Gore's situation was a mile different to Trump's as I am quite sure you are aware.

Gore initially conceded then withdrew it when the problems with the machines emerged. No-one disputes that there was a problem and that it took a long time to sort out. When it looked as though it would last even longer he conceded in the sake of national unity, saying “partisan rancor must now be put aside.”

As Trump's rhetoric was responsible for almost all that happened thinking it "fine" is disgraceful. It wasn't.

Yes the USA is polarised and will go on being so. The Democrats have not caused that. They are suffering from it just as badly as anyone else.

Trump didn't cause it either but he increased it and did nothing at all to try to bridge it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The arrests of whom and when? Are you in the know?

The fact you’re even having to ask that question says enough

And in this instance it wasn’t a mistake.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

I mean, after the first / start of rioting I agree, but this is an inauguration. There literally cannot be any room for error - disruption of the process would be even more disastrous than the nonsense the other week. On many levels - domestically, politically, socially, internationally...

So I get why there’s a strong show of force vs a riot. But I agree, more could have been done - but as I’ve said before it may simply have been tactical in some cases. Fence in to a small area and leave them to it rather than charge, escalate and risk lines breaking and a wider area of the city being threatened.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

It wasnt me either, but leftys do have selective memories!

You’re right, but they’re still not THE army

Which was exactly my point about levels of escalation, and as Stirling has shared the army have not been deployed domestically in the state since the Vietnam war.

The command structure as you say does allow for it but my point was the probability, especially after clear unambiguous statements have been issued as to the army getting involved in any of this, is so low it’s not even worth mentioning.

If we thought everything regardless of probability was a strong possibility we’d never move. Makes more sense to focus on what’s likely to happen than extremely unlikely

And finally - as someone else has already pointed out, the potential for multi state violence is high - I don’t see the strategic value in drawing personnel away from other parts of the state or even other states as you then leave those places more vulnerable.

As has been reported there do appear to have been multiple threats of armed violence, or worse. Having seen the numbers involved the other week it makes total sense to deploy armed guard rather than the police. Police against a threat like that would be far more exposed... if it did get into an armed standoff I’d rather people that were properly trained for it were engaging than a load of donut eating trigger happies. If anything they’d end up starting it. I don’t see it as a lack of faith, I see it as logic. Putting police out there would be an odd move IF the threats that have been reported are credible.

Also, if you’d just witnessed a mob storming the capitol don’t you think you’d be within your rights to go all out to make sure it doesn’t happen again?

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.