|
Post by robeiae on Jan 8, 2021 18:35:08 GMT -5
There ya go:
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 8, 2021 18:59:15 GMT -5
I think you're wandering into Trumper-level conspiracy stuff, honestly. Sund and others effed up. Whether it was because he thought all Trump supporters were inherently peaceful (unlikely), because he was worried about more bad press if there was too much of a show of force (more likely), because he just didn't properly assess the risks (highly likely), or because of some combination of these things (most likely), it was fundamentally just poorly handled. The idea that Sund and others wanted this to happen is ridiculous. Trump is leaving office in a couple of weeks, time to start phasing out the wacky conspiracy theories. To be clear, I'm not arguing for any specific conspiracy (and I didn't necessarily need to pick on Sund, specifically. Obviously there are other players here.) The bomb thing was just an extreme example to illustrate the point about lack of preparation. At a certain point, I just think the preparation angle loses a lot of its explanatory power and leads to wrong conclusions, that's all. And you know, I'll admit that maybe I'm being a bit unfair (and maybe brushing up against Hanlon's Razor), because I'll normally be the first to admit that human capacity for incompetence is pretty deep. But in this particular case, I think I'm indeed having a hard time buying this idea that merely improper risk assessment was the main thing at play. There's a certain point where someone in charge should have known better--probably just the simple fact that Congress was certifying a controversial election would've been enough for that. But then, on top of that, you had thousands of Trump supporters descending on Washington, which was something that had been planned in advance, as people had been booking hotel rooms, etc. At that point, someone really should have known better. But then, on top of that, you had fairly prominent people with a lot of influence in Trump World (Lin Wood, for example), talking about potentially assassinating the people you're charged with protecting. At that point, you really REALLY should have known better. And so on and so forth, until the number of "reallys" just becomes a bit ridiculous. Once that happens, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider other explanations, beyond merely poor planning. As I noted before, I think there's pretty decent evidence for thinking some of the basic-level officers were highly sympathetic toward Trump. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the higher-ups held similar sentiments, and likewise, allowed that to influence how they approached this whole thing. In which case, I think it would be fair to say the issues would run deeper than just poor planning. Just my opinion, as always.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 8, 2021 19:19:56 GMT -5
Seems not enough attention is being given to Mayor Bowser's actions that contributed to this clusterfuck: thehill.com/homenews/administration/532739-bowser-to-doj-pentagon-dc-isnt-requesting-federal-law-enforcement-toShe specifically told federal agencies that she didn't want additional help from them and that MPD could handle any protests. If they did need help, then she said the official request would have to come through/from the MPD. Seems to me that at least a little hubris on her part and that of the MPD played into this, as this comes off to me the same way a bratty child with a jar that they're not strong enough to open snatches it away from a parent trying to help, whining that "I can do it MYSELF!" They had 340 members of the National Guard activated but it appears they were under the direction of the MPD (at least logistically), who obviously dropped the ball in the most incompetent way possible in terms of utilizing them. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like Bowswer somewhat petulantly put everything in the hands of MPD, who obviously was not competent enough to handle things, and then just sat back while everything went to shit. A better/actual leader would've stepped in and made some tough calls a lot earlier. Bowswer didn't really say or do anything until the day after this shit show.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 8, 2021 19:24:14 GMT -5
Seems not enough attention is being given to Mayor Bowser's actions that contributed to this clusterfuck That's a fair point. It does seem like Bowser was a big part of the problem here.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jan 8, 2021 20:07:09 GMT -5
I find it incredibly disheartening that so many people seem to believe the Vice President, whose role in virtually everything is largely ceremonial, has the unilateral power to reject the will of millions of individual voters.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 8, 2021 20:25:27 GMT -5
I find it incredibly disheartening that so many people seem to believe the Vice President, whose role in virtually everything is largely ceremonial, has the unilateral power to reject the will of millions of individual voters. Yeah, ditto. It would obviously make the actual election itself kind of pointless, if the VP could just overturn the outcome. Maybe the best one could say is that Trump's supporters (and I guess Trump himself, LOL) merely believe this selectively, out of expediency, rather than as some kind of real principle. Because if Biden had tried to do this four years ago in order to hand the election to Clinton, I think we can probably guess how they would've felt about it.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jan 8, 2021 20:26:39 GMT -5
Also, from my perspective, it seems like this could be ( emphasize could be ) a case of "the boy who cried wolf" one too many times.
For five years we've been told the planet was going to end because of Trump. Every F-ing day! At some point, this sort of BS goes in one ear and out the other.
Gov people, are not immune to to this sort of auto behavior.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 10, 2021 10:50:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 10, 2021 18:57:00 GMT -5
So, it seems the all of the people charged so far are being charged with weak stuff like "disorderly conduct."
Why are they not being charged with seditious conspiracy (i.e., "sedition)? What would that require in terms of overt acts? I'm not sure what technically or legally qualifies for sedition, but was hoping one of the lawyers here might have a bit more insight for me.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 10, 2021 22:15:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 11, 2021 0:41:15 GMT -5
Re Steven Sund... This bit really shows one of the issues I have with Sund's supposed lack of preparation... Source: www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/security-fallout-in-capitol-could-be-swift-455803Also, consider this in tandem with Sund's later statement that he had only been anticipating peaceful first amendment activities, not a violent riot. Now, imagine a situation where a teacher gives his students a surprise test and one of the students fails the test. The student says: “Hey, sorry about that, but I didn’t anticipate there would be a test. That's why I didn't study.” Now, imagine an alternative where a teacher says to a student, "Hey, there's a test coming up. Did you study for the test?" And the student says, "Yep, I sure did." Then, when the student fails the test, he says, "You know, I actually didn't anticipate there would even be a test in the first place. The whole thing came as a complete shock, it was just way beyond the scope of what I imagined might happen. That's why I didn't study." To me, Sund is looking more like the student in the latter scenario. If it was more like the former, then maybe I could accept the fact that Sund was willing to resign and just let him take his lumps and move on with his life. But in the latter case, I think Sund really comes across as severely lacking in integrity, along with supposedly lacking in preparation. (And of course, that's way worse than simply lacking in preparation.) /end rant.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 11, 2021 0:45:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 11, 2021 0:52:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 11, 2021 14:43:39 GMT -5
I ran across this video on YouTube. Apparently this dude goes to lots of political rallies (on both sides of the political aisle) and interviews people there to see if they even know anything about the issue. That is, are they just raving ideological lunatics or do they actually know what they're talking about. Seems like most of the time it's the former rather than the latter (how unshocking).
Anyway, he happened to be at the rally and interviewed people both before and after the riot. He interviewed crazy face-paint and furry horns dude (that interview is totally bonkers) before the riot and was able to interview pot bellied hillbilly who put his feet on Pelosi's desk and stole her mail after the riot.
Really fascinating (in a disturbing kind of way) stuff:
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jan 11, 2021 19:03:47 GMT -5
Damn, I was really expecting more of a nuanced perspective from the horn guy. Disappointed.
|
|