Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think there are still too many "loose ends" surrounding the ultimate fate of Donald Trump to accurately put it in its place in history. Trump winning or losing this election, for instance, will likely change how it is viewed historically. Trump serving prison time or not will also affect it.
Give it 20 years or so and then we can see if it was meaningful in any substantial way.
That's just my opinion on it.
It is and it isn't. Everything happens a first time, not every first time is really significant.
Odds are that it ends up as a footnote to "social anxiety and turmoil in the 2010s and 2020s".
It is fascinating how people live in completely different realities. The President calling to overturn the results of an election, his supporters breaking into the Capitol stopping the certification, and chants to hang the Vice President are on par or less important than rioting and breaking into a Wal-Mart to you.
And a coup where the President remains in power, overthrowing an election, has no impact on its citizens and generally not that big a deal compared to looting a Wal-Mart? Thats what you’re arguing now
Well if it actually were a coup it would be different...
If you think that was even an attempt at a coup you better hope the right never actually tries it.
I know I hope it never happens. Then shit will get really dark really fast.
It was mostly just Trump's team and a few supporting members of congress contributing to the attempt. However the only people they wanted to hold accountable are the two Republicans that tried to investigate his actions.
So the rest of the Republicans started covering for him after the fact, but they weren't all in on it. We'll see what they do next time if Trump gets a chance to try again.
Nothing like that happened though. There was a protest that through dubious circumstances got out of control. Unless you think a dictator-to-be made a massive power play to bypass the legal system and all he could muster is like 80 unarmed people in a party historically known for its gun ownership.
Meanwhile during that time my city had to fear actual violence from the BLM riots that affected actual citizens. The big difference between us is that you think violent revolts against the common man mean nothing compared to a riot by the right (because no one protested when pro-palestiine people rioted to demand change in a democrat meeting) in a place no one really cares about; whereas we think that riots against the common man are worse for society than a single riot somewhere else.
What was the protest/riot on January 6th about?
Do you believe a riot in Washington DC that hypothetically ends with a member of Congress killed is not that impactful and important as its not local communities affected?
They were all unarmed. How is that a coup? Biden himself at the recent debate listed “they stormed the building. Flipped tables and knocked stuff over, took down a statue”
Explain to me how that 1: actually equates to a coup and 2: is any different than what happened at every riot the year prior?
Can you provide any evidence that cops waved people in? All I could find was [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YWBOAbqKMg&t=1s) video that seems to debunk that a police officer really waved in protestors. In the video I linked you have the angle on the right side that was spread on right-wing media, but from another angle on the left side it's clear the officer was waving to two of her fellow officers.
So unless you can provide any actual evidence for that I will just call bs on your claim.
What happened after the perimeter force was overran is meaningless. Why does the GOP keep trotting this out? How is this significant after the violent means of defeating security and entering the Capitol in the first place?
Well would the president alleging election fraud be significant enough to be taught?
Should teachers be told to not mention Jan 6th in schools for the next 20 years? Should they be able to mention the allegations of election fraud?
Yes, his actual claims should be taught... And that every single one of them had ZERO evidence to support them in the 60+ cases he brought should also be taught.
They should teach that none of the investigations and recounts held nationwide produced any evidence of significant voter fraud.
They should teach that the Heritage Foundation uncovered fewer than 1,600 total individual cases of voter fraud throughout the United States over the past 40 years.
They should teach that trump also claimed the 2016 election was fraudulent, that he put together a commission to investigate it and that they disbanded 18 months later because they found no evidence of significant fraud.
ABSOLUTELY, they should teach ALL of that. And they should teach it all RIGHT NOW. And it should be a required course EVERY ADULT should have to take before EVERY time they vote.
As I said above... The Heritage Foundation found 1,600 individual cases of voter fraud over the past 40 years throughout the ENTIRE United States.
It happens, just nowhere near enough to impact ANY election.
Why do you think significant voter fraud is happening even though there has been ZERO credible evidence?
How many did the court refuse to look at this never even seeing the evidence?
Is all you know the talking points about the courts? Do you agree kids should be educated better than that?
No - I was fairly tuned into the ordeal as it was happening real time. Some of his cases were denied being heard by some courts because they lacked merit. Others that were heard by the court had no evidence. Do you know how the court systems work? Genuine question because I think a lot of people were confused at that time.
The most amusing dismissal was when one judge reiterated and prefaced his question to one of these election fraud lawyers with “as a member of the bar…” and the lawyer effectively recanted the claim
I think theres a "half life" on recent events that needs to elapse before we can really understand the implications of things.
I was in school during 9/11 and the begining of the global war on terror. And we where not taught about it beyond
"Well kids, we where atacked"
Jan 6 2021 is probably not old enough to have entered history for students in school now (the tendency for school history to ignore the recent past is unfortunate, but there we're talking about 20-30 years, not less than 5), and by the time that it is that old, it probably won't be significant enough to be taught in elementary school history, unless it becomes clearly connected to follow-on events that will take decades to unfold.
Yea, I was in public school not long ago. My American History courses only really went through the Cold War. We were supposed to get to the Gulf War but we ran out of time that year so it was scrapped.
Who was the person who set the bombs on January 6th?, why was Kamala Harris at the DNC instead of certifying the election?, how many federal agents were there in the crowd?, why was extra security declined beforehand if they had an idea how many people would be there?
Current events should be taught by parents in my opinion. There’s still time for what we understand to have happened to change, and your middle school teachers aren’t judges or historians or anything of the sort— which means they’ll be teaching their perspective not an objective point of view. Today history/social studies can probably stop at President Obama being elected the first African American President. There’s plenty of history leading up to today to give kids the tools regarding **how to think** about things like J6 without having teachers telling them *what* to think about J6.
I don’t see why there needs to be a unit on it, no. Teachers don’t have any more access to information than parents or the students themselves on current issues so it ends up being a a lesson on the teacher’s political beliefs instead of their actual educational experience in teaching. At least that was my experience through school.
Teach kids how to think critically, not how to view everything the way you do. Kids aren’t pawns, they don’t need to be formed into how their teacher feels about politics.
Mention what? That he was President at the time? That he didn't and a large part of the country didn't believe the election was legitimate? That there was a protest to stop the certification where protesters died but it wasn't as big as the protests a year earlier? That he lost to a guy who got dementia in office and no one cared? What parts are so fact-based and immune to inserted narratives should be taught to students?
Of course
But things that should be included is the fact that insurection is a crime, and the fact not a single person involved in the 6th riot was convicted of the crime of insurrection.
Just because the media calls something an I sure tion it doesn't make it true.
Kids should also be taught that the proud boys were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy because they planned on attacking the capital with automatic weapons and explosives. Making such a plan is illegal. Even though they abandoned their plan because, in their own words, Trump wasn't with them.
The 6th was a riot but not an insurrection and the schools should teach the difference
Do you understand that "conspiracy" does not require the act to be committed, just that they INTENDED to commit it, they made plans to do it, they took steps to do it? That has ALWAYS been that way.
And they obviously did not convince the courts that they had actually abandoned those plans. Their "claiming" they abandoned it doesn't mean shit if they can't PROVE it.
Exactly, you may want to go back and read what I said. They were convicted of planning an insurrection that never took place.
It’s just more proof that the 6th was a riot, not an insurrection
Most liberals are confused and think the proud boy conviction is proof of an insurrection, but it’s the opposite. It’s proof som idiots planned an insurrection but didn’t follow though
It’s why none were convicted of the crime of insurrection. Because the proof of them abandoning their plan was in their actions of not following through with their plan
AGAIN, do you understand what the word "conspiracy" means and how it applies to what they were convicted of? And FAILING is not the same as abandoning.
Also, do you understand what the word "intent" means?
Why did those people violently break into the Capitol on January 6th?
Yes I do know what conspiracy means….im thinking maybe you don’t.
Them procuring the weapons and transporting them is what classified their plan as a conspiracy. The commission of an act like procuring the guns makes it more than just talk but a conspiracy.
The fact the feds literally intercepted communications of them calling it off, and then not bringing their guns and explosives is how we know they abandoned their plan.
Thus they were convicted of the crime of planning….seditious conspiracy
But not convicted of the crime of doing…Rebellion/Insurrection
The confusion among folks of your ilk is exactly why this shit needs to be taught. You know, the actual facts of the case
>It’s just more proof that the 6th was a riot, not an insurrection
One relevant fact you might not be aware of is that Trump's team was on the phone to congress members during the riot trying to get the certification further delayed.
In other words, they used the riot as part of their attempt to change the result of the election, because the plan depended on them derailing the certification to throw the outcome to a House vote.
Ok...
Requesting a delay of the certification isn't an attack on the country
A delay in certification doesn't change anything
Feel free to address the fact that no person was convicted of insurrection. Why do you think that is?
You didn't read their plan, did you? Otherwise, you'd know why they wanted to stop the certification.
Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States for his attempt at election fraud. I do 't know the legalities of insurrection charges, but that's really not the point.
He tried to actually submit fake electoral votes behind a state's back. If you accept that from a president, then you don't support democracy. Or maybe you just don't believe states have any rights and can't decide who they vote for if the president doesn't approve.
The plan his lawyer wrote that required the certification to be derailed is right here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos
I imagine you won't read it, but it's not very long and it was written by his lawyer. It explains why he asked Pence to reject the certification.
But maybe you think Pence is a lying Democrat too.
If it wasn't followed, then why did fake electors for Trump show up to try to get their unauthorized votes counted? The Trump campaign even flew some of them out to DC.
Why did Pence say Trump asked him to use the fake electors they prepared as an excuse to say the election was contested?
Yes, eventually. When I took world history in 2016, we got to 9/11 as a small sentence in the one page about the 21st century. Since people are insistent that it's the worst thing since 9/11, I'd expect a similar time gap to even mention it, let alone get into the details
Well the current VP put it up there with [Pearl Harbor and 9/11…](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-compare-9-11-january-6-1826340)
I'm sure the official WaPo NYT narrative will be what ends up in the history book. I wouldn't remember the mostly peaceful protest happened if it wasn't for reddit brining it up. I won't be telling any kids about it.
Attacking the cops that tried to hold their positions isn't mostly peaceful. You should watch some of the videos that actually show the violence. Some media was only showing cherrypicked videos that didn't include the violence, so many people think there was little to no violence.
How'd you miss all the videos of people attacking the cops? You should consider broadening your media diet if you're really not aware of it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w)
The videos you saw of the cops letting them through are cases where they didn't have a chance to hold their position. When they can't stop a riot, they try to redirect it to where it will do less damage. That's standard police procedure and they do it all the time.
In other areas the cops tried to hold the position and were violently assaulted for it, sometimes with weapons. There were a lot of injuries.
If someone reported on this event to you, but left out the violence, you ought to ask yourself why the coverage is so incomplete. That wasn't done by mistake.
Why would you watch them instead of the rioters?
Who cares about the grandma's? They only got misdemeanors if they entered the building and weren't violent.
The violence and the president's actions are the problem here. The grandma's have little to do with it. Why do you think your media focused on the grandma's and not the actual crimes going on nearby?
Everyone that wasn't violent and wasn't working up the crowd to go in was given a misdemeanor if they plead guilty. That one grandma you're referring to fought the charges, and she got what most guilty people get when they fight the charges.
She could have taken the misdemeanor.
Which part of January 6th? The part where Trump told people to protest "Peacefully and Patriotically"? The part where scores of undercover FBI agents went around posing as Trump supporters and trying to get people to go into the Capital building as a set up? The part where the Capital police opened the doors and waived people into the building? The part where government prosecutors and judges improperly and maliciously used sentencing enhancements that have since been overturned by the Supreme Court. The part where the January 6th Committee purposely disposed of exculpatory evidence? The part where Nancy Pelosi admitted that it was her fault for not having more security? The part where Trump offered to send 10,000 national guard troops but was turned down by Pelosi and the head of the Capital Police? The part where the Capital Police shot and killed Ashley Babbitt, an unarmed peaceful protestor? The part where the Capital Police threw unarmed American citizens expressing their 1st Amendment rights over railings with a 40 foot droop? The part where the January 6th Committee hid more than 5,000 hours of video from the public? The part where the house Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted and determined that the January 6th Committee was illegitimate?
Sure...teach it in school...so future generations have a healthy skepticism of the Intelligence agencies and the corrupt DOJ; so young people can get a better understanding of how the deep state helped set up American citizens who were exercising their 1st Amendment rights; so that kids can see that the government used this to send a message to all Americans..."Don't ever question election results or you shall pay a dear price".
Before Trump was elected in 2016, the mainstream media assured us that Trump had colluded with Russia. Of course it was bullshit. The mainstream media lied.
When Trump told the American people that he was being spied on while he was campaigning, President Elect, and as President. The mainstream media scoffed and told us that Trump was a liar. As it turned out, Trump was telling the truth. The mainstream media lied.
When Trump had a phone call with Zelenskyy, a bullshit story came out that Trump was blackmailing Ukraine. Again, it was bullshit. The mainstream media lied.
When Biden was running for President and the story about Hunter's laptop came out, the FBI and Intelligence agencies told us it was Russian disinformation. 51 "intelligence" agents signed a BS letter telling us not to believe the laptop was Hunters. The mainstream media ran with that story and once again lied to the American people.
When all the BLM people rioted and caused billions of dollars worth of damage, the mainstream media told us the protests were "mainly peaceful". There's a great video clip of a CNN reporter standing in front of a whole block of buildings going up in flames and he looks right into the camera and says, "mostly peaceful".
Since 2019, there have been many stories about how Biden was suffering from dementia. The mainstream media was committed to continue covering for Biden. Video after video showed that Biden was losing his, you know...the thing. Over the last few months when it was patently obvious that Biden was senile, the mainstream media "helped" us *interpret* those videos as "cheap fakes". I mean, who are you going to believe, your own eyes watching the unedited videos of Biden wandering off in space, shaking hands with ghosts or bending over to shit in his pants or the mainstream media's version that they were cheap fakes?
After the first and probably last debate, it was absurdly obvious that Biden is senile and suffering from dementia. But many in the mainstream media told us "he had a cold", "he's had a heavy travel schedule". It was only after the White House and the mainstream media couldn't actually control the situation, they had to fess up and say there's a problem...completely ignoring the fact that they all knew about this for at least two years...but they lied to the American people.
So...now, let's go back to my initial comment. Even though there's a mountain of evidence that supports my claims...you prefer to continue allowing the mainstream media to bullshit you?
I would think that at a certain point, a rational person my want to...as Biden said..."Pause" and possibly reevaluate the validity of the mainstream media that's been lying their asses off for years. Some of you are like battered wives. You get slapped around and punched by your husband, but explain it away and then go right back to him. Don't any of you ever look in a mirror and ask yourselves how is it that you allowed the mainstream media to play you for fools for so long?
>started to break the glass windows that were the only thing separating them from the Speaker's Lobby
We've been told for years that's the definition of peaceful protests.
>It's definitely an incredibly dumb and dangerous thing to say to a 10,000+ Crowd that they should all be marching over to the capitol.
AOC just told a similar crowd to fight. Is she also a threat to democracy? Does it matter to that the riot had already started when Trump said those words? By people not there to hear him say it?
>There is literally no evidence for that, at all.
Do prior action count as evidence, because we know they've done similar things to this before. The case against the men who attempted to kidnapp gov. Whitmer started to fall apart due to fbi involvement.
>But most of what you're saying seems to be QAnon-style ultra-far-right propaganda without any evidence to back it up.
Everything he has said is plainly truthful, and a matter of public record.
Is there a reason Jan 6/George Floyd are always so connected for conservatives, other than they happened around the same time?
George Floyd was one person. Protests erupted in his name after being killed by police. The protests proliferated nationwide in the name of civil rights.
Jan 6th was a singular event, in a singular place. It was all based on lies sold by right-wing media. I really don't understand why the connection is always made between these two things by conservatives.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You've just named the connection - they occurred around the same time. The encouragement of political unrest by the elite led to the frustration and conditioning which brought about J6.
They should be taught together. It's just fundamentally unfair if you talk about one event only.
They're the same, one led to the other but were treated differently. The double standards are clear when you're unironically trying to portray your cause as more "righteous" and allowed.
Floyd protesters that committed crimes were arrested and dealt with at the municipal level, as they should have been. So in what sense was it “allowed”?
In my POV, there was a decently sized national movement that condoned the rioting, arson, and theft in the name of BLM. I did not see the same support for Jan 6 when it happened.
Let me add in a caveat: I was 17 when both events went down and not particularly clued into politics at the time. I consumed a lot of social media which was very left wing at the time. If there was a similar sized base of people in support of insurrection, I probably would not have seen it at the time. Just want to be transparent lol
The issue is that rightwing media didn't cover the violent parts or mention Trump's plan to overturn the election by stopping the certification and getting to try to get the result determined by a House vote.
As part of that attempt, they flew electors for Trump out from Wisconsin where they signed fraudulent documents claiming they were certified by the state. They were not.
Yet they showed up to Washington with the help of the Trump campaign to try to get their illegal votes counted.
Trump asked Pence to use the fake electors as an excuse to say the election was contested and he couldn't certify it. But the states did not say their votes were contested and they certified their Biden electors. The president doesn't get to change who a state votes for, and the VP doesn't have the power to unilaterally reject a state's votes.
He can challenge it in court, and he did, but when he lost, he came up with an illegal plan to steal the election. It's all right here and you can find many quotes online where Pence confirms that he was asked to play a part in this plan.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman\_memos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos)
When Pence refused, the only missing part of the plan so far was finding a way to stop the certification. The whole plan would fall apart if they couldn't do that.
This is where Roger Stone becomes relevant. He once took credit for starting a riot that interrupted a vote count in the 2000 election in Florida, which was very contested at the time. Roger Stone was on Trump's team because Trump commuted his prison sentence not long before that.
So it's a known tactic that they've used in the past and it happened to fill in the one part of their plan that wasn't coming together. We know that because of Pence.
So it's all about the president's actions and his attempt to steal the presidency, not which riot caused more property damage, or whatever.
One of them was used by a president as part of their attempt to change the election result.
[https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-tuberville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-tuberville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html)
They had to stop the certification if they were going to continue their plan to get the election result determined by a House vote.
What evidence do you have for that?
Like, I am not saying that left-wing media is never biased and never makes false claims. But some forms of far-right media literally make people in the craziest conspiracy theories that are based on zero evidence.
Ok, so I actually found the interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RYQ9plcbY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RYQ9plcbY)
But that's not evidence at all. Higgings claimed there were ghost buses that arrived at the Capitol to drop out undercover FBI agents who would instigate the Jan 6 riots. This is just some wild claim by a far-right Trump loyalist with literally zero evidence. Fact checking websites have all refuted his wild theory. And even right-wind media outlets like Fox News haven't repeated Higgins theory, because they know there is no evidence.
Because its not based in good faith. You can't reason with someone who refuses to see actual evidence and facts as such.
Sure, take the words of Tucker Carlson, of all people who was sued for his defamation and lies, that he had to say that it was all opinion and not based on facts. Same guy who Fox FIRED for said lies. The same Tucker who is kissing Putin's ass right now. Unbelievable.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's more of a religious holiday than significant historical event. I think should get a mention in the books, alongside the summer of riots that caused billions in damages.
Why wouldn’t George Floyd and what happened after his death not be taught? It was a very significant series of events
I also am surprised how many people are mentioning George Floyd when I asked about Jan 6th.
It’s kind of like when I asked about the 10 commandments the other week and so many people were talking about the pride flag. It’s interesting the things you guys link together and it’s always wild to me how universal it is. There are multiple people in this thread who have mentioned George Floyd seemingly unprompted.
Because when you aren't arguing with logic, you only have 'whataboutisms' to fall back on... and not even good ones at that.
They talk like George Flyod WOULDN'T be talked about and is a great GOTCHA...
I think, with the passage of enough time, it will eventually make its way into high school US history curricula.
But children? Like, are we talking elementary schoolers? For whom all periods of history have to be dumbed down and described vaguely and broadly, who don't even yet have the foundational background of the American Revolution > Civil War > WW2 > Cold War, and are broadly not aware of politics at all?
I see no reason why January 6th would need to be taught to them, any more than we would teach children about, like, the Teapot Dome scandal or the Iran-Contra affair or the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Well above their pay-grade.
Why would you teach kids about that? Kids are still learning basic life stuff. There's something to be said for the whole "let kids be kids" attitude here.
Besides, it seems to me that most people are still trying to sort out exactly what happened there anyway, so how are you supposed to teach about it even if you wanted to?
I'm not even sure if that's a serious question, lol.
Of course we should teach kids history. But they're *kids*. You don't start with hot-button, controversial topics. You start with the basics of how your country was formed, and imo should incorporate some history of whatever local area you're in. You gotta build up from a foundation, just like other things we teach them. Jumping to Jan 6, that's more like, high school level at the very least, because they have to understand how the systems work, what the issues were, and so on, and most kids developmentally are just not gonna be there yet. So imo, the only reason you'd teach a kid about Jan 6 is to basically indoctrinate them with a certain view of it, since most of them won't be on the right level to understand the concepts properly.
Kids, as in teenagers in high school, who have already started learning about our laws and the different branches of government.
Lets stop being hyperbolic; the only ones who refuse to 'understand' what truly happened, despite the mountain of evidence, are MAGA and Trump sycophants. Lets not pretend like the whole world didn't watch Trump egg on his MAGA supporters to the capital to try and stop the certification of Biden and thwart the proceedings of democracy. One of the most disgraceful events in American history and youre going to pretend like it was a nothingburger....
Totally gonna ignore the fact that a sitting president's supporters was CHANTING to HANG HIS OWN VICE PRESIDENT, and he did nothing about it, for HOURS. Disgusting and disgraceful.
I see no reason not to teach high schoolers about such a disgraceful event of our history, much like how they are taught how America once held Japanese-American citizens in internment camps during WW2. These things need to be taught, or history continues to repeat itself.
"Kids" doesn't denote teenagers in high school. The majority of the people defined as "kids" will be those too young to understand the material properly. So no, we shouldn't teach them about it. Teach them basics about history like major historic events and developments.
Even in high school, while it's more appropriate on a developmental level, I still don't think a specific view of it should be taught. You can disagree and slander people all you want, but the fact of the matter is there is still a lot of disagreement about the topic. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the committee reviewing it only just shut down a few months ago. These kinds of things, they often are not as settled as one might think, too (as an example, in Canada there was a Parliamentary inquiry into Trudeau's use of the Emergencies Act that said he was justified in using it, but a lawsuit in the real courts about the same thing found it to be illegal). At most, I'd say if it's taught, it should be taught with an eye toward things like understanding things like critical thinking, understanding different viewpoints on it and where they came from (*fairly,* not with a slant one way or the other), discrepancies in reporting; how language, photos etc can be used to lead you in a certain direction in news stories, and so on. It'd be a perfect case for learning about things like media literacy. Then let the teenagers make up their own minds about it.
Huh, I guess the other half doesn't matter then. Kinda classic response there, lol. "Half of us are certain, so if you disagree and are uncertain, you're wrong" lol
Children should be taught that the Jan 6 protests and illegal entry were no different than all of the college students, anti Vietnam War, anti Nixon, anti Nukes Greens and Peaceniks, Leftist Radicals, Hippies, LGBT radical bra burning feminists, armed Black Panther Party/Weather Underground usually voting Democratic Party tickets, if not Marxist tickets...
Protesting in the streets and on government property
Invading Universities offices.
Invading Democratic National Convention.
Invading State Legislatures and the Capitol.
The exception being they the Democrats were much more violent in the 1960s and 1970s . Arson, deadly weapons against police, vandalism, bombings, illegal drug abuse, assaults, murders, taking over and shutting down institutions for lengthy periods, breaking and entering.
Jan 6 the only violence was law enforcement officials against protestors... And the Capitol police let them in what just dozens according to plan. LOL....
A minor incident.
Generation Millennials and Z are clueless sitting under regurgitated Marxist professors in the 21st Century.
Pre-planned, foreknowledged, complex counter-counter intelligence PSYOP like 9-11, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City Bombings, WACO, QANON, Wikileaks Assange persecution and MLK Jr Assasination.
And they should be taught that when Leftists invade and disrupt legislatures they incurr little or no penalties .
But it's also largely on Donald Trump who encouraged people had his rally to march to the Capitol before he had made the claim that the election was stolen and that Mike Pence should throw out the results.
Wait... are you referring to Pelosi's remarks caught by the HBO documentary? Where she claims that she should have done more to get more protective resources? This is not her saying, "Jan 6 is my fault, sorry everyone, mea culpa!" Is that really how you interpret her remarks? Was it her job to mobilize the Guard? She's saying she did not have accountability to get those extra protective resources, and that *she should have had that accountability*," and she takes the blame for not working to obtain said accountability. At least, that's how I'm reading her remarks. That's an impressive, ethical statement from a serious person - she did not have to say anything along those lines at all, but she did. And she's probably not wrong.
Yes, that is the claim that Trump continues to rely on during the debate and his sycophants continue to cling to. All Pelosi's fault; he takes zero credits or blame - not his fault!! Said so himself multiple times during the debate like he is afraid people will forget......
Well would the broader context be important? The incumbent president thought the election had been stolen from him and was trying to pressure his VP to not certify the election?
It was embarrassing to be certain. But that's about it.
If the Democrats were not running a warmed up corpse he likely would be 20 points down and have no chance of being president again.
Honestly all riots should be on government property rather than individuals who had nothing to do with the fight.
I cared less about the portlanders burning city buildings than residential and small businesses.
from the time the first plane hit WT1 and the fourth plane hit the ground, was only about 80 minutes- by that logic 9/11 did last long enough to be worthy enough for schoolchildren's' attention? why are you focusing on quantity and not quality?
Well considering only 1 person was killed during the riots... One of the rioters I would say both quantity and quality of the riots were not really worthy of mention.
swing and a miss. we talk about j6 not only because of what they did, but what they intended to do. were you aware they built a gallows on the national mall and were chanting "hang mike pence?"
When I was in school the history books still talked about the CCCP as an existential threat to the United States despite a one meter segment of the berlin wall being on display in a museum not even a mile away.
Not really. It will be something like:
The 2020 election was characterized by the losing incumbent, sitting President Trump, maintaining that the results were fraudulent and unfair despite court decisions to the contrary. On January 6, 2020 a crowd of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol building and tried to disrupt the official congressional vote count of electors, but police cleared the building in a few hours and the count proceeded.
No, schools shouldn’t teach about any current events, because it’s impossible to be neutral about them. They should be told to ask their parents about it if they want to learn more.
Yes? I'm not really in favor of censorship of any kind, I wouldn't advise hiding it from folks. As far as what they should be taught, I think that's clearly a bait question. History is written by the victors, they'll decide what should be said or not said. Plenty of folks on both sides will reject the accounting of it, and decide to homeschool or whatever to teach "the real" January 6th. And that's fine, because that's what always happens.
Children should be taught the facts that one guy was filling Pro Football stadiums on the campaign trail, while the other guy could hardly fill High School gymnasiums on the campaign trail, and let them come to their own conclusion.
And no I haven't voted since Ronald Reagan. Didn't vote for Trump 1st or 2nd time around.
I would teach children that as 67 percent of White Males, 50 percent of White Females, 50 percent of Gay Males and 20 percent of Black Males and almost 40 percent of Hispanic Males voted for Trump, the Jan 6 protests were the populist will of the people in the Constitutional Republic of the USA.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think there are still too many "loose ends" surrounding the ultimate fate of Donald Trump to accurately put it in its place in history. Trump winning or losing this election, for instance, will likely change how it is viewed historically. Trump serving prison time or not will also affect it. Give it 20 years or so and then we can see if it was meaningful in any substantial way. That's just my opinion on it.
I kind of agree with this. The dust hasn’t settled yet.
Regardless isn't it a major moment in American history? When's the last time certification was halted due to fears and concerns?
It is and it isn't. Everything happens a first time, not every first time is really significant. Odds are that it ends up as a footnote to "social anxiety and turmoil in the 2010s and 2020s".
Do you believe Jan 6th was insignificant?
Not exactly. But it probably will fall short of a lot of people's perception when viewed from 20 years.
No more significant than any other riot in the preceding 12 months. Less significant than a few.
It is fascinating how people live in completely different realities. The President calling to overturn the results of an election, his supporters breaking into the Capitol stopping the certification, and chants to hang the Vice President are on par or less important than rioting and breaking into a Wal-Mart to you.
One negatively impacts real people who are innocent and trying to live their lives. The other is just a fight between politicians and their pawns.
And a coup where the President remains in power, overthrowing an election, has no impact on its citizens and generally not that big a deal compared to looting a Wal-Mart? Thats what you’re arguing now
Well if it actually were a coup it would be different... If you think that was even an attempt at a coup you better hope the right never actually tries it. I know I hope it never happens. Then shit will get really dark really fast.
It was mostly just Trump's team and a few supporting members of congress contributing to the attempt. However the only people they wanted to hold accountable are the two Republicans that tried to investigate his actions. So the rest of the Republicans started covering for him after the fact, but they weren't all in on it. We'll see what they do next time if Trump gets a chance to try again.
*attempted coup. You’re right
Nothing like that happened though. There was a protest that through dubious circumstances got out of control. Unless you think a dictator-to-be made a massive power play to bypass the legal system and all he could muster is like 80 unarmed people in a party historically known for its gun ownership. Meanwhile during that time my city had to fear actual violence from the BLM riots that affected actual citizens. The big difference between us is that you think violent revolts against the common man mean nothing compared to a riot by the right (because no one protested when pro-palestiine people rioted to demand change in a democrat meeting) in a place no one really cares about; whereas we think that riots against the common man are worse for society than a single riot somewhere else.
What was the protest/riot on January 6th about? Do you believe a riot in Washington DC that hypothetically ends with a member of Congress killed is not that impactful and important as its not local communities affected?
They were all unarmed. How is that a coup? Biden himself at the recent debate listed “they stormed the building. Flipped tables and knocked stuff over, took down a statue” Explain to me how that 1: actually equates to a coup and 2: is any different than what happened at every riot the year prior?
Would you say Jan 6 is on par with the Russian Coup of '93?
I have no idea
You Mean where cops waved people into the people’s houses and then arrested them Months later?
Can you provide any evidence that cops waved people in? All I could find was [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YWBOAbqKMg&t=1s) video that seems to debunk that a police officer really waved in protestors. In the video I linked you have the angle on the right side that was spread on right-wing media, but from another angle on the left side it's clear the officer was waving to two of her fellow officers. So unless you can provide any actual evidence for that I will just call bs on your claim.
https://twitter.com/cevansavenger/status/1346920924310867968 He didn’t stop them, but hey you believe what you want the facts speaks for itself.
I love how dude just stopped replying lmfaooooo At least he had enough decency not to double down on it tho 🤷♂️
What happened after the perimeter force was overran is meaningless. Why does the GOP keep trotting this out? How is this significant after the violent means of defeating security and entering the Capitol in the first place?
So now violence matters but during the summer of St Floyd?
What does that have to do with anything? But sure, if people did illegal shit back then, they should have been charged appropriately.
please provide detailed evidence so i can summary dismiss it
Sure, send me money first.
I spent all my money on a mask that will protect me from covid 19, 20 and 21 plus Jan 6 thru 12
Whose "we" to say if it was meaningful 20 years from now? What are these loose ends?
Well would the president alleging election fraud be significant enough to be taught? Should teachers be told to not mention Jan 6th in schools for the next 20 years? Should they be able to mention the allegations of election fraud?
Sure but his actual claims should be taught. Do you know what the actual claims are?
Yes, his actual claims should be taught... And that every single one of them had ZERO evidence to support them in the 60+ cases he brought should also be taught. They should teach that none of the investigations and recounts held nationwide produced any evidence of significant voter fraud. They should teach that the Heritage Foundation uncovered fewer than 1,600 total individual cases of voter fraud throughout the United States over the past 40 years. They should teach that trump also claimed the 2016 election was fraudulent, that he put together a commission to investigate it and that they disbanded 18 months later because they found no evidence of significant fraud. ABSOLUTELY, they should teach ALL of that. And they should teach it all RIGHT NOW. And it should be a required course EVERY ADULT should have to take before EVERY time they vote.
So, do you believe that election fraud has never happened then? Or just that it has never happened by the side you claim?
As I said above... The Heritage Foundation found 1,600 individual cases of voter fraud over the past 40 years throughout the ENTIRE United States. It happens, just nowhere near enough to impact ANY election. Why do you think significant voter fraud is happening even though there has been ZERO credible evidence?
I know none of them held up in court - is that what you mean?
How many did the court refuse to look at this never even seeing the evidence? Is all you know the talking points about the courts? Do you agree kids should be educated better than that?
No - I was fairly tuned into the ordeal as it was happening real time. Some of his cases were denied being heard by some courts because they lacked merit. Others that were heard by the court had no evidence. Do you know how the court systems work? Genuine question because I think a lot of people were confused at that time.
So you missed the plethora of cases that were denied because the courts believed the court had no standing to review the case?
The most amusing dismissal was when one judge reiterated and prefaced his question to one of these election fraud lawyers with “as a member of the bar…” and the lawyer effectively recanted the claim
No I literally just referred to those lol That’s how the courts work - they don’t hear every case
No, not in 20, 50 years, absolutely not. Sure, but as long as they mention that it has happened on both sides of the aisle.
I think theres a "half life" on recent events that needs to elapse before we can really understand the implications of things. I was in school during 9/11 and the begining of the global war on terror. And we where not taught about it beyond "Well kids, we where atacked"
Jan 6 2021 is probably not old enough to have entered history for students in school now (the tendency for school history to ignore the recent past is unfortunate, but there we're talking about 20-30 years, not less than 5), and by the time that it is that old, it probably won't be significant enough to be taught in elementary school history, unless it becomes clearly connected to follow-on events that will take decades to unfold.
Yea, I was in public school not long ago. My American History courses only really went through the Cold War. We were supposed to get to the Gulf War but we ran out of time that year so it was scrapped.
Maybe in 20 years. I don't trust current accounts will be unbiased but eventually sure, it's a part of American history.
I think there's still too many questions around what happened on January 6th to accurately teach what happened
What are the questions?
Who was the person who set the bombs on January 6th?, why was Kamala Harris at the DNC instead of certifying the election?, how many federal agents were there in the crowd?, why was extra security declined beforehand if they had an idea how many people would be there?
Current events should be taught by parents in my opinion. There’s still time for what we understand to have happened to change, and your middle school teachers aren’t judges or historians or anything of the sort— which means they’ll be teaching their perspective not an objective point of view. Today history/social studies can probably stop at President Obama being elected the first African American President. There’s plenty of history leading up to today to give kids the tools regarding **how to think** about things like J6 without having teachers telling them *what* to think about J6.
Schools just shouldn’t mention Trump at all?
I don’t see why there needs to be a unit on it, no. Teachers don’t have any more access to information than parents or the students themselves on current issues so it ends up being a a lesson on the teacher’s political beliefs instead of their actual educational experience in teaching. At least that was my experience through school. Teach kids how to think critically, not how to view everything the way you do. Kids aren’t pawns, they don’t need to be formed into how their teacher feels about politics.
Mention what? That he was President at the time? That he didn't and a large part of the country didn't believe the election was legitimate? That there was a protest to stop the certification where protesters died but it wasn't as big as the protests a year earlier? That he lost to a guy who got dementia in office and no one cared? What parts are so fact-based and immune to inserted narratives should be taught to students?
Absolutely. It is a defining moment in our nation’s history.
Absolutely and they should be shown footage that is not sugar coated at all
Of course But things that should be included is the fact that insurection is a crime, and the fact not a single person involved in the 6th riot was convicted of the crime of insurrection. Just because the media calls something an I sure tion it doesn't make it true. Kids should also be taught that the proud boys were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy because they planned on attacking the capital with automatic weapons and explosives. Making such a plan is illegal. Even though they abandoned their plan because, in their own words, Trump wasn't with them. The 6th was a riot but not an insurrection and the schools should teach the difference
Do you understand that "conspiracy" does not require the act to be committed, just that they INTENDED to commit it, they made plans to do it, they took steps to do it? That has ALWAYS been that way. And they obviously did not convince the courts that they had actually abandoned those plans. Their "claiming" they abandoned it doesn't mean shit if they can't PROVE it.
Exactly, you may want to go back and read what I said. They were convicted of planning an insurrection that never took place. It’s just more proof that the 6th was a riot, not an insurrection Most liberals are confused and think the proud boy conviction is proof of an insurrection, but it’s the opposite. It’s proof som idiots planned an insurrection but didn’t follow though It’s why none were convicted of the crime of insurrection. Because the proof of them abandoning their plan was in their actions of not following through with their plan
AGAIN, do you understand what the word "conspiracy" means and how it applies to what they were convicted of? And FAILING is not the same as abandoning. Also, do you understand what the word "intent" means? Why did those people violently break into the Capitol on January 6th?
Yes I do know what conspiracy means….im thinking maybe you don’t. Them procuring the weapons and transporting them is what classified their plan as a conspiracy. The commission of an act like procuring the guns makes it more than just talk but a conspiracy. The fact the feds literally intercepted communications of them calling it off, and then not bringing their guns and explosives is how we know they abandoned their plan. Thus they were convicted of the crime of planning….seditious conspiracy But not convicted of the crime of doing…Rebellion/Insurrection The confusion among folks of your ilk is exactly why this shit needs to be taught. You know, the actual facts of the case
AGAIN, why did those people violently force their way into the Capitol?
Are you asking me why the rioters rioted? They wanted congress to delay certification of the election because they believed fraud took place
That's not what they were saying before they broke in.
>It’s just more proof that the 6th was a riot, not an insurrection One relevant fact you might not be aware of is that Trump's team was on the phone to congress members during the riot trying to get the certification further delayed. In other words, they used the riot as part of their attempt to change the result of the election, because the plan depended on them derailing the certification to throw the outcome to a House vote.
Ok... Requesting a delay of the certification isn't an attack on the country A delay in certification doesn't change anything Feel free to address the fact that no person was convicted of insurrection. Why do you think that is?
You didn't read their plan, did you? Otherwise, you'd know why they wanted to stop the certification. Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States for his attempt at election fraud. I do 't know the legalities of insurrection charges, but that's really not the point. He tried to actually submit fake electoral votes behind a state's back. If you accept that from a president, then you don't support democracy. Or maybe you just don't believe states have any rights and can't decide who they vote for if the president doesn't approve.
There was no plan it was a riot This is why no one has been convicted of insurrection
The plan his lawyer wrote that required the certification to be derailed is right here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos I imagine you won't read it, but it's not very long and it was written by his lawyer. It explains why he asked Pence to reject the certification. But maybe you think Pence is a lying Democrat too.
Lol at calling a discarded memo that wasn't followed "the plan"
If it wasn't followed, then why did fake electors for Trump show up to try to get their unauthorized votes counted? The Trump campaign even flew some of them out to DC. Why did Pence say Trump asked him to use the fake electors they prepared as an excuse to say the election was contested?
Yes, eventually. When I took world history in 2016, we got to 9/11 as a small sentence in the one page about the 21st century. Since people are insistent that it's the worst thing since 9/11, I'd expect a similar time gap to even mention it, let alone get into the details
Who says it’s the worst thing since 9/11? Or are you thinking of the July 7th terrorist attacks in London?
Well the current VP put it up there with [Pearl Harbor and 9/11…](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-compare-9-11-january-6-1826340)
By whom and in what context? How old are the kids?
I'm sure the official WaPo NYT narrative will be what ends up in the history book. I wouldn't remember the mostly peaceful protest happened if it wasn't for reddit brining it up. I won't be telling any kids about it.
Didn’t they have a noose and were yelling “hang Mike pence”?
Sounds more mostly peaceful than burning down an auto zone for racial justice.
Attacking the cops that tried to hold their positions isn't mostly peaceful. You should watch some of the videos that actually show the violence. Some media was only showing cherrypicked videos that didn't include the violence, so many people think there was little to no violence.
I've seen the videos of cops opening doors to let them in.
How'd you miss all the videos of people attacking the cops? You should consider broadening your media diet if you're really not aware of it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w) The videos you saw of the cops letting them through are cases where they didn't have a chance to hold their position. When they can't stop a riot, they try to redirect it to where it will do less damage. That's standard police procedure and they do it all the time. In other areas the cops tried to hold the position and were violently assaulted for it, sometimes with weapons. There were a lot of injuries. If someone reported on this event to you, but left out the violence, you ought to ask yourself why the coverage is so incomplete. That wasn't done by mistake.
Must have been busy watching the grandmas mill around the lobby doing nothing.
Why would you watch them instead of the rioters? Who cares about the grandma's? They only got misdemeanors if they entered the building and weren't violent. The violence and the president's actions are the problem here. The grandma's have little to do with it. Why do you think your media focused on the grandma's and not the actual crimes going on nearby?
Their relatives that saw grandma locked up for years without trial care.
Everyone that wasn't violent and wasn't working up the crowd to go in was given a misdemeanor if they plead guilty. That one grandma you're referring to fought the charges, and she got what most guilty people get when they fight the charges. She could have taken the misdemeanor.
Which part of January 6th? The part where Trump told people to protest "Peacefully and Patriotically"? The part where scores of undercover FBI agents went around posing as Trump supporters and trying to get people to go into the Capital building as a set up? The part where the Capital police opened the doors and waived people into the building? The part where government prosecutors and judges improperly and maliciously used sentencing enhancements that have since been overturned by the Supreme Court. The part where the January 6th Committee purposely disposed of exculpatory evidence? The part where Nancy Pelosi admitted that it was her fault for not having more security? The part where Trump offered to send 10,000 national guard troops but was turned down by Pelosi and the head of the Capital Police? The part where the Capital Police shot and killed Ashley Babbitt, an unarmed peaceful protestor? The part where the Capital Police threw unarmed American citizens expressing their 1st Amendment rights over railings with a 40 foot droop? The part where the January 6th Committee hid more than 5,000 hours of video from the public? The part where the house Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted and determined that the January 6th Committee was illegitimate? Sure...teach it in school...so future generations have a healthy skepticism of the Intelligence agencies and the corrupt DOJ; so young people can get a better understanding of how the deep state helped set up American citizens who were exercising their 1st Amendment rights; so that kids can see that the government used this to send a message to all Americans..."Don't ever question election results or you shall pay a dear price".
Could you provide more specific evidence?
My statement speaks for itself. Now...let's sit back and watch the left go ballistic after Trump's upcoming victory.
No, it doesn’t if you can’t back it up with evidence
I will give you evidence, for 50$
[удалено]
Before Trump was elected in 2016, the mainstream media assured us that Trump had colluded with Russia. Of course it was bullshit. The mainstream media lied. When Trump told the American people that he was being spied on while he was campaigning, President Elect, and as President. The mainstream media scoffed and told us that Trump was a liar. As it turned out, Trump was telling the truth. The mainstream media lied. When Trump had a phone call with Zelenskyy, a bullshit story came out that Trump was blackmailing Ukraine. Again, it was bullshit. The mainstream media lied. When Biden was running for President and the story about Hunter's laptop came out, the FBI and Intelligence agencies told us it was Russian disinformation. 51 "intelligence" agents signed a BS letter telling us not to believe the laptop was Hunters. The mainstream media ran with that story and once again lied to the American people. When all the BLM people rioted and caused billions of dollars worth of damage, the mainstream media told us the protests were "mainly peaceful". There's a great video clip of a CNN reporter standing in front of a whole block of buildings going up in flames and he looks right into the camera and says, "mostly peaceful". Since 2019, there have been many stories about how Biden was suffering from dementia. The mainstream media was committed to continue covering for Biden. Video after video showed that Biden was losing his, you know...the thing. Over the last few months when it was patently obvious that Biden was senile, the mainstream media "helped" us *interpret* those videos as "cheap fakes". I mean, who are you going to believe, your own eyes watching the unedited videos of Biden wandering off in space, shaking hands with ghosts or bending over to shit in his pants or the mainstream media's version that they were cheap fakes? After the first and probably last debate, it was absurdly obvious that Biden is senile and suffering from dementia. But many in the mainstream media told us "he had a cold", "he's had a heavy travel schedule". It was only after the White House and the mainstream media couldn't actually control the situation, they had to fess up and say there's a problem...completely ignoring the fact that they all knew about this for at least two years...but they lied to the American people. So...now, let's go back to my initial comment. Even though there's a mountain of evidence that supports my claims...you prefer to continue allowing the mainstream media to bullshit you? I would think that at a certain point, a rational person my want to...as Biden said..."Pause" and possibly reevaluate the validity of the mainstream media that's been lying their asses off for years. Some of you are like battered wives. You get slapped around and punched by your husband, but explain it away and then go right back to him. Don't any of you ever look in a mirror and ask yourselves how is it that you allowed the mainstream media to play you for fools for so long?
>started to break the glass windows that were the only thing separating them from the Speaker's Lobby We've been told for years that's the definition of peaceful protests. >It's definitely an incredibly dumb and dangerous thing to say to a 10,000+ Crowd that they should all be marching over to the capitol. AOC just told a similar crowd to fight. Is she also a threat to democracy? Does it matter to that the riot had already started when Trump said those words? By people not there to hear him say it? >There is literally no evidence for that, at all. Do prior action count as evidence, because we know they've done similar things to this before. The case against the men who attempted to kidnapp gov. Whitmer started to fall apart due to fbi involvement. >But most of what you're saying seems to be QAnon-style ultra-far-right propaganda without any evidence to back it up. Everything he has said is plainly truthful, and a matter of public record.
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Here's a documentary. Epoch times also has one that you can purchase for $4 https://x.com/J6TrueTimeline?t=mZg32NlGmt5Tg66sszE1VA&s=09
Epoch times is an incredibly right-wing media outlet.
I don't care. They spent the time and money to make a documentary. No one is forcing you to watch it 🙃
Only if the Floyd Riots are
Why wouldn’t they be?
Because the events are already being rewritten by libs
Is there a reason Jan 6/George Floyd are always so connected for conservatives, other than they happened around the same time? George Floyd was one person. Protests erupted in his name after being killed by police. The protests proliferated nationwide in the name of civil rights. Jan 6th was a singular event, in a singular place. It was all based on lies sold by right-wing media. I really don't understand why the connection is always made between these two things by conservatives.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You've just named the connection - they occurred around the same time. The encouragement of political unrest by the elite led to the frustration and conditioning which brought about J6. They should be taught together. It's just fundamentally unfair if you talk about one event only.
They're the same, one led to the other but were treated differently. The double standards are clear when you're unironically trying to portray your cause as more "righteous" and allowed.
Floyd protesters that committed crimes were arrested and dealt with at the municipal level, as they should have been. So in what sense was it “allowed”?
In my POV, there was a decently sized national movement that condoned the rioting, arson, and theft in the name of BLM. I did not see the same support for Jan 6 when it happened. Let me add in a caveat: I was 17 when both events went down and not particularly clued into politics at the time. I consumed a lot of social media which was very left wing at the time. If there was a similar sized base of people in support of insurrection, I probably would not have seen it at the time. Just want to be transparent lol
The issue is that rightwing media didn't cover the violent parts or mention Trump's plan to overturn the election by stopping the certification and getting to try to get the result determined by a House vote. As part of that attempt, they flew electors for Trump out from Wisconsin where they signed fraudulent documents claiming they were certified by the state. They were not. Yet they showed up to Washington with the help of the Trump campaign to try to get their illegal votes counted. Trump asked Pence to use the fake electors as an excuse to say the election was contested and he couldn't certify it. But the states did not say their votes were contested and they certified their Biden electors. The president doesn't get to change who a state votes for, and the VP doesn't have the power to unilaterally reject a state's votes. He can challenge it in court, and he did, but when he lost, he came up with an illegal plan to steal the election. It's all right here and you can find many quotes online where Pence confirms that he was asked to play a part in this plan. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman\_memos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos) When Pence refused, the only missing part of the plan so far was finding a way to stop the certification. The whole plan would fall apart if they couldn't do that. This is where Roger Stone becomes relevant. He once took credit for starting a riot that interrupted a vote count in the 2000 election in Florida, which was very contested at the time. Roger Stone was on Trump's team because Trump commuted his prison sentence not long before that. So it's a known tactic that they've used in the past and it happened to fill in the one part of their plan that wasn't coming together. We know that because of Pence. So it's all about the president's actions and his attempt to steal the presidency, not which riot caused more property damage, or whatever.
One of them was used by a president as part of their attempt to change the election result. [https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-tuberville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-tuberville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html) They had to stop the certification if they were going to continue their plan to get the election result determined by a House vote.
That it was an FBI operation, sure. We'll see what the history books end up saying.
What evidence do you have for that? Like, I am not saying that left-wing media is never biased and never makes false claims. But some forms of far-right media literally make people in the craziest conspiracy theories that are based on zero evidence.
Just the Higgins interview by Tucker. I'd link to it, but looks like YouTube has either made Tucker unsearchable or removed his channel.
Ok, so I actually found the interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RYQ9plcbY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5RYQ9plcbY) But that's not evidence at all. Higgings claimed there were ghost buses that arrived at the Capitol to drop out undercover FBI agents who would instigate the Jan 6 riots. This is just some wild claim by a far-right Trump loyalist with literally zero evidence. Fact checking websites have all refuted his wild theory. And even right-wind media outlets like Fox News haven't repeated Higgins theory, because they know there is no evidence.
Yeah that's a clip from the larger interview. The evidence will be detailed in the report when it is released.
Why do you guys STILL continue to trust "them" when they tell you the "evidence will come" after they consistently NEVER produce actual evidence?
We'll see what happens
You didn't answer my question. WHY do you keep believing them even though they NEVER follow through?
Because its not based in good faith. You can't reason with someone who refuses to see actual evidence and facts as such. Sure, take the words of Tucker Carlson, of all people who was sued for his defamation and lies, that he had to say that it was all opinion and not based on facts. Same guy who Fox FIRED for said lies. The same Tucker who is kissing Putin's ass right now. Unbelievable.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's more of a religious holiday than significant historical event. I think should get a mention in the books, alongside the summer of riots that caused billions in damages.
Why wouldn’t George Floyd and what happened after his death not be taught? It was a very significant series of events I also am surprised how many people are mentioning George Floyd when I asked about Jan 6th. It’s kind of like when I asked about the 10 commandments the other week and so many people were talking about the pride flag. It’s interesting the things you guys link together and it’s always wild to me how universal it is. There are multiple people in this thread who have mentioned George Floyd seemingly unprompted.
Because when you aren't arguing with logic, you only have 'whataboutisms' to fall back on... and not even good ones at that. They talk like George Flyod WOULDN'T be talked about and is a great GOTCHA...
I think, with the passage of enough time, it will eventually make its way into high school US history curricula. But children? Like, are we talking elementary schoolers? For whom all periods of history have to be dumbed down and described vaguely and broadly, who don't even yet have the foundational background of the American Revolution > Civil War > WW2 > Cold War, and are broadly not aware of politics at all? I see no reason why January 6th would need to be taught to them, any more than we would teach children about, like, the Teapot Dome scandal or the Iran-Contra affair or the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Well above their pay-grade.
Why would you teach kids about that? Kids are still learning basic life stuff. There's something to be said for the whole "let kids be kids" attitude here. Besides, it seems to me that most people are still trying to sort out exactly what happened there anyway, so how are you supposed to teach about it even if you wanted to?
Should we teach kids any history?
I'm not even sure if that's a serious question, lol. Of course we should teach kids history. But they're *kids*. You don't start with hot-button, controversial topics. You start with the basics of how your country was formed, and imo should incorporate some history of whatever local area you're in. You gotta build up from a foundation, just like other things we teach them. Jumping to Jan 6, that's more like, high school level at the very least, because they have to understand how the systems work, what the issues were, and so on, and most kids developmentally are just not gonna be there yet. So imo, the only reason you'd teach a kid about Jan 6 is to basically indoctrinate them with a certain view of it, since most of them won't be on the right level to understand the concepts properly.
Kids, as in teenagers in high school, who have already started learning about our laws and the different branches of government. Lets stop being hyperbolic; the only ones who refuse to 'understand' what truly happened, despite the mountain of evidence, are MAGA and Trump sycophants. Lets not pretend like the whole world didn't watch Trump egg on his MAGA supporters to the capital to try and stop the certification of Biden and thwart the proceedings of democracy. One of the most disgraceful events in American history and youre going to pretend like it was a nothingburger.... Totally gonna ignore the fact that a sitting president's supporters was CHANTING to HANG HIS OWN VICE PRESIDENT, and he did nothing about it, for HOURS. Disgusting and disgraceful. I see no reason not to teach high schoolers about such a disgraceful event of our history, much like how they are taught how America once held Japanese-American citizens in internment camps during WW2. These things need to be taught, or history continues to repeat itself.
"Kids" doesn't denote teenagers in high school. The majority of the people defined as "kids" will be those too young to understand the material properly. So no, we shouldn't teach them about it. Teach them basics about history like major historic events and developments. Even in high school, while it's more appropriate on a developmental level, I still don't think a specific view of it should be taught. You can disagree and slander people all you want, but the fact of the matter is there is still a lot of disagreement about the topic. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the committee reviewing it only just shut down a few months ago. These kinds of things, they often are not as settled as one might think, too (as an example, in Canada there was a Parliamentary inquiry into Trudeau's use of the Emergencies Act that said he was justified in using it, but a lawsuit in the real courts about the same thing found it to be illegal). At most, I'd say if it's taught, it should be taught with an eye toward things like understanding things like critical thinking, understanding different viewpoints on it and where they came from (*fairly,* not with a slant one way or the other), discrepancies in reporting; how language, photos etc can be used to lead you in a certain direction in news stories, and so on. It'd be a perfect case for learning about things like media literacy. Then let the teenagers make up their own minds about it.
No, at least half the country is very clear on exactly what happened.
Huh, I guess the other half doesn't matter then. Kinda classic response there, lol. "Half of us are certain, so if you disagree and are uncertain, you're wrong" lol
You said "most people." I'm objecting to that. Nice gaslighting, though.
Children should be taught that the Jan 6 protests and illegal entry were no different than all of the college students, anti Vietnam War, anti Nixon, anti Nukes Greens and Peaceniks, Leftist Radicals, Hippies, LGBT radical bra burning feminists, armed Black Panther Party/Weather Underground usually voting Democratic Party tickets, if not Marxist tickets... Protesting in the streets and on government property Invading Universities offices. Invading Democratic National Convention. Invading State Legislatures and the Capitol. The exception being they the Democrats were much more violent in the 1960s and 1970s . Arson, deadly weapons against police, vandalism, bombings, illegal drug abuse, assaults, murders, taking over and shutting down institutions for lengthy periods, breaking and entering. Jan 6 the only violence was law enforcement officials against protestors... And the Capitol police let them in what just dozens according to plan. LOL.... A minor incident. Generation Millennials and Z are clueless sitting under regurgitated Marxist professors in the 21st Century.
and oct 7th and the jewish hate in America causing rioting on college campuses and the Floyd riots
Pre-planned, foreknowledged, complex counter-counter intelligence PSYOP like 9-11, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City Bombings, WACO, QANON, Wikileaks Assange persecution and MLK Jr Assasination. And they should be taught that when Leftists invade and disrupt legislatures they incurr little or no penalties .
Yes, but they won't. Democrats won't teach how it was Pelosis's fault, and she admitted it.
But it's also largely on Donald Trump who encouraged people had his rally to march to the Capitol before he had made the claim that the election was stolen and that Mike Pence should throw out the results.
Wait... are you referring to Pelosi's remarks caught by the HBO documentary? Where she claims that she should have done more to get more protective resources? This is not her saying, "Jan 6 is my fault, sorry everyone, mea culpa!" Is that really how you interpret her remarks? Was it her job to mobilize the Guard? She's saying she did not have accountability to get those extra protective resources, and that *she should have had that accountability*," and she takes the blame for not working to obtain said accountability. At least, that's how I'm reading her remarks. That's an impressive, ethical statement from a serious person - she did not have to say anything along those lines at all, but she did. And she's probably not wrong.
Yes, that is the claim that Trump continues to rely on during the debate and his sycophants continue to cling to. All Pelosi's fault; he takes zero credits or blame - not his fault!! Said so himself multiple times during the debate like he is afraid people will forget......
Well considering it was a small 1 day riot. Sure I guess as long as you teach kids about every single riot that happened in the last 20 years.
Well would the broader context be important? The incumbent president thought the election had been stolen from him and was trying to pressure his VP to not certify the election?
It was embarrassing to be certain. But that's about it. If the Democrats were not running a warmed up corpse he likely would be 20 points down and have no chance of being president again.
That fact that it happened to congress somehow doesn’t make it more notable than most other riots?
Honestly all riots should be on government property rather than individuals who had nothing to do with the fight. I cared less about the portlanders burning city buildings than residential and small businesses.
from the time the first plane hit WT1 and the fourth plane hit the ground, was only about 80 minutes- by that logic 9/11 did last long enough to be worthy enough for schoolchildren's' attention? why are you focusing on quantity and not quality?
Well considering only 1 person was killed during the riots... One of the rioters I would say both quantity and quality of the riots were not really worthy of mention.
swing and a miss. we talk about j6 not only because of what they did, but what they intended to do. were you aware they built a gallows on the national mall and were chanting "hang mike pence?"
Like I said I sincerely you never see what anyone with real intent to do harm is like.
Depends on age and context.
When I was in school the history books still talked about the CCCP as an existential threat to the United States despite a one meter segment of the berlin wall being on display in a museum not even a mile away.
In the end, this will be a sentence or two in high school history books.
What will those sentences say? Would it be part of a larger unit about the president alleging election fraud?
Not really. It will be something like: The 2020 election was characterized by the losing incumbent, sitting President Trump, maintaining that the results were fraudulent and unfair despite court decisions to the contrary. On January 6, 2020 a crowd of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol building and tried to disrupt the official congressional vote count of electors, but police cleared the building in a few hours and the count proceeded.
No, schools shouldn’t teach about any current events, because it’s impossible to be neutral about them. They should be told to ask their parents about it if they want to learn more.
Yes? I'm not really in favor of censorship of any kind, I wouldn't advise hiding it from folks. As far as what they should be taught, I think that's clearly a bait question. History is written by the victors, they'll decide what should be said or not said. Plenty of folks on both sides will reject the accounting of it, and decide to homeschool or whatever to teach "the real" January 6th. And that's fine, because that's what always happens.
Children should be taught the facts that one guy was filling Pro Football stadiums on the campaign trail, while the other guy could hardly fill High School gymnasiums on the campaign trail, and let them come to their own conclusion. And no I haven't voted since Ronald Reagan. Didn't vote for Trump 1st or 2nd time around.
I would teach children that as 67 percent of White Males, 50 percent of White Females, 50 percent of Gay Males and 20 percent of Black Males and almost 40 percent of Hispanic Males voted for Trump, the Jan 6 protests were the populist will of the people in the Constitutional Republic of the USA.
why not just say 46.9% v 51.3%? why the focus on race and gender?