The all just wanted to have a conversation so once they bust through the doors to where they were by force they would just freely talk to them then leave peacefully
They wanted to have milk and cookies with congress people. they just express this desire differently then most people (breaking and entering for one..)
They were just gonna pay them campaign donations personally
They were really desperate for a tour and congress were in the way of them wanting to do that so they would just explore around them as congress hides
They were gonna pay them their taxes for the year and forgot you can do that via online or mail like everyone else does
They were most likely gonna violently execute every congress person and senator they hate including Mike Pence since he refused to do 'his duty'. and once thats all done they would wait for Trump to take his throne which was stolen from him... (according to some people..)
They would have done something else (say what you think they would have done)
As an independent who loathes both parties, I'm nonetheless fascinated by how as soon as Tweedledee or Tweedledum gets into power, they immediately start down the road of self-immolation. Keep harping on January 6th like trained monkeys instead of developing an organized and sophisticated program for the nation, we'll see how long Democrats stay as the 'relevant' party in government. This country has become a teeter totter of idiocy (though in fairness, its been heading in this direction for generations now).
Bullshit. They're trying to pass legislation that would help everyone (unsurprisingly the only one they've got through with the aid of some Republicans was also a big giveaway to corporations), with 100% opposition from Republicans. They can also investigate the attempt to destroy democracy at the same time.
Just for the record, I used "Tweedledee or Tweedledum" before I read your post.
I have no way of knowing what their intentions were. What they should have done is F.
Attempt to kill democracy? What a joke. It's already dead. The system is so utterly broken that it's time to get rid of it. Time to hit the reset button and start over. Do it the way it was originally intended this time ( which was almost no government at all ). That's the way it was intended, and getting rid of our current government is the only way to achieve that.
We need a full out revolution. Even IF they had wiped out Congress, that would not have been nearly enough. It needs a heck of a lot more than that.
What proportion of the population to you think agree with your stance? Why do you think you should get to choose for them?
There are many ways you could go about fixing your system.
Number one would be electing people, of whichever party, who undertake to legislate the corportations are not people and therefore do not have freedom of speech via money. On a related note, they should ensure that everyone gets a fair vote (meaning equal access to polls and fairly drawn electoral maps).
Number two would be to push for some form of proportional representation; I like instant runoff voting. That means you cannot "waste your vote" by voting for someone other than Tweedledee or Tweedledum; your vote might end up with one of them, but if they both move too far in one direction or the other, you might end up with a genuine third party being elected that better represents your interests.
The system is far too broken to work within the system. It's too late for that.
I don't know the proportion that agrees with everything that I do, but I know a high percentage agree with a lot of it. The rest of what you mentioned might be worth talking about AFTER a revolution when it's started over.
I have no problem with corporations having a say in government. They SHOULD have a say because they are extremely important. I consider it essential. The whole "companies are people" is very seriously misunderstood ( apparently misunderstood by you as well ).
As for wasting your vote, this last presidential election is a perfect example of why it wastes your vote. A third party was strong enough to change the outcome of the election. In this case the third party was not a strong as some other third parties, but with such a close election it changed the outcome.
Personally I think the primaries are a bigger problem than the general election. In some ways the general election really is a runoff. That's when it's been narrowed down from dozens of candidates to usually just two viable candidates.
The whole systems is broken though. The elections are trivial. The biggest underlying problems aren't even the government itself, it's things mostly or entirely out of the control of government.
It's really not too late. Trump lost. A Putin-like "democracy" is far worse than even what you have now.
You know how you find out how many people agree with you? Elections. You won't have any more if you have half the country thinking they can ignore them every time they lose. (Have you not noticed that nobody's disputing down-ballot elections even though they were on the same ballots as the presidential election?)
"I have no problem with corporations having a say in government." That's almost literally a definition of fascism. They're going to be listened to, whatever system you have, they shouldn't get to choose who's going to be in government.
"As for wasting your vote..." You didn't read the solution, did you? In instant run-off voting, you could vote Green/Democratic, Libertarian/Republican, or even Green/Republican, and your vote (when the Green or Libertarian candidate inevitably lost) would go to your second choice instead. For years or even decades, you'd still end up with R or D, but once enough people agree with you, the others might win (or, at the very least, the main parties' candidates will vary their positions to avoid that).
I'm not sure a third party affected this election, either. 2000, for sure, but not 2020.
OK, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin were all won with less than 50% of the vote. Trump would have had to have won all four states to change the outcome. Wouldn't you like to know what the third-party voter's second choices would have been?
I can't argue with you about the primaries, which is why I think it's better to have the whole electorate indicate their preferences.
"It's really not too late. Trump lost." What the heck does Trump have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. The ONLY reason Trump was able to get elected was because what I say is true. Trump was a desperation candidate. It shows how bad things had gotten before he even decided to run.
Your next paragraph is completely irrelevant to anything I've said.
"That's almost literally a definition of fascism." Huh? What are you talking about? It's democracy. It doesn't have a thing to do with fascism.
Instant runoff. I DO understand what you mean. It won't work, not in the US anyway. Why? Because it's two damn expensive to run a campaign in the US. That's the same reason the primaries are screwed up. This is a big reason why Vermont has traditionally been the first state to do a primary. It's a small state that's cheap to run a campaign, where a large number of candidates can test the waters. Unfortunately it gives that state WAY too much say in the outcome.
At cheaper local elections, there ARE a lot of third party candidate. Plus a lot of non-partisan candidates. In some local elections it's not even legal to declare a party (or at least it doesn't show on the ballot).
"Wouldn't you like to know what the third-party voter's second choices would have been?" I already know that. Those were libertarian votes. Libertarians are more conservative than Republicans.
Some third parties have had a much higher number of votes than the Libertarians in the last election. Ross Perot is an example. However it didn't make any difference in any of those elections. It made a difference in 2020 because there were so many very close states.
But this is all about the presidential election, which has almost nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's a completely different topic, which I probably should not even be addressing since it just sends it off in a different direction.
They would have dragged people outside and executed them. Then violence would spread across America as they tried to eliminate the various groups the right don't like. Trump would order the police and army to stand back. The election would be rerun but democrat voters would be too scared of the gun totting mobs outside polling stations and trump would win. There'd be sweeping changes to the election system to keep the right in power.
There's a theory that the fear among military leaders on Jan 6th was that if the national guard was brought in without the order clearly and unambiguously being to stop the attack and defend the Capitol, it could have been ordered by Trump to assist it instead.
Interesting theory and plausible. In the UK parliament forms a government for the monarchy who in turn holds it accountable for the public. Should the wishes of the electorate not be respected she could in theory order the military or police in to remove them. It seems in America presidents are unaccountable to anyone and hold too much power..
How would they have done any of that without hardly any weapons? To my knowledge no one has been charged with any substantial charge. Even if they had been armed and taken hostages, what would they have accomplished- besides be legitimate terrorists and lose any and all public support. The democrats trying to squeeze every drop of sympathy from the riot and labeling angry citizens terrorist after supporting and bailing out Antifa rioters for 6 months prior should tell you all you need to know about what this is about.
@goaded, What would they have done? Trampled them? Maybe we’re talking about zombies? In all seriousness I just don’t get how you’re coming to these wild conclusions. We have nearly all the relevant information. The FBI stated there was no coordinated effort, and overall the few people who entered the building did stupid things like knock things over, break glass, act like fools and take selfies. Which is why no one is charged with any serious crime. I think you are letting your imagines run wild.
As my old man would say, "if you want to kill some ine tou kill them." If they were determined to kill it woulda looked something like Virginia tech. 1 dude dude did all that alone. All these dudes did was posture and chase people whole larping. And a few grandmas we knitting outside. Most were infirm old people lmao. I didn't take it seriously and still don't. It looked pretty similar to some of my HS rallies that got carried away.
Shaking fists angrily, waving flags, chant something about Trump, and after many hours angrily march away kike typical old people do. Maybe break things along the way and steal some mementos
If it was going to het violent it would have popped off quickly like we saw in riots in Seattle and stuff like that. Most were seniors, too old and out of energy for much. Different generations. The younger ones have far less self control. Prime example was the shaman guy and his LARPing buddies. But most were just old people.
Think of it like this 61 percent of republicans live in homes with firearms. If they were really out for blood do you think anyone in that building would have made it out alive?
Perhaps if everyone fears the other side so much everyone should just go their separate ways. That way everyone can live according to their values and be force fed. Point is it didn't happen. Speculation is pointless
They were most likely gonna violently execute every congress person and senator they hate including Mike Pence since he refused to do 'his duty'. and once thats all done they would wait for Trump to take his throne which was stolen from him... (according to some people..)
Mobs are mobs. They get caught up in what's happening around them, and in the case of the January 6th mob, they were, and ARE still, fanatic Trumpanzee's. There will be another insurrection, and it will be more organized and there will be bloodshed.
All some of them really did was rob it until they were stopped. Since the area was open to all citizens, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people there were random citizens who thought they weren't breaking the law.
Really? You see clouds of tear gas, smashed doors and windows, discarded barriers all over the place, and you think "nothing violent happened here, I think I'll have a wander around"? It seems unlikely to me.
@goaded I don't think most people there knew that anyone had been injured until later. I remember an interview with a woman when they were leaving who was crying after being hit with tear gas who didn't understand why they hit the crowd with tear gas. She did call what was happening a revolution. Overall a lot of people on the fringe of the crowd seemed perturbed that people were harmed.
Home > Society & Politics > Polls > What do YOU think the jan 6th insurrectionists/terrorists would have done had they actually made it to members of congress?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
