(08-22-2024, 05:36 PM)Jag149 Wrote:

(08-22-2024, 05:03 PM)mikesez Wrote: You are being pedantic. 
The definition of insurrection is actually not as specific as you say, but even if I grant you that point, and say every prosecuting attorney in the country agrees that no one should be charged under that particular statute, that does not mean that pundits like you or I cannot use that word to describe what we saw that day.
We agree that what we saw was a riot.
Some riots are also insurrections.  To me, a riot is when the strength and bravery of the police and military are tested.  But an insurrection is when their loyalty is tested.  This is a very simple and intuitive definition.  Were the police and military going to be loyal to the constitution and all of the duly elected officers other than President Trump, or were they going to be loyal to Trump?

No one was testing anyone's loyalty. Who is being pedantic now ... LOL  Nice, is my word of the day thanks! You can call it what you want. I call what was done after Trump was elected the same thing and more wide spread. What was funny was the people on the news wondering why it was taking so long to overturn Trump's election. Unfortunately it was the same thing but ok for some and seems not for others. Your bias is showing now...

I don't think there was a riot involving thousands of people when Trump was elected or inaugurated.
Got a link?

There were a bunch of pundits speculating that the electoral college might be faithless and refuse to vote for Trump, then there was speculation that Congress or Pence might pull some strings to remove him from office before long.  All of those unlikely scenarios would have been nonviolent and legal.  No one was speculating about any violence or any coup.

---