Pentagon deploys hundreds of active-duty troops for inauguration security

You mean, like they are when they join the Military?
Pretty huge insult to our troops, I thought, when the Democrats pretended they were afraid of them and that they needed to be "vetted" because of the vast right-wing conspiracy (as Ms. Clinton put it years ago).

SPC Stiv ChenRobbins Soldiers have known to be radicalized while in service. The vetting is necessary. Just as if/when you get selected/assigned to a position. At the pentagon or with the whitehouse (WACA). So not an insult but a necessary process given the situation.

Agree to disagree, I reckon. It looks like a pretty blatant political posturing move rather than anything necessitated by truth or need. They found two or three whole people who had any "ties" to the groups they pretend to be concerned about, as in they followed someone on the disapproved list or dared to speak indelicately about an opinion. Meanwhile, the FBI said there had never been any actual plans for disruptions or reason for the massve troop buildup.

But thank God they vetted them. It certainly helped keep the hysteria alive.

We are at 26,000 National Guard and I have no idea how many regular Military are there. A factor of 5+ increase in National Guard. The expected (authorized) crowd is to be limited to 1,000 and not the YUGE (300-500 thousand by estimate) crowds that were there 4 years ago (or the 1+ million that were there 12 years ago). We went from 1 military for every 60 spectators to 26 military for each spectator. You tell me the optics of the situation. I would assume the local law enforcement to be about the same, +/- 5%.

Article I of the United States Constitution immediately concerns itself with the establishment of the legislative branch and the creation of the House and Senate. In Section 8 of Article I, the powers of Congress receive some fleshing out (like the laying and collection of taxes, war declaration powers, post office creation, etc.). Clause 17 of that section also gives Congress the ability to create a federal district for the nation’s capital with the phrase “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become ***the Seat of Government of the United States.***” [emphasis mine]

The 10 miles square of DC is "The Capitol". There is a Capitol Building, a Senate, A Supreme Court, dozens of admin buildings, the surrounding businesses *ALL* on Capitol grounds. (Did I use enough capital letters?)

Are you familiar with the J20 group? In an interview:
Regarding intent, Carrefour stated to Nelson,
We are planning to shut down the inauguration, that's the short of it ... We're pretty literal about that, we are trying to create citywide paralysis on a level that I don't think has been seen in D.C. before. We're trying to shut down pretty much every ingress into the city as well as every checkpoint around the actual inauguration parade route

This was IN our National Capitol. With the STATED intent to "shut down the inauguration". But, knowing you, you will now claim that the riot last week had the intent to kill Senators and disrupt (as in shut down) the final Electoral College confirmation. You have it in your bones that conservatives - and conservatives only - aim to take over the government through illegal means.

https://disrn.com/news/federal-prosecutors-withdraw-allegation-that-capitol-rioters-wanted-to-capture-and-assassinate-lawmakers

SSgt (Join to see) - You are pretty flippant for a person supporting traitors and insurrectionists. They didn't erect a gallows outside the Capitol to sign papers. They didn't take flex-cuffs to hold open doors.

Frankly, the "insurrection" was less violent than most soccer riots, had less destruction than 20 minutes of the recent nonsense in Minneapolis and was mostly people who wanted (as President Trump said in his speech that was going on as the main bad actors started breaking in/ being let in by the police) to peacefully and patriotically show that they wanted the election to be properly vetted and not pushed through without looking into what millions of people believe are credible allegations of (to put it mildly) irregularities in the election.

What we saw in DC a few weeks ago was a riot by a mob. Not an insurrection. The only difference was instead of small businesses and local authorities being the focus of anger, it was the politicians who supported the looting and burning from the BLM trash. The way I see it, either the chickens came home to roost or the shoe was on the other foot. In principle, our representatives should remember that they work for us, they are not our rulers, they are not our governors, they derive their power from the little bit of power each and every member of their constituency lends them. Lends them. That means it can be taken back. If anyone thinks this anger was unamerican, they should go back and read the writings of our founding fathers.