Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[Gibsonian]

Legally, he probably does not bear responsibility for the riot, he has always been a master of plausible deniability ("I said peacefully and patriotically!"). He is also a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling one side what he wants them to here, while also throwing in other conflicting statements to create said deniability. The "very fine people on both sides" comment, which you also describe as a hoax, is a good example, as is, "Stand back and stand by."

But morally, he absolutely bears responsibility. The only reason his followers suspected shenanigans is because he told them he was cheated, over and over and over. To my earlier point about agreement on what is true, there is absolutely no evidence that anything untoward went down. If there had been evidence, it would have been presented. The best he could come up with was procedural stuff (changes in voting process without state legislative approval), which went down in both red states and blue states because of COVID. These challenges were generally thrown out because they were not raised in a timely manner (objections were made after results tallied, even though procedures were put into place months prior) and the remedies requested were extreme and unconstitutional (throwing out the votes from entire precincts, generally from large, urban areas).

So, he lied about the election being rigged, he invited people to DC for a "wild" rally, he told them to march down the capitol to protest, and he primed them by telling them "if you don't fight like Hell, you're not going to have a country anymore"...while out of the other side of his mouth saying "peacefully and patriotically" somewhere along the way for plausible deniability.

Then, when they started rioting, he stoked the situation by refusing to condemn it immediately. Even after he knew windows were being kicked in, explosions were reported on the Capitol steps, and Capitol Police were being assaulted, he sent his "Mike Pence didn't have the courage" tweet that escalated matters. He sent another 15 minutes later that included "stay peaceful!" and another 35 minutes after that with "...remain peaceful. No violence!". Again, he is good at the plausible deniability thing. When he finally released a video message over and hour later, he repeated the lies about the election being stolen and the other side being "so bad and so evil" while asking his supporters to go home in peace (again, talking out of both sides of his mouth). While he was recording this, some of the most intense skirmishes were still taking place at the Capitol.

None of the information above is in dispute, these are matters of fact (my interpretation of Trump talking out of both sides of his mouth is, of course, my opinion). At no point on this day did Trump live up to the moral expectations of his office, whether he is legally liable or not.

I am sure you will respond with, "But Ray Epps!" While there is no hard evidence for this conspiracy theory, even if we assumed it was true, it would not exculpt Trump in any way from his actions. So please, if you reply, focus on why you believe Trump's actions on that day were appropriate for the office of the President, not anything related to a conspiracy theory that FBI agents instigated the riot.

Who invited them: DJT
Who lied to them about a stolen election: DJT
Why were they there: To support DJT re-election efforts after he lost
Who weren't they thereto support: Joe Biden or anyone else
Who did they wanna hang: The VP who wouldn't cave to DJT
Who is the only person who could stop them without force: DJT
Who said this on Jan 4: “If the liberal Democrats take the Senate and the White House — and they’re not taking this White House — we’re going to fight like hell, I’ll tell you right now,” Why it was DJT
Who watched on the tele for 3 hrs ignoring pleas to make them stop: DJT
Who hasn't stopped lying about a stolen election for 4 years: DJT
Who's prepping the country for claims of another in just a few days: DJT

 

[PCHawk]

There is no clamoring, and I am not wishing for the 60s. Through the 1980s, we had reasonable confidence in the broadcast news as an independent arbirter of what is true:

View attachment 11127

Republicans have been waging a war on the media since the McCarthy days, with escalations by Nixon/Agnew, and most recently Trump. They had a point in that the free press was envisioned as a check against unrestrained government power, and so it has always had a liberal bent.

The combined effect of Reagan's suspension of the Fairness Doctrine and the emergence of cable news meant that people could do exactly what you are describing, find the news that best conforms to what they already believe (the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast news, and as such, it would have been meaningless in today's media landscape). The internet and the rapid ability to disseminate mis- and disinformation via social Mmdia have greatly accelerated the problem within the last 2 decades.

Emergence of new communication technologies (e.g. printing press, radio, television) have always led to social disruption, so this is not new or unexpected. But the rapid emergence of cable news -> internet -> social media (all within 3 decades) has been a lot. As a civilization, we have figured out previous new technologies, I think we will also find a way to sort through all of the intentional distortions and again find agreement on truth. We will still differ in opinion, we will still argue over areas where the truth is disputable, and there will always be a fringe that simply wants to believe in conspiracies. But that conspiratorial thinking will return to the fringes (it is now mainstream), and most of civilization will again know and appreciate the relevant facts informing a topic. I don't know how we will get there, but collectively we will figure it out.

Community notes on Twitter is by far the best solution so far. I saw one the other day of someone getting stabbed and killed and the community note said the person lived. Pretty trivial detail in relation to misinformation but it still got noted. I've also even seen the White House get community noted so there's nothing to big to correct. The biggest issue is lots of people can see the lie before it gets community noted. But like I said, it's the best solution so far.

 

[CP87]

Community notes on Twitter is by far the best solution so far. I saw one the other day of someone getting stabbed and killed and the community note said the person lived. Pretty trivial detail in relation to misinformation but it still got noted. I've also even seen the White House get community noted so there's nothing to big to correct. The biggest issue is lots of people can see the lie before it gets community noted. But like I said, it's the best solution so far.

I think it is a good start. I think actual platform moderators/fact-checkers also play a role, but there are many who don't trust any decisions the platforms make.

 

[PCHawk]

Legally, he probably does not bear responsibility for the riot, he has always been a master of plausible deniability ("I said peacefully and patriotically!"). He is also a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling one side what he wants them to here, while also throwing in other conflicting statements to create said deniability. The "very fine people on both sides" comment, which you also describe as a hoax, is a good example, as is, "Stand back and stand by."

But morally, he absolutely bears responsibility. The only reason his followers suspected shenanigans is because he told them he was cheated, over and over and over. To my earlier point about agreement on what is true, there is absolutely no evidence that anything untoward went down. If there had been evidence, it would have been presented. The best he could come up with was procedural stuff (changes in voting process without state legislative approval), which went down in both red states and blue states because of COVID. These challenges were generally thrown out because they were not raised in a timely manner (objections were made after results tallied, even though procedures were put into place months prior) and the remedies requested were extreme and unconstitutional (throwing out the votes from entire precincts, generally from large, urban areas).

So, he lied about the election being rigged, he invited people to DC for a "wild" rally, he told them to march down the capitol to protest, and he primed them by telling them "if you don't fight like Hell, you're not going to have a country anymore"...while out of the other side of his mouth saying "peacefully and patriotically" somewhere along the way for plausible deniability.

Then, when they started rioting, he stoked the situation by refusing to condemn it immediately. Even after he knew windows were being kicked in, explosions were reported on the Capitol steps, and Capitol Police were being assaulted, he sent his "Mike Pence didn't have the courage" tweet that escalated matters. He sent another 15 minutes later that included "stay peaceful!" and another 35 minutes after that with "...remain peaceful. No violence!". Again, he is good at the plausible deniability thing. When he finally released a video message over and hour later, he repeated the lies about the election being stolen and the other side being "so bad and so evil" while asking his supporters to go home in peace (again, talking out of both sides of his mouth). While he was recording this, some of the most intense skirmishes were still taking place at the Capitol.

None of the information above is in dispute, these are matters of fact (my interpretation of Trump talking out of both sides of his mouth is, of course, my opinion). At no point on this day did Trump live up to the moral expectations of his office, whether he is legally liable or not.

I am sure you will respond with, "But Ray Epps!" While there is no hard evidence for this conspiracy theory, even if we assumed it was true, it would not exculpt Trump in any way from his actions. So please, if you reply, focus on why you believe Trump's actions on that day were appropriate for the office of the President, not anything related to a conspiracy theory that FBI agents instigated the riot.

My point was that no one needed to hear the election was rigged. I "knew" something really shady was happening when they stopped counting votes in swing states but nowhere else. I put knew in quotes because I not trying to say I'm 100% correct. But whether or not I'm correct is also beside the point (as in the point I'm making right now). I "knew" something bad happened well before Trump said anything. His opinion didn't change my opinion one but.

The contrast between how they handled the Florida coverage in 2000 and this last election was night and day too. With this election, even tho the states in question were equally as close as Florida was, everything was "there's nothing to see here and you're an election denier if you question it" from the very beginning. It gave the impression of trying to sweep in under the rug. In 2000, everyone had the impression that it was getting sorted out. In fact, people were more like "how can this possibly take so long". So when you compare how long it took with Florida with how quickly they "knew" the count was correct here doesn't make sense at all. None of this is guaranteed proof there was election fraud, and again, that's not my point if this post. My point is people knew what they knew. They didn't need Trump to tell them anything.

And when people say "there was no proof" its insulting to the people who watched the proof play out on election night. Who watched the videos of the fraud playing out in the weeks and months after (admittedly a lit of these videos could be fake or have an explanation) . And who watched videos in the years after of hearings showing the corruption in swing states. It's still being discussed and proof is still being found. Mainstream media just ignores those storied.

But put all of that aside because people can always say all of that is a conspiracy theory and then you just talk back and forth without getting anywhere. The Hunter Biden laptop story was 100% without a doubt election interference. That story was coordinated suppression by the government to say its Russian disinformation until after the election. There are also polls conducted that show it would have changed a lot of people's vote. So when Trump said they cheated, he is 100% correct based on that story alone.

 

[PCHawk]

I think it is a good start. I think actual platform moderators/fact-checkers also play a role, but there are many who don't trust any decisions the platforms make.

There's no doubt that fake corrections could be made. But I see both sides get noted frequently so it least it's fair. Which at this point is the best we can hope for.

 

[PCHawk]

Legally, he probably does not bear responsibility for the riot, he has always been a master of plausible deniability ("I said peacefully and patriotically!"). He is also a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling one side what he wants them to here, while also throwing in other conflicting statements to create said deniability. The "very fine people on both sides" comment, which you also describe as a hoax, is a good example, as is, "Stand back and stand by."

But morally, he absolutely bears responsibility. The only reason his followers suspected shenanigans is because he told them he was cheated, over and over and over. To my earlier point about agreement on what is true, there is absolutely no evidence that anything untoward went down. If there had been evidence, it would have been presented. The best he could come up with was procedural stuff (changes in voting process without state legislative approval), which went down in both red states and blue states because of COVID. These challenges were generally thrown out because they were not raised in a timely manner (objections were made after results tallied, even though procedures were put into place months prior) and the remedies requested were extreme and unconstitutional (throwing out the votes from entire precincts, generally from large, urban areas).

So, he lied about the election being rigged, he invited people to DC for a "wild" rally, he told them to march down the capitol to protest, and he primed them by telling them "if you don't fight like Hell, you're not going to have a country anymore"...while out of the other side of his mouth saying "peacefully and patriotically" somewhere along the way for plausible deniability.

Then, when they started rioting, he stoked the situation by refusing to condemn it immediately. Even after he knew windows were being kicked in, explosions were reported on the Capitol steps, and Capitol Police were being assaulted, he sent his "Mike Pence didn't have the courage" tweet that escalated matters. He sent another 15 minutes later that included "stay peaceful!" and another 35 minutes after that with "...remain peaceful. No violence!". Again, he is good at the plausible deniability thing. When he finally released a video message over and hour later, he repeated the lies about the election being stolen and the other side being "so bad and so evil" while asking his supporters to go home in peace (again, talking out of both sides of his mouth). While he was recording this, some of the most intense skirmishes were still taking place at the Capitol.

None of the information above is in dispute, these are matters of fact (my interpretation of Trump talking out of both sides of his mouth is, of course, my opinion). At no point on this day did Trump live up to the moral expectations of his office, whether he is legally liable or not.

I am sure you will respond with, "But Ray Epps!" While there is no hard evidence for this conspiracy theory, even if we assumed it was true, it would not exculpt Trump in any way from his actions. So please, if you reply, focus on why you believe Trump's actions on that day were appropriate for the office of the President, not anything related to a conspiracy theory that FBI agents instigated the riot.

To be continued on the rest of thos post. I've got a busy day but can't let you off the hook with the Ray Epps comment.

 

[Hay Man]

But put all of that aside because people can always say all of that is a conspiracy theory and then you just talk back and forth without getting anywhere. The Hunter Biden laptop story was 100% without a doubt election interference. That story was coordinated suppression by the government to say its Russian disinformation until after the election. There are also polls conducted that show it would have changed a lot of people's vote. So when Trump said they cheated, he is 100% correct based on that story alone.

100%???? Where are these 100% facts you keep talking about? Were the "what about Hilary's emails?" a couple weeks shy of the election not election interference? I'm sure there were polls that show that changed people's minds. Was she ever convicted? She was more of a man than Trump...she showed up in front of congress, but yet nothing happened.

Trump lost.

If not for the outdated Electoral College it would have been an absolute no contest and the whole election bitching would have never happened. I take that back, Trump could lose by 100 million votes and he would still claim it was rigged. This idea that 4 to 6 states every four years being the determining factor in who wins or loses is beyond time for change. Let the entire population vote, each vote counts and let the best man or woman win.

Are there other countries that vote the way the U.S. does in a so-called democracy??? Honest question.

 

[thedukeofearl]

Trump just suggested that Liz Cheney should have guns trained on her face

“Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

Yeah, let's put him in a situation with his finger on the Nuclear Trigger

 

[CP87]

To be continued on the rest of thos post. I've got a busy day but can't let you off the hook with the Ray Epps comment.

We might as well save ourselves some time on that one. Let's each go outside and get in a walk in the nice fall weather, instead? I do not see any minds getting changed.

That said, I wasn't anticipating changing any minds with my earlier posts, either, sometimes it is just fun to preach to the choir, and I like to use writing to get my own thoughts organized (and I was looking to procrastinate a bit this morning). So, have at it if you operate similarly!

And above all, Go Hawks!

 

[thedukeofearl]

Trump just suggested that Liz Cheney should have guns trained on her face

“Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

Yeah, let's put him in a situation with his finger on the Nuclear Trigger

The thing is:

This is fodder for the patriots who participated in the January Sixth Riots

The Arizona Attorney General is investigating weather or not this is a Death Threat

This statement is akin to throwing raw meat to hyenas

 

[CP87]

And when people say "there was no proof" its insulting to the people who watched the proof play out on election night. Who watched the videos of the fraud playing out in the weeks and months after (admittedly a lit of these videos could be fake or have an explanation) . And who watched videos in the years after of hearings showing the corruption in swing states. It's still being discussed and proof is still being found. Mainstream media just ignores those storied.

I will agree with you that suppressing the Hunter laptop story for approximately 24 hours was a bad move.

But regarding the election, no proof was ever proffered in a court of law, and that is very telling. I don't care what crazy evidence you have seen on the internet, if no Trump lawyer was willing to present that evidence in a court of law (and they weren't), then it is bunk.

https://www.reuters.com/article/wor...s-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-p-idUSKBN2AF1FQ/

Regarding what you think you "watched play out", I will reference the popular dictum: everything is a conspiracy theory when you don't understand how things work. No aspect of the vote-counting was surprising to anyone who understood the varied rules governing these processes in the different states. The heavily edited video clip of the Georgia poll workers that was shared hundreds of millions of times, and that led Rudy Giuliani to falsely accuse them of election interference, has bankrupt the former NY mayor (he lost a $148 million libel suit). Fox, OAN, Newsmax, and a boatload of Trump surrogates either have been, or are going to be, clobbered in court by Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic based upon lies that were spread about electronic voting. Because courts of law are where things are decided as true, not the recesses of the internet.

There I go again, wasting both of our time (I promise, last one).

 

[PCHawk]

We might as well save ourselves some time on that one. Let's each go outside and get in a walk in the nice fall weather, instead? I do not see any minds getting changed.

That said, I wasn't anticipating changing any minds with my earlier posts, either, sometimes it is just fun to preach to the choir, and I like to use writing to get my own thoughts organized (and I was looking to procrastinate a bit this morning). So, have at it if you operate similarly!

And above all, Go Hawks!

I guess I'll just keep that one short and sweet then. Ray Epps was on video rallying people to go inside the capitol. They went after anyoklne who had anything to do with that day really hard. But for some reason he wasn't just let off the hook, he was also the one Jan 6ther the left praised. Either you don't know everything about him or you have heard a perfectly good explanation for him. Hopefully it's the latter so you can fill me in.

 

[PCHawk]

100%???? Where are these 100% facts you keep talking about? Were the "what about Hilary's emails?" a couple weeks shy of the election not election interference? I'm sure there were polls that show that changed people's minds. Was she ever convicted? She was more of a man than Trump...she showed up in front of congress, but yet nothing happened.

Trump lost.

If not for the outdated Electoral College it would have been an absolute no contest and the whole election bitching would have never happened. I take that back, Trump could lose by 100 million votes and he would still claim it was rigged. This idea that 4 to 6 states every four years being the determining factor in who wins or loses is beyond time for change. Let the entire population vote, each vote counts and let the best man or woman win.

Are there other countries that vote the way the U.S. does in a so-called democracy??? Honest question.

Are you saying the Hilarly emails were fake? The Biden laptop is not only real, it's admitted now that they knew it was real right away. If the Biden campaign did everything they could to hide the story, I wouldn't even care, because who would blame them. But the CIA had 51 agents sign something saying it was Russian disinformation. That's really bad.