Four Hours at the Capitol: A Must Watch HBO Documentary

[MeDotOrg]

I thought I'd wait to see the documentary before I commented on it.

The documentary is told from the Point of View of many who were there: Cops, protestors, rioters, congressional members and staffers. The documentary deals with the events of the day. It does not provide a larger framework to understand the event.

I'd be curious to know the specific objections people have voiced about the coverage in the documentary.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd be curious to know the specific objections people have voiced about the coverage in the documentary.

Well, before we get into the surely profound and incredibly insightful posts by our board Conservatives, I’d like you to share your thoughts about the Capitol riot. I can’t watch the video because I don’t subscribe to HBO, so your commentary would be helpful.

- Doc

[ceeboo]

Well, before we get into the surely profound and incredibly insightful posts by our board Conservatives......

Four hours is more than three hours but less than five hours. The numbers three and five are odd. Four is an even number. If you were to divide four by two you would be left with two (That's the same number as what you divided the number four by.) If you were to add numbers three, four, and five together, you would have a total of twelve. Twelve is a two digit number. Twelve is also an even number. Twelve is more than three. Twelve is more than four. Twelve is more than five. Twelve is less than thirteen.

Of all the numbers I referenced, thirteen is the highest number. 13 is another way to type this.

I don't have HBO so I didn't see the documentary but I wanted to contribute an incredibly insightful and profound post - So I did.

[Cultellus]

HBO is the one everyone canceled after GoT, right?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, before we get into the surely profound and incredibly insightful posts by our board Conservatives......

Four hours is more than three hours but less than five hours. The numbers three and five are odd. Four is an even number. If you were to divide four by two you would be left with two (That's the same number as what you divided the number four by.) If you were to add numbers three, four, and five together, you would have a total of twelve. Twelve is a two digit number. Twelve is also an even number. Twelve is more than three. Twelve is more than four. Twelve is more than five. Twelve is less than thirteen.

Of all the numbers I referenced, thirteen is the highest number. 13 is another way to type this.

I don't have HBO so I didn't see the documentary but I wanted to contribute an incredibly insightful and profound post - So I did.

QED

- Doc

[canpakes]

Well, before we get into the surely profound and incredibly insightful posts by our board Conservatives, ...

They don't allow themselves to talk about these things.

[Kishkumen]

I thought I'd wait to see the documentary before I commented on it.

The documentary is told from the Point of View of many who were there: Cops, protestors, rioters, congressional members and staffers. The documentary deals with the events of the day. It does not provide a larger framework to understand the event.

I'd be curious to know the specific objections people have voiced about the coverage in the documentary.

That would be my objection. That there is no larger framework. That said, a single production can’t be everything. Too often I think the terms used to describe people who tried to overthrow the government for Trump are too nice. So, I get the point about overthrowing a tyrannical government to reestablish a republic. But you can’t do so by swallowing lies about an election and trying to overturn it in order to keep an incompetent boob who wants to be dictator in office. That’s not a fight for freedom. That’s not a fight for a republic. That is a fight for a would-be authoritarian leader. Similar things happened during the Roman civil war that ended with the dictatorship of Caesar. Caesar’s partisans were pretty clearly fighting for Caesar, not the republic. The situation got confusing because the side that represented the republic was fronted by another strongman type, Pompey. When the dust cleared, and Pompey lost, the republic also lost, and the people in power were all marching to the beat of Caesar. After Caesar’s assassination, another attempt to save the republic, the remnants of the Caesar party took control very quickly and essentially ended any possibility of a real republic of the kind that existed in the second century BC from being reestablished.

A mob with signs that say “Trump” and that call for the lynching of Mike Pence, do not fight for a republic. They fight for Trump. If they can’t work out that simple math in their heads, then the problem is clear. So let’s call these people what they are, Trump insurrectionists. Trump partisans. They are like the Caesarians of the past, the big difference being that Julius Caesar was not an incompetent boob.

[Cultellus]

I thought I'd wait to see the documentary before I commented on it.

The documentary is told from the Point of View of many who were there: Cops, protestors, rioters, congressional members and staffers. The documentary deals with the events of the day. It does not provide a larger framework to understand the event.

I'd be curious to know the specific objections people have voiced about the coverage in the documentary.

That would be my objection. That there is no larger framework. That said, a single production can’t be everything. Too often I think the terms used to describe people who tried to overthrow the government for Trump are too nice. So, I get the point about overthrowing a tyrannical government to reestablish a republic. But you can’t do so by swallowing lies about an election and trying to overturn it in order to keep an incompetent boob who wants to be dictator in office. That’s not a fight for freedom. That’s not a fight for a republic. That is a fight for a would-be authoritarian leader. Similar things happened during the Roman civil war that ended with the dictatorship of Caesar. Caesar’s partisans were pretty clearly fighting for Caesar, not the republic. The situation got confusing because the side that represented the republic was fronted by another strongman type, Pompey. When the dust cleared, and Pompey lost, the republic also lost, and the people in power were all marching to the beat of Caesar. After Caesar’s assassination, another attempt to save the republic, the remnants of the Caesar party took control very quickly and essentially ended any possibility of a real republic of the kind that existed in the second century BC from being reestablished.

A mob with signs that say “Trump” and that call for the lynching of Mike Pence, do not fight for a republic. They fight for Trump. If they can’t work out that simple math in their heads, then the problem is clear. So let’s call these people what they are, Trump insurrectionists. Trump partisans. They are like the Caesarians of the past, the big difference being that Julius Caesar was not an incompetent boob.

It someone did not have a Trump sign and entered the capital with an escort from the Capital Police are they still a Trump Insurrectionist?

This reminds me of the San Francisco Giants. Historically, the Giants wanted to beat the Los Angeles Dodgers and play for the National League Pennant. The Dodgers were the previous Champions. They wanted to beat the Dodgers’ asses. The Giants were not successful, so we don’t call them the winners. We call them the losers, and that pretty much sums it up.

If they were playing Republic, instead of Baseball, we would still call them the losers if they didn’t win.

I think HBO should make a sequel. We need to understand this better.

[Xenophon]

If they were playing Republic, instead of Baseball, we would still call them the losers if they didn’t win.

I may need some clarification here as the comparison seems muddled to me. Are you suggesting that attempting to grab political control via any means is the same as playing a game of baseball by a pre-agreed on set of rules? I personally don't see those as two equal battles starting from a point of neutrality.

Your analogy would make more snense to me if the Giants played the game by an agreed upon set of rules and lost. Then in an effort to overthrow that result attacked MLB headquarters to get their win.

It is also possible I'm just too dense to get what you were suggesting here.

[Gadianton]

Regardless of who shot whom or who fired first, the situation is not an example of lawfulness. Advocacy for firearm ownerships should use examples like this entire situation and identify how to prevent them in pro-ownership ways rather than assuming sides. No one involved in a public shootout as occured here was a model citizen.

Well, anybody showing up for demonstrations, protests, marches, where faqs Jr. types are running around with loaded rifles and "getting into faces" ought to make sure their affairs are in order.

Who is going to bait who into making the first move that justifies deadly retaliation.