Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TwilightZone

(28,836 posts)
20. Nothing has really changed - most of them still are.
Fri Dec 22, 2023, 03:03 PM
Dec 2023

The primary reason most of them showed up on January 6th was because Trump begged them to, and they assumed that since he was the president, there would be no ramifications. When that turned out to be nonsense and hundreds of them got arrested, they got a wake-up call.

Even the January 6th rally was a bit of a dud, in context. Trump had been imploring people to show up for a month, his cronies spent tons of time and money organizing, the permit was for 30,000 people, and AP estimated the crowd at roughly 10,000. Two thousand of them marched to the Capitol.

It seemed like a lot and they were certainly destructive, but in contrast, there were 50,000 people at the August 2021 March for Voting Rights on the anniversary of the original in 1963, which drew 250,000 or more. The 50k figure doesn't include the satellite marches that were organized by Al Sharpton and others.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The 14th Amendment MANDATES that states bear that cost..... lastlib Dec 2023 #1
According to Lessig, that mandate doesn't include POTUS/VP for the reasons stated. Gaugamela Dec 2023 #7
Yes, Biden didn't engage in a insurrection to prevent the transfer of power to himself. brush Dec 2023 #11
Any other area that Mr. Lessig would like to see us simply give up and ignore the constitutional hlthe2b Dec 2023 #2
Lessig is making a reasoned argument regarding a specific part of one amendment. He's not Gaugamela Dec 2023 #8
Obviously, you don't... hlthe2b Dec 2023 #9
What a crock NoRethugFriends Dec 2023 #3
This is an opinion piece by a Harvard Law constitutional scholar. Your comments don't address Gaugamela Dec 2023 #6
Picking and choosing, you say? I note you do NOT quote Laurence Tribe who does not hlthe2b Dec 2023 #10
Maybe POTUS and VP were included intentionally Raven123 Dec 2023 #4
They were included and then excluded, presumably because of a process of reasoning and Gaugamela Dec 2023 #5
PRESUMABLY Xoan Dec 2023 #12
I agree this could become a tit for tat feud Raven123 Dec 2023 #13
Lessig fears a civil war mymomwasright Dec 2023 #14
Merely defeating him may well trigger violence or the ultimate civil war. We have precedence hlthe2b Dec 2023 #15
There isn't going to be a Civil War. TwilightZone Dec 2023 #17
I used to think they were a bunch of all-talk blowhards. shrike3 Dec 2023 #19
Nothing has really changed - most of them still are. TwilightZone Dec 2023 #20
If the constitution is followed there is no tit for tat mymomwasright Dec 2023 #16
Reciprocation is a moot point. lees1975 Dec 2023 #18
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Lessig: The Supreme Court...»Reply #20