Smells like an armed insurrection to me and against the President no less. A blockade on the White House with the goal of forcing a change to a legislative action. Arrests were made and presumably they’ll be held without bail. I assume the FBI is circulating videos and asking family members to turn in those who got away. Oh members of Congress involved as well. I assume impeachment proceedings will begin immediately against those congressional insurrectionist.

Sunrise Activists Arrested Over 'No Climate, No Deal' Blockade of White House
"President Biden has been failing us," Sunrise Movement executive director Varshini Prakash said about the administration's recent comments on the infrastructure package.
Dozens of youth activists with the Sunrise Movement were arrested by Secret Service agents on Monday while blockading all 10 entrances of the White House to demand that President Joe Biden and federal lawmakers deliver an infrastructure package that invests in job creation and combats the climate emergency.
The demonstrators had three core demands: stop negotiating with Republican politicians who don't care about climate action; meet with Sunrise executive director Varshini Prakash and other youth organizers who handed Democrats control of the White House and Congress; and pass a bold jobs and climate package that includes a fully funded Civilian Climate Corps (CCC).
The blockade at the White House and resulting arrests followed a march and rally of more than 500 activists and congressional Green New Deal champions—Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), and Cori Bush (D-Mo.). It also comes after Biden and lawmakers announced a $579 billion bipartisan compromise on infrastructure last week.

Just wondering, does it hurt to keep trying to hammer that square peg into that round hole?

I’m saying why are people people who gathered to blockade the White House not considered to be part of an insurrection when the group who is considered armed insurrectionist took selfies?

Eegore wrote on 06/29/21 at 11:24:21:


Eeegore has already made the point perfectly clear.

All three of you are delusional if you think Jan 6th meets the definition of an armed insurrection. Get a grip people.

All three of you are delusional if you think Jan 6th meets the definition of an armed insurrection. Get a grip people.

 I didn't say "Jan 6th" I said specific individuals.  I will continue to clarify this every time you indicate I ever said all people at the Capitol are criminals or engaged in illegal activity.

 The people who travelled there to stop the ceremony for the purpose of keeping Trump in power, were part of an insurrection by definition.  The people that protested, but not for the purpose of altering the outcome, were NOT part of an insurrection.

 Again this is an issue of downplaying the acts of those you agree with, while others inflate those same actions because they don't agree.  Why act like every person there took selfies and nobody was "armed" because this one event requires guns to be "armed" while others try to act like every person there was trying to burn the place down.

 None of that is true.

 Just use actual definitions and actual laws.

"By that definition, the group who swarmed the Senate chambers during the Kavanaugh hearings with the goal to stop a vote that would have gone a different way than they wanted (and actually intimidated one Senator on an elevator into changing a vote) are by your definition, insurrectionist."


 So by stopping Kavanaugh's appointment they would have changed the President?

 My comparison specifically says keeping Trump in power.  People who travelled to stop a Presidential election process to keep a President in power.  

 We could go over the percentage impact the SCOTUS has, since it is significant, and decide if altering the members of the SCOTUS is considered a substantial percentage of leadership change to the US Government as a whole.  Perhaps keeping one member of the SCOTUS from becoming a member is equal to insurrection.

 I would say altering Presidential control is for sure insurrection, and SCOTUS could possibly be as well.

"There was no possibility of an insurrection. This is just complete nonsense."

 I agree that there was no possibility.  Again, I am saying people, specific humans, who travelled there to stop the process for the purpose of keeping Trump in power were part of an insurrection.  One that could have never succeeded, but by definition, an insurrection specific to those humans engaging in those actions.

The people, specific humans, that had weapons, were armed.  Combining the act of insurrection with the act of having a weapon means that those specific humans were armed insurrectionists.

 I don't care what the "news" has to say.  Yes it's overblown, but on the same side changing definitions to downplay the acts of people who actually committed crimes is just as bad.  Some people assaulted the police, to say they only took selfies is wrong.  Factually incorrect and ethically unsound.

 To imprison people for insurrection if they were protesting is equally wrong.

 This downplay of the specific actions of specific people is just as nonsensical as anyone claiming all the people there were insurrectionists.



"This was an unfortunate event fabricated by leftist media types into something it wasn’t and you’re just falling for it."

 And the people that admit, in texts, media posts, video, that they went to stop the election and keep Trump in power?  Also fabricated leftist media, or just people saying what they did and why?