a residential area and should hardly be sentenced similarly.

Especially if you realise Trump was intimidated all the way in the White House when people were protesting in the street. And protest is always done to influence policy. The whole clause sets itself up for an insane amount of abuse.

any restricted building

Is it a restricted building?

Is it a restricted building? — Brett

Yes. From that same statute:

(c)In this section—
(1)the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
(A)of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
(B)of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
(C)of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance

It certainly satisfies condition (B), given that Pence was there, and I assume also satisfies condition (C).

This story of the police allowing protestors through the barriers, and posing for selfies with them (which is validated by pictures in the public domain) - this IS insurrection. This is the low-level functionaries, charged with enforcing the law, ‘turning a blind eye’ or ‘humouring’ the protestors, ‘we’re on your side’ or ‘we understand your beef’. All those cops - every one of them who participated in those acts - ought to be sacked, and, I believe, will be.

I don't actually know the specifics, but from all the news I've been seeing there seems to be a clear consensus that some crime was committed today, by the people storming the capitol. — Pfhorrest

The crime is ‘armed insurrection’ and ought to be dealt with accordingly.

It certainly satisfies condition (B), given that Pence was there, and I assume also satisfies condition (C). — Michael

Yes, I agree.

Edit: however (there’s always a however) how many times have laws been broken by people who sought to change things? Authorities are very good at asking us to use reason, remain calm, follow the law, demonising the protestors, digging into the private lives of people who challenge them, and claiming the moral high ground.

Agreen Benkei ;) Criminal law is such a beauty of fine reasoning.

I heard antifa fucked your girlfriend — Maw

That's been debunked. He could never get a girlfriend.

You don't need a separate crime for it riddled with vague terms.

She was guilty of tresspassing a federal building and possibly some destruction of property. Her intent cannot be derived from the facts we know but let's assume it was to intimidate and coerce senators. Not really the same as mass bombing a residential area and should hardly be sentenced similarly. — Benkei

That was just a definition, not a crime. Within the chapter on terrorism the actual crimes are distinct, e.g. homicide and use of weapons of mass destruction which have different sentencing guidelines.

If anyone cares about why defining terrorism is such a shitty pursuit I wrote an article on it in 2005 already but it never got published by the magazine I approached.

Defining Terrorism