Was January 6th an Existential Threat to Democracy?

[@liamwinter4512]

This is appropriately being held in comedy club.

[@kimbruns2084]

No kidding, might as well had the “debate “ with CNN moderating.

[@TWE_2000]

I have a hard time believing the military was gonna take orders from the guy wearing the Buffalo hat

[@Armed-Forever]

i have a hard time believing there weren’t military ppl who agreed with the rioters

[@TWE_2000]

@@Armed-Forever and? There's over a million troops, I'm sure there's some that believe in scientology, do you think the army is about to match on the streets in the name of zemu

[@lvrichardson7966]

Disappointing. Two Trump haters debate each other.

[@thrashertm]

God forbid the NYC audience be confronted by an actual divergent opinion (e.g. MAGA, Trump supporter, etc.)

[@lvrichardson7966]

@@thrashertm I stopped watching at the 10-min mark. It wasn't worth the time of day. A real debate would have pitched a MAGA/Trump supporter against either one of those two, or both of them --two clearly leftist partisan hacks. This debate stipulates up front that Biden's win was solid and legitimate. There just happens to be debate about that. Why don't they bring on that debate! Would it be the "end of Democracy" to ensure the Democratic process was subject to unassailable election integrity? No, the opposite is true. We can no longer trust the election process. We do not know who really won that election. It's very possible that 78 million people (by estimate) were disenfranchised in 2020.

[@Karen_Marie]

Right. Can anyone point me to a more two sided debate? Not that one side needs to defend anything about the question of whether or not the election was stolen, but to defend the legal process, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, etc and how disagreeing with election results - within the confines of the law - *is* democracy. It's so obvious that the viking hat guy and grandmas were never going to overthrow anything, that point isn't even worth debating. A protest turned riot is what it is, we all know it wasn't an insurrection. I want to see a debate on the morality of a president opposing election results and working within the legal system to change them and if that is a threat to democracy.

[@economath8164]

[15:03] She's flat out wrong. Accepting a pardon does not require an admission of guilt. She's regurgitating a misreading of the Burdick case from over 100 years ago that the federal circuit courts have squarely rejected. For a recent example, see Lorance v. Commandant, 13 F.4th 1150 (10th Circ. 2021).

[@serjarmen]

Burdick v. United States: "a pardon carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." You're right, it doesn't "require" an admission, it's imputated. Remind me again regarding judicial power and review: are federal courts above the SCOTUS?

[@thrashertm]

What else do you expect? She's clearly out of her depth.

[@Harpua1971]

The question is so easily answered. No, the guy in the Buffalo skins was not a "threat to democracy". It was a protest that turned violent, no different than all the protests turned violent in 2020 for our beloved Saint Floyd.

[@JESSEverything]

And it was rather tame compared to all the other rioting and looting that took place that year, which dwarfed January 6th in scope and scale. It also bothers me that so many people think our country is a Democracy. It's not and it never was.

[@Harpua1971]

@@JESSEverything two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch

[@kendoWTL]

They literally were shouting for the deaths of congressman and trying to break into the chambers in an effort to stop election certification and usurp the government. Conservatives are coping so hard.

[@Harpua1971]

@@kendoWTL LUL

[@kendoWTL]

@@Harpua1971 Everyone that isn't a schizo shitposter admits that riots and violence are bad. Including the dumb fuck Floyd riots. But when you do it, you can't own up to it. It's really cringe.

[@eyeofodin01]

This one was really disappointing. Especially the fact that John was clearly biased in favor of Rebecca. He didn't cut her off, never structured her time, yet cut Andrew short every chance he got. Hard to have an intelligent and balanced debate that way. Also, they're not really on opposite sides of the issue. They're on opposite sides of the word existential. This one really wasn't the best.

[@Meridee1]

Not the first time he's shown bias. Anthony Scaramucci even had to address that in the Elon Musk debate. John sucks.

[@DesertCoyotes]

I like the part where he said trump isn't smart enough to lead a coup and it forced her to defend trump haha. Andrew won this debate.

[@davelikesthings]

There's a huge difference between _fearing_ for the destruction of democracy and an actual realistic threat to democracy. Had Trump been a meaningful and intelligent leader there might have been a threat, but he's so far from competent outside of furthering his own ego that there's no possible way he could subvert democracy to any meaningful extent. I think Rebecca is arguing from an emotional whataboutism rather than a pragmatic viewpoint. Now, if the question is "are the Republican hard right contingent in congress a threat to democracy?" that's a more thought provoking topic.

[@thrashertm]

She's a lib, so emotional arguments are pretty much all she's got. How many times did she attempt to inject race into this debate? I counted 3.

[@youreverydaysaltyiowastate5602]

No it wasn’t. First, it must be made abundantly clear that the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. To understand the conceptualization of democracy, we must go back to 1607-the 1770s - when the British Empire was leading this country. What the British brought to the 13 colonies was a monarchy, which closely resembles democracies regarding electoral politics, in which one party rules the society. And of course, people voting in those elections sounds spectacular on paper until you realize that such a voting system sounds ridiculous when there is one party. So when the British began aggressively taxing its people on precarious things, such as sugar, tea and stamps, it was only a matter of time when the founding fathers were brought in the picture, paving the way for the Revolution. And it were these founding fathers that in the end fought off the British, declared independence and began our constitutional republic - hence, the constitution was born. When the British ruled the 13 colonies, it was one of the original ideals of fascism in world history; excessive taxation, no expanding past the Appalachian Line, one governmental party and protests were often something that the military would handle. When the Constitution was written - or should I say the Bill of Rights - one of the first amendments was that should a government get out of the control of the people who live amongst that same government, they have the God-given right to take action and take back control. Now, let’s apply this to today: our government has lost its way. We have 333,287,557 people that inhabit our country; 37.9 million of them are on the streets; there are people flooding our borders; we can’t sustain all of these people; they can’t handle these harmful situations; yet they can certainly lend guns and millions upon millions to Ukraine and Afghanistan wearing their blue and yellow ties. We have a government that loves to tax it’s people, not help the people who have nothing left, and not have their hearts in the people who they control. The January 6th-ers had every right to March into that Capital building, via the constitution and the core American values.

[@dandantheflimflamman]

You do not need an admission of guilt to accept a pardon. This is straight up @BadLegalTakes territory.

[@Kavafy]

Yes you do

[@buzztheblocker89]

10:30 mark.... Right there. The courts wouldn't hear the arguments. The systems in place to resolve disputes we're refusing to participate. It wasn't a response to unfavorable answers, it was a response to not being heard and told deal with it. It was not a threat to democracy, but democracy in action.

[@theaerohead575]

Good topic but not the quality of debaters we've seen in the pass. Andrew did a good job putting Trump's role in perspective relative to the other 'historic' events (9/11, Attack on Pearl Harbor) and pretty much deflates the hyperbolic meaning of Jan 6. Rebekah didn't start well by reminding us that there are black people in Omaha (where I grew up and didn't have any doubt - not sure why this was important). She justifies her position by projecting fears and certainty from the event that weren't there (assassination of Pence/others is one example, voter ID is another one that isn't connected to the event, and treating all Jan 6th attendees as white supremicists when that was clearly not the case). What I heard were the usually liberal talking points that ran the Jan 6 committee for 2 years without coming close the prosecuting a case for 'insurrection'. Pre-Vote - Undecided. Post-Vote - NO!

[@hanumaniam]

It's a pity Andrew Keen came out with ad hominem attacks (idiots, one-eyed, etc) and wasn't pulled up for it by John Donvan. Felt a bit let down by IQ for that.

[@Meridee1]

It's towards trump so it's allowed. I think he had to, just to make sure everyone knows he's not a trump supporter. Because if they were to think that, the debate would've been unnecessary because they wouldn't pay attention to any of his arguments.

[@hanumaniam]

@@Meridee1 that's not the way IQ usually works. Was surprised that John didn't make note of it.

[@kokofan50]

Were all the times the Democrat activists basically did the same thing threats to our country?

[@kendoWTL]

The what aboutisms when your side attempts a beer hall putch style insurrection is pure copium. Die mad.

[@davegnidaer572]

Paid for by the Dems no less, and far far more violent

[@kokofan50]

@@kendoWTL You’ve got no argument, just preprogrammed memes (the original sense from Dawkins) mashed together.

[@kendoWTL]

@@kokofan50 can you admit that violence and riots are bad and the people who take part in them should be prosecuted? Yes or no? You are the party of law and order after all.

[@kokofan50]

@@kendoWTL yes, people should be held responsible for their actions, but you’re ignoring the actions of the Democrats.

[@raskltube]

this debate was really pathetic, if you are reading these comments, dont bother. THUMBS DOWN

[@pitbull6098]

YES I love the brain graphic at the end of the intro! BIG BRAINS on this DEbATE! 🧠🧠

[@manniefresh3425]

Came in the middle thought he was talking about BLM riots until he said trump lol

[@SurfbyShootin]

Yuri called this hypernormalization.

[@manniefresh3425]

Can we get KZbin to fact check lol a lot of lies being thrown out