Invasion of US Capitol building

[Jacob]

...



When is an invasion not a riot, and when is a peaceful protestor not a terrorist?

...

When you've worked it out you could ask yourself what was so different about the 1st June protest and 6th Jan. Maga v BLM: how police handled the Capitol mob and George Floyd activists – in pictures

 

[D_W]

Just for balance, wikipedia has this to say about the George Floyd riots

When is an invasion not a riot, and when is a peaceful protestor not a terrorist?

Just for Jake, I think I may change my avatar, so everyone knows straight away that I am actually a Russian hacker.

14,000 arrests is probably about a tenth of a percent or less of the people involved in the protests, and probably a small fraction of the folks who either stole things or slugged someone. I don't recall the incident mentioned above being termed a riot even though there were burned police vehicles and news crews, etc, getting beaten up.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2...-protests-is-a-bad-sign-for-us-press-freedom/
Most of us in the US would term this a particularly European article. At the top, the article attempts to blame Trump for violence against journalists, but then details situations only of police and leftist protesters beating up journalists (the capitol riots only resulted in journalists "feeling" like they were in an unsafe situation).

Trump can create plenty of honest trouble, there's no need for exaggeration based on "feeling" about something that might occur when the same thing is actually occurring for other reasons.

 

[D_W]

When you've worked it out you ask yourself what was so different about the 1st June protest and 6th Jan. Maga v BLM: how police handled the Capitol mob and George Floyd activists – in pictures

One was instantaneous and over quickly, four people got killed in the protest group (it appears that two were stroke and heart attack, and another accidental trampling - which must be why we haven't heard much about them), and the other was an ongoing set of protests that had already been occurring for 6 days (generally involving about 15-25 million people in total)? Do you think that the capitol protest response would've been the same on the 6th day? If there's a second instance of this, the response won't be so mild as far as the police go.

 

[gregmcateer]

"14,000 arrests is probably about a tenth of a percent or less of the people involved in the protests,"

I don't know the numbers either, but by your argument 're the Capitol building, the remainder of the BLM protesters were also 'going with the flow'

And over here, the BLM protests that did get violent DID get reported as riots- it wasn't sugar coated in reports we saw and heard.

 

[D_W]

Most of the BLM protests weren't described as riots here until they rose to the level of widespread vandalizing and destruction/violence.

I think most in the US would consider a 100k protest that involved 20 arrests, etc. as a protest and not a riot. I think it was also considered a racist statement to refer to any of the BLM protests as a riot by our press.

Only this morning did I look up an estimate of the number of folks involved in those protests to see if it could be scaled against the capitol trespass and melee. 15MM BLM protesters on the low side, 25MM on the high side.

I can't find an accurate number for capitol protesters, but in keeping with other protests gone violent here, it appears that the arrests are focused on instigators or people showing up with bad intentions. The FBI will likely go through every bit of social media and carrier data for everyone they can identify from video (that's their job).

One out of every 1500 or so BLM protesters managed to get arrested based on the midpoint of those numbers above counted against the number of arrests. I'm sure there was a larger number of folks trespassing on government property in those instances or breaking things that just never got arrested because there's no stomach for it here (or as I'd assess it, the BLM protesters have a point, so why be heavy handed?).

 

[D_W]

Has anyone seen an accurate number re: the protester count?

When the news broke, I saw an allegation of 100k people. The pictures that I see don't match that. Rule of thumb, the smaller the group of nutballs, the dumber the protest reason (presumably something worthwhile would've attracted a larger group). I see what looks like a tenth of that, but it's hard to gauge.

(i do see in wiki the same thing jacob just parroted, so I'm guessing jacob is just repeating what he sees and not thinking very hard. What would've happened if BLM showed up at the capitol? If their first protest was at the capitol in the same numbers, likely the same response as occurred last week. Just as the capitol rioters would show up to face nat. guard troops and probably traveling police like G-20 style if they organized a second protest).

 

[kwigly]

Regarding the claims of a “stolen” election that presumably triggered the protest (“riot”) at the US Capitol; Its not the individual “fake” votes that worry me, as I figure the “dead people votes” and “double voting votes” for each side probably mostly cancel each other out.
What does make me pause, are the claims of vote counting manipulation, such as the claims in this (partisan) clip I don’t see that such claims, claims of computer software vote switching and evidence of blocks of negative votes, have been adequately considered or addressed.
I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Joseph Stalin "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes."

 

[RobinBHM]

I find it hard to understand how the protestors manage to get into the capitol building.

 

[Jacob]

I find it hard to understand how the protestors manage to get into the capitol building.

Michael Moore questions a lot of the odd details and offers an explanation in his youtube vid

 

[D_W]

Regarding the claims of a “stolen” election that presumably triggered the protest (“riot”) at the US Capitol; Its not the individual “fake” votes that worry me, as I figure the “dead people votes” and “double voting votes” for each side probably mostly cancel each other out.
What does make me pause, are the claims of vote counting manipulation, such as the claims in this (partisan) clip I don’t see that such claims, claims of computer software vote switching and evidence of blocks of negative votes, have been adequately considered or addressed.
I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Joseph Stalin "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes."

I think most of these claims are proven false or factually misleading (the software switching, etc). There was one last week from a woman claiming her vote was switched showing a voting stub. The supposed stub (and others shown like it) clearly showed a vote for someone she said she didn't vote for.

And then the company later who was attributed to the error came out publicly and said flatly that while each vote created a unique record, none of their stubs had any unencrypted information on them (as in, the story was false from the start because reading any of the vote stubs isn't possible without having the database to unencrypt what they display).

There is nothing compelling enough for a court to take on, or filed by someone with standing to even make the filing, which is a pretty strong indication that there's nothing substantive.

When it came to talking about the "fraud" here locally, there was an accusation that some thousandths of illegitimate votes were going to be counted, but the judgement decisions are based on what the election committee decides - e.g., mail in votes signed in the wrong place, etc, that indicated a clear choice. To the side wanting the vote, it because something unfairly complicated that anyone (especially a senior) could screw up, and to the person wanting to disallow the vote, it just becomes a summarized comment "they allowed ___ illegitimate votes".

The summary without the background gets forwarded leaving someone to imagine all kinds of fraud when granny frau in the 26th ward clearly wanted to vote for candidate X and any reasonable person would look at the ballot and not be confused with intention.

In the case here locally, when each type of situation was considered, *all* votes that met the voter mistake classification were counted, not just one side or another.

 

[britinfrance]

I think most of these claims are proven false or factually misleading (the software switching, etc). There was one last week from a woman claiming her vote was switched showing a voting stub. The supposed stub (and others shown like it) clearly showed a vote for someone she said she didn't vote for.

And then the company later who was attributed to the error came out publicly and said flatly that while each vote created a unique record, none of their stubs had any unencrypted information on them (as in, the story was false from the start because reading any of the vote stubs isn't possible without having the database to unencrypt what they display).

There is nothing compelling enough for a court to take on, or filed by someone with standing to even make the filing, which is a pretty strong indication that there's nothing substantive.

When it came to talking about the "fraud" here locally, there was an accusation that some thousandths of illegitimate votes were going to be counted, but the judgement decisions are based on what the election committee decides - e.g., mail in votes signed in the wrong place, etc, that indicated a clear choice. To the side wanting the vote, it because something unfairly complicated that anyone (especially a senior) could screw up, and to the person wanting to disallow the vote, it just becomes a summarized comment "they allowed ___ illegitimate votes".

The summary without the background gets forwarded leaving someone to imagine all kinds of fraud when granny frau in the 26th ward clearly wanted to vote for candidate X and any reasonable person would look at the ballot and not be confused with intention.

In the case here locally, when each type of situation was considered, *all* votes that met the voter mistake classification were counted, not just one side or another.

I thought politics were banned from this Forum - just asking

 

[D_W]

I find it hard to understand how the protestors manage to get into the capitol building.

They allowed it, just as they have other protests. Consider possible outcomes here - two are killed intentionally or due to negligence. Another person by accident and then a heart attack and a stroke.

If fedgov here wants no access to those buildings, there will be no access, but sometimes the better choice is to allow the event to occur rather than creating a 10k participant fisticuffs and shooting, pushing the emotional responses even further into stupid.

Consider the kavanaugh issue - does anyone really think it would've been that hard to deny access to anyone protesting? It's a choice that they make on the first go around to let things go. Once they've had enough, it stops. There is no group of citizens who will do anything once large urban police forces get all of their military surplus wares and crowd control out, but nobody wants to do it unless it's necessary.

Jacob brought up the BLM thing. After millions went out in protests where some turned violent, 6 days in, they threatened to storm the capitol in online posts and the national guard showed up on the steps. That's the end of it.

Sometimes the decision not to "staff up and squash" the crowd doesn't go as expected. I still think it was the right decision to let it go on in this case. If the crowd would've stayed in the capital, they would've been extracted, and apparently after the lady got shot on the one end, the folks anywhere close had a change of affection and followed police out (the folks on the other side were unaware).

The total time between breach and a push out police force was 3 hours.

 

[gregmcateer]

I'm going to fling out a question/ thought, as I truly don't know if it answers the problem or not, as I'm not bright enough or statistically capable of being able to work it out:

If voter fraud in any election anywhere is genuine issue/ concern, if voting is made compulsory, would that mean once everyone's cast their vote by whatever means is approved, then the count 'knows' there's not been double counting?
Please don't shoot me down if I'm being naive or dopey - I'm genuinely interested in the answer and why or why not.

And if anyone can be bothered, can they explain why the US uses the college vote system rather than straight count of votes for the president, (as congress and the Senate are representing their constituency, I assume)?

 

[D_W]

I thought politics were banned from this Forum - just asking

I think if you read my comments above, you'll find them to be less political and more a mechanical discussion of how misinformation and legitimate votes with unintentional mistakes get turned into a different story.

it's kind of hard to gauge whether or not a brexit discussion would remain on an american board that bans religious or political discussion, because nobody in the US has any clue that there's something over the horizon from our shores!

 

[britinfrance]

I think if you read my comments above, you'll find them to be less political and more a mechanical discussion of how misinformation and legitimate votes with unintentional mistakes get turned into a different story.

it's kind of hard to gauge whether or not a brexit discussion would remain on an american board that bans religious or political discussion, because nobody in the US has any clue that there's something over the horizon from our shores!

Your point has been taken, thanks

 

[RobinBHM]

They allowed it, just as they have other protests. Consider possible outcomes here - two are killed intentionally or due to negligence. Another person by accident and then a heart attack and a stroke.

If fedgov here wants no access to those buildings, there will be no access, but sometimes the better choice is to allow the event to occur rather than creating a 10k participant fisticuffs and shooting, pushing the emotional responses even further into stupid.

Consider the kavanaugh issue - does anyone really think it would've been that hard to deny access to anyone protesting? It's a choice that they make on the first go around to let things go. Once they've had enough, it stops. There is no group of citizens who will do anything once large urban police forces get all of their military surplus wares and crowd control out, but nobody wants to do it unless it's necessary.

Jacob brought up the BLM thing. After millions went out in protests where some turned violent, 6 days in, they threatened to storm the capitol in online posts and the national guard showed up on the steps. That's the end of it.

Sometimes the decision not to "staff up and squash" the crowd doesn't go as expected. I still think it was the right decision to let it go on in this case. If the crowd would've stayed in the capital, they would've been extracted, and apparently after the lady got shot on the one end, the folks anywhere close had a change of affection and followed police out (the folks on the other side were unaware).

The total time between breach and a push out police force was 3 hours.

Many thanks for your reply, some great insight....quite a few things that hadn't occurred to me.

If the MAGAs perceive their protesting is being suppressed that will only feed the voter fraud conspiracies.

 

[billw]

I think we need to ask some of the important questions about the USA. My first one is this: -

What is the actual point of North Dakota?

 

[RobinBHM]

I think we need to ask some of the important questions about the USA. My first one is this: -

What is the actual point of North Dakota?

No1 honey producer

 

[D_W]

Many thanks for your reply, some great insight....quite a few things that hadn't occurred to me.

If the MAGAs perceive their protesting is being suppressed that will only feed the voter fraud conspiracies.

Bingo - same with the kavanaugh breach. nobody wants to see a middle aged woman who may have a true terrible back story being led out. Let people have their protest, fine them (if necessary) later, lock up the real criminals (like the folks who came with destructive devices) and lock down later if you have to.

Doing more at the outset could be morally or ethically wrong, or in the case of this mob (capitol), feeding the trolls.

I see this morning that the FBI has warned the folks wanting retribution (hurry up and impeach trump rather than waiting him out) that they risk serious escalation. I agree with that. Let it run its course. Has anyone seen a kavanaugh story lately? I haven't. This whole election conspiracy will soon be relegated to the folks who are out and about looking for:
1) aliens
2) elvis, because he's still really walking around
3) sasquatch (because elvis has probably been hanging around with him, as hard as both are to get on camera lately)
4) the people looking for the stolen and manipulated ballots

 

[D_W]

I think we need to ask some of the important questions about the USA. My first one is this: -

What is the actual point of North Dakota?

There would almost certainly have to be cows and wheat there. As well as hutterites. The N.Dak/montana northern bits are popular with unusual societies who have historically gone back and forth between the US and canada.

Other than that, I'd say their biggest resource is wind.