Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#291

Post by dragonwriter »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #223
dragonwriter wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol? The fact that capitol police were completely overwhelmed by the insurrectionists , preventing arrests and searches in the Capitol presents rather strong proof issues with “inside the Capitol” (pretty much everything charged as “inside the Capitol” is based primarily on video evidence from the insurrectionists themselves , who were not shy about announcing their purpos…

>> capitol police were completely overwhelmed The protestors left the capitol building at some point. Any idea why?

> Any idea why?

IIRC, a mix of evident failure of the political objectives and deployment of the DC National Guard.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#292

Post by totony »

DarylZero wrote: post #276
totony wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "attempted coup" definition has already been discussed hell and back. It's a very disingenuous description of what happened. Also, it is very disingenuous to blacklist one of your only two parties because of what a (small) subset of their voters did. N.B.: Not american

Trump tried to overturn the election result for _months_. It wasn't just one day and it certainly wasn't just "voters." Even the people in the GOP who refused to back his coup attempt did not sever ties with Trump.

Overthrowing a vote which was manipulated is not a coup. What Trump did is he challenged the rightfulness of the vote for months in court. That's a far cry from what you're describing.

Now, you may disagree (as the courts) that it was manipulated. Being wrong does not make what he did a coup.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#293

Post by pvaldes »

dragonwriter wrote: post #178
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #119

The media calling January 6th an 'insurrection' is a perfect example of the problem. It's pure sensationalism. There were no guns, there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, the 4 people who died were all protestors, mostly from being dumbasses. Clearly those people who damaged the capitol should be punished, just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who damaged the Foley Federal Building. B…

> There were no guns, There were guns; several firearms charges have been filed related to the Insurrection. > there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, A single centralized organization is not required for an insurrection; there were various organized groups with common purpose as well as participants inspired by direct calls from influential leaders without participating in a formal organiz…

> there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection,

I think that I remember a man behind a microphone on TV telling people to march on capitol,

And some publicity for months saying that the day N something great will happen so stand "prepared to fight"

And people collected in buses paid for somebody,

And a purpose to hunt for somebody to hang him

And to stop the vote count

And some minions clearly videotaped while driving the masses,

In resume, a certain level of organization that would fall directly in the category of: clear planning, purpose, choice of a non random symbolic date and execution.

I think that we all could guess with a fairly accurate level of probability the name of that non-extant organization and even the names of the main instigators.

But we could also just pretend that nothing passed, and allow a second chance to try it again, probably with a higher body count this time

> They were not guns

Several people were videotaped carrying spears or baseball bats to the capitol for no reason, and using them as weapons, and those actions ended killing a policeman, so... who needs guns when you can smash somebody to death?

But don't worry, they will bring plenty of guns the next time.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#294

Post by pvaldes »

slowhand09 wrote: post #284
TomSwirly wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> usually people are pretty receptive to just about anything as long as you respect them. Non-American here. I lived in the United States for over thirty years. My experience was different. I lost a lot of friends in the last ten years, because they started posting completely ridiculous, crazy stuff and were completely defensive of even the most reasonable objections. I'd put up with "Obama is a Muslim" for a long ti…

"A long-time friend of mine started posting about Sandy Hook being a hoax - that the school had never existed. I pointed out that a friend-of-a-friend of mine had lost two children there, and my friend just went ballistic and started calling me the most unbelievable names, "Do your homework!"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s... I see no siblings on the list of victims. Your friend-of-a-fr…

> I see no siblings

Siblings is not the only combination possible, people can mourn a son and his cousin for example, or the best friend of your son, or the son of a close friend. Most people would describe the experience as losing two children.

I'm not claiming that the history is neither real or is false, just that the data don't point clearly to one or the other option

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#295

Post by pvaldes »

Manuel_D wrote: post #173
throw0101a wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were no guns Yes there were. Three examples of people charged: > Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman’s possession. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds…

So out of thousands of protesters, three were armed and none of which used their weapons during the supposed insurrection. As per your own definition, an insurrection is made "for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers". How does occupying the Capitol building translate into controlling the government? Are the military, the IRS, and all the other government institutions…

> had no real or tangible plan of seizing the government

The degree of detachment from reality is awesome.

They had a plan, and it was clear and public. Lets see:

We are talking of people breaking in the capitol, smashing windows and doors

while shouting: "Lets find and kill the Vice president of USA"

"And also the president of the chamber of representatives of USA"

"And lets stop the new president of USA taking power".

Nope, they don't really wanted to seize the US government, Just to behead it. Just to gain control by force changing the President, Vice-president and President of the chamber. You don't need to seize anything after this, the entire chain of power is yours. You own the whole building from this point on.

It doesn't matter if 99% of the people in the group was clueless and pure as a lamb. You just need to hide a single 'Bruto' among them to be successful. The fact is that the plan failed because all the politicians in the room were evacuated.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#296

Post by dragonwriter »

Manuel_D wrote: post #173
throw0101a wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There were no guns Yes there were. Three examples of people charged: > Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman’s possession. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds…

So out of thousands of protesters, three were armed and none of which used their weapons during the supposed insurrection. As per your own definition, an insurrection is made "for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers". How does occupying the Capitol building translate into controlling the government? Are the military, the IRS, and all the other government institutions…

> So out of thousands of protesters, three were armed

Many were armed only four (one based on substantial investigation after his initial arrest and subsequent initial indictment) have been charged with firearms offenses; most of those in solved were not arrested and searched on site, but later based on video evidence, witness testimony, and other evidence. (Assuming I’m not missing more, the summary page presentation is not consistent in how offenses are described, and I haven't dug in and reviewed each of the detailed supporting document for each defendant.)

> How does occupying the Capitol building translate into controlling the government?

The specific plan was to use threats and violence to, in order of preference:

One, convince the Vice President to as Trump had publicly advocated and Pence had publicly indicated he would not, refuse to open certain electoral votes, ask Trump-friendly state legislatures to “recertify” them, so that those legislatures would replace the publicly elected slate of Biden electors from their states with legislatively elected Trump electors, or:

Two, render the Vice President, if he remained obstinate in his refusals of participation in the auto-coup that Trump had publicly called for, and any similarly uncooperative successors, incapable of presiding (the chant “Hang Mike Pence”, and the gallows constructed for that purpose, indicating the method of incapacitation planned) so that an official on board with the plan would take over the gavel and act as described.

The successful evacuation of members prevented the plan from working, but that was the not-very-secret plan.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#297

Post by archagon »

totony wrote: post #292
DarylZero wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump tried to overturn the election result for _months_. It wasn't just one day and it certainly wasn't just "voters." Even the people in the GOP who refused to back his coup attempt did not sever ties with Trump.

Overthrowing a vote which was manipulated is not a coup. What Trump did is he challenged the rightfulness of the vote for months in court. That's a far cry from what you're describing. Now, you may disagree (as the courts) that it was manipulated. Being wrong does not make what he did a coup.

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1468989737490911232

If this doesn't look like some uncontrovertibly fascist shit to you, then we live in entirely different realities.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#298

Post by totony »

archagon wrote: post #297
totony wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overthrowing a vote which was manipulated is not a coup. What Trump did is he challenged the rightfulness of the vote for months in court. That's a far cry from what you're describing. Now, you may disagree (as the courts) that it was manipulated. Being wrong does not make what he did a coup.

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1468989737490911232 If this doesn't look like some uncontrovertibly fascist shit to you, then we live in entirely different realities.

If you were president, and suspected vote manipulation/foreign influence on voting, what would you do?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#299

Post by supreme_loquat »

DarylZero wrote: post #278
supreme_loquat wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy Okay so lumping together half the country in with a few extremists would probably be the first step to answering your question. Yes there were probably plenty of people at home cheering them on but if you really believe it was half the country then you need to get outside your bubble. > the other side wants to make voting for whoever…

> eg California would be near the top of that list, and yet here we are stuck with a democratic governor who vetoed the legislation which would have allowed general law cities to use alternative voting systems So a Democratic majority state legislature _passed_ this legislation? And the veto proves that it's not what Democrats _really_ want?

I don't think I wrote that all democrats didn't want to fix this, it was simply an illustration that there are plenty of democrats that don't want to fix it or don't care enough to do so. You have to consider that CA could have passed this long ago, it's not like this was their first chance. The fact that it took them so long in the first place to even consider it doesn't speak great things about them. There's also the recall election, they could have run someone better if this was what they were really prioritizing but that clearly isn't the case. There's also plenty of charter cities that could adopt better methods that are likely democrat strongholds and they've also sat around for the most part (although there's obviously exceptions like the SF area, where interestingly enough Newsom also tried to stop it but failed).

edit: although really I hope all you took away isn't just that I don't like democrats. I don't like anyone against fixing the voting methods be they democrat, republican, green, libertarian, independent, or any other category I failed to mention. I just pointed out democrats because supposedly they are the majority in CA and like to claim that they support a healthy democracy. In the same way, I'm happy to work with (just about) anyone who wants to fix the voting system and hope they will make their voice heard. I think it is perhaps the most important thing we need to fix right now, and is one of the main criteria I personally look at when voting for officials.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#300

Post by DarylZero »

supreme_loquat wrote: post #299
DarylZero wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> eg California would be near the top of that list, and yet here we are stuck with a democratic governor who vetoed the legislation which would have allowed general law cities to use alternative voting systems So a Democratic majority state legislature _passed_ this legislation? And the veto proves that it's not what Democrats _really_ want?

I don't think I wrote that all democrats didn't want to fix this, it was simply an illustration that there are plenty of democrats that don't want to fix it or don't care enough to do so. You have to consider that CA could have passed this long ago, it's not like this was their first chance. The fact that it took them so long in the first place to even consider it doesn't speak great things about them. There's also t…

> an illustration that there are plenty of democrats that don't want to fix it or don't care enough to do so

I think you could make an even stronger statement: the majority of Democrats probably aren't even aware of the issue.

It's not a popular issue, and not the kind of thing that Democratic politicians can use to inspire people to vote.

Post reply on HN