Because we live in a democracy with a robust tradition of the public having direct access to their representatives. The capitol is, in general, open to the public. I've visited it many times and dropped in on my representative in their offices.
They might've taken over the physical space, but that doesn't mean they threatened the lives of the congress people, who were presumably evacuated to somewhere safe.
In other words, "security" here is not defined as "keeping people out" but "keeping people safe" and "containing" situations. If you think keeping people out is essential to security, then it's because you don't understand security.
I'm a security specialist. I have long experience with outsiders who think security means shutting everything down and preventing risk. Instead, security means keeping things running and living with risk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The "First Amendment" only deals with government restriction of free speech. You may not like a private company censoring your speech, but it's not a "First Amendment" issue. Indeed, the First Amendment means government can't stop private censorship.
Moreover, "Orwellian" is less about a totalitarian state and more about how politicians make lies that sound truth -- such as a senator claiming to be a constitutional lawyer making one of the most common and basic mistakes about the First Amendment.
This "voter integrity" issue is more doublethink, by the way, and EXACTLY what Orwell was talking about. It was about searching desperately for any excuse that could plausibly be exploited to turn the election in Trump's favor.
But shouldn't private organizations have the right to editorial discretion over what they want to publish? Well, yes. But the argument here is they shouldn't have editorial discretion, that they should remove content they don't want to remove.
1/ Because I'm a happy fun guy, I'm going to convince you of the opposite, that there was plenty of evidence to support their objection. This is going to annoy and surprise you. Mostly just annoy.
2/ The objections didn't claim "fraud" (generally). Instead, they were about Article II Section 1 of the Constitution that said LEGISLATURES decide the rules for elections. They cite examples where the legislature's rules weren't followed.
3/ A good example is this statement from Jim Jordan. Notice how he doesn't mention "fraud", and thus evidence of fraud isn't needed. He instead claims other people changed the legislature's rules, and hence, the elections were invalid (in those states).
Conspiracy theorists often sound rational, such as this video. He makes a good point that people simply dismiss their evidence ("you shouldn't say that") without taking the time to determine the truth.
The issue is that it's not us rational people who won't take the time to determine the truth, but the conspiracy theorists. They keep dredging up things they don't understand and demand that rational people explain them.
Such is the case in the report cited in the video. The person in video hasn't spent the time to determine the truth about that document. He doesn't understand what it contains. Yet, he demands we explain it to him. courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
1/ Tonight, we are going to discuss an accusation that vote tabulators in Michigan were connected to the Internet, made by a local radio show guy named Randy Bishop. His first hand testimony is here:
2/ The short answer is that no, he didn't see any Internet connection. He saw normal, expected operation of the machines. This is just an example how everything you can't explain is explained by the conspiracy.
3/ What he saw was Ethernet cables connected to a "router", connected to another "router", and then a cable going through a wall.
I have lost my iPhone. I'm certain it's here at home somewhere, but it's run away and hid itself. It's been two days and I'm going crazy.
Twitter is good for the soul. Get it off your chest. Inspires a whole new search from the start, from the place I normally put the phone. Hmm, there's a box there that doesn't belong, I should put that away .... oh looks what's underneath it.
Consistently, the best way to solve any problem is to explain it to somebody else. No, their comments won't help -- but it forces you to re-think through your problem.